📖 Biblia online

Citește Biblia

Biblia audio Planuri audio structurate — ascultă Biblia zilnică

Luca 3

¹ În anul al cincisprezecelea al domniei lui Tiberiu Cezar, -pe când Pilat din Pont era dregător în Iudea, Irod, cârmuitor al Galileii, Filip, fratele lui, cârmuitor al Ituriei şi al Trahonitei, Lisania, cârmuitor al Abilenei,

² şi în zilele marilor preoţi Ana şi Caiafa, -Cuvântul lui Dumnezeu a vorbit lui Ioan, fiul lui Zaharia în pustie.

³ Şi Ioan a venit prin tot ţinutul din împrejurimile Iordanului, şi propovăduia botezul pocăinţei, pentru iertarea păcatelor,

⁴ după cum este scris în cartea cuvintelor proorocului Isaia: ,,Iată glasul celui ce strigă în pustie: ,Pregătiţi calea Domnului, neteziţi -I cărările.

⁵ Orice vale va fi astupată, orice munte şi orice deal va fi prefăcut în loc neted; căile strâmbe vor fi îndreptate, şi drumurile zgronţuroase vor fi netezite.

⁶ Şi orice făptură va vedea mântuirea lui Dumnezeu.``

⁷ Ioan zicea dar noroadelor, cari veneau să fie botezate de el: ,,Pui de năpârci, cine v-a învăţat să fugiţi de mânia viitoare?

⁸ Faceţi dar roduri vrednice de pocăinţa voastră, şi nu vă apucaţi să ziceţi în voi înşivă: ,Avem pe Avraam ca tată!` Căci vă spun că Dumnezeu din pietrele acestea poate să ridice fii lui Avraam.

⁹ Securea a şi fost înfiptă la rădăcina pomilor: deci, orice pom care nu face roadă bună, este tăiat şi aruncat în foc.``

¹⁰ Noroadele îl întrebau, şi ziceau: ,,Atunci ce trebuie să facem?``

¹¹ Drept răspuns, el le zicea: ,,Cine are două haine, să împartă cu cine n-are nici una; şi cine are de mâncare, să facă la fel.``

¹² Au venit şi nişte vameşi să fie botezaţi, şi i-au zis: ,,Învăţătorului, noi ce trebuie să facem?``

¹³ El le-a răspuns: ,,Să nu cereţi nimic mai mult peste ce v-a fost poruncit să luaţi.``

¹⁴ Nişte oştaşi îl întrebau şi ei, şi ziceau: ,,Dar noi ce trebuie să facem?`` El le-a răspuns: ,,Să nu stoarceţi nimic dela nimeni prin ameninţări, nici să nu învinuiţi pe nimeni pe nedrept, ci să vă mulţămiţi cu lefurile voastre.``

¹⁵ Fiindcă norodul era în aşteptare, şi toţi se gândeau în inimile lor cu privire la Ioan, dacă nu cumva este el Hristosul,

¹⁶ Ioan, drept răspuns, a zis tuturor: ,,Cât despre mine, eu vă botez cu apă; dar vine Acela care este mai puternic decât mine, şi căruia eu nu sânt vrednic să -I desleg cureaua încălţămintelor. El vă va boteza cu Duhul Sfânt şi cu foc.

¹⁷ Acela are lopata în mână; Îşi va curăţi aria cu desăvârşire, şi Îşi va strânge grâul în grânar, iar pleava o va arde într-un foc care nu se stinge.``

¹⁸ Astfel propovăduia Ioan norodului Evanghelia, şi-i dădea încă multe alte îndemnuri.

¹⁹ Dar cârmuitorul Irod, care era mustrat de Ioan pentru Irodiada, nevasta fratelui său Filip, şi pentru toate relele pe cari le făcuse,

²⁰ a mai adăugat la toate celelalte rele şi pe acela că a închis pe Ioan în temniţă.

²¹ După ce a fost botezat tot norodul, a fost botezat şi Isus; şi pe când Se ruga, s-a deschis cerul,

²² şi Duhul Sfânt S-a pogorât peste El în chip trupesc, ca un porumbel. Şi din cer s-a auzit un glas, care zicea: ,,Tu eşti Fiul Meu prea iubit: în Tine Îmi găsesc toată plăcerea Mea!``

²³ Isus avea aproape treizeci de ani, când a început să înveţe pe norod; şi era, cum se credea, fiul lui Iosif, fiul lui Eli,

²⁴ fiul lui Matat, fiul lui Levi, fiul lui Melhi, fiul lui Ianai, fiul lui Iosif,

²⁵ fiul lui Matatia, fiul lui Amos, fiul lui Naum, fiul lui Esli, fiul lui Nagai,

²⁶ fiul lui Maat, fiul lui Matatia, fiul lui Semei, fiul lui Ioseh, fiul lui Ioda,

²⁷ fiul lui Ioanan, fiul lui Resa, fiul lui Zorobabel, fiul lui Salatiel, fiul lui Neri,

²⁸ fiul lui Melhi, fiul lui Adi, fiul lui Cosam, fiul lui Elmadam, fiul lui Er,

²⁹ fiul lui Isus, fiul lui Eliezer, fiul lui Iorim, fiul lui Matat, fiul lui Levi,

³⁰ fiul lui Simeon, fiul lui Iuda, fiul lui Iosif, fiul lui Ionam, fiul lui Eliachim,

³¹ fiul lui Melea, fiul lui Mena, fiul lui Matata, fiul lui Natan, fiul lui David,

³² fiul lui Iese, fiul lui Iobed, fiul lui Booz, fiul lui Salmon, fiul lui Naason,

³³ fiul lui Aminadab, fiul lui Admin, fiul lui Arni, fiul lui Esrom, fiul lui Fares, fiul lui Iuda,

³⁴ fiul lui Iacov, fiul lui Isaac, fiul lui Avraam, fiul lui Tara, fiul lui Nahor,

³⁵ fiul lui Seruh, fiul lui Ragau, fiul lui Falec, fiul lui Eber, fiul lui Sala,

³⁶ fiul lui Cainam, fiul lui Arfaxad, fiul lui Sem, fiul lui Noe, fiul lui Lameh,

³⁷ fiul lui Matusala, fiul lui Enoh, fiul lui Iared, fiul lui Maleleel, fiul lui Cainan,

³⁸ fiul lui Enos, fiul lui Set, fiul lui Adam, fiul lui Dumnezeu.

{"verseMap":{"1":[{"id":42257,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Herod Antipas","title_en":"Herod Antipas","content_ro":"<h3>Herod Antipas<\/h3>\nHerod Antipas, sixth son of Herod the Great, was ruler of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC<\/span> to AD<\/span> 39, during the life of Jesus. His jurisdiction included the regions where Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries.<\/p>\nFollowing the example of his father, Herod Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris, his first project, was the largest city in Galilee. It was Antipas’s capital city until he built Tiberias, named in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius (AD<\/span> 14–37). The city Tiberias was on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. Antipas completed the city in AD<\/span> 23 and made it his capital.<\/p>\nHerod Antipas offended many Jews by divorcing his wife and marrying Herodias, the wife of his half brother, Herod Philip. Antipas’s marriage to Herodias was in violation of the law of Moses (Lev 18:16; 20:21) because Herod’s brother Philip was still alive. When John the Baptist spoke out strongly against this illegal marriage, Antipas imprisoned him (Mark 6:17-18); Herod was afraid John’s denunciation would lead to a political revolt (Josephus, Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2). Later, at a banquet, Herodias’s daughter pleased Herod with her dancing, evoking a rash promise from him to give her anything she wanted. Herodias took the opportunity to have John beheaded (Matt 14:1-12).<\/p>\nIt was obvious to Antipas that Jesus’ ministry was even more remarkable than John’s (see Mark 6:14-16; Matt 14:1-2; Luke 9:7-9), but he was reluctant to use force to bring about a meeting, for fear of arousing the people against him. Jesus, for his part, was openly critical of Herod Antipas (Mark 8:15; Luke 13:31-33).<\/p>\nWhen Jesus was finally arrested, Pilate could find no fault in Jesus, so he sent him to Herod Antipas, who was in Jerusalem for Passover. Pilate may also have been attempting to reconcile himself to Antipas. Their relationship had been rather strained since the Galilean massacre (Luke 13:1), and because Pilate had brought votive shields to Jerusalem that bore the image of Tiberius and were considered blasphemous by the Jews (Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius<\/em> 299–304). When Jesus was brought before Antipas, Herod only mocked him and sent him back to Pilate (Luke 23:6-11). The main political accomplishment of the incident was that Herod and Pilate were indeed reconciled (Luke 23:12).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas was later defeated in war by King Aretas, whose daughter he had divorced. (Jews interpreted this defeat as an act of divine judgment.) He was then deposed by Emperor Gaius in AD<\/span> 39 and sent into exile, in response to accusations from Herod Agrippa I of Antipas’s conspiracy against Rome.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 14:1-12; Mark 1:14; 6:14-29; Luke 3:1, 19-20; 9:7-9; 13:31-33; 23:7-12, 15; Acts 4:27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Herod Antipas<\/h3>\nHerod Antipas, sixth son of Herod the Great, was ruler of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC<\/span> to AD<\/span> 39, during the life of Jesus. His jurisdiction included the regions where Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries.<\/p>\nFollowing the example of his father, Herod Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris, his first project, was the largest city in Galilee. It was Antipas’s capital city until he built Tiberias, named in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius (AD<\/span> 14–37). The city Tiberias was on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. Antipas completed the city in AD<\/span> 23 and made it his capital.<\/p>\nHerod Antipas offended many Jews by divorcing his wife and marrying Herodias, the wife of his half brother, Herod Philip. Antipas’s marriage to Herodias was in violation of the law of Moses (Lev 18:16; 20:21) because Herod’s brother Philip was still alive. When John the Baptist spoke out strongly against this illegal marriage, Antipas imprisoned him (Mark 6:17-18); Herod was afraid John’s denunciation would lead to a political revolt (Josephus, Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2). Later, at a banquet, Herodias’s daughter pleased Herod with her dancing, evoking a rash promise from him to give her anything she wanted. Herodias took the opportunity to have John beheaded (Matt 14:1-12).<\/p>\nIt was obvious to Antipas that Jesus’ ministry was even more remarkable than John’s (see Mark 6:14-16; Matt 14:1-2; Luke 9:7-9), but he was reluctant to use force to bring about a meeting, for fear of arousing the people against him. Jesus, for his part, was openly critical of Herod Antipas (Mark 8:15; Luke 13:31-33).<\/p>\nWhen Jesus was finally arrested, Pilate could find no fault in Jesus, so he sent him to Herod Antipas, who was in Jerusalem for Passover. Pilate may also have been attempting to reconcile himself to Antipas. Their relationship had been rather strained since the Galilean massacre (Luke 13:1), and because Pilate had brought votive shields to Jerusalem that bore the image of Tiberius and were considered blasphemous by the Jews (Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius<\/em> 299–304). When Jesus was brought before Antipas, Herod only mocked him and sent him back to Pilate (Luke 23:6-11). The main political accomplishment of the incident was that Herod and Pilate were indeed reconciled (Luke 23:12).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas was later defeated in war by King Aretas, whose daughter he had divorced. (Jews interpreted this defeat as an act of divine judgment.) He was then deposed by Emperor Gaius in AD<\/span> 39 and sent into exile, in response to accusations from Herod Agrippa I of Antipas’s conspiracy against Rome.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 14:1-12; Mark 1:14; 6:14-29; Luke 3:1, 19-20; 9:7-9; 13:31-33; 23:7-12, 15; Acts 4:27<\/p>","summary_ro":"Herod Antipas Herod Antipas, sixth son of Herod the Great, was ruler of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC to AD 39, during the life of Jesus. His jurisdiction included the regions where Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries. Following the example of his father, Herod Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris, his first project, was the largest city in Galilee. It was Antipas’s capital city until he built Tiberias, named in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius (AD 14–37). The city Tibe...","summary_en":"Herod Antipas Herod Antipas, sixth son of Herod the Great, was ruler of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC to AD 39, during the life of Jesus. His jurisdiction included the regions where Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries. Following the example of his father, Herod Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris, his first project, was the largest city in Galilee. It was Antipas’s capital city until he built Tiberias, named in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius (AD 14–37). The city Tibe...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":42315,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Pontius Pilate","title_en":"Pontius Pilate","content_ro":"<h3>Pontius Pilate<\/h3>\nPontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea from AD<\/span> 26 to 36, including the time of Jesus’ death in AD<\/span> 30 or 33. Pilate gave the official order for Jesus to be crucified.<\/p>\nAs the governor of Judea, Pilate was in control of all the Roman occupation forces as well as the Temple and its funds. He was the only one who had the authority to execute criminals (see John 18:31), so the Jewish authorities were compelled to bring charges before Pilate in order to have Jesus executed (Mark 15:1-4).<\/p>\nPilate was sometimes abusive as governor. He appropriated Temple funds to construct a thirty-five-mile aqueduct for Jerusalem, provoking a major protest. In response, Pilate had soldiers infiltrate the crowds in disguise and beat the offenders to death with clubs (Josephus, War<\/em> 2.9.4; Antiquities<\/em> 18.3.2). Another time, Pilate murdered some Galileans “as they were offering sacrifices at the Temple” (Luke 13:1); this incident might have estranged him from the Galilean ruler Herod Antipas. Pilate also tried to bring images of Caesar into Jerusalem for worship. Later (AD<\/span> 36), Pilate slaughtered pilgrims who followed a Samaritan false prophet, an event that led to his dismissal by the emperor Tiberius in the same year.<\/p>\nEach Gospel records Pilate’s role in the death of Jesus (Matt 27:11-26; Mark 15:1:1-15; Luke 23:1-25; John 18:28–19:16; see also Acts 3:13; 4:27; 13:28; 1 Tim 6:13). After interrogating Jesus, he was convinced that Jesus had done nothing deserving of death, so he tried to return the case to the Jewish authorities. When they resisted, he tried to pass Jesus to Herod Antipas for judgment—but he, too, refused the case. Pilate finally tried appealing to a traditional Roman custom of freeing a prisoner on Passover. Meanwhile, his wife had been deeply troubled by a dream about “that innocent man” (Matt 27:19). But the clamor of the crowd became threatening, and the Jewish leaders began insinuating that Pilate was not taking Jesus’ threat to Rome seriously. Pilate yielded to Jewish pressure. He ordered that Jesus be whipped and then crucified, with the title “King of the Jews” posted on a sign over his head—but only after strenuously objecting and declaring himself to be innocent of the guilt of such an unjust death (Matt 27:18-25; Mark 15:14; Luke 23:4, 13-23; John 18:38); 19:4-16. Pilate’s attitude toward Jesus stands as a testimony that Jesus posed no threat to the Roman government but only to the Jewish leadership. This may have been a helpful point for later Christians who were portrayed as a threat to Rome.<\/p>\nShortly after Jesus’ death, Pilate gave special permission to Joseph of Arimathea to take the body of Jesus from the cross and bury it (Matt 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-46; Luke 23:50-53; John 19:38-42). He also gave permission to the Jewish authorities to seal the tomb to make sure no one would steal the body or make false claims about Jesus coming back to life (Matt 27:62-66).<\/p>\nLittle is known of Pilate after his dismissal in AD<\/span> 36; Eusebius reports that Pilate committed suicide during the reign of Caligula, AD<\/span> 37–41 (Eusebius, Church History<\/em> 2.7).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 27:2, 11-26, 57-58, 62-65; Mark 15:1-15, 43-45; Luke 3:1; 13:1; 23:1-25, 52; 18:28–19:16; 19:31, 38; Acts 3:13; 4:27; 13:28; 1 Tim 6:13<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Pontius Pilate<\/h3>\nPontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea from AD<\/span> 26 to 36, including the time of Jesus’ death in AD<\/span> 30 or 33. Pilate gave the official order for Jesus to be crucified.<\/p>\nAs the governor of Judea, Pilate was in control of all the Roman occupation forces as well as the Temple and its funds. He was the only one who had the authority to execute criminals (see John 18:31), so the Jewish authorities were compelled to bring charges before Pilate in order to have Jesus executed (Mark 15:1-4).<\/p>\nPilate was sometimes abusive as governor. He appropriated Temple funds to construct a thirty-five-mile aqueduct for Jerusalem, provoking a major protest. In response, Pilate had soldiers infiltrate the crowds in disguise and beat the offenders to death with clubs (Josephus, War<\/em> 2.9.4; Antiquities<\/em> 18.3.2). Another time, Pilate murdered some Galileans “as they were offering sacrifices at the Temple” (Luke 13:1); this incident might have estranged him from the Galilean ruler Herod Antipas. Pilate also tried to bring images of Caesar into Jerusalem for worship. Later (AD<\/span> 36), Pilate slaughtered pilgrims who followed a Samaritan false prophet, an event that led to his dismissal by the emperor Tiberius in the same year.<\/p>\nEach Gospel records Pilate’s role in the death of Jesus (Matt 27:11-26; Mark 15:1:1-15; Luke 23:1-25; John 18:28–19:16; see also Acts 3:13; 4:27; 13:28; 1 Tim 6:13). After interrogating Jesus, he was convinced that Jesus had done nothing deserving of death, so he tried to return the case to the Jewish authorities. When they resisted, he tried to pass Jesus to Herod Antipas for judgment—but he, too, refused the case. Pilate finally tried appealing to a traditional Roman custom of freeing a prisoner on Passover. Meanwhile, his wife had been deeply troubled by a dream about “that innocent man” (Matt 27:19). But the clamor of the crowd became threatening, and the Jewish leaders began insinuating that Pilate was not taking Jesus’ threat to Rome seriously. Pilate yielded to Jewish pressure. He ordered that Jesus be whipped and then crucified, with the title “King of the Jews” posted on a sign over his head—but only after strenuously objecting and declaring himself to be innocent of the guilt of such an unjust death (Matt 27:18-25; Mark 15:14; Luke 23:4, 13-23; John 18:38); 19:4-16. Pilate’s attitude toward Jesus stands as a testimony that Jesus posed no threat to the Roman government but only to the Jewish leadership. This may have been a helpful point for later Christians who were portrayed as a threat to Rome.<\/p>\nShortly after Jesus’ death, Pilate gave special permission to Joseph of Arimathea to take the body of Jesus from the cross and bury it (Matt 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-46; Luke 23:50-53; John 19:38-42). He also gave permission to the Jewish authorities to seal the tomb to make sure no one would steal the body or make false claims about Jesus coming back to life (Matt 27:62-66).<\/p>\nLittle is known of Pilate after his dismissal in AD<\/span> 36; Eusebius reports that Pilate committed suicide during the reign of Caligula, AD<\/span> 37–41 (Eusebius, Church History<\/em> 2.7).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 27:2, 11-26, 57-58, 62-65; Mark 15:1-15, 43-45; Luke 3:1; 13:1; 23:1-25, 52; 18:28–19:16; 19:31, 38; Acts 3:13; 4:27; 13:28; 1 Tim 6:13<\/p>","summary_ro":"Pontius Pilate Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea from AD 26 to 36, including the time of Jesus’ death in AD 30 or 33. Pilate gave the official order for Jesus to be crucified. As the governor of Judea, Pilate was in control of all the Roman occupation forces as well as the Temple and its funds. He was the only one who had the authority to execute criminals (see John 18:31), so the Jewish authorities were compelled to bring charges before Pilate in order to have Jesus executed (Ma...","summary_en":"Pontius Pilate Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea from AD 26 to 36, including the time of Jesus’ death in AD 30 or 33. Pilate gave the official order for Jesus to be crucified. As the governor of Judea, Pilate was in control of all the Roman occupation forces as well as the Temple and its funds. He was the only one who had the authority to execute criminals (see John 18:31), so the Jewish authorities were compelled to bring charges before Pilate in order to have Jesus executed (Ma...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":42397,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"John the Baptist","title_en":"John the Baptist","content_ro":"<h3>John the Baptist<\/h3>\nJohn the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13).<\/p>\nJohn’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births around the same time signaled the beginning of God’s redeeming work.<\/p>\nJohn was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth and devoted his life to preparing people for the coming of the Lord (Luke 1:15-17). Living in the desert (Luke 1:80), he began preaching when he was about thirty years old. Dressed like a prophet and subsisting on desert food (locusts and wild honey, see Matt 3:4; Mark 1:6), he called everyone to repent and be baptized (Matt 3:1-2; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:1-3). He even castigated the religious leaders who came to hear him (Matt 3:7-10).<\/p>\nThough John reluctantly baptized Jesus (Matt 3:13-17), he considered Jesus his superior, the one who would “baptize with the Holy Spirit” (John 1:33; Matt 3:11; Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:16; cp. John 3:23-30). He encouraged his followers to become Jesus’ disciples—and many did, including Andrew (1:35-40), Apollos (Acts 18:24-26), and the twelve disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas received harsh judgment from John because of Herod’s unlawful marriage to Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. To please Herodias, Herod imprisoned John and then beheaded him (Matt 14:3-12; Mark 6:17-29; Luke 3:19-20). John’s imprisonment marked the beginning of Jesus’ public preaching (Matt 4:12; Mark 1:14).<\/p>\nShortly before his death, John seemed to be confused about Jesus and sent messengers from prison to ask him if he really was the Messiah. Jesus did not do what most people anticipated the Messiah would do. Rather than bringing judgment and a visible kingdom, he brought forgiveness, healing, and a spiritual kingdom. To reassure John, Jesus spoke of the miraculous things God was doing through him (Luke 7:18-23).<\/p>\nJohn remained faithful to his calling throughout his life, consistently preaching repentance and the judgment of God, even to people who had no desire to hear it. Jesus referred to John as one of the greatest servants of God who had ever lived (Matt 11:2-19; Luke 7:18-35), the end of a long line of prophets anticipating the coming of the Kingdom of God (Luke 16:16). John stood on the threshold of the new age, proclaiming its coming to all who would hear.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatthew 3:1-15; 4:12; 9:14; 11:2-19; 14:1-12; 16:14; 17:10-13; 21:24-27, 31-32; Mark 1:1-9, 14; 2:18; 6:14-29; 8:28; 9:11-13; 11:29-33; Luke 1:13-17, 36, 39-43, 57-66, 76-80; 3:1-21; 5:33; 7:18-35; 9:7-9, 19; 11:1; 16:16; 20:3-8; John 1:6-37; John 3:23-36; 4:1-3; 10:40-42; Acts 1:5; 10:37; 11:16; 18:25-26; 19:1-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>John the Baptist<\/h3>\nJohn the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13).<\/p>\nJohn’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births around the same time signaled the beginning of God’s redeeming work.<\/p>\nJohn was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth and devoted his life to preparing people for the coming of the Lord (Luke 1:15-17). Living in the desert (Luke 1:80), he began preaching when he was about thirty years old. Dressed like a prophet and subsisting on desert food (locusts and wild honey, see Matt 3:4; Mark 1:6), he called everyone to repent and be baptized (Matt 3:1-2; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:1-3). He even castigated the religious leaders who came to hear him (Matt 3:7-10).<\/p>\nThough John reluctantly baptized Jesus (Matt 3:13-17), he considered Jesus his superior, the one who would “baptize with the Holy Spirit” (John 1:33; Matt 3:11; Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:16; cp. John 3:23-30). He encouraged his followers to become Jesus’ disciples—and many did, including Andrew (1:35-40), Apollos (Acts 18:24-26), and the twelve disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas received harsh judgment from John because of Herod’s unlawful marriage to Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. To please Herodias, Herod imprisoned John and then beheaded him (Matt 14:3-12; Mark 6:17-29; Luke 3:19-20). John’s imprisonment marked the beginning of Jesus’ public preaching (Matt 4:12; Mark 1:14).<\/p>\nShortly before his death, John seemed to be confused about Jesus and sent messengers from prison to ask him if he really was the Messiah. Jesus did not do what most people anticipated the Messiah would do. Rather than bringing judgment and a visible kingdom, he brought forgiveness, healing, and a spiritual kingdom. To reassure John, Jesus spoke of the miraculous things God was doing through him (Luke 7:18-23).<\/p>\nJohn remained faithful to his calling throughout his life, consistently preaching repentance and the judgment of God, even to people who had no desire to hear it. Jesus referred to John as one of the greatest servants of God who had ever lived (Matt 11:2-19; Luke 7:18-35), the end of a long line of prophets anticipating the coming of the Kingdom of God (Luke 16:16). John stood on the threshold of the new age, proclaiming its coming to all who would hear.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatthew 3:1-15; 4:12; 9:14; 11:2-19; 14:1-12; 16:14; 17:10-13; 21:24-27, 31-32; Mark 1:1-9, 14; 2:18; 6:14-29; 8:28; 9:11-13; 11:29-33; Luke 1:13-17, 36, 39-43, 57-66, 76-80; 3:1-21; 5:33; 7:18-35; 9:7-9, 19; 11:1; 16:16; 20:3-8; John 1:6-37; John 3:23-36; 4:1-3; 10:40-42; Acts 1:5; 10:37; 11:16; 18:25-26; 19:1-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"John the Baptist John the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13). John’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births aroun...","summary_en":"John the Baptist John the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13). John’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births aroun...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":42811,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Roman Emperors","title_en":"Roman Emperors","content_ro":"<h3>Roman Emperors (27 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 96)<\/h3>\nAugustus (Octavian)<\/strong> (27 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 14) Became the first Roman emperor after defeating Marc Antony at the battle of Actium (31 BC<\/span>); ruled with wisdom and good administration; given the title “Augustus” (27 BC<\/span>), initiating emperor worship. See Luke 2:1<\/em>.<\/p>\nTiberius<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 14–37) Augustus’s adopted son and chosen successor; a wise and humble ruler; appointed Pontius Pilate as governor of Judea. See Luke 3:1; John 19:12<\/em>.<\/p>\n(Gaius) Caligula<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 37–41) Son of Augustus’s general Germanicus, nicknamed Caligula (“Little Boot”) for his military attire; went insane, squandered the treasury, ruled as a despot, and was assassinated.<\/p>\nClaudius<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 41–54) Tiberius’s nephew, proclaimed emperor by the Praetorian Guard after Caligula’s death; friend of Herod Agrippa I; ended the persecution of Jews in Alexandria; later expelled Jews from Rome (around AD<\/span> 49); married Nero’s mother Agrippina, who poisoned him. See Acts 18:2<\/em>.<\/p>\nNero<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 54–68) Adopted by Claudius and succeeded him; spent time on pleasure; appealed to by Paul (who instructed the Roman Christians to submit to Nero); later murdered his wife and mother; first persecutor of Christians. See Acts 25:11; Rom 13:1-7<\/em>.<\/p>\nVespasian<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 69–79) Successful legate (general) and son of a tax collector; began the Jewish War by invading Galilee (AD<\/span> 67); as emperor reformed Rome’s finances, reorganized the armies, and ruled with a reputation for justice; began the construction of the Colosseum; died of illness.<\/p>\nTitus<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 79–81) Son of Vespasian; finished the Jewish War with the destruction of Jerusalem (AD<\/span> 70); as emperor completed the Colosseum, gave disaster relief after the eruption of Mount Vesuvius (AD<\/span> 79) and a fire in Rome (AD<\/span> 80); died of a fever.<\/p>\nDomitian<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 81–96) Younger son of Vespasian who grew up in Titus’s shadow and coveted power; as emperor was a capable administrator, rebuilt damaged parts of Rome, proclaimed himself divine, and extorted new taxes; relentlessly persecuted Christians in later years; was assassinated.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nRev 17:9-11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Roman Emperors (27 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 96)<\/h3>\nAugustus (Octavian)<\/strong> (27 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 14) Became the first Roman emperor after defeating Marc Antony at the battle of Actium (31 BC<\/span>); ruled with wisdom and good administration; given the title “Augustus” (27 BC<\/span>), initiating emperor worship. See Luke 2:1<\/em>.<\/p>\nTiberius<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 14–37) Augustus’s adopted son and chosen successor; a wise and humble ruler; appointed Pontius Pilate as governor of Judea. See Luke 3:1; John 19:12<\/em>.<\/p>\n(Gaius) Caligula<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 37–41) Son of Augustus’s general Germanicus, nicknamed Caligula (“Little Boot”) for his military attire; went insane, squandered the treasury, ruled as a despot, and was assassinated.<\/p>\nClaudius<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 41–54) Tiberius’s nephew, proclaimed emperor by the Praetorian Guard after Caligula’s death; friend of Herod Agrippa I; ended the persecution of Jews in Alexandria; later expelled Jews from Rome (around AD<\/span> 49); married Nero’s mother Agrippina, who poisoned him. See Acts 18:2<\/em>.<\/p>\nNero<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 54–68) Adopted by Claudius and succeeded him; spent time on pleasure; appealed to by Paul (who instructed the Roman Christians to submit to Nero); later murdered his wife and mother; first persecutor of Christians. See Acts 25:11; Rom 13:1-7<\/em>.<\/p>\nVespasian<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 69–79) Successful legate (general) and son of a tax collector; began the Jewish War by invading Galilee (AD<\/span> 67); as emperor reformed Rome’s finances, reorganized the armies, and ruled with a reputation for justice; began the construction of the Colosseum; died of illness.<\/p>\nTitus<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 79–81) Son of Vespasian; finished the Jewish War with the destruction of Jerusalem (AD<\/span> 70); as emperor completed the Colosseum, gave disaster relief after the eruption of Mount Vesuvius (AD<\/span> 79) and a fire in Rome (AD<\/span> 80); died of a fever.<\/p>\nDomitian<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 81–96) Younger son of Vespasian who grew up in Titus’s shadow and coveted power; as emperor was a capable administrator, rebuilt damaged parts of Rome, proclaimed himself divine, and extorted new taxes; relentlessly persecuted Christians in later years; was assassinated.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nRev 17:9-11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Roman Emperors (27 BC–AD 96) Augustus (Octavian) (27 BC–AD 14) Became the first Roman emperor after defeating Marc Antony at the battle of Actium (31 BC); ruled with wisdom and good administration; given the title “Augustus” (27 BC), initiating emperor worship. See Luke 2:1. Tiberius (AD 14–37) Augustus’s adopted son and chosen successor; a wise and humble ruler; appointed Pontius Pilate as governor of Judea. See Luke 3:1; John 19:12. (Gaius) Caligula (AD 37–41) Son of Augustus’s general Germ...","summary_en":"Roman Emperors (27 BC–AD 96) Augustus (Octavian) (27 BC–AD 14) Became the first Roman emperor after defeating Marc Antony at the battle of Actium (31 BC); ruled with wisdom and good administration; given the title “Augustus” (27 BC), initiating emperor worship. See Luke 2:1. Tiberius (AD 14–37) Augustus’s adopted son and chosen successor; a wise and humble ruler; appointed Pontius Pilate as governor of Judea. See Luke 3:1; John 19:12. (Gaius) Caligula (AD 37–41) Son of Augustus’s general Germ...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":69883,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Herod Antipas","title_en":"Herod Antipas","content_ro":"<h3>Herod Antipas<\/h3>\nHerod Antipas, sixth son of Herod the Great, was ruler of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC<\/span> to AD<\/span> 39, during the life of Jesus. His jurisdiction included the regions where Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries.<\/p>\nFollowing the example of his father, Herod Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris, his first project, was the largest city in Galilee. It was Antipas’s capital city until he built Tiberias, named in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius (AD<\/span> 14–37). The city Tiberias was on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. Antipas completed the city in AD<\/span> 23 and made it his capital.<\/p>\nHerod Antipas offended many Jews by divorcing his wife and marrying Herodias, the wife of his half brother, Herod Philip. Antipas’s marriage to Herodias was in violation of the law of Moses (Lev 18:16; 20:21) because Herod’s brother Philip was still alive. When John the Baptist spoke out strongly against this illegal marriage, Antipas imprisoned him (Mark 6:17-18); Herod was afraid John’s denunciation would lead to a political revolt (Josephus, Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2). Later, at a banquet, Herodias’s daughter pleased Herod with her dancing, evoking a rash promise from him to give her anything she wanted. Herodias took the opportunity to have John beheaded (Matt 14:1-12).<\/p>\nIt was obvious to Antipas that Jesus’ ministry was even more remarkable than John’s (see Mark 6:14-16; Matt 14:1-2; Luke 9:7-9), but he was reluctant to use force to bring about a meeting, for fear of arousing the people against him. Jesus, for his part, was openly critical of Herod Antipas (Mark 8:15; Luke 13:31-33).<\/p>\nWhen Jesus was finally arrested, Pilate could find no fault in Jesus, so he sent him to Herod Antipas, who was in Jerusalem for Passover. Pilate may also have been attempting to reconcile himself to Antipas. Their relationship had been rather strained since the Galilean massacre (Luke 13:1), and because Pilate had brought votive shields to Jerusalem that bore the image of Tiberius and were considered blasphemous by the Jews (Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius<\/em> 299–304). When Jesus was brought before Antipas, Herod only mocked him and sent him back to Pilate (Luke 23:6-11). The main political accomplishment of the incident was that Herod and Pilate were indeed reconciled (Luke 23:12).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas was later defeated in war by King Aretas, whose daughter he had divorced. (Jews interpreted this defeat as an act of divine judgment.) He was then deposed by Emperor Gaius in AD<\/span> 39 and sent into exile, in response to accusations from Herod Agrippa I of Antipas’s conspiracy against Rome.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 14:1-12; Mark 1:14; 6:14-29; Luke 3:1, 19-20; 9:7-9; 13:31-33; 23:7-12, 15; Acts 4:27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Herod Antipas<\/h3>\nHerod Antipas, sixth son of Herod the Great, was ruler of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC<\/span> to AD<\/span> 39, during the life of Jesus. His jurisdiction included the regions where Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries.<\/p>\nFollowing the example of his father, Herod Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris, his first project, was the largest city in Galilee. It was Antipas’s capital city until he built Tiberias, named in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius (AD<\/span> 14–37). The city Tiberias was on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. Antipas completed the city in AD<\/span> 23 and made it his capital.<\/p>\nHerod Antipas offended many Jews by divorcing his wife and marrying Herodias, the wife of his half brother, Herod Philip. Antipas’s marriage to Herodias was in violation of the law of Moses (Lev 18:16; 20:21) because Herod’s brother Philip was still alive. When John the Baptist spoke out strongly against this illegal marriage, Antipas imprisoned him (Mark 6:17-18); Herod was afraid John’s denunciation would lead to a political revolt (Josephus, Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2). Later, at a banquet, Herodias’s daughter pleased Herod with her dancing, evoking a rash promise from him to give her anything she wanted. Herodias took the opportunity to have John beheaded (Matt 14:1-12).<\/p>\nIt was obvious to Antipas that Jesus’ ministry was even more remarkable than John’s (see Mark 6:14-16; Matt 14:1-2; Luke 9:7-9), but he was reluctant to use force to bring about a meeting, for fear of arousing the people against him. Jesus, for his part, was openly critical of Herod Antipas (Mark 8:15; Luke 13:31-33).<\/p>\nWhen Jesus was finally arrested, Pilate could find no fault in Jesus, so he sent him to Herod Antipas, who was in Jerusalem for Passover. Pilate may also have been attempting to reconcile himself to Antipas. Their relationship had been rather strained since the Galilean massacre (Luke 13:1), and because Pilate had brought votive shields to Jerusalem that bore the image of Tiberius and were considered blasphemous by the Jews (Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius<\/em> 299–304). When Jesus was brought before Antipas, Herod only mocked him and sent him back to Pilate (Luke 23:6-11). The main political accomplishment of the incident was that Herod and Pilate were indeed reconciled (Luke 23:12).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas was later defeated in war by King Aretas, whose daughter he had divorced. (Jews interpreted this defeat as an act of divine judgment.) He was then deposed by Emperor Gaius in AD<\/span> 39 and sent into exile, in response to accusations from Herod Agrippa I of Antipas’s conspiracy against Rome.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 14:1-12; Mark 1:14; 6:14-29; Luke 3:1, 19-20; 9:7-9; 13:31-33; 23:7-12, 15; Acts 4:27<\/p>","summary_ro":"Herod Antipas Herod Antipas, sixth son of Herod the Great, was ruler of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC to AD 39, during the life of Jesus. His jurisdiction included the regions where Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries. Following the example of his father, Herod Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris, his first project, was the largest city in Galilee. It was Antipas’s capital city until he built Tiberias, named in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius (AD 14–37). The city Tibe...","summary_en":"Herod Antipas Herod Antipas, sixth son of Herod the Great, was ruler of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC to AD 39, during the life of Jesus. His jurisdiction included the regions where Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries. Following the example of his father, Herod Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris, his first project, was the largest city in Galilee. It was Antipas’s capital city until he built Tiberias, named in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius (AD 14–37). The city Tibe...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":69941,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Pontius Pilate","title_en":"Pontius Pilate","content_ro":"<h3>Pontius Pilate<\/h3>\nPontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea from AD<\/span> 26 to 36, including the time of Jesus’ death in AD<\/span> 30 or 33. Pilate gave the official order for Jesus to be crucified.<\/p>\nAs the governor of Judea, Pilate was in control of all the Roman occupation forces as well as the Temple and its funds. He was the only one who had the authority to execute criminals (see John 18:31), so the Jewish authorities were compelled to bring charges before Pilate in order to have Jesus executed (Mark 15:1-4).<\/p>\nPilate was sometimes abusive as governor. He appropriated Temple funds to construct a thirty-five-mile aqueduct for Jerusalem, provoking a major protest. In response, Pilate had soldiers infiltrate the crowds in disguise and beat the offenders to death with clubs (Josephus, War<\/em> 2.9.4; Antiquities<\/em> 18.3.2). Another time, Pilate murdered some Galileans “as they were offering sacrifices at the Temple” (Luke 13:1); this incident might have estranged him from the Galilean ruler Herod Antipas. Pilate also tried to bring images of Caesar into Jerusalem for worship. Later (AD<\/span> 36), Pilate slaughtered pilgrims who followed a Samaritan false prophet, an event that led to his dismissal by the emperor Tiberius in the same year.<\/p>\nEach Gospel records Pilate’s role in the death of Jesus (Matt 27:11-26; Mark 15:1:1-15; Luke 23:1-25; John 18:28–19:16; see also Acts 3:13; 4:27; 13:28; 1 Tim 6:13). After interrogating Jesus, he was convinced that Jesus had done nothing deserving of death, so he tried to return the case to the Jewish authorities. When they resisted, he tried to pass Jesus to Herod Antipas for judgment—but he, too, refused the case. Pilate finally tried appealing to a traditional Roman custom of freeing a prisoner on Passover. Meanwhile, his wife had been deeply troubled by a dream about “that innocent man” (Matt 27:19). But the clamor of the crowd became threatening, and the Jewish leaders began insinuating that Pilate was not taking Jesus’ threat to Rome seriously. Pilate yielded to Jewish pressure. He ordered that Jesus be whipped and then crucified, with the title “King of the Jews” posted on a sign over his head—but only after strenuously objecting and declaring himself to be innocent of the guilt of such an unjust death (Matt 27:18-25; Mark 15:14; Luke 23:4, 13-23; John 18:38); 19:4-16. Pilate’s attitude toward Jesus stands as a testimony that Jesus posed no threat to the Roman government but only to the Jewish leadership. This may have been a helpful point for later Christians who were portrayed as a threat to Rome.<\/p>\nShortly after Jesus’ death, Pilate gave special permission to Joseph of Arimathea to take the body of Jesus from the cross and bury it (Matt 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-46; Luke 23:50-53; John 19:38-42). He also gave permission to the Jewish authorities to seal the tomb to make sure no one would steal the body or make false claims about Jesus coming back to life (Matt 27:62-66).<\/p>\nLittle is known of Pilate after his dismissal in AD<\/span> 36; Eusebius reports that Pilate committed suicide during the reign of Caligula, AD<\/span> 37–41 (Eusebius, Church History<\/em> 2.7).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 27:2, 11-26, 57-58, 62-65; Mark 15:1-15, 43-45; Luke 3:1; 13:1; 23:1-25, 52; 18:28–19:16; 19:31, 38; Acts 3:13; 4:27; 13:28; 1 Tim 6:13<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Pontius Pilate<\/h3>\nPontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea from AD<\/span> 26 to 36, including the time of Jesus’ death in AD<\/span> 30 or 33. Pilate gave the official order for Jesus to be crucified.<\/p>\nAs the governor of Judea, Pilate was in control of all the Roman occupation forces as well as the Temple and its funds. He was the only one who had the authority to execute criminals (see John 18:31), so the Jewish authorities were compelled to bring charges before Pilate in order to have Jesus executed (Mark 15:1-4).<\/p>\nPilate was sometimes abusive as governor. He appropriated Temple funds to construct a thirty-five-mile aqueduct for Jerusalem, provoking a major protest. In response, Pilate had soldiers infiltrate the crowds in disguise and beat the offenders to death with clubs (Josephus, War<\/em> 2.9.4; Antiquities<\/em> 18.3.2). Another time, Pilate murdered some Galileans “as they were offering sacrifices at the Temple” (Luke 13:1); this incident might have estranged him from the Galilean ruler Herod Antipas. Pilate also tried to bring images of Caesar into Jerusalem for worship. Later (AD<\/span> 36), Pilate slaughtered pilgrims who followed a Samaritan false prophet, an event that led to his dismissal by the emperor Tiberius in the same year.<\/p>\nEach Gospel records Pilate’s role in the death of Jesus (Matt 27:11-26; Mark 15:1:1-15; Luke 23:1-25; John 18:28–19:16; see also Acts 3:13; 4:27; 13:28; 1 Tim 6:13). After interrogating Jesus, he was convinced that Jesus had done nothing deserving of death, so he tried to return the case to the Jewish authorities. When they resisted, he tried to pass Jesus to Herod Antipas for judgment—but he, too, refused the case. Pilate finally tried appealing to a traditional Roman custom of freeing a prisoner on Passover. Meanwhile, his wife had been deeply troubled by a dream about “that innocent man” (Matt 27:19). But the clamor of the crowd became threatening, and the Jewish leaders began insinuating that Pilate was not taking Jesus’ threat to Rome seriously. Pilate yielded to Jewish pressure. He ordered that Jesus be whipped and then crucified, with the title “King of the Jews” posted on a sign over his head—but only after strenuously objecting and declaring himself to be innocent of the guilt of such an unjust death (Matt 27:18-25; Mark 15:14; Luke 23:4, 13-23; John 18:38); 19:4-16. Pilate’s attitude toward Jesus stands as a testimony that Jesus posed no threat to the Roman government but only to the Jewish leadership. This may have been a helpful point for later Christians who were portrayed as a threat to Rome.<\/p>\nShortly after Jesus’ death, Pilate gave special permission to Joseph of Arimathea to take the body of Jesus from the cross and bury it (Matt 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-46; Luke 23:50-53; John 19:38-42). He also gave permission to the Jewish authorities to seal the tomb to make sure no one would steal the body or make false claims about Jesus coming back to life (Matt 27:62-66).<\/p>\nLittle is known of Pilate after his dismissal in AD<\/span> 36; Eusebius reports that Pilate committed suicide during the reign of Caligula, AD<\/span> 37–41 (Eusebius, Church History<\/em> 2.7).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 27:2, 11-26, 57-58, 62-65; Mark 15:1-15, 43-45; Luke 3:1; 13:1; 23:1-25, 52; 18:28–19:16; 19:31, 38; Acts 3:13; 4:27; 13:28; 1 Tim 6:13<\/p>","summary_ro":"Pontius Pilate Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea from AD 26 to 36, including the time of Jesus’ death in AD 30 or 33. Pilate gave the official order for Jesus to be crucified. As the governor of Judea, Pilate was in control of all the Roman occupation forces as well as the Temple and its funds. He was the only one who had the authority to execute criminals (see John 18:31), so the Jewish authorities were compelled to bring charges before Pilate in order to have Jesus executed (Ma...","summary_en":"Pontius Pilate Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea from AD 26 to 36, including the time of Jesus’ death in AD 30 or 33. Pilate gave the official order for Jesus to be crucified. As the governor of Judea, Pilate was in control of all the Roman occupation forces as well as the Temple and its funds. He was the only one who had the authority to execute criminals (see John 18:31), so the Jewish authorities were compelled to bring charges before Pilate in order to have Jesus executed (Ma...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70023,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"John the Baptist","title_en":"John the Baptist","content_ro":"<h3>John the Baptist<\/h3>\nJohn the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13).<\/p>\nJohn’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births around the same time signaled the beginning of God’s redeeming work.<\/p>\nJohn was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth and devoted his life to preparing people for the coming of the Lord (Luke 1:15-17). Living in the desert (Luke 1:80), he began preaching when he was about thirty years old. Dressed like a prophet and subsisting on desert food (locusts and wild honey, see Matt 3:4; Mark 1:6), he called everyone to repent and be baptized (Matt 3:1-2; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:1-3). He even castigated the religious leaders who came to hear him (Matt 3:7-10).<\/p>\nThough John reluctantly baptized Jesus (Matt 3:13-17), he considered Jesus his superior, the one who would “baptize with the Holy Spirit” (John 1:33; Matt 3:11; Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:16; cp. John 3:23-30). He encouraged his followers to become Jesus’ disciples—and many did, including Andrew (1:35-40), Apollos (Acts 18:24-26), and the twelve disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas received harsh judgment from John because of Herod’s unlawful marriage to Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. To please Herodias, Herod imprisoned John and then beheaded him (Matt 14:3-12; Mark 6:17-29; Luke 3:19-20). John’s imprisonment marked the beginning of Jesus’ public preaching (Matt 4:12; Mark 1:14).<\/p>\nShortly before his death, John seemed to be confused about Jesus and sent messengers from prison to ask him if he really was the Messiah. Jesus did not do what most people anticipated the Messiah would do. Rather than bringing judgment and a visible kingdom, he brought forgiveness, healing, and a spiritual kingdom. To reassure John, Jesus spoke of the miraculous things God was doing through him (Luke 7:18-23).<\/p>\nJohn remained faithful to his calling throughout his life, consistently preaching repentance and the judgment of God, even to people who had no desire to hear it. Jesus referred to John as one of the greatest servants of God who had ever lived (Matt 11:2-19; Luke 7:18-35), the end of a long line of prophets anticipating the coming of the Kingdom of God (Luke 16:16). John stood on the threshold of the new age, proclaiming its coming to all who would hear.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatthew 3:1-15; 4:12; 9:14; 11:2-19; 14:1-12; 16:14; 17:10-13; 21:24-27, 31-32; Mark 1:1-9, 14; 2:18; 6:14-29; 8:28; 9:11-13; 11:29-33; Luke 1:13-17, 36, 39-43, 57-66, 76-80; 3:1-21; 5:33; 7:18-35; 9:7-9, 19; 11:1; 16:16; 20:3-8; John 1:6-37; John 3:23-36; 4:1-3; 10:40-42; Acts 1:5; 10:37; 11:16; 18:25-26; 19:1-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>John the Baptist<\/h3>\nJohn the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13).<\/p>\nJohn’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births around the same time signaled the beginning of God’s redeeming work.<\/p>\nJohn was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth and devoted his life to preparing people for the coming of the Lord (Luke 1:15-17). Living in the desert (Luke 1:80), he began preaching when he was about thirty years old. Dressed like a prophet and subsisting on desert food (locusts and wild honey, see Matt 3:4; Mark 1:6), he called everyone to repent and be baptized (Matt 3:1-2; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:1-3). He even castigated the religious leaders who came to hear him (Matt 3:7-10).<\/p>\nThough John reluctantly baptized Jesus (Matt 3:13-17), he considered Jesus his superior, the one who would “baptize with the Holy Spirit” (John 1:33; Matt 3:11; Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:16; cp. John 3:23-30). He encouraged his followers to become Jesus’ disciples—and many did, including Andrew (1:35-40), Apollos (Acts 18:24-26), and the twelve disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas received harsh judgment from John because of Herod’s unlawful marriage to Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. To please Herodias, Herod imprisoned John and then beheaded him (Matt 14:3-12; Mark 6:17-29; Luke 3:19-20). John’s imprisonment marked the beginning of Jesus’ public preaching (Matt 4:12; Mark 1:14).<\/p>\nShortly before his death, John seemed to be confused about Jesus and sent messengers from prison to ask him if he really was the Messiah. Jesus did not do what most people anticipated the Messiah would do. Rather than bringing judgment and a visible kingdom, he brought forgiveness, healing, and a spiritual kingdom. To reassure John, Jesus spoke of the miraculous things God was doing through him (Luke 7:18-23).<\/p>\nJohn remained faithful to his calling throughout his life, consistently preaching repentance and the judgment of God, even to people who had no desire to hear it. Jesus referred to John as one of the greatest servants of God who had ever lived (Matt 11:2-19; Luke 7:18-35), the end of a long line of prophets anticipating the coming of the Kingdom of God (Luke 16:16). John stood on the threshold of the new age, proclaiming its coming to all who would hear.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatthew 3:1-15; 4:12; 9:14; 11:2-19; 14:1-12; 16:14; 17:10-13; 21:24-27, 31-32; Mark 1:1-9, 14; 2:18; 6:14-29; 8:28; 9:11-13; 11:29-33; Luke 1:13-17, 36, 39-43, 57-66, 76-80; 3:1-21; 5:33; 7:18-35; 9:7-9, 19; 11:1; 16:16; 20:3-8; John 1:6-37; John 3:23-36; 4:1-3; 10:40-42; Acts 1:5; 10:37; 11:16; 18:25-26; 19:1-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"John the Baptist John the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13). John’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births aroun...","summary_en":"John the Baptist John the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13). John’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births aroun...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70437,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Roman Emperors","title_en":"Roman Emperors","content_ro":"<h3>Roman Emperors (27 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 96)<\/h3>\nAugustus (Octavian)<\/strong> (27 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 14) Became the first Roman emperor after defeating Marc Antony at the battle of Actium (31 BC<\/span>); ruled with wisdom and good administration; given the title “Augustus” (27 BC<\/span>), initiating emperor worship. See Luke 2:1<\/em>.<\/p>\nTiberius<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 14–37) Augustus’s adopted son and chosen successor; a wise and humble ruler; appointed Pontius Pilate as governor of Judea. See Luke 3:1; John 19:12<\/em>.<\/p>\n(Gaius) Caligula<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 37–41) Son of Augustus’s general Germanicus, nicknamed Caligula (“Little Boot”) for his military attire; went insane, squandered the treasury, ruled as a despot, and was assassinated.<\/p>\nClaudius<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 41–54) Tiberius’s nephew, proclaimed emperor by the Praetorian Guard after Caligula’s death; friend of Herod Agrippa I; ended the persecution of Jews in Alexandria; later expelled Jews from Rome (around AD<\/span> 49); married Nero’s mother Agrippina, who poisoned him. See Acts 18:2<\/em>.<\/p>\nNero<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 54–68) Adopted by Claudius and succeeded him; spent time on pleasure; appealed to by Paul (who instructed the Roman Christians to submit to Nero); later murdered his wife and mother; first persecutor of Christians. See Acts 25:11; Rom 13:1-7<\/em>.<\/p>\nVespasian<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 69–79) Successful legate (general) and son of a tax collector; began the Jewish War by invading Galilee (AD<\/span> 67); as emperor reformed Rome’s finances, reorganized the armies, and ruled with a reputation for justice; began the construction of the Colosseum; died of illness.<\/p>\nTitus<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 79–81) Son of Vespasian; finished the Jewish War with the destruction of Jerusalem (AD<\/span> 70); as emperor completed the Colosseum, gave disaster relief after the eruption of Mount Vesuvius (AD<\/span> 79) and a fire in Rome (AD<\/span> 80); died of a fever.<\/p>\nDomitian<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 81–96) Younger son of Vespasian who grew up in Titus’s shadow and coveted power; as emperor was a capable administrator, rebuilt damaged parts of Rome, proclaimed himself divine, and extorted new taxes; relentlessly persecuted Christians in later years; was assassinated.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nRev 17:9-11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Roman Emperors (27 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 96)<\/h3>\nAugustus (Octavian)<\/strong> (27 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 14) Became the first Roman emperor after defeating Marc Antony at the battle of Actium (31 BC<\/span>); ruled with wisdom and good administration; given the title “Augustus” (27 BC<\/span>), initiating emperor worship. See Luke 2:1<\/em>.<\/p>\nTiberius<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 14–37) Augustus’s adopted son and chosen successor; a wise and humble ruler; appointed Pontius Pilate as governor of Judea. See Luke 3:1; John 19:12<\/em>.<\/p>\n(Gaius) Caligula<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 37–41) Son of Augustus’s general Germanicus, nicknamed Caligula (“Little Boot”) for his military attire; went insane, squandered the treasury, ruled as a despot, and was assassinated.<\/p>\nClaudius<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 41–54) Tiberius’s nephew, proclaimed emperor by the Praetorian Guard after Caligula’s death; friend of Herod Agrippa I; ended the persecution of Jews in Alexandria; later expelled Jews from Rome (around AD<\/span> 49); married Nero’s mother Agrippina, who poisoned him. See Acts 18:2<\/em>.<\/p>\nNero<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 54–68) Adopted by Claudius and succeeded him; spent time on pleasure; appealed to by Paul (who instructed the Roman Christians to submit to Nero); later murdered his wife and mother; first persecutor of Christians. See Acts 25:11; Rom 13:1-7<\/em>.<\/p>\nVespasian<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 69–79) Successful legate (general) and son of a tax collector; began the Jewish War by invading Galilee (AD<\/span> 67); as emperor reformed Rome’s finances, reorganized the armies, and ruled with a reputation for justice; began the construction of the Colosseum; died of illness.<\/p>\nTitus<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 79–81) Son of Vespasian; finished the Jewish War with the destruction of Jerusalem (AD<\/span> 70); as emperor completed the Colosseum, gave disaster relief after the eruption of Mount Vesuvius (AD<\/span> 79) and a fire in Rome (AD<\/span> 80); died of a fever.<\/p>\nDomitian<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 81–96) Younger son of Vespasian who grew up in Titus’s shadow and coveted power; as emperor was a capable administrator, rebuilt damaged parts of Rome, proclaimed himself divine, and extorted new taxes; relentlessly persecuted Christians in later years; was assassinated.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nRev 17:9-11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Roman Emperors (27 BC–AD 96) Augustus (Octavian) (27 BC–AD 14) Became the first Roman emperor after defeating Marc Antony at the battle of Actium (31 BC); ruled with wisdom and good administration; given the title “Augustus” (27 BC), initiating emperor worship. See Luke 2:1. Tiberius (AD 14–37) Augustus’s adopted son and chosen successor; a wise and humble ruler; appointed Pontius Pilate as governor of Judea. See Luke 3:1; John 19:12. (Gaius) Caligula (AD 37–41) Son of Augustus’s general Germ...","summary_en":"Roman Emperors (27 BC–AD 96) Augustus (Octavian) (27 BC–AD 14) Became the first Roman emperor after defeating Marc Antony at the battle of Actium (31 BC); ruled with wisdom and good administration; given the title “Augustus” (27 BC), initiating emperor worship. See Luke 2:1. Tiberius (AD 14–37) Augustus’s adopted son and chosen successor; a wise and humble ruler; appointed Pontius Pilate as governor of Judea. See Luke 3:1; John 19:12. (Gaius) Caligula (AD 37–41) Son of Augustus’s general Germ...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":97509,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Herod Antipas","title_en":"Herod Antipas","content_ro":"<h3>Herod Antipas<\/h3>\nHerod Antipas, sixth son of Herod the Great, was ruler of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC<\/span> to AD<\/span> 39, during the life of Jesus. His jurisdiction included the regions where Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries.<\/p>\nFollowing the example of his father, Herod Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris, his first project, was the largest city in Galilee. It was Antipas’s capital city until he built Tiberias, named in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius (AD<\/span> 14–37). The city Tiberias was on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. Antipas completed the city in AD<\/span> 23 and made it his capital.<\/p>\nHerod Antipas offended many Jews by divorcing his wife and marrying Herodias, the wife of his half brother, Herod Philip. Antipas’s marriage to Herodias was in violation of the law of Moses (Lev 18:16; 20:21) because Herod’s brother Philip was still alive. When John the Baptist spoke out strongly against this illegal marriage, Antipas imprisoned him (Mark 6:17-18); Herod was afraid John’s denunciation would lead to a political revolt (Josephus, Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2). Later, at a banquet, Herodias’s daughter pleased Herod with her dancing, evoking a rash promise from him to give her anything she wanted. Herodias took the opportunity to have John beheaded (Matt 14:1-12).<\/p>\nIt was obvious to Antipas that Jesus’ ministry was even more remarkable than John’s (see Mark 6:14-16; Matt 14:1-2; Luke 9:7-9), but he was reluctant to use force to bring about a meeting, for fear of arousing the people against him. Jesus, for his part, was openly critical of Herod Antipas (Mark 8:15; Luke 13:31-33).<\/p>\nWhen Jesus was finally arrested, Pilate could find no fault in Jesus, so he sent him to Herod Antipas, who was in Jerusalem for Passover. Pilate may also have been attempting to reconcile himself to Antipas. Their relationship had been rather strained since the Galilean massacre (Luke 13:1), and because Pilate had brought votive shields to Jerusalem that bore the image of Tiberius and were considered blasphemous by the Jews (Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius<\/em> 299–304). When Jesus was brought before Antipas, Herod only mocked him and sent him back to Pilate (Luke 23:6-11). The main political accomplishment of the incident was that Herod and Pilate were indeed reconciled (Luke 23:12).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas was later defeated in war by King Aretas, whose daughter he had divorced. (Jews interpreted this defeat as an act of divine judgment.) He was then deposed by Emperor Gaius in AD<\/span> 39 and sent into exile, in response to accusations from Herod Agrippa I of Antipas’s conspiracy against Rome.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 14:1-12; Mark 1:14; 6:14-29; Luke 3:1, 19-20; 9:7-9; 13:31-33; 23:7-12, 15; Acts 4:27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Herod Antipas<\/h3>\nHerod Antipas, sixth son of Herod the Great, was ruler of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC<\/span> to AD<\/span> 39, during the life of Jesus. His jurisdiction included the regions where Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries.<\/p>\nFollowing the example of his father, Herod Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris, his first project, was the largest city in Galilee. It was Antipas’s capital city until he built Tiberias, named in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius (AD<\/span> 14–37). The city Tiberias was on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. Antipas completed the city in AD<\/span> 23 and made it his capital.<\/p>\nHerod Antipas offended many Jews by divorcing his wife and marrying Herodias, the wife of his half brother, Herod Philip. Antipas’s marriage to Herodias was in violation of the law of Moses (Lev 18:16; 20:21) because Herod’s brother Philip was still alive. When John the Baptist spoke out strongly against this illegal marriage, Antipas imprisoned him (Mark 6:17-18); Herod was afraid John’s denunciation would lead to a political revolt (Josephus, Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2). Later, at a banquet, Herodias’s daughter pleased Herod with her dancing, evoking a rash promise from him to give her anything she wanted. Herodias took the opportunity to have John beheaded (Matt 14:1-12).<\/p>\nIt was obvious to Antipas that Jesus’ ministry was even more remarkable than John’s (see Mark 6:14-16; Matt 14:1-2; Luke 9:7-9), but he was reluctant to use force to bring about a meeting, for fear of arousing the people against him. Jesus, for his part, was openly critical of Herod Antipas (Mark 8:15; Luke 13:31-33).<\/p>\nWhen Jesus was finally arrested, Pilate could find no fault in Jesus, so he sent him to Herod Antipas, who was in Jerusalem for Passover. Pilate may also have been attempting to reconcile himself to Antipas. Their relationship had been rather strained since the Galilean massacre (Luke 13:1), and because Pilate had brought votive shields to Jerusalem that bore the image of Tiberius and were considered blasphemous by the Jews (Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius<\/em> 299–304). When Jesus was brought before Antipas, Herod only mocked him and sent him back to Pilate (Luke 23:6-11). The main political accomplishment of the incident was that Herod and Pilate were indeed reconciled (Luke 23:12).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas was later defeated in war by King Aretas, whose daughter he had divorced. (Jews interpreted this defeat as an act of divine judgment.) He was then deposed by Emperor Gaius in AD<\/span> 39 and sent into exile, in response to accusations from Herod Agrippa I of Antipas’s conspiracy against Rome.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 14:1-12; Mark 1:14; 6:14-29; Luke 3:1, 19-20; 9:7-9; 13:31-33; 23:7-12, 15; Acts 4:27<\/p>","summary_ro":"Herod Antipas Herod Antipas, sixth son of Herod the Great, was ruler of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC to AD 39, during the life of Jesus. His jurisdiction included the regions where Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries. Following the example of his father, Herod Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris, his first project, was the largest city in Galilee. It was Antipas’s capital city until he built Tiberias, named in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius (AD 14–37). The city Tibe...","summary_en":"Herod Antipas Herod Antipas, sixth son of Herod the Great, was ruler of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC to AD 39, during the life of Jesus. His jurisdiction included the regions where Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries. Following the example of his father, Herod Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris, his first project, was the largest city in Galilee. It was Antipas’s capital city until he built Tiberias, named in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius (AD 14–37). The city Tibe...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":97567,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Pontius Pilate","title_en":"Pontius Pilate","content_ro":"<h3>Pontius Pilate<\/h3>\nPontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea from AD<\/span> 26 to 36, including the time of Jesus’ death in AD<\/span> 30 or 33. Pilate gave the official order for Jesus to be crucified.<\/p>\nAs the governor of Judea, Pilate was in control of all the Roman occupation forces as well as the Temple and its funds. He was the only one who had the authority to execute criminals (see John 18:31), so the Jewish authorities were compelled to bring charges before Pilate in order to have Jesus executed (Mark 15:1-4).<\/p>\nPilate was sometimes abusive as governor. He appropriated Temple funds to construct a thirty-five-mile aqueduct for Jerusalem, provoking a major protest. In response, Pilate had soldiers infiltrate the crowds in disguise and beat the offenders to death with clubs (Josephus, War<\/em> 2.9.4; Antiquities<\/em> 18.3.2). Another time, Pilate murdered some Galileans “as they were offering sacrifices at the Temple” (Luke 13:1); this incident might have estranged him from the Galilean ruler Herod Antipas. Pilate also tried to bring images of Caesar into Jerusalem for worship. Later (AD<\/span> 36), Pilate slaughtered pilgrims who followed a Samaritan false prophet, an event that led to his dismissal by the emperor Tiberius in the same year.<\/p>\nEach Gospel records Pilate’s role in the death of Jesus (Matt 27:11-26; Mark 15:1:1-15; Luke 23:1-25; John 18:28–19:16; see also Acts 3:13; 4:27; 13:28; 1 Tim 6:13). After interrogating Jesus, he was convinced that Jesus had done nothing deserving of death, so he tried to return the case to the Jewish authorities. When they resisted, he tried to pass Jesus to Herod Antipas for judgment—but he, too, refused the case. Pilate finally tried appealing to a traditional Roman custom of freeing a prisoner on Passover. Meanwhile, his wife had been deeply troubled by a dream about “that innocent man” (Matt 27:19). But the clamor of the crowd became threatening, and the Jewish leaders began insinuating that Pilate was not taking Jesus’ threat to Rome seriously. Pilate yielded to Jewish pressure. He ordered that Jesus be whipped and then crucified, with the title “King of the Jews” posted on a sign over his head—but only after strenuously objecting and declaring himself to be innocent of the guilt of such an unjust death (Matt 27:18-25; Mark 15:14; Luke 23:4, 13-23; John 18:38); 19:4-16. Pilate’s attitude toward Jesus stands as a testimony that Jesus posed no threat to the Roman government but only to the Jewish leadership. This may have been a helpful point for later Christians who were portrayed as a threat to Rome.<\/p>\nShortly after Jesus’ death, Pilate gave special permission to Joseph of Arimathea to take the body of Jesus from the cross and bury it (Matt 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-46; Luke 23:50-53; John 19:38-42). He also gave permission to the Jewish authorities to seal the tomb to make sure no one would steal the body or make false claims about Jesus coming back to life (Matt 27:62-66).<\/p>\nLittle is known of Pilate after his dismissal in AD<\/span> 36; Eusebius reports that Pilate committed suicide during the reign of Caligula, AD<\/span> 37–41 (Eusebius, Church History<\/em> 2.7).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 27:2, 11-26, 57-58, 62-65; Mark 15:1-15, 43-45; Luke 3:1; 13:1; 23:1-25, 52; 18:28–19:16; 19:31, 38; Acts 3:13; 4:27; 13:28; 1 Tim 6:13<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Pontius Pilate<\/h3>\nPontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea from AD<\/span> 26 to 36, including the time of Jesus’ death in AD<\/span> 30 or 33. Pilate gave the official order for Jesus to be crucified.<\/p>\nAs the governor of Judea, Pilate was in control of all the Roman occupation forces as well as the Temple and its funds. He was the only one who had the authority to execute criminals (see John 18:31), so the Jewish authorities were compelled to bring charges before Pilate in order to have Jesus executed (Mark 15:1-4).<\/p>\nPilate was sometimes abusive as governor. He appropriated Temple funds to construct a thirty-five-mile aqueduct for Jerusalem, provoking a major protest. In response, Pilate had soldiers infiltrate the crowds in disguise and beat the offenders to death with clubs (Josephus, War<\/em> 2.9.4; Antiquities<\/em> 18.3.2). Another time, Pilate murdered some Galileans “as they were offering sacrifices at the Temple” (Luke 13:1); this incident might have estranged him from the Galilean ruler Herod Antipas. Pilate also tried to bring images of Caesar into Jerusalem for worship. Later (AD<\/span> 36), Pilate slaughtered pilgrims who followed a Samaritan false prophet, an event that led to his dismissal by the emperor Tiberius in the same year.<\/p>\nEach Gospel records Pilate’s role in the death of Jesus (Matt 27:11-26; Mark 15:1:1-15; Luke 23:1-25; John 18:28–19:16; see also Acts 3:13; 4:27; 13:28; 1 Tim 6:13). After interrogating Jesus, he was convinced that Jesus had done nothing deserving of death, so he tried to return the case to the Jewish authorities. When they resisted, he tried to pass Jesus to Herod Antipas for judgment—but he, too, refused the case. Pilate finally tried appealing to a traditional Roman custom of freeing a prisoner on Passover. Meanwhile, his wife had been deeply troubled by a dream about “that innocent man” (Matt 27:19). But the clamor of the crowd became threatening, and the Jewish leaders began insinuating that Pilate was not taking Jesus’ threat to Rome seriously. Pilate yielded to Jewish pressure. He ordered that Jesus be whipped and then crucified, with the title “King of the Jews” posted on a sign over his head—but only after strenuously objecting and declaring himself to be innocent of the guilt of such an unjust death (Matt 27:18-25; Mark 15:14; Luke 23:4, 13-23; John 18:38); 19:4-16. Pilate’s attitude toward Jesus stands as a testimony that Jesus posed no threat to the Roman government but only to the Jewish leadership. This may have been a helpful point for later Christians who were portrayed as a threat to Rome.<\/p>\nShortly after Jesus’ death, Pilate gave special permission to Joseph of Arimathea to take the body of Jesus from the cross and bury it (Matt 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-46; Luke 23:50-53; John 19:38-42). He also gave permission to the Jewish authorities to seal the tomb to make sure no one would steal the body or make false claims about Jesus coming back to life (Matt 27:62-66).<\/p>\nLittle is known of Pilate after his dismissal in AD<\/span> 36; Eusebius reports that Pilate committed suicide during the reign of Caligula, AD<\/span> 37–41 (Eusebius, Church History<\/em> 2.7).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 27:2, 11-26, 57-58, 62-65; Mark 15:1-15, 43-45; Luke 3:1; 13:1; 23:1-25, 52; 18:28–19:16; 19:31, 38; Acts 3:13; 4:27; 13:28; 1 Tim 6:13<\/p>","summary_ro":"Pontius Pilate Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea from AD 26 to 36, including the time of Jesus’ death in AD 30 or 33. Pilate gave the official order for Jesus to be crucified. As the governor of Judea, Pilate was in control of all the Roman occupation forces as well as the Temple and its funds. He was the only one who had the authority to execute criminals (see John 18:31), so the Jewish authorities were compelled to bring charges before Pilate in order to have Jesus executed (Ma...","summary_en":"Pontius Pilate Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea from AD 26 to 36, including the time of Jesus’ death in AD 30 or 33. Pilate gave the official order for Jesus to be crucified. As the governor of Judea, Pilate was in control of all the Roman occupation forces as well as the Temple and its funds. He was the only one who had the authority to execute criminals (see John 18:31), so the Jewish authorities were compelled to bring charges before Pilate in order to have Jesus executed (Ma...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":97649,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"John the Baptist","title_en":"John the Baptist","content_ro":"<h3>John the Baptist<\/h3>\nJohn the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13).<\/p>\nJohn’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births around the same time signaled the beginning of God’s redeeming work.<\/p>\nJohn was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth and devoted his life to preparing people for the coming of the Lord (Luke 1:15-17). Living in the desert (Luke 1:80), he began preaching when he was about thirty years old. Dressed like a prophet and subsisting on desert food (locusts and wild honey, see Matt 3:4; Mark 1:6), he called everyone to repent and be baptized (Matt 3:1-2; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:1-3). He even castigated the religious leaders who came to hear him (Matt 3:7-10).<\/p>\nThough John reluctantly baptized Jesus (Matt 3:13-17), he considered Jesus his superior, the one who would “baptize with the Holy Spirit” (John 1:33; Matt 3:11; Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:16; cp. John 3:23-30). He encouraged his followers to become Jesus’ disciples—and many did, including Andrew (1:35-40), Apollos (Acts 18:24-26), and the twelve disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas received harsh judgment from John because of Herod’s unlawful marriage to Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. To please Herodias, Herod imprisoned John and then beheaded him (Matt 14:3-12; Mark 6:17-29; Luke 3:19-20). John’s imprisonment marked the beginning of Jesus’ public preaching (Matt 4:12; Mark 1:14).<\/p>\nShortly before his death, John seemed to be confused about Jesus and sent messengers from prison to ask him if he really was the Messiah. Jesus did not do what most people anticipated the Messiah would do. Rather than bringing judgment and a visible kingdom, he brought forgiveness, healing, and a spiritual kingdom. To reassure John, Jesus spoke of the miraculous things God was doing through him (Luke 7:18-23).<\/p>\nJohn remained faithful to his calling throughout his life, consistently preaching repentance and the judgment of God, even to people who had no desire to hear it. Jesus referred to John as one of the greatest servants of God who had ever lived (Matt 11:2-19; Luke 7:18-35), the end of a long line of prophets anticipating the coming of the Kingdom of God (Luke 16:16). John stood on the threshold of the new age, proclaiming its coming to all who would hear.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatthew 3:1-15; 4:12; 9:14; 11:2-19; 14:1-12; 16:14; 17:10-13; 21:24-27, 31-32; Mark 1:1-9, 14; 2:18; 6:14-29; 8:28; 9:11-13; 11:29-33; Luke 1:13-17, 36, 39-43, 57-66, 76-80; 3:1-21; 5:33; 7:18-35; 9:7-9, 19; 11:1; 16:16; 20:3-8; John 1:6-37; John 3:23-36; 4:1-3; 10:40-42; Acts 1:5; 10:37; 11:16; 18:25-26; 19:1-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>John the Baptist<\/h3>\nJohn the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13).<\/p>\nJohn’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births around the same time signaled the beginning of God’s redeeming work.<\/p>\nJohn was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth and devoted his life to preparing people for the coming of the Lord (Luke 1:15-17). Living in the desert (Luke 1:80), he began preaching when he was about thirty years old. Dressed like a prophet and subsisting on desert food (locusts and wild honey, see Matt 3:4; Mark 1:6), he called everyone to repent and be baptized (Matt 3:1-2; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:1-3). He even castigated the religious leaders who came to hear him (Matt 3:7-10).<\/p>\nThough John reluctantly baptized Jesus (Matt 3:13-17), he considered Jesus his superior, the one who would “baptize with the Holy Spirit” (John 1:33; Matt 3:11; Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:16; cp. John 3:23-30). He encouraged his followers to become Jesus’ disciples—and many did, including Andrew (1:35-40), Apollos (Acts 18:24-26), and the twelve disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas received harsh judgment from John because of Herod’s unlawful marriage to Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. To please Herodias, Herod imprisoned John and then beheaded him (Matt 14:3-12; Mark 6:17-29; Luke 3:19-20). John’s imprisonment marked the beginning of Jesus’ public preaching (Matt 4:12; Mark 1:14).<\/p>\nShortly before his death, John seemed to be confused about Jesus and sent messengers from prison to ask him if he really was the Messiah. Jesus did not do what most people anticipated the Messiah would do. Rather than bringing judgment and a visible kingdom, he brought forgiveness, healing, and a spiritual kingdom. To reassure John, Jesus spoke of the miraculous things God was doing through him (Luke 7:18-23).<\/p>\nJohn remained faithful to his calling throughout his life, consistently preaching repentance and the judgment of God, even to people who had no desire to hear it. Jesus referred to John as one of the greatest servants of God who had ever lived (Matt 11:2-19; Luke 7:18-35), the end of a long line of prophets anticipating the coming of the Kingdom of God (Luke 16:16). John stood on the threshold of the new age, proclaiming its coming to all who would hear.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatthew 3:1-15; 4:12; 9:14; 11:2-19; 14:1-12; 16:14; 17:10-13; 21:24-27, 31-32; Mark 1:1-9, 14; 2:18; 6:14-29; 8:28; 9:11-13; 11:29-33; Luke 1:13-17, 36, 39-43, 57-66, 76-80; 3:1-21; 5:33; 7:18-35; 9:7-9, 19; 11:1; 16:16; 20:3-8; John 1:6-37; John 3:23-36; 4:1-3; 10:40-42; Acts 1:5; 10:37; 11:16; 18:25-26; 19:1-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"John the Baptist John the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13). John’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births aroun...","summary_en":"John the Baptist John the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13). John’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births aroun...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98063,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Roman Emperors","title_en":"Roman Emperors","content_ro":"<h3>Roman Emperors (27 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 96)<\/h3>\nAugustus (Octavian)<\/strong> (27 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 14) Became the first Roman emperor after defeating Marc Antony at the battle of Actium (31 BC<\/span>); ruled with wisdom and good administration; given the title “Augustus” (27 BC<\/span>), initiating emperor worship. See Luke 2:1<\/em>.<\/p>\nTiberius<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 14–37) Augustus’s adopted son and chosen successor; a wise and humble ruler; appointed Pontius Pilate as governor of Judea. See Luke 3:1; John 19:12<\/em>.<\/p>\n(Gaius) Caligula<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 37–41) Son of Augustus’s general Germanicus, nicknamed Caligula (“Little Boot”) for his military attire; went insane, squandered the treasury, ruled as a despot, and was assassinated.<\/p>\nClaudius<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 41–54) Tiberius’s nephew, proclaimed emperor by the Praetorian Guard after Caligula’s death; friend of Herod Agrippa I; ended the persecution of Jews in Alexandria; later expelled Jews from Rome (around AD<\/span> 49); married Nero’s mother Agrippina, who poisoned him. See Acts 18:2<\/em>.<\/p>\nNero<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 54–68) Adopted by Claudius and succeeded him; spent time on pleasure; appealed to by Paul (who instructed the Roman Christians to submit to Nero); later murdered his wife and mother; first persecutor of Christians. See Acts 25:11; Rom 13:1-7<\/em>.<\/p>\nVespasian<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 69–79) Successful legate (general) and son of a tax collector; began the Jewish War by invading Galilee (AD<\/span> 67); as emperor reformed Rome’s finances, reorganized the armies, and ruled with a reputation for justice; began the construction of the Colosseum; died of illness.<\/p>\nTitus<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 79–81) Son of Vespasian; finished the Jewish War with the destruction of Jerusalem (AD<\/span> 70); as emperor completed the Colosseum, gave disaster relief after the eruption of Mount Vesuvius (AD<\/span> 79) and a fire in Rome (AD<\/span> 80); died of a fever.<\/p>\nDomitian<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 81–96) Younger son of Vespasian who grew up in Titus’s shadow and coveted power; as emperor was a capable administrator, rebuilt damaged parts of Rome, proclaimed himself divine, and extorted new taxes; relentlessly persecuted Christians in later years; was assassinated.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nRev 17:9-11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Roman Emperors (27 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 96)<\/h3>\nAugustus (Octavian)<\/strong> (27 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 14) Became the first Roman emperor after defeating Marc Antony at the battle of Actium (31 BC<\/span>); ruled with wisdom and good administration; given the title “Augustus” (27 BC<\/span>), initiating emperor worship. See Luke 2:1<\/em>.<\/p>\nTiberius<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 14–37) Augustus’s adopted son and chosen successor; a wise and humble ruler; appointed Pontius Pilate as governor of Judea. See Luke 3:1; John 19:12<\/em>.<\/p>\n(Gaius) Caligula<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 37–41) Son of Augustus’s general Germanicus, nicknamed Caligula (“Little Boot”) for his military attire; went insane, squandered the treasury, ruled as a despot, and was assassinated.<\/p>\nClaudius<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 41–54) Tiberius’s nephew, proclaimed emperor by the Praetorian Guard after Caligula’s death; friend of Herod Agrippa I; ended the persecution of Jews in Alexandria; later expelled Jews from Rome (around AD<\/span> 49); married Nero’s mother Agrippina, who poisoned him. See Acts 18:2<\/em>.<\/p>\nNero<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 54–68) Adopted by Claudius and succeeded him; spent time on pleasure; appealed to by Paul (who instructed the Roman Christians to submit to Nero); later murdered his wife and mother; first persecutor of Christians. See Acts 25:11; Rom 13:1-7<\/em>.<\/p>\nVespasian<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 69–79) Successful legate (general) and son of a tax collector; began the Jewish War by invading Galilee (AD<\/span> 67); as emperor reformed Rome’s finances, reorganized the armies, and ruled with a reputation for justice; began the construction of the Colosseum; died of illness.<\/p>\nTitus<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 79–81) Son of Vespasian; finished the Jewish War with the destruction of Jerusalem (AD<\/span> 70); as emperor completed the Colosseum, gave disaster relief after the eruption of Mount Vesuvius (AD<\/span> 79) and a fire in Rome (AD<\/span> 80); died of a fever.<\/p>\nDomitian<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 81–96) Younger son of Vespasian who grew up in Titus’s shadow and coveted power; as emperor was a capable administrator, rebuilt damaged parts of Rome, proclaimed himself divine, and extorted new taxes; relentlessly persecuted Christians in later years; was assassinated.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nRev 17:9-11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Roman Emperors (27 BC–AD 96) Augustus (Octavian) (27 BC–AD 14) Became the first Roman emperor after defeating Marc Antony at the battle of Actium (31 BC); ruled with wisdom and good administration; given the title “Augustus” (27 BC), initiating emperor worship. See Luke 2:1. Tiberius (AD 14–37) Augustus’s adopted son and chosen successor; a wise and humble ruler; appointed Pontius Pilate as governor of Judea. See Luke 3:1; John 19:12. (Gaius) Caligula (AD 37–41) Son of Augustus’s general Germ...","summary_en":"Roman Emperors (27 BC–AD 96) Augustus (Octavian) (27 BC–AD 14) Became the first Roman emperor after defeating Marc Antony at the battle of Actium (31 BC); ruled with wisdom and good administration; given the title “Augustus” (27 BC), initiating emperor worship. See Luke 2:1. Tiberius (AD 14–37) Augustus’s adopted son and chosen successor; a wise and humble ruler; appointed Pontius Pilate as governor of Judea. See Luke 3:1; John 19:12. (Gaius) Caligula (AD 37–41) Son of Augustus’s general Germ...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125135,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Herod Antipas","title_en":"Herod Antipas","content_ro":"<h3>Herod Antipas<\/h3>\nHerod Antipas, sixth son of Herod the Great, was ruler of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC<\/span> to AD<\/span> 39, during the life of Jesus. His jurisdiction included the regions where Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries.<\/p>\nFollowing the example of his father, Herod Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris, his first project, was the largest city in Galilee. It was Antipas’s capital city until he built Tiberias, named in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius (AD<\/span> 14–37). The city Tiberias was on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. Antipas completed the city in AD<\/span> 23 and made it his capital.<\/p>\nHerod Antipas offended many Jews by divorcing his wife and marrying Herodias, the wife of his half brother, Herod Philip. Antipas’s marriage to Herodias was in violation of the law of Moses (Lev 18:16; 20:21) because Herod’s brother Philip was still alive. When John the Baptist spoke out strongly against this illegal marriage, Antipas imprisoned him (Mark 6:17-18); Herod was afraid John’s denunciation would lead to a political revolt (Josephus, Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2). Later, at a banquet, Herodias’s daughter pleased Herod with her dancing, evoking a rash promise from him to give her anything she wanted. Herodias took the opportunity to have John beheaded (Matt 14:1-12).<\/p>\nIt was obvious to Antipas that Jesus’ ministry was even more remarkable than John’s (see Mark 6:14-16; Matt 14:1-2; Luke 9:7-9), but he was reluctant to use force to bring about a meeting, for fear of arousing the people against him. Jesus, for his part, was openly critical of Herod Antipas (Mark 8:15; Luke 13:31-33).<\/p>\nWhen Jesus was finally arrested, Pilate could find no fault in Jesus, so he sent him to Herod Antipas, who was in Jerusalem for Passover. Pilate may also have been attempting to reconcile himself to Antipas. Their relationship had been rather strained since the Galilean massacre (Luke 13:1), and because Pilate had brought votive shields to Jerusalem that bore the image of Tiberius and were considered blasphemous by the Jews (Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius<\/em> 299–304). When Jesus was brought before Antipas, Herod only mocked him and sent him back to Pilate (Luke 23:6-11). The main political accomplishment of the incident was that Herod and Pilate were indeed reconciled (Luke 23:12).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas was later defeated in war by King Aretas, whose daughter he had divorced. (Jews interpreted this defeat as an act of divine judgment.) He was then deposed by Emperor Gaius in AD<\/span> 39 and sent into exile, in response to accusations from Herod Agrippa I of Antipas’s conspiracy against Rome.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 14:1-12; Mark 1:14; 6:14-29; Luke 3:1, 19-20; 9:7-9; 13:31-33; 23:7-12, 15; Acts 4:27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Herod Antipas<\/h3>\nHerod Antipas, sixth son of Herod the Great, was ruler of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC<\/span> to AD<\/span> 39, during the life of Jesus. His jurisdiction included the regions where Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries.<\/p>\nFollowing the example of his father, Herod Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris, his first project, was the largest city in Galilee. It was Antipas’s capital city until he built Tiberias, named in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius (AD<\/span> 14–37). The city Tiberias was on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. Antipas completed the city in AD<\/span> 23 and made it his capital.<\/p>\nHerod Antipas offended many Jews by divorcing his wife and marrying Herodias, the wife of his half brother, Herod Philip. Antipas’s marriage to Herodias was in violation of the law of Moses (Lev 18:16; 20:21) because Herod’s brother Philip was still alive. When John the Baptist spoke out strongly against this illegal marriage, Antipas imprisoned him (Mark 6:17-18); Herod was afraid John’s denunciation would lead to a political revolt (Josephus, Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2). Later, at a banquet, Herodias’s daughter pleased Herod with her dancing, evoking a rash promise from him to give her anything she wanted. Herodias took the opportunity to have John beheaded (Matt 14:1-12).<\/p>\nIt was obvious to Antipas that Jesus’ ministry was even more remarkable than John’s (see Mark 6:14-16; Matt 14:1-2; Luke 9:7-9), but he was reluctant to use force to bring about a meeting, for fear of arousing the people against him. Jesus, for his part, was openly critical of Herod Antipas (Mark 8:15; Luke 13:31-33).<\/p>\nWhen Jesus was finally arrested, Pilate could find no fault in Jesus, so he sent him to Herod Antipas, who was in Jerusalem for Passover. Pilate may also have been attempting to reconcile himself to Antipas. Their relationship had been rather strained since the Galilean massacre (Luke 13:1), and because Pilate had brought votive shields to Jerusalem that bore the image of Tiberius and were considered blasphemous by the Jews (Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius<\/em> 299–304). When Jesus was brought before Antipas, Herod only mocked him and sent him back to Pilate (Luke 23:6-11). The main political accomplishment of the incident was that Herod and Pilate were indeed reconciled (Luke 23:12).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas was later defeated in war by King Aretas, whose daughter he had divorced. (Jews interpreted this defeat as an act of divine judgment.) He was then deposed by Emperor Gaius in AD<\/span> 39 and sent into exile, in response to accusations from Herod Agrippa I of Antipas’s conspiracy against Rome.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 14:1-12; Mark 1:14; 6:14-29; Luke 3:1, 19-20; 9:7-9; 13:31-33; 23:7-12, 15; Acts 4:27<\/p>","summary_ro":"Herod Antipas Herod Antipas, sixth son of Herod the Great, was ruler of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC to AD 39, during the life of Jesus. His jurisdiction included the regions where Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries. Following the example of his father, Herod Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris, his first project, was the largest city in Galilee. It was Antipas’s capital city until he built Tiberias, named in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius (AD 14–37). The city Tibe...","summary_en":"Herod Antipas Herod Antipas, sixth son of Herod the Great, was ruler of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC to AD 39, during the life of Jesus. His jurisdiction included the regions where Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries. Following the example of his father, Herod Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris, his first project, was the largest city in Galilee. It was Antipas’s capital city until he built Tiberias, named in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius (AD 14–37). The city Tibe...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125193,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Pontius Pilate","title_en":"Pontius Pilate","content_ro":"<h3>Pontius Pilate<\/h3>\nPontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea from AD<\/span> 26 to 36, including the time of Jesus’ death in AD<\/span> 30 or 33. Pilate gave the official order for Jesus to be crucified.<\/p>\nAs the governor of Judea, Pilate was in control of all the Roman occupation forces as well as the Temple and its funds. He was the only one who had the authority to execute criminals (see John 18:31), so the Jewish authorities were compelled to bring charges before Pilate in order to have Jesus executed (Mark 15:1-4).<\/p>\nPilate was sometimes abusive as governor. He appropriated Temple funds to construct a thirty-five-mile aqueduct for Jerusalem, provoking a major protest. In response, Pilate had soldiers infiltrate the crowds in disguise and beat the offenders to death with clubs (Josephus, War<\/em> 2.9.4; Antiquities<\/em> 18.3.2). Another time, Pilate murdered some Galileans “as they were offering sacrifices at the Temple” (Luke 13:1); this incident might have estranged him from the Galilean ruler Herod Antipas. Pilate also tried to bring images of Caesar into Jerusalem for worship. Later (AD<\/span> 36), Pilate slaughtered pilgrims who followed a Samaritan false prophet, an event that led to his dismissal by the emperor Tiberius in the same year.<\/p>\nEach Gospel records Pilate’s role in the death of Jesus (Matt 27:11-26; Mark 15:1:1-15; Luke 23:1-25; John 18:28–19:16; see also Acts 3:13; 4:27; 13:28; 1 Tim 6:13). After interrogating Jesus, he was convinced that Jesus had done nothing deserving of death, so he tried to return the case to the Jewish authorities. When they resisted, he tried to pass Jesus to Herod Antipas for judgment—but he, too, refused the case. Pilate finally tried appealing to a traditional Roman custom of freeing a prisoner on Passover. Meanwhile, his wife had been deeply troubled by a dream about “that innocent man” (Matt 27:19). But the clamor of the crowd became threatening, and the Jewish leaders began insinuating that Pilate was not taking Jesus’ threat to Rome seriously. Pilate yielded to Jewish pressure. He ordered that Jesus be whipped and then crucified, with the title “King of the Jews” posted on a sign over his head—but only after strenuously objecting and declaring himself to be innocent of the guilt of such an unjust death (Matt 27:18-25; Mark 15:14; Luke 23:4, 13-23; John 18:38); 19:4-16. Pilate’s attitude toward Jesus stands as a testimony that Jesus posed no threat to the Roman government but only to the Jewish leadership. This may have been a helpful point for later Christians who were portrayed as a threat to Rome.<\/p>\nShortly after Jesus’ death, Pilate gave special permission to Joseph of Arimathea to take the body of Jesus from the cross and bury it (Matt 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-46; Luke 23:50-53; John 19:38-42). He also gave permission to the Jewish authorities to seal the tomb to make sure no one would steal the body or make false claims about Jesus coming back to life (Matt 27:62-66).<\/p>\nLittle is known of Pilate after his dismissal in AD<\/span> 36; Eusebius reports that Pilate committed suicide during the reign of Caligula, AD<\/span> 37–41 (Eusebius, Church History<\/em> 2.7).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 27:2, 11-26, 57-58, 62-65; Mark 15:1-15, 43-45; Luke 3:1; 13:1; 23:1-25, 52; 18:28–19:16; 19:31, 38; Acts 3:13; 4:27; 13:28; 1 Tim 6:13<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Pontius Pilate<\/h3>\nPontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea from AD<\/span> 26 to 36, including the time of Jesus’ death in AD<\/span> 30 or 33. Pilate gave the official order for Jesus to be crucified.<\/p>\nAs the governor of Judea, Pilate was in control of all the Roman occupation forces as well as the Temple and its funds. He was the only one who had the authority to execute criminals (see John 18:31), so the Jewish authorities were compelled to bring charges before Pilate in order to have Jesus executed (Mark 15:1-4).<\/p>\nPilate was sometimes abusive as governor. He appropriated Temple funds to construct a thirty-five-mile aqueduct for Jerusalem, provoking a major protest. In response, Pilate had soldiers infiltrate the crowds in disguise and beat the offenders to death with clubs (Josephus, War<\/em> 2.9.4; Antiquities<\/em> 18.3.2). Another time, Pilate murdered some Galileans “as they were offering sacrifices at the Temple” (Luke 13:1); this incident might have estranged him from the Galilean ruler Herod Antipas. Pilate also tried to bring images of Caesar into Jerusalem for worship. Later (AD<\/span> 36), Pilate slaughtered pilgrims who followed a Samaritan false prophet, an event that led to his dismissal by the emperor Tiberius in the same year.<\/p>\nEach Gospel records Pilate’s role in the death of Jesus (Matt 27:11-26; Mark 15:1:1-15; Luke 23:1-25; John 18:28–19:16; see also Acts 3:13; 4:27; 13:28; 1 Tim 6:13). After interrogating Jesus, he was convinced that Jesus had done nothing deserving of death, so he tried to return the case to the Jewish authorities. When they resisted, he tried to pass Jesus to Herod Antipas for judgment—but he, too, refused the case. Pilate finally tried appealing to a traditional Roman custom of freeing a prisoner on Passover. Meanwhile, his wife had been deeply troubled by a dream about “that innocent man” (Matt 27:19). But the clamor of the crowd became threatening, and the Jewish leaders began insinuating that Pilate was not taking Jesus’ threat to Rome seriously. Pilate yielded to Jewish pressure. He ordered that Jesus be whipped and then crucified, with the title “King of the Jews” posted on a sign over his head—but only after strenuously objecting and declaring himself to be innocent of the guilt of such an unjust death (Matt 27:18-25; Mark 15:14; Luke 23:4, 13-23; John 18:38); 19:4-16. Pilate’s attitude toward Jesus stands as a testimony that Jesus posed no threat to the Roman government but only to the Jewish leadership. This may have been a helpful point for later Christians who were portrayed as a threat to Rome.<\/p>\nShortly after Jesus’ death, Pilate gave special permission to Joseph of Arimathea to take the body of Jesus from the cross and bury it (Matt 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-46; Luke 23:50-53; John 19:38-42). He also gave permission to the Jewish authorities to seal the tomb to make sure no one would steal the body or make false claims about Jesus coming back to life (Matt 27:62-66).<\/p>\nLittle is known of Pilate after his dismissal in AD<\/span> 36; Eusebius reports that Pilate committed suicide during the reign of Caligula, AD<\/span> 37–41 (Eusebius, Church History<\/em> 2.7).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 27:2, 11-26, 57-58, 62-65; Mark 15:1-15, 43-45; Luke 3:1; 13:1; 23:1-25, 52; 18:28–19:16; 19:31, 38; Acts 3:13; 4:27; 13:28; 1 Tim 6:13<\/p>","summary_ro":"Pontius Pilate Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea from AD 26 to 36, including the time of Jesus’ death in AD 30 or 33. Pilate gave the official order for Jesus to be crucified. As the governor of Judea, Pilate was in control of all the Roman occupation forces as well as the Temple and its funds. He was the only one who had the authority to execute criminals (see John 18:31), so the Jewish authorities were compelled to bring charges before Pilate in order to have Jesus executed (Ma...","summary_en":"Pontius Pilate Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea from AD 26 to 36, including the time of Jesus’ death in AD 30 or 33. Pilate gave the official order for Jesus to be crucified. As the governor of Judea, Pilate was in control of all the Roman occupation forces as well as the Temple and its funds. He was the only one who had the authority to execute criminals (see John 18:31), so the Jewish authorities were compelled to bring charges before Pilate in order to have Jesus executed (Ma...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125275,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"John the Baptist","title_en":"John the Baptist","content_ro":"<h3>John the Baptist<\/h3>\nJohn the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13).<\/p>\nJohn’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births around the same time signaled the beginning of God’s redeeming work.<\/p>\nJohn was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth and devoted his life to preparing people for the coming of the Lord (Luke 1:15-17). Living in the desert (Luke 1:80), he began preaching when he was about thirty years old. Dressed like a prophet and subsisting on desert food (locusts and wild honey, see Matt 3:4; Mark 1:6), he called everyone to repent and be baptized (Matt 3:1-2; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:1-3). He even castigated the religious leaders who came to hear him (Matt 3:7-10).<\/p>\nThough John reluctantly baptized Jesus (Matt 3:13-17), he considered Jesus his superior, the one who would “baptize with the Holy Spirit” (John 1:33; Matt 3:11; Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:16; cp. John 3:23-30). He encouraged his followers to become Jesus’ disciples—and many did, including Andrew (1:35-40), Apollos (Acts 18:24-26), and the twelve disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas received harsh judgment from John because of Herod’s unlawful marriage to Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. To please Herodias, Herod imprisoned John and then beheaded him (Matt 14:3-12; Mark 6:17-29; Luke 3:19-20). John’s imprisonment marked the beginning of Jesus’ public preaching (Matt 4:12; Mark 1:14).<\/p>\nShortly before his death, John seemed to be confused about Jesus and sent messengers from prison to ask him if he really was the Messiah. Jesus did not do what most people anticipated the Messiah would do. Rather than bringing judgment and a visible kingdom, he brought forgiveness, healing, and a spiritual kingdom. To reassure John, Jesus spoke of the miraculous things God was doing through him (Luke 7:18-23).<\/p>\nJohn remained faithful to his calling throughout his life, consistently preaching repentance and the judgment of God, even to people who had no desire to hear it. Jesus referred to John as one of the greatest servants of God who had ever lived (Matt 11:2-19; Luke 7:18-35), the end of a long line of prophets anticipating the coming of the Kingdom of God (Luke 16:16). John stood on the threshold of the new age, proclaiming its coming to all who would hear.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatthew 3:1-15; 4:12; 9:14; 11:2-19; 14:1-12; 16:14; 17:10-13; 21:24-27, 31-32; Mark 1:1-9, 14; 2:18; 6:14-29; 8:28; 9:11-13; 11:29-33; Luke 1:13-17, 36, 39-43, 57-66, 76-80; 3:1-21; 5:33; 7:18-35; 9:7-9, 19; 11:1; 16:16; 20:3-8; John 1:6-37; John 3:23-36; 4:1-3; 10:40-42; Acts 1:5; 10:37; 11:16; 18:25-26; 19:1-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>John the Baptist<\/h3>\nJohn the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13).<\/p>\nJohn’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births around the same time signaled the beginning of God’s redeeming work.<\/p>\nJohn was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth and devoted his life to preparing people for the coming of the Lord (Luke 1:15-17). Living in the desert (Luke 1:80), he began preaching when he was about thirty years old. Dressed like a prophet and subsisting on desert food (locusts and wild honey, see Matt 3:4; Mark 1:6), he called everyone to repent and be baptized (Matt 3:1-2; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:1-3). He even castigated the religious leaders who came to hear him (Matt 3:7-10).<\/p>\nThough John reluctantly baptized Jesus (Matt 3:13-17), he considered Jesus his superior, the one who would “baptize with the Holy Spirit” (John 1:33; Matt 3:11; Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:16; cp. John 3:23-30). He encouraged his followers to become Jesus’ disciples—and many did, including Andrew (1:35-40), Apollos (Acts 18:24-26), and the twelve disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas received harsh judgment from John because of Herod’s unlawful marriage to Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. To please Herodias, Herod imprisoned John and then beheaded him (Matt 14:3-12; Mark 6:17-29; Luke 3:19-20). John’s imprisonment marked the beginning of Jesus’ public preaching (Matt 4:12; Mark 1:14).<\/p>\nShortly before his death, John seemed to be confused about Jesus and sent messengers from prison to ask him if he really was the Messiah. Jesus did not do what most people anticipated the Messiah would do. Rather than bringing judgment and a visible kingdom, he brought forgiveness, healing, and a spiritual kingdom. To reassure John, Jesus spoke of the miraculous things God was doing through him (Luke 7:18-23).<\/p>\nJohn remained faithful to his calling throughout his life, consistently preaching repentance and the judgment of God, even to people who had no desire to hear it. Jesus referred to John as one of the greatest servants of God who had ever lived (Matt 11:2-19; Luke 7:18-35), the end of a long line of prophets anticipating the coming of the Kingdom of God (Luke 16:16). John stood on the threshold of the new age, proclaiming its coming to all who would hear.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatthew 3:1-15; 4:12; 9:14; 11:2-19; 14:1-12; 16:14; 17:10-13; 21:24-27, 31-32; Mark 1:1-9, 14; 2:18; 6:14-29; 8:28; 9:11-13; 11:29-33; Luke 1:13-17, 36, 39-43, 57-66, 76-80; 3:1-21; 5:33; 7:18-35; 9:7-9, 19; 11:1; 16:16; 20:3-8; John 1:6-37; John 3:23-36; 4:1-3; 10:40-42; Acts 1:5; 10:37; 11:16; 18:25-26; 19:1-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"John the Baptist John the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13). John’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births aroun...","summary_en":"John the Baptist John the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13). John’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births aroun...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125689,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Roman Emperors","title_en":"Roman Emperors","content_ro":"<h3>Roman Emperors (27 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 96)<\/h3>\nAugustus (Octavian)<\/strong> (27 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 14) Became the first Roman emperor after defeating Marc Antony at the battle of Actium (31 BC<\/span>); ruled with wisdom and good administration; given the title “Augustus” (27 BC<\/span>), initiating emperor worship. See Luke 2:1<\/em>.<\/p>\nTiberius<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 14–37) Augustus’s adopted son and chosen successor; a wise and humble ruler; appointed Pontius Pilate as governor of Judea. See Luke 3:1; John 19:12<\/em>.<\/p>\n(Gaius) Caligula<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 37–41) Son of Augustus’s general Germanicus, nicknamed Caligula (“Little Boot”) for his military attire; went insane, squandered the treasury, ruled as a despot, and was assassinated.<\/p>\nClaudius<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 41–54) Tiberius’s nephew, proclaimed emperor by the Praetorian Guard after Caligula’s death; friend of Herod Agrippa I; ended the persecution of Jews in Alexandria; later expelled Jews from Rome (around AD<\/span> 49); married Nero’s mother Agrippina, who poisoned him. See Acts 18:2<\/em>.<\/p>\nNero<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 54–68) Adopted by Claudius and succeeded him; spent time on pleasure; appealed to by Paul (who instructed the Roman Christians to submit to Nero); later murdered his wife and mother; first persecutor of Christians. See Acts 25:11; Rom 13:1-7<\/em>.<\/p>\nVespasian<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 69–79) Successful legate (general) and son of a tax collector; began the Jewish War by invading Galilee (AD<\/span> 67); as emperor reformed Rome’s finances, reorganized the armies, and ruled with a reputation for justice; began the construction of the Colosseum; died of illness.<\/p>\nTitus<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 79–81) Son of Vespasian; finished the Jewish War with the destruction of Jerusalem (AD<\/span> 70); as emperor completed the Colosseum, gave disaster relief after the eruption of Mount Vesuvius (AD<\/span> 79) and a fire in Rome (AD<\/span> 80); died of a fever.<\/p>\nDomitian<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 81–96) Younger son of Vespasian who grew up in Titus’s shadow and coveted power; as emperor was a capable administrator, rebuilt damaged parts of Rome, proclaimed himself divine, and extorted new taxes; relentlessly persecuted Christians in later years; was assassinated.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nRev 17:9-11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Roman Emperors (27 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 96)<\/h3>\nAugustus (Octavian)<\/strong> (27 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 14) Became the first Roman emperor after defeating Marc Antony at the battle of Actium (31 BC<\/span>); ruled with wisdom and good administration; given the title “Augustus” (27 BC<\/span>), initiating emperor worship. See Luke 2:1<\/em>.<\/p>\nTiberius<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 14–37) Augustus’s adopted son and chosen successor; a wise and humble ruler; appointed Pontius Pilate as governor of Judea. See Luke 3:1; John 19:12<\/em>.<\/p>\n(Gaius) Caligula<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 37–41) Son of Augustus’s general Germanicus, nicknamed Caligula (“Little Boot”) for his military attire; went insane, squandered the treasury, ruled as a despot, and was assassinated.<\/p>\nClaudius<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 41–54) Tiberius’s nephew, proclaimed emperor by the Praetorian Guard after Caligula’s death; friend of Herod Agrippa I; ended the persecution of Jews in Alexandria; later expelled Jews from Rome (around AD<\/span> 49); married Nero’s mother Agrippina, who poisoned him. See Acts 18:2<\/em>.<\/p>\nNero<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 54–68) Adopted by Claudius and succeeded him; spent time on pleasure; appealed to by Paul (who instructed the Roman Christians to submit to Nero); later murdered his wife and mother; first persecutor of Christians. See Acts 25:11; Rom 13:1-7<\/em>.<\/p>\nVespasian<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 69–79) Successful legate (general) and son of a tax collector; began the Jewish War by invading Galilee (AD<\/span> 67); as emperor reformed Rome’s finances, reorganized the armies, and ruled with a reputation for justice; began the construction of the Colosseum; died of illness.<\/p>\nTitus<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 79–81) Son of Vespasian; finished the Jewish War with the destruction of Jerusalem (AD<\/span> 70); as emperor completed the Colosseum, gave disaster relief after the eruption of Mount Vesuvius (AD<\/span> 79) and a fire in Rome (AD<\/span> 80); died of a fever.<\/p>\nDomitian<\/strong> (AD<\/span> 81–96) Younger son of Vespasian who grew up in Titus’s shadow and coveted power; as emperor was a capable administrator, rebuilt damaged parts of Rome, proclaimed himself divine, and extorted new taxes; relentlessly persecuted Christians in later years; was assassinated.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nRev 17:9-11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Roman Emperors (27 BC–AD 96) Augustus (Octavian) (27 BC–AD 14) Became the first Roman emperor after defeating Marc Antony at the battle of Actium (31 BC); ruled with wisdom and good administration; given the title “Augustus” (27 BC), initiating emperor worship. See Luke 2:1. Tiberius (AD 14–37) Augustus’s adopted son and chosen successor; a wise and humble ruler; appointed Pontius Pilate as governor of Judea. See Luke 3:1; John 19:12. (Gaius) Caligula (AD 37–41) Son of Augustus’s general Germ...","summary_en":"Roman Emperors (27 BC–AD 96) Augustus (Octavian) (27 BC–AD 14) Became the first Roman emperor after defeating Marc Antony at the battle of Actium (31 BC); ruled with wisdom and good administration; given the title “Augustus” (27 BC), initiating emperor worship. See Luke 2:1. Tiberius (AD 14–37) Augustus’s adopted son and chosen successor; a wise and humble ruler; appointed Pontius Pilate as governor of Judea. See Luke 3:1; John 19:12. (Gaius) Caligula (AD 37–41) Son of Augustus’s general Germ...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":200,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Abilene","title_en":"Abilene","content_ro":"<h3>ABILENE<\/h3>\nRegion on the east side of the Anti-Lebanon Mountains in Syria. The district took its name from the capital city of Abila, located about 18 miles (29 kilometers) from Damascus. At the time of John the Baptist, Abilene was governed by the tetrarch Lysanias (Lk 3:1).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ABILENE<\/h3>\nRegion on the east side of the Anti-Lebanon Mountains in Syria. The district took its name from the capital city of Abila, located about 18 miles (29 kilometers) from Damascus. At the time of John the Baptist, Abilene was governed by the tetrarch Lysanias (Lk 3:1).<\/p>","summary_ro":"ABILENE Region on the east side of the Anti-Lebanon Mountains in Syria. The district took its name from the capital city of Abila, located about 18 miles (29 kilometers) from Damascus. At the time of John the Baptist, Abilene was governed by the tetrarch Lysanias (Lk 3:1).","summary_en":"ABILENE Region on the east side of the Anti-Lebanon Mountains in Syria. The district took its name from the capital city of Abila, located about 18 miles (29 kilometers) from Damascus. At the time of John the Baptist, Abilene was governed by the tetrarch Lysanias (Lk 3:1).","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":4749,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"and Text of the (New Testament) Bible*, Manuscripts","title_en":"and Text of the (New Testament) Bible*, Manuscripts","content_ro":"<h3>BIBLE*, Manuscripts and Text of the (New Testament)<\/span><\/h3>\nCopies of the NT books produced by scribes and editions made from these copies. In the centuries prior to the simultaneous-multiple production of copies via dictation (wherein many scribes in a scriptorium transcribed a text dictated to them by one reader), all manuscript copies were made singly—each scribe producing a copy from an exemplar.<\/p>\nPrior to the 15th century, when Johannes Gutenberg invented movable type for the printing press, all copies of any work of literature were made by hand (hence, the name “manuscript”). According to a current tabulation, there are 99 papyrus manuscripts, 257 uncial manuscripts, and 2,795 minuscule manuscripts. We can add 2,209 Greek lectionaries to this list. Therefore, we have over 5,350 manuscript copies of the Greek NT or portions thereof. No other work of Greek literature can boast of such numbers.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Important Papyrus Manuscripts<\/p>\n• Important Uncial Manuscripts<\/p>\n• The Text of the New Testament<\/p>\nImportant Papyrus Manuscripts<\/p>\nPapyrus is a tall, aquatic reed, the pith of which is cut into strips, laid in a crosswork pattern and glued together to make a page for writing. The papyrus rolls of Egypt have been used as a writing surface since the early third millennium BC<\/span>. The Greeks adopted papyrus around 900 BC<\/span>, and later the Romans adopted its use. However, the oldest extant Greek rolls of papyrus date from the fourth century BC<\/span>. Unfortunately, papyrus is perishable, requiring a dry climate for its preservation. That is why so many papyri have been discovered in the desert sands of Egypt.<\/p>\nThe NT papyrus manuscripts (abbreviated as “P”) are generally the earliest manuscripts of the NT. Broadly speaking, the most important ones can be categorized in three groups: the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (from Oxyrhynchus, Egypt), (2) the Beatty Papyri (named after the owner); and (3) the Bodmer Papyri (named after the owner).<\/p>\n<h5>The Oxyrhynchus Papyri<\/h5>\nBeginning in 1898 B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt discovered thousands of papyrus fragments in the ancient rubbish heaps of Oxyrhynchus, Egypt. This site yielded volumes of papyrus fragments containing all sorts of written material (literature, business and legal contracts, letters, etc.) as well as over 40 manuscripts containing portions of the NT. Some of the more noteworthy papyrus manuscripts from Oxyrhynchus are as follows:<\/p>\n<h6>P1 (P. Oxy. 2)<\/h6>\nThis late second-century manuscript contains Matthew 1:1-9, 12, 14-20. Grenfell and Hunt in the winter of 1896–97 went to Oxyrhynchus (now called El Bahnasa) in search of ancient Christian documents. P1 was discovered on the second day of the dig. At the time of this discovery, this was the earliest extant copy of any NT portion—at least 100 years earlier than Codex Vaticanus. The copyist of P1 seems to have faithfully followed a very reliable exemplar. Where there are major variants, P1 agrees with the best Alexandrian witnesses, especially B (Codex Vaticanus), from which it rarely varies.<\/p>\n<h6>P5 (P. Oxy. 208 and 1781)<\/h6>\nTwo separate portions of this third-century manuscript were unearthed from Oxyrhynchus by Grenfell and Hunt, both from the same papyrus manuscript. The first portion contains John 1:23-31, 33-40 on one fragment and John 20:11-17 on another—probably on the first and last quires of a manuscript containing only the Gospel of John. This portion was published in volume II of Oxyrhynchus Papyri<\/em> in 1899; the second portion—containing John 16:14-30—was not published until 1922 in volume XV of Oxyrhynchus Papyri.<\/em><\/p>\nAfter examining the first portion, Grenfell and Hunt said, “The text is a good one, and appears to have affinities with that of Codex Sinaiticus, with which the papyrus agrees in several readings not found elsewhere.” The papyrus, written in a documentary hand, is marked for its brevity.<\/p>\n<h6>P13 (P. Oxy. 657 and PSI 1292)<\/h6>\nThis manuscript, dated between 175 and 225, contains 12 columns from a roll preserving the text of Hebrews 2:14–5:5; 10:8-22; 10:29–11:13; 11:28–12:7. The text of Hebrews was written in a reformed documentary hand on the back of the papyrus containing the new epitome of Livy. For this reason, some scholars think the manuscript was possibly brought to Egpyt by a Roman official and left behind when he left his post. P13 very often agrees with B, and it supplements B where it is lacking—namely, from Hebrews 9:14 to the end of Hebrews. P13 and P46 display nearly the same text. Out of a total of 88 variation-units, there are 71 agreements and only 17 disagreements.<\/p>\n<h6>P77 (P. Oxy. 2683 + 4405)<\/h6>\nDated c. 150–75, this is the earliest manuscript of Matthew (23:30-39). The manuscript is clearly a literary production. It was written in an elegant hand and has what was or became a standard system of chapter division, as well as punctuation and breathing marks. P77 has close textual affinities with Codex Sinaiticus.<\/p>\n<h6>P90 (P. Oxy. 3523)<\/h6>\nThis second-century manuscript (c. 150–75) contains John 18:36–19:7. The handwriting (an upright, rounded, elegant script) is much like that found in P66. Furthermore, P90 has more affinity with P66 than with any other single manuscript, though it does not concur with P66 in its entirety.<\/p>\n\n<h6>P. Oxy. 4404<\/h6>\nContaining Matthew 21:34-37, 43, 45, this manuscript could be the earliest extant manuscript of the NT in that the script is early Roman and therefore could be dated to the early second century.<\/p>\n<h5>The Chester Beatty Papyri<\/h5>\nThese manuscripts were purchased from a dealer in Egypt during the 1930s by Chester Beatty and by the University of Michigan. The three manuscripts in this collection are very early and contain a large portion of the NT text. P45 (c. 200) contains portions of all four Gospels and Acts; P46 (c. 125) has almost all of Paul’s epistles and Hebrews; and P47 (third century) contains Revelation 9–17.<\/p>\n<h6>P45 (Chester Beatty Papyrus I)<\/h6>\nThis codex has the four Gospels and Acts (Mt 20:24-32; 21:13-19; 25:41–26:39; Mk 4:36–9:31; 11:27–12:28; Lk 6:31–7:7; 9:26–14:33; Jn 4:51–5:2, 21-25; 10:7-25; 10:30–11:10, 18-36, 42-57; Acts 4:27–17:17). The order of books in the original intact manuscript was probably as follows: Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, Acts (the so-called Western order). This manuscript was dated by Kenyon to the early third century, a date that was confirmed by the papyrologists W. Schubart and H. I. Bell. This continues to be the date assigned to this manuscript in modern handbooks on textual criticism and critical editions of the Greek NT, but the consistent formation of certain letters suggests an earlier date—maybe sometime in the late second century.<\/p>\nThe scribe of P45 worked without any intention of exactly reproducing his source. He wrote with a great amount of freedom—harmonizing, smoothing out, substituting at will. In short, the scribe did not actually copy words. He saw through the language to its idea-content, and copied that in words of his own choosing, or in rearranged order. Thus, in the scribe of P45 we see an exegete and a paraphraser.<\/p>\n<h6>P46 (Chester Beatty Papyrus II)<\/h6>\nThis codex has most of Paul’s epistles (excluding the Pastorals) in this order: Romans 5:17–6:14; 8:15–15:9; 15:11–16:27; Hebrews 1:1–13:25; 1 Corinthians 1:1–16:22; 2 Corinthians 1:1–13:13; Ephesians 1:1–6:24; Galatians 1:1–6:18; Philippians 1:1–4:23; Colossians 1:1–4:18; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 1:9–2:3; 5:5-9, 23-28 (with minor lacunae in each of the books).<\/p>\nThe manuscript was originally dated to the early third century. But others, since, have dated the manuscript earlier in the second century. The scribe who produced this manuscript used an early, excellent exemplar. He was a professional scribe because there are stichoi notations at the end of several books (see the conclusion of Romans, 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians). The stichoi were used by professionals to note how many lines had been copied for commensurate pay. Most likely, the ex officio of the scriptorium (perhaps connected with a church library) paginated the codex and indicated the stichoi. The scribe himself made a few corrections as he went, and then several other readers made corrections here and there.<\/p>\nThe text of P46 shows a strong affinity with B (especially in Ephesians, Colossians, and Hebrews) and next with א (Codex Sinaiticus). P46 agrees much less with the later representatives of the Alexandrian text. In short, P46 is proto-Alexandrian. In Hebrews, P46 and P13 display nearly the same text. Out of a total of 88 variation-units, there are 71 agreements and only 17 disagreements.<\/p>\n<h6>P47 (Chester Beatty Papyrus III)<\/h6>\nThis third-century codex contains Revelation 9:10–17:2. The text of P47 agrees more often with that of Codex Sinaiticus than with any other manuscript (including Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus), though it often shows independence.<\/p>\n<h5>The Bodmer Papyri<\/h5>\nThese manuscripts were purchased by M. Martin Bodmer from a dealer in Egypt during the 1950s and 1960s. The three important papyri in this collection are P66 (c. 175, containing almost all of John), P72 (third century, having all of 1 and 2 Peter and Jude), and P75 (c. 200, containing large parts of Luke 3—John 15).<\/p>\nP66 (Papyrus Bodmer II)<\/p>\nThis manuscript contains most of John’s Gospel (1:1–6:11; 6:35–14:26, 29-30; 15:2-26; 16:2-4, 6-7; 16:10–20:20, 22-23; 20:25–21:9). The manuscript does not include the pericope of the adulteress (7:53–8:11), making it the earliest witness to not include this spurious passage. The manuscript is usually dated as c. 200, but the renowned paleographer Herbert Hunger has argued that P66 should be dated to the first half, if not the first quarter, of the second century.<\/p>\nAccording to recent studies, it seems evident that P66 has preserved the work of three individuals: the original scribe, a thoroughgoing corrector, and a minor corrector. With a practiced calligraphic hand, the original scribe of P66 wrote in larger print as he went along in order to fill out the codex. The large print throughout indicates that it was written to be read aloud to a Christian congregation. The text exhibits the scribe’s knowledge of other portions of Scripture (inasmuch as he harmonized John 6:69 to Matthew 16:16 and John 21:6 to Luke 5:5), his use of standard nomina sacra<\/em> (a way of writing divine names), and his special use of nomina sacra<\/em> for the words “cross” and “crucify.”<\/p>\nThe original scribe was quite free in his interaction with the text; he produced several singular readings that reveal his independent interpretation of the text. While the numerous scribal mistakes would seem to indicate that the scribe was inattentive, many of the singular readings—prior to correction—reveal that he was not detached from the narrative of the text. Rather, he became so absorbed in his reading that he often forgot the exact words he was copying. His task as a copyist was to duplicate the exemplar word for word, but this was frustrated by the fact that he was reading the text in logical semantic chunks and often became a coproducer of a new text. As a result, he continually had to stop his reading and make many in-process corrections. But he left several places uncorrected, which were later fixed by the diorthotes<\/em> (official corrector). The finished product is quite good, presenting a text that is very close to the Alexandrian witnesses.<\/p>\n<h6>P72 (Papyrus Bodmer VII–VIII)<\/h6>\nThis manuscript, dated late third century, has an interesting collection of writings in one codex: 1 Peter 1:1–5:14; 2 Peter 1:1–3:18; Jude 1:1-25; the Nativity of Mary, the apocryphal correspondence of Paul to the Corinthians, the eleventh ode of Solomon, Melito’s Homily on the Passover, a fragment of a hymn, the Apology of Phileas, and Psalms 33 and 34.<\/p>\nScholars think that four scribes took part in producing the entire manuscript. First Peter has clear Alexandrian affinities—especially with B. Second Peter and (especially) Jude display more of an uncontrolled type text (usually associated with the “Western” text), with several independent readings.<\/p>\n<h6>P75 (Papyrus Bodmer XIV–XV)<\/h6>\nThis codex contains most of Luke and John (Lk 3:18–4:2; 4:34–5:10; 5:37–18:18; 22:4–24:53; Jn 1:1–11:45, 48-57; 12:3–13:1, 8-9; 14:8-30; 15:7-8.) The manuscript does not include the pericope of the adulteress (7:53–8:11). The manuscript can be dated to the late second or early third century.<\/p>\nThe copyist of P75 was a literate scribe trained in making books. His craftsmanship shows through in his tight calligraphy and controlled copying. The handwriting displayed in this manuscript is typically called by paleographers the common angular type of the late second to early third century. The scribe’s Christianity shows in his abbreviations of the nomina sacra<\/em>,<\/em> as well as in his abbreviation of the word “cross.” These are telltale signs of a scribe who belonged to the Christian community. Furthermore, the large typeface indicates that the manuscript was composed to be read aloud to a Christian congregation. The scribe even added a system of sectional divisions to aid any would-be lector. Thus, we have a manuscript written by a Christian for other Christians.<\/p>\nThere are several indications of the scribe’s Alexandrian orientation. First and foremost is his scriptoral acumen. He is the best of all the early Christian scribes, and his manuscript is an extremely accurate copy. P75 is the work of an extremely disciplined scribe who copied with the intention of being careful and accurate. Scholars generally agree that P75 displays the kind of text that was used in making Codex Vaticanus (there is 87 percent agreement between P75 and B). As such, textual scholars have a high regard for P75’s textual fidelity.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Other Papyrus Manuscripts<\/h5>\n<h6>P4 + P64 + P67<\/h6>\nThese three papyrus manuscripts are part of one codex dated AD<\/span> 150–175. The manuscript was the work of a professional scribe, and the text is extremely accurate.<\/p>\n<h6>P32 (Rylands Papyrus 5)<\/h6>\nThis manuscript, preserving Titus 1:11-15; 2:3-8, is dated c. 175, making it the earliest extant copy of any of the Pastoral Epistles. P32 shows agreement with א and with F and G. Since F and G (nearly identical manuscripts) go back to the same archetype, it is possible that P32 could be linked to the same source.<\/p>\n<h6>P52 (Rylands Papyrus 457)<\/h6>\nThis fragment, containing John 18:31-34, 37-38, is noteworthy because of its date: c. 110–125. Many scholars (F. Kenyon, H. I. Bell, A. Deissmann, and W. H. P. Hatch) have confirmed this dating. The manuscript came from the Fayum or Oxyrhynchus site. It was acquired in 1920 by Grenfell, but it remained unnoticed among hundreds of papyri until 1934, when C. H. Roberts recognized that this fragment preserves a few verses from John’s Gospel.<\/p>\nImportant Uncial Manuscripts<\/p>\nThe manuscripts typically classified as “uncial” are so designated to differentiate them from papyrus manuscripts. In a sense, this is a misnomer because the real difference has to do with the material they are written on—vellum (treated animal hide) as compared to papyrus—not the kind of letters used. Indeed, the papyri are also written in uncials (capital letters), but the term “uncial” typically describes the majuscule lettering that was prominent in fourth-century biblical texts, such as in א, A, B, C.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex Sinaiticus (or א)<\/h5>\nThis codex contains the entire OT and the NT in this order: the four Gospels, the Pauline Epistles (including Hebrews), Acts, the General Epistles, Revelation. It also includes the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. The codex cannot be earlier than 340 (the year Eusebius died) because the Eusebian sections of the text are indicated in the margins of the Gospels by a contemporary hand. Most scholars date it 350–375.<\/p>\nThis codex was discovered by Constantin von Tischendorf in St Catherine’s Monastery (situated at the foot of Mt Sinai). On a visit to the monastery in 1844 he noticed in a wastebasket some parchment leaves that were being used to light the lamps. He was allowed to take this waste paper, which proved to be 43 leaves from various parts of the Greek translation of the OT.<\/p>\nIn 1853 he made a second trip to the monastery and found nothing. In 1859, however, on his third trip, he found not only other parts of the OT but also the complete NT. He was finally able to persuade the monastery authorities to present the manuscript to the czar, the great patron of the Greek Catholic Church, who placed it in the Imperial Library in St Petersburg. The czar gave great honors to the monastery and its authorities, and everybody seemed well pleased. Later Tischendorf was charged with having stolen the manuscript from its lawful owners, but the better textual scholars do not accept that story.<\/p>\n\nThe manuscript remained in the Imperial Library until 1933, when it was purchased by the British Museum for the huge sum of £100,000 (about $500,000). Textual criticism made the headlines because one manuscript was bought for this much money, raised largely by public subscription during the Great Depression. The manuscript is now on display in the manuscript room of the museum, where it is considered one of its most prized possessions.<\/p>\nThe text of Sinaiticus is very closely related to that of Codex Vaticanus. They agree in presenting the purest type of text, usually called the Alexandrian text type. Tischendorf greatly used the textual evidence of Codex Sinaiticus in preparing his critical editions of the Greek NT. Tischendorf thought four scribes had originally produced the codex, whom he named scribes A, B, C, D. After reinvestigation, H. J. Milne and T. C. Skeat identified only three scribes: A (who wrote the historical and poetical books of the OT, as well as most of the NT), B (who wrote the Prophets and the Shepherd of Hermas), and D (who wrote some Psalms, Tobit, Judith, and 4 Maccabees, and redid small sections of the NT). Milne and Skeat demonstrated that scribe A of Codex Vaticanus was likely the same scribe as scribe D of Codex Sinaiticus. If this true, then א is contemporary with B—perhaps produced in the same scriptorium in Alexandria. Codex Sinaiticus provides a fairly reliable witness to the NT; however, the scribe was not as careful as the scribe of B.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex Alexandrinus (A)<\/h5>\nThis is one of the three most important codices containing early copies of the whole Bible in Greek (the other two being the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus codexes). The name Alexandrinus comes from ancient records suggesting that it was copied in Egypt during the early part of the fifth century AD<\/span>. The early history of this manuscript and its Egyptian provenance is partially revealed by its flyleaves. A note by Cyril of Lucar (patriarch of Alexandria and then of Constantinople in the 1620s) states that, according to tradition, it was written by Thecla, a noble lady of Egypt shortly after the Council of Nicaea (325) and that her name was originally inscribed at the end of the volume but the last page was lost due to mutilation. An Arabic note of the 13th or 14th century also says that the manuscript was written by “Thecla the martyr.” Another Arabic note says that is was presented to the patriarchal cell of Alexandria (c. 1098). Cyril of Lucar took the manuscript from Alexandria to Constantinople in 1621 and then gave it to Charles I of England in 1627, where it became part of the Royal Library, then later the British Museum.<\/p>\nOnly 773 of the original 820 or so pages still exist. The rest were lost as the book was passed down through the centuries. The surviving parts of Alexandrinus contain a Greek translation of the whole OT, the Apocrypha (including four books of Maccabees and Psalm 151), most of the NT, and some early Christian writings (of which the First and Second Epistles of Clement to the Corinthians are the most important).<\/p>\nFrederick Kenyon thought the codex was the work of five scribes, to each of whom he designated a Roman numeral. According to Kenyon, scribes I and II copied the OT; scribe III did Matthew, Mark, 1 Corinthians 10:8—Philemon 1:25; scribe IV did Luke—Acts, General Epistles, Romans 1:1—1 Corinthians 10:8; and scribe V did Revelation. Milne and Skeat, however, argued that the whole codex was the work of two copyists (I and II). W. H. P. Hatch noted that many corrections have been made in the manuscript, most of them at an early date. Some of these corrections were introduced by the scribe himself, and others came from later hands.<\/p>\nEvidently, the scribes of this codex used exemplars of varying quality for various sections of the NT. The exemplar used for the Gospels was of poor quality, reflecting a Byzantine text type. Its testimony in the Epistles is much better, and in Revelation it provides the best witness to the original text.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Codex Vaticanus (B)<\/h5>\nCodex Vaticanus is the Vatican Manuscript, so named because it is the most famous manuscript in the Vatican Library in Rome. This manuscript has been in the Vatican’s library since at least 1475, but it was not made available to scholars, such as Constantin von Tischendorf and Samuel Tregelles, until the middle of the 19th century.<\/p>\nAt one time, the codex contained the whole Greek Bible, including most of the books of the Apocrypha, but it has lost many of its leaves. Originally it must have had about 820 leaves (1,640 pp), but now it has 759—617 in the OT and 142 in the NT. The major gaps of the manuscript are Genesis 1:1–46:28; 2 Samuel 2:5-7, 10-13; Psalms 106:27–138:6; Hebrews 9:14–13:25; the Pastoral Epistles; and Revelation. Each leaf measures ten and a half by ten inches (26.7 by 25.4 centimeters). Each page has three columns (two for the poetical books) with 40 to 44 lines to the column. The manuscript was written by two different scribes. It is dated in the early to middle part of the fourth century. It is not known where the manuscript originated, but it has been in the Vatican Library from the time of its earliest catalog in 1475.<\/p>\n\nWhen Napoleon conquered Rome, he brought its treasures to Paris, including this manuscript. The scholar Hug identified it and called the attention of other scholars to it. After the downfall of Napoleon, the manuscript was returned to the Vatican Library. Competent textual scholars were not allowed to do careful work on it until a photographic edition was published in 1890. It is now on exhibit in the Vatican Library.<\/p>\nThe text of the Vatican Manuscript is much like that of Codex Sinaiticus. These are generally recognized as the two finest examples of the Alexandrian type of Greek text of the NT. The Greek text of the OT is very fine too, but it is not quite so important, as the original language of the OT was Hebrew. Virtually all the textual scholars since the days of Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort (who brought out their Greek Testament, including their theory of textual criticism, in 1881), recognize this neutral type of text as a very early text and a very pure text, an extremely accurate reproduction of what the original text must have been. Westcott and Hort called it a second-century text accurate in 999 out of 1,000 words so far as any matter of translatable difference was concerned. א and B are the finest examples of this type of text, but it is also found in a few other Greek uncial manuscripts, a few of the early translations, and in the writings of a few of the early church fathers. Since the days of Westcott and Hort, their theory has been confirmed by the discovery of some papyrus manuscripts, notably the Bodmer Papyri, discovered in the 1950s.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C)<\/h5>\nThis codex is a palimpsest (the original writing was erased and different words written on the same material). It originally contained the entire Bible but now has only parts of six OT books and portions of all NT books except 2 Thessalonians and 2 John. The single-column Bible text, written in the 5th century AD<\/span>, was erased in the 12th century and replaced by a two-column text of a Greek translation of sermons or treatises by a certain Ephraem, a 4th-century Syrian church leader. Such a practice was common in periods of economic depression or when parchment was scarce. The original writing was scraped from the writing surface and the surface smoothed. Then new compositions could be written on the prepared surface. Using chemicals Tischendorf was able to read much of the erased document.<\/p>\nThe manuscript may have been brought from the east to Florence by a learned Greek named Andrew John Lascar in the time of Lorenzo de’Medici. Since Lascar was known as Rhyndacenus (from the river Rhyndacus), he probably came from the region of Phrygia (site of ancient Laodicea). Where the manuscript was prior to this is not known. The Ephraemi manuscript was brought to Italy in the early sixth century, where it became the property of the Medici family. Catherine de’Medici took it to France, where it remains today.<\/p>\nThe text of this manuscript is mixed—it is compounded from all the major text types, agreeing frequently with the later koine of Byzantine type, which most scholars regard as the least valuable type of NT text.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex Bezae (D)<\/h5>\nThis is a Greek-Latin diglot containing Matthew—Acts, 3 John, with lacunae. Most scholars date it late fourth or early fifth century (c. 400). Some scholars think the codex was produced in either Egypt or North Africa by a scribe whose mother tongue was Latin. Another scholar (D. C. Parker) has argued that it was copied in Beirut, a center of Latin legal studies during the fifth century, where both Latin and Greek were used. Evidently, it was produced by a scribe who knew Latin better than Greek, and then was corrected by several scribes. In any event, the codex somehow came into the hands of Theodore Beza, French scholar and successor to Calvin. Beza gave it to the Cambridge University Library in 1581.<\/p>\nThis codex is probably the most controversial of the NT uncials because of its marked independence. Its many additions, omissions, and alterations (especially in Luke and Acts) are the work of a significant theologian. A few earlier manuscripts (P29, P38, P48, and 0171) appear to be precursors to the type of text found in D, which is considered the principal witness of the Western text-type. Thus, Codex Bezae could be a copy of an earlier revised edition. This reviser must have been a scholar who had a propensity for adding historical, biographical, and geographical details. More than anything, he was intent on filling in gaps in the narrative by adding circumstantial details.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex Washingtonianus, or The Freer Gospels (W)<\/h5>\nThis codex, dated around 400, has the four Gospels and Acts. It is often referred to as the Freer Gospels—named after its owner, Charles Freer. The codex likely came from the ruins of a monastery near Giza. The handwriting is quite similar to that found in a fifth-century fragment of the book of Enoch found at Akhmim in 1886.<\/p>\nCodex W was copied from a parent manuscript (exemplar) that had been pieced together from several different manuscripts. This is obvious because the textual presentation of W is noticeably variegated and even the stratification of the text is matched by similar variations in paragraphing. The scribe who collated the parent manuscript drew upon various sources to put together his Gospel codex. It is likely that the scribe of the parent manuscript used a text that came from North Africa (the “Western” text) for the first part of Mark, and the scribe of W used manuscripts from Antioch for Matthew and the second part of Luke to fill the gaps in the more ancient manuscript he was copying. Detailed textual analysis reveals the variegated textual stratifications of W, as follows: in Matthew the text is Byzantine; in Mark the text is first Western (1:1–5:30), then Caesarean in Mark 5:31–16:20 (akin to P45); in Luke the text is first Alexandrian (1:1–8:12), then Byzantine. John is more complicated because the first part of John (1:1–5:11), which fills a quire, was the work of a seventh-century scribe who must have replaced a damaged quire. (Ws<\/span> designates the work of this scribe.) This first section has a mixture of Alexandrian and Western readings, as does the rest of John.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex 1739<\/h5>\nThis tenth-century codex has Acts and the Epistles. The manuscript was discovered at Mt Athos in 1879 by E. von der Goltz. The manuscript has strong textual affinities with P46, B, 1739, Coptic Sahidic, Coptic Boharic, Clement, and Origen. The relationship between P46, B, and 1739 is remarkable because 1739 is a tenth-century manuscript that was copied from a fourth-century manuscript of excellent quality. According to a colophon, the scribe of 1739 for the Pauline Epistles followed a manuscript that came from Caesarea in the library of Pamphilus and that contained an Origenian text. The three manuscripts, P46, B, and 1739, form a clear textual line: from P46 (early second century) to B (early fourth century) to 1739 (tenth century based on fourth century).<\/p>\nThe Text of the New Testament<\/p>\nThe original text of the NT is the “published” text—that is, the text as it was in its final edited form and released for circulation in the Christian community. For some books of the NT, there is little difference between the original composition and the published text. After the author wrote or dictated his work, he (or an associate) made the final editorial corrections and then released it for distribution. As is the case for books published in modern times, so in ancient times, the original writing of the author is not always the same as what is published—due to the editorial process. Nonetheless, the author is credited with the final edited text, and the published book is attributed to the author and considered the autograph. This autograph is the original published text. Of course, in this case the autographs do not exist, so scholars have to rely on copies to recover or reconstruct the original wording.<\/p>\nSome scholars think it is impossible to recover the original text of the Greek NT because they have not been able to reconstruct the early history of textual transmission. Other modern scholars are less pessimistic but still quite guarded in affirming the possiblity. And yet others are optimistic because we possess many early manuscripts of excellent quality and because our view of the early period of textual transmission has been getting clearer and clearer.<\/p>\nWhen we speak of recovering the text of the NT, we are referring to individual books of the NT, not to the entire volume per se, because each book (or group of books—such as the Pauline Epistles) had its own unique history of textual transmission. The earliest extant copy of an entire NT text is the one preserved in Codex Sinaiticus (written about AD<\/span> 375). (Codex Vaticanus lacks the Pastoral Epistles and Revelation.) Prior to the fourth century, the NT was circulated in its various parts: as a single book or a group of books (such as the four Gospels or the Pauline Epistles). Manuscripts from the late first century to the third century have been found with individual books such as Matthew (P1, P77), Mark (P88), Luke (P69), John (P5, 22, 52, 66), Acts (P91), Revelation (P18, 47), or containing groups of books, such as the four Gospels with Acts (P45), the Pauline Epistles (P30, P46, P92), the Petrine Epistles and Jude (P72). Each of the books of the NT has had its own textual history and has been preserved with varying degrees of accuracy. Nonetheless, all of the books were altered from the original state due to the process of manual copying decade after decade and century after century. And the text of each of the books needs to be recovered.<\/p>\nThe NT text was affected with many variations in its early history. In the late first and early second century, the oral traditions and the written word existed side by side with equal status—especially with respect to the material of the Gospels. Often, the text was changed by scribes attempting to conform the written message to the oral tradition or attempting to conform one Gospel account to another. By the end of the second century and into the third century, many of the significant variant readings entered into the textual stream.<\/p>\nThe early period of textual transmission, however, was not completely marred by textual infidelity and scribal liberty. There were those scribes who copied the text faithfully and reverently—that is, they recognized that they were copying a sacred text written by an apostle. The formalization of canonization did not ascribe this sacredness to the text. Canonization came about as the result of common, historical recognition of the sacredness of various NT books. Certain NT books, such as the four Gospels, Acts, and Paul’s epistles were considered inspired literature from the onset. As such, certain scribes copied them with reverential fidelity.<\/p>\nOther scribes, however, felt free to make “improvements” in the text—either in the interest of doctrine and harmonization or due to the influence of a competitive oral tradition. The manuscripts produced in such a manner created a kind of “popular text”—i.e., an uncontrolled text. (This text type used to be called the “Western text,” but scholars now recognize this as a misnomer.)<\/p>\nDuring the second century, there were a few men who produced recensions of the NT text. According to Eusebius, Theodotus (and his followers) altered the text for their own purposes. In the middle of the second century, Marcion expunged his copies of the Gospel according to Luke of all references to the Jewish background of Jesus, and Tatian’s harmony of the Gospels contains several textual alterations that gave support to ascetic views. And yet another recendor created the D-type text for the Gospels and Acts. This theologically minded redactor, living in the late second or third century, created a text that had short-lived popularity. Three third-century papyri, P29, P38, P48, each containing a portion from the book of Acts, may be precursors to the D-type text in Acts. But there are other papyri containing portions of Acts that provide even earlier testimony to a purer form of Acts—namely, P45 (c. 150) and P91 (c. 200), thereby showing that the D-type text of Acts did not necessarily antedate the purer form.<\/p>\nBesides these endeavors—which are all noted for creating textual impurities—there was no recension of the NT text in the second century. Rather, it was a period in which there were scribes who exercised freedom in copying and those who demonstrated acumen. The manuscripts produced by the latter are those that come closest to preserving the original text. A prime example of an accurate late-second-century manuscript is P75.<\/p>\nIt is a well-known fact that the text produced by the scribe of P75 is a very accurate manuscript. It is also well-known that P75 was the kind of manuscript used in formulating Codex Vaticanus—the readings of P75 and B are remarkably similar. Prior to the discovery of P75, certain scholars thought Codex Vaticanus was the work of a fourth-century recension; others (chiefly Hort) thought it must trace back to a very early and accurate copy. Hort said that Codex Vaticanus preserves “not only a very ancient text, but a very pure line of a very ancient text” (Westcott and Hort, The<\/em> Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek,<\/em> pp 250–51). P75 appears to have shown that Hort was right.<\/p>\nPrior to the discovery of P75, many textual scholars were convinced that the second- and third-century papyri displayed a text in flux, a text characterized only by individual independence. The Chester Beatty Papyrus, P45, and the Bodmer Papyri, P66 and P72 (in 2 Peter and Jude), show this kind of independence. Scholars thought that scribes at Alexandria must have used several such texts to produce a good recension—as is exhibited in Codex Vaticanus. But we now know that Codex Vaticanus was not the result of a scholarly recension, resulting from editorial selection across the various textual histories. Rather, it is now quite clear that Codex Vaticanus was simply a copy (with some modifications) of a manuscript much like P75, not a fourth-century recension.<\/p>\nSome scholars may point out that this does not automatically mean that P75 and B represent the original text. What it does mean, they say, is that we have a second-century manuscript showing great affinity with a fourth-century manuscript whose quality has been highly esteemed. But various scholars have demonstrated that there was no Alexandrian recension before the time of P75 (late second century) and B (early fourth) and that both these manuscripts represent a relatively pure form of preservation of a relatively pure line of descent from the original text.<\/p>\nThe current view about the early text is that certain scribes in Alexandria and\/or scribes familiar with Alexandrian scriptoral practices (perhaps those in Oxyrhynchus) were probably responsible for maintaining a relatively pure text throughout the second, third, and fourth centuries. The Alexandrian scribes, associated with or actually employed by the scriptorium of the great Alexandrian library and\/or members of the scriptorium associated with the catechetical school at Alexandria (called the Didaskelion<\/em>), were trained philologists, grammarians, and textual critics. Their work on the NT was not recensional—that is, it was not an organized emendation of the text. Rather, the work of purification and preservation was probably done here and there by various individuals trained in text criticism. This is apparent in the production of P66, which contains the Gospel of John. This manuscript was probably produced in an Egyptian scriptorium by a novice scribe who made many blunders, which were subsequently corrected by another scribe working in the same scriptorium. The first text produced by the novice could be classified as being very “free,” but the corrected text is far more accurate. (See the discussion on this manuscript above.)<\/p>\nWhat appears to have happened with the copying of the NT text in the early period in Egypt has been poignantly characterized by Zuntz. He said that when a book was immensely popular (such as Homer’s Iliad<\/em> and Odyssey,<\/em> or Plato’s writings), it was copied with wild enthusiasm by novice and scholar alike. But when grammarians and scribes got ahold of it, they tried to rid it of textual corruption. In the process, however, they may have obliterated some authentic readings, but not many. Thus, the popular text (also known as the “Western text”) could have preserved the original wording in some cases. The popular or free kind of text is displayed in several third-century manuscripts: P9, P37, P40, P45, P72, and P78.<\/p>\nIn brief, this popular text is usually displayed in any kind of manuscript that was not produced by Alexandrian influences. This text, given to independence, is not as trustworthy as the Alexandrian text type. But because the Alexandrian text is known as a polished text, the popular text sometimes preserved the original wording. When a variant reading has the support of “Western” and Alexandrian texts, it is very likely original; but when the two are divided, the Alexandrian witnesses more often preserve the original wording.<\/p>\nOne dilemma still remains for some textual critics. They cannot explain how a P75\/B-type text coexisted with a Western-type text in the second century. All that can be said is that the Western text generally appears to be inferior to the P75\/B-type text. Of course, this kind of judgment troubles certain scholars, who point out that the esteem given to B and P75 is based on a subjective appreciation of the kind of text they contain (as over against the Western text) rather than on any kind of theoretical reconstruction of the early transmission of the text. This same subjective estimation was at work when Westcott and Hort decided that B was intrinsically superior to D (see their Introduction,<\/em> pp 32–42). Yet the praxis of textual criticism time and again demonstrates that the P75\/B-type text is intrinsically superior to the Western text.<\/p>\nIn the final analysis, the manuscripts that represent a pure preservation of the original text are usually those called “Alexandrian.” Some scholars, such as Bruce Metzger, have called the earlier manuscripts “protoAlexandrian,” for they (or manuscripts like them) are thought of as being used to compose an Alexandrian-type text. However, this is looking at things from the perspective of the fourth century. We should look at things from the second century onward and then compare fourth-century manuscripts to those of the second. The second-century manuscripts could still be called “Alexandrian” in the sense that they were produced under Alexandrian influences. Perhaps a distinguishing terminology could be “early Alexandrian” (pre-Constantine) and “later Alexandrian” (post-Constantine). Manuscripts designated as “early Alexandrian” would generally be purer, less editorialized. Manuscripts designated “later Alexandrian” would display editorialization, as well as the influence of other textual traditions.<\/p>\nThe “early Alexandrian” text is reflected in many second- and third-century manuscripts. On the top of the list is P75 (c. 175), the work of a competent and careful scribe. Not far behind in quality is P4+P64+P67 (c. 150), the work of an excellent copyist. Other extremely good copies are P1 (c. 200), P20 (early third century), P23 (c. 200), P27 (third century), P28 (third century), P32 (c. 150), P39 (third century), P46 (c. 125), P65 (third century), P66 (in its corrected form—P66c<\/span>; c. 150), P70 (third century), P77 (c. 150), P87 (c. 125), P90 (c. 175), and P91 (c. 200). Several of these manuscripts have been placed in the “strict” category by textual critics Kurt and Barbara Aland—that is, they exhibit “strict” scribal control and therefore are accurate copies of an exemplar, if not the original. These manuscripts are P1, P23, P35, P37, P39, P64\/67, P65, P70, and P75.<\/p>\nThe “later Alexandrian” text, which displays editorial polishing, is exhibited in a few manuscripts, such as א (fourth century), T (fifth century), ע (seventh century), L (eighth century), 33 (ninth century), 1739 (a tenth-century manuscript copied from a fourth-century Alexandrian manuscript much like P46), and 579 (13th century). Beginning in the fifth century, Byzantine-type manuscripts began to make their influence in Egypt. Some manuscripts dated around 400 that came from Egypt clearly reflect this influence; Codex Alexandrinus (A) is probably the best example. Other Egyptian manuscripts of this era, such as Codex Sinaiticus (א) and Codex Washingtonianus (W) display large-scale harmonization, which cannot be directly linked to any kind of recension.<\/p>\nAt the end of the third century, another kind of Greek text came into being and then grew in popularity until it became the dominant text-type throughout Christendom. This is the text-type first instigated by Lucian of Antioch, according to Jerome (in his introduction to his Latin translation of the Gospels). Lucian’s text was a definite recension (i.e., a purposely created edition)—as opposed to the Alexandrian text-type that came about as the result of a process wherein the Alexandrian scribes, upon comparing many manuscripts, attempted to preserve the best text—thereby serving more as textual critics than editors. Of course, the Alexandrians did do some editing—such as we would call copy-editing. The Lucianic text is the outgrowth and culmination of the popular text; it is characterized by smoothness of language, which is achieved by the removal of obscurities and awkward grammatical constructions and by the conflation of variant readings. Lucian (and\/or his associates) must have used many different kinds of manuscripts of varying qualities to produce a harmonized, edited NT text. The kind of editorial work that went into the Lucianic text is what we would call substantive editing.<\/p>\nLucian’s text was produced prior to the Diocletian persecution (c. 303), during which time many copies of the NT were confiscated and destroyed. Not long after this period of devastation, Constantine came to power and then recognized Christianity as the state religion. There was, of course, a great need for copies of the NT to be made and distributed to churches throughout the Mediterranean world. It was at this time that Lucian’s text began to be propagated by bishops going out from the Antiochan school to churches throughout the East, taking the text with them. Lucian’s text soon became the standard text of the Eastern church and formed the basis for the Byzantine text—and is thus the ultimate authority for the Textus Receptus.<\/p>\nWhile Lucian was forming his recension of the NT text, the Alexandrian text was taking on its final shape. As was mentioned earlier, the formation of the Alexandrian text-type was the result of a process (as opposed to a single editorial recension). The formation of the Alexandrian text involved minor textual criticism (i.e., selecting variant readings among various manuscripts) and copyediting (i.e., producing a readable text). There was far less tampering with the text in the Alexandrian text-type than in the Lucian, and the underlying manuscripts for the Alexandrian text-type were superior to those used by Lucian. Perhaps Hesychius was responsible for giving the Alexandrian text its final shape, and Athanasius of Alexandria may have been the one who made this text the archetypal text for Egypt.<\/p>\nAs the years went by, there were fewer and fewer Alexandrian manuscripts produced, and more and more Byzantine manuscripts manufactured. Very few Egyptians continued to read Greek (with the exception of those in St Catherine’s Monastery, the site of the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus), and the rest of the Mediterranean world turned to Latin. It was only those in the Greek-speaking churches in Greece and Byzantium that continued to make copies of the Greek text. For century after century—from the 6th to the 14th—the great majority of NT manuscripts were produced in Byzantium, all bearing the same kind of text. When the first Greek NT was printed (c. 1525), it was based on a Greek text that Erasmus had compiled, using a few late Byzantine manuscripts. This printed text, with minor revisions, became the Textus Receptus.<\/p>\nBeginning in the 17th century, earlier manuscripts began to be discovered—manuscripts with a text that differed from that found in the Textus Receptus. Around 1630, Codex Alexandrinus was brought to England. An early fifth-century manuscript, containing the entire NT, it provided a good, early witness to the NT text (it is an especially good witness to the original text of Revelation). Two hundred years later, a German scholar named Constantin von Tischendorf discovered Codex Sinaiticus in St Catherine’s Monastery (located near Mt Sinai). The manuscript, dated around AD<\/span> 360, is one of the two oldest vellum (treated animal hide) manuscripts of the Greek NT. The earliest vellum manuscript, Codex Vaticanus, had been in the Vatican’s library since at least 1481, but it had not been made available to scholars until the middle of the 19th century. This manuscript, dated slightly earlier (AD<\/span> 350) than Codex Sinaiticus, had both the OT and NT in Greek, excluding the last part of the NT (Hebrews 9:15 to Revelation 22:21 and the Pastoral Epistles). A hundred years of textual criticism has determined that this manuscript is one of the most accurate and reliable witnesses to the original text.<\/p>\nOther early and important manuscripts were discovered in the 19th century. Through the tireless labors of men like Constantin von Tischendorf, Samuel Tregelles, and F. H. A. Scrivener, manuscripts such as Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, Codex Zacynthius, and Codex Augiensis were deciphered, collated, and published.<\/p>\nAs the various manuscripts were discovered and made public, certain scholars labored to compile a Greek text that would more closely represent the original text than did the Textus Receptus. Around 1700 John Mill produced an improved Textus Receptus, and in the 1730s Johannes Albert Bengel (known as the father of modern textual and philological studies in the NT) published a text that deviated from the Textus Receptus according to the evidence of earlier manuscripts.<\/p>\nIn the 1800s certain scholars began to abandon the Textus Receptus. Karl Lachman, a classical philologist, produced a fresh text (in 1831) that represented the fourth-century manuscripts. Samuel Tregelles (self-taught in Latin, Hebrew, and Greek), laboring throughout his entire lifetime, concentrated all of his efforts in publishing one Greek text (which came out in six parts, from 1857 to 1872). As is stated in the introduction to this work, Tregelles’s goal was “to exhibit the text of the NT in the very words in which it has been transmitted on the evidence of ancient authority.” Henry Alford also compiled a Greek text based upon the best and earliest manuscripts. In his preface to The Greek New Testament<\/em> (a multivolume commentary on the Greek NT, published in 1849), Alford said he labored for the “demolition of the unworthy and pedantic reverence for the received text, which stood in the way of all chance of discovering the genuine word of God.”<\/p>\nDuring this same era, Tischendorf was devoting a lifetime of labor to discovering manuscripts and producing accurate editions of the Greek NT. In a letter to his fiancé he wrote, “I am confronted with a sacred task, the struggle to regain the original form of the NT.” In fulfillment of his desire, he discovered Codex Sinaiticus, deciphered the palimpsest Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, collated countless manuscripts, and produced several editions of the Greek NT (the eighth edition is considered the best).<\/p>\nAided by the work of the previous scholars, two British men, Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort, worked together for 28 years to produce a volume entitled The New Testament in the Original Greek<\/em> (1881). Along with this publication, they made known their theory (which was chiefly Hort’s) that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (along with a few other early manuscripts) represented a text that most closely replicated the original writing. They called this text the Neutral Text. (According to their studies, the Neutral Text described certain manuscripts that had the least amount of textual corruption.) This is the text that Westcott and Hort relied upon for compiling their volume.<\/p>\nThe 19th century was a fruitful era for the recovery of the Greek NT; the 20th century, no less so. Those living in the 20th century have witnessed the discovery of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, the Chester Beatty Papyri, and the Bodmer Papyri. To date, there are nearly 100 papyri containing portions of the NT—several of which date from the late first century to the early fourth century. These significant discoveries, providing scholars with many ancient manuscripts, have greatly enhanced the effort to recover the original wording of the NT.<\/p>\nAt the beginning of the 20th century, Eberhard Nestle used the best editions of the Greek NT produced in the 19th century to compile a text that represented the majority consensus. The work of making new editions was carried on by his son for several years, and then came under the care of Kurt Aland. The latest edition (the 27th) of Nestle-Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece<\/em> appeared in 1993. The same Greek text appears in another popular volume published by the United Bible Societies, called the Greek New Testament<\/em> (fourth edition). Aland has argued that the Nestle-Aland text, 27th edition (NA27<\/span>), comes closer to the original text of the NT than did Tischendorf or Westcott and Hort. And in several writings he intimates that NA27<\/span> may very well be the original text. Though few, if any, scholars would agree with this, the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland text is regarded by many as representing the latest and best in textual scholarship.<\/p>\n<h5>New Testament Textual Criticism<\/h5>\nTextual critics working with ancient literature universally acknowledge the supremacy of earlier manuscripts over later ones. Textual critics not working with the NT would love to have the same kind of early witnesses that biblical scholars possess. In fact, many of them work with manuscripts written 1,000 years after the autographs were composed! We all marvel that the Dead Sea Scrolls have provided a text that is nearly 800 years closer to the originals than the Masoretic manuscripts, and yet many of the Dead Sea manuscripts are still over 600 to 800 years removed from the time of original composition. NT textual critics have a great advantage!<\/p>\nThe 19th-century NT textual scholars—such as Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort—worked on the basis that the earliest witnesses are the best witnesses. Some textual scholars have continued this line of recovery using the testimony of the earlier witnesses. But many textual scholars since the time of Westcott and Hort have been less inclined to produce editions based on the theory that the earliest reading is the best. Most present-day textual critics are more inclined to endorse the maxim: the reading that is most likely original is the one that best explains the variants.<\/p>\nThis maxim (or “canon” as it is sometimes called), as good as it is, produces conflicting results. For example, two scholars, using this same principle to examine the same variant unit, will not agree. One will argue that one variant was produced by a copyist attempting to emulate the author’s style; the other will claim the same variant has to be original because it accords with the author’s style. One will argue that one variant was produced by an orthodox scribe attempting to rid the text of a reading that could be used to promote heterodoxy or heresy; another will claim that the same variant has to be original because it is orthodox and accords with Christian doctrine (thus a heterodox or heretical scribe must have changed it). Furthermore, this principle allows for the possibility that the reading selected for the text can be taken from any manuscript of any date. This can lead to subjective eclecticism.<\/p>\nModern textual scholars have attempted to temper the subjectivism by employing a method called “reasoned eclecticism.” This kind of eclecticism applies a combination of internal and external considerations, whereby the character of the variants is evaluated in light of the manuscripts’ evidence and vice versa. This is supposed to produce a balanced view and serve as a check against purely subjective tendencies.<\/p>\nThe Alands favor the same kind of approach, calling it the local-genealogical method, which is defined as follows:<\/p>\n<blockquote>It is impossible to proceed from the assumption of a manuscript stemma, and on the basis of a full review and analysis of the relationships obtaining among the variety of interrelated branches in the manuscript tradition, to undertake a recension of the data as one would do with other Greek texts. Decisions must be made one by one, instance by instance. This method has been characterized as eclecticism, but wrongly so. After carefully establishing the variety of readings offered in a passage and the possibilities of their interpretation, it must always then be determined afresh on the basis of external and internal criteria which of these readings (and frequently they are quite numerous) is the original, from which the others may be regarded as derivative. From the perspective of our present knowledge, this “local-genealogical” method (if it must be given a name) is the only one which meets the requirements of the NT textual tradition. (Introduction to Novum Testamentum Graece,<\/em> 26th edition)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nThe “local-genealogical” method assumes that for any given variation unit any manuscript (or manuscripts) may have preserved the original text. Applying this method produces an extremely uneven documentary presentation of the text. Anyone studying the critical apparatus of NA27<\/span> will detect that there is not an even documentary presentation. The eclecticism is dispersed throughout the text.<\/p>\n“Reasoned eclecticism” and\/or the “local-genealogical” method tend to give priority to internal evidence over external evidence. But it has to be the other way around if we are going to recover the original text. This was Westcott and Hort’s opinion. With respect to their compilation of The New Testament in the Original Greek,<\/em> Hort wrote, “Documentary evidence has been in most cases allowed to confer the place of honour against internal evidence” (The Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek,<\/em> p 17).<\/p>\nIn this respect, Westcott and Hort need to be revived. Earnest Colwell was of the same mind when he wrote “Hort Redivivus: A Plea and a Program.” Colwell decried the growing tendency to rely entirely on the internal evidence of readings, without serious consideration of documentary evidence. He called upon scholars to make an attempt to reconstruct a history of the manuscript tradition. The abundance of manuscripts—several of which are very early—will aid scholars in this ongoing task.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BIBLE*, Manuscripts and Text of the (New Testament)<\/span><\/h3>\nCopies of the NT books produced by scribes and editions made from these copies. In the centuries prior to the simultaneous-multiple production of copies via dictation (wherein many scribes in a scriptorium transcribed a text dictated to them by one reader), all manuscript copies were made singly—each scribe producing a copy from an exemplar.<\/p>\nPrior to the 15th century, when Johannes Gutenberg invented movable type for the printing press, all copies of any work of literature were made by hand (hence, the name “manuscript”). According to a current tabulation, there are 99 papyrus manuscripts, 257 uncial manuscripts, and 2,795 minuscule manuscripts. We can add 2,209 Greek lectionaries to this list. Therefore, we have over 5,350 manuscript copies of the Greek NT or portions thereof. No other work of Greek literature can boast of such numbers.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Important Papyrus Manuscripts<\/p>\n• Important Uncial Manuscripts<\/p>\n• The Text of the New Testament<\/p>\nImportant Papyrus Manuscripts<\/p>\nPapyrus is a tall, aquatic reed, the pith of which is cut into strips, laid in a crosswork pattern and glued together to make a page for writing. The papyrus rolls of Egypt have been used as a writing surface since the early third millennium BC<\/span>. The Greeks adopted papyrus around 900 BC<\/span>, and later the Romans adopted its use. However, the oldest extant Greek rolls of papyrus date from the fourth century BC<\/span>. Unfortunately, papyrus is perishable, requiring a dry climate for its preservation. That is why so many papyri have been discovered in the desert sands of Egypt.<\/p>\nThe NT papyrus manuscripts (abbreviated as “P”) are generally the earliest manuscripts of the NT. Broadly speaking, the most important ones can be categorized in three groups: the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (from Oxyrhynchus, Egypt), (2) the Beatty Papyri (named after the owner); and (3) the Bodmer Papyri (named after the owner).<\/p>\n<h5>The Oxyrhynchus Papyri<\/h5>\nBeginning in 1898 B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt discovered thousands of papyrus fragments in the ancient rubbish heaps of Oxyrhynchus, Egypt. This site yielded volumes of papyrus fragments containing all sorts of written material (literature, business and legal contracts, letters, etc.) as well as over 40 manuscripts containing portions of the NT. Some of the more noteworthy papyrus manuscripts from Oxyrhynchus are as follows:<\/p>\n<h6>P1 (P. Oxy. 2)<\/h6>\nThis late second-century manuscript contains Matthew 1:1-9, 12, 14-20. Grenfell and Hunt in the winter of 1896–97 went to Oxyrhynchus (now called El Bahnasa) in search of ancient Christian documents. P1 was discovered on the second day of the dig. At the time of this discovery, this was the earliest extant copy of any NT portion—at least 100 years earlier than Codex Vaticanus. The copyist of P1 seems to have faithfully followed a very reliable exemplar. Where there are major variants, P1 agrees with the best Alexandrian witnesses, especially B (Codex Vaticanus), from which it rarely varies.<\/p>\n<h6>P5 (P. Oxy. 208 and 1781)<\/h6>\nTwo separate portions of this third-century manuscript were unearthed from Oxyrhynchus by Grenfell and Hunt, both from the same papyrus manuscript. The first portion contains John 1:23-31, 33-40 on one fragment and John 20:11-17 on another—probably on the first and last quires of a manuscript containing only the Gospel of John. This portion was published in volume II of Oxyrhynchus Papyri<\/em> in 1899; the second portion—containing John 16:14-30—was not published until 1922 in volume XV of Oxyrhynchus Papyri.<\/em><\/p>\nAfter examining the first portion, Grenfell and Hunt said, “The text is a good one, and appears to have affinities with that of Codex Sinaiticus, with which the papyrus agrees in several readings not found elsewhere.” The papyrus, written in a documentary hand, is marked for its brevity.<\/p>\n<h6>P13 (P. Oxy. 657 and PSI 1292)<\/h6>\nThis manuscript, dated between 175 and 225, contains 12 columns from a roll preserving the text of Hebrews 2:14–5:5; 10:8-22; 10:29–11:13; 11:28–12:7. The text of Hebrews was written in a reformed documentary hand on the back of the papyrus containing the new epitome of Livy. For this reason, some scholars think the manuscript was possibly brought to Egpyt by a Roman official and left behind when he left his post. P13 very often agrees with B, and it supplements B where it is lacking—namely, from Hebrews 9:14 to the end of Hebrews. P13 and P46 display nearly the same text. Out of a total of 88 variation-units, there are 71 agreements and only 17 disagreements.<\/p>\n<h6>P77 (P. Oxy. 2683 + 4405)<\/h6>\nDated c. 150–75, this is the earliest manuscript of Matthew (23:30-39). The manuscript is clearly a literary production. It was written in an elegant hand and has what was or became a standard system of chapter division, as well as punctuation and breathing marks. P77 has close textual affinities with Codex Sinaiticus.<\/p>\n<h6>P90 (P. Oxy. 3523)<\/h6>\nThis second-century manuscript (c. 150–75) contains John 18:36–19:7. The handwriting (an upright, rounded, elegant script) is much like that found in P66. Furthermore, P90 has more affinity with P66 than with any other single manuscript, though it does not concur with P66 in its entirety.<\/p>\n\n<h6>P. Oxy. 4404<\/h6>\nContaining Matthew 21:34-37, 43, 45, this manuscript could be the earliest extant manuscript of the NT in that the script is early Roman and therefore could be dated to the early second century.<\/p>\n<h5>The Chester Beatty Papyri<\/h5>\nThese manuscripts were purchased from a dealer in Egypt during the 1930s by Chester Beatty and by the University of Michigan. The three manuscripts in this collection are very early and contain a large portion of the NT text. P45 (c. 200) contains portions of all four Gospels and Acts; P46 (c. 125) has almost all of Paul’s epistles and Hebrews; and P47 (third century) contains Revelation 9–17.<\/p>\n<h6>P45 (Chester Beatty Papyrus I)<\/h6>\nThis codex has the four Gospels and Acts (Mt 20:24-32; 21:13-19; 25:41–26:39; Mk 4:36–9:31; 11:27–12:28; Lk 6:31–7:7; 9:26–14:33; Jn 4:51–5:2, 21-25; 10:7-25; 10:30–11:10, 18-36, 42-57; Acts 4:27–17:17). The order of books in the original intact manuscript was probably as follows: Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, Acts (the so-called Western order). This manuscript was dated by Kenyon to the early third century, a date that was confirmed by the papyrologists W. Schubart and H. I. Bell. This continues to be the date assigned to this manuscript in modern handbooks on textual criticism and critical editions of the Greek NT, but the consistent formation of certain letters suggests an earlier date—maybe sometime in the late second century.<\/p>\nThe scribe of P45 worked without any intention of exactly reproducing his source. He wrote with a great amount of freedom—harmonizing, smoothing out, substituting at will. In short, the scribe did not actually copy words. He saw through the language to its idea-content, and copied that in words of his own choosing, or in rearranged order. Thus, in the scribe of P45 we see an exegete and a paraphraser.<\/p>\n<h6>P46 (Chester Beatty Papyrus II)<\/h6>\nThis codex has most of Paul’s epistles (excluding the Pastorals) in this order: Romans 5:17–6:14; 8:15–15:9; 15:11–16:27; Hebrews 1:1–13:25; 1 Corinthians 1:1–16:22; 2 Corinthians 1:1–13:13; Ephesians 1:1–6:24; Galatians 1:1–6:18; Philippians 1:1–4:23; Colossians 1:1–4:18; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 1:9–2:3; 5:5-9, 23-28 (with minor lacunae in each of the books).<\/p>\nThe manuscript was originally dated to the early third century. But others, since, have dated the manuscript earlier in the second century. The scribe who produced this manuscript used an early, excellent exemplar. He was a professional scribe because there are stichoi notations at the end of several books (see the conclusion of Romans, 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians). The stichoi were used by professionals to note how many lines had been copied for commensurate pay. Most likely, the ex officio of the scriptorium (perhaps connected with a church library) paginated the codex and indicated the stichoi. The scribe himself made a few corrections as he went, and then several other readers made corrections here and there.<\/p>\nThe text of P46 shows a strong affinity with B (especially in Ephesians, Colossians, and Hebrews) and next with א (Codex Sinaiticus). P46 agrees much less with the later representatives of the Alexandrian text. In short, P46 is proto-Alexandrian. In Hebrews, P46 and P13 display nearly the same text. Out of a total of 88 variation-units, there are 71 agreements and only 17 disagreements.<\/p>\n<h6>P47 (Chester Beatty Papyrus III)<\/h6>\nThis third-century codex contains Revelation 9:10–17:2. The text of P47 agrees more often with that of Codex Sinaiticus than with any other manuscript (including Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus), though it often shows independence.<\/p>\n<h5>The Bodmer Papyri<\/h5>\nThese manuscripts were purchased by M. Martin Bodmer from a dealer in Egypt during the 1950s and 1960s. The three important papyri in this collection are P66 (c. 175, containing almost all of John), P72 (third century, having all of 1 and 2 Peter and Jude), and P75 (c. 200, containing large parts of Luke 3—John 15).<\/p>\nP66 (Papyrus Bodmer II)<\/p>\nThis manuscript contains most of John’s Gospel (1:1–6:11; 6:35–14:26, 29-30; 15:2-26; 16:2-4, 6-7; 16:10–20:20, 22-23; 20:25–21:9). The manuscript does not include the pericope of the adulteress (7:53–8:11), making it the earliest witness to not include this spurious passage. The manuscript is usually dated as c. 200, but the renowned paleographer Herbert Hunger has argued that P66 should be dated to the first half, if not the first quarter, of the second century.<\/p>\nAccording to recent studies, it seems evident that P66 has preserved the work of three individuals: the original scribe, a thoroughgoing corrector, and a minor corrector. With a practiced calligraphic hand, the original scribe of P66 wrote in larger print as he went along in order to fill out the codex. The large print throughout indicates that it was written to be read aloud to a Christian congregation. The text exhibits the scribe’s knowledge of other portions of Scripture (inasmuch as he harmonized John 6:69 to Matthew 16:16 and John 21:6 to Luke 5:5), his use of standard nomina sacra<\/em> (a way of writing divine names), and his special use of nomina sacra<\/em> for the words “cross” and “crucify.”<\/p>\nThe original scribe was quite free in his interaction with the text; he produced several singular readings that reveal his independent interpretation of the text. While the numerous scribal mistakes would seem to indicate that the scribe was inattentive, many of the singular readings—prior to correction—reveal that he was not detached from the narrative of the text. Rather, he became so absorbed in his reading that he often forgot the exact words he was copying. His task as a copyist was to duplicate the exemplar word for word, but this was frustrated by the fact that he was reading the text in logical semantic chunks and often became a coproducer of a new text. As a result, he continually had to stop his reading and make many in-process corrections. But he left several places uncorrected, which were later fixed by the diorthotes<\/em> (official corrector). The finished product is quite good, presenting a text that is very close to the Alexandrian witnesses.<\/p>\n<h6>P72 (Papyrus Bodmer VII–VIII)<\/h6>\nThis manuscript, dated late third century, has an interesting collection of writings in one codex: 1 Peter 1:1–5:14; 2 Peter 1:1–3:18; Jude 1:1-25; the Nativity of Mary, the apocryphal correspondence of Paul to the Corinthians, the eleventh ode of Solomon, Melito’s Homily on the Passover, a fragment of a hymn, the Apology of Phileas, and Psalms 33 and 34.<\/p>\nScholars think that four scribes took part in producing the entire manuscript. First Peter has clear Alexandrian affinities—especially with B. Second Peter and (especially) Jude display more of an uncontrolled type text (usually associated with the “Western” text), with several independent readings.<\/p>\n<h6>P75 (Papyrus Bodmer XIV–XV)<\/h6>\nThis codex contains most of Luke and John (Lk 3:18–4:2; 4:34–5:10; 5:37–18:18; 22:4–24:53; Jn 1:1–11:45, 48-57; 12:3–13:1, 8-9; 14:8-30; 15:7-8.) The manuscript does not include the pericope of the adulteress (7:53–8:11). The manuscript can be dated to the late second or early third century.<\/p>\nThe copyist of P75 was a literate scribe trained in making books. His craftsmanship shows through in his tight calligraphy and controlled copying. The handwriting displayed in this manuscript is typically called by paleographers the common angular type of the late second to early third century. The scribe’s Christianity shows in his abbreviations of the nomina sacra<\/em>,<\/em> as well as in his abbreviation of the word “cross.” These are telltale signs of a scribe who belonged to the Christian community. Furthermore, the large typeface indicates that the manuscript was composed to be read aloud to a Christian congregation. The scribe even added a system of sectional divisions to aid any would-be lector. Thus, we have a manuscript written by a Christian for other Christians.<\/p>\nThere are several indications of the scribe’s Alexandrian orientation. First and foremost is his scriptoral acumen. He is the best of all the early Christian scribes, and his manuscript is an extremely accurate copy. P75 is the work of an extremely disciplined scribe who copied with the intention of being careful and accurate. Scholars generally agree that P75 displays the kind of text that was used in making Codex Vaticanus (there is 87 percent agreement between P75 and B). As such, textual scholars have a high regard for P75’s textual fidelity.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Other Papyrus Manuscripts<\/h5>\n<h6>P4 + P64 + P67<\/h6>\nThese three papyrus manuscripts are part of one codex dated AD<\/span> 150–175. The manuscript was the work of a professional scribe, and the text is extremely accurate.<\/p>\n<h6>P32 (Rylands Papyrus 5)<\/h6>\nThis manuscript, preserving Titus 1:11-15; 2:3-8, is dated c. 175, making it the earliest extant copy of any of the Pastoral Epistles. P32 shows agreement with א and with F and G. Since F and G (nearly identical manuscripts) go back to the same archetype, it is possible that P32 could be linked to the same source.<\/p>\n<h6>P52 (Rylands Papyrus 457)<\/h6>\nThis fragment, containing John 18:31-34, 37-38, is noteworthy because of its date: c. 110–125. Many scholars (F. Kenyon, H. I. Bell, A. Deissmann, and W. H. P. Hatch) have confirmed this dating. The manuscript came from the Fayum or Oxyrhynchus site. It was acquired in 1920 by Grenfell, but it remained unnoticed among hundreds of papyri until 1934, when C. H. Roberts recognized that this fragment preserves a few verses from John’s Gospel.<\/p>\nImportant Uncial Manuscripts<\/p>\nThe manuscripts typically classified as “uncial” are so designated to differentiate them from papyrus manuscripts. In a sense, this is a misnomer because the real difference has to do with the material they are written on—vellum (treated animal hide) as compared to papyrus—not the kind of letters used. Indeed, the papyri are also written in uncials (capital letters), but the term “uncial” typically describes the majuscule lettering that was prominent in fourth-century biblical texts, such as in א, A, B, C.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex Sinaiticus (or א)<\/h5>\nThis codex contains the entire OT and the NT in this order: the four Gospels, the Pauline Epistles (including Hebrews), Acts, the General Epistles, Revelation. It also includes the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. The codex cannot be earlier than 340 (the year Eusebius died) because the Eusebian sections of the text are indicated in the margins of the Gospels by a contemporary hand. Most scholars date it 350–375.<\/p>\nThis codex was discovered by Constantin von Tischendorf in St Catherine’s Monastery (situated at the foot of Mt Sinai). On a visit to the monastery in 1844 he noticed in a wastebasket some parchment leaves that were being used to light the lamps. He was allowed to take this waste paper, which proved to be 43 leaves from various parts of the Greek translation of the OT.<\/p>\nIn 1853 he made a second trip to the monastery and found nothing. In 1859, however, on his third trip, he found not only other parts of the OT but also the complete NT. He was finally able to persuade the monastery authorities to present the manuscript to the czar, the great patron of the Greek Catholic Church, who placed it in the Imperial Library in St Petersburg. The czar gave great honors to the monastery and its authorities, and everybody seemed well pleased. Later Tischendorf was charged with having stolen the manuscript from its lawful owners, but the better textual scholars do not accept that story.<\/p>\n\nThe manuscript remained in the Imperial Library until 1933, when it was purchased by the British Museum for the huge sum of £100,000 (about $500,000). Textual criticism made the headlines because one manuscript was bought for this much money, raised largely by public subscription during the Great Depression. The manuscript is now on display in the manuscript room of the museum, where it is considered one of its most prized possessions.<\/p>\nThe text of Sinaiticus is very closely related to that of Codex Vaticanus. They agree in presenting the purest type of text, usually called the Alexandrian text type. Tischendorf greatly used the textual evidence of Codex Sinaiticus in preparing his critical editions of the Greek NT. Tischendorf thought four scribes had originally produced the codex, whom he named scribes A, B, C, D. After reinvestigation, H. J. Milne and T. C. Skeat identified only three scribes: A (who wrote the historical and poetical books of the OT, as well as most of the NT), B (who wrote the Prophets and the Shepherd of Hermas), and D (who wrote some Psalms, Tobit, Judith, and 4 Maccabees, and redid small sections of the NT). Milne and Skeat demonstrated that scribe A of Codex Vaticanus was likely the same scribe as scribe D of Codex Sinaiticus. If this true, then א is contemporary with B—perhaps produced in the same scriptorium in Alexandria. Codex Sinaiticus provides a fairly reliable witness to the NT; however, the scribe was not as careful as the scribe of B.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex Alexandrinus (A)<\/h5>\nThis is one of the three most important codices containing early copies of the whole Bible in Greek (the other two being the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus codexes). The name Alexandrinus comes from ancient records suggesting that it was copied in Egypt during the early part of the fifth century AD<\/span>. The early history of this manuscript and its Egyptian provenance is partially revealed by its flyleaves. A note by Cyril of Lucar (patriarch of Alexandria and then of Constantinople in the 1620s) states that, according to tradition, it was written by Thecla, a noble lady of Egypt shortly after the Council of Nicaea (325) and that her name was originally inscribed at the end of the volume but the last page was lost due to mutilation. An Arabic note of the 13th or 14th century also says that the manuscript was written by “Thecla the martyr.” Another Arabic note says that is was presented to the patriarchal cell of Alexandria (c. 1098). Cyril of Lucar took the manuscript from Alexandria to Constantinople in 1621 and then gave it to Charles I of England in 1627, where it became part of the Royal Library, then later the British Museum.<\/p>\nOnly 773 of the original 820 or so pages still exist. The rest were lost as the book was passed down through the centuries. The surviving parts of Alexandrinus contain a Greek translation of the whole OT, the Apocrypha (including four books of Maccabees and Psalm 151), most of the NT, and some early Christian writings (of which the First and Second Epistles of Clement to the Corinthians are the most important).<\/p>\nFrederick Kenyon thought the codex was the work of five scribes, to each of whom he designated a Roman numeral. According to Kenyon, scribes I and II copied the OT; scribe III did Matthew, Mark, 1 Corinthians 10:8—Philemon 1:25; scribe IV did Luke—Acts, General Epistles, Romans 1:1—1 Corinthians 10:8; and scribe V did Revelation. Milne and Skeat, however, argued that the whole codex was the work of two copyists (I and II). W. H. P. Hatch noted that many corrections have been made in the manuscript, most of them at an early date. Some of these corrections were introduced by the scribe himself, and others came from later hands.<\/p>\nEvidently, the scribes of this codex used exemplars of varying quality for various sections of the NT. The exemplar used for the Gospels was of poor quality, reflecting a Byzantine text type. Its testimony in the Epistles is much better, and in Revelation it provides the best witness to the original text.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Codex Vaticanus (B)<\/h5>\nCodex Vaticanus is the Vatican Manuscript, so named because it is the most famous manuscript in the Vatican Library in Rome. This manuscript has been in the Vatican’s library since at least 1475, but it was not made available to scholars, such as Constantin von Tischendorf and Samuel Tregelles, until the middle of the 19th century.<\/p>\nAt one time, the codex contained the whole Greek Bible, including most of the books of the Apocrypha, but it has lost many of its leaves. Originally it must have had about 820 leaves (1,640 pp), but now it has 759—617 in the OT and 142 in the NT. The major gaps of the manuscript are Genesis 1:1–46:28; 2 Samuel 2:5-7, 10-13; Psalms 106:27–138:6; Hebrews 9:14–13:25; the Pastoral Epistles; and Revelation. Each leaf measures ten and a half by ten inches (26.7 by 25.4 centimeters). Each page has three columns (two for the poetical books) with 40 to 44 lines to the column. The manuscript was written by two different scribes. It is dated in the early to middle part of the fourth century. It is not known where the manuscript originated, but it has been in the Vatican Library from the time of its earliest catalog in 1475.<\/p>\n\nWhen Napoleon conquered Rome, he brought its treasures to Paris, including this manuscript. The scholar Hug identified it and called the attention of other scholars to it. After the downfall of Napoleon, the manuscript was returned to the Vatican Library. Competent textual scholars were not allowed to do careful work on it until a photographic edition was published in 1890. It is now on exhibit in the Vatican Library.<\/p>\nThe text of the Vatican Manuscript is much like that of Codex Sinaiticus. These are generally recognized as the two finest examples of the Alexandrian type of Greek text of the NT. The Greek text of the OT is very fine too, but it is not quite so important, as the original language of the OT was Hebrew. Virtually all the textual scholars since the days of Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort (who brought out their Greek Testament, including their theory of textual criticism, in 1881), recognize this neutral type of text as a very early text and a very pure text, an extremely accurate reproduction of what the original text must have been. Westcott and Hort called it a second-century text accurate in 999 out of 1,000 words so far as any matter of translatable difference was concerned. א and B are the finest examples of this type of text, but it is also found in a few other Greek uncial manuscripts, a few of the early translations, and in the writings of a few of the early church fathers. Since the days of Westcott and Hort, their theory has been confirmed by the discovery of some papyrus manuscripts, notably the Bodmer Papyri, discovered in the 1950s.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C)<\/h5>\nThis codex is a palimpsest (the original writing was erased and different words written on the same material). It originally contained the entire Bible but now has only parts of six OT books and portions of all NT books except 2 Thessalonians and 2 John. The single-column Bible text, written in the 5th century AD<\/span>, was erased in the 12th century and replaced by a two-column text of a Greek translation of sermons or treatises by a certain Ephraem, a 4th-century Syrian church leader. Such a practice was common in periods of economic depression or when parchment was scarce. The original writing was scraped from the writing surface and the surface smoothed. Then new compositions could be written on the prepared surface. Using chemicals Tischendorf was able to read much of the erased document.<\/p>\nThe manuscript may have been brought from the east to Florence by a learned Greek named Andrew John Lascar in the time of Lorenzo de’Medici. Since Lascar was known as Rhyndacenus (from the river Rhyndacus), he probably came from the region of Phrygia (site of ancient Laodicea). Where the manuscript was prior to this is not known. The Ephraemi manuscript was brought to Italy in the early sixth century, where it became the property of the Medici family. Catherine de’Medici took it to France, where it remains today.<\/p>\nThe text of this manuscript is mixed—it is compounded from all the major text types, agreeing frequently with the later koine of Byzantine type, which most scholars regard as the least valuable type of NT text.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex Bezae (D)<\/h5>\nThis is a Greek-Latin diglot containing Matthew—Acts, 3 John, with lacunae. Most scholars date it late fourth or early fifth century (c. 400). Some scholars think the codex was produced in either Egypt or North Africa by a scribe whose mother tongue was Latin. Another scholar (D. C. Parker) has argued that it was copied in Beirut, a center of Latin legal studies during the fifth century, where both Latin and Greek were used. Evidently, it was produced by a scribe who knew Latin better than Greek, and then was corrected by several scribes. In any event, the codex somehow came into the hands of Theodore Beza, French scholar and successor to Calvin. Beza gave it to the Cambridge University Library in 1581.<\/p>\nThis codex is probably the most controversial of the NT uncials because of its marked independence. Its many additions, omissions, and alterations (especially in Luke and Acts) are the work of a significant theologian. A few earlier manuscripts (P29, P38, P48, and 0171) appear to be precursors to the type of text found in D, which is considered the principal witness of the Western text-type. Thus, Codex Bezae could be a copy of an earlier revised edition. This reviser must have been a scholar who had a propensity for adding historical, biographical, and geographical details. More than anything, he was intent on filling in gaps in the narrative by adding circumstantial details.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex Washingtonianus, or The Freer Gospels (W)<\/h5>\nThis codex, dated around 400, has the four Gospels and Acts. It is often referred to as the Freer Gospels—named after its owner, Charles Freer. The codex likely came from the ruins of a monastery near Giza. The handwriting is quite similar to that found in a fifth-century fragment of the book of Enoch found at Akhmim in 1886.<\/p>\nCodex W was copied from a parent manuscript (exemplar) that had been pieced together from several different manuscripts. This is obvious because the textual presentation of W is noticeably variegated and even the stratification of the text is matched by similar variations in paragraphing. The scribe who collated the parent manuscript drew upon various sources to put together his Gospel codex. It is likely that the scribe of the parent manuscript used a text that came from North Africa (the “Western” text) for the first part of Mark, and the scribe of W used manuscripts from Antioch for Matthew and the second part of Luke to fill the gaps in the more ancient manuscript he was copying. Detailed textual analysis reveals the variegated textual stratifications of W, as follows: in Matthew the text is Byzantine; in Mark the text is first Western (1:1–5:30), then Caesarean in Mark 5:31–16:20 (akin to P45); in Luke the text is first Alexandrian (1:1–8:12), then Byzantine. John is more complicated because the first part of John (1:1–5:11), which fills a quire, was the work of a seventh-century scribe who must have replaced a damaged quire. (Ws<\/span> designates the work of this scribe.) This first section has a mixture of Alexandrian and Western readings, as does the rest of John.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex 1739<\/h5>\nThis tenth-century codex has Acts and the Epistles. The manuscript was discovered at Mt Athos in 1879 by E. von der Goltz. The manuscript has strong textual affinities with P46, B, 1739, Coptic Sahidic, Coptic Boharic, Clement, and Origen. The relationship between P46, B, and 1739 is remarkable because 1739 is a tenth-century manuscript that was copied from a fourth-century manuscript of excellent quality. According to a colophon, the scribe of 1739 for the Pauline Epistles followed a manuscript that came from Caesarea in the library of Pamphilus and that contained an Origenian text. The three manuscripts, P46, B, and 1739, form a clear textual line: from P46 (early second century) to B (early fourth century) to 1739 (tenth century based on fourth century).<\/p>\nThe Text of the New Testament<\/p>\nThe original text of the NT is the “published” text—that is, the text as it was in its final edited form and released for circulation in the Christian community. For some books of the NT, there is little difference between the original composition and the published text. After the author wrote or dictated his work, he (or an associate) made the final editorial corrections and then released it for distribution. As is the case for books published in modern times, so in ancient times, the original writing of the author is not always the same as what is published—due to the editorial process. Nonetheless, the author is credited with the final edited text, and the published book is attributed to the author and considered the autograph. This autograph is the original published text. Of course, in this case the autographs do not exist, so scholars have to rely on copies to recover or reconstruct the original wording.<\/p>\nSome scholars think it is impossible to recover the original text of the Greek NT because they have not been able to reconstruct the early history of textual transmission. Other modern scholars are less pessimistic but still quite guarded in affirming the possiblity. And yet others are optimistic because we possess many early manuscripts of excellent quality and because our view of the early period of textual transmission has been getting clearer and clearer.<\/p>\nWhen we speak of recovering the text of the NT, we are referring to individual books of the NT, not to the entire volume per se, because each book (or group of books—such as the Pauline Epistles) had its own unique history of textual transmission. The earliest extant copy of an entire NT text is the one preserved in Codex Sinaiticus (written about AD<\/span> 375). (Codex Vaticanus lacks the Pastoral Epistles and Revelation.) Prior to the fourth century, the NT was circulated in its various parts: as a single book or a group of books (such as the four Gospels or the Pauline Epistles). Manuscripts from the late first century to the third century have been found with individual books such as Matthew (P1, P77), Mark (P88), Luke (P69), John (P5, 22, 52, 66), Acts (P91), Revelation (P18, 47), or containing groups of books, such as the four Gospels with Acts (P45), the Pauline Epistles (P30, P46, P92), the Petrine Epistles and Jude (P72). Each of the books of the NT has had its own textual history and has been preserved with varying degrees of accuracy. Nonetheless, all of the books were altered from the original state due to the process of manual copying decade after decade and century after century. And the text of each of the books needs to be recovered.<\/p>\nThe NT text was affected with many variations in its early history. In the late first and early second century, the oral traditions and the written word existed side by side with equal status—especially with respect to the material of the Gospels. Often, the text was changed by scribes attempting to conform the written message to the oral tradition or attempting to conform one Gospel account to another. By the end of the second century and into the third century, many of the significant variant readings entered into the textual stream.<\/p>\nThe early period of textual transmission, however, was not completely marred by textual infidelity and scribal liberty. There were those scribes who copied the text faithfully and reverently—that is, they recognized that they were copying a sacred text written by an apostle. The formalization of canonization did not ascribe this sacredness to the text. Canonization came about as the result of common, historical recognition of the sacredness of various NT books. Certain NT books, such as the four Gospels, Acts, and Paul’s epistles were considered inspired literature from the onset. As such, certain scribes copied them with reverential fidelity.<\/p>\nOther scribes, however, felt free to make “improvements” in the text—either in the interest of doctrine and harmonization or due to the influence of a competitive oral tradition. The manuscripts produced in such a manner created a kind of “popular text”—i.e., an uncontrolled text. (This text type used to be called the “Western text,” but scholars now recognize this as a misnomer.)<\/p>\nDuring the second century, there were a few men who produced recensions of the NT text. According to Eusebius, Theodotus (and his followers) altered the text for their own purposes. In the middle of the second century, Marcion expunged his copies of the Gospel according to Luke of all references to the Jewish background of Jesus, and Tatian’s harmony of the Gospels contains several textual alterations that gave support to ascetic views. And yet another recendor created the D-type text for the Gospels and Acts. This theologically minded redactor, living in the late second or third century, created a text that had short-lived popularity. Three third-century papyri, P29, P38, P48, each containing a portion from the book of Acts, may be precursors to the D-type text in Acts. But there are other papyri containing portions of Acts that provide even earlier testimony to a purer form of Acts—namely, P45 (c. 150) and P91 (c. 200), thereby showing that the D-type text of Acts did not necessarily antedate the purer form.<\/p>\nBesides these endeavors—which are all noted for creating textual impurities—there was no recension of the NT text in the second century. Rather, it was a period in which there were scribes who exercised freedom in copying and those who demonstrated acumen. The manuscripts produced by the latter are those that come closest to preserving the original text. A prime example of an accurate late-second-century manuscript is P75.<\/p>\nIt is a well-known fact that the text produced by the scribe of P75 is a very accurate manuscript. It is also well-known that P75 was the kind of manuscript used in formulating Codex Vaticanus—the readings of P75 and B are remarkably similar. Prior to the discovery of P75, certain scholars thought Codex Vaticanus was the work of a fourth-century recension; others (chiefly Hort) thought it must trace back to a very early and accurate copy. Hort said that Codex Vaticanus preserves “not only a very ancient text, but a very pure line of a very ancient text” (Westcott and Hort, The<\/em> Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek,<\/em> pp 250–51). P75 appears to have shown that Hort was right.<\/p>\nPrior to the discovery of P75, many textual scholars were convinced that the second- and third-century papyri displayed a text in flux, a text characterized only by individual independence. The Chester Beatty Papyrus, P45, and the Bodmer Papyri, P66 and P72 (in 2 Peter and Jude), show this kind of independence. Scholars thought that scribes at Alexandria must have used several such texts to produce a good recension—as is exhibited in Codex Vaticanus. But we now know that Codex Vaticanus was not the result of a scholarly recension, resulting from editorial selection across the various textual histories. Rather, it is now quite clear that Codex Vaticanus was simply a copy (with some modifications) of a manuscript much like P75, not a fourth-century recension.<\/p>\nSome scholars may point out that this does not automatically mean that P75 and B represent the original text. What it does mean, they say, is that we have a second-century manuscript showing great affinity with a fourth-century manuscript whose quality has been highly esteemed. But various scholars have demonstrated that there was no Alexandrian recension before the time of P75 (late second century) and B (early fourth) and that both these manuscripts represent a relatively pure form of preservation of a relatively pure line of descent from the original text.<\/p>\nThe current view about the early text is that certain scribes in Alexandria and\/or scribes familiar with Alexandrian scriptoral practices (perhaps those in Oxyrhynchus) were probably responsible for maintaining a relatively pure text throughout the second, third, and fourth centuries. The Alexandrian scribes, associated with or actually employed by the scriptorium of the great Alexandrian library and\/or members of the scriptorium associated with the catechetical school at Alexandria (called the Didaskelion<\/em>), were trained philologists, grammarians, and textual critics. Their work on the NT was not recensional—that is, it was not an organized emendation of the text. Rather, the work of purification and preservation was probably done here and there by various individuals trained in text criticism. This is apparent in the production of P66, which contains the Gospel of John. This manuscript was probably produced in an Egyptian scriptorium by a novice scribe who made many blunders, which were subsequently corrected by another scribe working in the same scriptorium. The first text produced by the novice could be classified as being very “free,” but the corrected text is far more accurate. (See the discussion on this manuscript above.)<\/p>\nWhat appears to have happened with the copying of the NT text in the early period in Egypt has been poignantly characterized by Zuntz. He said that when a book was immensely popular (such as Homer’s Iliad<\/em> and Odyssey,<\/em> or Plato’s writings), it was copied with wild enthusiasm by novice and scholar alike. But when grammarians and scribes got ahold of it, they tried to rid it of textual corruption. In the process, however, they may have obliterated some authentic readings, but not many. Thus, the popular text (also known as the “Western text”) could have preserved the original wording in some cases. The popular or free kind of text is displayed in several third-century manuscripts: P9, P37, P40, P45, P72, and P78.<\/p>\nIn brief, this popular text is usually displayed in any kind of manuscript that was not produced by Alexandrian influences. This text, given to independence, is not as trustworthy as the Alexandrian text type. But because the Alexandrian text is known as a polished text, the popular text sometimes preserved the original wording. When a variant reading has the support of “Western” and Alexandrian texts, it is very likely original; but when the two are divided, the Alexandrian witnesses more often preserve the original wording.<\/p>\nOne dilemma still remains for some textual critics. They cannot explain how a P75\/B-type text coexisted with a Western-type text in the second century. All that can be said is that the Western text generally appears to be inferior to the P75\/B-type text. Of course, this kind of judgment troubles certain scholars, who point out that the esteem given to B and P75 is based on a subjective appreciation of the kind of text they contain (as over against the Western text) rather than on any kind of theoretical reconstruction of the early transmission of the text. This same subjective estimation was at work when Westcott and Hort decided that B was intrinsically superior to D (see their Introduction,<\/em> pp 32–42). Yet the praxis of textual criticism time and again demonstrates that the P75\/B-type text is intrinsically superior to the Western text.<\/p>\nIn the final analysis, the manuscripts that represent a pure preservation of the original text are usually those called “Alexandrian.” Some scholars, such as Bruce Metzger, have called the earlier manuscripts “protoAlexandrian,” for they (or manuscripts like them) are thought of as being used to compose an Alexandrian-type text. However, this is looking at things from the perspective of the fourth century. We should look at things from the second century onward and then compare fourth-century manuscripts to those of the second. The second-century manuscripts could still be called “Alexandrian” in the sense that they were produced under Alexandrian influences. Perhaps a distinguishing terminology could be “early Alexandrian” (pre-Constantine) and “later Alexandrian” (post-Constantine). Manuscripts designated as “early Alexandrian” would generally be purer, less editorialized. Manuscripts designated “later Alexandrian” would display editorialization, as well as the influence of other textual traditions.<\/p>\nThe “early Alexandrian” text is reflected in many second- and third-century manuscripts. On the top of the list is P75 (c. 175), the work of a competent and careful scribe. Not far behind in quality is P4+P64+P67 (c. 150), the work of an excellent copyist. Other extremely good copies are P1 (c. 200), P20 (early third century), P23 (c. 200), P27 (third century), P28 (third century), P32 (c. 150), P39 (third century), P46 (c. 125), P65 (third century), P66 (in its corrected form—P66c<\/span>; c. 150), P70 (third century), P77 (c. 150), P87 (c. 125), P90 (c. 175), and P91 (c. 200). Several of these manuscripts have been placed in the “strict” category by textual critics Kurt and Barbara Aland—that is, they exhibit “strict” scribal control and therefore are accurate copies of an exemplar, if not the original. These manuscripts are P1, P23, P35, P37, P39, P64\/67, P65, P70, and P75.<\/p>\nThe “later Alexandrian” text, which displays editorial polishing, is exhibited in a few manuscripts, such as א (fourth century), T (fifth century), ע (seventh century), L (eighth century), 33 (ninth century), 1739 (a tenth-century manuscript copied from a fourth-century Alexandrian manuscript much like P46), and 579 (13th century). Beginning in the fifth century, Byzantine-type manuscripts began to make their influence in Egypt. Some manuscripts dated around 400 that came from Egypt clearly reflect this influence; Codex Alexandrinus (A) is probably the best example. Other Egyptian manuscripts of this era, such as Codex Sinaiticus (א) and Codex Washingtonianus (W) display large-scale harmonization, which cannot be directly linked to any kind of recension.<\/p>\nAt the end of the third century, another kind of Greek text came into being and then grew in popularity until it became the dominant text-type throughout Christendom. This is the text-type first instigated by Lucian of Antioch, according to Jerome (in his introduction to his Latin translation of the Gospels). Lucian’s text was a definite recension (i.e., a purposely created edition)—as opposed to the Alexandrian text-type that came about as the result of a process wherein the Alexandrian scribes, upon comparing many manuscripts, attempted to preserve the best text—thereby serving more as textual critics than editors. Of course, the Alexandrians did do some editing—such as we would call copy-editing. The Lucianic text is the outgrowth and culmination of the popular text; it is characterized by smoothness of language, which is achieved by the removal of obscurities and awkward grammatical constructions and by the conflation of variant readings. Lucian (and\/or his associates) must have used many different kinds of manuscripts of varying qualities to produce a harmonized, edited NT text. The kind of editorial work that went into the Lucianic text is what we would call substantive editing.<\/p>\nLucian’s text was produced prior to the Diocletian persecution (c. 303), during which time many copies of the NT were confiscated and destroyed. Not long after this period of devastation, Constantine came to power and then recognized Christianity as the state religion. There was, of course, a great need for copies of the NT to be made and distributed to churches throughout the Mediterranean world. It was at this time that Lucian’s text began to be propagated by bishops going out from the Antiochan school to churches throughout the East, taking the text with them. Lucian’s text soon became the standard text of the Eastern church and formed the basis for the Byzantine text—and is thus the ultimate authority for the Textus Receptus.<\/p>\nWhile Lucian was forming his recension of the NT text, the Alexandrian text was taking on its final shape. As was mentioned earlier, the formation of the Alexandrian text-type was the result of a process (as opposed to a single editorial recension). The formation of the Alexandrian text involved minor textual criticism (i.e., selecting variant readings among various manuscripts) and copyediting (i.e., producing a readable text). There was far less tampering with the text in the Alexandrian text-type than in the Lucian, and the underlying manuscripts for the Alexandrian text-type were superior to those used by Lucian. Perhaps Hesychius was responsible for giving the Alexandrian text its final shape, and Athanasius of Alexandria may have been the one who made this text the archetypal text for Egypt.<\/p>\nAs the years went by, there were fewer and fewer Alexandrian manuscripts produced, and more and more Byzantine manuscripts manufactured. Very few Egyptians continued to read Greek (with the exception of those in St Catherine’s Monastery, the site of the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus), and the rest of the Mediterranean world turned to Latin. It was only those in the Greek-speaking churches in Greece and Byzantium that continued to make copies of the Greek text. For century after century—from the 6th to the 14th—the great majority of NT manuscripts were produced in Byzantium, all bearing the same kind of text. When the first Greek NT was printed (c. 1525), it was based on a Greek text that Erasmus had compiled, using a few late Byzantine manuscripts. This printed text, with minor revisions, became the Textus Receptus.<\/p>\nBeginning in the 17th century, earlier manuscripts began to be discovered—manuscripts with a text that differed from that found in the Textus Receptus. Around 1630, Codex Alexandrinus was brought to England. An early fifth-century manuscript, containing the entire NT, it provided a good, early witness to the NT text (it is an especially good witness to the original text of Revelation). Two hundred years later, a German scholar named Constantin von Tischendorf discovered Codex Sinaiticus in St Catherine’s Monastery (located near Mt Sinai). The manuscript, dated around AD<\/span> 360, is one of the two oldest vellum (treated animal hide) manuscripts of the Greek NT. The earliest vellum manuscript, Codex Vaticanus, had been in the Vatican’s library since at least 1481, but it had not been made available to scholars until the middle of the 19th century. This manuscript, dated slightly earlier (AD<\/span> 350) than Codex Sinaiticus, had both the OT and NT in Greek, excluding the last part of the NT (Hebrews 9:15 to Revelation 22:21 and the Pastoral Epistles). A hundred years of textual criticism has determined that this manuscript is one of the most accurate and reliable witnesses to the original text.<\/p>\nOther early and important manuscripts were discovered in the 19th century. Through the tireless labors of men like Constantin von Tischendorf, Samuel Tregelles, and F. H. A. Scrivener, manuscripts such as Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, Codex Zacynthius, and Codex Augiensis were deciphered, collated, and published.<\/p>\nAs the various manuscripts were discovered and made public, certain scholars labored to compile a Greek text that would more closely represent the original text than did the Textus Receptus. Around 1700 John Mill produced an improved Textus Receptus, and in the 1730s Johannes Albert Bengel (known as the father of modern textual and philological studies in the NT) published a text that deviated from the Textus Receptus according to the evidence of earlier manuscripts.<\/p>\nIn the 1800s certain scholars began to abandon the Textus Receptus. Karl Lachman, a classical philologist, produced a fresh text (in 1831) that represented the fourth-century manuscripts. Samuel Tregelles (self-taught in Latin, Hebrew, and Greek), laboring throughout his entire lifetime, concentrated all of his efforts in publishing one Greek text (which came out in six parts, from 1857 to 1872). As is stated in the introduction to this work, Tregelles’s goal was “to exhibit the text of the NT in the very words in which it has been transmitted on the evidence of ancient authority.” Henry Alford also compiled a Greek text based upon the best and earliest manuscripts. In his preface to The Greek New Testament<\/em> (a multivolume commentary on the Greek NT, published in 1849), Alford said he labored for the “demolition of the unworthy and pedantic reverence for the received text, which stood in the way of all chance of discovering the genuine word of God.”<\/p>\nDuring this same era, Tischendorf was devoting a lifetime of labor to discovering manuscripts and producing accurate editions of the Greek NT. In a letter to his fiancé he wrote, “I am confronted with a sacred task, the struggle to regain the original form of the NT.” In fulfillment of his desire, he discovered Codex Sinaiticus, deciphered the palimpsest Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, collated countless manuscripts, and produced several editions of the Greek NT (the eighth edition is considered the best).<\/p>\nAided by the work of the previous scholars, two British men, Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort, worked together for 28 years to produce a volume entitled The New Testament in the Original Greek<\/em> (1881). Along with this publication, they made known their theory (which was chiefly Hort’s) that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (along with a few other early manuscripts) represented a text that most closely replicated the original writing. They called this text the Neutral Text. (According to their studies, the Neutral Text described certain manuscripts that had the least amount of textual corruption.) This is the text that Westcott and Hort relied upon for compiling their volume.<\/p>\nThe 19th century was a fruitful era for the recovery of the Greek NT; the 20th century, no less so. Those living in the 20th century have witnessed the discovery of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, the Chester Beatty Papyri, and the Bodmer Papyri. To date, there are nearly 100 papyri containing portions of the NT—several of which date from the late first century to the early fourth century. These significant discoveries, providing scholars with many ancient manuscripts, have greatly enhanced the effort to recover the original wording of the NT.<\/p>\nAt the beginning of the 20th century, Eberhard Nestle used the best editions of the Greek NT produced in the 19th century to compile a text that represented the majority consensus. The work of making new editions was carried on by his son for several years, and then came under the care of Kurt Aland. The latest edition (the 27th) of Nestle-Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece<\/em> appeared in 1993. The same Greek text appears in another popular volume published by the United Bible Societies, called the Greek New Testament<\/em> (fourth edition). Aland has argued that the Nestle-Aland text, 27th edition (NA27<\/span>), comes closer to the original text of the NT than did Tischendorf or Westcott and Hort. And in several writings he intimates that NA27<\/span> may very well be the original text. Though few, if any, scholars would agree with this, the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland text is regarded by many as representing the latest and best in textual scholarship.<\/p>\n<h5>New Testament Textual Criticism<\/h5>\nTextual critics working with ancient literature universally acknowledge the supremacy of earlier manuscripts over later ones. Textual critics not working with the NT would love to have the same kind of early witnesses that biblical scholars possess. In fact, many of them work with manuscripts written 1,000 years after the autographs were composed! We all marvel that the Dead Sea Scrolls have provided a text that is nearly 800 years closer to the originals than the Masoretic manuscripts, and yet many of the Dead Sea manuscripts are still over 600 to 800 years removed from the time of original composition. NT textual critics have a great advantage!<\/p>\nThe 19th-century NT textual scholars—such as Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort—worked on the basis that the earliest witnesses are the best witnesses. Some textual scholars have continued this line of recovery using the testimony of the earlier witnesses. But many textual scholars since the time of Westcott and Hort have been less inclined to produce editions based on the theory that the earliest reading is the best. Most present-day textual critics are more inclined to endorse the maxim: the reading that is most likely original is the one that best explains the variants.<\/p>\nThis maxim (or “canon” as it is sometimes called), as good as it is, produces conflicting results. For example, two scholars, using this same principle to examine the same variant unit, will not agree. One will argue that one variant was produced by a copyist attempting to emulate the author’s style; the other will claim the same variant has to be original because it accords with the author’s style. One will argue that one variant was produced by an orthodox scribe attempting to rid the text of a reading that could be used to promote heterodoxy or heresy; another will claim that the same variant has to be original because it is orthodox and accords with Christian doctrine (thus a heterodox or heretical scribe must have changed it). Furthermore, this principle allows for the possibility that the reading selected for the text can be taken from any manuscript of any date. This can lead to subjective eclecticism.<\/p>\nModern textual scholars have attempted to temper the subjectivism by employing a method called “reasoned eclecticism.” This kind of eclecticism applies a combination of internal and external considerations, whereby the character of the variants is evaluated in light of the manuscripts’ evidence and vice versa. This is supposed to produce a balanced view and serve as a check against purely subjective tendencies.<\/p>\nThe Alands favor the same kind of approach, calling it the local-genealogical method, which is defined as follows:<\/p>\n<blockquote>It is impossible to proceed from the assumption of a manuscript stemma, and on the basis of a full review and analysis of the relationships obtaining among the variety of interrelated branches in the manuscript tradition, to undertake a recension of the data as one would do with other Greek texts. Decisions must be made one by one, instance by instance. This method has been characterized as eclecticism, but wrongly so. After carefully establishing the variety of readings offered in a passage and the possibilities of their interpretation, it must always then be determined afresh on the basis of external and internal criteria which of these readings (and frequently they are quite numerous) is the original, from which the others may be regarded as derivative. From the perspective of our present knowledge, this “local-genealogical” method (if it must be given a name) is the only one which meets the requirements of the NT textual tradition. (Introduction to Novum Testamentum Graece,<\/em> 26th edition)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nThe “local-genealogical” method assumes that for any given variation unit any manuscript (or manuscripts) may have preserved the original text. Applying this method produces an extremely uneven documentary presentation of the text. Anyone studying the critical apparatus of NA27<\/span> will detect that there is not an even documentary presentation. The eclecticism is dispersed throughout the text.<\/p>\n“Reasoned eclecticism” and\/or the “local-genealogical” method tend to give priority to internal evidence over external evidence. But it has to be the other way around if we are going to recover the original text. This was Westcott and Hort’s opinion. With respect to their compilation of The New Testament in the Original Greek,<\/em> Hort wrote, “Documentary evidence has been in most cases allowed to confer the place of honour against internal evidence” (The Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek,<\/em> p 17).<\/p>\nIn this respect, Westcott and Hort need to be revived. Earnest Colwell was of the same mind when he wrote “Hort Redivivus: A Plea and a Program.” Colwell decried the growing tendency to rely entirely on the internal evidence of readings, without serious consideration of documentary evidence. He called upon scholars to make an attempt to reconstruct a history of the manuscript tradition. The abundance of manuscripts—several of which are very early—will aid scholars in this ongoing task.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BIBLE*, Manuscripts and Text of the (New Testament) Copies of the NT books produced by scribes and editions made from these copies. In the centuries prior to the simultaneous-multiple production of copies via dictation (wherein many scribes in a scriptorium transcribed a text dictated to them by one reader), all manuscript copies were made singly—each scribe producing a copy from an exemplar. Prior to the 15th century, when Johannes Gutenberg invented movable type for the printing press, all ...","summary_en":"BIBLE*, Manuscripts and Text of the (New Testament) Copies of the NT books produced by scribes and editions made from these copies. In the centuries prior to the simultaneous-multiple production of copies via dictation (wherein many scribes in a scriptorium transcribed a text dictated to them by one reader), all manuscript copies were made singly—each scribe producing a copy from an exemplar. Prior to the 15th century, when Johannes Gutenberg invented movable type for the printing press, all ...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":5900,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"the Caesars","title_en":"the Caesars","content_ro":"<h3>CAESARS, The<\/h3>\nSuccession of Roman emperors. The name Caesar, which has derivatives in the German Kaiser, Dutch Keizer, and Russian Czar, goes back to the family name of Julius Caesar (100–44 BC<\/span>), which his successors took to themselves. Luke’s Gospel mentions Caesar Augustus (Lk 2:1) and Tiberius Caesar (Lk 3:1). In the book of Acts the title “Caesar” is used to refer to Nero (Acts 25:11-12, 21; 26:32; 27:24; 28:19). During NT times, 12 Caesars reigned, 6 of them actually of the Caesarean lineage.<\/p>\nEmperors of Caesar’s Lineage<\/p>\n<h5>Julius Caesar (100–44 BC<\/span>)<\/h5>\nJulius had imperial powers but never held the title of emperor. Rome had been a republic (really an aristocracy) for almost 500 years. Its citizens hated the idea of a monarch, a position Julius Caesar judiciously declined, accepting a republican office but ruling as virtual dictator. The republic was dead in practice if not in principle. Vainly hoping to revive it and fearing Caesar’s imperial ambitions, a group of republicans conspired to assassinate him. Caesar was murdered on March 15 (the “ides of March”), 44 BC<\/span>, as he entered the Roman Senate. Although the conspiracy succeeded, its purpose failed. In the civil war that followed, Caesar’s grand-nephew Octavian emerged as victor and in 31 BC<\/span> became the first Roman emperor.<\/p>\n<h5>Augustus (63 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 14, reigned 31 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 14)<\/h5>\nGaius Octavianus (Octavian) was the grandson of Julia, Julius Caesar’s sister. He was 18 and studying in Greece when his great-uncle was assassinated. Caesar’s will, which adopted him as son and made him heir, brought him into the resulting power struggle.<\/p>\nWithin a year and a half, a trio consisting of Antony, Lepidus, and Octavian was confirmed in power. The following year, in a battle at Philippi (in Macedonia, now Greece), Octavian defeated both Cassius and Brutus, the chief conspirators against Caesar. Antony took command of the eastern provinces (which included Greece and Egypt), Octavian led his forces back to Italy, and Lepidus assumed jurisdiction over Gaul and western North Africa. Lepidus, however, was forced into retirement, and the area he controlled fell to Octavian. Thus Octavian and Antony, who had clashed even before their alliance, became rivals again. In the battle of Actium (31 BC<\/span>), Octavian defeated Antony to become sole ruler of the Roman world and its first emperor.<\/p>\nOctavian did not possess the military brilliance of his great-uncle, but he had a talent for ending strife and maintaining peace, which immediately gained him the support of the people. During his reign Roman culture enjoyed a golden age, particularly in architecture and literature. Augustus founded the Praetorian Guard, the emperor’s private honor corps of 9,000 soldiers. Originally intended to secure the emperor’s position, it later became so influential that it could independently depose an emperor or elect a new one without Senate confirmation.<\/p>\nThe title Augustus (Augoustos),<\/em> meaning “exalted one,” was given to Octavian in 27 BC<\/span>. The title reflects the practice of emperor worship that had been partly initiated in the reign of Julius Caesar, who declared himself to be “the unconquered god” and “the father of the fatherland.” Augustus continued the cult, although at first he declared that he should be worshiped only in association with the goddess Roma. Later, however, Augustus’s name became equated with Rome, and the emperor was regarded as the savior of the world. A temple to Augustus was built in Athens, and even Herod the Great built temples in his honor.<\/p>\nWhen Augustus became emperor, he devoted himself to reorganizing his empire. Because of the chaos that had prevailed in the provinces, he took it upon himself to restructure economic and financial policies.<\/p>\nThough Caesar Augustus is mentioned only once in the NT, he nevertheless is known to every reader of the Bible because of the census he decreed in all the provinces just before the birth of Jesus (Lk 2:1). Little information is available about that census, but Luke wrote that the first census was held when Jesus was born. The second was conducted in AD<\/span> 6 and resulted in an uprising instigated by Judas of Galilee (Acts 5:37).<\/p>\nDuring the time of Augustus’s reign, Herod the Great gained the emperor’s trust and was allowed to rule the Jews without Roman interference. In appreciation Herod rebuilt the old city of Samaria and renamed it Sebaste to honor Augustus. Caesarea on the Mediterranean coast of Palestine was also named in his honor.<\/p>\nConflicts between Herod and his sons were settled by Augustus in 12 BC<\/span>. When dispute between father and sons arose again, however, Augustus ordered that it be settled in a Roman court, which ruled in 7 BC<\/span> that two of them, Alexander and Aristobulus, be executed. In 4 BC<\/span>, Augustus permitted the execution of Herod’s son Antipater.<\/p>\nIn Herod’s last will and testament, three of his sons (Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip) were appointed to rule his kingdom. Augustus’s approval of those appointments was necessary. Archelaus made a personal visit to Rome immediately after the death of his father to request possible changes in his status. Likewise, Antipas journeyed to Rome to see whether Augustus might be willing to grant him royal status as well. While the two of them sought separate audiences with the emperor, a delegation representing the people of Judea appeared before Augustus with the request that the Herodian rule—which was never very popular—be terminated. At the same time riots in Judea had to be suppressed by Roman legions sent from Syria.<\/p>\nAugustus compromised. He converted Herod’s old kingdom to a Roman province and refused kingship to all of Herod’s sons. Otherwise he kept to the provisions of Herod’s testament: Archelaus became ethnarch (overlord) of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea (half of the new province); Antipas became tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (one quarter of the province); Philip became tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis (Lk 3:1; an area east of Galilee—the final quarter of the province). Because Archelaus was unable to rule effectively, he was deposed by the emperor in AD<\/span> 6 and banished to Vienne in southern France.<\/p>\nAugustus died in AD<\/span> 14 after a brief illness, leaving the empire to his appointed successor, Tiberius.<\/p>\n<h5>Tiberius (42 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 37, reigned AD<\/span> 14–37)<\/h5>\nTiberius Claudius Nero became Octavian’s stepson at the age of four, when his mother, Livia, divorced his father to marry the future emperor. Tiberius was made Augustus’s co-regent in AD<\/span> 13 and succeeded him the following year. When he became emperor, he changed his name to Tiberius Caesar Augustus.<\/p>\nTiberius did not have an easy life. His stepfather had forced an unhappy marriage upon him. The Roman Senate often opposed him. In AD<\/span> 27 Tiberius left Rome for the island of Capri, leaving the task of governing the empire in the hands of Sejanus, a Roman prefect (high-ranking official). During the next five years, Sejanus secretly tried to depose the emperor and seize power for himself. His conspiracy almost succeeded, but Tiberius eventually had him executed. Despite this, Tiberius’s administration was characterized by wisdom, intelligence, prudence, and duty. He continued his predecessor’s policy of striving for peace and security.<\/p>\nIn AD<\/span> 26, presumably before going into semiretirement, Tiberius appointed Pontius Pilate as governor of Judea. Directly responsible to the emperor, Pilate could be immediately removed from office if word of Jewish disturbances or complaints reached Tiberius. Pilate’s capitulation to the Jewish authorities during the trial of Jesus can be best understood in view of this. The Jews accused Jesus of claiming to be king, implying a rivalry with the emperor. When Pilate judged Christ innocent of the charge and sought to release him (Jn 18:33-38), the Jews insisted he could not do so and still be a friend of Caesar (19:12). If he released Jesus, they insinuated, he would risk losing the emperor’s favor. Because of crimes committed at his command against the Jews, Pilate knew they might carry out their threat, resulting in his banishment. So, surrendering to their demands, he condemned Jesus to death by crucifixion.<\/p>\nTiberius Caesar is mentioned only once in the NT. The Gospel of Luke states that John the Baptist began his ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar’s reign, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea (Lk 3:1). Whether that date was calculated from Tiberius’s actual accession or from the time of his co-regency is difficult to determine.<\/p>\nTiberius was a strangely humble emperor. At his own request he was never officially recognized as a god (a sort of honorary title that the Senate had given to his predecessors). Interest in emperor worship had waned, and Tiberius intended to confine deity to his two predecessors. He also stopped the practice of naming months of the year after emperors; thus there is a July for Julius, an August for Augustus, but no Tiber for Tiberius. Plagued by domestic and political problems all his life, Tiberius died a tired and dejected old man. In fact, he was an excellent administrator.<\/p>\n<h5>Caligula (AD<\/span> 12–41, reigned AD<\/span> 37–41)<\/h5>\nAt the death of Tiberius, Gaius Julius Caesar became emperor at the age of 25. He was the son of an influential general, Germanicus; Augustus had forced Tiberius to adopt Gaius and make him his heir. As a child, Gaius had accompanied Germanicus on his military duties along the Rhine River in Germany. The soldiers nicknamed him Caligula (“Little Boot”) for his military attire. The name stuck.<\/p>\nTo gain popularity with the Romans, Caligula began his reign by pardoning people and recalling exiles. He squandered the money of the Roman treasury, however, and was forced to levy new taxes. His popularity was short-lived.<\/p>\nSix months after assuming office, Caligula suffered a serious illness that left him insane. On one occasion, for example, he appointed his horse as consul (chief magistrate). He insulted many people, banished others on whim, and had others murdered without provocation. When he felt that he had been insulted by the Jews in Jamnia, a Judean town near the Mediterranean coast, he ordered a statue of himself placed in the temple at Jerusalem in revenge. The Jews were outraged, and a full-scale revolt was avoided only by the prudence of the governor of Syria, Petronius, who delayed carrying out the order. Not long afterward the emperor was assassinated by one of the many men he had insulted.<\/p>\nIt was Caligula who appointed Herod Agrippa I (Herod in Acts 12) king over a tetrarchy northeast of Galilee—one of the first acts he performed as emperor, according to the Jewish historian Josephus. The two had become close friends before either had come to power, while Agrippa was living in Rome, where even as king he later spent much of his time. But unlike Caligula, Agrippa was a capable and popular ruler. Both king and emperor, in the tradition of many eastern monarchs, fancied themselves gods. Caligula, in fact, revived the notion in Rome of the emperor’s deity and madly proclaimed himself equal to Jupiter. The Senate, however, refrained from officially recognizing that status.<\/p>\n<h5>Claudius (10 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 54, reigned AD<\/span> 41–54)<\/h5>\nTiberius Claudius Germanicus was born in Lyon (France). He was Tiberius’s nephew and a grandson of Livia, the wife of Augustus. In AD<\/span> 37 he was appointed consul by Caligula. After Caligula’s death Claudius was proclaimed emperor by the Praetorian Guard, and the Senate approved the choice.<\/p>\nWhen Claudius became emperor, he faced the task of healing the broken relationships caused by Caligula’s madness. He ended the persecution of Jews in the city of Alexandria. Josephus recorded an edict that Claudius sent to Egypt, which read, in part: “Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, high priest and tribune of the people, ordains thus. . . . I will, therefore, that the nation of the Jews be not deprived of their rights and privileges on account of the madness of Gaius; but that those rights and privileges that they formerly enjoyed, be preserved to them, and that they may continue in their own customs.”<\/p>\nThat change of policy reflected the emperor’s friendship with Herod Agrippa, who had played an influential role in Claudius’s succession as emperor. Claudius, in turn, added Judea and Samaria to Agrippa’s kingdom, giving him the dominion that once belonged to his grandfather, Herod the Great. He also promoted him to consular rank. Further, having complete trust in Agrippa’s abilities, Claudius removed Judea from Roman provincial rule.<\/p>\nAgrippa’s rule, however, was of short duration. In order to please the Jews, he had the apostle James, Zebedee’s son, killed. He also had the apostle Peter imprisoned, planning to have him executed after the Passover feast in the spring of AD<\/span> 44 (Acts 12:1-5). Peter escaped. During the summer of that year, Agrippa, who was wearing a glistening garment made of silver thread, gave a speech from his throne. The people acclaimed him as a god (v 22), and immediately he was struck down by an angel of the Lord. Five days later he died.<\/p>\nThe emperor wished to stay on the right side of the Jewish people, yet five years after the death of Agrippa, Claudius issued an edict expelling all Jews from Rome. Luke related that Aquila and Priscilla were among those who had been ordered to leave the imperial city (Acts 18:2). The Roman biographer and historian Suetonius wrote that “because the Jews of Rome were indulging in constant riots at the instigation of Chrestus he [Claudius] expelled them from the city.” The writer could easily have been uncertain of the spelling, because Chrestus, a common slave name, was pronounced virtually the same as Christus. It appears that Suetonius sought to convey to his readers that Chrestus was the founder of a movement (presumably Christianity).<\/p>\nBecause of mismanagement by Caligula, the supply of grain for food was at an all-time low when Claudius began to reign (cf. Acts 11:28). Josephus related that during Claudius’s administration, famine plagued Judea, Samaria, and Galilee. To alleviate the famine in Jerusalem, Helena, mother of the king of Adiabene, bought grain from Egypt and dried figs from Cyprus. That must have taken place in AD<\/span> 45–46. Various ancient historians, including Tacitus, Suetonius, and Eusebius, reported that on frequent occasions famines prevailed in Rome and elsewhere. Repeatedly, harvests were minimal and distribution of food supplies was poor.<\/p>\nClaudius’s family life and reputation were marred by intrigue. His immoral third wife, Messalina, was eventually put to death. Causing a slight scandal, he married his niece Agrippina, who had a son by a former marriage. She wanted her son Nero to be emperor, but Britannicus, Messalina’s son, stood first in line. In AD<\/span> 54, when Claudius decided that Britannicus should succeed him, Agrippina poisoned her husband and made Nero emperor. The Senate officially deified Claudius, making him the third emperor to receive that honor.<\/p>\n<h5>Nero (AD<\/span> 37–68, reigned AD<\/span> 54–68)<\/h5>\nNero was born Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus. His father was a senator and consul who died when Nero was still a boy. His mother, Agrippina, Germanicus’s daughter, was reputed to be one of the wealthiest and most beautiful women in Rome. When she married the emperor, her son received the name Nero Claudius Caesar Germanicus at his adoption by Claudius.<\/p>\nNero was at first dominated by his proud mother, who wished to reign alongside her son. In those years Rome was a hotbed of political intrigue, murder plots, and assassinations. During the first five years of his reign, Nero had Britannicus and Agrippina eliminated in quick succession. A few years later he banished his wife, Octavia, and had her killed.<\/p>\nIronically, the church at Rome flourished at that same time. The last chapter of the apostle Paul’s Letter to the Romans, written from Corinth in AD<\/span> 57, contains a long and impressive list of names of personal acquaintances—especially impressive because Paul had never been in Rome.<\/p>\nNero had reigned more than five years when Paul, imprisoned at Caesarea, appealed to Caesar (Acts 25:11). Motives for the appeal may have been a prison release for Paul and an opportunity to seek legal recognition of Christianity. Paul’s appeal to Caesar, however, does not necessarily mean that he was judged by Nero. The emperor had made it known at the beginning of his reign that he would not be a judge. Instead, he appointed prefects of the Praetorian Guard to judge cases for him. In the early part of AD<\/span> 62, Nero changed that rule and judged a case himself. Therefore, whether Paul stood before Nero or before one of the prefects is difficult to determine. If prosecutors failed to appear, Paul’s case may not have come before the judge at all. According to Philippians 1:7-14, Paul was still expecting a trial at the time of his writing that letter.<\/p>\nIn AD<\/span> 62 Nero’s adviser Afranius Burrus died. Burrus had been a prefect of the Praetorian Guard and, together with an able senator, Seneca, had ruled the empire effectively while Nero spent his time on pleasure. After Burrus’s death (Seneca was forced to commit suicide three years later), Nero began to indulge his whims unchecked. His greedy advisers, who sought self-advancement at the expense of the state, caused a severe financial crisis. Nero was also unbalanced in regarding himself the savior of the world.<\/p>\nIn AD<\/span> 64 a fire broke out at the Circus Maximus in Rome. It spread quickly, devouring everything in its path. Fanned by the wind, it raged for more than five days and devastated a large area of the city before being brought under control. At the time, Nero was at Antium, his birthplace, some 33 miles (53 kilometers) to the south. He rushed to Rome to organize relief work. Because of his evil record, however, people put stock in the rumor that Nero had set the fire himself.<\/p>\nNero, in turn, found a scapegoat in the Christians, whom he charged with the crime. Many were persecuted. Perhaps the apostle Peter in his first letter was referring to the sufferings of Christians during the last few years of Nero’s reign (1 Pt 4:12). Nero may have been influenced by his second wife, Poppaea, to blame the Christians for the devastation of Rome. The church had increased in numbers and had become a movement. Tacitus alluded to the size of the church when he wrote that “a huge crowd was convicted not so much of arson as of hatred of the human race.”<\/p>\nIt is likely that Peter and Paul were executed during the Neronian persecution. Clement of Rome, an early church father, in his letter to the church at Corinth (written presumably in AD<\/span> 95), referred to the heroes of faith “who lived nearest to our time,” namely Peter and Paul, who suffered martyrdom.<\/p>\nIn AD<\/span> 66 a Jewish revolt broke out in Caesarea. Nero dispatched his general Vespasian to squelch the revolt, taking no interest himself in the affairs of state. He left Rome for a journey to Greece, leaving the responsibility of governing the empire to a Roman prefect, Helius. Because of the inescapable opposition he encountered from leading governors in France, Spain, and Africa on his return, Nero committed suicide in AD<\/span> 68. He was the last emperor of the Caesarean line by blood or marriage.<\/p>\nSome Later Emperors<\/p>\n<h5>Galba (3 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 69, reigned AD<\/span> 68–69)<\/h5>\nAfter Nero’s death, the Praetorian Guard selected Serius Sulpicius Galba to become emperor. Galba was a popular and capable governor at various times in the provinces of France, Germany, Spain, and Africa. He was a less successful emperor and became increasingly unpopular with the army and the people for his frugality and dislike of ceremony. The German legions of the Roman army, who had only reluctantly recognized him as their commander-in-chief, withdrew their support in AD<\/span> 69, proclaiming Aulus Vitellius emperor.<\/p>\nWhen Galba failed to appoint one of his chief supporters, Marcus Salvius Otho, as his successor, he in essence signed his own death warrant. Otho gained the support of the Praetorian Guard, was proclaimed emperor, had Galba killed, and was confirmed by the Senate.<\/p>\n<h5>Vespasian (AD<\/span> 9–79, reigned AD<\/span> 69–79)<\/h5>\nIn the fall of AD<\/span> 69, Vespasian found Rome ready for a period of stability, peace, and order. The son of a tax collector, he lived frugally, reestablished Rome’s finances, reorganized the armies, and reemphasized the outward forms of the old republic. According to Suetonius, no innocent party was ever punished while Vespasian was emperor. He grieved when convicted criminals were executed.<\/p>\nBecause of Nero’s financial mismanagement, Vespasian had to levy new taxes and increase existing taxes in order to meet his fiscal obligations. As a result he was slandered as avaricious, although he was generous in aiding underprivileged senators and impoverished ex-consuls. Vespasian improved a number of cities in the empire that had been devastated by fire or earthquake, and he promoted the arts and sciences. In Rome he built the Temple of Peace after the destruction of Jerusalem and the defeat of the Jews, erected a forum, restored the Capitol, and began construction of the Colosseum.<\/p>\nDuring his 10-year reign, Vespasian established peace throughout the empire. His son Titus ended the war in Palestine, and other Roman generals suppressed a revolt in Germany. Public confidence was largely restored with the return to earlier standards of morality. Vespasian appointed his sons Titus and Domitian to succeed him.<\/p>\n<h5>Titus (AD<\/span> 39–81, reigned AD<\/span> 79–81)<\/h5>\nTitus Flavius Vespasianus had served efficiently as a colonel in Germany and Britain. When the Jewish revolt broke out, he accompanied his father to Palestine. When Vespasian left for Rome five years later, Titus was appointed general of the Roman forces in Palestine. On September 26, AD<\/span> 70, the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by fire, the citadel fell into the hands of the Romans, and countless Jews were killed. Titus returned to Rome with Jewish captives and spoils from the temple to celebrate his victory with his father. The Arch of Titus was erected in Rome, depicting his conquest of Jerusalem.<\/p>\nUntil Vespasian’s death, Titus was almost a co-ruler with his father. He served as Vespasian’s secretary, drafted edicts, and addressed the Senate in session. Titus was a talented person, especially in politics and music. He had fallen in love with Queen Bernice, King Agrippa II’s sister (see Acts 25–26) and allegedly had promised to marry her, but moral integrity prevented him when rumor reached him of an incestuous relationship with her brother.<\/p>\nDuring Titus’s brief reign as emperor (AD<\/span> 79–81), a series of catastrophes occurred: Mt Vesuvius in southern Italy erupted and buried the towns of Pompeii, Stabiae, and Herculaneum (August, AD<\/span> 79); a fire raged for three days and nights in Rome (AD<\/span> 80); and a plague spread throughout the imperial city. Suetonius wrote that during those disasters Titus cared for the people with a love resembling the deep love of a father for his children. When Titus died unexpectedly, his death caused universal mourning; he was eulogized by senators and common people alike.<\/p>\n<h5>Domitian (AD<\/span> 51–96, reigned AD<\/span> 81–96)<\/h5>\nDuring Titus’s rule, his brother Domitian expressed bitterness at having to take second place, openly coveted power, and conspired to seize command of the armed forces. He secretly rejoiced over Titus’s sudden death and tried to slight his older brother’s reputation. As it turned out, Domitian proved to be a capable administrator: he restored the fire-gutted Capitol and built a temple to Jupiter, the Flavian Temple, a forum, a stadium, a concert hall, and an artificial lake for sea battles. He instituted the Capitoline Festival, promoted the arts and sciences, and maintained the public libraries.<\/p>\nAfter the custom of earlier emperors Domitian proclaimed himself divine and had his subjects call him “Lord God.” The Senate, however, never officially deified him. Throughout his reign they resented and often opposed the power he exercised by prerogative. Domitian did not hesitate to persecute senators who made their objections known. In order to protect himself, he sought the army’s support by periodically increasing their pay. He collected additional taxes and often resorted to extortion. Jewish people were especially affected by his taxation. In the last years of Domitian’s reign, religious persecution was revived.<\/p>\nThe early Christian writers Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Eusebius mention the persecution of Christians during Domitian’s administration. Domitian appears to have been a relentless persecutor, second only to Nero. He even put members of his own family to death; his wife, Domitia, feared for her life because of her alleged affiliation with Christianity. With friends and freedmen, she plotted her husband’s assassination.<\/p>\nAfter ruling the empire for 15 years, Domitian was murdered. Mourned by none, except perhaps his well-paid army, he left in the wake of his reign a bitter memory of oppression.<\/p>\n<h5>Trajan (AD<\/span> 53–117, reigned AD<\/span> 98–117)<\/h5>\nTrajan was born Marcus Trajanus of Roman parents in Italica, Spain. His father was a soldier who was promoted to governor of an eastern province in Spain. Trajan, trained to be a military commander, proved himself in campaigns in Spain, Syria, and Germany. In AD<\/span> 97, Emperor Nerva adopted him as his son and heir. Upon Nerva’s death the following year, Trajan was named emperor.<\/p>\nA powerful military leader, Trajan expanded the Roman Empire by many conquests in Dacia (now part of Romania and Hungary), Arabia, and Parthia (now part of Iran). He established new cities, including Thamugadi in what is now Algeria. He also oversaw many building programs, including bridges across the Danube River in Dacia and Tagus River in Spain, and a harbor at the port of Rome. According to the writings of Pliny (see Letters<\/em> 10.96), we know that Trajan instigated persecutions against Christians because their worship of Jesus threatened to exterminate the traditional forms of Roman worship. The Christians’ refusal to invoke the Roman gods and make offerings to the emperor’s statue was considered a treasonous act because it undermined the empire’s security.<\/p>\n<h5>Diocletian (AD<\/span> 245–313, reigned AD<\/span> 284–305)<\/h5>\nBorn to parents of humble means in Dalmatia (now part of Yugoslavia), Diocles changed his name to Diocletian when he became emperor. As a young man he joined the army and rose in rank, becoming commander of the imperial guard. When the emperor Numerian was murdered, Diocles’ troops proclaimed him the new ruler. Numerian’s brother, Carinus, was killed by his own troops when he sought the throne, and the way was clear for Diocles to assume control unopposed.<\/p>\nDiocletian, an able organizer and administrator, used his skills to enact many structural reforms in the Roman Empire, including the establishment of the tetrarchy (293), a new imperial system in which four rulers shared power. His other reforms affected military, administrative, and economic areas. As a result of such reorganization, Diocletian created an efficient bureaucracy. Nevertheless, Rome declined as a political power center, and the Senate was further subordinated to the tetrarchy.<\/p>\nA persecution of Christians began during Diocletian’s reign in 303, which was aimed at destroying church buildings and copies of the NT Scriptures. Among the tetrarchs, Galerius was the most active in carrying out the persecution. Because persecution continued under Galerius after Diocletian’s abdication, some scholars maintain that Diocletian was not responsible for the policy. Diocletian retired to a villa at Split in his native Dalmatia, avoiding public association with the new administration’s superstitious and violent policies.<\/p>\n<h5>Constantine the Great (AD<\/span> 272 or 273–337, reigned AD<\/span> 306–337)<\/h5>\nConstantine’s parents were Constantius Chlorus, the Western co-emperor of the Roman Empire, and Helena, a concubine. When his father died in England in 306, Constantine was proclaimed emperor by the troops and grudgingly accepted by Galerius, the Eastern emperor. The government of the empire was thrown into turmoil, and within two years five men had claimed to be emperor.<\/p>\nShortly before his death in 311, Galerius, the senior co-emperor, issued an edict of toleration that ended the persecution of Christians. With Galerius gone, Constantine and Licinius (who had become his co-emperor) allied themselves against Maxentius and Maximin Daia. In 312 Constantine defeated and killed Maxentius in a battle at the Mulvian Bridge near Rome. Maximin Daia fell to Licinius in the next year. An uneasy peace between Constantine and Licinius was maintained until 323, when Constantine crossed into Licinius’s territory while chasing out Gothic invaders. Battles at Adrianople and Chrysopolis in the next year decided the matter and left Constantine the sole emperor.<\/p>\nOne of his most significant political moves was the founding of the city of Constantinople, dedicated in 330 on the site of Byzantium. Its location on the Strait of Bosporus was ideal from a military standpoint since it gave access to both the Rhine-Danube and Persian fronts. Constantine continued a reorganization of government started by Diocletian (reigned 284-305) and reformed the currency. He also allowed barbarians to settle within the empire in order to use them in the army.<\/p>\nConstantine is most remembered for his religious policies. The nature of his own religious beliefs has been disputed. From the first he was tolerant of Christians in his own realm. His preference for Christianity was demonstrated just before the battle at the Mulvian Bridge. According to one account, in a dream before the battle Constantine saw a vision of a monogram composed of the first two Greek letters of the name of “Christ.” The next day he had his soldiers inscribe that monogram on their shields. Another story says that, while marching one day, he and his army saw the image of a cross appear before the sun with the words “In this sign conquer.” During the winter of 312–13, he wrote to an officer in North Africa instructing him to supply money to the bishop of Carthage in order to pay expenses of the clergy. When he and Licinius met in Milan in 313, they issued an edict granting all persons the freedom to follow whichever religion they wished. His Christian sentiments also resulted in laws allowing bishops to decide civil lawsuits, banning any branding on the face (because it marred the image of God), closing law courts and workshops on Sunday, and banning gladiatorial games. Though he favored Christianity, Constantine was also tolerant of paganism and, as late as 324, pagan themes were engraved on his coins. With Christians such a minority in the empire, Constantine felt he could not risk offending the pagan majority.<\/p>\nConstantine took an active role in church controversies. When Caecilian was challenged as bishop of Carthage (313) by the Donatists (separatists in the African church), Constantine instructed the bishops of Rome to summon a commission to hear the case. Since the Donatists were not content with the results of that commission, Constantine himself eventually heard the case, and in 316 he declared Caecilian to be the rightful bishop. Constantine also summoned the Council of Nicaea in 325, which ruled against Arianism (a heresy that denied that Christ as the Son of God was coeternal with the Father). It was the emperor’s edict that gave legal force to the Nicaean decision.<\/p>\nOne serious scandal marred Constantine’s reign. In 326 he had his son Crispus and his own wife, Faustus, executed on charges of adultery. Constantine was succeeded by his three other sons (Constans, Constantius, Constantine II), after being baptized a Christian on his deathbed (according to legend).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Rome, City of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CAESARS, The<\/h3>\nSuccession of Roman emperors. The name Caesar, which has derivatives in the German Kaiser, Dutch Keizer, and Russian Czar, goes back to the family name of Julius Caesar (100–44 BC<\/span>), which his successors took to themselves. Luke’s Gospel mentions Caesar Augustus (Lk 2:1) and Tiberius Caesar (Lk 3:1). In the book of Acts the title “Caesar” is used to refer to Nero (Acts 25:11-12, 21; 26:32; 27:24; 28:19). During NT times, 12 Caesars reigned, 6 of them actually of the Caesarean lineage.<\/p>\nEmperors of Caesar’s Lineage<\/p>\n<h5>Julius Caesar (100–44 BC<\/span>)<\/h5>\nJulius had imperial powers but never held the title of emperor. Rome had been a republic (really an aristocracy) for almost 500 years. Its citizens hated the idea of a monarch, a position Julius Caesar judiciously declined, accepting a republican office but ruling as virtual dictator. The republic was dead in practice if not in principle. Vainly hoping to revive it and fearing Caesar’s imperial ambitions, a group of republicans conspired to assassinate him. Caesar was murdered on March 15 (the “ides of March”), 44 BC<\/span>, as he entered the Roman Senate. Although the conspiracy succeeded, its purpose failed. In the civil war that followed, Caesar’s grand-nephew Octavian emerged as victor and in 31 BC<\/span> became the first Roman emperor.<\/p>\n<h5>Augustus (63 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 14, reigned 31 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 14)<\/h5>\nGaius Octavianus (Octavian) was the grandson of Julia, Julius Caesar’s sister. He was 18 and studying in Greece when his great-uncle was assassinated. Caesar’s will, which adopted him as son and made him heir, brought him into the resulting power struggle.<\/p>\nWithin a year and a half, a trio consisting of Antony, Lepidus, and Octavian was confirmed in power. The following year, in a battle at Philippi (in Macedonia, now Greece), Octavian defeated both Cassius and Brutus, the chief conspirators against Caesar. Antony took command of the eastern provinces (which included Greece and Egypt), Octavian led his forces back to Italy, and Lepidus assumed jurisdiction over Gaul and western North Africa. Lepidus, however, was forced into retirement, and the area he controlled fell to Octavian. Thus Octavian and Antony, who had clashed even before their alliance, became rivals again. In the battle of Actium (31 BC<\/span>), Octavian defeated Antony to become sole ruler of the Roman world and its first emperor.<\/p>\nOctavian did not possess the military brilliance of his great-uncle, but he had a talent for ending strife and maintaining peace, which immediately gained him the support of the people. During his reign Roman culture enjoyed a golden age, particularly in architecture and literature. Augustus founded the Praetorian Guard, the emperor’s private honor corps of 9,000 soldiers. Originally intended to secure the emperor’s position, it later became so influential that it could independently depose an emperor or elect a new one without Senate confirmation.<\/p>\nThe title Augustus (Augoustos),<\/em> meaning “exalted one,” was given to Octavian in 27 BC<\/span>. The title reflects the practice of emperor worship that had been partly initiated in the reign of Julius Caesar, who declared himself to be “the unconquered god” and “the father of the fatherland.” Augustus continued the cult, although at first he declared that he should be worshiped only in association with the goddess Roma. Later, however, Augustus’s name became equated with Rome, and the emperor was regarded as the savior of the world. A temple to Augustus was built in Athens, and even Herod the Great built temples in his honor.<\/p>\nWhen Augustus became emperor, he devoted himself to reorganizing his empire. Because of the chaos that had prevailed in the provinces, he took it upon himself to restructure economic and financial policies.<\/p>\nThough Caesar Augustus is mentioned only once in the NT, he nevertheless is known to every reader of the Bible because of the census he decreed in all the provinces just before the birth of Jesus (Lk 2:1). Little information is available about that census, but Luke wrote that the first census was held when Jesus was born. The second was conducted in AD<\/span> 6 and resulted in an uprising instigated by Judas of Galilee (Acts 5:37).<\/p>\nDuring the time of Augustus’s reign, Herod the Great gained the emperor’s trust and was allowed to rule the Jews without Roman interference. In appreciation Herod rebuilt the old city of Samaria and renamed it Sebaste to honor Augustus. Caesarea on the Mediterranean coast of Palestine was also named in his honor.<\/p>\nConflicts between Herod and his sons were settled by Augustus in 12 BC<\/span>. When dispute between father and sons arose again, however, Augustus ordered that it be settled in a Roman court, which ruled in 7 BC<\/span> that two of them, Alexander and Aristobulus, be executed. In 4 BC<\/span>, Augustus permitted the execution of Herod’s son Antipater.<\/p>\nIn Herod’s last will and testament, three of his sons (Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip) were appointed to rule his kingdom. Augustus’s approval of those appointments was necessary. Archelaus made a personal visit to Rome immediately after the death of his father to request possible changes in his status. Likewise, Antipas journeyed to Rome to see whether Augustus might be willing to grant him royal status as well. While the two of them sought separate audiences with the emperor, a delegation representing the people of Judea appeared before Augustus with the request that the Herodian rule—which was never very popular—be terminated. At the same time riots in Judea had to be suppressed by Roman legions sent from Syria.<\/p>\nAugustus compromised. He converted Herod’s old kingdom to a Roman province and refused kingship to all of Herod’s sons. Otherwise he kept to the provisions of Herod’s testament: Archelaus became ethnarch (overlord) of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea (half of the new province); Antipas became tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (one quarter of the province); Philip became tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis (Lk 3:1; an area east of Galilee—the final quarter of the province). Because Archelaus was unable to rule effectively, he was deposed by the emperor in AD<\/span> 6 and banished to Vienne in southern France.<\/p>\nAugustus died in AD<\/span> 14 after a brief illness, leaving the empire to his appointed successor, Tiberius.<\/p>\n<h5>Tiberius (42 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 37, reigned AD<\/span> 14–37)<\/h5>\nTiberius Claudius Nero became Octavian’s stepson at the age of four, when his mother, Livia, divorced his father to marry the future emperor. Tiberius was made Augustus’s co-regent in AD<\/span> 13 and succeeded him the following year. When he became emperor, he changed his name to Tiberius Caesar Augustus.<\/p>\nTiberius did not have an easy life. His stepfather had forced an unhappy marriage upon him. The Roman Senate often opposed him. In AD<\/span> 27 Tiberius left Rome for the island of Capri, leaving the task of governing the empire in the hands of Sejanus, a Roman prefect (high-ranking official). During the next five years, Sejanus secretly tried to depose the emperor and seize power for himself. His conspiracy almost succeeded, but Tiberius eventually had him executed. Despite this, Tiberius’s administration was characterized by wisdom, intelligence, prudence, and duty. He continued his predecessor’s policy of striving for peace and security.<\/p>\nIn AD<\/span> 26, presumably before going into semiretirement, Tiberius appointed Pontius Pilate as governor of Judea. Directly responsible to the emperor, Pilate could be immediately removed from office if word of Jewish disturbances or complaints reached Tiberius. Pilate’s capitulation to the Jewish authorities during the trial of Jesus can be best understood in view of this. The Jews accused Jesus of claiming to be king, implying a rivalry with the emperor. When Pilate judged Christ innocent of the charge and sought to release him (Jn 18:33-38), the Jews insisted he could not do so and still be a friend of Caesar (19:12). If he released Jesus, they insinuated, he would risk losing the emperor’s favor. Because of crimes committed at his command against the Jews, Pilate knew they might carry out their threat, resulting in his banishment. So, surrendering to their demands, he condemned Jesus to death by crucifixion.<\/p>\nTiberius Caesar is mentioned only once in the NT. The Gospel of Luke states that John the Baptist began his ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar’s reign, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea (Lk 3:1). Whether that date was calculated from Tiberius’s actual accession or from the time of his co-regency is difficult to determine.<\/p>\nTiberius was a strangely humble emperor. At his own request he was never officially recognized as a god (a sort of honorary title that the Senate had given to his predecessors). Interest in emperor worship had waned, and Tiberius intended to confine deity to his two predecessors. He also stopped the practice of naming months of the year after emperors; thus there is a July for Julius, an August for Augustus, but no Tiber for Tiberius. Plagued by domestic and political problems all his life, Tiberius died a tired and dejected old man. In fact, he was an excellent administrator.<\/p>\n<h5>Caligula (AD<\/span> 12–41, reigned AD<\/span> 37–41)<\/h5>\nAt the death of Tiberius, Gaius Julius Caesar became emperor at the age of 25. He was the son of an influential general, Germanicus; Augustus had forced Tiberius to adopt Gaius and make him his heir. As a child, Gaius had accompanied Germanicus on his military duties along the Rhine River in Germany. The soldiers nicknamed him Caligula (“Little Boot”) for his military attire. The name stuck.<\/p>\nTo gain popularity with the Romans, Caligula began his reign by pardoning people and recalling exiles. He squandered the money of the Roman treasury, however, and was forced to levy new taxes. His popularity was short-lived.<\/p>\nSix months after assuming office, Caligula suffered a serious illness that left him insane. On one occasion, for example, he appointed his horse as consul (chief magistrate). He insulted many people, banished others on whim, and had others murdered without provocation. When he felt that he had been insulted by the Jews in Jamnia, a Judean town near the Mediterranean coast, he ordered a statue of himself placed in the temple at Jerusalem in revenge. The Jews were outraged, and a full-scale revolt was avoided only by the prudence of the governor of Syria, Petronius, who delayed carrying out the order. Not long afterward the emperor was assassinated by one of the many men he had insulted.<\/p>\nIt was Caligula who appointed Herod Agrippa I (Herod in Acts 12) king over a tetrarchy northeast of Galilee—one of the first acts he performed as emperor, according to the Jewish historian Josephus. The two had become close friends before either had come to power, while Agrippa was living in Rome, where even as king he later spent much of his time. But unlike Caligula, Agrippa was a capable and popular ruler. Both king and emperor, in the tradition of many eastern monarchs, fancied themselves gods. Caligula, in fact, revived the notion in Rome of the emperor’s deity and madly proclaimed himself equal to Jupiter. The Senate, however, refrained from officially recognizing that status.<\/p>\n<h5>Claudius (10 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 54, reigned AD<\/span> 41–54)<\/h5>\nTiberius Claudius Germanicus was born in Lyon (France). He was Tiberius’s nephew and a grandson of Livia, the wife of Augustus. In AD<\/span> 37 he was appointed consul by Caligula. After Caligula’s death Claudius was proclaimed emperor by the Praetorian Guard, and the Senate approved the choice.<\/p>\nWhen Claudius became emperor, he faced the task of healing the broken relationships caused by Caligula’s madness. He ended the persecution of Jews in the city of Alexandria. Josephus recorded an edict that Claudius sent to Egypt, which read, in part: “Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, high priest and tribune of the people, ordains thus. . . . I will, therefore, that the nation of the Jews be not deprived of their rights and privileges on account of the madness of Gaius; but that those rights and privileges that they formerly enjoyed, be preserved to them, and that they may continue in their own customs.”<\/p>\nThat change of policy reflected the emperor’s friendship with Herod Agrippa, who had played an influential role in Claudius’s succession as emperor. Claudius, in turn, added Judea and Samaria to Agrippa’s kingdom, giving him the dominion that once belonged to his grandfather, Herod the Great. He also promoted him to consular rank. Further, having complete trust in Agrippa’s abilities, Claudius removed Judea from Roman provincial rule.<\/p>\nAgrippa’s rule, however, was of short duration. In order to please the Jews, he had the apostle James, Zebedee’s son, killed. He also had the apostle Peter imprisoned, planning to have him executed after the Passover feast in the spring of AD<\/span> 44 (Acts 12:1-5). Peter escaped. During the summer of that year, Agrippa, who was wearing a glistening garment made of silver thread, gave a speech from his throne. The people acclaimed him as a god (v 22), and immediately he was struck down by an angel of the Lord. Five days later he died.<\/p>\nThe emperor wished to stay on the right side of the Jewish people, yet five years after the death of Agrippa, Claudius issued an edict expelling all Jews from Rome. Luke related that Aquila and Priscilla were among those who had been ordered to leave the imperial city (Acts 18:2). The Roman biographer and historian Suetonius wrote that “because the Jews of Rome were indulging in constant riots at the instigation of Chrestus he [Claudius] expelled them from the city.” The writer could easily have been uncertain of the spelling, because Chrestus, a common slave name, was pronounced virtually the same as Christus. It appears that Suetonius sought to convey to his readers that Chrestus was the founder of a movement (presumably Christianity).<\/p>\nBecause of mismanagement by Caligula, the supply of grain for food was at an all-time low when Claudius began to reign (cf. Acts 11:28). Josephus related that during Claudius’s administration, famine plagued Judea, Samaria, and Galilee. To alleviate the famine in Jerusalem, Helena, mother of the king of Adiabene, bought grain from Egypt and dried figs from Cyprus. That must have taken place in AD<\/span> 45–46. Various ancient historians, including Tacitus, Suetonius, and Eusebius, reported that on frequent occasions famines prevailed in Rome and elsewhere. Repeatedly, harvests were minimal and distribution of food supplies was poor.<\/p>\nClaudius’s family life and reputation were marred by intrigue. His immoral third wife, Messalina, was eventually put to death. Causing a slight scandal, he married his niece Agrippina, who had a son by a former marriage. She wanted her son Nero to be emperor, but Britannicus, Messalina’s son, stood first in line. In AD<\/span> 54, when Claudius decided that Britannicus should succeed him, Agrippina poisoned her husband and made Nero emperor. The Senate officially deified Claudius, making him the third emperor to receive that honor.<\/p>\n<h5>Nero (AD<\/span> 37–68, reigned AD<\/span> 54–68)<\/h5>\nNero was born Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus. His father was a senator and consul who died when Nero was still a boy. His mother, Agrippina, Germanicus’s daughter, was reputed to be one of the wealthiest and most beautiful women in Rome. When she married the emperor, her son received the name Nero Claudius Caesar Germanicus at his adoption by Claudius.<\/p>\nNero was at first dominated by his proud mother, who wished to reign alongside her son. In those years Rome was a hotbed of political intrigue, murder plots, and assassinations. During the first five years of his reign, Nero had Britannicus and Agrippina eliminated in quick succession. A few years later he banished his wife, Octavia, and had her killed.<\/p>\nIronically, the church at Rome flourished at that same time. The last chapter of the apostle Paul’s Letter to the Romans, written from Corinth in AD<\/span> 57, contains a long and impressive list of names of personal acquaintances—especially impressive because Paul had never been in Rome.<\/p>\nNero had reigned more than five years when Paul, imprisoned at Caesarea, appealed to Caesar (Acts 25:11). Motives for the appeal may have been a prison release for Paul and an opportunity to seek legal recognition of Christianity. Paul’s appeal to Caesar, however, does not necessarily mean that he was judged by Nero. The emperor had made it known at the beginning of his reign that he would not be a judge. Instead, he appointed prefects of the Praetorian Guard to judge cases for him. In the early part of AD<\/span> 62, Nero changed that rule and judged a case himself. Therefore, whether Paul stood before Nero or before one of the prefects is difficult to determine. If prosecutors failed to appear, Paul’s case may not have come before the judge at all. According to Philippians 1:7-14, Paul was still expecting a trial at the time of his writing that letter.<\/p>\nIn AD<\/span> 62 Nero’s adviser Afranius Burrus died. Burrus had been a prefect of the Praetorian Guard and, together with an able senator, Seneca, had ruled the empire effectively while Nero spent his time on pleasure. After Burrus’s death (Seneca was forced to commit suicide three years later), Nero began to indulge his whims unchecked. His greedy advisers, who sought self-advancement at the expense of the state, caused a severe financial crisis. Nero was also unbalanced in regarding himself the savior of the world.<\/p>\nIn AD<\/span> 64 a fire broke out at the Circus Maximus in Rome. It spread quickly, devouring everything in its path. Fanned by the wind, it raged for more than five days and devastated a large area of the city before being brought under control. At the time, Nero was at Antium, his birthplace, some 33 miles (53 kilometers) to the south. He rushed to Rome to organize relief work. Because of his evil record, however, people put stock in the rumor that Nero had set the fire himself.<\/p>\nNero, in turn, found a scapegoat in the Christians, whom he charged with the crime. Many were persecuted. Perhaps the apostle Peter in his first letter was referring to the sufferings of Christians during the last few years of Nero’s reign (1 Pt 4:12). Nero may have been influenced by his second wife, Poppaea, to blame the Christians for the devastation of Rome. The church had increased in numbers and had become a movement. Tacitus alluded to the size of the church when he wrote that “a huge crowd was convicted not so much of arson as of hatred of the human race.”<\/p>\nIt is likely that Peter and Paul were executed during the Neronian persecution. Clement of Rome, an early church father, in his letter to the church at Corinth (written presumably in AD<\/span> 95), referred to the heroes of faith “who lived nearest to our time,” namely Peter and Paul, who suffered martyrdom.<\/p>\nIn AD<\/span> 66 a Jewish revolt broke out in Caesarea. Nero dispatched his general Vespasian to squelch the revolt, taking no interest himself in the affairs of state. He left Rome for a journey to Greece, leaving the responsibility of governing the empire to a Roman prefect, Helius. Because of the inescapable opposition he encountered from leading governors in France, Spain, and Africa on his return, Nero committed suicide in AD<\/span> 68. He was the last emperor of the Caesarean line by blood or marriage.<\/p>\nSome Later Emperors<\/p>\n<h5>Galba (3 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 69, reigned AD<\/span> 68–69)<\/h5>\nAfter Nero’s death, the Praetorian Guard selected Serius Sulpicius Galba to become emperor. Galba was a popular and capable governor at various times in the provinces of France, Germany, Spain, and Africa. He was a less successful emperor and became increasingly unpopular with the army and the people for his frugality and dislike of ceremony. The German legions of the Roman army, who had only reluctantly recognized him as their commander-in-chief, withdrew their support in AD<\/span> 69, proclaiming Aulus Vitellius emperor.<\/p>\nWhen Galba failed to appoint one of his chief supporters, Marcus Salvius Otho, as his successor, he in essence signed his own death warrant. Otho gained the support of the Praetorian Guard, was proclaimed emperor, had Galba killed, and was confirmed by the Senate.<\/p>\n<h5>Vespasian (AD<\/span> 9–79, reigned AD<\/span> 69–79)<\/h5>\nIn the fall of AD<\/span> 69, Vespasian found Rome ready for a period of stability, peace, and order. The son of a tax collector, he lived frugally, reestablished Rome’s finances, reorganized the armies, and reemphasized the outward forms of the old republic. According to Suetonius, no innocent party was ever punished while Vespasian was emperor. He grieved when convicted criminals were executed.<\/p>\nBecause of Nero’s financial mismanagement, Vespasian had to levy new taxes and increase existing taxes in order to meet his fiscal obligations. As a result he was slandered as avaricious, although he was generous in aiding underprivileged senators and impoverished ex-consuls. Vespasian improved a number of cities in the empire that had been devastated by fire or earthquake, and he promoted the arts and sciences. In Rome he built the Temple of Peace after the destruction of Jerusalem and the defeat of the Jews, erected a forum, restored the Capitol, and began construction of the Colosseum.<\/p>\nDuring his 10-year reign, Vespasian established peace throughout the empire. His son Titus ended the war in Palestine, and other Roman generals suppressed a revolt in Germany. Public confidence was largely restored with the return to earlier standards of morality. Vespasian appointed his sons Titus and Domitian to succeed him.<\/p>\n<h5>Titus (AD<\/span> 39–81, reigned AD<\/span> 79–81)<\/h5>\nTitus Flavius Vespasianus had served efficiently as a colonel in Germany and Britain. When the Jewish revolt broke out, he accompanied his father to Palestine. When Vespasian left for Rome five years later, Titus was appointed general of the Roman forces in Palestine. On September 26, AD<\/span> 70, the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by fire, the citadel fell into the hands of the Romans, and countless Jews were killed. Titus returned to Rome with Jewish captives and spoils from the temple to celebrate his victory with his father. The Arch of Titus was erected in Rome, depicting his conquest of Jerusalem.<\/p>\nUntil Vespasian’s death, Titus was almost a co-ruler with his father. He served as Vespasian’s secretary, drafted edicts, and addressed the Senate in session. Titus was a talented person, especially in politics and music. He had fallen in love with Queen Bernice, King Agrippa II’s sister (see Acts 25–26) and allegedly had promised to marry her, but moral integrity prevented him when rumor reached him of an incestuous relationship with her brother.<\/p>\nDuring Titus’s brief reign as emperor (AD<\/span> 79–81), a series of catastrophes occurred: Mt Vesuvius in southern Italy erupted and buried the towns of Pompeii, Stabiae, and Herculaneum (August, AD<\/span> 79); a fire raged for three days and nights in Rome (AD<\/span> 80); and a plague spread throughout the imperial city. Suetonius wrote that during those disasters Titus cared for the people with a love resembling the deep love of a father for his children. When Titus died unexpectedly, his death caused universal mourning; he was eulogized by senators and common people alike.<\/p>\n<h5>Domitian (AD<\/span> 51–96, reigned AD<\/span> 81–96)<\/h5>\nDuring Titus’s rule, his brother Domitian expressed bitterness at having to take second place, openly coveted power, and conspired to seize command of the armed forces. He secretly rejoiced over Titus’s sudden death and tried to slight his older brother’s reputation. As it turned out, Domitian proved to be a capable administrator: he restored the fire-gutted Capitol and built a temple to Jupiter, the Flavian Temple, a forum, a stadium, a concert hall, and an artificial lake for sea battles. He instituted the Capitoline Festival, promoted the arts and sciences, and maintained the public libraries.<\/p>\nAfter the custom of earlier emperors Domitian proclaimed himself divine and had his subjects call him “Lord God.” The Senate, however, never officially deified him. Throughout his reign they resented and often opposed the power he exercised by prerogative. Domitian did not hesitate to persecute senators who made their objections known. In order to protect himself, he sought the army’s support by periodically increasing their pay. He collected additional taxes and often resorted to extortion. Jewish people were especially affected by his taxation. In the last years of Domitian’s reign, religious persecution was revived.<\/p>\nThe early Christian writers Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Eusebius mention the persecution of Christians during Domitian’s administration. Domitian appears to have been a relentless persecutor, second only to Nero. He even put members of his own family to death; his wife, Domitia, feared for her life because of her alleged affiliation with Christianity. With friends and freedmen, she plotted her husband’s assassination.<\/p>\nAfter ruling the empire for 15 years, Domitian was murdered. Mourned by none, except perhaps his well-paid army, he left in the wake of his reign a bitter memory of oppression.<\/p>\n<h5>Trajan (AD<\/span> 53–117, reigned AD<\/span> 98–117)<\/h5>\nTrajan was born Marcus Trajanus of Roman parents in Italica, Spain. His father was a soldier who was promoted to governor of an eastern province in Spain. Trajan, trained to be a military commander, proved himself in campaigns in Spain, Syria, and Germany. In AD<\/span> 97, Emperor Nerva adopted him as his son and heir. Upon Nerva’s death the following year, Trajan was named emperor.<\/p>\nA powerful military leader, Trajan expanded the Roman Empire by many conquests in Dacia (now part of Romania and Hungary), Arabia, and Parthia (now part of Iran). He established new cities, including Thamugadi in what is now Algeria. He also oversaw many building programs, including bridges across the Danube River in Dacia and Tagus River in Spain, and a harbor at the port of Rome. According to the writings of Pliny (see Letters<\/em> 10.96), we know that Trajan instigated persecutions against Christians because their worship of Jesus threatened to exterminate the traditional forms of Roman worship. The Christians’ refusal to invoke the Roman gods and make offerings to the emperor’s statue was considered a treasonous act because it undermined the empire’s security.<\/p>\n<h5>Diocletian (AD<\/span> 245–313, reigned AD<\/span> 284–305)<\/h5>\nBorn to parents of humble means in Dalmatia (now part of Yugoslavia), Diocles changed his name to Diocletian when he became emperor. As a young man he joined the army and rose in rank, becoming commander of the imperial guard. When the emperor Numerian was murdered, Diocles’ troops proclaimed him the new ruler. Numerian’s brother, Carinus, was killed by his own troops when he sought the throne, and the way was clear for Diocles to assume control unopposed.<\/p>\nDiocletian, an able organizer and administrator, used his skills to enact many structural reforms in the Roman Empire, including the establishment of the tetrarchy (293), a new imperial system in which four rulers shared power. His other reforms affected military, administrative, and economic areas. As a result of such reorganization, Diocletian created an efficient bureaucracy. Nevertheless, Rome declined as a political power center, and the Senate was further subordinated to the tetrarchy.<\/p>\nA persecution of Christians began during Diocletian’s reign in 303, which was aimed at destroying church buildings and copies of the NT Scriptures. Among the tetrarchs, Galerius was the most active in carrying out the persecution. Because persecution continued under Galerius after Diocletian’s abdication, some scholars maintain that Diocletian was not responsible for the policy. Diocletian retired to a villa at Split in his native Dalmatia, avoiding public association with the new administration’s superstitious and violent policies.<\/p>\n<h5>Constantine the Great (AD<\/span> 272 or 273–337, reigned AD<\/span> 306–337)<\/h5>\nConstantine’s parents were Constantius Chlorus, the Western co-emperor of the Roman Empire, and Helena, a concubine. When his father died in England in 306, Constantine was proclaimed emperor by the troops and grudgingly accepted by Galerius, the Eastern emperor. The government of the empire was thrown into turmoil, and within two years five men had claimed to be emperor.<\/p>\nShortly before his death in 311, Galerius, the senior co-emperor, issued an edict of toleration that ended the persecution of Christians. With Galerius gone, Constantine and Licinius (who had become his co-emperor) allied themselves against Maxentius and Maximin Daia. In 312 Constantine defeated and killed Maxentius in a battle at the Mulvian Bridge near Rome. Maximin Daia fell to Licinius in the next year. An uneasy peace between Constantine and Licinius was maintained until 323, when Constantine crossed into Licinius’s territory while chasing out Gothic invaders. Battles at Adrianople and Chrysopolis in the next year decided the matter and left Constantine the sole emperor.<\/p>\nOne of his most significant political moves was the founding of the city of Constantinople, dedicated in 330 on the site of Byzantium. Its location on the Strait of Bosporus was ideal from a military standpoint since it gave access to both the Rhine-Danube and Persian fronts. Constantine continued a reorganization of government started by Diocletian (reigned 284-305) and reformed the currency. He also allowed barbarians to settle within the empire in order to use them in the army.<\/p>\nConstantine is most remembered for his religious policies. The nature of his own religious beliefs has been disputed. From the first he was tolerant of Christians in his own realm. His preference for Christianity was demonstrated just before the battle at the Mulvian Bridge. According to one account, in a dream before the battle Constantine saw a vision of a monogram composed of the first two Greek letters of the name of “Christ.” The next day he had his soldiers inscribe that monogram on their shields. Another story says that, while marching one day, he and his army saw the image of a cross appear before the sun with the words “In this sign conquer.” During the winter of 312–13, he wrote to an officer in North Africa instructing him to supply money to the bishop of Carthage in order to pay expenses of the clergy. When he and Licinius met in Milan in 313, they issued an edict granting all persons the freedom to follow whichever religion they wished. His Christian sentiments also resulted in laws allowing bishops to decide civil lawsuits, banning any branding on the face (because it marred the image of God), closing law courts and workshops on Sunday, and banning gladiatorial games. Though he favored Christianity, Constantine was also tolerant of paganism and, as late as 324, pagan themes were engraved on his coins. With Christians such a minority in the empire, Constantine felt he could not risk offending the pagan majority.<\/p>\nConstantine took an active role in church controversies. When Caecilian was challenged as bishop of Carthage (313) by the Donatists (separatists in the African church), Constantine instructed the bishops of Rome to summon a commission to hear the case. Since the Donatists were not content with the results of that commission, Constantine himself eventually heard the case, and in 316 he declared Caecilian to be the rightful bishop. Constantine also summoned the Council of Nicaea in 325, which ruled against Arianism (a heresy that denied that Christ as the Son of God was coeternal with the Father). It was the emperor’s edict that gave legal force to the Nicaean decision.<\/p>\nOne serious scandal marred Constantine’s reign. In 326 he had his son Crispus and his own wife, Faustus, executed on charges of adultery. Constantine was succeeded by his three other sons (Constans, Constantius, Constantine II), after being baptized a Christian on his deathbed (according to legend).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Rome, City of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CAESARS, The Succession of Roman emperors. The name Caesar, which has derivatives in the German Kaiser, Dutch Keizer, and Russian Czar, goes back to the family name of Julius Caesar (100–44 BC), which his successors took to themselves. Luke’s Gospel mentions Caesar Augustus (Lk 2:1) and Tiberius Caesar (Lk 3:1). In the book of Acts the title “Caesar” is used to refer to Nero (Acts 25:11-12, 21; 26:32; 27:24; 28:19). During NT times, 12 Caesars reigned, 6 of them actually of the Caesarean line...","summary_en":"CAESARS, The Succession of Roman emperors. The name Caesar, which has derivatives in the German Kaiser, Dutch Keizer, and Russian Czar, goes back to the family name of Julius Caesar (100–44 BC), which his successors took to themselves. Luke’s Gospel mentions Caesar Augustus (Lk 2:1) and Tiberius Caesar (Lk 3:1). In the book of Acts the title “Caesar” is used to refer to Nero (Acts 25:11-12, 21; 26:32; 27:24; 28:19). During NT times, 12 Caesars reigned, 6 of them actually of the Caesarean line...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":6471,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of the Bible* (New Testament), Chronology","title_en":"of the Bible* (New Testament), Chronology","content_ro":"<h3>CHRONOLOGY OF THE BIBLE* (New Testament)<\/h3>\nBranch of biblical studies that attempts to discover the sequence of NT events and the amount of time that elapsed between them. Chronology is essential to historians, whose task it is to determine the causes and effects of past events. Generally, for a historian’s purpose, assigning absolute dates is less important than knowing the sequence of events that may have influenced each other. Very few NT happenings, in fact, can be given exact dates.<\/p>\n\nA remarkable testimony to the influence of Christianity is the fact that the entire Western world now divides history into BC<\/span> (before Christ) and AD<\/span> (anno Domini,<\/em> “in the year of the Lord”). Before that method of dating became widespread in the Middle Ages, events were dated by their relation to other important events such as the founding of Rome or the beginning of a king’s reign. When a monk named Dionysius Exiguus (sixth century) invented our present method of dating, with the birth of Christ dividing history, he made a mistake in his computations. The odd result is the historical anomaly that Jesus himself was born no later than four years “before Christ.”<\/p>\nChronology of Jesus’ Life<\/p>\n<h5>Birth<\/h5>\nAccording to Matthew 2:1 Jesus was born “in the days of Herod the king.” A first-century AD<\/span> historian, Josephus, recorded that Herod died in the spring of the year we identify as 4 BC<\/span>. Hence, Jesus was born sometime before that, but how much before is uncertain. Luke 2:1-2 records that Jesus’ birth occurred when “Caesar Augustus,” the Roman emperor, decreed that a census, or enrollment, should be taken throughout the nation. “This was the first census taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria” (nlt<\/span>). Those statements raise two questions: When was such a census taken, and when was Quirinius governor of Syria? Neither question has received a completely satisfying answer.<\/p>\nCensus documents discovered in Egypt, together with earlier references, suggest that such enrollments were held every 14 years. That would put a census roughly in 8 or 9 BC<\/span>. In view of the time needed to carry out the census (which required a person to travel to his birthplace), the birth of Jesus may have been somewhat later than the actual year of the decree (perhaps 7 BC<\/span>).<\/p>\nJosephus recorded that Quirinius became governor of Syria in AD<\/span> 6, rather late as a date for Jesus’ birth. But some scholars have argued from ancient inscriptions that Quirinius also served in Syria as a special legate of the emperor Augustus before 6 BC<\/span>. That could be the period referred to in Luke 2:2. Why did Luke choose to cite Quirinius instead of the regular governor of Syria at that time? Perhaps by so doing he could provide a more exact date for the birth of Jesus, since Quirinius was in authority for a shorter time than the regular governor of Syria.<\/p>\nA reasonable conclusion is that Jesus was born about 7 or 6 BC<\/span>. That fits with Matthew 2:16, which seems to say that Jesus was born at least two years before Herod’s death in 4 BC<\/span>. No clear evidence exists concerning the day and month of his birth. Celebration of December 25 as Christmas originated in the fourth century, probably as a Christian alternative to the pagan winter solstice festival (Saturnalia).<\/p>\n<h5>The Beginning of Public Ministry<\/h5>\nLuke 3:23 says that Jesus, “when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age”; since the age given is only approximate, he may have been two or three years older or younger (cf. the pseudepigraphal Testament of Levi 2:2; 12:5). If exactly 30 is added to the suggested date of birth, one gets AD<\/span> 24. That date cannot be right, because Jesus’ ministry began after John the Baptist appears; Luke 3:1-3 dates John’s public appearance precisely in “the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias Caesar” while Pilate was procurator (governor) over Judea. Pilate governed from AD<\/span> 26 to 36, and the 15th year of Tiberius was most likely AD<\/span> 27. Therefore Jesus did not begin his public ministry before AD<\/span> 27. If only a short time elapsed between the beginning of John’s ministry and the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, then Jesus probably began in AD<\/span> 27 or 28 when he was approximately 33 years old.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Death<\/h5>\nAll four Gospel records seem to imply that Jesus ate the Last Supper with his disciples on Thursday evening, was crucified on Friday, and rose from the dead early Sunday morning (Mt 28:1; Mk 16:1; Lk 24:1). The claim that Jesus rose on the third day (1 Cor 15:4) comes from the Jewish custom of counting a part of the day as a whole day. According to Matthew (26:19), Mark (14:12), and Luke (22:15), the Last Supper was the Passover meal, a yearly celebration of Israel’s escape from Egypt (Ex 12–15). But according to John 13:1 and 19:14, the Passover meal had not yet been eaten on Friday; hence the Last Supper in John was not the Passover meal.<\/p>\nNo completely satisfying solution to the apparent discrepancy has been put forward. Some scholars suggest plausibly that the use of two different calendars was responsible. According to that theory, Jesus was following a calendar that placed the Passover meal on Thursday night. Temple officials, on the other hand, followed an alternate calendar that placed the killing of sacrificial victims on the next day. John may have used the second system to emphasize the fact that Christ was offered as the Passover sacrifice (cf. Jn 19:36; 1 Cor 5:7).<\/p>\nTo find out how long Jesus’ public ministry lasted and thus the year in which he died, one can turn to time references in John’s Gospel. John referred to at least three Passovers (2:13; 6:4; 13:1) and possibly four (5:1). Since the Passover was a yearly feast, the ministry of Jesus would have lasted at least two and possibly three years. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke the Friday of Jesus’ death occurred on the 15th of the Jewish month Nisan (which overlaps March and April). According to John, Jesus died on 14 Nisan. The question is: In which years from 26 to 36 (when Pilate was procurator in Judea) did 14 or 15 Nisan fall on a Friday? The answer is AD<\/span> 27, 29, 30, and 33. Of those, the year 27 is too early and 33 is probably too late. Thus Jesus was probably crucified in 29 or 30, his public ministry lasted two or three years, and he was 35 or 36 years old when he died.<\/p>\n<h4>Events from AD<\/span> 30 to 50<\/h4>\nActs is the only NT book that records how much time elapsed between Jesus’ death and his ascension: “To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3, rsv<\/span>). The next key event after the ascension of Jesus into heaven was Pentecost (Acts 2:1). Pentecost, the Greek word for “fiftieth,” referred to a celebration of the Feast of Weeks\/Harvest (cf. Ex 34:22; Dt 16:9-12) 50 days after the Passover. Since Jesus was crucified during the Passover season, the Pentecost of Acts 2:1, during which the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit, took place in AD<\/span> 29 or 30, some 50 days after the Crucifixion and about 10 days after the Ascension.<\/p>\nAfter that, events of the early chapters of Acts are hard to date because no precise statements are made about the amount of time between various events. Therefore, the usual method for dating events of the apostolic age is first to find at least one event that can be dated with relative certainty from sources outside the NT; one then dates events before and after that event by figuring out how much time elapsed between them. Sometimes Acts records how much time passed between two events; usually it does not, so dating can only be approximate.<\/p>\nOne pivotal starting point is the great famine prophesied by Agabus, which befell Palestine during the reign of the Roman emperor Claudius (Acts 11:28-29). Josephus, who was alive at the time, gives enough information to locate the famine sometime between the years 46 and 48. We also know from the Mishnah, a collection of Jewish laws, that the autumn of 47 to the autumn of 48 was a sabbatical year, when the Jews let the land rest and harvested nothing (cf. Lv 25:2-7). That could have aggravated and prolonged a famine, but one cannot be sure how early the famine started; some scholars propose 46 and some 47.<\/p>\nAt first, it seems peculiar that Luke, the author of Acts, should have recorded that famine (Acts 11:28) before recording the death of Herod Agrippa (12:20-23). From facts reported by Josephus, the death of Herod (a grandson of Herod the Great) can be dated in AD<\/span> 44, probably in the spring. That means that Herod must have died several years before the famine Luke recorded earlier. Some scholars think that Luke simply got his chronological facts wrong. Others see Acts 12:1-24 as a kind of flashback to bring the history of the church in Jerusalem up to date. Such a practice was common among ancient historians, who often followed one source up to a suitable stopping point before moving on to another source. To charge Luke with inaccurate dating, it is argued, is to misunderstand the techniques of historical writing he was using.<\/p>\nSince Herod Agrippa died in AD<\/span> 44 (Acts 12:23), the apostle James, whom Herod put to death with the sword (v 2), must have died soon before 44, perhaps during the Passover season of 43 (v 3). The apostle Peter’s imprisonment and his miraculous escape (vv 3-17) also belong to that period.<\/p>\nWhen the Christians of Antioch decided to send relief to the Christians in Jerusalem in the midst of the great famine (Acts 11:29), Barnabas and Paul were appointed to transport the money to Jerusalem. That was Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem after his conversion. The first visit is recorded in Acts 9:26-30. The third comes in Acts 15 when Paul and Barnabas were sent to discuss with the apostles and elders whether gentile converts to Christianity had to be circumcised. How one dates the first and third visits to Jerusalem, as well as Paul’s conversion, depends on how those Jerusalem visits are related to those reported in Paul’s letter to the Galatians.<\/p>\nThe basic problem, which still divides NT scholars, is this: In Galatians 1:15–2:10 Paul recounted that his conversion was followed by two visits to Jerusalem, one three years after his conversion (1:18) and one 14 years after that (2:1-10). All scholars agree that the first visit three years after his conversion is the same as the first visit recorded in Acts 9:26-30. Answers differ, however, to the question of whether Galatians 2:1-10 refers to the second (famine) visit to Jerusalem in Acts 11:30 (in which case the third visit of Acts 15 is the one omitted from Galatians) or whether Galatians 2:1-10 refers to the visit in Acts 15 (in which case the famine visit was the one omitted from Galatians).<\/p>\n\nThose who favor the first reconstruction offer six arguments: (1) The reason Paul gave such a rigorous account of his comings and goings in Galatians 1:15-24 was to show that he did not get his gospel from men, nor was he taught it (1:12). In other words, his visits to the Jerusalem apostles were not for the purpose of receiving his gospel. If that is so, for Paul to omit the second Jerusalem visit would jeopardize his integrity and his authority with the Galatians. The first reconstruction avoids that difficulty; omission of a third Jerusalem visit from Galatians 2:1-10 could mean that it had not yet happened when Galatians was written. (2) Galatians 2:1-10 pictures a private meeting between Paul and Barnabas on one hand and the “pillar” apostles on the other. But the meeting in Acts 15 was public and before the whole church. Hence Galatians 2:1-10 more likely refers to a private meeting during the visit of Acts 11:30, which Galatians does not record. (3) Paul’s eagerness to give to the poor mentioned in Galatians 2:10 connects naturally with the second Jerusalem visit, when he was in fact delivering relief to the poor (Acts 11:30). (4) If Galatians 2 recorded the same trip as Acts 15, one would expect some mention of the decision reached by the Jerusalem Council, especially since that decision related directly to the problem of circumcision that Paul was handling in his Letter to the Galatians. (5) Further, it seems unlikely that the Jerusalem Council preceded the event of Galatians 2:11-21, when Peter was rebuked by Paul for withdrawing from fellowship with gentile believers; that incident could hardly have happened so soon after the issue of gentile status in the church had been settled in Jerusalem. (6) According to Galatians 1:6, the letter was written “quickly” after Paul had established the Galatian churches. That makes sense if Galatians was written soon after the first missionary journey, hence just before the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15; that would make Galatians Paul’s first letter.<\/p>\nScholars who favor the second reconstruction offer four arguments: (1) The main purpose of Paul’s visit in Galatians 2:1-10 appears to be the same as that in Acts 15:1-20; both dealt with the issue of whether circumcision should be required of gentile converts (Gal 2:3-5; Acts 15:1, 5). That similarity is obvious, but there is no such explicit similarity between Galatians 2 and Acts 11:30. (2) On the basis of form and content Galatians is similar to Romans and to 1 and 2 Corinthians; it would thus seem to come from the same period—considerably later than the Jerusalem Council. If so, it is likely that Paul would have included a reference to the Jerusalem Council (namely Gal 2:1-10) in his recollections, since its outcome supported his own stance on circumcision set forth in the letter. (3) Acts 11:30 pictures Barnabas as the leader of the Barnabas\/Paul team, since his name is given first place (as in Acts 12:25; 13:1-2, 7; cf. 11:25-26). But in the description Paul gives of the visit in Galatians 2, he sees himself as the leader of the team. Since Acts does picture Paul as the leader from the time of the first missionary journey (Acts 13:9, 13, 43, 46, 50), including the third Jerusalem visit (15:2), it is more likely that Galatians 2 records the trip of Acts 15. (4) Finally, in Galatians 2:7-8 Paul was recognized as an apostle to the Gentiles with a standing equal to that of Peter. But if Galatians 2 recorded the events of Acts 11:30 and the first missionary journey had not yet occurred, the “pillar” apostles could hardly have recognized Paul’s authority as apostle to the Gentiles. It is more likely that Galatians 2 followed the first missionary journey, just as Acts 15 followed the first missionary journey in Acts, and that both refer to the same event.<\/p>\nThe significance of those arguments for chronology is that, according to the first view, Paul’s conversion came 17 years before the famine visit of Acts 11:30 (cf. Gal 1:18; 2:1). According to the second view, Paul’s conversion took place 17 years before the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. The difference amounts to only one year, however.<\/p>\nIt is helpful to consider one more date that can be fixed with high probability—namely, Paul’s arrival in Corinth on his second missionary journey (Acts 18:1). On the second missionary journey (15:40–18:22), Paul and Silas set out on land through Syria, Cilicia, Phrygia, and Galatia, visiting churches founded on the first missionary journey. They came to Troas, then passed over to Philippi and continued down the coast through Thessalonica and Berea. Paul went on to Athens before arriving at Corinth. From Acts 18:12 we know that Gallio was a proconsul in Corinth while Paul was there. An inscription discovered at nearby Delphi indicates that in all likelihood Gallio’s term of office was from mid-51 to mid-52. The incident recorded in Acts 18:12-17 probably occurred at the beginning of Gallio’s term, since the Jews hoped to get a ruling against Paul from their new proconsul. Not long after that, Paul left Corinth, probably in the summer or autumn of 52. According to Acts 18:11 Paul had spent 18 months in Corinth; that means that he probably arrived in the early months of 50 or the end of 49. That arrival date is confirmed by Acts 18:2, which says that Aquila and Priscilla had only recently been exiled from Rome when Paul came to Corinth. A fifth-century historian, Orosius, dated the edict of Claudius expelling the Jews from Rome in AD<\/span> 49. Therefore, Paul and Aquila and Priscilla probably arrived close together late in 49 or early in 50. Early in his 18-month stay Paul wrote his First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians.<\/p>\nThe two fixed dates, then, are 46 or 47 for the famine visit (Acts 11:30) and late 49 or early 50 for Paul’s arrival in Corinth (Acts 18:1). Taking into account the time gaps mentioned in Galatians 1:18 and 2:1, as well as the supposition that the first missionary journey lasted about a year, the two reconstructions are presented in the following table. Keep in mind that they are approximations and that they reflect the ancient custom of counting a part of a year as a whole year.<\/p>\n\n<h4>Events from AD<\/span> 50 to 70<\/h4>\nActs 24:27 describes an event that helps us date events in the rest of the book, namely, Porcius Festus’s replacement of Felix as the governor of Judea. A careful analysis of the evidence given by Eusebius, a fourth-century historian, leads to the probable conclusion that Felix was replaced in the summer of 59.<\/p>\nWorking backward from that date, Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem (Acts 21:33) must have occurred in 57, some two years before the coming of Festus. More precisely, Paul’s arrest probably occurred in the late spring or summer of 57; Paul’s goal (20:16) was to arrive in Jerusalem by Pentecost of that year, and Pentecost occurred at the end of May. He was not long in the city before he was arrested.<\/p>\nThe Passover festival, 50 days before Pentecost, was celebrated by Paul with the church in Philippi (Acts 20:6). That would have been April 7–14, AD<\/span> 57. Only after the feast did he continue his hurried journey to Caesarea and Jerusalem (20:6–21:16). Before his Passover visit to Philippi, Paul had spent three months in Greece (20:3). Allowing some time for him to travel through Macedonia and visit the Thessalonians and Bereans, those three months were probably the winter months of 56–57 (Acts 20:3; cf. 1 Cor 16:6). No doubt they were spent in the main church of Greece, Corinth, and were used in part for the writing of the Letter to the Romans.<\/p>\nBetween Paul’s departure from Corinth on the second missionary journey (Acts 18:18) in the autumn of 51 and his arrival in Corinth on the third missionary journey (20:2) in the late winter of 56 are five years of activities that cannot be given exact dates. Paul said that he worked during three of those years in Ephesus (20:31; cf. 19:1–20:1). With enough time allowed for the travels before and after, that stay at Ephesus probably lasted from 52 or 53 to the summer of 55 or 56 (cf. 1 Cor 16:8). During his long stay in Ephesus, Paul wrote his First Letter to the Corinthians. Then, on his way to Corinth in 56, he wrote 2 Corinthians from Macedonia.<\/p>\nFestus arrived as governor in the summer of 59, after Paul had been in prison in Caesarea for two years. Within a matter of days, Paul was tried before Festus (Acts 25:1-12). Not wanting to be remanded to the Jewish authorities, Paul appealed to Caesar (v 12), which meant that he would go to Rome. The account in Acts gives no hint of a delay, so the voyage most likely began in the summer or fall of 59 (27:2).<\/p>\nLuke reported that when Paul the prisoner got to Fair Havens on the island of Crete, the weather had become dangerous for sea travel “because the fast had already gone by” (Acts 27:8-9). One ancient writer said that sailing became dangerous between mid-September and mid-November, and after that, impossible until spring. The fast referred to was no doubt the one in preparation for the Day of Atonement, which in the year 59 fell on October 5. It is not surprising that, 14 days after leaving Fair Havens, the ship in which Paul was traveling was wrecked on the coast of Malta, south of Sicily (vv 27-44). Three months later Paul set sail for Rome again in a ship that had spent the winter at Malta (28:11). Soon he was welcomed into Rome by Christians who came out to meet him (v 15). Thus Paul arrived in Rome in the early part of AD<\/span> 60. The book of Acts closes with the remark that “For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house” (v 30, niv<\/span>). The NT does not report the outcome of his trial. During that period, according to the traditional view, he wrote Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon.<\/p>\nEusebius wrote, “Tradition has it that after defending himself the Apostle was again sent on the ministry of preaching, and coming a second time to the same city suffered martyrdom under Nero.” Nero, who was the Roman emperor from 54 to 68, put to death a multitude of Christians in Rome soon after a disastrous fire in July of 64, according to the Roman historian Tacitus. A number of early Christian writings (e.g., Clement) seem to indicate that Peter and Paul were both killed in Rome during that savage persecution. If so, and if Eusebius was right, then Paul may have spent the two years from 62 to 64 freely ministering back in the eastern provinces. Many conservative scholars date Paul’s First Letter to Timothy and his Letter to Titus from that period. Written from Rome shortly before Paul’s martyrdom in 64, 2 Timothy was probably his last letter (2 Tm 2:9; 4:6).<\/p>\nIn Jerusalem, within three years after Paul had been carried off to Rome, James the brother of Jesus was stoned to death by the Jewish authorities. According to Josephus, that occurred in 62. Not long afterward, according to Eusebius, the church in Jerusalem received a prophecy warning them to leave that doomed city and settle in Pella, one of the cities of the Decapolis (“ten cities”) east of the Jordan. Thus when war broke out between the Jews and the Romans in 66, the Christians for the most part escaped its fury. That war ended in 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (cf. Mk 13:2; Lk 21:24).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Acts of the Apostles, Book of the; Apostle, Apostleship; Age; “Date” under each NT book; First Jewish Revolt; Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Paul, The Apostle.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CHRONOLOGY OF THE BIBLE* (New Testament)<\/h3>\nBranch of biblical studies that attempts to discover the sequence of NT events and the amount of time that elapsed between them. Chronology is essential to historians, whose task it is to determine the causes and effects of past events. Generally, for a historian’s purpose, assigning absolute dates is less important than knowing the sequence of events that may have influenced each other. Very few NT happenings, in fact, can be given exact dates.<\/p>\n\nA remarkable testimony to the influence of Christianity is the fact that the entire Western world now divides history into BC<\/span> (before Christ) and AD<\/span> (anno Domini,<\/em> “in the year of the Lord”). Before that method of dating became widespread in the Middle Ages, events were dated by their relation to other important events such as the founding of Rome or the beginning of a king’s reign. When a monk named Dionysius Exiguus (sixth century) invented our present method of dating, with the birth of Christ dividing history, he made a mistake in his computations. The odd result is the historical anomaly that Jesus himself was born no later than four years “before Christ.”<\/p>\nChronology of Jesus’ Life<\/p>\n<h5>Birth<\/h5>\nAccording to Matthew 2:1 Jesus was born “in the days of Herod the king.” A first-century AD<\/span> historian, Josephus, recorded that Herod died in the spring of the year we identify as 4 BC<\/span>. Hence, Jesus was born sometime before that, but how much before is uncertain. Luke 2:1-2 records that Jesus’ birth occurred when “Caesar Augustus,” the Roman emperor, decreed that a census, or enrollment, should be taken throughout the nation. “This was the first census taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria” (nlt<\/span>). Those statements raise two questions: When was such a census taken, and when was Quirinius governor of Syria? Neither question has received a completely satisfying answer.<\/p>\nCensus documents discovered in Egypt, together with earlier references, suggest that such enrollments were held every 14 years. That would put a census roughly in 8 or 9 BC<\/span>. In view of the time needed to carry out the census (which required a person to travel to his birthplace), the birth of Jesus may have been somewhat later than the actual year of the decree (perhaps 7 BC<\/span>).<\/p>\nJosephus recorded that Quirinius became governor of Syria in AD<\/span> 6, rather late as a date for Jesus’ birth. But some scholars have argued from ancient inscriptions that Quirinius also served in Syria as a special legate of the emperor Augustus before 6 BC<\/span>. That could be the period referred to in Luke 2:2. Why did Luke choose to cite Quirinius instead of the regular governor of Syria at that time? Perhaps by so doing he could provide a more exact date for the birth of Jesus, since Quirinius was in authority for a shorter time than the regular governor of Syria.<\/p>\nA reasonable conclusion is that Jesus was born about 7 or 6 BC<\/span>. That fits with Matthew 2:16, which seems to say that Jesus was born at least two years before Herod’s death in 4 BC<\/span>. No clear evidence exists concerning the day and month of his birth. Celebration of December 25 as Christmas originated in the fourth century, probably as a Christian alternative to the pagan winter solstice festival (Saturnalia).<\/p>\n<h5>The Beginning of Public Ministry<\/h5>\nLuke 3:23 says that Jesus, “when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age”; since the age given is only approximate, he may have been two or three years older or younger (cf. the pseudepigraphal Testament of Levi 2:2; 12:5). If exactly 30 is added to the suggested date of birth, one gets AD<\/span> 24. That date cannot be right, because Jesus’ ministry began after John the Baptist appears; Luke 3:1-3 dates John’s public appearance precisely in “the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias Caesar” while Pilate was procurator (governor) over Judea. Pilate governed from AD<\/span> 26 to 36, and the 15th year of Tiberius was most likely AD<\/span> 27. Therefore Jesus did not begin his public ministry before AD<\/span> 27. If only a short time elapsed between the beginning of John’s ministry and the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, then Jesus probably began in AD<\/span> 27 or 28 when he was approximately 33 years old.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Death<\/h5>\nAll four Gospel records seem to imply that Jesus ate the Last Supper with his disciples on Thursday evening, was crucified on Friday, and rose from the dead early Sunday morning (Mt 28:1; Mk 16:1; Lk 24:1). The claim that Jesus rose on the third day (1 Cor 15:4) comes from the Jewish custom of counting a part of the day as a whole day. According to Matthew (26:19), Mark (14:12), and Luke (22:15), the Last Supper was the Passover meal, a yearly celebration of Israel’s escape from Egypt (Ex 12–15). But according to John 13:1 and 19:14, the Passover meal had not yet been eaten on Friday; hence the Last Supper in John was not the Passover meal.<\/p>\nNo completely satisfying solution to the apparent discrepancy has been put forward. Some scholars suggest plausibly that the use of two different calendars was responsible. According to that theory, Jesus was following a calendar that placed the Passover meal on Thursday night. Temple officials, on the other hand, followed an alternate calendar that placed the killing of sacrificial victims on the next day. John may have used the second system to emphasize the fact that Christ was offered as the Passover sacrifice (cf. Jn 19:36; 1 Cor 5:7).<\/p>\nTo find out how long Jesus’ public ministry lasted and thus the year in which he died, one can turn to time references in John’s Gospel. John referred to at least three Passovers (2:13; 6:4; 13:1) and possibly four (5:1). Since the Passover was a yearly feast, the ministry of Jesus would have lasted at least two and possibly three years. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke the Friday of Jesus’ death occurred on the 15th of the Jewish month Nisan (which overlaps March and April). According to John, Jesus died on 14 Nisan. The question is: In which years from 26 to 36 (when Pilate was procurator in Judea) did 14 or 15 Nisan fall on a Friday? The answer is AD<\/span> 27, 29, 30, and 33. Of those, the year 27 is too early and 33 is probably too late. Thus Jesus was probably crucified in 29 or 30, his public ministry lasted two or three years, and he was 35 or 36 years old when he died.<\/p>\n<h4>Events from AD<\/span> 30 to 50<\/h4>\nActs is the only NT book that records how much time elapsed between Jesus’ death and his ascension: “To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3, rsv<\/span>). The next key event after the ascension of Jesus into heaven was Pentecost (Acts 2:1). Pentecost, the Greek word for “fiftieth,” referred to a celebration of the Feast of Weeks\/Harvest (cf. Ex 34:22; Dt 16:9-12) 50 days after the Passover. Since Jesus was crucified during the Passover season, the Pentecost of Acts 2:1, during which the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit, took place in AD<\/span> 29 or 30, some 50 days after the Crucifixion and about 10 days after the Ascension.<\/p>\nAfter that, events of the early chapters of Acts are hard to date because no precise statements are made about the amount of time between various events. Therefore, the usual method for dating events of the apostolic age is first to find at least one event that can be dated with relative certainty from sources outside the NT; one then dates events before and after that event by figuring out how much time elapsed between them. Sometimes Acts records how much time passed between two events; usually it does not, so dating can only be approximate.<\/p>\nOne pivotal starting point is the great famine prophesied by Agabus, which befell Palestine during the reign of the Roman emperor Claudius (Acts 11:28-29). Josephus, who was alive at the time, gives enough information to locate the famine sometime between the years 46 and 48. We also know from the Mishnah, a collection of Jewish laws, that the autumn of 47 to the autumn of 48 was a sabbatical year, when the Jews let the land rest and harvested nothing (cf. Lv 25:2-7). That could have aggravated and prolonged a famine, but one cannot be sure how early the famine started; some scholars propose 46 and some 47.<\/p>\nAt first, it seems peculiar that Luke, the author of Acts, should have recorded that famine (Acts 11:28) before recording the death of Herod Agrippa (12:20-23). From facts reported by Josephus, the death of Herod (a grandson of Herod the Great) can be dated in AD<\/span> 44, probably in the spring. That means that Herod must have died several years before the famine Luke recorded earlier. Some scholars think that Luke simply got his chronological facts wrong. Others see Acts 12:1-24 as a kind of flashback to bring the history of the church in Jerusalem up to date. Such a practice was common among ancient historians, who often followed one source up to a suitable stopping point before moving on to another source. To charge Luke with inaccurate dating, it is argued, is to misunderstand the techniques of historical writing he was using.<\/p>\nSince Herod Agrippa died in AD<\/span> 44 (Acts 12:23), the apostle James, whom Herod put to death with the sword (v 2), must have died soon before 44, perhaps during the Passover season of 43 (v 3). The apostle Peter’s imprisonment and his miraculous escape (vv 3-17) also belong to that period.<\/p>\nWhen the Christians of Antioch decided to send relief to the Christians in Jerusalem in the midst of the great famine (Acts 11:29), Barnabas and Paul were appointed to transport the money to Jerusalem. That was Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem after his conversion. The first visit is recorded in Acts 9:26-30. The third comes in Acts 15 when Paul and Barnabas were sent to discuss with the apostles and elders whether gentile converts to Christianity had to be circumcised. How one dates the first and third visits to Jerusalem, as well as Paul’s conversion, depends on how those Jerusalem visits are related to those reported in Paul’s letter to the Galatians.<\/p>\nThe basic problem, which still divides NT scholars, is this: In Galatians 1:15–2:10 Paul recounted that his conversion was followed by two visits to Jerusalem, one three years after his conversion (1:18) and one 14 years after that (2:1-10). All scholars agree that the first visit three years after his conversion is the same as the first visit recorded in Acts 9:26-30. Answers differ, however, to the question of whether Galatians 2:1-10 refers to the second (famine) visit to Jerusalem in Acts 11:30 (in which case the third visit of Acts 15 is the one omitted from Galatians) or whether Galatians 2:1-10 refers to the visit in Acts 15 (in which case the famine visit was the one omitted from Galatians).<\/p>\n\nThose who favor the first reconstruction offer six arguments: (1) The reason Paul gave such a rigorous account of his comings and goings in Galatians 1:15-24 was to show that he did not get his gospel from men, nor was he taught it (1:12). In other words, his visits to the Jerusalem apostles were not for the purpose of receiving his gospel. If that is so, for Paul to omit the second Jerusalem visit would jeopardize his integrity and his authority with the Galatians. The first reconstruction avoids that difficulty; omission of a third Jerusalem visit from Galatians 2:1-10 could mean that it had not yet happened when Galatians was written. (2) Galatians 2:1-10 pictures a private meeting between Paul and Barnabas on one hand and the “pillar” apostles on the other. But the meeting in Acts 15 was public and before the whole church. Hence Galatians 2:1-10 more likely refers to a private meeting during the visit of Acts 11:30, which Galatians does not record. (3) Paul’s eagerness to give to the poor mentioned in Galatians 2:10 connects naturally with the second Jerusalem visit, when he was in fact delivering relief to the poor (Acts 11:30). (4) If Galatians 2 recorded the same trip as Acts 15, one would expect some mention of the decision reached by the Jerusalem Council, especially since that decision related directly to the problem of circumcision that Paul was handling in his Letter to the Galatians. (5) Further, it seems unlikely that the Jerusalem Council preceded the event of Galatians 2:11-21, when Peter was rebuked by Paul for withdrawing from fellowship with gentile believers; that incident could hardly have happened so soon after the issue of gentile status in the church had been settled in Jerusalem. (6) According to Galatians 1:6, the letter was written “quickly” after Paul had established the Galatian churches. That makes sense if Galatians was written soon after the first missionary journey, hence just before the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15; that would make Galatians Paul’s first letter.<\/p>\nScholars who favor the second reconstruction offer four arguments: (1) The main purpose of Paul’s visit in Galatians 2:1-10 appears to be the same as that in Acts 15:1-20; both dealt with the issue of whether circumcision should be required of gentile converts (Gal 2:3-5; Acts 15:1, 5). That similarity is obvious, but there is no such explicit similarity between Galatians 2 and Acts 11:30. (2) On the basis of form and content Galatians is similar to Romans and to 1 and 2 Corinthians; it would thus seem to come from the same period—considerably later than the Jerusalem Council. If so, it is likely that Paul would have included a reference to the Jerusalem Council (namely Gal 2:1-10) in his recollections, since its outcome supported his own stance on circumcision set forth in the letter. (3) Acts 11:30 pictures Barnabas as the leader of the Barnabas\/Paul team, since his name is given first place (as in Acts 12:25; 13:1-2, 7; cf. 11:25-26). But in the description Paul gives of the visit in Galatians 2, he sees himself as the leader of the team. Since Acts does picture Paul as the leader from the time of the first missionary journey (Acts 13:9, 13, 43, 46, 50), including the third Jerusalem visit (15:2), it is more likely that Galatians 2 records the trip of Acts 15. (4) Finally, in Galatians 2:7-8 Paul was recognized as an apostle to the Gentiles with a standing equal to that of Peter. But if Galatians 2 recorded the events of Acts 11:30 and the first missionary journey had not yet occurred, the “pillar” apostles could hardly have recognized Paul’s authority as apostle to the Gentiles. It is more likely that Galatians 2 followed the first missionary journey, just as Acts 15 followed the first missionary journey in Acts, and that both refer to the same event.<\/p>\nThe significance of those arguments for chronology is that, according to the first view, Paul’s conversion came 17 years before the famine visit of Acts 11:30 (cf. Gal 1:18; 2:1). According to the second view, Paul’s conversion took place 17 years before the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. The difference amounts to only one year, however.<\/p>\nIt is helpful to consider one more date that can be fixed with high probability—namely, Paul’s arrival in Corinth on his second missionary journey (Acts 18:1). On the second missionary journey (15:40–18:22), Paul and Silas set out on land through Syria, Cilicia, Phrygia, and Galatia, visiting churches founded on the first missionary journey. They came to Troas, then passed over to Philippi and continued down the coast through Thessalonica and Berea. Paul went on to Athens before arriving at Corinth. From Acts 18:12 we know that Gallio was a proconsul in Corinth while Paul was there. An inscription discovered at nearby Delphi indicates that in all likelihood Gallio’s term of office was from mid-51 to mid-52. The incident recorded in Acts 18:12-17 probably occurred at the beginning of Gallio’s term, since the Jews hoped to get a ruling against Paul from their new proconsul. Not long after that, Paul left Corinth, probably in the summer or autumn of 52. According to Acts 18:11 Paul had spent 18 months in Corinth; that means that he probably arrived in the early months of 50 or the end of 49. That arrival date is confirmed by Acts 18:2, which says that Aquila and Priscilla had only recently been exiled from Rome when Paul came to Corinth. A fifth-century historian, Orosius, dated the edict of Claudius expelling the Jews from Rome in AD<\/span> 49. Therefore, Paul and Aquila and Priscilla probably arrived close together late in 49 or early in 50. Early in his 18-month stay Paul wrote his First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians.<\/p>\nThe two fixed dates, then, are 46 or 47 for the famine visit (Acts 11:30) and late 49 or early 50 for Paul’s arrival in Corinth (Acts 18:1). Taking into account the time gaps mentioned in Galatians 1:18 and 2:1, as well as the supposition that the first missionary journey lasted about a year, the two reconstructions are presented in the following table. Keep in mind that they are approximations and that they reflect the ancient custom of counting a part of a year as a whole year.<\/p>\n\n<h4>Events from AD<\/span> 50 to 70<\/h4>\nActs 24:27 describes an event that helps us date events in the rest of the book, namely, Porcius Festus’s replacement of Felix as the governor of Judea. A careful analysis of the evidence given by Eusebius, a fourth-century historian, leads to the probable conclusion that Felix was replaced in the summer of 59.<\/p>\nWorking backward from that date, Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem (Acts 21:33) must have occurred in 57, some two years before the coming of Festus. More precisely, Paul’s arrest probably occurred in the late spring or summer of 57; Paul’s goal (20:16) was to arrive in Jerusalem by Pentecost of that year, and Pentecost occurred at the end of May. He was not long in the city before he was arrested.<\/p>\nThe Passover festival, 50 days before Pentecost, was celebrated by Paul with the church in Philippi (Acts 20:6). That would have been April 7–14, AD<\/span> 57. Only after the feast did he continue his hurried journey to Caesarea and Jerusalem (20:6–21:16). Before his Passover visit to Philippi, Paul had spent three months in Greece (20:3). Allowing some time for him to travel through Macedonia and visit the Thessalonians and Bereans, those three months were probably the winter months of 56–57 (Acts 20:3; cf. 1 Cor 16:6). No doubt they were spent in the main church of Greece, Corinth, and were used in part for the writing of the Letter to the Romans.<\/p>\nBetween Paul’s departure from Corinth on the second missionary journey (Acts 18:18) in the autumn of 51 and his arrival in Corinth on the third missionary journey (20:2) in the late winter of 56 are five years of activities that cannot be given exact dates. Paul said that he worked during three of those years in Ephesus (20:31; cf. 19:1–20:1). With enough time allowed for the travels before and after, that stay at Ephesus probably lasted from 52 or 53 to the summer of 55 or 56 (cf. 1 Cor 16:8). During his long stay in Ephesus, Paul wrote his First Letter to the Corinthians. Then, on his way to Corinth in 56, he wrote 2 Corinthians from Macedonia.<\/p>\nFestus arrived as governor in the summer of 59, after Paul had been in prison in Caesarea for two years. Within a matter of days, Paul was tried before Festus (Acts 25:1-12). Not wanting to be remanded to the Jewish authorities, Paul appealed to Caesar (v 12), which meant that he would go to Rome. The account in Acts gives no hint of a delay, so the voyage most likely began in the summer or fall of 59 (27:2).<\/p>\nLuke reported that when Paul the prisoner got to Fair Havens on the island of Crete, the weather had become dangerous for sea travel “because the fast had already gone by” (Acts 27:8-9). One ancient writer said that sailing became dangerous between mid-September and mid-November, and after that, impossible until spring. The fast referred to was no doubt the one in preparation for the Day of Atonement, which in the year 59 fell on October 5. It is not surprising that, 14 days after leaving Fair Havens, the ship in which Paul was traveling was wrecked on the coast of Malta, south of Sicily (vv 27-44). Three months later Paul set sail for Rome again in a ship that had spent the winter at Malta (28:11). Soon he was welcomed into Rome by Christians who came out to meet him (v 15). Thus Paul arrived in Rome in the early part of AD<\/span> 60. The book of Acts closes with the remark that “For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house” (v 30, niv<\/span>). The NT does not report the outcome of his trial. During that period, according to the traditional view, he wrote Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon.<\/p>\nEusebius wrote, “Tradition has it that after defending himself the Apostle was again sent on the ministry of preaching, and coming a second time to the same city suffered martyrdom under Nero.” Nero, who was the Roman emperor from 54 to 68, put to death a multitude of Christians in Rome soon after a disastrous fire in July of 64, according to the Roman historian Tacitus. A number of early Christian writings (e.g., Clement) seem to indicate that Peter and Paul were both killed in Rome during that savage persecution. If so, and if Eusebius was right, then Paul may have spent the two years from 62 to 64 freely ministering back in the eastern provinces. Many conservative scholars date Paul’s First Letter to Timothy and his Letter to Titus from that period. Written from Rome shortly before Paul’s martyrdom in 64, 2 Timothy was probably his last letter (2 Tm 2:9; 4:6).<\/p>\nIn Jerusalem, within three years after Paul had been carried off to Rome, James the brother of Jesus was stoned to death by the Jewish authorities. According to Josephus, that occurred in 62. Not long afterward, according to Eusebius, the church in Jerusalem received a prophecy warning them to leave that doomed city and settle in Pella, one of the cities of the Decapolis (“ten cities”) east of the Jordan. Thus when war broke out between the Jews and the Romans in 66, the Christians for the most part escaped its fury. That war ended in 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (cf. Mk 13:2; Lk 21:24).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Acts of the Apostles, Book of the; Apostle, Apostleship; Age; “Date” under each NT book; First Jewish Revolt; Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Paul, The Apostle.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CHRONOLOGY OF THE BIBLE* (New Testament) Branch of biblical studies that attempts to discover the sequence of NT events and the amount of time that elapsed between them. Chronology is essential to historians, whose task it is to determine the causes and effects of past events. Generally, for a historian’s purpose, assigning absolute dates is less important than knowing the sequence of events that may have influenced each other. Very few NT happenings, in fact, can be given exact dates. A rema...","summary_en":"CHRONOLOGY OF THE BIBLE* (New Testament) Branch of biblical studies that attempts to discover the sequence of NT events and the amount of time that elapsed between them. Chronology is essential to historians, whose task it is to determine the causes and effects of past events. Generally, for a historian’s purpose, assigning absolute dates is less important than knowing the sequence of events that may have influenced each other. Very few NT happenings, in fact, can be given exact dates. A rema...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":13405,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Genealogy","title_en":"Genealogy","content_ro":"<h3>GENEALOGY<\/h3>\nRecord or study of descent involving a tracing backward or forward of the ancestry of a nation, tribe, family, or individual. The Hebrews were not the only people in the ancient world to take an interest in maintaining genealogical records. The Sumerian king list of the third millennium BC<\/span> contains records of the early rulers of Mesopotamia. In Babylonian records the word “son” was frequently used in the sense of “descendant of.” King Tirhakah of Egypt (c. 685 BC<\/span>) referred to his “father,” Sesostris III, who lived some 1,200 years before him. Greeks and Romans also kept genealogical records. However, the biblical genealogies, especially those in Genesis and 1 Chronicles 1–9, are unique in the literature of the ancient Near East. Only at the beginning of the Islamic age are such broad genealogical records found. Even today among tribal Semites, such as Arab nomads, there is an intense interest in genealogy, and it is not unusual for an Arab to be able to recite accurately the names of his ancestors for 10 or 15 generations back, covering a period of several hundred years.<\/p>\nTerms Used<\/p>\nThe word “genealogy” occurs only once as a noun in the Hebrew OT (Neh 7:5), where it refers to a register of those who returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel at the end of the exile. The verbal form of the same word is found a total of 20 times in 1—2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. The terms “generations” and “book of the generations,” used in Genesis and elsewhere in the OT, convey the same idea. The equivalent NT terms are found in 1 Timothy 1:4 and Titus 3:9 (“genealogies”) and Matthew 1:1, which refers to the “book of the genealogy” of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\nPurpose of Genealogical Records<\/p>\nThe keeping of genealogical records in ancient Israel was an important activity and served a number of useful purposes. God’s promise of a land to Abraham and his descendants made such records necessary to establish and preserve the allotment of the land; a genealogical record served as evidence of a legitimate title to the ancestral property. Genealogies were essential for the preservation of the exclusive priesthood that had been established by the Mosaic law. In the time of Josephus every priest was supposed to be able to prove his descent.<\/p>\nOne of the most important reasons for keeping genealogical records was to establish and maintain the right of royal succession in Judah through the family of David. The belief that the Messiah would come from the Davidic house made such records even more important.<\/p>\nOther purposes served by these family records included the imposition of military duty according to families (Nm 1:2-3). Position in camp and on the march from Egypt was determined by tribes and families (2:2, 17; 10:11-28). Also, God’s blessings were passed from one member of the family to his descendants (Gn 27). The stress placed on the purity of the congregation (Dt 7:1-4; 23:1-8) required complete family records, particularly in the postexilic period. With the insistence of Ezra and Nehemiah upon racial purity, and with the purging of foreign elements from among the people (Ezr 2:59-63; 10:9-44; Neh 13:23-28), written evidence of purity of descent became essential; interest in the compilation of genealogies became intense after the exile.<\/p>\nLineage was ordinarily traced through the male members of the family, with females being mentioned only rarely (e.g., Gn 11:29, Sarah and Milcah; 22:23, Rebekah; and Nm 26:33–27:11, where the property inheritance of the daughters of Zelophehad was involved). Matthew mentions three women: Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth; and in the second group alludes to Bathsheba (see discussion below).<\/p>\nPrincipal Genealogical Lists in the Bible<\/p>\nThe principal sources of genealogical material in the OT are found in Genesis, Numbers, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 1—2 Chronicles (which contain the greatest amount of genealogical material in the Bible), Ezra, and Nehemiah. The genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 are the only NT records. Together they contain a genealogical record from Adam to Christ.<\/p>\nGrouped together by historical periods, the following are the principal genealogical lists found in the Bible:<\/p>\n<h5>Before the Flood<\/h5>\nThree lists are from this period. The first, found in Genesis 4:17-22, traces the descendants of Cain through seven generations and explains the hereditary origin of certain occupations and crafts. The second, Genesis 4:25-26, begins the account of the descendants of Seth, the posterity of Adam whose faithfulness to God is contrasted with the ungodly posterity of Cain. The third list, Genesis 5:1-32 (cf. 1 Chr 1:1-4), traces the descendants of Adam through Seth down to Noah and his sons at the time of the Flood.<\/p>\n<h5>From Noah to Abraham<\/h5>\nGenesis 10:1-32 (cf. 1 Chr 1:4-23), frequently called the “table of nations,” contains a list of the nations descended from the sons of Noah (Shem, Ham, and Japheth). Genesis 11:10-26 (cf. 1 Chr 1:24-27) traces the descendants of Shem to the time of Abraham, and Genesis 11:27-30 (see also Gn 22:20-24) lists the descendants of Nahor, Abraham’s brother.<\/p>\n<h5>From Abraham to the Descent into Egypt<\/h5>\nThe descendants of Abraham by Hagar, Sarah, and Keturah are found in Genesis 16:15, 21:1-3, and 25:1-4 (introducing the Arabs as descendants of Abraham; cf. 1 Chr 1:28-34). Genesis 19:37-38 links the Moabites and Ammonites to Abraham through his nephew Lot. A very important genealogical list during this period is that of the descendants of Jacob, giving the account of the parentage, birth, and naming of the founders of the 12 tribes of Israel (Gn 29:31–30:24; 35:16-26). Esau is acknowledged as the ancestor of the Edomites; his Edomite descendants are traced through his three wives (Gn 26:34; 36:1-43; 1 Chr 1:35-54). The list of Jacob’s family at the time he entered Egypt, numbering 70, is found in Genesis 46:1-27 (cf. Ex 6:14-16; Nm 26:1-51; 1 Chr 2–8). A partial list of the heads of the fathers’ houses of Reuben, Simeon, and Levi is found in Exodus 6:14-25; the chief purpose of this genealogy is to establish Aaron and Moses as members of Levi’s tribe.<\/p>\n<h5>From the Exodus to the Conquest of Canaan<\/h5>\nWhile the tribes were still in the desert after leaving Egypt, a census was taken to determine the total number of Israelites (Nm 1:4-54; 2:2-33). During this same period, a genealogy of the family of Aaron was compiled, and a separate census was taken of the Levites (3:1-39). A list of the 12 spies who searched out the land and the tribes they represented is given in Numbers 13:4-16; the most important names on this list are Caleb and Joshua. Near the end of the wilderness wanderings, another census of the people was ordered; the total number was approximately the same as that of the first census almost 40 years earlier (26:4-51, 57-62). As the tribes neared the Promised Land, a list was prepared of the tribal representatives who would take part in the division of the land (34:16-29).<\/p>\n<h5>Period of the Kings<\/h5>\nDuring the entire period of the monarchy, over 400 years, the only genealogical records of any consequence are those that pertain to David. His descendants are traced through 20 rulers who sat upon the throne of Judah until the nation fell to the Babylonians in 586 BC<\/span> (1—2 Kgs; cf. 1 Chr 11:1—2 Chr 36:21). A list of David’s children is found in 2 Samuel 3:2-5 and 5:14-16 (cf. 1 Chr 3:1-9; 14:4-7). His mighty men, an elite group of soldiers, are named in 2 Samuel 23:8-39 (cf. 1 Chr 11:10-47). His recruits at Ziklag are recorded in 1 Chronicles 12:1-22. Those who were his musicians and doorkeepers when the ark was brought to Jerusalem are named in 1 Chronicles 15:1-24 (cf. 1 Chr 16:5-6, 37-43). David’s political and religious organization of the kingdom—including the Levites, priests, singers, porters and other administrative officials, and military officers—is found in 1 Chronicles 23–27. In spite of the literary activity associated with the reign of Solomon, the only genealogical record preserved from this period is that of Solomon’s princes and 12 officers (1 Kgs 4:1-19). The genealogy of one prophet is traced back four generations (Zep 1:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Postexilic Period<\/h5>\nDuring the postexilic period, the keeping of genealogical records probably received its greatest impetus through the activity of Ezra and Nehemiah, primarily because of their insistence upon racial purity and the purging of foreign elements from the community. A list of the exiles who returned with Zerubbabel is found in Ezra 2:1-70 (cf. Neh 7:6-73, where the same list is found). A list of those who returned with Ezra is included in 8:1-20. Ezra’s own genealogy is also recorded (Ezr 7:5). There is a list of the Jews who married foreign women that included priests, Levites, singers, porters, and other Israelites (Ezr 10:18-44). Nehemiah 8:4-7 names the Levites and others who assisted Ezra when he read the law publicly. Nehemiah also contains a list of those who participated in the ceremony of sealing the covenant (Neh 10:1-27) and a list of those who lived in Jerusalem and other cities (11:3-36). His interest in the priesthood is reflected in the list of priests and Levites who returned with Zerubbabel (12:1-9), of the high priests from Jeshua to Jaddua (vv 10-11), of the heads of the priestly families (vv 12-21), of the Levites and porters who served under the high priest (vv 22-26), and of the princes and priests who were present at the dedication of the rebuilt wall of Jerusalem (vv 31-42).<\/p>\nThe final genealogical record that must be mentioned is the genealogy from Adam to Saul (1 Chr 1–8), the longest section of genealogical material in the Bible. It is properly included with the genealogies compiled during the postexilic period, as the unknown chronicler (some think he was Ezra) prepared this list around 400 BC<\/span> from extant records and documents available to him. His purpose seems to have been to conserve the purity of blood in the restored nation and to insist that the nation’s well-being depended on its faithfulness to God’s law.<\/p>\n<h5>The New Testament Period<\/h5>\nThe only genealogies of consequence in the NT are those concerning Jesus Christ in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GENEALOGY<\/h3>\nRecord or study of descent involving a tracing backward or forward of the ancestry of a nation, tribe, family, or individual. The Hebrews were not the only people in the ancient world to take an interest in maintaining genealogical records. The Sumerian king list of the third millennium BC<\/span> contains records of the early rulers of Mesopotamia. In Babylonian records the word “son” was frequently used in the sense of “descendant of.” King Tirhakah of Egypt (c. 685 BC<\/span>) referred to his “father,” Sesostris III, who lived some 1,200 years before him. Greeks and Romans also kept genealogical records. However, the biblical genealogies, especially those in Genesis and 1 Chronicles 1–9, are unique in the literature of the ancient Near East. Only at the beginning of the Islamic age are such broad genealogical records found. Even today among tribal Semites, such as Arab nomads, there is an intense interest in genealogy, and it is not unusual for an Arab to be able to recite accurately the names of his ancestors for 10 or 15 generations back, covering a period of several hundred years.<\/p>\nTerms Used<\/p>\nThe word “genealogy” occurs only once as a noun in the Hebrew OT (Neh 7:5), where it refers to a register of those who returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel at the end of the exile. The verbal form of the same word is found a total of 20 times in 1—2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. The terms “generations” and “book of the generations,” used in Genesis and elsewhere in the OT, convey the same idea. The equivalent NT terms are found in 1 Timothy 1:4 and Titus 3:9 (“genealogies”) and Matthew 1:1, which refers to the “book of the genealogy” of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\nPurpose of Genealogical Records<\/p>\nThe keeping of genealogical records in ancient Israel was an important activity and served a number of useful purposes. God’s promise of a land to Abraham and his descendants made such records necessary to establish and preserve the allotment of the land; a genealogical record served as evidence of a legitimate title to the ancestral property. Genealogies were essential for the preservation of the exclusive priesthood that had been established by the Mosaic law. In the time of Josephus every priest was supposed to be able to prove his descent.<\/p>\nOne of the most important reasons for keeping genealogical records was to establish and maintain the right of royal succession in Judah through the family of David. The belief that the Messiah would come from the Davidic house made such records even more important.<\/p>\nOther purposes served by these family records included the imposition of military duty according to families (Nm 1:2-3). Position in camp and on the march from Egypt was determined by tribes and families (2:2, 17; 10:11-28). Also, God’s blessings were passed from one member of the family to his descendants (Gn 27). The stress placed on the purity of the congregation (Dt 7:1-4; 23:1-8) required complete family records, particularly in the postexilic period. With the insistence of Ezra and Nehemiah upon racial purity, and with the purging of foreign elements from among the people (Ezr 2:59-63; 10:9-44; Neh 13:23-28), written evidence of purity of descent became essential; interest in the compilation of genealogies became intense after the exile.<\/p>\nLineage was ordinarily traced through the male members of the family, with females being mentioned only rarely (e.g., Gn 11:29, Sarah and Milcah; 22:23, Rebekah; and Nm 26:33–27:11, where the property inheritance of the daughters of Zelophehad was involved). Matthew mentions three women: Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth; and in the second group alludes to Bathsheba (see discussion below).<\/p>\nPrincipal Genealogical Lists in the Bible<\/p>\nThe principal sources of genealogical material in the OT are found in Genesis, Numbers, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 1—2 Chronicles (which contain the greatest amount of genealogical material in the Bible), Ezra, and Nehemiah. The genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 are the only NT records. Together they contain a genealogical record from Adam to Christ.<\/p>\nGrouped together by historical periods, the following are the principal genealogical lists found in the Bible:<\/p>\n<h5>Before the Flood<\/h5>\nThree lists are from this period. The first, found in Genesis 4:17-22, traces the descendants of Cain through seven generations and explains the hereditary origin of certain occupations and crafts. The second, Genesis 4:25-26, begins the account of the descendants of Seth, the posterity of Adam whose faithfulness to God is contrasted with the ungodly posterity of Cain. The third list, Genesis 5:1-32 (cf. 1 Chr 1:1-4), traces the descendants of Adam through Seth down to Noah and his sons at the time of the Flood.<\/p>\n<h5>From Noah to Abraham<\/h5>\nGenesis 10:1-32 (cf. 1 Chr 1:4-23), frequently called the “table of nations,” contains a list of the nations descended from the sons of Noah (Shem, Ham, and Japheth). Genesis 11:10-26 (cf. 1 Chr 1:24-27) traces the descendants of Shem to the time of Abraham, and Genesis 11:27-30 (see also Gn 22:20-24) lists the descendants of Nahor, Abraham’s brother.<\/p>\n<h5>From Abraham to the Descent into Egypt<\/h5>\nThe descendants of Abraham by Hagar, Sarah, and Keturah are found in Genesis 16:15, 21:1-3, and 25:1-4 (introducing the Arabs as descendants of Abraham; cf. 1 Chr 1:28-34). Genesis 19:37-38 links the Moabites and Ammonites to Abraham through his nephew Lot. A very important genealogical list during this period is that of the descendants of Jacob, giving the account of the parentage, birth, and naming of the founders of the 12 tribes of Israel (Gn 29:31–30:24; 35:16-26). Esau is acknowledged as the ancestor of the Edomites; his Edomite descendants are traced through his three wives (Gn 26:34; 36:1-43; 1 Chr 1:35-54). The list of Jacob’s family at the time he entered Egypt, numbering 70, is found in Genesis 46:1-27 (cf. Ex 6:14-16; Nm 26:1-51; 1 Chr 2–8). A partial list of the heads of the fathers’ houses of Reuben, Simeon, and Levi is found in Exodus 6:14-25; the chief purpose of this genealogy is to establish Aaron and Moses as members of Levi’s tribe.<\/p>\n<h5>From the Exodus to the Conquest of Canaan<\/h5>\nWhile the tribes were still in the desert after leaving Egypt, a census was taken to determine the total number of Israelites (Nm 1:4-54; 2:2-33). During this same period, a genealogy of the family of Aaron was compiled, and a separate census was taken of the Levites (3:1-39). A list of the 12 spies who searched out the land and the tribes they represented is given in Numbers 13:4-16; the most important names on this list are Caleb and Joshua. Near the end of the wilderness wanderings, another census of the people was ordered; the total number was approximately the same as that of the first census almost 40 years earlier (26:4-51, 57-62). As the tribes neared the Promised Land, a list was prepared of the tribal representatives who would take part in the division of the land (34:16-29).<\/p>\n<h5>Period of the Kings<\/h5>\nDuring the entire period of the monarchy, over 400 years, the only genealogical records of any consequence are those that pertain to David. His descendants are traced through 20 rulers who sat upon the throne of Judah until the nation fell to the Babylonians in 586 BC<\/span> (1—2 Kgs; cf. 1 Chr 11:1—2 Chr 36:21). A list of David’s children is found in 2 Samuel 3:2-5 and 5:14-16 (cf. 1 Chr 3:1-9; 14:4-7). His mighty men, an elite group of soldiers, are named in 2 Samuel 23:8-39 (cf. 1 Chr 11:10-47). His recruits at Ziklag are recorded in 1 Chronicles 12:1-22. Those who were his musicians and doorkeepers when the ark was brought to Jerusalem are named in 1 Chronicles 15:1-24 (cf. 1 Chr 16:5-6, 37-43). David’s political and religious organization of the kingdom—including the Levites, priests, singers, porters and other administrative officials, and military officers—is found in 1 Chronicles 23–27. In spite of the literary activity associated with the reign of Solomon, the only genealogical record preserved from this period is that of Solomon’s princes and 12 officers (1 Kgs 4:1-19). The genealogy of one prophet is traced back four generations (Zep 1:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Postexilic Period<\/h5>\nDuring the postexilic period, the keeping of genealogical records probably received its greatest impetus through the activity of Ezra and Nehemiah, primarily because of their insistence upon racial purity and the purging of foreign elements from the community. A list of the exiles who returned with Zerubbabel is found in Ezra 2:1-70 (cf. Neh 7:6-73, where the same list is found). A list of those who returned with Ezra is included in 8:1-20. Ezra’s own genealogy is also recorded (Ezr 7:5). There is a list of the Jews who married foreign women that included priests, Levites, singers, porters, and other Israelites (Ezr 10:18-44). Nehemiah 8:4-7 names the Levites and others who assisted Ezra when he read the law publicly. Nehemiah also contains a list of those who participated in the ceremony of sealing the covenant (Neh 10:1-27) and a list of those who lived in Jerusalem and other cities (11:3-36). His interest in the priesthood is reflected in the list of priests and Levites who returned with Zerubbabel (12:1-9), of the high priests from Jeshua to Jaddua (vv 10-11), of the heads of the priestly families (vv 12-21), of the Levites and porters who served under the high priest (vv 22-26), and of the princes and priests who were present at the dedication of the rebuilt wall of Jerusalem (vv 31-42).<\/p>\nThe final genealogical record that must be mentioned is the genealogy from Adam to Saul (1 Chr 1–8), the longest section of genealogical material in the Bible. It is properly included with the genealogies compiled during the postexilic period, as the unknown chronicler (some think he was Ezra) prepared this list around 400 BC<\/span> from extant records and documents available to him. His purpose seems to have been to conserve the purity of blood in the restored nation and to insist that the nation’s well-being depended on its faithfulness to God’s law.<\/p>\n<h5>The New Testament Period<\/h5>\nThe only genealogies of consequence in the NT are those concerning Jesus Christ in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GENEALOGY Record or study of descent involving a tracing backward or forward of the ancestry of a nation, tribe, family, or individual. The Hebrews were not the only people in the ancient world to take an interest in maintaining genealogical records. The Sumerian king list of the third millennium BC contains records of the early rulers of Mesopotamia. In Babylonian records the word “son” was frequently used in the sense of “descendant of.” King Tirhakah of Egypt (c. 685 BC) referred to his “f...","summary_en":"GENEALOGY Record or study of descent involving a tracing backward or forward of the ancestry of a nation, tribe, family, or individual. The Hebrews were not the only people in the ancient world to take an interest in maintaining genealogical records. The Sumerian king list of the third millennium BC contains records of the early rulers of Mesopotamia. In Babylonian records the word “son” was frequently used in the sense of “descendant of.” King Tirhakah of Egypt (c. 685 BC) referred to his “f...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":14701,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Governor","title_en":"Governor","content_ro":"<h3>GOVERNOR<\/h3>\nBiblical term translated from at least ten different Hebrew root words and five Greek roots. English versions do not render these words consistently; they use a variety of titles, such as “overseer,” “officer,” “leader,” “judge,” and “deputy,” to translate the same Hebrew word. The situation is similar in the Septuagint (Greek OT).<\/p>\nA governor was someone of superior rank who exercised authority over persons, territory, or both. Sometimes rank and power were his by virtue of the office; other times accession to office was based on noble lineage, wealth, and public attainment. A governor normally received authority from a king; therefore, he was a deputy in the territory he governed. Such was the case with Joseph (Gn 42:6), Gedaliah (Jer 40:5), Daniel (Dn 2:48), and Zerubbabel (Hg 1:1). One Hebrew term for “governor,” however, could mean “absolute ruler” (Jos 12:2) as well as a person who acted under authority.<\/p>\nThe term most frequently used in the OT is evidently from an Akkadian expression meaning “lord of a district.” Such governors normally relied on military power to maintain their rule (2 Kgs 18:24; Neh 2:7; Jer 51:23, 28). The satrap of the Persian and Greek periods was most probably a civil governor. The leader of a city-state was often known as “governor” in the preexilic period (1 Kgs 22:26; 2 Chr 34:8). The writer of Psalm 22:28 used that title to describe God as the ruler of his people. A temple official who imprisoned the prophet Jeremiah in the stocks (Jer 20:1) was described as a “governor” (rsv<\/span> “officer”). One who governed an army probably commanded one or more military units. What appears to be a special title is rendered “governor” in Ezra 2:63 and Nehemiah 7:65.<\/p>\nTranslation problems from the Greek are also numerous. Different levels and functions in leadership were obviously intended by the various words used. This is most clearly indicated by the use of such terms as ethnarch<\/span> (1 Macc 14:47, rsv<\/span>; 2 Cor 11:32, nasb<\/span>), one who governed as a deputy of a king, and by another word referring to Roman provincial officials. Such governors were mentioned in NT writings (cf. Mt 10:18; Lk 2:2; 3:1; Acts 23:24; 1 Pt 2:14) and were responsible for maintaining law and order in their assigned territory. In NT times Judea was under the control of the governor of Syria. Archaic uses of “governor” occasionally appear in the kjv<\/span>. The “governor” mentioned in James 3:4 (kjv<\/span>) is the ship’s pilot.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GOVERNOR<\/h3>\nBiblical term translated from at least ten different Hebrew root words and five Greek roots. English versions do not render these words consistently; they use a variety of titles, such as “overseer,” “officer,” “leader,” “judge,” and “deputy,” to translate the same Hebrew word. The situation is similar in the Septuagint (Greek OT).<\/p>\nA governor was someone of superior rank who exercised authority over persons, territory, or both. Sometimes rank and power were his by virtue of the office; other times accession to office was based on noble lineage, wealth, and public attainment. A governor normally received authority from a king; therefore, he was a deputy in the territory he governed. Such was the case with Joseph (Gn 42:6), Gedaliah (Jer 40:5), Daniel (Dn 2:48), and Zerubbabel (Hg 1:1). One Hebrew term for “governor,” however, could mean “absolute ruler” (Jos 12:2) as well as a person who acted under authority.<\/p>\nThe term most frequently used in the OT is evidently from an Akkadian expression meaning “lord of a district.” Such governors normally relied on military power to maintain their rule (2 Kgs 18:24; Neh 2:7; Jer 51:23, 28). The satrap of the Persian and Greek periods was most probably a civil governor. The leader of a city-state was often known as “governor” in the preexilic period (1 Kgs 22:26; 2 Chr 34:8). The writer of Psalm 22:28 used that title to describe God as the ruler of his people. A temple official who imprisoned the prophet Jeremiah in the stocks (Jer 20:1) was described as a “governor” (rsv<\/span> “officer”). One who governed an army probably commanded one or more military units. What appears to be a special title is rendered “governor” in Ezra 2:63 and Nehemiah 7:65.<\/p>\nTranslation problems from the Greek are also numerous. Different levels and functions in leadership were obviously intended by the various words used. This is most clearly indicated by the use of such terms as ethnarch<\/span> (1 Macc 14:47, rsv<\/span>; 2 Cor 11:32, nasb<\/span>), one who governed as a deputy of a king, and by another word referring to Roman provincial officials. Such governors were mentioned in NT writings (cf. Mt 10:18; Lk 2:2; 3:1; Acts 23:24; 1 Pt 2:14) and were responsible for maintaining law and order in their assigned territory. In NT times Judea was under the control of the governor of Syria. Archaic uses of “governor” occasionally appear in the kjv<\/span>. The “governor” mentioned in James 3:4 (kjv<\/span>) is the ship’s pilot.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GOVERNOR Biblical term translated from at least ten different Hebrew root words and five Greek roots. English versions do not render these words consistently; they use a variety of titles, such as “overseer,” “officer,” “leader,” “judge,” and “deputy,” to translate the same Hebrew word. The situation is similar in the Septuagint (Greek OT). A governor was someone of superior rank who exercised authority over persons, territory, or both. Sometimes rank and power were his by virtue of the offic...","summary_en":"GOVERNOR Biblical term translated from at least ten different Hebrew root words and five Greek roots. English versions do not render these words consistently; they use a variety of titles, such as “overseer,” “officer,” “leader,” “judge,” and “deputy,” to translate the same Hebrew word. The situation is similar in the Septuagint (Greek OT). A governor was someone of superior rank who exercised authority over persons, territory, or both. Sometimes rank and power were his by virtue of the offic...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":16286,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Family* Herod, Herodian","title_en":"Family* Herod, Herodian","content_ro":"<h3>HEROD, HERODIAN FAMILY*<\/h3>\nPolitical rulers during the lifetime of Christ. Christ was born when Herod the Great was ruling. Herod’s son Herod Antipas was the ruler of Galilee and Perea, the territories in which Jesus and John the Baptist carried out most of their ministries. It was this ruler who beheaded John the Baptist and tried Christ just before his death. Herod Agrippa I is the persecutor of the church in Acts 12, and Herod Agrippa II heard Paul’s testimony (Acts 26) just before he went to Rome to be tried by Caesar. Without a knowledge of the Herodian family, one can hardly have a proper understanding of the times of Christ.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Herodian Dynasty<\/p>\n• Herod the Great<\/p>\n• Archelaus<\/p>\n• Antipas<\/p>\n• Philip the Tetrarch<\/p>\n• Agrippa I<\/p>\n• Agrippa II<\/p>\nThe Herodian Dynasty (67–47 BC<\/span>)<\/p>\nThe Herodian dynasty became prominent during the confusion that resulted in the decay of the Hasmonean dynasty, the transference of Syria and Palestine to Roman rule, and the civil wars that marked the decay of the nation. Much of what we know about the Herods comes from the historian Josephus’s writings: Antiquities of the Jews<\/em> and The Jewish War.<\/em><\/p>\nHerod the Great (47–4 BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<h5>As Governor of Galilee (47–37 BC<\/span>)<\/h5>\nHerod the Great became governor of Galilee at 25 years of age. Although he gained the respect of both the Romans and the Galilean Jews for quickly capturing and executing the bandit leader Ezekias, some in Hyrcanus’s court thought that he was becoming too powerful and arranged to have him brought to trial. He was acquitted and released and thereafter fled to Sextus Caesar at Damascus. Sextus Caesar, governor of Syria, appointed Herod governor of Coele-Syria, and thus he became involved with Roman affairs in Syria. He remained in this position under a series of rulers and was successful in collecting taxes and suppressing various revolts. Thus, in 41 BC<\/span> when Antony came to power under Octavius Caesar, after asking the advice of Hyrcanus II, Sextus appointed Herod and Phasael as tetrarchs of Judea.<\/p>\n<h5>As King (37–4 BC<\/span>)<\/h5>\nThe reign of Herod is divided by most scholars into three periods: (1) consolidation from 37 to 25 BC<\/span>; (2) prosperity from 25 to 13 BC<\/span>; and (3) domestic troubles from 13 to 4 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nThe period of consolidation extended from his accession as king in 37 BC<\/span> to the death of the sons of Babas, the last male representatives of the Hasmonean family. During this period, he had to contend with many powerful adversaries.<\/p>\nThe first adversaries, the people and the Pharisees, objected to his being an Idumean, a half Jew, and a friend of the Romans. Those who opposed him were punished, and those who took his side were rewarded with favors and honors.<\/p>\nThe second adversaries were those of the aristocracy who sided with Antigonus. Herod had executed 45 of the wealthiest and had confiscated their properties to replenish his own coffers.<\/p>\nThe third group of adversaries was the Hasmonean family. Herod’s chief problem was his mother-in-law, Alexandra. She was upset that he had not appointed another Hasmonean to the high priesthood to replace Hyrcanus, specifically her son Aristobulus. She wrote to Cleopatra, asking her to influence Antony to force Herod to remove the appointed high priest, Ananel, and replace him with Aristobulus. Finally, Herod gave way to the pressure. In the end, after a celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles, Herod had Aristobulus drowned, making it look like an accident. Herod put Alexandra in chains and placed her under guard to keep her from causing him more trouble.<\/p>\nHerod’s fourth adversary was Cleopatra. When civil war broke out between Antony and Octavius, Herod wanted to help Antony. But Cleopatra persuaded Antony to set Herod in battle against the Arabian king Malchus, who had failed to pay tribute to her. When she saw Herod winning, she ordered her troops to help Malchus, hoping to weaken both parties to the breaking point so that she could absorb them both. After a catastrophic earthquake in his domain in 31 BC<\/span>, Herod defeated the Arabs and returned home. Soon after, on September 2, 31 BC<\/span>, Octavius defeated Antony in the Battle of Actium, resulting in the suicides of Antony and Cleopatra.<\/p>\nThe second period of Herod’s reign was one of prosperity (25–14 BC<\/span>). It was a period of splendor and enjoyment interrupted by occasional disturbances. According to Josephus, the most noble of all Herod’s achievements was the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, begun in 20\/19 BC<\/span> (Antiquities<\/em> 15.8.1). Rabbinic literature claims, “He who has not seen the Temple of Herod has never seen a beautiful building” (Babylonian Talmud: Baba Bathra<\/em> 4a). Prior to this, he had built theaters, amphitheaters, and racecourses for both men and horses. In 24 BC<\/span> Herod built himself a royal palace and built or rebuilt many fortresses and gentile temples, including Strato’s Tower, later renamed Caesarea.<\/p>\nDuring this time, he became very interested in culture and gathered around him men accomplished in Greek literature and art. Greek rhetoricians were appointed to the highest offices of the state. One of these was Nicolas of Damascus, Herod’s instructor and adviser in philosophy, rhetoric, and history. In late 24 BC<\/span> he married Mariamne, daughter of Simon, a well-known priest in Jerusalem (she will be referred to as Mariamne II).<\/p>\nDuring this period, Herod’s rule was favorably accepted by the people. They were annoyed, however, by two things. First, he violated Jewish law by his introduction of the quinquennial games in honor of Caesar; and second, he built theaters and racecourses. He demanded a loyalty oath from his subjects, except for a privileged few. Also, he would not allow them to congregate freely for fear of a revolt. Despite these things, he had good control of the people and twice favored them by lowering taxes (in 14 BC<\/span> he reduced taxes by one-fourth).<\/p>\nThe third period of Herod’s rule was clearly marked by domestic troubles (13–4 BC<\/span>). By now he had married ten wives. His first wife, Doris, had only one son, Antipater. He repudiated Doris and Antipater when he married Mariamne I, allowing them to visit Jerusalem only during the festivals. He married Mariamne I in 37 BC<\/span>. She was the granddaughter of Hyrcanus and had five children, two daughters and three sons. The youngest son died while in Rome, and the remaining two sons were to play an important role in this part of Herod’s reign. In late 24 BC<\/span> he married his third wife, Mariamne II, to whom one child was born, Herod (Philip). Malthace, his fourth wife, was a Samaritan and mother of two sons, Archelaus and Antipas. His fifth wife, Cleopatra of Jerusalem, was the mother of Philip the tetrarch. Of the remaining five wives, only Pallas, Phaedra, and Elpsis are known by name, and none played a significant part in the events of this period.<\/p>\nAlexander and Aristobulus, the sons of Mariamne I, were his favorites. Immediately following their own marriages, troubles began within the Herodian household. Salome, Herod’s sister and mother of Berenice (wife of Aristobulus), hated these two sons, mainly because she wanted the position and favor they enjoyed for her own son. Herod decided to recall his exiled son Antipater to show Alexander and Aristobulus there was another heir to the throne. Antipater took full advantage of the situation and used every conceivable means to acquire the coveted throne. Finally, a man of bad character, Eurycles from Lacedaemon, took it upon himself to inflame the father against his two sons and vice versa. Soon other mischief makers joined Eurycles, and Herod’s patience became exhausted. He put Alexander and Aristobulus in prison and named Antipater heir.<\/p>\nIn his impatience to gain the throne, Antipater attempted to poison Herod. This plot failed when Pheroras, Herod’s brother, drank the poison by mistake. Herod put Antipater in prison and reported the matter to the emperor (c. 5 BC<\/span>). At this time Herod became very ill with an incurable disease. He drew up a new will that bypassed his older sons, Archelaus and Philip, because Antipater had poisoned his mind against them also. He chose his youngest son, Antipas, as his sole successor.<\/p>\nIt was during this time that the wise men arrived in Judea, searching for the newborn king of the Jews. Herod instructed them to report to him the whereabouts of this child as soon as they found him. Being warned in a dream, they did not do so, but rather returned to their homes by another route. God warned Joseph (husband of the mother of Jesus) to flee to Egypt because of Herod’s intention to kill Jesus. Joseph took his family and left Bethlehem. Shortly after, Herod killed all the male children in Bethlehem who were two years old and under.<\/p>\nHerod’s disease grew increasingly worse. Permission came from Rome to execute Antipater, which he promptly did. He again altered his will, making Archelaus king of Judea, Idumea, and Samaria; Antipas tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and Philip tetrarch of territories east of Galilee. On the fifth day after Antipater’s execution, Herod died at Jericho in the spring of 4 BC<\/span>. The people acclaimed Archelaus as their king.<\/p>\nArchelaus (4 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 6)<\/p>\nArchelaus was the son of Herod the Great and Malthace (a Samaritan) and was born around 22 BC<\/span>. Archelaus was faced with a multitude of problems. He had killed 3,000 people in putting down a revolution led by people avenging the blood of those killed by his father, Herod. Thus his rule got off to a bad start. At Pentecost in 4 BC<\/span>, another revolt broke out, which lasted about two and a half months and during which the temple porticoes were burned and the treasury was pillaged by the Romans. This unrest spread to the countryside of Judea and to Galilee and Perea.<\/p>\nArchelaus treated both the Jews and the Samaritans brutally (War<\/em> 2.7.3), a fact borne out by the Gospels. When Joseph returned from his flight to Egypt and learned that Archelaus was ruling Judea, he was afraid to go there and was warned against it by God; he took the infant Jesus to Galilee instead (Mt 2:22).<\/p>\nArchelaus’s tyranny finally caused the Jews and Samaritans to send a delegation to Rome and complain formally to Augustus. The fact that such bitter enemies as the Jews and Samaritans could cooperate in this matter indicates the serious nature of the complaint. Antipas and Philip also went to Rome to complain about him. Presumably they resented his neglect as their Roman representative for Palestine. Thus in AD<\/span> 6 Archelaus was deposed and exiled to Vienna in Gaul (modern Vienne on the Rhône, south of Lyons). Antipas and Philip were allowed to continue their respective rules, and Archelaus’s territories were reduced to a province ruled by prefects or procurators.<\/p>\nAntipas (4 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 39)<\/p>\nAntipas was the younger brother of Archelaus, born around 20 BC<\/span>. Of all the Herodians, he is mentioned most in the NT because he ruled over Galilee and Perea, where both Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries.<\/p>\nAntipas’s domain was in turmoil caused by the rebellion begun at Pentecost in 4 BC<\/span>. He immediately set out to restore order and rebuild what had been destroyed. Following the example of his father, Herod the Great, Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris was his first project; it was the largest city in Galilee and his capital city until he built Tiberias. Since Nazareth was only four miles (6.4 kilometers) south-southeast of Sepphoris, it is quite possible that Joseph, Mary’s husband, was employed as a carpenter (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3) to help rebuild that city.<\/p>\nOf the 12 cities built by the Herodian family, Tiberias is the most important. It was the first city in Jewish history to be founded with the municipal framework of a Greek polis<\/span>.<\/em> It was built in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius. Due to the fact that a cemetery was destroyed in the process of building, Tiberias was considered unclean by the Jews. Antipas offered free houses, land and tax exemptions for the first few years to anyone who would move into the city. He completed the city in AD<\/span> 23 and made it his capital.<\/p>\nIn the Christian world the incident for which Antipas is most remembered is his beheading of John the Baptist (Mt 14:3-12; Mk 6:17-29; Lk 3:19-20; Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2.116-119). There was a tangle of family events leading up to the death of John the Baptist. Antipas had married the daughter of Aretas IV (the daughter’s name is unknown). Aretas IV was the Nabatean king, and Augustus may have encouraged this marriage since he favored intermarriages between various rulers to promote peace in his empire.<\/p>\nAround AD<\/span> 29 Antipas took a trip to Rome, and on the way he paid a visit to his half brother Herod Philip, who must have lived in a coastal city in Palestine. Antipas fell in love with Herodias, Philip’s wife, who was also Antipas’s niece. The idea of becoming the wife of a tetrarch appealed to her, and she agreed to marry him when he returned from Rome if he would oust Aretas’s daughter. Antipas agreed to the plan, and when Aretas’s daughter heard of it, she fled to her father. This was a breach of political alliance as well as a personal insult, which led to retaliation by Aretas.<\/p>\nThe marriage of Antipas and Herodias was in violation of the Mosaic law that forbade marriage to a brother’s wife (Lv 18:16; 20:21) except in order to raise children for a deceased childless brother by a levirate marriage (Dt 25:5; Mk 12:19). In this case, Philip not only had a child, Salome, but he was still alive. This is the situation that John the Baptist spoke so boldly against, and Antipas threw him in prison. Herodias’s hatred of John the Baptist was too great merely to settle for his incarceration. At an appropriate time, possibly Antipas’s birthday, she planned a banquet at Machaerus in Perea. Her daughter, Salome, danced for the king, and in an impulsive moment Antipas promised her under oath that he would give her anything, up to half of his kingdom. Following her mother’s advice, she asked for John the Baptist’s head on a platter. Immediately Antipas was sorry for his rash promise, but in order to save face in the presence of his underlords, he granted the request. Thus, John’s ministry ended around AD<\/span> 31 or 32.<\/p>\nThere are three specific times when Antipas and Jesus are mentioned together in the Gospels.<\/p>\nEarly in Jesus’ ministry Antipas heard of him and commented, perhaps with irony, that Jesus was John the Baptist resurrected (Mt 14:1-2; Mk 6:14-16; Lk 9:7-9). It was obvious to Antipas that Jesus’ ministry was even more remarkable than John’s, but he was reluctant to use force to bring about the meeting for fear of once more arousing the people against him. Eventually, Jesus withdrew from Antipas’s territories without the two meeting.<\/p>\nLater, as Jesus became more popular, Antipas saw a potential threat to his own power and threatened to kill Jesus. Thus it was that on Jesus’ final trip to Jerusalem he was warned by some of the Pharisees that he should leave Antipas’s territories for his own safety (Lk 13:31-33). Jesus sent as answer to “that fox” that he would continue his ministry of healing and casting out demons for a little longer, and when he had finished, he would then go to Jerusalem to die. The lion and fox were often contrasted in ancient literature. The Lion of Judah, Jesus Christ, was not going to be coerced by the crafty coward, Antipas.<\/p>\nThe final encounter between the two occurred when Jesus was tried by Antipas in AD<\/span> 33 (Lk 23:6-12). Since this event is mentioned only by Luke, some scholars consider it legendary. It must be remembered, however, that Luke’s addressee was Theophilus, probably a Roman officer, who would be especially interested in the reconciliation between Pilate and Antipas mentioned in this passage.<\/p>\nAccording to Luke’s account, when Pilate could find no fault in Jesus, he sent him to Antipas (who was celebrating the Passover in Jerusalem). Pilate thus freed himself from an awkward situation. A more subtle reason may have been to reconcile himself to Antipas. Their relationship had been rather strained since the Galilean massacre (Lk 13:1), and because Pilate brought votive shields into Jerusalem, arousing the anger of the Jews (Philo’s Legatio ad Gaium<\/em> 299–304). When Jesus was brought before Antipas, the ruler only mocked him and sent him back to Pilate. The main political accomplishment of the incident was Antipas and Pilate’s reconciliation.<\/p>\nPhilip the Tetrarch (4 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 34)<\/p>\nPhilip the tetrarch was the son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem and was born around 22 BC<\/span>. When Herod’s will was resolved, Philip was made tetrarch over Gaulanitis, Auranitis, Batanea, Trachonitis, and Iturea, all in the northern part of Herod the Great’s domain (Lk 3:1). His subjects were mainly Syrian and Greek. Thus he was the first and only Herodian to have his image on his coins.<\/p>\nHe built two cities. First, he rebuilt and enlarged Paneas and renamed it Caesarea Philippi. Here Peter made his confession of faith to Jesus and was given the revelation of the church (Mt 16:13-20; Mk 8:27-30). Next, he rebuilt and enlarged Bethsaida and renamed it Julias. Here Jesus healed the blind man (Mk 8:22-26), and in a nearby desert place he fed the 5,000 (Lk 9:10-17).<\/p>\nPhilip was not as politically ambitious as his brothers. His rule was marked by tranquility and the loyalty of his subjects. When Philip died in AD<\/span> 34, Tiberius annexed his territories to Syria. After Caligula became emperor in AD<\/span> 37, he gave the territories to Agrippa I, brother of Herodias.<\/p>\nAgrippa I (AD<\/span> 37–44)<\/p>\n\nAgrippa I was the son of Aristobulus (son of Herod the Great and Mariamne I) and Berenice. He was born in 10 BC<\/span> and was the brother of Herodias.<\/p>\nAgrippa I might be considered the black sheep of the Herodian family. While at school in Rome, he lived a wanton life, incurring many debts. In Rome he became a friend of Gaius Caligula and at one point stated that he wished Caligula were king rather than Tiberius. This was overheard and reported to Tiberius, who imprisoned him. He remained in prison until Tiberius’s death six months later.<\/p>\nUpon Caligula’s accession to the throne, he released Agrippa and gave him Philip the tetrarch’s territories and the northern part of Lysanias’s territory as well as the title of king. The title of king aroused the jealousy of his sister Herodias, and that eventually led to her husband, Antipas’s, downfall. At that time (AD<\/span> 39) Agrippa acquired all of Antipas’s territories and property.<\/p>\nWhen Caligula died in AD<\/span> 41, Agrippa curried the favor of the new emperor Claudius, whereupon Claudius added Judea and Samaria to Agrippa’s territory. This territory was once ruled by Agrippa’s grandfather, Herod the Great.<\/p>\nAgrippa I is mentioned in the NT for his persecution of the early church in order to gain favor with the Jews (Acts 12:1-19). He killed James, the son of Zebedee, and imprisoned Peter. When Peter was released by an angel, Agrippa put the sentries to death.<\/p>\nAgrippa died in AD<\/span> 44 in Caesarea. Accounts of this incident are recorded both by Josephus (Antiquities<\/em> 19.9.1.274–275; War<\/em> 2.11.5.214–215) and the Scriptures. The incident occurred at Caesarea; he was wearing a sparkling silver robe, and when the people flattered him by calling him a god, he was suddenly struck with a mortal illness and died a horrible death. He was survived by his daughters, Bernice, Mariamne, and Drusilla, and by a son, Agrippa, who was 17 at the time. Because of Agrippa II’s youth, his father’s territories were temporarily made a province.<\/p>\nAgrippa II (AD<\/span> 50–100)<\/p>\nAgrippa II was the son of Agrippa I and Cypros. In AD<\/span> 50, six years after his father’s death, Claudius made him king of Chalcis.<\/p>\nAgrippa II was in control of the temple treasury and the vestments of the high priest and thus could appoint the high priest. The Romans consulted him on religious matters, which is probably why Festus asked him to hear the apostle Paul at Caesarea (AD<\/span> 59), where he was accompanied by his sister Bernice (Acts 25–26).<\/p>\nIn May AD<\/span> 66 the Palestinian revolution began (War<\/em> 2.14.4.284). When Agrippa’s attempt to quell the revolt failed, he became a staunch ally of the Romans throughout the entire war (AD<\/span> 66–70). During this time, Nero committed suicide, the new emperor Galba was murdered, and Vespasian became the emperor. After pledging his allegiance to the new emperor, Agrippa remained with Titus, Vespasian’s son, who was in charge of the war (Tacitus’s History<\/em> 5.81). After the fall of Jerusalem (August 6, AD<\/span> 70), Agrippa was probably present to celebrate the destruction of his own people.<\/p>\nFollowing this, Vespasian added new territories to Agrippa’s kingdom, though just which ones is not known. In AD<\/span> 79 Vespasian died and Titus became emperor. Little is known of Agrippa’s rule after this, except that he wrote to the historian Josephus praising him for The Jewish War,<\/em> and he purchased a copy of it (Josephus’s Life<\/em> 65.361–367; Apion<\/em> 1.9.47–52).<\/p>\nAlthough the Talmud implies that Agrippa II had two wives (Babylonian Talmud: Sukkah<\/em> 27a), Josephus gives no indication that he had any wives or children. Rather, he was known for his incestuous relationship with his sister Bernice. He died around AD<\/span> 100. His death marked the end of the Herodian dynasty.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Herodians; Judaism.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HEROD, HERODIAN FAMILY*<\/h3>\nPolitical rulers during the lifetime of Christ. Christ was born when Herod the Great was ruling. Herod’s son Herod Antipas was the ruler of Galilee and Perea, the territories in which Jesus and John the Baptist carried out most of their ministries. It was this ruler who beheaded John the Baptist and tried Christ just before his death. Herod Agrippa I is the persecutor of the church in Acts 12, and Herod Agrippa II heard Paul’s testimony (Acts 26) just before he went to Rome to be tried by Caesar. Without a knowledge of the Herodian family, one can hardly have a proper understanding of the times of Christ.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Herodian Dynasty<\/p>\n• Herod the Great<\/p>\n• Archelaus<\/p>\n• Antipas<\/p>\n• Philip the Tetrarch<\/p>\n• Agrippa I<\/p>\n• Agrippa II<\/p>\nThe Herodian Dynasty (67–47 BC<\/span>)<\/p>\nThe Herodian dynasty became prominent during the confusion that resulted in the decay of the Hasmonean dynasty, the transference of Syria and Palestine to Roman rule, and the civil wars that marked the decay of the nation. Much of what we know about the Herods comes from the historian Josephus’s writings: Antiquities of the Jews<\/em> and The Jewish War.<\/em><\/p>\nHerod the Great (47–4 BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<h5>As Governor of Galilee (47–37 BC<\/span>)<\/h5>\nHerod the Great became governor of Galilee at 25 years of age. Although he gained the respect of both the Romans and the Galilean Jews for quickly capturing and executing the bandit leader Ezekias, some in Hyrcanus’s court thought that he was becoming too powerful and arranged to have him brought to trial. He was acquitted and released and thereafter fled to Sextus Caesar at Damascus. Sextus Caesar, governor of Syria, appointed Herod governor of Coele-Syria, and thus he became involved with Roman affairs in Syria. He remained in this position under a series of rulers and was successful in collecting taxes and suppressing various revolts. Thus, in 41 BC<\/span> when Antony came to power under Octavius Caesar, after asking the advice of Hyrcanus II, Sextus appointed Herod and Phasael as tetrarchs of Judea.<\/p>\n<h5>As King (37–4 BC<\/span>)<\/h5>\nThe reign of Herod is divided by most scholars into three periods: (1) consolidation from 37 to 25 BC<\/span>; (2) prosperity from 25 to 13 BC<\/span>; and (3) domestic troubles from 13 to 4 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nThe period of consolidation extended from his accession as king in 37 BC<\/span> to the death of the sons of Babas, the last male representatives of the Hasmonean family. During this period, he had to contend with many powerful adversaries.<\/p>\nThe first adversaries, the people and the Pharisees, objected to his being an Idumean, a half Jew, and a friend of the Romans. Those who opposed him were punished, and those who took his side were rewarded with favors and honors.<\/p>\nThe second adversaries were those of the aristocracy who sided with Antigonus. Herod had executed 45 of the wealthiest and had confiscated their properties to replenish his own coffers.<\/p>\nThe third group of adversaries was the Hasmonean family. Herod’s chief problem was his mother-in-law, Alexandra. She was upset that he had not appointed another Hasmonean to the high priesthood to replace Hyrcanus, specifically her son Aristobulus. She wrote to Cleopatra, asking her to influence Antony to force Herod to remove the appointed high priest, Ananel, and replace him with Aristobulus. Finally, Herod gave way to the pressure. In the end, after a celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles, Herod had Aristobulus drowned, making it look like an accident. Herod put Alexandra in chains and placed her under guard to keep her from causing him more trouble.<\/p>\nHerod’s fourth adversary was Cleopatra. When civil war broke out between Antony and Octavius, Herod wanted to help Antony. But Cleopatra persuaded Antony to set Herod in battle against the Arabian king Malchus, who had failed to pay tribute to her. When she saw Herod winning, she ordered her troops to help Malchus, hoping to weaken both parties to the breaking point so that she could absorb them both. After a catastrophic earthquake in his domain in 31 BC<\/span>, Herod defeated the Arabs and returned home. Soon after, on September 2, 31 BC<\/span>, Octavius defeated Antony in the Battle of Actium, resulting in the suicides of Antony and Cleopatra.<\/p>\nThe second period of Herod’s reign was one of prosperity (25–14 BC<\/span>). It was a period of splendor and enjoyment interrupted by occasional disturbances. According to Josephus, the most noble of all Herod’s achievements was the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, begun in 20\/19 BC<\/span> (Antiquities<\/em> 15.8.1). Rabbinic literature claims, “He who has not seen the Temple of Herod has never seen a beautiful building” (Babylonian Talmud: Baba Bathra<\/em> 4a). Prior to this, he had built theaters, amphitheaters, and racecourses for both men and horses. In 24 BC<\/span> Herod built himself a royal palace and built or rebuilt many fortresses and gentile temples, including Strato’s Tower, later renamed Caesarea.<\/p>\nDuring this time, he became very interested in culture and gathered around him men accomplished in Greek literature and art. Greek rhetoricians were appointed to the highest offices of the state. One of these was Nicolas of Damascus, Herod’s instructor and adviser in philosophy, rhetoric, and history. In late 24 BC<\/span> he married Mariamne, daughter of Simon, a well-known priest in Jerusalem (she will be referred to as Mariamne II).<\/p>\nDuring this period, Herod’s rule was favorably accepted by the people. They were annoyed, however, by two things. First, he violated Jewish law by his introduction of the quinquennial games in honor of Caesar; and second, he built theaters and racecourses. He demanded a loyalty oath from his subjects, except for a privileged few. Also, he would not allow them to congregate freely for fear of a revolt. Despite these things, he had good control of the people and twice favored them by lowering taxes (in 14 BC<\/span> he reduced taxes by one-fourth).<\/p>\nThe third period of Herod’s rule was clearly marked by domestic troubles (13–4 BC<\/span>). By now he had married ten wives. His first wife, Doris, had only one son, Antipater. He repudiated Doris and Antipater when he married Mariamne I, allowing them to visit Jerusalem only during the festivals. He married Mariamne I in 37 BC<\/span>. She was the granddaughter of Hyrcanus and had five children, two daughters and three sons. The youngest son died while in Rome, and the remaining two sons were to play an important role in this part of Herod’s reign. In late 24 BC<\/span> he married his third wife, Mariamne II, to whom one child was born, Herod (Philip). Malthace, his fourth wife, was a Samaritan and mother of two sons, Archelaus and Antipas. His fifth wife, Cleopatra of Jerusalem, was the mother of Philip the tetrarch. Of the remaining five wives, only Pallas, Phaedra, and Elpsis are known by name, and none played a significant part in the events of this period.<\/p>\nAlexander and Aristobulus, the sons of Mariamne I, were his favorites. Immediately following their own marriages, troubles began within the Herodian household. Salome, Herod’s sister and mother of Berenice (wife of Aristobulus), hated these two sons, mainly because she wanted the position and favor they enjoyed for her own son. Herod decided to recall his exiled son Antipater to show Alexander and Aristobulus there was another heir to the throne. Antipater took full advantage of the situation and used every conceivable means to acquire the coveted throne. Finally, a man of bad character, Eurycles from Lacedaemon, took it upon himself to inflame the father against his two sons and vice versa. Soon other mischief makers joined Eurycles, and Herod’s patience became exhausted. He put Alexander and Aristobulus in prison and named Antipater heir.<\/p>\nIn his impatience to gain the throne, Antipater attempted to poison Herod. This plot failed when Pheroras, Herod’s brother, drank the poison by mistake. Herod put Antipater in prison and reported the matter to the emperor (c. 5 BC<\/span>). At this time Herod became very ill with an incurable disease. He drew up a new will that bypassed his older sons, Archelaus and Philip, because Antipater had poisoned his mind against them also. He chose his youngest son, Antipas, as his sole successor.<\/p>\nIt was during this time that the wise men arrived in Judea, searching for the newborn king of the Jews. Herod instructed them to report to him the whereabouts of this child as soon as they found him. Being warned in a dream, they did not do so, but rather returned to their homes by another route. God warned Joseph (husband of the mother of Jesus) to flee to Egypt because of Herod’s intention to kill Jesus. Joseph took his family and left Bethlehem. Shortly after, Herod killed all the male children in Bethlehem who were two years old and under.<\/p>\nHerod’s disease grew increasingly worse. Permission came from Rome to execute Antipater, which he promptly did. He again altered his will, making Archelaus king of Judea, Idumea, and Samaria; Antipas tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and Philip tetrarch of territories east of Galilee. On the fifth day after Antipater’s execution, Herod died at Jericho in the spring of 4 BC<\/span>. The people acclaimed Archelaus as their king.<\/p>\nArchelaus (4 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 6)<\/p>\nArchelaus was the son of Herod the Great and Malthace (a Samaritan) and was born around 22 BC<\/span>. Archelaus was faced with a multitude of problems. He had killed 3,000 people in putting down a revolution led by people avenging the blood of those killed by his father, Herod. Thus his rule got off to a bad start. At Pentecost in 4 BC<\/span>, another revolt broke out, which lasted about two and a half months and during which the temple porticoes were burned and the treasury was pillaged by the Romans. This unrest spread to the countryside of Judea and to Galilee and Perea.<\/p>\nArchelaus treated both the Jews and the Samaritans brutally (War<\/em> 2.7.3), a fact borne out by the Gospels. When Joseph returned from his flight to Egypt and learned that Archelaus was ruling Judea, he was afraid to go there and was warned against it by God; he took the infant Jesus to Galilee instead (Mt 2:22).<\/p>\nArchelaus’s tyranny finally caused the Jews and Samaritans to send a delegation to Rome and complain formally to Augustus. The fact that such bitter enemies as the Jews and Samaritans could cooperate in this matter indicates the serious nature of the complaint. Antipas and Philip also went to Rome to complain about him. Presumably they resented his neglect as their Roman representative for Palestine. Thus in AD<\/span> 6 Archelaus was deposed and exiled to Vienna in Gaul (modern Vienne on the Rhône, south of Lyons). Antipas and Philip were allowed to continue their respective rules, and Archelaus’s territories were reduced to a province ruled by prefects or procurators.<\/p>\nAntipas (4 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 39)<\/p>\nAntipas was the younger brother of Archelaus, born around 20 BC<\/span>. Of all the Herodians, he is mentioned most in the NT because he ruled over Galilee and Perea, where both Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries.<\/p>\nAntipas’s domain was in turmoil caused by the rebellion begun at Pentecost in 4 BC<\/span>. He immediately set out to restore order and rebuild what had been destroyed. Following the example of his father, Herod the Great, Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris was his first project; it was the largest city in Galilee and his capital city until he built Tiberias. Since Nazareth was only four miles (6.4 kilometers) south-southeast of Sepphoris, it is quite possible that Joseph, Mary’s husband, was employed as a carpenter (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3) to help rebuild that city.<\/p>\nOf the 12 cities built by the Herodian family, Tiberias is the most important. It was the first city in Jewish history to be founded with the municipal framework of a Greek polis<\/span>.<\/em> It was built in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius. Due to the fact that a cemetery was destroyed in the process of building, Tiberias was considered unclean by the Jews. Antipas offered free houses, land and tax exemptions for the first few years to anyone who would move into the city. He completed the city in AD<\/span> 23 and made it his capital.<\/p>\nIn the Christian world the incident for which Antipas is most remembered is his beheading of John the Baptist (Mt 14:3-12; Mk 6:17-29; Lk 3:19-20; Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2.116-119). There was a tangle of family events leading up to the death of John the Baptist. Antipas had married the daughter of Aretas IV (the daughter’s name is unknown). Aretas IV was the Nabatean king, and Augustus may have encouraged this marriage since he favored intermarriages between various rulers to promote peace in his empire.<\/p>\nAround AD<\/span> 29 Antipas took a trip to Rome, and on the way he paid a visit to his half brother Herod Philip, who must have lived in a coastal city in Palestine. Antipas fell in love with Herodias, Philip’s wife, who was also Antipas’s niece. The idea of becoming the wife of a tetrarch appealed to her, and she agreed to marry him when he returned from Rome if he would oust Aretas’s daughter. Antipas agreed to the plan, and when Aretas’s daughter heard of it, she fled to her father. This was a breach of political alliance as well as a personal insult, which led to retaliation by Aretas.<\/p>\nThe marriage of Antipas and Herodias was in violation of the Mosaic law that forbade marriage to a brother’s wife (Lv 18:16; 20:21) except in order to raise children for a deceased childless brother by a levirate marriage (Dt 25:5; Mk 12:19). In this case, Philip not only had a child, Salome, but he was still alive. This is the situation that John the Baptist spoke so boldly against, and Antipas threw him in prison. Herodias’s hatred of John the Baptist was too great merely to settle for his incarceration. At an appropriate time, possibly Antipas’s birthday, she planned a banquet at Machaerus in Perea. Her daughter, Salome, danced for the king, and in an impulsive moment Antipas promised her under oath that he would give her anything, up to half of his kingdom. Following her mother’s advice, she asked for John the Baptist’s head on a platter. Immediately Antipas was sorry for his rash promise, but in order to save face in the presence of his underlords, he granted the request. Thus, John’s ministry ended around AD<\/span> 31 or 32.<\/p>\nThere are three specific times when Antipas and Jesus are mentioned together in the Gospels.<\/p>\nEarly in Jesus’ ministry Antipas heard of him and commented, perhaps with irony, that Jesus was John the Baptist resurrected (Mt 14:1-2; Mk 6:14-16; Lk 9:7-9). It was obvious to Antipas that Jesus’ ministry was even more remarkable than John’s, but he was reluctant to use force to bring about the meeting for fear of once more arousing the people against him. Eventually, Jesus withdrew from Antipas’s territories without the two meeting.<\/p>\nLater, as Jesus became more popular, Antipas saw a potential threat to his own power and threatened to kill Jesus. Thus it was that on Jesus’ final trip to Jerusalem he was warned by some of the Pharisees that he should leave Antipas’s territories for his own safety (Lk 13:31-33). Jesus sent as answer to “that fox” that he would continue his ministry of healing and casting out demons for a little longer, and when he had finished, he would then go to Jerusalem to die. The lion and fox were often contrasted in ancient literature. The Lion of Judah, Jesus Christ, was not going to be coerced by the crafty coward, Antipas.<\/p>\nThe final encounter between the two occurred when Jesus was tried by Antipas in AD<\/span> 33 (Lk 23:6-12). Since this event is mentioned only by Luke, some scholars consider it legendary. It must be remembered, however, that Luke’s addressee was Theophilus, probably a Roman officer, who would be especially interested in the reconciliation between Pilate and Antipas mentioned in this passage.<\/p>\nAccording to Luke’s account, when Pilate could find no fault in Jesus, he sent him to Antipas (who was celebrating the Passover in Jerusalem). Pilate thus freed himself from an awkward situation. A more subtle reason may have been to reconcile himself to Antipas. Their relationship had been rather strained since the Galilean massacre (Lk 13:1), and because Pilate brought votive shields into Jerusalem, arousing the anger of the Jews (Philo’s Legatio ad Gaium<\/em> 299–304). When Jesus was brought before Antipas, the ruler only mocked him and sent him back to Pilate. The main political accomplishment of the incident was Antipas and Pilate’s reconciliation.<\/p>\nPhilip the Tetrarch (4 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 34)<\/p>\nPhilip the tetrarch was the son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem and was born around 22 BC<\/span>. When Herod’s will was resolved, Philip was made tetrarch over Gaulanitis, Auranitis, Batanea, Trachonitis, and Iturea, all in the northern part of Herod the Great’s domain (Lk 3:1). His subjects were mainly Syrian and Greek. Thus he was the first and only Herodian to have his image on his coins.<\/p>\nHe built two cities. First, he rebuilt and enlarged Paneas and renamed it Caesarea Philippi. Here Peter made his confession of faith to Jesus and was given the revelation of the church (Mt 16:13-20; Mk 8:27-30). Next, he rebuilt and enlarged Bethsaida and renamed it Julias. Here Jesus healed the blind man (Mk 8:22-26), and in a nearby desert place he fed the 5,000 (Lk 9:10-17).<\/p>\nPhilip was not as politically ambitious as his brothers. His rule was marked by tranquility and the loyalty of his subjects. When Philip died in AD<\/span> 34, Tiberius annexed his territories to Syria. After Caligula became emperor in AD<\/span> 37, he gave the territories to Agrippa I, brother of Herodias.<\/p>\nAgrippa I (AD<\/span> 37–44)<\/p>\n\nAgrippa I was the son of Aristobulus (son of Herod the Great and Mariamne I) and Berenice. He was born in 10 BC<\/span> and was the brother of Herodias.<\/p>\nAgrippa I might be considered the black sheep of the Herodian family. While at school in Rome, he lived a wanton life, incurring many debts. In Rome he became a friend of Gaius Caligula and at one point stated that he wished Caligula were king rather than Tiberius. This was overheard and reported to Tiberius, who imprisoned him. He remained in prison until Tiberius’s death six months later.<\/p>\nUpon Caligula’s accession to the throne, he released Agrippa and gave him Philip the tetrarch’s territories and the northern part of Lysanias’s territory as well as the title of king. The title of king aroused the jealousy of his sister Herodias, and that eventually led to her husband, Antipas’s, downfall. At that time (AD<\/span> 39) Agrippa acquired all of Antipas’s territories and property.<\/p>\nWhen Caligula died in AD<\/span> 41, Agrippa curried the favor of the new emperor Claudius, whereupon Claudius added Judea and Samaria to Agrippa’s territory. This territory was once ruled by Agrippa’s grandfather, Herod the Great.<\/p>\nAgrippa I is mentioned in the NT for his persecution of the early church in order to gain favor with the Jews (Acts 12:1-19). He killed James, the son of Zebedee, and imprisoned Peter. When Peter was released by an angel, Agrippa put the sentries to death.<\/p>\nAgrippa died in AD<\/span> 44 in Caesarea. Accounts of this incident are recorded both by Josephus (Antiquities<\/em> 19.9.1.274–275; War<\/em> 2.11.5.214–215) and the Scriptures. The incident occurred at Caesarea; he was wearing a sparkling silver robe, and when the people flattered him by calling him a god, he was suddenly struck with a mortal illness and died a horrible death. He was survived by his daughters, Bernice, Mariamne, and Drusilla, and by a son, Agrippa, who was 17 at the time. Because of Agrippa II’s youth, his father’s territories were temporarily made a province.<\/p>\nAgrippa II (AD<\/span> 50–100)<\/p>\nAgrippa II was the son of Agrippa I and Cypros. In AD<\/span> 50, six years after his father’s death, Claudius made him king of Chalcis.<\/p>\nAgrippa II was in control of the temple treasury and the vestments of the high priest and thus could appoint the high priest. The Romans consulted him on religious matters, which is probably why Festus asked him to hear the apostle Paul at Caesarea (AD<\/span> 59), where he was accompanied by his sister Bernice (Acts 25–26).<\/p>\nIn May AD<\/span> 66 the Palestinian revolution began (War<\/em> 2.14.4.284). When Agrippa’s attempt to quell the revolt failed, he became a staunch ally of the Romans throughout the entire war (AD<\/span> 66–70). During this time, Nero committed suicide, the new emperor Galba was murdered, and Vespasian became the emperor. After pledging his allegiance to the new emperor, Agrippa remained with Titus, Vespasian’s son, who was in charge of the war (Tacitus’s History<\/em> 5.81). After the fall of Jerusalem (August 6, AD<\/span> 70), Agrippa was probably present to celebrate the destruction of his own people.<\/p>\nFollowing this, Vespasian added new territories to Agrippa’s kingdom, though just which ones is not known. In AD<\/span> 79 Vespasian died and Titus became emperor. Little is known of Agrippa’s rule after this, except that he wrote to the historian Josephus praising him for The Jewish War,<\/em> and he purchased a copy of it (Josephus’s Life<\/em> 65.361–367; Apion<\/em> 1.9.47–52).<\/p>\nAlthough the Talmud implies that Agrippa II had two wives (Babylonian Talmud: Sukkah<\/em> 27a), Josephus gives no indication that he had any wives or children. Rather, he was known for his incestuous relationship with his sister Bernice. He died around AD<\/span> 100. His death marked the end of the Herodian dynasty.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Herodians; Judaism.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HEROD, HERODIAN FAMILY* Political rulers during the lifetime of Christ. Christ was born when Herod the Great was ruling. Herod’s son Herod Antipas was the ruler of Galilee and Perea, the territories in which Jesus and John the Baptist carried out most of their ministries. It was this ruler who beheaded John the Baptist and tried Christ just before his death. Herod Agrippa I is the persecutor of the church in Acts 12, and Herod Agrippa II heard Paul’s testimony (Acts 26) just before he went to...","summary_en":"HEROD, HERODIAN FAMILY* Political rulers during the lifetime of Christ. Christ was born when Herod the Great was ruling. Herod’s son Herod Antipas was the ruler of Galilee and Perea, the territories in which Jesus and John the Baptist carried out most of their ministries. It was this ruler who beheaded John the Baptist and tried Christ just before his death. Herod Agrippa I is the persecutor of the church in Acts 12, and Herod Agrippa II heard Paul’s testimony (Acts 26) just before he went to...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":18110,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Ituraea*, Iturea, Itureans*","title_en":"Ituraea*, Iturea, Itureans*","content_ro":"<h3>ITURAEA*, ITUREA, ITUREANS*<\/h3>\nSmall province mentioned with Trachonitis as forming the tetrarchy of Philip, brother of Herod the Great, during the reign of Tiberius Caesar (Lk 3:1). A reasonable assumption places Iturea northeast of the Sea of Galilee and in the area of Mt Hermon, but its location and boundaries have been much disputed. The name almost certainly comes from Jetur, a son of Ishmael (Gn 25:15), whose descendants were among those conquered by the Israelites east of the Jordan (1 Chr 5:19-20). Thereafter, the Itureans virtually drop from sight until Josephus records another defeat inflicted on them by Aristobulus in 105–104 BC<\/span>, at which time many of them were faced with a choice between circumcision and exile.<\/p>\nThere are frequent mentions by classical writers of Itureans, sometimes described as Syrians or Arabians—skilled bowmen with the predatory tendencies often associated with groups unable or unwilling to settle for long in any one area. In view of this, it is not surprising that we know more about Itureans than we do about Iturea.<\/p>\nStrabo speaks of them as inhabitants of a mountainous country; Dio Cassius a little later tells us that they had a king. Any attempt to understand their history is complicated by divisions in the Roman Empire that affected them, but by the end of the first century AD<\/span>, many Itureans were to be found under the provincial rule of Syria.<\/p>\nIt is easier, then, to discuss the people than the place. Some scholars, indeed, hold that Luke could not have used the noun “Iturea,” for this was a form unknown until three centuries later, and that the adjectival form better fits the case. This prompts another question: Was this Iturean territory within Philip’s tetrarchy? Could Luke have made a slip and anticipated a later regional regrouping? Josephus at one point lists the constituent parts of Philip’s tetrarchy without including Iturea.<\/p>\nThree facts are clear: (1) there is a certain flexibility and overlapping in descriptions of territorial demarcation; (2) the data we have is insufficient for exact conclusions about Iturea; and (3) the evidence is clear from other parts of Scripture that Luke is a careful and reliable writer.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ITURAEA*, ITUREA, ITUREANS*<\/h3>\nSmall province mentioned with Trachonitis as forming the tetrarchy of Philip, brother of Herod the Great, during the reign of Tiberius Caesar (Lk 3:1). A reasonable assumption places Iturea northeast of the Sea of Galilee and in the area of Mt Hermon, but its location and boundaries have been much disputed. The name almost certainly comes from Jetur, a son of Ishmael (Gn 25:15), whose descendants were among those conquered by the Israelites east of the Jordan (1 Chr 5:19-20). Thereafter, the Itureans virtually drop from sight until Josephus records another defeat inflicted on them by Aristobulus in 105–104 BC<\/span>, at which time many of them were faced with a choice between circumcision and exile.<\/p>\nThere are frequent mentions by classical writers of Itureans, sometimes described as Syrians or Arabians—skilled bowmen with the predatory tendencies often associated with groups unable or unwilling to settle for long in any one area. In view of this, it is not surprising that we know more about Itureans than we do about Iturea.<\/p>\nStrabo speaks of them as inhabitants of a mountainous country; Dio Cassius a little later tells us that they had a king. Any attempt to understand their history is complicated by divisions in the Roman Empire that affected them, but by the end of the first century AD<\/span>, many Itureans were to be found under the provincial rule of Syria.<\/p>\nIt is easier, then, to discuss the people than the place. Some scholars, indeed, hold that Luke could not have used the noun “Iturea,” for this was a form unknown until three centuries later, and that the adjectival form better fits the case. This prompts another question: Was this Iturean territory within Philip’s tetrarchy? Could Luke have made a slip and anticipated a later regional regrouping? Josephus at one point lists the constituent parts of Philip’s tetrarchy without including Iturea.<\/p>\nThree facts are clear: (1) there is a certain flexibility and overlapping in descriptions of territorial demarcation; (2) the data we have is insufficient for exact conclusions about Iturea; and (3) the evidence is clear from other parts of Scripture that Luke is a careful and reliable writer.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ITURAEA*, ITUREA, ITUREANS* Small province mentioned with Trachonitis as forming the tetrarchy of Philip, brother of Herod the Great, during the reign of Tiberius Caesar (Lk 3:1). A reasonable assumption places Iturea northeast of the Sea of Galilee and in the area of Mt Hermon, but its location and boundaries have been much disputed. The name almost certainly comes from Jetur, a son of Ishmael (Gn 25:15), whose descendants were among those conquered by the Israelites east of the Jordan (1 Ch...","summary_en":"ITURAEA*, ITUREA, ITUREANS* Small province mentioned with Trachonitis as forming the tetrarchy of Philip, brother of Herod the Great, during the reign of Tiberius Caesar (Lk 3:1). A reasonable assumption places Iturea northeast of the Sea of Galilee and in the area of Mt Hermon, but its location and boundaries have been much disputed. The name almost certainly comes from Jetur, a son of Ishmael (Gn 25:15), whose descendants were among those conquered by the Israelites east of the Jordan (1 Ch...","source":"Articles\/I.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":19752,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jeturites Jetur","title_en":"Jeturites Jetur","content_ro":"<h3>JETUR, JETURITES<\/h3>\nSon of Ishmael and his descendants (Gn 25:15; 1 Chr 1:31); the Israelite tribes who settled east of the Jordan had to fight them (1 Chr 5:19). Also called Itureans, they survived into NT times, giving their name to Iturea, an area northeast of Galilee (Lk 3:1). See<\/em> Ituraea, Iturea, Itureans.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JETUR, JETURITES<\/h3>\nSon of Ishmael and his descendants (Gn 25:15; 1 Chr 1:31); the Israelite tribes who settled east of the Jordan had to fight them (1 Chr 5:19). Also called Itureans, they survived into NT times, giving their name to Iturea, an area northeast of Galilee (Lk 3:1). See<\/em> Ituraea, Iturea, Itureans.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JETUR, JETURITES Son of Ishmael and his descendants (Gn 25:15; 1 Chr 1:31); the Israelite tribes who settled east of the Jordan had to fight them (1 Chr 5:19). Also called Itureans, they survived into NT times, giving their name to Iturea, an area northeast of Galilee (Lk 3:1). See Ituraea, Iturea, Itureans.","summary_en":"JETUR, JETURITES Son of Ishmael and his descendants (Gn 25:15; 1 Chr 1:31); the Israelite tribes who settled east of the Jordan had to fight them (1 Chr 5:19). Also called Itureans, they survived into NT times, giving their name to Iturea, an area northeast of Galilee (Lk 3:1). See Ituraea, Iturea, Itureans.","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":21048,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Tribe of Judah","title_en":"Tribe of Judah","content_ro":"<h3>JUDAH, Tribe of<\/h3>\nOne of the 12 tribes of Israel.<\/p>\nGeographical Territory<\/p>\nThe frontiers of Judah are well defined in Joshua 15, which describes the inheritance of the tribe after the Conquest. Second Kings 23:8 describes Judah as extending from Geba to Beersheba: Geba is about 8 miles (13 kilometers) north of Jerusalem, and Beersheba about 40 miles (64 kilometers) south. Judah thus held a strip of mountain land on the central spine of southern Palestine, about 50 miles (80 kilometers) from north to south and 20 miles (32 kilometers) from east to west. Of this 1,000 square miles, half was desert (on the south and east); the rest was stony and not well watered. The central ridge, upon which are situated Jerusalem, Hebron, and Beersheba, rises to over 3,000 feet (914 meters) in places before tapering off into the desert in the south. Along this ridge, connecting these towns, runs the chief road. To the east, the ridge drops steeply to the Dead Sea, nearly 5,000 feet (1,524 meters) below. To the west it drops less sharply to the “lowlands,” actually a plateau some 1,000 feet (305 meters) high, before descending to the Philistine plain, which stretches to the sea.<\/p>\nJudah proper (Jerusalem was a later addition) was remote and secure in its hills. Its true center and capital was Hebron, 3,500 feet (1,067 meters) up. Only on the north was it vulnerable to attackers marching south along the ridge road. However, three great valleys led up from the western lowlands into the hills: the valley of Ajalon, the valley of Sorek, and the valley of Elah. Battles would rage up and down these valleys from the days of Joshua to the time of David and long afterward. The few roads to the east (the one from Jerusalem to Jericho is the best known) were not so important, although it was by this “back door” that Joshua had invaded the hill country (Jos 10:9). Judah was thus geographically well out of the mainstream of Israelite life, since only the territory of Simeon lay to the south.<\/p>\nThe area occupied by Judah falls easily into three natural regions: the central mountain ridge, fairly densely settled, especially on its western side, where rainfall and dew were greatest; the eastern slopes, almost uninhabited and mostly desert; and the southern pastoral region round Beersheba, where the mountains fall away into dry prairie, with sparse settlement throughout.<\/p>\nEconomic Life<\/p>\nTo Israel, Palestine was a land flowing with milk and honey (Nm 13:27). Half of Judah might be desert, but the rest had reasonably good soil, and on the western slopes the rain was usually adequate. Wheat, barley, olives, figs, and especially vineyards, grew freely. The land might be stony, but stones could be collected and used for walls and buildings. Not as rich as the great northern valleys like Jezreel, Judah was still good mixed farming country, although it required hard work. Sheep and goats were plentiful, and that meant wool and milk. Cattle were probably rarer; Judah was not cattle country like Bashan (Nm 32:1). Wool meant cloth, and hide meant leather. In those days the hills were forested, which meant fuel and building materials. Clay for pottery was readily available for domestic utensils. Copper came from Edom in the south, and iron from Philistia in the west; these could be obtained by bartering agricultural produce. Whether they realized it or not, God had dealt graciously with the people of Judah in giving them adequate resources. Nonetheless, the climate was bracing: a cold, wet winter, with snow and hail at times, and a long, rainless summer, with low humidity and cool nights. This brought heavy dews on the eastern slopes (Jgs 6:38), and precious rainwater was conserved in rock-hewn cisterns (Jer 2:13). Permanent streams of any size did not exist in Judah, but springs or “wells” were abundant, from Jerusalem to Beersheba. It was not until Judah got caught up into the economic life of Solomon’s trading empire that its simple pattern of life changed; even then, the change in the hills of Judah was far less than elsewhere. Judah had no seaport of its own and controlled no rich caravan routes. It had no coveted raw materials, like the copper of Edom or the cedars of Lebanon; no luxury goods for trade, like the purple dye of Phoenicia or the gold of Ophir; no lush land to tempt the greed of others. In God’s mercy Judah’s temptations were few. Its faith was also less liable to be corrupted: comparatively few Canaanites had ever settled in this area, while the Conquest had been more thorough in the south than in the north.<\/p>\nHistory and Significance<\/p>\nThe earliest blessings on Judah are recorded in Genesis 49:8-12 and Deuteronomy 33:7. After the exodus, the tribe of Judah took first place in the desert camping arrangement (Nm 2:3). Caleb, one of the two faithful spies, was a tribal chieftain of Judah (13:6). In Joshua’s invasion of Palestine, the highlands allotted to Judah were the first to be cleared of Canaanites, after the initial fighting around Jericho and Ai (Jos 6; 8). The book of Joshua is a summary account of the whole campaign.<\/p>\n\nAfter Joshua’s death, Simeon and Judah continued the fight against the Canaanites and marched together against the hill country of the south, led by Caleb and Othniel. Although God’s gift to Judah had been the whole land westward as far as the sea, Judah failed to take anything but the hills. The plain was controlled by iron-protected chariots and fortress cities. The king of Jerusalem was killed and Jerusalem was burned (Jgs 1:8), but the Jebusites continued to occupy the area until David’s day (v 21). The men of Judah, like other Israelites, might burn Canaanite towns, but they did not usually occupy the old sites themselves. Under the judges, the tribe of Judah was still isolated, though Othniel was of Judah (ch 3). In the great battle against Sisera, Judah is not even mentioned (ch 5). This tribal isolation was soon lost, first through Philistine invasions from the west, and then through David’s capture of Jerusalem and the placing of the national and religious capital there. Although in Judges 15:11 the men of Judah are prepared even to hand over Samson to the Philistines, with Samuel as judge, everything changes. The ark returns (1 Sm 7:1); lost territory is regained (v 14). Indeed, Samuel’s sons act as judges in Beersheba (8:2), although they are corrupt.<\/p>\nDavid finally breaks the power of the Philistines in a series of victories and rules as king first in Hebron, Judah’s chief town (2 Sm 2:1-4). When he is crowned king of all Israel, however, he moves the capital to the newly conquered Jerusalem, on the northern frontier of the tribe of Judah (5:6-10). Here the ark was to be brought (ch 6), and here Solomon was to build the temple (7:13). All God’s promises will henceforth cluster around Jerusalem, the temple, and David’s line. Most important, the Messiah would come from Judah (Gn 49:10).<\/p>\nThe division between the northern and southern tribes had begun in David’s lifetime, after Absalom’s revolt (2 Sm 20:1); after Solomon’s death, the rift became complete (1 Kgs 12:16). Henceforth for 200 years, until the fall of the northern kingdom in 722 BC<\/span>, there were two little kingdoms side by side: a larger one in the north and east, called Israel (the “ten tribes” of 1 Kgs 11:35), and a smaller one in the south, called Judah. With this, the history of Judah as a tribe virtually comes to an end, for although still called by the old tribal name, this little kingdom was really a “Greater Judah.” It now contained not only the old tribe of Judah but also the newly conquered Jebusite territory of Jerusalem, some of the old Philistine country, and the tribes of Benjamin and Simeon, as well as many Levites (2 Chr 11:14) and other “loyalists” from the north. Indeed, from now on, “tribe” had far less meaning than before; it was more important where a person lived than of what tribe the person was, although, within the family, tribal origins continued to be remembered. For 250 more years the little kingdom of Judah persisted alone. Even after the exile it was the tiny province of Judah that emerged under Nehemiah (Neh 1:2-3), and Judea still remained as a district in NT days (Lk 3:1). In fact, the vast majority of later Jews were of the tribe of Judah, as the very name “Jew” shows. But the chief glory of the tribe of Judah, now as ever, was that the house of David sprang from it. When Jesus Christ was born, he was to be of David’s line and Judah’s tribe. So it is that in Revelation 7:5, when 12,000 are sealed from each tribe, Judah has pride of place in the list, as it had in Numbers (Nm 2:3) so long before.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Judah (Person) #1.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JUDAH, Tribe of<\/h3>\nOne of the 12 tribes of Israel.<\/p>\nGeographical Territory<\/p>\nThe frontiers of Judah are well defined in Joshua 15, which describes the inheritance of the tribe after the Conquest. Second Kings 23:8 describes Judah as extending from Geba to Beersheba: Geba is about 8 miles (13 kilometers) north of Jerusalem, and Beersheba about 40 miles (64 kilometers) south. Judah thus held a strip of mountain land on the central spine of southern Palestine, about 50 miles (80 kilometers) from north to south and 20 miles (32 kilometers) from east to west. Of this 1,000 square miles, half was desert (on the south and east); the rest was stony and not well watered. The central ridge, upon which are situated Jerusalem, Hebron, and Beersheba, rises to over 3,000 feet (914 meters) in places before tapering off into the desert in the south. Along this ridge, connecting these towns, runs the chief road. To the east, the ridge drops steeply to the Dead Sea, nearly 5,000 feet (1,524 meters) below. To the west it drops less sharply to the “lowlands,” actually a plateau some 1,000 feet (305 meters) high, before descending to the Philistine plain, which stretches to the sea.<\/p>\nJudah proper (Jerusalem was a later addition) was remote and secure in its hills. Its true center and capital was Hebron, 3,500 feet (1,067 meters) up. Only on the north was it vulnerable to attackers marching south along the ridge road. However, three great valleys led up from the western lowlands into the hills: the valley of Ajalon, the valley of Sorek, and the valley of Elah. Battles would rage up and down these valleys from the days of Joshua to the time of David and long afterward. The few roads to the east (the one from Jerusalem to Jericho is the best known) were not so important, although it was by this “back door” that Joshua had invaded the hill country (Jos 10:9). Judah was thus geographically well out of the mainstream of Israelite life, since only the territory of Simeon lay to the south.<\/p>\nThe area occupied by Judah falls easily into three natural regions: the central mountain ridge, fairly densely settled, especially on its western side, where rainfall and dew were greatest; the eastern slopes, almost uninhabited and mostly desert; and the southern pastoral region round Beersheba, where the mountains fall away into dry prairie, with sparse settlement throughout.<\/p>\nEconomic Life<\/p>\nTo Israel, Palestine was a land flowing with milk and honey (Nm 13:27). Half of Judah might be desert, but the rest had reasonably good soil, and on the western slopes the rain was usually adequate. Wheat, barley, olives, figs, and especially vineyards, grew freely. The land might be stony, but stones could be collected and used for walls and buildings. Not as rich as the great northern valleys like Jezreel, Judah was still good mixed farming country, although it required hard work. Sheep and goats were plentiful, and that meant wool and milk. Cattle were probably rarer; Judah was not cattle country like Bashan (Nm 32:1). Wool meant cloth, and hide meant leather. In those days the hills were forested, which meant fuel and building materials. Clay for pottery was readily available for domestic utensils. Copper came from Edom in the south, and iron from Philistia in the west; these could be obtained by bartering agricultural produce. Whether they realized it or not, God had dealt graciously with the people of Judah in giving them adequate resources. Nonetheless, the climate was bracing: a cold, wet winter, with snow and hail at times, and a long, rainless summer, with low humidity and cool nights. This brought heavy dews on the eastern slopes (Jgs 6:38), and precious rainwater was conserved in rock-hewn cisterns (Jer 2:13). Permanent streams of any size did not exist in Judah, but springs or “wells” were abundant, from Jerusalem to Beersheba. It was not until Judah got caught up into the economic life of Solomon’s trading empire that its simple pattern of life changed; even then, the change in the hills of Judah was far less than elsewhere. Judah had no seaport of its own and controlled no rich caravan routes. It had no coveted raw materials, like the copper of Edom or the cedars of Lebanon; no luxury goods for trade, like the purple dye of Phoenicia or the gold of Ophir; no lush land to tempt the greed of others. In God’s mercy Judah’s temptations were few. Its faith was also less liable to be corrupted: comparatively few Canaanites had ever settled in this area, while the Conquest had been more thorough in the south than in the north.<\/p>\nHistory and Significance<\/p>\nThe earliest blessings on Judah are recorded in Genesis 49:8-12 and Deuteronomy 33:7. After the exodus, the tribe of Judah took first place in the desert camping arrangement (Nm 2:3). Caleb, one of the two faithful spies, was a tribal chieftain of Judah (13:6). In Joshua’s invasion of Palestine, the highlands allotted to Judah were the first to be cleared of Canaanites, after the initial fighting around Jericho and Ai (Jos 6; 8). The book of Joshua is a summary account of the whole campaign.<\/p>\n\nAfter Joshua’s death, Simeon and Judah continued the fight against the Canaanites and marched together against the hill country of the south, led by Caleb and Othniel. Although God’s gift to Judah had been the whole land westward as far as the sea, Judah failed to take anything but the hills. The plain was controlled by iron-protected chariots and fortress cities. The king of Jerusalem was killed and Jerusalem was burned (Jgs 1:8), but the Jebusites continued to occupy the area until David’s day (v 21). The men of Judah, like other Israelites, might burn Canaanite towns, but they did not usually occupy the old sites themselves. Under the judges, the tribe of Judah was still isolated, though Othniel was of Judah (ch 3). In the great battle against Sisera, Judah is not even mentioned (ch 5). This tribal isolation was soon lost, first through Philistine invasions from the west, and then through David’s capture of Jerusalem and the placing of the national and religious capital there. Although in Judges 15:11 the men of Judah are prepared even to hand over Samson to the Philistines, with Samuel as judge, everything changes. The ark returns (1 Sm 7:1); lost territory is regained (v 14). Indeed, Samuel’s sons act as judges in Beersheba (8:2), although they are corrupt.<\/p>\nDavid finally breaks the power of the Philistines in a series of victories and rules as king first in Hebron, Judah’s chief town (2 Sm 2:1-4). When he is crowned king of all Israel, however, he moves the capital to the newly conquered Jerusalem, on the northern frontier of the tribe of Judah (5:6-10). Here the ark was to be brought (ch 6), and here Solomon was to build the temple (7:13). All God’s promises will henceforth cluster around Jerusalem, the temple, and David’s line. Most important, the Messiah would come from Judah (Gn 49:10).<\/p>\nThe division between the northern and southern tribes had begun in David’s lifetime, after Absalom’s revolt (2 Sm 20:1); after Solomon’s death, the rift became complete (1 Kgs 12:16). Henceforth for 200 years, until the fall of the northern kingdom in 722 BC<\/span>, there were two little kingdoms side by side: a larger one in the north and east, called Israel (the “ten tribes” of 1 Kgs 11:35), and a smaller one in the south, called Judah. With this, the history of Judah as a tribe virtually comes to an end, for although still called by the old tribal name, this little kingdom was really a “Greater Judah.” It now contained not only the old tribe of Judah but also the newly conquered Jebusite territory of Jerusalem, some of the old Philistine country, and the tribes of Benjamin and Simeon, as well as many Levites (2 Chr 11:14) and other “loyalists” from the north. Indeed, from now on, “tribe” had far less meaning than before; it was more important where a person lived than of what tribe the person was, although, within the family, tribal origins continued to be remembered. For 250 more years the little kingdom of Judah persisted alone. Even after the exile it was the tiny province of Judah that emerged under Nehemiah (Neh 1:2-3), and Judea still remained as a district in NT days (Lk 3:1). In fact, the vast majority of later Jews were of the tribe of Judah, as the very name “Jew” shows. But the chief glory of the tribe of Judah, now as ever, was that the house of David sprang from it. When Jesus Christ was born, he was to be of David’s line and Judah’s tribe. So it is that in Revelation 7:5, when 12,000 are sealed from each tribe, Judah has pride of place in the list, as it had in Numbers (Nm 2:3) so long before.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Judah (Person) #1.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JUDAH, Tribe of One of the 12 tribes of Israel. Geographical Territory The frontiers of Judah are well defined in Joshua 15, which describes the inheritance of the tribe after the Conquest. Second Kings 23:8 describes Judah as extending from Geba to Beersheba: Geba is about 8 miles (13 kilometers) north of Jerusalem, and Beersheba about 40 miles (64 kilometers) south. Judah thus held a strip of mountain land on the central spine of southern Palestine, about 50 miles (80 kilometers) from north...","summary_en":"JUDAH, Tribe of One of the 12 tribes of Israel. Geographical Territory The frontiers of Judah are well defined in Joshua 15, which describes the inheritance of the tribe after the Conquest. Second Kings 23:8 describes Judah as extending from Geba to Beersheba: Geba is about 8 miles (13 kilometers) north of Jerusalem, and Beersheba about 40 miles (64 kilometers) south. Judah thus held a strip of mountain land on the central spine of southern Palestine, about 50 miles (80 kilometers) from north...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":23660,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gospel of Luke","title_en":"Gospel of Luke","content_ro":"<h3>LUKE, Gospel of<\/span><\/h3>\nThird book of the NT; also the third of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke).<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Author<\/p>\n• Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n• Background<\/p>\n• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nAuthor<\/p>\nTradition attributes the authorship of the Gospel to the esteemed companion of Paul, Luke the physician (Col 4:14). The Gospel does not identify its author by name, but he is apparently well known in the company of early believers. He had obviously been gathering information for his project for some time. In both Luke and Acts the recipient is identified as Theophilus.<\/p>\nThe internal testimony of Acts for Lucan authorship must also be weighed, since there is a close relationship between the two books. In three extensive “we” passages the author reports his presence (Acts 16:10-17; 20:5–21:18; 27:1–28:16). These appear to be excerpts from a travel diary; the last of them places the author in Rome with the apostle Paul. We can, by the process of elimination, virtually establish Luke as the author.<\/p>\nDate, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\nThe dating of Luke is debatable. Some argue for a date after AD<\/span> 70, but this robs Luke 21:20 of its predictive value. Others suggest a date prior to the death of Paul (AD<\/span> 64). The latter would readily account for Acts concluding with his ministry in Rome while in prison.<\/p>\nThe Gospel may have been written in Rome, but this is by no means certain. Asia Minor and Greece have also been suggested as possibilities. The Monarchian Prologue to Luke<\/em> promotes the latter option, but its reliability is suspect. It was at Rome that Luke could have used the time profitably to put the finishing touches on the third Gospel.<\/p>\nLuke wrote to Theophilus. Theophilus (“beloved of God”) is probably not, as some suggest, a generic term for all believers. He was a person apparently unfamiliar with the geography of Palestine, for Luke takes care to detail it from time to time. He has a much better grasp of the Greco-Roman world as a whole, for Luke predictably assumes his reader’s familiarity with it. Luke also avoids terms that might prove puzzling to a gentile reader, such as “hosanna” in connection with Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem.<\/p>\nIn all probability the third Gospel was composed in Rome while Paul awaited trial, on or before AD<\/span> 64. It was dedicated to the “most excellent Theophilus” (Lk 1:3), as an appropriate custom of the time. He was a prominent Gentile who had become a believer. Luke wanted to instruct him (and others) more carefully in the faith.<\/p>\nBackground<\/p>\nJesus lived out his life within an area roughly 50 miles (80.5 kilometers) wide and 150 miles (241.4 kilometers) long, from Dan in the north to Beersheba in the south. Apart from Jerusalem, the places he is reported to have visited are not important to the secular history of the region. He was raised in the humble village of Nazareth and lived there until about 30 years of age. Capernaum became the center for his Galilean ministry. He passed through Samaria on occasion, and he ministered in Perea. He was betrayed and crucified in Jerusalem. He was raised in triumph on the third day.<\/p>\nLuke writes in retrospect. His perspective had shifted during the interim—geographically from Palestine to the Roman Empire, politically from Israel to Rome, socially from Jewish society to pagan, and religiously from the temple to the horizon of Christian mission. It is as if one era were superimposed on the other, so that the significance of the life and ministry of Jesus can be seen for the early church.<\/p>\nPurpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\nSimeon beautifully expressed the redemptive theme of Luke’s Gospel when he held Jesus in his arms and exclaimed: “I have seen the Savior you have given to all people. He is a light to reveal God to the nations, and he is the glory of your people Israel!” (Lk 2:30-32, nlt<\/span>). He pointed to Jesus as the long-anticipated Savior, the hope of Gentiles and Jews alike.<\/p>\nLuke wove the work of the Holy Spirit into the life and ministry of Jesus. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Lk 1:35); the Spirit descended on him at his baptism (3:22); he was led into the desert by the Spirit to be tempted (4:2); he was anointed by the Spirit for his ministry (v 18). The Spirit is, as it were, in the background with regard to Jesus’ subsequent labors, but the relationship is understood even when it is not repeated.<\/p>\nLuke accented the experience of messianic joy. The angelic host announced Jesus’ birth with the words, “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and peace on earth to all whom God favors” (2:14, nlt<\/span>). Then, as he was approaching Jerusalem, the multitude that accompanied him began to praise God, saying, “Bless the King who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in highest heaven!” (19:38, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nAll this suggests that the redemptive theme in Luke is complex in character. It points to Jesus as the Christ. It invites the favorable response of Gentiles no less than Jews. It blends in the empowering of the Holy Spirit for Jesus’ ministry and that of his disciples. It emphasizes the joy that accompanies the publication of the gospel. These are simply variations on the one redemptive design of Luke.<\/p>\nOther concerns surface incidentally. Luke’s interest in historical accuracy is one of these. His apologetic burden is another. The critical place he gives to prayer is a third. The list could be extended.<\/p>\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>Prologue (1:1-4)<\/h5>\nThe Gospel begins with a formal prologue. Luke sought to record in orderly fashion what others had handed down as a legacy of faith. He did so in order to establish the historical credentials of the faith and to assure his readers of their validity.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Nativity and Childhood of Jesus (1:5–2:52)<\/h5>\nNone of the Gospels is a thoroughgoing biography of Jesus. But Luke took a special interest in historical incidents, first with regard to the nativity and childhood narratives. He recounted 10 episodes in all: the annunciation of John the Baptist’s birth as the forerunner of Christ; the announcement of Jesus’ birth to Mary; the visit of Mary to Elizabeth; the birth of John the Baptist; John the Baptist’s time in the wilderness; the birth of Jesus; the visit of the shepherds; the circumcision of Jesus; Jesus’ presentation in the temple; and the visit to the temple as a youth.<\/p>\nJohn the Baptist received considerable attention from the outset. Luke recorded that it was during the reign of Herod (Herod the Great, 37–4 BC<\/span>) that Zechariah the priest was ministering in the temple. (Twenty-four platoons of priests served in this capacity for two separate weeks out of the year. The privilege of burning incense was determined by casting lots, and once the priest had done so, he was disqualified from repeating the act.) An angel of the Lord appeared to Zechariah as he was about to burn incense, announcing that he and his wife, Elizabeth, would have a son, whose name should be John. He was to live as a Nazirite (see Nm 6:1-4) and prepare the way for the Messiah. When Zechariah was reluctant to believe (he and Elizabeth were of advanced age), the angel struck him dumb until the time of the promised birth.<\/p>\nWe next hear of John in connection with Mary’s visit to Elizabeth. The baby leaped within Elizabeth’s womb as she heard Mary’s greeting (Lk 1:41). Luke immediately followed this account with the birth of John the Baptist. Zechariah named the child as he had been directed, received back his speech, and proceeded to prophesy concerning the coming Messiah and the preparatory role his son would play. The child grew and became “strong in spirit,” abiding in the wilderness until his public ministry began.<\/p>\nLuke told the nativity story from the perspective of Mary. The angel Gabriel visited her and announced that she would give birth to the Messiah (1:26-38). She would conceive miraculously by the Holy Spirit. Mary is portrayed as being devoutly submissive to the purposes of God.<\/p>\nThe birth is said to have taken place when Quirinius was governor of Syria, and persons had to travel to their ancestral towns to register for a census. Mary gave birth in a Bethlehem stable. Angels announced the birth to shepherds, who left their flocks to observe the child. Mary treasured these events and continued to ponder their significance.<\/p>\nAfter Mary had observed her 40 days of ritual purification, she went with Joseph to the temple to present Jesus to the Lord (2:21-40). There Simeon and Anna, two elderly and devout persons, recognized the infant as the promised Messiah. Simeon concluded that Jesus would cause many in Israel to fall and rise, and would bring deep sorrow to the heart of Mary.<\/p>\nThe nativity and childhood narratives close with Jesus’ visit to the temple at age 12 to celebrate the Feast of the Passover. Joseph and Mary left Jesus behind in the temple, supposing that he was among relatives or friends. They retraced their steps and found him in the temple conversing with the rabbis—listening to them and amazing them with his own understanding. Luke concluded by saying that “Jesus grew both in height and in wisdom, and he was loved by God and by all who knew him” (2:52, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>Beginning of the Public Ministry (3:1–4:30)<\/h5>\nLuke then recorded those events related to the inauguration of Jesus’ ministry. These include the ministry of John the Baptist, the baptism of Jesus, his genealogy, his temptation, and the public announcement in Nazareth. Luke dated the beginning of John the Baptist’s ministry in no fewer than six ways: with the terms of office of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Herod Antipas, Philip, Lysanias, and Annas and Caiaphas. John came preaching a baptism of repentance in preparation for the coming of the Messiah. Multitudes came out into the wilderness to hear him and to be baptized by him.<\/p>\nJesus also came to be baptized. (Luke does not record John’s protest that Jesus ought rather to baptize him, or Jesus’ insistence that it had to be done—apparently to identify with the people and anticipate his vicarious death on their behalf.) The baptism marked Jesus’ entry into public ministry. Luke inserted what may be the genealogical record through Mary, consistent with his earlier efforts to narrate the events from her perspective.<\/p>\nThe temptation of Jesus was a probationary test of his messianic ministry. The introduction to two of the temptations, “If you are the Son of God,” was calculated to make him doubt the words heard at his baptism, “You are my Son” (3:22; 4:3, 9). Satan hoped to persuade Jesus to seek to fulfill his calling and yet avoid the cross. Each time Jesus parried the temptation with a quotation from Scripture.<\/p>\nJesus returned to Galilee and to the synagogue in Nazareth. Here he announced his public ministry in words borrowed from the jubilee observance and associated with the messianic age (4:18-19; cf. Is 61:1-2). They reflected both the religious focus and broad social implications of the ministry to come. The announcement especially held out hope to those who were downtrodden and ostracized by society. When those in attendance challenged his credentials, Jesus replied, “No prophet is accepted in his own hometown” (Lk 4:24). And when they would have cast him from the brow of a hill, he passed through their midst and went on his way.<\/p>\n<h5>The Galilean Ministry (4:31–9:50)<\/h5>\nJesus moved the center of his activity to Capernaum. Luke records a variety of episodes associated with the Galilean ministry that follows. Approximately 30 instances are mentioned. About a third involve some extraordinary occurrence, such as healing, exorcism, raising from the dead, or feeding a multitude. These were events associated with the messianic age.<\/p>\nHowever, it was Jesus’ teaching that first seems to have caught the people’s attention. He did not teach as the rabbis, by drawing upon traditional precedent, but he taught in the authority of his messianic office. Luke interlaced his narrative with a considerable amount of Jesus’ teaching. There is a fairly extended section on the observance of the Sabbath (6:1-11). But it is less prominent than Jesus’ sermon “on the plain,” with its extended comments concerning blessings and woes, love for enemies, judging others, knowing one by his fruit, and wise and foolish builders (6:12-49). Jesus taught by way of parables, and Luke recorded those of the sower and lamp (8:1-18). In the former instance, the seed represents the word of God, and the soil the varying preparation to receive the Word. Thereby the disciples might better understand the mixed results of Jesus’ ministry and their own. Others would be perplexed by the parables.<\/p>\nLuke described the calling of select disciples. He mentioned Peter, James, and John, and at a later point Levi (5:1-11, 27-32). The former were called from their fishing boats and the latter from his tax booth. All were summoned to follow Christ in his messianic ministry through the Galilean countryside. Later on, when there were 12 disciples, Jesus sent them out to preach the kingdom and heal the sick (9:1-11). No doubt many contributed to the extended ministry. Luke recorded certain women who traveled with them and “were contributing from their own resources to support Jesus and his disciples” (8:3, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nOne senses a rising tide of enthusiasm with regard to the Galilean enterprise. It begins with Jesus alone, working in obscurity; it terminates with a faithful band of followers, multitudes hanging on his words, and his name circulated throughout the region. The section peaks with Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ and the transfiguration of Jesus (9:10-36). The presence of Moses and Elijah represents the Law and Prophets as subordinate to the Messiah.<\/p>\nThe scene shifts abruptly to the foot of the mount, where the disciples have been ineffective in delivering a demon-possessed boy. Here Jesus pointed out the need for spiritual resources to accomplish kingdom needs, and thereafter (in response to the disciples’ argument over who would be greatest) an appeal to humility.<\/p>\n<h5>The Journey toward Jerusalem (9:51–19:27)<\/h5>\nLuke next reported Jesus’ ministry on the way to Jerusalem. This has sometimes been called the Perean ministry, assuming that much of it took place across the Jordan in the district of Perea. It has also been graphically described as “the road to the cross.” The number of incidents are roughly the same as those in the preceding section, although the text is about 25 percent longer.<\/p>\nOpposition is seen building at the outset. Jesus sent messengers ahead to prepare for his arrival at a Samaritan village. But the inhabitants would not welcome him, because he was on the way to Jerusalem. There was bad blood between the Jews and Samaritans. The latter had been settled in the land during the Assyrian occupation and brought with them foreign religious and social customs, resulting in a syncretism repugnant to the Jews. Certain disciples asked if Jesus would have them bring down fire from heaven on the village, but Jesus rebuked them. He evidenced a more conciliatory spirit.<\/p>\nLuke reintroduced the Samaritans in connection with a story Jesus tells (10:25-37). It seems that a man was attacked by thieves, who left him for dead. First a priest and then a Levite came along, each walking by on the opposite side of the road. Another passed that way and took pity on the injured stranger. He bound up his wounds and brought him to an inn where he could be cared for at the expense of his benefactor. Jesus added the detail that the man who stopped to help was a Samaritan. He alone understood that a neighbor is the one we befriend rather than the one who befriends us. (The Samaritans reappear once more in the account of 10 lepers who were healed, of whom only a Samaritan returned to give thanks—17:11-19.)<\/p>\nThe story of the good Samaritan suggests the opposition Jesus was encountering from the religious establishment centered in Jerusalem. Even as the crowds increased, Jesus observed: “The queen of Sheba will rise up against this generation on judgment day and condemn it, because she came from a distant land to hear the wisdom of Solomon. And now someone greater than Solomon is here—and you refuse to listen to him” (11:31, nlt<\/span>). So also will the men of Nineveh stand to condemn the present generation, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here.<\/p>\nJesus reserved the severest rebuke for those Pharisees who had come to contest his every move. Jesus and the Pharisees traveled in much the same circles. Some had been sympathetic to his message, but these seem to have been in the minority. Jesus pictured the Pharisees as meticulous legalists (11:37-44). Events were building to a climax. Jesus had prophesied his impending death and subsequent resurrection. His face was set toward Jerusalem. When some solicitous Pharisees warned him of Herod Antipas’s plan to have him killed, he refused to be intimidated (13:32-33).<\/p>\nParables abound in this section of the Gospel. They include those of the Good Samaritan, mustard seed, yeast, narrow door, invitation to a marriage feast, great banquet, tower builder, king who goes to war, lost sheep, lost coin, Prodigal Son, unjust steward, rich man and Lazarus, Pharisee and publican, and ten minas. These seem to fall into one of three categories, although perhaps not exclusively so. The one has to do with accepting sinners. (While Scripture reveals that we are all sinners, “sinners” in the synoptic Gospels refers to nonobservant Jews.) A classic instance is the story of the Prodigal Son (15:11-32).<\/p>\nThe second category might be called kingdom parables. They suggest that while the kingdom begins in some relatively insignificant fashion, it will expand to incredible proportions. They also warn that not all that seems a part of the growth is a true extension of the kingdom. These emphases can be recognized by comparing the parables of the mustard seed, yeast, and narrow door (13:18-30).<\/p>\nThe third category deals with stewardship. Jesus told one such parable as they neared Jerusalem (19:11-27). It involved a man of noble birth who went to a far country, leaving his servants with ten minas each (a mina was about a three-month wage for laborers). They were to invest the minas so that the man would have a good profit when he came back. Upon returning, the nobleman called his servants to get an accounting from them. Those who were found faithful in lesser things were given greater opportunity, but one who failed lost even that which he had been given.<\/p>\nThere are some especially touching scenes in the Gospel narrative. One shows Jesus welcoming little children (18:15-17). Another describes a rich ruler who inquired of Jesus how he might obtain eternal life (vv 18-30). Still another episode concerns a tax collector called Zacchaeus (19:1-10). These help us to gain a better appreciation of Jesus’ diversified ministry.<\/p>\nSlowly but surely Jesus had worked his way to Jerusalem. He had met increasing opposition. The cross was just over the horizon. He ministered while time allowed.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Death and Resurrection (19:28–24:53)<\/h5>\nLuke concluded his account with the Passion week. First is the Triumphal Entry of Christ (19:28-44). As those with Jesus came over the crest of the Mt of Olives, they began to praise God for all the miracles they had seen: “Bless the King who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in highest heaven!” (19:38, nlt<\/span>). The jubilation of the multitude stands in sharp contrast to Jesus’ weeping over an unrepentant city and lamenting the destruction to be visited upon it.<\/p>\nEntering the temple area, Jesus began driving out those who were selling goods there. God’s house should be a house of prayer, but—Jesus protests—they have made it a den of robbers. He continued to teach daily in the temple precincts, while the religious leaders plotted how to put him to death without inciting the anger of the people.<\/p>\nLuke recorded some of the interchange with the leaders and people (chs 20–21). This includes a challenge to Jesus’ authority, the parable of the wicked tenants, the question about paying taxes to Caesar, another question concerning the resurrection, Jesus’ question about how to understand the Messiah’s Davidic ancestry and lordship, warning against the scribes, comments on the widow’s offering, and discourse on the end of the age. This broad range of topics is related to the messianic disputation in progress.<\/p>\nThe problem as Luke represents it seems less an intellectual than a moral one. The religious establishment was determined to retain its privileged position at all costs. This Galilean rabbi was a serious threat that had to be eliminated. It was only a matter of waiting for the right opportunity. It appeared when Judas Iscariot offered to betray Jesus (22:1-6).<\/p>\nThe Last Supper and the prayer vigil in Gethsemane intervene between the plot of the leaders and the arrest of Jesus (22:7-46). From the upper room Jesus and the disciples made their way across the Kidron Valley to the Mt of Olives. Here Jesus prayed in preparation for the crucifixion to follow. The disciples slept, being weary from the heavy demands of those days. Soon Judas appeared to point Jesus out, and the soldiers rushed him away to stand before the high priest. Peter denied Christ, fearing for his own life. Jesus was condemned by the Sanhedrin. (Commentators debate whether this was a formal session of the council of Jewish elders.) He was sent to the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, then to Herod Antipas, and back again to Pilate. Pilate saw no reason for putting Jesus to death, but the multitude was stirred up by the Jewish leaders to demand his crucifixion. Pilate yielded to their pressure when alternatives seemed to escape him.<\/p>\nJesus was led away to be crucified. Luke alone mentioned those who mourned him (23:27). Jesus warned them rather to mourn for themselves and their children. Here and hereafter we see Jesus’ concern for others in the midst of his own agony: those crucifying him, the repentant criminal, and his mother, Mary.<\/p>\nLuke records a mixed response to the crucifixion. The people stood watching, as if immobilized by the rush of events. They may have felt helpless to intervene even if disposed to do so. Some of the religious leaders went so far as to mock Jesus; “He saved others, . . . let him save himself if he is really God’s Chosen One, the Messiah” (23:35, nlt<\/span>). One hardened criminal joined in their derision; the other asked for clemency.<\/p>\nDarkness shrouded the scene. The curtain of the temple was torn, as if to suggest that access was being made available through the shed blood of Christ. Jesus commended his spirit to the Father. He breathed his last. His body was laid in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. Women went to prepare spices and perfumes for the interment, but they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.<\/p>\nEarly on the first day of the week the women approached the tomb, only to find the stone guarding its entrance rolled away and the body of Jesus missing. Suddenly two figures in gleaming array stood by them. They announced to the frightened women: “He isn’t here! He has risen from the dead!” (24:6, nlt<\/span>). The women returned to report to the apostles. Peter ran to confirm their findings. He discovered the strips of linen laid out as they had been, but with the body absent. He wondered what had happened.<\/p>\nThe same day two disciples were going to a village called Emmaus. They were discussing what had happened in Jerusalem when Jesus joined them. They were kept from recognizing him until later on when he broke bread with them. They hurriedly returned to Jerusalem to reassure the fellowship that it was true that the Lord was risen.<\/p>\nWhile they were still talking, Jesus appeared in their midst. “Look at my hands. Look at my feet. You can see that it’s really me. Touch me and make sure that I am not a ghost, because ghosts don’t have bodies, as you see that I do!” (24:39, nlt<\/span>). Then he helped them understand the implications of what had happened: “Yes, it was written long ago that the Messiah must suffer and die and rise again from the dead on the third day. With my authority, take this message of repentance to all the nations, beginning in Jerusalem: ‘There is forgiveness of sins for all who turn to me.’ You are witnesses of all these things. And now I will send the Holy Spirit, just as my Father promised. But stay here in the city until the Holy Spirit comes and fills you with power from heaven” (vv 46-49, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nLuke concludes his Gospel with an account of the ascension (24:50-53). It was as Jesus blessed them that he was lifted up before their eyes. They worshiped him as the ascended Lord and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. There they remained in the temple precinct, praising God and anticipating the coming of the Holy Spirit to empower them for witnessing to all the world.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Acts of the Apostles, Book of the; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Luke (Person); Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LUKE, Gospel of<\/span><\/h3>\nThird book of the NT; also the third of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke).<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Author<\/p>\n• Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n• Background<\/p>\n• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nAuthor<\/p>\nTradition attributes the authorship of the Gospel to the esteemed companion of Paul, Luke the physician (Col 4:14). The Gospel does not identify its author by name, but he is apparently well known in the company of early believers. He had obviously been gathering information for his project for some time. In both Luke and Acts the recipient is identified as Theophilus.<\/p>\nThe internal testimony of Acts for Lucan authorship must also be weighed, since there is a close relationship between the two books. In three extensive “we” passages the author reports his presence (Acts 16:10-17; 20:5–21:18; 27:1–28:16). These appear to be excerpts from a travel diary; the last of them places the author in Rome with the apostle Paul. We can, by the process of elimination, virtually establish Luke as the author.<\/p>\nDate, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\nThe dating of Luke is debatable. Some argue for a date after AD<\/span> 70, but this robs Luke 21:20 of its predictive value. Others suggest a date prior to the death of Paul (AD<\/span> 64). The latter would readily account for Acts concluding with his ministry in Rome while in prison.<\/p>\nThe Gospel may have been written in Rome, but this is by no means certain. Asia Minor and Greece have also been suggested as possibilities. The Monarchian Prologue to Luke<\/em> promotes the latter option, but its reliability is suspect. It was at Rome that Luke could have used the time profitably to put the finishing touches on the third Gospel.<\/p>\nLuke wrote to Theophilus. Theophilus (“beloved of God”) is probably not, as some suggest, a generic term for all believers. He was a person apparently unfamiliar with the geography of Palestine, for Luke takes care to detail it from time to time. He has a much better grasp of the Greco-Roman world as a whole, for Luke predictably assumes his reader’s familiarity with it. Luke also avoids terms that might prove puzzling to a gentile reader, such as “hosanna” in connection with Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem.<\/p>\nIn all probability the third Gospel was composed in Rome while Paul awaited trial, on or before AD<\/span> 64. It was dedicated to the “most excellent Theophilus” (Lk 1:3), as an appropriate custom of the time. He was a prominent Gentile who had become a believer. Luke wanted to instruct him (and others) more carefully in the faith.<\/p>\nBackground<\/p>\nJesus lived out his life within an area roughly 50 miles (80.5 kilometers) wide and 150 miles (241.4 kilometers) long, from Dan in the north to Beersheba in the south. Apart from Jerusalem, the places he is reported to have visited are not important to the secular history of the region. He was raised in the humble village of Nazareth and lived there until about 30 years of age. Capernaum became the center for his Galilean ministry. He passed through Samaria on occasion, and he ministered in Perea. He was betrayed and crucified in Jerusalem. He was raised in triumph on the third day.<\/p>\nLuke writes in retrospect. His perspective had shifted during the interim—geographically from Palestine to the Roman Empire, politically from Israel to Rome, socially from Jewish society to pagan, and religiously from the temple to the horizon of Christian mission. It is as if one era were superimposed on the other, so that the significance of the life and ministry of Jesus can be seen for the early church.<\/p>\nPurpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\nSimeon beautifully expressed the redemptive theme of Luke’s Gospel when he held Jesus in his arms and exclaimed: “I have seen the Savior you have given to all people. He is a light to reveal God to the nations, and he is the glory of your people Israel!” (Lk 2:30-32, nlt<\/span>). He pointed to Jesus as the long-anticipated Savior, the hope of Gentiles and Jews alike.<\/p>\nLuke wove the work of the Holy Spirit into the life and ministry of Jesus. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Lk 1:35); the Spirit descended on him at his baptism (3:22); he was led into the desert by the Spirit to be tempted (4:2); he was anointed by the Spirit for his ministry (v 18). The Spirit is, as it were, in the background with regard to Jesus’ subsequent labors, but the relationship is understood even when it is not repeated.<\/p>\nLuke accented the experience of messianic joy. The angelic host announced Jesus’ birth with the words, “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and peace on earth to all whom God favors” (2:14, nlt<\/span>). Then, as he was approaching Jerusalem, the multitude that accompanied him began to praise God, saying, “Bless the King who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in highest heaven!” (19:38, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nAll this suggests that the redemptive theme in Luke is complex in character. It points to Jesus as the Christ. It invites the favorable response of Gentiles no less than Jews. It blends in the empowering of the Holy Spirit for Jesus’ ministry and that of his disciples. It emphasizes the joy that accompanies the publication of the gospel. These are simply variations on the one redemptive design of Luke.<\/p>\nOther concerns surface incidentally. Luke’s interest in historical accuracy is one of these. His apologetic burden is another. The critical place he gives to prayer is a third. The list could be extended.<\/p>\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>Prologue (1:1-4)<\/h5>\nThe Gospel begins with a formal prologue. Luke sought to record in orderly fashion what others had handed down as a legacy of faith. He did so in order to establish the historical credentials of the faith and to assure his readers of their validity.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Nativity and Childhood of Jesus (1:5–2:52)<\/h5>\nNone of the Gospels is a thoroughgoing biography of Jesus. But Luke took a special interest in historical incidents, first with regard to the nativity and childhood narratives. He recounted 10 episodes in all: the annunciation of John the Baptist’s birth as the forerunner of Christ; the announcement of Jesus’ birth to Mary; the visit of Mary to Elizabeth; the birth of John the Baptist; John the Baptist’s time in the wilderness; the birth of Jesus; the visit of the shepherds; the circumcision of Jesus; Jesus’ presentation in the temple; and the visit to the temple as a youth.<\/p>\nJohn the Baptist received considerable attention from the outset. Luke recorded that it was during the reign of Herod (Herod the Great, 37–4 BC<\/span>) that Zechariah the priest was ministering in the temple. (Twenty-four platoons of priests served in this capacity for two separate weeks out of the year. The privilege of burning incense was determined by casting lots, and once the priest had done so, he was disqualified from repeating the act.) An angel of the Lord appeared to Zechariah as he was about to burn incense, announcing that he and his wife, Elizabeth, would have a son, whose name should be John. He was to live as a Nazirite (see Nm 6:1-4) and prepare the way for the Messiah. When Zechariah was reluctant to believe (he and Elizabeth were of advanced age), the angel struck him dumb until the time of the promised birth.<\/p>\nWe next hear of John in connection with Mary’s visit to Elizabeth. The baby leaped within Elizabeth’s womb as she heard Mary’s greeting (Lk 1:41). Luke immediately followed this account with the birth of John the Baptist. Zechariah named the child as he had been directed, received back his speech, and proceeded to prophesy concerning the coming Messiah and the preparatory role his son would play. The child grew and became “strong in spirit,” abiding in the wilderness until his public ministry began.<\/p>\nLuke told the nativity story from the perspective of Mary. The angel Gabriel visited her and announced that she would give birth to the Messiah (1:26-38). She would conceive miraculously by the Holy Spirit. Mary is portrayed as being devoutly submissive to the purposes of God.<\/p>\nThe birth is said to have taken place when Quirinius was governor of Syria, and persons had to travel to their ancestral towns to register for a census. Mary gave birth in a Bethlehem stable. Angels announced the birth to shepherds, who left their flocks to observe the child. Mary treasured these events and continued to ponder their significance.<\/p>\nAfter Mary had observed her 40 days of ritual purification, she went with Joseph to the temple to present Jesus to the Lord (2:21-40). There Simeon and Anna, two elderly and devout persons, recognized the infant as the promised Messiah. Simeon concluded that Jesus would cause many in Israel to fall and rise, and would bring deep sorrow to the heart of Mary.<\/p>\nThe nativity and childhood narratives close with Jesus’ visit to the temple at age 12 to celebrate the Feast of the Passover. Joseph and Mary left Jesus behind in the temple, supposing that he was among relatives or friends. They retraced their steps and found him in the temple conversing with the rabbis—listening to them and amazing them with his own understanding. Luke concluded by saying that “Jesus grew both in height and in wisdom, and he was loved by God and by all who knew him” (2:52, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>Beginning of the Public Ministry (3:1–4:30)<\/h5>\nLuke then recorded those events related to the inauguration of Jesus’ ministry. These include the ministry of John the Baptist, the baptism of Jesus, his genealogy, his temptation, and the public announcement in Nazareth. Luke dated the beginning of John the Baptist’s ministry in no fewer than six ways: with the terms of office of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Herod Antipas, Philip, Lysanias, and Annas and Caiaphas. John came preaching a baptism of repentance in preparation for the coming of the Messiah. Multitudes came out into the wilderness to hear him and to be baptized by him.<\/p>\nJesus also came to be baptized. (Luke does not record John’s protest that Jesus ought rather to baptize him, or Jesus’ insistence that it had to be done—apparently to identify with the people and anticipate his vicarious death on their behalf.) The baptism marked Jesus’ entry into public ministry. Luke inserted what may be the genealogical record through Mary, consistent with his earlier efforts to narrate the events from her perspective.<\/p>\nThe temptation of Jesus was a probationary test of his messianic ministry. The introduction to two of the temptations, “If you are the Son of God,” was calculated to make him doubt the words heard at his baptism, “You are my Son” (3:22; 4:3, 9). Satan hoped to persuade Jesus to seek to fulfill his calling and yet avoid the cross. Each time Jesus parried the temptation with a quotation from Scripture.<\/p>\nJesus returned to Galilee and to the synagogue in Nazareth. Here he announced his public ministry in words borrowed from the jubilee observance and associated with the messianic age (4:18-19; cf. Is 61:1-2). They reflected both the religious focus and broad social implications of the ministry to come. The announcement especially held out hope to those who were downtrodden and ostracized by society. When those in attendance challenged his credentials, Jesus replied, “No prophet is accepted in his own hometown” (Lk 4:24). And when they would have cast him from the brow of a hill, he passed through their midst and went on his way.<\/p>\n<h5>The Galilean Ministry (4:31–9:50)<\/h5>\nJesus moved the center of his activity to Capernaum. Luke records a variety of episodes associated with the Galilean ministry that follows. Approximately 30 instances are mentioned. About a third involve some extraordinary occurrence, such as healing, exorcism, raising from the dead, or feeding a multitude. These were events associated with the messianic age.<\/p>\nHowever, it was Jesus’ teaching that first seems to have caught the people’s attention. He did not teach as the rabbis, by drawing upon traditional precedent, but he taught in the authority of his messianic office. Luke interlaced his narrative with a considerable amount of Jesus’ teaching. There is a fairly extended section on the observance of the Sabbath (6:1-11). But it is less prominent than Jesus’ sermon “on the plain,” with its extended comments concerning blessings and woes, love for enemies, judging others, knowing one by his fruit, and wise and foolish builders (6:12-49). Jesus taught by way of parables, and Luke recorded those of the sower and lamp (8:1-18). In the former instance, the seed represents the word of God, and the soil the varying preparation to receive the Word. Thereby the disciples might better understand the mixed results of Jesus’ ministry and their own. Others would be perplexed by the parables.<\/p>\nLuke described the calling of select disciples. He mentioned Peter, James, and John, and at a later point Levi (5:1-11, 27-32). The former were called from their fishing boats and the latter from his tax booth. All were summoned to follow Christ in his messianic ministry through the Galilean countryside. Later on, when there were 12 disciples, Jesus sent them out to preach the kingdom and heal the sick (9:1-11). No doubt many contributed to the extended ministry. Luke recorded certain women who traveled with them and “were contributing from their own resources to support Jesus and his disciples” (8:3, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nOne senses a rising tide of enthusiasm with regard to the Galilean enterprise. It begins with Jesus alone, working in obscurity; it terminates with a faithful band of followers, multitudes hanging on his words, and his name circulated throughout the region. The section peaks with Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ and the transfiguration of Jesus (9:10-36). The presence of Moses and Elijah represents the Law and Prophets as subordinate to the Messiah.<\/p>\nThe scene shifts abruptly to the foot of the mount, where the disciples have been ineffective in delivering a demon-possessed boy. Here Jesus pointed out the need for spiritual resources to accomplish kingdom needs, and thereafter (in response to the disciples’ argument over who would be greatest) an appeal to humility.<\/p>\n<h5>The Journey toward Jerusalem (9:51–19:27)<\/h5>\nLuke next reported Jesus’ ministry on the way to Jerusalem. This has sometimes been called the Perean ministry, assuming that much of it took place across the Jordan in the district of Perea. It has also been graphically described as “the road to the cross.” The number of incidents are roughly the same as those in the preceding section, although the text is about 25 percent longer.<\/p>\nOpposition is seen building at the outset. Jesus sent messengers ahead to prepare for his arrival at a Samaritan village. But the inhabitants would not welcome him, because he was on the way to Jerusalem. There was bad blood between the Jews and Samaritans. The latter had been settled in the land during the Assyrian occupation and brought with them foreign religious and social customs, resulting in a syncretism repugnant to the Jews. Certain disciples asked if Jesus would have them bring down fire from heaven on the village, but Jesus rebuked them. He evidenced a more conciliatory spirit.<\/p>\nLuke reintroduced the Samaritans in connection with a story Jesus tells (10:25-37). It seems that a man was attacked by thieves, who left him for dead. First a priest and then a Levite came along, each walking by on the opposite side of the road. Another passed that way and took pity on the injured stranger. He bound up his wounds and brought him to an inn where he could be cared for at the expense of his benefactor. Jesus added the detail that the man who stopped to help was a Samaritan. He alone understood that a neighbor is the one we befriend rather than the one who befriends us. (The Samaritans reappear once more in the account of 10 lepers who were healed, of whom only a Samaritan returned to give thanks—17:11-19.)<\/p>\nThe story of the good Samaritan suggests the opposition Jesus was encountering from the religious establishment centered in Jerusalem. Even as the crowds increased, Jesus observed: “The queen of Sheba will rise up against this generation on judgment day and condemn it, because she came from a distant land to hear the wisdom of Solomon. And now someone greater than Solomon is here—and you refuse to listen to him” (11:31, nlt<\/span>). So also will the men of Nineveh stand to condemn the present generation, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here.<\/p>\nJesus reserved the severest rebuke for those Pharisees who had come to contest his every move. Jesus and the Pharisees traveled in much the same circles. Some had been sympathetic to his message, but these seem to have been in the minority. Jesus pictured the Pharisees as meticulous legalists (11:37-44). Events were building to a climax. Jesus had prophesied his impending death and subsequent resurrection. His face was set toward Jerusalem. When some solicitous Pharisees warned him of Herod Antipas’s plan to have him killed, he refused to be intimidated (13:32-33).<\/p>\nParables abound in this section of the Gospel. They include those of the Good Samaritan, mustard seed, yeast, narrow door, invitation to a marriage feast, great banquet, tower builder, king who goes to war, lost sheep, lost coin, Prodigal Son, unjust steward, rich man and Lazarus, Pharisee and publican, and ten minas. These seem to fall into one of three categories, although perhaps not exclusively so. The one has to do with accepting sinners. (While Scripture reveals that we are all sinners, “sinners” in the synoptic Gospels refers to nonobservant Jews.) A classic instance is the story of the Prodigal Son (15:11-32).<\/p>\nThe second category might be called kingdom parables. They suggest that while the kingdom begins in some relatively insignificant fashion, it will expand to incredible proportions. They also warn that not all that seems a part of the growth is a true extension of the kingdom. These emphases can be recognized by comparing the parables of the mustard seed, yeast, and narrow door (13:18-30).<\/p>\nThe third category deals with stewardship. Jesus told one such parable as they neared Jerusalem (19:11-27). It involved a man of noble birth who went to a far country, leaving his servants with ten minas each (a mina was about a three-month wage for laborers). They were to invest the minas so that the man would have a good profit when he came back. Upon returning, the nobleman called his servants to get an accounting from them. Those who were found faithful in lesser things were given greater opportunity, but one who failed lost even that which he had been given.<\/p>\nThere are some especially touching scenes in the Gospel narrative. One shows Jesus welcoming little children (18:15-17). Another describes a rich ruler who inquired of Jesus how he might obtain eternal life (vv 18-30). Still another episode concerns a tax collector called Zacchaeus (19:1-10). These help us to gain a better appreciation of Jesus’ diversified ministry.<\/p>\nSlowly but surely Jesus had worked his way to Jerusalem. He had met increasing opposition. The cross was just over the horizon. He ministered while time allowed.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Death and Resurrection (19:28–24:53)<\/h5>\nLuke concluded his account with the Passion week. First is the Triumphal Entry of Christ (19:28-44). As those with Jesus came over the crest of the Mt of Olives, they began to praise God for all the miracles they had seen: “Bless the King who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in highest heaven!” (19:38, nlt<\/span>). The jubilation of the multitude stands in sharp contrast to Jesus’ weeping over an unrepentant city and lamenting the destruction to be visited upon it.<\/p>\nEntering the temple area, Jesus began driving out those who were selling goods there. God’s house should be a house of prayer, but—Jesus protests—they have made it a den of robbers. He continued to teach daily in the temple precincts, while the religious leaders plotted how to put him to death without inciting the anger of the people.<\/p>\nLuke recorded some of the interchange with the leaders and people (chs 20–21). This includes a challenge to Jesus’ authority, the parable of the wicked tenants, the question about paying taxes to Caesar, another question concerning the resurrection, Jesus’ question about how to understand the Messiah’s Davidic ancestry and lordship, warning against the scribes, comments on the widow’s offering, and discourse on the end of the age. This broad range of topics is related to the messianic disputation in progress.<\/p>\nThe problem as Luke represents it seems less an intellectual than a moral one. The religious establishment was determined to retain its privileged position at all costs. This Galilean rabbi was a serious threat that had to be eliminated. It was only a matter of waiting for the right opportunity. It appeared when Judas Iscariot offered to betray Jesus (22:1-6).<\/p>\nThe Last Supper and the prayer vigil in Gethsemane intervene between the plot of the leaders and the arrest of Jesus (22:7-46). From the upper room Jesus and the disciples made their way across the Kidron Valley to the Mt of Olives. Here Jesus prayed in preparation for the crucifixion to follow. The disciples slept, being weary from the heavy demands of those days. Soon Judas appeared to point Jesus out, and the soldiers rushed him away to stand before the high priest. Peter denied Christ, fearing for his own life. Jesus was condemned by the Sanhedrin. (Commentators debate whether this was a formal session of the council of Jewish elders.) He was sent to the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, then to Herod Antipas, and back again to Pilate. Pilate saw no reason for putting Jesus to death, but the multitude was stirred up by the Jewish leaders to demand his crucifixion. Pilate yielded to their pressure when alternatives seemed to escape him.<\/p>\nJesus was led away to be crucified. Luke alone mentioned those who mourned him (23:27). Jesus warned them rather to mourn for themselves and their children. Here and hereafter we see Jesus’ concern for others in the midst of his own agony: those crucifying him, the repentant criminal, and his mother, Mary.<\/p>\nLuke records a mixed response to the crucifixion. The people stood watching, as if immobilized by the rush of events. They may have felt helpless to intervene even if disposed to do so. Some of the religious leaders went so far as to mock Jesus; “He saved others, . . . let him save himself if he is really God’s Chosen One, the Messiah” (23:35, nlt<\/span>). One hardened criminal joined in their derision; the other asked for clemency.<\/p>\nDarkness shrouded the scene. The curtain of the temple was torn, as if to suggest that access was being made available through the shed blood of Christ. Jesus commended his spirit to the Father. He breathed his last. His body was laid in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. Women went to prepare spices and perfumes for the interment, but they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.<\/p>\nEarly on the first day of the week the women approached the tomb, only to find the stone guarding its entrance rolled away and the body of Jesus missing. Suddenly two figures in gleaming array stood by them. They announced to the frightened women: “He isn’t here! He has risen from the dead!” (24:6, nlt<\/span>). The women returned to report to the apostles. Peter ran to confirm their findings. He discovered the strips of linen laid out as they had been, but with the body absent. He wondered what had happened.<\/p>\nThe same day two disciples were going to a village called Emmaus. They were discussing what had happened in Jerusalem when Jesus joined them. They were kept from recognizing him until later on when he broke bread with them. They hurriedly returned to Jerusalem to reassure the fellowship that it was true that the Lord was risen.<\/p>\nWhile they were still talking, Jesus appeared in their midst. “Look at my hands. Look at my feet. You can see that it’s really me. Touch me and make sure that I am not a ghost, because ghosts don’t have bodies, as you see that I do!” (24:39, nlt<\/span>). Then he helped them understand the implications of what had happened: “Yes, it was written long ago that the Messiah must suffer and die and rise again from the dead on the third day. With my authority, take this message of repentance to all the nations, beginning in Jerusalem: ‘There is forgiveness of sins for all who turn to me.’ You are witnesses of all these things. And now I will send the Holy Spirit, just as my Father promised. But stay here in the city until the Holy Spirit comes and fills you with power from heaven” (vv 46-49, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nLuke concludes his Gospel with an account of the ascension (24:50-53). It was as Jesus blessed them that he was lifted up before their eyes. They worshiped him as the ascended Lord and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. There they remained in the temple precinct, praising God and anticipating the coming of the Holy Spirit to empower them for witnessing to all the world.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Acts of the Apostles, Book of the; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Luke (Person); Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","summary_ro":"LUKE, Gospel of Third book of the NT; also the third of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke). Preview • Author • Date, Origin, and Destination • Background • Purpose and Theological Teaching • Content Author Tradition attributes the authorship of the Gospel to the esteemed companion of Paul, Luke the physician (Col 4:14). The Gospel does not identify its author by name, but he is apparently well known in the company of early believers. He had obviously been gathering information for his...","summary_en":"LUKE, Gospel of Third book of the NT; also the third of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke). Preview • Author • Date, Origin, and Destination • Background • Purpose and Theological Teaching • Content Author Tradition attributes the authorship of the Gospel to the esteemed companion of Paul, Luke the physician (Col 4:14). The Gospel does not identify its author by name, but he is apparently well known in the company of early believers. He had obviously been gathering information for his...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":23712,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Lysanias","title_en":"Lysanias","content_ro":"<h3>LYSANIAS<\/h3>\nTetrarch of Abilene (the area west of Damascus) in AD<\/span> 27–28. The Gospel of Luke mentions Lysanias as among those who ruled at the beginning of John the Baptist’s ministry (Lk 3:1). This is the only reference to him in the NT.<\/p>\nJosephus mentions a Lysanias who succeeded his father, Ptolemaeus, as the king of Chalcis. However, he was killed by Mark Antony in 36 BC<\/span>. Since there is no other known reference to a Lysanias in the writings of antiquity, and since this second Lysanias could not have lived during John the Baptist’s lifetime, some biblical scholars assume Luke was inaccurate in his chronology. In defense of Luke, other scholars indicate that Josephus mentions “Abila of Lysanius,” an area given to Agrippa II by Claudius in AD<\/span> 53; however, that reference may be to the Lysanias who ruled Chalcis 90 years earlier.<\/p>\nThe most conclusive evidence in support of Luke is found in an inscription that records the dedication of a temple at Abila, “for the salvation of the Lord Imperial and their whole household by Nymphaeus, a freedman of Lysanias the tetrarch.” The title “Lord Imperial” was bestowed jointly only on Emperor Tiberius and his mother, Livia, Augustus’s widow. That would fix Lysanias’s date between AD<\/span> 14 (when Tiberius became emperor) and AD<\/span> 29 (when Livia died). On that basis Luke’s chronology may be assumed accurate.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LYSANIAS<\/h3>\nTetrarch of Abilene (the area west of Damascus) in AD<\/span> 27–28. The Gospel of Luke mentions Lysanias as among those who ruled at the beginning of John the Baptist’s ministry (Lk 3:1). This is the only reference to him in the NT.<\/p>\nJosephus mentions a Lysanias who succeeded his father, Ptolemaeus, as the king of Chalcis. However, he was killed by Mark Antony in 36 BC<\/span>. Since there is no other known reference to a Lysanias in the writings of antiquity, and since this second Lysanias could not have lived during John the Baptist’s lifetime, some biblical scholars assume Luke was inaccurate in his chronology. In defense of Luke, other scholars indicate that Josephus mentions “Abila of Lysanius,” an area given to Agrippa II by Claudius in AD<\/span> 53; however, that reference may be to the Lysanias who ruled Chalcis 90 years earlier.<\/p>\nThe most conclusive evidence in support of Luke is found in an inscription that records the dedication of a temple at Abila, “for the salvation of the Lord Imperial and their whole household by Nymphaeus, a freedman of Lysanias the tetrarch.” The title “Lord Imperial” was bestowed jointly only on Emperor Tiberius and his mother, Livia, Augustus’s widow. That would fix Lysanias’s date between AD<\/span> 14 (when Tiberius became emperor) and AD<\/span> 29 (when Livia died). On that basis Luke’s chronology may be assumed accurate.<\/p>","summary_ro":"LYSANIAS Tetrarch of Abilene (the area west of Damascus) in AD 27–28. The Gospel of Luke mentions Lysanias as among those who ruled at the beginning of John the Baptist’s ministry (Lk 3:1). This is the only reference to him in the NT. Josephus mentions a Lysanias who succeeded his father, Ptolemaeus, as the king of Chalcis. However, he was killed by Mark Antony in 36 BC. Since there is no other known reference to a Lysanias in the writings of antiquity, and since this second Lysanias could no...","summary_en":"LYSANIAS Tetrarch of Abilene (the area west of Damascus) in AD 27–28. The Gospel of Luke mentions Lysanias as among those who ruled at the beginning of John the Baptist’s ministry (Lk 3:1). This is the only reference to him in the NT. Josephus mentions a Lysanias who succeeded his father, Ptolemaeus, as the king of Chalcis. However, he was killed by Mark Antony in 36 BC. Since there is no other known reference to a Lysanias in the writings of antiquity, and since this second Lysanias could no...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":30190,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Philip","title_en":"Philip","content_ro":"<h3>PHILIP<\/h3>\n<li>1. Apostle whose name is placed fifth in each of the lists of the twelve after the two pairs of brothers, Simon Peter and Andrew, and James and John (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:14). John says that when John the Baptist bore witness to Jesus with the words, “Behold, the Lamb of God!” two of his disciples began to follow Jesus, and that one of these two was Andrew, who then declared to his brother Simon Peter, “We have found the Messiah,” and brought him to Jesus. (The other unnamed disciple was quite probably John himself, the writer of this account.) On the next day Jesus went to Galilee and there found Philip and addressed the call to him: “Follow me.” John adds that Philip was from Bethsaida. Philip in turn found Nathanael and told him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote,” and invited Nathanael, who was skeptical that any good could come out of Nazareth, to come and see for himself (Jn 1:35-51, rsv<\/span>). From this is concluded that Philip was one of the first to follow Jesus and that he lost no time in persuading others to do the same.<\/li>\nLike the other apostles, however, he still had much to learn about the person and the power of Christ. Hence, the testing question of Jesus to him on the occasion of the feeding of the 5,000, “How are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?” and Philip’s puzzled response that even if they had 200 denarii (i.e., a large sum, roughly a person’s wages for half a year), it would not buy enough bread for each one to be given just a little to eat (Jn 6:5-7). The miracle that followed taught him that the feeding of this multitude presented no problem to the one who is the Lord of all creation. Philip’s next appearance is in Jerusalem after Christ’s triumphal entry into the city, when “some Greeks” (i.e., Greek-speaking non-Jews) approached him with the request “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” Philip informs Andrew, and together they bring them to Jesus (12:20-22). This perhaps indicates that Philip was a person whom others found readily approachable, and also that he spoke Greek. In the upper room, prior to his arrest and trial, Jesus took the opportunity to impart further instruction to Philip, who had said, “Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied.” Philip hoped perhaps, in all devoutness, for the privilege of some special revelation (reminiscent of the request of Moses, Ex 33:18). But Jesus taught him that he himself, the incarnate Son, is the all-sufficient revelation of the Father to humanity (Jn 14:8-10).<\/p>\nThere is a tendency to confuse the apostle with the evangelist (see below) of the same name. It seems probable, however, that after preaching in various parts, the apostle settled in Hierapolis, a city of the Roman province of Asia, and died there. Whether his was a natural or a martyr’s death is uncertain.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Apostle, Apostleship.<\/p>\n<li>2. Hellenistic Jew and one of the seven men appointed by the church in Jerusalem to supervise the daily ministry of assistance to the impoverished widows of the Christian community. They all, including Philip, had Greek names, and one of them, Nicolaus, was a proselyte (i.e., not a Jew by birth). Whether or not they were regarded as deacons in the technical sense is not absolutely clear from the account; this occasion has, however, been generally accepted as the origin of the order of the diaconate (Acts 6:1-7). Of the seven, Stephen and Philip are the only ones of whom we have any further record in the NT. They are described as men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom (v 3).<\/li>\nThat Philip became known as “the evangelist” is apparent from Acts 21:8. The designation was well deserved, for when the Jerusalem Christians were scattered by the persecution led by Saul of Tarsus, Philip went to a city of Samaria and proclaimed the gospel with such power there that a great number of people joyfully turned to Christ (Acts 8:1-8). In the midst of this spectacular work, Philip was divinely instructed to leave Samaria and go down to the desert area in the southern part of the country. Humanly speaking, for him to turn away from the multitudes, who were so eagerly responding to his preaching and to go to the uninhabited territory in the south, must have seemed foolish. Yet Philip showed himself not only sensitive but also obedient to the will of God and followed this guidance without question. In the desert he found not a crowd but a single person, an important Ethiopian court official who had visited Jerusalem and was now returning to Africa. The wisdom of God in directing Philip to this place was fully vindicated, for the Ethiopian was reading Isaiah 53, the great gospel chapter of the OT. Philip gave him the good news that this prophecy pointed to Jesus Christ. The Ethiopian subsequently believed and was baptized and went on his way rejoicing (vv 25-40). The conversion of this one person meant not only that Philip was the first to proclaim the gospel to a Gentile but also that the gospel was taken by this Ethiopian courtier to the continent of Africa.<\/p>\nThe prevailing nationalistic pride of the Jews was such that they despised the Samaritans and regarded the Gentiles as ceremonially unclean. But Philip, by his eager preaching of Christ first to the Samaritans and then to the Ethiopian, reflected the way in which the gospel penetrated social barriers and dissolved racial prejudices and demonstrated that the grace of God in Christ Jesus is freely available to all. Subsequently, Philip made his home in the coastal town of Caesarea. There he hospitably entertained Paul and Luke when they were en route to Jerusalem at the conclusion of the apostle’s third missionary journey. Luke tells us that Philip had four unmarried daughters who were prophetesses (Acts 21:8-9). Not long after this, when Paul was in custody in Caesarea for two years, the kindness and friendship of Philip must have meant much to him (23:31-35; 24:23, 27).<\/p>\n<li>3. Son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra and half brother of Antipas, whose mother was Malthace. He is called Herod in Luke 3:1. The latter was tetrarch of Perea and Galilee from 4 BC<\/span> to AD<\/span> 39; Philip was tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis (plus certain other territories) to the northeast of Galilee for 37 years (4 BC<\/span> to AD<\/span> 33). His wife was his niece Salome, who danced for Herod in exchange for the head of John the Baptist (Mt 14:3-12; Mk 6:17-29).<\/li>\nSee also<\/em> Herod, Herodian Family.<\/p>\n<li>4. Son of Herod the Great and Mariamne and husband of Salome’s mother, Herodias, who left him to become the mistress of his half brother Herod Antipas. It was for this immoral relationship that John the Baptist rebuked Herod and was later imprisoned and beheaded (Mt 14:3-12; Mk 6:17-29; Lk 3:19-20).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>PHILIP<\/h3>\n<li>1. Apostle whose name is placed fifth in each of the lists of the twelve after the two pairs of brothers, Simon Peter and Andrew, and James and John (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:14). John says that when John the Baptist bore witness to Jesus with the words, “Behold, the Lamb of God!” two of his disciples began to follow Jesus, and that one of these two was Andrew, who then declared to his brother Simon Peter, “We have found the Messiah,” and brought him to Jesus. (The other unnamed disciple was quite probably John himself, the writer of this account.) On the next day Jesus went to Galilee and there found Philip and addressed the call to him: “Follow me.” John adds that Philip was from Bethsaida. Philip in turn found Nathanael and told him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote,” and invited Nathanael, who was skeptical that any good could come out of Nazareth, to come and see for himself (Jn 1:35-51, rsv<\/span>). From this is concluded that Philip was one of the first to follow Jesus and that he lost no time in persuading others to do the same.<\/li>\nLike the other apostles, however, he still had much to learn about the person and the power of Christ. Hence, the testing question of Jesus to him on the occasion of the feeding of the 5,000, “How are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?” and Philip’s puzzled response that even if they had 200 denarii (i.e., a large sum, roughly a person’s wages for half a year), it would not buy enough bread for each one to be given just a little to eat (Jn 6:5-7). The miracle that followed taught him that the feeding of this multitude presented no problem to the one who is the Lord of all creation. Philip’s next appearance is in Jerusalem after Christ’s triumphal entry into the city, when “some Greeks” (i.e., Greek-speaking non-Jews) approached him with the request “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” Philip informs Andrew, and together they bring them to Jesus (12:20-22). This perhaps indicates that Philip was a person whom others found readily approachable, and also that he spoke Greek. In the upper room, prior to his arrest and trial, Jesus took the opportunity to impart further instruction to Philip, who had said, “Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied.” Philip hoped perhaps, in all devoutness, for the privilege of some special revelation (reminiscent of the request of Moses, Ex 33:18). But Jesus taught him that he himself, the incarnate Son, is the all-sufficient revelation of the Father to humanity (Jn 14:8-10).<\/p>\nThere is a tendency to confuse the apostle with the evangelist (see below) of the same name. It seems probable, however, that after preaching in various parts, the apostle settled in Hierapolis, a city of the Roman province of Asia, and died there. Whether his was a natural or a martyr’s death is uncertain.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Apostle, Apostleship.<\/p>\n<li>2. Hellenistic Jew and one of the seven men appointed by the church in Jerusalem to supervise the daily ministry of assistance to the impoverished widows of the Christian community. They all, including Philip, had Greek names, and one of them, Nicolaus, was a proselyte (i.e., not a Jew by birth). Whether or not they were regarded as deacons in the technical sense is not absolutely clear from the account; this occasion has, however, been generally accepted as the origin of the order of the diaconate (Acts 6:1-7). Of the seven, Stephen and Philip are the only ones of whom we have any further record in the NT. They are described as men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom (v 3).<\/li>\nThat Philip became known as “the evangelist” is apparent from Acts 21:8. The designation was well deserved, for when the Jerusalem Christians were scattered by the persecution led by Saul of Tarsus, Philip went to a city of Samaria and proclaimed the gospel with such power there that a great number of people joyfully turned to Christ (Acts 8:1-8). In the midst of this spectacular work, Philip was divinely instructed to leave Samaria and go down to the desert area in the southern part of the country. Humanly speaking, for him to turn away from the multitudes, who were so eagerly responding to his preaching and to go to the uninhabited territory in the south, must have seemed foolish. Yet Philip showed himself not only sensitive but also obedient to the will of God and followed this guidance without question. In the desert he found not a crowd but a single person, an important Ethiopian court official who had visited Jerusalem and was now returning to Africa. The wisdom of God in directing Philip to this place was fully vindicated, for the Ethiopian was reading Isaiah 53, the great gospel chapter of the OT. Philip gave him the good news that this prophecy pointed to Jesus Christ. The Ethiopian subsequently believed and was baptized and went on his way rejoicing (vv 25-40). The conversion of this one person meant not only that Philip was the first to proclaim the gospel to a Gentile but also that the gospel was taken by this Ethiopian courtier to the continent of Africa.<\/p>\nThe prevailing nationalistic pride of the Jews was such that they despised the Samaritans and regarded the Gentiles as ceremonially unclean. But Philip, by his eager preaching of Christ first to the Samaritans and then to the Ethiopian, reflected the way in which the gospel penetrated social barriers and dissolved racial prejudices and demonstrated that the grace of God in Christ Jesus is freely available to all. Subsequently, Philip made his home in the coastal town of Caesarea. There he hospitably entertained Paul and Luke when they were en route to Jerusalem at the conclusion of the apostle’s third missionary journey. Luke tells us that Philip had four unmarried daughters who were prophetesses (Acts 21:8-9). Not long after this, when Paul was in custody in Caesarea for two years, the kindness and friendship of Philip must have meant much to him (23:31-35; 24:23, 27).<\/p>\n<li>3. Son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra and half brother of Antipas, whose mother was Malthace. He is called Herod in Luke 3:1. The latter was tetrarch of Perea and Galilee from 4 BC<\/span> to AD<\/span> 39; Philip was tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis (plus certain other territories) to the northeast of Galilee for 37 years (4 BC<\/span> to AD<\/span> 33). His wife was his niece Salome, who danced for Herod in exchange for the head of John the Baptist (Mt 14:3-12; Mk 6:17-29).<\/li>\nSee also<\/em> Herod, Herodian Family.<\/p>\n<li>4. Son of Herod the Great and Mariamne and husband of Salome’s mother, Herodias, who left him to become the mistress of his half brother Herod Antipas. It was for this immoral relationship that John the Baptist rebuked Herod and was later imprisoned and beheaded (Mt 14:3-12; Mk 6:17-29; Lk 3:19-20).<\/li>","summary_ro":"PHILIP 1. Apostle whose name is placed fifth in each of the lists of the twelve after the two pairs of brothers, Simon Peter and Andrew, and James and John (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:14). John says that when John the Baptist bore witness to Jesus with the words, “Behold, the Lamb of God!” two of his disciples began to follow Jesus, and that one of these two was Andrew, who then declared to his brother Simon Peter, “We have found the Messiah,” and brought him to Jesus. (The other unnamed disciple...","summary_en":"PHILIP 1. Apostle whose name is placed fifth in each of the lists of the twelve after the two pairs of brothers, Simon Peter and Andrew, and James and John (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:14). John says that when John the Baptist bore witness to Jesus with the words, “Behold, the Lamb of God!” two of his disciples began to follow Jesus, and that one of these two was Andrew, who then declared to his brother Simon Peter, “We have found the Messiah,” and brought him to Jesus. (The other unnamed disciple...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":33296,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"City of Rome","title_en":"City of Rome","content_ro":"<h3>ROME, City of<\/h3>\nCity in Italy founded, according to tradition, in 753 BC<\/span> on seven hills about 15 miles (24.1 kilometers) from the mouth of the Tiber River. It was of no biblical interest until NT times. There are nine explicit references to the city in the NT (Acts 2:10; 18:2; 19:21; 23:11; 28:14, 16; Rom 1:7, 15; 2 Tm 1:17), but Paul’s sojourn there and his letter to the Roman Christians, written probably from Corinth around AD<\/span> 57 and 58, make the imperial city of considerable interest to Bible readers.<\/p>\nHistory<\/p>\nIn the second millennium BC<\/span>, Indo-European migrants moved into Europe and settled in the Italian peninsula. One group settled around the mouth of the Tiber River. A vigorous and more cultured group, the Etruscans from Asia Minor, occupied central Italy. At the time of Rome’s emergence in the eighth century BC<\/span>, the population of the Italian peninsula was mixed. The Latin-speaking enclave, which settled toward the mouth of the Tiber, were agriculturalists. The scattered groups formed leagues and communities to defend themselves against raiders. They built stockades on the hills to protect families and flocks while fighting off the raiders. From such beginnings Rome emerged as a dominant center with its focal point in the area of the seven hills (the Palatine, the Capitoline, the Aventine, the Caelian, the Esquiline, the Viminal, and the Quirinal). Traditionally these hills were considered to be seven in number; in fact, there are more than seven, although some are simply flat-topped spurs. The Tiber River winds in a large S-curve between the hills. At one point it divided to form an island where it was shallow enough to ford. The town that grew up there was linked by roads, north to the Etruscans, south to the Greek trading cities, west to the coast, and inland to the tribal areas on the highlands. Knowledge of early Rome is based largely on archaeological evidence from the remains of the simple forts and numerous burial sites in the area.<\/p>\nRome developed politically in a remarkable fashion over the next 1,000 years. The loose association of the original chieftains, who comprised the earliest “senate,” gave place to domination by Etruscan kings who seem to have trained the people in discipline and obedience. They constructed numerous works, draining the forum area and making it a social, commercial, industrial, and political center. They built a temple for Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva on the Capitoline Hill as a common shrine for all the people. When the kings became autocratic, the Latin population rebelled and expelled the kings.<\/p>\nThe republic was established in 510 BC<\/span>. This establishment marked the beginning of Rome’s remarkable expansion to the dimensions of a world empire. The population, which was now spread out over the hills and valleys, despite their tribal differences, united and solved political problems without bloodshed. Strictly speaking, the term “republican” should not be understood in any modern sense as indicating a kind of democracy. Rather, the ancient families (patricians) dominated the senate and constituted an oligarchy. This arrangement was useful for Rome at that time. The small city-state soon broke out of its confined area, overcame the Etruscans, and dominated the Greek cities to the south. The Romans then looked farther afield. In 273 BC<\/span> they made a treaty with the Ptolemies of Egypt. Before long, they expanded into North Africa, overcame the Carthaginians, pressed on into Spain, and developed ambitions to occupy the Middle East as well. Rome’s many conquests brought enormous wealth.<\/p>\nWith geographical expansion came social changes in Italy. During the second century BC<\/span>, rich landowners bought out the small independent farmers, who subsequently drifted into Rome, landless and unemployed. Huge, overcrowded tenement houses appeared, which constituted creeping slums. Alongside this squalor there was evidence of vast wealth from Rome’s conquests in distant lands. In the capital, many fine buildings appeared. Pompey, who subdued and organized the East, did much to adorn the great capital.<\/p>\nThe next stage in Rome’s political development came when the senate, the governing body of the republic, proved unable to control its more radical and violent members. As their political ambitions increased, aspiring leaders sought to gain popular support by granting privileges to the people without the concurrence of the senate. Civil strife broke out and plagued the last century of the republic. Military victories beyond Rome gave power to the generals. In the civil wars that followed, constitutional questions were decided by the power of the sword. Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Crassus, Julius Caesar, Antony, and Octavian were the real political forces in the land.<\/p>\n\nBy 27 BC<\/span>, Octavian emerged supreme and was given the title Augustus. Theoretically, a dual government existed between the senate and Augustus (the emperor), but a weak senate allowed the emperor to become the virtual ruler. As a result, Roman peace (pax Romana<\/em>) reigned at home and abroad until well into the second century AD<\/span>. The emperors of the first century AD<\/span> cover the period of the life of Jesus and of the emerging church, and several are mentioned in the NT: Augustus (Lk 2:1), Tiberius (Lk 3:1), Claudius (Acts 11:28; 18:2), and Nero, who is referred to without being explicitly named (Acts 25:10-12; 27:24; 2 Tm 4:16-17).<\/p>\nThe city of Rome was the capital of the empire and the home of the emperor, senators, administrators, military personnel, and priests. Augustus, the first of the emperors whose leadership and diplomatic endeavors gave peace to Rome after two civil wars and a century of strife, gave attention to the restoration and adornment of the city. He boasted that he found Rome built of brick and left it built of marble. His efforts at restoring Rome’s ancient religions led to the building of many temples. On the Palatine hill, Augustus united several houses already there into a palace for his own residence. A new and sumptuous temple of Apollo, surrounded by colonnades in which the emperor housed a large library, was erected near the palace. The palace itself overlooked an imposing group of new marble buildings in the valley below: a basilica business hall, a senate house, a temple of “the divine Julius,” a marble speaker’s platform, two impressive new forums, the forum of Caesar, and the forum of Augustus. Later emperors added to this splendor. Beyond the central forum area, the palaces of Tiberius and Caligula, various baths, arches, and theaters, the Circus Maximus, and the Circus Nero were built. The whole was enclosed by a wall built outside the old rampart of Servius. Several aqueducts brought water into the city, and significant roads from north, south, east, and west converged on the central city area.<\/p>\nRome’s Military Presence in Palestine<\/p>\nWith the military intervention of Pompey in the internal affairs of Judea in 63 BC<\/span>, Rome established its presence in Palestine. The census ordered by Augustus Caesar, affecting the eastern provinces as well as the rest of the Roman world (Lk 2:1-2), was a vivid reminder. Roman military presence is amply reflected on the pages of the Gospels and Acts (e.g., Mk 15:16; Lk 3:14; 7:1-8; Acts 5:37).<\/p>\nIn the NT period, service in the legions was open to all Roman citizens. A professional volunteer army had replaced a conscripted militia. The permanent standing army was made up of legions recruited from the ranks of citizens. The legions were commanded by experienced officers of the rank of consul. Auxiliary forces were raised outside Italy, the inducement for enlistment being Roman citizenship for a soldier and his descendants after 25 years of service.<\/p>\nIn the provinces supreme military command lay with the provincial governor or prefect. In Judea at the time of Jesus’ public ministry, Pontius Pilate was designated “prefect of Judea” in a Latin inscription found in Caesarea in 1961. At the official center for administration of Judea, Caesarea Maritima, one or more legions at the disposal of the governor would be garrisoned. On special occasions, particularly at the great Jewish festivals, when riots and disorders could be anticipated, the provincial governor would take up residence in Jerusalem some 60 miles (96.5 kilometers) to the south, accompanied by a substantial contingent of troops (cf. Lk 13:1).<\/p>\nAugustus established a standing army large enough to defend and pacify the empire. In 15 BC<\/span> there were 28 legions, each composed of some 5,000 foot soldiers plus a mounted bodyguard of 128 men. After three legions were destroyed in uprisings by fierce Germanic tribes in AD<\/span> 9, the number remained at 25 for some time. That suggests a standing army of about 125,000 legionaries in the first century.<\/p>\nAugustus was also responsible for establishing a permanent auxiliary army, almost the same size as the legionary army. The auxiliary forces, recruited from provincials who had not yet received Roman citizenship, included both cavalry and infantry. The cavalry was organized in squadrons, the infantry in cohorts of 1,000 under command of a military tribune (Acts 21:31-33). When the apostle Paul was in Jerusalem, the tribune was Claudius Lysias, a man of Greek birth whose purchased Roman citizenship made possible his elevation to commander of an auxiliary cohort (22:28; 23:26). To send Paul from Jerusalem to Caesarea, Claudius could delegate a military escort of 200 soldiers commanded by two centurions, plus 70 mounted guards (23:23), without dangerously weakening the strength of the fortress garrison.<\/p>\nA cohort was made up of either ten or five “centuries,” units consisting of 100 men under the command of a centurion whose duties resembled those of a modern army captain. Cornelius (Acts 10:1) was a Roman centurion assigned to one of the auxiliary cohorts in Judea. There is inscriptional evidence for the presence of his unit, “the Second Italian Cohort of Roman Citizens,” in Syria about AD<\/span> 69. Paul was sent to Rome in the custody of another centurion, Julius, who belonged to the Augustan or imperial cohort (27:1). The term Augustan was a title of honor sometimes bestowed on auxiliary troops. Julius was evidently a legionary centurion assigned to the corps of officer-couriers who maintained a communication service between the emperor and his provincial armies. He had a detachment of soldiers under his command on the voyage to Rome (v 3) and on arrival handed his prisoners over to the commander of the courier corps (28:16). Probably all of the Roman centurions mentioned in the Gospels or Acts (Mt 8:5; Mk 15:39; Lk 7:2) were officers assigned to an auxiliary cohort.<\/p>\nChristians in Rome<\/p>\nIt was to this magnificent city that Paul came under escort in March AD<\/span> 59. He found that the Christian church had already been established there. Indeed, he had already communicated with the Christians in his letter to the Romans early in 57. There was a considerable Jewish colony in Rome in the first century AD<\/span>, descended from the large number of Jewish slaves brought to the city by Pompey after the capture of Jerusalem in 63 BC<\/span>. The emperor Claudius expelled Jews from Rome in AD<\/span> 49, possibly when Jesus was proclaimed as Messiah in the synagogue. Who the preachers were is not known, but they were probably Christian travelers and traders. Paul’s Letter to the Romans was his exposition to the Gentile churches that had come into existence independently of him. His first known contact with the people of Rome was when he met Aquila and Priscilla at Corinth (Acts 18:2). This couple was expelled from Rome in the time of Claudius. Later, Paul hoped to visit Rome (Acts 19:21) on his way to Spain (Rom 15:24). In his salutation he mentioned a considerable circle of Christians in Rome (ch 16). The references to households in several places (vv 5, 10, 11, 14, 15) suggest that these were house churches of the Roman Christian church. During his captivity, Paul was a prisoner of Roman authorities, but he was able to meet the local leaders of the Jews, explain his experiences to them, and expound the gospel to them in person (Acts 28:16-31).<\/p>\nIn the book of Revelation, Rome is given a sinister significance. By the end of the first century AD<\/span>, Rome had already drunk the “blood of the martyrs of Jesus” (Rv 17:6), a reference to early martyrs.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Caesars, The; Romans, Letter to the.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ROME, City of<\/h3>\nCity in Italy founded, according to tradition, in 753 BC<\/span> on seven hills about 15 miles (24.1 kilometers) from the mouth of the Tiber River. It was of no biblical interest until NT times. There are nine explicit references to the city in the NT (Acts 2:10; 18:2; 19:21; 23:11; 28:14, 16; Rom 1:7, 15; 2 Tm 1:17), but Paul’s sojourn there and his letter to the Roman Christians, written probably from Corinth around AD<\/span> 57 and 58, make the imperial city of considerable interest to Bible readers.<\/p>\nHistory<\/p>\nIn the second millennium BC<\/span>, Indo-European migrants moved into Europe and settled in the Italian peninsula. One group settled around the mouth of the Tiber River. A vigorous and more cultured group, the Etruscans from Asia Minor, occupied central Italy. At the time of Rome’s emergence in the eighth century BC<\/span>, the population of the Italian peninsula was mixed. The Latin-speaking enclave, which settled toward the mouth of the Tiber, were agriculturalists. The scattered groups formed leagues and communities to defend themselves against raiders. They built stockades on the hills to protect families and flocks while fighting off the raiders. From such beginnings Rome emerged as a dominant center with its focal point in the area of the seven hills (the Palatine, the Capitoline, the Aventine, the Caelian, the Esquiline, the Viminal, and the Quirinal). Traditionally these hills were considered to be seven in number; in fact, there are more than seven, although some are simply flat-topped spurs. The Tiber River winds in a large S-curve between the hills. At one point it divided to form an island where it was shallow enough to ford. The town that grew up there was linked by roads, north to the Etruscans, south to the Greek trading cities, west to the coast, and inland to the tribal areas on the highlands. Knowledge of early Rome is based largely on archaeological evidence from the remains of the simple forts and numerous burial sites in the area.<\/p>\nRome developed politically in a remarkable fashion over the next 1,000 years. The loose association of the original chieftains, who comprised the earliest “senate,” gave place to domination by Etruscan kings who seem to have trained the people in discipline and obedience. They constructed numerous works, draining the forum area and making it a social, commercial, industrial, and political center. They built a temple for Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva on the Capitoline Hill as a common shrine for all the people. When the kings became autocratic, the Latin population rebelled and expelled the kings.<\/p>\nThe republic was established in 510 BC<\/span>. This establishment marked the beginning of Rome’s remarkable expansion to the dimensions of a world empire. The population, which was now spread out over the hills and valleys, despite their tribal differences, united and solved political problems without bloodshed. Strictly speaking, the term “republican” should not be understood in any modern sense as indicating a kind of democracy. Rather, the ancient families (patricians) dominated the senate and constituted an oligarchy. This arrangement was useful for Rome at that time. The small city-state soon broke out of its confined area, overcame the Etruscans, and dominated the Greek cities to the south. The Romans then looked farther afield. In 273 BC<\/span> they made a treaty with the Ptolemies of Egypt. Before long, they expanded into North Africa, overcame the Carthaginians, pressed on into Spain, and developed ambitions to occupy the Middle East as well. Rome’s many conquests brought enormous wealth.<\/p>\nWith geographical expansion came social changes in Italy. During the second century BC<\/span>, rich landowners bought out the small independent farmers, who subsequently drifted into Rome, landless and unemployed. Huge, overcrowded tenement houses appeared, which constituted creeping slums. Alongside this squalor there was evidence of vast wealth from Rome’s conquests in distant lands. In the capital, many fine buildings appeared. Pompey, who subdued and organized the East, did much to adorn the great capital.<\/p>\nThe next stage in Rome’s political development came when the senate, the governing body of the republic, proved unable to control its more radical and violent members. As their political ambitions increased, aspiring leaders sought to gain popular support by granting privileges to the people without the concurrence of the senate. Civil strife broke out and plagued the last century of the republic. Military victories beyond Rome gave power to the generals. In the civil wars that followed, constitutional questions were decided by the power of the sword. Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Crassus, Julius Caesar, Antony, and Octavian were the real political forces in the land.<\/p>\n\nBy 27 BC<\/span>, Octavian emerged supreme and was given the title Augustus. Theoretically, a dual government existed between the senate and Augustus (the emperor), but a weak senate allowed the emperor to become the virtual ruler. As a result, Roman peace (pax Romana<\/em>) reigned at home and abroad until well into the second century AD<\/span>. The emperors of the first century AD<\/span> cover the period of the life of Jesus and of the emerging church, and several are mentioned in the NT: Augustus (Lk 2:1), Tiberius (Lk 3:1), Claudius (Acts 11:28; 18:2), and Nero, who is referred to without being explicitly named (Acts 25:10-12; 27:24; 2 Tm 4:16-17).<\/p>\nThe city of Rome was the capital of the empire and the home of the emperor, senators, administrators, military personnel, and priests. Augustus, the first of the emperors whose leadership and diplomatic endeavors gave peace to Rome after two civil wars and a century of strife, gave attention to the restoration and adornment of the city. He boasted that he found Rome built of brick and left it built of marble. His efforts at restoring Rome’s ancient religions led to the building of many temples. On the Palatine hill, Augustus united several houses already there into a palace for his own residence. A new and sumptuous temple of Apollo, surrounded by colonnades in which the emperor housed a large library, was erected near the palace. The palace itself overlooked an imposing group of new marble buildings in the valley below: a basilica business hall, a senate house, a temple of “the divine Julius,” a marble speaker’s platform, two impressive new forums, the forum of Caesar, and the forum of Augustus. Later emperors added to this splendor. Beyond the central forum area, the palaces of Tiberius and Caligula, various baths, arches, and theaters, the Circus Maximus, and the Circus Nero were built. The whole was enclosed by a wall built outside the old rampart of Servius. Several aqueducts brought water into the city, and significant roads from north, south, east, and west converged on the central city area.<\/p>\nRome’s Military Presence in Palestine<\/p>\nWith the military intervention of Pompey in the internal affairs of Judea in 63 BC<\/span>, Rome established its presence in Palestine. The census ordered by Augustus Caesar, affecting the eastern provinces as well as the rest of the Roman world (Lk 2:1-2), was a vivid reminder. Roman military presence is amply reflected on the pages of the Gospels and Acts (e.g., Mk 15:16; Lk 3:14; 7:1-8; Acts 5:37).<\/p>\nIn the NT period, service in the legions was open to all Roman citizens. A professional volunteer army had replaced a conscripted militia. The permanent standing army was made up of legions recruited from the ranks of citizens. The legions were commanded by experienced officers of the rank of consul. Auxiliary forces were raised outside Italy, the inducement for enlistment being Roman citizenship for a soldier and his descendants after 25 years of service.<\/p>\nIn the provinces supreme military command lay with the provincial governor or prefect. In Judea at the time of Jesus’ public ministry, Pontius Pilate was designated “prefect of Judea” in a Latin inscription found in Caesarea in 1961. At the official center for administration of Judea, Caesarea Maritima, one or more legions at the disposal of the governor would be garrisoned. On special occasions, particularly at the great Jewish festivals, when riots and disorders could be anticipated, the provincial governor would take up residence in Jerusalem some 60 miles (96.5 kilometers) to the south, accompanied by a substantial contingent of troops (cf. Lk 13:1).<\/p>\nAugustus established a standing army large enough to defend and pacify the empire. In 15 BC<\/span> there were 28 legions, each composed of some 5,000 foot soldiers plus a mounted bodyguard of 128 men. After three legions were destroyed in uprisings by fierce Germanic tribes in AD<\/span> 9, the number remained at 25 for some time. That suggests a standing army of about 125,000 legionaries in the first century.<\/p>\nAugustus was also responsible for establishing a permanent auxiliary army, almost the same size as the legionary army. The auxiliary forces, recruited from provincials who had not yet received Roman citizenship, included both cavalry and infantry. The cavalry was organized in squadrons, the infantry in cohorts of 1,000 under command of a military tribune (Acts 21:31-33). When the apostle Paul was in Jerusalem, the tribune was Claudius Lysias, a man of Greek birth whose purchased Roman citizenship made possible his elevation to commander of an auxiliary cohort (22:28; 23:26). To send Paul from Jerusalem to Caesarea, Claudius could delegate a military escort of 200 soldiers commanded by two centurions, plus 70 mounted guards (23:23), without dangerously weakening the strength of the fortress garrison.<\/p>\nA cohort was made up of either ten or five “centuries,” units consisting of 100 men under the command of a centurion whose duties resembled those of a modern army captain. Cornelius (Acts 10:1) was a Roman centurion assigned to one of the auxiliary cohorts in Judea. There is inscriptional evidence for the presence of his unit, “the Second Italian Cohort of Roman Citizens,” in Syria about AD<\/span> 69. Paul was sent to Rome in the custody of another centurion, Julius, who belonged to the Augustan or imperial cohort (27:1). The term Augustan was a title of honor sometimes bestowed on auxiliary troops. Julius was evidently a legionary centurion assigned to the corps of officer-couriers who maintained a communication service between the emperor and his provincial armies. He had a detachment of soldiers under his command on the voyage to Rome (v 3) and on arrival handed his prisoners over to the commander of the courier corps (28:16). Probably all of the Roman centurions mentioned in the Gospels or Acts (Mt 8:5; Mk 15:39; Lk 7:2) were officers assigned to an auxiliary cohort.<\/p>\nChristians in Rome<\/p>\nIt was to this magnificent city that Paul came under escort in March AD<\/span> 59. He found that the Christian church had already been established there. Indeed, he had already communicated with the Christians in his letter to the Romans early in 57. There was a considerable Jewish colony in Rome in the first century AD<\/span>, descended from the large number of Jewish slaves brought to the city by Pompey after the capture of Jerusalem in 63 BC<\/span>. The emperor Claudius expelled Jews from Rome in AD<\/span> 49, possibly when Jesus was proclaimed as Messiah in the synagogue. Who the preachers were is not known, but they were probably Christian travelers and traders. Paul’s Letter to the Romans was his exposition to the Gentile churches that had come into existence independently of him. His first known contact with the people of Rome was when he met Aquila and Priscilla at Corinth (Acts 18:2). This couple was expelled from Rome in the time of Claudius. Later, Paul hoped to visit Rome (Acts 19:21) on his way to Spain (Rom 15:24). In his salutation he mentioned a considerable circle of Christians in Rome (ch 16). The references to households in several places (vv 5, 10, 11, 14, 15) suggest that these were house churches of the Roman Christian church. During his captivity, Paul was a prisoner of Roman authorities, but he was able to meet the local leaders of the Jews, explain his experiences to them, and expound the gospel to them in person (Acts 28:16-31).<\/p>\nIn the book of Revelation, Rome is given a sinister significance. By the end of the first century AD<\/span>, Rome had already drunk the “blood of the martyrs of Jesus” (Rv 17:6), a reference to early martyrs.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Caesars, The; Romans, Letter to the.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ROME, City of City in Italy founded, according to tradition, in 753 BC on seven hills about 15 miles (24.1 kilometers) from the mouth of the Tiber River. It was of no biblical interest until NT times. There are nine explicit references to the city in the NT (Acts 2:10; 18:2; 19:21; 23:11; 28:14, 16; Rom 1:7, 15; 2 Tm 1:17), but Paul’s sojourn there and his letter to the Roman Christians, written probably from Corinth around AD 57 and 58, make the imperial city of considerable interest to Bibl...","summary_en":"ROME, City of City in Italy founded, according to tradition, in 753 BC on seven hills about 15 miles (24.1 kilometers) from the mouth of the Tiber River. It was of no biblical interest until NT times. There are nine explicit references to the city in the NT (Acts 2:10; 18:2; 19:21; 23:11; 28:14, 16; Rom 1:7, 15; 2 Tm 1:17), but Paul’s sojourn there and his letter to the Roman Christians, written probably from Corinth around AD 57 and 58, make the imperial city of considerable interest to Bibl...","source":"Articles\/R.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":37134,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Tetrarch*","title_en":"Tetrarch*","content_ro":"<h3>TETRARCH*<\/h3>\nTitle of a class of Roman provincial officials. Tetrarchs were tributary princes who were not deemed important enough to be designated kings. The title was used in the Roman provinces of Thessaly, Galatia, and Syria. The origin of the title appears to have come from governors who ruled over a fourth part of a region or country, as was the case in Syria after the death of Herod the Great. By NT times, the etymological significance had diminished, so that the title merely designated secondary princes. Three tetrarchs are mentioned in the Bible. Luke reports that Herod (Antipas) was the tetrarch of Galilee, Philip was the tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanius was the tetrarch of Abilene (Lk 3:1). Of these, only Herod is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible (Mt 14:1; Lk 3:19; 9:7; Acts 13:1). Herod’s greater significance is indicated by the fact that he is also referred to as “king” by his Jewish subjects (Mt 14:9; Mk 6:14).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TETRARCH*<\/h3>\nTitle of a class of Roman provincial officials. Tetrarchs were tributary princes who were not deemed important enough to be designated kings. The title was used in the Roman provinces of Thessaly, Galatia, and Syria. The origin of the title appears to have come from governors who ruled over a fourth part of a region or country, as was the case in Syria after the death of Herod the Great. By NT times, the etymological significance had diminished, so that the title merely designated secondary princes. Three tetrarchs are mentioned in the Bible. Luke reports that Herod (Antipas) was the tetrarch of Galilee, Philip was the tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanius was the tetrarch of Abilene (Lk 3:1). Of these, only Herod is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible (Mt 14:1; Lk 3:19; 9:7; Acts 13:1). Herod’s greater significance is indicated by the fact that he is also referred to as “king” by his Jewish subjects (Mt 14:9; Mk 6:14).<\/p>","summary_ro":"TETRARCH* Title of a class of Roman provincial officials. Tetrarchs were tributary princes who were not deemed important enough to be designated kings. The title was used in the Roman provinces of Thessaly, Galatia, and Syria. The origin of the title appears to have come from governors who ruled over a fourth part of a region or country, as was the case in Syria after the death of Herod the Great. By NT times, the etymological significance had diminished, so that the title merely designated s...","summary_en":"TETRARCH* Title of a class of Roman provincial officials. Tetrarchs were tributary princes who were not deemed important enough to be designated kings. The title was used in the Roman provinces of Thessaly, Galatia, and Syria. The origin of the title appears to have come from governors who ruled over a fourth part of a region or country, as was the case in Syria after the death of Herod the Great. By NT times, the etymological significance had diminished, so that the title merely designated s...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":37570,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Trachonitis*, Traconitis","title_en":"Trachonitis*, Traconitis","content_ro":"<h3>TRACHONITIS*, TRACONITIS<\/h3>\nOne of the five Roman provinces east of the Jordan River, along with Batanea, Gaulanitis, Auranitis, and Iturea. The region of Traconitis (apparently including Gaulanitis, Batanea, and Auranitis) was part of the tetrarchy of Philip, the brother of Herod (Lk 3:1). Traconitis was an extremely desolate region northeast of the Sea of Galilee. Its name in Aramaic was Argob, which signified that the region was a “heap of stones.” Other than the reference in Luke, Traconitis is seldom mentioned in historical references. Josephus suggests that it was colonized by Uz, the son of Aram (cf. Gn 10:23). The Romans gained control of the region when Augustus deposed Zenodorus, a local robber-chieftain. Herod the Great was deeded the land on the condition that he control the local bandits. Philip received the land at the death of his father but apparently retained only nominal control over the region. The region is currently named el-Lejah and is located in southern Syria and northern Jordan.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TRACHONITIS*, TRACONITIS<\/h3>\nOne of the five Roman provinces east of the Jordan River, along with Batanea, Gaulanitis, Auranitis, and Iturea. The region of Traconitis (apparently including Gaulanitis, Batanea, and Auranitis) was part of the tetrarchy of Philip, the brother of Herod (Lk 3:1). Traconitis was an extremely desolate region northeast of the Sea of Galilee. Its name in Aramaic was Argob, which signified that the region was a “heap of stones.” Other than the reference in Luke, Traconitis is seldom mentioned in historical references. Josephus suggests that it was colonized by Uz, the son of Aram (cf. Gn 10:23). The Romans gained control of the region when Augustus deposed Zenodorus, a local robber-chieftain. Herod the Great was deeded the land on the condition that he control the local bandits. Philip received the land at the death of his father but apparently retained only nominal control over the region. The region is currently named el-Lejah and is located in southern Syria and northern Jordan.<\/p>","summary_ro":"TRACHONITIS*, TRACONITIS One of the five Roman provinces east of the Jordan River, along with Batanea, Gaulanitis, Auranitis, and Iturea. The region of Traconitis (apparently including Gaulanitis, Batanea, and Auranitis) was part of the tetrarchy of Philip, the brother of Herod (Lk 3:1). Traconitis was an extremely desolate region northeast of the Sea of Galilee. Its name in Aramaic was Argob, which signified that the region was a “heap of stones.” Other than the reference in Luke, Traconitis...","summary_en":"TRACHONITIS*, TRACONITIS One of the five Roman provinces east of the Jordan River, along with Batanea, Gaulanitis, Auranitis, and Iturea. The region of Traconitis (apparently including Gaulanitis, Batanea, and Auranitis) was part of the tetrarchy of Philip, the brother of Herod (Lk 3:1). Traconitis was an extremely desolate region northeast of the Sea of Galilee. Its name in Aramaic was Argob, which signified that the region was a “heap of stones.” Other than the reference in Luke, Traconitis...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38395,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Wilderness","title_en":"Wilderness","content_ro":"<h3>WILDERNESS<\/h3>\nLand that is basically wild and sparsely inhabited or unfit for permanent human settlement. It may be desert, mountains, forest, or marsh.<\/p>\nIn the Near East the wilderness is characteristically dry, desolate, and mostly rock and sand. It is rough, uneven, and interlaced with dry watercourses. The wilderness is not completely barren but provides seasonal pasture for flocks, depending on the rainfall.<\/p>\nJoel 2:22 declares that “the pastures of the wilderness are green,” and Psalm 65:12 states that the pastures of the wilderness drip with richness. But Jeremiah says that “the pastures of the wilderness are dried up” (Jer 23:10; cf. Jl 1:20). And Job refers to the wilderness as a land where no human can live (Jb 38:26); it is a place for various animals and birds, such as wild asses, jackals, vultures, and owls (Ps 102:6; Jer 2:24; Is 13:22; 34:13-15).<\/p>\nCertain wilderness tracts are identified by name and are related to definite cities, persons, or events. Hagar wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba (Gn 21:14). In the exodus from Egypt, the Israelites traversed the following wildernesses: Shur (Ex 15:22), Etham (Nm 33:8), Sin (Ex 16:1), Sinai (19:1-2), Zin (Nm 13:21; 20:1), Paran (13:26), Kadesh (Ps 29:8), Moab (Dt 2:8), and Kedemoth (v 26). When David was fleeing from Saul, David hid in the hill country of the wilderness of Ziph (1 Sm 23:14-15), in the wilderness of Maon (vv 24-25), and in the wilderness of En-gedi (24:1).<\/p>\nIn spite of the comparative desolation of the wilderness, villages or towns are sometimes associated with a wilderness setting. Joshua 15:61-62 lists the names of six cities and their villages “in the wilderness.” The future joy of the towns of the desert is proclaimed by Isaiah (Is 42:11).<\/p>\nThe wilderness is associated with both austerity and temptation. Elijah, by his way of life and his dress, is often thought of in connection with the wilderness. His successor, Elisha, had occasion to minister in the wilderness of Edom (2 Kgs 3:4-27).<\/p>\nIsaiah prophesied of the message of John the Baptist, who preached in the wilderness of Judea (Is 40:3; Mt 3:1-3; Mk 1:2-4; Lk 3:1-6; Jn 1:23). Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, was led by the Spirit into the wilderness for 40 days. There he was tempted by the devil (cf. Lk 4:1-2), but there also angels ministered to him (Mk 1:13). The anchorites (hermits) of Egypt and the Qumran community near the Dead Sea used the wilderness as an escape from the evils of urban life. Jesus, however, used the wilderness as a place of prayer and communion with the Father (Lk 5:16).<\/p>\nSee<\/em> Desert; Wilderness Wanderings.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WILDERNESS<\/h3>\nLand that is basically wild and sparsely inhabited or unfit for permanent human settlement. It may be desert, mountains, forest, or marsh.<\/p>\nIn the Near East the wilderness is characteristically dry, desolate, and mostly rock and sand. It is rough, uneven, and interlaced with dry watercourses. The wilderness is not completely barren but provides seasonal pasture for flocks, depending on the rainfall.<\/p>\nJoel 2:22 declares that “the pastures of the wilderness are green,” and Psalm 65:12 states that the pastures of the wilderness drip with richness. But Jeremiah says that “the pastures of the wilderness are dried up” (Jer 23:10; cf. Jl 1:20). And Job refers to the wilderness as a land where no human can live (Jb 38:26); it is a place for various animals and birds, such as wild asses, jackals, vultures, and owls (Ps 102:6; Jer 2:24; Is 13:22; 34:13-15).<\/p>\nCertain wilderness tracts are identified by name and are related to definite cities, persons, or events. Hagar wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba (Gn 21:14). In the exodus from Egypt, the Israelites traversed the following wildernesses: Shur (Ex 15:22), Etham (Nm 33:8), Sin (Ex 16:1), Sinai (19:1-2), Zin (Nm 13:21; 20:1), Paran (13:26), Kadesh (Ps 29:8), Moab (Dt 2:8), and Kedemoth (v 26). When David was fleeing from Saul, David hid in the hill country of the wilderness of Ziph (1 Sm 23:14-15), in the wilderness of Maon (vv 24-25), and in the wilderness of En-gedi (24:1).<\/p>\nIn spite of the comparative desolation of the wilderness, villages or towns are sometimes associated with a wilderness setting. Joshua 15:61-62 lists the names of six cities and their villages “in the wilderness.” The future joy of the towns of the desert is proclaimed by Isaiah (Is 42:11).<\/p>\nThe wilderness is associated with both austerity and temptation. Elijah, by his way of life and his dress, is often thought of in connection with the wilderness. His successor, Elisha, had occasion to minister in the wilderness of Edom (2 Kgs 3:4-27).<\/p>\nIsaiah prophesied of the message of John the Baptist, who preached in the wilderness of Judea (Is 40:3; Mt 3:1-3; Mk 1:2-4; Lk 3:1-6; Jn 1:23). Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, was led by the Spirit into the wilderness for 40 days. There he was tempted by the devil (cf. Lk 4:1-2), but there also angels ministered to him (Mk 1:13). The anchorites (hermits) of Egypt and the Qumran community near the Dead Sea used the wilderness as an escape from the evils of urban life. Jesus, however, used the wilderness as a place of prayer and communion with the Father (Lk 5:16).<\/p>\nSee<\/em> Desert; Wilderness Wanderings.<\/p>","summary_ro":"WILDERNESS Land that is basically wild and sparsely inhabited or unfit for permanent human settlement. It may be desert, mountains, forest, or marsh. In the Near East the wilderness is characteristically dry, desolate, and mostly rock and sand. It is rough, uneven, and interlaced with dry watercourses. The wilderness is not completely barren but provides seasonal pasture for flocks, depending on the rainfall. Joel 2:22 declares that “the pastures of the wilderness are green,” and Psalm 65:12 ...","summary_en":"WILDERNESS Land that is basically wild and sparsely inhabited or unfit for permanent human settlement. It may be desert, mountains, forest, or marsh. In the Near East the wilderness is characteristically dry, desolate, and mostly rock and sand. It is rough, uneven, and interlaced with dry watercourses. The wilderness is not completely barren but provides seasonal pasture for flocks, depending on the rainfall. Joel 2:22 declares that “the pastures of the wilderness are green,” and Psalm 65:12 ...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55655,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:1","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:1","content_ro":"3:1–4:13<\/strong> After the birth narrative, Luke sets the stage for Jesus’ public ministry. He tells about the ministry of John the Baptist as forerunner of the Messiah and Jesus’ baptism, genealogy, and temptation.<\/p>","content_en":"3:1–4:13<\/strong> After the birth narrative, Luke sets the stage for Jesus’ public ministry. He tells about the ministry of John the Baptist as forerunner of the Messiah and Jesus’ baptism, genealogy, and temptation.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:1–4:13 After the birth narrative, Luke sets the stage for Jesus’ public ministry. He tells about the ministry of John the Baptist as forerunner of the Messiah and Jesus’ baptism, genealogy, and temptation.","summary_en":"3:1–4:13 After the birth narrative, Luke sets the stage for Jesus’ public ministry. He tells about the ministry of John the Baptist as forerunner of the Messiah and Jesus’ baptism, genealogy, and temptation.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55656,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:1","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:1","content_ro":"3:1<\/strong> the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius:<\/em> Tiberius Caesar became co-emperor with his stepfather Caesar Augustus in AD<\/span> 11 and full emperor in AD<\/span> 14, reigning until AD<\/span> 37. Depending on which date Luke is referring to, John’s public ministry began around AD<\/span> 26\/27 or AD<\/span> 29\/30; Jesus began his own ministry shortly thereafter. • Pilate:<\/em> Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea from AD<\/span> 26–36 (see “Pontius Pilate” Profile). • Herod Antipas:<\/em> See “Herod Antipas” Profile. • Antipas’s half brother Philip<\/em>,<\/em> another son of Herod the Great, was ruler<\/em> (literally tetrarch<\/em>) of the region northeast of Galilee from 4 BC<\/span> until his death in AD<\/span> 34. Tetrarch<\/em> means “the ruler of a fourth of a kingdom”; the term came to mean any minor ruler. Philip the Tetrarch was a half brother of both Antipas and Herod Philip (Matt 14:3; Mark 6:17).<\/p>","content_en":"3:1<\/strong> the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius:<\/em> Tiberius Caesar became co-emperor with his stepfather Caesar Augustus in AD<\/span> 11 and full emperor in AD<\/span> 14, reigning until AD<\/span> 37. Depending on which date Luke is referring to, John’s public ministry began around AD<\/span> 26\/27 or AD<\/span> 29\/30; Jesus began his own ministry shortly thereafter. • Pilate:<\/em> Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea from AD<\/span> 26–36 (see “Pontius Pilate” Profile). • Herod Antipas:<\/em> See “Herod Antipas” Profile. • Antipas’s half brother Philip<\/em>,<\/em> another son of Herod the Great, was ruler<\/em> (literally tetrarch<\/em>) of the region northeast of Galilee from 4 BC<\/span> until his death in AD<\/span> 34. Tetrarch<\/em> means “the ruler of a fourth of a kingdom”; the term came to mean any minor ruler. Philip the Tetrarch was a half brother of both Antipas and Herod Philip (Matt 14:3; Mark 6:17).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:1 the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius: Tiberius Caesar became co-emperor with his stepfather Caesar Augustus in AD 11 and full emperor in AD 14, reigning until AD 37. Depending on which date Luke is referring to, John’s public ministry began around AD 26\/27 or AD 29\/30; Jesus began his own ministry shortly thereafter. • Pilate: Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea from AD 26–36 (see “Pontius Pilate” Profile). • Herod Antipas: See “Herod Antipas” Profile. • Antipas’s half brother Phi...","summary_en":"3:1 the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius: Tiberius Caesar became co-emperor with his stepfather Caesar Augustus in AD 11 and full emperor in AD 14, reigning until AD 37. Depending on which date Luke is referring to, John’s public ministry began around AD 26\/27 or AD 29\/30; Jesus began his own ministry shortly thereafter. • Pilate: Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea from AD 26–36 (see “Pontius Pilate” Profile). • Herod Antipas: See “Herod Antipas” Profile. • Antipas’s half brother Phi...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83281,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:1","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:1","content_ro":"3:1–4:13<\/strong> After the birth narrative, Luke sets the stage for Jesus’ public ministry. He tells about the ministry of John the Baptist as forerunner of the Messiah and Jesus’ baptism, genealogy, and temptation.<\/p>","content_en":"3:1–4:13<\/strong> After the birth narrative, Luke sets the stage for Jesus’ public ministry. He tells about the ministry of John the Baptist as forerunner of the Messiah and Jesus’ baptism, genealogy, and temptation.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:1–4:13 After the birth narrative, Luke sets the stage for Jesus’ public ministry. He tells about the ministry of John the Baptist as forerunner of the Messiah and Jesus’ baptism, genealogy, and temptation.","summary_en":"3:1–4:13 After the birth narrative, Luke sets the stage for Jesus’ public ministry. He tells about the ministry of John the Baptist as forerunner of the Messiah and Jesus’ baptism, genealogy, and temptation.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83282,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:1","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:1","content_ro":"3:1<\/strong> the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius:<\/em> Tiberius Caesar became co-emperor with his stepfather Caesar Augustus in AD<\/span> 11 and full emperor in AD<\/span> 14, reigning until AD<\/span> 37. Depending on which date Luke is referring to, John’s public ministry began around AD<\/span> 26\/27 or AD<\/span> 29\/30; Jesus began his own ministry shortly thereafter. • Pilate:<\/em> Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea from AD<\/span> 26–36 (see “Pontius Pilate” Profile). • Herod Antipas:<\/em> See “Herod Antipas” Profile. • Antipas’s half brother Philip<\/em>,<\/em> another son of Herod the Great, was ruler<\/em> (literally tetrarch<\/em>) of the region northeast of Galilee from 4 BC<\/span> until his death in AD<\/span> 34. Tetrarch<\/em> means “the ruler of a fourth of a kingdom”; the term came to mean any minor ruler. Philip the Tetrarch was a half brother of both Antipas and Herod Philip (Matt 14:3; Mark 6:17).<\/p>","content_en":"3:1<\/strong> the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius:<\/em> Tiberius Caesar became co-emperor with his stepfather Caesar Augustus in AD<\/span> 11 and full emperor in AD<\/span> 14, reigning until AD<\/span> 37. Depending on which date Luke is referring to, John’s public ministry began around AD<\/span> 26\/27 or AD<\/span> 29\/30; Jesus began his own ministry shortly thereafter. • Pilate:<\/em> Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea from AD<\/span> 26–36 (see “Pontius Pilate” Profile). • Herod Antipas:<\/em> See “Herod Antipas” Profile. • Antipas’s half brother Philip<\/em>,<\/em> another son of Herod the Great, was ruler<\/em> (literally tetrarch<\/em>) of the region northeast of Galilee from 4 BC<\/span> until his death in AD<\/span> 34. Tetrarch<\/em> means “the ruler of a fourth of a kingdom”; the term came to mean any minor ruler. Philip the Tetrarch was a half brother of both Antipas and Herod Philip (Matt 14:3; Mark 6:17).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:1 the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius: Tiberius Caesar became co-emperor with his stepfather Caesar Augustus in AD 11 and full emperor in AD 14, reigning until AD 37. Depending on which date Luke is referring to, John’s public ministry began around AD 26\/27 or AD 29\/30; Jesus began his own ministry shortly thereafter. • Pilate: Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea from AD 26–36 (see “Pontius Pilate” Profile). • Herod Antipas: See “Herod Antipas” Profile. • Antipas’s half brother Phi...","summary_en":"3:1 the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius: Tiberius Caesar became co-emperor with his stepfather Caesar Augustus in AD 11 and full emperor in AD 14, reigning until AD 37. Depending on which date Luke is referring to, John’s public ministry began around AD 26\/27 or AD 29\/30; Jesus began his own ministry shortly thereafter. • Pilate: Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea from AD 26–36 (see “Pontius Pilate” Profile). • Herod Antipas: See “Herod Antipas” Profile. • Antipas’s half brother Phi...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110907,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:1","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:1","content_ro":"3:1–4:13<\/strong> After the birth narrative, Luke sets the stage for Jesus’ public ministry. He tells about the ministry of John the Baptist as forerunner of the Messiah and Jesus’ baptism, genealogy, and temptation.<\/p>","content_en":"3:1–4:13<\/strong> After the birth narrative, Luke sets the stage for Jesus’ public ministry. He tells about the ministry of John the Baptist as forerunner of the Messiah and Jesus’ baptism, genealogy, and temptation.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:1–4:13 After the birth narrative, Luke sets the stage for Jesus’ public ministry. He tells about the ministry of John the Baptist as forerunner of the Messiah and Jesus’ baptism, genealogy, and temptation.","summary_en":"3:1–4:13 After the birth narrative, Luke sets the stage for Jesus’ public ministry. He tells about the ministry of John the Baptist as forerunner of the Messiah and Jesus’ baptism, genealogy, and temptation.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110908,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:1","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:1","content_ro":"3:1<\/strong> the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius:<\/em> Tiberius Caesar became co-emperor with his stepfather Caesar Augustus in AD<\/span> 11 and full emperor in AD<\/span> 14, reigning until AD<\/span> 37. Depending on which date Luke is referring to, John’s public ministry began around AD<\/span> 26\/27 or AD<\/span> 29\/30; Jesus began his own ministry shortly thereafter. • Pilate:<\/em> Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea from AD<\/span> 26–36 (see “Pontius Pilate” Profile). • Herod Antipas:<\/em> See “Herod Antipas” Profile. • Antipas’s half brother Philip<\/em>,<\/em> another son of Herod the Great, was ruler<\/em> (literally tetrarch<\/em>) of the region northeast of Galilee from 4 BC<\/span> until his death in AD<\/span> 34. Tetrarch<\/em> means “the ruler of a fourth of a kingdom”; the term came to mean any minor ruler. Philip the Tetrarch was a half brother of both Antipas and Herod Philip (Matt 14:3; Mark 6:17).<\/p>","content_en":"3:1<\/strong> the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius:<\/em> Tiberius Caesar became co-emperor with his stepfather Caesar Augustus in AD<\/span> 11 and full emperor in AD<\/span> 14, reigning until AD<\/span> 37. Depending on which date Luke is referring to, John’s public ministry began around AD<\/span> 26\/27 or AD<\/span> 29\/30; Jesus began his own ministry shortly thereafter. • Pilate:<\/em> Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea from AD<\/span> 26–36 (see “Pontius Pilate” Profile). • Herod Antipas:<\/em> See “Herod Antipas” Profile. • Antipas’s half brother Philip<\/em>,<\/em> another son of Herod the Great, was ruler<\/em> (literally tetrarch<\/em>) of the region northeast of Galilee from 4 BC<\/span> until his death in AD<\/span> 34. Tetrarch<\/em> means “the ruler of a fourth of a kingdom”; the term came to mean any minor ruler. Philip the Tetrarch was a half brother of both Antipas and Herod Philip (Matt 14:3; Mark 6:17).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:1 the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius: Tiberius Caesar became co-emperor with his stepfather Caesar Augustus in AD 11 and full emperor in AD 14, reigning until AD 37. Depending on which date Luke is referring to, John’s public ministry began around AD 26\/27 or AD 29\/30; Jesus began his own ministry shortly thereafter. • Pilate: Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea from AD 26–36 (see “Pontius Pilate” Profile). • Herod Antipas: See “Herod Antipas” Profile. • Antipas’s half brother Phi...","summary_en":"3:1 the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius: Tiberius Caesar became co-emperor with his stepfather Caesar Augustus in AD 11 and full emperor in AD 14, reigning until AD 37. Depending on which date Luke is referring to, John’s public ministry began around AD 26\/27 or AD 29\/30; Jesus began his own ministry shortly thereafter. • Pilate: Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea from AD 26–36 (see “Pontius Pilate” Profile). • Herod Antipas: See “Herod Antipas” Profile. • Antipas’s half brother Phi...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138533,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:1","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:1","content_ro":"3:1–4:13<\/strong> After the birth narrative, Luke sets the stage for Jesus’ public ministry. He tells about the ministry of John the Baptist as forerunner of the Messiah and Jesus’ baptism, genealogy, and temptation.<\/p>","content_en":"3:1–4:13<\/strong> After the birth narrative, Luke sets the stage for Jesus’ public ministry. He tells about the ministry of John the Baptist as forerunner of the Messiah and Jesus’ baptism, genealogy, and temptation.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:1–4:13 After the birth narrative, Luke sets the stage for Jesus’ public ministry. He tells about the ministry of John the Baptist as forerunner of the Messiah and Jesus’ baptism, genealogy, and temptation.","summary_en":"3:1–4:13 After the birth narrative, Luke sets the stage for Jesus’ public ministry. He tells about the ministry of John the Baptist as forerunner of the Messiah and Jesus’ baptism, genealogy, and temptation.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138534,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:1","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:1","content_ro":"3:1<\/strong> the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius:<\/em> Tiberius Caesar became co-emperor with his stepfather Caesar Augustus in AD<\/span> 11 and full emperor in AD<\/span> 14, reigning until AD<\/span> 37. Depending on which date Luke is referring to, John’s public ministry began around AD<\/span> 26\/27 or AD<\/span> 29\/30; Jesus began his own ministry shortly thereafter. • Pilate:<\/em> Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea from AD<\/span> 26–36 (see “Pontius Pilate” Profile). • Herod Antipas:<\/em> See “Herod Antipas” Profile. • Antipas’s half brother Philip<\/em>,<\/em> another son of Herod the Great, was ruler<\/em> (literally tetrarch<\/em>) of the region northeast of Galilee from 4 BC<\/span> until his death in AD<\/span> 34. Tetrarch<\/em> means “the ruler of a fourth of a kingdom”; the term came to mean any minor ruler. Philip the Tetrarch was a half brother of both Antipas and Herod Philip (Matt 14:3; Mark 6:17).<\/p>","content_en":"3:1<\/strong> the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius:<\/em> Tiberius Caesar became co-emperor with his stepfather Caesar Augustus in AD<\/span> 11 and full emperor in AD<\/span> 14, reigning until AD<\/span> 37. Depending on which date Luke is referring to, John’s public ministry began around AD<\/span> 26\/27 or AD<\/span> 29\/30; Jesus began his own ministry shortly thereafter. • Pilate:<\/em> Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea from AD<\/span> 26–36 (see “Pontius Pilate” Profile). • Herod Antipas:<\/em> See “Herod Antipas” Profile. • Antipas’s half brother Philip<\/em>,<\/em> another son of Herod the Great, was ruler<\/em> (literally tetrarch<\/em>) of the region northeast of Galilee from 4 BC<\/span> until his death in AD<\/span> 34. Tetrarch<\/em> means “the ruler of a fourth of a kingdom”; the term came to mean any minor ruler. Philip the Tetrarch was a half brother of both Antipas and Herod Philip (Matt 14:3; Mark 6:17).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:1 the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius: Tiberius Caesar became co-emperor with his stepfather Caesar Augustus in AD 11 and full emperor in AD 14, reigning until AD 37. Depending on which date Luke is referring to, John’s public ministry began around AD 26\/27 or AD 29\/30; Jesus began his own ministry shortly thereafter. • Pilate: Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea from AD 26–36 (see “Pontius Pilate” Profile). • Herod Antipas: See “Herod Antipas” Profile. • Antipas’s half brother Phi...","summary_en":"3:1 the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius: Tiberius Caesar became co-emperor with his stepfather Caesar Augustus in AD 11 and full emperor in AD 14, reigning until AD 37. Depending on which date Luke is referring to, John’s public ministry began around AD 26\/27 or AD 29\/30; Jesus began his own ministry shortly thereafter. • Pilate: Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea from AD 26–36 (see “Pontius Pilate” Profile). • Herod Antipas: See “Herod Antipas” Profile. • Antipas’s half brother Phi...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"2":[{"id":42523,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Annas and Caiaphas","title_en":"Annas and Caiaphas","content_ro":"<h3>Annas and Caiaphas<\/h3>\nAnnas and Caiaphas were both spoken of as high priests during the time of Jesus, and they were instrumental in getting Jesus condemned to death.<\/p>\nAnnas was the Jewish high priest around AD<\/span> 6–15. But even after he was officially deposed by the Roman procurator of Judea, he retained considerable power and influence in the Jewish high council and was still spoken of as “high priest” fifteen to twenty years later (Luke 3:2; Acts 4:6)—perhaps because of the Jewish view that high priests retain their position for life. Five of his sons and his son-in-law Caiaphas became high priests after him. According to the Gospel of John, when Jesus was arrested, he was brought to Annas for his initial interrogation before he was turned over to Caiaphas for the official trial (John 18:13-24).<\/p>\nCaiaphas was the official Jewish high priest around AD<\/span> 18–36. He worked closely with his powerful father-in-law, Annas. Caiaphas had argued in the high council that it would be better for Jesus to be sacrificed than for the entire nation to be destroyed (John 11:49-50). These prophetic words were given to him by God because of his role as high priest (John 11:51-52). At the trial of Jesus, Caiaphas tore his robes at Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God and urged the high council to condemn him for blasphemy (Matt 26:57-66).<\/p>\nNot long after the execution of Jesus, the Jewish authorities became increasingly disturbed over the rapidly growing numbers of believers in Christ. Annas and Caiaphas actively involved themselves in the interrogation of Peter and John over their healing a crippled beggar and their preaching about the resurrection of the dead (Acts 4:5-7).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 26:3-5, 57-67; Mark 14:53-65; Luke 3:2; John 11:49-53; John 18:13-28; Acts 4:5-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Annas and Caiaphas<\/h3>\nAnnas and Caiaphas were both spoken of as high priests during the time of Jesus, and they were instrumental in getting Jesus condemned to death.<\/p>\nAnnas was the Jewish high priest around AD<\/span> 6–15. But even after he was officially deposed by the Roman procurator of Judea, he retained considerable power and influence in the Jewish high council and was still spoken of as “high priest” fifteen to twenty years later (Luke 3:2; Acts 4:6)—perhaps because of the Jewish view that high priests retain their position for life. Five of his sons and his son-in-law Caiaphas became high priests after him. According to the Gospel of John, when Jesus was arrested, he was brought to Annas for his initial interrogation before he was turned over to Caiaphas for the official trial (John 18:13-24).<\/p>\nCaiaphas was the official Jewish high priest around AD<\/span> 18–36. He worked closely with his powerful father-in-law, Annas. Caiaphas had argued in the high council that it would be better for Jesus to be sacrificed than for the entire nation to be destroyed (John 11:49-50). These prophetic words were given to him by God because of his role as high priest (John 11:51-52). At the trial of Jesus, Caiaphas tore his robes at Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God and urged the high council to condemn him for blasphemy (Matt 26:57-66).<\/p>\nNot long after the execution of Jesus, the Jewish authorities became increasingly disturbed over the rapidly growing numbers of believers in Christ. Annas and Caiaphas actively involved themselves in the interrogation of Peter and John over their healing a crippled beggar and their preaching about the resurrection of the dead (Acts 4:5-7).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 26:3-5, 57-67; Mark 14:53-65; Luke 3:2; John 11:49-53; John 18:13-28; Acts 4:5-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"Annas and Caiaphas Annas and Caiaphas were both spoken of as high priests during the time of Jesus, and they were instrumental in getting Jesus condemned to death. Annas was the Jewish high priest around AD 6–15. But even after he was officially deposed by the Roman procurator of Judea, he retained considerable power and influence in the Jewish high council and was still spoken of as “high priest” fifteen to twenty years later (Luke 3:2; Acts 4:6)—perhaps because of the Jewish view that high ...","summary_en":"Annas and Caiaphas Annas and Caiaphas were both spoken of as high priests during the time of Jesus, and they were instrumental in getting Jesus condemned to death. Annas was the Jewish high priest around AD 6–15. But even after he was officially deposed by the Roman procurator of Judea, he retained considerable power and influence in the Jewish high council and was still spoken of as “high priest” fifteen to twenty years later (Luke 3:2; Acts 4:6)—perhaps because of the Jewish view that high ...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70149,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Annas and Caiaphas","title_en":"Annas and Caiaphas","content_ro":"<h3>Annas and Caiaphas<\/h3>\nAnnas and Caiaphas were both spoken of as high priests during the time of Jesus, and they were instrumental in getting Jesus condemned to death.<\/p>\nAnnas was the Jewish high priest around AD<\/span> 6–15. But even after he was officially deposed by the Roman procurator of Judea, he retained considerable power and influence in the Jewish high council and was still spoken of as “high priest” fifteen to twenty years later (Luke 3:2; Acts 4:6)—perhaps because of the Jewish view that high priests retain their position for life. Five of his sons and his son-in-law Caiaphas became high priests after him. According to the Gospel of John, when Jesus was arrested, he was brought to Annas for his initial interrogation before he was turned over to Caiaphas for the official trial (John 18:13-24).<\/p>\nCaiaphas was the official Jewish high priest around AD<\/span> 18–36. He worked closely with his powerful father-in-law, Annas. Caiaphas had argued in the high council that it would be better for Jesus to be sacrificed than for the entire nation to be destroyed (John 11:49-50). These prophetic words were given to him by God because of his role as high priest (John 11:51-52). At the trial of Jesus, Caiaphas tore his robes at Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God and urged the high council to condemn him for blasphemy (Matt 26:57-66).<\/p>\nNot long after the execution of Jesus, the Jewish authorities became increasingly disturbed over the rapidly growing numbers of believers in Christ. Annas and Caiaphas actively involved themselves in the interrogation of Peter and John over their healing a crippled beggar and their preaching about the resurrection of the dead (Acts 4:5-7).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 26:3-5, 57-67; Mark 14:53-65; Luke 3:2; John 11:49-53; John 18:13-28; Acts 4:5-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Annas and Caiaphas<\/h3>\nAnnas and Caiaphas were both spoken of as high priests during the time of Jesus, and they were instrumental in getting Jesus condemned to death.<\/p>\nAnnas was the Jewish high priest around AD<\/span> 6–15. But even after he was officially deposed by the Roman procurator of Judea, he retained considerable power and influence in the Jewish high council and was still spoken of as “high priest” fifteen to twenty years later (Luke 3:2; Acts 4:6)—perhaps because of the Jewish view that high priests retain their position for life. Five of his sons and his son-in-law Caiaphas became high priests after him. According to the Gospel of John, when Jesus was arrested, he was brought to Annas for his initial interrogation before he was turned over to Caiaphas for the official trial (John 18:13-24).<\/p>\nCaiaphas was the official Jewish high priest around AD<\/span> 18–36. He worked closely with his powerful father-in-law, Annas. Caiaphas had argued in the high council that it would be better for Jesus to be sacrificed than for the entire nation to be destroyed (John 11:49-50). These prophetic words were given to him by God because of his role as high priest (John 11:51-52). At the trial of Jesus, Caiaphas tore his robes at Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God and urged the high council to condemn him for blasphemy (Matt 26:57-66).<\/p>\nNot long after the execution of Jesus, the Jewish authorities became increasingly disturbed over the rapidly growing numbers of believers in Christ. Annas and Caiaphas actively involved themselves in the interrogation of Peter and John over their healing a crippled beggar and their preaching about the resurrection of the dead (Acts 4:5-7).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 26:3-5, 57-67; Mark 14:53-65; Luke 3:2; John 11:49-53; John 18:13-28; Acts 4:5-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"Annas and Caiaphas Annas and Caiaphas were both spoken of as high priests during the time of Jesus, and they were instrumental in getting Jesus condemned to death. Annas was the Jewish high priest around AD 6–15. But even after he was officially deposed by the Roman procurator of Judea, he retained considerable power and influence in the Jewish high council and was still spoken of as “high priest” fifteen to twenty years later (Luke 3:2; Acts 4:6)—perhaps because of the Jewish view that high ...","summary_en":"Annas and Caiaphas Annas and Caiaphas were both spoken of as high priests during the time of Jesus, and they were instrumental in getting Jesus condemned to death. Annas was the Jewish high priest around AD 6–15. But even after he was officially deposed by the Roman procurator of Judea, he retained considerable power and influence in the Jewish high council and was still spoken of as “high priest” fifteen to twenty years later (Luke 3:2; Acts 4:6)—perhaps because of the Jewish view that high ...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":97775,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Annas and Caiaphas","title_en":"Annas and Caiaphas","content_ro":"<h3>Annas and Caiaphas<\/h3>\nAnnas and Caiaphas were both spoken of as high priests during the time of Jesus, and they were instrumental in getting Jesus condemned to death.<\/p>\nAnnas was the Jewish high priest around AD<\/span> 6–15. But even after he was officially deposed by the Roman procurator of Judea, he retained considerable power and influence in the Jewish high council and was still spoken of as “high priest” fifteen to twenty years later (Luke 3:2; Acts 4:6)—perhaps because of the Jewish view that high priests retain their position for life. Five of his sons and his son-in-law Caiaphas became high priests after him. According to the Gospel of John, when Jesus was arrested, he was brought to Annas for his initial interrogation before he was turned over to Caiaphas for the official trial (John 18:13-24).<\/p>\nCaiaphas was the official Jewish high priest around AD<\/span> 18–36. He worked closely with his powerful father-in-law, Annas. Caiaphas had argued in the high council that it would be better for Jesus to be sacrificed than for the entire nation to be destroyed (John 11:49-50). These prophetic words were given to him by God because of his role as high priest (John 11:51-52). At the trial of Jesus, Caiaphas tore his robes at Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God and urged the high council to condemn him for blasphemy (Matt 26:57-66).<\/p>\nNot long after the execution of Jesus, the Jewish authorities became increasingly disturbed over the rapidly growing numbers of believers in Christ. Annas and Caiaphas actively involved themselves in the interrogation of Peter and John over their healing a crippled beggar and their preaching about the resurrection of the dead (Acts 4:5-7).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 26:3-5, 57-67; Mark 14:53-65; Luke 3:2; John 11:49-53; John 18:13-28; Acts 4:5-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Annas and Caiaphas<\/h3>\nAnnas and Caiaphas were both spoken of as high priests during the time of Jesus, and they were instrumental in getting Jesus condemned to death.<\/p>\nAnnas was the Jewish high priest around AD<\/span> 6–15. But even after he was officially deposed by the Roman procurator of Judea, he retained considerable power and influence in the Jewish high council and was still spoken of as “high priest” fifteen to twenty years later (Luke 3:2; Acts 4:6)—perhaps because of the Jewish view that high priests retain their position for life. Five of his sons and his son-in-law Caiaphas became high priests after him. According to the Gospel of John, when Jesus was arrested, he was brought to Annas for his initial interrogation before he was turned over to Caiaphas for the official trial (John 18:13-24).<\/p>\nCaiaphas was the official Jewish high priest around AD<\/span> 18–36. He worked closely with his powerful father-in-law, Annas. Caiaphas had argued in the high council that it would be better for Jesus to be sacrificed than for the entire nation to be destroyed (John 11:49-50). These prophetic words were given to him by God because of his role as high priest (John 11:51-52). At the trial of Jesus, Caiaphas tore his robes at Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God and urged the high council to condemn him for blasphemy (Matt 26:57-66).<\/p>\nNot long after the execution of Jesus, the Jewish authorities became increasingly disturbed over the rapidly growing numbers of believers in Christ. Annas and Caiaphas actively involved themselves in the interrogation of Peter and John over their healing a crippled beggar and their preaching about the resurrection of the dead (Acts 4:5-7).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 26:3-5, 57-67; Mark 14:53-65; Luke 3:2; John 11:49-53; John 18:13-28; Acts 4:5-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"Annas and Caiaphas Annas and Caiaphas were both spoken of as high priests during the time of Jesus, and they were instrumental in getting Jesus condemned to death. Annas was the Jewish high priest around AD 6–15. But even after he was officially deposed by the Roman procurator of Judea, he retained considerable power and influence in the Jewish high council and was still spoken of as “high priest” fifteen to twenty years later (Luke 3:2; Acts 4:6)—perhaps because of the Jewish view that high ...","summary_en":"Annas and Caiaphas Annas and Caiaphas were both spoken of as high priests during the time of Jesus, and they were instrumental in getting Jesus condemned to death. Annas was the Jewish high priest around AD 6–15. But even after he was officially deposed by the Roman procurator of Judea, he retained considerable power and influence in the Jewish high council and was still spoken of as “high priest” fifteen to twenty years later (Luke 3:2; Acts 4:6)—perhaps because of the Jewish view that high ...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125401,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Annas and Caiaphas","title_en":"Annas and Caiaphas","content_ro":"<h3>Annas and Caiaphas<\/h3>\nAnnas and Caiaphas were both spoken of as high priests during the time of Jesus, and they were instrumental in getting Jesus condemned to death.<\/p>\nAnnas was the Jewish high priest around AD<\/span> 6–15. But even after he was officially deposed by the Roman procurator of Judea, he retained considerable power and influence in the Jewish high council and was still spoken of as “high priest” fifteen to twenty years later (Luke 3:2; Acts 4:6)—perhaps because of the Jewish view that high priests retain their position for life. Five of his sons and his son-in-law Caiaphas became high priests after him. According to the Gospel of John, when Jesus was arrested, he was brought to Annas for his initial interrogation before he was turned over to Caiaphas for the official trial (John 18:13-24).<\/p>\nCaiaphas was the official Jewish high priest around AD<\/span> 18–36. He worked closely with his powerful father-in-law, Annas. Caiaphas had argued in the high council that it would be better for Jesus to be sacrificed than for the entire nation to be destroyed (John 11:49-50). These prophetic words were given to him by God because of his role as high priest (John 11:51-52). At the trial of Jesus, Caiaphas tore his robes at Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God and urged the high council to condemn him for blasphemy (Matt 26:57-66).<\/p>\nNot long after the execution of Jesus, the Jewish authorities became increasingly disturbed over the rapidly growing numbers of believers in Christ. Annas and Caiaphas actively involved themselves in the interrogation of Peter and John over their healing a crippled beggar and their preaching about the resurrection of the dead (Acts 4:5-7).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 26:3-5, 57-67; Mark 14:53-65; Luke 3:2; John 11:49-53; John 18:13-28; Acts 4:5-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Annas and Caiaphas<\/h3>\nAnnas and Caiaphas were both spoken of as high priests during the time of Jesus, and they were instrumental in getting Jesus condemned to death.<\/p>\nAnnas was the Jewish high priest around AD<\/span> 6–15. But even after he was officially deposed by the Roman procurator of Judea, he retained considerable power and influence in the Jewish high council and was still spoken of as “high priest” fifteen to twenty years later (Luke 3:2; Acts 4:6)—perhaps because of the Jewish view that high priests retain their position for life. Five of his sons and his son-in-law Caiaphas became high priests after him. According to the Gospel of John, when Jesus was arrested, he was brought to Annas for his initial interrogation before he was turned over to Caiaphas for the official trial (John 18:13-24).<\/p>\nCaiaphas was the official Jewish high priest around AD<\/span> 18–36. He worked closely with his powerful father-in-law, Annas. Caiaphas had argued in the high council that it would be better for Jesus to be sacrificed than for the entire nation to be destroyed (John 11:49-50). These prophetic words were given to him by God because of his role as high priest (John 11:51-52). At the trial of Jesus, Caiaphas tore his robes at Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God and urged the high council to condemn him for blasphemy (Matt 26:57-66).<\/p>\nNot long after the execution of Jesus, the Jewish authorities became increasingly disturbed over the rapidly growing numbers of believers in Christ. Annas and Caiaphas actively involved themselves in the interrogation of Peter and John over their healing a crippled beggar and their preaching about the resurrection of the dead (Acts 4:5-7).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 26:3-5, 57-67; Mark 14:53-65; Luke 3:2; John 11:49-53; John 18:13-28; Acts 4:5-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"Annas and Caiaphas Annas and Caiaphas were both spoken of as high priests during the time of Jesus, and they were instrumental in getting Jesus condemned to death. Annas was the Jewish high priest around AD 6–15. But even after he was officially deposed by the Roman procurator of Judea, he retained considerable power and influence in the Jewish high council and was still spoken of as “high priest” fifteen to twenty years later (Luke 3:2; Acts 4:6)—perhaps because of the Jewish view that high ...","summary_en":"Annas and Caiaphas Annas and Caiaphas were both spoken of as high priests during the time of Jesus, and they were instrumental in getting Jesus condemned to death. Annas was the Jewish high priest around AD 6–15. But even after he was officially deposed by the Roman procurator of Judea, he retained considerable power and influence in the Jewish high council and was still spoken of as “high priest” fifteen to twenty years later (Luke 3:2; Acts 4:6)—perhaps because of the Jewish view that high ...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":2133,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Annas","title_en":"Annas","content_ro":"<h3>ANNAS<\/h3>\nJewish high priest from AD<\/span> 7 to 15. Appointed by Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria, Annas was put out of office by Valerius Gratus, procurator of Judea. Annas was succeeded by three minor figures before the post was assumed by his son-in-law Caiaphas (Jn 18:13, 24). The tenure of Caiaphas extended from AD<\/span> 18 to 36; thus, he was high priest at the time of Jesus’ public ministry.<\/p>\nEvidently Annas’s power and influence remained considerable even after his removal from that office. Like an American Supreme Court justice, the high priest held a lifetime appointment. Deposition of a high priest by the pagan Romans would have been strongly resented by the Jews. Consequently, Annas may still have been referred to as high priest among the populace, as a sort of high priest emeritus. Such a practice, evidenced in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, tends to clear up those references in the NT to Annas as high priest during the same chronological period as Caiaphas (Lk 3:2; Jn 18:19, 22-24; Acts 4:6). The fact that Annas conducted a private inquiry of Jesus after he was arrested (Jn 18:13, 19-24) but before he was taken to Caiaphas, is a strong indication that Annas was still a person of considerable stature among the Jewish religious leaders.<\/p>\nAnnas is also mentioned in the NT account of an investigation of the apostles Peter and John. Interestingly, the penalty imposed on the apostles was far less severe than the one Jesus suffered (Acts 4:6-21).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ANNAS<\/h3>\nJewish high priest from AD<\/span> 7 to 15. Appointed by Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria, Annas was put out of office by Valerius Gratus, procurator of Judea. Annas was succeeded by three minor figures before the post was assumed by his son-in-law Caiaphas (Jn 18:13, 24). The tenure of Caiaphas extended from AD<\/span> 18 to 36; thus, he was high priest at the time of Jesus’ public ministry.<\/p>\nEvidently Annas’s power and influence remained considerable even after his removal from that office. Like an American Supreme Court justice, the high priest held a lifetime appointment. Deposition of a high priest by the pagan Romans would have been strongly resented by the Jews. Consequently, Annas may still have been referred to as high priest among the populace, as a sort of high priest emeritus. Such a practice, evidenced in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, tends to clear up those references in the NT to Annas as high priest during the same chronological period as Caiaphas (Lk 3:2; Jn 18:19, 22-24; Acts 4:6). The fact that Annas conducted a private inquiry of Jesus after he was arrested (Jn 18:13, 19-24) but before he was taken to Caiaphas, is a strong indication that Annas was still a person of considerable stature among the Jewish religious leaders.<\/p>\nAnnas is also mentioned in the NT account of an investigation of the apostles Peter and John. Interestingly, the penalty imposed on the apostles was far less severe than the one Jesus suffered (Acts 4:6-21).<\/p>","summary_ro":"ANNAS Jewish high priest from AD 7 to 15. Appointed by Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria, Annas was put out of office by Valerius Gratus, procurator of Judea. Annas was succeeded by three minor figures before the post was assumed by his son-in-law Caiaphas (Jn 18:13, 24). The tenure of Caiaphas extended from AD 18 to 36; thus, he was high priest at the time of Jesus’ public ministry. Evidently Annas’s power and influence remained considerable even after his removal from that office. Like an ...","summary_en":"ANNAS Jewish high priest from AD 7 to 15. Appointed by Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria, Annas was put out of office by Valerius Gratus, procurator of Judea. Annas was succeeded by three minor figures before the post was assumed by his son-in-law Caiaphas (Jn 18:13, 24). The tenure of Caiaphas extended from AD 18 to 36; thus, he was high priest at the time of Jesus’ public ministry. Evidently Annas’s power and influence remained considerable even after his removal from that office. Like an ...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":5928,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Caiaphas","title_en":"Caiaphas","content_ro":"<h3>CAIAPHAS<\/h3>\nHigh priest during the life and ministry of Jesus. As official head of the Jewish state, Caiaphas presided over the council, or Sanhedrin—its highest court. Next to the Roman governor, he was the most powerful man in Judea and was responsible to the Romans for the conduct of the nation. Caiaphas was, therefore, especially concerned about the popular enthusiasm and political unrest centering on the ministry of Jesus and about its implications for the revolutionary sentiment of the time. The activities of the Zealots were increasing and were destined to break out soon into open revolt.<\/p>\nA huge stir among the people, caused by the raising of Lazarus (Jn 11), brought matters to a head. Alarmed lest the activities of those seeking a political messiah should lead the Romans to intervene with armed force, Caiaphas advised that Jesus should be put to death (Jn 11:48-50). The Gospel writer John pointed out that, in so doing, Caiaphas unwittingly prophesied concerning the atoning nature of Jesus’ death (Jn 11:51-52).<\/p>\nCaiaphas played a chief role in Jesus’ arrest and trial. The leaders laid their plans in his palace (Mt 26:3-5); it was there also that part of Jesus’ preliminary trial took place with Caiaphas presiding (vv 57-68). That was after Jesus had first been taken before Annas, Caiaphas’s father-in-law (Jn 18:13). Matthew, Mark, and Luke omit the visit to Annas, and Mark and Luke do not refer to Caiaphas by name. Upon Jesus’ admission that he was “the Christ, the Son of God,” Caiaphas tore his robes and charged him with blasphemy (Mt 26:63-66). After Pentecost, he, along with other Jewish leaders, presided over the trial of Peter and John when the council attempted to stop the preaching of the apostles (Acts 4:5-6).<\/p>\nAnnas, who had held the office of high priest before Caiaphas, remained influential in the affairs of the nation. That explains why Luke, in his Gospel, set the ministry of John the Baptist “in the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas” (Lk 3:2), and in Acts called Annas the high priest (Acts 4:6). John’s account of Jesus’ visit to Annas makes plain that Annas was still popularly referred to as “high priest” (Jn 18:22).<\/p>\nThe historian Josephus records that Caiaphas was appointed to his office about AD<\/span> 18 and ruled until he was deposed about AD<\/span> 36. The high priest held office at the whim of the Romans, so Caiaphas’s unusually long term indicates that he was a man of considerable political skill. Caiaphas was removed from his position by the proconsul Vitellus, and nothing more is known of him.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CAIAPHAS<\/h3>\nHigh priest during the life and ministry of Jesus. As official head of the Jewish state, Caiaphas presided over the council, or Sanhedrin—its highest court. Next to the Roman governor, he was the most powerful man in Judea and was responsible to the Romans for the conduct of the nation. Caiaphas was, therefore, especially concerned about the popular enthusiasm and political unrest centering on the ministry of Jesus and about its implications for the revolutionary sentiment of the time. The activities of the Zealots were increasing and were destined to break out soon into open revolt.<\/p>\nA huge stir among the people, caused by the raising of Lazarus (Jn 11), brought matters to a head. Alarmed lest the activities of those seeking a political messiah should lead the Romans to intervene with armed force, Caiaphas advised that Jesus should be put to death (Jn 11:48-50). The Gospel writer John pointed out that, in so doing, Caiaphas unwittingly prophesied concerning the atoning nature of Jesus’ death (Jn 11:51-52).<\/p>\nCaiaphas played a chief role in Jesus’ arrest and trial. The leaders laid their plans in his palace (Mt 26:3-5); it was there also that part of Jesus’ preliminary trial took place with Caiaphas presiding (vv 57-68). That was after Jesus had first been taken before Annas, Caiaphas’s father-in-law (Jn 18:13). Matthew, Mark, and Luke omit the visit to Annas, and Mark and Luke do not refer to Caiaphas by name. Upon Jesus’ admission that he was “the Christ, the Son of God,” Caiaphas tore his robes and charged him with blasphemy (Mt 26:63-66). After Pentecost, he, along with other Jewish leaders, presided over the trial of Peter and John when the council attempted to stop the preaching of the apostles (Acts 4:5-6).<\/p>\nAnnas, who had held the office of high priest before Caiaphas, remained influential in the affairs of the nation. That explains why Luke, in his Gospel, set the ministry of John the Baptist “in the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas” (Lk 3:2), and in Acts called Annas the high priest (Acts 4:6). John’s account of Jesus’ visit to Annas makes plain that Annas was still popularly referred to as “high priest” (Jn 18:22).<\/p>\nThe historian Josephus records that Caiaphas was appointed to his office about AD<\/span> 18 and ruled until he was deposed about AD<\/span> 36. The high priest held office at the whim of the Romans, so Caiaphas’s unusually long term indicates that he was a man of considerable political skill. Caiaphas was removed from his position by the proconsul Vitellus, and nothing more is known of him.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CAIAPHAS High priest during the life and ministry of Jesus. As official head of the Jewish state, Caiaphas presided over the council, or Sanhedrin—its highest court. Next to the Roman governor, he was the most powerful man in Judea and was responsible to the Romans for the conduct of the nation. Caiaphas was, therefore, especially concerned about the popular enthusiasm and political unrest centering on the ministry of Jesus and about its implications for the revolutionary sentiment of the tim...","summary_en":"CAIAPHAS High priest during the life and ministry of Jesus. As official head of the Jewish state, Caiaphas presided over the council, or Sanhedrin—its highest court. Next to the Roman governor, he was the most powerful man in Judea and was responsible to the Romans for the conduct of the nation. Caiaphas was, therefore, especially concerned about the popular enthusiasm and political unrest centering on the ministry of Jesus and about its implications for the revolutionary sentiment of the tim...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":31567,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Prophecy","title_en":"Prophecy","content_ro":"<h3>PROPHECY<\/h3>\nTerm, along with its English cognates (“prophet,” “to prophesy,” “prophetism,” and “prophetic”), derived from a group of Greek words that, in secular Greek, mean “speak forth,” “proclaim,” “announce.” In biblical Greek, however, these terms always carry the connotation of speaking, proclaiming, or announcing something under the influence of spiritual inspiration.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Prophecy in the Old Testament<\/p>\n• Types of Old Testament Prophets<\/p>\n• The Message of the Prophets<\/p>\n• Prophecy in the New Testament<\/p>\n• The Role of the Christian Prophet<\/p>\nProphecy in the Old Testament<\/p>\nOne of the clearest and most significant statements on the nature of prophetic inspiration in the OT is found in Numbers 12:6-8: “The Lord<\/span> said to them, ‘Now listen to me! Even with prophets, I the Lord<\/span> communicate by visions and dreams. But that is not how I communicate with my servant Moses. He is entrusted with my entire house. I speak to him face to face, directly and not in riddles! He sees the Lord<\/span> as he is’ ” (nlt<\/span>). Several important insights into the nature of prophetic inspiration are found in this passage: (1) The prophetic gift of Moses was unique in that he alone received revelations directly from God. (2) Ordinarily, prophetic revelation was received through the medium of a dream or a vision. (3) The meaning of prophetic revelation is not always completely clear; prophecy is sometimes ambiguous.<\/p>\nFurther insight into the nature of prophetic revelation is found in Deuteronomy 18:18: “I [God] will raise up for them a prophet like you [Moses] from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him” (rsv<\/span>). While this passage is of interest because Jesus was identified as “the prophet like Moses” who came in fulfillment of this prediction (Acts 3:22; 7:37), the more immediate historical reference is to the succession of prophets that guided Israel from Joshua to Malachi. The phrase “I will put my words in his mouth” refers to the process of divine inspiration and is reminiscent of the common OT prophetic formula “the word of the Lord came to [such and such a prophet]” (for examples, see 1 Sm 15:10; 2 Sm 24:11; 1 Kgs 19:9; Jon 1:1; Hg 1:1; 2:1, 20; Zec 7:1, 8; 8:1). A true prophet is one who speaks (or repeats) all that God has told him.<\/p>\n<h5>Modes of Prophetic Inspiration<\/h5>\nDreams were a commonly recognized mode of inspiration throughout the ancient world, though they were more highly regarded in Greece than in ancient Israel. Revelatory dreams in the Bible fall into two major categories: (1) dreams whose meaning is self-evident, and (2) symbolic dreams that usually require the expertise of an interpreter of dreams. Both types normally involve both visual and auditory elements. In those dreams whose meaning is self-evident, normally a supernatural being (God or an angel) appears to the dreamer and speaks to him or her in a straightforward manner.<\/p>\nMore frequently, revelatory dreams have symbolic elements that require interpretation. The two great dream interpreters of the OT are Joseph and Daniel; the latter is clearly a prophet. The two symbolic dreams that Joseph himself dreamed (Gn 37:5-11) had sufficiently self-evident meaning so that his brothers and father were able to interpret them immediately. More complex were the dreams of the butler and baker (40:1-19) and of Pharaoh (41:1-36), which Joseph was able to interpret with the help of God. Similarly, Daniel was enabled to interpret the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar (Dn 2:25-45; 4:4-27). The skill in interpreting such dreams was attributed by both Joseph and Daniel to God (Gn 40:8; 41:16, 25; Dn 2:27-30; cf. 4:9). While dreams are used almost interchangeably with visions in referring to modes of prophetic inspiration (Jl 2:28), dreams do not occupy a significant part in the prophetic revelations of any of the OT prophets, with the exception of Daniel.<\/p>\nOne of the most characteristic modes of prophetic inspiration was the vision (Nm 12:6; 24:4, 16; Hos 12:10). The revelatory visions experienced by the prophets were not limited to visual phenomena alone but also included the auditory dimension as well. In Isaiah 1:1, the author describes his entire prophetic book as a “vision”: “These visions concerning Judah and Jerusalem came to Isaiah son of Amoz during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah—all kings of Judah” (nlt<\/span>). Yet in the very next verse, Isaiah says, “Hear, O heavens! Listen, O earth! This is what the Lord<\/span> says.” Again, in Amos 1:1, “The words<\/em> of Amos, who was among the shepherds of Tekoa, which he saw<\/em> concerning Israel” (rsv<\/span>, emphasis added).<\/p>\n<h5>Manifestations of Prophetic Inspiration<\/h5>\nAll prophecy, whether biblical or not, presupposes that the prophet either possessed or was possessed by a personal supernatural power. The external behavioral manifestations of this possession can exhibit great variety.<\/p>\nThe prophetic phenomenon generally designated “ecstatic” prophecy appears to have existed in Canaan prior to the arrival of the Hebrew tribes in the 13th century BC<\/span>. The first reference to ecstatic prophecy in Israel occurs in 1 Samuel 10:5-13 (11th century BC<\/span>), and it persisted at least till the sixth century BC<\/span> (Jer 29:26).<\/p>\nThe ecstatic prophet achieves a trancelike state by self-induced means. The most common devices used to achieve a state of ecstasy were musical instruments, such as the harp, tambourine, flute, and lyre (1 Sm 10:5). Among the prophets of Baal, self-flagellation was another means of inducing ecstasy (1 Kgs 18:28-29).<\/p>\nThis kind of prophetic ecstasy was usually practiced by groups of prophets (1 Sm 10:5), and such ecstasy was contagious. When Saul met a band of such prophets, the Spirit of God came upon him and he, too, began to prophesy (vv 10-13), a phenomenon that occurred repeatedly to various messengers sent by Saul on a later occasion (19:20-22). At that time Saul again prophesied, and his ecstatic behavior is described in 1 Samuel 19:24. When Elisha was asked to prophesy for King Jehoram of Israel, he first requested a minstrel. When the minstrel played, the power of the Lord came upon him (2 Kgs 3:15).<\/p>\nTypes of Old Testament Prophets<\/p>\nThere are two basic types of prophetic commission in the OT. One type is that of a narrative call by God to a particular individual whose objections to the call are gradually overcome in a dialogue between himself and God. The classic example of this type of prophetic commission is found in Jeremiah 1:4-8:<\/p>\nThe Lord<\/span> gave me a message. He said, “I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb. Before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as my spokesman to the world.”<\/p>\n<blockquote>“O Sovereign Lord<\/span>,” I said, “I can’t speak for you! I’m too young!”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>“Don’t say that,” the Lord<\/span> replied, “for you must go wherever I send you and say whatever I tell you. And don’t be afraid of the people, for I will be with you and take care of you. I, the Lord<\/span>, have spoken!” (nlt<\/span>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nSimilar prophetic commissions including such dialogues are associated with the calls of Moses (Ex 3:1–4:17) and Gideon (Jgs 6:11-17).<\/p>\nThe second major form of prophetic commission is the “throne vision.” An outstanding example is Isaiah 6:1-8:<\/p>\nIn the year King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord. He was sitting on a lofty throne, and the train of his robe filled the Temple. . . .<\/p>\n<blockquote>Then I said, “My destruction is sealed, for I am a sinful man and a member of a sinful race. Yet I have seen the King, the Lord<\/span> Almighty!”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>Then one of the seraphim flew over to the altar, and he picked up a burning coal with a pair of tongs. He touched my lips with it and said, “See, this coal has touched your lips. Now your guilt is removed, and your sins are forgiven.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>Then I heard the Lord asking, “Whom should I send as a messenger to my people? Who will go for us?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>And I said, “Lord, I’ll go! Send me.” (nlt<\/span>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nHere we have an account of the visionary presence of a prophet in the heavenly council; in this case, however, the prophet participates in the deliberations and thereby receives a prophetic commission. Though few prophets have left accounts of their divine commissions, most of them appear to have been conscious of having been “sent” by God (Is 48:16; Hos 8:1; Am 7:14-15). According to Jeremiah, false prophets did not receive such divine commissions (Jer 23:21, 32; 28:15).<\/p>\nThe Message of the Prophets<\/p>\n<h5>The Form of the Message<\/h5>\nThe most common introductory formula for prophetic oracles in the OT is the phrase “Thus says the Lord,” which occurs hundreds of times in prophetic contexts. This formula clearly implies that the pronouncement so introduced is not the word of the prophet who utters the oracle but of the God of Israel who delivered his word to his prophet. The use of this formula also reiterates the prophet’s sense of divine commission. In oracles introduced in this manner, God speaks in the first person. In fact, virtually all Israelite prophetic utterance is formulated as the direct speech of the God of Israel.<\/p>\nThe prophets used many literary forms in which to express their oracles. Two of the more widely used forms of prophetic speech are the judgment speech and the oracle of salvation. The judgment speech is composed of at least two central elements: the speech of rebuke or invective, and the pronouncement of judgment (see 2 Kgs 1:3-4). The second common prophetic speech form is the oracle of salvation (see Is 41:8-13). Other fixed forms of prophetic speech include the prophecy of salvation (43:14-21), the proclamation of salvation (41:17-20; 42:14-17; 43:16-21; 49:7-12), and the woe oracle (Is 5:8-10; 10:1-4; Am 5:18-24; 6:1-7; Mi 2:1-5).<\/p>\n<h5>The Content of the Message<\/h5>\nThe common adage that OT prophets were not “foretellers” but “forthtellers” is not strictly correct. All of the prophets predict the future. Such prediction, however, is based not on human curiosity of what the future will hold but rather is rooted in the future consequences of past or present violations of the covenant, or on a future act of deliverance that will provide hope for a discouraged people. Most of the prophetic speeches that have been preserved in the OT were originally delivered as public proclamations or sermons. Most of these prophetic proclamations were evoked by the iniquity and apostasy of Israel. Hosea and Jeremiah condemned Israel because she had broken the covenant (Jer 11:2-3; Hos 8:1).<\/p>\nThe prophets are frequently associated with social justice and social reform, and these elements were unquestionably an important dimension of their message. Amos denounced the rich who afflicted the poor (Am 2:6-8; 4:1; 5:11; 8:4-6). He railed against sexual immorality (2:6-8) and against those who take bribes (5:12). Hosea provided a list of prevalent vices, including lying, killing, stealing, adultery, and idolatry (Hos 4:2). Idolatry was a particular target for his denunciations (8:5; 11:2). The background for such heated denunciations of Israel’s behavior is God’s unquenchable love for Israel (Is 43:4; Jer 31:3; Hos 3:1; 11:1-4; 14:4; Mal 1:2), which is inseparable from his election of Israel (Is 43:1; Jer 33:24; Ez 20:5; Hos 3).<\/p>\nThe prophets were concerned not only with the transgressions of Israel and the historical judgment that would inevitably follow but also with the achievement of a final future time of bliss. The message of many of the prophets is thoroughly eschatological (i.e., pertaining to the end times). One such eschatological concept is that of the Day of the Lord. The concept of the Day of the Lord first appears in Amos, where the emphasis lies on the disaster that will befall Israel on that day. Amos’s emphasis on disaster notwithstanding, the Day of the Lord is a conception that had both salvific as well as judgmental overtones for Israel. While the disaster that will occur in the Day of the Lord can be viewed in terms of a literal historical fulfillment in the tragic events of 722 BC<\/span> (the fall of Samaria) and 586 BC<\/span> (the fall of Judah), there are nevertheless features of these predictions that transcend historical fulfillment and reach toward eschatological fulfillment.<\/p>\nSince the Israelite conception of “salvation” was largely temporal in its dimensions, it included such blessings as length of life, fruitfulness of the womb and field, peace and victory over one’s enemies, the abundance of water, and so on. In harmony with this conception of salvation, the future age is conceived in precisely those terms, as in Amos 9:13-15.<\/p>\nThe prophets pictured a time when David himself, or someone very much like him, would return and inaugurate a golden era reminiscent of the great Davidic and Solomonic period. The covenant of God with David was not a conditional covenant but rather one that was absolutely inviolable (2 Sm 7:4-17; Ps 89; Jer 33:19-22), and it was with this knowledge that the prophets could look forward confidently to a restoration of David’s throne (Jer 17:24-26; 23:5-6; 33:14-15).<\/p>\n\nProphecy in the New Testament<\/p>\nIn contrast to the few self-proclaimed prophets of the intertestamental period, early Christianity began with a flurry of prophetic activity that lasted well into the second century AD<\/span>. Jesus, his disciples and followers, and the early Christians were convinced that the times in which they lived were times in which OT prophecy was being fulfilled (Mk 1:14-15; Acts 2:16-21; Rom 16:25-27; 1 Cor 10:11). Yet this era was not only one of fulfillment but also one of the renewal of the prophetic gift.<\/p>\n<h5>John the Baptist<\/h5>\nJohn the Baptist is remembered in the NT primarily as the forerunner of Jesus whose coming was predicted by Malachi (Mal 4:5-6). Yet, in his own right, John proclaimed the imminent judgment of God with a flair of denunciation and rebuke reminiscent of the OT prophets. John’s costume, consisting of a hairy cloak and a leather girdle (Mk 1:6), was reminiscent of the typical garb of OT prophets (1 Kgs 19:19; 2 Kgs 1:8; 2:13-14; Zec 13:4). John was regarded as a prophet by people everywhere (Mt 14:5; 17:10-13; Mk 9:11-13; 11:32; Lk 1:76; 7:26). Luke reports, in a style similar to the OT prophetic narratives, that “the word of God came to John” (Lk 3:2). Two short prophetic speeches have been preserved in Matthew 3:7-10 (cf. Lk 3:7-9) and Mark 1:7-8 (cf. Mt 3:11-12; Lk 3:15-18). In the first speech, John denounced those of his generation who had transgressed the covenant law and exhorted them to change their manner of life. In the second speech, John predicted the coming of the Mighty One, Jesus (Mt 3:11; Mk 1:7; Lk 3:16; Jn 1:15, 27, 30; Acts 13:25). John’s style, however, was not precisely that of the OT prophets. His pronouncements were made on his own authority; never did he use formulas such as “thus says the Lord,” or present his prophetic utterances as if they were speeches made by God. Yet, in spite of these differences, John is appropriately regarded as the last representative of the OT prophetic tradition (Mt 11:13; Lk 16:16).<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus of Nazareth<\/h5>\nJesus was popularly regarded as a prophet (Mt 16:14; 21:10-11; Mk 6:14-15; 8:28; Lk 7:16, 39; 9:8, 19; Jn 6:14; 7:40, 52). This assessment was based as much on the mighty deeds Jesus performed as on his prophetic speeches and predictions. Though Jesus nowhere claimed prophetic status directly, that claim is implicit in Mark 6:4: “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown” (cf. Mt 13:57; Lk 4:24). It is implicit as well in Luke 13:33: “Yes, today, tomorrow, and the next day I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be killed except in Jerusalem!” (nlt<\/span>). In Acts, Jesus is regarded as “the prophet like Moses” predicted in Deuteronomy 18:18 (Acts 3:22; 7:37). Matthew presents Jesus as the New Moses, but he does not particularly emphasize his prophetic role. John, however, like Luke, emphasizes Jesus’ role as the prophet (Jn 4:19; 6:14-15; 7:40).<\/p>\nWhile the Gospels and Acts reflect the notion that Jesus was a prophet, they also emphasize the fact that he was much more than a prophet. Nevertheless, the notion of prophetism was sufficiently important in early Judaism that Jesus’ recognition as a prophet is very significant. There are 12 solid reasons for regarding Jesus as a prophet in the OT tradition: (1) The sovereign authority of Jesus’ teaching (Mk 1:27), a feature underlined by his use of the introductory formula “(Amen) I say to you,” which is reminiscent of the formula “thus says the Lord” used by the OT prophets. (2) The poetic character of many of Jesus’ sayings is unlike contemporary rabbinic teaching but is similar to the poetic rhetoric of the OT prophets. (3) Jesus experienced visions (Lk 10:18) like the ancient prophets. (4) Jesus, like the prophets, made many predictions (Mt 23:38; Mk 13:2; 14:58; Lk 13:35; etc.). (5) Like the OT prophets, Jesus performed symbolic acts (such as the cleansing of the temple, the entry into Jerusalem, and the Last Supper). (6) Jesus, like the prophets, when necessary, rejected the formal observance of religious ritual and emphasized the moral and spiritual dimensions of obedience to God. (7) Jesus announced the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God—an eschatological proclamation similar to those made by the prophets. (8) Like the OT prophets, Jesus functioned as a preacher of repentance. (9) Jesus, like many of the prophets, was conscious of a special calling of God (Mt 15:24; Mk 8:31; 9:37; 14:36; Lk 4:18-26). (10) Jesus, like the prophets, received divine revelation through intimate communion with God (Mt 11:27; Lk 10:22). (11) Like the prophets, Jesus represented God; to obey him was to obey God, to reject him was to reject God (Mk 9:37; cf. Ez 33:30-33). (12) Like the prophets, Jesus was conscious of a mission to all Israel (Mt 15:24; 19:28; Lk 22:30).<\/p>\nAmong the many prophetic predictions of Jesus are the following:<\/p>\n1. Predictions of the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God (Mt 10:7-8, 23; 23:39; Mk 1:15; 9:1; 13:28-29)<\/p>\n<li>2. Predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (Mt 23:37-39; 24:2; 26:61; 27:40; Mk 13:2; 14:58; 15:29; Lk 13:34-35; 21:6; Jn 2:19-21)<\/li>\n<li>3. Predictions of the coming of the Son of Man (Mt 10:23, 32-33; 12:40; 13:40-41; 16:27; 24:27, 37-39; Mk 8:38; 13:26-27; 14:62; Lk 9:26; 11:30; 12:8-9; 17:24, 26)<\/li>\n<li>4. Predictions of the end of the age. The longest prophetic section in the Gospels is the eschatological discourse of Jesus in Mark 13:1-32 (cf. Mt 24:1-36; Lk 21:5-33), in which a number of predictions concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the age are woven into a lengthy discourse to the disciples.<\/li>\n<h5>Prophecy as a Gift for the Believers<\/h5>\nThe beginning of prophetic activity in early Christianity, according to Acts, coincided with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the earliest Christians on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-21). Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost indicates that the outpouring of the Spirit fulfilled Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:4, 17-21; cf. Jl 2:28-32). Further, since the Spirit had been poured out upon all early Christians (that Spirit being a Spirit of prophecy), all are actual or potential prophets.<\/p>\nAccording to 1 Corinthians 12:28 (see also Rom 12:6; Eph 4:11), God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, and third teachers. The names of several early Christian prophets have been preserved. These include Agabus (Acts 11:27-28; 21:10-11); Judas and Silas (15:32); Barnabas, Simeon Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, and Paul (13:1); and the four virgin daughters of Philip the evangelist (21:8-9). John, the author of Revelation, was certainly a prophet (Rv 1:3; 22:9, 18), though he never directly assumed that title.<\/p>\nThe Role of the Christian Prophet<\/p>\nChristian prophets were leaders in early Christian communities (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11), who exercised their gift in church gatherings (Acts 13:1-3; 11:27-28; 1 Cor 12–14; Rv 1:10). Since the Spirit of God was particularly active in Christian worship, prophecy was a major means whereby God communicated with his people. Prophets, like apostles and teachers, did not hold offices in local communities like bishops, elders, and deacons. Rather, they were chosen, not by individual congregations, but by divine commission and so were honored and accepted in all local communities.<\/p>\nEarly Christian prophets were both itinerant and settled, though itinerant prophets seem to have been more prevalent in Syria-Palestine and Asia Minor than in the European churches.<\/p>\n<h5>The Function of Prophecy<\/h5>\nAccording to Paul, the central purpose of prophecy (as of all other spiritual gifts) is that of building up or edifying the church. According to 1 Corinthians 14:3, “one who prophesies is helping others grow in the Lord, encouraging and comforting them” (nlt<\/span>). Again, in 1 Corinthians 14:4, Paul states that the “one who speaks a word of prophecy strengthens the entire church.” Paul discussed the subject of spiritual gifts, particularly tongues speaking and prophecy, because the Corinthians had placed an excessive emphasis on speaking in tongues. Paul did not object to speaking in tongues (1 Cor 14:18, 39), but he did point out that, since it was generally incomprehensible, the church could not be edified by it. Prophecy, which consisted of comprehensible speech inspired by the Spirit, contributed to the mutual edification, encouragement, and consolation of all present (1 Cor 14:20-25, 39).<\/p>\n<h5>The Content of Christian Prophecy<\/h5>\nWe know only a little about the content of prophecies uttered in the first-century church. Prophetic utterance occasionally provided divine guidance in making important decisions in early Christianity. Through a prophetic utterance, Paul and Barnabas were selected for a particular mission (Acts 13:1-3; cf. 1 Tm 1:18; 4:14). Probably through prophetic utterance, Paul and Timothy were forbidden to preach the gospel in Asia (Acts 16:6), and they were similarly forbidden by the Spirit of Jesus to go into Bithynia (v 7). Perhaps the most frequent use of prophecy is the prediction of the future. Agabus predicted a universal famine (11:28) and the imminent arrest of Paul (21:11). Other prophets had also predicted his impending imprisonment (20:23). The prophecies contained in the Revelation of John are all oriented toward the future events that will gradually unfold in the last days. Yet the purpose of John’s elaborate prophecy is not to satisfy the curiosity of his audience but rather to comfort and encourage them in the midst of persecution.<\/p>\n<h5>The Form of Christian Prophecy<\/h5>\nUnlike the prophets of the OT, Christian prophets did not always present their message in the form of a direct speech from God or Jesus. There are few, if any, formal indicators of the presence of prophetic speech in early Christian literature. The book of Revelation is one notable exception.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Dreams; Oracle; Promise; Prophet, Prophetess; Prophets, False; Visions.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PROPHECY<\/h3>\nTerm, along with its English cognates (“prophet,” “to prophesy,” “prophetism,” and “prophetic”), derived from a group of Greek words that, in secular Greek, mean “speak forth,” “proclaim,” “announce.” In biblical Greek, however, these terms always carry the connotation of speaking, proclaiming, or announcing something under the influence of spiritual inspiration.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Prophecy in the Old Testament<\/p>\n• Types of Old Testament Prophets<\/p>\n• The Message of the Prophets<\/p>\n• Prophecy in the New Testament<\/p>\n• The Role of the Christian Prophet<\/p>\nProphecy in the Old Testament<\/p>\nOne of the clearest and most significant statements on the nature of prophetic inspiration in the OT is found in Numbers 12:6-8: “The Lord<\/span> said to them, ‘Now listen to me! Even with prophets, I the Lord<\/span> communicate by visions and dreams. But that is not how I communicate with my servant Moses. He is entrusted with my entire house. I speak to him face to face, directly and not in riddles! He sees the Lord<\/span> as he is’ ” (nlt<\/span>). Several important insights into the nature of prophetic inspiration are found in this passage: (1) The prophetic gift of Moses was unique in that he alone received revelations directly from God. (2) Ordinarily, prophetic revelation was received through the medium of a dream or a vision. (3) The meaning of prophetic revelation is not always completely clear; prophecy is sometimes ambiguous.<\/p>\nFurther insight into the nature of prophetic revelation is found in Deuteronomy 18:18: “I [God] will raise up for them a prophet like you [Moses] from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him” (rsv<\/span>). While this passage is of interest because Jesus was identified as “the prophet like Moses” who came in fulfillment of this prediction (Acts 3:22; 7:37), the more immediate historical reference is to the succession of prophets that guided Israel from Joshua to Malachi. The phrase “I will put my words in his mouth” refers to the process of divine inspiration and is reminiscent of the common OT prophetic formula “the word of the Lord came to [such and such a prophet]” (for examples, see 1 Sm 15:10; 2 Sm 24:11; 1 Kgs 19:9; Jon 1:1; Hg 1:1; 2:1, 20; Zec 7:1, 8; 8:1). A true prophet is one who speaks (or repeats) all that God has told him.<\/p>\n<h5>Modes of Prophetic Inspiration<\/h5>\nDreams were a commonly recognized mode of inspiration throughout the ancient world, though they were more highly regarded in Greece than in ancient Israel. Revelatory dreams in the Bible fall into two major categories: (1) dreams whose meaning is self-evident, and (2) symbolic dreams that usually require the expertise of an interpreter of dreams. Both types normally involve both visual and auditory elements. In those dreams whose meaning is self-evident, normally a supernatural being (God or an angel) appears to the dreamer and speaks to him or her in a straightforward manner.<\/p>\nMore frequently, revelatory dreams have symbolic elements that require interpretation. The two great dream interpreters of the OT are Joseph and Daniel; the latter is clearly a prophet. The two symbolic dreams that Joseph himself dreamed (Gn 37:5-11) had sufficiently self-evident meaning so that his brothers and father were able to interpret them immediately. More complex were the dreams of the butler and baker (40:1-19) and of Pharaoh (41:1-36), which Joseph was able to interpret with the help of God. Similarly, Daniel was enabled to interpret the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar (Dn 2:25-45; 4:4-27). The skill in interpreting such dreams was attributed by both Joseph and Daniel to God (Gn 40:8; 41:16, 25; Dn 2:27-30; cf. 4:9). While dreams are used almost interchangeably with visions in referring to modes of prophetic inspiration (Jl 2:28), dreams do not occupy a significant part in the prophetic revelations of any of the OT prophets, with the exception of Daniel.<\/p>\nOne of the most characteristic modes of prophetic inspiration was the vision (Nm 12:6; 24:4, 16; Hos 12:10). The revelatory visions experienced by the prophets were not limited to visual phenomena alone but also included the auditory dimension as well. In Isaiah 1:1, the author describes his entire prophetic book as a “vision”: “These visions concerning Judah and Jerusalem came to Isaiah son of Amoz during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah—all kings of Judah” (nlt<\/span>). Yet in the very next verse, Isaiah says, “Hear, O heavens! Listen, O earth! This is what the Lord<\/span> says.” Again, in Amos 1:1, “The words<\/em> of Amos, who was among the shepherds of Tekoa, which he saw<\/em> concerning Israel” (rsv<\/span>, emphasis added).<\/p>\n<h5>Manifestations of Prophetic Inspiration<\/h5>\nAll prophecy, whether biblical or not, presupposes that the prophet either possessed or was possessed by a personal supernatural power. The external behavioral manifestations of this possession can exhibit great variety.<\/p>\nThe prophetic phenomenon generally designated “ecstatic” prophecy appears to have existed in Canaan prior to the arrival of the Hebrew tribes in the 13th century BC<\/span>. The first reference to ecstatic prophecy in Israel occurs in 1 Samuel 10:5-13 (11th century BC<\/span>), and it persisted at least till the sixth century BC<\/span> (Jer 29:26).<\/p>\nThe ecstatic prophet achieves a trancelike state by self-induced means. The most common devices used to achieve a state of ecstasy were musical instruments, such as the harp, tambourine, flute, and lyre (1 Sm 10:5). Among the prophets of Baal, self-flagellation was another means of inducing ecstasy (1 Kgs 18:28-29).<\/p>\nThis kind of prophetic ecstasy was usually practiced by groups of prophets (1 Sm 10:5), and such ecstasy was contagious. When Saul met a band of such prophets, the Spirit of God came upon him and he, too, began to prophesy (vv 10-13), a phenomenon that occurred repeatedly to various messengers sent by Saul on a later occasion (19:20-22). At that time Saul again prophesied, and his ecstatic behavior is described in 1 Samuel 19:24. When Elisha was asked to prophesy for King Jehoram of Israel, he first requested a minstrel. When the minstrel played, the power of the Lord came upon him (2 Kgs 3:15).<\/p>\nTypes of Old Testament Prophets<\/p>\nThere are two basic types of prophetic commission in the OT. One type is that of a narrative call by God to a particular individual whose objections to the call are gradually overcome in a dialogue between himself and God. The classic example of this type of prophetic commission is found in Jeremiah 1:4-8:<\/p>\nThe Lord<\/span> gave me a message. He said, “I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb. Before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as my spokesman to the world.”<\/p>\n<blockquote>“O Sovereign Lord<\/span>,” I said, “I can’t speak for you! I’m too young!”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>“Don’t say that,” the Lord<\/span> replied, “for you must go wherever I send you and say whatever I tell you. And don’t be afraid of the people, for I will be with you and take care of you. I, the Lord<\/span>, have spoken!” (nlt<\/span>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nSimilar prophetic commissions including such dialogues are associated with the calls of Moses (Ex 3:1–4:17) and Gideon (Jgs 6:11-17).<\/p>\nThe second major form of prophetic commission is the “throne vision.” An outstanding example is Isaiah 6:1-8:<\/p>\nIn the year King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord. He was sitting on a lofty throne, and the train of his robe filled the Temple. . . .<\/p>\n<blockquote>Then I said, “My destruction is sealed, for I am a sinful man and a member of a sinful race. Yet I have seen the King, the Lord<\/span> Almighty!”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>Then one of the seraphim flew over to the altar, and he picked up a burning coal with a pair of tongs. He touched my lips with it and said, “See, this coal has touched your lips. Now your guilt is removed, and your sins are forgiven.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>Then I heard the Lord asking, “Whom should I send as a messenger to my people? Who will go for us?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>And I said, “Lord, I’ll go! Send me.” (nlt<\/span>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nHere we have an account of the visionary presence of a prophet in the heavenly council; in this case, however, the prophet participates in the deliberations and thereby receives a prophetic commission. Though few prophets have left accounts of their divine commissions, most of them appear to have been conscious of having been “sent” by God (Is 48:16; Hos 8:1; Am 7:14-15). According to Jeremiah, false prophets did not receive such divine commissions (Jer 23:21, 32; 28:15).<\/p>\nThe Message of the Prophets<\/p>\n<h5>The Form of the Message<\/h5>\nThe most common introductory formula for prophetic oracles in the OT is the phrase “Thus says the Lord,” which occurs hundreds of times in prophetic contexts. This formula clearly implies that the pronouncement so introduced is not the word of the prophet who utters the oracle but of the God of Israel who delivered his word to his prophet. The use of this formula also reiterates the prophet’s sense of divine commission. In oracles introduced in this manner, God speaks in the first person. In fact, virtually all Israelite prophetic utterance is formulated as the direct speech of the God of Israel.<\/p>\nThe prophets used many literary forms in which to express their oracles. Two of the more widely used forms of prophetic speech are the judgment speech and the oracle of salvation. The judgment speech is composed of at least two central elements: the speech of rebuke or invective, and the pronouncement of judgment (see 2 Kgs 1:3-4). The second common prophetic speech form is the oracle of salvation (see Is 41:8-13). Other fixed forms of prophetic speech include the prophecy of salvation (43:14-21), the proclamation of salvation (41:17-20; 42:14-17; 43:16-21; 49:7-12), and the woe oracle (Is 5:8-10; 10:1-4; Am 5:18-24; 6:1-7; Mi 2:1-5).<\/p>\n<h5>The Content of the Message<\/h5>\nThe common adage that OT prophets were not “foretellers” but “forthtellers” is not strictly correct. All of the prophets predict the future. Such prediction, however, is based not on human curiosity of what the future will hold but rather is rooted in the future consequences of past or present violations of the covenant, or on a future act of deliverance that will provide hope for a discouraged people. Most of the prophetic speeches that have been preserved in the OT were originally delivered as public proclamations or sermons. Most of these prophetic proclamations were evoked by the iniquity and apostasy of Israel. Hosea and Jeremiah condemned Israel because she had broken the covenant (Jer 11:2-3; Hos 8:1).<\/p>\nThe prophets are frequently associated with social justice and social reform, and these elements were unquestionably an important dimension of their message. Amos denounced the rich who afflicted the poor (Am 2:6-8; 4:1; 5:11; 8:4-6). He railed against sexual immorality (2:6-8) and against those who take bribes (5:12). Hosea provided a list of prevalent vices, including lying, killing, stealing, adultery, and idolatry (Hos 4:2). Idolatry was a particular target for his denunciations (8:5; 11:2). The background for such heated denunciations of Israel’s behavior is God’s unquenchable love for Israel (Is 43:4; Jer 31:3; Hos 3:1; 11:1-4; 14:4; Mal 1:2), which is inseparable from his election of Israel (Is 43:1; Jer 33:24; Ez 20:5; Hos 3).<\/p>\nThe prophets were concerned not only with the transgressions of Israel and the historical judgment that would inevitably follow but also with the achievement of a final future time of bliss. The message of many of the prophets is thoroughly eschatological (i.e., pertaining to the end times). One such eschatological concept is that of the Day of the Lord. The concept of the Day of the Lord first appears in Amos, where the emphasis lies on the disaster that will befall Israel on that day. Amos’s emphasis on disaster notwithstanding, the Day of the Lord is a conception that had both salvific as well as judgmental overtones for Israel. While the disaster that will occur in the Day of the Lord can be viewed in terms of a literal historical fulfillment in the tragic events of 722 BC<\/span> (the fall of Samaria) and 586 BC<\/span> (the fall of Judah), there are nevertheless features of these predictions that transcend historical fulfillment and reach toward eschatological fulfillment.<\/p>\nSince the Israelite conception of “salvation” was largely temporal in its dimensions, it included such blessings as length of life, fruitfulness of the womb and field, peace and victory over one’s enemies, the abundance of water, and so on. In harmony with this conception of salvation, the future age is conceived in precisely those terms, as in Amos 9:13-15.<\/p>\nThe prophets pictured a time when David himself, or someone very much like him, would return and inaugurate a golden era reminiscent of the great Davidic and Solomonic period. The covenant of God with David was not a conditional covenant but rather one that was absolutely inviolable (2 Sm 7:4-17; Ps 89; Jer 33:19-22), and it was with this knowledge that the prophets could look forward confidently to a restoration of David’s throne (Jer 17:24-26; 23:5-6; 33:14-15).<\/p>\n\nProphecy in the New Testament<\/p>\nIn contrast to the few self-proclaimed prophets of the intertestamental period, early Christianity began with a flurry of prophetic activity that lasted well into the second century AD<\/span>. Jesus, his disciples and followers, and the early Christians were convinced that the times in which they lived were times in which OT prophecy was being fulfilled (Mk 1:14-15; Acts 2:16-21; Rom 16:25-27; 1 Cor 10:11). Yet this era was not only one of fulfillment but also one of the renewal of the prophetic gift.<\/p>\n<h5>John the Baptist<\/h5>\nJohn the Baptist is remembered in the NT primarily as the forerunner of Jesus whose coming was predicted by Malachi (Mal 4:5-6). Yet, in his own right, John proclaimed the imminent judgment of God with a flair of denunciation and rebuke reminiscent of the OT prophets. John’s costume, consisting of a hairy cloak and a leather girdle (Mk 1:6), was reminiscent of the typical garb of OT prophets (1 Kgs 19:19; 2 Kgs 1:8; 2:13-14; Zec 13:4). John was regarded as a prophet by people everywhere (Mt 14:5; 17:10-13; Mk 9:11-13; 11:32; Lk 1:76; 7:26). Luke reports, in a style similar to the OT prophetic narratives, that “the word of God came to John” (Lk 3:2). Two short prophetic speeches have been preserved in Matthew 3:7-10 (cf. Lk 3:7-9) and Mark 1:7-8 (cf. Mt 3:11-12; Lk 3:15-18). In the first speech, John denounced those of his generation who had transgressed the covenant law and exhorted them to change their manner of life. In the second speech, John predicted the coming of the Mighty One, Jesus (Mt 3:11; Mk 1:7; Lk 3:16; Jn 1:15, 27, 30; Acts 13:25). John’s style, however, was not precisely that of the OT prophets. His pronouncements were made on his own authority; never did he use formulas such as “thus says the Lord,” or present his prophetic utterances as if they were speeches made by God. Yet, in spite of these differences, John is appropriately regarded as the last representative of the OT prophetic tradition (Mt 11:13; Lk 16:16).<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus of Nazareth<\/h5>\nJesus was popularly regarded as a prophet (Mt 16:14; 21:10-11; Mk 6:14-15; 8:28; Lk 7:16, 39; 9:8, 19; Jn 6:14; 7:40, 52). This assessment was based as much on the mighty deeds Jesus performed as on his prophetic speeches and predictions. Though Jesus nowhere claimed prophetic status directly, that claim is implicit in Mark 6:4: “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown” (cf. Mt 13:57; Lk 4:24). It is implicit as well in Luke 13:33: “Yes, today, tomorrow, and the next day I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be killed except in Jerusalem!” (nlt<\/span>). In Acts, Jesus is regarded as “the prophet like Moses” predicted in Deuteronomy 18:18 (Acts 3:22; 7:37). Matthew presents Jesus as the New Moses, but he does not particularly emphasize his prophetic role. John, however, like Luke, emphasizes Jesus’ role as the prophet (Jn 4:19; 6:14-15; 7:40).<\/p>\nWhile the Gospels and Acts reflect the notion that Jesus was a prophet, they also emphasize the fact that he was much more than a prophet. Nevertheless, the notion of prophetism was sufficiently important in early Judaism that Jesus’ recognition as a prophet is very significant. There are 12 solid reasons for regarding Jesus as a prophet in the OT tradition: (1) The sovereign authority of Jesus’ teaching (Mk 1:27), a feature underlined by his use of the introductory formula “(Amen) I say to you,” which is reminiscent of the formula “thus says the Lord” used by the OT prophets. (2) The poetic character of many of Jesus’ sayings is unlike contemporary rabbinic teaching but is similar to the poetic rhetoric of the OT prophets. (3) Jesus experienced visions (Lk 10:18) like the ancient prophets. (4) Jesus, like the prophets, made many predictions (Mt 23:38; Mk 13:2; 14:58; Lk 13:35; etc.). (5) Like the OT prophets, Jesus performed symbolic acts (such as the cleansing of the temple, the entry into Jerusalem, and the Last Supper). (6) Jesus, like the prophets, when necessary, rejected the formal observance of religious ritual and emphasized the moral and spiritual dimensions of obedience to God. (7) Jesus announced the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God—an eschatological proclamation similar to those made by the prophets. (8) Like the OT prophets, Jesus functioned as a preacher of repentance. (9) Jesus, like many of the prophets, was conscious of a special calling of God (Mt 15:24; Mk 8:31; 9:37; 14:36; Lk 4:18-26). (10) Jesus, like the prophets, received divine revelation through intimate communion with God (Mt 11:27; Lk 10:22). (11) Like the prophets, Jesus represented God; to obey him was to obey God, to reject him was to reject God (Mk 9:37; cf. Ez 33:30-33). (12) Like the prophets, Jesus was conscious of a mission to all Israel (Mt 15:24; 19:28; Lk 22:30).<\/p>\nAmong the many prophetic predictions of Jesus are the following:<\/p>\n1. Predictions of the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God (Mt 10:7-8, 23; 23:39; Mk 1:15; 9:1; 13:28-29)<\/p>\n<li>2. Predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (Mt 23:37-39; 24:2; 26:61; 27:40; Mk 13:2; 14:58; 15:29; Lk 13:34-35; 21:6; Jn 2:19-21)<\/li>\n<li>3. Predictions of the coming of the Son of Man (Mt 10:23, 32-33; 12:40; 13:40-41; 16:27; 24:27, 37-39; Mk 8:38; 13:26-27; 14:62; Lk 9:26; 11:30; 12:8-9; 17:24, 26)<\/li>\n<li>4. Predictions of the end of the age. The longest prophetic section in the Gospels is the eschatological discourse of Jesus in Mark 13:1-32 (cf. Mt 24:1-36; Lk 21:5-33), in which a number of predictions concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the age are woven into a lengthy discourse to the disciples.<\/li>\n<h5>Prophecy as a Gift for the Believers<\/h5>\nThe beginning of prophetic activity in early Christianity, according to Acts, coincided with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the earliest Christians on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-21). Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost indicates that the outpouring of the Spirit fulfilled Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:4, 17-21; cf. Jl 2:28-32). Further, since the Spirit had been poured out upon all early Christians (that Spirit being a Spirit of prophecy), all are actual or potential prophets.<\/p>\nAccording to 1 Corinthians 12:28 (see also Rom 12:6; Eph 4:11), God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, and third teachers. The names of several early Christian prophets have been preserved. These include Agabus (Acts 11:27-28; 21:10-11); Judas and Silas (15:32); Barnabas, Simeon Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, and Paul (13:1); and the four virgin daughters of Philip the evangelist (21:8-9). John, the author of Revelation, was certainly a prophet (Rv 1:3; 22:9, 18), though he never directly assumed that title.<\/p>\nThe Role of the Christian Prophet<\/p>\nChristian prophets were leaders in early Christian communities (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11), who exercised their gift in church gatherings (Acts 13:1-3; 11:27-28; 1 Cor 12–14; Rv 1:10). Since the Spirit of God was particularly active in Christian worship, prophecy was a major means whereby God communicated with his people. Prophets, like apostles and teachers, did not hold offices in local communities like bishops, elders, and deacons. Rather, they were chosen, not by individual congregations, but by divine commission and so were honored and accepted in all local communities.<\/p>\nEarly Christian prophets were both itinerant and settled, though itinerant prophets seem to have been more prevalent in Syria-Palestine and Asia Minor than in the European churches.<\/p>\n<h5>The Function of Prophecy<\/h5>\nAccording to Paul, the central purpose of prophecy (as of all other spiritual gifts) is that of building up or edifying the church. According to 1 Corinthians 14:3, “one who prophesies is helping others grow in the Lord, encouraging and comforting them” (nlt<\/span>). Again, in 1 Corinthians 14:4, Paul states that the “one who speaks a word of prophecy strengthens the entire church.” Paul discussed the subject of spiritual gifts, particularly tongues speaking and prophecy, because the Corinthians had placed an excessive emphasis on speaking in tongues. Paul did not object to speaking in tongues (1 Cor 14:18, 39), but he did point out that, since it was generally incomprehensible, the church could not be edified by it. Prophecy, which consisted of comprehensible speech inspired by the Spirit, contributed to the mutual edification, encouragement, and consolation of all present (1 Cor 14:20-25, 39).<\/p>\n<h5>The Content of Christian Prophecy<\/h5>\nWe know only a little about the content of prophecies uttered in the first-century church. Prophetic utterance occasionally provided divine guidance in making important decisions in early Christianity. Through a prophetic utterance, Paul and Barnabas were selected for a particular mission (Acts 13:1-3; cf. 1 Tm 1:18; 4:14). Probably through prophetic utterance, Paul and Timothy were forbidden to preach the gospel in Asia (Acts 16:6), and they were similarly forbidden by the Spirit of Jesus to go into Bithynia (v 7). Perhaps the most frequent use of prophecy is the prediction of the future. Agabus predicted a universal famine (11:28) and the imminent arrest of Paul (21:11). Other prophets had also predicted his impending imprisonment (20:23). The prophecies contained in the Revelation of John are all oriented toward the future events that will gradually unfold in the last days. Yet the purpose of John’s elaborate prophecy is not to satisfy the curiosity of his audience but rather to comfort and encourage them in the midst of persecution.<\/p>\n<h5>The Form of Christian Prophecy<\/h5>\nUnlike the prophets of the OT, Christian prophets did not always present their message in the form of a direct speech from God or Jesus. There are few, if any, formal indicators of the presence of prophetic speech in early Christian literature. The book of Revelation is one notable exception.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Dreams; Oracle; Promise; Prophet, Prophetess; Prophets, False; Visions.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PROPHECY Term, along with its English cognates (“prophet,” “to prophesy,” “prophetism,” and “prophetic”), derived from a group of Greek words that, in secular Greek, mean “speak forth,” “proclaim,” “announce.” In biblical Greek, however, these terms always carry the connotation of speaking, proclaiming, or announcing something under the influence of spiritual inspiration. Preview • Prophecy in the Old Testament • Types of Old Testament Prophets • The Message of the Prophets • Prophecy in the ...","summary_en":"PROPHECY Term, along with its English cognates (“prophet,” “to prophesy,” “prophetism,” and “prophetic”), derived from a group of Greek words that, in secular Greek, mean “speak forth,” “proclaim,” “announce.” In biblical Greek, however, these terms always carry the connotation of speaking, proclaiming, or announcing something under the influence of spiritual inspiration. Preview • Prophecy in the Old Testament • Types of Old Testament Prophets • The Message of the Prophets • Prophecy in the ...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":33899,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Sanhedrin*","title_en":"Sanhedrin*","content_ro":"<h3>SANHEDRIN*<\/h3>\nSupreme judicial council (nlt<\/span> “high council”) of Judaism with 71 members, located in Jerusalem. It figures prominently in the Passion narratives of the Gospels as the body that tried Jesus, and it appears again in Acts as the judicial court that investigated and persecuted the growing Christian church.<\/p>\nHistory<\/p>\nThe history of the Sanhedrin is difficult to reconstruct. Jewish tradition recorded in the Mishnah views it as originating with Moses and his council of 70, but this is doubtful (Mishnah tractate Sanhedrin<\/em> 1:6; cf. Nm 11:16). These were probably informal gatherings of tribal elders (1 Kgs 8:1; 2 Kgs 23:1). The likely origin of the Sanhedrin is to be found in the postexilic period, when those who reorganized Israel without a king made the ancient ruling families the basis of authority. The legislative assembly that emerged was a union of the nobility of the land and the priestly aristocracy (see Ezr 5:5; Neh 2:16). The influence of this council increased due to the relative freedom enjoyed under the Persians.<\/p>\nThe advent of Hellenism in Israel in the fourth century BC<\/span> affirmed this government. Hellenistic cities commonly possessed democratic assemblies and a council. Jerusalem hosted an aristocratic council that was given its appropriate Greek title, Gerousia<\/span>.<\/em> This council is first noted by Josephus, who records the decree of Antiochus III after his seizure of Jerusalem (Antiquities<\/em> 12.3.3). Yet even though the political climate shifted drastically, the council still remained in force. Judas Maccabeus expelled the old line of elders and installed another hereditary rulership stemming from the Hasmonean families. Thus the Gerousia continued as a council of the nobility. But in the first century BC<\/span>, as the tensions between Sadducees and Pharisees were pulling apart the fabric of Judaism, the council underwent a transformation. From the time of Alexandra (76–67 BC<\/span>), scribes of Pharisee persuasion entered the council. Thereafter, the Gerousia was a mixture: aristocratic nobility on the one hand (both lay and priestly) and the popular Pharisees on the other.<\/p>\nThe Romans left the council intact but more carefully defined the limits of its jurisdiction. As Judaism lost its self-government, the council lost much legislative and political power. Rome appointed the true powers of the land. For instance, Herod the Great began his rule in severe conflict with the old aristocracy, and in the end executed most of the Sanhedrin members (Antiquities<\/em> 14.9.4). The prefects appointed the high priests and, as a symbol of control, from AD<\/span> 6 to 36 they kept the priests’ vestments in the Antonia fortress.<\/p>\nThe name Sanhedrin (Greek, sunedrion<\/span>,<\/em> from sun<\/span>,<\/em> “together,” and hedra<\/span>,<\/em> “seat”) occurs for the first time in the reign of Herod the Great (Antiquities<\/em> 14.9.3-5). This is the term used throughout the NT (22 times), along with “the elders” (Lk 22:66; Acts 22:5) and “gerousia” (Acts 5:21). The Mishnah provides still more titles: The Great Tribunal (Sanhedrin<\/em> 11:2), the Great Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin<\/em> 1:6), and the Sanhedrin of the 71 (Shebuoth<\/em> 2:2).<\/p>\nAfter the great war of AD<\/span> 70, when the final vestiges of Jewish autonomy were destroyed by Rome, the Sanhedrin reconvened in Jamnia. Its power, however, was only theoretical (addressing religious issues primarily), and the Romans gave it little consideration.<\/p>\nCharacter<\/p>\nLittle is known about the procedure for admission into the Sanhedrin, but because the council had aristocratic roots (and was not truly democratic), appointments were probably made from among the priests, leading scribes, and lay nobility. The Mishnah stipulates that the sole test of membership was rabbinic learning along with true Israelite descent (Sanhedrin<\/em> 4:4). The council had 71 members (Sanhedrin<\/em> 1:6) divided into the following three categories: the high priests, the elders, and the scribes.<\/p>\n<h5>The High Priests<\/h5>\nUsually from Sadducean backgrounds, these were the most powerful men of the Sanhedrin. Some scholars believe that they comprised an executive council of ten wealthy and distinguished citizens, on the pattern of several Greek and Roman cities. Tiberias in Galilee, for instance, was ruled by such a board, and Josephus refers to them as a body of “the ten foremost men” (Antiquities<\/em> 20.8.11; cf. Acts 4:6). One was the captain of the temple, who supervised temple proceedings and was commander of the temple guard (Acts 5:24-26). Others served as treasurers who controlled the wages of priests and workers and monitored the vast amount of money coming through the temple. Income came from sacrifices and market taxes; the payroll included as many as 18,000 men during Herod’s reconstruction of the temple. There was a president of the Sanhedrin who also headed this council and was called “the high priest” (Antiquities<\/em> 20.10.5). In the NT he is a leading figure: Caiaphas ruled in Jesus’ day (Mt 26:3), and Ananias in Paul’s day (Acts 23:2). In Luke 3:2 and Acts 4:6, Annas is termed a high priest, but his title is emeritus, since his reign ended in AD<\/span> 15.<\/p>\n<h5>The Elders<\/h5>\nThis was a major category and represented the priestly and financial aristocracy in Judea. Distinguished laymen, such as Joseph of Arimathea (Mk 15:43), shared the conservative views of the Sadducees and gave the assembly the diversity of a modern parliament.<\/p>\n<h5>The Scribes<\/h5>\nThese were the most recent members of the Sanhedrin. Mostly Pharisees, they were professional lawyers trained in theology, jurisprudence, and philosophy. They were organized in guilds and often followed celebrated teachers. One famous Sanhedrin scribe, Gamaliel, appears in the NT (Acts 5:34) and was the rabbinic scholar who instructed Paul (22:3).<\/p>\n<h5>In Jesus’ Day<\/h5>\nThe domain of the Sanhedrin was formally restricted to Judea, but there was a de facto influence that affected Galilee and even Damascus (cf. Acts 9:2; 22:5). The council was chiefly concerned to arbitrate matters of Jewish law when disagreements arose (Sanhedrin<\/em> 11:2). In all cases, its decision was final. It prosecuted charges of blasphemy, as in the cases of Jesus (Mt 26:65) and Stephen (Acts 6:12-14), and participated in criminal justice as well.<\/p>\nIt is still not known if the Sanhedrin had the power of capital punishment. Philo seems to indicate that violations to the temple could be prosecuted in the Roman period (Legatio to Gaius,<\/em> 39). This may explain the deaths of Stephen (Acts 7:58-60) and James (Antiquities<\/em> 20.9.1). At any rate, Gentiles caught trespassing in the temple precincts were warned about an automatic death penalty. But the NT and the Talmud disagree with this. In the trial of Jesus, the authorities are compelled to involve Pilate who alone can put Jesus to death (Jn 18:31). According to the Talmud, the Sanhedrin lost this privilege “forty years before the destruction of the temple” (Sanhedrin<\/em> I 18a, 34; VII 24b).<\/p>\nJudicial Procedure<\/p>\nDespite the serious irregularities of Jesus’ trial, the formal procedures of Sanhedrin law describe a court that was fair and exceedingly concerned about the miscarriage of justice. Unfortunately, the procedural notes in the Mishnah only address guidelines for lesser courts (Sanhedrins with 23 members), but it can be reasonably conjectured that similar rules applied to the Great Sanhedrin of 71. In sections four and five of the Mishnah tractate Sanhedrin,<\/em> these guidelines are carefully set forth.<\/p>\nThe Sanhedrin sat in semicircular rows so that members could view one another. Two clerks sat at either end, taking notes and recording votes. Facing the assembly sat three rows of students, who were usually disciples of leading scribes. The accused stood in the middle facing the elders. He was required to show abject humility: he was dressed in a black robe as if in mourning and wore his hair disheveled (Antiquities<\/em> 14.9.4). After questioning, he was dismissed and deliberations were private.<\/p>\nThe procedures for capital cases illustrate the concern for fairness. The defense would be heard first and then the accusations. An elder who had spoken for the defense could not then speak against the accused. Students could speak only for but never against the accused (but in noncapital cases they could do either). Members stood to vote, beginning with the youngest. Acquittal required a simple majority, but condemnation demanded a majority of two.<\/p>\nIn noncapital cases, the trial was heard during the daytime and the verdict could be given at night. In capital cases, both trial and verdict were during the day and thus open to more public scrutiny. In noncapital cases, any verdict could be reached the same day. In capital cases, the verdict of guilt (which was immediately followed by execution) had to be postponed one day because its consequences were irreversible. Hence, these trials were not to be held on the eve of the Sabbath or a festival day (Sanhedrin<\/em> 4:1).<\/p>\nThe trial of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels shows many departures from the usual pattern of Sanhedrin justice. It seems clear that a miscarriage of justice was evidenced in Jesus’ arrest, interrogation, and death.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Courts and Trials; Jerusalem Council.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SANHEDRIN*<\/h3>\nSupreme judicial council (nlt<\/span> “high council”) of Judaism with 71 members, located in Jerusalem. It figures prominently in the Passion narratives of the Gospels as the body that tried Jesus, and it appears again in Acts as the judicial court that investigated and persecuted the growing Christian church.<\/p>\nHistory<\/p>\nThe history of the Sanhedrin is difficult to reconstruct. Jewish tradition recorded in the Mishnah views it as originating with Moses and his council of 70, but this is doubtful (Mishnah tractate Sanhedrin<\/em> 1:6; cf. Nm 11:16). These were probably informal gatherings of tribal elders (1 Kgs 8:1; 2 Kgs 23:1). The likely origin of the Sanhedrin is to be found in the postexilic period, when those who reorganized Israel without a king made the ancient ruling families the basis of authority. The legislative assembly that emerged was a union of the nobility of the land and the priestly aristocracy (see Ezr 5:5; Neh 2:16). The influence of this council increased due to the relative freedom enjoyed under the Persians.<\/p>\nThe advent of Hellenism in Israel in the fourth century BC<\/span> affirmed this government. Hellenistic cities commonly possessed democratic assemblies and a council. Jerusalem hosted an aristocratic council that was given its appropriate Greek title, Gerousia<\/span>.<\/em> This council is first noted by Josephus, who records the decree of Antiochus III after his seizure of Jerusalem (Antiquities<\/em> 12.3.3). Yet even though the political climate shifted drastically, the council still remained in force. Judas Maccabeus expelled the old line of elders and installed another hereditary rulership stemming from the Hasmonean families. Thus the Gerousia continued as a council of the nobility. But in the first century BC<\/span>, as the tensions between Sadducees and Pharisees were pulling apart the fabric of Judaism, the council underwent a transformation. From the time of Alexandra (76–67 BC<\/span>), scribes of Pharisee persuasion entered the council. Thereafter, the Gerousia was a mixture: aristocratic nobility on the one hand (both lay and priestly) and the popular Pharisees on the other.<\/p>\nThe Romans left the council intact but more carefully defined the limits of its jurisdiction. As Judaism lost its self-government, the council lost much legislative and political power. Rome appointed the true powers of the land. For instance, Herod the Great began his rule in severe conflict with the old aristocracy, and in the end executed most of the Sanhedrin members (Antiquities<\/em> 14.9.4). The prefects appointed the high priests and, as a symbol of control, from AD<\/span> 6 to 36 they kept the priests’ vestments in the Antonia fortress.<\/p>\nThe name Sanhedrin (Greek, sunedrion<\/span>,<\/em> from sun<\/span>,<\/em> “together,” and hedra<\/span>,<\/em> “seat”) occurs for the first time in the reign of Herod the Great (Antiquities<\/em> 14.9.3-5). This is the term used throughout the NT (22 times), along with “the elders” (Lk 22:66; Acts 22:5) and “gerousia” (Acts 5:21). The Mishnah provides still more titles: The Great Tribunal (Sanhedrin<\/em> 11:2), the Great Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin<\/em> 1:6), and the Sanhedrin of the 71 (Shebuoth<\/em> 2:2).<\/p>\nAfter the great war of AD<\/span> 70, when the final vestiges of Jewish autonomy were destroyed by Rome, the Sanhedrin reconvened in Jamnia. Its power, however, was only theoretical (addressing religious issues primarily), and the Romans gave it little consideration.<\/p>\nCharacter<\/p>\nLittle is known about the procedure for admission into the Sanhedrin, but because the council had aristocratic roots (and was not truly democratic), appointments were probably made from among the priests, leading scribes, and lay nobility. The Mishnah stipulates that the sole test of membership was rabbinic learning along with true Israelite descent (Sanhedrin<\/em> 4:4). The council had 71 members (Sanhedrin<\/em> 1:6) divided into the following three categories: the high priests, the elders, and the scribes.<\/p>\n<h5>The High Priests<\/h5>\nUsually from Sadducean backgrounds, these were the most powerful men of the Sanhedrin. Some scholars believe that they comprised an executive council of ten wealthy and distinguished citizens, on the pattern of several Greek and Roman cities. Tiberias in Galilee, for instance, was ruled by such a board, and Josephus refers to them as a body of “the ten foremost men” (Antiquities<\/em> 20.8.11; cf. Acts 4:6). One was the captain of the temple, who supervised temple proceedings and was commander of the temple guard (Acts 5:24-26). Others served as treasurers who controlled the wages of priests and workers and monitored the vast amount of money coming through the temple. Income came from sacrifices and market taxes; the payroll included as many as 18,000 men during Herod’s reconstruction of the temple. There was a president of the Sanhedrin who also headed this council and was called “the high priest” (Antiquities<\/em> 20.10.5). In the NT he is a leading figure: Caiaphas ruled in Jesus’ day (Mt 26:3), and Ananias in Paul’s day (Acts 23:2). In Luke 3:2 and Acts 4:6, Annas is termed a high priest, but his title is emeritus, since his reign ended in AD<\/span> 15.<\/p>\n<h5>The Elders<\/h5>\nThis was a major category and represented the priestly and financial aristocracy in Judea. Distinguished laymen, such as Joseph of Arimathea (Mk 15:43), shared the conservative views of the Sadducees and gave the assembly the diversity of a modern parliament.<\/p>\n<h5>The Scribes<\/h5>\nThese were the most recent members of the Sanhedrin. Mostly Pharisees, they were professional lawyers trained in theology, jurisprudence, and philosophy. They were organized in guilds and often followed celebrated teachers. One famous Sanhedrin scribe, Gamaliel, appears in the NT (Acts 5:34) and was the rabbinic scholar who instructed Paul (22:3).<\/p>\n<h5>In Jesus’ Day<\/h5>\nThe domain of the Sanhedrin was formally restricted to Judea, but there was a de facto influence that affected Galilee and even Damascus (cf. Acts 9:2; 22:5). The council was chiefly concerned to arbitrate matters of Jewish law when disagreements arose (Sanhedrin<\/em> 11:2). In all cases, its decision was final. It prosecuted charges of blasphemy, as in the cases of Jesus (Mt 26:65) and Stephen (Acts 6:12-14), and participated in criminal justice as well.<\/p>\nIt is still not known if the Sanhedrin had the power of capital punishment. Philo seems to indicate that violations to the temple could be prosecuted in the Roman period (Legatio to Gaius,<\/em> 39). This may explain the deaths of Stephen (Acts 7:58-60) and James (Antiquities<\/em> 20.9.1). At any rate, Gentiles caught trespassing in the temple precincts were warned about an automatic death penalty. But the NT and the Talmud disagree with this. In the trial of Jesus, the authorities are compelled to involve Pilate who alone can put Jesus to death (Jn 18:31). According to the Talmud, the Sanhedrin lost this privilege “forty years before the destruction of the temple” (Sanhedrin<\/em> I 18a, 34; VII 24b).<\/p>\nJudicial Procedure<\/p>\nDespite the serious irregularities of Jesus’ trial, the formal procedures of Sanhedrin law describe a court that was fair and exceedingly concerned about the miscarriage of justice. Unfortunately, the procedural notes in the Mishnah only address guidelines for lesser courts (Sanhedrins with 23 members), but it can be reasonably conjectured that similar rules applied to the Great Sanhedrin of 71. In sections four and five of the Mishnah tractate Sanhedrin,<\/em> these guidelines are carefully set forth.<\/p>\nThe Sanhedrin sat in semicircular rows so that members could view one another. Two clerks sat at either end, taking notes and recording votes. Facing the assembly sat three rows of students, who were usually disciples of leading scribes. The accused stood in the middle facing the elders. He was required to show abject humility: he was dressed in a black robe as if in mourning and wore his hair disheveled (Antiquities<\/em> 14.9.4). After questioning, he was dismissed and deliberations were private.<\/p>\nThe procedures for capital cases illustrate the concern for fairness. The defense would be heard first and then the accusations. An elder who had spoken for the defense could not then speak against the accused. Students could speak only for but never against the accused (but in noncapital cases they could do either). Members stood to vote, beginning with the youngest. Acquittal required a simple majority, but condemnation demanded a majority of two.<\/p>\nIn noncapital cases, the trial was heard during the daytime and the verdict could be given at night. In capital cases, both trial and verdict were during the day and thus open to more public scrutiny. In noncapital cases, any verdict could be reached the same day. In capital cases, the verdict of guilt (which was immediately followed by execution) had to be postponed one day because its consequences were irreversible. Hence, these trials were not to be held on the eve of the Sabbath or a festival day (Sanhedrin<\/em> 4:1).<\/p>\nThe trial of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels shows many departures from the usual pattern of Sanhedrin justice. It seems clear that a miscarriage of justice was evidenced in Jesus’ arrest, interrogation, and death.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Courts and Trials; Jerusalem Council.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SANHEDRIN* Supreme judicial council (nlt “high council”) of Judaism with 71 members, located in Jerusalem. It figures prominently in the Passion narratives of the Gospels as the body that tried Jesus, and it appears again in Acts as the judicial court that investigated and persecuted the growing Christian church. History The history of the Sanhedrin is difficult to reconstruct. Jewish tradition recorded in the Mishnah views it as originating with Moses and his council of 70, but this is doubt...","summary_en":"SANHEDRIN* Supreme judicial council (nlt “high council”) of Judaism with 71 members, located in Jerusalem. It figures prominently in the Passion narratives of the Gospels as the body that tried Jesus, and it appears again in Acts as the judicial court that investigated and persecuted the growing Christian church. History The history of the Sanhedrin is difficult to reconstruct. Jewish tradition recorded in the Mishnah views it as originating with Moses and his council of 70, but this is doubt...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38588,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Word, Word of God, Words of God","title_en":"Word, Word of God, Words of God","content_ro":"<h3>WORD, WORD OF GOD, WORDS OF GOD<\/h3>\nA “word” is an expression that communicates. On the level of human communication, “words “usually refer to verbal expression. When God “spoke” over the centuries, though, he communicated in various ways (Heb 1:1), culminating in that epitome of all divine expression, Jesus Christ, his Son.<\/p>\nThe Importance of Words<\/p>\nIn a mainly nonliterary society the dependability of the spoken word was all-important in law, trade, religion, marriage, and reputation. Receipts, agreements, and records had little usefulness. Personal integrity and sincere speech were essential to communication and, for most people, to self-expression and stable relationships. The words of poets, prophets, storytellers, and instructors were carefully preserved.<\/p>\nWords were diligently tested. Foolish words, flattery, deceit, words of enticement, lies, rumor, scandal, and blasphemous speech were all recognized as evil. The oath had to be inviolable in commercial, judicial, and civic affairs. The spoken blessing had power within itself and could not be withdrawn (Gn 27:30-38; Mt 10:12-13); so also the vow (Jgs 11:34-35) and the curse (Gn 27:12-13). Equally powerful was the word of command—of priestly, judicial, or royal authority (Eccl 8:4).<\/p>\nThis estimate of human words lingers in the NT. The word reveals the inner self, and so every careless, hurtful, deceitful word will be judged (Mt 12:34-37; 5:22), as will blasphemy (Lk 12:10). Paul (Eph 4:29; 5:4) and James (Jas 3:1-12) preserve this Hebrew reverence for the spoken word.<\/p>\nThe Words of God<\/p>\nGod’s spoken word has been preserved in Scripture. His word came to and through the prophets (1 Kgs 12:22; 1 Chr 17:3; cf. Lk 3:2), who spoke and acted “by the word of the Lord.” His word also came in the law, which God “spoke” on Sinai (Ex 20:1); hence, “statutes,” “commandments,” and “precepts” are synonyms for God’s “word” (e.g., Ps 119).<\/p>\nPeriods when no such divine communication came constituted “famine” (1 Sm 3:1; Am 8:11). Mingled with warnings and injunctions were divine promises. All God’s words were dependable (Is 31:2), firmly fixed in heaven (Ps 119:89; Is 40:8), and backed up by divine oath (Jer 1:12; Ps 110:4; Ez 12:25, 28). A word, expressing the divine mind, was not threatening or burdensome; it was a delight, hope, joy, and protection against sin (Pss 1; 119; Jer 15:16). Men can live by it (Dt 8:3; Mt 4:4).<\/p>\nGod’s word has power to execute his will. It will not return to him “empty” but accomplish that which he purposes (Is 55:11). By his speech alone, God created the world, and his word upholds it (Gn 1; Ps 33:6; cf. Heb 1:2; 11:3; 2 Pt 3:5). Eventually, this divine revelation was put into writing, which makes the Bible also “the word of God” (Mk 7:13; cf. Lk 16:29-31; Jn 5:39).<\/p>\nJesus spoke the word of God. He was “mighty in word” (Lk 24:19); he taught with authority (Mk 1:22, 27), exercising power over the sea, disease, demons, and death (Mt 8:8, 13). His “word of the kingdom” is the living seed, which, planted in the good soil of receptive hearts, bears fruit for God (Mt 13:19; Mk 4:14). The word that Christ gives to his disciples cleanses them and frees them (Jn 8:31; 12:48; 15:3; 17:14). The word of faith the church preaches (Rom 10:8-9, 17) is variously described as the word of salvation, the word of grace, the word of reconciliation, the word of the gospel, the word of righteousness, and the word of life.<\/p>\n\nThe Word of God<\/p>\nDeliberately recalling Genesis 1, the Gospel writer, John, named the Son of God “the Word.” As the Word, the Son of God fully conveys and communicates God. The Greek term is logos<\/span>;<\/em> it was used in two ways by the Greeks. The word might be thought of as remaining within a person, when it denoted his thought or reason. Or it might refer to the word going forth from a person, when it denoted the expression of his thought, i.e., speech. As a philosophical term, the logos<\/span> denoted the principle of the universe, even the creative energy that generated the universe. In both the Jewish conception and the Greek, the logos<\/span> was associated with the idea of beginnings—the world began through the origination and instrumentality of the Word (Gn 1:3ff., where the expression “God said” is used again and again). John may have had these ideas in mind, but most likely he originated a new term to identify the Son of God as the divine expression in human form (Jn 1:14). He is the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15), the express image of God’s substance (Heb 1:3). In the Godhead, the Son functions as the revealer of God and the reality of God, which is a central theme throughout John’s Gospel. John used a similar title in his first epistle: “the Word of life” (1 Jn 1:1-3). And in Revelation 19:11-16, Jesus is presented as the King of kings and Lord of lords, who has a name on him: “the Word of God.”<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Bible; John, Gospel of; Logos; Revelation.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WORD, WORD OF GOD, WORDS OF GOD<\/h3>\nA “word” is an expression that communicates. On the level of human communication, “words “usually refer to verbal expression. When God “spoke” over the centuries, though, he communicated in various ways (Heb 1:1), culminating in that epitome of all divine expression, Jesus Christ, his Son.<\/p>\nThe Importance of Words<\/p>\nIn a mainly nonliterary society the dependability of the spoken word was all-important in law, trade, religion, marriage, and reputation. Receipts, agreements, and records had little usefulness. Personal integrity and sincere speech were essential to communication and, for most people, to self-expression and stable relationships. The words of poets, prophets, storytellers, and instructors were carefully preserved.<\/p>\nWords were diligently tested. Foolish words, flattery, deceit, words of enticement, lies, rumor, scandal, and blasphemous speech were all recognized as evil. The oath had to be inviolable in commercial, judicial, and civic affairs. The spoken blessing had power within itself and could not be withdrawn (Gn 27:30-38; Mt 10:12-13); so also the vow (Jgs 11:34-35) and the curse (Gn 27:12-13). Equally powerful was the word of command—of priestly, judicial, or royal authority (Eccl 8:4).<\/p>\nThis estimate of human words lingers in the NT. The word reveals the inner self, and so every careless, hurtful, deceitful word will be judged (Mt 12:34-37; 5:22), as will blasphemy (Lk 12:10). Paul (Eph 4:29; 5:4) and James (Jas 3:1-12) preserve this Hebrew reverence for the spoken word.<\/p>\nThe Words of God<\/p>\nGod’s spoken word has been preserved in Scripture. His word came to and through the prophets (1 Kgs 12:22; 1 Chr 17:3; cf. Lk 3:2), who spoke and acted “by the word of the Lord.” His word also came in the law, which God “spoke” on Sinai (Ex 20:1); hence, “statutes,” “commandments,” and “precepts” are synonyms for God’s “word” (e.g., Ps 119).<\/p>\nPeriods when no such divine communication came constituted “famine” (1 Sm 3:1; Am 8:11). Mingled with warnings and injunctions were divine promises. All God’s words were dependable (Is 31:2), firmly fixed in heaven (Ps 119:89; Is 40:8), and backed up by divine oath (Jer 1:12; Ps 110:4; Ez 12:25, 28). A word, expressing the divine mind, was not threatening or burdensome; it was a delight, hope, joy, and protection against sin (Pss 1; 119; Jer 15:16). Men can live by it (Dt 8:3; Mt 4:4).<\/p>\nGod’s word has power to execute his will. It will not return to him “empty” but accomplish that which he purposes (Is 55:11). By his speech alone, God created the world, and his word upholds it (Gn 1; Ps 33:6; cf. Heb 1:2; 11:3; 2 Pt 3:5). Eventually, this divine revelation was put into writing, which makes the Bible also “the word of God” (Mk 7:13; cf. Lk 16:29-31; Jn 5:39).<\/p>\nJesus spoke the word of God. He was “mighty in word” (Lk 24:19); he taught with authority (Mk 1:22, 27), exercising power over the sea, disease, demons, and death (Mt 8:8, 13). His “word of the kingdom” is the living seed, which, planted in the good soil of receptive hearts, bears fruit for God (Mt 13:19; Mk 4:14). The word that Christ gives to his disciples cleanses them and frees them (Jn 8:31; 12:48; 15:3; 17:14). The word of faith the church preaches (Rom 10:8-9, 17) is variously described as the word of salvation, the word of grace, the word of reconciliation, the word of the gospel, the word of righteousness, and the word of life.<\/p>\n\nThe Word of God<\/p>\nDeliberately recalling Genesis 1, the Gospel writer, John, named the Son of God “the Word.” As the Word, the Son of God fully conveys and communicates God. The Greek term is logos<\/span>;<\/em> it was used in two ways by the Greeks. The word might be thought of as remaining within a person, when it denoted his thought or reason. Or it might refer to the word going forth from a person, when it denoted the expression of his thought, i.e., speech. As a philosophical term, the logos<\/span> denoted the principle of the universe, even the creative energy that generated the universe. In both the Jewish conception and the Greek, the logos<\/span> was associated with the idea of beginnings—the world began through the origination and instrumentality of the Word (Gn 1:3ff., where the expression “God said” is used again and again). John may have had these ideas in mind, but most likely he originated a new term to identify the Son of God as the divine expression in human form (Jn 1:14). He is the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15), the express image of God’s substance (Heb 1:3). In the Godhead, the Son functions as the revealer of God and the reality of God, which is a central theme throughout John’s Gospel. John used a similar title in his first epistle: “the Word of life” (1 Jn 1:1-3). And in Revelation 19:11-16, Jesus is presented as the King of kings and Lord of lords, who has a name on him: “the Word of God.”<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Bible; John, Gospel of; Logos; Revelation.<\/p>","summary_ro":"WORD, WORD OF GOD, WORDS OF GOD A “word” is an expression that communicates. On the level of human communication, “words “usually refer to verbal expression. When God “spoke” over the centuries, though, he communicated in various ways (Heb 1:1), culminating in that epitome of all divine expression, Jesus Christ, his Son. The Importance of Words In a mainly nonliterary society the dependability of the spoken word was all-important in law, trade, religion, marriage, and reputation. Receipts, ag...","summary_en":"WORD, WORD OF GOD, WORDS OF GOD A “word” is an expression that communicates. On the level of human communication, “words “usually refer to verbal expression. When God “spoke” over the centuries, though, he communicated in various ways (Heb 1:1), culminating in that epitome of all divine expression, Jesus Christ, his Son. The Importance of Words In a mainly nonliterary society the dependability of the spoken word was all-important in law, trade, religion, marriage, and reputation. Receipts, ag...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55657,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:2","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:2","content_ro":"3:2<\/strong> Annas and Caiaphas were the high priests:<\/em> Annas was high priest AD<\/span> 6–15 and was deposed by the Romans; his son-in-law Caiaphas was the current high priest (AD<\/span> 18–36). Luke lists both names because Annas still wielded significant power behind the scenes (see John 18:13-14, 24; Acts 4:6). • a message from God came to John:<\/em> John’s calling as a prophet was similar to that of the Old Testament prophets (see, e.g., Isa 6; Jer 1).<\/p>","content_en":"3:2<\/strong> Annas and Caiaphas were the high priests:<\/em> Annas was high priest AD<\/span> 6–15 and was deposed by the Romans; his son-in-law Caiaphas was the current high priest (AD<\/span> 18–36). Luke lists both names because Annas still wielded significant power behind the scenes (see John 18:13-14, 24; Acts 4:6). • a message from God came to John:<\/em> John’s calling as a prophet was similar to that of the Old Testament prophets (see, e.g., Isa 6; Jer 1).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:2 Annas and Caiaphas were the high priests: Annas was high priest AD 6–15 and was deposed by the Romans; his son-in-law Caiaphas was the current high priest (AD 18–36). Luke lists both names because Annas still wielded significant power behind the scenes (see John 18:13-14, 24; Acts 4:6). • a message from God came to John: John’s calling as a prophet was similar to that of the Old Testament prophets (see, e.g., Isa 6; Jer 1).","summary_en":"3:2 Annas and Caiaphas were the high priests: Annas was high priest AD 6–15 and was deposed by the Romans; his son-in-law Caiaphas was the current high priest (AD 18–36). Luke lists both names because Annas still wielded significant power behind the scenes (see John 18:13-14, 24; Acts 4:6). • a message from God came to John: John’s calling as a prophet was similar to that of the Old Testament prophets (see, e.g., Isa 6; Jer 1).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83283,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:2","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:2","content_ro":"3:2<\/strong> Annas and Caiaphas were the high priests:<\/em> Annas was high priest AD<\/span> 6–15 and was deposed by the Romans; his son-in-law Caiaphas was the current high priest (AD<\/span> 18–36). Luke lists both names because Annas still wielded significant power behind the scenes (see John 18:13-14, 24; Acts 4:6). • a message from God came to John:<\/em> John’s calling as a prophet was similar to that of the Old Testament prophets (see, e.g., Isa 6; Jer 1).<\/p>","content_en":"3:2<\/strong> Annas and Caiaphas were the high priests:<\/em> Annas was high priest AD<\/span> 6–15 and was deposed by the Romans; his son-in-law Caiaphas was the current high priest (AD<\/span> 18–36). Luke lists both names because Annas still wielded significant power behind the scenes (see John 18:13-14, 24; Acts 4:6). • a message from God came to John:<\/em> John’s calling as a prophet was similar to that of the Old Testament prophets (see, e.g., Isa 6; Jer 1).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:2 Annas and Caiaphas were the high priests: Annas was high priest AD 6–15 and was deposed by the Romans; his son-in-law Caiaphas was the current high priest (AD 18–36). Luke lists both names because Annas still wielded significant power behind the scenes (see John 18:13-14, 24; Acts 4:6). • a message from God came to John: John’s calling as a prophet was similar to that of the Old Testament prophets (see, e.g., Isa 6; Jer 1).","summary_en":"3:2 Annas and Caiaphas were the high priests: Annas was high priest AD 6–15 and was deposed by the Romans; his son-in-law Caiaphas was the current high priest (AD 18–36). Luke lists both names because Annas still wielded significant power behind the scenes (see John 18:13-14, 24; Acts 4:6). • a message from God came to John: John’s calling as a prophet was similar to that of the Old Testament prophets (see, e.g., Isa 6; Jer 1).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110909,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:2","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:2","content_ro":"3:2<\/strong> Annas and Caiaphas were the high priests:<\/em> Annas was high priest AD<\/span> 6–15 and was deposed by the Romans; his son-in-law Caiaphas was the current high priest (AD<\/span> 18–36). Luke lists both names because Annas still wielded significant power behind the scenes (see John 18:13-14, 24; Acts 4:6). • a message from God came to John:<\/em> John’s calling as a prophet was similar to that of the Old Testament prophets (see, e.g., Isa 6; Jer 1).<\/p>","content_en":"3:2<\/strong> Annas and Caiaphas were the high priests:<\/em> Annas was high priest AD<\/span> 6–15 and was deposed by the Romans; his son-in-law Caiaphas was the current high priest (AD<\/span> 18–36). Luke lists both names because Annas still wielded significant power behind the scenes (see John 18:13-14, 24; Acts 4:6). • a message from God came to John:<\/em> John’s calling as a prophet was similar to that of the Old Testament prophets (see, e.g., Isa 6; Jer 1).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:2 Annas and Caiaphas were the high priests: Annas was high priest AD 6–15 and was deposed by the Romans; his son-in-law Caiaphas was the current high priest (AD 18–36). Luke lists both names because Annas still wielded significant power behind the scenes (see John 18:13-14, 24; Acts 4:6). • a message from God came to John: John’s calling as a prophet was similar to that of the Old Testament prophets (see, e.g., Isa 6; Jer 1).","summary_en":"3:2 Annas and Caiaphas were the high priests: Annas was high priest AD 6–15 and was deposed by the Romans; his son-in-law Caiaphas was the current high priest (AD 18–36). Luke lists both names because Annas still wielded significant power behind the scenes (see John 18:13-14, 24; Acts 4:6). • a message from God came to John: John’s calling as a prophet was similar to that of the Old Testament prophets (see, e.g., Isa 6; Jer 1).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138535,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:2","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:2","content_ro":"3:2<\/strong> Annas and Caiaphas were the high priests:<\/em> Annas was high priest AD<\/span> 6–15 and was deposed by the Romans; his son-in-law Caiaphas was the current high priest (AD<\/span> 18–36). Luke lists both names because Annas still wielded significant power behind the scenes (see John 18:13-14, 24; Acts 4:6). • a message from God came to John:<\/em> John’s calling as a prophet was similar to that of the Old Testament prophets (see, e.g., Isa 6; Jer 1).<\/p>","content_en":"3:2<\/strong> Annas and Caiaphas were the high priests:<\/em> Annas was high priest AD<\/span> 6–15 and was deposed by the Romans; his son-in-law Caiaphas was the current high priest (AD<\/span> 18–36). Luke lists both names because Annas still wielded significant power behind the scenes (see John 18:13-14, 24; Acts 4:6). • a message from God came to John:<\/em> John’s calling as a prophet was similar to that of the Old Testament prophets (see, e.g., Isa 6; Jer 1).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:2 Annas and Caiaphas were the high priests: Annas was high priest AD 6–15 and was deposed by the Romans; his son-in-law Caiaphas was the current high priest (AD 18–36). Luke lists both names because Annas still wielded significant power behind the scenes (see John 18:13-14, 24; Acts 4:6). • a message from God came to John: John’s calling as a prophet was similar to that of the Old Testament prophets (see, e.g., Isa 6; Jer 1).","summary_en":"3:2 Annas and Caiaphas were the high priests: Annas was high priest AD 6–15 and was deposed by the Romans; his son-in-law Caiaphas was the current high priest (AD 18–36). Luke lists both names because Annas still wielded significant power behind the scenes (see John 18:13-14, 24; Acts 4:6). • a message from God came to John: John’s calling as a prophet was similar to that of the Old Testament prophets (see, e.g., Isa 6; Jer 1).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"3":[{"id":3670,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Baptism","title_en":"Baptism","content_ro":"<h3>BAPTISM<\/h3>\nTerm generally meaning “to dip” or “immerse,” but representing a group of words employed to signify a religious rite for ritual cleansing. In the NT it became the rite of initiation into the Christian community, and it was interpreted theologically as a dying and rising with Christ.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Baptism of John<\/p>\n• The Baptism of Jesus<\/p>\n• Jesus’ Resurrection Command to Baptize<\/p>\n• Baptism in the Early Church<\/p>\n• The Theology of Baptism in Paul’s and Peter’s Epistles<\/p>\nThe Baptism of John<\/p>\nJohn preached a “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Lk 3:3). The origins of his rite are difficult to trace. Some have claimed that his baptism modeled that practiced by those at Qumran; others have urged that his baptism modeled that practiced by Jews when initiating proselytes to Judaism. The members of the Qumran community viewed themselves as the covenant community of the last days and so dwelt in the desert, living an ascetic life and immersing themselves daily in acts of ceremonial cleansing. At the same time they taught that internal repentance must accompany the external act (1 QS 2:3). Its sacramental nature is seen in the fact that only a full member of the community could practice it, and then only after two probationary years (1 QS 5:6). Converts from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a ritual bath to wash away the impurities of the Gentile background.<\/p>\nJohn’s baptism both parallels and differs with these forms of baptism. The genesis of his baptism may be found in the prophetic acted-out parable, which not only symbolized God’s message but also intended to bring it about. John’s practice had several theological ramifications: (1) It was intimately connected with radical repentance, not only of the Gentile but astoundingly (to his contemporaries) also of the Jew. (2) It was eschatological at the core, preparing for the Messiah, who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Mt 3:11), and therefore looked to the final separation between God’s people and the wicked at the eschaton (i.e., “the End,” cf. Mt 3:12). (3) It symbolized moral purification and so prepared the people for the coming kingdom (Mt 3:2; Lk 3:7-14). In spite of the obvious connection between John’s ceremony and the early church, we cannot posit absolute dependence. In fact, it disappeared from Jesus’ ministry. At first, Jesus allowed his disciples to continue the rite (Jn 3:22), but later he seemingly discontinued the practice (Jn 4:1-3), probably for the following reasons: (1) John’s message was functional, while Jesus’ was personal\/ontological. (2) John’s was forward-looking, expecting the coming kingdom, while Jesus’ was backward-looking, celebrating that event. (3) John’s was an interim practice, while Jesus’ was sacramental. Jesus’ ministry fulfilled John’s, so he severed himself from the latter’s modus operandi.<\/p>\nThe Baptism of Jesus<\/p>\nThis event has its genesis in a complex interplay of motives, divine and human, within the messianic consciousness of Jesus (see Mk 1:9-11 and parallels). For John it was Jesus’ stamp of approval upon his message and ministry. Jesus was in continuity with John’s kingdom proclamation. For Jesus, it was also an anointing that signified the inauguration of his messianic ministry. As seen in God’s “heavenly voice” of Mark 1:11 and parallels, this has two aspects: (1) The voice alludes to Psalm 2:7, establishing Jesus’ unique sonship. (2) It alludes to Isaiah 42:1, establishing him as the messianic “servant of Yahweh.” (This is discussed at greater length in the article below.)<\/p>\nJesus’ Resurrection Command to Baptize<\/p>\nHere we find the true basis of the church’s practice (Mt 28:19). As already stated, the disciples stopped employing it, so it is here that we see the institution reconstituted as an ordinance based on the death and resurrection of Christ. It was no longer a forward-looking phenomenon but had now become a realized activity centering on the gospel message, certified by the risen Christ who is exalted to universal lordship. It also is an essential aspect of the discipling activity, as seen in the use of the participle “baptizing” after the main verb “make disciples.” Finally we might note that the act signifies the entrance of the believer “into” union with (literally “into the name of”) the triune Godhead.<\/p>\nBaptism in the Early Church<\/p>\nActs 2:38 shows that baptism was a sacral institution from the very beginning. This takes it back to the earliest days of the church. In the primitive church it was an important part of the salvation process (Acts 2:38, “repent and be baptized”) and was accomplished via confession and prayer “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5). Probably there was a question-and-answer period in which the believer confessed his faith and dedicated himself to Christ. The result was reception into and identification with the messianic community of the new covenant, signifying both forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18) and the reception of the Holy Spirit (Lk 3:16; Acts 2:38, 41; 9:17; 10:47-48; 11:16-17; 19:5-7). See<\/em> Baptism of Fire; Baptism of Jesus; Baptism of the Spirit.<\/p>\n\nThe Theology of Baptism in Paul’s and Peter’s Epistles<\/p>\nPaul’s basic statement is found in Galatians 3:27, “baptized into Christ.” The rite of baptism is christological at the heart, signifying union with Christ. This is clarified further by Romans 6:3-8, which equates baptism with dying and rising (cf. Col 2:12-13). At the same time baptism is related to the Spirit; 1 Corinthians 12:13 connects “baptism by the one Spirit” with being “given that same Spirit.” Many see baptism as the outward confirmation of the inward “seal” by the Spirit (2 Cor 1:21-22; Eph 1:13; 4:30). This leads us to the eschatological dimension of baptism. In its relation to the present work of Christ and the Spirit, it externalizes the outpouring of salvation in the age of fulfillment, because it is the initiatory rite signifying the believer’s entrance into the blessings of the new age (Ti 3:5).<\/p>\nThere is also a definite link between baptism and the OT covenants. The major connection is with the Abrahamic, especially with the circumcision that characterized it. Paul in Colossians 2:11-12 combines Jewish circumcision with Christian baptism as pictures of the redemptive work of Christ. The debate today centers on the degree of continuity between them—does baptism perform the same function in the New Covenant, i.e., forensic and imputative? Whatever the theological ramifications, Paul at least cannot be made to say this. Rather, he borrows here the Judeo-Christian imagery of the “circumcision of the heart” (Dt 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29; Phil 3:3). Christians experience the fulfillment of that which circumcision merely prefigured, a spiritual, totally efficacious reality.<\/p>\nBaptism is also related to the Noahic covenant in 1 Peter 3:19-21. There Noah’s deliverance through the waters is considered a picture of the effects of baptism. The debate centers on the meaning of “baptism now saves you.” The answer is connected with the thrust of the ensuing clarification, “an appeal to God for a clear conscience” (rsv<\/span>, lit. “of a good conscience”). While the developed dialogue between the sacramental and baptist views is considered below, we will simply comment here that the interpretation “appeal by<\/em> a good conscience” best fits the emphatic position of this phrase and the picture in this verse of a pledging convert. Baptism is the seal of the salvation covenant, which itself has been accomplished beforehand by the act of Christ and the faith decision of the individual.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BAPTISM<\/h3>\nTerm generally meaning “to dip” or “immerse,” but representing a group of words employed to signify a religious rite for ritual cleansing. In the NT it became the rite of initiation into the Christian community, and it was interpreted theologically as a dying and rising with Christ.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Baptism of John<\/p>\n• The Baptism of Jesus<\/p>\n• Jesus’ Resurrection Command to Baptize<\/p>\n• Baptism in the Early Church<\/p>\n• The Theology of Baptism in Paul’s and Peter’s Epistles<\/p>\nThe Baptism of John<\/p>\nJohn preached a “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Lk 3:3). The origins of his rite are difficult to trace. Some have claimed that his baptism modeled that practiced by those at Qumran; others have urged that his baptism modeled that practiced by Jews when initiating proselytes to Judaism. The members of the Qumran community viewed themselves as the covenant community of the last days and so dwelt in the desert, living an ascetic life and immersing themselves daily in acts of ceremonial cleansing. At the same time they taught that internal repentance must accompany the external act (1 QS 2:3). Its sacramental nature is seen in the fact that only a full member of the community could practice it, and then only after two probationary years (1 QS 5:6). Converts from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a ritual bath to wash away the impurities of the Gentile background.<\/p>\nJohn’s baptism both parallels and differs with these forms of baptism. The genesis of his baptism may be found in the prophetic acted-out parable, which not only symbolized God’s message but also intended to bring it about. John’s practice had several theological ramifications: (1) It was intimately connected with radical repentance, not only of the Gentile but astoundingly (to his contemporaries) also of the Jew. (2) It was eschatological at the core, preparing for the Messiah, who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Mt 3:11), and therefore looked to the final separation between God’s people and the wicked at the eschaton (i.e., “the End,” cf. Mt 3:12). (3) It symbolized moral purification and so prepared the people for the coming kingdom (Mt 3:2; Lk 3:7-14). In spite of the obvious connection between John’s ceremony and the early church, we cannot posit absolute dependence. In fact, it disappeared from Jesus’ ministry. At first, Jesus allowed his disciples to continue the rite (Jn 3:22), but later he seemingly discontinued the practice (Jn 4:1-3), probably for the following reasons: (1) John’s message was functional, while Jesus’ was personal\/ontological. (2) John’s was forward-looking, expecting the coming kingdom, while Jesus’ was backward-looking, celebrating that event. (3) John’s was an interim practice, while Jesus’ was sacramental. Jesus’ ministry fulfilled John’s, so he severed himself from the latter’s modus operandi.<\/p>\nThe Baptism of Jesus<\/p>\nThis event has its genesis in a complex interplay of motives, divine and human, within the messianic consciousness of Jesus (see Mk 1:9-11 and parallels). For John it was Jesus’ stamp of approval upon his message and ministry. Jesus was in continuity with John’s kingdom proclamation. For Jesus, it was also an anointing that signified the inauguration of his messianic ministry. As seen in God’s “heavenly voice” of Mark 1:11 and parallels, this has two aspects: (1) The voice alludes to Psalm 2:7, establishing Jesus’ unique sonship. (2) It alludes to Isaiah 42:1, establishing him as the messianic “servant of Yahweh.” (This is discussed at greater length in the article below.)<\/p>\nJesus’ Resurrection Command to Baptize<\/p>\nHere we find the true basis of the church’s practice (Mt 28:19). As already stated, the disciples stopped employing it, so it is here that we see the institution reconstituted as an ordinance based on the death and resurrection of Christ. It was no longer a forward-looking phenomenon but had now become a realized activity centering on the gospel message, certified by the risen Christ who is exalted to universal lordship. It also is an essential aspect of the discipling activity, as seen in the use of the participle “baptizing” after the main verb “make disciples.” Finally we might note that the act signifies the entrance of the believer “into” union with (literally “into the name of”) the triune Godhead.<\/p>\nBaptism in the Early Church<\/p>\nActs 2:38 shows that baptism was a sacral institution from the very beginning. This takes it back to the earliest days of the church. In the primitive church it was an important part of the salvation process (Acts 2:38, “repent and be baptized”) and was accomplished via confession and prayer “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5). Probably there was a question-and-answer period in which the believer confessed his faith and dedicated himself to Christ. The result was reception into and identification with the messianic community of the new covenant, signifying both forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18) and the reception of the Holy Spirit (Lk 3:16; Acts 2:38, 41; 9:17; 10:47-48; 11:16-17; 19:5-7). See<\/em> Baptism of Fire; Baptism of Jesus; Baptism of the Spirit.<\/p>\n\nThe Theology of Baptism in Paul’s and Peter’s Epistles<\/p>\nPaul’s basic statement is found in Galatians 3:27, “baptized into Christ.” The rite of baptism is christological at the heart, signifying union with Christ. This is clarified further by Romans 6:3-8, which equates baptism with dying and rising (cf. Col 2:12-13). At the same time baptism is related to the Spirit; 1 Corinthians 12:13 connects “baptism by the one Spirit” with being “given that same Spirit.” Many see baptism as the outward confirmation of the inward “seal” by the Spirit (2 Cor 1:21-22; Eph 1:13; 4:30). This leads us to the eschatological dimension of baptism. In its relation to the present work of Christ and the Spirit, it externalizes the outpouring of salvation in the age of fulfillment, because it is the initiatory rite signifying the believer’s entrance into the blessings of the new age (Ti 3:5).<\/p>\nThere is also a definite link between baptism and the OT covenants. The major connection is with the Abrahamic, especially with the circumcision that characterized it. Paul in Colossians 2:11-12 combines Jewish circumcision with Christian baptism as pictures of the redemptive work of Christ. The debate today centers on the degree of continuity between them—does baptism perform the same function in the New Covenant, i.e., forensic and imputative? Whatever the theological ramifications, Paul at least cannot be made to say this. Rather, he borrows here the Judeo-Christian imagery of the “circumcision of the heart” (Dt 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29; Phil 3:3). Christians experience the fulfillment of that which circumcision merely prefigured, a spiritual, totally efficacious reality.<\/p>\nBaptism is also related to the Noahic covenant in 1 Peter 3:19-21. There Noah’s deliverance through the waters is considered a picture of the effects of baptism. The debate centers on the meaning of “baptism now saves you.” The answer is connected with the thrust of the ensuing clarification, “an appeal to God for a clear conscience” (rsv<\/span>, lit. “of a good conscience”). While the developed dialogue between the sacramental and baptist views is considered below, we will simply comment here that the interpretation “appeal by<\/em> a good conscience” best fits the emphatic position of this phrase and the picture in this verse of a pledging convert. Baptism is the seal of the salvation covenant, which itself has been accomplished beforehand by the act of Christ and the faith decision of the individual.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BAPTISM Term generally meaning “to dip” or “immerse,” but representing a group of words employed to signify a religious rite for ritual cleansing. In the NT it became the rite of initiation into the Christian community, and it was interpreted theologically as a dying and rising with Christ. Preview • The Baptism of John • The Baptism of Jesus • Jesus’ Resurrection Command to Baptize • Baptism in the Early Church • The Theology of Baptism in Paul’s and Peter’s Epistles The Baptism of John John...","summary_en":"BAPTISM Term generally meaning “to dip” or “immerse,” but representing a group of words employed to signify a religious rite for ritual cleansing. In the NT it became the rite of initiation into the Christian community, and it was interpreted theologically as a dying and rising with Christ. Preview • The Baptism of John • The Baptism of Jesus • Jesus’ Resurrection Command to Baptize • Baptism in the Early Church • The Theology of Baptism in Paul’s and Peter’s Epistles The Baptism of John John...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":3730,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of Jesus*, Baptism","title_en":"of Jesus*, Baptism","content_ro":"<h3>BAPTISM OF JESUS*<\/h3>\nMajor event in Jesus’ life, which marked the beginning of his ministry. The fact that John the Baptist baptized Jesus is disputed by very few scholars today, but the purpose and significance of Jesus’ baptism remain controversial.<\/p>\nThe Gospel accounts agree that John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance (Mt 3:6-10; Mk 1:4-5; Lk 3:3-14). He proclaimed that the kingdom of heaven was at hand and that God’s people should prepare for the Lord’s coming by a renewal of faith toward God. For John, that meant repentance, confession of sins, and practicing righteousness. That being so, why was Jesus baptized? If Jesus was sinless, as the NT proclaims (2 Cor 5:21; Heb 4:15; 1 Pt 2:22), why did he submit to a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins? The Gospels provide the answers.<\/p>\nThe Gospel of Mark<\/p>\nMark presents the baptism of Jesus as a necessary preparation for his period of temptation and ministry. At his baptism Jesus received the Father’s approval and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit (1:9-11). Mark’s focus on Jesus’ special relation to the Father, “You are my beloved Son, and I am fully pleased with you” (1:11, nlt<\/span>), brings together two important OT references. Jesus’ messiahship is presented in a radically new way, in which the ruling Messiah (Ps 2:7) is also the Suffering Servant of the Lord (Is 42:1). Popular Jewish belief expected a ruling Messiah who would establish the kingdom of God, not a Messiah who would suffer for the people. Mark intended to show that in Jesus alone had God’s appointed time for the fulfillment of his purpose come.<\/p>\nThe statement that the heavens opened at the baptism of Jesus (Mk 1:10) may proclaim the arrival of the “end times” (the time of fulfillment and the establishment of God’s kingdom). A then-current Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 64:1 held that in the last days God would open the heavens and come down to his people. In Jewish thought the rending of the heavens was also associated with hearing God’s voice and the bestowal of God’s Spirit.<\/p>\nThe Gospel of Matthew<\/p>\nMatthew’s account of Jesus’ baptism has more detail than Mark’s. It begins by noting John’s reluctance to baptize Jesus (3:14). John was persuaded only after Jesus explained to him that the act was “fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness” (3:15, rsv<\/span>). Although the full meaning of those words is uncertain, they at least suggest that Jesus’ baptism was necessary to accomplish God’s will. In both the Old and New Testaments (Ps 98:2-3; Rom 1:17) God’s righteousness is seen in his salvation for his people. That is why the Messiah can be called “The Lord<\/span> Is Our Righteousness” (Jer 23:6; cf. Is 11:1-5). Jesus told John that his baptism was necessary to do God’s will in bringing about salvation for his people. Thus the Father’s declaration at Jesus’ baptism is presented in the form of a public announcement, emphasizing that Jesus was God’s anointed Servant about to begin his ministry as the bringer of the Lord’s salvation.<\/p>\nThe Gospel of Luke<\/p>\nLuke passes over Jesus’ baptism quickly, placing it alongside the baptism of others who came to John (3:21-22). The context in Luke also sheds some light on the purpose of Jesus’ baptism. Luke, unlike Matthew, places the genealogy of Jesus after his baptism and just before his ministry begins. The parallel to Moses, whose genealogy occurs just before his primary work begins (Ex 6:14-25), seems more than coincidental. It is probably intended to illustrate Jesus’ role in bringing deliverance (salvation) to God’s people just as Moses did in the OT. At his baptism, by the descent of the Holy Spirit upon him, Jesus was equipped to do the mission God had called him to do. Following his temptation (Lk 4:1-13), Jesus entered the synagogue and declared to the people that he had been anointed by the Spirit to proclaim good news (4:16-21). That anointing came at Jesus’ baptism (cf. Acts 10:37-38).<\/p>\nIn his Gospel account, Luke tried to identify Jesus with the common people—for example, in the birth story (with Jesus born in a stable and visited by lowly shepherds, Lk 2:8-20) and through placing the genealogy (stressing Jesus’ relation to all of humanity, 3:38) right after the baptism. Thus, Luke saw the baptism as Jesus’ first step in identifying himself with those he had come to save.<\/p>\nIn the OT the Messiah was always inseparable from the people he represented (see especially Jer 30:21 and Ez 45–46). Although the “servant” in Isaiah is sometimes viewed corporately (Is 44:1) and sometimes individually (53:3), he is always viewed as the representative of the people<\/em> to the Lord (49:5-26), as well as the servant of the Lord.<\/em><\/p>\nEvidently Luke, along with Mark and Matthew, was trying to show that Jesus, as the divine representative of the people, had identified himself with them in his baptism.<\/p>\nThe Gospel of John<\/p>\nThe fourth Gospel does not say that Jesus was baptized but does say that John the Baptist saw the Spirit descend upon Jesus (Jn 1:32-34). The account emphasizes that Jesus went to John during John’s preaching and baptizing ministry; John recognized that Jesus was the Christ, that God’s Spirit was upon him, and that he was the Son of God. John also recognized that Jesus, unlike himself, baptized with the Holy Spirit (1:29-36).<\/p>\nJohn the Baptist described Jesus as the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (1:29, nlt<\/span>). The closest OT parallel to that statement comes from a “servant of the Lord” passage (Is 53:6-7). It is possible that “Lamb of God” could be an alternate translation of the Aramaic term “servant of God.”<\/p>\nThe sense of Jesus as the one who bears the sins of the people is obviously in view in the fourth Gospel. That Jesus was the promised representative and deliverer of the people was understood by John the Baptist and conveyed by the Gospel writer.<\/p>\nConclusion<\/p>\nIn the four Gospels it is clear that the Holy Spirit came upon Jesus at his baptism to enable him to do the work of God. All four Gospel writers saw that Jesus had been anointed by God to accomplish his mission of bringing salvation to the people. Those ideas provide a key to understanding why Jesus was baptized. On that occasion at the beginning of his ministry, God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit to do his mediating work between God and the people. At his baptism Jesus was identified as the one who would bear the people’s sins; Jesus was baptized to identify himself with sinful people.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BAPTISM OF JESUS*<\/h3>\nMajor event in Jesus’ life, which marked the beginning of his ministry. The fact that John the Baptist baptized Jesus is disputed by very few scholars today, but the purpose and significance of Jesus’ baptism remain controversial.<\/p>\nThe Gospel accounts agree that John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance (Mt 3:6-10; Mk 1:4-5; Lk 3:3-14). He proclaimed that the kingdom of heaven was at hand and that God’s people should prepare for the Lord’s coming by a renewal of faith toward God. For John, that meant repentance, confession of sins, and practicing righteousness. That being so, why was Jesus baptized? If Jesus was sinless, as the NT proclaims (2 Cor 5:21; Heb 4:15; 1 Pt 2:22), why did he submit to a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins? The Gospels provide the answers.<\/p>\nThe Gospel of Mark<\/p>\nMark presents the baptism of Jesus as a necessary preparation for his period of temptation and ministry. At his baptism Jesus received the Father’s approval and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit (1:9-11). Mark’s focus on Jesus’ special relation to the Father, “You are my beloved Son, and I am fully pleased with you” (1:11, nlt<\/span>), brings together two important OT references. Jesus’ messiahship is presented in a radically new way, in which the ruling Messiah (Ps 2:7) is also the Suffering Servant of the Lord (Is 42:1). Popular Jewish belief expected a ruling Messiah who would establish the kingdom of God, not a Messiah who would suffer for the people. Mark intended to show that in Jesus alone had God’s appointed time for the fulfillment of his purpose come.<\/p>\nThe statement that the heavens opened at the baptism of Jesus (Mk 1:10) may proclaim the arrival of the “end times” (the time of fulfillment and the establishment of God’s kingdom). A then-current Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 64:1 held that in the last days God would open the heavens and come down to his people. In Jewish thought the rending of the heavens was also associated with hearing God’s voice and the bestowal of God’s Spirit.<\/p>\nThe Gospel of Matthew<\/p>\nMatthew’s account of Jesus’ baptism has more detail than Mark’s. It begins by noting John’s reluctance to baptize Jesus (3:14). John was persuaded only after Jesus explained to him that the act was “fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness” (3:15, rsv<\/span>). Although the full meaning of those words is uncertain, they at least suggest that Jesus’ baptism was necessary to accomplish God’s will. In both the Old and New Testaments (Ps 98:2-3; Rom 1:17) God’s righteousness is seen in his salvation for his people. That is why the Messiah can be called “The Lord<\/span> Is Our Righteousness” (Jer 23:6; cf. Is 11:1-5). Jesus told John that his baptism was necessary to do God’s will in bringing about salvation for his people. Thus the Father’s declaration at Jesus’ baptism is presented in the form of a public announcement, emphasizing that Jesus was God’s anointed Servant about to begin his ministry as the bringer of the Lord’s salvation.<\/p>\nThe Gospel of Luke<\/p>\nLuke passes over Jesus’ baptism quickly, placing it alongside the baptism of others who came to John (3:21-22). The context in Luke also sheds some light on the purpose of Jesus’ baptism. Luke, unlike Matthew, places the genealogy of Jesus after his baptism and just before his ministry begins. The parallel to Moses, whose genealogy occurs just before his primary work begins (Ex 6:14-25), seems more than coincidental. It is probably intended to illustrate Jesus’ role in bringing deliverance (salvation) to God’s people just as Moses did in the OT. At his baptism, by the descent of the Holy Spirit upon him, Jesus was equipped to do the mission God had called him to do. Following his temptation (Lk 4:1-13), Jesus entered the synagogue and declared to the people that he had been anointed by the Spirit to proclaim good news (4:16-21). That anointing came at Jesus’ baptism (cf. Acts 10:37-38).<\/p>\nIn his Gospel account, Luke tried to identify Jesus with the common people—for example, in the birth story (with Jesus born in a stable and visited by lowly shepherds, Lk 2:8-20) and through placing the genealogy (stressing Jesus’ relation to all of humanity, 3:38) right after the baptism. Thus, Luke saw the baptism as Jesus’ first step in identifying himself with those he had come to save.<\/p>\nIn the OT the Messiah was always inseparable from the people he represented (see especially Jer 30:21 and Ez 45–46). Although the “servant” in Isaiah is sometimes viewed corporately (Is 44:1) and sometimes individually (53:3), he is always viewed as the representative of the people<\/em> to the Lord (49:5-26), as well as the servant of the Lord.<\/em><\/p>\nEvidently Luke, along with Mark and Matthew, was trying to show that Jesus, as the divine representative of the people, had identified himself with them in his baptism.<\/p>\nThe Gospel of John<\/p>\nThe fourth Gospel does not say that Jesus was baptized but does say that John the Baptist saw the Spirit descend upon Jesus (Jn 1:32-34). The account emphasizes that Jesus went to John during John’s preaching and baptizing ministry; John recognized that Jesus was the Christ, that God’s Spirit was upon him, and that he was the Son of God. John also recognized that Jesus, unlike himself, baptized with the Holy Spirit (1:29-36).<\/p>\nJohn the Baptist described Jesus as the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (1:29, nlt<\/span>). The closest OT parallel to that statement comes from a “servant of the Lord” passage (Is 53:6-7). It is possible that “Lamb of God” could be an alternate translation of the Aramaic term “servant of God.”<\/p>\nThe sense of Jesus as the one who bears the sins of the people is obviously in view in the fourth Gospel. That Jesus was the promised representative and deliverer of the people was understood by John the Baptist and conveyed by the Gospel writer.<\/p>\nConclusion<\/p>\nIn the four Gospels it is clear that the Holy Spirit came upon Jesus at his baptism to enable him to do the work of God. All four Gospel writers saw that Jesus had been anointed by God to accomplish his mission of bringing salvation to the people. Those ideas provide a key to understanding why Jesus was baptized. On that occasion at the beginning of his ministry, God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit to do his mediating work between God and the people. At his baptism Jesus was identified as the one who would bear the people’s sins; Jesus was baptized to identify himself with sinful people.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BAPTISM OF JESUS* Major event in Jesus’ life, which marked the beginning of his ministry. The fact that John the Baptist baptized Jesus is disputed by very few scholars today, but the purpose and significance of Jesus’ baptism remain controversial. The Gospel accounts agree that John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance (Mt 3:6-10; Mk 1:4-5; Lk 3:3-14). He proclaimed that the kingdom of heaven was at hand and that God’s people should prepare for the Lord’s coming by a renewal of faith toward...","summary_en":"BAPTISM OF JESUS* Major event in Jesus’ life, which marked the beginning of his ministry. The fact that John the Baptist baptized Jesus is disputed by very few scholars today, but the purpose and significance of Jesus’ baptism remain controversial. The Gospel accounts agree that John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance (Mt 3:6-10; Mk 1:4-5; Lk 3:3-14). He proclaimed that the kingdom of heaven was at hand and that God’s people should prepare for the Lord’s coming by a renewal of faith toward...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":7508,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Conversion","title_en":"Conversion","content_ro":"<h3>CONVERSION<\/h3>\nTotal change in one’s direction in life or moral orientation. For Christians this means a change from an orientation that does not take God into account to one in which the person is submitted to Christ. Conversion is the result of repentance.<\/p>\nIn the OT conversion is basically a turning or returning from one’s former course of life toward the Lord, the God of Israel. Israel often had to return to their God (Dt 4:30), either as individuals (Ps 51) or as a nation (Jer 4:1); foreign nations needed to turn to God for the first time (Ps 22:27). The characteristic feature is that one turns from wickedness (Jer 26:3; 36:3; Ez 18:21, 27; 33:9, 11), from a life of disloyalty to God to a life of obedience to God (Is 10:20-21; 14:2; Jer 34:15; Hos 14:4). Conversion means a change in inward orientation that finds expression in a changed lifestyle.<\/p>\nIn the NT John the Baptist begins the call to conversion (Mt 3:2; Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3), giving a prophetic call for people to change their minds (which is the root meaning of the Greek term) in the light of the nearness of God’s kingdom. This change of life must include a change in actions to prove its reality (Mt 3:8; Lk 3:8). Jesus preached the same message (Mt 4:17; Mk 1:15), adding that since the kingdom had arrived in his person, obedience to him was part of the good news of conversion. Yet it could also be bad news, for one would be damned if he failed to make this radical change (Mt 11:20; Lk 13:3-5). Conversion is radical but also simple, for it requires the simplicity of a child who commits his whole self, not the calculating self-protectiveness of the adult (Mt 18:3).<\/p>\nOutside the Gospels, “conversion” is not a frequently used term except in the book of Acts, where it forms the call to commitment climaxing evangelistic sermons (2:38; 3:19; 8:22), describes the commitment of new Christians to the Lord (9:35; 11:21), and pictures the change of life as a turning from darkness to light (26:18-20). Later writers look back upon conversion (2 Cor 3:16), worry about Christians converting to paganism or Judaism (Gal 4:9), and call for the reconversion of Christians who have left the faith and are in danger of judgment (Jas 5:19-20; Rv 2:5, 16, 22; 3:19).<\/p>\nAs in the OT and in the preaching of John and Jesus, conversion has three factors. First, it is a turning from<\/em> something, which includes specific sins, false gods, or simply a life lived for oneself (1 Thes 1:9; Rv 9:20-21; 16:11). Second, conversion is a product of the will of God and his gracious working in the world (Acts 11:18; Rom 2:4; 2 Cor 7:10; 2 Tm 2:25; 2 Pt 3:9). Third, conversion is a turning to<\/em> someone, a commitment of one’s whole life to God in Jesus Christ (Acts 14:15; 1 Thes 1:9; 1 Pt 2:25). It is thus a total reorientation, whether spectacular or undramatic, sudden or gradual, emotional or calm, in which a person transfers his or her total allegiance to God.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Faith; Grace; Justification, Justified; Repentance; Sanctification.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CONVERSION<\/h3>\nTotal change in one’s direction in life or moral orientation. For Christians this means a change from an orientation that does not take God into account to one in which the person is submitted to Christ. Conversion is the result of repentance.<\/p>\nIn the OT conversion is basically a turning or returning from one’s former course of life toward the Lord, the God of Israel. Israel often had to return to their God (Dt 4:30), either as individuals (Ps 51) or as a nation (Jer 4:1); foreign nations needed to turn to God for the first time (Ps 22:27). The characteristic feature is that one turns from wickedness (Jer 26:3; 36:3; Ez 18:21, 27; 33:9, 11), from a life of disloyalty to God to a life of obedience to God (Is 10:20-21; 14:2; Jer 34:15; Hos 14:4). Conversion means a change in inward orientation that finds expression in a changed lifestyle.<\/p>\nIn the NT John the Baptist begins the call to conversion (Mt 3:2; Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3), giving a prophetic call for people to change their minds (which is the root meaning of the Greek term) in the light of the nearness of God’s kingdom. This change of life must include a change in actions to prove its reality (Mt 3:8; Lk 3:8). Jesus preached the same message (Mt 4:17; Mk 1:15), adding that since the kingdom had arrived in his person, obedience to him was part of the good news of conversion. Yet it could also be bad news, for one would be damned if he failed to make this radical change (Mt 11:20; Lk 13:3-5). Conversion is radical but also simple, for it requires the simplicity of a child who commits his whole self, not the calculating self-protectiveness of the adult (Mt 18:3).<\/p>\nOutside the Gospels, “conversion” is not a frequently used term except in the book of Acts, where it forms the call to commitment climaxing evangelistic sermons (2:38; 3:19; 8:22), describes the commitment of new Christians to the Lord (9:35; 11:21), and pictures the change of life as a turning from darkness to light (26:18-20). Later writers look back upon conversion (2 Cor 3:16), worry about Christians converting to paganism or Judaism (Gal 4:9), and call for the reconversion of Christians who have left the faith and are in danger of judgment (Jas 5:19-20; Rv 2:5, 16, 22; 3:19).<\/p>\nAs in the OT and in the preaching of John and Jesus, conversion has three factors. First, it is a turning from<\/em> something, which includes specific sins, false gods, or simply a life lived for oneself (1 Thes 1:9; Rv 9:20-21; 16:11). Second, conversion is a product of the will of God and his gracious working in the world (Acts 11:18; Rom 2:4; 2 Cor 7:10; 2 Tm 2:25; 2 Pt 3:9). Third, conversion is a turning to<\/em> someone, a commitment of one’s whole life to God in Jesus Christ (Acts 14:15; 1 Thes 1:9; 1 Pt 2:25). It is thus a total reorientation, whether spectacular or undramatic, sudden or gradual, emotional or calm, in which a person transfers his or her total allegiance to God.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Faith; Grace; Justification, Justified; Repentance; Sanctification.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CONVERSION Total change in one’s direction in life or moral orientation. For Christians this means a change from an orientation that does not take God into account to one in which the person is submitted to Christ. Conversion is the result of repentance. In the OT conversion is basically a turning or returning from one’s former course of life toward the Lord, the God of Israel. Israel often had to return to their God (Dt 4:30), either as individuals (Ps 51) or as a nation (Jer 4:1); foreign n...","summary_en":"CONVERSION Total change in one’s direction in life or moral orientation. For Christians this means a change from an orientation that does not take God into account to one in which the person is submitted to Christ. Conversion is the result of repentance. In the OT conversion is basically a turning or returning from one’s former course of life toward the Lord, the God of Israel. Israel often had to return to their God (Dt 4:30), either as individuals (Ps 51) or as a nation (Jer 4:1); foreign n...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":14518,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gospel","title_en":"Gospel","content_ro":"<h3>GOSPEL<\/h3>\nWord derived from the Anglo-Saxon godspell<\/em> denoting “glad tidings” or “good news.”<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Gospel Message of Isaiah<\/p>\n• The Gospel in the New Testament<\/p>\n• The Good News of Christ’s Coming<\/p>\n• The Gospel according to Jesus<\/p>\n• The Gospel after Jesus’ Resurrection<\/p>\nThe Gospel Message of Isaiah<\/p>\nOf all the passages cited, those of Isaiah provide the most important background for the gospel in the NT. According to Isaiah’s gospel, it is God alone who saves, and there is no explanation for his saving action except in his own nature. Israel’s deliverance is undeserved; she is no more worthy of the divine love now than when she went into captivity. In whatever measure she has paid the just due for her past sins (Is 40:2), she remains a sinful people (42:25; 46:12-13; 48:1). It is only by God’s grace that she is saved (55:1-7). By God’s design, Israel’s salvation depends not upon her own righteousness but upon his (41:10; 45:24; 46:13; 51:5-6). There being no righteousness to reward, the Lord acts to create<\/em> righteousness in Israel (45:8; 61:3, 10-11). Yet as these references indicate, salvation is not accomplished at the expense of justice. The penalty for Israel’s sins is to be paid in full. God’s mercy is not hereby called into question. On the contrary, it is precisely here that his mercy is most poignantly expressed, for the penalty is exacted not from his people but from the Servant appointed to stand in their place (53:4-12). Through the Servant’s work, many shall be justified (53:11). The coming of the Evangelist—the preacher of the good news—is predicted in Isaiah 61. He is called the anointed One (v 1) who proclaims the year of the Lord’s favor (v 2). God will be glorified through his preaching (v 3).<\/p>\nThe Gospel in the New Testament<\/p>\nIn only two places (Gal 3:8; Heb 4:2, 6) does the NT speak of the proclamation of the gospel prior to the Christian era. This is quite remarkable, given (1) the unmistakable presence of the gospel in the OT, (2) the extent of gospel terminology in the NT (in the Greek the noun appears 76 times; and the verb, 54), and (3) the fact that the NT presents Christ as the fulfillment of the OT and draws heavily on the OT to interpret his person and work. Not only is it remarkable; it is very significant. It indicates that the NT usage depends not only upon the character<\/em> of the message (truth about salvation) but also upon historical events.<\/em> Almost without exception, the NT restricts its application of gospel terminology to proclamations made during the time of fulfillment—the age in which the salvation promised in the OT is actually accomplished. The NT is preoccupied, not with promises of salvation, but with news of salvation. According to Mark 1:1-4, the gospel “begins” not in the OT but with John the Baptist, in whose work OT prophecy is fulfilled. In Romans 1:1-5 the gospel is represented as a blessing promised in the OT but not actually given until Jesus comes (see also Acts 13:32-33).<\/p>\nThe Good News of Christ’s Coming<\/p>\nThe promised birth of John the Baptist is good news (Lk 1:19), not only for his parents (vv 7, 24-25) but for all the people: John is sent to prepare them for Messiah’s coming (vv 14-17, 67-79). John’s own preaching is gospel (3:18) for the same reason. The Messiah would be coming to execute judgment, a process that involves both condemnation and salvation (vv 3-17). John’s message is gospel for sinners in that they are warned of impending doom and urged to repent before the ax falls (vv 7-9); it is gospel for the repentant in that they are promised forgiveness (v 3) and membership in Messiah’s community (v 17). The birth of the Savior himself is announced as good news bringing great joy (2:10-11).<\/p>\nThe Gospel according to Jesus<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming of the Kingdom of God<\/h5>\nJesus was authorized by God and anointed by the Spirit to proclaim the gospel (Mk 1:14; Lk 4:18). At the heart of his preaching stands the announcement “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mk 1:15). (For further references to this gospel, see Mt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; 26:13; Mk 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:9; Lk 4:43; 8:1; 16:16.) The message is good news for several reasons: (1) The kingdom is coming. The God whom Jesus proclaims is sovereign over all he has made. Yet paradoxically his rule is incomplete: his will is not done on earth as it is in heaven; wrong, not right, prevails. But these conditions are not final, according to Jesus. With the coming of the kingdom, God’s rule will be completed; wrong will be judged, righteousness established, and his people blessed. (2) The kingdom is now<\/em> being inaugurated. “The time is fulfilled,” declares Jesus (Mk 1:15a). The time appointed for the fulfillment of the OT promises has arrived. (3) The consummation of the kingdom is therefore no longer a distant prospect; the full realization of God’s rule is “at hand” (Mk 1:15b). (4) God is establishing his rule for a saving purpose. This is implied in Jesus’ call to repentance (Mk 1:15c). It is especially clear in the passages to which we now turn.<\/p>\n<h5>The Salvation of the Poor<\/h5>\nInvited to read the Scripture in the synagogue at Nazareth, Jesus turns to Isaiah 61: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord” (Lk 4:18-19, rsv<\/span>). Having read the prophecy, Jesus announces its fulfillment in his own ministry (v 21). Included among those whom Jesus has come to free are the physically infirm, such as the blind (v 18) and the leprous (v 27) (cf. the references to healing miracles in vv 23, 33-41; the close connection between evangelizing and healing in Mt 4:23; 9:35; 11:5; Lk 7:21-22; 9:6; and the description in Mt 12:22-29; Lk 13:11-16, of the physically afflicted as captives of Satan now liberated by Jesus). Also included are the materially poor—people like the widow helped by Elijah during the famine (Lk 4:25-26). It is the literally poor and hungry whom Jesus pronounces “blessed” in Luke 6:20-21. Yet it is primarily “spiritual” poverty that is in view. Still applying Isaiah 61, Jesus speaks in Matthew 5:3 of the “poor in spirit.” These are people broken and grieved by misery and poverty, oppression and injustice, suffering and death, national apostasy and personal sin—people who in their extremity turn to God and longingly wait for him to bring forth justice, bestow his mercy, and establish his kingdom. It is to just such people that Jesus brings good news (Mt 5:3-10). God sent him to usher in the kingdom, to rescue the lost, to liberate the enslaved, to cure the afflicted, to bind up hearts that are broken, and to forgive the guilty (Mk 2:5, 10, 17; 10:45; Lk 4:18-21; 7:48-49; 15:1-32; 19:10).<\/p>\n<h5>The Gift of Grace<\/h5>\nThe coming of the kingdom is not the effect or the reward of human effort but God’s answer to the human predicament—the gift of his favor (Lk 12:32). Correspondingly, the explanation for the salvation of the poor lies nowhere but in God’s own character. As the prodigal himself recognized, he hardly deserved to be his father’s servant, much less his son. Nothing he did, not even his repentance, accounted for the father’s love (15:11-32). In the parable of Matthew 20:1-16, it is owing entirely to the goodness of the employer that the last workers to be hired receive a full day’s wages. The first debtor in the story of Matthew 18:23-35 earned nothing but the right to be sold into slavery; instead, the king canceled his enormous debt. The publican, who had nothing to offer God but a confession of sin and plea for mercy, went home justified (Lk 18:13-14). The same holds true for the more virtuous among the poor, such as the persons described in Matthew 5:7-10. Their virtue is real, not imagined. Yet in keeping God’s commands, they do not put him in their debt; they are simply doing their duty (Lk 17:7-10). Furthermore, even the most merciful need divine mercy (Mt 5:7). For even those most zealous to obey God’s law are unable to fulfill all its requirements (cf. 11:28-30). The first servant in Matthew 18:23-35 owes far more money than someone in such a situation could possibly pay—which serves to magnify the generosity of the king. Grace depends for its exercise upon the inability of its objects (Lk 14:12-14).<\/p>\n<h5>The Call to Salvation<\/h5>\nThe Israelites are without exception a sinful people, all of them needing the salvation that Jesus brings (Mt 1:21; Lk 1:77). In demonstration of God’s grace, Jesus proclaimed his gospel to the entire nation (Mt 4:23; 9:35; 15:24; Lk 4:43; 9:6; 20:1). From the most respectable to the least, all are summoned to submit to God’s rule, all are invited to come and partake freely of the banquet he has spread (Lk 14:16-24). But the gift of salvation must be received if it is to be experienced (Mk 10:15). And while it is indeed a gift that costs nothing, it is also a priceless treasure for which a wise person will freely sacrifice everything else (Mt 13:44-46), a sacrifice exceeded only by the cost of rejecting the gospel (Mt 11:20-24; Mk 8:34-39; Lk 14:24, 33). “Repent and believe in the gospel,” Jesus commands (Mk 1:15). The self-righteous and the self-sufficient must be jolted out of their false sense of security and humbly recognize their need for God (Lk 6:24-26). Only then will Jesus’ message to the poor be seen as gospel. An announcement of liberation (4:18-19) is good news only to people who are enslaved and know they are. The command applies also to the destitute and the afflicted. Those among them who bemoan their lot must repent of their sins. But something further is needed for the response to be complete: a person cannot believe Jesus’ gospel without a commitment to the Person<\/em> of Christ (Jn 3:16). Even those who are already “poor in spirit,” in the sense defined earlier, are not really “blessed” until they acknowledge the truth of Jesus’ claims (Mt 11:6) and commit themselves to a life of obedience on his terms (7:21-27). This prepares us for the next point.<\/p>\n<h5>Summary<\/h5>\nThroughout Jesus’ earthly ministry, the theme of his gospel remains the dawning of God’s kingdom (Mt 4:23; 24:14; Lk 4:43; 16:16), a message that is preached almost exclusively to Jews (Mt 10:5-6; 15:24). Yet Jesus also provides glimpses into what the gospel was to become once his work on earth was accomplished: (1) In Mark 8:35 and 10:29 Jesus speaks of individuals who needed to make great sacrifices “for my sake and for the gospel.” While distinguished from each other, the person of Jesus and the gospel are here associated in the closest possible way. The time was approaching when the Proclaimer of the gospel would become the Proclaimed. (2) In Mark 13:10 and Matthew 24:14 (and the textually doubtful Mk 16:15) Jesus foretells the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom to the gentile nations. (3) In Mark 14, having interpreted a woman’s action (v 3) as an anointing of his body beforehand for burial (v 8), Jesus declares, “And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her” (v 9, rsv<\/span>; cf. Mt 26:13). This statement strongly implies that both the person of Jesus and the event of his death will figure prominently in the message that is to be proclaimed; otherwise, it is strange that the gospel and this particular act should be so solemnly bound together. Thus, here in the text already is an indication of how crucial Jesus’ death is both for the provision of the salvation announced in his gospel (cf. Mk 14:22-24) and for the launching of the evangelistic mission to the Gentiles (Mt 20:28 is vital for explaining the shift from Mt 15:24 to 28:18-20).<\/p>\nThe Gospel after Jesus’ Resurrection<\/p>\nAfter the resurrection of Jesus, the gospel was proclaimed by his eyewitnesses. The contents of this gospel are recorded in the book of Acts and in Paul’s letters. Of the 43 instances of euangelizomai<\/span> (“evangelize”) beyond the Gospels, 15 occur in Acts and 21 in Paul’s writings; of the 64 instances of euangelion<\/span> (“gospel”), 2 occur in Acts and no fewer than 60 in Paul.<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel of Christ<\/h5>\nHaving risen from the dead, Jesus Christ again evangelizes (Eph 2:16-17), doing so now through his appointed representatives (Rom 15:16-18; 1 Cor 1:17; 9:12-18; Gal 4:13-14; Eph 4:11; 2 Tm 1:9-11). More than that, Christ has become the central theme of the gospel; the Proclaimer is now the Proclaimed. This is repeatedly affirmed in Acts (5:42; 8:4-5, 35; 11:20; 17:18) and in Paul’s writings (Rom 1:1-4; 10:8-17; 15:19-20; 2 Cor 4:4-6; 11:4; Gal 1:16; Eph 3:8; Phil 1:15-18; 2 Tm 2:8). The NT always speaks of the gospel<\/em>—never the gospels—of Christ. A second gospel is as inconceivable and as unnecessary as a second Christ. This is the one gospel that God authorizes (e.g., Rom 1:1-17) and proclaims (e.g., 2 Thes 2:13-14). Galatians 2:7-9 speaks not of two gospels but of two mission fields. Paul (the apostle to the uncircumcised) and Peter (the apostle to the circumcised) are both entrusted with “the gospel of Christ” (Gal 1:7; cf. 1 Cor 15:1-11), the message that God has ordained for the salvation of Jews and Gentiles alike (Rom 1:16). The “different gospel” that Paul denounces in Galatians 1:6-9 and 2 Corinthians 11:4 is not another gospel about Jesus but a message about “another Jesus”—not the real one, but one who exists only in the minds and the messages of those who proclaim him. To preach the true Christ is to preach the true gospel, however questionable one’s motives (Phil 1:15-18, 27), and to respond rightly to the gospel is to turn to Christ (Acts 11:20-21; Rom 10:8-17; Gal 2:14-16).<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel as a Witness to Saving Events<\/h5>\nThe gospel bears witness to every aspect of Christ’s saving work, from his birth (Rom 1:3; 2 Tm 2:8) and public ministry (Mk 1:1; Acts 10:36-38) to his second coming (Col 1:5, 23; cf. 3:1-4; 1 Thes 1:5-10) and the last judgment (Rom 2:16). But it is the death and the resurrection of Christ that are most crucial for the accomplishment of salvation, and that are therefore most prominent in the gospel’s witness. These are the events with which Mark’s proclamation climaxes (chs 15–16), and for which everything else prepares (8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34; 12:6-8); special stress is placed upon Jesus’ death as the means of salvation from sin (10:45; 14:3-9, 22-24). In Paul’s gospel, too, the death and resurrection of Jesus are central (Rom 4:25; 1 Cor 15:1-4), with the cross occupying the very center (1 Cor 1:17–2:5). Had Christ not risen from the dead, Paul argues, the preaching of the cross would be a waste of time (1 Cor 15:14, 17; cf. Rom 6:3-11). However, now that Christ has risen, his death deserves special emphasis as the place where God provides atonement for sins (Rom 3:21-26; 5:6-11; 2 Cor 5:14-21; Eph 1:7). The gospel according to Acts proclaims Jesus’ death (Acts 8:25; 20:24, 28; cf. 10:36-43) and preeminently his resurrection, the event by which he conquered death and was exalted as Lord and coming Judge (10:36-43; 13:32-33; 17:18, 31). According to 1 Peter, the bearers of the gospel (1 Pt 1:12) concentrated, as had the OT prophets, on “the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glory” (1:11; cf. 1:18-19; 2:21-24; 3:18-22).<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel as a Power for Salvation<\/h5>\nThe gospel is much more than a report of past events and an exposition of doctrine. Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 1:17-18 and again in Romans 1:16 that the gospel is “the power of God”—not merely a witness to his power but an expression<\/em> of his power. Thus, it cannot be fettered (2 Tm 2:8-9). “Our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power,” Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 1:5. His point is not that the gospel was accompanied by mighty works (though this happened; cf. Rom 15:18-19), but that the gospel itself is a mighty work. God makes it so through his Holy Spirit (Rom 15:18-19; 1 Cor 2:1-5; 1 Thes 1:6). Furthermore, God’s singular purpose in exercising his power is to change people’s lives, to liberate them from sin and death, and to reconcile them to himself—in short, to save them. The gospel has power to effect the salvation it announces and to impart the life it promises (e.g., Rom 1:16; 10:8-17; 1 Cor 1:17-18; 15:1-2; Eph 1:13; 2 Thes 2:13-14; 2 Tm 1:8-11; 1 Pt 1:23-25). If people are to experience salvation, they must hear and believe the gospel. It is precisely in and through this message that the saving power manifested in the person and work of Christ (especially in his death and resurrection) is conveyed to men and made effective in their lives. Similarly it is in association with the gospel, or as a direct result of the reception of the gospel, that the Holy Spirit is imparted to believers (Acts 10:36-44; 15:7-8; 2 Cor 11:4; Gal 3:1-2). In short, the gospel is the decisive place of encounter between the sinner and God the Savior.<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel of Grace<\/h5>\nAccording to Peter’s testimony at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:7-11), an essential part of the gospel—for Gentiles and Jews alike—is salvation “through the grace of the Lord Jesus.” Toward the close of his missionary career, Paul states that his basic concern has been “to testify to the gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24, rsv<\/span>). This statement can be understood only in relation to Paul’s concept of the righteousness of God, particularly as set forth in Romans. Paul is here not merely expounding a divine attribute. Rather, he is dramatizing a divine activity—the manifestation of God’s righteousness now, “in the present time” (Rom 3:26), in the new age inaugurated by the coming of Jesus. The manifestation is twofold. Viewing the two aspects together, and doing so in the light of the gospel declared by Isaiah and by Jesus (both of whom strongly influenced Paul), respectively, will help us to understand why Paul speaks of “the gospel of the grace of God.”<\/p>\nFirst, the gospel is a witness<\/em> to God’s grace. In offering his Son as a sacrifice for sins (Rom 3:25a), God demonstrates his righteousness (vv 25b-26). That is, in the death of Jesus sins formerly “passed over” (v 25c) become the object of God’s wrath (cf. 1:18) and judgment. Yet in the very place where God deals justly and decisively with sins, he shows his grace to sinners. For the judgment against sin is focused not upon the sinners themselves but upon the One appointed to act on their behalf and to stand in their place (Rom 4:25; 5:6, 11; cf. 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 3:13). On this basis, sinners are freely pardoned (Rom 3:24). “The grace of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 15:11) toward the sinful is also in evidence, for he willingly bears their iniquities and suffers the consequences of their wrongdoing (Gal 2:20; cf. 2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:6-8).<\/p>\nSecond, the gospel is a channel<\/em> of God’s grace. “The righteousness of God is revealed” in the gospel, says Paul (Rom 1:17). By this he means, not that the gospel talks about the righteousness of God (though it does), but that God’s righteousness is actively at work in the gospel. This activity in turn explains how the gospel becomes “the power of God for salvation” (v 16). And just how does God demonstrate his righteousness at this stage? In short, by bestowing it as a free gift on sinful human beings. It remains the righteousness of God, but by God’s grace, it is a righteousness in which humans may share. Furthermore, partaking of God’s righteousness depends on being personally united with Jesus Christ. In Paul’s view the saved person is one who has been acquitted, justified, “declared righteous” by God the judge. The basis for the verdict is not that I in myself am righteous (God justifies the ungodly, Rom 4:5). Nor does God treat me as though I were righteous. According to Paul I am declared righteous because I really am<\/em> righteous—not in myself but in Christ (1 Cor 1:30; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9). This union is established through the revelation—and the free offer—of God’s righteousness in the gospel (Rom 1:16-17).<\/p>\n<h5>Responding to the Gospel<\/h5>\nThe gospel calls for a threefold response:<\/p>\n1. Believing.<\/em> The gospel, says Paul, is “the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith” (Rom 1:16). For Paul, faith is the abandonment of all reliance upon “works of law” for justification (3:28) and utter dependence upon the grace of God as demonstrated in the work of Christ, especially his death (v 25). Accordingly, the “different gospel” of Galatians 1:6 and 2 Corinthians 11:4 is spurious, for it preaches salvation by personal merit rather than (or together with) the work of Christ (cf. Gal 2:16). Ultimately faith rests upon God (Rom 4:24; 1 Thes 1:8-9) and upon Christ (Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 2:16, 20). Yet it is imperative that one believe the gospel also (Acts 8:12; 11:20-21; 15:7; Rom 1:16; 10:8-17; 1 Cor 1:17-24; Phil 1:27; Heb 4:2), for it is just by this means that God’s salvation is made known and mediated. Moreover, believing the gospel entails repentance (Acts 14:15; 20:21, 24; 1 Thes 1:5-10) and obedience (Rom 1:5; 15:16-18; Heb 4:6). Those who refuse to obey the gospel are imperiling their lives (2 Thes 1:5-10; 1 Pt 4:17).<\/p>\n2. Growing.<\/em> The Gospel is more than a message to be received—it is also a place in which to stand (1 Cor 15:1-2). It is sustainer of life as well as giver of life. One grows as a Christian not by turning from the gospel to other things (to turn away from the gospel is to abandon God and Christ, Gal 1:6), but by going ever more deeply into the gospel. In Romans 1:15 Paul expresses his eagerness to proclaim the gospel to the Christians in Rome. In the following chapters, anticipating his visit, he offers one of his most profound expositions of the gospel—one whose truth has never been fathomed and whose power has never been exhausted.<\/p>\n3. Hoping.<\/em> “The hope of the gospel” (Col 1:23) includes not only the return of Christ and the glory of heaven (Col 1:5; 3:1-4; 2 Thes 2:14-16) but the final judgment as well. For those who embrace the gospel, the last judgment holds no terrors, because the Judge is the very one who rescues them from the wrath to come (1 Thes 1:10). Those who are united to him need not dread condemnation now or at the end (Rom 8:1). Instead, the last judgment will mark their final vindication (1 Cor 4:5; Gal 5:5). Accordingly, this theme is not just a corollary but an integral part of the Good News (Rom 2:16). Those who have died since believing the gospel (1 Pt 4:6) may seem to have suffered a fate common to all people, or even the condemnation reserved for the lawless; in fact, their response to the gospel assures them of approval by the coming Lord (4:5-6; 5:4) and of a share in the imperishable inheritance of heaven (1:4).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GOSPEL<\/h3>\nWord derived from the Anglo-Saxon godspell<\/em> denoting “glad tidings” or “good news.”<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Gospel Message of Isaiah<\/p>\n• The Gospel in the New Testament<\/p>\n• The Good News of Christ’s Coming<\/p>\n• The Gospel according to Jesus<\/p>\n• The Gospel after Jesus’ Resurrection<\/p>\nThe Gospel Message of Isaiah<\/p>\nOf all the passages cited, those of Isaiah provide the most important background for the gospel in the NT. According to Isaiah’s gospel, it is God alone who saves, and there is no explanation for his saving action except in his own nature. Israel’s deliverance is undeserved; she is no more worthy of the divine love now than when she went into captivity. In whatever measure she has paid the just due for her past sins (Is 40:2), she remains a sinful people (42:25; 46:12-13; 48:1). It is only by God’s grace that she is saved (55:1-7). By God’s design, Israel’s salvation depends not upon her own righteousness but upon his (41:10; 45:24; 46:13; 51:5-6). There being no righteousness to reward, the Lord acts to create<\/em> righteousness in Israel (45:8; 61:3, 10-11). Yet as these references indicate, salvation is not accomplished at the expense of justice. The penalty for Israel’s sins is to be paid in full. God’s mercy is not hereby called into question. On the contrary, it is precisely here that his mercy is most poignantly expressed, for the penalty is exacted not from his people but from the Servant appointed to stand in their place (53:4-12). Through the Servant’s work, many shall be justified (53:11). The coming of the Evangelist—the preacher of the good news—is predicted in Isaiah 61. He is called the anointed One (v 1) who proclaims the year of the Lord’s favor (v 2). God will be glorified through his preaching (v 3).<\/p>\nThe Gospel in the New Testament<\/p>\nIn only two places (Gal 3:8; Heb 4:2, 6) does the NT speak of the proclamation of the gospel prior to the Christian era. This is quite remarkable, given (1) the unmistakable presence of the gospel in the OT, (2) the extent of gospel terminology in the NT (in the Greek the noun appears 76 times; and the verb, 54), and (3) the fact that the NT presents Christ as the fulfillment of the OT and draws heavily on the OT to interpret his person and work. Not only is it remarkable; it is very significant. It indicates that the NT usage depends not only upon the character<\/em> of the message (truth about salvation) but also upon historical events.<\/em> Almost without exception, the NT restricts its application of gospel terminology to proclamations made during the time of fulfillment—the age in which the salvation promised in the OT is actually accomplished. The NT is preoccupied, not with promises of salvation, but with news of salvation. According to Mark 1:1-4, the gospel “begins” not in the OT but with John the Baptist, in whose work OT prophecy is fulfilled. In Romans 1:1-5 the gospel is represented as a blessing promised in the OT but not actually given until Jesus comes (see also Acts 13:32-33).<\/p>\nThe Good News of Christ’s Coming<\/p>\nThe promised birth of John the Baptist is good news (Lk 1:19), not only for his parents (vv 7, 24-25) but for all the people: John is sent to prepare them for Messiah’s coming (vv 14-17, 67-79). John’s own preaching is gospel (3:18) for the same reason. The Messiah would be coming to execute judgment, a process that involves both condemnation and salvation (vv 3-17). John’s message is gospel for sinners in that they are warned of impending doom and urged to repent before the ax falls (vv 7-9); it is gospel for the repentant in that they are promised forgiveness (v 3) and membership in Messiah’s community (v 17). The birth of the Savior himself is announced as good news bringing great joy (2:10-11).<\/p>\nThe Gospel according to Jesus<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming of the Kingdom of God<\/h5>\nJesus was authorized by God and anointed by the Spirit to proclaim the gospel (Mk 1:14; Lk 4:18). At the heart of his preaching stands the announcement “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mk 1:15). (For further references to this gospel, see Mt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; 26:13; Mk 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:9; Lk 4:43; 8:1; 16:16.) The message is good news for several reasons: (1) The kingdom is coming. The God whom Jesus proclaims is sovereign over all he has made. Yet paradoxically his rule is incomplete: his will is not done on earth as it is in heaven; wrong, not right, prevails. But these conditions are not final, according to Jesus. With the coming of the kingdom, God’s rule will be completed; wrong will be judged, righteousness established, and his people blessed. (2) The kingdom is now<\/em> being inaugurated. “The time is fulfilled,” declares Jesus (Mk 1:15a). The time appointed for the fulfillment of the OT promises has arrived. (3) The consummation of the kingdom is therefore no longer a distant prospect; the full realization of God’s rule is “at hand” (Mk 1:15b). (4) God is establishing his rule for a saving purpose. This is implied in Jesus’ call to repentance (Mk 1:15c). It is especially clear in the passages to which we now turn.<\/p>\n<h5>The Salvation of the Poor<\/h5>\nInvited to read the Scripture in the synagogue at Nazareth, Jesus turns to Isaiah 61: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord” (Lk 4:18-19, rsv<\/span>). Having read the prophecy, Jesus announces its fulfillment in his own ministry (v 21). Included among those whom Jesus has come to free are the physically infirm, such as the blind (v 18) and the leprous (v 27) (cf. the references to healing miracles in vv 23, 33-41; the close connection between evangelizing and healing in Mt 4:23; 9:35; 11:5; Lk 7:21-22; 9:6; and the description in Mt 12:22-29; Lk 13:11-16, of the physically afflicted as captives of Satan now liberated by Jesus). Also included are the materially poor—people like the widow helped by Elijah during the famine (Lk 4:25-26). It is the literally poor and hungry whom Jesus pronounces “blessed” in Luke 6:20-21. Yet it is primarily “spiritual” poverty that is in view. Still applying Isaiah 61, Jesus speaks in Matthew 5:3 of the “poor in spirit.” These are people broken and grieved by misery and poverty, oppression and injustice, suffering and death, national apostasy and personal sin—people who in their extremity turn to God and longingly wait for him to bring forth justice, bestow his mercy, and establish his kingdom. It is to just such people that Jesus brings good news (Mt 5:3-10). God sent him to usher in the kingdom, to rescue the lost, to liberate the enslaved, to cure the afflicted, to bind up hearts that are broken, and to forgive the guilty (Mk 2:5, 10, 17; 10:45; Lk 4:18-21; 7:48-49; 15:1-32; 19:10).<\/p>\n<h5>The Gift of Grace<\/h5>\nThe coming of the kingdom is not the effect or the reward of human effort but God’s answer to the human predicament—the gift of his favor (Lk 12:32). Correspondingly, the explanation for the salvation of the poor lies nowhere but in God’s own character. As the prodigal himself recognized, he hardly deserved to be his father’s servant, much less his son. Nothing he did, not even his repentance, accounted for the father’s love (15:11-32). In the parable of Matthew 20:1-16, it is owing entirely to the goodness of the employer that the last workers to be hired receive a full day’s wages. The first debtor in the story of Matthew 18:23-35 earned nothing but the right to be sold into slavery; instead, the king canceled his enormous debt. The publican, who had nothing to offer God but a confession of sin and plea for mercy, went home justified (Lk 18:13-14). The same holds true for the more virtuous among the poor, such as the persons described in Matthew 5:7-10. Their virtue is real, not imagined. Yet in keeping God’s commands, they do not put him in their debt; they are simply doing their duty (Lk 17:7-10). Furthermore, even the most merciful need divine mercy (Mt 5:7). For even those most zealous to obey God’s law are unable to fulfill all its requirements (cf. 11:28-30). The first servant in Matthew 18:23-35 owes far more money than someone in such a situation could possibly pay—which serves to magnify the generosity of the king. Grace depends for its exercise upon the inability of its objects (Lk 14:12-14).<\/p>\n<h5>The Call to Salvation<\/h5>\nThe Israelites are without exception a sinful people, all of them needing the salvation that Jesus brings (Mt 1:21; Lk 1:77). In demonstration of God’s grace, Jesus proclaimed his gospel to the entire nation (Mt 4:23; 9:35; 15:24; Lk 4:43; 9:6; 20:1). From the most respectable to the least, all are summoned to submit to God’s rule, all are invited to come and partake freely of the banquet he has spread (Lk 14:16-24). But the gift of salvation must be received if it is to be experienced (Mk 10:15). And while it is indeed a gift that costs nothing, it is also a priceless treasure for which a wise person will freely sacrifice everything else (Mt 13:44-46), a sacrifice exceeded only by the cost of rejecting the gospel (Mt 11:20-24; Mk 8:34-39; Lk 14:24, 33). “Repent and believe in the gospel,” Jesus commands (Mk 1:15). The self-righteous and the self-sufficient must be jolted out of their false sense of security and humbly recognize their need for God (Lk 6:24-26). Only then will Jesus’ message to the poor be seen as gospel. An announcement of liberation (4:18-19) is good news only to people who are enslaved and know they are. The command applies also to the destitute and the afflicted. Those among them who bemoan their lot must repent of their sins. But something further is needed for the response to be complete: a person cannot believe Jesus’ gospel without a commitment to the Person<\/em> of Christ (Jn 3:16). Even those who are already “poor in spirit,” in the sense defined earlier, are not really “blessed” until they acknowledge the truth of Jesus’ claims (Mt 11:6) and commit themselves to a life of obedience on his terms (7:21-27). This prepares us for the next point.<\/p>\n<h5>Summary<\/h5>\nThroughout Jesus’ earthly ministry, the theme of his gospel remains the dawning of God’s kingdom (Mt 4:23; 24:14; Lk 4:43; 16:16), a message that is preached almost exclusively to Jews (Mt 10:5-6; 15:24). Yet Jesus also provides glimpses into what the gospel was to become once his work on earth was accomplished: (1) In Mark 8:35 and 10:29 Jesus speaks of individuals who needed to make great sacrifices “for my sake and for the gospel.” While distinguished from each other, the person of Jesus and the gospel are here associated in the closest possible way. The time was approaching when the Proclaimer of the gospel would become the Proclaimed. (2) In Mark 13:10 and Matthew 24:14 (and the textually doubtful Mk 16:15) Jesus foretells the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom to the gentile nations. (3) In Mark 14, having interpreted a woman’s action (v 3) as an anointing of his body beforehand for burial (v 8), Jesus declares, “And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her” (v 9, rsv<\/span>; cf. Mt 26:13). This statement strongly implies that both the person of Jesus and the event of his death will figure prominently in the message that is to be proclaimed; otherwise, it is strange that the gospel and this particular act should be so solemnly bound together. Thus, here in the text already is an indication of how crucial Jesus’ death is both for the provision of the salvation announced in his gospel (cf. Mk 14:22-24) and for the launching of the evangelistic mission to the Gentiles (Mt 20:28 is vital for explaining the shift from Mt 15:24 to 28:18-20).<\/p>\nThe Gospel after Jesus’ Resurrection<\/p>\nAfter the resurrection of Jesus, the gospel was proclaimed by his eyewitnesses. The contents of this gospel are recorded in the book of Acts and in Paul’s letters. Of the 43 instances of euangelizomai<\/span> (“evangelize”) beyond the Gospels, 15 occur in Acts and 21 in Paul’s writings; of the 64 instances of euangelion<\/span> (“gospel”), 2 occur in Acts and no fewer than 60 in Paul.<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel of Christ<\/h5>\nHaving risen from the dead, Jesus Christ again evangelizes (Eph 2:16-17), doing so now through his appointed representatives (Rom 15:16-18; 1 Cor 1:17; 9:12-18; Gal 4:13-14; Eph 4:11; 2 Tm 1:9-11). More than that, Christ has become the central theme of the gospel; the Proclaimer is now the Proclaimed. This is repeatedly affirmed in Acts (5:42; 8:4-5, 35; 11:20; 17:18) and in Paul’s writings (Rom 1:1-4; 10:8-17; 15:19-20; 2 Cor 4:4-6; 11:4; Gal 1:16; Eph 3:8; Phil 1:15-18; 2 Tm 2:8). The NT always speaks of the gospel<\/em>—never the gospels—of Christ. A second gospel is as inconceivable and as unnecessary as a second Christ. This is the one gospel that God authorizes (e.g., Rom 1:1-17) and proclaims (e.g., 2 Thes 2:13-14). Galatians 2:7-9 speaks not of two gospels but of two mission fields. Paul (the apostle to the uncircumcised) and Peter (the apostle to the circumcised) are both entrusted with “the gospel of Christ” (Gal 1:7; cf. 1 Cor 15:1-11), the message that God has ordained for the salvation of Jews and Gentiles alike (Rom 1:16). The “different gospel” that Paul denounces in Galatians 1:6-9 and 2 Corinthians 11:4 is not another gospel about Jesus but a message about “another Jesus”—not the real one, but one who exists only in the minds and the messages of those who proclaim him. To preach the true Christ is to preach the true gospel, however questionable one’s motives (Phil 1:15-18, 27), and to respond rightly to the gospel is to turn to Christ (Acts 11:20-21; Rom 10:8-17; Gal 2:14-16).<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel as a Witness to Saving Events<\/h5>\nThe gospel bears witness to every aspect of Christ’s saving work, from his birth (Rom 1:3; 2 Tm 2:8) and public ministry (Mk 1:1; Acts 10:36-38) to his second coming (Col 1:5, 23; cf. 3:1-4; 1 Thes 1:5-10) and the last judgment (Rom 2:16). But it is the death and the resurrection of Christ that are most crucial for the accomplishment of salvation, and that are therefore most prominent in the gospel’s witness. These are the events with which Mark’s proclamation climaxes (chs 15–16), and for which everything else prepares (8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34; 12:6-8); special stress is placed upon Jesus’ death as the means of salvation from sin (10:45; 14:3-9, 22-24). In Paul’s gospel, too, the death and resurrection of Jesus are central (Rom 4:25; 1 Cor 15:1-4), with the cross occupying the very center (1 Cor 1:17–2:5). Had Christ not risen from the dead, Paul argues, the preaching of the cross would be a waste of time (1 Cor 15:14, 17; cf. Rom 6:3-11). However, now that Christ has risen, his death deserves special emphasis as the place where God provides atonement for sins (Rom 3:21-26; 5:6-11; 2 Cor 5:14-21; Eph 1:7). The gospel according to Acts proclaims Jesus’ death (Acts 8:25; 20:24, 28; cf. 10:36-43) and preeminently his resurrection, the event by which he conquered death and was exalted as Lord and coming Judge (10:36-43; 13:32-33; 17:18, 31). According to 1 Peter, the bearers of the gospel (1 Pt 1:12) concentrated, as had the OT prophets, on “the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glory” (1:11; cf. 1:18-19; 2:21-24; 3:18-22).<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel as a Power for Salvation<\/h5>\nThe gospel is much more than a report of past events and an exposition of doctrine. Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 1:17-18 and again in Romans 1:16 that the gospel is “the power of God”—not merely a witness to his power but an expression<\/em> of his power. Thus, it cannot be fettered (2 Tm 2:8-9). “Our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power,” Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 1:5. His point is not that the gospel was accompanied by mighty works (though this happened; cf. Rom 15:18-19), but that the gospel itself is a mighty work. God makes it so through his Holy Spirit (Rom 15:18-19; 1 Cor 2:1-5; 1 Thes 1:6). Furthermore, God’s singular purpose in exercising his power is to change people’s lives, to liberate them from sin and death, and to reconcile them to himself—in short, to save them. The gospel has power to effect the salvation it announces and to impart the life it promises (e.g., Rom 1:16; 10:8-17; 1 Cor 1:17-18; 15:1-2; Eph 1:13; 2 Thes 2:13-14; 2 Tm 1:8-11; 1 Pt 1:23-25). If people are to experience salvation, they must hear and believe the gospel. It is precisely in and through this message that the saving power manifested in the person and work of Christ (especially in his death and resurrection) is conveyed to men and made effective in their lives. Similarly it is in association with the gospel, or as a direct result of the reception of the gospel, that the Holy Spirit is imparted to believers (Acts 10:36-44; 15:7-8; 2 Cor 11:4; Gal 3:1-2). In short, the gospel is the decisive place of encounter between the sinner and God the Savior.<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel of Grace<\/h5>\nAccording to Peter’s testimony at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:7-11), an essential part of the gospel—for Gentiles and Jews alike—is salvation “through the grace of the Lord Jesus.” Toward the close of his missionary career, Paul states that his basic concern has been “to testify to the gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24, rsv<\/span>). This statement can be understood only in relation to Paul’s concept of the righteousness of God, particularly as set forth in Romans. Paul is here not merely expounding a divine attribute. Rather, he is dramatizing a divine activity—the manifestation of God’s righteousness now, “in the present time” (Rom 3:26), in the new age inaugurated by the coming of Jesus. The manifestation is twofold. Viewing the two aspects together, and doing so in the light of the gospel declared by Isaiah and by Jesus (both of whom strongly influenced Paul), respectively, will help us to understand why Paul speaks of “the gospel of the grace of God.”<\/p>\nFirst, the gospel is a witness<\/em> to God’s grace. In offering his Son as a sacrifice for sins (Rom 3:25a), God demonstrates his righteousness (vv 25b-26). That is, in the death of Jesus sins formerly “passed over” (v 25c) become the object of God’s wrath (cf. 1:18) and judgment. Yet in the very place where God deals justly and decisively with sins, he shows his grace to sinners. For the judgment against sin is focused not upon the sinners themselves but upon the One appointed to act on their behalf and to stand in their place (Rom 4:25; 5:6, 11; cf. 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 3:13). On this basis, sinners are freely pardoned (Rom 3:24). “The grace of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 15:11) toward the sinful is also in evidence, for he willingly bears their iniquities and suffers the consequences of their wrongdoing (Gal 2:20; cf. 2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:6-8).<\/p>\nSecond, the gospel is a channel<\/em> of God’s grace. “The righteousness of God is revealed” in the gospel, says Paul (Rom 1:17). By this he means, not that the gospel talks about the righteousness of God (though it does), but that God’s righteousness is actively at work in the gospel. This activity in turn explains how the gospel becomes “the power of God for salvation” (v 16). And just how does God demonstrate his righteousness at this stage? In short, by bestowing it as a free gift on sinful human beings. It remains the righteousness of God, but by God’s grace, it is a righteousness in which humans may share. Furthermore, partaking of God’s righteousness depends on being personally united with Jesus Christ. In Paul’s view the saved person is one who has been acquitted, justified, “declared righteous” by God the judge. The basis for the verdict is not that I in myself am righteous (God justifies the ungodly, Rom 4:5). Nor does God treat me as though I were righteous. According to Paul I am declared righteous because I really am<\/em> righteous—not in myself but in Christ (1 Cor 1:30; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9). This union is established through the revelation—and the free offer—of God’s righteousness in the gospel (Rom 1:16-17).<\/p>\n<h5>Responding to the Gospel<\/h5>\nThe gospel calls for a threefold response:<\/p>\n1. Believing.<\/em> The gospel, says Paul, is “the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith” (Rom 1:16). For Paul, faith is the abandonment of all reliance upon “works of law” for justification (3:28) and utter dependence upon the grace of God as demonstrated in the work of Christ, especially his death (v 25). Accordingly, the “different gospel” of Galatians 1:6 and 2 Corinthians 11:4 is spurious, for it preaches salvation by personal merit rather than (or together with) the work of Christ (cf. Gal 2:16). Ultimately faith rests upon God (Rom 4:24; 1 Thes 1:8-9) and upon Christ (Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 2:16, 20). Yet it is imperative that one believe the gospel also (Acts 8:12; 11:20-21; 15:7; Rom 1:16; 10:8-17; 1 Cor 1:17-24; Phil 1:27; Heb 4:2), for it is just by this means that God’s salvation is made known and mediated. Moreover, believing the gospel entails repentance (Acts 14:15; 20:21, 24; 1 Thes 1:5-10) and obedience (Rom 1:5; 15:16-18; Heb 4:6). Those who refuse to obey the gospel are imperiling their lives (2 Thes 1:5-10; 1 Pt 4:17).<\/p>\n2. Growing.<\/em> The Gospel is more than a message to be received—it is also a place in which to stand (1 Cor 15:1-2). It is sustainer of life as well as giver of life. One grows as a Christian not by turning from the gospel to other things (to turn away from the gospel is to abandon God and Christ, Gal 1:6), but by going ever more deeply into the gospel. In Romans 1:15 Paul expresses his eagerness to proclaim the gospel to the Christians in Rome. In the following chapters, anticipating his visit, he offers one of his most profound expositions of the gospel—one whose truth has never been fathomed and whose power has never been exhausted.<\/p>\n3. Hoping.<\/em> “The hope of the gospel” (Col 1:23) includes not only the return of Christ and the glory of heaven (Col 1:5; 3:1-4; 2 Thes 2:14-16) but the final judgment as well. For those who embrace the gospel, the last judgment holds no terrors, because the Judge is the very one who rescues them from the wrath to come (1 Thes 1:10). Those who are united to him need not dread condemnation now or at the end (Rom 8:1). Instead, the last judgment will mark their final vindication (1 Cor 4:5; Gal 5:5). Accordingly, this theme is not just a corollary but an integral part of the Good News (Rom 2:16). Those who have died since believing the gospel (1 Pt 4:6) may seem to have suffered a fate common to all people, or even the condemnation reserved for the lawless; in fact, their response to the gospel assures them of approval by the coming Lord (4:5-6; 5:4) and of a share in the imperishable inheritance of heaven (1:4).<\/p>","summary_ro":"GOSPEL Word derived from the Anglo-Saxon godspell denoting “glad tidings” or “good news.” Preview • The Gospel Message of Isaiah • The Gospel in the New Testament • The Good News of Christ’s Coming • The Gospel according to Jesus • The Gospel after Jesus’ Resurrection The Gospel Message of Isaiah Of all the passages cited, those of Isaiah provide the most important background for the gospel in the NT. According to Isaiah’s gospel, it is God alone who saves, and there is no explanation for his...","summary_en":"GOSPEL Word derived from the Anglo-Saxon godspell denoting “glad tidings” or “good news.” Preview • The Gospel Message of Isaiah • The Gospel in the New Testament • The Good News of Christ’s Coming • The Gospel according to Jesus • The Gospel after Jesus’ Resurrection The Gospel Message of Isaiah Of all the passages cited, those of Isaiah provide the most important background for the gospel in the NT. According to Isaiah’s gospel, it is God alone who saves, and there is no explanation for his...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":32666,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of Sins*, Remission","title_en":"of Sins*, Remission","content_ro":"<h3>REMISSION OF SINS*<\/h3>\nKJV phrase synonymous with “forgiveness of sins.” The NT uses a variety of terms to describe a single truth. With the concept of forgiveness of sins, there are a number of expressions employed (“passing over,” Rom 3:25; “covered,” Rom 4:7; “not imputed,” Rom 4:8; “remembered no more,” Heb 10:17). One of the most significant is the word rendered “remission” (Mt 26:28; Mk 1:4; Lk 1:77; 3:3; 24:47; Acts 2:38; 10:43; Heb 9:22; 10:18).<\/p>\nThe word has an interesting tradition in the Greek language. In the legal sense, it was used to denote dismissal from office, release from obligation, remittance of debt or punishment. In time it also referred to amnesty or exemption from taxation. In NT usage the verb means “to let go,” “to leave behind,” or “to send away.” Hence, the noun can be (and frequently is) translated “forgiveness” as well as “remission” (Acts 5:31; 13:38; 26:18; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14). While forgiveness can be exercised at both the human and divine levels, the forgiveness indicated by the word “remission” is almost always that of God (Mt 26:28; Acts 10:43).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Forgiveness.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>REMISSION OF SINS*<\/h3>\nKJV phrase synonymous with “forgiveness of sins.” The NT uses a variety of terms to describe a single truth. With the concept of forgiveness of sins, there are a number of expressions employed (“passing over,” Rom 3:25; “covered,” Rom 4:7; “not imputed,” Rom 4:8; “remembered no more,” Heb 10:17). One of the most significant is the word rendered “remission” (Mt 26:28; Mk 1:4; Lk 1:77; 3:3; 24:47; Acts 2:38; 10:43; Heb 9:22; 10:18).<\/p>\nThe word has an interesting tradition in the Greek language. In the legal sense, it was used to denote dismissal from office, release from obligation, remittance of debt or punishment. In time it also referred to amnesty or exemption from taxation. In NT usage the verb means “to let go,” “to leave behind,” or “to send away.” Hence, the noun can be (and frequently is) translated “forgiveness” as well as “remission” (Acts 5:31; 13:38; 26:18; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14). While forgiveness can be exercised at both the human and divine levels, the forgiveness indicated by the word “remission” is almost always that of God (Mt 26:28; Acts 10:43).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Forgiveness.<\/p>","summary_ro":"REMISSION OF SINS* KJV phrase synonymous with “forgiveness of sins.” The NT uses a variety of terms to describe a single truth. With the concept of forgiveness of sins, there are a number of expressions employed (“passing over,” Rom 3:25; “covered,” Rom 4:7; “not imputed,” Rom 4:8; “remembered no more,” Heb 10:17). One of the most significant is the word rendered “remission” (Mt 26:28; Mk 1:4; Lk 1:77; 3:3; 24:47; Acts 2:38; 10:43; Heb 9:22; 10:18). The word has an interesting tradition in th...","summary_en":"REMISSION OF SINS* KJV phrase synonymous with “forgiveness of sins.” The NT uses a variety of terms to describe a single truth. With the concept of forgiveness of sins, there are a number of expressions employed (“passing over,” Rom 3:25; “covered,” Rom 4:7; “not imputed,” Rom 4:8; “remembered no more,” Heb 10:17). One of the most significant is the word rendered “remission” (Mt 26:28; Mk 1:4; Lk 1:77; 3:3; 24:47; Acts 2:38; 10:43; Heb 9:22; 10:18). The word has an interesting tradition in th...","source":"Articles\/R.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55658,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:3","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:3","content_ro":"3:3<\/strong> people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God:<\/em> John seems to have adapted the practice of baptism from Jewish rites using water to cleanse, or set apart, people and objects for God’s service (cp. Lev 8:6). John called people to repent of their sins and prepare spiritually for the Messiah’s coming. Their baptism publicly demonstrated their repentance and spiritual cleansing.<\/p>","content_en":"3:3<\/strong> people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God:<\/em> John seems to have adapted the practice of baptism from Jewish rites using water to cleanse, or set apart, people and objects for God’s service (cp. Lev 8:6). John called people to repent of their sins and prepare spiritually for the Messiah’s coming. Their baptism publicly demonstrated their repentance and spiritual cleansing.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:3 people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God: John seems to have adapted the practice of baptism from Jewish rites using water to cleanse, or set apart, people and objects for God’s service (cp. Lev 8:6). John called people to repent of their sins and prepare spiritually for the Messiah’s coming. Their baptism publicly demonstrated their repentance and spiritual cleansing.","summary_en":"3:3 people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God: John seems to have adapted the practice of baptism from Jewish rites using water to cleanse, or set apart, people and objects for God’s service (cp. Lev 8:6). John called people to repent of their sins and prepare spiritually for the Messiah’s coming. Their baptism publicly demonstrated their repentance and spiritual cleansing.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83284,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:3","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:3","content_ro":"3:3<\/strong> people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God:<\/em> John seems to have adapted the practice of baptism from Jewish rites using water to cleanse, or set apart, people and objects for God’s service (cp. Lev 8:6). John called people to repent of their sins and prepare spiritually for the Messiah’s coming. Their baptism publicly demonstrated their repentance and spiritual cleansing.<\/p>","content_en":"3:3<\/strong> people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God:<\/em> John seems to have adapted the practice of baptism from Jewish rites using water to cleanse, or set apart, people and objects for God’s service (cp. Lev 8:6). John called people to repent of their sins and prepare spiritually for the Messiah’s coming. Their baptism publicly demonstrated their repentance and spiritual cleansing.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:3 people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God: John seems to have adapted the practice of baptism from Jewish rites using water to cleanse, or set apart, people and objects for God’s service (cp. Lev 8:6). John called people to repent of their sins and prepare spiritually for the Messiah’s coming. Their baptism publicly demonstrated their repentance and spiritual cleansing.","summary_en":"3:3 people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God: John seems to have adapted the practice of baptism from Jewish rites using water to cleanse, or set apart, people and objects for God’s service (cp. Lev 8:6). John called people to repent of their sins and prepare spiritually for the Messiah’s coming. Their baptism publicly demonstrated their repentance and spiritual cleansing.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110910,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:3","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:3","content_ro":"3:3<\/strong> people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God:<\/em> John seems to have adapted the practice of baptism from Jewish rites using water to cleanse, or set apart, people and objects for God’s service (cp. Lev 8:6). John called people to repent of their sins and prepare spiritually for the Messiah’s coming. Their baptism publicly demonstrated their repentance and spiritual cleansing.<\/p>","content_en":"3:3<\/strong> people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God:<\/em> John seems to have adapted the practice of baptism from Jewish rites using water to cleanse, or set apart, people and objects for God’s service (cp. Lev 8:6). John called people to repent of their sins and prepare spiritually for the Messiah’s coming. Their baptism publicly demonstrated their repentance and spiritual cleansing.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:3 people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God: John seems to have adapted the practice of baptism from Jewish rites using water to cleanse, or set apart, people and objects for God’s service (cp. Lev 8:6). John called people to repent of their sins and prepare spiritually for the Messiah’s coming. Their baptism publicly demonstrated their repentance and spiritual cleansing.","summary_en":"3:3 people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God: John seems to have adapted the practice of baptism from Jewish rites using water to cleanse, or set apart, people and objects for God’s service (cp. Lev 8:6). John called people to repent of their sins and prepare spiritually for the Messiah’s coming. Their baptism publicly demonstrated their repentance and spiritual cleansing.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138536,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:3","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:3","content_ro":"3:3<\/strong> people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God:<\/em> John seems to have adapted the practice of baptism from Jewish rites using water to cleanse, or set apart, people and objects for God’s service (cp. Lev 8:6). John called people to repent of their sins and prepare spiritually for the Messiah’s coming. Their baptism publicly demonstrated their repentance and spiritual cleansing.<\/p>","content_en":"3:3<\/strong> people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God:<\/em> John seems to have adapted the practice of baptism from Jewish rites using water to cleanse, or set apart, people and objects for God’s service (cp. Lev 8:6). John called people to repent of their sins and prepare spiritually for the Messiah’s coming. Their baptism publicly demonstrated their repentance and spiritual cleansing.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:3 people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God: John seems to have adapted the practice of baptism from Jewish rites using water to cleanse, or set apart, people and objects for God’s service (cp. Lev 8:6). John called people to repent of their sins and prepare spiritually for the Messiah’s coming. Their baptism publicly demonstrated their repentance and spiritual cleansing.","summary_en":"3:3 people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God: John seems to have adapted the practice of baptism from Jewish rites using water to cleanse, or set apart, people and objects for God’s service (cp. Lev 8:6). John called people to repent of their sins and prepare spiritually for the Messiah’s coming. Their baptism publicly demonstrated their repentance and spiritual cleansing.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":66196,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Baptism","title_en":"Baptism","content_ro":"<h3>Baptism<\/h3>\nBaptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a ritual bath to wash away the impurities of their Gentile background. This ritual cleansing was often done in special baths created for purification, called mikvahs. Mikvahs were located at many synagogues, and the Temple in Jerusalem had a large number of mikvahs, which suggests that those who approached for worship would ritually bathe.<\/p>\nJohn preached “that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Luke 3:3). John’s baptism was an aspect of his role in preparing people’s hearts to receive the Messiah (Luke 3:4-6), and those who had received his baptism and repented of their sins were those who were prepared for Jesus’ message (Luke 7:29-30).<\/p>\nAfter his resurrection, Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize new converts (Matt 28:19). Christian baptism is understood as dying and rising with Christ, signifying the death of the old life and the beginning of the new (Rom 6:1-4; Col 2:12) and also signifying a Christian’s spiritual union with Christ (Gal 3:27) and with his church. Baptism thus became the rite of initiation in the Christian community. For this reason, many interpreters see baptism as the Christian equivalent of circumcision, the rite that initiated membership into the nation of Israel under the old covenant (see Col 2:11-12). Whatever the connection with OT circumcision, baptism signifies a changed heart and a clean conscience that come from God’s forgiveness (1 Pet 3:21; cp. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29; Phil 3:3).<\/p>\nAs a ritual cleansing, Christian baptism signifies both forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 10:43; 13:38; 26:17-18) and the reception of the Holy Spirit (2:38; 9:17-18; 10:47-48; 11:15-17; 19:5-7; Luke 3:16). Many interpreters see baptism as the outward confirmation of the inward “seal” of the Spirit, whose presence is a “guarantee” of the eternal inheritance that awaits God’s faithful people (2 Cor 1:21-22; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Titus 3:5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 3:6-16; 21:25; 28:19; Mark 1:4-9; 10:38-39; 11:30; 16:16; Luke 3:3-22; 7:29-30; 12:50; 20:4; John 1:25-36; 3:22-23, 26; 4:1-2; 10:40; Acts 1:5, 22; 2:38, 41; 8:12-13, 16-17, 36-38; 9:18; 10:37, 47-48; 11:16; 13:24; 16:15, 33; 18:8, 25; 19:1-7; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 1:13-17; 10:2; 12:13; 15:29; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12; Heb 6:2; 1 Pet 3:21; 1 Jn 5:6<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Baptism<\/h3>\nBaptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a ritual bath to wash away the impurities of their Gentile background. This ritual cleansing was often done in special baths created for purification, called mikvahs. Mikvahs were located at many synagogues, and the Temple in Jerusalem had a large number of mikvahs, which suggests that those who approached for worship would ritually bathe.<\/p>\nJohn preached “that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Luke 3:3). John’s baptism was an aspect of his role in preparing people’s hearts to receive the Messiah (Luke 3:4-6), and those who had received his baptism and repented of their sins were those who were prepared for Jesus’ message (Luke 7:29-30).<\/p>\nAfter his resurrection, Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize new converts (Matt 28:19). Christian baptism is understood as dying and rising with Christ, signifying the death of the old life and the beginning of the new (Rom 6:1-4; Col 2:12) and also signifying a Christian’s spiritual union with Christ (Gal 3:27) and with his church. Baptism thus became the rite of initiation in the Christian community. For this reason, many interpreters see baptism as the Christian equivalent of circumcision, the rite that initiated membership into the nation of Israel under the old covenant (see Col 2:11-12). Whatever the connection with OT circumcision, baptism signifies a changed heart and a clean conscience that come from God’s forgiveness (1 Pet 3:21; cp. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29; Phil 3:3).<\/p>\nAs a ritual cleansing, Christian baptism signifies both forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 10:43; 13:38; 26:17-18) and the reception of the Holy Spirit (2:38; 9:17-18; 10:47-48; 11:15-17; 19:5-7; Luke 3:16). Many interpreters see baptism as the outward confirmation of the inward “seal” of the Spirit, whose presence is a “guarantee” of the eternal inheritance that awaits God’s faithful people (2 Cor 1:21-22; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Titus 3:5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 3:6-16; 21:25; 28:19; Mark 1:4-9; 10:38-39; 11:30; 16:16; Luke 3:3-22; 7:29-30; 12:50; 20:4; John 1:25-36; 3:22-23, 26; 4:1-2; 10:40; Acts 1:5, 22; 2:38, 41; 8:12-13, 16-17, 36-38; 9:18; 10:37, 47-48; 11:16; 13:24; 16:15, 33; 18:8, 25; 19:1-7; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 1:13-17; 10:2; 12:13; 15:29; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12; Heb 6:2; 1 Pet 3:21; 1 Jn 5:6<\/p>","summary_ro":"Baptism Baptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a...","summary_en":"Baptism Baptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":93822,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Baptism","title_en":"Baptism","content_ro":"<h3>Baptism<\/h3>\nBaptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a ritual bath to wash away the impurities of their Gentile background. This ritual cleansing was often done in special baths created for purification, called mikvahs. Mikvahs were located at many synagogues, and the Temple in Jerusalem had a large number of mikvahs, which suggests that those who approached for worship would ritually bathe.<\/p>\nJohn preached “that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Luke 3:3). John’s baptism was an aspect of his role in preparing people’s hearts to receive the Messiah (Luke 3:4-6), and those who had received his baptism and repented of their sins were those who were prepared for Jesus’ message (Luke 7:29-30).<\/p>\nAfter his resurrection, Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize new converts (Matt 28:19). Christian baptism is understood as dying and rising with Christ, signifying the death of the old life and the beginning of the new (Rom 6:1-4; Col 2:12) and also signifying a Christian’s spiritual union with Christ (Gal 3:27) and with his church. Baptism thus became the rite of initiation in the Christian community. For this reason, many interpreters see baptism as the Christian equivalent of circumcision, the rite that initiated membership into the nation of Israel under the old covenant (see Col 2:11-12). Whatever the connection with OT circumcision, baptism signifies a changed heart and a clean conscience that come from God’s forgiveness (1 Pet 3:21; cp. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29; Phil 3:3).<\/p>\nAs a ritual cleansing, Christian baptism signifies both forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 10:43; 13:38; 26:17-18) and the reception of the Holy Spirit (2:38; 9:17-18; 10:47-48; 11:15-17; 19:5-7; Luke 3:16). Many interpreters see baptism as the outward confirmation of the inward “seal” of the Spirit, whose presence is a “guarantee” of the eternal inheritance that awaits God’s faithful people (2 Cor 1:21-22; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Titus 3:5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 3:6-16; 21:25; 28:19; Mark 1:4-9; 10:38-39; 11:30; 16:16; Luke 3:3-22; 7:29-30; 12:50; 20:4; John 1:25-36; 3:22-23, 26; 4:1-2; 10:40; Acts 1:5, 22; 2:38, 41; 8:12-13, 16-17, 36-38; 9:18; 10:37, 47-48; 11:16; 13:24; 16:15, 33; 18:8, 25; 19:1-7; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 1:13-17; 10:2; 12:13; 15:29; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12; Heb 6:2; 1 Pet 3:21; 1 Jn 5:6<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Baptism<\/h3>\nBaptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a ritual bath to wash away the impurities of their Gentile background. This ritual cleansing was often done in special baths created for purification, called mikvahs. Mikvahs were located at many synagogues, and the Temple in Jerusalem had a large number of mikvahs, which suggests that those who approached for worship would ritually bathe.<\/p>\nJohn preached “that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Luke 3:3). John’s baptism was an aspect of his role in preparing people’s hearts to receive the Messiah (Luke 3:4-6), and those who had received his baptism and repented of their sins were those who were prepared for Jesus’ message (Luke 7:29-30).<\/p>\nAfter his resurrection, Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize new converts (Matt 28:19). Christian baptism is understood as dying and rising with Christ, signifying the death of the old life and the beginning of the new (Rom 6:1-4; Col 2:12) and also signifying a Christian’s spiritual union with Christ (Gal 3:27) and with his church. Baptism thus became the rite of initiation in the Christian community. For this reason, many interpreters see baptism as the Christian equivalent of circumcision, the rite that initiated membership into the nation of Israel under the old covenant (see Col 2:11-12). Whatever the connection with OT circumcision, baptism signifies a changed heart and a clean conscience that come from God’s forgiveness (1 Pet 3:21; cp. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29; Phil 3:3).<\/p>\nAs a ritual cleansing, Christian baptism signifies both forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 10:43; 13:38; 26:17-18) and the reception of the Holy Spirit (2:38; 9:17-18; 10:47-48; 11:15-17; 19:5-7; Luke 3:16). Many interpreters see baptism as the outward confirmation of the inward “seal” of the Spirit, whose presence is a “guarantee” of the eternal inheritance that awaits God’s faithful people (2 Cor 1:21-22; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Titus 3:5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 3:6-16; 21:25; 28:19; Mark 1:4-9; 10:38-39; 11:30; 16:16; Luke 3:3-22; 7:29-30; 12:50; 20:4; John 1:25-36; 3:22-23, 26; 4:1-2; 10:40; Acts 1:5, 22; 2:38, 41; 8:12-13, 16-17, 36-38; 9:18; 10:37, 47-48; 11:16; 13:24; 16:15, 33; 18:8, 25; 19:1-7; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 1:13-17; 10:2; 12:13; 15:29; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12; Heb 6:2; 1 Pet 3:21; 1 Jn 5:6<\/p>","summary_ro":"Baptism Baptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a...","summary_en":"Baptism Baptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":121448,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Baptism","title_en":"Baptism","content_ro":"<h3>Baptism<\/h3>\nBaptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a ritual bath to wash away the impurities of their Gentile background. This ritual cleansing was often done in special baths created for purification, called mikvahs. Mikvahs were located at many synagogues, and the Temple in Jerusalem had a large number of mikvahs, which suggests that those who approached for worship would ritually bathe.<\/p>\nJohn preached “that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Luke 3:3). John’s baptism was an aspect of his role in preparing people’s hearts to receive the Messiah (Luke 3:4-6), and those who had received his baptism and repented of their sins were those who were prepared for Jesus’ message (Luke 7:29-30).<\/p>\nAfter his resurrection, Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize new converts (Matt 28:19). Christian baptism is understood as dying and rising with Christ, signifying the death of the old life and the beginning of the new (Rom 6:1-4; Col 2:12) and also signifying a Christian’s spiritual union with Christ (Gal 3:27) and with his church. Baptism thus became the rite of initiation in the Christian community. For this reason, many interpreters see baptism as the Christian equivalent of circumcision, the rite that initiated membership into the nation of Israel under the old covenant (see Col 2:11-12). Whatever the connection with OT circumcision, baptism signifies a changed heart and a clean conscience that come from God’s forgiveness (1 Pet 3:21; cp. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29; Phil 3:3).<\/p>\nAs a ritual cleansing, Christian baptism signifies both forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 10:43; 13:38; 26:17-18) and the reception of the Holy Spirit (2:38; 9:17-18; 10:47-48; 11:15-17; 19:5-7; Luke 3:16). Many interpreters see baptism as the outward confirmation of the inward “seal” of the Spirit, whose presence is a “guarantee” of the eternal inheritance that awaits God’s faithful people (2 Cor 1:21-22; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Titus 3:5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 3:6-16; 21:25; 28:19; Mark 1:4-9; 10:38-39; 11:30; 16:16; Luke 3:3-22; 7:29-30; 12:50; 20:4; John 1:25-36; 3:22-23, 26; 4:1-2; 10:40; Acts 1:5, 22; 2:38, 41; 8:12-13, 16-17, 36-38; 9:18; 10:37, 47-48; 11:16; 13:24; 16:15, 33; 18:8, 25; 19:1-7; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 1:13-17; 10:2; 12:13; 15:29; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12; Heb 6:2; 1 Pet 3:21; 1 Jn 5:6<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Baptism<\/h3>\nBaptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a ritual bath to wash away the impurities of their Gentile background. This ritual cleansing was often done in special baths created for purification, called mikvahs. Mikvahs were located at many synagogues, and the Temple in Jerusalem had a large number of mikvahs, which suggests that those who approached for worship would ritually bathe.<\/p>\nJohn preached “that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Luke 3:3). John’s baptism was an aspect of his role in preparing people’s hearts to receive the Messiah (Luke 3:4-6), and those who had received his baptism and repented of their sins were those who were prepared for Jesus’ message (Luke 7:29-30).<\/p>\nAfter his resurrection, Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize new converts (Matt 28:19). Christian baptism is understood as dying and rising with Christ, signifying the death of the old life and the beginning of the new (Rom 6:1-4; Col 2:12) and also signifying a Christian’s spiritual union with Christ (Gal 3:27) and with his church. Baptism thus became the rite of initiation in the Christian community. For this reason, many interpreters see baptism as the Christian equivalent of circumcision, the rite that initiated membership into the nation of Israel under the old covenant (see Col 2:11-12). Whatever the connection with OT circumcision, baptism signifies a changed heart and a clean conscience that come from God’s forgiveness (1 Pet 3:21; cp. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29; Phil 3:3).<\/p>\nAs a ritual cleansing, Christian baptism signifies both forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 10:43; 13:38; 26:17-18) and the reception of the Holy Spirit (2:38; 9:17-18; 10:47-48; 11:15-17; 19:5-7; Luke 3:16). Many interpreters see baptism as the outward confirmation of the inward “seal” of the Spirit, whose presence is a “guarantee” of the eternal inheritance that awaits God’s faithful people (2 Cor 1:21-22; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Titus 3:5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 3:6-16; 21:25; 28:19; Mark 1:4-9; 10:38-39; 11:30; 16:16; Luke 3:3-22; 7:29-30; 12:50; 20:4; John 1:25-36; 3:22-23, 26; 4:1-2; 10:40; Acts 1:5, 22; 2:38, 41; 8:12-13, 16-17, 36-38; 9:18; 10:37, 47-48; 11:16; 13:24; 16:15, 33; 18:8, 25; 19:1-7; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 1:13-17; 10:2; 12:13; 15:29; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12; Heb 6:2; 1 Pet 3:21; 1 Jn 5:6<\/p>","summary_ro":"Baptism Baptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a...","summary_en":"Baptism Baptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":149074,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Baptism","title_en":"Baptism","content_ro":"<h3>Baptism<\/h3>\nBaptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a ritual bath to wash away the impurities of their Gentile background. This ritual cleansing was often done in special baths created for purification, called mikvahs. Mikvahs were located at many synagogues, and the Temple in Jerusalem had a large number of mikvahs, which suggests that those who approached for worship would ritually bathe.<\/p>\nJohn preached “that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Luke 3:3). John’s baptism was an aspect of his role in preparing people’s hearts to receive the Messiah (Luke 3:4-6), and those who had received his baptism and repented of their sins were those who were prepared for Jesus’ message (Luke 7:29-30).<\/p>\nAfter his resurrection, Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize new converts (Matt 28:19). Christian baptism is understood as dying and rising with Christ, signifying the death of the old life and the beginning of the new (Rom 6:1-4; Col 2:12) and also signifying a Christian’s spiritual union with Christ (Gal 3:27) and with his church. Baptism thus became the rite of initiation in the Christian community. For this reason, many interpreters see baptism as the Christian equivalent of circumcision, the rite that initiated membership into the nation of Israel under the old covenant (see Col 2:11-12). Whatever the connection with OT circumcision, baptism signifies a changed heart and a clean conscience that come from God’s forgiveness (1 Pet 3:21; cp. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29; Phil 3:3).<\/p>\nAs a ritual cleansing, Christian baptism signifies both forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 10:43; 13:38; 26:17-18) and the reception of the Holy Spirit (2:38; 9:17-18; 10:47-48; 11:15-17; 19:5-7; Luke 3:16). Many interpreters see baptism as the outward confirmation of the inward “seal” of the Spirit, whose presence is a “guarantee” of the eternal inheritance that awaits God’s faithful people (2 Cor 1:21-22; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Titus 3:5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 3:6-16; 21:25; 28:19; Mark 1:4-9; 10:38-39; 11:30; 16:16; Luke 3:3-22; 7:29-30; 12:50; 20:4; John 1:25-36; 3:22-23, 26; 4:1-2; 10:40; Acts 1:5, 22; 2:38, 41; 8:12-13, 16-17, 36-38; 9:18; 10:37, 47-48; 11:16; 13:24; 16:15, 33; 18:8, 25; 19:1-7; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 1:13-17; 10:2; 12:13; 15:29; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12; Heb 6:2; 1 Pet 3:21; 1 Jn 5:6<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Baptism<\/h3>\nBaptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a ritual bath to wash away the impurities of their Gentile background. This ritual cleansing was often done in special baths created for purification, called mikvahs. Mikvahs were located at many synagogues, and the Temple in Jerusalem had a large number of mikvahs, which suggests that those who approached for worship would ritually bathe.<\/p>\nJohn preached “that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Luke 3:3). John’s baptism was an aspect of his role in preparing people’s hearts to receive the Messiah (Luke 3:4-6), and those who had received his baptism and repented of their sins were those who were prepared for Jesus’ message (Luke 7:29-30).<\/p>\nAfter his resurrection, Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize new converts (Matt 28:19). Christian baptism is understood as dying and rising with Christ, signifying the death of the old life and the beginning of the new (Rom 6:1-4; Col 2:12) and also signifying a Christian’s spiritual union with Christ (Gal 3:27) and with his church. Baptism thus became the rite of initiation in the Christian community. For this reason, many interpreters see baptism as the Christian equivalent of circumcision, the rite that initiated membership into the nation of Israel under the old covenant (see Col 2:11-12). Whatever the connection with OT circumcision, baptism signifies a changed heart and a clean conscience that come from God’s forgiveness (1 Pet 3:21; cp. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29; Phil 3:3).<\/p>\nAs a ritual cleansing, Christian baptism signifies both forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 10:43; 13:38; 26:17-18) and the reception of the Holy Spirit (2:38; 9:17-18; 10:47-48; 11:15-17; 19:5-7; Luke 3:16). Many interpreters see baptism as the outward confirmation of the inward “seal” of the Spirit, whose presence is a “guarantee” of the eternal inheritance that awaits God’s faithful people (2 Cor 1:21-22; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Titus 3:5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 3:6-16; 21:25; 28:19; Mark 1:4-9; 10:38-39; 11:30; 16:16; Luke 3:3-22; 7:29-30; 12:50; 20:4; John 1:25-36; 3:22-23, 26; 4:1-2; 10:40; Acts 1:5, 22; 2:38, 41; 8:12-13, 16-17, 36-38; 9:18; 10:37, 47-48; 11:16; 13:24; 16:15, 33; 18:8, 25; 19:1-7; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 1:13-17; 10:2; 12:13; 15:29; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12; Heb 6:2; 1 Pet 3:21; 1 Jn 5:6<\/p>","summary_ro":"Baptism Baptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a...","summary_en":"Baptism Baptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"4":[{"id":41888,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Isaiah","title_en":"Isaiah","content_ro":"<h3>Isaiah<\/h3>\nIsaiah was a Judean prophet during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. He was the son of Amoz (Isa 1:1) and was possibly related to King Amaziah. He lived in Jerusalem, was well educated, and had deep insight into human nature. He had a long ministry (about 740~685 BC); as Judah’s political and religious counselor, he had access to kings and was apparently the court historian (2 Chr 26:22; 32:32). Isaiah’s wife was called a “prophetess” (see Study Note on Isa 8:3); their sons were Shear-jashub (7:3) and Maher-shalal-hash-baz (8:3).<\/p>\nIsaiah opposed social and political evil at all levels. He censured fortune-tellers. He rebuked kings for their willfulness and indifference. He denounced wealthy, influential people who ignored their responsibilities. And he exhorted everyone to obey God’s covenant. Isaiah opposed Canaanite idolatry and insincere religious observances (1:10-17; 29:13), proclaiming judgment and declaring that only a righteous remnant would survive (6:11-13). He foretold the coming Messiah, the peaceful prince of God’s kingdom (9:6-7; 11:1-11) who was also an obedient, suffering servant (53:3-12). The book of Isaiah has more overtones of the New Testament than any other Old Testament book and is frequently cited by New Testament authors.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n2 Kgs 19:1–20:19; 2 Chr 26:22; 32:20, 32; Isa 1:1–66:24; Matt 3:3; 4:14-16; 8:17; 12:17-21; 13:14-15; 15:7-9; Mark 1:2-3; 7:6-7; Luke 3:4-6; 4:17-19; John 1:23; 12:38-41; Acts 8:28-34; 28:25-27; Rom 9:27-29; 10:15-16, 20-21; 15:12; Gal 4:27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Isaiah<\/h3>\nIsaiah was a Judean prophet during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. He was the son of Amoz (Isa 1:1) and was possibly related to King Amaziah. He lived in Jerusalem, was well educated, and had deep insight into human nature. He had a long ministry (about 740~685 BC); as Judah’s political and religious counselor, he had access to kings and was apparently the court historian (2 Chr 26:22; 32:32). Isaiah’s wife was called a “prophetess” (see Study Note on Isa 8:3); their sons were Shear-jashub (7:3) and Maher-shalal-hash-baz (8:3).<\/p>\nIsaiah opposed social and political evil at all levels. He censured fortune-tellers. He rebuked kings for their willfulness and indifference. He denounced wealthy, influential people who ignored their responsibilities. And he exhorted everyone to obey God’s covenant. Isaiah opposed Canaanite idolatry and insincere religious observances (1:10-17; 29:13), proclaiming judgment and declaring that only a righteous remnant would survive (6:11-13). He foretold the coming Messiah, the peaceful prince of God’s kingdom (9:6-7; 11:1-11) who was also an obedient, suffering servant (53:3-12). The book of Isaiah has more overtones of the New Testament than any other Old Testament book and is frequently cited by New Testament authors.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n2 Kgs 19:1–20:19; 2 Chr 26:22; 32:20, 32; Isa 1:1–66:24; Matt 3:3; 4:14-16; 8:17; 12:17-21; 13:14-15; 15:7-9; Mark 1:2-3; 7:6-7; Luke 3:4-6; 4:17-19; John 1:23; 12:38-41; Acts 8:28-34; 28:25-27; Rom 9:27-29; 10:15-16, 20-21; 15:12; Gal 4:27<\/p>","summary_ro":"Isaiah Isaiah was a Judean prophet during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. He was the son of Amoz (Isa 1:1) and was possibly related to King Amaziah. He lived in Jerusalem, was well educated, and had deep insight into human nature. He had a long ministry (about 740~685 BC); as Judah’s political and religious counselor, he had access to kings and was apparently the court historian (2 Chr 26:22; 32:32). Isaiah’s wife was called a “prophetess” (see Study Note on Isa 8:3); their ...","summary_en":"Isaiah Isaiah was a Judean prophet during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. He was the son of Amoz (Isa 1:1) and was possibly related to King Amaziah. He lived in Jerusalem, was well educated, and had deep insight into human nature. He had a long ministry (about 740~685 BC); as Judah’s political and religious counselor, he had access to kings and was apparently the court historian (2 Chr 26:22; 32:32). Isaiah’s wife was called a “prophetess” (see Study Note on Isa 8:3); their ...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":69514,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Isaiah","title_en":"Isaiah","content_ro":"<h3>Isaiah<\/h3>\nIsaiah was a Judean prophet during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. He was the son of Amoz (Isa 1:1) and was possibly related to King Amaziah. He lived in Jerusalem, was well educated, and had deep insight into human nature. He had a long ministry (about 740~685 BC); as Judah’s political and religious counselor, he had access to kings and was apparently the court historian (2 Chr 26:22; 32:32). Isaiah’s wife was called a “prophetess” (see Study Note on Isa 8:3); their sons were Shear-jashub (7:3) and Maher-shalal-hash-baz (8:3).<\/p>\nIsaiah opposed social and political evil at all levels. He censured fortune-tellers. He rebuked kings for their willfulness and indifference. He denounced wealthy, influential people who ignored their responsibilities. And he exhorted everyone to obey God’s covenant. Isaiah opposed Canaanite idolatry and insincere religious observances (1:10-17; 29:13), proclaiming judgment and declaring that only a righteous remnant would survive (6:11-13). He foretold the coming Messiah, the peaceful prince of God’s kingdom (9:6-7; 11:1-11) who was also an obedient, suffering servant (53:3-12). The book of Isaiah has more overtones of the New Testament than any other Old Testament book and is frequently cited by New Testament authors.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n2 Kgs 19:1–20:19; 2 Chr 26:22; 32:20, 32; Isa 1:1–66:24; Matt 3:3; 4:14-16; 8:17; 12:17-21; 13:14-15; 15:7-9; Mark 1:2-3; 7:6-7; Luke 3:4-6; 4:17-19; John 1:23; 12:38-41; Acts 8:28-34; 28:25-27; Rom 9:27-29; 10:15-16, 20-21; 15:12; Gal 4:27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Isaiah<\/h3>\nIsaiah was a Judean prophet during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. He was the son of Amoz (Isa 1:1) and was possibly related to King Amaziah. He lived in Jerusalem, was well educated, and had deep insight into human nature. He had a long ministry (about 740~685 BC); as Judah’s political and religious counselor, he had access to kings and was apparently the court historian (2 Chr 26:22; 32:32). Isaiah’s wife was called a “prophetess” (see Study Note on Isa 8:3); their sons were Shear-jashub (7:3) and Maher-shalal-hash-baz (8:3).<\/p>\nIsaiah opposed social and political evil at all levels. He censured fortune-tellers. He rebuked kings for their willfulness and indifference. He denounced wealthy, influential people who ignored their responsibilities. And he exhorted everyone to obey God’s covenant. Isaiah opposed Canaanite idolatry and insincere religious observances (1:10-17; 29:13), proclaiming judgment and declaring that only a righteous remnant would survive (6:11-13). He foretold the coming Messiah, the peaceful prince of God’s kingdom (9:6-7; 11:1-11) who was also an obedient, suffering servant (53:3-12). The book of Isaiah has more overtones of the New Testament than any other Old Testament book and is frequently cited by New Testament authors.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n2 Kgs 19:1–20:19; 2 Chr 26:22; 32:20, 32; Isa 1:1–66:24; Matt 3:3; 4:14-16; 8:17; 12:17-21; 13:14-15; 15:7-9; Mark 1:2-3; 7:6-7; Luke 3:4-6; 4:17-19; John 1:23; 12:38-41; Acts 8:28-34; 28:25-27; Rom 9:27-29; 10:15-16, 20-21; 15:12; Gal 4:27<\/p>","summary_ro":"Isaiah Isaiah was a Judean prophet during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. He was the son of Amoz (Isa 1:1) and was possibly related to King Amaziah. He lived in Jerusalem, was well educated, and had deep insight into human nature. He had a long ministry (about 740~685 BC); as Judah’s political and religious counselor, he had access to kings and was apparently the court historian (2 Chr 26:22; 32:32). Isaiah’s wife was called a “prophetess” (see Study Note on Isa 8:3); their ...","summary_en":"Isaiah Isaiah was a Judean prophet during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. He was the son of Amoz (Isa 1:1) and was possibly related to King Amaziah. He lived in Jerusalem, was well educated, and had deep insight into human nature. He had a long ministry (about 740~685 BC); as Judah’s political and religious counselor, he had access to kings and was apparently the court historian (2 Chr 26:22; 32:32). Isaiah’s wife was called a “prophetess” (see Study Note on Isa 8:3); their ...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":97140,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Isaiah","title_en":"Isaiah","content_ro":"<h3>Isaiah<\/h3>\nIsaiah was a Judean prophet during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. He was the son of Amoz (Isa 1:1) and was possibly related to King Amaziah. He lived in Jerusalem, was well educated, and had deep insight into human nature. He had a long ministry (about 740~685 BC); as Judah’s political and religious counselor, he had access to kings and was apparently the court historian (2 Chr 26:22; 32:32). Isaiah’s wife was called a “prophetess” (see Study Note on Isa 8:3); their sons were Shear-jashub (7:3) and Maher-shalal-hash-baz (8:3).<\/p>\nIsaiah opposed social and political evil at all levels. He censured fortune-tellers. He rebuked kings for their willfulness and indifference. He denounced wealthy, influential people who ignored their responsibilities. And he exhorted everyone to obey God’s covenant. Isaiah opposed Canaanite idolatry and insincere religious observances (1:10-17; 29:13), proclaiming judgment and declaring that only a righteous remnant would survive (6:11-13). He foretold the coming Messiah, the peaceful prince of God’s kingdom (9:6-7; 11:1-11) who was also an obedient, suffering servant (53:3-12). The book of Isaiah has more overtones of the New Testament than any other Old Testament book and is frequently cited by New Testament authors.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n2 Kgs 19:1–20:19; 2 Chr 26:22; 32:20, 32; Isa 1:1–66:24; Matt 3:3; 4:14-16; 8:17; 12:17-21; 13:14-15; 15:7-9; Mark 1:2-3; 7:6-7; Luke 3:4-6; 4:17-19; John 1:23; 12:38-41; Acts 8:28-34; 28:25-27; Rom 9:27-29; 10:15-16, 20-21; 15:12; Gal 4:27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Isaiah<\/h3>\nIsaiah was a Judean prophet during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. He was the son of Amoz (Isa 1:1) and was possibly related to King Amaziah. He lived in Jerusalem, was well educated, and had deep insight into human nature. He had a long ministry (about 740~685 BC); as Judah’s political and religious counselor, he had access to kings and was apparently the court historian (2 Chr 26:22; 32:32). Isaiah’s wife was called a “prophetess” (see Study Note on Isa 8:3); their sons were Shear-jashub (7:3) and Maher-shalal-hash-baz (8:3).<\/p>\nIsaiah opposed social and political evil at all levels. He censured fortune-tellers. He rebuked kings for their willfulness and indifference. He denounced wealthy, influential people who ignored their responsibilities. And he exhorted everyone to obey God’s covenant. Isaiah opposed Canaanite idolatry and insincere religious observances (1:10-17; 29:13), proclaiming judgment and declaring that only a righteous remnant would survive (6:11-13). He foretold the coming Messiah, the peaceful prince of God’s kingdom (9:6-7; 11:1-11) who was also an obedient, suffering servant (53:3-12). The book of Isaiah has more overtones of the New Testament than any other Old Testament book and is frequently cited by New Testament authors.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n2 Kgs 19:1–20:19; 2 Chr 26:22; 32:20, 32; Isa 1:1–66:24; Matt 3:3; 4:14-16; 8:17; 12:17-21; 13:14-15; 15:7-9; Mark 1:2-3; 7:6-7; Luke 3:4-6; 4:17-19; John 1:23; 12:38-41; Acts 8:28-34; 28:25-27; Rom 9:27-29; 10:15-16, 20-21; 15:12; Gal 4:27<\/p>","summary_ro":"Isaiah Isaiah was a Judean prophet during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. He was the son of Amoz (Isa 1:1) and was possibly related to King Amaziah. He lived in Jerusalem, was well educated, and had deep insight into human nature. He had a long ministry (about 740~685 BC); as Judah’s political and religious counselor, he had access to kings and was apparently the court historian (2 Chr 26:22; 32:32). Isaiah’s wife was called a “prophetess” (see Study Note on Isa 8:3); their ...","summary_en":"Isaiah Isaiah was a Judean prophet during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. He was the son of Amoz (Isa 1:1) and was possibly related to King Amaziah. He lived in Jerusalem, was well educated, and had deep insight into human nature. He had a long ministry (about 740~685 BC); as Judah’s political and religious counselor, he had access to kings and was apparently the court historian (2 Chr 26:22; 32:32). Isaiah’s wife was called a “prophetess” (see Study Note on Isa 8:3); their ...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":124766,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Isaiah","title_en":"Isaiah","content_ro":"<h3>Isaiah<\/h3>\nIsaiah was a Judean prophet during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. He was the son of Amoz (Isa 1:1) and was possibly related to King Amaziah. He lived in Jerusalem, was well educated, and had deep insight into human nature. He had a long ministry (about 740~685 BC); as Judah’s political and religious counselor, he had access to kings and was apparently the court historian (2 Chr 26:22; 32:32). Isaiah’s wife was called a “prophetess” (see Study Note on Isa 8:3); their sons were Shear-jashub (7:3) and Maher-shalal-hash-baz (8:3).<\/p>\nIsaiah opposed social and political evil at all levels. He censured fortune-tellers. He rebuked kings for their willfulness and indifference. He denounced wealthy, influential people who ignored their responsibilities. And he exhorted everyone to obey God’s covenant. Isaiah opposed Canaanite idolatry and insincere religious observances (1:10-17; 29:13), proclaiming judgment and declaring that only a righteous remnant would survive (6:11-13). He foretold the coming Messiah, the peaceful prince of God’s kingdom (9:6-7; 11:1-11) who was also an obedient, suffering servant (53:3-12). The book of Isaiah has more overtones of the New Testament than any other Old Testament book and is frequently cited by New Testament authors.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n2 Kgs 19:1–20:19; 2 Chr 26:22; 32:20, 32; Isa 1:1–66:24; Matt 3:3; 4:14-16; 8:17; 12:17-21; 13:14-15; 15:7-9; Mark 1:2-3; 7:6-7; Luke 3:4-6; 4:17-19; John 1:23; 12:38-41; Acts 8:28-34; 28:25-27; Rom 9:27-29; 10:15-16, 20-21; 15:12; Gal 4:27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Isaiah<\/h3>\nIsaiah was a Judean prophet during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. He was the son of Amoz (Isa 1:1) and was possibly related to King Amaziah. He lived in Jerusalem, was well educated, and had deep insight into human nature. He had a long ministry (about 740~685 BC); as Judah’s political and religious counselor, he had access to kings and was apparently the court historian (2 Chr 26:22; 32:32). Isaiah’s wife was called a “prophetess” (see Study Note on Isa 8:3); their sons were Shear-jashub (7:3) and Maher-shalal-hash-baz (8:3).<\/p>\nIsaiah opposed social and political evil at all levels. He censured fortune-tellers. He rebuked kings for their willfulness and indifference. He denounced wealthy, influential people who ignored their responsibilities. And he exhorted everyone to obey God’s covenant. Isaiah opposed Canaanite idolatry and insincere religious observances (1:10-17; 29:13), proclaiming judgment and declaring that only a righteous remnant would survive (6:11-13). He foretold the coming Messiah, the peaceful prince of God’s kingdom (9:6-7; 11:1-11) who was also an obedient, suffering servant (53:3-12). The book of Isaiah has more overtones of the New Testament than any other Old Testament book and is frequently cited by New Testament authors.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n2 Kgs 19:1–20:19; 2 Chr 26:22; 32:20, 32; Isa 1:1–66:24; Matt 3:3; 4:14-16; 8:17; 12:17-21; 13:14-15; 15:7-9; Mark 1:2-3; 7:6-7; Luke 3:4-6; 4:17-19; John 1:23; 12:38-41; Acts 8:28-34; 28:25-27; Rom 9:27-29; 10:15-16, 20-21; 15:12; Gal 4:27<\/p>","summary_ro":"Isaiah Isaiah was a Judean prophet during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. He was the son of Amoz (Isa 1:1) and was possibly related to King Amaziah. He lived in Jerusalem, was well educated, and had deep insight into human nature. He had a long ministry (about 740~685 BC); as Judah’s political and religious counselor, he had access to kings and was apparently the court historian (2 Chr 26:22; 32:32). Isaiah’s wife was called a “prophetess” (see Study Note on Isa 8:3); their ...","summary_en":"Isaiah Isaiah was a Judean prophet during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. He was the son of Amoz (Isa 1:1) and was possibly related to King Amaziah. He lived in Jerusalem, was well educated, and had deep insight into human nature. He had a long ministry (about 740~685 BC); as Judah’s political and religious counselor, he had access to kings and was apparently the court historian (2 Chr 26:22; 32:32). Isaiah’s wife was called a “prophetess” (see Study Note on Isa 8:3); their ...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":4865,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of the Old Testament in the New Testament Bible*, Quotations","title_en":"of the Old Testament in the New Testament Bible*, Quotations","content_ro":"<h3>BIBLE*, Quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament<\/span><\/h3>\nOT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings.<\/p>\nOne of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers.<\/p>\nThe OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotations in distinctive print, this may not be easily seen, for the NT writers often weave the OT words into their own without indicating they are borrowing from the OT. There are over 400 passages of the OT that are explicitly cited in the NT. Almost half of these are introduced by a statement like “Scripture says” to draw attention to the fact that the authority and thought of the OT is being implemented. For the others, however, the OT words are woven into the fabric of the author’s own statement.<\/p>\nIn addition to the over 400 passages cited explicitly, there are well over 1,000 places where there is an allusion to an OT text, event, or person. The difference between a quotation and an allusion is sometimes debated for particular texts, but usually the distinction is that in a quotation the author consciously uses the words of an OT passage, whereas with an allusion he has the texts in mind but is not consciously trying to use the words.<\/p>\nQuotations are easy to identify if there is an introductory formula such as “the Scripture says” (as in Rom 10:11; cf. Is 28:16). Where there is no introductory formula, it is easy to overlook explicit quotations (Rom 10:13; cf. Jl 2:32). The allusions are, of course, harder still to recognize, but they often provide the key to interpretation. For example, John 1:14-18—with its mention of glory, grace and truth, Moses, and the fact that no one has seen God—is much more easily and profoundly understood when read in connection with Exodus 33:17–34:8. In the Exodus passage the glory of God and his grace and truth are revealed to Moses. The author was showing that a much more complete revelation of God was given in Jesus than was given Moses in the account recorded in Exodus.<\/p>\nIn addition, significant light is shed on many NT passages from OT passages with similar ideas and words even where the NT author may not have been consciously alluding to those texts (e.g. Mt 16:19; Is 22:22). What was behind the author’s thinking is not certain, but in such cases the NT reflects the thinking, the culture, and language of the OT period.<\/p>\nDistribution of Old Testament Quotations<\/p>\nThe books of the NT that show the most dependence on the OT are Matthew, John, Romans, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and Revelation. Such a statement can be misleading, however, because the writers have different methods.<\/p>\nMatthew quotes or consciously reflects the wording of OT passages about 62 times, almost half of which have an introductory formula. The book of Revelation, on the other hand, never quotes the OT and never has an introductory formula but is probably more dependent on the OT than any other NT book. The book of Hebrews quotes or consciously reflects the OT about 59 times, again half of which have an introductory formula, but the Gospel of John does so only 18 times, nearly always with an introductory formula. However, the allusions to the OT are present on virtually every page of John’s Gospel, so much so that some scholars have argued that he has modeled his account on the exodus narrative, the Jewish feasts, or OT persons and images. Paul’s Letter to the Romans uses the OT 54 times (about three-fourths of which have introductory formulas), but nowhere else so frequently (e.g., 1 Cor 16 times, Gal 11 times, Phil one time, 1 Thes one time).<\/p>\nIn addition to the indication that Philippians and 1 Thessalonians use the OT only once each, some other books make explicit use of the OT rarely or never. Colossians, Titus, Philemon, and the Johannine letters do not use the OT at all; 2 Timothy and Jude use the OT only once; while 2 Peter and 1 Timothy make use of it twice.<\/p>\nThe important point is to realize that the OT is used most frequently in circumstances where the audience is familiar with the OT or where the OT is essential for describing the events relating to Christ and the church. The books using the OT most frequently (Mt, Jn, Rom, Heb, 1 Pt, Rv) either stem from or are addressed to a Jewish context or, as in the case of Romans and John, deal specifically with the relation of Jews and Christians. The Gospels make rather extensive use of the OT because the language of the OT is necessary to convey the identity and importance of Jesus in the purposes of God. Similarly 1 Peter uses the OT frequently because the author is trying to convey to his persecuted audience that they are the people of God and the inheritors of the promises of God.<\/p>\nDifficulties in Interpretation<\/p>\nOften when people think of quotations of the OT in the NT they think only in terms of prophecy. Some have been guilty of counting up the OT statements that the NT applies to Christ and the church and then claiming these OT texts as predictions that prove Jesus is the Messiah. Such a procedure is filled with problems because it is too simplistic and does not do justice to either the OT or to the way the NT uses it. Of course, the early church used the OT to show that Jesus fulfilled the promises of God and did God’s work, but the use the church made of the OT was quite varied and much of it cannot be classified as predictive prophecy. Prophecy itself is too complex to be limited to predictive thinking.<\/p>\nSome of the most obvious examples of the difficulties appear in Matthew’s Gospel, although they are by no means confined there. Matthew 2:15—“Out of Egypt I called my son”—is a quotation of Hosea 11:1, but in Hosea these words do not refer to the Messiah. They refer to the nation of Israel. Similarly Matthew 2:18 quotes Jeremiah 31:15 (“A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more,” niv<\/span>) as fulfilled in the slaughter of the innocent babies in Bethlehem, but in Jeremiah the weeping is over the destruction of Jerusalem. John 12:40 views Isaiah 6:10 as fulfilled in Jesus’ ministry, but this verse deals with the call of Isaiah and is not a prediction concerning the ministry of the Messiah. The examples could be multiplied but these should be sufficient to illustrate the problem. For this reason the NT writers have often been accused of twisting the Scriptures, but this charge is as simplistic as the thought that all prophecy is predictive and in fact springs from the same error. Therefore, any attempt to understand the use of the OT in the NT will have to deal with the variety of ways in which the OT is used and with the methods employed by the NT writers.<\/p>\nThere are other difficulties that are encountered as well. Sometimes the NT writer will indicate that some fact related to Christ is a fulfillment of the OT but the explicit text that he had in mind cannot be identified. For example, John 7:38 introduces the words “Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water” with the statement “as Scripture has said.” No OT text reads this way. Possibly the allusion is to the rock that provided water in the wilderness (Ex 17:1), or to the waters that flowed from the new temple (Zec 14:8) or, more generally, it may be a reference to Isaiah 58:11. Similarly, the difficulty in determining the OT text behind the prophecy that Christ will be called a Nazarene (Mt 2:23) is notorious. Probably the reference is to Isaiah 11:1 and the Hebrew word there translated as “branch,” but the connection is not easily made and is not certain. A third example of this kind of difficulty is in 1 Corinthians 14:34, where Paul indicates that women should be in submission just as the Law says, but there is no OT text expressing this idea. His statement in probably to be understood as a summary rather than a quotation or allusion. Similarly on a few occasions an OT text is seemingly attributed to the wrong OT book. In Mark 1:2-3 an OT quotation is attributed to Isaiah but the quotation is really a conflation (or mixing) of Exodus 23:20, Malachi 3:1, and Isaiah 40:3. Matthew 27:9-10 quotes a passage that is said to be from Jeremiah, when really it is dependent on Zechariah 11:13 and might best be described as a summary of Zechariah 11:12-13, with certain words included from Jeremiah 32:6-9. These two examples do not create a major problem, however, for the determination of the origin of the words may be due to their use in collections of quotations from various prophets, in which case the more prominent prophets would be used to designate origin.<\/p>\nThe wording of the quotations of the OT text does not always conform to the modern form of the OT. Just as today there are numerous translations of the Bible, when the NT was being written there were various forms of the OT text. With regard to the Hebrew text (for the OT was written mostly in Hebrew), there were different traditions. Such differences in the Hebrew traditions would have been relatively small. Because of the increasing importance of Aramaic after the Babylonian captivity and of Greek after the conquests of Alexander the Great, the OT was also known and used in both these languages when the NT was being written. In fact, the Jews found it necessary in their synagogue services after reading the Hebrew OT to paraphrase the reading in Aramaic so that all could understand. These paraphrases were later written down and are known as Targums. The Greek translation of the OT that stems from the third century BC<\/span> is known as the Septuagint, but there were also other Greek translations in use. This being the case, the wording of a NT quotation is not identical in every detail to the text of the Hebrew OT.<\/p>\nAdded to the fact that there were various forms of the text known in first-century AD<\/span> Palestine is the complicating factor that NT writers often did not intend to quote the OT exactly. The use of formal quotation marks is a modern device, and ancient writers were not so taken by technical precision. They were more concerned with the intention of a text and consequently might copy or quote it verbatim, quote it from memory, use or adapt part of a verse, or even change certain words as they borrowed the verse to express their points. (The NT writers often use the OT words describing God’s actions in the past to explain what he has done in their time.) The importance of any differences between the NT quotation and the OT depends on the use to which the quotation is put and the degree to which the use is dependent on textual differences.<\/p>\nSome examples should illustrate the nature of these difficulties. Ephesians 4:8 quotes Psalm 68:18. Whereas the Hebrew and Septuagint read, “You ascended to the heights, you lead captivity captive, you received gifts among mankind,” Ephesians records the verse as “After he ascended into the heights, he<\/em> led captivity captive; he gave<\/em> gifts to men.” Paul is stressing that Christ has given grace to people for ministry. He has either adapted the wording of the OT to make his point or he quoted a variant reading, “he gave<\/em> gifts.” Some versions do have this reading. In fact, the Targum understands this verse as Moses giving the words of the law to the children of men, and Paul may well be adapting this understanding to the new revelation that has come in Christ.<\/p>\nMatthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14, but there are distinct differences between the Hebrew text and the wording in Matthew. The Hebrew reads, “Behold the young woman will become pregnant and will bear a son and you will call his name Immanuel,” whereas Matthew’s text records “Behold, the virgin<\/em> will become pregnant and will bear a son, and they<\/em> will call his name Immanuel.” The Septuagint does have the specific word “virgin,” like Matthew, but is not the source of Matthew’s quotation since other differences exist. Some have argued that the change from “you will call” to “they will call” was made by Matthew when he applied the words to Jesus. However, there are several traditions known for this part of the quotation and partial support for the reading in Matthew is provided by the text of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.<\/p>\nRomans 11:26-27 is a conflation of Isaiah 59:20-21 and part of Isaiah 27:9, but there are important differences. One of these is that the OT has “the redeemer will come to Zion,” whereas Romans has “the deliverer will come from<\/em> Zion.” The change to “from Zion” could indicate that Paul had a different textual tradition, could be the result of an intentional change by Paul, or more probably, could reflect the wording of Psalm 14:7.<\/p>\nAn awareness of the difficulties involved in the quotations of the OT by the NT writers will prohibit a simplistic approach and will prevent hasty conclusions. Care to ask not only which text was used but also which form of the text was used and how is obviously essential in any serious study. In addition it is necessary to allow for the possibility that the NT writers knew forms of a text that are now lost.<\/p>\nThe Methods of the New Testament Writers<\/p>\nThe methods used by the NT writers were not unique to them. Many of these methods were also employed in first-century Judaism. In fact, both the technique used in quoting and the understanding of the OT text itself in many cases are paralleled in Judaism. For example, from the standpoint of technique used in quoting, the same kinds of formula introductions are used in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the rabbinic writings, and elsewhere. The rabbinic technique of “pearl stringing,” that is, of applying verses from various parts of the OT (the Law, the Prophets, the Writings) to a subject, can be seen especially in Paul’s writings (note Rom 9:12-19 or 11:8-10). Somewhat related is the practice of using quotations that all contain a key word or key words (note 1 Pt 2:6-8, which draws together quotations using the word “stone,” or Rom 15:9-12, which joins OT verses referring to the “nations”).<\/p>\nThe methods used in the NT to interpret an OT text are also displayed in Judaism. Some passages interpret the OT “literally,” such as Jesus’ replies during temptation (see the quotations of Dt 8:3; 6:16; 6:13; in Mt 4:3-10), his teachings on marriage based on Genesis 2:24 (Mt 19:5), or Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4 (Rom 1:17) or Genesis 15:6 (Rom 4:3-9). Many such examples could be given. With regard to prophecy, some of these statements are fulfilled in a “literal” or “direct” way in keeping with the intention of the OT (e.g., Mi 5:2, Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Messiah; Mt 2:4-6). Jeremiah 31:31-34, the promise of the new covenant, is viewed as directly fulfilled in Christ (Heb 8:7-13). The prophecy of Joel 2:28-32 concerning the pouring out of the Spirit of the Lord is directly fulfilled in the Pentecost event (Acts 2:17-21), but the changing of the sun to darkness and the moon to blood are certainly not understood literally in connection with this event.<\/p>\nA different method of interpretation is based on the concept of corporate solidarity.<\/em> This technical expression is an attempt to convey the idea that the individuals among God’s people are not merely individuals; they are part of a larger whole. Consequently, what is said about the individual can apply to the whole and vice versa. This is the reason the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah is seen both as the nation (44:1) and as an individual (52:13–53:12). Also the king is sometimes viewed as representative of the nation. The easiest places to see the concept of corporate solidarity are in the effect of the sin of Achan on all the people (Jos 7) or the sin of David in numbering the people (1 Chr 21:3-8).<\/p>\nCorrespondence in history<\/em> is not so much a method of interpretation as it is a way of thinking about God. It assumes that the things that happen to God’s people are the things that have happened to previous generations and that God is faithful and operates in the present as he has in the past. Consequently, the trials and deliverance of God’s people are often expressed with words borrowed from the previous accounts of God’s people. Isaiah describes the anticipated deliverance in terms of a second exodus (11:15-16). Ezekiel describes the king set up over the people in terms of a second David (Ez 37:25). In the NT, Revelation 22 describes the new heavens and the new earth in terms of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2–3). Sometimes this technique is described as “typology,” but this term has been used for so many questionable interpretations that it is misleading. The most important thing about this concept is that it is a view of God and his working among his people.<\/p>\nWith these two concepts, the way that the OT is quoted in the NT can be understood. The conviction that Jesus was the promised deliverer and that the last days had dawned in his ministry are evident everywhere. The quotation of Hosea 11:1 can be used in Matthew 2:15 because of corporate solidarity and correspondence in history. What was said of the nation is true of the one who is its representative, and there is correspondence in their respective histories. Jeremiah 31:15 can be used in Matthew 2:18 because of correspondence in history and especially because Jeremiah looked forward to God’s intention for Israel and prophesied a new covenant (31:17, 31-34). Matthew saw not only the correspondence in history but believed that in Jesus this promised salvation had been granted. John 12:40 can quote Isaiah 6:10 of Jesus’ ministry, not because he twists the meaning of the OT text, but because he saw that what had happened with God’s messenger before happened again and even ultimately<\/em> in Jesus’ ministry. The instances of such correspondences in history are numerous.<\/p>\nThere are other texts where there seems to be an actualization<\/em> of the OT text. Some quotations seem to be “lived out” in the ministry of Jesus. Because of their conviction about Jesus and his kingdom, the NT writers often saw certain OT texts as appropriated and made alive by Jesus. Psalm 118:22 was not intended as a prophecy of the Messiah, but Jesus saw it as descriptive of his ministry (Mt 21:42), and the early church saw this verse as actualized in his death and resurrection (Acts 4:11). Isaiah 53 is another text that the NT views as actualized in Jesus’ ministry (see Acts 8:32-35 and 1 Pt 2:22-25). Some Christians would view Psalm 22 as a prophecy of the crucifixion of Jesus, but it seems instead to be the lament of a righteous OT sufferer. Through correspondence in history, and because Christians saw so much of the psalmist’s plight actualized in Jesus’ crucifixion, the psalm became the easiest way to describe what once again had happened to God’s righteous sufferer. The words of Isaiah 40:3 describe the ministry of John the Baptist (Mt 3:3). Jews had come to see this verse as a prophecy of God’s end-time salvation, and the early church saw John the Baptist fulfilling this forerunner’s task. Luke made this identification (Lk 3:4-6), but he applied the same role to Jesus’ disciples (9:52; 10:1). This seems to be a further example of actualization and correspondence in history. In other places the church has applied to Christians ideas that were previously understood of Christ (e.g., the stone in 1 Pt 2:4-5; the ministry of the Suffering Servant in Acts 13:46-47).<\/p>\nThe most convenient term to describe the way the OT is “fulfilled” in Christ is to say that the OT finds its climax in Jesus. Even where actual quotations are not involved, the OT ideas such as prophet, priest, or king are climaxed in him as the ideal and embodiment of all the OT models. He could tell religious authorities that “one greater than Solomon is here” (Mt 12:42) or “one greater than the temple is here” (Mt 12:6). Those passages involving correspondence in history or actualization also lead to the conviction that he is the climax of the OT Scriptures.<\/p>\nThe Purposes of the Use of the Old Testament<\/p>\nThe variety of methods of interpretation and application of the OT parallels the fact that the OT was used for a variety of purposes. People tend to think only in terms of the use of the OT to show that Jesus was the Messiah, but there are a number of other uses with a variety of goals. Many OT texts are used to show Jesus is the Messiah, the fulfillment of the OT promises (Lk 4:16-21). Without lessening the fulfillment emphasis, however, other verses are applied to Jesus for other purposes: to evangelize (Acts 8:32-25); to demonstrate or convince (Acts 13:33-35); to rebuke (Mk 7:6-7; Rom 11:7-10); and to describe (Rv 1:12-15). On the other hand, many quotations of the OT in the NT are not directly related to the Messiah. OT passages are adapted to provide a word from God on some aspect of life or ethics. For example, Jesus used Genesis 2:24 to substantiate his teaching on divorce as he attempted to deal with the issues raised by the civil regulation of divorce (Dt 24:1; Mt 19:1-12). The stress on the OT commandments shows their importance for Christians (Mt 19:16-22; Rom 13:8-10). Often OT statements deal with specific problems. The problem of pride at Corinth is solved by the quotation of Jeremiah 9:24 (“Let the one boasting, boast in the Lord,” 1 Cor 1:31). First Peter 3:10-12 incorporates Psalm 34:12-16 as ethical instructions, and 3:14-15 borrows from Isaiah 8:12-13 to address the fear of suffering. The spiritual armor in Ephesians 6:14-17 is derived largely from OT passages. Such examples are so numerous that there can be no doubt that the OT is used to describe Christian existence. In fact, nearly every subject discussed in the NT is presented somewhere via OT terms and quotations. Frequently OT passages are used to describe the church as God’s end-time community. Hosea 2:23 is used to show that those who formerly were not God’s people now are (Rom 9:25-26; 1 Pt 2:10). Several OT texts contribute to the description of the church in 1 Peter 2:9. OT texts that speak of the word of God describe the apostles’ preaching (Rom 10:8; 1 Pt 1:24-25). OT quotations describe the sinful condition of humanity (Rom 3:10-20). Salvation is explained through OT concepts and symbols and is based on OT statements (Jn 6:31-33; Gal 3:6-13). The words of Daniel describe the Second Coming (7:13-14; cf. Mt 24:30). Even the worship of early Christians was expressed through use of the OT (see Acts 4:24; Rom 11:34-35).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BIBLE*, Quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament<\/span><\/h3>\nOT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings.<\/p>\nOne of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers.<\/p>\nThe OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotations in distinctive print, this may not be easily seen, for the NT writers often weave the OT words into their own without indicating they are borrowing from the OT. There are over 400 passages of the OT that are explicitly cited in the NT. Almost half of these are introduced by a statement like “Scripture says” to draw attention to the fact that the authority and thought of the OT is being implemented. For the others, however, the OT words are woven into the fabric of the author’s own statement.<\/p>\nIn addition to the over 400 passages cited explicitly, there are well over 1,000 places where there is an allusion to an OT text, event, or person. The difference between a quotation and an allusion is sometimes debated for particular texts, but usually the distinction is that in a quotation the author consciously uses the words of an OT passage, whereas with an allusion he has the texts in mind but is not consciously trying to use the words.<\/p>\nQuotations are easy to identify if there is an introductory formula such as “the Scripture says” (as in Rom 10:11; cf. Is 28:16). Where there is no introductory formula, it is easy to overlook explicit quotations (Rom 10:13; cf. Jl 2:32). The allusions are, of course, harder still to recognize, but they often provide the key to interpretation. For example, John 1:14-18—with its mention of glory, grace and truth, Moses, and the fact that no one has seen God—is much more easily and profoundly understood when read in connection with Exodus 33:17–34:8. In the Exodus passage the glory of God and his grace and truth are revealed to Moses. The author was showing that a much more complete revelation of God was given in Jesus than was given Moses in the account recorded in Exodus.<\/p>\nIn addition, significant light is shed on many NT passages from OT passages with similar ideas and words even where the NT author may not have been consciously alluding to those texts (e.g. Mt 16:19; Is 22:22). What was behind the author’s thinking is not certain, but in such cases the NT reflects the thinking, the culture, and language of the OT period.<\/p>\nDistribution of Old Testament Quotations<\/p>\nThe books of the NT that show the most dependence on the OT are Matthew, John, Romans, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and Revelation. Such a statement can be misleading, however, because the writers have different methods.<\/p>\nMatthew quotes or consciously reflects the wording of OT passages about 62 times, almost half of which have an introductory formula. The book of Revelation, on the other hand, never quotes the OT and never has an introductory formula but is probably more dependent on the OT than any other NT book. The book of Hebrews quotes or consciously reflects the OT about 59 times, again half of which have an introductory formula, but the Gospel of John does so only 18 times, nearly always with an introductory formula. However, the allusions to the OT are present on virtually every page of John’s Gospel, so much so that some scholars have argued that he has modeled his account on the exodus narrative, the Jewish feasts, or OT persons and images. Paul’s Letter to the Romans uses the OT 54 times (about three-fourths of which have introductory formulas), but nowhere else so frequently (e.g., 1 Cor 16 times, Gal 11 times, Phil one time, 1 Thes one time).<\/p>\nIn addition to the indication that Philippians and 1 Thessalonians use the OT only once each, some other books make explicit use of the OT rarely or never. Colossians, Titus, Philemon, and the Johannine letters do not use the OT at all; 2 Timothy and Jude use the OT only once; while 2 Peter and 1 Timothy make use of it twice.<\/p>\nThe important point is to realize that the OT is used most frequently in circumstances where the audience is familiar with the OT or where the OT is essential for describing the events relating to Christ and the church. The books using the OT most frequently (Mt, Jn, Rom, Heb, 1 Pt, Rv) either stem from or are addressed to a Jewish context or, as in the case of Romans and John, deal specifically with the relation of Jews and Christians. The Gospels make rather extensive use of the OT because the language of the OT is necessary to convey the identity and importance of Jesus in the purposes of God. Similarly 1 Peter uses the OT frequently because the author is trying to convey to his persecuted audience that they are the people of God and the inheritors of the promises of God.<\/p>\nDifficulties in Interpretation<\/p>\nOften when people think of quotations of the OT in the NT they think only in terms of prophecy. Some have been guilty of counting up the OT statements that the NT applies to Christ and the church and then claiming these OT texts as predictions that prove Jesus is the Messiah. Such a procedure is filled with problems because it is too simplistic and does not do justice to either the OT or to the way the NT uses it. Of course, the early church used the OT to show that Jesus fulfilled the promises of God and did God’s work, but the use the church made of the OT was quite varied and much of it cannot be classified as predictive prophecy. Prophecy itself is too complex to be limited to predictive thinking.<\/p>\nSome of the most obvious examples of the difficulties appear in Matthew’s Gospel, although they are by no means confined there. Matthew 2:15—“Out of Egypt I called my son”—is a quotation of Hosea 11:1, but in Hosea these words do not refer to the Messiah. They refer to the nation of Israel. Similarly Matthew 2:18 quotes Jeremiah 31:15 (“A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more,” niv<\/span>) as fulfilled in the slaughter of the innocent babies in Bethlehem, but in Jeremiah the weeping is over the destruction of Jerusalem. John 12:40 views Isaiah 6:10 as fulfilled in Jesus’ ministry, but this verse deals with the call of Isaiah and is not a prediction concerning the ministry of the Messiah. The examples could be multiplied but these should be sufficient to illustrate the problem. For this reason the NT writers have often been accused of twisting the Scriptures, but this charge is as simplistic as the thought that all prophecy is predictive and in fact springs from the same error. Therefore, any attempt to understand the use of the OT in the NT will have to deal with the variety of ways in which the OT is used and with the methods employed by the NT writers.<\/p>\nThere are other difficulties that are encountered as well. Sometimes the NT writer will indicate that some fact related to Christ is a fulfillment of the OT but the explicit text that he had in mind cannot be identified. For example, John 7:38 introduces the words “Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water” with the statement “as Scripture has said.” No OT text reads this way. Possibly the allusion is to the rock that provided water in the wilderness (Ex 17:1), or to the waters that flowed from the new temple (Zec 14:8) or, more generally, it may be a reference to Isaiah 58:11. Similarly, the difficulty in determining the OT text behind the prophecy that Christ will be called a Nazarene (Mt 2:23) is notorious. Probably the reference is to Isaiah 11:1 and the Hebrew word there translated as “branch,” but the connection is not easily made and is not certain. A third example of this kind of difficulty is in 1 Corinthians 14:34, where Paul indicates that women should be in submission just as the Law says, but there is no OT text expressing this idea. His statement in probably to be understood as a summary rather than a quotation or allusion. Similarly on a few occasions an OT text is seemingly attributed to the wrong OT book. In Mark 1:2-3 an OT quotation is attributed to Isaiah but the quotation is really a conflation (or mixing) of Exodus 23:20, Malachi 3:1, and Isaiah 40:3. Matthew 27:9-10 quotes a passage that is said to be from Jeremiah, when really it is dependent on Zechariah 11:13 and might best be described as a summary of Zechariah 11:12-13, with certain words included from Jeremiah 32:6-9. These two examples do not create a major problem, however, for the determination of the origin of the words may be due to their use in collections of quotations from various prophets, in which case the more prominent prophets would be used to designate origin.<\/p>\nThe wording of the quotations of the OT text does not always conform to the modern form of the OT. Just as today there are numerous translations of the Bible, when the NT was being written there were various forms of the OT text. With regard to the Hebrew text (for the OT was written mostly in Hebrew), there were different traditions. Such differences in the Hebrew traditions would have been relatively small. Because of the increasing importance of Aramaic after the Babylonian captivity and of Greek after the conquests of Alexander the Great, the OT was also known and used in both these languages when the NT was being written. In fact, the Jews found it necessary in their synagogue services after reading the Hebrew OT to paraphrase the reading in Aramaic so that all could understand. These paraphrases were later written down and are known as Targums. The Greek translation of the OT that stems from the third century BC<\/span> is known as the Septuagint, but there were also other Greek translations in use. This being the case, the wording of a NT quotation is not identical in every detail to the text of the Hebrew OT.<\/p>\nAdded to the fact that there were various forms of the text known in first-century AD<\/span> Palestine is the complicating factor that NT writers often did not intend to quote the OT exactly. The use of formal quotation marks is a modern device, and ancient writers were not so taken by technical precision. They were more concerned with the intention of a text and consequently might copy or quote it verbatim, quote it from memory, use or adapt part of a verse, or even change certain words as they borrowed the verse to express their points. (The NT writers often use the OT words describing God’s actions in the past to explain what he has done in their time.) The importance of any differences between the NT quotation and the OT depends on the use to which the quotation is put and the degree to which the use is dependent on textual differences.<\/p>\nSome examples should illustrate the nature of these difficulties. Ephesians 4:8 quotes Psalm 68:18. Whereas the Hebrew and Septuagint read, “You ascended to the heights, you lead captivity captive, you received gifts among mankind,” Ephesians records the verse as “After he ascended into the heights, he<\/em> led captivity captive; he gave<\/em> gifts to men.” Paul is stressing that Christ has given grace to people for ministry. He has either adapted the wording of the OT to make his point or he quoted a variant reading, “he gave<\/em> gifts.” Some versions do have this reading. In fact, the Targum understands this verse as Moses giving the words of the law to the children of men, and Paul may well be adapting this understanding to the new revelation that has come in Christ.<\/p>\nMatthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14, but there are distinct differences between the Hebrew text and the wording in Matthew. The Hebrew reads, “Behold the young woman will become pregnant and will bear a son and you will call his name Immanuel,” whereas Matthew’s text records “Behold, the virgin<\/em> will become pregnant and will bear a son, and they<\/em> will call his name Immanuel.” The Septuagint does have the specific word “virgin,” like Matthew, but is not the source of Matthew’s quotation since other differences exist. Some have argued that the change from “you will call” to “they will call” was made by Matthew when he applied the words to Jesus. However, there are several traditions known for this part of the quotation and partial support for the reading in Matthew is provided by the text of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.<\/p>\nRomans 11:26-27 is a conflation of Isaiah 59:20-21 and part of Isaiah 27:9, but there are important differences. One of these is that the OT has “the redeemer will come to Zion,” whereas Romans has “the deliverer will come from<\/em> Zion.” The change to “from Zion” could indicate that Paul had a different textual tradition, could be the result of an intentional change by Paul, or more probably, could reflect the wording of Psalm 14:7.<\/p>\nAn awareness of the difficulties involved in the quotations of the OT by the NT writers will prohibit a simplistic approach and will prevent hasty conclusions. Care to ask not only which text was used but also which form of the text was used and how is obviously essential in any serious study. In addition it is necessary to allow for the possibility that the NT writers knew forms of a text that are now lost.<\/p>\nThe Methods of the New Testament Writers<\/p>\nThe methods used by the NT writers were not unique to them. Many of these methods were also employed in first-century Judaism. In fact, both the technique used in quoting and the understanding of the OT text itself in many cases are paralleled in Judaism. For example, from the standpoint of technique used in quoting, the same kinds of formula introductions are used in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the rabbinic writings, and elsewhere. The rabbinic technique of “pearl stringing,” that is, of applying verses from various parts of the OT (the Law, the Prophets, the Writings) to a subject, can be seen especially in Paul’s writings (note Rom 9:12-19 or 11:8-10). Somewhat related is the practice of using quotations that all contain a key word or key words (note 1 Pt 2:6-8, which draws together quotations using the word “stone,” or Rom 15:9-12, which joins OT verses referring to the “nations”).<\/p>\nThe methods used in the NT to interpret an OT text are also displayed in Judaism. Some passages interpret the OT “literally,” such as Jesus’ replies during temptation (see the quotations of Dt 8:3; 6:16; 6:13; in Mt 4:3-10), his teachings on marriage based on Genesis 2:24 (Mt 19:5), or Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4 (Rom 1:17) or Genesis 15:6 (Rom 4:3-9). Many such examples could be given. With regard to prophecy, some of these statements are fulfilled in a “literal” or “direct” way in keeping with the intention of the OT (e.g., Mi 5:2, Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Messiah; Mt 2:4-6). Jeremiah 31:31-34, the promise of the new covenant, is viewed as directly fulfilled in Christ (Heb 8:7-13). The prophecy of Joel 2:28-32 concerning the pouring out of the Spirit of the Lord is directly fulfilled in the Pentecost event (Acts 2:17-21), but the changing of the sun to darkness and the moon to blood are certainly not understood literally in connection with this event.<\/p>\nA different method of interpretation is based on the concept of corporate solidarity.<\/em> This technical expression is an attempt to convey the idea that the individuals among God’s people are not merely individuals; they are part of a larger whole. Consequently, what is said about the individual can apply to the whole and vice versa. This is the reason the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah is seen both as the nation (44:1) and as an individual (52:13–53:12). Also the king is sometimes viewed as representative of the nation. The easiest places to see the concept of corporate solidarity are in the effect of the sin of Achan on all the people (Jos 7) or the sin of David in numbering the people (1 Chr 21:3-8).<\/p>\nCorrespondence in history<\/em> is not so much a method of interpretation as it is a way of thinking about God. It assumes that the things that happen to God’s people are the things that have happened to previous generations and that God is faithful and operates in the present as he has in the past. Consequently, the trials and deliverance of God’s people are often expressed with words borrowed from the previous accounts of God’s people. Isaiah describes the anticipated deliverance in terms of a second exodus (11:15-16). Ezekiel describes the king set up over the people in terms of a second David (Ez 37:25). In the NT, Revelation 22 describes the new heavens and the new earth in terms of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2–3). Sometimes this technique is described as “typology,” but this term has been used for so many questionable interpretations that it is misleading. The most important thing about this concept is that it is a view of God and his working among his people.<\/p>\nWith these two concepts, the way that the OT is quoted in the NT can be understood. The conviction that Jesus was the promised deliverer and that the last days had dawned in his ministry are evident everywhere. The quotation of Hosea 11:1 can be used in Matthew 2:15 because of corporate solidarity and correspondence in history. What was said of the nation is true of the one who is its representative, and there is correspondence in their respective histories. Jeremiah 31:15 can be used in Matthew 2:18 because of correspondence in history and especially because Jeremiah looked forward to God’s intention for Israel and prophesied a new covenant (31:17, 31-34). Matthew saw not only the correspondence in history but believed that in Jesus this promised salvation had been granted. John 12:40 can quote Isaiah 6:10 of Jesus’ ministry, not because he twists the meaning of the OT text, but because he saw that what had happened with God’s messenger before happened again and even ultimately<\/em> in Jesus’ ministry. The instances of such correspondences in history are numerous.<\/p>\nThere are other texts where there seems to be an actualization<\/em> of the OT text. Some quotations seem to be “lived out” in the ministry of Jesus. Because of their conviction about Jesus and his kingdom, the NT writers often saw certain OT texts as appropriated and made alive by Jesus. Psalm 118:22 was not intended as a prophecy of the Messiah, but Jesus saw it as descriptive of his ministry (Mt 21:42), and the early church saw this verse as actualized in his death and resurrection (Acts 4:11). Isaiah 53 is another text that the NT views as actualized in Jesus’ ministry (see Acts 8:32-35 and 1 Pt 2:22-25). Some Christians would view Psalm 22 as a prophecy of the crucifixion of Jesus, but it seems instead to be the lament of a righteous OT sufferer. Through correspondence in history, and because Christians saw so much of the psalmist’s plight actualized in Jesus’ crucifixion, the psalm became the easiest way to describe what once again had happened to God’s righteous sufferer. The words of Isaiah 40:3 describe the ministry of John the Baptist (Mt 3:3). Jews had come to see this verse as a prophecy of God’s end-time salvation, and the early church saw John the Baptist fulfilling this forerunner’s task. Luke made this identification (Lk 3:4-6), but he applied the same role to Jesus’ disciples (9:52; 10:1). This seems to be a further example of actualization and correspondence in history. In other places the church has applied to Christians ideas that were previously understood of Christ (e.g., the stone in 1 Pt 2:4-5; the ministry of the Suffering Servant in Acts 13:46-47).<\/p>\nThe most convenient term to describe the way the OT is “fulfilled” in Christ is to say that the OT finds its climax in Jesus. Even where actual quotations are not involved, the OT ideas such as prophet, priest, or king are climaxed in him as the ideal and embodiment of all the OT models. He could tell religious authorities that “one greater than Solomon is here” (Mt 12:42) or “one greater than the temple is here” (Mt 12:6). Those passages involving correspondence in history or actualization also lead to the conviction that he is the climax of the OT Scriptures.<\/p>\nThe Purposes of the Use of the Old Testament<\/p>\nThe variety of methods of interpretation and application of the OT parallels the fact that the OT was used for a variety of purposes. People tend to think only in terms of the use of the OT to show that Jesus was the Messiah, but there are a number of other uses with a variety of goals. Many OT texts are used to show Jesus is the Messiah, the fulfillment of the OT promises (Lk 4:16-21). Without lessening the fulfillment emphasis, however, other verses are applied to Jesus for other purposes: to evangelize (Acts 8:32-25); to demonstrate or convince (Acts 13:33-35); to rebuke (Mk 7:6-7; Rom 11:7-10); and to describe (Rv 1:12-15). On the other hand, many quotations of the OT in the NT are not directly related to the Messiah. OT passages are adapted to provide a word from God on some aspect of life or ethics. For example, Jesus used Genesis 2:24 to substantiate his teaching on divorce as he attempted to deal with the issues raised by the civil regulation of divorce (Dt 24:1; Mt 19:1-12). The stress on the OT commandments shows their importance for Christians (Mt 19:16-22; Rom 13:8-10). Often OT statements deal with specific problems. The problem of pride at Corinth is solved by the quotation of Jeremiah 9:24 (“Let the one boasting, boast in the Lord,” 1 Cor 1:31). First Peter 3:10-12 incorporates Psalm 34:12-16 as ethical instructions, and 3:14-15 borrows from Isaiah 8:12-13 to address the fear of suffering. The spiritual armor in Ephesians 6:14-17 is derived largely from OT passages. Such examples are so numerous that there can be no doubt that the OT is used to describe Christian existence. In fact, nearly every subject discussed in the NT is presented somewhere via OT terms and quotations. Frequently OT passages are used to describe the church as God’s end-time community. Hosea 2:23 is used to show that those who formerly were not God’s people now are (Rom 9:25-26; 1 Pt 2:10). Several OT texts contribute to the description of the church in 1 Peter 2:9. OT texts that speak of the word of God describe the apostles’ preaching (Rom 10:8; 1 Pt 1:24-25). OT quotations describe the sinful condition of humanity (Rom 3:10-20). Salvation is explained through OT concepts and symbols and is based on OT statements (Jn 6:31-33; Gal 3:6-13). The words of Daniel describe the Second Coming (7:13-14; cf. Mt 24:30). Even the worship of early Christians was expressed through use of the OT (see Acts 4:24; Rom 11:34-35).<\/p>","summary_ro":"BIBLE*, Quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament OT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings. One of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers. The OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotation...","summary_en":"BIBLE*, Quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament OT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings. One of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers. The OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotation...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":19422,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jesus Christ","title_en":"Jesus Christ","content_ro":"<h3>JESUS CHRIST<\/h3>\nMessiah, Savior, and founder of the Christian church.<\/p>\nIn providing a biography of Jesus Christ it must be borne in mind that each of the Gospels has its own distinctive purpose. Matthew, for instance, presents Jesus as the messianic King, whereas the emphasis in Mark is more on Jesus as the servant of all. Luke tends to present Jesus in a softer light, showing particularly his amazing compassion to the less fortunate, whereas John plunges the reader into a deeper and more spiritual understanding of Jesus. These different aims caused the four Evangelists to select and arrange the events of Jesus’ life differently, resulting in a fourfold portrait of the same man. It was undoubtedly for this reason that the Christian church preserved four Gospels instead of only one.<\/p>\nThe following sections present the main events in what may be regarded as the chief stages of the life of Jesus. These stages show a definite progression from Christ’s incarnation to his cross. The amount of space devoted to each stage in each of the Gospels is dictated by theological rather than biographical interest. The whole presentation of Christ’s life centers on the cross and the subsequent triumphant resurrection and is more an account of God’s message to humanity than a plain historic account of the life of Jesus.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Incarnation<\/p>\n• The Birth of Jesus<\/p>\n• Life in Nazareth<\/p>\n• Preparatory Events<\/p>\n• The Early Ministry of Jesus in Judea and Samaria<\/p>\n• The Period of the Galilean Ministry<\/p>\n• On the Way to Jerusalem<\/p>\n• The Final Days in Jerusalem<\/p>\n• The Betrayal and Arrest<\/p>\n• The Trial<\/p>\n• The Crucifixion<\/p>\n• The Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension<\/p>\nThe Incarnation<\/p>\nThe major event of this initial stage was the Incarnation. Only Matthew and Luke give accounts of Jesus’ birth. John goes back and reflects on what preceded the birth.<\/p>\nIt may seem strange that John began his Gospel with a reference to the Word (Jn 1:1), but it is in this way that he delivers to the reader an exalted view of Jesus. John saw Jesus as existing even before the creation of the world (v 2). In fact, he saw him as having a part in the act of creation (v 3). Therefore, when Jesus was born, it was both an act of humiliation and an act of illumination. The light shone, but the world preferred to remain in darkness (vv 4-5, 10). Therefore, anyone coming to John’s records of the life of Jesus would know at once, before even being introduced to the man named Jesus, that here was the record of no ordinary man. The account of his life and teachings that followed could not be properly understood except against this background of his preexistence.<\/p>\nThe Birth of Jesus<\/p>\nJohn simply wrote that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Matthew and Luke fill in some of the details of how this happened. There is little in common between the two accounts. Each approaches the subject from a different point of view, but the supernatural is evident in both. The coming of Jesus is announced beforehand, through dreams to Joseph in Matthew’s account (Mt 1:20-21) and through an angel to Mary in Luke’s account (Lk 1:26-33). Matthew leaves his readers in no doubt that the one to be born had a mission to accomplish—to save people from their sins (Mt 1:21). Luke sets his story of Jesus’ coming in an atmosphere of great rejoicing. This is seen in the inclusion of some exquisite songs, which have formed part of the church’s worship ever since (Lk 1:46-55, 68-79). The homage of the wise men in Matthew 2:1-12 is significant because it sets the scene for a universalistic emphasis that links the beginning of the Gospel to its ending (cf. Mt 28:19-20). A similar emphasis is introduced in the angel’s announcement to the shepherds in Luke 2:14 and in Simeon’s song (Lk 2:32), where he predicts that Jesus would be a light for Gentiles as well as a glory for Israel. The flight into Egypt for safety (Mt 2:13-15) shows the contribution of a gentile nation in providing protection for a Jewish child.<\/p>\nOne feature of the birth stories in Matthew and Luke is that they are both linked to genealogies. It is difficult to harmonize these genealogies since they appear to be drawn from different sources, but the purpose in both cases is to show that Jesus was descended from Abraham and David. The latter fact gave rise to Jesus’ title Son of David.<\/p>\nLuke was the only Gospel writer who attempted to link the coming of Jesus with events in secular history. Although problems arise over the dating of the census of Quirinius (Lk 2:1-2), the firm setting of the contemporary scene is highly significant because the Christian faith is a historic faith centered on a historic person.<\/p>\nLife in Nazareth<\/p>\nThe years of Jesus Christ’s human development are given only a few lines in the Gospels. Details are given of only one incident belonging to the period of childhood, the discussion of the 12-year-old Jesus with the Jewish teachers in the temple (Lk 2:41-50). This event is a pointer to one of the most characteristic features of Jesus’ later ministry: his display of irrefutable wisdom in dialogue with his Jewish contemporaries. It also reveals that at an early age Jesus was acutely aware of a divine mission. Nevertheless, Luke notes that in Jesus’ formative years he was obedient to his parents (v 51). It is assumed that during 30 years at Nazareth Jesus learned the carpenter’s trade from Joseph and became the village carpenter after Joseph’s death. However, there is no account of this period in the Gospels. This has led to many fantastic imaginings about Jesus’ childhood. Many of these fables are recorded in apocryphal gospels, but Luke’s account is unembellished. Its remarkable reserve is a strong indication of its historical reliability.<\/p>\nPreparatory Events<\/p>\nAll four Gospels refer to a brief preparatory period that immediately preceded the commencement of Christ’s public ministry. This period focused on three important events.<\/p>\n<h5>The Preaching of John the Baptist<\/h5>\nJohn the Baptist appeared in the wilderness and caused an immediate stir in Judea, particularly as a result of his call to repentance and to baptism (Mt 3:1-6). John was like one of the OT prophets, but he disclaimed any importance in his own office except as the herald of a greater person to come. His stern appearance and uncompromising moral challenge effectively prepared the way for the public appearance of Jesus (Lk 3:4-6). It is important to note that John the Baptist’s announcement of the imminent coming of the kingdom (Mt 3:2) was the same theme with which Jesus began his own ministry (4:17). This shows that John the Baptist’s work was an integral part of the preparation for the public ministry of Jesus. The same may be said of the rite of baptism, although John recognized that Jesus would add a new dimension in that he would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (3:11). As the forerunner of Jesus Christ, John proclaimed that the one to follow would not only be greater than he but would also come with high standards of judgment (v 12). The stage was therefore set in stern terms for the initial public act of Jesus—his willingness to be baptized (Mt 3:13-15; Lk 3:21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Baptism of Jesus<\/h5>\nJohn’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. Since Jesus submitted to this, are we to suppose that Jesus himself needed to repent? If this were the case, it would involve the assumption that Jesus had sinned. This is contrary to other evidence in the NT. But if Jesus did not need to repent, what was the point of his requesting baptism at the hands of John? Jesus had come on a mission to others, and it is possible that he deliberately submitted to John’s baptism in order to show that he was prepared to take the place of others. This explanation is in line with Paul’s later understanding of the work of Jesus Christ (2 Cor 5:21). Matthew is the one Evangelist who records John’s hesitation to baptize Jesus (Mt 3:14-15).<\/p>\nThe most important part of the baptism of Jesus was the heavenly voice, which declared pleasure in the beloved Son (Mt 3:17). This announcement by God was the real starting point of the public ministry of Jesus. It revealed that the ministry was no accident or sudden inspiration on the part of Jesus. He went into his work with the full approval of the Father. A further important feature is the part played by the Holy Spirit in this scene. The dovelike description is full of symbolic meaning (v 16). It was not just an inner experience that Jesus had. The activity of the Spirit in the ministry of Jesus, although not much emphasized in the Gospels, is nevertheless sufficiently evident to be indispensable to a true understanding of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temptation of Jesus<\/h5>\nJesus’ baptism showed the nature of his mission. The temptation showed the nature of the environment in which he was to minister (Mt 4:1; Lk 4:1-2). Confrontation with adverse spiritual forces characterized Jesus’ whole ministry. Only Matthew and Luke record details of the temptations to which Jesus was subjected by the devil. All these temptations present shortcuts that, if pursued, would have deflected Jesus from his vocation. The record leaves us in no doubt that Jesus gained the victory. Both Gospels show that he accomplished this by appealing to Scripture. Jesus is also seen in this event as a genuine human who, like all other humans, was subject to temptation. The writer of the Letter to the Hebrews notes that this fact qualified Jesus to act as High Priest and to intercede on behalf of his people (Heb 2:18; 4:15).<\/p>\nThe Early Ministry of Jesus in Judea and Samaria<\/p>\nOnly John’s Gospel tells of the work of Jesus in Judea following his baptism. It first describes his calling of two disciples, John and Andrew (Jn 1:35-39). This event is set against the background of John the Baptist’s announcement of Jesus as the Lamb of God who was to take away the sin of the world (v 29). These first two disciples were soon joined by three others: Peter, Philip, and Nathanael (vv 41-51). These five formed part of the nucleus of Jesus’ followers who came to be known as the Twelve. One feature of John’s account is the early recognition by the disciples of Jesus as Messiah (Jn 1:41) and Son of God (v 49).<\/p>\nSoon after Jesus began his ministry in Jerusalem, John relates an incident at Cana in Galilee in which water was turned into wine (Jn 2:1-10). This event is important in John’s account because it is the first of the signs that he records (v 11). He saw Jesus’ miracles as “signs” of the truth of the gospel rather than as mere wonders.<\/p>\nJohn sets two incidents at Jerusalem in this initial period. The first is the cleansing of the temple (Jn 2:13-16). Matthew, Mark, and Luke all place this event just before Jesus’ trial, but John places it at this early stage. The moral intention of Jesus’ work is seen in his driving out the money changers who were profiting from worshipers more than was appropriate. This was apparently acceptable to Judaism but was unacceptable to Jesus. The other Evangelists imply that this authoritative act was the event that sparked the final hostility of his opponents. John tells the story for a theological reason; to him, the cleansing of the temple was a parable telling of what Jesus had come to do.<\/p>\nThe other incident in Jerusalem is the meeting between Jesus and Nicodemus (Jn 3). Nicodemus was closely associated with Judaism, yet he was also searching for truth. He was unable to understand, however, the spiritual truth about being born again through the Spirit.<\/p>\nJohn’s story then moves from Judea to Samaria and the story of the Samaritan woman at the well (Jn 4:1-42). Jesus used her physical thirst to point to her deeper spiritual thirst. She realized that Jesus had something to offer her that she had not previously known. As a result of this woman’s experience and testimony, many of the Samaritan people came to believe in Jesus as the Savior of the world (v 42). In this case John intends that his readers would appreciate the fuller significance of the words of Jesus by viewing them in the light of the resurrection.<\/p>\nThe Period of the Galilean Ministry<\/p>\n\nAlmost all the information on this period is found in the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke.) It may be conveniently divided into three sections. The first briefly outlines the events leading up to the choosing of the Twelve; the second deals with Jesus’ withdrawal from northern Galilee; and the third deals with his departure for Jerusalem. While the synoptic Gospels concentrate exclusively on the events in Galilee, John’s account indicates that there were some visits by Jesus to Jerusalem during this period. Also, John records another incident at Cana, where the son of a Capernaum official was healed. This is noted as the second of Jesus’ signs (Jn 4:54). It is chiefly important because of the extraordinary faith of the father, who was prepared to take Jesus at his word.<\/p>\n<h5>The Calling of the Disciples<\/h5>\nIn the synoptic Gospels there is an account of the initial call to four of the disciples to leave their fishing boats and to become fishers of men (Mt 4:18-22; Mk 1:16-20; Lk 5:1-11). They had already met Jesus and must have had some idea what was involved in following him. Jesus did not at this time appoint them to be apostles, but this call was an indispensable step toward the establishment of the Twelve as a group. Setting apart a particular number of disciples formed an important part of the ministry of Jesus. The miraculous catch of fish, which preceded the call of the disciples in Luke’s account, served to highlight the superiority of the spiritual task of catching people rather than fish.<\/p>\nAnother significant call came to Levi, otherwise known as Matthew (Mt 9:9; Mk 2:13-14; Lk 5:27-28). As a tax collector, he was of a different type from most of the other disciples. He would certainly have been despised by his Jewish contemporaries because of his profession. But his inclusion in the special circle of Jesus’ disciples shows the broad basis on which these men were chosen. One of the others, Simon the Zealot, may have belonged to a group of revolutionaries who were religious as well as political. Even a man like Judas Iscariot was numbered among the Twelve, and he would later betray Jesus to his enemies for a small sum of money. Jesus accepted them as they were and molded them into men who later came to learn how to be totally dependent on God and the power of his Spirit.<\/p>\n<h5>Sermon on the Mount<\/h5>\nThe Gospel of Matthew presents a substantial sample of Jesus’ teachings commonly called the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:1–7:29). Some of the same material occurs in Luke in a different context and different arrangement. It is possible that Jesus often repeated his teachings on different occasions and with different combinations. Matthew’s record of the Sermon on the Mount presents an impressive body of teaching, mainly of an ethical character. In it Jesus upholds the Mosaic law and at the same time goes beyond it. The beginning of this sermon has been called the Beatitudes (5:3-12). It commends moral and spiritual values. The teachings recorded in this section were radical, but not in a political sense. The Sermon on the Mount may be taken as a fair sample of the kind of discourses that must have abounded in the ministry of Jesus.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus as Healer<\/h5>\nThroughout the Gospels there are records of miracles involving Jesus healing people. There are more of these miracles than any other type. In a section in Matthew devoted to a sequence of healings (Mt 8:1–9:34), a leper, a centurion’s servant, Peter’s mother-in-law, a demoniac, a paralytic, a woman with a hemorrhage, blind men, and a man who was mute—all were healed. In addition, Jairus’s daughter was raised from the dead. This concentration of healings focuses on Jesus as a miracle worker, but throughout the Gospels there is no suggestion that Jesus healed by magical means. In some cases an individual’s faith was acknowledged (8:10; 9:22). In at least one incident, the healing was accompanied by an announcement of the forgiveness of the sins of the one healed (Mt 9:2; Mk 2:5). This shows that Jesus considered spiritual needs to be of greater consequence than the physical problems.<\/p>\nIn view of the widespread belief in the powerful influence of evil spirits over human lives, it is of great significance that Jesus is seen exercising his power of exorcism over demons. Jesus’ ministry was set in an atmosphere of spiritual conflict, so the confrontations between the forces of darkness and the Light of the World were to be expected. Those who explain away these cases of demon-possession in psychiatric terms miss this key feature of Jesus’ ministry. Each time he exorcised a demon, he was demonstrating victory, which reached its most dramatic expression in his victory over death at his resurrection.<\/p>\nIn addition to the healing miracles in this early section, one nature miracle is recorded, that of the stilling of the storm (Mt 8:23-27; Mk 4:35-41; Lk 8:22-25). This miracle focused both on the lack of faith in the disciples and the mysterious power of the presence of Jesus.<\/p>\n<h5>The Reaction to Jesus by His Contemporaries<\/h5>\nIn the early stages of his ministry, Jesus was very popular with the ordinary people. There are several notices to this effect (Mt 4:23-25; Mk 3:7-8). This popularity showed no appreciation of the spiritual purpose of Jesus’ mission (Lk 13:17). Nevertheless, it stands in stark contrast to the nit-picking opposition of the religious leaders, who even plotted to kill Jesus in the early period of his ministry (Mk 3:6).<\/p>\nJesus and the religious leaders often clashed over the observance of the Sabbath (Mt 12:1-14; Lk 13:10-17; Jn 5:9-18). Jesus adopted a more liberal view than the rigid and often illogical interpretation of some of his religious contemporaries—as in the instances when he was criticized for healing on the Sabbath even though the Jewish law allowed the rescuing of trapped animals on the Sabbath (Mt 12:11; Lk 13:15). To the Pharisaic mind, Jesus was a lawbreaker. The Pharisees feared that it would undermine their authority if his teaching were permitted to permeate popular opinion.<\/p>\n<h5>Preparing the Twelve<\/h5>\nThe synoptic Gospels supply lists of the names of the 12 apostles (Mt 10:2-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16). Both Matthew and Mark name them in the context of their exercising authority over evil spirits, thereby showing that these men were being called to enter the same spiritual conflict as Jesus.<\/p>\nThe synoptic Gospels also give details of the instructions Jesus gave to these disciples before sending them to minister in Israel (Mt 10:5-42; Mk 6:7-13; Lk 9:1-6). Matthew included material in his discourse that appears in a different context in Mark and Luke, but the discourse still shows the concern of Jesus to prepare his disciples for their future work. They were to proclaim the kingdom as he had done, but they were not to suppose that all would respond to it. They were warned about coming hostility and even persecution. It is important to note that Jesus warned his disciples against encumbering themselves with material possessions. Although the instructions given related immediately to a ministry tour, he was laying the foundation for the future work of the church.<\/p>\n<h5>The Relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist<\/h5>\nFor a while there were parallel preaching and parallel baptisms by John the Baptist with his followers and Jesus with his disciples (Jn 4:1-2). After John the Baptist was imprisoned by Herod because of his uncompromising condemnation of Herod’s marriage to Herodias, his brother’s wife (Mt 14:3-4), John began to have doubts about Jesus (Mt 11:1-19; Lk 7:18-35). He may have been expecting Jesus, if he really was the Messiah, to come to his rescue. When John sent his disciples to Jesus to express his doubts, Jesus took the opportunity to tell the crowds of the greatness of John the Baptist. He said there was none born of women who was greater than John.<\/p>\n<h5>Various Controversies<\/h5>\nJesus did not hesitate to confront his contemporaries on issues that involved moral or religious questions. The controversy recorded in John’s Gospel concerning the keeping of the Sabbath that arose when a lame man was healed on that day (Jn 5:1-18) shows once again that ritual observance of the Sabbath was regarded as of greater importance than a compassionate concern for the physical welfare of the lame man. This was typical of the Jewish approach and led at once to a persecuting attitude toward Jesus, particularly because he claimed to be doing the work of God.<\/p>\nA similar conflict arose after Jesus’ disciples had plucked grain in the fields on the Sabbath day (Mt 12:1-8). The Pharisees assumed that this act constituted work and saw it as a sufficient reason to plot how to destroy Jesus. After this event, he healed a paralytic on the same Sabbath day (vv 9-14). The Jewish leaders clearly regarded him as a direct threat to their position among the people.<\/p>\nThe rising opposition did not deter Jesus from further healings (Mt 12:15-32), which Matthew depicts as the fulfillment of Scripture. But when Jesus healed a blind and mute demoniac, the Pharisees charged him with casting out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of the demons. Jesus told them that to blaspheme the Holy Spirit was an unforgivable sin. This incident not only brings out the perversity of the religious leaders but also shows that the ministry of Jesus was under the direct control of the Spirit. Other notable miracles were the healing of the centurion’s servant, as recorded by Luke (Lk 7:1-10), and the raising from the dead of the widow’s son at Nain (vv 11-17). The former of these is notable because of the remarkable faith of a Gentile.<\/p>\nAnother example of the Pharisees’ criticism was when Jesus attended a meal in Simon the Pharisee’s house (Lk 7:36-50). His host had not provided for the usual courtesies toward guests and yet was critical of Jesus for allowing an immoral woman to wash his feet with tears, dry them with her hair, and anoint them with ointment. There is no doubt that most of Simon’s colleagues would have shared his reaction, but Jesus did not stop the woman because he knew that the motive impelling her to do it was love. He told Simon a parable to press home his point.<\/p>\nJohn records two visits by Jesus to Jerusalem. These are difficult to date, but they probably occurred during the early period of the ministry. He attended the Feast of Tabernacles (Jn 7:2) and the Feast of Dedication (10:22). At these times Jesus taught in the temple area and entered into dialogue with the religious leaders. The chief priests became alarmed at his presence and sent officers to arrest him (7:32). They were unable to do so; instead, they themselves were captivated by his teachings. More discussions with the Jewish leaders followed. They charged Jesus with being demon-possessed (8:48). Both in this case and in the event of the healing of the blind man (ch 9), the hostility of the Jewish leaders to Jesus surfaces. When Jesus spoke of himself as the Shepherd, his teaching again raised the anger of his Jewish hearers, who took up stones to kill him (10:31).<\/p>\n<h5>Teaching in Parables<\/h5>\nMatthew’s Gospel gives a sample of a continuous discourse by Jesus (Mt 5:1–7:29), but Jesus more often spoke in parables. Matthew collected into a group some of the parables that concern the theme of the kingdom (ch 13). Luke tends to preserve parables of a different kind that are not specially linked to the kingdom. Mark has the least number of parables among the synoptic Gospels, but his writing shows little interest in Jesus as a teacher. John does not relate any parables, although he does preserve two allegories—the Sheepfold and the Vine—which could be regarded as extended parables. The parable was a form of teaching particularly characteristic of Jesus. In addition, Jesus interspersed even his discourses with metaphors akin to the parabolic form. The parable was valuable because it could stimulate thought and challenge the hearer. This is because the form of the parable is easy to retain in the mind. Jesus did not speak in parables in order to obscure his meaning. This would be contrary to all that he aimed to do through his work and teaching.<\/p>\n<h5>Significant Events in Galilee<\/h5>\nIn Nazareth there was a striking instance of the unwillingness to respond to the ministry of Jesus. The people of his hometown proved so hostile that he could perform very few miracles there (Mt 13:53-58; Mk 6:1-6). This incident is important because it shows that faith was especially necessary for people to receive his healing miracles.<\/p>\nThe one miracle performed by Jesus that all four Evangelists describe is the feeding of the 5,000 (Mt 14:13-21; Mk 6:30-44; Lk 9:10-17; Jn 6:1-15). This occasion shows the great popularity of Jesus at this stage of his ministry. It also reveals that he was not unmindful of the physical needs of people. After this miracle, some wanted to make Jesus king. This casts considerable light on their real motives. They were more concerned with material and political expediency than with spiritual truth. This is why Jesus immediately withdrew from them. When the people found him the next day, he proceeded to instruct them about the spiritual bread that comes from heaven (Jn 6:25-40).<\/p>\nAt this point in John’s Gospel, Jesus is often seen in dialogue with his opponents. This style of teaching is different from the synoptic parables but familiar in Jewish-style debate. Many of the people found the spiritual themes in the teaching of Jesus too difficult to accept and consequently ceased to be his disciples (Jn 6:51-52, 60, 66). This incident demonstrates the unique challenge presented by Jesus and his teaching. Another miracle closely linked with this is when Jesus walked on the water, demonstrating his power in the natural world. Many have sought to rationalize the event by supposing that Jesus was really walking on the shore, and that the disciples did not realize this in the haze. But this miracle is no more extraordinary than the massive multiplication of loaves and fishes, nor is it inconceivable if the miracle worker was all that he claimed to be.<\/p>\n<h5>Leaving Northern Galilee<\/h5>\nJesus spent a brief time in the region of Tyre and Sidon, where he performed further healings and made it clear that his main mission was to the house of Israel (Mt 15:21-28). He then moved on to Caesarea Philippi; this was the turning point of his ministry (Mt 16:13-20; Mk 8:27-38; Lk 9:18-27). It was there that Jesus asked his disciples: “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” This caused Peter to confess: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This impressive confession led Jesus to promise that he would build his church on “this rock.” There has been much discussion about the meaning of this saying. It is open to some doubt whether Jesus intended to build his church on Peter, on his confession, or on Peter making the confession. Historically, Peter was the instrument God used for the entrance into the church of both Jews and Gentiles (Acts 2, 10). There is no doubt about Jesus’ intention to found a church, since the word occurs again in Matthew 18:17. Despite the glorious revelation of Jesus on this occasion, he took it as an opportunity to begin to inform his disciples of his death and resurrection (Mt 16:21-23).<\/p>\nThis revelation of Jesus was considerably reinforced by the event known as the Transfiguration, when Jesus was transformed in the presence of three of his disciples (Mt 17:1-8). It was natural for them to want to keep this glorious vision of Jesus for themselves, but the vision vanished as rapidly as it came. Its purpose was evidently to show the three leading disciples something of the nature of Jesus, which was obscured by his normal human form. A further feature of the vision was the appearance with Jesus of Moses and Elijah, representatives of the Law and the Prophets.<\/p>\nAfter the Transfiguration, Jesus made two predictions concerning his approaching death. These announcements were a total perplexity to the disciples. In Matthew 16, when Jesus mentioned his death, Peter attempted to rebuke Jesus and was rebuked by Jesus in kind. When Jesus mentioned his death again in chapter 17, Matthew noted that the disciples were greatly distressed (Mt 17:23), while Mark and Luke mentioned the disciples’ lack of understanding (Mk 9:32; Lk 9:45). Jesus was approaching the cross with no support from those closest to him. It is not surprising that when the hour arrived they all forsook him.<\/p>\nAfter the Transfiguration revealed that Jesus was greater than Moses and Elijah and in fact was the beloved Son of God, he was asked to pay the temple tax (Mt 17:24-27). This incident illustrates the attitude of Jesus toward the authorities and practical responsibilities. He paid the tax, although he did not acknowledge any obligation to do so. The method of payment was extraordinary, for it involved the miracle of the coin in the fish. But the greater importance of the incident is the light it throws on Jesus’ independence from the Jewish law.<\/p>\nLuke devotes more than half his Gospel to the period that begins with Jesus leaving Galilee and ends with his death and resurrection in Jerusalem. In this section of his Gospel, Luke introduces a great deal of material that does not occur elsewhere. We can do no more than summarize some of the more striking items that throw light on the life of Jesus.<\/p>\nIn addition to the mission of the Twelve, Luke records the mission of the Seventy (or Seventy-two—see Lk 10:17-20). Special parables are recorded by Luke in this section—the Good Samaritan (vv 29-37), the lost sheep (15:3-7), the lost coin (vv 8-10), and the prodigal son (vv 11-32). As Jesus moved toward Jerusalem, he was concerned with developing the spiritual life of his disciples. He was mindful of the fact that he would not be with them long and wished to prepare them for the future. He taught them about prayer (11:1-13), the Father’s care for them (12:13-34), and preparation for the coming of the Son of Man (vv 35-56).<\/p>\nOn the Way to Jerusalem<\/p>\nOn the approach to Jerusalem, Jesus visited both Jericho and Bethany. At Jericho he healed Bartimaeus (Lk 18:35-43) and had a fruitful encounter with Zacchaeus, who reformed his ways as a tax collector (19:1-10). Bethany was the home of Mary, Martha, and their brother, Lazarus, whom Jesus had raised from the dead (Jn 11). Jesus spent his remaining days in Jerusalem but returned each night to stay at Simon the Leper’s house in Bethany in the presence of those who loved him (Mt 26:6). It was there that a woman anointed his body with costly ointment. This was a controversial and prophetic act preparing Jesus for his burial and enhancing the gospel with loving consecration (vv 6-13).<\/p>\n\nThe Final Days in Jerusalem<\/p>\nAll four Gospels relate the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem (Mt 21:1-11; Mk 11:1-10; Lk 19:29-38; Jn 12:12-15). At this time multitudes greeted Jesus with praises acclaiming him as their king. This welcome stands in stark contrast with the crowd’s later cry for his crucifixion. In fact, it was the second crowd that was doing God’s bidding, since Jesus had not come to Jerusalem to reign but to die.<\/p>\nThe synoptic Gospels place the cleansing of the temple as the first main event following Jesus’ entry into the city (Mt 21:12-13; Mk 11:15-17; Lk 19:45-46). The clouds of opposition had been thickening, but the audacity of Jesus in clearing out the money changers from the temple area was too much for the authorities (Mk 11:18; Lk 19:47). The die was cast and the Crucifixion loomed closer.<\/p>\nIt was during this period that further controversies developed between Jesus and the Pharisees and Sadducees (Mt 21:23–22:45). In several cases trick questions were posed in order to trap Jesus, but with consummate skill he turned their questions against them. His opposers eventually reached the point where they dared not ask him any more questions (22:46).<\/p>\nNearing his final hour, Jesus took the opportunity to instruct his disciples about future events, especially the end of the world. He reiterated the certainty of his return and mentioned various signs that would precede that coming (Mt 24–25; Mk 13; Lk 21). The purpose of this teaching was to provide a challenge to the disciples to be watchful (Mt 25:13) and diligent (vv 14-30). This section prepares the way for the events of the arrest, the trial, the scourging, and the cross carrying and crucifixion that followed soon after. But first we must note the importance of the Last Supper.<\/p>\nWhen Jesus sat at the table with his disciples on the night before he died, he wished to give them a simple means by which the significance of his death could be grasped (Mt 26:26-30; Mk 14:22-25; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 11:23-26). The use of the bread and wine for this purpose was a happy choice because they were basic elements in everyday life. Through this symbolic significance Jesus gave an interpretation of his approaching death—his body broken and his blood poured out for others. It was necessary for Jesus to provide this reminder that his sacrificial death would seal a completely new covenant. It was to be an authentic memorial to prevent the church from losing sight of the centrality of the cross.<\/p>\nJohn’s Gospel does not relate the institution of the Last Supper. Nevertheless, it does record a significant act in which Jesus washed the feet of the disciples as an example of humility (Jn 13:1-20). He impressed on the disciples the principle of service to others. John follows this display of humility with a series of teachings Jesus gave on the eve of the Passion (chs 14–16). The most important feature of this teaching was the promise of the coming of the Holy Spirit to the disciples after Jesus had gone. Even with his mind occupied by thoughts of approaching death, Jesus showed himself more concerned about his disciples than about himself. This is evident in the prayer of Jesus in John 17. All the Evangelists refer in advance to the betrayal by Judas (Mt 26:21-25; Mk 14:18-21; Lk 22:21-23; Jn 13:21-30), which prepares readers for the final stages of the way of Jesus to the cross.<\/p>\nThe Betrayal and Arrest<\/p>\nThere is a sense in which the whole gospel story has been working up to a climax of rejection. The various outbursts of popular support were soon over and the determined opposition emerged as seemingly in control. In John’s Gospel the sense of approaching climax is expressed in terms of “his hour” (Jn 13:1). When this at length comes, the betrayal and arrest are seen as part of a larger plan. From the upper room where the Last Supper was eaten, Jesus went straight to the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:36-46; Mk 14:32-42; Lk 22:40-46), where he prayed to his Father with deep intensity and agony. In this we see part of what it cost Jesus to identify himself with man’s need. He prayed for the cup of suffering to pass from him but at the same time submitted to the Father’s will. The three disciples he took with him all fell asleep, while one of his other disciples, having betrayed his master, appeared at the gates at the head of the group who had come to arrest him. At the moment of confrontation with Judas, Jesus exhibits an amazing dignity when he addressed the betrayer as his “friend” (Mt 26:50). He offered no resistance when he was arrested and chided the crowd of people for their swords and clubs (v 55).<\/p>\nThe Trial<\/p>\nJesus was first taken to the house of Annas, one of the high priests, for a preliminary examination (Jn 18:13). During his trial, he was scorned by his enemies, and one of his disciples, Peter, denied him three times (Mt 26:69-75; Mk 14:66-72; Lk 22:54-62; Jn 18:15-27), as Jesus predicted he would (Mt 26:34; Mk 14:30; Jn 13:38). The official trial before the Sanhedrin was presided over by Caiaphas, who was nonplussed when Jesus at first refused to speak. At length Jesus predicted that the Son of Man would come on the clouds of heaven; this was enough to make the high priest charge him with blasphemy (Mk 14:62-64). Although he was spat upon and his face was struck, Jesus remained calm and dignified. He showed how much greater he was than those who were treating him with contempt.<\/p>\nThe further examinations before Pilate (Mt 27:1-2; Mk 15:1; Lk 23:1; Jn 18:28) and Herod (Lk 23:7-12) were no better examples of impartial justice. Again Jesus did not answer when asked about the charges before either Pilate (Mt 27:14) or Herod (Lk 23:9). He remained majestically silent, except to make a comment to Pilate about the true nature of his kingship (Jn 18:33-38). The pathetic governor declared Jesus innocent, offered the crowds the release of either Jesus or Barabbas, and then publicly disclaimed responsibility by washing his hands. Pilate then cruelly scourged Jesus and handed him over to be crucified. This judge has ever since been judged by the prisoner.<\/p>\n\nThe Crucifixion<\/p>\nThe reader of this scene cannot help but see man’s inhumanity to man—even the man of all men, Jesus Christ. The soldiers’ ribald mockery of Jesus (Mt 27:27-30), mixing a royal robe with a hurtful crown of thorns (Mk 15:17), compelling a passerby to carry the cross (Lk 23:26), the cruel procedure of nailing Jesus to the cross, the callous casting of lots for his garment (Jn 19:23-24), and the scornful challenge to him to use his power to escape (Mt 27:40-44)—all expose the cruelty of Jesus opponents. But against this is Jesus’ concern about the repentant criminal who was crucified with him (Lk 23:39-43), his concern for his mother (Jn 19:25-27), his prayer for forgiveness for those responsible for the Crucifixion (Lk 23:34), and his final triumphant cry (Mk 15:37)—all of which show a nobility of mind that contrasted strongly with the meanness of those about him. A few observers showed a better appreciation, like the centurion who was convinced of Jesus’ innocence (Mk 15:39) and the women who followed him and stood at a distance (Mt 27:55-56). There was one dark moment, as far as Jesus was concerned—his forsaken cry, which quickly passed (Mk 15:34). There was an accompanying darkness and an earthquake, as if nature itself were acknowledging the significance of the event. Even the temple veil was torn in two, as if it had no longer any right to bar the way into the Holy of Holies (Mt 27:51).<\/p>\nThe Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension<\/p>\nJesus’ body was placed in a tomb that belonged to Joseph of Arimathea, who was assisted by Nicodemus in laying the body to rest (Mt 27:57-60; Jn 19:39). But the tomb played only an incidental part in the resurrection. The Evangelists concentrate on the appearances of Jesus not only on the day of resurrection but also subsequently. The disciples were convinced that Jesus was alive. Some, like Thomas, had doubts to overcome (Jn 20:24-29). Others, like John, were more ready to believe when they saw the empty tomb (vv 2-10). It is not without significance that the first to see the risen Lord was a woman, Mary Magdalene (Mt 27:61; 28:1, 5-9), whose presence at the cross put to shame those disciples who had run away (Mt 26:56; Jn 19:25).<\/p>\nWe may note that in his glorified, risen state Jesus was in a human form, although he was not at once recognized (Jn 20:15-16). There was a definite continuity with the Jesus the disciples had known. The appearances were occasions of both joy and instruction (cf. Lk 24:44 and Acts 1:3). The resurrection, in fact, had transformed the Crucifixion from a tragedy into a triumph. Forty days after his resurrection, Jesus ascended into heaven to join his Father in glory (Lk 24:51; Jn 20:17; Acts 1:9-11).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JESUS CHRIST<\/h3>\nMessiah, Savior, and founder of the Christian church.<\/p>\nIn providing a biography of Jesus Christ it must be borne in mind that each of the Gospels has its own distinctive purpose. Matthew, for instance, presents Jesus as the messianic King, whereas the emphasis in Mark is more on Jesus as the servant of all. Luke tends to present Jesus in a softer light, showing particularly his amazing compassion to the less fortunate, whereas John plunges the reader into a deeper and more spiritual understanding of Jesus. These different aims caused the four Evangelists to select and arrange the events of Jesus’ life differently, resulting in a fourfold portrait of the same man. It was undoubtedly for this reason that the Christian church preserved four Gospels instead of only one.<\/p>\nThe following sections present the main events in what may be regarded as the chief stages of the life of Jesus. These stages show a definite progression from Christ’s incarnation to his cross. The amount of space devoted to each stage in each of the Gospels is dictated by theological rather than biographical interest. The whole presentation of Christ’s life centers on the cross and the subsequent triumphant resurrection and is more an account of God’s message to humanity than a plain historic account of the life of Jesus.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Incarnation<\/p>\n• The Birth of Jesus<\/p>\n• Life in Nazareth<\/p>\n• Preparatory Events<\/p>\n• The Early Ministry of Jesus in Judea and Samaria<\/p>\n• The Period of the Galilean Ministry<\/p>\n• On the Way to Jerusalem<\/p>\n• The Final Days in Jerusalem<\/p>\n• The Betrayal and Arrest<\/p>\n• The Trial<\/p>\n• The Crucifixion<\/p>\n• The Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension<\/p>\nThe Incarnation<\/p>\nThe major event of this initial stage was the Incarnation. Only Matthew and Luke give accounts of Jesus’ birth. John goes back and reflects on what preceded the birth.<\/p>\nIt may seem strange that John began his Gospel with a reference to the Word (Jn 1:1), but it is in this way that he delivers to the reader an exalted view of Jesus. John saw Jesus as existing even before the creation of the world (v 2). In fact, he saw him as having a part in the act of creation (v 3). Therefore, when Jesus was born, it was both an act of humiliation and an act of illumination. The light shone, but the world preferred to remain in darkness (vv 4-5, 10). Therefore, anyone coming to John’s records of the life of Jesus would know at once, before even being introduced to the man named Jesus, that here was the record of no ordinary man. The account of his life and teachings that followed could not be properly understood except against this background of his preexistence.<\/p>\nThe Birth of Jesus<\/p>\nJohn simply wrote that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Matthew and Luke fill in some of the details of how this happened. There is little in common between the two accounts. Each approaches the subject from a different point of view, but the supernatural is evident in both. The coming of Jesus is announced beforehand, through dreams to Joseph in Matthew’s account (Mt 1:20-21) and through an angel to Mary in Luke’s account (Lk 1:26-33). Matthew leaves his readers in no doubt that the one to be born had a mission to accomplish—to save people from their sins (Mt 1:21). Luke sets his story of Jesus’ coming in an atmosphere of great rejoicing. This is seen in the inclusion of some exquisite songs, which have formed part of the church’s worship ever since (Lk 1:46-55, 68-79). The homage of the wise men in Matthew 2:1-12 is significant because it sets the scene for a universalistic emphasis that links the beginning of the Gospel to its ending (cf. Mt 28:19-20). A similar emphasis is introduced in the angel’s announcement to the shepherds in Luke 2:14 and in Simeon’s song (Lk 2:32), where he predicts that Jesus would be a light for Gentiles as well as a glory for Israel. The flight into Egypt for safety (Mt 2:13-15) shows the contribution of a gentile nation in providing protection for a Jewish child.<\/p>\nOne feature of the birth stories in Matthew and Luke is that they are both linked to genealogies. It is difficult to harmonize these genealogies since they appear to be drawn from different sources, but the purpose in both cases is to show that Jesus was descended from Abraham and David. The latter fact gave rise to Jesus’ title Son of David.<\/p>\nLuke was the only Gospel writer who attempted to link the coming of Jesus with events in secular history. Although problems arise over the dating of the census of Quirinius (Lk 2:1-2), the firm setting of the contemporary scene is highly significant because the Christian faith is a historic faith centered on a historic person.<\/p>\nLife in Nazareth<\/p>\nThe years of Jesus Christ’s human development are given only a few lines in the Gospels. Details are given of only one incident belonging to the period of childhood, the discussion of the 12-year-old Jesus with the Jewish teachers in the temple (Lk 2:41-50). This event is a pointer to one of the most characteristic features of Jesus’ later ministry: his display of irrefutable wisdom in dialogue with his Jewish contemporaries. It also reveals that at an early age Jesus was acutely aware of a divine mission. Nevertheless, Luke notes that in Jesus’ formative years he was obedient to his parents (v 51). It is assumed that during 30 years at Nazareth Jesus learned the carpenter’s trade from Joseph and became the village carpenter after Joseph’s death. However, there is no account of this period in the Gospels. This has led to many fantastic imaginings about Jesus’ childhood. Many of these fables are recorded in apocryphal gospels, but Luke’s account is unembellished. Its remarkable reserve is a strong indication of its historical reliability.<\/p>\nPreparatory Events<\/p>\nAll four Gospels refer to a brief preparatory period that immediately preceded the commencement of Christ’s public ministry. This period focused on three important events.<\/p>\n<h5>The Preaching of John the Baptist<\/h5>\nJohn the Baptist appeared in the wilderness and caused an immediate stir in Judea, particularly as a result of his call to repentance and to baptism (Mt 3:1-6). John was like one of the OT prophets, but he disclaimed any importance in his own office except as the herald of a greater person to come. His stern appearance and uncompromising moral challenge effectively prepared the way for the public appearance of Jesus (Lk 3:4-6). It is important to note that John the Baptist’s announcement of the imminent coming of the kingdom (Mt 3:2) was the same theme with which Jesus began his own ministry (4:17). This shows that John the Baptist’s work was an integral part of the preparation for the public ministry of Jesus. The same may be said of the rite of baptism, although John recognized that Jesus would add a new dimension in that he would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (3:11). As the forerunner of Jesus Christ, John proclaimed that the one to follow would not only be greater than he but would also come with high standards of judgment (v 12). The stage was therefore set in stern terms for the initial public act of Jesus—his willingness to be baptized (Mt 3:13-15; Lk 3:21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Baptism of Jesus<\/h5>\nJohn’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. Since Jesus submitted to this, are we to suppose that Jesus himself needed to repent? If this were the case, it would involve the assumption that Jesus had sinned. This is contrary to other evidence in the NT. But if Jesus did not need to repent, what was the point of his requesting baptism at the hands of John? Jesus had come on a mission to others, and it is possible that he deliberately submitted to John’s baptism in order to show that he was prepared to take the place of others. This explanation is in line with Paul’s later understanding of the work of Jesus Christ (2 Cor 5:21). Matthew is the one Evangelist who records John’s hesitation to baptize Jesus (Mt 3:14-15).<\/p>\nThe most important part of the baptism of Jesus was the heavenly voice, which declared pleasure in the beloved Son (Mt 3:17). This announcement by God was the real starting point of the public ministry of Jesus. It revealed that the ministry was no accident or sudden inspiration on the part of Jesus. He went into his work with the full approval of the Father. A further important feature is the part played by the Holy Spirit in this scene. The dovelike description is full of symbolic meaning (v 16). It was not just an inner experience that Jesus had. The activity of the Spirit in the ministry of Jesus, although not much emphasized in the Gospels, is nevertheless sufficiently evident to be indispensable to a true understanding of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temptation of Jesus<\/h5>\nJesus’ baptism showed the nature of his mission. The temptation showed the nature of the environment in which he was to minister (Mt 4:1; Lk 4:1-2). Confrontation with adverse spiritual forces characterized Jesus’ whole ministry. Only Matthew and Luke record details of the temptations to which Jesus was subjected by the devil. All these temptations present shortcuts that, if pursued, would have deflected Jesus from his vocation. The record leaves us in no doubt that Jesus gained the victory. Both Gospels show that he accomplished this by appealing to Scripture. Jesus is also seen in this event as a genuine human who, like all other humans, was subject to temptation. The writer of the Letter to the Hebrews notes that this fact qualified Jesus to act as High Priest and to intercede on behalf of his people (Heb 2:18; 4:15).<\/p>\nThe Early Ministry of Jesus in Judea and Samaria<\/p>\nOnly John’s Gospel tells of the work of Jesus in Judea following his baptism. It first describes his calling of two disciples, John and Andrew (Jn 1:35-39). This event is set against the background of John the Baptist’s announcement of Jesus as the Lamb of God who was to take away the sin of the world (v 29). These first two disciples were soon joined by three others: Peter, Philip, and Nathanael (vv 41-51). These five formed part of the nucleus of Jesus’ followers who came to be known as the Twelve. One feature of John’s account is the early recognition by the disciples of Jesus as Messiah (Jn 1:41) and Son of God (v 49).<\/p>\nSoon after Jesus began his ministry in Jerusalem, John relates an incident at Cana in Galilee in which water was turned into wine (Jn 2:1-10). This event is important in John’s account because it is the first of the signs that he records (v 11). He saw Jesus’ miracles as “signs” of the truth of the gospel rather than as mere wonders.<\/p>\nJohn sets two incidents at Jerusalem in this initial period. The first is the cleansing of the temple (Jn 2:13-16). Matthew, Mark, and Luke all place this event just before Jesus’ trial, but John places it at this early stage. The moral intention of Jesus’ work is seen in his driving out the money changers who were profiting from worshipers more than was appropriate. This was apparently acceptable to Judaism but was unacceptable to Jesus. The other Evangelists imply that this authoritative act was the event that sparked the final hostility of his opponents. John tells the story for a theological reason; to him, the cleansing of the temple was a parable telling of what Jesus had come to do.<\/p>\nThe other incident in Jerusalem is the meeting between Jesus and Nicodemus (Jn 3). Nicodemus was closely associated with Judaism, yet he was also searching for truth. He was unable to understand, however, the spiritual truth about being born again through the Spirit.<\/p>\nJohn’s story then moves from Judea to Samaria and the story of the Samaritan woman at the well (Jn 4:1-42). Jesus used her physical thirst to point to her deeper spiritual thirst. She realized that Jesus had something to offer her that she had not previously known. As a result of this woman’s experience and testimony, many of the Samaritan people came to believe in Jesus as the Savior of the world (v 42). In this case John intends that his readers would appreciate the fuller significance of the words of Jesus by viewing them in the light of the resurrection.<\/p>\nThe Period of the Galilean Ministry<\/p>\n\nAlmost all the information on this period is found in the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke.) It may be conveniently divided into three sections. The first briefly outlines the events leading up to the choosing of the Twelve; the second deals with Jesus’ withdrawal from northern Galilee; and the third deals with his departure for Jerusalem. While the synoptic Gospels concentrate exclusively on the events in Galilee, John’s account indicates that there were some visits by Jesus to Jerusalem during this period. Also, John records another incident at Cana, where the son of a Capernaum official was healed. This is noted as the second of Jesus’ signs (Jn 4:54). It is chiefly important because of the extraordinary faith of the father, who was prepared to take Jesus at his word.<\/p>\n<h5>The Calling of the Disciples<\/h5>\nIn the synoptic Gospels there is an account of the initial call to four of the disciples to leave their fishing boats and to become fishers of men (Mt 4:18-22; Mk 1:16-20; Lk 5:1-11). They had already met Jesus and must have had some idea what was involved in following him. Jesus did not at this time appoint them to be apostles, but this call was an indispensable step toward the establishment of the Twelve as a group. Setting apart a particular number of disciples formed an important part of the ministry of Jesus. The miraculous catch of fish, which preceded the call of the disciples in Luke’s account, served to highlight the superiority of the spiritual task of catching people rather than fish.<\/p>\nAnother significant call came to Levi, otherwise known as Matthew (Mt 9:9; Mk 2:13-14; Lk 5:27-28). As a tax collector, he was of a different type from most of the other disciples. He would certainly have been despised by his Jewish contemporaries because of his profession. But his inclusion in the special circle of Jesus’ disciples shows the broad basis on which these men were chosen. One of the others, Simon the Zealot, may have belonged to a group of revolutionaries who were religious as well as political. Even a man like Judas Iscariot was numbered among the Twelve, and he would later betray Jesus to his enemies for a small sum of money. Jesus accepted them as they were and molded them into men who later came to learn how to be totally dependent on God and the power of his Spirit.<\/p>\n<h5>Sermon on the Mount<\/h5>\nThe Gospel of Matthew presents a substantial sample of Jesus’ teachings commonly called the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:1–7:29). Some of the same material occurs in Luke in a different context and different arrangement. It is possible that Jesus often repeated his teachings on different occasions and with different combinations. Matthew’s record of the Sermon on the Mount presents an impressive body of teaching, mainly of an ethical character. In it Jesus upholds the Mosaic law and at the same time goes beyond it. The beginning of this sermon has been called the Beatitudes (5:3-12). It commends moral and spiritual values. The teachings recorded in this section were radical, but not in a political sense. The Sermon on the Mount may be taken as a fair sample of the kind of discourses that must have abounded in the ministry of Jesus.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus as Healer<\/h5>\nThroughout the Gospels there are records of miracles involving Jesus healing people. There are more of these miracles than any other type. In a section in Matthew devoted to a sequence of healings (Mt 8:1–9:34), a leper, a centurion’s servant, Peter’s mother-in-law, a demoniac, a paralytic, a woman with a hemorrhage, blind men, and a man who was mute—all were healed. In addition, Jairus’s daughter was raised from the dead. This concentration of healings focuses on Jesus as a miracle worker, but throughout the Gospels there is no suggestion that Jesus healed by magical means. In some cases an individual’s faith was acknowledged (8:10; 9:22). In at least one incident, the healing was accompanied by an announcement of the forgiveness of the sins of the one healed (Mt 9:2; Mk 2:5). This shows that Jesus considered spiritual needs to be of greater consequence than the physical problems.<\/p>\nIn view of the widespread belief in the powerful influence of evil spirits over human lives, it is of great significance that Jesus is seen exercising his power of exorcism over demons. Jesus’ ministry was set in an atmosphere of spiritual conflict, so the confrontations between the forces of darkness and the Light of the World were to be expected. Those who explain away these cases of demon-possession in psychiatric terms miss this key feature of Jesus’ ministry. Each time he exorcised a demon, he was demonstrating victory, which reached its most dramatic expression in his victory over death at his resurrection.<\/p>\nIn addition to the healing miracles in this early section, one nature miracle is recorded, that of the stilling of the storm (Mt 8:23-27; Mk 4:35-41; Lk 8:22-25). This miracle focused both on the lack of faith in the disciples and the mysterious power of the presence of Jesus.<\/p>\n<h5>The Reaction to Jesus by His Contemporaries<\/h5>\nIn the early stages of his ministry, Jesus was very popular with the ordinary people. There are several notices to this effect (Mt 4:23-25; Mk 3:7-8). This popularity showed no appreciation of the spiritual purpose of Jesus’ mission (Lk 13:17). Nevertheless, it stands in stark contrast to the nit-picking opposition of the religious leaders, who even plotted to kill Jesus in the early period of his ministry (Mk 3:6).<\/p>\nJesus and the religious leaders often clashed over the observance of the Sabbath (Mt 12:1-14; Lk 13:10-17; Jn 5:9-18). Jesus adopted a more liberal view than the rigid and often illogical interpretation of some of his religious contemporaries—as in the instances when he was criticized for healing on the Sabbath even though the Jewish law allowed the rescuing of trapped animals on the Sabbath (Mt 12:11; Lk 13:15). To the Pharisaic mind, Jesus was a lawbreaker. The Pharisees feared that it would undermine their authority if his teaching were permitted to permeate popular opinion.<\/p>\n<h5>Preparing the Twelve<\/h5>\nThe synoptic Gospels supply lists of the names of the 12 apostles (Mt 10:2-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16). Both Matthew and Mark name them in the context of their exercising authority over evil spirits, thereby showing that these men were being called to enter the same spiritual conflict as Jesus.<\/p>\nThe synoptic Gospels also give details of the instructions Jesus gave to these disciples before sending them to minister in Israel (Mt 10:5-42; Mk 6:7-13; Lk 9:1-6). Matthew included material in his discourse that appears in a different context in Mark and Luke, but the discourse still shows the concern of Jesus to prepare his disciples for their future work. They were to proclaim the kingdom as he had done, but they were not to suppose that all would respond to it. They were warned about coming hostility and even persecution. It is important to note that Jesus warned his disciples against encumbering themselves with material possessions. Although the instructions given related immediately to a ministry tour, he was laying the foundation for the future work of the church.<\/p>\n<h5>The Relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist<\/h5>\nFor a while there were parallel preaching and parallel baptisms by John the Baptist with his followers and Jesus with his disciples (Jn 4:1-2). After John the Baptist was imprisoned by Herod because of his uncompromising condemnation of Herod’s marriage to Herodias, his brother’s wife (Mt 14:3-4), John began to have doubts about Jesus (Mt 11:1-19; Lk 7:18-35). He may have been expecting Jesus, if he really was the Messiah, to come to his rescue. When John sent his disciples to Jesus to express his doubts, Jesus took the opportunity to tell the crowds of the greatness of John the Baptist. He said there was none born of women who was greater than John.<\/p>\n<h5>Various Controversies<\/h5>\nJesus did not hesitate to confront his contemporaries on issues that involved moral or religious questions. The controversy recorded in John’s Gospel concerning the keeping of the Sabbath that arose when a lame man was healed on that day (Jn 5:1-18) shows once again that ritual observance of the Sabbath was regarded as of greater importance than a compassionate concern for the physical welfare of the lame man. This was typical of the Jewish approach and led at once to a persecuting attitude toward Jesus, particularly because he claimed to be doing the work of God.<\/p>\nA similar conflict arose after Jesus’ disciples had plucked grain in the fields on the Sabbath day (Mt 12:1-8). The Pharisees assumed that this act constituted work and saw it as a sufficient reason to plot how to destroy Jesus. After this event, he healed a paralytic on the same Sabbath day (vv 9-14). The Jewish leaders clearly regarded him as a direct threat to their position among the people.<\/p>\nThe rising opposition did not deter Jesus from further healings (Mt 12:15-32), which Matthew depicts as the fulfillment of Scripture. But when Jesus healed a blind and mute demoniac, the Pharisees charged him with casting out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of the demons. Jesus told them that to blaspheme the Holy Spirit was an unforgivable sin. This incident not only brings out the perversity of the religious leaders but also shows that the ministry of Jesus was under the direct control of the Spirit. Other notable miracles were the healing of the centurion’s servant, as recorded by Luke (Lk 7:1-10), and the raising from the dead of the widow’s son at Nain (vv 11-17). The former of these is notable because of the remarkable faith of a Gentile.<\/p>\nAnother example of the Pharisees’ criticism was when Jesus attended a meal in Simon the Pharisee’s house (Lk 7:36-50). His host had not provided for the usual courtesies toward guests and yet was critical of Jesus for allowing an immoral woman to wash his feet with tears, dry them with her hair, and anoint them with ointment. There is no doubt that most of Simon’s colleagues would have shared his reaction, but Jesus did not stop the woman because he knew that the motive impelling her to do it was love. He told Simon a parable to press home his point.<\/p>\nJohn records two visits by Jesus to Jerusalem. These are difficult to date, but they probably occurred during the early period of the ministry. He attended the Feast of Tabernacles (Jn 7:2) and the Feast of Dedication (10:22). At these times Jesus taught in the temple area and entered into dialogue with the religious leaders. The chief priests became alarmed at his presence and sent officers to arrest him (7:32). They were unable to do so; instead, they themselves were captivated by his teachings. More discussions with the Jewish leaders followed. They charged Jesus with being demon-possessed (8:48). Both in this case and in the event of the healing of the blind man (ch 9), the hostility of the Jewish leaders to Jesus surfaces. When Jesus spoke of himself as the Shepherd, his teaching again raised the anger of his Jewish hearers, who took up stones to kill him (10:31).<\/p>\n<h5>Teaching in Parables<\/h5>\nMatthew’s Gospel gives a sample of a continuous discourse by Jesus (Mt 5:1–7:29), but Jesus more often spoke in parables. Matthew collected into a group some of the parables that concern the theme of the kingdom (ch 13). Luke tends to preserve parables of a different kind that are not specially linked to the kingdom. Mark has the least number of parables among the synoptic Gospels, but his writing shows little interest in Jesus as a teacher. John does not relate any parables, although he does preserve two allegories—the Sheepfold and the Vine—which could be regarded as extended parables. The parable was a form of teaching particularly characteristic of Jesus. In addition, Jesus interspersed even his discourses with metaphors akin to the parabolic form. The parable was valuable because it could stimulate thought and challenge the hearer. This is because the form of the parable is easy to retain in the mind. Jesus did not speak in parables in order to obscure his meaning. This would be contrary to all that he aimed to do through his work and teaching.<\/p>\n<h5>Significant Events in Galilee<\/h5>\nIn Nazareth there was a striking instance of the unwillingness to respond to the ministry of Jesus. The people of his hometown proved so hostile that he could perform very few miracles there (Mt 13:53-58; Mk 6:1-6). This incident is important because it shows that faith was especially necessary for people to receive his healing miracles.<\/p>\nThe one miracle performed by Jesus that all four Evangelists describe is the feeding of the 5,000 (Mt 14:13-21; Mk 6:30-44; Lk 9:10-17; Jn 6:1-15). This occasion shows the great popularity of Jesus at this stage of his ministry. It also reveals that he was not unmindful of the physical needs of people. After this miracle, some wanted to make Jesus king. This casts considerable light on their real motives. They were more concerned with material and political expediency than with spiritual truth. This is why Jesus immediately withdrew from them. When the people found him the next day, he proceeded to instruct them about the spiritual bread that comes from heaven (Jn 6:25-40).<\/p>\nAt this point in John’s Gospel, Jesus is often seen in dialogue with his opponents. This style of teaching is different from the synoptic parables but familiar in Jewish-style debate. Many of the people found the spiritual themes in the teaching of Jesus too difficult to accept and consequently ceased to be his disciples (Jn 6:51-52, 60, 66). This incident demonstrates the unique challenge presented by Jesus and his teaching. Another miracle closely linked with this is when Jesus walked on the water, demonstrating his power in the natural world. Many have sought to rationalize the event by supposing that Jesus was really walking on the shore, and that the disciples did not realize this in the haze. But this miracle is no more extraordinary than the massive multiplication of loaves and fishes, nor is it inconceivable if the miracle worker was all that he claimed to be.<\/p>\n<h5>Leaving Northern Galilee<\/h5>\nJesus spent a brief time in the region of Tyre and Sidon, where he performed further healings and made it clear that his main mission was to the house of Israel (Mt 15:21-28). He then moved on to Caesarea Philippi; this was the turning point of his ministry (Mt 16:13-20; Mk 8:27-38; Lk 9:18-27). It was there that Jesus asked his disciples: “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” This caused Peter to confess: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This impressive confession led Jesus to promise that he would build his church on “this rock.” There has been much discussion about the meaning of this saying. It is open to some doubt whether Jesus intended to build his church on Peter, on his confession, or on Peter making the confession. Historically, Peter was the instrument God used for the entrance into the church of both Jews and Gentiles (Acts 2, 10). There is no doubt about Jesus’ intention to found a church, since the word occurs again in Matthew 18:17. Despite the glorious revelation of Jesus on this occasion, he took it as an opportunity to begin to inform his disciples of his death and resurrection (Mt 16:21-23).<\/p>\nThis revelation of Jesus was considerably reinforced by the event known as the Transfiguration, when Jesus was transformed in the presence of three of his disciples (Mt 17:1-8). It was natural for them to want to keep this glorious vision of Jesus for themselves, but the vision vanished as rapidly as it came. Its purpose was evidently to show the three leading disciples something of the nature of Jesus, which was obscured by his normal human form. A further feature of the vision was the appearance with Jesus of Moses and Elijah, representatives of the Law and the Prophets.<\/p>\nAfter the Transfiguration, Jesus made two predictions concerning his approaching death. These announcements were a total perplexity to the disciples. In Matthew 16, when Jesus mentioned his death, Peter attempted to rebuke Jesus and was rebuked by Jesus in kind. When Jesus mentioned his death again in chapter 17, Matthew noted that the disciples were greatly distressed (Mt 17:23), while Mark and Luke mentioned the disciples’ lack of understanding (Mk 9:32; Lk 9:45). Jesus was approaching the cross with no support from those closest to him. It is not surprising that when the hour arrived they all forsook him.<\/p>\nAfter the Transfiguration revealed that Jesus was greater than Moses and Elijah and in fact was the beloved Son of God, he was asked to pay the temple tax (Mt 17:24-27). This incident illustrates the attitude of Jesus toward the authorities and practical responsibilities. He paid the tax, although he did not acknowledge any obligation to do so. The method of payment was extraordinary, for it involved the miracle of the coin in the fish. But the greater importance of the incident is the light it throws on Jesus’ independence from the Jewish law.<\/p>\nLuke devotes more than half his Gospel to the period that begins with Jesus leaving Galilee and ends with his death and resurrection in Jerusalem. In this section of his Gospel, Luke introduces a great deal of material that does not occur elsewhere. We can do no more than summarize some of the more striking items that throw light on the life of Jesus.<\/p>\nIn addition to the mission of the Twelve, Luke records the mission of the Seventy (or Seventy-two—see Lk 10:17-20). Special parables are recorded by Luke in this section—the Good Samaritan (vv 29-37), the lost sheep (15:3-7), the lost coin (vv 8-10), and the prodigal son (vv 11-32). As Jesus moved toward Jerusalem, he was concerned with developing the spiritual life of his disciples. He was mindful of the fact that he would not be with them long and wished to prepare them for the future. He taught them about prayer (11:1-13), the Father’s care for them (12:13-34), and preparation for the coming of the Son of Man (vv 35-56).<\/p>\nOn the Way to Jerusalem<\/p>\nOn the approach to Jerusalem, Jesus visited both Jericho and Bethany. At Jericho he healed Bartimaeus (Lk 18:35-43) and had a fruitful encounter with Zacchaeus, who reformed his ways as a tax collector (19:1-10). Bethany was the home of Mary, Martha, and their brother, Lazarus, whom Jesus had raised from the dead (Jn 11). Jesus spent his remaining days in Jerusalem but returned each night to stay at Simon the Leper’s house in Bethany in the presence of those who loved him (Mt 26:6). It was there that a woman anointed his body with costly ointment. This was a controversial and prophetic act preparing Jesus for his burial and enhancing the gospel with loving consecration (vv 6-13).<\/p>\n\nThe Final Days in Jerusalem<\/p>\nAll four Gospels relate the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem (Mt 21:1-11; Mk 11:1-10; Lk 19:29-38; Jn 12:12-15). At this time multitudes greeted Jesus with praises acclaiming him as their king. This welcome stands in stark contrast with the crowd’s later cry for his crucifixion. In fact, it was the second crowd that was doing God’s bidding, since Jesus had not come to Jerusalem to reign but to die.<\/p>\nThe synoptic Gospels place the cleansing of the temple as the first main event following Jesus’ entry into the city (Mt 21:12-13; Mk 11:15-17; Lk 19:45-46). The clouds of opposition had been thickening, but the audacity of Jesus in clearing out the money changers from the temple area was too much for the authorities (Mk 11:18; Lk 19:47). The die was cast and the Crucifixion loomed closer.<\/p>\nIt was during this period that further controversies developed between Jesus and the Pharisees and Sadducees (Mt 21:23–22:45). In several cases trick questions were posed in order to trap Jesus, but with consummate skill he turned their questions against them. His opposers eventually reached the point where they dared not ask him any more questions (22:46).<\/p>\nNearing his final hour, Jesus took the opportunity to instruct his disciples about future events, especially the end of the world. He reiterated the certainty of his return and mentioned various signs that would precede that coming (Mt 24–25; Mk 13; Lk 21). The purpose of this teaching was to provide a challenge to the disciples to be watchful (Mt 25:13) and diligent (vv 14-30). This section prepares the way for the events of the arrest, the trial, the scourging, and the cross carrying and crucifixion that followed soon after. But first we must note the importance of the Last Supper.<\/p>\nWhen Jesus sat at the table with his disciples on the night before he died, he wished to give them a simple means by which the significance of his death could be grasped (Mt 26:26-30; Mk 14:22-25; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 11:23-26). The use of the bread and wine for this purpose was a happy choice because they were basic elements in everyday life. Through this symbolic significance Jesus gave an interpretation of his approaching death—his body broken and his blood poured out for others. It was necessary for Jesus to provide this reminder that his sacrificial death would seal a completely new covenant. It was to be an authentic memorial to prevent the church from losing sight of the centrality of the cross.<\/p>\nJohn’s Gospel does not relate the institution of the Last Supper. Nevertheless, it does record a significant act in which Jesus washed the feet of the disciples as an example of humility (Jn 13:1-20). He impressed on the disciples the principle of service to others. John follows this display of humility with a series of teachings Jesus gave on the eve of the Passion (chs 14–16). The most important feature of this teaching was the promise of the coming of the Holy Spirit to the disciples after Jesus had gone. Even with his mind occupied by thoughts of approaching death, Jesus showed himself more concerned about his disciples than about himself. This is evident in the prayer of Jesus in John 17. All the Evangelists refer in advance to the betrayal by Judas (Mt 26:21-25; Mk 14:18-21; Lk 22:21-23; Jn 13:21-30), which prepares readers for the final stages of the way of Jesus to the cross.<\/p>\nThe Betrayal and Arrest<\/p>\nThere is a sense in which the whole gospel story has been working up to a climax of rejection. The various outbursts of popular support were soon over and the determined opposition emerged as seemingly in control. In John’s Gospel the sense of approaching climax is expressed in terms of “his hour” (Jn 13:1). When this at length comes, the betrayal and arrest are seen as part of a larger plan. From the upper room where the Last Supper was eaten, Jesus went straight to the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:36-46; Mk 14:32-42; Lk 22:40-46), where he prayed to his Father with deep intensity and agony. In this we see part of what it cost Jesus to identify himself with man’s need. He prayed for the cup of suffering to pass from him but at the same time submitted to the Father’s will. The three disciples he took with him all fell asleep, while one of his other disciples, having betrayed his master, appeared at the gates at the head of the group who had come to arrest him. At the moment of confrontation with Judas, Jesus exhibits an amazing dignity when he addressed the betrayer as his “friend” (Mt 26:50). He offered no resistance when he was arrested and chided the crowd of people for their swords and clubs (v 55).<\/p>\nThe Trial<\/p>\nJesus was first taken to the house of Annas, one of the high priests, for a preliminary examination (Jn 18:13). During his trial, he was scorned by his enemies, and one of his disciples, Peter, denied him three times (Mt 26:69-75; Mk 14:66-72; Lk 22:54-62; Jn 18:15-27), as Jesus predicted he would (Mt 26:34; Mk 14:30; Jn 13:38). The official trial before the Sanhedrin was presided over by Caiaphas, who was nonplussed when Jesus at first refused to speak. At length Jesus predicted that the Son of Man would come on the clouds of heaven; this was enough to make the high priest charge him with blasphemy (Mk 14:62-64). Although he was spat upon and his face was struck, Jesus remained calm and dignified. He showed how much greater he was than those who were treating him with contempt.<\/p>\nThe further examinations before Pilate (Mt 27:1-2; Mk 15:1; Lk 23:1; Jn 18:28) and Herod (Lk 23:7-12) were no better examples of impartial justice. Again Jesus did not answer when asked about the charges before either Pilate (Mt 27:14) or Herod (Lk 23:9). He remained majestically silent, except to make a comment to Pilate about the true nature of his kingship (Jn 18:33-38). The pathetic governor declared Jesus innocent, offered the crowds the release of either Jesus or Barabbas, and then publicly disclaimed responsibility by washing his hands. Pilate then cruelly scourged Jesus and handed him over to be crucified. This judge has ever since been judged by the prisoner.<\/p>\n\nThe Crucifixion<\/p>\nThe reader of this scene cannot help but see man’s inhumanity to man—even the man of all men, Jesus Christ. The soldiers’ ribald mockery of Jesus (Mt 27:27-30), mixing a royal robe with a hurtful crown of thorns (Mk 15:17), compelling a passerby to carry the cross (Lk 23:26), the cruel procedure of nailing Jesus to the cross, the callous casting of lots for his garment (Jn 19:23-24), and the scornful challenge to him to use his power to escape (Mt 27:40-44)—all expose the cruelty of Jesus opponents. But against this is Jesus’ concern about the repentant criminal who was crucified with him (Lk 23:39-43), his concern for his mother (Jn 19:25-27), his prayer for forgiveness for those responsible for the Crucifixion (Lk 23:34), and his final triumphant cry (Mk 15:37)—all of which show a nobility of mind that contrasted strongly with the meanness of those about him. A few observers showed a better appreciation, like the centurion who was convinced of Jesus’ innocence (Mk 15:39) and the women who followed him and stood at a distance (Mt 27:55-56). There was one dark moment, as far as Jesus was concerned—his forsaken cry, which quickly passed (Mk 15:34). There was an accompanying darkness and an earthquake, as if nature itself were acknowledging the significance of the event. Even the temple veil was torn in two, as if it had no longer any right to bar the way into the Holy of Holies (Mt 27:51).<\/p>\nThe Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension<\/p>\nJesus’ body was placed in a tomb that belonged to Joseph of Arimathea, who was assisted by Nicodemus in laying the body to rest (Mt 27:57-60; Jn 19:39). But the tomb played only an incidental part in the resurrection. The Evangelists concentrate on the appearances of Jesus not only on the day of resurrection but also subsequently. The disciples were convinced that Jesus was alive. Some, like Thomas, had doubts to overcome (Jn 20:24-29). Others, like John, were more ready to believe when they saw the empty tomb (vv 2-10). It is not without significance that the first to see the risen Lord was a woman, Mary Magdalene (Mt 27:61; 28:1, 5-9), whose presence at the cross put to shame those disciples who had run away (Mt 26:56; Jn 19:25).<\/p>\nWe may note that in his glorified, risen state Jesus was in a human form, although he was not at once recognized (Jn 20:15-16). There was a definite continuity with the Jesus the disciples had known. The appearances were occasions of both joy and instruction (cf. Lk 24:44 and Acts 1:3). The resurrection, in fact, had transformed the Crucifixion from a tragedy into a triumph. Forty days after his resurrection, Jesus ascended into heaven to join his Father in glory (Lk 24:51; Jn 20:17; Acts 1:9-11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"JESUS CHRIST Messiah, Savior, and founder of the Christian church. In providing a biography of Jesus Christ it must be borne in mind that each of the Gospels has its own distinctive purpose. Matthew, for instance, presents Jesus as the messianic King, whereas the emphasis in Mark is more on Jesus as the servant of all. Luke tends to present Jesus in a softer light, showing particularly his amazing compassion to the less fortunate, whereas John plunges the reader into a deeper and more spiritu...","summary_en":"JESUS CHRIST Messiah, Savior, and founder of the Christian church. In providing a biography of Jesus Christ it must be borne in mind that each of the Gospels has its own distinctive purpose. Matthew, for instance, presents Jesus as the messianic King, whereas the emphasis in Mark is more on Jesus as the servant of all. Luke tends to present Jesus in a softer light, showing particularly his amazing compassion to the less fortunate, whereas John plunges the reader into a deeper and more spiritu...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20376,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"John the Baptist","title_en":"John the Baptist","content_ro":"<h3>JOHN THE BAPTIST<\/h3>\nForerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD<\/span> 29, while Jesus was still ministering.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\n• Appearance and Identity<\/p>\n• John’s Proclamation<\/p>\n• John’s Baptism<\/p>\n• John’s View of Jesus<\/p>\n• Jesus’ View of John<\/p>\n• Arrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\n• The Disciples of John<\/p>\nBirth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\nLuke’s Gospel is our only source of information concerning the birth and boyhood of John. The Gospel writer states that John was born in the hill country of Judah (Lk 1:39) of priestly descent, being the son of Zechariah, a priest of the order of Abijah, and Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron (v 5). Both parents were righteous in the sight of God, following all the commandments closely (v 6). Like the birth of Jesus, only to a much lesser degree, the birth of John the Baptist is described in Luke as extraordinary. The angel Gabriel announced the coming birth to Zechariah in the temple; to the older, barren Elizabeth it came as an answer to prayer (vv 8-13). John’s name is announced to Zechariah by the angel, even as his purpose as forerunner is revealed before birth (vv 13-17). Such a consecration from birth is reminiscent of the call of the OT prophet Jeremiah (cf. Jer 1:5).<\/p>\nThere existed some familial relationship between the families of John and Jesus. Elizabeth is described as a relative of Mary (Lk 1:36), which may connote cousin or aunt, or may only mean being from the same tribe.<\/p>\nJohn’s childhood, as that of Jesus, is left quite vague in the Gospel account. All that is said is that “John grew up and became strong in spirit. Then he lived out in the wilderness until he began his public ministry to Israel” (Lk 1:80, nlt<\/span>). Some scholars have suggested that John might have been adopted as a boy by the Essenes (as was their practice) at Qumran and reared in their wilderness community, adjacent to the Dead Sea and near the Jordan River. There are some similarities between the activities of the Qumran sect, known through the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the later ministry of John the Baptist. Both practiced a type of asceticism and removed themselves from the life of Jerusalem. Both practiced baptism and associated this rite with initiation and repentance. Finally, John and the Qumran group were both eschatologically minded, awaiting God’s final end-time activity in history. Nevertheless, many significant differences exist between John and the Qumran sect.<\/p>\nAppearance and Identity<\/p>\nMark’s Gospel begins with an account of John the Baptist’s appearance: “John the Baptist . . . lived in the wilderness and was preaching that people should be baptized to show that they had turned from their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Mk 1:4, nlt<\/span>). A rich OT background lies behind John’s association with the wilderness, in this case the wilderness of Judea. It was in the wilderness that God revealed himself to Moses (Ex 3), gave the law, and entered into the covenant with Israel (ch 19). It was also the site of refuge for David (1 Sm 23–26; Ps 63) and Elijah (1 Kgs 19), and in this light became the anticipated site of God’s future deliverance (Is 40:3-5; Ez 47:1-12; Hos 2:14-15).<\/p>\nThe unusual dress of John the Baptist—“clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist” (Mk 1:6, niv<\/span>)—may have suggested to his audience an association with Elijah in particular (2 Kgs 1:8) or with the prophets in general (Zec 13:4). His diet, “locusts and wild honey” (Mk 1:6), was Levitically clean, reflecting one who lived off the desert (such food was also eaten at Qumran) and formed part of the broader asceticism practiced by John and his disciples (Mt 9:14; 11:18).<\/p>\nWho did John understand himself to be? In answer to questions by the multitude whether he was the Messiah, Elijah, or the expected prophet (Jn 1:20-23), John only identified himself as “a voice crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord’ ” (Is 40:3). The background for the question lies at the end of the OT period. Prophecy, on the one hand, was considered to have ceased (Zec 13:2-6); yet, on the other hand, it was expected to appear again before the coming of the messianic kingdom (see Jl 2:28-29; Mal 3:1-4). Some anticipated this final prophet to be one who was like Moses (Dt 18:15), others a returning Elijah as foretold in Malachi 4:5-6. While John personally refrained from identifying himself with these specific expectations (Jn 1:20-23), it is clear that his dress, lifestyle, and message caused the people to identify him with this end-time prophet (Mt 14:5; Mk 11:32). Jesus also saw John as this final “Elijah-like” prophet (Mt 11:7-15), who from Malachi’s prophecy was to be a forerunner to the coming of the Lord (Mal 3:1-4; 4:5-6).<\/p>\nJohn’s Proclamation<\/p>\nJohn’s proclamation involved three elements: a warning of imminent judgment at the hands of the Coming One, a call for repentance in light of the coming kingdom of heaven, and a demand to express this repentance in concrete ethical terms. Many Jews looked forward confidently to the messianic judgment as a time of blessing for themselves and destruction for the gentile oppressors. John, however, warned that Jewish ancestry was false security in the coming judgment (Lk 3:8); true repentance was the only means of escaping destruction (Mt 3:2). John anticipated this judgment at the hands of the Coming One, who would baptize the nation with “the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Lk 3:16). Fire represented the OT means of destruction in the end time (Mal 4:1) as well as purification (Mal 3:1-4), while the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the end time connoted blessing (Is 32:15; Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28) and purification (Is 4:2-4). The judgment anticipated by John was therefore twofold: destruction for the unrepentant, and blessing for the penitent and righteous (Mt 3:12).<\/p>\nIn light of this imminent event John called for repentance on the part of his listeners (Mt 3:2), a true “turning back” or “turning toward” God in obedience that would bring forgiveness of sin. Such a turnabout in an individual’s relation with God should be lived out in one’s everyday dealings: fairness on the part of tax collectors (Lk 3:12-13) and soldiers (v 14), and the general requirement of compassion for the poor (vv 10-11).<\/p>\nJohn’s Baptism<\/p>\nThe Gospels record that John baptized those repentant of their sins at several locations: the Jordan River (Mk 1:5), Bethany beyond the Jordan (Jn 1:28), and Aenon near Salim (Jn 3:23). This practice was an integral part of John’s call for repentance, given in light of the approaching judgment and the appearance of the Coming One. The baptism of the penitent symbolized desire for forgiveness of sin, a renunciation of past life, and a desire to be included in the coming messianic kingdom.<\/p>\nWhat was the background for John’s practice of baptism? From the OT we know of ceremonial lustrations or washings that guaranteed ritual purity (Lv 14–15; Nm 19). Unlike John’s baptism, these washings were repetitive in nature and referred predominantly to ritual rather than moral cleansing. The prophets, however, urged a moral purification associated with the washing of water (Is 1:16-18; Jer 4:14). More significantly, the prophets anticipated a cleansing by God in the end times preceding the Day of Judgment (Ez 36:25; Zec 13:1; cf. Is 44:3), an eschatological element that John may have assumed was being fulfilled in his water baptism.<\/p>\nAnother precedent for John’s practice may have been proselyte baptism, a rite (along with circumcision and the offering of sacrifices) that constituted the conversion of a Gentile to Judaism. Common to both proselyte baptism and John’s baptism were the emphasis on an ethical break with the past, a once-for-all character, and the similarity of immersion. Notable differences were that John’s baptism was for Jews, not Gentile converts, and that it had a marked eschatological character as a preparation for the new age. Unless John, in light of the imminence of the messianic age, consciously treated all Jews as “pagan” in need of a baptism of repentance (cf. Mt 3:7-10), it is doubtful that proselyte baptism formed the primary background for John’s baptismal ministry.<\/p>\nIf John’s baptism had a clear association with the forgiveness of sin, the question naturally arises as to why Jesus, the Son of God, sought baptism from John. John himself asks this very question of Jesus (Mt 3:14), to which Jesus responds, “It must be done, because we must do everything that is right” (v 15, nlt<\/span>). First, it is clear that Jesus’ baptism represented an act of obedience on his part to God’s will as he saw it. Second, by submitting to the baptism of John, Jesus was clearly validating the ministry and message of John. The imminent coming of the kingdom and its Messiah, and the need for repentance in anticipation of this event that John proclaimed, were affirmed by Jesus through baptism. Third, by being baptized, Jesus condemned the self-righteous for their lack of repentance and took a stand with the penitent publicans and sinners awaiting the kingdom of God (Lk 7:29-30). Fourth, Jesus stepped forward for baptism not as an individual in need of forgiveness but as one who represented the people of God. His baptism, therefore, demonstrated solidarity with the people in their need of deliverance, even as he is judged in their place on the cross. Finally, the voice from heaven (Mk 1:11) and the descent of the Spirit (Lk 3:21-22) signify the inauguration of Jesus’ own ministry through his baptism by John.<\/p>\nJohn’s View of Jesus<\/p>\nThroughout his ministry John pointed beyond himself to one “who is far greater than I am—so much greater that I am not even worthy to be his slave” (Mk 1:7, nlt<\/span>). His self-understanding apparently sprang from the application of Isaiah 40:3 to himself, that he was the preparer or forerunner for God’s coming activity through the Messiah (Lk 3:4-6). When asked by curious spectators, John firmly denied that he was the Messiah, and according to the Gospel accounts, subordinated himself to the Coming One (Mk 1:7-8; Jn 1:26-28; 3:28-31). The coming of Jesus to baptism seems to represent the first time John identified these expectations with Jesus himself (Jn 1:35-36). His recognition of Jesus as the Messiah prior to baptism (Mt 3:14) was confirmed by the descent of the Holy Spirit as a dove and the voice from heaven quoting a phrase from an OT messianic psalm (Mk 1:11a, from Ps 2:7), together with a phrase from a Suffering Servant song of Isaiah (Mk 1:11b, from Is 42:1). In the fourth Gospel, John the Baptist goes even further in acknowledging Jesus to be the “Lamb of God” (Jn 1:29), in anticipation of Jesus’ sacrificial role on the cross. And John recognized him as “God’s Chosen One” (v 34, neb<\/span>—another term for the Messiah; Ps 2:7, see Mk 1:11).<\/p>\nIn light of John’s strong affirmation, it is at first difficult to understand his questioning of Jesus while imprisoned: “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?” (Mt 11:3, rsv<\/span>). Some have suggested that John was merely asking for the sake of his disciples, or that the question reflected John’s despondency with being imprisoned. It is more likely, however, that the question represents John’s own confusion with the activity expected of the Messiah. John had proclaimed a Coming One who would bring a baptism of fire and judgment upon the wicked (Lk 3:16). It may have been difficult for him to understand Jesus’ different emphases on forgiveness and acceptance of sinners (Mt 9:9-13) and his healing of the sick (Mt 8–9). When John’s disciples brought their master’s question to Jesus, asking whether or not he was the Messiah, Jesus responded by quoting Isaiah 35:5-6 (see also Is 61:1). This text proclaims the activities of healing and proclaiming salvation to the poor to be fulfillments of the Messiah’s role, even though they may not have been what John or countless other Jews expected.<\/p>\nJesus’ View of John<\/p>\nThat Jesus highly regarded John the Baptist is indicated by his baptism by John. It is also explicitly stated on several occasions. Jesus called him the greatest man to have ever lived (Lk 7:28). (Of course, he was not as great as Jesus, the God-man.) Jesus also said that John was a burning and shining lamp (Jn 5:33-35) and that he practiced a baptism divinely ordained (Lk 20:1-8).<\/p>\nJohn’s uniqueness, however, lies in the fact that he stood at the turning of the ages. He was the last of the old era, the period of the law and the prophets (Lk 16:16), which was to precede the coming of the messianic age (the kingdom of God). John was the last of the prophets, the greatest of them, the Elijah figure who would prepare the way for the judgment of God (Mt 11:13-15; Lk 1:17). Because John belonged to the era of the law and the prophets, however, he was not as great as the “least” already in the kingdom of God (Mt 11:11)—that is, those who belonged to the era of the kingdom’s appearance in Jesus.<\/p>\nArrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\nTo understand why John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas, one has to grasp the messianic excitement caused by John’s appearance and message (Lk 3:15-18). Herod and other secular rulers were obviously suspicious of anyone who might stir up the crowds with predictions of a coming messianic ruler. Other messianic movements had arisen before John, which resulted in outbreaks of violence against the Roman-Herodian rulership. Moreover, Herod Antipas was under heavy criticism for his marriage with Herodias, the ex-wife of his brother Philip. His first marriage, with the daughter of Aretus II, constituted a political alliance between the Herodian family and the Nabatean kingdom of Perea. His new relationship with Herodias was perceived as a breach of the political alliance and led to friction between the two families. John’s denunciation of Herod’s new marriage (Mt 14:3-12) could thus have been interpreted by Herod as a subversive rousing of sentiment against his authority. The Jewish historian Josephus states that Herod did, in fact, arrest John because he feared John’s influence over the crowds. According to Josephus, John was imprisoned at the fortress Machaerus on the eastern side of the Dead Sea. That he was not killed immediately was due to Herod’s personal fear of the righteous John (Mk 6:2) and of the people’s reaction (Mt 14:5). On a point about which Josephus is silent, the Gospels record that it was Herodias’s feelings against John (Mk 6:17) and her plot, through the dancing of her daughter, which brought about the beheading of John (vv 21-29). John was beheaded at Herodias’s request in approximately AD<\/span> 29 or 30.<\/p>\nThe Disciples of John<\/p>\nWhile it is clear that a band of disciples formed around John in his lifetime (Jn 1:35), to suggest that he intended to begin a continuing movement is contradicted by his message on the imminent Day of Judgment. Apparently, John’s disciples consisted of a small group of those who had been baptized by him and were awaiting the coming Messiah. Some transferred their loyalty to Jesus after John had identified Jesus as the Coming One (Jn 1:37). Others, however, apparently stayed on with their teacher, communicating with the imprisoned John concerning the activities of Jesus (Lk 7:18-23) and, after his death, taking the body for burial (Mk 6:29).<\/p>\nWe know little about the activities and practices of the band of disciples clustered around John. We do know, however, that fasting was one practice specifically associated with the group, and one that marked them as similar to the Pharisees (Mt 9:14). In this practice they no doubt followed the example of John himself (Lk 7:33). Prayer and fasting were often linked in late Judaism. The disciples of John were also known for the prayers taught by their master (11:1). Seeing this practice, the disciples of Jesus asked the Lord to teach them to pray, to which Jesus responded with the Lord’s Prayer (vv 2-4).<\/p>\nAfter his death it is likely that other disciples of John joined the followers of Jesus (see Lk 7:29-30). Not all did so, however, as disciples of John were encountered by Paul and other Christians approximately 25 years later in Ephesus (Acts 18:24–29:7). Upon hearing witness to Jesus, these followers of John proclaimed Jesus as Messiah. When Paul baptized them in the name of Jesus they received the Holy Spirit (19:4-7). Even so, it is apparent from later documents that various groups continued to honor John, even considering him the Messiah, centuries after the NT period.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JOHN THE BAPTIST<\/h3>\nForerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD<\/span> 29, while Jesus was still ministering.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\n• Appearance and Identity<\/p>\n• John’s Proclamation<\/p>\n• John’s Baptism<\/p>\n• John’s View of Jesus<\/p>\n• Jesus’ View of John<\/p>\n• Arrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\n• The Disciples of John<\/p>\nBirth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\nLuke’s Gospel is our only source of information concerning the birth and boyhood of John. The Gospel writer states that John was born in the hill country of Judah (Lk 1:39) of priestly descent, being the son of Zechariah, a priest of the order of Abijah, and Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron (v 5). Both parents were righteous in the sight of God, following all the commandments closely (v 6). Like the birth of Jesus, only to a much lesser degree, the birth of John the Baptist is described in Luke as extraordinary. The angel Gabriel announced the coming birth to Zechariah in the temple; to the older, barren Elizabeth it came as an answer to prayer (vv 8-13). John’s name is announced to Zechariah by the angel, even as his purpose as forerunner is revealed before birth (vv 13-17). Such a consecration from birth is reminiscent of the call of the OT prophet Jeremiah (cf. Jer 1:5).<\/p>\nThere existed some familial relationship between the families of John and Jesus. Elizabeth is described as a relative of Mary (Lk 1:36), which may connote cousin or aunt, or may only mean being from the same tribe.<\/p>\nJohn’s childhood, as that of Jesus, is left quite vague in the Gospel account. All that is said is that “John grew up and became strong in spirit. Then he lived out in the wilderness until he began his public ministry to Israel” (Lk 1:80, nlt<\/span>). Some scholars have suggested that John might have been adopted as a boy by the Essenes (as was their practice) at Qumran and reared in their wilderness community, adjacent to the Dead Sea and near the Jordan River. There are some similarities between the activities of the Qumran sect, known through the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the later ministry of John the Baptist. Both practiced a type of asceticism and removed themselves from the life of Jerusalem. Both practiced baptism and associated this rite with initiation and repentance. Finally, John and the Qumran group were both eschatologically minded, awaiting God’s final end-time activity in history. Nevertheless, many significant differences exist between John and the Qumran sect.<\/p>\nAppearance and Identity<\/p>\nMark’s Gospel begins with an account of John the Baptist’s appearance: “John the Baptist . . . lived in the wilderness and was preaching that people should be baptized to show that they had turned from their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Mk 1:4, nlt<\/span>). A rich OT background lies behind John’s association with the wilderness, in this case the wilderness of Judea. It was in the wilderness that God revealed himself to Moses (Ex 3), gave the law, and entered into the covenant with Israel (ch 19). It was also the site of refuge for David (1 Sm 23–26; Ps 63) and Elijah (1 Kgs 19), and in this light became the anticipated site of God’s future deliverance (Is 40:3-5; Ez 47:1-12; Hos 2:14-15).<\/p>\nThe unusual dress of John the Baptist—“clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist” (Mk 1:6, niv<\/span>)—may have suggested to his audience an association with Elijah in particular (2 Kgs 1:8) or with the prophets in general (Zec 13:4). His diet, “locusts and wild honey” (Mk 1:6), was Levitically clean, reflecting one who lived off the desert (such food was also eaten at Qumran) and formed part of the broader asceticism practiced by John and his disciples (Mt 9:14; 11:18).<\/p>\nWho did John understand himself to be? In answer to questions by the multitude whether he was the Messiah, Elijah, or the expected prophet (Jn 1:20-23), John only identified himself as “a voice crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord’ ” (Is 40:3). The background for the question lies at the end of the OT period. Prophecy, on the one hand, was considered to have ceased (Zec 13:2-6); yet, on the other hand, it was expected to appear again before the coming of the messianic kingdom (see Jl 2:28-29; Mal 3:1-4). Some anticipated this final prophet to be one who was like Moses (Dt 18:15), others a returning Elijah as foretold in Malachi 4:5-6. While John personally refrained from identifying himself with these specific expectations (Jn 1:20-23), it is clear that his dress, lifestyle, and message caused the people to identify him with this end-time prophet (Mt 14:5; Mk 11:32). Jesus also saw John as this final “Elijah-like” prophet (Mt 11:7-15), who from Malachi’s prophecy was to be a forerunner to the coming of the Lord (Mal 3:1-4; 4:5-6).<\/p>\nJohn’s Proclamation<\/p>\nJohn’s proclamation involved three elements: a warning of imminent judgment at the hands of the Coming One, a call for repentance in light of the coming kingdom of heaven, and a demand to express this repentance in concrete ethical terms. Many Jews looked forward confidently to the messianic judgment as a time of blessing for themselves and destruction for the gentile oppressors. John, however, warned that Jewish ancestry was false security in the coming judgment (Lk 3:8); true repentance was the only means of escaping destruction (Mt 3:2). John anticipated this judgment at the hands of the Coming One, who would baptize the nation with “the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Lk 3:16). Fire represented the OT means of destruction in the end time (Mal 4:1) as well as purification (Mal 3:1-4), while the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the end time connoted blessing (Is 32:15; Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28) and purification (Is 4:2-4). The judgment anticipated by John was therefore twofold: destruction for the unrepentant, and blessing for the penitent and righteous (Mt 3:12).<\/p>\nIn light of this imminent event John called for repentance on the part of his listeners (Mt 3:2), a true “turning back” or “turning toward” God in obedience that would bring forgiveness of sin. Such a turnabout in an individual’s relation with God should be lived out in one’s everyday dealings: fairness on the part of tax collectors (Lk 3:12-13) and soldiers (v 14), and the general requirement of compassion for the poor (vv 10-11).<\/p>\nJohn’s Baptism<\/p>\nThe Gospels record that John baptized those repentant of their sins at several locations: the Jordan River (Mk 1:5), Bethany beyond the Jordan (Jn 1:28), and Aenon near Salim (Jn 3:23). This practice was an integral part of John’s call for repentance, given in light of the approaching judgment and the appearance of the Coming One. The baptism of the penitent symbolized desire for forgiveness of sin, a renunciation of past life, and a desire to be included in the coming messianic kingdom.<\/p>\nWhat was the background for John’s practice of baptism? From the OT we know of ceremonial lustrations or washings that guaranteed ritual purity (Lv 14–15; Nm 19). Unlike John’s baptism, these washings were repetitive in nature and referred predominantly to ritual rather than moral cleansing. The prophets, however, urged a moral purification associated with the washing of water (Is 1:16-18; Jer 4:14). More significantly, the prophets anticipated a cleansing by God in the end times preceding the Day of Judgment (Ez 36:25; Zec 13:1; cf. Is 44:3), an eschatological element that John may have assumed was being fulfilled in his water baptism.<\/p>\nAnother precedent for John’s practice may have been proselyte baptism, a rite (along with circumcision and the offering of sacrifices) that constituted the conversion of a Gentile to Judaism. Common to both proselyte baptism and John’s baptism were the emphasis on an ethical break with the past, a once-for-all character, and the similarity of immersion. Notable differences were that John’s baptism was for Jews, not Gentile converts, and that it had a marked eschatological character as a preparation for the new age. Unless John, in light of the imminence of the messianic age, consciously treated all Jews as “pagan” in need of a baptism of repentance (cf. Mt 3:7-10), it is doubtful that proselyte baptism formed the primary background for John’s baptismal ministry.<\/p>\nIf John’s baptism had a clear association with the forgiveness of sin, the question naturally arises as to why Jesus, the Son of God, sought baptism from John. John himself asks this very question of Jesus (Mt 3:14), to which Jesus responds, “It must be done, because we must do everything that is right” (v 15, nlt<\/span>). First, it is clear that Jesus’ baptism represented an act of obedience on his part to God’s will as he saw it. Second, by submitting to the baptism of John, Jesus was clearly validating the ministry and message of John. The imminent coming of the kingdom and its Messiah, and the need for repentance in anticipation of this event that John proclaimed, were affirmed by Jesus through baptism. Third, by being baptized, Jesus condemned the self-righteous for their lack of repentance and took a stand with the penitent publicans and sinners awaiting the kingdom of God (Lk 7:29-30). Fourth, Jesus stepped forward for baptism not as an individual in need of forgiveness but as one who represented the people of God. His baptism, therefore, demonstrated solidarity with the people in their need of deliverance, even as he is judged in their place on the cross. Finally, the voice from heaven (Mk 1:11) and the descent of the Spirit (Lk 3:21-22) signify the inauguration of Jesus’ own ministry through his baptism by John.<\/p>\nJohn’s View of Jesus<\/p>\nThroughout his ministry John pointed beyond himself to one “who is far greater than I am—so much greater that I am not even worthy to be his slave” (Mk 1:7, nlt<\/span>). His self-understanding apparently sprang from the application of Isaiah 40:3 to himself, that he was the preparer or forerunner for God’s coming activity through the Messiah (Lk 3:4-6). When asked by curious spectators, John firmly denied that he was the Messiah, and according to the Gospel accounts, subordinated himself to the Coming One (Mk 1:7-8; Jn 1:26-28; 3:28-31). The coming of Jesus to baptism seems to represent the first time John identified these expectations with Jesus himself (Jn 1:35-36). His recognition of Jesus as the Messiah prior to baptism (Mt 3:14) was confirmed by the descent of the Holy Spirit as a dove and the voice from heaven quoting a phrase from an OT messianic psalm (Mk 1:11a, from Ps 2:7), together with a phrase from a Suffering Servant song of Isaiah (Mk 1:11b, from Is 42:1). In the fourth Gospel, John the Baptist goes even further in acknowledging Jesus to be the “Lamb of God” (Jn 1:29), in anticipation of Jesus’ sacrificial role on the cross. And John recognized him as “God’s Chosen One” (v 34, neb<\/span>—another term for the Messiah; Ps 2:7, see Mk 1:11).<\/p>\nIn light of John’s strong affirmation, it is at first difficult to understand his questioning of Jesus while imprisoned: “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?” (Mt 11:3, rsv<\/span>). Some have suggested that John was merely asking for the sake of his disciples, or that the question reflected John’s despondency with being imprisoned. It is more likely, however, that the question represents John’s own confusion with the activity expected of the Messiah. John had proclaimed a Coming One who would bring a baptism of fire and judgment upon the wicked (Lk 3:16). It may have been difficult for him to understand Jesus’ different emphases on forgiveness and acceptance of sinners (Mt 9:9-13) and his healing of the sick (Mt 8–9). When John’s disciples brought their master’s question to Jesus, asking whether or not he was the Messiah, Jesus responded by quoting Isaiah 35:5-6 (see also Is 61:1). This text proclaims the activities of healing and proclaiming salvation to the poor to be fulfillments of the Messiah’s role, even though they may not have been what John or countless other Jews expected.<\/p>\nJesus’ View of John<\/p>\nThat Jesus highly regarded John the Baptist is indicated by his baptism by John. It is also explicitly stated on several occasions. Jesus called him the greatest man to have ever lived (Lk 7:28). (Of course, he was not as great as Jesus, the God-man.) Jesus also said that John was a burning and shining lamp (Jn 5:33-35) and that he practiced a baptism divinely ordained (Lk 20:1-8).<\/p>\nJohn’s uniqueness, however, lies in the fact that he stood at the turning of the ages. He was the last of the old era, the period of the law and the prophets (Lk 16:16), which was to precede the coming of the messianic age (the kingdom of God). John was the last of the prophets, the greatest of them, the Elijah figure who would prepare the way for the judgment of God (Mt 11:13-15; Lk 1:17). Because John belonged to the era of the law and the prophets, however, he was not as great as the “least” already in the kingdom of God (Mt 11:11)—that is, those who belonged to the era of the kingdom’s appearance in Jesus.<\/p>\nArrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\nTo understand why John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas, one has to grasp the messianic excitement caused by John’s appearance and message (Lk 3:15-18). Herod and other secular rulers were obviously suspicious of anyone who might stir up the crowds with predictions of a coming messianic ruler. Other messianic movements had arisen before John, which resulted in outbreaks of violence against the Roman-Herodian rulership. Moreover, Herod Antipas was under heavy criticism for his marriage with Herodias, the ex-wife of his brother Philip. His first marriage, with the daughter of Aretus II, constituted a political alliance between the Herodian family and the Nabatean kingdom of Perea. His new relationship with Herodias was perceived as a breach of the political alliance and led to friction between the two families. John’s denunciation of Herod’s new marriage (Mt 14:3-12) could thus have been interpreted by Herod as a subversive rousing of sentiment against his authority. The Jewish historian Josephus states that Herod did, in fact, arrest John because he feared John’s influence over the crowds. According to Josephus, John was imprisoned at the fortress Machaerus on the eastern side of the Dead Sea. That he was not killed immediately was due to Herod’s personal fear of the righteous John (Mk 6:2) and of the people’s reaction (Mt 14:5). On a point about which Josephus is silent, the Gospels record that it was Herodias’s feelings against John (Mk 6:17) and her plot, through the dancing of her daughter, which brought about the beheading of John (vv 21-29). John was beheaded at Herodias’s request in approximately AD<\/span> 29 or 30.<\/p>\nThe Disciples of John<\/p>\nWhile it is clear that a band of disciples formed around John in his lifetime (Jn 1:35), to suggest that he intended to begin a continuing movement is contradicted by his message on the imminent Day of Judgment. Apparently, John’s disciples consisted of a small group of those who had been baptized by him and were awaiting the coming Messiah. Some transferred their loyalty to Jesus after John had identified Jesus as the Coming One (Jn 1:37). Others, however, apparently stayed on with their teacher, communicating with the imprisoned John concerning the activities of Jesus (Lk 7:18-23) and, after his death, taking the body for burial (Mk 6:29).<\/p>\nWe know little about the activities and practices of the band of disciples clustered around John. We do know, however, that fasting was one practice specifically associated with the group, and one that marked them as similar to the Pharisees (Mt 9:14). In this practice they no doubt followed the example of John himself (Lk 7:33). Prayer and fasting were often linked in late Judaism. The disciples of John were also known for the prayers taught by their master (11:1). Seeing this practice, the disciples of Jesus asked the Lord to teach them to pray, to which Jesus responded with the Lord’s Prayer (vv 2-4).<\/p>\nAfter his death it is likely that other disciples of John joined the followers of Jesus (see Lk 7:29-30). Not all did so, however, as disciples of John were encountered by Paul and other Christians approximately 25 years later in Ephesus (Acts 18:24–29:7). Upon hearing witness to Jesus, these followers of John proclaimed Jesus as Messiah. When Paul baptized them in the name of Jesus they received the Holy Spirit (19:4-7). Even so, it is apparent from later documents that various groups continued to honor John, even considering him the Messiah, centuries after the NT period.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JOHN THE BAPTIST Forerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD 29, while Jesus was still ministering. Preview • Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood • Appearance and Identity • John’s Proclamation • ...","summary_en":"JOHN THE BAPTIST Forerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD 29, while Jesus was still ministering. Preview • Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood • Appearance and Identity • John’s Proclamation • ...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":29001,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Path","title_en":"Path","content_ro":"<h3>PATH<\/h3>\nA worn track or road. “Path(s)” and “pathway(s)” are used to translate a variety of words used in the Bible: (1) a well-trodden and much-used roadway (Gn 49:17; Pss 16:11; 139:3; Prv 2:8, 19); (2) a thoroughfare or highway (Is 59:7; Jl 2:8); (3) a beaten track as across fields, over hills, and through valleys (Jb 30:13; Ps 119:35; Prv 3:17); (4) a track or passage in which the idea of flowing along is included (Ps 77:19; Jer 18:15); (5) a circular path, as in a trench or in a parapet (Ps 65:11; Prv 2:9); and (6) a narrow passage, as through a hole (Nm 22:24). “Path” is used to translate the Greek words meaning a worn track (Mt 3:3; Mk 1:3; Lk 3:4) and a wheel rut (Heb 12:13).<\/p>\nA careful review of the use of the terms “path(s)” and “pathway(s)” reveals that the Bible uses them literally to speak of a stretch of ground over which traffic passes. This could be in the form of a crooked mountain path, an unpaved and much-traveled way, or a well-prepared pavement. Biblical writers also used the words metaphorically to speak of or to describe the way human life is lived in relation to God, and how God directs, and can and does either enrich or impoverish human life. Writers used the terms figuratively to refer to human conduct and experiences in the midst of the various dimensions of human life. Especially colorful in the last two uses are such expressions as the path of life (Ps 16:11), the plain (level) path (27:11), the good path (Prv 2:9), the path of the wicked (4:14), the path of the just (v 18), the path of judgment (Is 40:14), the right paths (Prv 4:11), and paths of peace (3:17).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PATH<\/h3>\nA worn track or road. “Path(s)” and “pathway(s)” are used to translate a variety of words used in the Bible: (1) a well-trodden and much-used roadway (Gn 49:17; Pss 16:11; 139:3; Prv 2:8, 19); (2) a thoroughfare or highway (Is 59:7; Jl 2:8); (3) a beaten track as across fields, over hills, and through valleys (Jb 30:13; Ps 119:35; Prv 3:17); (4) a track or passage in which the idea of flowing along is included (Ps 77:19; Jer 18:15); (5) a circular path, as in a trench or in a parapet (Ps 65:11; Prv 2:9); and (6) a narrow passage, as through a hole (Nm 22:24). “Path” is used to translate the Greek words meaning a worn track (Mt 3:3; Mk 1:3; Lk 3:4) and a wheel rut (Heb 12:13).<\/p>\nA careful review of the use of the terms “path(s)” and “pathway(s)” reveals that the Bible uses them literally to speak of a stretch of ground over which traffic passes. This could be in the form of a crooked mountain path, an unpaved and much-traveled way, or a well-prepared pavement. Biblical writers also used the words metaphorically to speak of or to describe the way human life is lived in relation to God, and how God directs, and can and does either enrich or impoverish human life. Writers used the terms figuratively to refer to human conduct and experiences in the midst of the various dimensions of human life. Especially colorful in the last two uses are such expressions as the path of life (Ps 16:11), the plain (level) path (27:11), the good path (Prv 2:9), the path of the wicked (4:14), the path of the just (v 18), the path of judgment (Is 40:14), the right paths (Prv 4:11), and paths of peace (3:17).<\/p>","summary_ro":"PATH A worn track or road. “Path(s)” and “pathway(s)” are used to translate a variety of words used in the Bible: (1) a well-trodden and much-used roadway (Gn 49:17; Pss 16:11; 139:3; Prv 2:8, 19); (2) a thoroughfare or highway (Is 59:7; Jl 2:8); (3) a beaten track as across fields, over hills, and through valleys (Jb 30:13; Ps 119:35; Prv 3:17); (4) a track or passage in which the idea of flowing along is included (Ps 77:19; Jer 18:15); (5) a circular path, as in a trench or in a parapet (Ps...","summary_en":"PATH A worn track or road. “Path(s)” and “pathway(s)” are used to translate a variety of words used in the Bible: (1) a well-trodden and much-used roadway (Gn 49:17; Pss 16:11; 139:3; Prv 2:8, 19); (2) a thoroughfare or highway (Is 59:7; Jl 2:8); (3) a beaten track as across fields, over hills, and through valleys (Jb 30:13; Ps 119:35; Prv 3:17); (4) a track or passage in which the idea of flowing along is included (Ps 77:19; Jer 18:15); (5) a circular path, as in a trench or in a parapet (Ps...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55659,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:4","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:4","content_ro":"3:4-6<\/strong> The quotation is from Isa 40:3-5 (Greek version); it speaks of God’s delivering the Jews from exile in Babylon. After the Jews had returned from exile (Ezra 1–2), the passage became associated with God’s end-time salvation. John shouted in the wilderness<\/em> to prepare God’s people for the Lord’s coming. God’s salvation is portrayed as a new exodus, bringing deliverance like the first exodus from Egypt. • Clear the road for him! . . . the rough places made smooth:<\/em> The image reflects the Middle Eastern practice of preparing a road at the approach of a king, something like “rolling out the red carpet” (cp. Luke 19:36-38).<\/p>","content_en":"3:4-6<\/strong> The quotation is from Isa 40:3-5 (Greek version); it speaks of God’s delivering the Jews from exile in Babylon. After the Jews had returned from exile (Ezra 1–2), the passage became associated with God’s end-time salvation. John shouted in the wilderness<\/em> to prepare God’s people for the Lord’s coming. God’s salvation is portrayed as a new exodus, bringing deliverance like the first exodus from Egypt. • Clear the road for him! . . . the rough places made smooth:<\/em> The image reflects the Middle Eastern practice of preparing a road at the approach of a king, something like “rolling out the red carpet” (cp. Luke 19:36-38).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:4-6 The quotation is from Isa 40:3-5 (Greek version); it speaks of God’s delivering the Jews from exile in Babylon. After the Jews had returned from exile (Ezra 1–2), the passage became associated with God’s end-time salvation. John shouted in the wilderness to prepare God’s people for the Lord’s coming. God’s salvation is portrayed as a new exodus, bringing deliverance like the first exodus from Egypt. • Clear the road for him! . . . the rough places made smooth: The image reflects the Mid...","summary_en":"3:4-6 The quotation is from Isa 40:3-5 (Greek version); it speaks of God’s delivering the Jews from exile in Babylon. After the Jews had returned from exile (Ezra 1–2), the passage became associated with God’s end-time salvation. John shouted in the wilderness to prepare God’s people for the Lord’s coming. God’s salvation is portrayed as a new exodus, bringing deliverance like the first exodus from Egypt. • Clear the road for him! . . . the rough places made smooth: The image reflects the Mid...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83285,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:4","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:4","content_ro":"3:4-6<\/strong> The quotation is from Isa 40:3-5 (Greek version); it speaks of God’s delivering the Jews from exile in Babylon. After the Jews had returned from exile (Ezra 1–2), the passage became associated with God’s end-time salvation. John shouted in the wilderness<\/em> to prepare God’s people for the Lord’s coming. God’s salvation is portrayed as a new exodus, bringing deliverance like the first exodus from Egypt. • Clear the road for him! . . . the rough places made smooth:<\/em> The image reflects the Middle Eastern practice of preparing a road at the approach of a king, something like “rolling out the red carpet” (cp. Luke 19:36-38).<\/p>","content_en":"3:4-6<\/strong> The quotation is from Isa 40:3-5 (Greek version); it speaks of God’s delivering the Jews from exile in Babylon. After the Jews had returned from exile (Ezra 1–2), the passage became associated with God’s end-time salvation. John shouted in the wilderness<\/em> to prepare God’s people for the Lord’s coming. God’s salvation is portrayed as a new exodus, bringing deliverance like the first exodus from Egypt. • Clear the road for him! . . . the rough places made smooth:<\/em> The image reflects the Middle Eastern practice of preparing a road at the approach of a king, something like “rolling out the red carpet” (cp. Luke 19:36-38).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:4-6 The quotation is from Isa 40:3-5 (Greek version); it speaks of God’s delivering the Jews from exile in Babylon. After the Jews had returned from exile (Ezra 1–2), the passage became associated with God’s end-time salvation. John shouted in the wilderness to prepare God’s people for the Lord’s coming. God’s salvation is portrayed as a new exodus, bringing deliverance like the first exodus from Egypt. • Clear the road for him! . . . the rough places made smooth: The image reflects the Mid...","summary_en":"3:4-6 The quotation is from Isa 40:3-5 (Greek version); it speaks of God’s delivering the Jews from exile in Babylon. After the Jews had returned from exile (Ezra 1–2), the passage became associated with God’s end-time salvation. John shouted in the wilderness to prepare God’s people for the Lord’s coming. God’s salvation is portrayed as a new exodus, bringing deliverance like the first exodus from Egypt. • Clear the road for him! . . . the rough places made smooth: The image reflects the Mid...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110911,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:4","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:4","content_ro":"3:4-6<\/strong> The quotation is from Isa 40:3-5 (Greek version); it speaks of God’s delivering the Jews from exile in Babylon. After the Jews had returned from exile (Ezra 1–2), the passage became associated with God’s end-time salvation. John shouted in the wilderness<\/em> to prepare God’s people for the Lord’s coming. God’s salvation is portrayed as a new exodus, bringing deliverance like the first exodus from Egypt. • Clear the road for him! . . . the rough places made smooth:<\/em> The image reflects the Middle Eastern practice of preparing a road at the approach of a king, something like “rolling out the red carpet” (cp. Luke 19:36-38).<\/p>","content_en":"3:4-6<\/strong> The quotation is from Isa 40:3-5 (Greek version); it speaks of God’s delivering the Jews from exile in Babylon. After the Jews had returned from exile (Ezra 1–2), the passage became associated with God’s end-time salvation. John shouted in the wilderness<\/em> to prepare God’s people for the Lord’s coming. God’s salvation is portrayed as a new exodus, bringing deliverance like the first exodus from Egypt. • Clear the road for him! . . . the rough places made smooth:<\/em> The image reflects the Middle Eastern practice of preparing a road at the approach of a king, something like “rolling out the red carpet” (cp. Luke 19:36-38).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:4-6 The quotation is from Isa 40:3-5 (Greek version); it speaks of God’s delivering the Jews from exile in Babylon. After the Jews had returned from exile (Ezra 1–2), the passage became associated with God’s end-time salvation. John shouted in the wilderness to prepare God’s people for the Lord’s coming. God’s salvation is portrayed as a new exodus, bringing deliverance like the first exodus from Egypt. • Clear the road for him! . . . the rough places made smooth: The image reflects the Mid...","summary_en":"3:4-6 The quotation is from Isa 40:3-5 (Greek version); it speaks of God’s delivering the Jews from exile in Babylon. After the Jews had returned from exile (Ezra 1–2), the passage became associated with God’s end-time salvation. John shouted in the wilderness to prepare God’s people for the Lord’s coming. God’s salvation is portrayed as a new exodus, bringing deliverance like the first exodus from Egypt. • Clear the road for him! . . . the rough places made smooth: The image reflects the Mid...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138537,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:4","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:4","content_ro":"3:4-6<\/strong> The quotation is from Isa 40:3-5 (Greek version); it speaks of God’s delivering the Jews from exile in Babylon. After the Jews had returned from exile (Ezra 1–2), the passage became associated with God’s end-time salvation. John shouted in the wilderness<\/em> to prepare God’s people for the Lord’s coming. God’s salvation is portrayed as a new exodus, bringing deliverance like the first exodus from Egypt. • Clear the road for him! . . . the rough places made smooth:<\/em> The image reflects the Middle Eastern practice of preparing a road at the approach of a king, something like “rolling out the red carpet” (cp. Luke 19:36-38).<\/p>","content_en":"3:4-6<\/strong> The quotation is from Isa 40:3-5 (Greek version); it speaks of God’s delivering the Jews from exile in Babylon. After the Jews had returned from exile (Ezra 1–2), the passage became associated with God’s end-time salvation. John shouted in the wilderness<\/em> to prepare God’s people for the Lord’s coming. God’s salvation is portrayed as a new exodus, bringing deliverance like the first exodus from Egypt. • Clear the road for him! . . . the rough places made smooth:<\/em> The image reflects the Middle Eastern practice of preparing a road at the approach of a king, something like “rolling out the red carpet” (cp. Luke 19:36-38).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:4-6 The quotation is from Isa 40:3-5 (Greek version); it speaks of God’s delivering the Jews from exile in Babylon. After the Jews had returned from exile (Ezra 1–2), the passage became associated with God’s end-time salvation. John shouted in the wilderness to prepare God’s people for the Lord’s coming. God’s salvation is portrayed as a new exodus, bringing deliverance like the first exodus from Egypt. • Clear the road for him! . . . the rough places made smooth: The image reflects the Mid...","summary_en":"3:4-6 The quotation is from Isa 40:3-5 (Greek version); it speaks of God’s delivering the Jews from exile in Babylon. After the Jews had returned from exile (Ezra 1–2), the passage became associated with God’s end-time salvation. John shouted in the wilderness to prepare God’s people for the Lord’s coming. God’s salvation is portrayed as a new exodus, bringing deliverance like the first exodus from Egypt. • Clear the road for him! . . . the rough places made smooth: The image reflects the Mid...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":66197,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Baptism","title_en":"Baptism","content_ro":"<h3>Baptism<\/h3>\nBaptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a ritual bath to wash away the impurities of their Gentile background. This ritual cleansing was often done in special baths created for purification, called mikvahs. Mikvahs were located at many synagogues, and the Temple in Jerusalem had a large number of mikvahs, which suggests that those who approached for worship would ritually bathe.<\/p>\nJohn preached “that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Luke 3:3). John’s baptism was an aspect of his role in preparing people’s hearts to receive the Messiah (Luke 3:4-6), and those who had received his baptism and repented of their sins were those who were prepared for Jesus’ message (Luke 7:29-30).<\/p>\nAfter his resurrection, Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize new converts (Matt 28:19). Christian baptism is understood as dying and rising with Christ, signifying the death of the old life and the beginning of the new (Rom 6:1-4; Col 2:12) and also signifying a Christian’s spiritual union with Christ (Gal 3:27) and with his church. Baptism thus became the rite of initiation in the Christian community. For this reason, many interpreters see baptism as the Christian equivalent of circumcision, the rite that initiated membership into the nation of Israel under the old covenant (see Col 2:11-12). Whatever the connection with OT circumcision, baptism signifies a changed heart and a clean conscience that come from God’s forgiveness (1 Pet 3:21; cp. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29; Phil 3:3).<\/p>\nAs a ritual cleansing, Christian baptism signifies both forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 10:43; 13:38; 26:17-18) and the reception of the Holy Spirit (2:38; 9:17-18; 10:47-48; 11:15-17; 19:5-7; Luke 3:16). Many interpreters see baptism as the outward confirmation of the inward “seal” of the Spirit, whose presence is a “guarantee” of the eternal inheritance that awaits God’s faithful people (2 Cor 1:21-22; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Titus 3:5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 3:6-16; 21:25; 28:19; Mark 1:4-9; 10:38-39; 11:30; 16:16; Luke 3:3-22; 7:29-30; 12:50; 20:4; John 1:25-36; 3:22-23, 26; 4:1-2; 10:40; Acts 1:5, 22; 2:38, 41; 8:12-13, 16-17, 36-38; 9:18; 10:37, 47-48; 11:16; 13:24; 16:15, 33; 18:8, 25; 19:1-7; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 1:13-17; 10:2; 12:13; 15:29; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12; Heb 6:2; 1 Pet 3:21; 1 Jn 5:6<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Baptism<\/h3>\nBaptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a ritual bath to wash away the impurities of their Gentile background. This ritual cleansing was often done in special baths created for purification, called mikvahs. Mikvahs were located at many synagogues, and the Temple in Jerusalem had a large number of mikvahs, which suggests that those who approached for worship would ritually bathe.<\/p>\nJohn preached “that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Luke 3:3). John’s baptism was an aspect of his role in preparing people’s hearts to receive the Messiah (Luke 3:4-6), and those who had received his baptism and repented of their sins were those who were prepared for Jesus’ message (Luke 7:29-30).<\/p>\nAfter his resurrection, Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize new converts (Matt 28:19). Christian baptism is understood as dying and rising with Christ, signifying the death of the old life and the beginning of the new (Rom 6:1-4; Col 2:12) and also signifying a Christian’s spiritual union with Christ (Gal 3:27) and with his church. Baptism thus became the rite of initiation in the Christian community. For this reason, many interpreters see baptism as the Christian equivalent of circumcision, the rite that initiated membership into the nation of Israel under the old covenant (see Col 2:11-12). Whatever the connection with OT circumcision, baptism signifies a changed heart and a clean conscience that come from God’s forgiveness (1 Pet 3:21; cp. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29; Phil 3:3).<\/p>\nAs a ritual cleansing, Christian baptism signifies both forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 10:43; 13:38; 26:17-18) and the reception of the Holy Spirit (2:38; 9:17-18; 10:47-48; 11:15-17; 19:5-7; Luke 3:16). Many interpreters see baptism as the outward confirmation of the inward “seal” of the Spirit, whose presence is a “guarantee” of the eternal inheritance that awaits God’s faithful people (2 Cor 1:21-22; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Titus 3:5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 3:6-16; 21:25; 28:19; Mark 1:4-9; 10:38-39; 11:30; 16:16; Luke 3:3-22; 7:29-30; 12:50; 20:4; John 1:25-36; 3:22-23, 26; 4:1-2; 10:40; Acts 1:5, 22; 2:38, 41; 8:12-13, 16-17, 36-38; 9:18; 10:37, 47-48; 11:16; 13:24; 16:15, 33; 18:8, 25; 19:1-7; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 1:13-17; 10:2; 12:13; 15:29; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12; Heb 6:2; 1 Pet 3:21; 1 Jn 5:6<\/p>","summary_ro":"Baptism Baptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a...","summary_en":"Baptism Baptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":93823,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Baptism","title_en":"Baptism","content_ro":"<h3>Baptism<\/h3>\nBaptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a ritual bath to wash away the impurities of their Gentile background. This ritual cleansing was often done in special baths created for purification, called mikvahs. Mikvahs were located at many synagogues, and the Temple in Jerusalem had a large number of mikvahs, which suggests that those who approached for worship would ritually bathe.<\/p>\nJohn preached “that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Luke 3:3). John’s baptism was an aspect of his role in preparing people’s hearts to receive the Messiah (Luke 3:4-6), and those who had received his baptism and repented of their sins were those who were prepared for Jesus’ message (Luke 7:29-30).<\/p>\nAfter his resurrection, Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize new converts (Matt 28:19). Christian baptism is understood as dying and rising with Christ, signifying the death of the old life and the beginning of the new (Rom 6:1-4; Col 2:12) and also signifying a Christian’s spiritual union with Christ (Gal 3:27) and with his church. Baptism thus became the rite of initiation in the Christian community. For this reason, many interpreters see baptism as the Christian equivalent of circumcision, the rite that initiated membership into the nation of Israel under the old covenant (see Col 2:11-12). Whatever the connection with OT circumcision, baptism signifies a changed heart and a clean conscience that come from God’s forgiveness (1 Pet 3:21; cp. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29; Phil 3:3).<\/p>\nAs a ritual cleansing, Christian baptism signifies both forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 10:43; 13:38; 26:17-18) and the reception of the Holy Spirit (2:38; 9:17-18; 10:47-48; 11:15-17; 19:5-7; Luke 3:16). Many interpreters see baptism as the outward confirmation of the inward “seal” of the Spirit, whose presence is a “guarantee” of the eternal inheritance that awaits God’s faithful people (2 Cor 1:21-22; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Titus 3:5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 3:6-16; 21:25; 28:19; Mark 1:4-9; 10:38-39; 11:30; 16:16; Luke 3:3-22; 7:29-30; 12:50; 20:4; John 1:25-36; 3:22-23, 26; 4:1-2; 10:40; Acts 1:5, 22; 2:38, 41; 8:12-13, 16-17, 36-38; 9:18; 10:37, 47-48; 11:16; 13:24; 16:15, 33; 18:8, 25; 19:1-7; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 1:13-17; 10:2; 12:13; 15:29; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12; Heb 6:2; 1 Pet 3:21; 1 Jn 5:6<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Baptism<\/h3>\nBaptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a ritual bath to wash away the impurities of their Gentile background. This ritual cleansing was often done in special baths created for purification, called mikvahs. Mikvahs were located at many synagogues, and the Temple in Jerusalem had a large number of mikvahs, which suggests that those who approached for worship would ritually bathe.<\/p>\nJohn preached “that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Luke 3:3). John’s baptism was an aspect of his role in preparing people’s hearts to receive the Messiah (Luke 3:4-6), and those who had received his baptism and repented of their sins were those who were prepared for Jesus’ message (Luke 7:29-30).<\/p>\nAfter his resurrection, Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize new converts (Matt 28:19). Christian baptism is understood as dying and rising with Christ, signifying the death of the old life and the beginning of the new (Rom 6:1-4; Col 2:12) and also signifying a Christian’s spiritual union with Christ (Gal 3:27) and with his church. Baptism thus became the rite of initiation in the Christian community. For this reason, many interpreters see baptism as the Christian equivalent of circumcision, the rite that initiated membership into the nation of Israel under the old covenant (see Col 2:11-12). Whatever the connection with OT circumcision, baptism signifies a changed heart and a clean conscience that come from God’s forgiveness (1 Pet 3:21; cp. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29; Phil 3:3).<\/p>\nAs a ritual cleansing, Christian baptism signifies both forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 10:43; 13:38; 26:17-18) and the reception of the Holy Spirit (2:38; 9:17-18; 10:47-48; 11:15-17; 19:5-7; Luke 3:16). Many interpreters see baptism as the outward confirmation of the inward “seal” of the Spirit, whose presence is a “guarantee” of the eternal inheritance that awaits God’s faithful people (2 Cor 1:21-22; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Titus 3:5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 3:6-16; 21:25; 28:19; Mark 1:4-9; 10:38-39; 11:30; 16:16; Luke 3:3-22; 7:29-30; 12:50; 20:4; John 1:25-36; 3:22-23, 26; 4:1-2; 10:40; Acts 1:5, 22; 2:38, 41; 8:12-13, 16-17, 36-38; 9:18; 10:37, 47-48; 11:16; 13:24; 16:15, 33; 18:8, 25; 19:1-7; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 1:13-17; 10:2; 12:13; 15:29; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12; Heb 6:2; 1 Pet 3:21; 1 Jn 5:6<\/p>","summary_ro":"Baptism Baptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a...","summary_en":"Baptism Baptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":121449,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Baptism","title_en":"Baptism","content_ro":"<h3>Baptism<\/h3>\nBaptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a ritual bath to wash away the impurities of their Gentile background. This ritual cleansing was often done in special baths created for purification, called mikvahs. Mikvahs were located at many synagogues, and the Temple in Jerusalem had a large number of mikvahs, which suggests that those who approached for worship would ritually bathe.<\/p>\nJohn preached “that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Luke 3:3). John’s baptism was an aspect of his role in preparing people’s hearts to receive the Messiah (Luke 3:4-6), and those who had received his baptism and repented of their sins were those who were prepared for Jesus’ message (Luke 7:29-30).<\/p>\nAfter his resurrection, Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize new converts (Matt 28:19). Christian baptism is understood as dying and rising with Christ, signifying the death of the old life and the beginning of the new (Rom 6:1-4; Col 2:12) and also signifying a Christian’s spiritual union with Christ (Gal 3:27) and with his church. Baptism thus became the rite of initiation in the Christian community. For this reason, many interpreters see baptism as the Christian equivalent of circumcision, the rite that initiated membership into the nation of Israel under the old covenant (see Col 2:11-12). Whatever the connection with OT circumcision, baptism signifies a changed heart and a clean conscience that come from God’s forgiveness (1 Pet 3:21; cp. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29; Phil 3:3).<\/p>\nAs a ritual cleansing, Christian baptism signifies both forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 10:43; 13:38; 26:17-18) and the reception of the Holy Spirit (2:38; 9:17-18; 10:47-48; 11:15-17; 19:5-7; Luke 3:16). Many interpreters see baptism as the outward confirmation of the inward “seal” of the Spirit, whose presence is a “guarantee” of the eternal inheritance that awaits God’s faithful people (2 Cor 1:21-22; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Titus 3:5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 3:6-16; 21:25; 28:19; Mark 1:4-9; 10:38-39; 11:30; 16:16; Luke 3:3-22; 7:29-30; 12:50; 20:4; John 1:25-36; 3:22-23, 26; 4:1-2; 10:40; Acts 1:5, 22; 2:38, 41; 8:12-13, 16-17, 36-38; 9:18; 10:37, 47-48; 11:16; 13:24; 16:15, 33; 18:8, 25; 19:1-7; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 1:13-17; 10:2; 12:13; 15:29; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12; Heb 6:2; 1 Pet 3:21; 1 Jn 5:6<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Baptism<\/h3>\nBaptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a ritual bath to wash away the impurities of their Gentile background. This ritual cleansing was often done in special baths created for purification, called mikvahs. Mikvahs were located at many synagogues, and the Temple in Jerusalem had a large number of mikvahs, which suggests that those who approached for worship would ritually bathe.<\/p>\nJohn preached “that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Luke 3:3). John’s baptism was an aspect of his role in preparing people’s hearts to receive the Messiah (Luke 3:4-6), and those who had received his baptism and repented of their sins were those who were prepared for Jesus’ message (Luke 7:29-30).<\/p>\nAfter his resurrection, Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize new converts (Matt 28:19). Christian baptism is understood as dying and rising with Christ, signifying the death of the old life and the beginning of the new (Rom 6:1-4; Col 2:12) and also signifying a Christian’s spiritual union with Christ (Gal 3:27) and with his church. Baptism thus became the rite of initiation in the Christian community. For this reason, many interpreters see baptism as the Christian equivalent of circumcision, the rite that initiated membership into the nation of Israel under the old covenant (see Col 2:11-12). Whatever the connection with OT circumcision, baptism signifies a changed heart and a clean conscience that come from God’s forgiveness (1 Pet 3:21; cp. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29; Phil 3:3).<\/p>\nAs a ritual cleansing, Christian baptism signifies both forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 10:43; 13:38; 26:17-18) and the reception of the Holy Spirit (2:38; 9:17-18; 10:47-48; 11:15-17; 19:5-7; Luke 3:16). Many interpreters see baptism as the outward confirmation of the inward “seal” of the Spirit, whose presence is a “guarantee” of the eternal inheritance that awaits God’s faithful people (2 Cor 1:21-22; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Titus 3:5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 3:6-16; 21:25; 28:19; Mark 1:4-9; 10:38-39; 11:30; 16:16; Luke 3:3-22; 7:29-30; 12:50; 20:4; John 1:25-36; 3:22-23, 26; 4:1-2; 10:40; Acts 1:5, 22; 2:38, 41; 8:12-13, 16-17, 36-38; 9:18; 10:37, 47-48; 11:16; 13:24; 16:15, 33; 18:8, 25; 19:1-7; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 1:13-17; 10:2; 12:13; 15:29; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12; Heb 6:2; 1 Pet 3:21; 1 Jn 5:6<\/p>","summary_ro":"Baptism Baptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a...","summary_en":"Baptism Baptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":149075,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Baptism","title_en":"Baptism","content_ro":"<h3>Baptism<\/h3>\nBaptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a ritual bath to wash away the impurities of their Gentile background. This ritual cleansing was often done in special baths created for purification, called mikvahs. Mikvahs were located at many synagogues, and the Temple in Jerusalem had a large number of mikvahs, which suggests that those who approached for worship would ritually bathe.<\/p>\nJohn preached “that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Luke 3:3). John’s baptism was an aspect of his role in preparing people’s hearts to receive the Messiah (Luke 3:4-6), and those who had received his baptism and repented of their sins were those who were prepared for Jesus’ message (Luke 7:29-30).<\/p>\nAfter his resurrection, Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize new converts (Matt 28:19). Christian baptism is understood as dying and rising with Christ, signifying the death of the old life and the beginning of the new (Rom 6:1-4; Col 2:12) and also signifying a Christian’s spiritual union with Christ (Gal 3:27) and with his church. Baptism thus became the rite of initiation in the Christian community. For this reason, many interpreters see baptism as the Christian equivalent of circumcision, the rite that initiated membership into the nation of Israel under the old covenant (see Col 2:11-12). Whatever the connection with OT circumcision, baptism signifies a changed heart and a clean conscience that come from God’s forgiveness (1 Pet 3:21; cp. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29; Phil 3:3).<\/p>\nAs a ritual cleansing, Christian baptism signifies both forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 10:43; 13:38; 26:17-18) and the reception of the Holy Spirit (2:38; 9:17-18; 10:47-48; 11:15-17; 19:5-7; Luke 3:16). Many interpreters see baptism as the outward confirmation of the inward “seal” of the Spirit, whose presence is a “guarantee” of the eternal inheritance that awaits God’s faithful people (2 Cor 1:21-22; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Titus 3:5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 3:6-16; 21:25; 28:19; Mark 1:4-9; 10:38-39; 11:30; 16:16; Luke 3:3-22; 7:29-30; 12:50; 20:4; John 1:25-36; 3:22-23, 26; 4:1-2; 10:40; Acts 1:5, 22; 2:38, 41; 8:12-13, 16-17, 36-38; 9:18; 10:37, 47-48; 11:16; 13:24; 16:15, 33; 18:8, 25; 19:1-7; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 1:13-17; 10:2; 12:13; 15:29; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12; Heb 6:2; 1 Pet 3:21; 1 Jn 5:6<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Baptism<\/h3>\nBaptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a ritual bath to wash away the impurities of their Gentile background. This ritual cleansing was often done in special baths created for purification, called mikvahs. Mikvahs were located at many synagogues, and the Temple in Jerusalem had a large number of mikvahs, which suggests that those who approached for worship would ritually bathe.<\/p>\nJohn preached “that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Luke 3:3). John’s baptism was an aspect of his role in preparing people’s hearts to receive the Messiah (Luke 3:4-6), and those who had received his baptism and repented of their sins were those who were prepared for Jesus’ message (Luke 7:29-30).<\/p>\nAfter his resurrection, Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize new converts (Matt 28:19). Christian baptism is understood as dying and rising with Christ, signifying the death of the old life and the beginning of the new (Rom 6:1-4; Col 2:12) and also signifying a Christian’s spiritual union with Christ (Gal 3:27) and with his church. Baptism thus became the rite of initiation in the Christian community. For this reason, many interpreters see baptism as the Christian equivalent of circumcision, the rite that initiated membership into the nation of Israel under the old covenant (see Col 2:11-12). Whatever the connection with OT circumcision, baptism signifies a changed heart and a clean conscience that come from God’s forgiveness (1 Pet 3:21; cp. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29; Phil 3:3).<\/p>\nAs a ritual cleansing, Christian baptism signifies both forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 10:43; 13:38; 26:17-18) and the reception of the Holy Spirit (2:38; 9:17-18; 10:47-48; 11:15-17; 19:5-7; Luke 3:16). Many interpreters see baptism as the outward confirmation of the inward “seal” of the Spirit, whose presence is a “guarantee” of the eternal inheritance that awaits God’s faithful people (2 Cor 1:21-22; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Titus 3:5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 3:6-16; 21:25; 28:19; Mark 1:4-9; 10:38-39; 11:30; 16:16; Luke 3:3-22; 7:29-30; 12:50; 20:4; John 1:25-36; 3:22-23, 26; 4:1-2; 10:40; Acts 1:5, 22; 2:38, 41; 8:12-13, 16-17, 36-38; 9:18; 10:37, 47-48; 11:16; 13:24; 16:15, 33; 18:8, 25; 19:1-7; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 1:13-17; 10:2; 12:13; 15:29; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12; Heb 6:2; 1 Pet 3:21; 1 Jn 5:6<\/p>","summary_ro":"Baptism Baptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a...","summary_en":"Baptism Baptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"7":[{"id":3674,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Baptism","title_en":"Baptism","content_ro":"<h3>BAPTISM<\/h3>\nTerm generally meaning “to dip” or “immerse,” but representing a group of words employed to signify a religious rite for ritual cleansing. In the NT it became the rite of initiation into the Christian community, and it was interpreted theologically as a dying and rising with Christ.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Baptism of John<\/p>\n• The Baptism of Jesus<\/p>\n• Jesus’ Resurrection Command to Baptize<\/p>\n• Baptism in the Early Church<\/p>\n• The Theology of Baptism in Paul’s and Peter’s Epistles<\/p>\nThe Baptism of John<\/p>\nJohn preached a “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Lk 3:3). The origins of his rite are difficult to trace. Some have claimed that his baptism modeled that practiced by those at Qumran; others have urged that his baptism modeled that practiced by Jews when initiating proselytes to Judaism. The members of the Qumran community viewed themselves as the covenant community of the last days and so dwelt in the desert, living an ascetic life and immersing themselves daily in acts of ceremonial cleansing. At the same time they taught that internal repentance must accompany the external act (1 QS 2:3). Its sacramental nature is seen in the fact that only a full member of the community could practice it, and then only after two probationary years (1 QS 5:6). Converts from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a ritual bath to wash away the impurities of the Gentile background.<\/p>\nJohn’s baptism both parallels and differs with these forms of baptism. The genesis of his baptism may be found in the prophetic acted-out parable, which not only symbolized God’s message but also intended to bring it about. John’s practice had several theological ramifications: (1) It was intimately connected with radical repentance, not only of the Gentile but astoundingly (to his contemporaries) also of the Jew. (2) It was eschatological at the core, preparing for the Messiah, who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Mt 3:11), and therefore looked to the final separation between God’s people and the wicked at the eschaton (i.e., “the End,” cf. Mt 3:12). (3) It symbolized moral purification and so prepared the people for the coming kingdom (Mt 3:2; Lk 3:7-14). In spite of the obvious connection between John’s ceremony and the early church, we cannot posit absolute dependence. In fact, it disappeared from Jesus’ ministry. At first, Jesus allowed his disciples to continue the rite (Jn 3:22), but later he seemingly discontinued the practice (Jn 4:1-3), probably for the following reasons: (1) John’s message was functional, while Jesus’ was personal\/ontological. (2) John’s was forward-looking, expecting the coming kingdom, while Jesus’ was backward-looking, celebrating that event. (3) John’s was an interim practice, while Jesus’ was sacramental. Jesus’ ministry fulfilled John’s, so he severed himself from the latter’s modus operandi.<\/p>\nThe Baptism of Jesus<\/p>\nThis event has its genesis in a complex interplay of motives, divine and human, within the messianic consciousness of Jesus (see Mk 1:9-11 and parallels). For John it was Jesus’ stamp of approval upon his message and ministry. Jesus was in continuity with John’s kingdom proclamation. For Jesus, it was also an anointing that signified the inauguration of his messianic ministry. As seen in God’s “heavenly voice” of Mark 1:11 and parallels, this has two aspects: (1) The voice alludes to Psalm 2:7, establishing Jesus’ unique sonship. (2) It alludes to Isaiah 42:1, establishing him as the messianic “servant of Yahweh.” (This is discussed at greater length in the article below.)<\/p>\nJesus’ Resurrection Command to Baptize<\/p>\nHere we find the true basis of the church’s practice (Mt 28:19). As already stated, the disciples stopped employing it, so it is here that we see the institution reconstituted as an ordinance based on the death and resurrection of Christ. It was no longer a forward-looking phenomenon but had now become a realized activity centering on the gospel message, certified by the risen Christ who is exalted to universal lordship. It also is an essential aspect of the discipling activity, as seen in the use of the participle “baptizing” after the main verb “make disciples.” Finally we might note that the act signifies the entrance of the believer “into” union with (literally “into the name of”) the triune Godhead.<\/p>\nBaptism in the Early Church<\/p>\nActs 2:38 shows that baptism was a sacral institution from the very beginning. This takes it back to the earliest days of the church. In the primitive church it was an important part of the salvation process (Acts 2:38, “repent and be baptized”) and was accomplished via confession and prayer “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5). Probably there was a question-and-answer period in which the believer confessed his faith and dedicated himself to Christ. The result was reception into and identification with the messianic community of the new covenant, signifying both forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18) and the reception of the Holy Spirit (Lk 3:16; Acts 2:38, 41; 9:17; 10:47-48; 11:16-17; 19:5-7). See<\/em> Baptism of Fire; Baptism of Jesus; Baptism of the Spirit.<\/p>\n\nThe Theology of Baptism in Paul’s and Peter’s Epistles<\/p>\nPaul’s basic statement is found in Galatians 3:27, “baptized into Christ.” The rite of baptism is christological at the heart, signifying union with Christ. This is clarified further by Romans 6:3-8, which equates baptism with dying and rising (cf. Col 2:12-13). At the same time baptism is related to the Spirit; 1 Corinthians 12:13 connects “baptism by the one Spirit” with being “given that same Spirit.” Many see baptism as the outward confirmation of the inward “seal” by the Spirit (2 Cor 1:21-22; Eph 1:13; 4:30). This leads us to the eschatological dimension of baptism. In its relation to the present work of Christ and the Spirit, it externalizes the outpouring of salvation in the age of fulfillment, because it is the initiatory rite signifying the believer’s entrance into the blessings of the new age (Ti 3:5).<\/p>\nThere is also a definite link between baptism and the OT covenants. The major connection is with the Abrahamic, especially with the circumcision that characterized it. Paul in Colossians 2:11-12 combines Jewish circumcision with Christian baptism as pictures of the redemptive work of Christ. The debate today centers on the degree of continuity between them—does baptism perform the same function in the New Covenant, i.e., forensic and imputative? Whatever the theological ramifications, Paul at least cannot be made to say this. Rather, he borrows here the Judeo-Christian imagery of the “circumcision of the heart” (Dt 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29; Phil 3:3). Christians experience the fulfillment of that which circumcision merely prefigured, a spiritual, totally efficacious reality.<\/p>\nBaptism is also related to the Noahic covenant in 1 Peter 3:19-21. There Noah’s deliverance through the waters is considered a picture of the effects of baptism. The debate centers on the meaning of “baptism now saves you.” The answer is connected with the thrust of the ensuing clarification, “an appeal to God for a clear conscience” (rsv<\/span>, lit. “of a good conscience”). While the developed dialogue between the sacramental and baptist views is considered below, we will simply comment here that the interpretation “appeal by<\/em> a good conscience” best fits the emphatic position of this phrase and the picture in this verse of a pledging convert. Baptism is the seal of the salvation covenant, which itself has been accomplished beforehand by the act of Christ and the faith decision of the individual.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BAPTISM<\/h3>\nTerm generally meaning “to dip” or “immerse,” but representing a group of words employed to signify a religious rite for ritual cleansing. In the NT it became the rite of initiation into the Christian community, and it was interpreted theologically as a dying and rising with Christ.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Baptism of John<\/p>\n• The Baptism of Jesus<\/p>\n• Jesus’ Resurrection Command to Baptize<\/p>\n• Baptism in the Early Church<\/p>\n• The Theology of Baptism in Paul’s and Peter’s Epistles<\/p>\nThe Baptism of John<\/p>\nJohn preached a “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Lk 3:3). The origins of his rite are difficult to trace. Some have claimed that his baptism modeled that practiced by those at Qumran; others have urged that his baptism modeled that practiced by Jews when initiating proselytes to Judaism. The members of the Qumran community viewed themselves as the covenant community of the last days and so dwelt in the desert, living an ascetic life and immersing themselves daily in acts of ceremonial cleansing. At the same time they taught that internal repentance must accompany the external act (1 QS 2:3). Its sacramental nature is seen in the fact that only a full member of the community could practice it, and then only after two probationary years (1 QS 5:6). Converts from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a ritual bath to wash away the impurities of the Gentile background.<\/p>\nJohn’s baptism both parallels and differs with these forms of baptism. The genesis of his baptism may be found in the prophetic acted-out parable, which not only symbolized God’s message but also intended to bring it about. John’s practice had several theological ramifications: (1) It was intimately connected with radical repentance, not only of the Gentile but astoundingly (to his contemporaries) also of the Jew. (2) It was eschatological at the core, preparing for the Messiah, who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Mt 3:11), and therefore looked to the final separation between God’s people and the wicked at the eschaton (i.e., “the End,” cf. Mt 3:12). (3) It symbolized moral purification and so prepared the people for the coming kingdom (Mt 3:2; Lk 3:7-14). In spite of the obvious connection between John’s ceremony and the early church, we cannot posit absolute dependence. In fact, it disappeared from Jesus’ ministry. At first, Jesus allowed his disciples to continue the rite (Jn 3:22), but later he seemingly discontinued the practice (Jn 4:1-3), probably for the following reasons: (1) John’s message was functional, while Jesus’ was personal\/ontological. (2) John’s was forward-looking, expecting the coming kingdom, while Jesus’ was backward-looking, celebrating that event. (3) John’s was an interim practice, while Jesus’ was sacramental. Jesus’ ministry fulfilled John’s, so he severed himself from the latter’s modus operandi.<\/p>\nThe Baptism of Jesus<\/p>\nThis event has its genesis in a complex interplay of motives, divine and human, within the messianic consciousness of Jesus (see Mk 1:9-11 and parallels). For John it was Jesus’ stamp of approval upon his message and ministry. Jesus was in continuity with John’s kingdom proclamation. For Jesus, it was also an anointing that signified the inauguration of his messianic ministry. As seen in God’s “heavenly voice” of Mark 1:11 and parallels, this has two aspects: (1) The voice alludes to Psalm 2:7, establishing Jesus’ unique sonship. (2) It alludes to Isaiah 42:1, establishing him as the messianic “servant of Yahweh.” (This is discussed at greater length in the article below.)<\/p>\nJesus’ Resurrection Command to Baptize<\/p>\nHere we find the true basis of the church’s practice (Mt 28:19). As already stated, the disciples stopped employing it, so it is here that we see the institution reconstituted as an ordinance based on the death and resurrection of Christ. It was no longer a forward-looking phenomenon but had now become a realized activity centering on the gospel message, certified by the risen Christ who is exalted to universal lordship. It also is an essential aspect of the discipling activity, as seen in the use of the participle “baptizing” after the main verb “make disciples.” Finally we might note that the act signifies the entrance of the believer “into” union with (literally “into the name of”) the triune Godhead.<\/p>\nBaptism in the Early Church<\/p>\nActs 2:38 shows that baptism was a sacral institution from the very beginning. This takes it back to the earliest days of the church. In the primitive church it was an important part of the salvation process (Acts 2:38, “repent and be baptized”) and was accomplished via confession and prayer “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5). Probably there was a question-and-answer period in which the believer confessed his faith and dedicated himself to Christ. The result was reception into and identification with the messianic community of the new covenant, signifying both forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18) and the reception of the Holy Spirit (Lk 3:16; Acts 2:38, 41; 9:17; 10:47-48; 11:16-17; 19:5-7). See<\/em> Baptism of Fire; Baptism of Jesus; Baptism of the Spirit.<\/p>\n\nThe Theology of Baptism in Paul’s and Peter’s Epistles<\/p>\nPaul’s basic statement is found in Galatians 3:27, “baptized into Christ.” The rite of baptism is christological at the heart, signifying union with Christ. This is clarified further by Romans 6:3-8, which equates baptism with dying and rising (cf. Col 2:12-13). At the same time baptism is related to the Spirit; 1 Corinthians 12:13 connects “baptism by the one Spirit” with being “given that same Spirit.” Many see baptism as the outward confirmation of the inward “seal” by the Spirit (2 Cor 1:21-22; Eph 1:13; 4:30). This leads us to the eschatological dimension of baptism. In its relation to the present work of Christ and the Spirit, it externalizes the outpouring of salvation in the age of fulfillment, because it is the initiatory rite signifying the believer’s entrance into the blessings of the new age (Ti 3:5).<\/p>\nThere is also a definite link between baptism and the OT covenants. The major connection is with the Abrahamic, especially with the circumcision that characterized it. Paul in Colossians 2:11-12 combines Jewish circumcision with Christian baptism as pictures of the redemptive work of Christ. The debate today centers on the degree of continuity between them—does baptism perform the same function in the New Covenant, i.e., forensic and imputative? Whatever the theological ramifications, Paul at least cannot be made to say this. Rather, he borrows here the Judeo-Christian imagery of the “circumcision of the heart” (Dt 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29; Phil 3:3). Christians experience the fulfillment of that which circumcision merely prefigured, a spiritual, totally efficacious reality.<\/p>\nBaptism is also related to the Noahic covenant in 1 Peter 3:19-21. There Noah’s deliverance through the waters is considered a picture of the effects of baptism. The debate centers on the meaning of “baptism now saves you.” The answer is connected with the thrust of the ensuing clarification, “an appeal to God for a clear conscience” (rsv<\/span>, lit. “of a good conscience”). While the developed dialogue between the sacramental and baptist views is considered below, we will simply comment here that the interpretation “appeal by<\/em> a good conscience” best fits the emphatic position of this phrase and the picture in this verse of a pledging convert. Baptism is the seal of the salvation covenant, which itself has been accomplished beforehand by the act of Christ and the faith decision of the individual.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BAPTISM Term generally meaning “to dip” or “immerse,” but representing a group of words employed to signify a religious rite for ritual cleansing. In the NT it became the rite of initiation into the Christian community, and it was interpreted theologically as a dying and rising with Christ. Preview • The Baptism of John • The Baptism of Jesus • Jesus’ Resurrection Command to Baptize • Baptism in the Early Church • The Theology of Baptism in Paul’s and Peter’s Epistles The Baptism of John John...","summary_en":"BAPTISM Term generally meaning “to dip” or “immerse,” but representing a group of words employed to signify a religious rite for ritual cleansing. In the NT it became the rite of initiation into the Christian community, and it was interpreted theologically as a dying and rising with Christ. Preview • The Baptism of John • The Baptism of Jesus • Jesus’ Resurrection Command to Baptize • Baptism in the Early Church • The Theology of Baptism in Paul’s and Peter’s Epistles The Baptism of John John...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":5739,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Brood","title_en":"Brood","content_ro":"<h3>BROOD<\/h3>\nTerm often used in the Bible for young birds, especially of the domestic fowl. See<\/em> Birds (Fowl, Domestic; Partridge). Also used of snakes or vipers, as a metaphor for “sinners” (Nm 32:14; Mt 3:7; 12:34; Lk 3:7).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BROOD<\/h3>\nTerm often used in the Bible for young birds, especially of the domestic fowl. See<\/em> Birds (Fowl, Domestic; Partridge). Also used of snakes or vipers, as a metaphor for “sinners” (Nm 32:14; Mt 3:7; 12:34; Lk 3:7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"BROOD Term often used in the Bible for young birds, especially of the domestic fowl. See Birds (Fowl, Domestic; Partridge). Also used of snakes or vipers, as a metaphor for “sinners” (Nm 32:14; Mt 3:7; 12:34; Lk 3:7).","summary_en":"BROOD Term often used in the Bible for young birds, especially of the domestic fowl. See Birds (Fowl, Domestic; Partridge). Also used of snakes or vipers, as a metaphor for “sinners” (Nm 32:14; Mt 3:7; 12:34; Lk 3:7).","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":11385,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Exhortation*","title_en":"Exhortation*","content_ro":"<h3>EXHORTATION*<\/h3>\nTranslation of a Greek word literally meaning “a calling of someone alongside to help.” Its primary meaning in the NT is the urging of someone to do something—particularly some ethical course of action. In some contexts, the same Greek word may also include the idea of comforting and consoling. The given context will determine which meaning to use.<\/p>\nA passage that most clearly illustrates “exhortation” in the sense of inciting or spurring people on to action is Luke 3:7-18. John the Baptist exhorts his Jewish hearers to bring forth fruits in keeping with repentance, to stop resting on descent from Abraham as protection from punishment for sin, and to share clothing and food. He exhorted tax gatherers to collect no more money than they had a right to take, and soldiers not to take money from anyone by force, not to accuse anyone falsely, and to be content with their wages.<\/p>\nThe ability to exhort is said to be a spiritual gift that God has given to some in the church for the benefit of the whole (Rom 12:8). In addition, exhortation is one of the results of a proper use of the gift of prophecy, as seen in 1 Corinthians 14:3, 31. It was also one of the responsibilities that Paul commanded of Timothy: “Give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching” (1 Tm 4:13, nasb<\/span>). The writer to the Hebrews also refers to an exhortation addressed to the readers lest they regard lightly the discipline of the Lord or “faint” when they are reproved (Heb 12:5, kjv<\/span>).<\/p>\nIn 2 Corinthians 1:3-7 the Greek word for exhortation is used in the sense of consolation or encouragement. The context is one in which serious suffering for Christ is evident. Paul said that God encourages us in our times of testing so that we may be able to do the same for those experiencing similar trials. Acts 15:31 refers to the encouragement and consolation that came to the church at Antioch when the decree of the Jerusalem Council was read in their hearing. They had been fearful that the Judaizers might have their way and that Christians would be required to become circumcised in order to be saved. Another clear illustration of this word meaning “comfort” is in 1 Thessalonians 4:18, where Paul instructs the believers that those who die in Christ will not miss out on the blessings of the day of Christ; he then exhorts them to “comfort one another with these words.” See<\/em> Spiritual Gifts.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>EXHORTATION*<\/h3>\nTranslation of a Greek word literally meaning “a calling of someone alongside to help.” Its primary meaning in the NT is the urging of someone to do something—particularly some ethical course of action. In some contexts, the same Greek word may also include the idea of comforting and consoling. The given context will determine which meaning to use.<\/p>\nA passage that most clearly illustrates “exhortation” in the sense of inciting or spurring people on to action is Luke 3:7-18. John the Baptist exhorts his Jewish hearers to bring forth fruits in keeping with repentance, to stop resting on descent from Abraham as protection from punishment for sin, and to share clothing and food. He exhorted tax gatherers to collect no more money than they had a right to take, and soldiers not to take money from anyone by force, not to accuse anyone falsely, and to be content with their wages.<\/p>\nThe ability to exhort is said to be a spiritual gift that God has given to some in the church for the benefit of the whole (Rom 12:8). In addition, exhortation is one of the results of a proper use of the gift of prophecy, as seen in 1 Corinthians 14:3, 31. It was also one of the responsibilities that Paul commanded of Timothy: “Give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching” (1 Tm 4:13, nasb<\/span>). The writer to the Hebrews also refers to an exhortation addressed to the readers lest they regard lightly the discipline of the Lord or “faint” when they are reproved (Heb 12:5, kjv<\/span>).<\/p>\nIn 2 Corinthians 1:3-7 the Greek word for exhortation is used in the sense of consolation or encouragement. The context is one in which serious suffering for Christ is evident. Paul said that God encourages us in our times of testing so that we may be able to do the same for those experiencing similar trials. Acts 15:31 refers to the encouragement and consolation that came to the church at Antioch when the decree of the Jerusalem Council was read in their hearing. They had been fearful that the Judaizers might have their way and that Christians would be required to become circumcised in order to be saved. Another clear illustration of this word meaning “comfort” is in 1 Thessalonians 4:18, where Paul instructs the believers that those who die in Christ will not miss out on the blessings of the day of Christ; he then exhorts them to “comfort one another with these words.” See<\/em> Spiritual Gifts.<\/p>","summary_ro":"EXHORTATION* Translation of a Greek word literally meaning “a calling of someone alongside to help.” Its primary meaning in the NT is the urging of someone to do something—particularly some ethical course of action. In some contexts, the same Greek word may also include the idea of comforting and consoling. The given context will determine which meaning to use. A passage that most clearly illustrates “exhortation” in the sense of inciting or spurring people on to action is Luke 3:7-18. John t...","summary_en":"EXHORTATION* Translation of a Greek word literally meaning “a calling of someone alongside to help.” Its primary meaning in the NT is the urging of someone to do something—particularly some ethical course of action. In some contexts, the same Greek word may also include the idea of comforting and consoling. The given context will determine which meaning to use. A passage that most clearly illustrates “exhortation” in the sense of inciting or spurring people on to action is Luke 3:7-18. John t...","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":14519,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gospel","title_en":"Gospel","content_ro":"<h3>GOSPEL<\/h3>\nWord derived from the Anglo-Saxon godspell<\/em> denoting “glad tidings” or “good news.”<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Gospel Message of Isaiah<\/p>\n• The Gospel in the New Testament<\/p>\n• The Good News of Christ’s Coming<\/p>\n• The Gospel according to Jesus<\/p>\n• The Gospel after Jesus’ Resurrection<\/p>\nThe Gospel Message of Isaiah<\/p>\nOf all the passages cited, those of Isaiah provide the most important background for the gospel in the NT. According to Isaiah’s gospel, it is God alone who saves, and there is no explanation for his saving action except in his own nature. Israel’s deliverance is undeserved; she is no more worthy of the divine love now than when she went into captivity. In whatever measure she has paid the just due for her past sins (Is 40:2), she remains a sinful people (42:25; 46:12-13; 48:1). It is only by God’s grace that she is saved (55:1-7). By God’s design, Israel’s salvation depends not upon her own righteousness but upon his (41:10; 45:24; 46:13; 51:5-6). There being no righteousness to reward, the Lord acts to create<\/em> righteousness in Israel (45:8; 61:3, 10-11). Yet as these references indicate, salvation is not accomplished at the expense of justice. The penalty for Israel’s sins is to be paid in full. God’s mercy is not hereby called into question. On the contrary, it is precisely here that his mercy is most poignantly expressed, for the penalty is exacted not from his people but from the Servant appointed to stand in their place (53:4-12). Through the Servant’s work, many shall be justified (53:11). The coming of the Evangelist—the preacher of the good news—is predicted in Isaiah 61. He is called the anointed One (v 1) who proclaims the year of the Lord’s favor (v 2). God will be glorified through his preaching (v 3).<\/p>\nThe Gospel in the New Testament<\/p>\nIn only two places (Gal 3:8; Heb 4:2, 6) does the NT speak of the proclamation of the gospel prior to the Christian era. This is quite remarkable, given (1) the unmistakable presence of the gospel in the OT, (2) the extent of gospel terminology in the NT (in the Greek the noun appears 76 times; and the verb, 54), and (3) the fact that the NT presents Christ as the fulfillment of the OT and draws heavily on the OT to interpret his person and work. Not only is it remarkable; it is very significant. It indicates that the NT usage depends not only upon the character<\/em> of the message (truth about salvation) but also upon historical events.<\/em> Almost without exception, the NT restricts its application of gospel terminology to proclamations made during the time of fulfillment—the age in which the salvation promised in the OT is actually accomplished. The NT is preoccupied, not with promises of salvation, but with news of salvation. According to Mark 1:1-4, the gospel “begins” not in the OT but with John the Baptist, in whose work OT prophecy is fulfilled. In Romans 1:1-5 the gospel is represented as a blessing promised in the OT but not actually given until Jesus comes (see also Acts 13:32-33).<\/p>\nThe Good News of Christ’s Coming<\/p>\nThe promised birth of John the Baptist is good news (Lk 1:19), not only for his parents (vv 7, 24-25) but for all the people: John is sent to prepare them for Messiah’s coming (vv 14-17, 67-79). John’s own preaching is gospel (3:18) for the same reason. The Messiah would be coming to execute judgment, a process that involves both condemnation and salvation (vv 3-17). John’s message is gospel for sinners in that they are warned of impending doom and urged to repent before the ax falls (vv 7-9); it is gospel for the repentant in that they are promised forgiveness (v 3) and membership in Messiah’s community (v 17). The birth of the Savior himself is announced as good news bringing great joy (2:10-11).<\/p>\nThe Gospel according to Jesus<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming of the Kingdom of God<\/h5>\nJesus was authorized by God and anointed by the Spirit to proclaim the gospel (Mk 1:14; Lk 4:18). At the heart of his preaching stands the announcement “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mk 1:15). (For further references to this gospel, see Mt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; 26:13; Mk 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:9; Lk 4:43; 8:1; 16:16.) The message is good news for several reasons: (1) The kingdom is coming. The God whom Jesus proclaims is sovereign over all he has made. Yet paradoxically his rule is incomplete: his will is not done on earth as it is in heaven; wrong, not right, prevails. But these conditions are not final, according to Jesus. With the coming of the kingdom, God’s rule will be completed; wrong will be judged, righteousness established, and his people blessed. (2) The kingdom is now<\/em> being inaugurated. “The time is fulfilled,” declares Jesus (Mk 1:15a). The time appointed for the fulfillment of the OT promises has arrived. (3) The consummation of the kingdom is therefore no longer a distant prospect; the full realization of God’s rule is “at hand” (Mk 1:15b). (4) God is establishing his rule for a saving purpose. This is implied in Jesus’ call to repentance (Mk 1:15c). It is especially clear in the passages to which we now turn.<\/p>\n<h5>The Salvation of the Poor<\/h5>\nInvited to read the Scripture in the synagogue at Nazareth, Jesus turns to Isaiah 61: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord” (Lk 4:18-19, rsv<\/span>). Having read the prophecy, Jesus announces its fulfillment in his own ministry (v 21). Included among those whom Jesus has come to free are the physically infirm, such as the blind (v 18) and the leprous (v 27) (cf. the references to healing miracles in vv 23, 33-41; the close connection between evangelizing and healing in Mt 4:23; 9:35; 11:5; Lk 7:21-22; 9:6; and the description in Mt 12:22-29; Lk 13:11-16, of the physically afflicted as captives of Satan now liberated by Jesus). Also included are the materially poor—people like the widow helped by Elijah during the famine (Lk 4:25-26). It is the literally poor and hungry whom Jesus pronounces “blessed” in Luke 6:20-21. Yet it is primarily “spiritual” poverty that is in view. Still applying Isaiah 61, Jesus speaks in Matthew 5:3 of the “poor in spirit.” These are people broken and grieved by misery and poverty, oppression and injustice, suffering and death, national apostasy and personal sin—people who in their extremity turn to God and longingly wait for him to bring forth justice, bestow his mercy, and establish his kingdom. It is to just such people that Jesus brings good news (Mt 5:3-10). God sent him to usher in the kingdom, to rescue the lost, to liberate the enslaved, to cure the afflicted, to bind up hearts that are broken, and to forgive the guilty (Mk 2:5, 10, 17; 10:45; Lk 4:18-21; 7:48-49; 15:1-32; 19:10).<\/p>\n<h5>The Gift of Grace<\/h5>\nThe coming of the kingdom is not the effect or the reward of human effort but God’s answer to the human predicament—the gift of his favor (Lk 12:32). Correspondingly, the explanation for the salvation of the poor lies nowhere but in God’s own character. As the prodigal himself recognized, he hardly deserved to be his father’s servant, much less his son. Nothing he did, not even his repentance, accounted for the father’s love (15:11-32). In the parable of Matthew 20:1-16, it is owing entirely to the goodness of the employer that the last workers to be hired receive a full day’s wages. The first debtor in the story of Matthew 18:23-35 earned nothing but the right to be sold into slavery; instead, the king canceled his enormous debt. The publican, who had nothing to offer God but a confession of sin and plea for mercy, went home justified (Lk 18:13-14). The same holds true for the more virtuous among the poor, such as the persons described in Matthew 5:7-10. Their virtue is real, not imagined. Yet in keeping God’s commands, they do not put him in their debt; they are simply doing their duty (Lk 17:7-10). Furthermore, even the most merciful need divine mercy (Mt 5:7). For even those most zealous to obey God’s law are unable to fulfill all its requirements (cf. 11:28-30). The first servant in Matthew 18:23-35 owes far more money than someone in such a situation could possibly pay—which serves to magnify the generosity of the king. Grace depends for its exercise upon the inability of its objects (Lk 14:12-14).<\/p>\n<h5>The Call to Salvation<\/h5>\nThe Israelites are without exception a sinful people, all of them needing the salvation that Jesus brings (Mt 1:21; Lk 1:77). In demonstration of God’s grace, Jesus proclaimed his gospel to the entire nation (Mt 4:23; 9:35; 15:24; Lk 4:43; 9:6; 20:1). From the most respectable to the least, all are summoned to submit to God’s rule, all are invited to come and partake freely of the banquet he has spread (Lk 14:16-24). But the gift of salvation must be received if it is to be experienced (Mk 10:15). And while it is indeed a gift that costs nothing, it is also a priceless treasure for which a wise person will freely sacrifice everything else (Mt 13:44-46), a sacrifice exceeded only by the cost of rejecting the gospel (Mt 11:20-24; Mk 8:34-39; Lk 14:24, 33). “Repent and believe in the gospel,” Jesus commands (Mk 1:15). The self-righteous and the self-sufficient must be jolted out of their false sense of security and humbly recognize their need for God (Lk 6:24-26). Only then will Jesus’ message to the poor be seen as gospel. An announcement of liberation (4:18-19) is good news only to people who are enslaved and know they are. The command applies also to the destitute and the afflicted. Those among them who bemoan their lot must repent of their sins. But something further is needed for the response to be complete: a person cannot believe Jesus’ gospel without a commitment to the Person<\/em> of Christ (Jn 3:16). Even those who are already “poor in spirit,” in the sense defined earlier, are not really “blessed” until they acknowledge the truth of Jesus’ claims (Mt 11:6) and commit themselves to a life of obedience on his terms (7:21-27). This prepares us for the next point.<\/p>\n<h5>Summary<\/h5>\nThroughout Jesus’ earthly ministry, the theme of his gospel remains the dawning of God’s kingdom (Mt 4:23; 24:14; Lk 4:43; 16:16), a message that is preached almost exclusively to Jews (Mt 10:5-6; 15:24). Yet Jesus also provides glimpses into what the gospel was to become once his work on earth was accomplished: (1) In Mark 8:35 and 10:29 Jesus speaks of individuals who needed to make great sacrifices “for my sake and for the gospel.” While distinguished from each other, the person of Jesus and the gospel are here associated in the closest possible way. The time was approaching when the Proclaimer of the gospel would become the Proclaimed. (2) In Mark 13:10 and Matthew 24:14 (and the textually doubtful Mk 16:15) Jesus foretells the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom to the gentile nations. (3) In Mark 14, having interpreted a woman’s action (v 3) as an anointing of his body beforehand for burial (v 8), Jesus declares, “And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her” (v 9, rsv<\/span>; cf. Mt 26:13). This statement strongly implies that both the person of Jesus and the event of his death will figure prominently in the message that is to be proclaimed; otherwise, it is strange that the gospel and this particular act should be so solemnly bound together. Thus, here in the text already is an indication of how crucial Jesus’ death is both for the provision of the salvation announced in his gospel (cf. Mk 14:22-24) and for the launching of the evangelistic mission to the Gentiles (Mt 20:28 is vital for explaining the shift from Mt 15:24 to 28:18-20).<\/p>\nThe Gospel after Jesus’ Resurrection<\/p>\nAfter the resurrection of Jesus, the gospel was proclaimed by his eyewitnesses. The contents of this gospel are recorded in the book of Acts and in Paul’s letters. Of the 43 instances of euangelizomai<\/span> (“evangelize”) beyond the Gospels, 15 occur in Acts and 21 in Paul’s writings; of the 64 instances of euangelion<\/span> (“gospel”), 2 occur in Acts and no fewer than 60 in Paul.<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel of Christ<\/h5>\nHaving risen from the dead, Jesus Christ again evangelizes (Eph 2:16-17), doing so now through his appointed representatives (Rom 15:16-18; 1 Cor 1:17; 9:12-18; Gal 4:13-14; Eph 4:11; 2 Tm 1:9-11). More than that, Christ has become the central theme of the gospel; the Proclaimer is now the Proclaimed. This is repeatedly affirmed in Acts (5:42; 8:4-5, 35; 11:20; 17:18) and in Paul’s writings (Rom 1:1-4; 10:8-17; 15:19-20; 2 Cor 4:4-6; 11:4; Gal 1:16; Eph 3:8; Phil 1:15-18; 2 Tm 2:8). The NT always speaks of the gospel<\/em>—never the gospels—of Christ. A second gospel is as inconceivable and as unnecessary as a second Christ. This is the one gospel that God authorizes (e.g., Rom 1:1-17) and proclaims (e.g., 2 Thes 2:13-14). Galatians 2:7-9 speaks not of two gospels but of two mission fields. Paul (the apostle to the uncircumcised) and Peter (the apostle to the circumcised) are both entrusted with “the gospel of Christ” (Gal 1:7; cf. 1 Cor 15:1-11), the message that God has ordained for the salvation of Jews and Gentiles alike (Rom 1:16). The “different gospel” that Paul denounces in Galatians 1:6-9 and 2 Corinthians 11:4 is not another gospel about Jesus but a message about “another Jesus”—not the real one, but one who exists only in the minds and the messages of those who proclaim him. To preach the true Christ is to preach the true gospel, however questionable one’s motives (Phil 1:15-18, 27), and to respond rightly to the gospel is to turn to Christ (Acts 11:20-21; Rom 10:8-17; Gal 2:14-16).<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel as a Witness to Saving Events<\/h5>\nThe gospel bears witness to every aspect of Christ’s saving work, from his birth (Rom 1:3; 2 Tm 2:8) and public ministry (Mk 1:1; Acts 10:36-38) to his second coming (Col 1:5, 23; cf. 3:1-4; 1 Thes 1:5-10) and the last judgment (Rom 2:16). But it is the death and the resurrection of Christ that are most crucial for the accomplishment of salvation, and that are therefore most prominent in the gospel’s witness. These are the events with which Mark’s proclamation climaxes (chs 15–16), and for which everything else prepares (8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34; 12:6-8); special stress is placed upon Jesus’ death as the means of salvation from sin (10:45; 14:3-9, 22-24). In Paul’s gospel, too, the death and resurrection of Jesus are central (Rom 4:25; 1 Cor 15:1-4), with the cross occupying the very center (1 Cor 1:17–2:5). Had Christ not risen from the dead, Paul argues, the preaching of the cross would be a waste of time (1 Cor 15:14, 17; cf. Rom 6:3-11). However, now that Christ has risen, his death deserves special emphasis as the place where God provides atonement for sins (Rom 3:21-26; 5:6-11; 2 Cor 5:14-21; Eph 1:7). The gospel according to Acts proclaims Jesus’ death (Acts 8:25; 20:24, 28; cf. 10:36-43) and preeminently his resurrection, the event by which he conquered death and was exalted as Lord and coming Judge (10:36-43; 13:32-33; 17:18, 31). According to 1 Peter, the bearers of the gospel (1 Pt 1:12) concentrated, as had the OT prophets, on “the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glory” (1:11; cf. 1:18-19; 2:21-24; 3:18-22).<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel as a Power for Salvation<\/h5>\nThe gospel is much more than a report of past events and an exposition of doctrine. Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 1:17-18 and again in Romans 1:16 that the gospel is “the power of God”—not merely a witness to his power but an expression<\/em> of his power. Thus, it cannot be fettered (2 Tm 2:8-9). “Our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power,” Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 1:5. His point is not that the gospel was accompanied by mighty works (though this happened; cf. Rom 15:18-19), but that the gospel itself is a mighty work. God makes it so through his Holy Spirit (Rom 15:18-19; 1 Cor 2:1-5; 1 Thes 1:6). Furthermore, God’s singular purpose in exercising his power is to change people’s lives, to liberate them from sin and death, and to reconcile them to himself—in short, to save them. The gospel has power to effect the salvation it announces and to impart the life it promises (e.g., Rom 1:16; 10:8-17; 1 Cor 1:17-18; 15:1-2; Eph 1:13; 2 Thes 2:13-14; 2 Tm 1:8-11; 1 Pt 1:23-25). If people are to experience salvation, they must hear and believe the gospel. It is precisely in and through this message that the saving power manifested in the person and work of Christ (especially in his death and resurrection) is conveyed to men and made effective in their lives. Similarly it is in association with the gospel, or as a direct result of the reception of the gospel, that the Holy Spirit is imparted to believers (Acts 10:36-44; 15:7-8; 2 Cor 11:4; Gal 3:1-2). In short, the gospel is the decisive place of encounter between the sinner and God the Savior.<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel of Grace<\/h5>\nAccording to Peter’s testimony at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:7-11), an essential part of the gospel—for Gentiles and Jews alike—is salvation “through the grace of the Lord Jesus.” Toward the close of his missionary career, Paul states that his basic concern has been “to testify to the gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24, rsv<\/span>). This statement can be understood only in relation to Paul’s concept of the righteousness of God, particularly as set forth in Romans. Paul is here not merely expounding a divine attribute. Rather, he is dramatizing a divine activity—the manifestation of God’s righteousness now, “in the present time” (Rom 3:26), in the new age inaugurated by the coming of Jesus. The manifestation is twofold. Viewing the two aspects together, and doing so in the light of the gospel declared by Isaiah and by Jesus (both of whom strongly influenced Paul), respectively, will help us to understand why Paul speaks of “the gospel of the grace of God.”<\/p>\nFirst, the gospel is a witness<\/em> to God’s grace. In offering his Son as a sacrifice for sins (Rom 3:25a), God demonstrates his righteousness (vv 25b-26). That is, in the death of Jesus sins formerly “passed over” (v 25c) become the object of God’s wrath (cf. 1:18) and judgment. Yet in the very place where God deals justly and decisively with sins, he shows his grace to sinners. For the judgment against sin is focused not upon the sinners themselves but upon the One appointed to act on their behalf and to stand in their place (Rom 4:25; 5:6, 11; cf. 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 3:13). On this basis, sinners are freely pardoned (Rom 3:24). “The grace of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 15:11) toward the sinful is also in evidence, for he willingly bears their iniquities and suffers the consequences of their wrongdoing (Gal 2:20; cf. 2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:6-8).<\/p>\nSecond, the gospel is a channel<\/em> of God’s grace. “The righteousness of God is revealed” in the gospel, says Paul (Rom 1:17). By this he means, not that the gospel talks about the righteousness of God (though it does), but that God’s righteousness is actively at work in the gospel. This activity in turn explains how the gospel becomes “the power of God for salvation” (v 16). And just how does God demonstrate his righteousness at this stage? In short, by bestowing it as a free gift on sinful human beings. It remains the righteousness of God, but by God’s grace, it is a righteousness in which humans may share. Furthermore, partaking of God’s righteousness depends on being personally united with Jesus Christ. In Paul’s view the saved person is one who has been acquitted, justified, “declared righteous” by God the judge. The basis for the verdict is not that I in myself am righteous (God justifies the ungodly, Rom 4:5). Nor does God treat me as though I were righteous. According to Paul I am declared righteous because I really am<\/em> righteous—not in myself but in Christ (1 Cor 1:30; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9). This union is established through the revelation—and the free offer—of God’s righteousness in the gospel (Rom 1:16-17).<\/p>\n<h5>Responding to the Gospel<\/h5>\nThe gospel calls for a threefold response:<\/p>\n1. Believing.<\/em> The gospel, says Paul, is “the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith” (Rom 1:16). For Paul, faith is the abandonment of all reliance upon “works of law” for justification (3:28) and utter dependence upon the grace of God as demonstrated in the work of Christ, especially his death (v 25). Accordingly, the “different gospel” of Galatians 1:6 and 2 Corinthians 11:4 is spurious, for it preaches salvation by personal merit rather than (or together with) the work of Christ (cf. Gal 2:16). Ultimately faith rests upon God (Rom 4:24; 1 Thes 1:8-9) and upon Christ (Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 2:16, 20). Yet it is imperative that one believe the gospel also (Acts 8:12; 11:20-21; 15:7; Rom 1:16; 10:8-17; 1 Cor 1:17-24; Phil 1:27; Heb 4:2), for it is just by this means that God’s salvation is made known and mediated. Moreover, believing the gospel entails repentance (Acts 14:15; 20:21, 24; 1 Thes 1:5-10) and obedience (Rom 1:5; 15:16-18; Heb 4:6). Those who refuse to obey the gospel are imperiling their lives (2 Thes 1:5-10; 1 Pt 4:17).<\/p>\n2. Growing.<\/em> The Gospel is more than a message to be received—it is also a place in which to stand (1 Cor 15:1-2). It is sustainer of life as well as giver of life. One grows as a Christian not by turning from the gospel to other things (to turn away from the gospel is to abandon God and Christ, Gal 1:6), but by going ever more deeply into the gospel. In Romans 1:15 Paul expresses his eagerness to proclaim the gospel to the Christians in Rome. In the following chapters, anticipating his visit, he offers one of his most profound expositions of the gospel—one whose truth has never been fathomed and whose power has never been exhausted.<\/p>\n3. Hoping.<\/em> “The hope of the gospel” (Col 1:23) includes not only the return of Christ and the glory of heaven (Col 1:5; 3:1-4; 2 Thes 2:14-16) but the final judgment as well. For those who embrace the gospel, the last judgment holds no terrors, because the Judge is the very one who rescues them from the wrath to come (1 Thes 1:10). Those who are united to him need not dread condemnation now or at the end (Rom 8:1). Instead, the last judgment will mark their final vindication (1 Cor 4:5; Gal 5:5). Accordingly, this theme is not just a corollary but an integral part of the Good News (Rom 2:16). Those who have died since believing the gospel (1 Pt 4:6) may seem to have suffered a fate common to all people, or even the condemnation reserved for the lawless; in fact, their response to the gospel assures them of approval by the coming Lord (4:5-6; 5:4) and of a share in the imperishable inheritance of heaven (1:4).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GOSPEL<\/h3>\nWord derived from the Anglo-Saxon godspell<\/em> denoting “glad tidings” or “good news.”<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Gospel Message of Isaiah<\/p>\n• The Gospel in the New Testament<\/p>\n• The Good News of Christ’s Coming<\/p>\n• The Gospel according to Jesus<\/p>\n• The Gospel after Jesus’ Resurrection<\/p>\nThe Gospel Message of Isaiah<\/p>\nOf all the passages cited, those of Isaiah provide the most important background for the gospel in the NT. According to Isaiah’s gospel, it is God alone who saves, and there is no explanation for his saving action except in his own nature. Israel’s deliverance is undeserved; she is no more worthy of the divine love now than when she went into captivity. In whatever measure she has paid the just due for her past sins (Is 40:2), she remains a sinful people (42:25; 46:12-13; 48:1). It is only by God’s grace that she is saved (55:1-7). By God’s design, Israel’s salvation depends not upon her own righteousness but upon his (41:10; 45:24; 46:13; 51:5-6). There being no righteousness to reward, the Lord acts to create<\/em> righteousness in Israel (45:8; 61:3, 10-11). Yet as these references indicate, salvation is not accomplished at the expense of justice. The penalty for Israel’s sins is to be paid in full. God’s mercy is not hereby called into question. On the contrary, it is precisely here that his mercy is most poignantly expressed, for the penalty is exacted not from his people but from the Servant appointed to stand in their place (53:4-12). Through the Servant’s work, many shall be justified (53:11). The coming of the Evangelist—the preacher of the good news—is predicted in Isaiah 61. He is called the anointed One (v 1) who proclaims the year of the Lord’s favor (v 2). God will be glorified through his preaching (v 3).<\/p>\nThe Gospel in the New Testament<\/p>\nIn only two places (Gal 3:8; Heb 4:2, 6) does the NT speak of the proclamation of the gospel prior to the Christian era. This is quite remarkable, given (1) the unmistakable presence of the gospel in the OT, (2) the extent of gospel terminology in the NT (in the Greek the noun appears 76 times; and the verb, 54), and (3) the fact that the NT presents Christ as the fulfillment of the OT and draws heavily on the OT to interpret his person and work. Not only is it remarkable; it is very significant. It indicates that the NT usage depends not only upon the character<\/em> of the message (truth about salvation) but also upon historical events.<\/em> Almost without exception, the NT restricts its application of gospel terminology to proclamations made during the time of fulfillment—the age in which the salvation promised in the OT is actually accomplished. The NT is preoccupied, not with promises of salvation, but with news of salvation. According to Mark 1:1-4, the gospel “begins” not in the OT but with John the Baptist, in whose work OT prophecy is fulfilled. In Romans 1:1-5 the gospel is represented as a blessing promised in the OT but not actually given until Jesus comes (see also Acts 13:32-33).<\/p>\nThe Good News of Christ’s Coming<\/p>\nThe promised birth of John the Baptist is good news (Lk 1:19), not only for his parents (vv 7, 24-25) but for all the people: John is sent to prepare them for Messiah’s coming (vv 14-17, 67-79). John’s own preaching is gospel (3:18) for the same reason. The Messiah would be coming to execute judgment, a process that involves both condemnation and salvation (vv 3-17). John’s message is gospel for sinners in that they are warned of impending doom and urged to repent before the ax falls (vv 7-9); it is gospel for the repentant in that they are promised forgiveness (v 3) and membership in Messiah’s community (v 17). The birth of the Savior himself is announced as good news bringing great joy (2:10-11).<\/p>\nThe Gospel according to Jesus<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming of the Kingdom of God<\/h5>\nJesus was authorized by God and anointed by the Spirit to proclaim the gospel (Mk 1:14; Lk 4:18). At the heart of his preaching stands the announcement “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mk 1:15). (For further references to this gospel, see Mt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; 26:13; Mk 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:9; Lk 4:43; 8:1; 16:16.) The message is good news for several reasons: (1) The kingdom is coming. The God whom Jesus proclaims is sovereign over all he has made. Yet paradoxically his rule is incomplete: his will is not done on earth as it is in heaven; wrong, not right, prevails. But these conditions are not final, according to Jesus. With the coming of the kingdom, God’s rule will be completed; wrong will be judged, righteousness established, and his people blessed. (2) The kingdom is now<\/em> being inaugurated. “The time is fulfilled,” declares Jesus (Mk 1:15a). The time appointed for the fulfillment of the OT promises has arrived. (3) The consummation of the kingdom is therefore no longer a distant prospect; the full realization of God’s rule is “at hand” (Mk 1:15b). (4) God is establishing his rule for a saving purpose. This is implied in Jesus’ call to repentance (Mk 1:15c). It is especially clear in the passages to which we now turn.<\/p>\n<h5>The Salvation of the Poor<\/h5>\nInvited to read the Scripture in the synagogue at Nazareth, Jesus turns to Isaiah 61: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord” (Lk 4:18-19, rsv<\/span>). Having read the prophecy, Jesus announces its fulfillment in his own ministry (v 21). Included among those whom Jesus has come to free are the physically infirm, such as the blind (v 18) and the leprous (v 27) (cf. the references to healing miracles in vv 23, 33-41; the close connection between evangelizing and healing in Mt 4:23; 9:35; 11:5; Lk 7:21-22; 9:6; and the description in Mt 12:22-29; Lk 13:11-16, of the physically afflicted as captives of Satan now liberated by Jesus). Also included are the materially poor—people like the widow helped by Elijah during the famine (Lk 4:25-26). It is the literally poor and hungry whom Jesus pronounces “blessed” in Luke 6:20-21. Yet it is primarily “spiritual” poverty that is in view. Still applying Isaiah 61, Jesus speaks in Matthew 5:3 of the “poor in spirit.” These are people broken and grieved by misery and poverty, oppression and injustice, suffering and death, national apostasy and personal sin—people who in their extremity turn to God and longingly wait for him to bring forth justice, bestow his mercy, and establish his kingdom. It is to just such people that Jesus brings good news (Mt 5:3-10). God sent him to usher in the kingdom, to rescue the lost, to liberate the enslaved, to cure the afflicted, to bind up hearts that are broken, and to forgive the guilty (Mk 2:5, 10, 17; 10:45; Lk 4:18-21; 7:48-49; 15:1-32; 19:10).<\/p>\n<h5>The Gift of Grace<\/h5>\nThe coming of the kingdom is not the effect or the reward of human effort but God’s answer to the human predicament—the gift of his favor (Lk 12:32). Correspondingly, the explanation for the salvation of the poor lies nowhere but in God’s own character. As the prodigal himself recognized, he hardly deserved to be his father’s servant, much less his son. Nothing he did, not even his repentance, accounted for the father’s love (15:11-32). In the parable of Matthew 20:1-16, it is owing entirely to the goodness of the employer that the last workers to be hired receive a full day’s wages. The first debtor in the story of Matthew 18:23-35 earned nothing but the right to be sold into slavery; instead, the king canceled his enormous debt. The publican, who had nothing to offer God but a confession of sin and plea for mercy, went home justified (Lk 18:13-14). The same holds true for the more virtuous among the poor, such as the persons described in Matthew 5:7-10. Their virtue is real, not imagined. Yet in keeping God’s commands, they do not put him in their debt; they are simply doing their duty (Lk 17:7-10). Furthermore, even the most merciful need divine mercy (Mt 5:7). For even those most zealous to obey God’s law are unable to fulfill all its requirements (cf. 11:28-30). The first servant in Matthew 18:23-35 owes far more money than someone in such a situation could possibly pay—which serves to magnify the generosity of the king. Grace depends for its exercise upon the inability of its objects (Lk 14:12-14).<\/p>\n<h5>The Call to Salvation<\/h5>\nThe Israelites are without exception a sinful people, all of them needing the salvation that Jesus brings (Mt 1:21; Lk 1:77). In demonstration of God’s grace, Jesus proclaimed his gospel to the entire nation (Mt 4:23; 9:35; 15:24; Lk 4:43; 9:6; 20:1). From the most respectable to the least, all are summoned to submit to God’s rule, all are invited to come and partake freely of the banquet he has spread (Lk 14:16-24). But the gift of salvation must be received if it is to be experienced (Mk 10:15). And while it is indeed a gift that costs nothing, it is also a priceless treasure for which a wise person will freely sacrifice everything else (Mt 13:44-46), a sacrifice exceeded only by the cost of rejecting the gospel (Mt 11:20-24; Mk 8:34-39; Lk 14:24, 33). “Repent and believe in the gospel,” Jesus commands (Mk 1:15). The self-righteous and the self-sufficient must be jolted out of their false sense of security and humbly recognize their need for God (Lk 6:24-26). Only then will Jesus’ message to the poor be seen as gospel. An announcement of liberation (4:18-19) is good news only to people who are enslaved and know they are. The command applies also to the destitute and the afflicted. Those among them who bemoan their lot must repent of their sins. But something further is needed for the response to be complete: a person cannot believe Jesus’ gospel without a commitment to the Person<\/em> of Christ (Jn 3:16). Even those who are already “poor in spirit,” in the sense defined earlier, are not really “blessed” until they acknowledge the truth of Jesus’ claims (Mt 11:6) and commit themselves to a life of obedience on his terms (7:21-27). This prepares us for the next point.<\/p>\n<h5>Summary<\/h5>\nThroughout Jesus’ earthly ministry, the theme of his gospel remains the dawning of God’s kingdom (Mt 4:23; 24:14; Lk 4:43; 16:16), a message that is preached almost exclusively to Jews (Mt 10:5-6; 15:24). Yet Jesus also provides glimpses into what the gospel was to become once his work on earth was accomplished: (1) In Mark 8:35 and 10:29 Jesus speaks of individuals who needed to make great sacrifices “for my sake and for the gospel.” While distinguished from each other, the person of Jesus and the gospel are here associated in the closest possible way. The time was approaching when the Proclaimer of the gospel would become the Proclaimed. (2) In Mark 13:10 and Matthew 24:14 (and the textually doubtful Mk 16:15) Jesus foretells the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom to the gentile nations. (3) In Mark 14, having interpreted a woman’s action (v 3) as an anointing of his body beforehand for burial (v 8), Jesus declares, “And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her” (v 9, rsv<\/span>; cf. Mt 26:13). This statement strongly implies that both the person of Jesus and the event of his death will figure prominently in the message that is to be proclaimed; otherwise, it is strange that the gospel and this particular act should be so solemnly bound together. Thus, here in the text already is an indication of how crucial Jesus’ death is both for the provision of the salvation announced in his gospel (cf. Mk 14:22-24) and for the launching of the evangelistic mission to the Gentiles (Mt 20:28 is vital for explaining the shift from Mt 15:24 to 28:18-20).<\/p>\nThe Gospel after Jesus’ Resurrection<\/p>\nAfter the resurrection of Jesus, the gospel was proclaimed by his eyewitnesses. The contents of this gospel are recorded in the book of Acts and in Paul’s letters. Of the 43 instances of euangelizomai<\/span> (“evangelize”) beyond the Gospels, 15 occur in Acts and 21 in Paul’s writings; of the 64 instances of euangelion<\/span> (“gospel”), 2 occur in Acts and no fewer than 60 in Paul.<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel of Christ<\/h5>\nHaving risen from the dead, Jesus Christ again evangelizes (Eph 2:16-17), doing so now through his appointed representatives (Rom 15:16-18; 1 Cor 1:17; 9:12-18; Gal 4:13-14; Eph 4:11; 2 Tm 1:9-11). More than that, Christ has become the central theme of the gospel; the Proclaimer is now the Proclaimed. This is repeatedly affirmed in Acts (5:42; 8:4-5, 35; 11:20; 17:18) and in Paul’s writings (Rom 1:1-4; 10:8-17; 15:19-20; 2 Cor 4:4-6; 11:4; Gal 1:16; Eph 3:8; Phil 1:15-18; 2 Tm 2:8). The NT always speaks of the gospel<\/em>—never the gospels—of Christ. A second gospel is as inconceivable and as unnecessary as a second Christ. This is the one gospel that God authorizes (e.g., Rom 1:1-17) and proclaims (e.g., 2 Thes 2:13-14). Galatians 2:7-9 speaks not of two gospels but of two mission fields. Paul (the apostle to the uncircumcised) and Peter (the apostle to the circumcised) are both entrusted with “the gospel of Christ” (Gal 1:7; cf. 1 Cor 15:1-11), the message that God has ordained for the salvation of Jews and Gentiles alike (Rom 1:16). The “different gospel” that Paul denounces in Galatians 1:6-9 and 2 Corinthians 11:4 is not another gospel about Jesus but a message about “another Jesus”—not the real one, but one who exists only in the minds and the messages of those who proclaim him. To preach the true Christ is to preach the true gospel, however questionable one’s motives (Phil 1:15-18, 27), and to respond rightly to the gospel is to turn to Christ (Acts 11:20-21; Rom 10:8-17; Gal 2:14-16).<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel as a Witness to Saving Events<\/h5>\nThe gospel bears witness to every aspect of Christ’s saving work, from his birth (Rom 1:3; 2 Tm 2:8) and public ministry (Mk 1:1; Acts 10:36-38) to his second coming (Col 1:5, 23; cf. 3:1-4; 1 Thes 1:5-10) and the last judgment (Rom 2:16). But it is the death and the resurrection of Christ that are most crucial for the accomplishment of salvation, and that are therefore most prominent in the gospel’s witness. These are the events with which Mark’s proclamation climaxes (chs 15–16), and for which everything else prepares (8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34; 12:6-8); special stress is placed upon Jesus’ death as the means of salvation from sin (10:45; 14:3-9, 22-24). In Paul’s gospel, too, the death and resurrection of Jesus are central (Rom 4:25; 1 Cor 15:1-4), with the cross occupying the very center (1 Cor 1:17–2:5). Had Christ not risen from the dead, Paul argues, the preaching of the cross would be a waste of time (1 Cor 15:14, 17; cf. Rom 6:3-11). However, now that Christ has risen, his death deserves special emphasis as the place where God provides atonement for sins (Rom 3:21-26; 5:6-11; 2 Cor 5:14-21; Eph 1:7). The gospel according to Acts proclaims Jesus’ death (Acts 8:25; 20:24, 28; cf. 10:36-43) and preeminently his resurrection, the event by which he conquered death and was exalted as Lord and coming Judge (10:36-43; 13:32-33; 17:18, 31). According to 1 Peter, the bearers of the gospel (1 Pt 1:12) concentrated, as had the OT prophets, on “the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glory” (1:11; cf. 1:18-19; 2:21-24; 3:18-22).<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel as a Power for Salvation<\/h5>\nThe gospel is much more than a report of past events and an exposition of doctrine. Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 1:17-18 and again in Romans 1:16 that the gospel is “the power of God”—not merely a witness to his power but an expression<\/em> of his power. Thus, it cannot be fettered (2 Tm 2:8-9). “Our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power,” Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 1:5. His point is not that the gospel was accompanied by mighty works (though this happened; cf. Rom 15:18-19), but that the gospel itself is a mighty work. God makes it so through his Holy Spirit (Rom 15:18-19; 1 Cor 2:1-5; 1 Thes 1:6). Furthermore, God’s singular purpose in exercising his power is to change people’s lives, to liberate them from sin and death, and to reconcile them to himself—in short, to save them. The gospel has power to effect the salvation it announces and to impart the life it promises (e.g., Rom 1:16; 10:8-17; 1 Cor 1:17-18; 15:1-2; Eph 1:13; 2 Thes 2:13-14; 2 Tm 1:8-11; 1 Pt 1:23-25). If people are to experience salvation, they must hear and believe the gospel. It is precisely in and through this message that the saving power manifested in the person and work of Christ (especially in his death and resurrection) is conveyed to men and made effective in their lives. Similarly it is in association with the gospel, or as a direct result of the reception of the gospel, that the Holy Spirit is imparted to believers (Acts 10:36-44; 15:7-8; 2 Cor 11:4; Gal 3:1-2). In short, the gospel is the decisive place of encounter between the sinner and God the Savior.<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel of Grace<\/h5>\nAccording to Peter’s testimony at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:7-11), an essential part of the gospel—for Gentiles and Jews alike—is salvation “through the grace of the Lord Jesus.” Toward the close of his missionary career, Paul states that his basic concern has been “to testify to the gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24, rsv<\/span>). This statement can be understood only in relation to Paul’s concept of the righteousness of God, particularly as set forth in Romans. Paul is here not merely expounding a divine attribute. Rather, he is dramatizing a divine activity—the manifestation of God’s righteousness now, “in the present time” (Rom 3:26), in the new age inaugurated by the coming of Jesus. The manifestation is twofold. Viewing the two aspects together, and doing so in the light of the gospel declared by Isaiah and by Jesus (both of whom strongly influenced Paul), respectively, will help us to understand why Paul speaks of “the gospel of the grace of God.”<\/p>\nFirst, the gospel is a witness<\/em> to God’s grace. In offering his Son as a sacrifice for sins (Rom 3:25a), God demonstrates his righteousness (vv 25b-26). That is, in the death of Jesus sins formerly “passed over” (v 25c) become the object of God’s wrath (cf. 1:18) and judgment. Yet in the very place where God deals justly and decisively with sins, he shows his grace to sinners. For the judgment against sin is focused not upon the sinners themselves but upon the One appointed to act on their behalf and to stand in their place (Rom 4:25; 5:6, 11; cf. 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 3:13). On this basis, sinners are freely pardoned (Rom 3:24). “The grace of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 15:11) toward the sinful is also in evidence, for he willingly bears their iniquities and suffers the consequences of their wrongdoing (Gal 2:20; cf. 2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:6-8).<\/p>\nSecond, the gospel is a channel<\/em> of God’s grace. “The righteousness of God is revealed” in the gospel, says Paul (Rom 1:17). By this he means, not that the gospel talks about the righteousness of God (though it does), but that God’s righteousness is actively at work in the gospel. This activity in turn explains how the gospel becomes “the power of God for salvation” (v 16). And just how does God demonstrate his righteousness at this stage? In short, by bestowing it as a free gift on sinful human beings. It remains the righteousness of God, but by God’s grace, it is a righteousness in which humans may share. Furthermore, partaking of God’s righteousness depends on being personally united with Jesus Christ. In Paul’s view the saved person is one who has been acquitted, justified, “declared righteous” by God the judge. The basis for the verdict is not that I in myself am righteous (God justifies the ungodly, Rom 4:5). Nor does God treat me as though I were righteous. According to Paul I am declared righteous because I really am<\/em> righteous—not in myself but in Christ (1 Cor 1:30; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9). This union is established through the revelation—and the free offer—of God’s righteousness in the gospel (Rom 1:16-17).<\/p>\n<h5>Responding to the Gospel<\/h5>\nThe gospel calls for a threefold response:<\/p>\n1. Believing.<\/em> The gospel, says Paul, is “the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith” (Rom 1:16). For Paul, faith is the abandonment of all reliance upon “works of law” for justification (3:28) and utter dependence upon the grace of God as demonstrated in the work of Christ, especially his death (v 25). Accordingly, the “different gospel” of Galatians 1:6 and 2 Corinthians 11:4 is spurious, for it preaches salvation by personal merit rather than (or together with) the work of Christ (cf. Gal 2:16). Ultimately faith rests upon God (Rom 4:24; 1 Thes 1:8-9) and upon Christ (Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 2:16, 20). Yet it is imperative that one believe the gospel also (Acts 8:12; 11:20-21; 15:7; Rom 1:16; 10:8-17; 1 Cor 1:17-24; Phil 1:27; Heb 4:2), for it is just by this means that God’s salvation is made known and mediated. Moreover, believing the gospel entails repentance (Acts 14:15; 20:21, 24; 1 Thes 1:5-10) and obedience (Rom 1:5; 15:16-18; Heb 4:6). Those who refuse to obey the gospel are imperiling their lives (2 Thes 1:5-10; 1 Pt 4:17).<\/p>\n2. Growing.<\/em> The Gospel is more than a message to be received—it is also a place in which to stand (1 Cor 15:1-2). It is sustainer of life as well as giver of life. One grows as a Christian not by turning from the gospel to other things (to turn away from the gospel is to abandon God and Christ, Gal 1:6), but by going ever more deeply into the gospel. In Romans 1:15 Paul expresses his eagerness to proclaim the gospel to the Christians in Rome. In the following chapters, anticipating his visit, he offers one of his most profound expositions of the gospel—one whose truth has never been fathomed and whose power has never been exhausted.<\/p>\n3. Hoping.<\/em> “The hope of the gospel” (Col 1:23) includes not only the return of Christ and the glory of heaven (Col 1:5; 3:1-4; 2 Thes 2:14-16) but the final judgment as well. For those who embrace the gospel, the last judgment holds no terrors, because the Judge is the very one who rescues them from the wrath to come (1 Thes 1:10). Those who are united to him need not dread condemnation now or at the end (Rom 8:1). Instead, the last judgment will mark their final vindication (1 Cor 4:5; Gal 5:5). Accordingly, this theme is not just a corollary but an integral part of the Good News (Rom 2:16). Those who have died since believing the gospel (1 Pt 4:6) may seem to have suffered a fate common to all people, or even the condemnation reserved for the lawless; in fact, their response to the gospel assures them of approval by the coming Lord (4:5-6; 5:4) and of a share in the imperishable inheritance of heaven (1:4).<\/p>","summary_ro":"GOSPEL Word derived from the Anglo-Saxon godspell denoting “glad tidings” or “good news.” Preview • The Gospel Message of Isaiah • The Gospel in the New Testament • The Good News of Christ’s Coming • The Gospel according to Jesus • The Gospel after Jesus’ Resurrection The Gospel Message of Isaiah Of all the passages cited, those of Isaiah provide the most important background for the gospel in the NT. According to Isaiah’s gospel, it is God alone who saves, and there is no explanation for his...","summary_en":"GOSPEL Word derived from the Anglo-Saxon godspell denoting “glad tidings” or “good news.” Preview • The Gospel Message of Isaiah • The Gospel in the New Testament • The Good News of Christ’s Coming • The Gospel according to Jesus • The Gospel after Jesus’ Resurrection The Gospel Message of Isaiah Of all the passages cited, those of Isaiah provide the most important background for the gospel in the NT. According to Isaiah’s gospel, it is God alone who saves, and there is no explanation for his...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":31569,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Prophecy","title_en":"Prophecy","content_ro":"<h3>PROPHECY<\/h3>\nTerm, along with its English cognates (“prophet,” “to prophesy,” “prophetism,” and “prophetic”), derived from a group of Greek words that, in secular Greek, mean “speak forth,” “proclaim,” “announce.” In biblical Greek, however, these terms always carry the connotation of speaking, proclaiming, or announcing something under the influence of spiritual inspiration.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Prophecy in the Old Testament<\/p>\n• Types of Old Testament Prophets<\/p>\n• The Message of the Prophets<\/p>\n• Prophecy in the New Testament<\/p>\n• The Role of the Christian Prophet<\/p>\nProphecy in the Old Testament<\/p>\nOne of the clearest and most significant statements on the nature of prophetic inspiration in the OT is found in Numbers 12:6-8: “The Lord<\/span> said to them, ‘Now listen to me! Even with prophets, I the Lord<\/span> communicate by visions and dreams. But that is not how I communicate with my servant Moses. He is entrusted with my entire house. I speak to him face to face, directly and not in riddles! He sees the Lord<\/span> as he is’ ” (nlt<\/span>). Several important insights into the nature of prophetic inspiration are found in this passage: (1) The prophetic gift of Moses was unique in that he alone received revelations directly from God. (2) Ordinarily, prophetic revelation was received through the medium of a dream or a vision. (3) The meaning of prophetic revelation is not always completely clear; prophecy is sometimes ambiguous.<\/p>\nFurther insight into the nature of prophetic revelation is found in Deuteronomy 18:18: “I [God] will raise up for them a prophet like you [Moses] from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him” (rsv<\/span>). While this passage is of interest because Jesus was identified as “the prophet like Moses” who came in fulfillment of this prediction (Acts 3:22; 7:37), the more immediate historical reference is to the succession of prophets that guided Israel from Joshua to Malachi. The phrase “I will put my words in his mouth” refers to the process of divine inspiration and is reminiscent of the common OT prophetic formula “the word of the Lord came to [such and such a prophet]” (for examples, see 1 Sm 15:10; 2 Sm 24:11; 1 Kgs 19:9; Jon 1:1; Hg 1:1; 2:1, 20; Zec 7:1, 8; 8:1). A true prophet is one who speaks (or repeats) all that God has told him.<\/p>\n<h5>Modes of Prophetic Inspiration<\/h5>\nDreams were a commonly recognized mode of inspiration throughout the ancient world, though they were more highly regarded in Greece than in ancient Israel. Revelatory dreams in the Bible fall into two major categories: (1) dreams whose meaning is self-evident, and (2) symbolic dreams that usually require the expertise of an interpreter of dreams. Both types normally involve both visual and auditory elements. In those dreams whose meaning is self-evident, normally a supernatural being (God or an angel) appears to the dreamer and speaks to him or her in a straightforward manner.<\/p>\nMore frequently, revelatory dreams have symbolic elements that require interpretation. The two great dream interpreters of the OT are Joseph and Daniel; the latter is clearly a prophet. The two symbolic dreams that Joseph himself dreamed (Gn 37:5-11) had sufficiently self-evident meaning so that his brothers and father were able to interpret them immediately. More complex were the dreams of the butler and baker (40:1-19) and of Pharaoh (41:1-36), which Joseph was able to interpret with the help of God. Similarly, Daniel was enabled to interpret the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar (Dn 2:25-45; 4:4-27). The skill in interpreting such dreams was attributed by both Joseph and Daniel to God (Gn 40:8; 41:16, 25; Dn 2:27-30; cf. 4:9). While dreams are used almost interchangeably with visions in referring to modes of prophetic inspiration (Jl 2:28), dreams do not occupy a significant part in the prophetic revelations of any of the OT prophets, with the exception of Daniel.<\/p>\nOne of the most characteristic modes of prophetic inspiration was the vision (Nm 12:6; 24:4, 16; Hos 12:10). The revelatory visions experienced by the prophets were not limited to visual phenomena alone but also included the auditory dimension as well. In Isaiah 1:1, the author describes his entire prophetic book as a “vision”: “These visions concerning Judah and Jerusalem came to Isaiah son of Amoz during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah—all kings of Judah” (nlt<\/span>). Yet in the very next verse, Isaiah says, “Hear, O heavens! Listen, O earth! This is what the Lord<\/span> says.” Again, in Amos 1:1, “The words<\/em> of Amos, who was among the shepherds of Tekoa, which he saw<\/em> concerning Israel” (rsv<\/span>, emphasis added).<\/p>\n<h5>Manifestations of Prophetic Inspiration<\/h5>\nAll prophecy, whether biblical or not, presupposes that the prophet either possessed or was possessed by a personal supernatural power. The external behavioral manifestations of this possession can exhibit great variety.<\/p>\nThe prophetic phenomenon generally designated “ecstatic” prophecy appears to have existed in Canaan prior to the arrival of the Hebrew tribes in the 13th century BC<\/span>. The first reference to ecstatic prophecy in Israel occurs in 1 Samuel 10:5-13 (11th century BC<\/span>), and it persisted at least till the sixth century BC<\/span> (Jer 29:26).<\/p>\nThe ecstatic prophet achieves a trancelike state by self-induced means. The most common devices used to achieve a state of ecstasy were musical instruments, such as the harp, tambourine, flute, and lyre (1 Sm 10:5). Among the prophets of Baal, self-flagellation was another means of inducing ecstasy (1 Kgs 18:28-29).<\/p>\nThis kind of prophetic ecstasy was usually practiced by groups of prophets (1 Sm 10:5), and such ecstasy was contagious. When Saul met a band of such prophets, the Spirit of God came upon him and he, too, began to prophesy (vv 10-13), a phenomenon that occurred repeatedly to various messengers sent by Saul on a later occasion (19:20-22). At that time Saul again prophesied, and his ecstatic behavior is described in 1 Samuel 19:24. When Elisha was asked to prophesy for King Jehoram of Israel, he first requested a minstrel. When the minstrel played, the power of the Lord came upon him (2 Kgs 3:15).<\/p>\nTypes of Old Testament Prophets<\/p>\nThere are two basic types of prophetic commission in the OT. One type is that of a narrative call by God to a particular individual whose objections to the call are gradually overcome in a dialogue between himself and God. The classic example of this type of prophetic commission is found in Jeremiah 1:4-8:<\/p>\nThe Lord<\/span> gave me a message. He said, “I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb. Before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as my spokesman to the world.”<\/p>\n<blockquote>“O Sovereign Lord<\/span>,” I said, “I can’t speak for you! I’m too young!”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>“Don’t say that,” the Lord<\/span> replied, “for you must go wherever I send you and say whatever I tell you. And don’t be afraid of the people, for I will be with you and take care of you. I, the Lord<\/span>, have spoken!” (nlt<\/span>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nSimilar prophetic commissions including such dialogues are associated with the calls of Moses (Ex 3:1–4:17) and Gideon (Jgs 6:11-17).<\/p>\nThe second major form of prophetic commission is the “throne vision.” An outstanding example is Isaiah 6:1-8:<\/p>\nIn the year King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord. He was sitting on a lofty throne, and the train of his robe filled the Temple. . . .<\/p>\n<blockquote>Then I said, “My destruction is sealed, for I am a sinful man and a member of a sinful race. Yet I have seen the King, the Lord<\/span> Almighty!”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>Then one of the seraphim flew over to the altar, and he picked up a burning coal with a pair of tongs. He touched my lips with it and said, “See, this coal has touched your lips. Now your guilt is removed, and your sins are forgiven.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>Then I heard the Lord asking, “Whom should I send as a messenger to my people? Who will go for us?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>And I said, “Lord, I’ll go! Send me.” (nlt<\/span>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nHere we have an account of the visionary presence of a prophet in the heavenly council; in this case, however, the prophet participates in the deliberations and thereby receives a prophetic commission. Though few prophets have left accounts of their divine commissions, most of them appear to have been conscious of having been “sent” by God (Is 48:16; Hos 8:1; Am 7:14-15). According to Jeremiah, false prophets did not receive such divine commissions (Jer 23:21, 32; 28:15).<\/p>\nThe Message of the Prophets<\/p>\n<h5>The Form of the Message<\/h5>\nThe most common introductory formula for prophetic oracles in the OT is the phrase “Thus says the Lord,” which occurs hundreds of times in prophetic contexts. This formula clearly implies that the pronouncement so introduced is not the word of the prophet who utters the oracle but of the God of Israel who delivered his word to his prophet. The use of this formula also reiterates the prophet’s sense of divine commission. In oracles introduced in this manner, God speaks in the first person. In fact, virtually all Israelite prophetic utterance is formulated as the direct speech of the God of Israel.<\/p>\nThe prophets used many literary forms in which to express their oracles. Two of the more widely used forms of prophetic speech are the judgment speech and the oracle of salvation. The judgment speech is composed of at least two central elements: the speech of rebuke or invective, and the pronouncement of judgment (see 2 Kgs 1:3-4). The second common prophetic speech form is the oracle of salvation (see Is 41:8-13). Other fixed forms of prophetic speech include the prophecy of salvation (43:14-21), the proclamation of salvation (41:17-20; 42:14-17; 43:16-21; 49:7-12), and the woe oracle (Is 5:8-10; 10:1-4; Am 5:18-24; 6:1-7; Mi 2:1-5).<\/p>\n<h5>The Content of the Message<\/h5>\nThe common adage that OT prophets were not “foretellers” but “forthtellers” is not strictly correct. All of the prophets predict the future. Such prediction, however, is based not on human curiosity of what the future will hold but rather is rooted in the future consequences of past or present violations of the covenant, or on a future act of deliverance that will provide hope for a discouraged people. Most of the prophetic speeches that have been preserved in the OT were originally delivered as public proclamations or sermons. Most of these prophetic proclamations were evoked by the iniquity and apostasy of Israel. Hosea and Jeremiah condemned Israel because she had broken the covenant (Jer 11:2-3; Hos 8:1).<\/p>\nThe prophets are frequently associated with social justice and social reform, and these elements were unquestionably an important dimension of their message. Amos denounced the rich who afflicted the poor (Am 2:6-8; 4:1; 5:11; 8:4-6). He railed against sexual immorality (2:6-8) and against those who take bribes (5:12). Hosea provided a list of prevalent vices, including lying, killing, stealing, adultery, and idolatry (Hos 4:2). Idolatry was a particular target for his denunciations (8:5; 11:2). The background for such heated denunciations of Israel’s behavior is God’s unquenchable love for Israel (Is 43:4; Jer 31:3; Hos 3:1; 11:1-4; 14:4; Mal 1:2), which is inseparable from his election of Israel (Is 43:1; Jer 33:24; Ez 20:5; Hos 3).<\/p>\nThe prophets were concerned not only with the transgressions of Israel and the historical judgment that would inevitably follow but also with the achievement of a final future time of bliss. The message of many of the prophets is thoroughly eschatological (i.e., pertaining to the end times). One such eschatological concept is that of the Day of the Lord. The concept of the Day of the Lord first appears in Amos, where the emphasis lies on the disaster that will befall Israel on that day. Amos’s emphasis on disaster notwithstanding, the Day of the Lord is a conception that had both salvific as well as judgmental overtones for Israel. While the disaster that will occur in the Day of the Lord can be viewed in terms of a literal historical fulfillment in the tragic events of 722 BC<\/span> (the fall of Samaria) and 586 BC<\/span> (the fall of Judah), there are nevertheless features of these predictions that transcend historical fulfillment and reach toward eschatological fulfillment.<\/p>\nSince the Israelite conception of “salvation” was largely temporal in its dimensions, it included such blessings as length of life, fruitfulness of the womb and field, peace and victory over one’s enemies, the abundance of water, and so on. In harmony with this conception of salvation, the future age is conceived in precisely those terms, as in Amos 9:13-15.<\/p>\nThe prophets pictured a time when David himself, or someone very much like him, would return and inaugurate a golden era reminiscent of the great Davidic and Solomonic period. The covenant of God with David was not a conditional covenant but rather one that was absolutely inviolable (2 Sm 7:4-17; Ps 89; Jer 33:19-22), and it was with this knowledge that the prophets could look forward confidently to a restoration of David’s throne (Jer 17:24-26; 23:5-6; 33:14-15).<\/p>\n\nProphecy in the New Testament<\/p>\nIn contrast to the few self-proclaimed prophets of the intertestamental period, early Christianity began with a flurry of prophetic activity that lasted well into the second century AD<\/span>. Jesus, his disciples and followers, and the early Christians were convinced that the times in which they lived were times in which OT prophecy was being fulfilled (Mk 1:14-15; Acts 2:16-21; Rom 16:25-27; 1 Cor 10:11). Yet this era was not only one of fulfillment but also one of the renewal of the prophetic gift.<\/p>\n<h5>John the Baptist<\/h5>\nJohn the Baptist is remembered in the NT primarily as the forerunner of Jesus whose coming was predicted by Malachi (Mal 4:5-6). Yet, in his own right, John proclaimed the imminent judgment of God with a flair of denunciation and rebuke reminiscent of the OT prophets. John’s costume, consisting of a hairy cloak and a leather girdle (Mk 1:6), was reminiscent of the typical garb of OT prophets (1 Kgs 19:19; 2 Kgs 1:8; 2:13-14; Zec 13:4). John was regarded as a prophet by people everywhere (Mt 14:5; 17:10-13; Mk 9:11-13; 11:32; Lk 1:76; 7:26). Luke reports, in a style similar to the OT prophetic narratives, that “the word of God came to John” (Lk 3:2). Two short prophetic speeches have been preserved in Matthew 3:7-10 (cf. Lk 3:7-9) and Mark 1:7-8 (cf. Mt 3:11-12; Lk 3:15-18). In the first speech, John denounced those of his generation who had transgressed the covenant law and exhorted them to change their manner of life. In the second speech, John predicted the coming of the Mighty One, Jesus (Mt 3:11; Mk 1:7; Lk 3:16; Jn 1:15, 27, 30; Acts 13:25). John’s style, however, was not precisely that of the OT prophets. His pronouncements were made on his own authority; never did he use formulas such as “thus says the Lord,” or present his prophetic utterances as if they were speeches made by God. Yet, in spite of these differences, John is appropriately regarded as the last representative of the OT prophetic tradition (Mt 11:13; Lk 16:16).<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus of Nazareth<\/h5>\nJesus was popularly regarded as a prophet (Mt 16:14; 21:10-11; Mk 6:14-15; 8:28; Lk 7:16, 39; 9:8, 19; Jn 6:14; 7:40, 52). This assessment was based as much on the mighty deeds Jesus performed as on his prophetic speeches and predictions. Though Jesus nowhere claimed prophetic status directly, that claim is implicit in Mark 6:4: “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown” (cf. Mt 13:57; Lk 4:24). It is implicit as well in Luke 13:33: “Yes, today, tomorrow, and the next day I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be killed except in Jerusalem!” (nlt<\/span>). In Acts, Jesus is regarded as “the prophet like Moses” predicted in Deuteronomy 18:18 (Acts 3:22; 7:37). Matthew presents Jesus as the New Moses, but he does not particularly emphasize his prophetic role. John, however, like Luke, emphasizes Jesus’ role as the prophet (Jn 4:19; 6:14-15; 7:40).<\/p>\nWhile the Gospels and Acts reflect the notion that Jesus was a prophet, they also emphasize the fact that he was much more than a prophet. Nevertheless, the notion of prophetism was sufficiently important in early Judaism that Jesus’ recognition as a prophet is very significant. There are 12 solid reasons for regarding Jesus as a prophet in the OT tradition: (1) The sovereign authority of Jesus’ teaching (Mk 1:27), a feature underlined by his use of the introductory formula “(Amen) I say to you,” which is reminiscent of the formula “thus says the Lord” used by the OT prophets. (2) The poetic character of many of Jesus’ sayings is unlike contemporary rabbinic teaching but is similar to the poetic rhetoric of the OT prophets. (3) Jesus experienced visions (Lk 10:18) like the ancient prophets. (4) Jesus, like the prophets, made many predictions (Mt 23:38; Mk 13:2; 14:58; Lk 13:35; etc.). (5) Like the OT prophets, Jesus performed symbolic acts (such as the cleansing of the temple, the entry into Jerusalem, and the Last Supper). (6) Jesus, like the prophets, when necessary, rejected the formal observance of religious ritual and emphasized the moral and spiritual dimensions of obedience to God. (7) Jesus announced the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God—an eschatological proclamation similar to those made by the prophets. (8) Like the OT prophets, Jesus functioned as a preacher of repentance. (9) Jesus, like many of the prophets, was conscious of a special calling of God (Mt 15:24; Mk 8:31; 9:37; 14:36; Lk 4:18-26). (10) Jesus, like the prophets, received divine revelation through intimate communion with God (Mt 11:27; Lk 10:22). (11) Like the prophets, Jesus represented God; to obey him was to obey God, to reject him was to reject God (Mk 9:37; cf. Ez 33:30-33). (12) Like the prophets, Jesus was conscious of a mission to all Israel (Mt 15:24; 19:28; Lk 22:30).<\/p>\nAmong the many prophetic predictions of Jesus are the following:<\/p>\n1. Predictions of the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God (Mt 10:7-8, 23; 23:39; Mk 1:15; 9:1; 13:28-29)<\/p>\n<li>2. Predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (Mt 23:37-39; 24:2; 26:61; 27:40; Mk 13:2; 14:58; 15:29; Lk 13:34-35; 21:6; Jn 2:19-21)<\/li>\n<li>3. Predictions of the coming of the Son of Man (Mt 10:23, 32-33; 12:40; 13:40-41; 16:27; 24:27, 37-39; Mk 8:38; 13:26-27; 14:62; Lk 9:26; 11:30; 12:8-9; 17:24, 26)<\/li>\n<li>4. Predictions of the end of the age. The longest prophetic section in the Gospels is the eschatological discourse of Jesus in Mark 13:1-32 (cf. Mt 24:1-36; Lk 21:5-33), in which a number of predictions concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the age are woven into a lengthy discourse to the disciples.<\/li>\n<h5>Prophecy as a Gift for the Believers<\/h5>\nThe beginning of prophetic activity in early Christianity, according to Acts, coincided with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the earliest Christians on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-21). Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost indicates that the outpouring of the Spirit fulfilled Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:4, 17-21; cf. Jl 2:28-32). Further, since the Spirit had been poured out upon all early Christians (that Spirit being a Spirit of prophecy), all are actual or potential prophets.<\/p>\nAccording to 1 Corinthians 12:28 (see also Rom 12:6; Eph 4:11), God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, and third teachers. The names of several early Christian prophets have been preserved. These include Agabus (Acts 11:27-28; 21:10-11); Judas and Silas (15:32); Barnabas, Simeon Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, and Paul (13:1); and the four virgin daughters of Philip the evangelist (21:8-9). John, the author of Revelation, was certainly a prophet (Rv 1:3; 22:9, 18), though he never directly assumed that title.<\/p>\nThe Role of the Christian Prophet<\/p>\nChristian prophets were leaders in early Christian communities (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11), who exercised their gift in church gatherings (Acts 13:1-3; 11:27-28; 1 Cor 12–14; Rv 1:10). Since the Spirit of God was particularly active in Christian worship, prophecy was a major means whereby God communicated with his people. Prophets, like apostles and teachers, did not hold offices in local communities like bishops, elders, and deacons. Rather, they were chosen, not by individual congregations, but by divine commission and so were honored and accepted in all local communities.<\/p>\nEarly Christian prophets were both itinerant and settled, though itinerant prophets seem to have been more prevalent in Syria-Palestine and Asia Minor than in the European churches.<\/p>\n<h5>The Function of Prophecy<\/h5>\nAccording to Paul, the central purpose of prophecy (as of all other spiritual gifts) is that of building up or edifying the church. According to 1 Corinthians 14:3, “one who prophesies is helping others grow in the Lord, encouraging and comforting them” (nlt<\/span>). Again, in 1 Corinthians 14:4, Paul states that the “one who speaks a word of prophecy strengthens the entire church.” Paul discussed the subject of spiritual gifts, particularly tongues speaking and prophecy, because the Corinthians had placed an excessive emphasis on speaking in tongues. Paul did not object to speaking in tongues (1 Cor 14:18, 39), but he did point out that, since it was generally incomprehensible, the church could not be edified by it. Prophecy, which consisted of comprehensible speech inspired by the Spirit, contributed to the mutual edification, encouragement, and consolation of all present (1 Cor 14:20-25, 39).<\/p>\n<h5>The Content of Christian Prophecy<\/h5>\nWe know only a little about the content of prophecies uttered in the first-century church. Prophetic utterance occasionally provided divine guidance in making important decisions in early Christianity. Through a prophetic utterance, Paul and Barnabas were selected for a particular mission (Acts 13:1-3; cf. 1 Tm 1:18; 4:14). Probably through prophetic utterance, Paul and Timothy were forbidden to preach the gospel in Asia (Acts 16:6), and they were similarly forbidden by the Spirit of Jesus to go into Bithynia (v 7). Perhaps the most frequent use of prophecy is the prediction of the future. Agabus predicted a universal famine (11:28) and the imminent arrest of Paul (21:11). Other prophets had also predicted his impending imprisonment (20:23). The prophecies contained in the Revelation of John are all oriented toward the future events that will gradually unfold in the last days. Yet the purpose of John’s elaborate prophecy is not to satisfy the curiosity of his audience but rather to comfort and encourage them in the midst of persecution.<\/p>\n<h5>The Form of Christian Prophecy<\/h5>\nUnlike the prophets of the OT, Christian prophets did not always present their message in the form of a direct speech from God or Jesus. There are few, if any, formal indicators of the presence of prophetic speech in early Christian literature. The book of Revelation is one notable exception.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Dreams; Oracle; Promise; Prophet, Prophetess; Prophets, False; Visions.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PROPHECY<\/h3>\nTerm, along with its English cognates (“prophet,” “to prophesy,” “prophetism,” and “prophetic”), derived from a group of Greek words that, in secular Greek, mean “speak forth,” “proclaim,” “announce.” In biblical Greek, however, these terms always carry the connotation of speaking, proclaiming, or announcing something under the influence of spiritual inspiration.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Prophecy in the Old Testament<\/p>\n• Types of Old Testament Prophets<\/p>\n• The Message of the Prophets<\/p>\n• Prophecy in the New Testament<\/p>\n• The Role of the Christian Prophet<\/p>\nProphecy in the Old Testament<\/p>\nOne of the clearest and most significant statements on the nature of prophetic inspiration in the OT is found in Numbers 12:6-8: “The Lord<\/span> said to them, ‘Now listen to me! Even with prophets, I the Lord<\/span> communicate by visions and dreams. But that is not how I communicate with my servant Moses. He is entrusted with my entire house. I speak to him face to face, directly and not in riddles! He sees the Lord<\/span> as he is’ ” (nlt<\/span>). Several important insights into the nature of prophetic inspiration are found in this passage: (1) The prophetic gift of Moses was unique in that he alone received revelations directly from God. (2) Ordinarily, prophetic revelation was received through the medium of a dream or a vision. (3) The meaning of prophetic revelation is not always completely clear; prophecy is sometimes ambiguous.<\/p>\nFurther insight into the nature of prophetic revelation is found in Deuteronomy 18:18: “I [God] will raise up for them a prophet like you [Moses] from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him” (rsv<\/span>). While this passage is of interest because Jesus was identified as “the prophet like Moses” who came in fulfillment of this prediction (Acts 3:22; 7:37), the more immediate historical reference is to the succession of prophets that guided Israel from Joshua to Malachi. The phrase “I will put my words in his mouth” refers to the process of divine inspiration and is reminiscent of the common OT prophetic formula “the word of the Lord came to [such and such a prophet]” (for examples, see 1 Sm 15:10; 2 Sm 24:11; 1 Kgs 19:9; Jon 1:1; Hg 1:1; 2:1, 20; Zec 7:1, 8; 8:1). A true prophet is one who speaks (or repeats) all that God has told him.<\/p>\n<h5>Modes of Prophetic Inspiration<\/h5>\nDreams were a commonly recognized mode of inspiration throughout the ancient world, though they were more highly regarded in Greece than in ancient Israel. Revelatory dreams in the Bible fall into two major categories: (1) dreams whose meaning is self-evident, and (2) symbolic dreams that usually require the expertise of an interpreter of dreams. Both types normally involve both visual and auditory elements. In those dreams whose meaning is self-evident, normally a supernatural being (God or an angel) appears to the dreamer and speaks to him or her in a straightforward manner.<\/p>\nMore frequently, revelatory dreams have symbolic elements that require interpretation. The two great dream interpreters of the OT are Joseph and Daniel; the latter is clearly a prophet. The two symbolic dreams that Joseph himself dreamed (Gn 37:5-11) had sufficiently self-evident meaning so that his brothers and father were able to interpret them immediately. More complex were the dreams of the butler and baker (40:1-19) and of Pharaoh (41:1-36), which Joseph was able to interpret with the help of God. Similarly, Daniel was enabled to interpret the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar (Dn 2:25-45; 4:4-27). The skill in interpreting such dreams was attributed by both Joseph and Daniel to God (Gn 40:8; 41:16, 25; Dn 2:27-30; cf. 4:9). While dreams are used almost interchangeably with visions in referring to modes of prophetic inspiration (Jl 2:28), dreams do not occupy a significant part in the prophetic revelations of any of the OT prophets, with the exception of Daniel.<\/p>\nOne of the most characteristic modes of prophetic inspiration was the vision (Nm 12:6; 24:4, 16; Hos 12:10). The revelatory visions experienced by the prophets were not limited to visual phenomena alone but also included the auditory dimension as well. In Isaiah 1:1, the author describes his entire prophetic book as a “vision”: “These visions concerning Judah and Jerusalem came to Isaiah son of Amoz during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah—all kings of Judah” (nlt<\/span>). Yet in the very next verse, Isaiah says, “Hear, O heavens! Listen, O earth! This is what the Lord<\/span> says.” Again, in Amos 1:1, “The words<\/em> of Amos, who was among the shepherds of Tekoa, which he saw<\/em> concerning Israel” (rsv<\/span>, emphasis added).<\/p>\n<h5>Manifestations of Prophetic Inspiration<\/h5>\nAll prophecy, whether biblical or not, presupposes that the prophet either possessed or was possessed by a personal supernatural power. The external behavioral manifestations of this possession can exhibit great variety.<\/p>\nThe prophetic phenomenon generally designated “ecstatic” prophecy appears to have existed in Canaan prior to the arrival of the Hebrew tribes in the 13th century BC<\/span>. The first reference to ecstatic prophecy in Israel occurs in 1 Samuel 10:5-13 (11th century BC<\/span>), and it persisted at least till the sixth century BC<\/span> (Jer 29:26).<\/p>\nThe ecstatic prophet achieves a trancelike state by self-induced means. The most common devices used to achieve a state of ecstasy were musical instruments, such as the harp, tambourine, flute, and lyre (1 Sm 10:5). Among the prophets of Baal, self-flagellation was another means of inducing ecstasy (1 Kgs 18:28-29).<\/p>\nThis kind of prophetic ecstasy was usually practiced by groups of prophets (1 Sm 10:5), and such ecstasy was contagious. When Saul met a band of such prophets, the Spirit of God came upon him and he, too, began to prophesy (vv 10-13), a phenomenon that occurred repeatedly to various messengers sent by Saul on a later occasion (19:20-22). At that time Saul again prophesied, and his ecstatic behavior is described in 1 Samuel 19:24. When Elisha was asked to prophesy for King Jehoram of Israel, he first requested a minstrel. When the minstrel played, the power of the Lord came upon him (2 Kgs 3:15).<\/p>\nTypes of Old Testament Prophets<\/p>\nThere are two basic types of prophetic commission in the OT. One type is that of a narrative call by God to a particular individual whose objections to the call are gradually overcome in a dialogue between himself and God. The classic example of this type of prophetic commission is found in Jeremiah 1:4-8:<\/p>\nThe Lord<\/span> gave me a message. He said, “I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb. Before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as my spokesman to the world.”<\/p>\n<blockquote>“O Sovereign Lord<\/span>,” I said, “I can’t speak for you! I’m too young!”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>“Don’t say that,” the Lord<\/span> replied, “for you must go wherever I send you and say whatever I tell you. And don’t be afraid of the people, for I will be with you and take care of you. I, the Lord<\/span>, have spoken!” (nlt<\/span>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nSimilar prophetic commissions including such dialogues are associated with the calls of Moses (Ex 3:1–4:17) and Gideon (Jgs 6:11-17).<\/p>\nThe second major form of prophetic commission is the “throne vision.” An outstanding example is Isaiah 6:1-8:<\/p>\nIn the year King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord. He was sitting on a lofty throne, and the train of his robe filled the Temple. . . .<\/p>\n<blockquote>Then I said, “My destruction is sealed, for I am a sinful man and a member of a sinful race. Yet I have seen the King, the Lord<\/span> Almighty!”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>Then one of the seraphim flew over to the altar, and he picked up a burning coal with a pair of tongs. He touched my lips with it and said, “See, this coal has touched your lips. Now your guilt is removed, and your sins are forgiven.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>Then I heard the Lord asking, “Whom should I send as a messenger to my people? Who will go for us?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>And I said, “Lord, I’ll go! Send me.” (nlt<\/span>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nHere we have an account of the visionary presence of a prophet in the heavenly council; in this case, however, the prophet participates in the deliberations and thereby receives a prophetic commission. Though few prophets have left accounts of their divine commissions, most of them appear to have been conscious of having been “sent” by God (Is 48:16; Hos 8:1; Am 7:14-15). According to Jeremiah, false prophets did not receive such divine commissions (Jer 23:21, 32; 28:15).<\/p>\nThe Message of the Prophets<\/p>\n<h5>The Form of the Message<\/h5>\nThe most common introductory formula for prophetic oracles in the OT is the phrase “Thus says the Lord,” which occurs hundreds of times in prophetic contexts. This formula clearly implies that the pronouncement so introduced is not the word of the prophet who utters the oracle but of the God of Israel who delivered his word to his prophet. The use of this formula also reiterates the prophet’s sense of divine commission. In oracles introduced in this manner, God speaks in the first person. In fact, virtually all Israelite prophetic utterance is formulated as the direct speech of the God of Israel.<\/p>\nThe prophets used many literary forms in which to express their oracles. Two of the more widely used forms of prophetic speech are the judgment speech and the oracle of salvation. The judgment speech is composed of at least two central elements: the speech of rebuke or invective, and the pronouncement of judgment (see 2 Kgs 1:3-4). The second common prophetic speech form is the oracle of salvation (see Is 41:8-13). Other fixed forms of prophetic speech include the prophecy of salvation (43:14-21), the proclamation of salvation (41:17-20; 42:14-17; 43:16-21; 49:7-12), and the woe oracle (Is 5:8-10; 10:1-4; Am 5:18-24; 6:1-7; Mi 2:1-5).<\/p>\n<h5>The Content of the Message<\/h5>\nThe common adage that OT prophets were not “foretellers” but “forthtellers” is not strictly correct. All of the prophets predict the future. Such prediction, however, is based not on human curiosity of what the future will hold but rather is rooted in the future consequences of past or present violations of the covenant, or on a future act of deliverance that will provide hope for a discouraged people. Most of the prophetic speeches that have been preserved in the OT were originally delivered as public proclamations or sermons. Most of these prophetic proclamations were evoked by the iniquity and apostasy of Israel. Hosea and Jeremiah condemned Israel because she had broken the covenant (Jer 11:2-3; Hos 8:1).<\/p>\nThe prophets are frequently associated with social justice and social reform, and these elements were unquestionably an important dimension of their message. Amos denounced the rich who afflicted the poor (Am 2:6-8; 4:1; 5:11; 8:4-6). He railed against sexual immorality (2:6-8) and against those who take bribes (5:12). Hosea provided a list of prevalent vices, including lying, killing, stealing, adultery, and idolatry (Hos 4:2). Idolatry was a particular target for his denunciations (8:5; 11:2). The background for such heated denunciations of Israel’s behavior is God’s unquenchable love for Israel (Is 43:4; Jer 31:3; Hos 3:1; 11:1-4; 14:4; Mal 1:2), which is inseparable from his election of Israel (Is 43:1; Jer 33:24; Ez 20:5; Hos 3).<\/p>\nThe prophets were concerned not only with the transgressions of Israel and the historical judgment that would inevitably follow but also with the achievement of a final future time of bliss. The message of many of the prophets is thoroughly eschatological (i.e., pertaining to the end times). One such eschatological concept is that of the Day of the Lord. The concept of the Day of the Lord first appears in Amos, where the emphasis lies on the disaster that will befall Israel on that day. Amos’s emphasis on disaster notwithstanding, the Day of the Lord is a conception that had both salvific as well as judgmental overtones for Israel. While the disaster that will occur in the Day of the Lord can be viewed in terms of a literal historical fulfillment in the tragic events of 722 BC<\/span> (the fall of Samaria) and 586 BC<\/span> (the fall of Judah), there are nevertheless features of these predictions that transcend historical fulfillment and reach toward eschatological fulfillment.<\/p>\nSince the Israelite conception of “salvation” was largely temporal in its dimensions, it included such blessings as length of life, fruitfulness of the womb and field, peace and victory over one’s enemies, the abundance of water, and so on. In harmony with this conception of salvation, the future age is conceived in precisely those terms, as in Amos 9:13-15.<\/p>\nThe prophets pictured a time when David himself, or someone very much like him, would return and inaugurate a golden era reminiscent of the great Davidic and Solomonic period. The covenant of God with David was not a conditional covenant but rather one that was absolutely inviolable (2 Sm 7:4-17; Ps 89; Jer 33:19-22), and it was with this knowledge that the prophets could look forward confidently to a restoration of David’s throne (Jer 17:24-26; 23:5-6; 33:14-15).<\/p>\n\nProphecy in the New Testament<\/p>\nIn contrast to the few self-proclaimed prophets of the intertestamental period, early Christianity began with a flurry of prophetic activity that lasted well into the second century AD<\/span>. Jesus, his disciples and followers, and the early Christians were convinced that the times in which they lived were times in which OT prophecy was being fulfilled (Mk 1:14-15; Acts 2:16-21; Rom 16:25-27; 1 Cor 10:11). Yet this era was not only one of fulfillment but also one of the renewal of the prophetic gift.<\/p>\n<h5>John the Baptist<\/h5>\nJohn the Baptist is remembered in the NT primarily as the forerunner of Jesus whose coming was predicted by Malachi (Mal 4:5-6). Yet, in his own right, John proclaimed the imminent judgment of God with a flair of denunciation and rebuke reminiscent of the OT prophets. John’s costume, consisting of a hairy cloak and a leather girdle (Mk 1:6), was reminiscent of the typical garb of OT prophets (1 Kgs 19:19; 2 Kgs 1:8; 2:13-14; Zec 13:4). John was regarded as a prophet by people everywhere (Mt 14:5; 17:10-13; Mk 9:11-13; 11:32; Lk 1:76; 7:26). Luke reports, in a style similar to the OT prophetic narratives, that “the word of God came to John” (Lk 3:2). Two short prophetic speeches have been preserved in Matthew 3:7-10 (cf. Lk 3:7-9) and Mark 1:7-8 (cf. Mt 3:11-12; Lk 3:15-18). In the first speech, John denounced those of his generation who had transgressed the covenant law and exhorted them to change their manner of life. In the second speech, John predicted the coming of the Mighty One, Jesus (Mt 3:11; Mk 1:7; Lk 3:16; Jn 1:15, 27, 30; Acts 13:25). John’s style, however, was not precisely that of the OT prophets. His pronouncements were made on his own authority; never did he use formulas such as “thus says the Lord,” or present his prophetic utterances as if they were speeches made by God. Yet, in spite of these differences, John is appropriately regarded as the last representative of the OT prophetic tradition (Mt 11:13; Lk 16:16).<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus of Nazareth<\/h5>\nJesus was popularly regarded as a prophet (Mt 16:14; 21:10-11; Mk 6:14-15; 8:28; Lk 7:16, 39; 9:8, 19; Jn 6:14; 7:40, 52). This assessment was based as much on the mighty deeds Jesus performed as on his prophetic speeches and predictions. Though Jesus nowhere claimed prophetic status directly, that claim is implicit in Mark 6:4: “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown” (cf. Mt 13:57; Lk 4:24). It is implicit as well in Luke 13:33: “Yes, today, tomorrow, and the next day I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be killed except in Jerusalem!” (nlt<\/span>). In Acts, Jesus is regarded as “the prophet like Moses” predicted in Deuteronomy 18:18 (Acts 3:22; 7:37). Matthew presents Jesus as the New Moses, but he does not particularly emphasize his prophetic role. John, however, like Luke, emphasizes Jesus’ role as the prophet (Jn 4:19; 6:14-15; 7:40).<\/p>\nWhile the Gospels and Acts reflect the notion that Jesus was a prophet, they also emphasize the fact that he was much more than a prophet. Nevertheless, the notion of prophetism was sufficiently important in early Judaism that Jesus’ recognition as a prophet is very significant. There are 12 solid reasons for regarding Jesus as a prophet in the OT tradition: (1) The sovereign authority of Jesus’ teaching (Mk 1:27), a feature underlined by his use of the introductory formula “(Amen) I say to you,” which is reminiscent of the formula “thus says the Lord” used by the OT prophets. (2) The poetic character of many of Jesus’ sayings is unlike contemporary rabbinic teaching but is similar to the poetic rhetoric of the OT prophets. (3) Jesus experienced visions (Lk 10:18) like the ancient prophets. (4) Jesus, like the prophets, made many predictions (Mt 23:38; Mk 13:2; 14:58; Lk 13:35; etc.). (5) Like the OT prophets, Jesus performed symbolic acts (such as the cleansing of the temple, the entry into Jerusalem, and the Last Supper). (6) Jesus, like the prophets, when necessary, rejected the formal observance of religious ritual and emphasized the moral and spiritual dimensions of obedience to God. (7) Jesus announced the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God—an eschatological proclamation similar to those made by the prophets. (8) Like the OT prophets, Jesus functioned as a preacher of repentance. (9) Jesus, like many of the prophets, was conscious of a special calling of God (Mt 15:24; Mk 8:31; 9:37; 14:36; Lk 4:18-26). (10) Jesus, like the prophets, received divine revelation through intimate communion with God (Mt 11:27; Lk 10:22). (11) Like the prophets, Jesus represented God; to obey him was to obey God, to reject him was to reject God (Mk 9:37; cf. Ez 33:30-33). (12) Like the prophets, Jesus was conscious of a mission to all Israel (Mt 15:24; 19:28; Lk 22:30).<\/p>\nAmong the many prophetic predictions of Jesus are the following:<\/p>\n1. Predictions of the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God (Mt 10:7-8, 23; 23:39; Mk 1:15; 9:1; 13:28-29)<\/p>\n<li>2. Predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (Mt 23:37-39; 24:2; 26:61; 27:40; Mk 13:2; 14:58; 15:29; Lk 13:34-35; 21:6; Jn 2:19-21)<\/li>\n<li>3. Predictions of the coming of the Son of Man (Mt 10:23, 32-33; 12:40; 13:40-41; 16:27; 24:27, 37-39; Mk 8:38; 13:26-27; 14:62; Lk 9:26; 11:30; 12:8-9; 17:24, 26)<\/li>\n<li>4. Predictions of the end of the age. The longest prophetic section in the Gospels is the eschatological discourse of Jesus in Mark 13:1-32 (cf. Mt 24:1-36; Lk 21:5-33), in which a number of predictions concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the age are woven into a lengthy discourse to the disciples.<\/li>\n<h5>Prophecy as a Gift for the Believers<\/h5>\nThe beginning of prophetic activity in early Christianity, according to Acts, coincided with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the earliest Christians on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-21). Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost indicates that the outpouring of the Spirit fulfilled Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:4, 17-21; cf. Jl 2:28-32). Further, since the Spirit had been poured out upon all early Christians (that Spirit being a Spirit of prophecy), all are actual or potential prophets.<\/p>\nAccording to 1 Corinthians 12:28 (see also Rom 12:6; Eph 4:11), God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, and third teachers. The names of several early Christian prophets have been preserved. These include Agabus (Acts 11:27-28; 21:10-11); Judas and Silas (15:32); Barnabas, Simeon Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, and Paul (13:1); and the four virgin daughters of Philip the evangelist (21:8-9). John, the author of Revelation, was certainly a prophet (Rv 1:3; 22:9, 18), though he never directly assumed that title.<\/p>\nThe Role of the Christian Prophet<\/p>\nChristian prophets were leaders in early Christian communities (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11), who exercised their gift in church gatherings (Acts 13:1-3; 11:27-28; 1 Cor 12–14; Rv 1:10). Since the Spirit of God was particularly active in Christian worship, prophecy was a major means whereby God communicated with his people. Prophets, like apostles and teachers, did not hold offices in local communities like bishops, elders, and deacons. Rather, they were chosen, not by individual congregations, but by divine commission and so were honored and accepted in all local communities.<\/p>\nEarly Christian prophets were both itinerant and settled, though itinerant prophets seem to have been more prevalent in Syria-Palestine and Asia Minor than in the European churches.<\/p>\n<h5>The Function of Prophecy<\/h5>\nAccording to Paul, the central purpose of prophecy (as of all other spiritual gifts) is that of building up or edifying the church. According to 1 Corinthians 14:3, “one who prophesies is helping others grow in the Lord, encouraging and comforting them” (nlt<\/span>). Again, in 1 Corinthians 14:4, Paul states that the “one who speaks a word of prophecy strengthens the entire church.” Paul discussed the subject of spiritual gifts, particularly tongues speaking and prophecy, because the Corinthians had placed an excessive emphasis on speaking in tongues. Paul did not object to speaking in tongues (1 Cor 14:18, 39), but he did point out that, since it was generally incomprehensible, the church could not be edified by it. Prophecy, which consisted of comprehensible speech inspired by the Spirit, contributed to the mutual edification, encouragement, and consolation of all present (1 Cor 14:20-25, 39).<\/p>\n<h5>The Content of Christian Prophecy<\/h5>\nWe know only a little about the content of prophecies uttered in the first-century church. Prophetic utterance occasionally provided divine guidance in making important decisions in early Christianity. Through a prophetic utterance, Paul and Barnabas were selected for a particular mission (Acts 13:1-3; cf. 1 Tm 1:18; 4:14). Probably through prophetic utterance, Paul and Timothy were forbidden to preach the gospel in Asia (Acts 16:6), and they were similarly forbidden by the Spirit of Jesus to go into Bithynia (v 7). Perhaps the most frequent use of prophecy is the prediction of the future. Agabus predicted a universal famine (11:28) and the imminent arrest of Paul (21:11). Other prophets had also predicted his impending imprisonment (20:23). The prophecies contained in the Revelation of John are all oriented toward the future events that will gradually unfold in the last days. Yet the purpose of John’s elaborate prophecy is not to satisfy the curiosity of his audience but rather to comfort and encourage them in the midst of persecution.<\/p>\n<h5>The Form of Christian Prophecy<\/h5>\nUnlike the prophets of the OT, Christian prophets did not always present their message in the form of a direct speech from God or Jesus. There are few, if any, formal indicators of the presence of prophetic speech in early Christian literature. The book of Revelation is one notable exception.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Dreams; Oracle; Promise; Prophet, Prophetess; Prophets, False; Visions.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PROPHECY Term, along with its English cognates (“prophet,” “to prophesy,” “prophetism,” and “prophetic”), derived from a group of Greek words that, in secular Greek, mean “speak forth,” “proclaim,” “announce.” In biblical Greek, however, these terms always carry the connotation of speaking, proclaiming, or announcing something under the influence of spiritual inspiration. Preview • Prophecy in the Old Testament • Types of Old Testament Prophets • The Message of the Prophets • Prophecy in the ...","summary_en":"PROPHECY Term, along with its English cognates (“prophet,” “to prophesy,” “prophetism,” and “prophetic”), derived from a group of Greek words that, in secular Greek, mean “speak forth,” “proclaim,” “announce.” In biblical Greek, however, these terms always carry the connotation of speaking, proclaiming, or announcing something under the influence of spiritual inspiration. Preview • Prophecy in the Old Testament • Types of Old Testament Prophets • The Message of the Prophets • Prophecy in the ...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55660,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:7","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:7","content_ro":"3:7<\/strong> God’s coming wrath<\/em> is the judgment for all who reject the gospel. Israel as a nation would experience this wrath in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD<\/span> 70 (see 21:20-23).<\/p>","content_en":"3:7<\/strong> God’s coming wrath<\/em> is the judgment for all who reject the gospel. Israel as a nation would experience this wrath in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD<\/span> 70 (see 21:20-23).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:7 God’s coming wrath is the judgment for all who reject the gospel. Israel as a nation would experience this wrath in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (see 21:20-23).","summary_en":"3:7 God’s coming wrath is the judgment for all who reject the gospel. Israel as a nation would experience this wrath in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (see 21:20-23).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83286,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:7","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:7","content_ro":"3:7<\/strong> God’s coming wrath<\/em> is the judgment for all who reject the gospel. Israel as a nation would experience this wrath in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD<\/span> 70 (see 21:20-23).<\/p>","content_en":"3:7<\/strong> God’s coming wrath<\/em> is the judgment for all who reject the gospel. Israel as a nation would experience this wrath in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD<\/span> 70 (see 21:20-23).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:7 God’s coming wrath is the judgment for all who reject the gospel. Israel as a nation would experience this wrath in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (see 21:20-23).","summary_en":"3:7 God’s coming wrath is the judgment for all who reject the gospel. Israel as a nation would experience this wrath in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (see 21:20-23).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110912,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:7","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:7","content_ro":"3:7<\/strong> God’s coming wrath<\/em> is the judgment for all who reject the gospel. Israel as a nation would experience this wrath in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD<\/span> 70 (see 21:20-23).<\/p>","content_en":"3:7<\/strong> God’s coming wrath<\/em> is the judgment for all who reject the gospel. Israel as a nation would experience this wrath in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD<\/span> 70 (see 21:20-23).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:7 God’s coming wrath is the judgment for all who reject the gospel. Israel as a nation would experience this wrath in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (see 21:20-23).","summary_en":"3:7 God’s coming wrath is the judgment for all who reject the gospel. Israel as a nation would experience this wrath in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (see 21:20-23).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138538,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:7","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:7","content_ro":"3:7<\/strong> God’s coming wrath<\/em> is the judgment for all who reject the gospel. Israel as a nation would experience this wrath in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD<\/span> 70 (see 21:20-23).<\/p>","content_en":"3:7<\/strong> God’s coming wrath<\/em> is the judgment for all who reject the gospel. Israel as a nation would experience this wrath in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD<\/span> 70 (see 21:20-23).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:7 God’s coming wrath is the judgment for all who reject the gospel. Israel as a nation would experience this wrath in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (see 21:20-23).","summary_en":"3:7 God’s coming wrath is the judgment for all who reject the gospel. Israel as a nation would experience this wrath in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (see 21:20-23).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":59897,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Covenant with Abraham","title_en":"God’s Covenant with Abraham","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Covenant with Abraham<\/h3>\nThe Lord had already established a relationship with Abraham (Gen 12:1-9) before he made a formal covenant with him (ch Gen 15). God took all the initiative: He approached Abraham and spoke to him in a vision. God presented the impossible promise that the old man would have a son through whom his descendants would eventually be as numerous as the stars of heaven. Abraham believed God (15:6), and his faith proved to be an act of righteousness (see Hab 2:4; Rom 1:17; 4:3, 17; Gal 3:6, 11; Heb 10:37-38).<\/p>\nIn the ancient Near East, kings sometimes granted land or other gifts to loyal subjects. The covenant of Genesis 15 includes a royal grant (15:18-21) in which God, the king, gave land to Abraham, his subject, as a possession and an inheritance. At the end of that day, Abraham knew that his future—and that of his descendants—was firmly in the hands of the covenant God. Later, the grant would be transferred to his descendants.<\/p>\nGod later ratified his covenant with Abraham (17:1-22), giving him circumcision as its sign (17:10) and condition (17:9). The almighty God once again took the initiative (17:1-2) in granting Abraham an extraordinary privilege. The covenant was not a relationship between equals, yet both partners in the covenant assumed responsibilities. God committed himself voluntarily to Abraham and his descendants, while requiring faithfulness from Abraham (17:1, 9-14). The blessing Abraham received as God’s covenant partner was embodied in the new name that God gave him (17:5-6).<\/p>\nGod’s covenant with Abraham also applied to his descendants (13:15-16; 15:3-5; 17:6-10). It pointed to blessing in the relatively near future when his descendants would possess the land (15:12-16). Much later, Abraham’s faith became a blessing to all through his descendant, Jesus Christ, through whom all the families of the earth can share in God’s blessing on Abraham (12:3; see Rom 4:11-25; Gal 3:8-9, 16).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 12:1-3; 15:1-21; 17:1-14; 21:1-2; 22:15-18; Exod 2:24; Deut 1:8; Neh 9:7-8; Ps 105:7-45; Luke 3:7-9; Acts 3:24-26; 7:2-8; Rom 4:11-25; 9:7-8; 11:16-17; Gal 3:6-9, 29; Heb 6:13-15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Covenant with Abraham<\/h3>\nThe Lord had already established a relationship with Abraham (Gen 12:1-9) before he made a formal covenant with him (ch Gen 15). God took all the initiative: He approached Abraham and spoke to him in a vision. God presented the impossible promise that the old man would have a son through whom his descendants would eventually be as numerous as the stars of heaven. Abraham believed God (15:6), and his faith proved to be an act of righteousness (see Hab 2:4; Rom 1:17; 4:3, 17; Gal 3:6, 11; Heb 10:37-38).<\/p>\nIn the ancient Near East, kings sometimes granted land or other gifts to loyal subjects. The covenant of Genesis 15 includes a royal grant (15:18-21) in which God, the king, gave land to Abraham, his subject, as a possession and an inheritance. At the end of that day, Abraham knew that his future—and that of his descendants—was firmly in the hands of the covenant God. Later, the grant would be transferred to his descendants.<\/p>\nGod later ratified his covenant with Abraham (17:1-22), giving him circumcision as its sign (17:10) and condition (17:9). The almighty God once again took the initiative (17:1-2) in granting Abraham an extraordinary privilege. The covenant was not a relationship between equals, yet both partners in the covenant assumed responsibilities. God committed himself voluntarily to Abraham and his descendants, while requiring faithfulness from Abraham (17:1, 9-14). The blessing Abraham received as God’s covenant partner was embodied in the new name that God gave him (17:5-6).<\/p>\nGod’s covenant with Abraham also applied to his descendants (13:15-16; 15:3-5; 17:6-10). It pointed to blessing in the relatively near future when his descendants would possess the land (15:12-16). Much later, Abraham’s faith became a blessing to all through his descendant, Jesus Christ, through whom all the families of the earth can share in God’s blessing on Abraham (12:3; see Rom 4:11-25; Gal 3:8-9, 16).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 12:1-3; 15:1-21; 17:1-14; 21:1-2; 22:15-18; Exod 2:24; Deut 1:8; Neh 9:7-8; Ps 105:7-45; Luke 3:7-9; Acts 3:24-26; 7:2-8; Rom 4:11-25; 9:7-8; 11:16-17; Gal 3:6-9, 29; Heb 6:13-15<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Covenant with Abraham The Lord had already established a relationship with Abraham (Gen 12:1-9) before he made a formal covenant with him (ch Gen 15). God took all the initiative: He approached Abraham and spoke to him in a vision. God presented the impossible promise that the old man would have a son through whom his descendants would eventually be as numerous as the stars of heaven. Abraham believed God (15:6), and his faith proved to be an act of righteousness (see Hab 2:4; Rom 1:17;...","summary_en":"God’s Covenant with Abraham The Lord had already established a relationship with Abraham (Gen 12:1-9) before he made a formal covenant with him (ch Gen 15). God took all the initiative: He approached Abraham and spoke to him in a vision. God presented the impossible promise that the old man would have a son through whom his descendants would eventually be as numerous as the stars of heaven. Abraham believed God (15:6), and his faith proved to be an act of righteousness (see Hab 2:4; Rom 1:17;...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":87523,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Covenant with Abraham","title_en":"God’s Covenant with Abraham","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Covenant with Abraham<\/h3>\nThe Lord had already established a relationship with Abraham (Gen 12:1-9) before he made a formal covenant with him (ch Gen 15). God took all the initiative: He approached Abraham and spoke to him in a vision. God presented the impossible promise that the old man would have a son through whom his descendants would eventually be as numerous as the stars of heaven. Abraham believed God (15:6), and his faith proved to be an act of righteousness (see Hab 2:4; Rom 1:17; 4:3, 17; Gal 3:6, 11; Heb 10:37-38).<\/p>\nIn the ancient Near East, kings sometimes granted land or other gifts to loyal subjects. The covenant of Genesis 15 includes a royal grant (15:18-21) in which God, the king, gave land to Abraham, his subject, as a possession and an inheritance. At the end of that day, Abraham knew that his future—and that of his descendants—was firmly in the hands of the covenant God. Later, the grant would be transferred to his descendants.<\/p>\nGod later ratified his covenant with Abraham (17:1-22), giving him circumcision as its sign (17:10) and condition (17:9). The almighty God once again took the initiative (17:1-2) in granting Abraham an extraordinary privilege. The covenant was not a relationship between equals, yet both partners in the covenant assumed responsibilities. God committed himself voluntarily to Abraham and his descendants, while requiring faithfulness from Abraham (17:1, 9-14). The blessing Abraham received as God’s covenant partner was embodied in the new name that God gave him (17:5-6).<\/p>\nGod’s covenant with Abraham also applied to his descendants (13:15-16; 15:3-5; 17:6-10). It pointed to blessing in the relatively near future when his descendants would possess the land (15:12-16). Much later, Abraham’s faith became a blessing to all through his descendant, Jesus Christ, through whom all the families of the earth can share in God’s blessing on Abraham (12:3; see Rom 4:11-25; Gal 3:8-9, 16).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 12:1-3; 15:1-21; 17:1-14; 21:1-2; 22:15-18; Exod 2:24; Deut 1:8; Neh 9:7-8; Ps 105:7-45; Luke 3:7-9; Acts 3:24-26; 7:2-8; Rom 4:11-25; 9:7-8; 11:16-17; Gal 3:6-9, 29; Heb 6:13-15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Covenant with Abraham<\/h3>\nThe Lord had already established a relationship with Abraham (Gen 12:1-9) before he made a formal covenant with him (ch Gen 15). God took all the initiative: He approached Abraham and spoke to him in a vision. God presented the impossible promise that the old man would have a son through whom his descendants would eventually be as numerous as the stars of heaven. Abraham believed God (15:6), and his faith proved to be an act of righteousness (see Hab 2:4; Rom 1:17; 4:3, 17; Gal 3:6, 11; Heb 10:37-38).<\/p>\nIn the ancient Near East, kings sometimes granted land or other gifts to loyal subjects. The covenant of Genesis 15 includes a royal grant (15:18-21) in which God, the king, gave land to Abraham, his subject, as a possession and an inheritance. At the end of that day, Abraham knew that his future—and that of his descendants—was firmly in the hands of the covenant God. Later, the grant would be transferred to his descendants.<\/p>\nGod later ratified his covenant with Abraham (17:1-22), giving him circumcision as its sign (17:10) and condition (17:9). The almighty God once again took the initiative (17:1-2) in granting Abraham an extraordinary privilege. The covenant was not a relationship between equals, yet both partners in the covenant assumed responsibilities. God committed himself voluntarily to Abraham and his descendants, while requiring faithfulness from Abraham (17:1, 9-14). The blessing Abraham received as God’s covenant partner was embodied in the new name that God gave him (17:5-6).<\/p>\nGod’s covenant with Abraham also applied to his descendants (13:15-16; 15:3-5; 17:6-10). It pointed to blessing in the relatively near future when his descendants would possess the land (15:12-16). Much later, Abraham’s faith became a blessing to all through his descendant, Jesus Christ, through whom all the families of the earth can share in God’s blessing on Abraham (12:3; see Rom 4:11-25; Gal 3:8-9, 16).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 12:1-3; 15:1-21; 17:1-14; 21:1-2; 22:15-18; Exod 2:24; Deut 1:8; Neh 9:7-8; Ps 105:7-45; Luke 3:7-9; Acts 3:24-26; 7:2-8; Rom 4:11-25; 9:7-8; 11:16-17; Gal 3:6-9, 29; Heb 6:13-15<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Covenant with Abraham The Lord had already established a relationship with Abraham (Gen 12:1-9) before he made a formal covenant with him (ch Gen 15). God took all the initiative: He approached Abraham and spoke to him in a vision. God presented the impossible promise that the old man would have a son through whom his descendants would eventually be as numerous as the stars of heaven. Abraham believed God (15:6), and his faith proved to be an act of righteousness (see Hab 2:4; Rom 1:17;...","summary_en":"God’s Covenant with Abraham The Lord had already established a relationship with Abraham (Gen 12:1-9) before he made a formal covenant with him (ch Gen 15). God took all the initiative: He approached Abraham and spoke to him in a vision. God presented the impossible promise that the old man would have a son through whom his descendants would eventually be as numerous as the stars of heaven. Abraham believed God (15:6), and his faith proved to be an act of righteousness (see Hab 2:4; Rom 1:17;...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":115149,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Covenant with Abraham","title_en":"God’s Covenant with Abraham","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Covenant with Abraham<\/h3>\nThe Lord had already established a relationship with Abraham (Gen 12:1-9) before he made a formal covenant with him (ch Gen 15). God took all the initiative: He approached Abraham and spoke to him in a vision. God presented the impossible promise that the old man would have a son through whom his descendants would eventually be as numerous as the stars of heaven. Abraham believed God (15:6), and his faith proved to be an act of righteousness (see Hab 2:4; Rom 1:17; 4:3, 17; Gal 3:6, 11; Heb 10:37-38).<\/p>\nIn the ancient Near East, kings sometimes granted land or other gifts to loyal subjects. The covenant of Genesis 15 includes a royal grant (15:18-21) in which God, the king, gave land to Abraham, his subject, as a possession and an inheritance. At the end of that day, Abraham knew that his future—and that of his descendants—was firmly in the hands of the covenant God. Later, the grant would be transferred to his descendants.<\/p>\nGod later ratified his covenant with Abraham (17:1-22), giving him circumcision as its sign (17:10) and condition (17:9). The almighty God once again took the initiative (17:1-2) in granting Abraham an extraordinary privilege. The covenant was not a relationship between equals, yet both partners in the covenant assumed responsibilities. God committed himself voluntarily to Abraham and his descendants, while requiring faithfulness from Abraham (17:1, 9-14). The blessing Abraham received as God’s covenant partner was embodied in the new name that God gave him (17:5-6).<\/p>\nGod’s covenant with Abraham also applied to his descendants (13:15-16; 15:3-5; 17:6-10). It pointed to blessing in the relatively near future when his descendants would possess the land (15:12-16). Much later, Abraham’s faith became a blessing to all through his descendant, Jesus Christ, through whom all the families of the earth can share in God’s blessing on Abraham (12:3; see Rom 4:11-25; Gal 3:8-9, 16).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 12:1-3; 15:1-21; 17:1-14; 21:1-2; 22:15-18; Exod 2:24; Deut 1:8; Neh 9:7-8; Ps 105:7-45; Luke 3:7-9; Acts 3:24-26; 7:2-8; Rom 4:11-25; 9:7-8; 11:16-17; Gal 3:6-9, 29; Heb 6:13-15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Covenant with Abraham<\/h3>\nThe Lord had already established a relationship with Abraham (Gen 12:1-9) before he made a formal covenant with him (ch Gen 15). God took all the initiative: He approached Abraham and spoke to him in a vision. God presented the impossible promise that the old man would have a son through whom his descendants would eventually be as numerous as the stars of heaven. Abraham believed God (15:6), and his faith proved to be an act of righteousness (see Hab 2:4; Rom 1:17; 4:3, 17; Gal 3:6, 11; Heb 10:37-38).<\/p>\nIn the ancient Near East, kings sometimes granted land or other gifts to loyal subjects. The covenant of Genesis 15 includes a royal grant (15:18-21) in which God, the king, gave land to Abraham, his subject, as a possession and an inheritance. At the end of that day, Abraham knew that his future—and that of his descendants—was firmly in the hands of the covenant God. Later, the grant would be transferred to his descendants.<\/p>\nGod later ratified his covenant with Abraham (17:1-22), giving him circumcision as its sign (17:10) and condition (17:9). The almighty God once again took the initiative (17:1-2) in granting Abraham an extraordinary privilege. The covenant was not a relationship between equals, yet both partners in the covenant assumed responsibilities. God committed himself voluntarily to Abraham and his descendants, while requiring faithfulness from Abraham (17:1, 9-14). The blessing Abraham received as God’s covenant partner was embodied in the new name that God gave him (17:5-6).<\/p>\nGod’s covenant with Abraham also applied to his descendants (13:15-16; 15:3-5; 17:6-10). It pointed to blessing in the relatively near future when his descendants would possess the land (15:12-16). Much later, Abraham’s faith became a blessing to all through his descendant, Jesus Christ, through whom all the families of the earth can share in God’s blessing on Abraham (12:3; see Rom 4:11-25; Gal 3:8-9, 16).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 12:1-3; 15:1-21; 17:1-14; 21:1-2; 22:15-18; Exod 2:24; Deut 1:8; Neh 9:7-8; Ps 105:7-45; Luke 3:7-9; Acts 3:24-26; 7:2-8; Rom 4:11-25; 9:7-8; 11:16-17; Gal 3:6-9, 29; Heb 6:13-15<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Covenant with Abraham The Lord had already established a relationship with Abraham (Gen 12:1-9) before he made a formal covenant with him (ch Gen 15). God took all the initiative: He approached Abraham and spoke to him in a vision. God presented the impossible promise that the old man would have a son through whom his descendants would eventually be as numerous as the stars of heaven. Abraham believed God (15:6), and his faith proved to be an act of righteousness (see Hab 2:4; Rom 1:17;...","summary_en":"God’s Covenant with Abraham The Lord had already established a relationship with Abraham (Gen 12:1-9) before he made a formal covenant with him (ch Gen 15). God took all the initiative: He approached Abraham and spoke to him in a vision. God presented the impossible promise that the old man would have a son through whom his descendants would eventually be as numerous as the stars of heaven. Abraham believed God (15:6), and his faith proved to be an act of righteousness (see Hab 2:4; Rom 1:17;...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":142775,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Covenant with Abraham","title_en":"God’s Covenant with Abraham","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Covenant with Abraham<\/h3>\nThe Lord had already established a relationship with Abraham (Gen 12:1-9) before he made a formal covenant with him (ch Gen 15). God took all the initiative: He approached Abraham and spoke to him in a vision. God presented the impossible promise that the old man would have a son through whom his descendants would eventually be as numerous as the stars of heaven. Abraham believed God (15:6), and his faith proved to be an act of righteousness (see Hab 2:4; Rom 1:17; 4:3, 17; Gal 3:6, 11; Heb 10:37-38).<\/p>\nIn the ancient Near East, kings sometimes granted land or other gifts to loyal subjects. The covenant of Genesis 15 includes a royal grant (15:18-21) in which God, the king, gave land to Abraham, his subject, as a possession and an inheritance. At the end of that day, Abraham knew that his future—and that of his descendants—was firmly in the hands of the covenant God. Later, the grant would be transferred to his descendants.<\/p>\nGod later ratified his covenant with Abraham (17:1-22), giving him circumcision as its sign (17:10) and condition (17:9). The almighty God once again took the initiative (17:1-2) in granting Abraham an extraordinary privilege. The covenant was not a relationship between equals, yet both partners in the covenant assumed responsibilities. God committed himself voluntarily to Abraham and his descendants, while requiring faithfulness from Abraham (17:1, 9-14). The blessing Abraham received as God’s covenant partner was embodied in the new name that God gave him (17:5-6).<\/p>\nGod’s covenant with Abraham also applied to his descendants (13:15-16; 15:3-5; 17:6-10). It pointed to blessing in the relatively near future when his descendants would possess the land (15:12-16). Much later, Abraham’s faith became a blessing to all through his descendant, Jesus Christ, through whom all the families of the earth can share in God’s blessing on Abraham (12:3; see Rom 4:11-25; Gal 3:8-9, 16).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 12:1-3; 15:1-21; 17:1-14; 21:1-2; 22:15-18; Exod 2:24; Deut 1:8; Neh 9:7-8; Ps 105:7-45; Luke 3:7-9; Acts 3:24-26; 7:2-8; Rom 4:11-25; 9:7-8; 11:16-17; Gal 3:6-9, 29; Heb 6:13-15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Covenant with Abraham<\/h3>\nThe Lord had already established a relationship with Abraham (Gen 12:1-9) before he made a formal covenant with him (ch Gen 15). God took all the initiative: He approached Abraham and spoke to him in a vision. God presented the impossible promise that the old man would have a son through whom his descendants would eventually be as numerous as the stars of heaven. Abraham believed God (15:6), and his faith proved to be an act of righteousness (see Hab 2:4; Rom 1:17; 4:3, 17; Gal 3:6, 11; Heb 10:37-38).<\/p>\nIn the ancient Near East, kings sometimes granted land or other gifts to loyal subjects. The covenant of Genesis 15 includes a royal grant (15:18-21) in which God, the king, gave land to Abraham, his subject, as a possession and an inheritance. At the end of that day, Abraham knew that his future—and that of his descendants—was firmly in the hands of the covenant God. Later, the grant would be transferred to his descendants.<\/p>\nGod later ratified his covenant with Abraham (17:1-22), giving him circumcision as its sign (17:10) and condition (17:9). The almighty God once again took the initiative (17:1-2) in granting Abraham an extraordinary privilege. The covenant was not a relationship between equals, yet both partners in the covenant assumed responsibilities. God committed himself voluntarily to Abraham and his descendants, while requiring faithfulness from Abraham (17:1, 9-14). The blessing Abraham received as God’s covenant partner was embodied in the new name that God gave him (17:5-6).<\/p>\nGod’s covenant with Abraham also applied to his descendants (13:15-16; 15:3-5; 17:6-10). It pointed to blessing in the relatively near future when his descendants would possess the land (15:12-16). Much later, Abraham’s faith became a blessing to all through his descendant, Jesus Christ, through whom all the families of the earth can share in God’s blessing on Abraham (12:3; see Rom 4:11-25; Gal 3:8-9, 16).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 12:1-3; 15:1-21; 17:1-14; 21:1-2; 22:15-18; Exod 2:24; Deut 1:8; Neh 9:7-8; Ps 105:7-45; Luke 3:7-9; Acts 3:24-26; 7:2-8; Rom 4:11-25; 9:7-8; 11:16-17; Gal 3:6-9, 29; Heb 6:13-15<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Covenant with Abraham The Lord had already established a relationship with Abraham (Gen 12:1-9) before he made a formal covenant with him (ch Gen 15). God took all the initiative: He approached Abraham and spoke to him in a vision. God presented the impossible promise that the old man would have a son through whom his descendants would eventually be as numerous as the stars of heaven. Abraham believed God (15:6), and his faith proved to be an act of righteousness (see Hab 2:4; Rom 1:17;...","summary_en":"God’s Covenant with Abraham The Lord had already established a relationship with Abraham (Gen 12:1-9) before he made a formal covenant with him (ch Gen 15). God took all the initiative: He approached Abraham and spoke to him in a vision. God presented the impossible promise that the old man would have a son through whom his descendants would eventually be as numerous as the stars of heaven. Abraham believed God (15:6), and his faith proved to be an act of righteousness (see Hab 2:4; Rom 1:17;...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"8":[{"id":7510,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Conversion","title_en":"Conversion","content_ro":"<h3>CONVERSION<\/h3>\nTotal change in one’s direction in life or moral orientation. For Christians this means a change from an orientation that does not take God into account to one in which the person is submitted to Christ. Conversion is the result of repentance.<\/p>\nIn the OT conversion is basically a turning or returning from one’s former course of life toward the Lord, the God of Israel. Israel often had to return to their God (Dt 4:30), either as individuals (Ps 51) or as a nation (Jer 4:1); foreign nations needed to turn to God for the first time (Ps 22:27). The characteristic feature is that one turns from wickedness (Jer 26:3; 36:3; Ez 18:21, 27; 33:9, 11), from a life of disloyalty to God to a life of obedience to God (Is 10:20-21; 14:2; Jer 34:15; Hos 14:4). Conversion means a change in inward orientation that finds expression in a changed lifestyle.<\/p>\nIn the NT John the Baptist begins the call to conversion (Mt 3:2; Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3), giving a prophetic call for people to change their minds (which is the root meaning of the Greek term) in the light of the nearness of God’s kingdom. This change of life must include a change in actions to prove its reality (Mt 3:8; Lk 3:8). Jesus preached the same message (Mt 4:17; Mk 1:15), adding that since the kingdom had arrived in his person, obedience to him was part of the good news of conversion. Yet it could also be bad news, for one would be damned if he failed to make this radical change (Mt 11:20; Lk 13:3-5). Conversion is radical but also simple, for it requires the simplicity of a child who commits his whole self, not the calculating self-protectiveness of the adult (Mt 18:3).<\/p>\nOutside the Gospels, “conversion” is not a frequently used term except in the book of Acts, where it forms the call to commitment climaxing evangelistic sermons (2:38; 3:19; 8:22), describes the commitment of new Christians to the Lord (9:35; 11:21), and pictures the change of life as a turning from darkness to light (26:18-20). Later writers look back upon conversion (2 Cor 3:16), worry about Christians converting to paganism or Judaism (Gal 4:9), and call for the reconversion of Christians who have left the faith and are in danger of judgment (Jas 5:19-20; Rv 2:5, 16, 22; 3:19).<\/p>\nAs in the OT and in the preaching of John and Jesus, conversion has three factors. First, it is a turning from<\/em> something, which includes specific sins, false gods, or simply a life lived for oneself (1 Thes 1:9; Rv 9:20-21; 16:11). Second, conversion is a product of the will of God and his gracious working in the world (Acts 11:18; Rom 2:4; 2 Cor 7:10; 2 Tm 2:25; 2 Pt 3:9). Third, conversion is a turning to<\/em> someone, a commitment of one’s whole life to God in Jesus Christ (Acts 14:15; 1 Thes 1:9; 1 Pt 2:25). It is thus a total reorientation, whether spectacular or undramatic, sudden or gradual, emotional or calm, in which a person transfers his or her total allegiance to God.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Faith; Grace; Justification, Justified; Repentance; Sanctification.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CONVERSION<\/h3>\nTotal change in one’s direction in life or moral orientation. For Christians this means a change from an orientation that does not take God into account to one in which the person is submitted to Christ. Conversion is the result of repentance.<\/p>\nIn the OT conversion is basically a turning or returning from one’s former course of life toward the Lord, the God of Israel. Israel often had to return to their God (Dt 4:30), either as individuals (Ps 51) or as a nation (Jer 4:1); foreign nations needed to turn to God for the first time (Ps 22:27). The characteristic feature is that one turns from wickedness (Jer 26:3; 36:3; Ez 18:21, 27; 33:9, 11), from a life of disloyalty to God to a life of obedience to God (Is 10:20-21; 14:2; Jer 34:15; Hos 14:4). Conversion means a change in inward orientation that finds expression in a changed lifestyle.<\/p>\nIn the NT John the Baptist begins the call to conversion (Mt 3:2; Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3), giving a prophetic call for people to change their minds (which is the root meaning of the Greek term) in the light of the nearness of God’s kingdom. This change of life must include a change in actions to prove its reality (Mt 3:8; Lk 3:8). Jesus preached the same message (Mt 4:17; Mk 1:15), adding that since the kingdom had arrived in his person, obedience to him was part of the good news of conversion. Yet it could also be bad news, for one would be damned if he failed to make this radical change (Mt 11:20; Lk 13:3-5). Conversion is radical but also simple, for it requires the simplicity of a child who commits his whole self, not the calculating self-protectiveness of the adult (Mt 18:3).<\/p>\nOutside the Gospels, “conversion” is not a frequently used term except in the book of Acts, where it forms the call to commitment climaxing evangelistic sermons (2:38; 3:19; 8:22), describes the commitment of new Christians to the Lord (9:35; 11:21), and pictures the change of life as a turning from darkness to light (26:18-20). Later writers look back upon conversion (2 Cor 3:16), worry about Christians converting to paganism or Judaism (Gal 4:9), and call for the reconversion of Christians who have left the faith and are in danger of judgment (Jas 5:19-20; Rv 2:5, 16, 22; 3:19).<\/p>\nAs in the OT and in the preaching of John and Jesus, conversion has three factors. First, it is a turning from<\/em> something, which includes specific sins, false gods, or simply a life lived for oneself (1 Thes 1:9; Rv 9:20-21; 16:11). Second, conversion is a product of the will of God and his gracious working in the world (Acts 11:18; Rom 2:4; 2 Cor 7:10; 2 Tm 2:25; 2 Pt 3:9). Third, conversion is a turning to<\/em> someone, a commitment of one’s whole life to God in Jesus Christ (Acts 14:15; 1 Thes 1:9; 1 Pt 2:25). It is thus a total reorientation, whether spectacular or undramatic, sudden or gradual, emotional or calm, in which a person transfers his or her total allegiance to God.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Faith; Grace; Justification, Justified; Repentance; Sanctification.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CONVERSION Total change in one’s direction in life or moral orientation. For Christians this means a change from an orientation that does not take God into account to one in which the person is submitted to Christ. Conversion is the result of repentance. In the OT conversion is basically a turning or returning from one’s former course of life toward the Lord, the God of Israel. Israel often had to return to their God (Dt 4:30), either as individuals (Ps 51) or as a nation (Jer 4:1); foreign n...","summary_en":"CONVERSION Total change in one’s direction in life or moral orientation. For Christians this means a change from an orientation that does not take God into account to one in which the person is submitted to Christ. Conversion is the result of repentance. In the OT conversion is basically a turning or returning from one’s former course of life toward the Lord, the God of Israel. Israel often had to return to their God (Dt 4:30), either as individuals (Ps 51) or as a nation (Jer 4:1); foreign n...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20348,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"John the Baptist","title_en":"John the Baptist","content_ro":"<h3>JOHN THE BAPTIST<\/h3>\nForerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD<\/span> 29, while Jesus was still ministering.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\n• Appearance and Identity<\/p>\n• John’s Proclamation<\/p>\n• John’s Baptism<\/p>\n• John’s View of Jesus<\/p>\n• Jesus’ View of John<\/p>\n• Arrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\n• The Disciples of John<\/p>\nBirth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\nLuke’s Gospel is our only source of information concerning the birth and boyhood of John. The Gospel writer states that John was born in the hill country of Judah (Lk 1:39) of priestly descent, being the son of Zechariah, a priest of the order of Abijah, and Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron (v 5). Both parents were righteous in the sight of God, following all the commandments closely (v 6). Like the birth of Jesus, only to a much lesser degree, the birth of John the Baptist is described in Luke as extraordinary. The angel Gabriel announced the coming birth to Zechariah in the temple; to the older, barren Elizabeth it came as an answer to prayer (vv 8-13). John’s name is announced to Zechariah by the angel, even as his purpose as forerunner is revealed before birth (vv 13-17). Such a consecration from birth is reminiscent of the call of the OT prophet Jeremiah (cf. Jer 1:5).<\/p>\nThere existed some familial relationship between the families of John and Jesus. Elizabeth is described as a relative of Mary (Lk 1:36), which may connote cousin or aunt, or may only mean being from the same tribe.<\/p>\nJohn’s childhood, as that of Jesus, is left quite vague in the Gospel account. All that is said is that “John grew up and became strong in spirit. Then he lived out in the wilderness until he began his public ministry to Israel” (Lk 1:80, nlt<\/span>). Some scholars have suggested that John might have been adopted as a boy by the Essenes (as was their practice) at Qumran and reared in their wilderness community, adjacent to the Dead Sea and near the Jordan River. There are some similarities between the activities of the Qumran sect, known through the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the later ministry of John the Baptist. Both practiced a type of asceticism and removed themselves from the life of Jerusalem. Both practiced baptism and associated this rite with initiation and repentance. Finally, John and the Qumran group were both eschatologically minded, awaiting God’s final end-time activity in history. Nevertheless, many significant differences exist between John and the Qumran sect.<\/p>\nAppearance and Identity<\/p>\nMark’s Gospel begins with an account of John the Baptist’s appearance: “John the Baptist . . . lived in the wilderness and was preaching that people should be baptized to show that they had turned from their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Mk 1:4, nlt<\/span>). A rich OT background lies behind John’s association with the wilderness, in this case the wilderness of Judea. It was in the wilderness that God revealed himself to Moses (Ex 3), gave the law, and entered into the covenant with Israel (ch 19). It was also the site of refuge for David (1 Sm 23–26; Ps 63) and Elijah (1 Kgs 19), and in this light became the anticipated site of God’s future deliverance (Is 40:3-5; Ez 47:1-12; Hos 2:14-15).<\/p>\nThe unusual dress of John the Baptist—“clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist” (Mk 1:6, niv<\/span>)—may have suggested to his audience an association with Elijah in particular (2 Kgs 1:8) or with the prophets in general (Zec 13:4). His diet, “locusts and wild honey” (Mk 1:6), was Levitically clean, reflecting one who lived off the desert (such food was also eaten at Qumran) and formed part of the broader asceticism practiced by John and his disciples (Mt 9:14; 11:18).<\/p>\nWho did John understand himself to be? In answer to questions by the multitude whether he was the Messiah, Elijah, or the expected prophet (Jn 1:20-23), John only identified himself as “a voice crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord’ ” (Is 40:3). The background for the question lies at the end of the OT period. Prophecy, on the one hand, was considered to have ceased (Zec 13:2-6); yet, on the other hand, it was expected to appear again before the coming of the messianic kingdom (see Jl 2:28-29; Mal 3:1-4). Some anticipated this final prophet to be one who was like Moses (Dt 18:15), others a returning Elijah as foretold in Malachi 4:5-6. While John personally refrained from identifying himself with these specific expectations (Jn 1:20-23), it is clear that his dress, lifestyle, and message caused the people to identify him with this end-time prophet (Mt 14:5; Mk 11:32). Jesus also saw John as this final “Elijah-like” prophet (Mt 11:7-15), who from Malachi’s prophecy was to be a forerunner to the coming of the Lord (Mal 3:1-4; 4:5-6).<\/p>\nJohn’s Proclamation<\/p>\nJohn’s proclamation involved three elements: a warning of imminent judgment at the hands of the Coming One, a call for repentance in light of the coming kingdom of heaven, and a demand to express this repentance in concrete ethical terms. Many Jews looked forward confidently to the messianic judgment as a time of blessing for themselves and destruction for the gentile oppressors. John, however, warned that Jewish ancestry was false security in the coming judgment (Lk 3:8); true repentance was the only means of escaping destruction (Mt 3:2). John anticipated this judgment at the hands of the Coming One, who would baptize the nation with “the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Lk 3:16). Fire represented the OT means of destruction in the end time (Mal 4:1) as well as purification (Mal 3:1-4), while the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the end time connoted blessing (Is 32:15; Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28) and purification (Is 4:2-4). The judgment anticipated by John was therefore twofold: destruction for the unrepentant, and blessing for the penitent and righteous (Mt 3:12).<\/p>\nIn light of this imminent event John called for repentance on the part of his listeners (Mt 3:2), a true “turning back” or “turning toward” God in obedience that would bring forgiveness of sin. Such a turnabout in an individual’s relation with God should be lived out in one’s everyday dealings: fairness on the part of tax collectors (Lk 3:12-13) and soldiers (v 14), and the general requirement of compassion for the poor (vv 10-11).<\/p>\nJohn’s Baptism<\/p>\nThe Gospels record that John baptized those repentant of their sins at several locations: the Jordan River (Mk 1:5), Bethany beyond the Jordan (Jn 1:28), and Aenon near Salim (Jn 3:23). This practice was an integral part of John’s call for repentance, given in light of the approaching judgment and the appearance of the Coming One. The baptism of the penitent symbolized desire for forgiveness of sin, a renunciation of past life, and a desire to be included in the coming messianic kingdom.<\/p>\nWhat was the background for John’s practice of baptism? From the OT we know of ceremonial lustrations or washings that guaranteed ritual purity (Lv 14–15; Nm 19). Unlike John’s baptism, these washings were repetitive in nature and referred predominantly to ritual rather than moral cleansing. The prophets, however, urged a moral purification associated with the washing of water (Is 1:16-18; Jer 4:14). More significantly, the prophets anticipated a cleansing by God in the end times preceding the Day of Judgment (Ez 36:25; Zec 13:1; cf. Is 44:3), an eschatological element that John may have assumed was being fulfilled in his water baptism.<\/p>\nAnother precedent for John’s practice may have been proselyte baptism, a rite (along with circumcision and the offering of sacrifices) that constituted the conversion of a Gentile to Judaism. Common to both proselyte baptism and John’s baptism were the emphasis on an ethical break with the past, a once-for-all character, and the similarity of immersion. Notable differences were that John’s baptism was for Jews, not Gentile converts, and that it had a marked eschatological character as a preparation for the new age. Unless John, in light of the imminence of the messianic age, consciously treated all Jews as “pagan” in need of a baptism of repentance (cf. Mt 3:7-10), it is doubtful that proselyte baptism formed the primary background for John’s baptismal ministry.<\/p>\nIf John’s baptism had a clear association with the forgiveness of sin, the question naturally arises as to why Jesus, the Son of God, sought baptism from John. John himself asks this very question of Jesus (Mt 3:14), to which Jesus responds, “It must be done, because we must do everything that is right” (v 15, nlt<\/span>). First, it is clear that Jesus’ baptism represented an act of obedience on his part to God’s will as he saw it. Second, by submitting to the baptism of John, Jesus was clearly validating the ministry and message of John. The imminent coming of the kingdom and its Messiah, and the need for repentance in anticipation of this event that John proclaimed, were affirmed by Jesus through baptism. Third, by being baptized, Jesus condemned the self-righteous for their lack of repentance and took a stand with the penitent publicans and sinners awaiting the kingdom of God (Lk 7:29-30). Fourth, Jesus stepped forward for baptism not as an individual in need of forgiveness but as one who represented the people of God. His baptism, therefore, demonstrated solidarity with the people in their need of deliverance, even as he is judged in their place on the cross. Finally, the voice from heaven (Mk 1:11) and the descent of the Spirit (Lk 3:21-22) signify the inauguration of Jesus’ own ministry through his baptism by John.<\/p>\nJohn’s View of Jesus<\/p>\nThroughout his ministry John pointed beyond himself to one “who is far greater than I am—so much greater that I am not even worthy to be his slave” (Mk 1:7, nlt<\/span>). His self-understanding apparently sprang from the application of Isaiah 40:3 to himself, that he was the preparer or forerunner for God’s coming activity through the Messiah (Lk 3:4-6). When asked by curious spectators, John firmly denied that he was the Messiah, and according to the Gospel accounts, subordinated himself to the Coming One (Mk 1:7-8; Jn 1:26-28; 3:28-31). The coming of Jesus to baptism seems to represent the first time John identified these expectations with Jesus himself (Jn 1:35-36). His recognition of Jesus as the Messiah prior to baptism (Mt 3:14) was confirmed by the descent of the Holy Spirit as a dove and the voice from heaven quoting a phrase from an OT messianic psalm (Mk 1:11a, from Ps 2:7), together with a phrase from a Suffering Servant song of Isaiah (Mk 1:11b, from Is 42:1). In the fourth Gospel, John the Baptist goes even further in acknowledging Jesus to be the “Lamb of God” (Jn 1:29), in anticipation of Jesus’ sacrificial role on the cross. And John recognized him as “God’s Chosen One” (v 34, neb<\/span>—another term for the Messiah; Ps 2:7, see Mk 1:11).<\/p>\nIn light of John’s strong affirmation, it is at first difficult to understand his questioning of Jesus while imprisoned: “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?” (Mt 11:3, rsv<\/span>). Some have suggested that John was merely asking for the sake of his disciples, or that the question reflected John’s despondency with being imprisoned. It is more likely, however, that the question represents John’s own confusion with the activity expected of the Messiah. John had proclaimed a Coming One who would bring a baptism of fire and judgment upon the wicked (Lk 3:16). It may have been difficult for him to understand Jesus’ different emphases on forgiveness and acceptance of sinners (Mt 9:9-13) and his healing of the sick (Mt 8–9). When John’s disciples brought their master’s question to Jesus, asking whether or not he was the Messiah, Jesus responded by quoting Isaiah 35:5-6 (see also Is 61:1). This text proclaims the activities of healing and proclaiming salvation to the poor to be fulfillments of the Messiah’s role, even though they may not have been what John or countless other Jews expected.<\/p>\nJesus’ View of John<\/p>\nThat Jesus highly regarded John the Baptist is indicated by his baptism by John. It is also explicitly stated on several occasions. Jesus called him the greatest man to have ever lived (Lk 7:28). (Of course, he was not as great as Jesus, the God-man.) Jesus also said that John was a burning and shining lamp (Jn 5:33-35) and that he practiced a baptism divinely ordained (Lk 20:1-8).<\/p>\nJohn’s uniqueness, however, lies in the fact that he stood at the turning of the ages. He was the last of the old era, the period of the law and the prophets (Lk 16:16), which was to precede the coming of the messianic age (the kingdom of God). John was the last of the prophets, the greatest of them, the Elijah figure who would prepare the way for the judgment of God (Mt 11:13-15; Lk 1:17). Because John belonged to the era of the law and the prophets, however, he was not as great as the “least” already in the kingdom of God (Mt 11:11)—that is, those who belonged to the era of the kingdom’s appearance in Jesus.<\/p>\nArrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\nTo understand why John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas, one has to grasp the messianic excitement caused by John’s appearance and message (Lk 3:15-18). Herod and other secular rulers were obviously suspicious of anyone who might stir up the crowds with predictions of a coming messianic ruler. Other messianic movements had arisen before John, which resulted in outbreaks of violence against the Roman-Herodian rulership. Moreover, Herod Antipas was under heavy criticism for his marriage with Herodias, the ex-wife of his brother Philip. His first marriage, with the daughter of Aretus II, constituted a political alliance between the Herodian family and the Nabatean kingdom of Perea. His new relationship with Herodias was perceived as a breach of the political alliance and led to friction between the two families. John’s denunciation of Herod’s new marriage (Mt 14:3-12) could thus have been interpreted by Herod as a subversive rousing of sentiment against his authority. The Jewish historian Josephus states that Herod did, in fact, arrest John because he feared John’s influence over the crowds. According to Josephus, John was imprisoned at the fortress Machaerus on the eastern side of the Dead Sea. That he was not killed immediately was due to Herod’s personal fear of the righteous John (Mk 6:2) and of the people’s reaction (Mt 14:5). On a point about which Josephus is silent, the Gospels record that it was Herodias’s feelings against John (Mk 6:17) and her plot, through the dancing of her daughter, which brought about the beheading of John (vv 21-29). John was beheaded at Herodias’s request in approximately AD<\/span> 29 or 30.<\/p>\nThe Disciples of John<\/p>\nWhile it is clear that a band of disciples formed around John in his lifetime (Jn 1:35), to suggest that he intended to begin a continuing movement is contradicted by his message on the imminent Day of Judgment. Apparently, John’s disciples consisted of a small group of those who had been baptized by him and were awaiting the coming Messiah. Some transferred their loyalty to Jesus after John had identified Jesus as the Coming One (Jn 1:37). Others, however, apparently stayed on with their teacher, communicating with the imprisoned John concerning the activities of Jesus (Lk 7:18-23) and, after his death, taking the body for burial (Mk 6:29).<\/p>\nWe know little about the activities and practices of the band of disciples clustered around John. We do know, however, that fasting was one practice specifically associated with the group, and one that marked them as similar to the Pharisees (Mt 9:14). In this practice they no doubt followed the example of John himself (Lk 7:33). Prayer and fasting were often linked in late Judaism. The disciples of John were also known for the prayers taught by their master (11:1). Seeing this practice, the disciples of Jesus asked the Lord to teach them to pray, to which Jesus responded with the Lord’s Prayer (vv 2-4).<\/p>\nAfter his death it is likely that other disciples of John joined the followers of Jesus (see Lk 7:29-30). Not all did so, however, as disciples of John were encountered by Paul and other Christians approximately 25 years later in Ephesus (Acts 18:24–29:7). Upon hearing witness to Jesus, these followers of John proclaimed Jesus as Messiah. When Paul baptized them in the name of Jesus they received the Holy Spirit (19:4-7). Even so, it is apparent from later documents that various groups continued to honor John, even considering him the Messiah, centuries after the NT period.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JOHN THE BAPTIST<\/h3>\nForerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD<\/span> 29, while Jesus was still ministering.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\n• Appearance and Identity<\/p>\n• John’s Proclamation<\/p>\n• John’s Baptism<\/p>\n• John’s View of Jesus<\/p>\n• Jesus’ View of John<\/p>\n• Arrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\n• The Disciples of John<\/p>\nBirth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\nLuke’s Gospel is our only source of information concerning the birth and boyhood of John. The Gospel writer states that John was born in the hill country of Judah (Lk 1:39) of priestly descent, being the son of Zechariah, a priest of the order of Abijah, and Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron (v 5). Both parents were righteous in the sight of God, following all the commandments closely (v 6). Like the birth of Jesus, only to a much lesser degree, the birth of John the Baptist is described in Luke as extraordinary. The angel Gabriel announced the coming birth to Zechariah in the temple; to the older, barren Elizabeth it came as an answer to prayer (vv 8-13). John’s name is announced to Zechariah by the angel, even as his purpose as forerunner is revealed before birth (vv 13-17). Such a consecration from birth is reminiscent of the call of the OT prophet Jeremiah (cf. Jer 1:5).<\/p>\nThere existed some familial relationship between the families of John and Jesus. Elizabeth is described as a relative of Mary (Lk 1:36), which may connote cousin or aunt, or may only mean being from the same tribe.<\/p>\nJohn’s childhood, as that of Jesus, is left quite vague in the Gospel account. All that is said is that “John grew up and became strong in spirit. Then he lived out in the wilderness until he began his public ministry to Israel” (Lk 1:80, nlt<\/span>). Some scholars have suggested that John might have been adopted as a boy by the Essenes (as was their practice) at Qumran and reared in their wilderness community, adjacent to the Dead Sea and near the Jordan River. There are some similarities between the activities of the Qumran sect, known through the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the later ministry of John the Baptist. Both practiced a type of asceticism and removed themselves from the life of Jerusalem. Both practiced baptism and associated this rite with initiation and repentance. Finally, John and the Qumran group were both eschatologically minded, awaiting God’s final end-time activity in history. Nevertheless, many significant differences exist between John and the Qumran sect.<\/p>\nAppearance and Identity<\/p>\nMark’s Gospel begins with an account of John the Baptist’s appearance: “John the Baptist . . . lived in the wilderness and was preaching that people should be baptized to show that they had turned from their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Mk 1:4, nlt<\/span>). A rich OT background lies behind John’s association with the wilderness, in this case the wilderness of Judea. It was in the wilderness that God revealed himself to Moses (Ex 3), gave the law, and entered into the covenant with Israel (ch 19). It was also the site of refuge for David (1 Sm 23–26; Ps 63) and Elijah (1 Kgs 19), and in this light became the anticipated site of God’s future deliverance (Is 40:3-5; Ez 47:1-12; Hos 2:14-15).<\/p>\nThe unusual dress of John the Baptist—“clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist” (Mk 1:6, niv<\/span>)—may have suggested to his audience an association with Elijah in particular (2 Kgs 1:8) or with the prophets in general (Zec 13:4). His diet, “locusts and wild honey” (Mk 1:6), was Levitically clean, reflecting one who lived off the desert (such food was also eaten at Qumran) and formed part of the broader asceticism practiced by John and his disciples (Mt 9:14; 11:18).<\/p>\nWho did John understand himself to be? In answer to questions by the multitude whether he was the Messiah, Elijah, or the expected prophet (Jn 1:20-23), John only identified himself as “a voice crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord’ ” (Is 40:3). The background for the question lies at the end of the OT period. Prophecy, on the one hand, was considered to have ceased (Zec 13:2-6); yet, on the other hand, it was expected to appear again before the coming of the messianic kingdom (see Jl 2:28-29; Mal 3:1-4). Some anticipated this final prophet to be one who was like Moses (Dt 18:15), others a returning Elijah as foretold in Malachi 4:5-6. While John personally refrained from identifying himself with these specific expectations (Jn 1:20-23), it is clear that his dress, lifestyle, and message caused the people to identify him with this end-time prophet (Mt 14:5; Mk 11:32). Jesus also saw John as this final “Elijah-like” prophet (Mt 11:7-15), who from Malachi’s prophecy was to be a forerunner to the coming of the Lord (Mal 3:1-4; 4:5-6).<\/p>\nJohn’s Proclamation<\/p>\nJohn’s proclamation involved three elements: a warning of imminent judgment at the hands of the Coming One, a call for repentance in light of the coming kingdom of heaven, and a demand to express this repentance in concrete ethical terms. Many Jews looked forward confidently to the messianic judgment as a time of blessing for themselves and destruction for the gentile oppressors. John, however, warned that Jewish ancestry was false security in the coming judgment (Lk 3:8); true repentance was the only means of escaping destruction (Mt 3:2). John anticipated this judgment at the hands of the Coming One, who would baptize the nation with “the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Lk 3:16). Fire represented the OT means of destruction in the end time (Mal 4:1) as well as purification (Mal 3:1-4), while the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the end time connoted blessing (Is 32:15; Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28) and purification (Is 4:2-4). The judgment anticipated by John was therefore twofold: destruction for the unrepentant, and blessing for the penitent and righteous (Mt 3:12).<\/p>\nIn light of this imminent event John called for repentance on the part of his listeners (Mt 3:2), a true “turning back” or “turning toward” God in obedience that would bring forgiveness of sin. Such a turnabout in an individual’s relation with God should be lived out in one’s everyday dealings: fairness on the part of tax collectors (Lk 3:12-13) and soldiers (v 14), and the general requirement of compassion for the poor (vv 10-11).<\/p>\nJohn’s Baptism<\/p>\nThe Gospels record that John baptized those repentant of their sins at several locations: the Jordan River (Mk 1:5), Bethany beyond the Jordan (Jn 1:28), and Aenon near Salim (Jn 3:23). This practice was an integral part of John’s call for repentance, given in light of the approaching judgment and the appearance of the Coming One. The baptism of the penitent symbolized desire for forgiveness of sin, a renunciation of past life, and a desire to be included in the coming messianic kingdom.<\/p>\nWhat was the background for John’s practice of baptism? From the OT we know of ceremonial lustrations or washings that guaranteed ritual purity (Lv 14–15; Nm 19). Unlike John’s baptism, these washings were repetitive in nature and referred predominantly to ritual rather than moral cleansing. The prophets, however, urged a moral purification associated with the washing of water (Is 1:16-18; Jer 4:14). More significantly, the prophets anticipated a cleansing by God in the end times preceding the Day of Judgment (Ez 36:25; Zec 13:1; cf. Is 44:3), an eschatological element that John may have assumed was being fulfilled in his water baptism.<\/p>\nAnother precedent for John’s practice may have been proselyte baptism, a rite (along with circumcision and the offering of sacrifices) that constituted the conversion of a Gentile to Judaism. Common to both proselyte baptism and John’s baptism were the emphasis on an ethical break with the past, a once-for-all character, and the similarity of immersion. Notable differences were that John’s baptism was for Jews, not Gentile converts, and that it had a marked eschatological character as a preparation for the new age. Unless John, in light of the imminence of the messianic age, consciously treated all Jews as “pagan” in need of a baptism of repentance (cf. Mt 3:7-10), it is doubtful that proselyte baptism formed the primary background for John’s baptismal ministry.<\/p>\nIf John’s baptism had a clear association with the forgiveness of sin, the question naturally arises as to why Jesus, the Son of God, sought baptism from John. John himself asks this very question of Jesus (Mt 3:14), to which Jesus responds, “It must be done, because we must do everything that is right” (v 15, nlt<\/span>). First, it is clear that Jesus’ baptism represented an act of obedience on his part to God’s will as he saw it. Second, by submitting to the baptism of John, Jesus was clearly validating the ministry and message of John. The imminent coming of the kingdom and its Messiah, and the need for repentance in anticipation of this event that John proclaimed, were affirmed by Jesus through baptism. Third, by being baptized, Jesus condemned the self-righteous for their lack of repentance and took a stand with the penitent publicans and sinners awaiting the kingdom of God (Lk 7:29-30). Fourth, Jesus stepped forward for baptism not as an individual in need of forgiveness but as one who represented the people of God. His baptism, therefore, demonstrated solidarity with the people in their need of deliverance, even as he is judged in their place on the cross. Finally, the voice from heaven (Mk 1:11) and the descent of the Spirit (Lk 3:21-22) signify the inauguration of Jesus’ own ministry through his baptism by John.<\/p>\nJohn’s View of Jesus<\/p>\nThroughout his ministry John pointed beyond himself to one “who is far greater than I am—so much greater that I am not even worthy to be his slave” (Mk 1:7, nlt<\/span>). His self-understanding apparently sprang from the application of Isaiah 40:3 to himself, that he was the preparer or forerunner for God’s coming activity through the Messiah (Lk 3:4-6). When asked by curious spectators, John firmly denied that he was the Messiah, and according to the Gospel accounts, subordinated himself to the Coming One (Mk 1:7-8; Jn 1:26-28; 3:28-31). The coming of Jesus to baptism seems to represent the first time John identified these expectations with Jesus himself (Jn 1:35-36). His recognition of Jesus as the Messiah prior to baptism (Mt 3:14) was confirmed by the descent of the Holy Spirit as a dove and the voice from heaven quoting a phrase from an OT messianic psalm (Mk 1:11a, from Ps 2:7), together with a phrase from a Suffering Servant song of Isaiah (Mk 1:11b, from Is 42:1). In the fourth Gospel, John the Baptist goes even further in acknowledging Jesus to be the “Lamb of God” (Jn 1:29), in anticipation of Jesus’ sacrificial role on the cross. And John recognized him as “God’s Chosen One” (v 34, neb<\/span>—another term for the Messiah; Ps 2:7, see Mk 1:11).<\/p>\nIn light of John’s strong affirmation, it is at first difficult to understand his questioning of Jesus while imprisoned: “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?” (Mt 11:3, rsv<\/span>). Some have suggested that John was merely asking for the sake of his disciples, or that the question reflected John’s despondency with being imprisoned. It is more likely, however, that the question represents John’s own confusion with the activity expected of the Messiah. John had proclaimed a Coming One who would bring a baptism of fire and judgment upon the wicked (Lk 3:16). It may have been difficult for him to understand Jesus’ different emphases on forgiveness and acceptance of sinners (Mt 9:9-13) and his healing of the sick (Mt 8–9). When John’s disciples brought their master’s question to Jesus, asking whether or not he was the Messiah, Jesus responded by quoting Isaiah 35:5-6 (see also Is 61:1). This text proclaims the activities of healing and proclaiming salvation to the poor to be fulfillments of the Messiah’s role, even though they may not have been what John or countless other Jews expected.<\/p>\nJesus’ View of John<\/p>\nThat Jesus highly regarded John the Baptist is indicated by his baptism by John. It is also explicitly stated on several occasions. Jesus called him the greatest man to have ever lived (Lk 7:28). (Of course, he was not as great as Jesus, the God-man.) Jesus also said that John was a burning and shining lamp (Jn 5:33-35) and that he practiced a baptism divinely ordained (Lk 20:1-8).<\/p>\nJohn’s uniqueness, however, lies in the fact that he stood at the turning of the ages. He was the last of the old era, the period of the law and the prophets (Lk 16:16), which was to precede the coming of the messianic age (the kingdom of God). John was the last of the prophets, the greatest of them, the Elijah figure who would prepare the way for the judgment of God (Mt 11:13-15; Lk 1:17). Because John belonged to the era of the law and the prophets, however, he was not as great as the “least” already in the kingdom of God (Mt 11:11)—that is, those who belonged to the era of the kingdom’s appearance in Jesus.<\/p>\nArrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\nTo understand why John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas, one has to grasp the messianic excitement caused by John’s appearance and message (Lk 3:15-18). Herod and other secular rulers were obviously suspicious of anyone who might stir up the crowds with predictions of a coming messianic ruler. Other messianic movements had arisen before John, which resulted in outbreaks of violence against the Roman-Herodian rulership. Moreover, Herod Antipas was under heavy criticism for his marriage with Herodias, the ex-wife of his brother Philip. His first marriage, with the daughter of Aretus II, constituted a political alliance between the Herodian family and the Nabatean kingdom of Perea. His new relationship with Herodias was perceived as a breach of the political alliance and led to friction between the two families. John’s denunciation of Herod’s new marriage (Mt 14:3-12) could thus have been interpreted by Herod as a subversive rousing of sentiment against his authority. The Jewish historian Josephus states that Herod did, in fact, arrest John because he feared John’s influence over the crowds. According to Josephus, John was imprisoned at the fortress Machaerus on the eastern side of the Dead Sea. That he was not killed immediately was due to Herod’s personal fear of the righteous John (Mk 6:2) and of the people’s reaction (Mt 14:5). On a point about which Josephus is silent, the Gospels record that it was Herodias’s feelings against John (Mk 6:17) and her plot, through the dancing of her daughter, which brought about the beheading of John (vv 21-29). John was beheaded at Herodias’s request in approximately AD<\/span> 29 or 30.<\/p>\nThe Disciples of John<\/p>\nWhile it is clear that a band of disciples formed around John in his lifetime (Jn 1:35), to suggest that he intended to begin a continuing movement is contradicted by his message on the imminent Day of Judgment. Apparently, John’s disciples consisted of a small group of those who had been baptized by him and were awaiting the coming Messiah. Some transferred their loyalty to Jesus after John had identified Jesus as the Coming One (Jn 1:37). Others, however, apparently stayed on with their teacher, communicating with the imprisoned John concerning the activities of Jesus (Lk 7:18-23) and, after his death, taking the body for burial (Mk 6:29).<\/p>\nWe know little about the activities and practices of the band of disciples clustered around John. We do know, however, that fasting was one practice specifically associated with the group, and one that marked them as similar to the Pharisees (Mt 9:14). In this practice they no doubt followed the example of John himself (Lk 7:33). Prayer and fasting were often linked in late Judaism. The disciples of John were also known for the prayers taught by their master (11:1). Seeing this practice, the disciples of Jesus asked the Lord to teach them to pray, to which Jesus responded with the Lord’s Prayer (vv 2-4).<\/p>\nAfter his death it is likely that other disciples of John joined the followers of Jesus (see Lk 7:29-30). Not all did so, however, as disciples of John were encountered by Paul and other Christians approximately 25 years later in Ephesus (Acts 18:24–29:7). Upon hearing witness to Jesus, these followers of John proclaimed Jesus as Messiah. When Paul baptized them in the name of Jesus they received the Holy Spirit (19:4-7). Even so, it is apparent from later documents that various groups continued to honor John, even considering him the Messiah, centuries after the NT period.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JOHN THE BAPTIST Forerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD 29, while Jesus was still ministering. Preview • Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood • Appearance and Identity • John’s Proclamation • ...","summary_en":"JOHN THE BAPTIST Forerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD 29, while Jesus was still ministering. Preview • Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood • Appearance and Identity • John’s Proclamation • ...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55661,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:8","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:8","content_ro":"3:8<\/strong> we are descendants of Abraham:<\/em> Some Jews believed that their descent from Abraham guaranteed their salvation (see John 8:33-39; Acts 7:2; Rom 4:1). • That means nothing:<\/em>God had selected the Israelites as his people, and he could reject them and create children of Abraham from these very stones<\/em> if he chose (cp. Hos 1:3-9; Rom 9:6-8, 27-28; 11:17-21).<\/p>","content_en":"3:8<\/strong> we are descendants of Abraham:<\/em> Some Jews believed that their descent from Abraham guaranteed their salvation (see John 8:33-39; Acts 7:2; Rom 4:1). • That means nothing:<\/em>God had selected the Israelites as his people, and he could reject them and create children of Abraham from these very stones<\/em> if he chose (cp. Hos 1:3-9; Rom 9:6-8, 27-28; 11:17-21).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:8 we are descendants of Abraham: Some Jews believed that their descent from Abraham guaranteed their salvation (see John 8:33-39; Acts 7:2; Rom 4:1). • That means nothing:God had selected the Israelites as his people, and he could reject them and create children of Abraham from these very stones if he chose (cp. Hos 1:3-9; Rom 9:6-8, 27-28; 11:17-21).","summary_en":"3:8 we are descendants of Abraham: Some Jews believed that their descent from Abraham guaranteed their salvation (see John 8:33-39; Acts 7:2; Rom 4:1). • That means nothing:God had selected the Israelites as his people, and he could reject them and create children of Abraham from these very stones if he chose (cp. Hos 1:3-9; Rom 9:6-8, 27-28; 11:17-21).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83287,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:8","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:8","content_ro":"3:8<\/strong> we are descendants of Abraham:<\/em> Some Jews believed that their descent from Abraham guaranteed their salvation (see John 8:33-39; Acts 7:2; Rom 4:1). • That means nothing:<\/em>God had selected the Israelites as his people, and he could reject them and create children of Abraham from these very stones<\/em> if he chose (cp. Hos 1:3-9; Rom 9:6-8, 27-28; 11:17-21).<\/p>","content_en":"3:8<\/strong> we are descendants of Abraham:<\/em> Some Jews believed that their descent from Abraham guaranteed their salvation (see John 8:33-39; Acts 7:2; Rom 4:1). • That means nothing:<\/em>God had selected the Israelites as his people, and he could reject them and create children of Abraham from these very stones<\/em> if he chose (cp. Hos 1:3-9; Rom 9:6-8, 27-28; 11:17-21).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:8 we are descendants of Abraham: Some Jews believed that their descent from Abraham guaranteed their salvation (see John 8:33-39; Acts 7:2; Rom 4:1). • That means nothing:God had selected the Israelites as his people, and he could reject them and create children of Abraham from these very stones if he chose (cp. Hos 1:3-9; Rom 9:6-8, 27-28; 11:17-21).","summary_en":"3:8 we are descendants of Abraham: Some Jews believed that their descent from Abraham guaranteed their salvation (see John 8:33-39; Acts 7:2; Rom 4:1). • That means nothing:God had selected the Israelites as his people, and he could reject them and create children of Abraham from these very stones if he chose (cp. Hos 1:3-9; Rom 9:6-8, 27-28; 11:17-21).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110913,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:8","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:8","content_ro":"3:8<\/strong> we are descendants of Abraham:<\/em> Some Jews believed that their descent from Abraham guaranteed their salvation (see John 8:33-39; Acts 7:2; Rom 4:1). • That means nothing:<\/em>God had selected the Israelites as his people, and he could reject them and create children of Abraham from these very stones<\/em> if he chose (cp. Hos 1:3-9; Rom 9:6-8, 27-28; 11:17-21).<\/p>","content_en":"3:8<\/strong> we are descendants of Abraham:<\/em> Some Jews believed that their descent from Abraham guaranteed their salvation (see John 8:33-39; Acts 7:2; Rom 4:1). • That means nothing:<\/em>God had selected the Israelites as his people, and he could reject them and create children of Abraham from these very stones<\/em> if he chose (cp. Hos 1:3-9; Rom 9:6-8, 27-28; 11:17-21).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:8 we are descendants of Abraham: Some Jews believed that their descent from Abraham guaranteed their salvation (see John 8:33-39; Acts 7:2; Rom 4:1). • That means nothing:God had selected the Israelites as his people, and he could reject them and create children of Abraham from these very stones if he chose (cp. Hos 1:3-9; Rom 9:6-8, 27-28; 11:17-21).","summary_en":"3:8 we are descendants of Abraham: Some Jews believed that their descent from Abraham guaranteed their salvation (see John 8:33-39; Acts 7:2; Rom 4:1). • That means nothing:God had selected the Israelites as his people, and he could reject them and create children of Abraham from these very stones if he chose (cp. Hos 1:3-9; Rom 9:6-8, 27-28; 11:17-21).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138539,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:8","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:8","content_ro":"3:8<\/strong> we are descendants of Abraham:<\/em> Some Jews believed that their descent from Abraham guaranteed their salvation (see John 8:33-39; Acts 7:2; Rom 4:1). • That means nothing:<\/em>God had selected the Israelites as his people, and he could reject them and create children of Abraham from these very stones<\/em> if he chose (cp. Hos 1:3-9; Rom 9:6-8, 27-28; 11:17-21).<\/p>","content_en":"3:8<\/strong> we are descendants of Abraham:<\/em> Some Jews believed that their descent from Abraham guaranteed their salvation (see John 8:33-39; Acts 7:2; Rom 4:1). • That means nothing:<\/em>God had selected the Israelites as his people, and he could reject them and create children of Abraham from these very stones<\/em> if he chose (cp. Hos 1:3-9; Rom 9:6-8, 27-28; 11:17-21).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:8 we are descendants of Abraham: Some Jews believed that their descent from Abraham guaranteed their salvation (see John 8:33-39; Acts 7:2; Rom 4:1). • That means nothing:God had selected the Israelites as his people, and he could reject them and create children of Abraham from these very stones if he chose (cp. Hos 1:3-9; Rom 9:6-8, 27-28; 11:17-21).","summary_en":"3:8 we are descendants of Abraham: Some Jews believed that their descent from Abraham guaranteed their salvation (see John 8:33-39; Acts 7:2; Rom 4:1). • That means nothing:God had selected the Israelites as his people, and he could reject them and create children of Abraham from these very stones if he chose (cp. Hos 1:3-9; Rom 9:6-8, 27-28; 11:17-21).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"9":[{"id":55662,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:9","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:9","content_ro":"3:9<\/strong> every tree that does not produce good fruit:<\/em> Israel would be judged as an unfruitful vineyard (see Isa 5:1-7; cp. Luke 13:7-9; 20:9-19).<\/p>","content_en":"3:9<\/strong> every tree that does not produce good fruit:<\/em> Israel would be judged as an unfruitful vineyard (see Isa 5:1-7; cp. Luke 13:7-9; 20:9-19).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:9 every tree that does not produce good fruit: Israel would be judged as an unfruitful vineyard (see Isa 5:1-7; cp. Luke 13:7-9; 20:9-19).","summary_en":"3:9 every tree that does not produce good fruit: Israel would be judged as an unfruitful vineyard (see Isa 5:1-7; cp. Luke 13:7-9; 20:9-19).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83288,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:9","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:9","content_ro":"3:9<\/strong> every tree that does not produce good fruit:<\/em> Israel would be judged as an unfruitful vineyard (see Isa 5:1-7; cp. Luke 13:7-9; 20:9-19).<\/p>","content_en":"3:9<\/strong> every tree that does not produce good fruit:<\/em> Israel would be judged as an unfruitful vineyard (see Isa 5:1-7; cp. Luke 13:7-9; 20:9-19).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:9 every tree that does not produce good fruit: Israel would be judged as an unfruitful vineyard (see Isa 5:1-7; cp. Luke 13:7-9; 20:9-19).","summary_en":"3:9 every tree that does not produce good fruit: Israel would be judged as an unfruitful vineyard (see Isa 5:1-7; cp. Luke 13:7-9; 20:9-19).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110914,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:9","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:9","content_ro":"3:9<\/strong> every tree that does not produce good fruit:<\/em> Israel would be judged as an unfruitful vineyard (see Isa 5:1-7; cp. Luke 13:7-9; 20:9-19).<\/p>","content_en":"3:9<\/strong> every tree that does not produce good fruit:<\/em> Israel would be judged as an unfruitful vineyard (see Isa 5:1-7; cp. Luke 13:7-9; 20:9-19).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:9 every tree that does not produce good fruit: Israel would be judged as an unfruitful vineyard (see Isa 5:1-7; cp. Luke 13:7-9; 20:9-19).","summary_en":"3:9 every tree that does not produce good fruit: Israel would be judged as an unfruitful vineyard (see Isa 5:1-7; cp. Luke 13:7-9; 20:9-19).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138540,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:9","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:9","content_ro":"3:9<\/strong> every tree that does not produce good fruit:<\/em> Israel would be judged as an unfruitful vineyard (see Isa 5:1-7; cp. Luke 13:7-9; 20:9-19).<\/p>","content_en":"3:9<\/strong> every tree that does not produce good fruit:<\/em> Israel would be judged as an unfruitful vineyard (see Isa 5:1-7; cp. Luke 13:7-9; 20:9-19).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:9 every tree that does not produce good fruit: Israel would be judged as an unfruitful vineyard (see Isa 5:1-7; cp. Luke 13:7-9; 20:9-19).","summary_en":"3:9 every tree that does not produce good fruit: Israel would be judged as an unfruitful vineyard (see Isa 5:1-7; cp. Luke 13:7-9; 20:9-19).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"10":[{"id":20358,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"John the Baptist","title_en":"John the Baptist","content_ro":"<h3>JOHN THE BAPTIST<\/h3>\nForerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD<\/span> 29, while Jesus was still ministering.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\n• Appearance and Identity<\/p>\n• John’s Proclamation<\/p>\n• John’s Baptism<\/p>\n• John’s View of Jesus<\/p>\n• Jesus’ View of John<\/p>\n• Arrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\n• The Disciples of John<\/p>\nBirth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\nLuke’s Gospel is our only source of information concerning the birth and boyhood of John. The Gospel writer states that John was born in the hill country of Judah (Lk 1:39) of priestly descent, being the son of Zechariah, a priest of the order of Abijah, and Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron (v 5). Both parents were righteous in the sight of God, following all the commandments closely (v 6). Like the birth of Jesus, only to a much lesser degree, the birth of John the Baptist is described in Luke as extraordinary. The angel Gabriel announced the coming birth to Zechariah in the temple; to the older, barren Elizabeth it came as an answer to prayer (vv 8-13). John’s name is announced to Zechariah by the angel, even as his purpose as forerunner is revealed before birth (vv 13-17). Such a consecration from birth is reminiscent of the call of the OT prophet Jeremiah (cf. Jer 1:5).<\/p>\nThere existed some familial relationship between the families of John and Jesus. Elizabeth is described as a relative of Mary (Lk 1:36), which may connote cousin or aunt, or may only mean being from the same tribe.<\/p>\nJohn’s childhood, as that of Jesus, is left quite vague in the Gospel account. All that is said is that “John grew up and became strong in spirit. Then he lived out in the wilderness until he began his public ministry to Israel” (Lk 1:80, nlt<\/span>). Some scholars have suggested that John might have been adopted as a boy by the Essenes (as was their practice) at Qumran and reared in their wilderness community, adjacent to the Dead Sea and near the Jordan River. There are some similarities between the activities of the Qumran sect, known through the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the later ministry of John the Baptist. Both practiced a type of asceticism and removed themselves from the life of Jerusalem. Both practiced baptism and associated this rite with initiation and repentance. Finally, John and the Qumran group were both eschatologically minded, awaiting God’s final end-time activity in history. Nevertheless, many significant differences exist between John and the Qumran sect.<\/p>\nAppearance and Identity<\/p>\nMark’s Gospel begins with an account of John the Baptist’s appearance: “John the Baptist . . . lived in the wilderness and was preaching that people should be baptized to show that they had turned from their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Mk 1:4, nlt<\/span>). A rich OT background lies behind John’s association with the wilderness, in this case the wilderness of Judea. It was in the wilderness that God revealed himself to Moses (Ex 3), gave the law, and entered into the covenant with Israel (ch 19). It was also the site of refuge for David (1 Sm 23–26; Ps 63) and Elijah (1 Kgs 19), and in this light became the anticipated site of God’s future deliverance (Is 40:3-5; Ez 47:1-12; Hos 2:14-15).<\/p>\nThe unusual dress of John the Baptist—“clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist” (Mk 1:6, niv<\/span>)—may have suggested to his audience an association with Elijah in particular (2 Kgs 1:8) or with the prophets in general (Zec 13:4). His diet, “locusts and wild honey” (Mk 1:6), was Levitically clean, reflecting one who lived off the desert (such food was also eaten at Qumran) and formed part of the broader asceticism practiced by John and his disciples (Mt 9:14; 11:18).<\/p>\nWho did John understand himself to be? In answer to questions by the multitude whether he was the Messiah, Elijah, or the expected prophet (Jn 1:20-23), John only identified himself as “a voice crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord’ ” (Is 40:3). The background for the question lies at the end of the OT period. Prophecy, on the one hand, was considered to have ceased (Zec 13:2-6); yet, on the other hand, it was expected to appear again before the coming of the messianic kingdom (see Jl 2:28-29; Mal 3:1-4). Some anticipated this final prophet to be one who was like Moses (Dt 18:15), others a returning Elijah as foretold in Malachi 4:5-6. While John personally refrained from identifying himself with these specific expectations (Jn 1:20-23), it is clear that his dress, lifestyle, and message caused the people to identify him with this end-time prophet (Mt 14:5; Mk 11:32). Jesus also saw John as this final “Elijah-like” prophet (Mt 11:7-15), who from Malachi’s prophecy was to be a forerunner to the coming of the Lord (Mal 3:1-4; 4:5-6).<\/p>\nJohn’s Proclamation<\/p>\nJohn’s proclamation involved three elements: a warning of imminent judgment at the hands of the Coming One, a call for repentance in light of the coming kingdom of heaven, and a demand to express this repentance in concrete ethical terms. Many Jews looked forward confidently to the messianic judgment as a time of blessing for themselves and destruction for the gentile oppressors. John, however, warned that Jewish ancestry was false security in the coming judgment (Lk 3:8); true repentance was the only means of escaping destruction (Mt 3:2). John anticipated this judgment at the hands of the Coming One, who would baptize the nation with “the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Lk 3:16). Fire represented the OT means of destruction in the end time (Mal 4:1) as well as purification (Mal 3:1-4), while the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the end time connoted blessing (Is 32:15; Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28) and purification (Is 4:2-4). The judgment anticipated by John was therefore twofold: destruction for the unrepentant, and blessing for the penitent and righteous (Mt 3:12).<\/p>\nIn light of this imminent event John called for repentance on the part of his listeners (Mt 3:2), a true “turning back” or “turning toward” God in obedience that would bring forgiveness of sin. Such a turnabout in an individual’s relation with God should be lived out in one’s everyday dealings: fairness on the part of tax collectors (Lk 3:12-13) and soldiers (v 14), and the general requirement of compassion for the poor (vv 10-11).<\/p>\nJohn’s Baptism<\/p>\nThe Gospels record that John baptized those repentant of their sins at several locations: the Jordan River (Mk 1:5), Bethany beyond the Jordan (Jn 1:28), and Aenon near Salim (Jn 3:23). This practice was an integral part of John’s call for repentance, given in light of the approaching judgment and the appearance of the Coming One. The baptism of the penitent symbolized desire for forgiveness of sin, a renunciation of past life, and a desire to be included in the coming messianic kingdom.<\/p>\nWhat was the background for John’s practice of baptism? From the OT we know of ceremonial lustrations or washings that guaranteed ritual purity (Lv 14–15; Nm 19). Unlike John’s baptism, these washings were repetitive in nature and referred predominantly to ritual rather than moral cleansing. The prophets, however, urged a moral purification associated with the washing of water (Is 1:16-18; Jer 4:14). More significantly, the prophets anticipated a cleansing by God in the end times preceding the Day of Judgment (Ez 36:25; Zec 13:1; cf. Is 44:3), an eschatological element that John may have assumed was being fulfilled in his water baptism.<\/p>\nAnother precedent for John’s practice may have been proselyte baptism, a rite (along with circumcision and the offering of sacrifices) that constituted the conversion of a Gentile to Judaism. Common to both proselyte baptism and John’s baptism were the emphasis on an ethical break with the past, a once-for-all character, and the similarity of immersion. Notable differences were that John’s baptism was for Jews, not Gentile converts, and that it had a marked eschatological character as a preparation for the new age. Unless John, in light of the imminence of the messianic age, consciously treated all Jews as “pagan” in need of a baptism of repentance (cf. Mt 3:7-10), it is doubtful that proselyte baptism formed the primary background for John’s baptismal ministry.<\/p>\nIf John’s baptism had a clear association with the forgiveness of sin, the question naturally arises as to why Jesus, the Son of God, sought baptism from John. John himself asks this very question of Jesus (Mt 3:14), to which Jesus responds, “It must be done, because we must do everything that is right” (v 15, nlt<\/span>). First, it is clear that Jesus’ baptism represented an act of obedience on his part to God’s will as he saw it. Second, by submitting to the baptism of John, Jesus was clearly validating the ministry and message of John. The imminent coming of the kingdom and its Messiah, and the need for repentance in anticipation of this event that John proclaimed, were affirmed by Jesus through baptism. Third, by being baptized, Jesus condemned the self-righteous for their lack of repentance and took a stand with the penitent publicans and sinners awaiting the kingdom of God (Lk 7:29-30). Fourth, Jesus stepped forward for baptism not as an individual in need of forgiveness but as one who represented the people of God. His baptism, therefore, demonstrated solidarity with the people in their need of deliverance, even as he is judged in their place on the cross. Finally, the voice from heaven (Mk 1:11) and the descent of the Spirit (Lk 3:21-22) signify the inauguration of Jesus’ own ministry through his baptism by John.<\/p>\nJohn’s View of Jesus<\/p>\nThroughout his ministry John pointed beyond himself to one “who is far greater than I am—so much greater that I am not even worthy to be his slave” (Mk 1:7, nlt<\/span>). His self-understanding apparently sprang from the application of Isaiah 40:3 to himself, that he was the preparer or forerunner for God’s coming activity through the Messiah (Lk 3:4-6). When asked by curious spectators, John firmly denied that he was the Messiah, and according to the Gospel accounts, subordinated himself to the Coming One (Mk 1:7-8; Jn 1:26-28; 3:28-31). The coming of Jesus to baptism seems to represent the first time John identified these expectations with Jesus himself (Jn 1:35-36). His recognition of Jesus as the Messiah prior to baptism (Mt 3:14) was confirmed by the descent of the Holy Spirit as a dove and the voice from heaven quoting a phrase from an OT messianic psalm (Mk 1:11a, from Ps 2:7), together with a phrase from a Suffering Servant song of Isaiah (Mk 1:11b, from Is 42:1). In the fourth Gospel, John the Baptist goes even further in acknowledging Jesus to be the “Lamb of God” (Jn 1:29), in anticipation of Jesus’ sacrificial role on the cross. And John recognized him as “God’s Chosen One” (v 34, neb<\/span>—another term for the Messiah; Ps 2:7, see Mk 1:11).<\/p>\nIn light of John’s strong affirmation, it is at first difficult to understand his questioning of Jesus while imprisoned: “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?” (Mt 11:3, rsv<\/span>). Some have suggested that John was merely asking for the sake of his disciples, or that the question reflected John’s despondency with being imprisoned. It is more likely, however, that the question represents John’s own confusion with the activity expected of the Messiah. John had proclaimed a Coming One who would bring a baptism of fire and judgment upon the wicked (Lk 3:16). It may have been difficult for him to understand Jesus’ different emphases on forgiveness and acceptance of sinners (Mt 9:9-13) and his healing of the sick (Mt 8–9). When John’s disciples brought their master’s question to Jesus, asking whether or not he was the Messiah, Jesus responded by quoting Isaiah 35:5-6 (see also Is 61:1). This text proclaims the activities of healing and proclaiming salvation to the poor to be fulfillments of the Messiah’s role, even though they may not have been what John or countless other Jews expected.<\/p>\nJesus’ View of John<\/p>\nThat Jesus highly regarded John the Baptist is indicated by his baptism by John. It is also explicitly stated on several occasions. Jesus called him the greatest man to have ever lived (Lk 7:28). (Of course, he was not as great as Jesus, the God-man.) Jesus also said that John was a burning and shining lamp (Jn 5:33-35) and that he practiced a baptism divinely ordained (Lk 20:1-8).<\/p>\nJohn’s uniqueness, however, lies in the fact that he stood at the turning of the ages. He was the last of the old era, the period of the law and the prophets (Lk 16:16), which was to precede the coming of the messianic age (the kingdom of God). John was the last of the prophets, the greatest of them, the Elijah figure who would prepare the way for the judgment of God (Mt 11:13-15; Lk 1:17). Because John belonged to the era of the law and the prophets, however, he was not as great as the “least” already in the kingdom of God (Mt 11:11)—that is, those who belonged to the era of the kingdom’s appearance in Jesus.<\/p>\nArrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\nTo understand why John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas, one has to grasp the messianic excitement caused by John’s appearance and message (Lk 3:15-18). Herod and other secular rulers were obviously suspicious of anyone who might stir up the crowds with predictions of a coming messianic ruler. Other messianic movements had arisen before John, which resulted in outbreaks of violence against the Roman-Herodian rulership. Moreover, Herod Antipas was under heavy criticism for his marriage with Herodias, the ex-wife of his brother Philip. His first marriage, with the daughter of Aretus II, constituted a political alliance between the Herodian family and the Nabatean kingdom of Perea. His new relationship with Herodias was perceived as a breach of the political alliance and led to friction between the two families. John’s denunciation of Herod’s new marriage (Mt 14:3-12) could thus have been interpreted by Herod as a subversive rousing of sentiment against his authority. The Jewish historian Josephus states that Herod did, in fact, arrest John because he feared John’s influence over the crowds. According to Josephus, John was imprisoned at the fortress Machaerus on the eastern side of the Dead Sea. That he was not killed immediately was due to Herod’s personal fear of the righteous John (Mk 6:2) and of the people’s reaction (Mt 14:5). On a point about which Josephus is silent, the Gospels record that it was Herodias’s feelings against John (Mk 6:17) and her plot, through the dancing of her daughter, which brought about the beheading of John (vv 21-29). John was beheaded at Herodias’s request in approximately AD<\/span> 29 or 30.<\/p>\nThe Disciples of John<\/p>\nWhile it is clear that a band of disciples formed around John in his lifetime (Jn 1:35), to suggest that he intended to begin a continuing movement is contradicted by his message on the imminent Day of Judgment. Apparently, John’s disciples consisted of a small group of those who had been baptized by him and were awaiting the coming Messiah. Some transferred their loyalty to Jesus after John had identified Jesus as the Coming One (Jn 1:37). Others, however, apparently stayed on with their teacher, communicating with the imprisoned John concerning the activities of Jesus (Lk 7:18-23) and, after his death, taking the body for burial (Mk 6:29).<\/p>\nWe know little about the activities and practices of the band of disciples clustered around John. We do know, however, that fasting was one practice specifically associated with the group, and one that marked them as similar to the Pharisees (Mt 9:14). In this practice they no doubt followed the example of John himself (Lk 7:33). Prayer and fasting were often linked in late Judaism. The disciples of John were also known for the prayers taught by their master (11:1). Seeing this practice, the disciples of Jesus asked the Lord to teach them to pray, to which Jesus responded with the Lord’s Prayer (vv 2-4).<\/p>\nAfter his death it is likely that other disciples of John joined the followers of Jesus (see Lk 7:29-30). Not all did so, however, as disciples of John were encountered by Paul and other Christians approximately 25 years later in Ephesus (Acts 18:24–29:7). Upon hearing witness to Jesus, these followers of John proclaimed Jesus as Messiah. When Paul baptized them in the name of Jesus they received the Holy Spirit (19:4-7). Even so, it is apparent from later documents that various groups continued to honor John, even considering him the Messiah, centuries after the NT period.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JOHN THE BAPTIST<\/h3>\nForerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD<\/span> 29, while Jesus was still ministering.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\n• Appearance and Identity<\/p>\n• John’s Proclamation<\/p>\n• John’s Baptism<\/p>\n• John’s View of Jesus<\/p>\n• Jesus’ View of John<\/p>\n• Arrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\n• The Disciples of John<\/p>\nBirth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\nLuke’s Gospel is our only source of information concerning the birth and boyhood of John. The Gospel writer states that John was born in the hill country of Judah (Lk 1:39) of priestly descent, being the son of Zechariah, a priest of the order of Abijah, and Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron (v 5). Both parents were righteous in the sight of God, following all the commandments closely (v 6). Like the birth of Jesus, only to a much lesser degree, the birth of John the Baptist is described in Luke as extraordinary. The angel Gabriel announced the coming birth to Zechariah in the temple; to the older, barren Elizabeth it came as an answer to prayer (vv 8-13). John’s name is announced to Zechariah by the angel, even as his purpose as forerunner is revealed before birth (vv 13-17). Such a consecration from birth is reminiscent of the call of the OT prophet Jeremiah (cf. Jer 1:5).<\/p>\nThere existed some familial relationship between the families of John and Jesus. Elizabeth is described as a relative of Mary (Lk 1:36), which may connote cousin or aunt, or may only mean being from the same tribe.<\/p>\nJohn’s childhood, as that of Jesus, is left quite vague in the Gospel account. All that is said is that “John grew up and became strong in spirit. Then he lived out in the wilderness until he began his public ministry to Israel” (Lk 1:80, nlt<\/span>). Some scholars have suggested that John might have been adopted as a boy by the Essenes (as was their practice) at Qumran and reared in their wilderness community, adjacent to the Dead Sea and near the Jordan River. There are some similarities between the activities of the Qumran sect, known through the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the later ministry of John the Baptist. Both practiced a type of asceticism and removed themselves from the life of Jerusalem. Both practiced baptism and associated this rite with initiation and repentance. Finally, John and the Qumran group were both eschatologically minded, awaiting God’s final end-time activity in history. Nevertheless, many significant differences exist between John and the Qumran sect.<\/p>\nAppearance and Identity<\/p>\nMark’s Gospel begins with an account of John the Baptist’s appearance: “John the Baptist . . . lived in the wilderness and was preaching that people should be baptized to show that they had turned from their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Mk 1:4, nlt<\/span>). A rich OT background lies behind John’s association with the wilderness, in this case the wilderness of Judea. It was in the wilderness that God revealed himself to Moses (Ex 3), gave the law, and entered into the covenant with Israel (ch 19). It was also the site of refuge for David (1 Sm 23–26; Ps 63) and Elijah (1 Kgs 19), and in this light became the anticipated site of God’s future deliverance (Is 40:3-5; Ez 47:1-12; Hos 2:14-15).<\/p>\nThe unusual dress of John the Baptist—“clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist” (Mk 1:6, niv<\/span>)—may have suggested to his audience an association with Elijah in particular (2 Kgs 1:8) or with the prophets in general (Zec 13:4). His diet, “locusts and wild honey” (Mk 1:6), was Levitically clean, reflecting one who lived off the desert (such food was also eaten at Qumran) and formed part of the broader asceticism practiced by John and his disciples (Mt 9:14; 11:18).<\/p>\nWho did John understand himself to be? In answer to questions by the multitude whether he was the Messiah, Elijah, or the expected prophet (Jn 1:20-23), John only identified himself as “a voice crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord’ ” (Is 40:3). The background for the question lies at the end of the OT period. Prophecy, on the one hand, was considered to have ceased (Zec 13:2-6); yet, on the other hand, it was expected to appear again before the coming of the messianic kingdom (see Jl 2:28-29; Mal 3:1-4). Some anticipated this final prophet to be one who was like Moses (Dt 18:15), others a returning Elijah as foretold in Malachi 4:5-6. While John personally refrained from identifying himself with these specific expectations (Jn 1:20-23), it is clear that his dress, lifestyle, and message caused the people to identify him with this end-time prophet (Mt 14:5; Mk 11:32). Jesus also saw John as this final “Elijah-like” prophet (Mt 11:7-15), who from Malachi’s prophecy was to be a forerunner to the coming of the Lord (Mal 3:1-4; 4:5-6).<\/p>\nJohn’s Proclamation<\/p>\nJohn’s proclamation involved three elements: a warning of imminent judgment at the hands of the Coming One, a call for repentance in light of the coming kingdom of heaven, and a demand to express this repentance in concrete ethical terms. Many Jews looked forward confidently to the messianic judgment as a time of blessing for themselves and destruction for the gentile oppressors. John, however, warned that Jewish ancestry was false security in the coming judgment (Lk 3:8); true repentance was the only means of escaping destruction (Mt 3:2). John anticipated this judgment at the hands of the Coming One, who would baptize the nation with “the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Lk 3:16). Fire represented the OT means of destruction in the end time (Mal 4:1) as well as purification (Mal 3:1-4), while the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the end time connoted blessing (Is 32:15; Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28) and purification (Is 4:2-4). The judgment anticipated by John was therefore twofold: destruction for the unrepentant, and blessing for the penitent and righteous (Mt 3:12).<\/p>\nIn light of this imminent event John called for repentance on the part of his listeners (Mt 3:2), a true “turning back” or “turning toward” God in obedience that would bring forgiveness of sin. Such a turnabout in an individual’s relation with God should be lived out in one’s everyday dealings: fairness on the part of tax collectors (Lk 3:12-13) and soldiers (v 14), and the general requirement of compassion for the poor (vv 10-11).<\/p>\nJohn’s Baptism<\/p>\nThe Gospels record that John baptized those repentant of their sins at several locations: the Jordan River (Mk 1:5), Bethany beyond the Jordan (Jn 1:28), and Aenon near Salim (Jn 3:23). This practice was an integral part of John’s call for repentance, given in light of the approaching judgment and the appearance of the Coming One. The baptism of the penitent symbolized desire for forgiveness of sin, a renunciation of past life, and a desire to be included in the coming messianic kingdom.<\/p>\nWhat was the background for John’s practice of baptism? From the OT we know of ceremonial lustrations or washings that guaranteed ritual purity (Lv 14–15; Nm 19). Unlike John’s baptism, these washings were repetitive in nature and referred predominantly to ritual rather than moral cleansing. The prophets, however, urged a moral purification associated with the washing of water (Is 1:16-18; Jer 4:14). More significantly, the prophets anticipated a cleansing by God in the end times preceding the Day of Judgment (Ez 36:25; Zec 13:1; cf. Is 44:3), an eschatological element that John may have assumed was being fulfilled in his water baptism.<\/p>\nAnother precedent for John’s practice may have been proselyte baptism, a rite (along with circumcision and the offering of sacrifices) that constituted the conversion of a Gentile to Judaism. Common to both proselyte baptism and John’s baptism were the emphasis on an ethical break with the past, a once-for-all character, and the similarity of immersion. Notable differences were that John’s baptism was for Jews, not Gentile converts, and that it had a marked eschatological character as a preparation for the new age. Unless John, in light of the imminence of the messianic age, consciously treated all Jews as “pagan” in need of a baptism of repentance (cf. Mt 3:7-10), it is doubtful that proselyte baptism formed the primary background for John’s baptismal ministry.<\/p>\nIf John’s baptism had a clear association with the forgiveness of sin, the question naturally arises as to why Jesus, the Son of God, sought baptism from John. John himself asks this very question of Jesus (Mt 3:14), to which Jesus responds, “It must be done, because we must do everything that is right” (v 15, nlt<\/span>). First, it is clear that Jesus’ baptism represented an act of obedience on his part to God’s will as he saw it. Second, by submitting to the baptism of John, Jesus was clearly validating the ministry and message of John. The imminent coming of the kingdom and its Messiah, and the need for repentance in anticipation of this event that John proclaimed, were affirmed by Jesus through baptism. Third, by being baptized, Jesus condemned the self-righteous for their lack of repentance and took a stand with the penitent publicans and sinners awaiting the kingdom of God (Lk 7:29-30). Fourth, Jesus stepped forward for baptism not as an individual in need of forgiveness but as one who represented the people of God. His baptism, therefore, demonstrated solidarity with the people in their need of deliverance, even as he is judged in their place on the cross. Finally, the voice from heaven (Mk 1:11) and the descent of the Spirit (Lk 3:21-22) signify the inauguration of Jesus’ own ministry through his baptism by John.<\/p>\nJohn’s View of Jesus<\/p>\nThroughout his ministry John pointed beyond himself to one “who is far greater than I am—so much greater that I am not even worthy to be his slave” (Mk 1:7, nlt<\/span>). His self-understanding apparently sprang from the application of Isaiah 40:3 to himself, that he was the preparer or forerunner for God’s coming activity through the Messiah (Lk 3:4-6). When asked by curious spectators, John firmly denied that he was the Messiah, and according to the Gospel accounts, subordinated himself to the Coming One (Mk 1:7-8; Jn 1:26-28; 3:28-31). The coming of Jesus to baptism seems to represent the first time John identified these expectations with Jesus himself (Jn 1:35-36). His recognition of Jesus as the Messiah prior to baptism (Mt 3:14) was confirmed by the descent of the Holy Spirit as a dove and the voice from heaven quoting a phrase from an OT messianic psalm (Mk 1:11a, from Ps 2:7), together with a phrase from a Suffering Servant song of Isaiah (Mk 1:11b, from Is 42:1). In the fourth Gospel, John the Baptist goes even further in acknowledging Jesus to be the “Lamb of God” (Jn 1:29), in anticipation of Jesus’ sacrificial role on the cross. And John recognized him as “God’s Chosen One” (v 34, neb<\/span>—another term for the Messiah; Ps 2:7, see Mk 1:11).<\/p>\nIn light of John’s strong affirmation, it is at first difficult to understand his questioning of Jesus while imprisoned: “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?” (Mt 11:3, rsv<\/span>). Some have suggested that John was merely asking for the sake of his disciples, or that the question reflected John’s despondency with being imprisoned. It is more likely, however, that the question represents John’s own confusion with the activity expected of the Messiah. John had proclaimed a Coming One who would bring a baptism of fire and judgment upon the wicked (Lk 3:16). It may have been difficult for him to understand Jesus’ different emphases on forgiveness and acceptance of sinners (Mt 9:9-13) and his healing of the sick (Mt 8–9). When John’s disciples brought their master’s question to Jesus, asking whether or not he was the Messiah, Jesus responded by quoting Isaiah 35:5-6 (see also Is 61:1). This text proclaims the activities of healing and proclaiming salvation to the poor to be fulfillments of the Messiah’s role, even though they may not have been what John or countless other Jews expected.<\/p>\nJesus’ View of John<\/p>\nThat Jesus highly regarded John the Baptist is indicated by his baptism by John. It is also explicitly stated on several occasions. Jesus called him the greatest man to have ever lived (Lk 7:28). (Of course, he was not as great as Jesus, the God-man.) Jesus also said that John was a burning and shining lamp (Jn 5:33-35) and that he practiced a baptism divinely ordained (Lk 20:1-8).<\/p>\nJohn’s uniqueness, however, lies in the fact that he stood at the turning of the ages. He was the last of the old era, the period of the law and the prophets (Lk 16:16), which was to precede the coming of the messianic age (the kingdom of God). John was the last of the prophets, the greatest of them, the Elijah figure who would prepare the way for the judgment of God (Mt 11:13-15; Lk 1:17). Because John belonged to the era of the law and the prophets, however, he was not as great as the “least” already in the kingdom of God (Mt 11:11)—that is, those who belonged to the era of the kingdom’s appearance in Jesus.<\/p>\nArrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\nTo understand why John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas, one has to grasp the messianic excitement caused by John’s appearance and message (Lk 3:15-18). Herod and other secular rulers were obviously suspicious of anyone who might stir up the crowds with predictions of a coming messianic ruler. Other messianic movements had arisen before John, which resulted in outbreaks of violence against the Roman-Herodian rulership. Moreover, Herod Antipas was under heavy criticism for his marriage with Herodias, the ex-wife of his brother Philip. His first marriage, with the daughter of Aretus II, constituted a political alliance between the Herodian family and the Nabatean kingdom of Perea. His new relationship with Herodias was perceived as a breach of the political alliance and led to friction between the two families. John’s denunciation of Herod’s new marriage (Mt 14:3-12) could thus have been interpreted by Herod as a subversive rousing of sentiment against his authority. The Jewish historian Josephus states that Herod did, in fact, arrest John because he feared John’s influence over the crowds. According to Josephus, John was imprisoned at the fortress Machaerus on the eastern side of the Dead Sea. That he was not killed immediately was due to Herod’s personal fear of the righteous John (Mk 6:2) and of the people’s reaction (Mt 14:5). On a point about which Josephus is silent, the Gospels record that it was Herodias’s feelings against John (Mk 6:17) and her plot, through the dancing of her daughter, which brought about the beheading of John (vv 21-29). John was beheaded at Herodias’s request in approximately AD<\/span> 29 or 30.<\/p>\nThe Disciples of John<\/p>\nWhile it is clear that a band of disciples formed around John in his lifetime (Jn 1:35), to suggest that he intended to begin a continuing movement is contradicted by his message on the imminent Day of Judgment. Apparently, John’s disciples consisted of a small group of those who had been baptized by him and were awaiting the coming Messiah. Some transferred their loyalty to Jesus after John had identified Jesus as the Coming One (Jn 1:37). Others, however, apparently stayed on with their teacher, communicating with the imprisoned John concerning the activities of Jesus (Lk 7:18-23) and, after his death, taking the body for burial (Mk 6:29).<\/p>\nWe know little about the activities and practices of the band of disciples clustered around John. We do know, however, that fasting was one practice specifically associated with the group, and one that marked them as similar to the Pharisees (Mt 9:14). In this practice they no doubt followed the example of John himself (Lk 7:33). Prayer and fasting were often linked in late Judaism. The disciples of John were also known for the prayers taught by their master (11:1). Seeing this practice, the disciples of Jesus asked the Lord to teach them to pray, to which Jesus responded with the Lord’s Prayer (vv 2-4).<\/p>\nAfter his death it is likely that other disciples of John joined the followers of Jesus (see Lk 7:29-30). Not all did so, however, as disciples of John were encountered by Paul and other Christians approximately 25 years later in Ephesus (Acts 18:24–29:7). Upon hearing witness to Jesus, these followers of John proclaimed Jesus as Messiah. When Paul baptized them in the name of Jesus they received the Holy Spirit (19:4-7). Even so, it is apparent from later documents that various groups continued to honor John, even considering him the Messiah, centuries after the NT period.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JOHN THE BAPTIST Forerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD 29, while Jesus was still ministering. Preview • Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood • Appearance and Identity • John’s Proclamation • ...","summary_en":"JOHN THE BAPTIST Forerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD 29, while Jesus was still ministering. Preview • Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood • Appearance and Identity • John’s Proclamation • ...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"11":[{"id":55663,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:11","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:11","content_ro":"3:11<\/strong> two shirts:<\/em> The Greek word refers to a long shirt worn next to the skin. Even the smallest surplus should be shared with others in need.<\/p>","content_en":"3:11<\/strong> two shirts:<\/em> The Greek word refers to a long shirt worn next to the skin. Even the smallest surplus should be shared with others in need.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:11 two shirts: The Greek word refers to a long shirt worn next to the skin. Even the smallest surplus should be shared with others in need.","summary_en":"3:11 two shirts: The Greek word refers to a long shirt worn next to the skin. Even the smallest surplus should be shared with others in need.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83289,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:11","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:11","content_ro":"3:11<\/strong> two shirts:<\/em> The Greek word refers to a long shirt worn next to the skin. Even the smallest surplus should be shared with others in need.<\/p>","content_en":"3:11<\/strong> two shirts:<\/em> The Greek word refers to a long shirt worn next to the skin. Even the smallest surplus should be shared with others in need.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:11 two shirts: The Greek word refers to a long shirt worn next to the skin. Even the smallest surplus should be shared with others in need.","summary_en":"3:11 two shirts: The Greek word refers to a long shirt worn next to the skin. Even the smallest surplus should be shared with others in need.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110915,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:11","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:11","content_ro":"3:11<\/strong> two shirts:<\/em> The Greek word refers to a long shirt worn next to the skin. Even the smallest surplus should be shared with others in need.<\/p>","content_en":"3:11<\/strong> two shirts:<\/em> The Greek word refers to a long shirt worn next to the skin. Even the smallest surplus should be shared with others in need.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:11 two shirts: The Greek word refers to a long shirt worn next to the skin. Even the smallest surplus should be shared with others in need.","summary_en":"3:11 two shirts: The Greek word refers to a long shirt worn next to the skin. Even the smallest surplus should be shared with others in need.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138541,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:11","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:11","content_ro":"3:11<\/strong> two shirts:<\/em> The Greek word refers to a long shirt worn next to the skin. Even the smallest surplus should be shared with others in need.<\/p>","content_en":"3:11<\/strong> two shirts:<\/em> The Greek word refers to a long shirt worn next to the skin. Even the smallest surplus should be shared with others in need.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:11 two shirts: The Greek word refers to a long shirt worn next to the skin. Even the smallest surplus should be shared with others in need.","summary_en":"3:11 two shirts: The Greek word refers to a long shirt worn next to the skin. Even the smallest surplus should be shared with others in need.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"12":[{"id":20356,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"John the Baptist","title_en":"John the Baptist","content_ro":"<h3>JOHN THE BAPTIST<\/h3>\nForerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD<\/span> 29, while Jesus was still ministering.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\n• Appearance and Identity<\/p>\n• John’s Proclamation<\/p>\n• John’s Baptism<\/p>\n• John’s View of Jesus<\/p>\n• Jesus’ View of John<\/p>\n• Arrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\n• The Disciples of John<\/p>\nBirth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\nLuke’s Gospel is our only source of information concerning the birth and boyhood of John. The Gospel writer states that John was born in the hill country of Judah (Lk 1:39) of priestly descent, being the son of Zechariah, a priest of the order of Abijah, and Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron (v 5). Both parents were righteous in the sight of God, following all the commandments closely (v 6). Like the birth of Jesus, only to a much lesser degree, the birth of John the Baptist is described in Luke as extraordinary. The angel Gabriel announced the coming birth to Zechariah in the temple; to the older, barren Elizabeth it came as an answer to prayer (vv 8-13). John’s name is announced to Zechariah by the angel, even as his purpose as forerunner is revealed before birth (vv 13-17). Such a consecration from birth is reminiscent of the call of the OT prophet Jeremiah (cf. Jer 1:5).<\/p>\nThere existed some familial relationship between the families of John and Jesus. Elizabeth is described as a relative of Mary (Lk 1:36), which may connote cousin or aunt, or may only mean being from the same tribe.<\/p>\nJohn’s childhood, as that of Jesus, is left quite vague in the Gospel account. All that is said is that “John grew up and became strong in spirit. Then he lived out in the wilderness until he began his public ministry to Israel” (Lk 1:80, nlt<\/span>). Some scholars have suggested that John might have been adopted as a boy by the Essenes (as was their practice) at Qumran and reared in their wilderness community, adjacent to the Dead Sea and near the Jordan River. There are some similarities between the activities of the Qumran sect, known through the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the later ministry of John the Baptist. Both practiced a type of asceticism and removed themselves from the life of Jerusalem. Both practiced baptism and associated this rite with initiation and repentance. Finally, John and the Qumran group were both eschatologically minded, awaiting God’s final end-time activity in history. Nevertheless, many significant differences exist between John and the Qumran sect.<\/p>\nAppearance and Identity<\/p>\nMark’s Gospel begins with an account of John the Baptist’s appearance: “John the Baptist . . . lived in the wilderness and was preaching that people should be baptized to show that they had turned from their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Mk 1:4, nlt<\/span>). A rich OT background lies behind John’s association with the wilderness, in this case the wilderness of Judea. It was in the wilderness that God revealed himself to Moses (Ex 3), gave the law, and entered into the covenant with Israel (ch 19). It was also the site of refuge for David (1 Sm 23–26; Ps 63) and Elijah (1 Kgs 19), and in this light became the anticipated site of God’s future deliverance (Is 40:3-5; Ez 47:1-12; Hos 2:14-15).<\/p>\nThe unusual dress of John the Baptist—“clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist” (Mk 1:6, niv<\/span>)—may have suggested to his audience an association with Elijah in particular (2 Kgs 1:8) or with the prophets in general (Zec 13:4). His diet, “locusts and wild honey” (Mk 1:6), was Levitically clean, reflecting one who lived off the desert (such food was also eaten at Qumran) and formed part of the broader asceticism practiced by John and his disciples (Mt 9:14; 11:18).<\/p>\nWho did John understand himself to be? In answer to questions by the multitude whether he was the Messiah, Elijah, or the expected prophet (Jn 1:20-23), John only identified himself as “a voice crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord’ ” (Is 40:3). The background for the question lies at the end of the OT period. Prophecy, on the one hand, was considered to have ceased (Zec 13:2-6); yet, on the other hand, it was expected to appear again before the coming of the messianic kingdom (see Jl 2:28-29; Mal 3:1-4). Some anticipated this final prophet to be one who was like Moses (Dt 18:15), others a returning Elijah as foretold in Malachi 4:5-6. While John personally refrained from identifying himself with these specific expectations (Jn 1:20-23), it is clear that his dress, lifestyle, and message caused the people to identify him with this end-time prophet (Mt 14:5; Mk 11:32). Jesus also saw John as this final “Elijah-like” prophet (Mt 11:7-15), who from Malachi’s prophecy was to be a forerunner to the coming of the Lord (Mal 3:1-4; 4:5-6).<\/p>\nJohn’s Proclamation<\/p>\nJohn’s proclamation involved three elements: a warning of imminent judgment at the hands of the Coming One, a call for repentance in light of the coming kingdom of heaven, and a demand to express this repentance in concrete ethical terms. Many Jews looked forward confidently to the messianic judgment as a time of blessing for themselves and destruction for the gentile oppressors. John, however, warned that Jewish ancestry was false security in the coming judgment (Lk 3:8); true repentance was the only means of escaping destruction (Mt 3:2). John anticipated this judgment at the hands of the Coming One, who would baptize the nation with “the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Lk 3:16). Fire represented the OT means of destruction in the end time (Mal 4:1) as well as purification (Mal 3:1-4), while the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the end time connoted blessing (Is 32:15; Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28) and purification (Is 4:2-4). The judgment anticipated by John was therefore twofold: destruction for the unrepentant, and blessing for the penitent and righteous (Mt 3:12).<\/p>\nIn light of this imminent event John called for repentance on the part of his listeners (Mt 3:2), a true “turning back” or “turning toward” God in obedience that would bring forgiveness of sin. Such a turnabout in an individual’s relation with God should be lived out in one’s everyday dealings: fairness on the part of tax collectors (Lk 3:12-13) and soldiers (v 14), and the general requirement of compassion for the poor (vv 10-11).<\/p>\nJohn’s Baptism<\/p>\nThe Gospels record that John baptized those repentant of their sins at several locations: the Jordan River (Mk 1:5), Bethany beyond the Jordan (Jn 1:28), and Aenon near Salim (Jn 3:23). This practice was an integral part of John’s call for repentance, given in light of the approaching judgment and the appearance of the Coming One. The baptism of the penitent symbolized desire for forgiveness of sin, a renunciation of past life, and a desire to be included in the coming messianic kingdom.<\/p>\nWhat was the background for John’s practice of baptism? From the OT we know of ceremonial lustrations or washings that guaranteed ritual purity (Lv 14–15; Nm 19). Unlike John’s baptism, these washings were repetitive in nature and referred predominantly to ritual rather than moral cleansing. The prophets, however, urged a moral purification associated with the washing of water (Is 1:16-18; Jer 4:14). More significantly, the prophets anticipated a cleansing by God in the end times preceding the Day of Judgment (Ez 36:25; Zec 13:1; cf. Is 44:3), an eschatological element that John may have assumed was being fulfilled in his water baptism.<\/p>\nAnother precedent for John’s practice may have been proselyte baptism, a rite (along with circumcision and the offering of sacrifices) that constituted the conversion of a Gentile to Judaism. Common to both proselyte baptism and John’s baptism were the emphasis on an ethical break with the past, a once-for-all character, and the similarity of immersion. Notable differences were that John’s baptism was for Jews, not Gentile converts, and that it had a marked eschatological character as a preparation for the new age. Unless John, in light of the imminence of the messianic age, consciously treated all Jews as “pagan” in need of a baptism of repentance (cf. Mt 3:7-10), it is doubtful that proselyte baptism formed the primary background for John’s baptismal ministry.<\/p>\nIf John’s baptism had a clear association with the forgiveness of sin, the question naturally arises as to why Jesus, the Son of God, sought baptism from John. John himself asks this very question of Jesus (Mt 3:14), to which Jesus responds, “It must be done, because we must do everything that is right” (v 15, nlt<\/span>). First, it is clear that Jesus’ baptism represented an act of obedience on his part to God’s will as he saw it. Second, by submitting to the baptism of John, Jesus was clearly validating the ministry and message of John. The imminent coming of the kingdom and its Messiah, and the need for repentance in anticipation of this event that John proclaimed, were affirmed by Jesus through baptism. Third, by being baptized, Jesus condemned the self-righteous for their lack of repentance and took a stand with the penitent publicans and sinners awaiting the kingdom of God (Lk 7:29-30). Fourth, Jesus stepped forward for baptism not as an individual in need of forgiveness but as one who represented the people of God. His baptism, therefore, demonstrated solidarity with the people in their need of deliverance, even as he is judged in their place on the cross. Finally, the voice from heaven (Mk 1:11) and the descent of the Spirit (Lk 3:21-22) signify the inauguration of Jesus’ own ministry through his baptism by John.<\/p>\nJohn’s View of Jesus<\/p>\nThroughout his ministry John pointed beyond himself to one “who is far greater than I am—so much greater that I am not even worthy to be his slave” (Mk 1:7, nlt<\/span>). His self-understanding apparently sprang from the application of Isaiah 40:3 to himself, that he was the preparer or forerunner for God’s coming activity through the Messiah (Lk 3:4-6). When asked by curious spectators, John firmly denied that he was the Messiah, and according to the Gospel accounts, subordinated himself to the Coming One (Mk 1:7-8; Jn 1:26-28; 3:28-31). The coming of Jesus to baptism seems to represent the first time John identified these expectations with Jesus himself (Jn 1:35-36). His recognition of Jesus as the Messiah prior to baptism (Mt 3:14) was confirmed by the descent of the Holy Spirit as a dove and the voice from heaven quoting a phrase from an OT messianic psalm (Mk 1:11a, from Ps 2:7), together with a phrase from a Suffering Servant song of Isaiah (Mk 1:11b, from Is 42:1). In the fourth Gospel, John the Baptist goes even further in acknowledging Jesus to be the “Lamb of God” (Jn 1:29), in anticipation of Jesus’ sacrificial role on the cross. And John recognized him as “God’s Chosen One” (v 34, neb<\/span>—another term for the Messiah; Ps 2:7, see Mk 1:11).<\/p>\nIn light of John’s strong affirmation, it is at first difficult to understand his questioning of Jesus while imprisoned: “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?” (Mt 11:3, rsv<\/span>). Some have suggested that John was merely asking for the sake of his disciples, or that the question reflected John’s despondency with being imprisoned. It is more likely, however, that the question represents John’s own confusion with the activity expected of the Messiah. John had proclaimed a Coming One who would bring a baptism of fire and judgment upon the wicked (Lk 3:16). It may have been difficult for him to understand Jesus’ different emphases on forgiveness and acceptance of sinners (Mt 9:9-13) and his healing of the sick (Mt 8–9). When John’s disciples brought their master’s question to Jesus, asking whether or not he was the Messiah, Jesus responded by quoting Isaiah 35:5-6 (see also Is 61:1). This text proclaims the activities of healing and proclaiming salvation to the poor to be fulfillments of the Messiah’s role, even though they may not have been what John or countless other Jews expected.<\/p>\nJesus’ View of John<\/p>\nThat Jesus highly regarded John the Baptist is indicated by his baptism by John. It is also explicitly stated on several occasions. Jesus called him the greatest man to have ever lived (Lk 7:28). (Of course, he was not as great as Jesus, the God-man.) Jesus also said that John was a burning and shining lamp (Jn 5:33-35) and that he practiced a baptism divinely ordained (Lk 20:1-8).<\/p>\nJohn’s uniqueness, however, lies in the fact that he stood at the turning of the ages. He was the last of the old era, the period of the law and the prophets (Lk 16:16), which was to precede the coming of the messianic age (the kingdom of God). John was the last of the prophets, the greatest of them, the Elijah figure who would prepare the way for the judgment of God (Mt 11:13-15; Lk 1:17). Because John belonged to the era of the law and the prophets, however, he was not as great as the “least” already in the kingdom of God (Mt 11:11)—that is, those who belonged to the era of the kingdom’s appearance in Jesus.<\/p>\nArrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\nTo understand why John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas, one has to grasp the messianic excitement caused by John’s appearance and message (Lk 3:15-18). Herod and other secular rulers were obviously suspicious of anyone who might stir up the crowds with predictions of a coming messianic ruler. Other messianic movements had arisen before John, which resulted in outbreaks of violence against the Roman-Herodian rulership. Moreover, Herod Antipas was under heavy criticism for his marriage with Herodias, the ex-wife of his brother Philip. His first marriage, with the daughter of Aretus II, constituted a political alliance between the Herodian family and the Nabatean kingdom of Perea. His new relationship with Herodias was perceived as a breach of the political alliance and led to friction between the two families. John’s denunciation of Herod’s new marriage (Mt 14:3-12) could thus have been interpreted by Herod as a subversive rousing of sentiment against his authority. The Jewish historian Josephus states that Herod did, in fact, arrest John because he feared John’s influence over the crowds. According to Josephus, John was imprisoned at the fortress Machaerus on the eastern side of the Dead Sea. That he was not killed immediately was due to Herod’s personal fear of the righteous John (Mk 6:2) and of the people’s reaction (Mt 14:5). On a point about which Josephus is silent, the Gospels record that it was Herodias’s feelings against John (Mk 6:17) and her plot, through the dancing of her daughter, which brought about the beheading of John (vv 21-29). John was beheaded at Herodias’s request in approximately AD<\/span> 29 or 30.<\/p>\nThe Disciples of John<\/p>\nWhile it is clear that a band of disciples formed around John in his lifetime (Jn 1:35), to suggest that he intended to begin a continuing movement is contradicted by his message on the imminent Day of Judgment. Apparently, John’s disciples consisted of a small group of those who had been baptized by him and were awaiting the coming Messiah. Some transferred their loyalty to Jesus after John had identified Jesus as the Coming One (Jn 1:37). Others, however, apparently stayed on with their teacher, communicating with the imprisoned John concerning the activities of Jesus (Lk 7:18-23) and, after his death, taking the body for burial (Mk 6:29).<\/p>\nWe know little about the activities and practices of the band of disciples clustered around John. We do know, however, that fasting was one practice specifically associated with the group, and one that marked them as similar to the Pharisees (Mt 9:14). In this practice they no doubt followed the example of John himself (Lk 7:33). Prayer and fasting were often linked in late Judaism. The disciples of John were also known for the prayers taught by their master (11:1). Seeing this practice, the disciples of Jesus asked the Lord to teach them to pray, to which Jesus responded with the Lord’s Prayer (vv 2-4).<\/p>\nAfter his death it is likely that other disciples of John joined the followers of Jesus (see Lk 7:29-30). Not all did so, however, as disciples of John were encountered by Paul and other Christians approximately 25 years later in Ephesus (Acts 18:24–29:7). Upon hearing witness to Jesus, these followers of John proclaimed Jesus as Messiah. When Paul baptized them in the name of Jesus they received the Holy Spirit (19:4-7). Even so, it is apparent from later documents that various groups continued to honor John, even considering him the Messiah, centuries after the NT period.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JOHN THE BAPTIST<\/h3>\nForerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD<\/span> 29, while Jesus was still ministering.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\n• Appearance and Identity<\/p>\n• John’s Proclamation<\/p>\n• John’s Baptism<\/p>\n• John’s View of Jesus<\/p>\n• Jesus’ View of John<\/p>\n• Arrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\n• The Disciples of John<\/p>\nBirth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\nLuke’s Gospel is our only source of information concerning the birth and boyhood of John. The Gospel writer states that John was born in the hill country of Judah (Lk 1:39) of priestly descent, being the son of Zechariah, a priest of the order of Abijah, and Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron (v 5). Both parents were righteous in the sight of God, following all the commandments closely (v 6). Like the birth of Jesus, only to a much lesser degree, the birth of John the Baptist is described in Luke as extraordinary. The angel Gabriel announced the coming birth to Zechariah in the temple; to the older, barren Elizabeth it came as an answer to prayer (vv 8-13). John’s name is announced to Zechariah by the angel, even as his purpose as forerunner is revealed before birth (vv 13-17). Such a consecration from birth is reminiscent of the call of the OT prophet Jeremiah (cf. Jer 1:5).<\/p>\nThere existed some familial relationship between the families of John and Jesus. Elizabeth is described as a relative of Mary (Lk 1:36), which may connote cousin or aunt, or may only mean being from the same tribe.<\/p>\nJohn’s childhood, as that of Jesus, is left quite vague in the Gospel account. All that is said is that “John grew up and became strong in spirit. Then he lived out in the wilderness until he began his public ministry to Israel” (Lk 1:80, nlt<\/span>). Some scholars have suggested that John might have been adopted as a boy by the Essenes (as was their practice) at Qumran and reared in their wilderness community, adjacent to the Dead Sea and near the Jordan River. There are some similarities between the activities of the Qumran sect, known through the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the later ministry of John the Baptist. Both practiced a type of asceticism and removed themselves from the life of Jerusalem. Both practiced baptism and associated this rite with initiation and repentance. Finally, John and the Qumran group were both eschatologically minded, awaiting God’s final end-time activity in history. Nevertheless, many significant differences exist between John and the Qumran sect.<\/p>\nAppearance and Identity<\/p>\nMark’s Gospel begins with an account of John the Baptist’s appearance: “John the Baptist . . . lived in the wilderness and was preaching that people should be baptized to show that they had turned from their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Mk 1:4, nlt<\/span>). A rich OT background lies behind John’s association with the wilderness, in this case the wilderness of Judea. It was in the wilderness that God revealed himself to Moses (Ex 3), gave the law, and entered into the covenant with Israel (ch 19). It was also the site of refuge for David (1 Sm 23–26; Ps 63) and Elijah (1 Kgs 19), and in this light became the anticipated site of God’s future deliverance (Is 40:3-5; Ez 47:1-12; Hos 2:14-15).<\/p>\nThe unusual dress of John the Baptist—“clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist” (Mk 1:6, niv<\/span>)—may have suggested to his audience an association with Elijah in particular (2 Kgs 1:8) or with the prophets in general (Zec 13:4). His diet, “locusts and wild honey” (Mk 1:6), was Levitically clean, reflecting one who lived off the desert (such food was also eaten at Qumran) and formed part of the broader asceticism practiced by John and his disciples (Mt 9:14; 11:18).<\/p>\nWho did John understand himself to be? In answer to questions by the multitude whether he was the Messiah, Elijah, or the expected prophet (Jn 1:20-23), John only identified himself as “a voice crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord’ ” (Is 40:3). The background for the question lies at the end of the OT period. Prophecy, on the one hand, was considered to have ceased (Zec 13:2-6); yet, on the other hand, it was expected to appear again before the coming of the messianic kingdom (see Jl 2:28-29; Mal 3:1-4). Some anticipated this final prophet to be one who was like Moses (Dt 18:15), others a returning Elijah as foretold in Malachi 4:5-6. While John personally refrained from identifying himself with these specific expectations (Jn 1:20-23), it is clear that his dress, lifestyle, and message caused the people to identify him with this end-time prophet (Mt 14:5; Mk 11:32). Jesus also saw John as this final “Elijah-like” prophet (Mt 11:7-15), who from Malachi’s prophecy was to be a forerunner to the coming of the Lord (Mal 3:1-4; 4:5-6).<\/p>\nJohn’s Proclamation<\/p>\nJohn’s proclamation involved three elements: a warning of imminent judgment at the hands of the Coming One, a call for repentance in light of the coming kingdom of heaven, and a demand to express this repentance in concrete ethical terms. Many Jews looked forward confidently to the messianic judgment as a time of blessing for themselves and destruction for the gentile oppressors. John, however, warned that Jewish ancestry was false security in the coming judgment (Lk 3:8); true repentance was the only means of escaping destruction (Mt 3:2). John anticipated this judgment at the hands of the Coming One, who would baptize the nation with “the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Lk 3:16). Fire represented the OT means of destruction in the end time (Mal 4:1) as well as purification (Mal 3:1-4), while the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the end time connoted blessing (Is 32:15; Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28) and purification (Is 4:2-4). The judgment anticipated by John was therefore twofold: destruction for the unrepentant, and blessing for the penitent and righteous (Mt 3:12).<\/p>\nIn light of this imminent event John called for repentance on the part of his listeners (Mt 3:2), a true “turning back” or “turning toward” God in obedience that would bring forgiveness of sin. Such a turnabout in an individual’s relation with God should be lived out in one’s everyday dealings: fairness on the part of tax collectors (Lk 3:12-13) and soldiers (v 14), and the general requirement of compassion for the poor (vv 10-11).<\/p>\nJohn’s Baptism<\/p>\nThe Gospels record that John baptized those repentant of their sins at several locations: the Jordan River (Mk 1:5), Bethany beyond the Jordan (Jn 1:28), and Aenon near Salim (Jn 3:23). This practice was an integral part of John’s call for repentance, given in light of the approaching judgment and the appearance of the Coming One. The baptism of the penitent symbolized desire for forgiveness of sin, a renunciation of past life, and a desire to be included in the coming messianic kingdom.<\/p>\nWhat was the background for John’s practice of baptism? From the OT we know of ceremonial lustrations or washings that guaranteed ritual purity (Lv 14–15; Nm 19). Unlike John’s baptism, these washings were repetitive in nature and referred predominantly to ritual rather than moral cleansing. The prophets, however, urged a moral purification associated with the washing of water (Is 1:16-18; Jer 4:14). More significantly, the prophets anticipated a cleansing by God in the end times preceding the Day of Judgment (Ez 36:25; Zec 13:1; cf. Is 44:3), an eschatological element that John may have assumed was being fulfilled in his water baptism.<\/p>\nAnother precedent for John’s practice may have been proselyte baptism, a rite (along with circumcision and the offering of sacrifices) that constituted the conversion of a Gentile to Judaism. Common to both proselyte baptism and John’s baptism were the emphasis on an ethical break with the past, a once-for-all character, and the similarity of immersion. Notable differences were that John’s baptism was for Jews, not Gentile converts, and that it had a marked eschatological character as a preparation for the new age. Unless John, in light of the imminence of the messianic age, consciously treated all Jews as “pagan” in need of a baptism of repentance (cf. Mt 3:7-10), it is doubtful that proselyte baptism formed the primary background for John’s baptismal ministry.<\/p>\nIf John’s baptism had a clear association with the forgiveness of sin, the question naturally arises as to why Jesus, the Son of God, sought baptism from John. John himself asks this very question of Jesus (Mt 3:14), to which Jesus responds, “It must be done, because we must do everything that is right” (v 15, nlt<\/span>). First, it is clear that Jesus’ baptism represented an act of obedience on his part to God’s will as he saw it. Second, by submitting to the baptism of John, Jesus was clearly validating the ministry and message of John. The imminent coming of the kingdom and its Messiah, and the need for repentance in anticipation of this event that John proclaimed, were affirmed by Jesus through baptism. Third, by being baptized, Jesus condemned the self-righteous for their lack of repentance and took a stand with the penitent publicans and sinners awaiting the kingdom of God (Lk 7:29-30). Fourth, Jesus stepped forward for baptism not as an individual in need of forgiveness but as one who represented the people of God. His baptism, therefore, demonstrated solidarity with the people in their need of deliverance, even as he is judged in their place on the cross. Finally, the voice from heaven (Mk 1:11) and the descent of the Spirit (Lk 3:21-22) signify the inauguration of Jesus’ own ministry through his baptism by John.<\/p>\nJohn’s View of Jesus<\/p>\nThroughout his ministry John pointed beyond himself to one “who is far greater than I am—so much greater that I am not even worthy to be his slave” (Mk 1:7, nlt<\/span>). His self-understanding apparently sprang from the application of Isaiah 40:3 to himself, that he was the preparer or forerunner for God’s coming activity through the Messiah (Lk 3:4-6). When asked by curious spectators, John firmly denied that he was the Messiah, and according to the Gospel accounts, subordinated himself to the Coming One (Mk 1:7-8; Jn 1:26-28; 3:28-31). The coming of Jesus to baptism seems to represent the first time John identified these expectations with Jesus himself (Jn 1:35-36). His recognition of Jesus as the Messiah prior to baptism (Mt 3:14) was confirmed by the descent of the Holy Spirit as a dove and the voice from heaven quoting a phrase from an OT messianic psalm (Mk 1:11a, from Ps 2:7), together with a phrase from a Suffering Servant song of Isaiah (Mk 1:11b, from Is 42:1). In the fourth Gospel, John the Baptist goes even further in acknowledging Jesus to be the “Lamb of God” (Jn 1:29), in anticipation of Jesus’ sacrificial role on the cross. And John recognized him as “God’s Chosen One” (v 34, neb<\/span>—another term for the Messiah; Ps 2:7, see Mk 1:11).<\/p>\nIn light of John’s strong affirmation, it is at first difficult to understand his questioning of Jesus while imprisoned: “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?” (Mt 11:3, rsv<\/span>). Some have suggested that John was merely asking for the sake of his disciples, or that the question reflected John’s despondency with being imprisoned. It is more likely, however, that the question represents John’s own confusion with the activity expected of the Messiah. John had proclaimed a Coming One who would bring a baptism of fire and judgment upon the wicked (Lk 3:16). It may have been difficult for him to understand Jesus’ different emphases on forgiveness and acceptance of sinners (Mt 9:9-13) and his healing of the sick (Mt 8–9). When John’s disciples brought their master’s question to Jesus, asking whether or not he was the Messiah, Jesus responded by quoting Isaiah 35:5-6 (see also Is 61:1). This text proclaims the activities of healing and proclaiming salvation to the poor to be fulfillments of the Messiah’s role, even though they may not have been what John or countless other Jews expected.<\/p>\nJesus’ View of John<\/p>\nThat Jesus highly regarded John the Baptist is indicated by his baptism by John. It is also explicitly stated on several occasions. Jesus called him the greatest man to have ever lived (Lk 7:28). (Of course, he was not as great as Jesus, the God-man.) Jesus also said that John was a burning and shining lamp (Jn 5:33-35) and that he practiced a baptism divinely ordained (Lk 20:1-8).<\/p>\nJohn’s uniqueness, however, lies in the fact that he stood at the turning of the ages. He was the last of the old era, the period of the law and the prophets (Lk 16:16), which was to precede the coming of the messianic age (the kingdom of God). John was the last of the prophets, the greatest of them, the Elijah figure who would prepare the way for the judgment of God (Mt 11:13-15; Lk 1:17). Because John belonged to the era of the law and the prophets, however, he was not as great as the “least” already in the kingdom of God (Mt 11:11)—that is, those who belonged to the era of the kingdom’s appearance in Jesus.<\/p>\nArrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\nTo understand why John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas, one has to grasp the messianic excitement caused by John’s appearance and message (Lk 3:15-18). Herod and other secular rulers were obviously suspicious of anyone who might stir up the crowds with predictions of a coming messianic ruler. Other messianic movements had arisen before John, which resulted in outbreaks of violence against the Roman-Herodian rulership. Moreover, Herod Antipas was under heavy criticism for his marriage with Herodias, the ex-wife of his brother Philip. His first marriage, with the daughter of Aretus II, constituted a political alliance between the Herodian family and the Nabatean kingdom of Perea. His new relationship with Herodias was perceived as a breach of the political alliance and led to friction between the two families. John’s denunciation of Herod’s new marriage (Mt 14:3-12) could thus have been interpreted by Herod as a subversive rousing of sentiment against his authority. The Jewish historian Josephus states that Herod did, in fact, arrest John because he feared John’s influence over the crowds. According to Josephus, John was imprisoned at the fortress Machaerus on the eastern side of the Dead Sea. That he was not killed immediately was due to Herod’s personal fear of the righteous John (Mk 6:2) and of the people’s reaction (Mt 14:5). On a point about which Josephus is silent, the Gospels record that it was Herodias’s feelings against John (Mk 6:17) and her plot, through the dancing of her daughter, which brought about the beheading of John (vv 21-29). John was beheaded at Herodias’s request in approximately AD<\/span> 29 or 30.<\/p>\nThe Disciples of John<\/p>\nWhile it is clear that a band of disciples formed around John in his lifetime (Jn 1:35), to suggest that he intended to begin a continuing movement is contradicted by his message on the imminent Day of Judgment. Apparently, John’s disciples consisted of a small group of those who had been baptized by him and were awaiting the coming Messiah. Some transferred their loyalty to Jesus after John had identified Jesus as the Coming One (Jn 1:37). Others, however, apparently stayed on with their teacher, communicating with the imprisoned John concerning the activities of Jesus (Lk 7:18-23) and, after his death, taking the body for burial (Mk 6:29).<\/p>\nWe know little about the activities and practices of the band of disciples clustered around John. We do know, however, that fasting was one practice specifically associated with the group, and one that marked them as similar to the Pharisees (Mt 9:14). In this practice they no doubt followed the example of John himself (Lk 7:33). Prayer and fasting were often linked in late Judaism. The disciples of John were also known for the prayers taught by their master (11:1). Seeing this practice, the disciples of Jesus asked the Lord to teach them to pray, to which Jesus responded with the Lord’s Prayer (vv 2-4).<\/p>\nAfter his death it is likely that other disciples of John joined the followers of Jesus (see Lk 7:29-30). Not all did so, however, as disciples of John were encountered by Paul and other Christians approximately 25 years later in Ephesus (Acts 18:24–29:7). Upon hearing witness to Jesus, these followers of John proclaimed Jesus as Messiah. When Paul baptized them in the name of Jesus they received the Holy Spirit (19:4-7). Even so, it is apparent from later documents that various groups continued to honor John, even considering him the Messiah, centuries after the NT period.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JOHN THE BAPTIST Forerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD 29, while Jesus was still ministering. Preview • Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood • Appearance and Identity • John’s Proclamation • ...","summary_en":"JOHN THE BAPTIST Forerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD 29, while Jesus was still ministering. Preview • Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood • Appearance and Identity • John’s Proclamation • ...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36850,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Teacher","title_en":"Teacher","content_ro":"<h3>TEACHER<\/h3>\nTeachers conserved the values and academia of a nation and passed them on to each new generation. In OT times the first teachers were often parents (Dt 6:7, 20-25; 11:19-21). Leaders like Moses and Aaron were charged with teaching the people (Lv 10:11), and later the priests and Levites had a teaching function (Dt 24:8; 33:8-10; 2 Chr 17:7-9; Ez 44:23; Mi 3:11). God himself was thought of as a teacher (Pss 25:8, 12; 27:11; 32:8; 86:11; Is 2:3).<\/p>\nIn the NT the Greek noun for “teacher” and the verb “to teach” are widely used. John the Baptist was called a teacher (Lk 3:12). The term is used more than 30 times of Jesus (Mt 4:23; 5:2; 7:29; 9:35; 11:1; Mk 1:21; 2:13; 4:1-2; 6:2, 6, 34; Lk 4:15, 31; 5:3; 6:6; Jn 6:59; 7:14, 28; etc.). People recognized his teaching as authoritative (Mt 7:29; Mk 1:22; Lk 4:32). Even as a boy of 12 he conversed in a profound way with the teachers of the law in the temple (Lk 2:46). These men were often associated with the Pharisees (5:17). Gamaliel was a Pharisee and a teacher of the law (Acts 5:34). The term “rabbi” was often used to denote teacher. The rabbi was held in great honor. In the early church the teacher was widely recognized (Acts 13:1; 1 Cor 12:28-29; Eph 4:11; 2 Tm 1:11; Jas 3:1).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TEACHER<\/h3>\nTeachers conserved the values and academia of a nation and passed them on to each new generation. In OT times the first teachers were often parents (Dt 6:7, 20-25; 11:19-21). Leaders like Moses and Aaron were charged with teaching the people (Lv 10:11), and later the priests and Levites had a teaching function (Dt 24:8; 33:8-10; 2 Chr 17:7-9; Ez 44:23; Mi 3:11). God himself was thought of as a teacher (Pss 25:8, 12; 27:11; 32:8; 86:11; Is 2:3).<\/p>\nIn the NT the Greek noun for “teacher” and the verb “to teach” are widely used. John the Baptist was called a teacher (Lk 3:12). The term is used more than 30 times of Jesus (Mt 4:23; 5:2; 7:29; 9:35; 11:1; Mk 1:21; 2:13; 4:1-2; 6:2, 6, 34; Lk 4:15, 31; 5:3; 6:6; Jn 6:59; 7:14, 28; etc.). People recognized his teaching as authoritative (Mt 7:29; Mk 1:22; Lk 4:32). Even as a boy of 12 he conversed in a profound way with the teachers of the law in the temple (Lk 2:46). These men were often associated with the Pharisees (5:17). Gamaliel was a Pharisee and a teacher of the law (Acts 5:34). The term “rabbi” was often used to denote teacher. The rabbi was held in great honor. In the early church the teacher was widely recognized (Acts 13:1; 1 Cor 12:28-29; Eph 4:11; 2 Tm 1:11; Jas 3:1).<\/p>","summary_ro":"TEACHER Teachers conserved the values and academia of a nation and passed them on to each new generation. In OT times the first teachers were often parents (Dt 6:7, 20-25; 11:19-21). Leaders like Moses and Aaron were charged with teaching the people (Lv 10:11), and later the priests and Levites had a teaching function (Dt 24:8; 33:8-10; 2 Chr 17:7-9; Ez 44:23; Mi 3:11). God himself was thought of as a teacher (Pss 25:8, 12; 27:11; 32:8; 86:11; Is 2:3). In the NT the Greek noun for “teacher” a...","summary_en":"TEACHER Teachers conserved the values and academia of a nation and passed them on to each new generation. In OT times the first teachers were often parents (Dt 6:7, 20-25; 11:19-21). Leaders like Moses and Aaron were charged with teaching the people (Lv 10:11), and later the priests and Levites had a teaching function (Dt 24:8; 33:8-10; 2 Chr 17:7-9; Ez 44:23; Mi 3:11). God himself was thought of as a teacher (Pss 25:8, 12; 27:11; 32:8; 86:11; Is 2:3). In the NT the Greek noun for “teacher” a...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55664,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:12","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:12","content_ro":"3:12<\/strong> corrupt tax collectors:<\/em> The word for “corrupt” is not in the Greek, but it accurately expresses the connotation that “tax collector” had for first-century readers. They despised tax collectors, who were notoriously corrupt and worked for the hated Roman authorities.<\/p>","content_en":"3:12<\/strong> corrupt tax collectors:<\/em> The word for “corrupt” is not in the Greek, but it accurately expresses the connotation that “tax collector” had for first-century readers. They despised tax collectors, who were notoriously corrupt and worked for the hated Roman authorities.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:12 corrupt tax collectors: The word for “corrupt” is not in the Greek, but it accurately expresses the connotation that “tax collector” had for first-century readers. They despised tax collectors, who were notoriously corrupt and worked for the hated Roman authorities.","summary_en":"3:12 corrupt tax collectors: The word for “corrupt” is not in the Greek, but it accurately expresses the connotation that “tax collector” had for first-century readers. They despised tax collectors, who were notoriously corrupt and worked for the hated Roman authorities.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83290,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:12","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:12","content_ro":"3:12<\/strong> corrupt tax collectors:<\/em> The word for “corrupt” is not in the Greek, but it accurately expresses the connotation that “tax collector” had for first-century readers. They despised tax collectors, who were notoriously corrupt and worked for the hated Roman authorities.<\/p>","content_en":"3:12<\/strong> corrupt tax collectors:<\/em> The word for “corrupt” is not in the Greek, but it accurately expresses the connotation that “tax collector” had for first-century readers. They despised tax collectors, who were notoriously corrupt and worked for the hated Roman authorities.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:12 corrupt tax collectors: The word for “corrupt” is not in the Greek, but it accurately expresses the connotation that “tax collector” had for first-century readers. They despised tax collectors, who were notoriously corrupt and worked for the hated Roman authorities.","summary_en":"3:12 corrupt tax collectors: The word for “corrupt” is not in the Greek, but it accurately expresses the connotation that “tax collector” had for first-century readers. They despised tax collectors, who were notoriously corrupt and worked for the hated Roman authorities.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110916,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:12","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:12","content_ro":"3:12<\/strong> corrupt tax collectors:<\/em> The word for “corrupt” is not in the Greek, but it accurately expresses the connotation that “tax collector” had for first-century readers. They despised tax collectors, who were notoriously corrupt and worked for the hated Roman authorities.<\/p>","content_en":"3:12<\/strong> corrupt tax collectors:<\/em> The word for “corrupt” is not in the Greek, but it accurately expresses the connotation that “tax collector” had for first-century readers. They despised tax collectors, who were notoriously corrupt and worked for the hated Roman authorities.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:12 corrupt tax collectors: The word for “corrupt” is not in the Greek, but it accurately expresses the connotation that “tax collector” had for first-century readers. They despised tax collectors, who were notoriously corrupt and worked for the hated Roman authorities.","summary_en":"3:12 corrupt tax collectors: The word for “corrupt” is not in the Greek, but it accurately expresses the connotation that “tax collector” had for first-century readers. They despised tax collectors, who were notoriously corrupt and worked for the hated Roman authorities.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138542,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:12","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:12","content_ro":"3:12<\/strong> corrupt tax collectors:<\/em> The word for “corrupt” is not in the Greek, but it accurately expresses the connotation that “tax collector” had for first-century readers. They despised tax collectors, who were notoriously corrupt and worked for the hated Roman authorities.<\/p>","content_en":"3:12<\/strong> corrupt tax collectors:<\/em> The word for “corrupt” is not in the Greek, but it accurately expresses the connotation that “tax collector” had for first-century readers. They despised tax collectors, who were notoriously corrupt and worked for the hated Roman authorities.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:12 corrupt tax collectors: The word for “corrupt” is not in the Greek, but it accurately expresses the connotation that “tax collector” had for first-century readers. They despised tax collectors, who were notoriously corrupt and worked for the hated Roman authorities.","summary_en":"3:12 corrupt tax collectors: The word for “corrupt” is not in the Greek, but it accurately expresses the connotation that “tax collector” had for first-century readers. They despised tax collectors, who were notoriously corrupt and worked for the hated Roman authorities.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"14":[{"id":6316,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Christ","title_en":"Christ","content_ro":"<h3>CHRIST<\/h3>\nOfficial title given to Jesus in the NT. It signifies his office as anointed Savior and alludes to his spiritual qualifications for the task of saving his people. The word derives from Greek Christos<\/span>,<\/em> which translates Hebrew Messiah<\/span> (Jn 1:41). Both terms come from verbs meaning “to anoint with sacred oil”; hence, as titles they mean “the Anointed One.” Applied to Jesus, they express the conviction that he had divine appointment for his office and function.<\/p>\nIn the NT the title is used in combination with the given name, as “Jesus Christ” (Mt 1:1; Mk 1:1; Rom 1:4), “Christ Jesus” (niv<\/span> Rom 1:1; 1 Cor 1:1), with the article “the” (Rom 7:4), or with another title “Lord” (Rom 16:18). It is also used alone as the one favored substitute name or title for Jesus (Jn 20:31; Rom 15:3; Heb 3:6; 5:5; 1 Pt 1:11, 19).<\/p>\nThe Gospels portray Jesus as modestly accepting the title and role of the Messiah. His baptism should be understood as his anointing to the threefold office of prophet, priest, and king. At his baptism by John (the new Elijah, Mt 11:14), Jesus received the outpouring of the Spirit and God’s mandate to begin his ministry (Mt 3:16–4:17). John himself denied being the anointed one but tacitly identified Jesus as the Christ (Jn 1:20; Lk 3:14-17). Jesus’ first disciples followed him because they knew he was the Messiah (Jn 1:41). The demons recognized him as “the Holy One [anointed] of God” (Mk 1:24; cf. Mt 8:29). The crowds followed him as the Prophet, the new Moses (Jn 6:14, 32), but deserted him when they understood that his kingdom was a spiritual, not a political realm (v 66). The Twelve remained loyal, saying, “We believe . . . you are the Holy One of God” (Jn 6:69, niv<\/span>). The confession of the disciples voiced by Peter and approved by Jesus as a divine revelation is “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16, niv<\/span>). At his trials the decisive factor in Jesus’ condemnation was his claim to be the Christ (Mt 26:63-64, 68; 27:11, 17, 22, 37).<\/p>\nAn important feature in the earliest Christian preaching was the proclamation that Jesus is the Christ (Acts 2:36; 3:18-20; 9:22; 28:23, 31). This remains the earliest (Mt 16:16) and most basic article of Christian confession (1 Cor 1:23; 1 Jn 5:1), affirming that Jesus perfectly fulfilled the role of anointed prophet, priest, and king as the servant of God for his people (Lk 7:16; 1 Cor 15:25; Heb 7:22-28; Rv 19:16).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Messiah.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CHRIST<\/h3>\nOfficial title given to Jesus in the NT. It signifies his office as anointed Savior and alludes to his spiritual qualifications for the task of saving his people. The word derives from Greek Christos<\/span>,<\/em> which translates Hebrew Messiah<\/span> (Jn 1:41). Both terms come from verbs meaning “to anoint with sacred oil”; hence, as titles they mean “the Anointed One.” Applied to Jesus, they express the conviction that he had divine appointment for his office and function.<\/p>\nIn the NT the title is used in combination with the given name, as “Jesus Christ” (Mt 1:1; Mk 1:1; Rom 1:4), “Christ Jesus” (niv<\/span> Rom 1:1; 1 Cor 1:1), with the article “the” (Rom 7:4), or with another title “Lord” (Rom 16:18). It is also used alone as the one favored substitute name or title for Jesus (Jn 20:31; Rom 15:3; Heb 3:6; 5:5; 1 Pt 1:11, 19).<\/p>\nThe Gospels portray Jesus as modestly accepting the title and role of the Messiah. His baptism should be understood as his anointing to the threefold office of prophet, priest, and king. At his baptism by John (the new Elijah, Mt 11:14), Jesus received the outpouring of the Spirit and God’s mandate to begin his ministry (Mt 3:16–4:17). John himself denied being the anointed one but tacitly identified Jesus as the Christ (Jn 1:20; Lk 3:14-17). Jesus’ first disciples followed him because they knew he was the Messiah (Jn 1:41). The demons recognized him as “the Holy One [anointed] of God” (Mk 1:24; cf. Mt 8:29). The crowds followed him as the Prophet, the new Moses (Jn 6:14, 32), but deserted him when they understood that his kingdom was a spiritual, not a political realm (v 66). The Twelve remained loyal, saying, “We believe . . . you are the Holy One of God” (Jn 6:69, niv<\/span>). The confession of the disciples voiced by Peter and approved by Jesus as a divine revelation is “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16, niv<\/span>). At his trials the decisive factor in Jesus’ condemnation was his claim to be the Christ (Mt 26:63-64, 68; 27:11, 17, 22, 37).<\/p>\nAn important feature in the earliest Christian preaching was the proclamation that Jesus is the Christ (Acts 2:36; 3:18-20; 9:22; 28:23, 31). This remains the earliest (Mt 16:16) and most basic article of Christian confession (1 Cor 1:23; 1 Jn 5:1), affirming that Jesus perfectly fulfilled the role of anointed prophet, priest, and king as the servant of God for his people (Lk 7:16; 1 Cor 15:25; Heb 7:22-28; Rv 19:16).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Messiah.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CHRIST Official title given to Jesus in the NT. It signifies his office as anointed Savior and alludes to his spiritual qualifications for the task of saving his people. The word derives from Greek Christos, which translates Hebrew Messiah (Jn 1:41). Both terms come from verbs meaning “to anoint with sacred oil”; hence, as titles they mean “the Anointed One.” Applied to Jesus, they express the conviction that he had divine appointment for his office and function. In the NT the title is used i...","summary_en":"CHRIST Official title given to Jesus in the NT. It signifies his office as anointed Savior and alludes to his spiritual qualifications for the task of saving his people. The word derives from Greek Christos, which translates Hebrew Messiah (Jn 1:41). Both terms come from verbs meaning “to anoint with sacred oil”; hence, as titles they mean “the Anointed One.” Applied to Jesus, they express the conviction that he had divine appointment for his office and function. In the NT the title is used i...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20357,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"John the Baptist","title_en":"John the Baptist","content_ro":"<h3>JOHN THE BAPTIST<\/h3>\nForerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD<\/span> 29, while Jesus was still ministering.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\n• Appearance and Identity<\/p>\n• John’s Proclamation<\/p>\n• John’s Baptism<\/p>\n• John’s View of Jesus<\/p>\n• Jesus’ View of John<\/p>\n• Arrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\n• The Disciples of John<\/p>\nBirth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\nLuke’s Gospel is our only source of information concerning the birth and boyhood of John. The Gospel writer states that John was born in the hill country of Judah (Lk 1:39) of priestly descent, being the son of Zechariah, a priest of the order of Abijah, and Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron (v 5). Both parents were righteous in the sight of God, following all the commandments closely (v 6). Like the birth of Jesus, only to a much lesser degree, the birth of John the Baptist is described in Luke as extraordinary. The angel Gabriel announced the coming birth to Zechariah in the temple; to the older, barren Elizabeth it came as an answer to prayer (vv 8-13). John’s name is announced to Zechariah by the angel, even as his purpose as forerunner is revealed before birth (vv 13-17). Such a consecration from birth is reminiscent of the call of the OT prophet Jeremiah (cf. Jer 1:5).<\/p>\nThere existed some familial relationship between the families of John and Jesus. Elizabeth is described as a relative of Mary (Lk 1:36), which may connote cousin or aunt, or may only mean being from the same tribe.<\/p>\nJohn’s childhood, as that of Jesus, is left quite vague in the Gospel account. All that is said is that “John grew up and became strong in spirit. Then he lived out in the wilderness until he began his public ministry to Israel” (Lk 1:80, nlt<\/span>). Some scholars have suggested that John might have been adopted as a boy by the Essenes (as was their practice) at Qumran and reared in their wilderness community, adjacent to the Dead Sea and near the Jordan River. There are some similarities between the activities of the Qumran sect, known through the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the later ministry of John the Baptist. Both practiced a type of asceticism and removed themselves from the life of Jerusalem. Both practiced baptism and associated this rite with initiation and repentance. Finally, John and the Qumran group were both eschatologically minded, awaiting God’s final end-time activity in history. Nevertheless, many significant differences exist between John and the Qumran sect.<\/p>\nAppearance and Identity<\/p>\nMark’s Gospel begins with an account of John the Baptist’s appearance: “John the Baptist . . . lived in the wilderness and was preaching that people should be baptized to show that they had turned from their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Mk 1:4, nlt<\/span>). A rich OT background lies behind John’s association with the wilderness, in this case the wilderness of Judea. It was in the wilderness that God revealed himself to Moses (Ex 3), gave the law, and entered into the covenant with Israel (ch 19). It was also the site of refuge for David (1 Sm 23–26; Ps 63) and Elijah (1 Kgs 19), and in this light became the anticipated site of God’s future deliverance (Is 40:3-5; Ez 47:1-12; Hos 2:14-15).<\/p>\nThe unusual dress of John the Baptist—“clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist” (Mk 1:6, niv<\/span>)—may have suggested to his audience an association with Elijah in particular (2 Kgs 1:8) or with the prophets in general (Zec 13:4). His diet, “locusts and wild honey” (Mk 1:6), was Levitically clean, reflecting one who lived off the desert (such food was also eaten at Qumran) and formed part of the broader asceticism practiced by John and his disciples (Mt 9:14; 11:18).<\/p>\nWho did John understand himself to be? In answer to questions by the multitude whether he was the Messiah, Elijah, or the expected prophet (Jn 1:20-23), John only identified himself as “a voice crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord’ ” (Is 40:3). The background for the question lies at the end of the OT period. Prophecy, on the one hand, was considered to have ceased (Zec 13:2-6); yet, on the other hand, it was expected to appear again before the coming of the messianic kingdom (see Jl 2:28-29; Mal 3:1-4). Some anticipated this final prophet to be one who was like Moses (Dt 18:15), others a returning Elijah as foretold in Malachi 4:5-6. While John personally refrained from identifying himself with these specific expectations (Jn 1:20-23), it is clear that his dress, lifestyle, and message caused the people to identify him with this end-time prophet (Mt 14:5; Mk 11:32). Jesus also saw John as this final “Elijah-like” prophet (Mt 11:7-15), who from Malachi’s prophecy was to be a forerunner to the coming of the Lord (Mal 3:1-4; 4:5-6).<\/p>\nJohn’s Proclamation<\/p>\nJohn’s proclamation involved three elements: a warning of imminent judgment at the hands of the Coming One, a call for repentance in light of the coming kingdom of heaven, and a demand to express this repentance in concrete ethical terms. Many Jews looked forward confidently to the messianic judgment as a time of blessing for themselves and destruction for the gentile oppressors. John, however, warned that Jewish ancestry was false security in the coming judgment (Lk 3:8); true repentance was the only means of escaping destruction (Mt 3:2). John anticipated this judgment at the hands of the Coming One, who would baptize the nation with “the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Lk 3:16). Fire represented the OT means of destruction in the end time (Mal 4:1) as well as purification (Mal 3:1-4), while the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the end time connoted blessing (Is 32:15; Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28) and purification (Is 4:2-4). The judgment anticipated by John was therefore twofold: destruction for the unrepentant, and blessing for the penitent and righteous (Mt 3:12).<\/p>\nIn light of this imminent event John called for repentance on the part of his listeners (Mt 3:2), a true “turning back” or “turning toward” God in obedience that would bring forgiveness of sin. Such a turnabout in an individual’s relation with God should be lived out in one’s everyday dealings: fairness on the part of tax collectors (Lk 3:12-13) and soldiers (v 14), and the general requirement of compassion for the poor (vv 10-11).<\/p>\nJohn’s Baptism<\/p>\nThe Gospels record that John baptized those repentant of their sins at several locations: the Jordan River (Mk 1:5), Bethany beyond the Jordan (Jn 1:28), and Aenon near Salim (Jn 3:23). This practice was an integral part of John’s call for repentance, given in light of the approaching judgment and the appearance of the Coming One. The baptism of the penitent symbolized desire for forgiveness of sin, a renunciation of past life, and a desire to be included in the coming messianic kingdom.<\/p>\nWhat was the background for John’s practice of baptism? From the OT we know of ceremonial lustrations or washings that guaranteed ritual purity (Lv 14–15; Nm 19). Unlike John’s baptism, these washings were repetitive in nature and referred predominantly to ritual rather than moral cleansing. The prophets, however, urged a moral purification associated with the washing of water (Is 1:16-18; Jer 4:14). More significantly, the prophets anticipated a cleansing by God in the end times preceding the Day of Judgment (Ez 36:25; Zec 13:1; cf. Is 44:3), an eschatological element that John may have assumed was being fulfilled in his water baptism.<\/p>\nAnother precedent for John’s practice may have been proselyte baptism, a rite (along with circumcision and the offering of sacrifices) that constituted the conversion of a Gentile to Judaism. Common to both proselyte baptism and John’s baptism were the emphasis on an ethical break with the past, a once-for-all character, and the similarity of immersion. Notable differences were that John’s baptism was for Jews, not Gentile converts, and that it had a marked eschatological character as a preparation for the new age. Unless John, in light of the imminence of the messianic age, consciously treated all Jews as “pagan” in need of a baptism of repentance (cf. Mt 3:7-10), it is doubtful that proselyte baptism formed the primary background for John’s baptismal ministry.<\/p>\nIf John’s baptism had a clear association with the forgiveness of sin, the question naturally arises as to why Jesus, the Son of God, sought baptism from John. John himself asks this very question of Jesus (Mt 3:14), to which Jesus responds, “It must be done, because we must do everything that is right” (v 15, nlt<\/span>). First, it is clear that Jesus’ baptism represented an act of obedience on his part to God’s will as he saw it. Second, by submitting to the baptism of John, Jesus was clearly validating the ministry and message of John. The imminent coming of the kingdom and its Messiah, and the need for repentance in anticipation of this event that John proclaimed, were affirmed by Jesus through baptism. Third, by being baptized, Jesus condemned the self-righteous for their lack of repentance and took a stand with the penitent publicans and sinners awaiting the kingdom of God (Lk 7:29-30). Fourth, Jesus stepped forward for baptism not as an individual in need of forgiveness but as one who represented the people of God. His baptism, therefore, demonstrated solidarity with the people in their need of deliverance, even as he is judged in their place on the cross. Finally, the voice from heaven (Mk 1:11) and the descent of the Spirit (Lk 3:21-22) signify the inauguration of Jesus’ own ministry through his baptism by John.<\/p>\nJohn’s View of Jesus<\/p>\nThroughout his ministry John pointed beyond himself to one “who is far greater than I am—so much greater that I am not even worthy to be his slave” (Mk 1:7, nlt<\/span>). His self-understanding apparently sprang from the application of Isaiah 40:3 to himself, that he was the preparer or forerunner for God’s coming activity through the Messiah (Lk 3:4-6). When asked by curious spectators, John firmly denied that he was the Messiah, and according to the Gospel accounts, subordinated himself to the Coming One (Mk 1:7-8; Jn 1:26-28; 3:28-31). The coming of Jesus to baptism seems to represent the first time John identified these expectations with Jesus himself (Jn 1:35-36). His recognition of Jesus as the Messiah prior to baptism (Mt 3:14) was confirmed by the descent of the Holy Spirit as a dove and the voice from heaven quoting a phrase from an OT messianic psalm (Mk 1:11a, from Ps 2:7), together with a phrase from a Suffering Servant song of Isaiah (Mk 1:11b, from Is 42:1). In the fourth Gospel, John the Baptist goes even further in acknowledging Jesus to be the “Lamb of God” (Jn 1:29), in anticipation of Jesus’ sacrificial role on the cross. And John recognized him as “God’s Chosen One” (v 34, neb<\/span>—another term for the Messiah; Ps 2:7, see Mk 1:11).<\/p>\nIn light of John’s strong affirmation, it is at first difficult to understand his questioning of Jesus while imprisoned: “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?” (Mt 11:3, rsv<\/span>). Some have suggested that John was merely asking for the sake of his disciples, or that the question reflected John’s despondency with being imprisoned. It is more likely, however, that the question represents John’s own confusion with the activity expected of the Messiah. John had proclaimed a Coming One who would bring a baptism of fire and judgment upon the wicked (Lk 3:16). It may have been difficult for him to understand Jesus’ different emphases on forgiveness and acceptance of sinners (Mt 9:9-13) and his healing of the sick (Mt 8–9). When John’s disciples brought their master’s question to Jesus, asking whether or not he was the Messiah, Jesus responded by quoting Isaiah 35:5-6 (see also Is 61:1). This text proclaims the activities of healing and proclaiming salvation to the poor to be fulfillments of the Messiah’s role, even though they may not have been what John or countless other Jews expected.<\/p>\nJesus’ View of John<\/p>\nThat Jesus highly regarded John the Baptist is indicated by his baptism by John. It is also explicitly stated on several occasions. Jesus called him the greatest man to have ever lived (Lk 7:28). (Of course, he was not as great as Jesus, the God-man.) Jesus also said that John was a burning and shining lamp (Jn 5:33-35) and that he practiced a baptism divinely ordained (Lk 20:1-8).<\/p>\nJohn’s uniqueness, however, lies in the fact that he stood at the turning of the ages. He was the last of the old era, the period of the law and the prophets (Lk 16:16), which was to precede the coming of the messianic age (the kingdom of God). John was the last of the prophets, the greatest of them, the Elijah figure who would prepare the way for the judgment of God (Mt 11:13-15; Lk 1:17). Because John belonged to the era of the law and the prophets, however, he was not as great as the “least” already in the kingdom of God (Mt 11:11)—that is, those who belonged to the era of the kingdom’s appearance in Jesus.<\/p>\nArrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\nTo understand why John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas, one has to grasp the messianic excitement caused by John’s appearance and message (Lk 3:15-18). Herod and other secular rulers were obviously suspicious of anyone who might stir up the crowds with predictions of a coming messianic ruler. Other messianic movements had arisen before John, which resulted in outbreaks of violence against the Roman-Herodian rulership. Moreover, Herod Antipas was under heavy criticism for his marriage with Herodias, the ex-wife of his brother Philip. His first marriage, with the daughter of Aretus II, constituted a political alliance between the Herodian family and the Nabatean kingdom of Perea. His new relationship with Herodias was perceived as a breach of the political alliance and led to friction between the two families. John’s denunciation of Herod’s new marriage (Mt 14:3-12) could thus have been interpreted by Herod as a subversive rousing of sentiment against his authority. The Jewish historian Josephus states that Herod did, in fact, arrest John because he feared John’s influence over the crowds. According to Josephus, John was imprisoned at the fortress Machaerus on the eastern side of the Dead Sea. That he was not killed immediately was due to Herod’s personal fear of the righteous John (Mk 6:2) and of the people’s reaction (Mt 14:5). On a point about which Josephus is silent, the Gospels record that it was Herodias’s feelings against John (Mk 6:17) and her plot, through the dancing of her daughter, which brought about the beheading of John (vv 21-29). John was beheaded at Herodias’s request in approximately AD<\/span> 29 or 30.<\/p>\nThe Disciples of John<\/p>\nWhile it is clear that a band of disciples formed around John in his lifetime (Jn 1:35), to suggest that he intended to begin a continuing movement is contradicted by his message on the imminent Day of Judgment. Apparently, John’s disciples consisted of a small group of those who had been baptized by him and were awaiting the coming Messiah. Some transferred their loyalty to Jesus after John had identified Jesus as the Coming One (Jn 1:37). Others, however, apparently stayed on with their teacher, communicating with the imprisoned John concerning the activities of Jesus (Lk 7:18-23) and, after his death, taking the body for burial (Mk 6:29).<\/p>\nWe know little about the activities and practices of the band of disciples clustered around John. We do know, however, that fasting was one practice specifically associated with the group, and one that marked them as similar to the Pharisees (Mt 9:14). In this practice they no doubt followed the example of John himself (Lk 7:33). Prayer and fasting were often linked in late Judaism. The disciples of John were also known for the prayers taught by their master (11:1). Seeing this practice, the disciples of Jesus asked the Lord to teach them to pray, to which Jesus responded with the Lord’s Prayer (vv 2-4).<\/p>\nAfter his death it is likely that other disciples of John joined the followers of Jesus (see Lk 7:29-30). Not all did so, however, as disciples of John were encountered by Paul and other Christians approximately 25 years later in Ephesus (Acts 18:24–29:7). Upon hearing witness to Jesus, these followers of John proclaimed Jesus as Messiah. When Paul baptized them in the name of Jesus they received the Holy Spirit (19:4-7). Even so, it is apparent from later documents that various groups continued to honor John, even considering him the Messiah, centuries after the NT period.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JOHN THE BAPTIST<\/h3>\nForerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD<\/span> 29, while Jesus was still ministering.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\n• Appearance and Identity<\/p>\n• John’s Proclamation<\/p>\n• John’s Baptism<\/p>\n• John’s View of Jesus<\/p>\n• Jesus’ View of John<\/p>\n• Arrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\n• The Disciples of John<\/p>\nBirth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\nLuke’s Gospel is our only source of information concerning the birth and boyhood of John. The Gospel writer states that John was born in the hill country of Judah (Lk 1:39) of priestly descent, being the son of Zechariah, a priest of the order of Abijah, and Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron (v 5). Both parents were righteous in the sight of God, following all the commandments closely (v 6). Like the birth of Jesus, only to a much lesser degree, the birth of John the Baptist is described in Luke as extraordinary. The angel Gabriel announced the coming birth to Zechariah in the temple; to the older, barren Elizabeth it came as an answer to prayer (vv 8-13). John’s name is announced to Zechariah by the angel, even as his purpose as forerunner is revealed before birth (vv 13-17). Such a consecration from birth is reminiscent of the call of the OT prophet Jeremiah (cf. Jer 1:5).<\/p>\nThere existed some familial relationship between the families of John and Jesus. Elizabeth is described as a relative of Mary (Lk 1:36), which may connote cousin or aunt, or may only mean being from the same tribe.<\/p>\nJohn’s childhood, as that of Jesus, is left quite vague in the Gospel account. All that is said is that “John grew up and became strong in spirit. Then he lived out in the wilderness until he began his public ministry to Israel” (Lk 1:80, nlt<\/span>). Some scholars have suggested that John might have been adopted as a boy by the Essenes (as was their practice) at Qumran and reared in their wilderness community, adjacent to the Dead Sea and near the Jordan River. There are some similarities between the activities of the Qumran sect, known through the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the later ministry of John the Baptist. Both practiced a type of asceticism and removed themselves from the life of Jerusalem. Both practiced baptism and associated this rite with initiation and repentance. Finally, John and the Qumran group were both eschatologically minded, awaiting God’s final end-time activity in history. Nevertheless, many significant differences exist between John and the Qumran sect.<\/p>\nAppearance and Identity<\/p>\nMark’s Gospel begins with an account of John the Baptist’s appearance: “John the Baptist . . . lived in the wilderness and was preaching that people should be baptized to show that they had turned from their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Mk 1:4, nlt<\/span>). A rich OT background lies behind John’s association with the wilderness, in this case the wilderness of Judea. It was in the wilderness that God revealed himself to Moses (Ex 3), gave the law, and entered into the covenant with Israel (ch 19). It was also the site of refuge for David (1 Sm 23–26; Ps 63) and Elijah (1 Kgs 19), and in this light became the anticipated site of God’s future deliverance (Is 40:3-5; Ez 47:1-12; Hos 2:14-15).<\/p>\nThe unusual dress of John the Baptist—“clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist” (Mk 1:6, niv<\/span>)—may have suggested to his audience an association with Elijah in particular (2 Kgs 1:8) or with the prophets in general (Zec 13:4). His diet, “locusts and wild honey” (Mk 1:6), was Levitically clean, reflecting one who lived off the desert (such food was also eaten at Qumran) and formed part of the broader asceticism practiced by John and his disciples (Mt 9:14; 11:18).<\/p>\nWho did John understand himself to be? In answer to questions by the multitude whether he was the Messiah, Elijah, or the expected prophet (Jn 1:20-23), John only identified himself as “a voice crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord’ ” (Is 40:3). The background for the question lies at the end of the OT period. Prophecy, on the one hand, was considered to have ceased (Zec 13:2-6); yet, on the other hand, it was expected to appear again before the coming of the messianic kingdom (see Jl 2:28-29; Mal 3:1-4). Some anticipated this final prophet to be one who was like Moses (Dt 18:15), others a returning Elijah as foretold in Malachi 4:5-6. While John personally refrained from identifying himself with these specific expectations (Jn 1:20-23), it is clear that his dress, lifestyle, and message caused the people to identify him with this end-time prophet (Mt 14:5; Mk 11:32). Jesus also saw John as this final “Elijah-like” prophet (Mt 11:7-15), who from Malachi’s prophecy was to be a forerunner to the coming of the Lord (Mal 3:1-4; 4:5-6).<\/p>\nJohn’s Proclamation<\/p>\nJohn’s proclamation involved three elements: a warning of imminent judgment at the hands of the Coming One, a call for repentance in light of the coming kingdom of heaven, and a demand to express this repentance in concrete ethical terms. Many Jews looked forward confidently to the messianic judgment as a time of blessing for themselves and destruction for the gentile oppressors. John, however, warned that Jewish ancestry was false security in the coming judgment (Lk 3:8); true repentance was the only means of escaping destruction (Mt 3:2). John anticipated this judgment at the hands of the Coming One, who would baptize the nation with “the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Lk 3:16). Fire represented the OT means of destruction in the end time (Mal 4:1) as well as purification (Mal 3:1-4), while the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the end time connoted blessing (Is 32:15; Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28) and purification (Is 4:2-4). The judgment anticipated by John was therefore twofold: destruction for the unrepentant, and blessing for the penitent and righteous (Mt 3:12).<\/p>\nIn light of this imminent event John called for repentance on the part of his listeners (Mt 3:2), a true “turning back” or “turning toward” God in obedience that would bring forgiveness of sin. Such a turnabout in an individual’s relation with God should be lived out in one’s everyday dealings: fairness on the part of tax collectors (Lk 3:12-13) and soldiers (v 14), and the general requirement of compassion for the poor (vv 10-11).<\/p>\nJohn’s Baptism<\/p>\nThe Gospels record that John baptized those repentant of their sins at several locations: the Jordan River (Mk 1:5), Bethany beyond the Jordan (Jn 1:28), and Aenon near Salim (Jn 3:23). This practice was an integral part of John’s call for repentance, given in light of the approaching judgment and the appearance of the Coming One. The baptism of the penitent symbolized desire for forgiveness of sin, a renunciation of past life, and a desire to be included in the coming messianic kingdom.<\/p>\nWhat was the background for John’s practice of baptism? From the OT we know of ceremonial lustrations or washings that guaranteed ritual purity (Lv 14–15; Nm 19). Unlike John’s baptism, these washings were repetitive in nature and referred predominantly to ritual rather than moral cleansing. The prophets, however, urged a moral purification associated with the washing of water (Is 1:16-18; Jer 4:14). More significantly, the prophets anticipated a cleansing by God in the end times preceding the Day of Judgment (Ez 36:25; Zec 13:1; cf. Is 44:3), an eschatological element that John may have assumed was being fulfilled in his water baptism.<\/p>\nAnother precedent for John’s practice may have been proselyte baptism, a rite (along with circumcision and the offering of sacrifices) that constituted the conversion of a Gentile to Judaism. Common to both proselyte baptism and John’s baptism were the emphasis on an ethical break with the past, a once-for-all character, and the similarity of immersion. Notable differences were that John’s baptism was for Jews, not Gentile converts, and that it had a marked eschatological character as a preparation for the new age. Unless John, in light of the imminence of the messianic age, consciously treated all Jews as “pagan” in need of a baptism of repentance (cf. Mt 3:7-10), it is doubtful that proselyte baptism formed the primary background for John’s baptismal ministry.<\/p>\nIf John’s baptism had a clear association with the forgiveness of sin, the question naturally arises as to why Jesus, the Son of God, sought baptism from John. John himself asks this very question of Jesus (Mt 3:14), to which Jesus responds, “It must be done, because we must do everything that is right” (v 15, nlt<\/span>). First, it is clear that Jesus’ baptism represented an act of obedience on his part to God’s will as he saw it. Second, by submitting to the baptism of John, Jesus was clearly validating the ministry and message of John. The imminent coming of the kingdom and its Messiah, and the need for repentance in anticipation of this event that John proclaimed, were affirmed by Jesus through baptism. Third, by being baptized, Jesus condemned the self-righteous for their lack of repentance and took a stand with the penitent publicans and sinners awaiting the kingdom of God (Lk 7:29-30). Fourth, Jesus stepped forward for baptism not as an individual in need of forgiveness but as one who represented the people of God. His baptism, therefore, demonstrated solidarity with the people in their need of deliverance, even as he is judged in their place on the cross. Finally, the voice from heaven (Mk 1:11) and the descent of the Spirit (Lk 3:21-22) signify the inauguration of Jesus’ own ministry through his baptism by John.<\/p>\nJohn’s View of Jesus<\/p>\nThroughout his ministry John pointed beyond himself to one “who is far greater than I am—so much greater that I am not even worthy to be his slave” (Mk 1:7, nlt<\/span>). His self-understanding apparently sprang from the application of Isaiah 40:3 to himself, that he was the preparer or forerunner for God’s coming activity through the Messiah (Lk 3:4-6). When asked by curious spectators, John firmly denied that he was the Messiah, and according to the Gospel accounts, subordinated himself to the Coming One (Mk 1:7-8; Jn 1:26-28; 3:28-31). The coming of Jesus to baptism seems to represent the first time John identified these expectations with Jesus himself (Jn 1:35-36). His recognition of Jesus as the Messiah prior to baptism (Mt 3:14) was confirmed by the descent of the Holy Spirit as a dove and the voice from heaven quoting a phrase from an OT messianic psalm (Mk 1:11a, from Ps 2:7), together with a phrase from a Suffering Servant song of Isaiah (Mk 1:11b, from Is 42:1). In the fourth Gospel, John the Baptist goes even further in acknowledging Jesus to be the “Lamb of God” (Jn 1:29), in anticipation of Jesus’ sacrificial role on the cross. And John recognized him as “God’s Chosen One” (v 34, neb<\/span>—another term for the Messiah; Ps 2:7, see Mk 1:11).<\/p>\nIn light of John’s strong affirmation, it is at first difficult to understand his questioning of Jesus while imprisoned: “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?” (Mt 11:3, rsv<\/span>). Some have suggested that John was merely asking for the sake of his disciples, or that the question reflected John’s despondency with being imprisoned. It is more likely, however, that the question represents John’s own confusion with the activity expected of the Messiah. John had proclaimed a Coming One who would bring a baptism of fire and judgment upon the wicked (Lk 3:16). It may have been difficult for him to understand Jesus’ different emphases on forgiveness and acceptance of sinners (Mt 9:9-13) and his healing of the sick (Mt 8–9). When John’s disciples brought their master’s question to Jesus, asking whether or not he was the Messiah, Jesus responded by quoting Isaiah 35:5-6 (see also Is 61:1). This text proclaims the activities of healing and proclaiming salvation to the poor to be fulfillments of the Messiah’s role, even though they may not have been what John or countless other Jews expected.<\/p>\nJesus’ View of John<\/p>\nThat Jesus highly regarded John the Baptist is indicated by his baptism by John. It is also explicitly stated on several occasions. Jesus called him the greatest man to have ever lived (Lk 7:28). (Of course, he was not as great as Jesus, the God-man.) Jesus also said that John was a burning and shining lamp (Jn 5:33-35) and that he practiced a baptism divinely ordained (Lk 20:1-8).<\/p>\nJohn’s uniqueness, however, lies in the fact that he stood at the turning of the ages. He was the last of the old era, the period of the law and the prophets (Lk 16:16), which was to precede the coming of the messianic age (the kingdom of God). John was the last of the prophets, the greatest of them, the Elijah figure who would prepare the way for the judgment of God (Mt 11:13-15; Lk 1:17). Because John belonged to the era of the law and the prophets, however, he was not as great as the “least” already in the kingdom of God (Mt 11:11)—that is, those who belonged to the era of the kingdom’s appearance in Jesus.<\/p>\nArrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\nTo understand why John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas, one has to grasp the messianic excitement caused by John’s appearance and message (Lk 3:15-18). Herod and other secular rulers were obviously suspicious of anyone who might stir up the crowds with predictions of a coming messianic ruler. Other messianic movements had arisen before John, which resulted in outbreaks of violence against the Roman-Herodian rulership. Moreover, Herod Antipas was under heavy criticism for his marriage with Herodias, the ex-wife of his brother Philip. His first marriage, with the daughter of Aretus II, constituted a political alliance between the Herodian family and the Nabatean kingdom of Perea. His new relationship with Herodias was perceived as a breach of the political alliance and led to friction between the two families. John’s denunciation of Herod’s new marriage (Mt 14:3-12) could thus have been interpreted by Herod as a subversive rousing of sentiment against his authority. The Jewish historian Josephus states that Herod did, in fact, arrest John because he feared John’s influence over the crowds. According to Josephus, John was imprisoned at the fortress Machaerus on the eastern side of the Dead Sea. That he was not killed immediately was due to Herod’s personal fear of the righteous John (Mk 6:2) and of the people’s reaction (Mt 14:5). On a point about which Josephus is silent, the Gospels record that it was Herodias’s feelings against John (Mk 6:17) and her plot, through the dancing of her daughter, which brought about the beheading of John (vv 21-29). John was beheaded at Herodias’s request in approximately AD<\/span> 29 or 30.<\/p>\nThe Disciples of John<\/p>\nWhile it is clear that a band of disciples formed around John in his lifetime (Jn 1:35), to suggest that he intended to begin a continuing movement is contradicted by his message on the imminent Day of Judgment. Apparently, John’s disciples consisted of a small group of those who had been baptized by him and were awaiting the coming Messiah. Some transferred their loyalty to Jesus after John had identified Jesus as the Coming One (Jn 1:37). Others, however, apparently stayed on with their teacher, communicating with the imprisoned John concerning the activities of Jesus (Lk 7:18-23) and, after his death, taking the body for burial (Mk 6:29).<\/p>\nWe know little about the activities and practices of the band of disciples clustered around John. We do know, however, that fasting was one practice specifically associated with the group, and one that marked them as similar to the Pharisees (Mt 9:14). In this practice they no doubt followed the example of John himself (Lk 7:33). Prayer and fasting were often linked in late Judaism. The disciples of John were also known for the prayers taught by their master (11:1). Seeing this practice, the disciples of Jesus asked the Lord to teach them to pray, to which Jesus responded with the Lord’s Prayer (vv 2-4).<\/p>\nAfter his death it is likely that other disciples of John joined the followers of Jesus (see Lk 7:29-30). Not all did so, however, as disciples of John were encountered by Paul and other Christians approximately 25 years later in Ephesus (Acts 18:24–29:7). Upon hearing witness to Jesus, these followers of John proclaimed Jesus as Messiah. When Paul baptized them in the name of Jesus they received the Holy Spirit (19:4-7). Even so, it is apparent from later documents that various groups continued to honor John, even considering him the Messiah, centuries after the NT period.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JOHN THE BAPTIST Forerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD 29, while Jesus was still ministering. Preview • Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood • Appearance and Identity • John’s Proclamation • ...","summary_en":"JOHN THE BAPTIST Forerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD 29, while Jesus was still ministering. Preview • Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood • Appearance and Identity • John’s Proclamation • ...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":33302,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"City of Rome","title_en":"City of Rome","content_ro":"<h3>ROME, City of<\/h3>\nCity in Italy founded, according to tradition, in 753 BC<\/span> on seven hills about 15 miles (24.1 kilometers) from the mouth of the Tiber River. It was of no biblical interest until NT times. There are nine explicit references to the city in the NT (Acts 2:10; 18:2; 19:21; 23:11; 28:14, 16; Rom 1:7, 15; 2 Tm 1:17), but Paul’s sojourn there and his letter to the Roman Christians, written probably from Corinth around AD<\/span> 57 and 58, make the imperial city of considerable interest to Bible readers.<\/p>\nHistory<\/p>\nIn the second millennium BC<\/span>, Indo-European migrants moved into Europe and settled in the Italian peninsula. One group settled around the mouth of the Tiber River. A vigorous and more cultured group, the Etruscans from Asia Minor, occupied central Italy. At the time of Rome’s emergence in the eighth century BC<\/span>, the population of the Italian peninsula was mixed. The Latin-speaking enclave, which settled toward the mouth of the Tiber, were agriculturalists. The scattered groups formed leagues and communities to defend themselves against raiders. They built stockades on the hills to protect families and flocks while fighting off the raiders. From such beginnings Rome emerged as a dominant center with its focal point in the area of the seven hills (the Palatine, the Capitoline, the Aventine, the Caelian, the Esquiline, the Viminal, and the Quirinal). Traditionally these hills were considered to be seven in number; in fact, there are more than seven, although some are simply flat-topped spurs. The Tiber River winds in a large S-curve between the hills. At one point it divided to form an island where it was shallow enough to ford. The town that grew up there was linked by roads, north to the Etruscans, south to the Greek trading cities, west to the coast, and inland to the tribal areas on the highlands. Knowledge of early Rome is based largely on archaeological evidence from the remains of the simple forts and numerous burial sites in the area.<\/p>\nRome developed politically in a remarkable fashion over the next 1,000 years. The loose association of the original chieftains, who comprised the earliest “senate,” gave place to domination by Etruscan kings who seem to have trained the people in discipline and obedience. They constructed numerous works, draining the forum area and making it a social, commercial, industrial, and political center. They built a temple for Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva on the Capitoline Hill as a common shrine for all the people. When the kings became autocratic, the Latin population rebelled and expelled the kings.<\/p>\nThe republic was established in 510 BC<\/span>. This establishment marked the beginning of Rome’s remarkable expansion to the dimensions of a world empire. The population, which was now spread out over the hills and valleys, despite their tribal differences, united and solved political problems without bloodshed. Strictly speaking, the term “republican” should not be understood in any modern sense as indicating a kind of democracy. Rather, the ancient families (patricians) dominated the senate and constituted an oligarchy. This arrangement was useful for Rome at that time. The small city-state soon broke out of its confined area, overcame the Etruscans, and dominated the Greek cities to the south. The Romans then looked farther afield. In 273 BC<\/span> they made a treaty with the Ptolemies of Egypt. Before long, they expanded into North Africa, overcame the Carthaginians, pressed on into Spain, and developed ambitions to occupy the Middle East as well. Rome’s many conquests brought enormous wealth.<\/p>\nWith geographical expansion came social changes in Italy. During the second century BC<\/span>, rich landowners bought out the small independent farmers, who subsequently drifted into Rome, landless and unemployed. Huge, overcrowded tenement houses appeared, which constituted creeping slums. Alongside this squalor there was evidence of vast wealth from Rome’s conquests in distant lands. In the capital, many fine buildings appeared. Pompey, who subdued and organized the East, did much to adorn the great capital.<\/p>\nThe next stage in Rome’s political development came when the senate, the governing body of the republic, proved unable to control its more radical and violent members. As their political ambitions increased, aspiring leaders sought to gain popular support by granting privileges to the people without the concurrence of the senate. Civil strife broke out and plagued the last century of the republic. Military victories beyond Rome gave power to the generals. In the civil wars that followed, constitutional questions were decided by the power of the sword. Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Crassus, Julius Caesar, Antony, and Octavian were the real political forces in the land.<\/p>\n\nBy 27 BC<\/span>, Octavian emerged supreme and was given the title Augustus. Theoretically, a dual government existed between the senate and Augustus (the emperor), but a weak senate allowed the emperor to become the virtual ruler. As a result, Roman peace (pax Romana<\/em>) reigned at home and abroad until well into the second century AD<\/span>. The emperors of the first century AD<\/span> cover the period of the life of Jesus and of the emerging church, and several are mentioned in the NT: Augustus (Lk 2:1), Tiberius (Lk 3:1), Claudius (Acts 11:28; 18:2), and Nero, who is referred to without being explicitly named (Acts 25:10-12; 27:24; 2 Tm 4:16-17).<\/p>\nThe city of Rome was the capital of the empire and the home of the emperor, senators, administrators, military personnel, and priests. Augustus, the first of the emperors whose leadership and diplomatic endeavors gave peace to Rome after two civil wars and a century of strife, gave attention to the restoration and adornment of the city. He boasted that he found Rome built of brick and left it built of marble. His efforts at restoring Rome’s ancient religions led to the building of many temples. On the Palatine hill, Augustus united several houses already there into a palace for his own residence. A new and sumptuous temple of Apollo, surrounded by colonnades in which the emperor housed a large library, was erected near the palace. The palace itself overlooked an imposing group of new marble buildings in the valley below: a basilica business hall, a senate house, a temple of “the divine Julius,” a marble speaker’s platform, two impressive new forums, the forum of Caesar, and the forum of Augustus. Later emperors added to this splendor. Beyond the central forum area, the palaces of Tiberius and Caligula, various baths, arches, and theaters, the Circus Maximus, and the Circus Nero were built. The whole was enclosed by a wall built outside the old rampart of Servius. Several aqueducts brought water into the city, and significant roads from north, south, east, and west converged on the central city area.<\/p>\nRome’s Military Presence in Palestine<\/p>\nWith the military intervention of Pompey in the internal affairs of Judea in 63 BC<\/span>, Rome established its presence in Palestine. The census ordered by Augustus Caesar, affecting the eastern provinces as well as the rest of the Roman world (Lk 2:1-2), was a vivid reminder. Roman military presence is amply reflected on the pages of the Gospels and Acts (e.g., Mk 15:16; Lk 3:14; 7:1-8; Acts 5:37).<\/p>\nIn the NT period, service in the legions was open to all Roman citizens. A professional volunteer army had replaced a conscripted militia. The permanent standing army was made up of legions recruited from the ranks of citizens. The legions were commanded by experienced officers of the rank of consul. Auxiliary forces were raised outside Italy, the inducement for enlistment being Roman citizenship for a soldier and his descendants after 25 years of service.<\/p>\nIn the provinces supreme military command lay with the provincial governor or prefect. In Judea at the time of Jesus’ public ministry, Pontius Pilate was designated “prefect of Judea” in a Latin inscription found in Caesarea in 1961. At the official center for administration of Judea, Caesarea Maritima, one or more legions at the disposal of the governor would be garrisoned. On special occasions, particularly at the great Jewish festivals, when riots and disorders could be anticipated, the provincial governor would take up residence in Jerusalem some 60 miles (96.5 kilometers) to the south, accompanied by a substantial contingent of troops (cf. Lk 13:1).<\/p>\nAugustus established a standing army large enough to defend and pacify the empire. In 15 BC<\/span> there were 28 legions, each composed of some 5,000 foot soldiers plus a mounted bodyguard of 128 men. After three legions were destroyed in uprisings by fierce Germanic tribes in AD<\/span> 9, the number remained at 25 for some time. That suggests a standing army of about 125,000 legionaries in the first century.<\/p>\nAugustus was also responsible for establishing a permanent auxiliary army, almost the same size as the legionary army. The auxiliary forces, recruited from provincials who had not yet received Roman citizenship, included both cavalry and infantry. The cavalry was organized in squadrons, the infantry in cohorts of 1,000 under command of a military tribune (Acts 21:31-33). When the apostle Paul was in Jerusalem, the tribune was Claudius Lysias, a man of Greek birth whose purchased Roman citizenship made possible his elevation to commander of an auxiliary cohort (22:28; 23:26). To send Paul from Jerusalem to Caesarea, Claudius could delegate a military escort of 200 soldiers commanded by two centurions, plus 70 mounted guards (23:23), without dangerously weakening the strength of the fortress garrison.<\/p>\nA cohort was made up of either ten or five “centuries,” units consisting of 100 men under the command of a centurion whose duties resembled those of a modern army captain. Cornelius (Acts 10:1) was a Roman centurion assigned to one of the auxiliary cohorts in Judea. There is inscriptional evidence for the presence of his unit, “the Second Italian Cohort of Roman Citizens,” in Syria about AD<\/span> 69. Paul was sent to Rome in the custody of another centurion, Julius, who belonged to the Augustan or imperial cohort (27:1). The term Augustan was a title of honor sometimes bestowed on auxiliary troops. Julius was evidently a legionary centurion assigned to the corps of officer-couriers who maintained a communication service between the emperor and his provincial armies. He had a detachment of soldiers under his command on the voyage to Rome (v 3) and on arrival handed his prisoners over to the commander of the courier corps (28:16). Probably all of the Roman centurions mentioned in the Gospels or Acts (Mt 8:5; Mk 15:39; Lk 7:2) were officers assigned to an auxiliary cohort.<\/p>\nChristians in Rome<\/p>\nIt was to this magnificent city that Paul came under escort in March AD<\/span> 59. He found that the Christian church had already been established there. Indeed, he had already communicated with the Christians in his letter to the Romans early in 57. There was a considerable Jewish colony in Rome in the first century AD<\/span>, descended from the large number of Jewish slaves brought to the city by Pompey after the capture of Jerusalem in 63 BC<\/span>. The emperor Claudius expelled Jews from Rome in AD<\/span> 49, possibly when Jesus was proclaimed as Messiah in the synagogue. Who the preachers were is not known, but they were probably Christian travelers and traders. Paul’s Letter to the Romans was his exposition to the Gentile churches that had come into existence independently of him. His first known contact with the people of Rome was when he met Aquila and Priscilla at Corinth (Acts 18:2). This couple was expelled from Rome in the time of Claudius. Later, Paul hoped to visit Rome (Acts 19:21) on his way to Spain (Rom 15:24). In his salutation he mentioned a considerable circle of Christians in Rome (ch 16). The references to households in several places (vv 5, 10, 11, 14, 15) suggest that these were house churches of the Roman Christian church. During his captivity, Paul was a prisoner of Roman authorities, but he was able to meet the local leaders of the Jews, explain his experiences to them, and expound the gospel to them in person (Acts 28:16-31).<\/p>\nIn the book of Revelation, Rome is given a sinister significance. By the end of the first century AD<\/span>, Rome had already drunk the “blood of the martyrs of Jesus” (Rv 17:6), a reference to early martyrs.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Caesars, The; Romans, Letter to the.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ROME, City of<\/h3>\nCity in Italy founded, according to tradition, in 753 BC<\/span> on seven hills about 15 miles (24.1 kilometers) from the mouth of the Tiber River. It was of no biblical interest until NT times. There are nine explicit references to the city in the NT (Acts 2:10; 18:2; 19:21; 23:11; 28:14, 16; Rom 1:7, 15; 2 Tm 1:17), but Paul’s sojourn there and his letter to the Roman Christians, written probably from Corinth around AD<\/span> 57 and 58, make the imperial city of considerable interest to Bible readers.<\/p>\nHistory<\/p>\nIn the second millennium BC<\/span>, Indo-European migrants moved into Europe and settled in the Italian peninsula. One group settled around the mouth of the Tiber River. A vigorous and more cultured group, the Etruscans from Asia Minor, occupied central Italy. At the time of Rome’s emergence in the eighth century BC<\/span>, the population of the Italian peninsula was mixed. The Latin-speaking enclave, which settled toward the mouth of the Tiber, were agriculturalists. The scattered groups formed leagues and communities to defend themselves against raiders. They built stockades on the hills to protect families and flocks while fighting off the raiders. From such beginnings Rome emerged as a dominant center with its focal point in the area of the seven hills (the Palatine, the Capitoline, the Aventine, the Caelian, the Esquiline, the Viminal, and the Quirinal). Traditionally these hills were considered to be seven in number; in fact, there are more than seven, although some are simply flat-topped spurs. The Tiber River winds in a large S-curve between the hills. At one point it divided to form an island where it was shallow enough to ford. The town that grew up there was linked by roads, north to the Etruscans, south to the Greek trading cities, west to the coast, and inland to the tribal areas on the highlands. Knowledge of early Rome is based largely on archaeological evidence from the remains of the simple forts and numerous burial sites in the area.<\/p>\nRome developed politically in a remarkable fashion over the next 1,000 years. The loose association of the original chieftains, who comprised the earliest “senate,” gave place to domination by Etruscan kings who seem to have trained the people in discipline and obedience. They constructed numerous works, draining the forum area and making it a social, commercial, industrial, and political center. They built a temple for Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva on the Capitoline Hill as a common shrine for all the people. When the kings became autocratic, the Latin population rebelled and expelled the kings.<\/p>\nThe republic was established in 510 BC<\/span>. This establishment marked the beginning of Rome’s remarkable expansion to the dimensions of a world empire. The population, which was now spread out over the hills and valleys, despite their tribal differences, united and solved political problems without bloodshed. Strictly speaking, the term “republican” should not be understood in any modern sense as indicating a kind of democracy. Rather, the ancient families (patricians) dominated the senate and constituted an oligarchy. This arrangement was useful for Rome at that time. The small city-state soon broke out of its confined area, overcame the Etruscans, and dominated the Greek cities to the south. The Romans then looked farther afield. In 273 BC<\/span> they made a treaty with the Ptolemies of Egypt. Before long, they expanded into North Africa, overcame the Carthaginians, pressed on into Spain, and developed ambitions to occupy the Middle East as well. Rome’s many conquests brought enormous wealth.<\/p>\nWith geographical expansion came social changes in Italy. During the second century BC<\/span>, rich landowners bought out the small independent farmers, who subsequently drifted into Rome, landless and unemployed. Huge, overcrowded tenement houses appeared, which constituted creeping slums. Alongside this squalor there was evidence of vast wealth from Rome’s conquests in distant lands. In the capital, many fine buildings appeared. Pompey, who subdued and organized the East, did much to adorn the great capital.<\/p>\nThe next stage in Rome’s political development came when the senate, the governing body of the republic, proved unable to control its more radical and violent members. As their political ambitions increased, aspiring leaders sought to gain popular support by granting privileges to the people without the concurrence of the senate. Civil strife broke out and plagued the last century of the republic. Military victories beyond Rome gave power to the generals. In the civil wars that followed, constitutional questions were decided by the power of the sword. Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Crassus, Julius Caesar, Antony, and Octavian were the real political forces in the land.<\/p>\n\nBy 27 BC<\/span>, Octavian emerged supreme and was given the title Augustus. Theoretically, a dual government existed between the senate and Augustus (the emperor), but a weak senate allowed the emperor to become the virtual ruler. As a result, Roman peace (pax Romana<\/em>) reigned at home and abroad until well into the second century AD<\/span>. The emperors of the first century AD<\/span> cover the period of the life of Jesus and of the emerging church, and several are mentioned in the NT: Augustus (Lk 2:1), Tiberius (Lk 3:1), Claudius (Acts 11:28; 18:2), and Nero, who is referred to without being explicitly named (Acts 25:10-12; 27:24; 2 Tm 4:16-17).<\/p>\nThe city of Rome was the capital of the empire and the home of the emperor, senators, administrators, military personnel, and priests. Augustus, the first of the emperors whose leadership and diplomatic endeavors gave peace to Rome after two civil wars and a century of strife, gave attention to the restoration and adornment of the city. He boasted that he found Rome built of brick and left it built of marble. His efforts at restoring Rome’s ancient religions led to the building of many temples. On the Palatine hill, Augustus united several houses already there into a palace for his own residence. A new and sumptuous temple of Apollo, surrounded by colonnades in which the emperor housed a large library, was erected near the palace. The palace itself overlooked an imposing group of new marble buildings in the valley below: a basilica business hall, a senate house, a temple of “the divine Julius,” a marble speaker’s platform, two impressive new forums, the forum of Caesar, and the forum of Augustus. Later emperors added to this splendor. Beyond the central forum area, the palaces of Tiberius and Caligula, various baths, arches, and theaters, the Circus Maximus, and the Circus Nero were built. The whole was enclosed by a wall built outside the old rampart of Servius. Several aqueducts brought water into the city, and significant roads from north, south, east, and west converged on the central city area.<\/p>\nRome’s Military Presence in Palestine<\/p>\nWith the military intervention of Pompey in the internal affairs of Judea in 63 BC<\/span>, Rome established its presence in Palestine. The census ordered by Augustus Caesar, affecting the eastern provinces as well as the rest of the Roman world (Lk 2:1-2), was a vivid reminder. Roman military presence is amply reflected on the pages of the Gospels and Acts (e.g., Mk 15:16; Lk 3:14; 7:1-8; Acts 5:37).<\/p>\nIn the NT period, service in the legions was open to all Roman citizens. A professional volunteer army had replaced a conscripted militia. The permanent standing army was made up of legions recruited from the ranks of citizens. The legions were commanded by experienced officers of the rank of consul. Auxiliary forces were raised outside Italy, the inducement for enlistment being Roman citizenship for a soldier and his descendants after 25 years of service.<\/p>\nIn the provinces supreme military command lay with the provincial governor or prefect. In Judea at the time of Jesus’ public ministry, Pontius Pilate was designated “prefect of Judea” in a Latin inscription found in Caesarea in 1961. At the official center for administration of Judea, Caesarea Maritima, one or more legions at the disposal of the governor would be garrisoned. On special occasions, particularly at the great Jewish festivals, when riots and disorders could be anticipated, the provincial governor would take up residence in Jerusalem some 60 miles (96.5 kilometers) to the south, accompanied by a substantial contingent of troops (cf. Lk 13:1).<\/p>\nAugustus established a standing army large enough to defend and pacify the empire. In 15 BC<\/span> there were 28 legions, each composed of some 5,000 foot soldiers plus a mounted bodyguard of 128 men. After three legions were destroyed in uprisings by fierce Germanic tribes in AD<\/span> 9, the number remained at 25 for some time. That suggests a standing army of about 125,000 legionaries in the first century.<\/p>\nAugustus was also responsible for establishing a permanent auxiliary army, almost the same size as the legionary army. The auxiliary forces, recruited from provincials who had not yet received Roman citizenship, included both cavalry and infantry. The cavalry was organized in squadrons, the infantry in cohorts of 1,000 under command of a military tribune (Acts 21:31-33). When the apostle Paul was in Jerusalem, the tribune was Claudius Lysias, a man of Greek birth whose purchased Roman citizenship made possible his elevation to commander of an auxiliary cohort (22:28; 23:26). To send Paul from Jerusalem to Caesarea, Claudius could delegate a military escort of 200 soldiers commanded by two centurions, plus 70 mounted guards (23:23), without dangerously weakening the strength of the fortress garrison.<\/p>\nA cohort was made up of either ten or five “centuries,” units consisting of 100 men under the command of a centurion whose duties resembled those of a modern army captain. Cornelius (Acts 10:1) was a Roman centurion assigned to one of the auxiliary cohorts in Judea. There is inscriptional evidence for the presence of his unit, “the Second Italian Cohort of Roman Citizens,” in Syria about AD<\/span> 69. Paul was sent to Rome in the custody of another centurion, Julius, who belonged to the Augustan or imperial cohort (27:1). The term Augustan was a title of honor sometimes bestowed on auxiliary troops. Julius was evidently a legionary centurion assigned to the corps of officer-couriers who maintained a communication service between the emperor and his provincial armies. He had a detachment of soldiers under his command on the voyage to Rome (v 3) and on arrival handed his prisoners over to the commander of the courier corps (28:16). Probably all of the Roman centurions mentioned in the Gospels or Acts (Mt 8:5; Mk 15:39; Lk 7:2) were officers assigned to an auxiliary cohort.<\/p>\nChristians in Rome<\/p>\nIt was to this magnificent city that Paul came under escort in March AD<\/span> 59. He found that the Christian church had already been established there. Indeed, he had already communicated with the Christians in his letter to the Romans early in 57. There was a considerable Jewish colony in Rome in the first century AD<\/span>, descended from the large number of Jewish slaves brought to the city by Pompey after the capture of Jerusalem in 63 BC<\/span>. The emperor Claudius expelled Jews from Rome in AD<\/span> 49, possibly when Jesus was proclaimed as Messiah in the synagogue. Who the preachers were is not known, but they were probably Christian travelers and traders. Paul’s Letter to the Romans was his exposition to the Gentile churches that had come into existence independently of him. His first known contact with the people of Rome was when he met Aquila and Priscilla at Corinth (Acts 18:2). This couple was expelled from Rome in the time of Claudius. Later, Paul hoped to visit Rome (Acts 19:21) on his way to Spain (Rom 15:24). In his salutation he mentioned a considerable circle of Christians in Rome (ch 16). The references to households in several places (vv 5, 10, 11, 14, 15) suggest that these were house churches of the Roman Christian church. During his captivity, Paul was a prisoner of Roman authorities, but he was able to meet the local leaders of the Jews, explain his experiences to them, and expound the gospel to them in person (Acts 28:16-31).<\/p>\nIn the book of Revelation, Rome is given a sinister significance. By the end of the first century AD<\/span>, Rome had already drunk the “blood of the martyrs of Jesus” (Rv 17:6), a reference to early martyrs.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Caesars, The; Romans, Letter to the.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ROME, City of City in Italy founded, according to tradition, in 753 BC on seven hills about 15 miles (24.1 kilometers) from the mouth of the Tiber River. It was of no biblical interest until NT times. There are nine explicit references to the city in the NT (Acts 2:10; 18:2; 19:21; 23:11; 28:14, 16; Rom 1:7, 15; 2 Tm 1:17), but Paul’s sojourn there and his letter to the Roman Christians, written probably from Corinth around AD 57 and 58, make the imperial city of considerable interest to Bibl...","summary_en":"ROME, City of City in Italy founded, according to tradition, in 753 BC on seven hills about 15 miles (24.1 kilometers) from the mouth of the Tiber River. It was of no biblical interest until NT times. There are nine explicit references to the city in the NT (Acts 2:10; 18:2; 19:21; 23:11; 28:14, 16; Rom 1:7, 15; 2 Tm 1:17), but Paul’s sojourn there and his letter to the Roman Christians, written probably from Corinth around AD 57 and 58, make the imperial city of considerable interest to Bibl...","source":"Articles\/R.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38102,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Wages","title_en":"Wages","content_ro":"<h3>WAGES<\/h3>\nPayment received by a laborer in return for his work. Usually wages are calculated in terms of a medium of exchange, such as money, but they can be paid in any kind of goods or services. Jacob worked seven years in return for Laban’s younger daughter, Rachel (Gn 29:18-20), and then had to work another seven years when Laban did not honor his agreement. Later, Jacob’s wages were sheep and goats (30:31-32; 31:8). Nebuchadnezzar was given the country of Egypt as wages for his work in capturing the city of Tyre (Ez 29:18-20).<\/p>\nUsually wages were agreed upon by employer and employee (Gn 29:15-19; Mt 20:2), but sometimes the pay was at the discretion of the employer (Mt 20:4). A fair wage for honest work is a biblical principle (Lk 10:7; 1 Tm 5:18). The Lord established laws to cover this principle and judged those who violated it. Wages were to be paid promptly (Lv 19:13); the holding back of wages is condemned in the Scripture (Mal 3:5; Jas 5:1-6).<\/p>\nWages were often a source of discontent and dispute between employer and employee. When soldiers came to John the Baptist to be baptized and asked about their future conduct, he urged them to be content with their wages (Lk 3:14). Jacob and Laban had disagreements about wages and twice Jacob complained, “You have changed my wages ten times” (Gn 31:7, 41).<\/p>\nThe Bible also speaks of ill-gotten wages. The wages of a prostitute could not be brought into the house of the Lord (Dt 23:18), and people are warned against the error of Balaam, who corrupted Israel because he “loved the wages of unrighteousness” (2 Pt 2:15).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Money; Banker, Banking; Poor, The; Riches; Work.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WAGES<\/h3>\nPayment received by a laborer in return for his work. Usually wages are calculated in terms of a medium of exchange, such as money, but they can be paid in any kind of goods or services. Jacob worked seven years in return for Laban’s younger daughter, Rachel (Gn 29:18-20), and then had to work another seven years when Laban did not honor his agreement. Later, Jacob’s wages were sheep and goats (30:31-32; 31:8). Nebuchadnezzar was given the country of Egypt as wages for his work in capturing the city of Tyre (Ez 29:18-20).<\/p>\nUsually wages were agreed upon by employer and employee (Gn 29:15-19; Mt 20:2), but sometimes the pay was at the discretion of the employer (Mt 20:4). A fair wage for honest work is a biblical principle (Lk 10:7; 1 Tm 5:18). The Lord established laws to cover this principle and judged those who violated it. Wages were to be paid promptly (Lv 19:13); the holding back of wages is condemned in the Scripture (Mal 3:5; Jas 5:1-6).<\/p>\nWages were often a source of discontent and dispute between employer and employee. When soldiers came to John the Baptist to be baptized and asked about their future conduct, he urged them to be content with their wages (Lk 3:14). Jacob and Laban had disagreements about wages and twice Jacob complained, “You have changed my wages ten times” (Gn 31:7, 41).<\/p>\nThe Bible also speaks of ill-gotten wages. The wages of a prostitute could not be brought into the house of the Lord (Dt 23:18), and people are warned against the error of Balaam, who corrupted Israel because he “loved the wages of unrighteousness” (2 Pt 2:15).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Money; Banker, Banking; Poor, The; Riches; Work.<\/p>","summary_ro":"WAGES Payment received by a laborer in return for his work. Usually wages are calculated in terms of a medium of exchange, such as money, but they can be paid in any kind of goods or services. Jacob worked seven years in return for Laban’s younger daughter, Rachel (Gn 29:18-20), and then had to work another seven years when Laban did not honor his agreement. Later, Jacob’s wages were sheep and goats (30:31-32; 31:8). Nebuchadnezzar was given the country of Egypt as wages for his work in captu...","summary_en":"WAGES Payment received by a laborer in return for his work. Usually wages are calculated in terms of a medium of exchange, such as money, but they can be paid in any kind of goods or services. Jacob worked seven years in return for Laban’s younger daughter, Rachel (Gn 29:18-20), and then had to work another seven years when Laban did not honor his agreement. Later, Jacob’s wages were sheep and goats (30:31-32; 31:8). Nebuchadnezzar was given the country of Egypt as wages for his work in captu...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38660,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Work","title_en":"Work","content_ro":"<h3>WORK<\/h3>\nA term referring either to God’s activity or to people’s regular occupation or employment.<\/p>\nThe Value of Work<\/p>\nThe Bible’s positive outlook on work is rooted in its teaching about God. Unlike other ancient religious writings, which regarded creation as something beneath the dignity of the Supreme Being, Scripture unashamedly describes God as a worker. Like a manual laborer, he made the universe as “the work of his fingers” (Ps 8:3). He worked with his raw material just as a potter works with the clay (Is 45:9). The intricate development of the unborn child in the womb and the vast, magnificent spread of the sky both display his supreme craftsmanship (Pss 139:13-16; 19:1). In fact, all creation bears witness to his wisdom and skill (104:24). The almighty Creator even had his rest day (Gn 2:2-3) and enjoyed job satisfaction when surveying his achievements at the end of the week (1:31).<\/p>\nThis vivid biblical description of a working God reaches its climax with the incarnation of Jesus. The “work” that Jesus was given to do (Jn 4:34) was, of course, the unique task of redemption. But he was also a worker in the ordinary sense. His contemporaries knew him as “a carpenter” (Mk 6:3). In NT times carpentry and joinery were muscle-building trades. So the Jesus who stormed through the temple, overturning tables and driving out the men and animals (Jn 2:14-16), was no pale weakling but a workingman whose hands had been hardened by years of toil with the ax, saw, and hammer. Hard, physical labor was not beneath the dignity of the Son of God.<\/p>\nIf the Bible’s teaching about God enhances work’s dignity, its account of mankind’s creation gives all human labor the mark of normality. God “took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to till it and keep it” (Gn 2:15). And God’s first command, to “fill the earth and subdue it” (1:28), implied a great deal of work for both man and woman. In an important sense, people today are obeying that command of their Creator when they do their daily work, whether they acknowledge him or not. Work did not, therefore, arrive in the world as a direct result of the fall into sin (though sin did spoil working conditions, 3:17-19). Work was planned by God from the dawn of history for mankind’s good—as natural to men and women as sunset is to day (Ps 104:19-23).<\/p>\nWith this firm emphasis on the dignity and normality of labor, it is no surprise to find that Scripture strongly condemns idleness. “Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise” (Prv 6:6, rsv<\/span>). Paul is equally blunt: “If any one will not work, let him not eat” (2 Thes 3:10, rsv<\/span>). He set a good example (Acts 20:33-35; 1 Thes 2:9). Those who refuse to work, he insists, even for spiritual reasons, earn no respect from non-Christian onlookers by depending on others to pay their bills (1 Thes 4:11-12). Wage earners, on the other hand, have the material resources of Christian service (Eph 4:28).<\/p>\nVocations<\/p>\nIn biblical times the Greeks and Romans catalogued jobs according to importance or desirability. Routine manual labor, for example, was considered inferior to work involving mental activity.<\/p>\nJewish teaching contrasts strongly with this attitude. “Hate not laborious work,” taught the rabbis (Ecclus 7:15). Even the scholar had to spend some time in manual work. A few trades, like that of the tanner, were regarded as undesirable (a taboo broken very quickly by the early church—see Acts 9:43), but there is no indication in the Bible that some jobs are more worthwhile than others in God’s sight. The Lord calls craftsmen into his service (Ex 31:1-11), just as much as prophets (Is 6:8-9). So Amos was summoned from his fruit-picking to prophesy (Am 7:14-15), but with no suggestion that he was being promoted to a superior role. The important thing was not the nature of the occupation but the readiness to obey God’s call and to witness faithfully to him, whatever the job.<\/p>\nThe Bible has some poignant things to say about the relationship between employer and employee. The OT prophets voice the strongest criticism. God is especially concerned to see that the weak get justice (Is 1:17; Mi 6:8). So, naturally, his spokesmen declare his anger when employers exploit their laborers and cheat them of their wages (Jer 22:13; Mal 3:5; cf. Jas 5:4). A person who wants to please God must “stop oppressing those who work for [him] and treat them fairly and give them what they earn” (Is 58:6, tlb<\/span>).<\/p>\nIn Bible times, the scales were weighted heavily in favor of the employer. But Scripture is not blind to the existence of selfish, greedy employees. Every worker deserves a just wage (Lk 10:7), but those with special power must not try to increase their pay by threats and violence (3:14).<\/p>\nWorking for Christ<\/p>\nGod is a working God who is pleased when his people work hard and conscientiously. That conviction lies at the heart of the Bible’s teaching about Christian attitudes toward secular employment. And quite naturally, the NT extends the same positive emphasis to cover all Christian service, paid or unpaid. The world is God’s harvest field, said Jesus, waiting for Christian reapers to move in and evangelize (Mt 9:37-38). Paul used the same agricultural illustration and added another from the building trade to describe the Lord’s work of evangelism and teaching (1 Cor 3:6-15). Church leaders must work especially hard, he said (1 Thes 5:12), to stimulate all<\/em> God’s people to be involved in the Lord’s work (1 Cor 15:58). All Christians should see themselves as “God’s coworkers” (3:9).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WORK<\/h3>\nA term referring either to God’s activity or to people’s regular occupation or employment.<\/p>\nThe Value of Work<\/p>\nThe Bible’s positive outlook on work is rooted in its teaching about God. Unlike other ancient religious writings, which regarded creation as something beneath the dignity of the Supreme Being, Scripture unashamedly describes God as a worker. Like a manual laborer, he made the universe as “the work of his fingers” (Ps 8:3). He worked with his raw material just as a potter works with the clay (Is 45:9). The intricate development of the unborn child in the womb and the vast, magnificent spread of the sky both display his supreme craftsmanship (Pss 139:13-16; 19:1). In fact, all creation bears witness to his wisdom and skill (104:24). The almighty Creator even had his rest day (Gn 2:2-3) and enjoyed job satisfaction when surveying his achievements at the end of the week (1:31).<\/p>\nThis vivid biblical description of a working God reaches its climax with the incarnation of Jesus. The “work” that Jesus was given to do (Jn 4:34) was, of course, the unique task of redemption. But he was also a worker in the ordinary sense. His contemporaries knew him as “a carpenter” (Mk 6:3). In NT times carpentry and joinery were muscle-building trades. So the Jesus who stormed through the temple, overturning tables and driving out the men and animals (Jn 2:14-16), was no pale weakling but a workingman whose hands had been hardened by years of toil with the ax, saw, and hammer. Hard, physical labor was not beneath the dignity of the Son of God.<\/p>\nIf the Bible’s teaching about God enhances work’s dignity, its account of mankind’s creation gives all human labor the mark of normality. God “took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to till it and keep it” (Gn 2:15). And God’s first command, to “fill the earth and subdue it” (1:28), implied a great deal of work for both man and woman. In an important sense, people today are obeying that command of their Creator when they do their daily work, whether they acknowledge him or not. Work did not, therefore, arrive in the world as a direct result of the fall into sin (though sin did spoil working conditions, 3:17-19). Work was planned by God from the dawn of history for mankind’s good—as natural to men and women as sunset is to day (Ps 104:19-23).<\/p>\nWith this firm emphasis on the dignity and normality of labor, it is no surprise to find that Scripture strongly condemns idleness. “Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise” (Prv 6:6, rsv<\/span>). Paul is equally blunt: “If any one will not work, let him not eat” (2 Thes 3:10, rsv<\/span>). He set a good example (Acts 20:33-35; 1 Thes 2:9). Those who refuse to work, he insists, even for spiritual reasons, earn no respect from non-Christian onlookers by depending on others to pay their bills (1 Thes 4:11-12). Wage earners, on the other hand, have the material resources of Christian service (Eph 4:28).<\/p>\nVocations<\/p>\nIn biblical times the Greeks and Romans catalogued jobs according to importance or desirability. Routine manual labor, for example, was considered inferior to work involving mental activity.<\/p>\nJewish teaching contrasts strongly with this attitude. “Hate not laborious work,” taught the rabbis (Ecclus 7:15). Even the scholar had to spend some time in manual work. A few trades, like that of the tanner, were regarded as undesirable (a taboo broken very quickly by the early church—see Acts 9:43), but there is no indication in the Bible that some jobs are more worthwhile than others in God’s sight. The Lord calls craftsmen into his service (Ex 31:1-11), just as much as prophets (Is 6:8-9). So Amos was summoned from his fruit-picking to prophesy (Am 7:14-15), but with no suggestion that he was being promoted to a superior role. The important thing was not the nature of the occupation but the readiness to obey God’s call and to witness faithfully to him, whatever the job.<\/p>\nThe Bible has some poignant things to say about the relationship between employer and employee. The OT prophets voice the strongest criticism. God is especially concerned to see that the weak get justice (Is 1:17; Mi 6:8). So, naturally, his spokesmen declare his anger when employers exploit their laborers and cheat them of their wages (Jer 22:13; Mal 3:5; cf. Jas 5:4). A person who wants to please God must “stop oppressing those who work for [him] and treat them fairly and give them what they earn” (Is 58:6, tlb<\/span>).<\/p>\nIn Bible times, the scales were weighted heavily in favor of the employer. But Scripture is not blind to the existence of selfish, greedy employees. Every worker deserves a just wage (Lk 10:7), but those with special power must not try to increase their pay by threats and violence (3:14).<\/p>\nWorking for Christ<\/p>\nGod is a working God who is pleased when his people work hard and conscientiously. That conviction lies at the heart of the Bible’s teaching about Christian attitudes toward secular employment. And quite naturally, the NT extends the same positive emphasis to cover all Christian service, paid or unpaid. The world is God’s harvest field, said Jesus, waiting for Christian reapers to move in and evangelize (Mt 9:37-38). Paul used the same agricultural illustration and added another from the building trade to describe the Lord’s work of evangelism and teaching (1 Cor 3:6-15). Church leaders must work especially hard, he said (1 Thes 5:12), to stimulate all<\/em> God’s people to be involved in the Lord’s work (1 Cor 15:58). All Christians should see themselves as “God’s coworkers” (3:9).<\/p>","summary_ro":"WORK A term referring either to God’s activity or to people’s regular occupation or employment. The Value of Work The Bible’s positive outlook on work is rooted in its teaching about God. Unlike other ancient religious writings, which regarded creation as something beneath the dignity of the Supreme Being, Scripture unashamedly describes God as a worker. Like a manual laborer, he made the universe as “the work of his fingers” (Ps 8:3). He worked with his raw material just as a potter works wi...","summary_en":"WORK A term referring either to God’s activity or to people’s regular occupation or employment. The Value of Work The Bible’s positive outlook on work is rooted in its teaching about God. Unlike other ancient religious writings, which regarded creation as something beneath the dignity of the Supreme Being, Scripture unashamedly describes God as a worker. Like a manual laborer, he made the universe as “the work of his fingers” (Ps 8:3). He worked with his raw material just as a potter works wi...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55665,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:14","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:14","content_ro":"3:14<\/strong> These soldiers<\/em> were probably not Roman, but local Jewish troops under the authority of Herod Antipas. They might have been assigned to protect the tax collectors. John does not condemn either tax collectors or soldiers but calls them to honesty and integrity.<\/p>","content_en":"3:14<\/strong> These soldiers<\/em> were probably not Roman, but local Jewish troops under the authority of Herod Antipas. They might have been assigned to protect the tax collectors. John does not condemn either tax collectors or soldiers but calls them to honesty and integrity.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:14 These soldiers were probably not Roman, but local Jewish troops under the authority of Herod Antipas. They might have been assigned to protect the tax collectors. John does not condemn either tax collectors or soldiers but calls them to honesty and integrity.","summary_en":"3:14 These soldiers were probably not Roman, but local Jewish troops under the authority of Herod Antipas. They might have been assigned to protect the tax collectors. John does not condemn either tax collectors or soldiers but calls them to honesty and integrity.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83291,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:14","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:14","content_ro":"3:14<\/strong> These soldiers<\/em> were probably not Roman, but local Jewish troops under the authority of Herod Antipas. They might have been assigned to protect the tax collectors. John does not condemn either tax collectors or soldiers but calls them to honesty and integrity.<\/p>","content_en":"3:14<\/strong> These soldiers<\/em> were probably not Roman, but local Jewish troops under the authority of Herod Antipas. They might have been assigned to protect the tax collectors. John does not condemn either tax collectors or soldiers but calls them to honesty and integrity.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:14 These soldiers were probably not Roman, but local Jewish troops under the authority of Herod Antipas. They might have been assigned to protect the tax collectors. John does not condemn either tax collectors or soldiers but calls them to honesty and integrity.","summary_en":"3:14 These soldiers were probably not Roman, but local Jewish troops under the authority of Herod Antipas. They might have been assigned to protect the tax collectors. John does not condemn either tax collectors or soldiers but calls them to honesty and integrity.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110917,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:14","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:14","content_ro":"3:14<\/strong> These soldiers<\/em> were probably not Roman, but local Jewish troops under the authority of Herod Antipas. They might have been assigned to protect the tax collectors. John does not condemn either tax collectors or soldiers but calls them to honesty and integrity.<\/p>","content_en":"3:14<\/strong> These soldiers<\/em> were probably not Roman, but local Jewish troops under the authority of Herod Antipas. They might have been assigned to protect the tax collectors. John does not condemn either tax collectors or soldiers but calls them to honesty and integrity.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:14 These soldiers were probably not Roman, but local Jewish troops under the authority of Herod Antipas. They might have been assigned to protect the tax collectors. John does not condemn either tax collectors or soldiers but calls them to honesty and integrity.","summary_en":"3:14 These soldiers were probably not Roman, but local Jewish troops under the authority of Herod Antipas. They might have been assigned to protect the tax collectors. John does not condemn either tax collectors or soldiers but calls them to honesty and integrity.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138543,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:14","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:14","content_ro":"3:14<\/strong> These soldiers<\/em> were probably not Roman, but local Jewish troops under the authority of Herod Antipas. They might have been assigned to protect the tax collectors. John does not condemn either tax collectors or soldiers but calls them to honesty and integrity.<\/p>","content_en":"3:14<\/strong> These soldiers<\/em> were probably not Roman, but local Jewish troops under the authority of Herod Antipas. They might have been assigned to protect the tax collectors. John does not condemn either tax collectors or soldiers but calls them to honesty and integrity.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:14 These soldiers were probably not Roman, but local Jewish troops under the authority of Herod Antipas. They might have been assigned to protect the tax collectors. John does not condemn either tax collectors or soldiers but calls them to honesty and integrity.","summary_en":"3:14 These soldiers were probably not Roman, but local Jewish troops under the authority of Herod Antipas. They might have been assigned to protect the tax collectors. John does not condemn either tax collectors or soldiers but calls them to honesty and integrity.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"15":[{"id":20396,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"John the Baptist","title_en":"John the Baptist","content_ro":"<h3>JOHN THE BAPTIST<\/h3>\nForerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD<\/span> 29, while Jesus was still ministering.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\n• Appearance and Identity<\/p>\n• John’s Proclamation<\/p>\n• John’s Baptism<\/p>\n• John’s View of Jesus<\/p>\n• Jesus’ View of John<\/p>\n• Arrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\n• The Disciples of John<\/p>\nBirth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\nLuke’s Gospel is our only source of information concerning the birth and boyhood of John. The Gospel writer states that John was born in the hill country of Judah (Lk 1:39) of priestly descent, being the son of Zechariah, a priest of the order of Abijah, and Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron (v 5). Both parents were righteous in the sight of God, following all the commandments closely (v 6). Like the birth of Jesus, only to a much lesser degree, the birth of John the Baptist is described in Luke as extraordinary. The angel Gabriel announced the coming birth to Zechariah in the temple; to the older, barren Elizabeth it came as an answer to prayer (vv 8-13). John’s name is announced to Zechariah by the angel, even as his purpose as forerunner is revealed before birth (vv 13-17). Such a consecration from birth is reminiscent of the call of the OT prophet Jeremiah (cf. Jer 1:5).<\/p>\nThere existed some familial relationship between the families of John and Jesus. Elizabeth is described as a relative of Mary (Lk 1:36), which may connote cousin or aunt, or may only mean being from the same tribe.<\/p>\nJohn’s childhood, as that of Jesus, is left quite vague in the Gospel account. All that is said is that “John grew up and became strong in spirit. Then he lived out in the wilderness until he began his public ministry to Israel” (Lk 1:80, nlt<\/span>). Some scholars have suggested that John might have been adopted as a boy by the Essenes (as was their practice) at Qumran and reared in their wilderness community, adjacent to the Dead Sea and near the Jordan River. There are some similarities between the activities of the Qumran sect, known through the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the later ministry of John the Baptist. Both practiced a type of asceticism and removed themselves from the life of Jerusalem. Both practiced baptism and associated this rite with initiation and repentance. Finally, John and the Qumran group were both eschatologically minded, awaiting God’s final end-time activity in history. Nevertheless, many significant differences exist between John and the Qumran sect.<\/p>\nAppearance and Identity<\/p>\nMark’s Gospel begins with an account of John the Baptist’s appearance: “John the Baptist . . . lived in the wilderness and was preaching that people should be baptized to show that they had turned from their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Mk 1:4, nlt<\/span>). A rich OT background lies behind John’s association with the wilderness, in this case the wilderness of Judea. It was in the wilderness that God revealed himself to Moses (Ex 3), gave the law, and entered into the covenant with Israel (ch 19). It was also the site of refuge for David (1 Sm 23–26; Ps 63) and Elijah (1 Kgs 19), and in this light became the anticipated site of God’s future deliverance (Is 40:3-5; Ez 47:1-12; Hos 2:14-15).<\/p>\nThe unusual dress of John the Baptist—“clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist” (Mk 1:6, niv<\/span>)—may have suggested to his audience an association with Elijah in particular (2 Kgs 1:8) or with the prophets in general (Zec 13:4). His diet, “locusts and wild honey” (Mk 1:6), was Levitically clean, reflecting one who lived off the desert (such food was also eaten at Qumran) and formed part of the broader asceticism practiced by John and his disciples (Mt 9:14; 11:18).<\/p>\nWho did John understand himself to be? In answer to questions by the multitude whether he was the Messiah, Elijah, or the expected prophet (Jn 1:20-23), John only identified himself as “a voice crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord’ ” (Is 40:3). The background for the question lies at the end of the OT period. Prophecy, on the one hand, was considered to have ceased (Zec 13:2-6); yet, on the other hand, it was expected to appear again before the coming of the messianic kingdom (see Jl 2:28-29; Mal 3:1-4). Some anticipated this final prophet to be one who was like Moses (Dt 18:15), others a returning Elijah as foretold in Malachi 4:5-6. While John personally refrained from identifying himself with these specific expectations (Jn 1:20-23), it is clear that his dress, lifestyle, and message caused the people to identify him with this end-time prophet (Mt 14:5; Mk 11:32). Jesus also saw John as this final “Elijah-like” prophet (Mt 11:7-15), who from Malachi’s prophecy was to be a forerunner to the coming of the Lord (Mal 3:1-4; 4:5-6).<\/p>\nJohn’s Proclamation<\/p>\nJohn’s proclamation involved three elements: a warning of imminent judgment at the hands of the Coming One, a call for repentance in light of the coming kingdom of heaven, and a demand to express this repentance in concrete ethical terms. Many Jews looked forward confidently to the messianic judgment as a time of blessing for themselves and destruction for the gentile oppressors. John, however, warned that Jewish ancestry was false security in the coming judgment (Lk 3:8); true repentance was the only means of escaping destruction (Mt 3:2). John anticipated this judgment at the hands of the Coming One, who would baptize the nation with “the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Lk 3:16). Fire represented the OT means of destruction in the end time (Mal 4:1) as well as purification (Mal 3:1-4), while the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the end time connoted blessing (Is 32:15; Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28) and purification (Is 4:2-4). The judgment anticipated by John was therefore twofold: destruction for the unrepentant, and blessing for the penitent and righteous (Mt 3:12).<\/p>\nIn light of this imminent event John called for repentance on the part of his listeners (Mt 3:2), a true “turning back” or “turning toward” God in obedience that would bring forgiveness of sin. Such a turnabout in an individual’s relation with God should be lived out in one’s everyday dealings: fairness on the part of tax collectors (Lk 3:12-13) and soldiers (v 14), and the general requirement of compassion for the poor (vv 10-11).<\/p>\nJohn’s Baptism<\/p>\nThe Gospels record that John baptized those repentant of their sins at several locations: the Jordan River (Mk 1:5), Bethany beyond the Jordan (Jn 1:28), and Aenon near Salim (Jn 3:23). This practice was an integral part of John’s call for repentance, given in light of the approaching judgment and the appearance of the Coming One. The baptism of the penitent symbolized desire for forgiveness of sin, a renunciation of past life, and a desire to be included in the coming messianic kingdom.<\/p>\nWhat was the background for John’s practice of baptism? From the OT we know of ceremonial lustrations or washings that guaranteed ritual purity (Lv 14–15; Nm 19). Unlike John’s baptism, these washings were repetitive in nature and referred predominantly to ritual rather than moral cleansing. The prophets, however, urged a moral purification associated with the washing of water (Is 1:16-18; Jer 4:14). More significantly, the prophets anticipated a cleansing by God in the end times preceding the Day of Judgment (Ez 36:25; Zec 13:1; cf. Is 44:3), an eschatological element that John may have assumed was being fulfilled in his water baptism.<\/p>\nAnother precedent for John’s practice may have been proselyte baptism, a rite (along with circumcision and the offering of sacrifices) that constituted the conversion of a Gentile to Judaism. Common to both proselyte baptism and John’s baptism were the emphasis on an ethical break with the past, a once-for-all character, and the similarity of immersion. Notable differences were that John’s baptism was for Jews, not Gentile converts, and that it had a marked eschatological character as a preparation for the new age. Unless John, in light of the imminence of the messianic age, consciously treated all Jews as “pagan” in need of a baptism of repentance (cf. Mt 3:7-10), it is doubtful that proselyte baptism formed the primary background for John’s baptismal ministry.<\/p>\nIf John’s baptism had a clear association with the forgiveness of sin, the question naturally arises as to why Jesus, the Son of God, sought baptism from John. John himself asks this very question of Jesus (Mt 3:14), to which Jesus responds, “It must be done, because we must do everything that is right” (v 15, nlt<\/span>). First, it is clear that Jesus’ baptism represented an act of obedience on his part to God’s will as he saw it. Second, by submitting to the baptism of John, Jesus was clearly validating the ministry and message of John. The imminent coming of the kingdom and its Messiah, and the need for repentance in anticipation of this event that John proclaimed, were affirmed by Jesus through baptism. Third, by being baptized, Jesus condemned the self-righteous for their lack of repentance and took a stand with the penitent publicans and sinners awaiting the kingdom of God (Lk 7:29-30). Fourth, Jesus stepped forward for baptism not as an individual in need of forgiveness but as one who represented the people of God. His baptism, therefore, demonstrated solidarity with the people in their need of deliverance, even as he is judged in their place on the cross. Finally, the voice from heaven (Mk 1:11) and the descent of the Spirit (Lk 3:21-22) signify the inauguration of Jesus’ own ministry through his baptism by John.<\/p>\nJohn’s View of Jesus<\/p>\nThroughout his ministry John pointed beyond himself to one “who is far greater than I am—so much greater that I am not even worthy to be his slave” (Mk 1:7, nlt<\/span>). His self-understanding apparently sprang from the application of Isaiah 40:3 to himself, that he was the preparer or forerunner for God’s coming activity through the Messiah (Lk 3:4-6). When asked by curious spectators, John firmly denied that he was the Messiah, and according to the Gospel accounts, subordinated himself to the Coming One (Mk 1:7-8; Jn 1:26-28; 3:28-31). The coming of Jesus to baptism seems to represent the first time John identified these expectations with Jesus himself (Jn 1:35-36). His recognition of Jesus as the Messiah prior to baptism (Mt 3:14) was confirmed by the descent of the Holy Spirit as a dove and the voice from heaven quoting a phrase from an OT messianic psalm (Mk 1:11a, from Ps 2:7), together with a phrase from a Suffering Servant song of Isaiah (Mk 1:11b, from Is 42:1). In the fourth Gospel, John the Baptist goes even further in acknowledging Jesus to be the “Lamb of God” (Jn 1:29), in anticipation of Jesus’ sacrificial role on the cross. And John recognized him as “God’s Chosen One” (v 34, neb<\/span>—another term for the Messiah; Ps 2:7, see Mk 1:11).<\/p>\nIn light of John’s strong affirmation, it is at first difficult to understand his questioning of Jesus while imprisoned: “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?” (Mt 11:3, rsv<\/span>). Some have suggested that John was merely asking for the sake of his disciples, or that the question reflected John’s despondency with being imprisoned. It is more likely, however, that the question represents John’s own confusion with the activity expected of the Messiah. John had proclaimed a Coming One who would bring a baptism of fire and judgment upon the wicked (Lk 3:16). It may have been difficult for him to understand Jesus’ different emphases on forgiveness and acceptance of sinners (Mt 9:9-13) and his healing of the sick (Mt 8–9). When John’s disciples brought their master’s question to Jesus, asking whether or not he was the Messiah, Jesus responded by quoting Isaiah 35:5-6 (see also Is 61:1). This text proclaims the activities of healing and proclaiming salvation to the poor to be fulfillments of the Messiah’s role, even though they may not have been what John or countless other Jews expected.<\/p>\nJesus’ View of John<\/p>\nThat Jesus highly regarded John the Baptist is indicated by his baptism by John. It is also explicitly stated on several occasions. Jesus called him the greatest man to have ever lived (Lk 7:28). (Of course, he was not as great as Jesus, the God-man.) Jesus also said that John was a burning and shining lamp (Jn 5:33-35) and that he practiced a baptism divinely ordained (Lk 20:1-8).<\/p>\nJohn’s uniqueness, however, lies in the fact that he stood at the turning of the ages. He was the last of the old era, the period of the law and the prophets (Lk 16:16), which was to precede the coming of the messianic age (the kingdom of God). John was the last of the prophets, the greatest of them, the Elijah figure who would prepare the way for the judgment of God (Mt 11:13-15; Lk 1:17). Because John belonged to the era of the law and the prophets, however, he was not as great as the “least” already in the kingdom of God (Mt 11:11)—that is, those who belonged to the era of the kingdom’s appearance in Jesus.<\/p>\nArrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\nTo understand why John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas, one has to grasp the messianic excitement caused by John’s appearance and message (Lk 3:15-18). Herod and other secular rulers were obviously suspicious of anyone who might stir up the crowds with predictions of a coming messianic ruler. Other messianic movements had arisen before John, which resulted in outbreaks of violence against the Roman-Herodian rulership. Moreover, Herod Antipas was under heavy criticism for his marriage with Herodias, the ex-wife of his brother Philip. His first marriage, with the daughter of Aretus II, constituted a political alliance between the Herodian family and the Nabatean kingdom of Perea. His new relationship with Herodias was perceived as a breach of the political alliance and led to friction between the two families. John’s denunciation of Herod’s new marriage (Mt 14:3-12) could thus have been interpreted by Herod as a subversive rousing of sentiment against his authority. The Jewish historian Josephus states that Herod did, in fact, arrest John because he feared John’s influence over the crowds. According to Josephus, John was imprisoned at the fortress Machaerus on the eastern side of the Dead Sea. That he was not killed immediately was due to Herod’s personal fear of the righteous John (Mk 6:2) and of the people’s reaction (Mt 14:5). On a point about which Josephus is silent, the Gospels record that it was Herodias’s feelings against John (Mk 6:17) and her plot, through the dancing of her daughter, which brought about the beheading of John (vv 21-29). John was beheaded at Herodias’s request in approximately AD<\/span> 29 or 30.<\/p>\nThe Disciples of John<\/p>\nWhile it is clear that a band of disciples formed around John in his lifetime (Jn 1:35), to suggest that he intended to begin a continuing movement is contradicted by his message on the imminent Day of Judgment. Apparently, John’s disciples consisted of a small group of those who had been baptized by him and were awaiting the coming Messiah. Some transferred their loyalty to Jesus after John had identified Jesus as the Coming One (Jn 1:37). Others, however, apparently stayed on with their teacher, communicating with the imprisoned John concerning the activities of Jesus (Lk 7:18-23) and, after his death, taking the body for burial (Mk 6:29).<\/p>\nWe know little about the activities and practices of the band of disciples clustered around John. We do know, however, that fasting was one practice specifically associated with the group, and one that marked them as similar to the Pharisees (Mt 9:14). In this practice they no doubt followed the example of John himself (Lk 7:33). Prayer and fasting were often linked in late Judaism. The disciples of John were also known for the prayers taught by their master (11:1). Seeing this practice, the disciples of Jesus asked the Lord to teach them to pray, to which Jesus responded with the Lord’s Prayer (vv 2-4).<\/p>\nAfter his death it is likely that other disciples of John joined the followers of Jesus (see Lk 7:29-30). Not all did so, however, as disciples of John were encountered by Paul and other Christians approximately 25 years later in Ephesus (Acts 18:24–29:7). Upon hearing witness to Jesus, these followers of John proclaimed Jesus as Messiah. When Paul baptized them in the name of Jesus they received the Holy Spirit (19:4-7). Even so, it is apparent from later documents that various groups continued to honor John, even considering him the Messiah, centuries after the NT period.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JOHN THE BAPTIST<\/h3>\nForerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD<\/span> 29, while Jesus was still ministering.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\n• Appearance and Identity<\/p>\n• John’s Proclamation<\/p>\n• John’s Baptism<\/p>\n• John’s View of Jesus<\/p>\n• Jesus’ View of John<\/p>\n• Arrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\n• The Disciples of John<\/p>\nBirth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\nLuke’s Gospel is our only source of information concerning the birth and boyhood of John. The Gospel writer states that John was born in the hill country of Judah (Lk 1:39) of priestly descent, being the son of Zechariah, a priest of the order of Abijah, and Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron (v 5). Both parents were righteous in the sight of God, following all the commandments closely (v 6). Like the birth of Jesus, only to a much lesser degree, the birth of John the Baptist is described in Luke as extraordinary. The angel Gabriel announced the coming birth to Zechariah in the temple; to the older, barren Elizabeth it came as an answer to prayer (vv 8-13). John’s name is announced to Zechariah by the angel, even as his purpose as forerunner is revealed before birth (vv 13-17). Such a consecration from birth is reminiscent of the call of the OT prophet Jeremiah (cf. Jer 1:5).<\/p>\nThere existed some familial relationship between the families of John and Jesus. Elizabeth is described as a relative of Mary (Lk 1:36), which may connote cousin or aunt, or may only mean being from the same tribe.<\/p>\nJohn’s childhood, as that of Jesus, is left quite vague in the Gospel account. All that is said is that “John grew up and became strong in spirit. Then he lived out in the wilderness until he began his public ministry to Israel” (Lk 1:80, nlt<\/span>). Some scholars have suggested that John might have been adopted as a boy by the Essenes (as was their practice) at Qumran and reared in their wilderness community, adjacent to the Dead Sea and near the Jordan River. There are some similarities between the activities of the Qumran sect, known through the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the later ministry of John the Baptist. Both practiced a type of asceticism and removed themselves from the life of Jerusalem. Both practiced baptism and associated this rite with initiation and repentance. Finally, John and the Qumran group were both eschatologically minded, awaiting God’s final end-time activity in history. Nevertheless, many significant differences exist between John and the Qumran sect.<\/p>\nAppearance and Identity<\/p>\nMark’s Gospel begins with an account of John the Baptist’s appearance: “John the Baptist . . . lived in the wilderness and was preaching that people should be baptized to show that they had turned from their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Mk 1:4, nlt<\/span>). A rich OT background lies behind John’s association with the wilderness, in this case the wilderness of Judea. It was in the wilderness that God revealed himself to Moses (Ex 3), gave the law, and entered into the covenant with Israel (ch 19). It was also the site of refuge for David (1 Sm 23–26; Ps 63) and Elijah (1 Kgs 19), and in this light became the anticipated site of God’s future deliverance (Is 40:3-5; Ez 47:1-12; Hos 2:14-15).<\/p>\nThe unusual dress of John the Baptist—“clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist” (Mk 1:6, niv<\/span>)—may have suggested to his audience an association with Elijah in particular (2 Kgs 1:8) or with the prophets in general (Zec 13:4). His diet, “locusts and wild honey” (Mk 1:6), was Levitically clean, reflecting one who lived off the desert (such food was also eaten at Qumran) and formed part of the broader asceticism practiced by John and his disciples (Mt 9:14; 11:18).<\/p>\nWho did John understand himself to be? In answer to questions by the multitude whether he was the Messiah, Elijah, or the expected prophet (Jn 1:20-23), John only identified himself as “a voice crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord’ ” (Is 40:3). The background for the question lies at the end of the OT period. Prophecy, on the one hand, was considered to have ceased (Zec 13:2-6); yet, on the other hand, it was expected to appear again before the coming of the messianic kingdom (see Jl 2:28-29; Mal 3:1-4). Some anticipated this final prophet to be one who was like Moses (Dt 18:15), others a returning Elijah as foretold in Malachi 4:5-6. While John personally refrained from identifying himself with these specific expectations (Jn 1:20-23), it is clear that his dress, lifestyle, and message caused the people to identify him with this end-time prophet (Mt 14:5; Mk 11:32). Jesus also saw John as this final “Elijah-like” prophet (Mt 11:7-15), who from Malachi’s prophecy was to be a forerunner to the coming of the Lord (Mal 3:1-4; 4:5-6).<\/p>\nJohn’s Proclamation<\/p>\nJohn’s proclamation involved three elements: a warning of imminent judgment at the hands of the Coming One, a call for repentance in light of the coming kingdom of heaven, and a demand to express this repentance in concrete ethical terms. Many Jews looked forward confidently to the messianic judgment as a time of blessing for themselves and destruction for the gentile oppressors. John, however, warned that Jewish ancestry was false security in the coming judgment (Lk 3:8); true repentance was the only means of escaping destruction (Mt 3:2). John anticipated this judgment at the hands of the Coming One, who would baptize the nation with “the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Lk 3:16). Fire represented the OT means of destruction in the end time (Mal 4:1) as well as purification (Mal 3:1-4), while the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the end time connoted blessing (Is 32:15; Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28) and purification (Is 4:2-4). The judgment anticipated by John was therefore twofold: destruction for the unrepentant, and blessing for the penitent and righteous (Mt 3:12).<\/p>\nIn light of this imminent event John called for repentance on the part of his listeners (Mt 3:2), a true “turning back” or “turning toward” God in obedience that would bring forgiveness of sin. Such a turnabout in an individual’s relation with God should be lived out in one’s everyday dealings: fairness on the part of tax collectors (Lk 3:12-13) and soldiers (v 14), and the general requirement of compassion for the poor (vv 10-11).<\/p>\nJohn’s Baptism<\/p>\nThe Gospels record that John baptized those repentant of their sins at several locations: the Jordan River (Mk 1:5), Bethany beyond the Jordan (Jn 1:28), and Aenon near Salim (Jn 3:23). This practice was an integral part of John’s call for repentance, given in light of the approaching judgment and the appearance of the Coming One. The baptism of the penitent symbolized desire for forgiveness of sin, a renunciation of past life, and a desire to be included in the coming messianic kingdom.<\/p>\nWhat was the background for John’s practice of baptism? From the OT we know of ceremonial lustrations or washings that guaranteed ritual purity (Lv 14–15; Nm 19). Unlike John’s baptism, these washings were repetitive in nature and referred predominantly to ritual rather than moral cleansing. The prophets, however, urged a moral purification associated with the washing of water (Is 1:16-18; Jer 4:14). More significantly, the prophets anticipated a cleansing by God in the end times preceding the Day of Judgment (Ez 36:25; Zec 13:1; cf. Is 44:3), an eschatological element that John may have assumed was being fulfilled in his water baptism.<\/p>\nAnother precedent for John’s practice may have been proselyte baptism, a rite (along with circumcision and the offering of sacrifices) that constituted the conversion of a Gentile to Judaism. Common to both proselyte baptism and John’s baptism were the emphasis on an ethical break with the past, a once-for-all character, and the similarity of immersion. Notable differences were that John’s baptism was for Jews, not Gentile converts, and that it had a marked eschatological character as a preparation for the new age. Unless John, in light of the imminence of the messianic age, consciously treated all Jews as “pagan” in need of a baptism of repentance (cf. Mt 3:7-10), it is doubtful that proselyte baptism formed the primary background for John’s baptismal ministry.<\/p>\nIf John’s baptism had a clear association with the forgiveness of sin, the question naturally arises as to why Jesus, the Son of God, sought baptism from John. John himself asks this very question of Jesus (Mt 3:14), to which Jesus responds, “It must be done, because we must do everything that is right” (v 15, nlt<\/span>). First, it is clear that Jesus’ baptism represented an act of obedience on his part to God’s will as he saw it. Second, by submitting to the baptism of John, Jesus was clearly validating the ministry and message of John. The imminent coming of the kingdom and its Messiah, and the need for repentance in anticipation of this event that John proclaimed, were affirmed by Jesus through baptism. Third, by being baptized, Jesus condemned the self-righteous for their lack of repentance and took a stand with the penitent publicans and sinners awaiting the kingdom of God (Lk 7:29-30). Fourth, Jesus stepped forward for baptism not as an individual in need of forgiveness but as one who represented the people of God. His baptism, therefore, demonstrated solidarity with the people in their need of deliverance, even as he is judged in their place on the cross. Finally, the voice from heaven (Mk 1:11) and the descent of the Spirit (Lk 3:21-22) signify the inauguration of Jesus’ own ministry through his baptism by John.<\/p>\nJohn’s View of Jesus<\/p>\nThroughout his ministry John pointed beyond himself to one “who is far greater than I am—so much greater that I am not even worthy to be his slave” (Mk 1:7, nlt<\/span>). His self-understanding apparently sprang from the application of Isaiah 40:3 to himself, that he was the preparer or forerunner for God’s coming activity through the Messiah (Lk 3:4-6). When asked by curious spectators, John firmly denied that he was the Messiah, and according to the Gospel accounts, subordinated himself to the Coming One (Mk 1:7-8; Jn 1:26-28; 3:28-31). The coming of Jesus to baptism seems to represent the first time John identified these expectations with Jesus himself (Jn 1:35-36). His recognition of Jesus as the Messiah prior to baptism (Mt 3:14) was confirmed by the descent of the Holy Spirit as a dove and the voice from heaven quoting a phrase from an OT messianic psalm (Mk 1:11a, from Ps 2:7), together with a phrase from a Suffering Servant song of Isaiah (Mk 1:11b, from Is 42:1). In the fourth Gospel, John the Baptist goes even further in acknowledging Jesus to be the “Lamb of God” (Jn 1:29), in anticipation of Jesus’ sacrificial role on the cross. And John recognized him as “God’s Chosen One” (v 34, neb<\/span>—another term for the Messiah; Ps 2:7, see Mk 1:11).<\/p>\nIn light of John’s strong affirmation, it is at first difficult to understand his questioning of Jesus while imprisoned: “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?” (Mt 11:3, rsv<\/span>). Some have suggested that John was merely asking for the sake of his disciples, or that the question reflected John’s despondency with being imprisoned. It is more likely, however, that the question represents John’s own confusion with the activity expected of the Messiah. John had proclaimed a Coming One who would bring a baptism of fire and judgment upon the wicked (Lk 3:16). It may have been difficult for him to understand Jesus’ different emphases on forgiveness and acceptance of sinners (Mt 9:9-13) and his healing of the sick (Mt 8–9). When John’s disciples brought their master’s question to Jesus, asking whether or not he was the Messiah, Jesus responded by quoting Isaiah 35:5-6 (see also Is 61:1). This text proclaims the activities of healing and proclaiming salvation to the poor to be fulfillments of the Messiah’s role, even though they may not have been what John or countless other Jews expected.<\/p>\nJesus’ View of John<\/p>\nThat Jesus highly regarded John the Baptist is indicated by his baptism by John. It is also explicitly stated on several occasions. Jesus called him the greatest man to have ever lived (Lk 7:28). (Of course, he was not as great as Jesus, the God-man.) Jesus also said that John was a burning and shining lamp (Jn 5:33-35) and that he practiced a baptism divinely ordained (Lk 20:1-8).<\/p>\nJohn’s uniqueness, however, lies in the fact that he stood at the turning of the ages. He was the last of the old era, the period of the law and the prophets (Lk 16:16), which was to precede the coming of the messianic age (the kingdom of God). John was the last of the prophets, the greatest of them, the Elijah figure who would prepare the way for the judgment of God (Mt 11:13-15; Lk 1:17). Because John belonged to the era of the law and the prophets, however, he was not as great as the “least” already in the kingdom of God (Mt 11:11)—that is, those who belonged to the era of the kingdom’s appearance in Jesus.<\/p>\nArrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\nTo understand why John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas, one has to grasp the messianic excitement caused by John’s appearance and message (Lk 3:15-18). Herod and other secular rulers were obviously suspicious of anyone who might stir up the crowds with predictions of a coming messianic ruler. Other messianic movements had arisen before John, which resulted in outbreaks of violence against the Roman-Herodian rulership. Moreover, Herod Antipas was under heavy criticism for his marriage with Herodias, the ex-wife of his brother Philip. His first marriage, with the daughter of Aretus II, constituted a political alliance between the Herodian family and the Nabatean kingdom of Perea. His new relationship with Herodias was perceived as a breach of the political alliance and led to friction between the two families. John’s denunciation of Herod’s new marriage (Mt 14:3-12) could thus have been interpreted by Herod as a subversive rousing of sentiment against his authority. The Jewish historian Josephus states that Herod did, in fact, arrest John because he feared John’s influence over the crowds. According to Josephus, John was imprisoned at the fortress Machaerus on the eastern side of the Dead Sea. That he was not killed immediately was due to Herod’s personal fear of the righteous John (Mk 6:2) and of the people’s reaction (Mt 14:5). On a point about which Josephus is silent, the Gospels record that it was Herodias’s feelings against John (Mk 6:17) and her plot, through the dancing of her daughter, which brought about the beheading of John (vv 21-29). John was beheaded at Herodias’s request in approximately AD<\/span> 29 or 30.<\/p>\nThe Disciples of John<\/p>\nWhile it is clear that a band of disciples formed around John in his lifetime (Jn 1:35), to suggest that he intended to begin a continuing movement is contradicted by his message on the imminent Day of Judgment. Apparently, John’s disciples consisted of a small group of those who had been baptized by him and were awaiting the coming Messiah. Some transferred their loyalty to Jesus after John had identified Jesus as the Coming One (Jn 1:37). Others, however, apparently stayed on with their teacher, communicating with the imprisoned John concerning the activities of Jesus (Lk 7:18-23) and, after his death, taking the body for burial (Mk 6:29).<\/p>\nWe know little about the activities and practices of the band of disciples clustered around John. We do know, however, that fasting was one practice specifically associated with the group, and one that marked them as similar to the Pharisees (Mt 9:14). In this practice they no doubt followed the example of John himself (Lk 7:33). Prayer and fasting were often linked in late Judaism. The disciples of John were also known for the prayers taught by their master (11:1). Seeing this practice, the disciples of Jesus asked the Lord to teach them to pray, to which Jesus responded with the Lord’s Prayer (vv 2-4).<\/p>\nAfter his death it is likely that other disciples of John joined the followers of Jesus (see Lk 7:29-30). Not all did so, however, as disciples of John were encountered by Paul and other Christians approximately 25 years later in Ephesus (Acts 18:24–29:7). Upon hearing witness to Jesus, these followers of John proclaimed Jesus as Messiah. When Paul baptized them in the name of Jesus they received the Holy Spirit (19:4-7). Even so, it is apparent from later documents that various groups continued to honor John, even considering him the Messiah, centuries after the NT period.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JOHN THE BAPTIST Forerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD 29, while Jesus was still ministering. Preview • Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood • Appearance and Identity • John’s Proclamation • ...","summary_en":"JOHN THE BAPTIST Forerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD 29, while Jesus was still ministering. Preview • Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood • Appearance and Identity • John’s Proclamation • ...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":31572,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Prophecy","title_en":"Prophecy","content_ro":"<h3>PROPHECY<\/h3>\nTerm, along with its English cognates (“prophet,” “to prophesy,” “prophetism,” and “prophetic”), derived from a group of Greek words that, in secular Greek, mean “speak forth,” “proclaim,” “announce.” In biblical Greek, however, these terms always carry the connotation of speaking, proclaiming, or announcing something under the influence of spiritual inspiration.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Prophecy in the Old Testament<\/p>\n• Types of Old Testament Prophets<\/p>\n• The Message of the Prophets<\/p>\n• Prophecy in the New Testament<\/p>\n• The Role of the Christian Prophet<\/p>\nProphecy in the Old Testament<\/p>\nOne of the clearest and most significant statements on the nature of prophetic inspiration in the OT is found in Numbers 12:6-8: “The Lord<\/span> said to them, ‘Now listen to me! Even with prophets, I the Lord<\/span> communicate by visions and dreams. But that is not how I communicate with my servant Moses. He is entrusted with my entire house. I speak to him face to face, directly and not in riddles! He sees the Lord<\/span> as he is’ ” (nlt<\/span>). Several important insights into the nature of prophetic inspiration are found in this passage: (1) The prophetic gift of Moses was unique in that he alone received revelations directly from God. (2) Ordinarily, prophetic revelation was received through the medium of a dream or a vision. (3) The meaning of prophetic revelation is not always completely clear; prophecy is sometimes ambiguous.<\/p>\nFurther insight into the nature of prophetic revelation is found in Deuteronomy 18:18: “I [God] will raise up for them a prophet like you [Moses] from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him” (rsv<\/span>). While this passage is of interest because Jesus was identified as “the prophet like Moses” who came in fulfillment of this prediction (Acts 3:22; 7:37), the more immediate historical reference is to the succession of prophets that guided Israel from Joshua to Malachi. The phrase “I will put my words in his mouth” refers to the process of divine inspiration and is reminiscent of the common OT prophetic formula “the word of the Lord came to [such and such a prophet]” (for examples, see 1 Sm 15:10; 2 Sm 24:11; 1 Kgs 19:9; Jon 1:1; Hg 1:1; 2:1, 20; Zec 7:1, 8; 8:1). A true prophet is one who speaks (or repeats) all that God has told him.<\/p>\n<h5>Modes of Prophetic Inspiration<\/h5>\nDreams were a commonly recognized mode of inspiration throughout the ancient world, though they were more highly regarded in Greece than in ancient Israel. Revelatory dreams in the Bible fall into two major categories: (1) dreams whose meaning is self-evident, and (2) symbolic dreams that usually require the expertise of an interpreter of dreams. Both types normally involve both visual and auditory elements. In those dreams whose meaning is self-evident, normally a supernatural being (God or an angel) appears to the dreamer and speaks to him or her in a straightforward manner.<\/p>\nMore frequently, revelatory dreams have symbolic elements that require interpretation. The two great dream interpreters of the OT are Joseph and Daniel; the latter is clearly a prophet. The two symbolic dreams that Joseph himself dreamed (Gn 37:5-11) had sufficiently self-evident meaning so that his brothers and father were able to interpret them immediately. More complex were the dreams of the butler and baker (40:1-19) and of Pharaoh (41:1-36), which Joseph was able to interpret with the help of God. Similarly, Daniel was enabled to interpret the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar (Dn 2:25-45; 4:4-27). The skill in interpreting such dreams was attributed by both Joseph and Daniel to God (Gn 40:8; 41:16, 25; Dn 2:27-30; cf. 4:9). While dreams are used almost interchangeably with visions in referring to modes of prophetic inspiration (Jl 2:28), dreams do not occupy a significant part in the prophetic revelations of any of the OT prophets, with the exception of Daniel.<\/p>\nOne of the most characteristic modes of prophetic inspiration was the vision (Nm 12:6; 24:4, 16; Hos 12:10). The revelatory visions experienced by the prophets were not limited to visual phenomena alone but also included the auditory dimension as well. In Isaiah 1:1, the author describes his entire prophetic book as a “vision”: “These visions concerning Judah and Jerusalem came to Isaiah son of Amoz during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah—all kings of Judah” (nlt<\/span>). Yet in the very next verse, Isaiah says, “Hear, O heavens! Listen, O earth! This is what the Lord<\/span> says.” Again, in Amos 1:1, “The words<\/em> of Amos, who was among the shepherds of Tekoa, which he saw<\/em> concerning Israel” (rsv<\/span>, emphasis added).<\/p>\n<h5>Manifestations of Prophetic Inspiration<\/h5>\nAll prophecy, whether biblical or not, presupposes that the prophet either possessed or was possessed by a personal supernatural power. The external behavioral manifestations of this possession can exhibit great variety.<\/p>\nThe prophetic phenomenon generally designated “ecstatic” prophecy appears to have existed in Canaan prior to the arrival of the Hebrew tribes in the 13th century BC<\/span>. The first reference to ecstatic prophecy in Israel occurs in 1 Samuel 10:5-13 (11th century BC<\/span>), and it persisted at least till the sixth century BC<\/span> (Jer 29:26).<\/p>\nThe ecstatic prophet achieves a trancelike state by self-induced means. The most common devices used to achieve a state of ecstasy were musical instruments, such as the harp, tambourine, flute, and lyre (1 Sm 10:5). Among the prophets of Baal, self-flagellation was another means of inducing ecstasy (1 Kgs 18:28-29).<\/p>\nThis kind of prophetic ecstasy was usually practiced by groups of prophets (1 Sm 10:5), and such ecstasy was contagious. When Saul met a band of such prophets, the Spirit of God came upon him and he, too, began to prophesy (vv 10-13), a phenomenon that occurred repeatedly to various messengers sent by Saul on a later occasion (19:20-22). At that time Saul again prophesied, and his ecstatic behavior is described in 1 Samuel 19:24. When Elisha was asked to prophesy for King Jehoram of Israel, he first requested a minstrel. When the minstrel played, the power of the Lord came upon him (2 Kgs 3:15).<\/p>\nTypes of Old Testament Prophets<\/p>\nThere are two basic types of prophetic commission in the OT. One type is that of a narrative call by God to a particular individual whose objections to the call are gradually overcome in a dialogue between himself and God. The classic example of this type of prophetic commission is found in Jeremiah 1:4-8:<\/p>\nThe Lord<\/span> gave me a message. He said, “I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb. Before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as my spokesman to the world.”<\/p>\n<blockquote>“O Sovereign Lord<\/span>,” I said, “I can’t speak for you! I’m too young!”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>“Don’t say that,” the Lord<\/span> replied, “for you must go wherever I send you and say whatever I tell you. And don’t be afraid of the people, for I will be with you and take care of you. I, the Lord<\/span>, have spoken!” (nlt<\/span>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nSimilar prophetic commissions including such dialogues are associated with the calls of Moses (Ex 3:1–4:17) and Gideon (Jgs 6:11-17).<\/p>\nThe second major form of prophetic commission is the “throne vision.” An outstanding example is Isaiah 6:1-8:<\/p>\nIn the year King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord. He was sitting on a lofty throne, and the train of his robe filled the Temple. . . .<\/p>\n<blockquote>Then I said, “My destruction is sealed, for I am a sinful man and a member of a sinful race. Yet I have seen the King, the Lord<\/span> Almighty!”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>Then one of the seraphim flew over to the altar, and he picked up a burning coal with a pair of tongs. He touched my lips with it and said, “See, this coal has touched your lips. Now your guilt is removed, and your sins are forgiven.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>Then I heard the Lord asking, “Whom should I send as a messenger to my people? Who will go for us?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>And I said, “Lord, I’ll go! Send me.” (nlt<\/span>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nHere we have an account of the visionary presence of a prophet in the heavenly council; in this case, however, the prophet participates in the deliberations and thereby receives a prophetic commission. Though few prophets have left accounts of their divine commissions, most of them appear to have been conscious of having been “sent” by God (Is 48:16; Hos 8:1; Am 7:14-15). According to Jeremiah, false prophets did not receive such divine commissions (Jer 23:21, 32; 28:15).<\/p>\nThe Message of the Prophets<\/p>\n<h5>The Form of the Message<\/h5>\nThe most common introductory formula for prophetic oracles in the OT is the phrase “Thus says the Lord,” which occurs hundreds of times in prophetic contexts. This formula clearly implies that the pronouncement so introduced is not the word of the prophet who utters the oracle but of the God of Israel who delivered his word to his prophet. The use of this formula also reiterates the prophet’s sense of divine commission. In oracles introduced in this manner, God speaks in the first person. In fact, virtually all Israelite prophetic utterance is formulated as the direct speech of the God of Israel.<\/p>\nThe prophets used many literary forms in which to express their oracles. Two of the more widely used forms of prophetic speech are the judgment speech and the oracle of salvation. The judgment speech is composed of at least two central elements: the speech of rebuke or invective, and the pronouncement of judgment (see 2 Kgs 1:3-4). The second common prophetic speech form is the oracle of salvation (see Is 41:8-13). Other fixed forms of prophetic speech include the prophecy of salvation (43:14-21), the proclamation of salvation (41:17-20; 42:14-17; 43:16-21; 49:7-12), and the woe oracle (Is 5:8-10; 10:1-4; Am 5:18-24; 6:1-7; Mi 2:1-5).<\/p>\n<h5>The Content of the Message<\/h5>\nThe common adage that OT prophets were not “foretellers” but “forthtellers” is not strictly correct. All of the prophets predict the future. Such prediction, however, is based not on human curiosity of what the future will hold but rather is rooted in the future consequences of past or present violations of the covenant, or on a future act of deliverance that will provide hope for a discouraged people. Most of the prophetic speeches that have been preserved in the OT were originally delivered as public proclamations or sermons. Most of these prophetic proclamations were evoked by the iniquity and apostasy of Israel. Hosea and Jeremiah condemned Israel because she had broken the covenant (Jer 11:2-3; Hos 8:1).<\/p>\nThe prophets are frequently associated with social justice and social reform, and these elements were unquestionably an important dimension of their message. Amos denounced the rich who afflicted the poor (Am 2:6-8; 4:1; 5:11; 8:4-6). He railed against sexual immorality (2:6-8) and against those who take bribes (5:12). Hosea provided a list of prevalent vices, including lying, killing, stealing, adultery, and idolatry (Hos 4:2). Idolatry was a particular target for his denunciations (8:5; 11:2). The background for such heated denunciations of Israel’s behavior is God’s unquenchable love for Israel (Is 43:4; Jer 31:3; Hos 3:1; 11:1-4; 14:4; Mal 1:2), which is inseparable from his election of Israel (Is 43:1; Jer 33:24; Ez 20:5; Hos 3).<\/p>\nThe prophets were concerned not only with the transgressions of Israel and the historical judgment that would inevitably follow but also with the achievement of a final future time of bliss. The message of many of the prophets is thoroughly eschatological (i.e., pertaining to the end times). One such eschatological concept is that of the Day of the Lord. The concept of the Day of the Lord first appears in Amos, where the emphasis lies on the disaster that will befall Israel on that day. Amos’s emphasis on disaster notwithstanding, the Day of the Lord is a conception that had both salvific as well as judgmental overtones for Israel. While the disaster that will occur in the Day of the Lord can be viewed in terms of a literal historical fulfillment in the tragic events of 722 BC<\/span> (the fall of Samaria) and 586 BC<\/span> (the fall of Judah), there are nevertheless features of these predictions that transcend historical fulfillment and reach toward eschatological fulfillment.<\/p>\nSince the Israelite conception of “salvation” was largely temporal in its dimensions, it included such blessings as length of life, fruitfulness of the womb and field, peace and victory over one’s enemies, the abundance of water, and so on. In harmony with this conception of salvation, the future age is conceived in precisely those terms, as in Amos 9:13-15.<\/p>\nThe prophets pictured a time when David himself, or someone very much like him, would return and inaugurate a golden era reminiscent of the great Davidic and Solomonic period. The covenant of God with David was not a conditional covenant but rather one that was absolutely inviolable (2 Sm 7:4-17; Ps 89; Jer 33:19-22), and it was with this knowledge that the prophets could look forward confidently to a restoration of David’s throne (Jer 17:24-26; 23:5-6; 33:14-15).<\/p>\n\nProphecy in the New Testament<\/p>\nIn contrast to the few self-proclaimed prophets of the intertestamental period, early Christianity began with a flurry of prophetic activity that lasted well into the second century AD<\/span>. Jesus, his disciples and followers, and the early Christians were convinced that the times in which they lived were times in which OT prophecy was being fulfilled (Mk 1:14-15; Acts 2:16-21; Rom 16:25-27; 1 Cor 10:11). Yet this era was not only one of fulfillment but also one of the renewal of the prophetic gift.<\/p>\n<h5>John the Baptist<\/h5>\nJohn the Baptist is remembered in the NT primarily as the forerunner of Jesus whose coming was predicted by Malachi (Mal 4:5-6). Yet, in his own right, John proclaimed the imminent judgment of God with a flair of denunciation and rebuke reminiscent of the OT prophets. John’s costume, consisting of a hairy cloak and a leather girdle (Mk 1:6), was reminiscent of the typical garb of OT prophets (1 Kgs 19:19; 2 Kgs 1:8; 2:13-14; Zec 13:4). John was regarded as a prophet by people everywhere (Mt 14:5; 17:10-13; Mk 9:11-13; 11:32; Lk 1:76; 7:26). Luke reports, in a style similar to the OT prophetic narratives, that “the word of God came to John” (Lk 3:2). Two short prophetic speeches have been preserved in Matthew 3:7-10 (cf. Lk 3:7-9) and Mark 1:7-8 (cf. Mt 3:11-12; Lk 3:15-18). In the first speech, John denounced those of his generation who had transgressed the covenant law and exhorted them to change their manner of life. In the second speech, John predicted the coming of the Mighty One, Jesus (Mt 3:11; Mk 1:7; Lk 3:16; Jn 1:15, 27, 30; Acts 13:25). John’s style, however, was not precisely that of the OT prophets. His pronouncements were made on his own authority; never did he use formulas such as “thus says the Lord,” or present his prophetic utterances as if they were speeches made by God. Yet, in spite of these differences, John is appropriately regarded as the last representative of the OT prophetic tradition (Mt 11:13; Lk 16:16).<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus of Nazareth<\/h5>\nJesus was popularly regarded as a prophet (Mt 16:14; 21:10-11; Mk 6:14-15; 8:28; Lk 7:16, 39; 9:8, 19; Jn 6:14; 7:40, 52). This assessment was based as much on the mighty deeds Jesus performed as on his prophetic speeches and predictions. Though Jesus nowhere claimed prophetic status directly, that claim is implicit in Mark 6:4: “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown” (cf. Mt 13:57; Lk 4:24). It is implicit as well in Luke 13:33: “Yes, today, tomorrow, and the next day I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be killed except in Jerusalem!” (nlt<\/span>). In Acts, Jesus is regarded as “the prophet like Moses” predicted in Deuteronomy 18:18 (Acts 3:22; 7:37). Matthew presents Jesus as the New Moses, but he does not particularly emphasize his prophetic role. John, however, like Luke, emphasizes Jesus’ role as the prophet (Jn 4:19; 6:14-15; 7:40).<\/p>\nWhile the Gospels and Acts reflect the notion that Jesus was a prophet, they also emphasize the fact that he was much more than a prophet. Nevertheless, the notion of prophetism was sufficiently important in early Judaism that Jesus’ recognition as a prophet is very significant. There are 12 solid reasons for regarding Jesus as a prophet in the OT tradition: (1) The sovereign authority of Jesus’ teaching (Mk 1:27), a feature underlined by his use of the introductory formula “(Amen) I say to you,” which is reminiscent of the formula “thus says the Lord” used by the OT prophets. (2) The poetic character of many of Jesus’ sayings is unlike contemporary rabbinic teaching but is similar to the poetic rhetoric of the OT prophets. (3) Jesus experienced visions (Lk 10:18) like the ancient prophets. (4) Jesus, like the prophets, made many predictions (Mt 23:38; Mk 13:2; 14:58; Lk 13:35; etc.). (5) Like the OT prophets, Jesus performed symbolic acts (such as the cleansing of the temple, the entry into Jerusalem, and the Last Supper). (6) Jesus, like the prophets, when necessary, rejected the formal observance of religious ritual and emphasized the moral and spiritual dimensions of obedience to God. (7) Jesus announced the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God—an eschatological proclamation similar to those made by the prophets. (8) Like the OT prophets, Jesus functioned as a preacher of repentance. (9) Jesus, like many of the prophets, was conscious of a special calling of God (Mt 15:24; Mk 8:31; 9:37; 14:36; Lk 4:18-26). (10) Jesus, like the prophets, received divine revelation through intimate communion with God (Mt 11:27; Lk 10:22). (11) Like the prophets, Jesus represented God; to obey him was to obey God, to reject him was to reject God (Mk 9:37; cf. Ez 33:30-33). (12) Like the prophets, Jesus was conscious of a mission to all Israel (Mt 15:24; 19:28; Lk 22:30).<\/p>\nAmong the many prophetic predictions of Jesus are the following:<\/p>\n1. Predictions of the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God (Mt 10:7-8, 23; 23:39; Mk 1:15; 9:1; 13:28-29)<\/p>\n<li>2. Predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (Mt 23:37-39; 24:2; 26:61; 27:40; Mk 13:2; 14:58; 15:29; Lk 13:34-35; 21:6; Jn 2:19-21)<\/li>\n<li>3. Predictions of the coming of the Son of Man (Mt 10:23, 32-33; 12:40; 13:40-41; 16:27; 24:27, 37-39; Mk 8:38; 13:26-27; 14:62; Lk 9:26; 11:30; 12:8-9; 17:24, 26)<\/li>\n<li>4. Predictions of the end of the age. The longest prophetic section in the Gospels is the eschatological discourse of Jesus in Mark 13:1-32 (cf. Mt 24:1-36; Lk 21:5-33), in which a number of predictions concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the age are woven into a lengthy discourse to the disciples.<\/li>\n<h5>Prophecy as a Gift for the Believers<\/h5>\nThe beginning of prophetic activity in early Christianity, according to Acts, coincided with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the earliest Christians on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-21). Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost indicates that the outpouring of the Spirit fulfilled Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:4, 17-21; cf. Jl 2:28-32). Further, since the Spirit had been poured out upon all early Christians (that Spirit being a Spirit of prophecy), all are actual or potential prophets.<\/p>\nAccording to 1 Corinthians 12:28 (see also Rom 12:6; Eph 4:11), God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, and third teachers. The names of several early Christian prophets have been preserved. These include Agabus (Acts 11:27-28; 21:10-11); Judas and Silas (15:32); Barnabas, Simeon Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, and Paul (13:1); and the four virgin daughters of Philip the evangelist (21:8-9). John, the author of Revelation, was certainly a prophet (Rv 1:3; 22:9, 18), though he never directly assumed that title.<\/p>\nThe Role of the Christian Prophet<\/p>\nChristian prophets were leaders in early Christian communities (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11), who exercised their gift in church gatherings (Acts 13:1-3; 11:27-28; 1 Cor 12–14; Rv 1:10). Since the Spirit of God was particularly active in Christian worship, prophecy was a major means whereby God communicated with his people. Prophets, like apostles and teachers, did not hold offices in local communities like bishops, elders, and deacons. Rather, they were chosen, not by individual congregations, but by divine commission and so were honored and accepted in all local communities.<\/p>\nEarly Christian prophets were both itinerant and settled, though itinerant prophets seem to have been more prevalent in Syria-Palestine and Asia Minor than in the European churches.<\/p>\n<h5>The Function of Prophecy<\/h5>\nAccording to Paul, the central purpose of prophecy (as of all other spiritual gifts) is that of building up or edifying the church. According to 1 Corinthians 14:3, “one who prophesies is helping others grow in the Lord, encouraging and comforting them” (nlt<\/span>). Again, in 1 Corinthians 14:4, Paul states that the “one who speaks a word of prophecy strengthens the entire church.” Paul discussed the subject of spiritual gifts, particularly tongues speaking and prophecy, because the Corinthians had placed an excessive emphasis on speaking in tongues. Paul did not object to speaking in tongues (1 Cor 14:18, 39), but he did point out that, since it was generally incomprehensible, the church could not be edified by it. Prophecy, which consisted of comprehensible speech inspired by the Spirit, contributed to the mutual edification, encouragement, and consolation of all present (1 Cor 14:20-25, 39).<\/p>\n<h5>The Content of Christian Prophecy<\/h5>\nWe know only a little about the content of prophecies uttered in the first-century church. Prophetic utterance occasionally provided divine guidance in making important decisions in early Christianity. Through a prophetic utterance, Paul and Barnabas were selected for a particular mission (Acts 13:1-3; cf. 1 Tm 1:18; 4:14). Probably through prophetic utterance, Paul and Timothy were forbidden to preach the gospel in Asia (Acts 16:6), and they were similarly forbidden by the Spirit of Jesus to go into Bithynia (v 7). Perhaps the most frequent use of prophecy is the prediction of the future. Agabus predicted a universal famine (11:28) and the imminent arrest of Paul (21:11). Other prophets had also predicted his impending imprisonment (20:23). The prophecies contained in the Revelation of John are all oriented toward the future events that will gradually unfold in the last days. Yet the purpose of John’s elaborate prophecy is not to satisfy the curiosity of his audience but rather to comfort and encourage them in the midst of persecution.<\/p>\n<h5>The Form of Christian Prophecy<\/h5>\nUnlike the prophets of the OT, Christian prophets did not always present their message in the form of a direct speech from God or Jesus. There are few, if any, formal indicators of the presence of prophetic speech in early Christian literature. The book of Revelation is one notable exception.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Dreams; Oracle; Promise; Prophet, Prophetess; Prophets, False; Visions.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PROPHECY<\/h3>\nTerm, along with its English cognates (“prophet,” “to prophesy,” “prophetism,” and “prophetic”), derived from a group of Greek words that, in secular Greek, mean “speak forth,” “proclaim,” “announce.” In biblical Greek, however, these terms always carry the connotation of speaking, proclaiming, or announcing something under the influence of spiritual inspiration.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Prophecy in the Old Testament<\/p>\n• Types of Old Testament Prophets<\/p>\n• The Message of the Prophets<\/p>\n• Prophecy in the New Testament<\/p>\n• The Role of the Christian Prophet<\/p>\nProphecy in the Old Testament<\/p>\nOne of the clearest and most significant statements on the nature of prophetic inspiration in the OT is found in Numbers 12:6-8: “The Lord<\/span> said to them, ‘Now listen to me! Even with prophets, I the Lord<\/span> communicate by visions and dreams. But that is not how I communicate with my servant Moses. He is entrusted with my entire house. I speak to him face to face, directly and not in riddles! He sees the Lord<\/span> as he is’ ” (nlt<\/span>). Several important insights into the nature of prophetic inspiration are found in this passage: (1) The prophetic gift of Moses was unique in that he alone received revelations directly from God. (2) Ordinarily, prophetic revelation was received through the medium of a dream or a vision. (3) The meaning of prophetic revelation is not always completely clear; prophecy is sometimes ambiguous.<\/p>\nFurther insight into the nature of prophetic revelation is found in Deuteronomy 18:18: “I [God] will raise up for them a prophet like you [Moses] from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him” (rsv<\/span>). While this passage is of interest because Jesus was identified as “the prophet like Moses” who came in fulfillment of this prediction (Acts 3:22; 7:37), the more immediate historical reference is to the succession of prophets that guided Israel from Joshua to Malachi. The phrase “I will put my words in his mouth” refers to the process of divine inspiration and is reminiscent of the common OT prophetic formula “the word of the Lord came to [such and such a prophet]” (for examples, see 1 Sm 15:10; 2 Sm 24:11; 1 Kgs 19:9; Jon 1:1; Hg 1:1; 2:1, 20; Zec 7:1, 8; 8:1). A true prophet is one who speaks (or repeats) all that God has told him.<\/p>\n<h5>Modes of Prophetic Inspiration<\/h5>\nDreams were a commonly recognized mode of inspiration throughout the ancient world, though they were more highly regarded in Greece than in ancient Israel. Revelatory dreams in the Bible fall into two major categories: (1) dreams whose meaning is self-evident, and (2) symbolic dreams that usually require the expertise of an interpreter of dreams. Both types normally involve both visual and auditory elements. In those dreams whose meaning is self-evident, normally a supernatural being (God or an angel) appears to the dreamer and speaks to him or her in a straightforward manner.<\/p>\nMore frequently, revelatory dreams have symbolic elements that require interpretation. The two great dream interpreters of the OT are Joseph and Daniel; the latter is clearly a prophet. The two symbolic dreams that Joseph himself dreamed (Gn 37:5-11) had sufficiently self-evident meaning so that his brothers and father were able to interpret them immediately. More complex were the dreams of the butler and baker (40:1-19) and of Pharaoh (41:1-36), which Joseph was able to interpret with the help of God. Similarly, Daniel was enabled to interpret the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar (Dn 2:25-45; 4:4-27). The skill in interpreting such dreams was attributed by both Joseph and Daniel to God (Gn 40:8; 41:16, 25; Dn 2:27-30; cf. 4:9). While dreams are used almost interchangeably with visions in referring to modes of prophetic inspiration (Jl 2:28), dreams do not occupy a significant part in the prophetic revelations of any of the OT prophets, with the exception of Daniel.<\/p>\nOne of the most characteristic modes of prophetic inspiration was the vision (Nm 12:6; 24:4, 16; Hos 12:10). The revelatory visions experienced by the prophets were not limited to visual phenomena alone but also included the auditory dimension as well. In Isaiah 1:1, the author describes his entire prophetic book as a “vision”: “These visions concerning Judah and Jerusalem came to Isaiah son of Amoz during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah—all kings of Judah” (nlt<\/span>). Yet in the very next verse, Isaiah says, “Hear, O heavens! Listen, O earth! This is what the Lord<\/span> says.” Again, in Amos 1:1, “The words<\/em> of Amos, who was among the shepherds of Tekoa, which he saw<\/em> concerning Israel” (rsv<\/span>, emphasis added).<\/p>\n<h5>Manifestations of Prophetic Inspiration<\/h5>\nAll prophecy, whether biblical or not, presupposes that the prophet either possessed or was possessed by a personal supernatural power. The external behavioral manifestations of this possession can exhibit great variety.<\/p>\nThe prophetic phenomenon generally designated “ecstatic” prophecy appears to have existed in Canaan prior to the arrival of the Hebrew tribes in the 13th century BC<\/span>. The first reference to ecstatic prophecy in Israel occurs in 1 Samuel 10:5-13 (11th century BC<\/span>), and it persisted at least till the sixth century BC<\/span> (Jer 29:26).<\/p>\nThe ecstatic prophet achieves a trancelike state by self-induced means. The most common devices used to achieve a state of ecstasy were musical instruments, such as the harp, tambourine, flute, and lyre (1 Sm 10:5). Among the prophets of Baal, self-flagellation was another means of inducing ecstasy (1 Kgs 18:28-29).<\/p>\nThis kind of prophetic ecstasy was usually practiced by groups of prophets (1 Sm 10:5), and such ecstasy was contagious. When Saul met a band of such prophets, the Spirit of God came upon him and he, too, began to prophesy (vv 10-13), a phenomenon that occurred repeatedly to various messengers sent by Saul on a later occasion (19:20-22). At that time Saul again prophesied, and his ecstatic behavior is described in 1 Samuel 19:24. When Elisha was asked to prophesy for King Jehoram of Israel, he first requested a minstrel. When the minstrel played, the power of the Lord came upon him (2 Kgs 3:15).<\/p>\nTypes of Old Testament Prophets<\/p>\nThere are two basic types of prophetic commission in the OT. One type is that of a narrative call by God to a particular individual whose objections to the call are gradually overcome in a dialogue between himself and God. The classic example of this type of prophetic commission is found in Jeremiah 1:4-8:<\/p>\nThe Lord<\/span> gave me a message. He said, “I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb. Before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as my spokesman to the world.”<\/p>\n<blockquote>“O Sovereign Lord<\/span>,” I said, “I can’t speak for you! I’m too young!”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>“Don’t say that,” the Lord<\/span> replied, “for you must go wherever I send you and say whatever I tell you. And don’t be afraid of the people, for I will be with you and take care of you. I, the Lord<\/span>, have spoken!” (nlt<\/span>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nSimilar prophetic commissions including such dialogues are associated with the calls of Moses (Ex 3:1–4:17) and Gideon (Jgs 6:11-17).<\/p>\nThe second major form of prophetic commission is the “throne vision.” An outstanding example is Isaiah 6:1-8:<\/p>\nIn the year King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord. He was sitting on a lofty throne, and the train of his robe filled the Temple. . . .<\/p>\n<blockquote>Then I said, “My destruction is sealed, for I am a sinful man and a member of a sinful race. Yet I have seen the King, the Lord<\/span> Almighty!”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>Then one of the seraphim flew over to the altar, and he picked up a burning coal with a pair of tongs. He touched my lips with it and said, “See, this coal has touched your lips. Now your guilt is removed, and your sins are forgiven.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>Then I heard the Lord asking, “Whom should I send as a messenger to my people? Who will go for us?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>And I said, “Lord, I’ll go! Send me.” (nlt<\/span>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nHere we have an account of the visionary presence of a prophet in the heavenly council; in this case, however, the prophet participates in the deliberations and thereby receives a prophetic commission. Though few prophets have left accounts of their divine commissions, most of them appear to have been conscious of having been “sent” by God (Is 48:16; Hos 8:1; Am 7:14-15). According to Jeremiah, false prophets did not receive such divine commissions (Jer 23:21, 32; 28:15).<\/p>\nThe Message of the Prophets<\/p>\n<h5>The Form of the Message<\/h5>\nThe most common introductory formula for prophetic oracles in the OT is the phrase “Thus says the Lord,” which occurs hundreds of times in prophetic contexts. This formula clearly implies that the pronouncement so introduced is not the word of the prophet who utters the oracle but of the God of Israel who delivered his word to his prophet. The use of this formula also reiterates the prophet’s sense of divine commission. In oracles introduced in this manner, God speaks in the first person. In fact, virtually all Israelite prophetic utterance is formulated as the direct speech of the God of Israel.<\/p>\nThe prophets used many literary forms in which to express their oracles. Two of the more widely used forms of prophetic speech are the judgment speech and the oracle of salvation. The judgment speech is composed of at least two central elements: the speech of rebuke or invective, and the pronouncement of judgment (see 2 Kgs 1:3-4). The second common prophetic speech form is the oracle of salvation (see Is 41:8-13). Other fixed forms of prophetic speech include the prophecy of salvation (43:14-21), the proclamation of salvation (41:17-20; 42:14-17; 43:16-21; 49:7-12), and the woe oracle (Is 5:8-10; 10:1-4; Am 5:18-24; 6:1-7; Mi 2:1-5).<\/p>\n<h5>The Content of the Message<\/h5>\nThe common adage that OT prophets were not “foretellers” but “forthtellers” is not strictly correct. All of the prophets predict the future. Such prediction, however, is based not on human curiosity of what the future will hold but rather is rooted in the future consequences of past or present violations of the covenant, or on a future act of deliverance that will provide hope for a discouraged people. Most of the prophetic speeches that have been preserved in the OT were originally delivered as public proclamations or sermons. Most of these prophetic proclamations were evoked by the iniquity and apostasy of Israel. Hosea and Jeremiah condemned Israel because she had broken the covenant (Jer 11:2-3; Hos 8:1).<\/p>\nThe prophets are frequently associated with social justice and social reform, and these elements were unquestionably an important dimension of their message. Amos denounced the rich who afflicted the poor (Am 2:6-8; 4:1; 5:11; 8:4-6). He railed against sexual immorality (2:6-8) and against those who take bribes (5:12). Hosea provided a list of prevalent vices, including lying, killing, stealing, adultery, and idolatry (Hos 4:2). Idolatry was a particular target for his denunciations (8:5; 11:2). The background for such heated denunciations of Israel’s behavior is God’s unquenchable love for Israel (Is 43:4; Jer 31:3; Hos 3:1; 11:1-4; 14:4; Mal 1:2), which is inseparable from his election of Israel (Is 43:1; Jer 33:24; Ez 20:5; Hos 3).<\/p>\nThe prophets were concerned not only with the transgressions of Israel and the historical judgment that would inevitably follow but also with the achievement of a final future time of bliss. The message of many of the prophets is thoroughly eschatological (i.e., pertaining to the end times). One such eschatological concept is that of the Day of the Lord. The concept of the Day of the Lord first appears in Amos, where the emphasis lies on the disaster that will befall Israel on that day. Amos’s emphasis on disaster notwithstanding, the Day of the Lord is a conception that had both salvific as well as judgmental overtones for Israel. While the disaster that will occur in the Day of the Lord can be viewed in terms of a literal historical fulfillment in the tragic events of 722 BC<\/span> (the fall of Samaria) and 586 BC<\/span> (the fall of Judah), there are nevertheless features of these predictions that transcend historical fulfillment and reach toward eschatological fulfillment.<\/p>\nSince the Israelite conception of “salvation” was largely temporal in its dimensions, it included such blessings as length of life, fruitfulness of the womb and field, peace and victory over one’s enemies, the abundance of water, and so on. In harmony with this conception of salvation, the future age is conceived in precisely those terms, as in Amos 9:13-15.<\/p>\nThe prophets pictured a time when David himself, or someone very much like him, would return and inaugurate a golden era reminiscent of the great Davidic and Solomonic period. The covenant of God with David was not a conditional covenant but rather one that was absolutely inviolable (2 Sm 7:4-17; Ps 89; Jer 33:19-22), and it was with this knowledge that the prophets could look forward confidently to a restoration of David’s throne (Jer 17:24-26; 23:5-6; 33:14-15).<\/p>\n\nProphecy in the New Testament<\/p>\nIn contrast to the few self-proclaimed prophets of the intertestamental period, early Christianity began with a flurry of prophetic activity that lasted well into the second century AD<\/span>. Jesus, his disciples and followers, and the early Christians were convinced that the times in which they lived were times in which OT prophecy was being fulfilled (Mk 1:14-15; Acts 2:16-21; Rom 16:25-27; 1 Cor 10:11). Yet this era was not only one of fulfillment but also one of the renewal of the prophetic gift.<\/p>\n<h5>John the Baptist<\/h5>\nJohn the Baptist is remembered in the NT primarily as the forerunner of Jesus whose coming was predicted by Malachi (Mal 4:5-6). Yet, in his own right, John proclaimed the imminent judgment of God with a flair of denunciation and rebuke reminiscent of the OT prophets. John’s costume, consisting of a hairy cloak and a leather girdle (Mk 1:6), was reminiscent of the typical garb of OT prophets (1 Kgs 19:19; 2 Kgs 1:8; 2:13-14; Zec 13:4). John was regarded as a prophet by people everywhere (Mt 14:5; 17:10-13; Mk 9:11-13; 11:32; Lk 1:76; 7:26). Luke reports, in a style similar to the OT prophetic narratives, that “the word of God came to John” (Lk 3:2). Two short prophetic speeches have been preserved in Matthew 3:7-10 (cf. Lk 3:7-9) and Mark 1:7-8 (cf. Mt 3:11-12; Lk 3:15-18). In the first speech, John denounced those of his generation who had transgressed the covenant law and exhorted them to change their manner of life. In the second speech, John predicted the coming of the Mighty One, Jesus (Mt 3:11; Mk 1:7; Lk 3:16; Jn 1:15, 27, 30; Acts 13:25). John’s style, however, was not precisely that of the OT prophets. His pronouncements were made on his own authority; never did he use formulas such as “thus says the Lord,” or present his prophetic utterances as if they were speeches made by God. Yet, in spite of these differences, John is appropriately regarded as the last representative of the OT prophetic tradition (Mt 11:13; Lk 16:16).<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus of Nazareth<\/h5>\nJesus was popularly regarded as a prophet (Mt 16:14; 21:10-11; Mk 6:14-15; 8:28; Lk 7:16, 39; 9:8, 19; Jn 6:14; 7:40, 52). This assessment was based as much on the mighty deeds Jesus performed as on his prophetic speeches and predictions. Though Jesus nowhere claimed prophetic status directly, that claim is implicit in Mark 6:4: “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown” (cf. Mt 13:57; Lk 4:24). It is implicit as well in Luke 13:33: “Yes, today, tomorrow, and the next day I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be killed except in Jerusalem!” (nlt<\/span>). In Acts, Jesus is regarded as “the prophet like Moses” predicted in Deuteronomy 18:18 (Acts 3:22; 7:37). Matthew presents Jesus as the New Moses, but he does not particularly emphasize his prophetic role. John, however, like Luke, emphasizes Jesus’ role as the prophet (Jn 4:19; 6:14-15; 7:40).<\/p>\nWhile the Gospels and Acts reflect the notion that Jesus was a prophet, they also emphasize the fact that he was much more than a prophet. Nevertheless, the notion of prophetism was sufficiently important in early Judaism that Jesus’ recognition as a prophet is very significant. There are 12 solid reasons for regarding Jesus as a prophet in the OT tradition: (1) The sovereign authority of Jesus’ teaching (Mk 1:27), a feature underlined by his use of the introductory formula “(Amen) I say to you,” which is reminiscent of the formula “thus says the Lord” used by the OT prophets. (2) The poetic character of many of Jesus’ sayings is unlike contemporary rabbinic teaching but is similar to the poetic rhetoric of the OT prophets. (3) Jesus experienced visions (Lk 10:18) like the ancient prophets. (4) Jesus, like the prophets, made many predictions (Mt 23:38; Mk 13:2; 14:58; Lk 13:35; etc.). (5) Like the OT prophets, Jesus performed symbolic acts (such as the cleansing of the temple, the entry into Jerusalem, and the Last Supper). (6) Jesus, like the prophets, when necessary, rejected the formal observance of religious ritual and emphasized the moral and spiritual dimensions of obedience to God. (7) Jesus announced the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God—an eschatological proclamation similar to those made by the prophets. (8) Like the OT prophets, Jesus functioned as a preacher of repentance. (9) Jesus, like many of the prophets, was conscious of a special calling of God (Mt 15:24; Mk 8:31; 9:37; 14:36; Lk 4:18-26). (10) Jesus, like the prophets, received divine revelation through intimate communion with God (Mt 11:27; Lk 10:22). (11) Like the prophets, Jesus represented God; to obey him was to obey God, to reject him was to reject God (Mk 9:37; cf. Ez 33:30-33). (12) Like the prophets, Jesus was conscious of a mission to all Israel (Mt 15:24; 19:28; Lk 22:30).<\/p>\nAmong the many prophetic predictions of Jesus are the following:<\/p>\n1. Predictions of the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God (Mt 10:7-8, 23; 23:39; Mk 1:15; 9:1; 13:28-29)<\/p>\n<li>2. Predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (Mt 23:37-39; 24:2; 26:61; 27:40; Mk 13:2; 14:58; 15:29; Lk 13:34-35; 21:6; Jn 2:19-21)<\/li>\n<li>3. Predictions of the coming of the Son of Man (Mt 10:23, 32-33; 12:40; 13:40-41; 16:27; 24:27, 37-39; Mk 8:38; 13:26-27; 14:62; Lk 9:26; 11:30; 12:8-9; 17:24, 26)<\/li>\n<li>4. Predictions of the end of the age. The longest prophetic section in the Gospels is the eschatological discourse of Jesus in Mark 13:1-32 (cf. Mt 24:1-36; Lk 21:5-33), in which a number of predictions concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the age are woven into a lengthy discourse to the disciples.<\/li>\n<h5>Prophecy as a Gift for the Believers<\/h5>\nThe beginning of prophetic activity in early Christianity, according to Acts, coincided with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the earliest Christians on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-21). Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost indicates that the outpouring of the Spirit fulfilled Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:4, 17-21; cf. Jl 2:28-32). Further, since the Spirit had been poured out upon all early Christians (that Spirit being a Spirit of prophecy), all are actual or potential prophets.<\/p>\nAccording to 1 Corinthians 12:28 (see also Rom 12:6; Eph 4:11), God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, and third teachers. The names of several early Christian prophets have been preserved. These include Agabus (Acts 11:27-28; 21:10-11); Judas and Silas (15:32); Barnabas, Simeon Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, and Paul (13:1); and the four virgin daughters of Philip the evangelist (21:8-9). John, the author of Revelation, was certainly a prophet (Rv 1:3; 22:9, 18), though he never directly assumed that title.<\/p>\nThe Role of the Christian Prophet<\/p>\nChristian prophets were leaders in early Christian communities (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11), who exercised their gift in church gatherings (Acts 13:1-3; 11:27-28; 1 Cor 12–14; Rv 1:10). Since the Spirit of God was particularly active in Christian worship, prophecy was a major means whereby God communicated with his people. Prophets, like apostles and teachers, did not hold offices in local communities like bishops, elders, and deacons. Rather, they were chosen, not by individual congregations, but by divine commission and so were honored and accepted in all local communities.<\/p>\nEarly Christian prophets were both itinerant and settled, though itinerant prophets seem to have been more prevalent in Syria-Palestine and Asia Minor than in the European churches.<\/p>\n<h5>The Function of Prophecy<\/h5>\nAccording to Paul, the central purpose of prophecy (as of all other spiritual gifts) is that of building up or edifying the church. According to 1 Corinthians 14:3, “one who prophesies is helping others grow in the Lord, encouraging and comforting them” (nlt<\/span>). Again, in 1 Corinthians 14:4, Paul states that the “one who speaks a word of prophecy strengthens the entire church.” Paul discussed the subject of spiritual gifts, particularly tongues speaking and prophecy, because the Corinthians had placed an excessive emphasis on speaking in tongues. Paul did not object to speaking in tongues (1 Cor 14:18, 39), but he did point out that, since it was generally incomprehensible, the church could not be edified by it. Prophecy, which consisted of comprehensible speech inspired by the Spirit, contributed to the mutual edification, encouragement, and consolation of all present (1 Cor 14:20-25, 39).<\/p>\n<h5>The Content of Christian Prophecy<\/h5>\nWe know only a little about the content of prophecies uttered in the first-century church. Prophetic utterance occasionally provided divine guidance in making important decisions in early Christianity. Through a prophetic utterance, Paul and Barnabas were selected for a particular mission (Acts 13:1-3; cf. 1 Tm 1:18; 4:14). Probably through prophetic utterance, Paul and Timothy were forbidden to preach the gospel in Asia (Acts 16:6), and they were similarly forbidden by the Spirit of Jesus to go into Bithynia (v 7). Perhaps the most frequent use of prophecy is the prediction of the future. Agabus predicted a universal famine (11:28) and the imminent arrest of Paul (21:11). Other prophets had also predicted his impending imprisonment (20:23). The prophecies contained in the Revelation of John are all oriented toward the future events that will gradually unfold in the last days. Yet the purpose of John’s elaborate prophecy is not to satisfy the curiosity of his audience but rather to comfort and encourage them in the midst of persecution.<\/p>\n<h5>The Form of Christian Prophecy<\/h5>\nUnlike the prophets of the OT, Christian prophets did not always present their message in the form of a direct speech from God or Jesus. There are few, if any, formal indicators of the presence of prophetic speech in early Christian literature. The book of Revelation is one notable exception.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Dreams; Oracle; Promise; Prophet, Prophetess; Prophets, False; Visions.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PROPHECY Term, along with its English cognates (“prophet,” “to prophesy,” “prophetism,” and “prophetic”), derived from a group of Greek words that, in secular Greek, mean “speak forth,” “proclaim,” “announce.” In biblical Greek, however, these terms always carry the connotation of speaking, proclaiming, or announcing something under the influence of spiritual inspiration. Preview • Prophecy in the Old Testament • Types of Old Testament Prophets • The Message of the Prophets • Prophecy in the ...","summary_en":"PROPHECY Term, along with its English cognates (“prophet,” “to prophesy,” “prophetism,” and “prophetic”), derived from a group of Greek words that, in secular Greek, mean “speak forth,” “proclaim,” “announce.” In biblical Greek, however, these terms always carry the connotation of speaking, proclaiming, or announcing something under the influence of spiritual inspiration. Preview • Prophecy in the Old Testament • Types of Old Testament Prophets • The Message of the Prophets • Prophecy in the ...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":65107,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Messiah","title_en":"The Messiah","content_ro":"<h3>The Messiah<\/h3>\nThe Greek term christos<\/span> is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh<\/span> (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.”<\/p>\nIn Judaism, the term messiah<\/em> was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant expectation among Jews in Jesus’ time was that the Messiah would be a political warrior who would lead Israel to victory over its oppressors and reestablish Israel as a separate kingdom (see Psalms of Solomon<\/em> 17–18). Some Jews saw the Messiah as a forerunner of the Kingdom of God. The community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, expected a Messiah who would function both as a priest and as a political warrior.<\/p>\nGiven such ambiguity, it is not surprising that Jesus avoided the title. He taught his followers that he would suffer according to Isaiah’s predictions (Isa 52:13–53:12, which Jews interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel). The emphasis Jesus gave to suffering and service as the path of victory (Matt 16:21-28; 20:25-28) collided with the popular Jewish paradigm of the Messiah as a royal conqueror. It was, however, God’s means of bringing about his Kingdom (see Luke 2:25-32; John 12:37-50; Acts 2:29-36).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 17:6; Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; Isa 52:13–53:12; Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10; Matt 2:4-6; 11:2-6; 16:13-20; 17:10-12; 22:41-46; 24:23-27; 26:62-65; Luke 2:8-11, 25-35; 3:15-18; 23:35-43; 24:26-27, 46-47; John 4:21-29; 7:25-27, 31, 40-43; 12:34-50; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22-36; 3:17-26; 4:25-28; 9:22; 13:23-25; 17:3; 26:22-23; 28:17-24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Messiah<\/h3>\nThe Greek term christos<\/span> is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh<\/span> (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.”<\/p>\nIn Judaism, the term messiah<\/em> was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant expectation among Jews in Jesus’ time was that the Messiah would be a political warrior who would lead Israel to victory over its oppressors and reestablish Israel as a separate kingdom (see Psalms of Solomon<\/em> 17–18). Some Jews saw the Messiah as a forerunner of the Kingdom of God. The community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, expected a Messiah who would function both as a priest and as a political warrior.<\/p>\nGiven such ambiguity, it is not surprising that Jesus avoided the title. He taught his followers that he would suffer according to Isaiah’s predictions (Isa 52:13–53:12, which Jews interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel). The emphasis Jesus gave to suffering and service as the path of victory (Matt 16:21-28; 20:25-28) collided with the popular Jewish paradigm of the Messiah as a royal conqueror. It was, however, God’s means of bringing about his Kingdom (see Luke 2:25-32; John 12:37-50; Acts 2:29-36).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 17:6; Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; Isa 52:13–53:12; Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10; Matt 2:4-6; 11:2-6; 16:13-20; 17:10-12; 22:41-46; 24:23-27; 26:62-65; Luke 2:8-11, 25-35; 3:15-18; 23:35-43; 24:26-27, 46-47; John 4:21-29; 7:25-27, 31, 40-43; 12:34-50; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22-36; 3:17-26; 4:25-28; 9:22; 13:23-25; 17:3; 26:22-23; 28:17-24<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Messiah The Greek term christos is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.” In Judaism, the term messiah was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant ...","summary_en":"The Messiah The Greek term christos is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.” In Judaism, the term messiah was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":65693,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Hope for the Messiah","title_en":"Hope for the Messiah","content_ro":"<h3>Hope for the Messiah<\/h3>\nIn the first century, many Jews eagerly looked for the coming of the Messiah, a deliverer who would defeat Israel’s enemies and usher in an era of peace and prosperity for God’s people.<\/p>\nThe Hebrew word Messiah<\/span> is equivalent to the Greek word Christ<\/span>—both mean “Anointed One.” The term comes from the practice of anointing Israelite kings with oil at their enthronement to confirm their appointment to rule the nation as God’s representative. Thus the term came to refer to the future king that Israel hoped for. There was widespread hope that a king from David’s line would reestablish David’s dynasty and reign in righteousness and justice on David’s throne in Jerusalem. This hope had its foundation in 2 Sam 7:11-16, where God promised King David that he would raise up descendants after him and establish his throne forever. With the decline and subsequent collapse of Israel as a kingdom, the Old Testament prophets predicted the coming of the Messiah (Isa 9:6-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Ezek 37:24-25), the king who would deliver God’s people and reign forever on David’s throne.<\/p>\nThe Gospel writers take a special interest in showing that Jesus is truly the promised Messiah (see e.g., Matt 1:21-23; Luke 1:32-33, 69-70), but that he has fulfilled the messianic promises in a surprising way. After Peter confessed that Jesus is “the Messiah sent from God,” Jesus immediately began teaching about the Messiah’s suffering (Luke 9:20-22). As Jesus approached Jerusalem for the last time, he was recognized as the King coming in the name of the Lord (Luke 18:36-38; 19:36-38), but then he was rejected (Luke 22:66-71) and crucified, mocked as “king of the Jews” and “God’s Messiah” (Luke 23:35-39).<\/p>\nOn the third day, however, Jesus rose victorious from the dead, just as he predicted. During his appearances to the disciples he revealed that the Scriptures predicted all along that “the Messiah would have to suffer all these things before entering his glory” (24:26). Jesus’ death and resurrection confirm that he is truly the Messiah and that his death brings restoration and forgiveness of sins (24:46-47).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n2 Sam 7:11-16; Isa 9:6-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Ezek 37:24-25; Luke 2:25-32; 3:15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Hope for the Messiah<\/h3>\nIn the first century, many Jews eagerly looked for the coming of the Messiah, a deliverer who would defeat Israel’s enemies and usher in an era of peace and prosperity for God’s people.<\/p>\nThe Hebrew word Messiah<\/span> is equivalent to the Greek word Christ<\/span>—both mean “Anointed One.” The term comes from the practice of anointing Israelite kings with oil at their enthronement to confirm their appointment to rule the nation as God’s representative. Thus the term came to refer to the future king that Israel hoped for. There was widespread hope that a king from David’s line would reestablish David’s dynasty and reign in righteousness and justice on David’s throne in Jerusalem. This hope had its foundation in 2 Sam 7:11-16, where God promised King David that he would raise up descendants after him and establish his throne forever. With the decline and subsequent collapse of Israel as a kingdom, the Old Testament prophets predicted the coming of the Messiah (Isa 9:6-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Ezek 37:24-25), the king who would deliver God’s people and reign forever on David’s throne.<\/p>\nThe Gospel writers take a special interest in showing that Jesus is truly the promised Messiah (see e.g., Matt 1:21-23; Luke 1:32-33, 69-70), but that he has fulfilled the messianic promises in a surprising way. After Peter confessed that Jesus is “the Messiah sent from God,” Jesus immediately began teaching about the Messiah’s suffering (Luke 9:20-22). As Jesus approached Jerusalem for the last time, he was recognized as the King coming in the name of the Lord (Luke 18:36-38; 19:36-38), but then he was rejected (Luke 22:66-71) and crucified, mocked as “king of the Jews” and “God’s Messiah” (Luke 23:35-39).<\/p>\nOn the third day, however, Jesus rose victorious from the dead, just as he predicted. During his appearances to the disciples he revealed that the Scriptures predicted all along that “the Messiah would have to suffer all these things before entering his glory” (24:26). Jesus’ death and resurrection confirm that he is truly the Messiah and that his death brings restoration and forgiveness of sins (24:46-47).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n2 Sam 7:11-16; Isa 9:6-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Ezek 37:24-25; Luke 2:25-32; 3:15<\/p>","summary_ro":"Hope for the Messiah In the first century, many Jews eagerly looked for the coming of the Messiah, a deliverer who would defeat Israel’s enemies and usher in an era of peace and prosperity for God’s people. The Hebrew word Messiah is equivalent to the Greek word Christ—both mean “Anointed One.” The term comes from the practice of anointing Israelite kings with oil at their enthronement to confirm their appointment to rule the nation as God’s representative. Thus the term came to refer to the ...","summary_en":"Hope for the Messiah In the first century, many Jews eagerly looked for the coming of the Messiah, a deliverer who would defeat Israel’s enemies and usher in an era of peace and prosperity for God’s people. The Hebrew word Messiah is equivalent to the Greek word Christ—both mean “Anointed One.” The term comes from the practice of anointing Israelite kings with oil at their enthronement to confirm their appointment to rule the nation as God’s representative. Thus the term came to refer to the ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":92733,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Messiah","title_en":"The Messiah","content_ro":"<h3>The Messiah<\/h3>\nThe Greek term christos<\/span> is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh<\/span> (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.”<\/p>\nIn Judaism, the term messiah<\/em> was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant expectation among Jews in Jesus’ time was that the Messiah would be a political warrior who would lead Israel to victory over its oppressors and reestablish Israel as a separate kingdom (see Psalms of Solomon<\/em> 17–18). Some Jews saw the Messiah as a forerunner of the Kingdom of God. The community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, expected a Messiah who would function both as a priest and as a political warrior.<\/p>\nGiven such ambiguity, it is not surprising that Jesus avoided the title. He taught his followers that he would suffer according to Isaiah’s predictions (Isa 52:13–53:12, which Jews interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel). The emphasis Jesus gave to suffering and service as the path of victory (Matt 16:21-28; 20:25-28) collided with the popular Jewish paradigm of the Messiah as a royal conqueror. It was, however, God’s means of bringing about his Kingdom (see Luke 2:25-32; John 12:37-50; Acts 2:29-36).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 17:6; Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; Isa 52:13–53:12; Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10; Matt 2:4-6; 11:2-6; 16:13-20; 17:10-12; 22:41-46; 24:23-27; 26:62-65; Luke 2:8-11, 25-35; 3:15-18; 23:35-43; 24:26-27, 46-47; John 4:21-29; 7:25-27, 31, 40-43; 12:34-50; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22-36; 3:17-26; 4:25-28; 9:22; 13:23-25; 17:3; 26:22-23; 28:17-24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Messiah<\/h3>\nThe Greek term christos<\/span> is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh<\/span> (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.”<\/p>\nIn Judaism, the term messiah<\/em> was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant expectation among Jews in Jesus’ time was that the Messiah would be a political warrior who would lead Israel to victory over its oppressors and reestablish Israel as a separate kingdom (see Psalms of Solomon<\/em> 17–18). Some Jews saw the Messiah as a forerunner of the Kingdom of God. The community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, expected a Messiah who would function both as a priest and as a political warrior.<\/p>\nGiven such ambiguity, it is not surprising that Jesus avoided the title. He taught his followers that he would suffer according to Isaiah’s predictions (Isa 52:13–53:12, which Jews interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel). The emphasis Jesus gave to suffering and service as the path of victory (Matt 16:21-28; 20:25-28) collided with the popular Jewish paradigm of the Messiah as a royal conqueror. It was, however, God’s means of bringing about his Kingdom (see Luke 2:25-32; John 12:37-50; Acts 2:29-36).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 17:6; Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; Isa 52:13–53:12; Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10; Matt 2:4-6; 11:2-6; 16:13-20; 17:10-12; 22:41-46; 24:23-27; 26:62-65; Luke 2:8-11, 25-35; 3:15-18; 23:35-43; 24:26-27, 46-47; John 4:21-29; 7:25-27, 31, 40-43; 12:34-50; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22-36; 3:17-26; 4:25-28; 9:22; 13:23-25; 17:3; 26:22-23; 28:17-24<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Messiah The Greek term christos is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.” In Judaism, the term messiah was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant ...","summary_en":"The Messiah The Greek term christos is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.” In Judaism, the term messiah was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":93319,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Hope for the Messiah","title_en":"Hope for the Messiah","content_ro":"<h3>Hope for the Messiah<\/h3>\nIn the first century, many Jews eagerly looked for the coming of the Messiah, a deliverer who would defeat Israel’s enemies and usher in an era of peace and prosperity for God’s people.<\/p>\nThe Hebrew word Messiah<\/span> is equivalent to the Greek word Christ<\/span>—both mean “Anointed One.” The term comes from the practice of anointing Israelite kings with oil at their enthronement to confirm their appointment to rule the nation as God’s representative. Thus the term came to refer to the future king that Israel hoped for. There was widespread hope that a king from David’s line would reestablish David’s dynasty and reign in righteousness and justice on David’s throne in Jerusalem. This hope had its foundation in 2 Sam 7:11-16, where God promised King David that he would raise up descendants after him and establish his throne forever. With the decline and subsequent collapse of Israel as a kingdom, the Old Testament prophets predicted the coming of the Messiah (Isa 9:6-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Ezek 37:24-25), the king who would deliver God’s people and reign forever on David’s throne.<\/p>\nThe Gospel writers take a special interest in showing that Jesus is truly the promised Messiah (see e.g., Matt 1:21-23; Luke 1:32-33, 69-70), but that he has fulfilled the messianic promises in a surprising way. After Peter confessed that Jesus is “the Messiah sent from God,” Jesus immediately began teaching about the Messiah’s suffering (Luke 9:20-22). As Jesus approached Jerusalem for the last time, he was recognized as the King coming in the name of the Lord (Luke 18:36-38; 19:36-38), but then he was rejected (Luke 22:66-71) and crucified, mocked as “king of the Jews” and “God’s Messiah” (Luke 23:35-39).<\/p>\nOn the third day, however, Jesus rose victorious from the dead, just as he predicted. During his appearances to the disciples he revealed that the Scriptures predicted all along that “the Messiah would have to suffer all these things before entering his glory” (24:26). Jesus’ death and resurrection confirm that he is truly the Messiah and that his death brings restoration and forgiveness of sins (24:46-47).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n2 Sam 7:11-16; Isa 9:6-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Ezek 37:24-25; Luke 2:25-32; 3:15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Hope for the Messiah<\/h3>\nIn the first century, many Jews eagerly looked for the coming of the Messiah, a deliverer who would defeat Israel’s enemies and usher in an era of peace and prosperity for God’s people.<\/p>\nThe Hebrew word Messiah<\/span> is equivalent to the Greek word Christ<\/span>—both mean “Anointed One.” The term comes from the practice of anointing Israelite kings with oil at their enthronement to confirm their appointment to rule the nation as God’s representative. Thus the term came to refer to the future king that Israel hoped for. There was widespread hope that a king from David’s line would reestablish David’s dynasty and reign in righteousness and justice on David’s throne in Jerusalem. This hope had its foundation in 2 Sam 7:11-16, where God promised King David that he would raise up descendants after him and establish his throne forever. With the decline and subsequent collapse of Israel as a kingdom, the Old Testament prophets predicted the coming of the Messiah (Isa 9:6-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Ezek 37:24-25), the king who would deliver God’s people and reign forever on David’s throne.<\/p>\nThe Gospel writers take a special interest in showing that Jesus is truly the promised Messiah (see e.g., Matt 1:21-23; Luke 1:32-33, 69-70), but that he has fulfilled the messianic promises in a surprising way. After Peter confessed that Jesus is “the Messiah sent from God,” Jesus immediately began teaching about the Messiah’s suffering (Luke 9:20-22). As Jesus approached Jerusalem for the last time, he was recognized as the King coming in the name of the Lord (Luke 18:36-38; 19:36-38), but then he was rejected (Luke 22:66-71) and crucified, mocked as “king of the Jews” and “God’s Messiah” (Luke 23:35-39).<\/p>\nOn the third day, however, Jesus rose victorious from the dead, just as he predicted. During his appearances to the disciples he revealed that the Scriptures predicted all along that “the Messiah would have to suffer all these things before entering his glory” (24:26). Jesus’ death and resurrection confirm that he is truly the Messiah and that his death brings restoration and forgiveness of sins (24:46-47).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n2 Sam 7:11-16; Isa 9:6-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Ezek 37:24-25; Luke 2:25-32; 3:15<\/p>","summary_ro":"Hope for the Messiah In the first century, many Jews eagerly looked for the coming of the Messiah, a deliverer who would defeat Israel’s enemies and usher in an era of peace and prosperity for God’s people. The Hebrew word Messiah is equivalent to the Greek word Christ—both mean “Anointed One.” The term comes from the practice of anointing Israelite kings with oil at their enthronement to confirm their appointment to rule the nation as God’s representative. Thus the term came to refer to the ...","summary_en":"Hope for the Messiah In the first century, many Jews eagerly looked for the coming of the Messiah, a deliverer who would defeat Israel’s enemies and usher in an era of peace and prosperity for God’s people. The Hebrew word Messiah is equivalent to the Greek word Christ—both mean “Anointed One.” The term comes from the practice of anointing Israelite kings with oil at their enthronement to confirm their appointment to rule the nation as God’s representative. Thus the term came to refer to the ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":120359,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Messiah","title_en":"The Messiah","content_ro":"<h3>The Messiah<\/h3>\nThe Greek term christos<\/span> is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh<\/span> (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.”<\/p>\nIn Judaism, the term messiah<\/em> was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant expectation among Jews in Jesus’ time was that the Messiah would be a political warrior who would lead Israel to victory over its oppressors and reestablish Israel as a separate kingdom (see Psalms of Solomon<\/em> 17–18). Some Jews saw the Messiah as a forerunner of the Kingdom of God. The community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, expected a Messiah who would function both as a priest and as a political warrior.<\/p>\nGiven such ambiguity, it is not surprising that Jesus avoided the title. He taught his followers that he would suffer according to Isaiah’s predictions (Isa 52:13–53:12, which Jews interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel). The emphasis Jesus gave to suffering and service as the path of victory (Matt 16:21-28; 20:25-28) collided with the popular Jewish paradigm of the Messiah as a royal conqueror. It was, however, God’s means of bringing about his Kingdom (see Luke 2:25-32; John 12:37-50; Acts 2:29-36).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 17:6; Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; Isa 52:13–53:12; Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10; Matt 2:4-6; 11:2-6; 16:13-20; 17:10-12; 22:41-46; 24:23-27; 26:62-65; Luke 2:8-11, 25-35; 3:15-18; 23:35-43; 24:26-27, 46-47; John 4:21-29; 7:25-27, 31, 40-43; 12:34-50; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22-36; 3:17-26; 4:25-28; 9:22; 13:23-25; 17:3; 26:22-23; 28:17-24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Messiah<\/h3>\nThe Greek term christos<\/span> is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh<\/span> (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.”<\/p>\nIn Judaism, the term messiah<\/em> was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant expectation among Jews in Jesus’ time was that the Messiah would be a political warrior who would lead Israel to victory over its oppressors and reestablish Israel as a separate kingdom (see Psalms of Solomon<\/em> 17–18). Some Jews saw the Messiah as a forerunner of the Kingdom of God. The community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, expected a Messiah who would function both as a priest and as a political warrior.<\/p>\nGiven such ambiguity, it is not surprising that Jesus avoided the title. He taught his followers that he would suffer according to Isaiah’s predictions (Isa 52:13–53:12, which Jews interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel). The emphasis Jesus gave to suffering and service as the path of victory (Matt 16:21-28; 20:25-28) collided with the popular Jewish paradigm of the Messiah as a royal conqueror. It was, however, God’s means of bringing about his Kingdom (see Luke 2:25-32; John 12:37-50; Acts 2:29-36).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 17:6; Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; Isa 52:13–53:12; Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10; Matt 2:4-6; 11:2-6; 16:13-20; 17:10-12; 22:41-46; 24:23-27; 26:62-65; Luke 2:8-11, 25-35; 3:15-18; 23:35-43; 24:26-27, 46-47; John 4:21-29; 7:25-27, 31, 40-43; 12:34-50; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22-36; 3:17-26; 4:25-28; 9:22; 13:23-25; 17:3; 26:22-23; 28:17-24<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Messiah The Greek term christos is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.” In Judaism, the term messiah was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant ...","summary_en":"The Messiah The Greek term christos is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.” In Judaism, the term messiah was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":120945,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Hope for the Messiah","title_en":"Hope for the Messiah","content_ro":"<h3>Hope for the Messiah<\/h3>\nIn the first century, many Jews eagerly looked for the coming of the Messiah, a deliverer who would defeat Israel’s enemies and usher in an era of peace and prosperity for God’s people.<\/p>\nThe Hebrew word Messiah<\/span> is equivalent to the Greek word Christ<\/span>—both mean “Anointed One.” The term comes from the practice of anointing Israelite kings with oil at their enthronement to confirm their appointment to rule the nation as God’s representative. Thus the term came to refer to the future king that Israel hoped for. There was widespread hope that a king from David’s line would reestablish David’s dynasty and reign in righteousness and justice on David’s throne in Jerusalem. This hope had its foundation in 2 Sam 7:11-16, where God promised King David that he would raise up descendants after him and establish his throne forever. With the decline and subsequent collapse of Israel as a kingdom, the Old Testament prophets predicted the coming of the Messiah (Isa 9:6-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Ezek 37:24-25), the king who would deliver God’s people and reign forever on David’s throne.<\/p>\nThe Gospel writers take a special interest in showing that Jesus is truly the promised Messiah (see e.g., Matt 1:21-23; Luke 1:32-33, 69-70), but that he has fulfilled the messianic promises in a surprising way. After Peter confessed that Jesus is “the Messiah sent from God,” Jesus immediately began teaching about the Messiah’s suffering (Luke 9:20-22). As Jesus approached Jerusalem for the last time, he was recognized as the King coming in the name of the Lord (Luke 18:36-38; 19:36-38), but then he was rejected (Luke 22:66-71) and crucified, mocked as “king of the Jews” and “God’s Messiah” (Luke 23:35-39).<\/p>\nOn the third day, however, Jesus rose victorious from the dead, just as he predicted. During his appearances to the disciples he revealed that the Scriptures predicted all along that “the Messiah would have to suffer all these things before entering his glory” (24:26). Jesus’ death and resurrection confirm that he is truly the Messiah and that his death brings restoration and forgiveness of sins (24:46-47).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n2 Sam 7:11-16; Isa 9:6-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Ezek 37:24-25; Luke 2:25-32; 3:15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Hope for the Messiah<\/h3>\nIn the first century, many Jews eagerly looked for the coming of the Messiah, a deliverer who would defeat Israel’s enemies and usher in an era of peace and prosperity for God’s people.<\/p>\nThe Hebrew word Messiah<\/span> is equivalent to the Greek word Christ<\/span>—both mean “Anointed One.” The term comes from the practice of anointing Israelite kings with oil at their enthronement to confirm their appointment to rule the nation as God’s representative. Thus the term came to refer to the future king that Israel hoped for. There was widespread hope that a king from David’s line would reestablish David’s dynasty and reign in righteousness and justice on David’s throne in Jerusalem. This hope had its foundation in 2 Sam 7:11-16, where God promised King David that he would raise up descendants after him and establish his throne forever. With the decline and subsequent collapse of Israel as a kingdom, the Old Testament prophets predicted the coming of the Messiah (Isa 9:6-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Ezek 37:24-25), the king who would deliver God’s people and reign forever on David’s throne.<\/p>\nThe Gospel writers take a special interest in showing that Jesus is truly the promised Messiah (see e.g., Matt 1:21-23; Luke 1:32-33, 69-70), but that he has fulfilled the messianic promises in a surprising way. After Peter confessed that Jesus is “the Messiah sent from God,” Jesus immediately began teaching about the Messiah’s suffering (Luke 9:20-22). As Jesus approached Jerusalem for the last time, he was recognized as the King coming in the name of the Lord (Luke 18:36-38; 19:36-38), but then he was rejected (Luke 22:66-71) and crucified, mocked as “king of the Jews” and “God’s Messiah” (Luke 23:35-39).<\/p>\nOn the third day, however, Jesus rose victorious from the dead, just as he predicted. During his appearances to the disciples he revealed that the Scriptures predicted all along that “the Messiah would have to suffer all these things before entering his glory” (24:26). Jesus’ death and resurrection confirm that he is truly the Messiah and that his death brings restoration and forgiveness of sins (24:46-47).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n2 Sam 7:11-16; Isa 9:6-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Ezek 37:24-25; Luke 2:25-32; 3:15<\/p>","summary_ro":"Hope for the Messiah In the first century, many Jews eagerly looked for the coming of the Messiah, a deliverer who would defeat Israel’s enemies and usher in an era of peace and prosperity for God’s people. The Hebrew word Messiah is equivalent to the Greek word Christ—both mean “Anointed One.” The term comes from the practice of anointing Israelite kings with oil at their enthronement to confirm their appointment to rule the nation as God’s representative. Thus the term came to refer to the ...","summary_en":"Hope for the Messiah In the first century, many Jews eagerly looked for the coming of the Messiah, a deliverer who would defeat Israel’s enemies and usher in an era of peace and prosperity for God’s people. The Hebrew word Messiah is equivalent to the Greek word Christ—both mean “Anointed One.” The term comes from the practice of anointing Israelite kings with oil at their enthronement to confirm their appointment to rule the nation as God’s representative. Thus the term came to refer to the ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":147985,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Messiah","title_en":"The Messiah","content_ro":"<h3>The Messiah<\/h3>\nThe Greek term christos<\/span> is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh<\/span> (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.”<\/p>\nIn Judaism, the term messiah<\/em> was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant expectation among Jews in Jesus’ time was that the Messiah would be a political warrior who would lead Israel to victory over its oppressors and reestablish Israel as a separate kingdom (see Psalms of Solomon<\/em> 17–18). Some Jews saw the Messiah as a forerunner of the Kingdom of God. The community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, expected a Messiah who would function both as a priest and as a political warrior.<\/p>\nGiven such ambiguity, it is not surprising that Jesus avoided the title. He taught his followers that he would suffer according to Isaiah’s predictions (Isa 52:13–53:12, which Jews interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel). The emphasis Jesus gave to suffering and service as the path of victory (Matt 16:21-28; 20:25-28) collided with the popular Jewish paradigm of the Messiah as a royal conqueror. It was, however, God’s means of bringing about his Kingdom (see Luke 2:25-32; John 12:37-50; Acts 2:29-36).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 17:6; Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; Isa 52:13–53:12; Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10; Matt 2:4-6; 11:2-6; 16:13-20; 17:10-12; 22:41-46; 24:23-27; 26:62-65; Luke 2:8-11, 25-35; 3:15-18; 23:35-43; 24:26-27, 46-47; John 4:21-29; 7:25-27, 31, 40-43; 12:34-50; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22-36; 3:17-26; 4:25-28; 9:22; 13:23-25; 17:3; 26:22-23; 28:17-24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Messiah<\/h3>\nThe Greek term christos<\/span> is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh<\/span> (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.”<\/p>\nIn Judaism, the term messiah<\/em> was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant expectation among Jews in Jesus’ time was that the Messiah would be a political warrior who would lead Israel to victory over its oppressors and reestablish Israel as a separate kingdom (see Psalms of Solomon<\/em> 17–18). Some Jews saw the Messiah as a forerunner of the Kingdom of God. The community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, expected a Messiah who would function both as a priest and as a political warrior.<\/p>\nGiven such ambiguity, it is not surprising that Jesus avoided the title. He taught his followers that he would suffer according to Isaiah’s predictions (Isa 52:13–53:12, which Jews interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel). The emphasis Jesus gave to suffering and service as the path of victory (Matt 16:21-28; 20:25-28) collided with the popular Jewish paradigm of the Messiah as a royal conqueror. It was, however, God’s means of bringing about his Kingdom (see Luke 2:25-32; John 12:37-50; Acts 2:29-36).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 17:6; Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; Isa 52:13–53:12; Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10; Matt 2:4-6; 11:2-6; 16:13-20; 17:10-12; 22:41-46; 24:23-27; 26:62-65; Luke 2:8-11, 25-35; 3:15-18; 23:35-43; 24:26-27, 46-47; John 4:21-29; 7:25-27, 31, 40-43; 12:34-50; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22-36; 3:17-26; 4:25-28; 9:22; 13:23-25; 17:3; 26:22-23; 28:17-24<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Messiah The Greek term christos is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.” In Judaism, the term messiah was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant ...","summary_en":"The Messiah The Greek term christos is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.” In Judaism, the term messiah was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":148571,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Hope for the Messiah","title_en":"Hope for the Messiah","content_ro":"<h3>Hope for the Messiah<\/h3>\nIn the first century, many Jews eagerly looked for the coming of the Messiah, a deliverer who would defeat Israel’s enemies and usher in an era of peace and prosperity for God’s people.<\/p>\nThe Hebrew word Messiah<\/span> is equivalent to the Greek word Christ<\/span>—both mean “Anointed One.” The term comes from the practice of anointing Israelite kings with oil at their enthronement to confirm their appointment to rule the nation as God’s representative. Thus the term came to refer to the future king that Israel hoped for. There was widespread hope that a king from David’s line would reestablish David’s dynasty and reign in righteousness and justice on David’s throne in Jerusalem. This hope had its foundation in 2 Sam 7:11-16, where God promised King David that he would raise up descendants after him and establish his throne forever. With the decline and subsequent collapse of Israel as a kingdom, the Old Testament prophets predicted the coming of the Messiah (Isa 9:6-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Ezek 37:24-25), the king who would deliver God’s people and reign forever on David’s throne.<\/p>\nThe Gospel writers take a special interest in showing that Jesus is truly the promised Messiah (see e.g., Matt 1:21-23; Luke 1:32-33, 69-70), but that he has fulfilled the messianic promises in a surprising way. After Peter confessed that Jesus is “the Messiah sent from God,” Jesus immediately began teaching about the Messiah’s suffering (Luke 9:20-22). As Jesus approached Jerusalem for the last time, he was recognized as the King coming in the name of the Lord (Luke 18:36-38; 19:36-38), but then he was rejected (Luke 22:66-71) and crucified, mocked as “king of the Jews” and “God’s Messiah” (Luke 23:35-39).<\/p>\nOn the third day, however, Jesus rose victorious from the dead, just as he predicted. During his appearances to the disciples he revealed that the Scriptures predicted all along that “the Messiah would have to suffer all these things before entering his glory” (24:26). Jesus’ death and resurrection confirm that he is truly the Messiah and that his death brings restoration and forgiveness of sins (24:46-47).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n2 Sam 7:11-16; Isa 9:6-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Ezek 37:24-25; Luke 2:25-32; 3:15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Hope for the Messiah<\/h3>\nIn the first century, many Jews eagerly looked for the coming of the Messiah, a deliverer who would defeat Israel’s enemies and usher in an era of peace and prosperity for God’s people.<\/p>\nThe Hebrew word Messiah<\/span> is equivalent to the Greek word Christ<\/span>—both mean “Anointed One.” The term comes from the practice of anointing Israelite kings with oil at their enthronement to confirm their appointment to rule the nation as God’s representative. Thus the term came to refer to the future king that Israel hoped for. There was widespread hope that a king from David’s line would reestablish David’s dynasty and reign in righteousness and justice on David’s throne in Jerusalem. This hope had its foundation in 2 Sam 7:11-16, where God promised King David that he would raise up descendants after him and establish his throne forever. With the decline and subsequent collapse of Israel as a kingdom, the Old Testament prophets predicted the coming of the Messiah (Isa 9:6-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Ezek 37:24-25), the king who would deliver God’s people and reign forever on David’s throne.<\/p>\nThe Gospel writers take a special interest in showing that Jesus is truly the promised Messiah (see e.g., Matt 1:21-23; Luke 1:32-33, 69-70), but that he has fulfilled the messianic promises in a surprising way. After Peter confessed that Jesus is “the Messiah sent from God,” Jesus immediately began teaching about the Messiah’s suffering (Luke 9:20-22). As Jesus approached Jerusalem for the last time, he was recognized as the King coming in the name of the Lord (Luke 18:36-38; 19:36-38), but then he was rejected (Luke 22:66-71) and crucified, mocked as “king of the Jews” and “God’s Messiah” (Luke 23:35-39).<\/p>\nOn the third day, however, Jesus rose victorious from the dead, just as he predicted. During his appearances to the disciples he revealed that the Scriptures predicted all along that “the Messiah would have to suffer all these things before entering his glory” (24:26). Jesus’ death and resurrection confirm that he is truly the Messiah and that his death brings restoration and forgiveness of sins (24:46-47).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n2 Sam 7:11-16; Isa 9:6-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Ezek 37:24-25; Luke 2:25-32; 3:15<\/p>","summary_ro":"Hope for the Messiah In the first century, many Jews eagerly looked for the coming of the Messiah, a deliverer who would defeat Israel’s enemies and usher in an era of peace and prosperity for God’s people. The Hebrew word Messiah is equivalent to the Greek word Christ—both mean “Anointed One.” The term comes from the practice of anointing Israelite kings with oil at their enthronement to confirm their appointment to rule the nation as God’s representative. Thus the term came to refer to the ...","summary_en":"Hope for the Messiah In the first century, many Jews eagerly looked for the coming of the Messiah, a deliverer who would defeat Israel’s enemies and usher in an era of peace and prosperity for God’s people. The Hebrew word Messiah is equivalent to the Greek word Christ—both mean “Anointed One.” The term comes from the practice of anointing Israelite kings with oil at their enthronement to confirm their appointment to rule the nation as God’s representative. Thus the term came to refer to the ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"16":[{"id":42403,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"John the Baptist","title_en":"John the Baptist","content_ro":"<h3>John the Baptist<\/h3>\nJohn the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13).<\/p>\nJohn’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births around the same time signaled the beginning of God’s redeeming work.<\/p>\nJohn was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth and devoted his life to preparing people for the coming of the Lord (Luke 1:15-17). Living in the desert (Luke 1:80), he began preaching when he was about thirty years old. Dressed like a prophet and subsisting on desert food (locusts and wild honey, see Matt 3:4; Mark 1:6), he called everyone to repent and be baptized (Matt 3:1-2; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:1-3). He even castigated the religious leaders who came to hear him (Matt 3:7-10).<\/p>\nThough John reluctantly baptized Jesus (Matt 3:13-17), he considered Jesus his superior, the one who would “baptize with the Holy Spirit” (John 1:33; Matt 3:11; Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:16; cp. John 3:23-30). He encouraged his followers to become Jesus’ disciples—and many did, including Andrew (1:35-40), Apollos (Acts 18:24-26), and the twelve disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas received harsh judgment from John because of Herod’s unlawful marriage to Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. To please Herodias, Herod imprisoned John and then beheaded him (Matt 14:3-12; Mark 6:17-29; Luke 3:19-20). John’s imprisonment marked the beginning of Jesus’ public preaching (Matt 4:12; Mark 1:14).<\/p>\nShortly before his death, John seemed to be confused about Jesus and sent messengers from prison to ask him if he really was the Messiah. Jesus did not do what most people anticipated the Messiah would do. Rather than bringing judgment and a visible kingdom, he brought forgiveness, healing, and a spiritual kingdom. To reassure John, Jesus spoke of the miraculous things God was doing through him (Luke 7:18-23).<\/p>\nJohn remained faithful to his calling throughout his life, consistently preaching repentance and the judgment of God, even to people who had no desire to hear it. Jesus referred to John as one of the greatest servants of God who had ever lived (Matt 11:2-19; Luke 7:18-35), the end of a long line of prophets anticipating the coming of the Kingdom of God (Luke 16:16). John stood on the threshold of the new age, proclaiming its coming to all who would hear.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatthew 3:1-15; 4:12; 9:14; 11:2-19; 14:1-12; 16:14; 17:10-13; 21:24-27, 31-32; Mark 1:1-9, 14; 2:18; 6:14-29; 8:28; 9:11-13; 11:29-33; Luke 1:13-17, 36, 39-43, 57-66, 76-80; 3:1-21; 5:33; 7:18-35; 9:7-9, 19; 11:1; 16:16; 20:3-8; John 1:6-37; John 3:23-36; 4:1-3; 10:40-42; Acts 1:5; 10:37; 11:16; 18:25-26; 19:1-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>John the Baptist<\/h3>\nJohn the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13).<\/p>\nJohn’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births around the same time signaled the beginning of God’s redeeming work.<\/p>\nJohn was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth and devoted his life to preparing people for the coming of the Lord (Luke 1:15-17). Living in the desert (Luke 1:80), he began preaching when he was about thirty years old. Dressed like a prophet and subsisting on desert food (locusts and wild honey, see Matt 3:4; Mark 1:6), he called everyone to repent and be baptized (Matt 3:1-2; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:1-3). He even castigated the religious leaders who came to hear him (Matt 3:7-10).<\/p>\nThough John reluctantly baptized Jesus (Matt 3:13-17), he considered Jesus his superior, the one who would “baptize with the Holy Spirit” (John 1:33; Matt 3:11; Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:16; cp. John 3:23-30). He encouraged his followers to become Jesus’ disciples—and many did, including Andrew (1:35-40), Apollos (Acts 18:24-26), and the twelve disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas received harsh judgment from John because of Herod’s unlawful marriage to Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. To please Herodias, Herod imprisoned John and then beheaded him (Matt 14:3-12; Mark 6:17-29; Luke 3:19-20). John’s imprisonment marked the beginning of Jesus’ public preaching (Matt 4:12; Mark 1:14).<\/p>\nShortly before his death, John seemed to be confused about Jesus and sent messengers from prison to ask him if he really was the Messiah. Jesus did not do what most people anticipated the Messiah would do. Rather than bringing judgment and a visible kingdom, he brought forgiveness, healing, and a spiritual kingdom. To reassure John, Jesus spoke of the miraculous things God was doing through him (Luke 7:18-23).<\/p>\nJohn remained faithful to his calling throughout his life, consistently preaching repentance and the judgment of God, even to people who had no desire to hear it. Jesus referred to John as one of the greatest servants of God who had ever lived (Matt 11:2-19; Luke 7:18-35), the end of a long line of prophets anticipating the coming of the Kingdom of God (Luke 16:16). John stood on the threshold of the new age, proclaiming its coming to all who would hear.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatthew 3:1-15; 4:12; 9:14; 11:2-19; 14:1-12; 16:14; 17:10-13; 21:24-27, 31-32; Mark 1:1-9, 14; 2:18; 6:14-29; 8:28; 9:11-13; 11:29-33; Luke 1:13-17, 36, 39-43, 57-66, 76-80; 3:1-21; 5:33; 7:18-35; 9:7-9, 19; 11:1; 16:16; 20:3-8; John 1:6-37; John 3:23-36; 4:1-3; 10:40-42; Acts 1:5; 10:37; 11:16; 18:25-26; 19:1-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"John the Baptist John the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13). John’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births aroun...","summary_en":"John the Baptist John the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13). John’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births aroun...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70029,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"John the Baptist","title_en":"John the Baptist","content_ro":"<h3>John the Baptist<\/h3>\nJohn the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13).<\/p>\nJohn’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births around the same time signaled the beginning of God’s redeeming work.<\/p>\nJohn was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth and devoted his life to preparing people for the coming of the Lord (Luke 1:15-17). Living in the desert (Luke 1:80), he began preaching when he was about thirty years old. Dressed like a prophet and subsisting on desert food (locusts and wild honey, see Matt 3:4; Mark 1:6), he called everyone to repent and be baptized (Matt 3:1-2; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:1-3). He even castigated the religious leaders who came to hear him (Matt 3:7-10).<\/p>\nThough John reluctantly baptized Jesus (Matt 3:13-17), he considered Jesus his superior, the one who would “baptize with the Holy Spirit” (John 1:33; Matt 3:11; Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:16; cp. John 3:23-30). He encouraged his followers to become Jesus’ disciples—and many did, including Andrew (1:35-40), Apollos (Acts 18:24-26), and the twelve disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas received harsh judgment from John because of Herod’s unlawful marriage to Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. To please Herodias, Herod imprisoned John and then beheaded him (Matt 14:3-12; Mark 6:17-29; Luke 3:19-20). John’s imprisonment marked the beginning of Jesus’ public preaching (Matt 4:12; Mark 1:14).<\/p>\nShortly before his death, John seemed to be confused about Jesus and sent messengers from prison to ask him if he really was the Messiah. Jesus did not do what most people anticipated the Messiah would do. Rather than bringing judgment and a visible kingdom, he brought forgiveness, healing, and a spiritual kingdom. To reassure John, Jesus spoke of the miraculous things God was doing through him (Luke 7:18-23).<\/p>\nJohn remained faithful to his calling throughout his life, consistently preaching repentance and the judgment of God, even to people who had no desire to hear it. Jesus referred to John as one of the greatest servants of God who had ever lived (Matt 11:2-19; Luke 7:18-35), the end of a long line of prophets anticipating the coming of the Kingdom of God (Luke 16:16). John stood on the threshold of the new age, proclaiming its coming to all who would hear.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatthew 3:1-15; 4:12; 9:14; 11:2-19; 14:1-12; 16:14; 17:10-13; 21:24-27, 31-32; Mark 1:1-9, 14; 2:18; 6:14-29; 8:28; 9:11-13; 11:29-33; Luke 1:13-17, 36, 39-43, 57-66, 76-80; 3:1-21; 5:33; 7:18-35; 9:7-9, 19; 11:1; 16:16; 20:3-8; John 1:6-37; John 3:23-36; 4:1-3; 10:40-42; Acts 1:5; 10:37; 11:16; 18:25-26; 19:1-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>John the Baptist<\/h3>\nJohn the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13).<\/p>\nJohn’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births around the same time signaled the beginning of God’s redeeming work.<\/p>\nJohn was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth and devoted his life to preparing people for the coming of the Lord (Luke 1:15-17). Living in the desert (Luke 1:80), he began preaching when he was about thirty years old. Dressed like a prophet and subsisting on desert food (locusts and wild honey, see Matt 3:4; Mark 1:6), he called everyone to repent and be baptized (Matt 3:1-2; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:1-3). He even castigated the religious leaders who came to hear him (Matt 3:7-10).<\/p>\nThough John reluctantly baptized Jesus (Matt 3:13-17), he considered Jesus his superior, the one who would “baptize with the Holy Spirit” (John 1:33; Matt 3:11; Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:16; cp. John 3:23-30). He encouraged his followers to become Jesus’ disciples—and many did, including Andrew (1:35-40), Apollos (Acts 18:24-26), and the twelve disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas received harsh judgment from John because of Herod’s unlawful marriage to Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. To please Herodias, Herod imprisoned John and then beheaded him (Matt 14:3-12; Mark 6:17-29; Luke 3:19-20). John’s imprisonment marked the beginning of Jesus’ public preaching (Matt 4:12; Mark 1:14).<\/p>\nShortly before his death, John seemed to be confused about Jesus and sent messengers from prison to ask him if he really was the Messiah. Jesus did not do what most people anticipated the Messiah would do. Rather than bringing judgment and a visible kingdom, he brought forgiveness, healing, and a spiritual kingdom. To reassure John, Jesus spoke of the miraculous things God was doing through him (Luke 7:18-23).<\/p>\nJohn remained faithful to his calling throughout his life, consistently preaching repentance and the judgment of God, even to people who had no desire to hear it. Jesus referred to John as one of the greatest servants of God who had ever lived (Matt 11:2-19; Luke 7:18-35), the end of a long line of prophets anticipating the coming of the Kingdom of God (Luke 16:16). John stood on the threshold of the new age, proclaiming its coming to all who would hear.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatthew 3:1-15; 4:12; 9:14; 11:2-19; 14:1-12; 16:14; 17:10-13; 21:24-27, 31-32; Mark 1:1-9, 14; 2:18; 6:14-29; 8:28; 9:11-13; 11:29-33; Luke 1:13-17, 36, 39-43, 57-66, 76-80; 3:1-21; 5:33; 7:18-35; 9:7-9, 19; 11:1; 16:16; 20:3-8; John 1:6-37; John 3:23-36; 4:1-3; 10:40-42; Acts 1:5; 10:37; 11:16; 18:25-26; 19:1-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"John the Baptist John the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13). John’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births aroun...","summary_en":"John the Baptist John the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13). John’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births aroun...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":97655,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"John the Baptist","title_en":"John the Baptist","content_ro":"<h3>John the Baptist<\/h3>\nJohn the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13).<\/p>\nJohn’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births around the same time signaled the beginning of God’s redeeming work.<\/p>\nJohn was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth and devoted his life to preparing people for the coming of the Lord (Luke 1:15-17). Living in the desert (Luke 1:80), he began preaching when he was about thirty years old. Dressed like a prophet and subsisting on desert food (locusts and wild honey, see Matt 3:4; Mark 1:6), he called everyone to repent and be baptized (Matt 3:1-2; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:1-3). He even castigated the religious leaders who came to hear him (Matt 3:7-10).<\/p>\nThough John reluctantly baptized Jesus (Matt 3:13-17), he considered Jesus his superior, the one who would “baptize with the Holy Spirit” (John 1:33; Matt 3:11; Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:16; cp. John 3:23-30). He encouraged his followers to become Jesus’ disciples—and many did, including Andrew (1:35-40), Apollos (Acts 18:24-26), and the twelve disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas received harsh judgment from John because of Herod’s unlawful marriage to Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. To please Herodias, Herod imprisoned John and then beheaded him (Matt 14:3-12; Mark 6:17-29; Luke 3:19-20). John’s imprisonment marked the beginning of Jesus’ public preaching (Matt 4:12; Mark 1:14).<\/p>\nShortly before his death, John seemed to be confused about Jesus and sent messengers from prison to ask him if he really was the Messiah. Jesus did not do what most people anticipated the Messiah would do. Rather than bringing judgment and a visible kingdom, he brought forgiveness, healing, and a spiritual kingdom. To reassure John, Jesus spoke of the miraculous things God was doing through him (Luke 7:18-23).<\/p>\nJohn remained faithful to his calling throughout his life, consistently preaching repentance and the judgment of God, even to people who had no desire to hear it. Jesus referred to John as one of the greatest servants of God who had ever lived (Matt 11:2-19; Luke 7:18-35), the end of a long line of prophets anticipating the coming of the Kingdom of God (Luke 16:16). John stood on the threshold of the new age, proclaiming its coming to all who would hear.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatthew 3:1-15; 4:12; 9:14; 11:2-19; 14:1-12; 16:14; 17:10-13; 21:24-27, 31-32; Mark 1:1-9, 14; 2:18; 6:14-29; 8:28; 9:11-13; 11:29-33; Luke 1:13-17, 36, 39-43, 57-66, 76-80; 3:1-21; 5:33; 7:18-35; 9:7-9, 19; 11:1; 16:16; 20:3-8; John 1:6-37; John 3:23-36; 4:1-3; 10:40-42; Acts 1:5; 10:37; 11:16; 18:25-26; 19:1-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>John the Baptist<\/h3>\nJohn the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13).<\/p>\nJohn’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births around the same time signaled the beginning of God’s redeeming work.<\/p>\nJohn was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth and devoted his life to preparing people for the coming of the Lord (Luke 1:15-17). Living in the desert (Luke 1:80), he began preaching when he was about thirty years old. Dressed like a prophet and subsisting on desert food (locusts and wild honey, see Matt 3:4; Mark 1:6), he called everyone to repent and be baptized (Matt 3:1-2; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:1-3). He even castigated the religious leaders who came to hear him (Matt 3:7-10).<\/p>\nThough John reluctantly baptized Jesus (Matt 3:13-17), he considered Jesus his superior, the one who would “baptize with the Holy Spirit” (John 1:33; Matt 3:11; Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:16; cp. John 3:23-30). He encouraged his followers to become Jesus’ disciples—and many did, including Andrew (1:35-40), Apollos (Acts 18:24-26), and the twelve disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas received harsh judgment from John because of Herod’s unlawful marriage to Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. To please Herodias, Herod imprisoned John and then beheaded him (Matt 14:3-12; Mark 6:17-29; Luke 3:19-20). John’s imprisonment marked the beginning of Jesus’ public preaching (Matt 4:12; Mark 1:14).<\/p>\nShortly before his death, John seemed to be confused about Jesus and sent messengers from prison to ask him if he really was the Messiah. Jesus did not do what most people anticipated the Messiah would do. Rather than bringing judgment and a visible kingdom, he brought forgiveness, healing, and a spiritual kingdom. To reassure John, Jesus spoke of the miraculous things God was doing through him (Luke 7:18-23).<\/p>\nJohn remained faithful to his calling throughout his life, consistently preaching repentance and the judgment of God, even to people who had no desire to hear it. Jesus referred to John as one of the greatest servants of God who had ever lived (Matt 11:2-19; Luke 7:18-35), the end of a long line of prophets anticipating the coming of the Kingdom of God (Luke 16:16). John stood on the threshold of the new age, proclaiming its coming to all who would hear.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatthew 3:1-15; 4:12; 9:14; 11:2-19; 14:1-12; 16:14; 17:10-13; 21:24-27, 31-32; Mark 1:1-9, 14; 2:18; 6:14-29; 8:28; 9:11-13; 11:29-33; Luke 1:13-17, 36, 39-43, 57-66, 76-80; 3:1-21; 5:33; 7:18-35; 9:7-9, 19; 11:1; 16:16; 20:3-8; John 1:6-37; John 3:23-36; 4:1-3; 10:40-42; Acts 1:5; 10:37; 11:16; 18:25-26; 19:1-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"John the Baptist John the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13). John’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births aroun...","summary_en":"John the Baptist John the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13). John’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births aroun...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125281,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"John the Baptist","title_en":"John the Baptist","content_ro":"<h3>John the Baptist<\/h3>\nJohn the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13).<\/p>\nJohn’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births around the same time signaled the beginning of God’s redeeming work.<\/p>\nJohn was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth and devoted his life to preparing people for the coming of the Lord (Luke 1:15-17). Living in the desert (Luke 1:80), he began preaching when he was about thirty years old. Dressed like a prophet and subsisting on desert food (locusts and wild honey, see Matt 3:4; Mark 1:6), he called everyone to repent and be baptized (Matt 3:1-2; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:1-3). He even castigated the religious leaders who came to hear him (Matt 3:7-10).<\/p>\nThough John reluctantly baptized Jesus (Matt 3:13-17), he considered Jesus his superior, the one who would “baptize with the Holy Spirit” (John 1:33; Matt 3:11; Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:16; cp. John 3:23-30). He encouraged his followers to become Jesus’ disciples—and many did, including Andrew (1:35-40), Apollos (Acts 18:24-26), and the twelve disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas received harsh judgment from John because of Herod’s unlawful marriage to Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. To please Herodias, Herod imprisoned John and then beheaded him (Matt 14:3-12; Mark 6:17-29; Luke 3:19-20). John’s imprisonment marked the beginning of Jesus’ public preaching (Matt 4:12; Mark 1:14).<\/p>\nShortly before his death, John seemed to be confused about Jesus and sent messengers from prison to ask him if he really was the Messiah. Jesus did not do what most people anticipated the Messiah would do. Rather than bringing judgment and a visible kingdom, he brought forgiveness, healing, and a spiritual kingdom. To reassure John, Jesus spoke of the miraculous things God was doing through him (Luke 7:18-23).<\/p>\nJohn remained faithful to his calling throughout his life, consistently preaching repentance and the judgment of God, even to people who had no desire to hear it. Jesus referred to John as one of the greatest servants of God who had ever lived (Matt 11:2-19; Luke 7:18-35), the end of a long line of prophets anticipating the coming of the Kingdom of God (Luke 16:16). John stood on the threshold of the new age, proclaiming its coming to all who would hear.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatthew 3:1-15; 4:12; 9:14; 11:2-19; 14:1-12; 16:14; 17:10-13; 21:24-27, 31-32; Mark 1:1-9, 14; 2:18; 6:14-29; 8:28; 9:11-13; 11:29-33; Luke 1:13-17, 36, 39-43, 57-66, 76-80; 3:1-21; 5:33; 7:18-35; 9:7-9, 19; 11:1; 16:16; 20:3-8; John 1:6-37; John 3:23-36; 4:1-3; 10:40-42; Acts 1:5; 10:37; 11:16; 18:25-26; 19:1-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>John the Baptist<\/h3>\nJohn the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13).<\/p>\nJohn’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births around the same time signaled the beginning of God’s redeeming work.<\/p>\nJohn was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth and devoted his life to preparing people for the coming of the Lord (Luke 1:15-17). Living in the desert (Luke 1:80), he began preaching when he was about thirty years old. Dressed like a prophet and subsisting on desert food (locusts and wild honey, see Matt 3:4; Mark 1:6), he called everyone to repent and be baptized (Matt 3:1-2; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:1-3). He even castigated the religious leaders who came to hear him (Matt 3:7-10).<\/p>\nThough John reluctantly baptized Jesus (Matt 3:13-17), he considered Jesus his superior, the one who would “baptize with the Holy Spirit” (John 1:33; Matt 3:11; Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:16; cp. John 3:23-30). He encouraged his followers to become Jesus’ disciples—and many did, including Andrew (1:35-40), Apollos (Acts 18:24-26), and the twelve disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas received harsh judgment from John because of Herod’s unlawful marriage to Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. To please Herodias, Herod imprisoned John and then beheaded him (Matt 14:3-12; Mark 6:17-29; Luke 3:19-20). John’s imprisonment marked the beginning of Jesus’ public preaching (Matt 4:12; Mark 1:14).<\/p>\nShortly before his death, John seemed to be confused about Jesus and sent messengers from prison to ask him if he really was the Messiah. Jesus did not do what most people anticipated the Messiah would do. Rather than bringing judgment and a visible kingdom, he brought forgiveness, healing, and a spiritual kingdom. To reassure John, Jesus spoke of the miraculous things God was doing through him (Luke 7:18-23).<\/p>\nJohn remained faithful to his calling throughout his life, consistently preaching repentance and the judgment of God, even to people who had no desire to hear it. Jesus referred to John as one of the greatest servants of God who had ever lived (Matt 11:2-19; Luke 7:18-35), the end of a long line of prophets anticipating the coming of the Kingdom of God (Luke 16:16). John stood on the threshold of the new age, proclaiming its coming to all who would hear.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatthew 3:1-15; 4:12; 9:14; 11:2-19; 14:1-12; 16:14; 17:10-13; 21:24-27, 31-32; Mark 1:1-9, 14; 2:18; 6:14-29; 8:28; 9:11-13; 11:29-33; Luke 1:13-17, 36, 39-43, 57-66, 76-80; 3:1-21; 5:33; 7:18-35; 9:7-9, 19; 11:1; 16:16; 20:3-8; John 1:6-37; John 3:23-36; 4:1-3; 10:40-42; Acts 1:5; 10:37; 11:16; 18:25-26; 19:1-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"John the Baptist John the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13). John’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births aroun...","summary_en":"John the Baptist John the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13). John’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births aroun...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":3690,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Baptism","title_en":"Baptism","content_ro":"<h3>BAPTISM<\/h3>\nTerm generally meaning “to dip” or “immerse,” but representing a group of words employed to signify a religious rite for ritual cleansing. In the NT it became the rite of initiation into the Christian community, and it was interpreted theologically as a dying and rising with Christ.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Baptism of John<\/p>\n• The Baptism of Jesus<\/p>\n• Jesus’ Resurrection Command to Baptize<\/p>\n• Baptism in the Early Church<\/p>\n• The Theology of Baptism in Paul’s and Peter’s Epistles<\/p>\nThe Baptism of John<\/p>\nJohn preached a “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Lk 3:3). The origins of his rite are difficult to trace. Some have claimed that his baptism modeled that practiced by those at Qumran; others have urged that his baptism modeled that practiced by Jews when initiating proselytes to Judaism. The members of the Qumran community viewed themselves as the covenant community of the last days and so dwelt in the desert, living an ascetic life and immersing themselves daily in acts of ceremonial cleansing. At the same time they taught that internal repentance must accompany the external act (1 QS 2:3). Its sacramental nature is seen in the fact that only a full member of the community could practice it, and then only after two probationary years (1 QS 5:6). Converts from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a ritual bath to wash away the impurities of the Gentile background.<\/p>\nJohn’s baptism both parallels and differs with these forms of baptism. The genesis of his baptism may be found in the prophetic acted-out parable, which not only symbolized God’s message but also intended to bring it about. John’s practice had several theological ramifications: (1) It was intimately connected with radical repentance, not only of the Gentile but astoundingly (to his contemporaries) also of the Jew. (2) It was eschatological at the core, preparing for the Messiah, who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Mt 3:11), and therefore looked to the final separation between God’s people and the wicked at the eschaton (i.e., “the End,” cf. Mt 3:12). (3) It symbolized moral purification and so prepared the people for the coming kingdom (Mt 3:2; Lk 3:7-14). In spite of the obvious connection between John’s ceremony and the early church, we cannot posit absolute dependence. In fact, it disappeared from Jesus’ ministry. At first, Jesus allowed his disciples to continue the rite (Jn 3:22), but later he seemingly discontinued the practice (Jn 4:1-3), probably for the following reasons: (1) John’s message was functional, while Jesus’ was personal\/ontological. (2) John’s was forward-looking, expecting the coming kingdom, while Jesus’ was backward-looking, celebrating that event. (3) John’s was an interim practice, while Jesus’ was sacramental. Jesus’ ministry fulfilled John’s, so he severed himself from the latter’s modus operandi.<\/p>\nThe Baptism of Jesus<\/p>\nThis event has its genesis in a complex interplay of motives, divine and human, within the messianic consciousness of Jesus (see Mk 1:9-11 and parallels). For John it was Jesus’ stamp of approval upon his message and ministry. Jesus was in continuity with John’s kingdom proclamation. For Jesus, it was also an anointing that signified the inauguration of his messianic ministry. As seen in God’s “heavenly voice” of Mark 1:11 and parallels, this has two aspects: (1) The voice alludes to Psalm 2:7, establishing Jesus’ unique sonship. (2) It alludes to Isaiah 42:1, establishing him as the messianic “servant of Yahweh.” (This is discussed at greater length in the article below.)<\/p>\nJesus’ Resurrection Command to Baptize<\/p>\nHere we find the true basis of the church’s practice (Mt 28:19). As already stated, the disciples stopped employing it, so it is here that we see the institution reconstituted as an ordinance based on the death and resurrection of Christ. It was no longer a forward-looking phenomenon but had now become a realized activity centering on the gospel message, certified by the risen Christ who is exalted to universal lordship. It also is an essential aspect of the discipling activity, as seen in the use of the participle “baptizing” after the main verb “make disciples.” Finally we might note that the act signifies the entrance of the believer “into” union with (literally “into the name of”) the triune Godhead.<\/p>\nBaptism in the Early Church<\/p>\nActs 2:38 shows that baptism was a sacral institution from the very beginning. This takes it back to the earliest days of the church. In the primitive church it was an important part of the salvation process (Acts 2:38, “repent and be baptized”) and was accomplished via confession and prayer “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5). Probably there was a question-and-answer period in which the believer confessed his faith and dedicated himself to Christ. The result was reception into and identification with the messianic community of the new covenant, signifying both forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18) and the reception of the Holy Spirit (Lk 3:16; Acts 2:38, 41; 9:17; 10:47-48; 11:16-17; 19:5-7). See<\/em> Baptism of Fire; Baptism of Jesus; Baptism of the Spirit.<\/p>\n\nThe Theology of Baptism in Paul’s and Peter’s Epistles<\/p>\nPaul’s basic statement is found in Galatians 3:27, “baptized into Christ.” The rite of baptism is christological at the heart, signifying union with Christ. This is clarified further by Romans 6:3-8, which equates baptism with dying and rising (cf. Col 2:12-13). At the same time baptism is related to the Spirit; 1 Corinthians 12:13 connects “baptism by the one Spirit” with being “given that same Spirit.” Many see baptism as the outward confirmation of the inward “seal” by the Spirit (2 Cor 1:21-22; Eph 1:13; 4:30). This leads us to the eschatological dimension of baptism. In its relation to the present work of Christ and the Spirit, it externalizes the outpouring of salvation in the age of fulfillment, because it is the initiatory rite signifying the believer’s entrance into the blessings of the new age (Ti 3:5).<\/p>\nThere is also a definite link between baptism and the OT covenants. The major connection is with the Abrahamic, especially with the circumcision that characterized it. Paul in Colossians 2:11-12 combines Jewish circumcision with Christian baptism as pictures of the redemptive work of Christ. The debate today centers on the degree of continuity between them—does baptism perform the same function in the New Covenant, i.e., forensic and imputative? Whatever the theological ramifications, Paul at least cannot be made to say this. Rather, he borrows here the Judeo-Christian imagery of the “circumcision of the heart” (Dt 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29; Phil 3:3). Christians experience the fulfillment of that which circumcision merely prefigured, a spiritual, totally efficacious reality.<\/p>\nBaptism is also related to the Noahic covenant in 1 Peter 3:19-21. There Noah’s deliverance through the waters is considered a picture of the effects of baptism. The debate centers on the meaning of “baptism now saves you.” The answer is connected with the thrust of the ensuing clarification, “an appeal to God for a clear conscience” (rsv<\/span>, lit. “of a good conscience”). While the developed dialogue between the sacramental and baptist views is considered below, we will simply comment here that the interpretation “appeal by<\/em> a good conscience” best fits the emphatic position of this phrase and the picture in this verse of a pledging convert. Baptism is the seal of the salvation covenant, which itself has been accomplished beforehand by the act of Christ and the faith decision of the individual.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BAPTISM<\/h3>\nTerm generally meaning “to dip” or “immerse,” but representing a group of words employed to signify a religious rite for ritual cleansing. In the NT it became the rite of initiation into the Christian community, and it was interpreted theologically as a dying and rising with Christ.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Baptism of John<\/p>\n• The Baptism of Jesus<\/p>\n• Jesus’ Resurrection Command to Baptize<\/p>\n• Baptism in the Early Church<\/p>\n• The Theology of Baptism in Paul’s and Peter’s Epistles<\/p>\nThe Baptism of John<\/p>\nJohn preached a “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Lk 3:3). The origins of his rite are difficult to trace. Some have claimed that his baptism modeled that practiced by those at Qumran; others have urged that his baptism modeled that practiced by Jews when initiating proselytes to Judaism. The members of the Qumran community viewed themselves as the covenant community of the last days and so dwelt in the desert, living an ascetic life and immersing themselves daily in acts of ceremonial cleansing. At the same time they taught that internal repentance must accompany the external act (1 QS 2:3). Its sacramental nature is seen in the fact that only a full member of the community could practice it, and then only after two probationary years (1 QS 5:6). Converts from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a ritual bath to wash away the impurities of the Gentile background.<\/p>\nJohn’s baptism both parallels and differs with these forms of baptism. The genesis of his baptism may be found in the prophetic acted-out parable, which not only symbolized God’s message but also intended to bring it about. John’s practice had several theological ramifications: (1) It was intimately connected with radical repentance, not only of the Gentile but astoundingly (to his contemporaries) also of the Jew. (2) It was eschatological at the core, preparing for the Messiah, who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Mt 3:11), and therefore looked to the final separation between God’s people and the wicked at the eschaton (i.e., “the End,” cf. Mt 3:12). (3) It symbolized moral purification and so prepared the people for the coming kingdom (Mt 3:2; Lk 3:7-14). In spite of the obvious connection between John’s ceremony and the early church, we cannot posit absolute dependence. In fact, it disappeared from Jesus’ ministry. At first, Jesus allowed his disciples to continue the rite (Jn 3:22), but later he seemingly discontinued the practice (Jn 4:1-3), probably for the following reasons: (1) John’s message was functional, while Jesus’ was personal\/ontological. (2) John’s was forward-looking, expecting the coming kingdom, while Jesus’ was backward-looking, celebrating that event. (3) John’s was an interim practice, while Jesus’ was sacramental. Jesus’ ministry fulfilled John’s, so he severed himself from the latter’s modus operandi.<\/p>\nThe Baptism of Jesus<\/p>\nThis event has its genesis in a complex interplay of motives, divine and human, within the messianic consciousness of Jesus (see Mk 1:9-11 and parallels). For John it was Jesus’ stamp of approval upon his message and ministry. Jesus was in continuity with John’s kingdom proclamation. For Jesus, it was also an anointing that signified the inauguration of his messianic ministry. As seen in God’s “heavenly voice” of Mark 1:11 and parallels, this has two aspects: (1) The voice alludes to Psalm 2:7, establishing Jesus’ unique sonship. (2) It alludes to Isaiah 42:1, establishing him as the messianic “servant of Yahweh.” (This is discussed at greater length in the article below.)<\/p>\nJesus’ Resurrection Command to Baptize<\/p>\nHere we find the true basis of the church’s practice (Mt 28:19). As already stated, the disciples stopped employing it, so it is here that we see the institution reconstituted as an ordinance based on the death and resurrection of Christ. It was no longer a forward-looking phenomenon but had now become a realized activity centering on the gospel message, certified by the risen Christ who is exalted to universal lordship. It also is an essential aspect of the discipling activity, as seen in the use of the participle “baptizing” after the main verb “make disciples.” Finally we might note that the act signifies the entrance of the believer “into” union with (literally “into the name of”) the triune Godhead.<\/p>\nBaptism in the Early Church<\/p>\nActs 2:38 shows that baptism was a sacral institution from the very beginning. This takes it back to the earliest days of the church. In the primitive church it was an important part of the salvation process (Acts 2:38, “repent and be baptized”) and was accomplished via confession and prayer “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5). Probably there was a question-and-answer period in which the believer confessed his faith and dedicated himself to Christ. The result was reception into and identification with the messianic community of the new covenant, signifying both forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18) and the reception of the Holy Spirit (Lk 3:16; Acts 2:38, 41; 9:17; 10:47-48; 11:16-17; 19:5-7). See<\/em> Baptism of Fire; Baptism of Jesus; Baptism of the Spirit.<\/p>\n\nThe Theology of Baptism in Paul’s and Peter’s Epistles<\/p>\nPaul’s basic statement is found in Galatians 3:27, “baptized into Christ.” The rite of baptism is christological at the heart, signifying union with Christ. This is clarified further by Romans 6:3-8, which equates baptism with dying and rising (cf. Col 2:12-13). At the same time baptism is related to the Spirit; 1 Corinthians 12:13 connects “baptism by the one Spirit” with being “given that same Spirit.” Many see baptism as the outward confirmation of the inward “seal” by the Spirit (2 Cor 1:21-22; Eph 1:13; 4:30). This leads us to the eschatological dimension of baptism. In its relation to the present work of Christ and the Spirit, it externalizes the outpouring of salvation in the age of fulfillment, because it is the initiatory rite signifying the believer’s entrance into the blessings of the new age (Ti 3:5).<\/p>\nThere is also a definite link between baptism and the OT covenants. The major connection is with the Abrahamic, especially with the circumcision that characterized it. Paul in Colossians 2:11-12 combines Jewish circumcision with Christian baptism as pictures of the redemptive work of Christ. The debate today centers on the degree of continuity between them—does baptism perform the same function in the New Covenant, i.e., forensic and imputative? Whatever the theological ramifications, Paul at least cannot be made to say this. Rather, he borrows here the Judeo-Christian imagery of the “circumcision of the heart” (Dt 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29; Phil 3:3). Christians experience the fulfillment of that which circumcision merely prefigured, a spiritual, totally efficacious reality.<\/p>\nBaptism is also related to the Noahic covenant in 1 Peter 3:19-21. There Noah’s deliverance through the waters is considered a picture of the effects of baptism. The debate centers on the meaning of “baptism now saves you.” The answer is connected with the thrust of the ensuing clarification, “an appeal to God for a clear conscience” (rsv<\/span>, lit. “of a good conscience”). While the developed dialogue between the sacramental and baptist views is considered below, we will simply comment here that the interpretation “appeal by<\/em> a good conscience” best fits the emphatic position of this phrase and the picture in this verse of a pledging convert. Baptism is the seal of the salvation covenant, which itself has been accomplished beforehand by the act of Christ and the faith decision of the individual.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BAPTISM Term generally meaning “to dip” or “immerse,” but representing a group of words employed to signify a religious rite for ritual cleansing. In the NT it became the rite of initiation into the Christian community, and it was interpreted theologically as a dying and rising with Christ. Preview • The Baptism of John • The Baptism of Jesus • Jesus’ Resurrection Command to Baptize • Baptism in the Early Church • The Theology of Baptism in Paul’s and Peter’s Epistles The Baptism of John John...","summary_en":"BAPTISM Term generally meaning “to dip” or “immerse,” but representing a group of words employed to signify a religious rite for ritual cleansing. In the NT it became the rite of initiation into the Christian community, and it was interpreted theologically as a dying and rising with Christ. Preview • The Baptism of John • The Baptism of Jesus • Jesus’ Resurrection Command to Baptize • Baptism in the Early Church • The Theology of Baptism in Paul’s and Peter’s Epistles The Baptism of John John...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":3715,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of Fire*, Baptism","title_en":"of Fire*, Baptism","content_ro":"<h3>BAPTISM OF FIRE*<\/h3>\nMetaphor coined by John the Baptist. John was looking for the coming of One who would “baptize in Spirit and fire” (Mt 3:11; Lk 3:16). The context makes clear that fire in that phrase denotes judgment, a judgment that would presumably purify the penitent (cf. Is 4:4; Mal 3:2-3) as well as destroy the impenitent (Mal 4:1; Mt 3:10,12).<\/p>\nThe prophets and apocalyptic writers frequently spoke of a period of tribulation and suffering necessary before the new age could come: “the messianic woes,” “the birth pangs of the Messiah,” “a river of fire.” Parallels to John’s phraseology are found in Isaiah 30:27-28 and in the pseudepigraphal 2 Esdras 13:10-11. John the Baptist probably adopted that usage and reexpressed it through a metaphor drawn from his own most characteristic act (baptism). His “baptize in fire” thus probably denoted the purifying judgment that would bring in the new age as well as bring individuals into the new age.<\/p>\nThere is no further biblical reference specifically to baptism of fire. Mark and John abbreviate the Baptist’s preaching by omitting all mention of judgment. With Pentecost and beyond, John’s baptism in water is seen as fulfilled in baptism in the Spirit. But Jesus seemed to echo the Baptist’s conviction that a fiery purification was necessary (Mk 9:49). And he clearly picked up the Baptist’s prediction, but referred the baptism and presumably the fire to his own death (Lk 12:49-50). His death is understood as suffering the fiery baptism for others. That thought is matched by the apostle Paul in his understanding of baptism into Christ as a baptism into Christ’s death (Rom 6:3). So it can be said that John’s expectation of a purgative baptism of fire for the penitent is most nearly fulfilled in the believer’s being united with Christ in his death and sharing in his sufferings; only in that way does one come to share fully in Christ’s risen glory (Rom 6:5; 8:17-23; Phil 3:10-11).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Baptism; Baptism of the Spirit.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BAPTISM OF FIRE*<\/h3>\nMetaphor coined by John the Baptist. John was looking for the coming of One who would “baptize in Spirit and fire” (Mt 3:11; Lk 3:16). The context makes clear that fire in that phrase denotes judgment, a judgment that would presumably purify the penitent (cf. Is 4:4; Mal 3:2-3) as well as destroy the impenitent (Mal 4:1; Mt 3:10,12).<\/p>\nThe prophets and apocalyptic writers frequently spoke of a period of tribulation and suffering necessary before the new age could come: “the messianic woes,” “the birth pangs of the Messiah,” “a river of fire.” Parallels to John’s phraseology are found in Isaiah 30:27-28 and in the pseudepigraphal 2 Esdras 13:10-11. John the Baptist probably adopted that usage and reexpressed it through a metaphor drawn from his own most characteristic act (baptism). His “baptize in fire” thus probably denoted the purifying judgment that would bring in the new age as well as bring individuals into the new age.<\/p>\nThere is no further biblical reference specifically to baptism of fire. Mark and John abbreviate the Baptist’s preaching by omitting all mention of judgment. With Pentecost and beyond, John’s baptism in water is seen as fulfilled in baptism in the Spirit. But Jesus seemed to echo the Baptist’s conviction that a fiery purification was necessary (Mk 9:49). And he clearly picked up the Baptist’s prediction, but referred the baptism and presumably the fire to his own death (Lk 12:49-50). His death is understood as suffering the fiery baptism for others. That thought is matched by the apostle Paul in his understanding of baptism into Christ as a baptism into Christ’s death (Rom 6:3). So it can be said that John’s expectation of a purgative baptism of fire for the penitent is most nearly fulfilled in the believer’s being united with Christ in his death and sharing in his sufferings; only in that way does one come to share fully in Christ’s risen glory (Rom 6:5; 8:17-23; Phil 3:10-11).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Baptism; Baptism of the Spirit.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BAPTISM OF FIRE* Metaphor coined by John the Baptist. John was looking for the coming of One who would “baptize in Spirit and fire” (Mt 3:11; Lk 3:16). The context makes clear that fire in that phrase denotes judgment, a judgment that would presumably purify the penitent (cf. Is 4:4; Mal 3:2-3) as well as destroy the impenitent (Mal 4:1; Mt 3:10,12). The prophets and apocalyptic writers frequently spoke of a period of tribulation and suffering necessary before the new age could come: “the mes...","summary_en":"BAPTISM OF FIRE* Metaphor coined by John the Baptist. John was looking for the coming of One who would “baptize in Spirit and fire” (Mt 3:11; Lk 3:16). The context makes clear that fire in that phrase denotes judgment, a judgment that would presumably purify the penitent (cf. Is 4:4; Mal 3:2-3) as well as destroy the impenitent (Mal 4:1; Mt 3:10,12). The prophets and apocalyptic writers frequently spoke of a period of tribulation and suffering necessary before the new age could come: “the mes...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":3762,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of the Spirit*, Baptism","title_en":"of the Spirit*, Baptism","content_ro":"<h3>BAPTISM OF THE SPIRIT*<\/h3>\nA popularly used phrase, which never occurs as such in the Bible. The NT always uses the verbal phrase “baptize [or baptized] in the Spirit.” That gives it a dynamic character that the noun phrase cannot fully convey.<\/p>\nThe phrase seems to have been coined by John the Baptist: “I baptize you with water; but he [the One who is to come] will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire” (Mt 3:11; Lk 3:16; but Mk 1:8 and Jn 1:33 omit the words “and fire”). The phrase is clearly a metaphor: it stands in contrast to and as the fulfillment of John’s water baptism. It is a metaphor of judgment,<\/em> as the context in Matthew and Luke makes clear. Purification or destruction in a river of fire, by a spirit of cleansing, in the fiery breath of God (“breath” and “spirit” are the same word in Hebrew), was familiar imagery in Jewish thought (Is 4:4; 30:27-28; Dn 7:10). It is also a metaphor of mercy,<\/em> since the purification cleanses; after winnowing, the grain would be gathered into the barn (Mt 3:11-12). And, finally, it is a metaphor of initiation<\/em>—John the Baptist’s variation on “the messianic woes,” the expectation that the messianic age would be introduced only through suffering and tribulation (e.g., Dn 7:19-22; 12:1; Zec 14:12-15; also the pseudepigraphal 1 Enoch 100:1-3).<\/p>\nIn the book of Acts the metaphor retains the initiatory significance given it by John the Baptist. Acts 2:4 fulfills the promise of Acts 1:5. Since the outpouring of the Spirit was seen as the<\/em> mark of “the last days” (Is 44:3; Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28-29), it was by being thus baptized in Spirit that the disciples began<\/em> to experience the last days for themselves (Acts 2:1-7, 18). Acts 11:17 speaks of Pentecost as the occasion when they came to believe in Jesus Christ as Lord. Similarly the apostle Paul sees the gift of the Spirit as the beginning of Christian experience (2 Cor 1:22; Gal 3:3), so that “having the Spirit of Christ” is the defining mark of the Christian (Rom 8:9). By being baptized in the Spirit, Cornelius and his friends received the forgiveness and salvation that Peter promised them (Acts 10:43-45; 11:13-18). “Baptized in Spirit” is there synonymous with “granted repentance unto life” (11:18) and “cleansed their hearts by faith” (15:8-9). See<\/em> Baptism; Baptism of Fire; Spiritual Gifts.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BAPTISM OF THE SPIRIT*<\/h3>\nA popularly used phrase, which never occurs as such in the Bible. The NT always uses the verbal phrase “baptize [or baptized] in the Spirit.” That gives it a dynamic character that the noun phrase cannot fully convey.<\/p>\nThe phrase seems to have been coined by John the Baptist: “I baptize you with water; but he [the One who is to come] will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire” (Mt 3:11; Lk 3:16; but Mk 1:8 and Jn 1:33 omit the words “and fire”). The phrase is clearly a metaphor: it stands in contrast to and as the fulfillment of John’s water baptism. It is a metaphor of judgment,<\/em> as the context in Matthew and Luke makes clear. Purification or destruction in a river of fire, by a spirit of cleansing, in the fiery breath of God (“breath” and “spirit” are the same word in Hebrew), was familiar imagery in Jewish thought (Is 4:4; 30:27-28; Dn 7:10). It is also a metaphor of mercy,<\/em> since the purification cleanses; after winnowing, the grain would be gathered into the barn (Mt 3:11-12). And, finally, it is a metaphor of initiation<\/em>—John the Baptist’s variation on “the messianic woes,” the expectation that the messianic age would be introduced only through suffering and tribulation (e.g., Dn 7:19-22; 12:1; Zec 14:12-15; also the pseudepigraphal 1 Enoch 100:1-3).<\/p>\nIn the book of Acts the metaphor retains the initiatory significance given it by John the Baptist. Acts 2:4 fulfills the promise of Acts 1:5. Since the outpouring of the Spirit was seen as the<\/em> mark of “the last days” (Is 44:3; Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28-29), it was by being thus baptized in Spirit that the disciples began<\/em> to experience the last days for themselves (Acts 2:1-7, 18). Acts 11:17 speaks of Pentecost as the occasion when they came to believe in Jesus Christ as Lord. Similarly the apostle Paul sees the gift of the Spirit as the beginning of Christian experience (2 Cor 1:22; Gal 3:3), so that “having the Spirit of Christ” is the defining mark of the Christian (Rom 8:9). By being baptized in the Spirit, Cornelius and his friends received the forgiveness and salvation that Peter promised them (Acts 10:43-45; 11:13-18). “Baptized in Spirit” is there synonymous with “granted repentance unto life” (11:18) and “cleansed their hearts by faith” (15:8-9). See<\/em> Baptism; Baptism of Fire; Spiritual Gifts.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BAPTISM OF THE SPIRIT* A popularly used phrase, which never occurs as such in the Bible. The NT always uses the verbal phrase “baptize [or baptized] in the Spirit.” That gives it a dynamic character that the noun phrase cannot fully convey. The phrase seems to have been coined by John the Baptist: “I baptize you with water; but he [the One who is to come] will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire” (Mt 3:11; Lk 3:16; but Mk 1:8 and Jn 1:33 omit the words “and fire”). The phrase is clearl...","summary_en":"BAPTISM OF THE SPIRIT* A popularly used phrase, which never occurs as such in the Bible. The NT always uses the verbal phrase “baptize [or baptized] in the Spirit.” That gives it a dynamic character that the noun phrase cannot fully convey. The phrase seems to have been coined by John the Baptist: “I baptize you with water; but he [the One who is to come] will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire” (Mt 3:11; Lk 3:16; but Mk 1:8 and Jn 1:33 omit the words “and fire”). The phrase is clearl...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":7928,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Covenant, the New","title_en":"Covenant, the New","content_ro":"<h3>COVENANT, The New<\/h3>\nA gracious provision of God given through Jesus Christ for the redemption of fallen humanity—replacing and fulfilling the old covenant, which was expressed primarily through the Mosaic law. The expression “new covenant” is found principally in the NT.<\/p>\nAlthough the concept of a new covenant is found in several places in the OT (Ez 34:23-31; 37:24-28; Jl 2:12-32), the actual phrase occurs only once (Jer 31:31-34). That passage contrasts the new covenant that the prophet Jeremiah saw God making with Israel “after those days” (vv 32-34) with the covenant God had made with his people in the days of Moses. The contrast is seen, first of all, in the internal nature of the new covenant. Whereas the old covenant was written on tablets of stone (Ex 31:18; 34:27-32; Dt 4:13; 5:22; 9:11; 10:3-4) and in a book (Ex 24:7; cf. the phrase “old written code,” Rom 7:6, rsv<\/span>), the new covenant is to be written on the human heart. One result is a clearer revelation of what God demands; another is the enablement of believers to fulfill those demands (see Rom 8:2-4). The interior nature of the new covenant is spoken of in several other passages (Ez 11:19-21; 36:26-27) and made explicit in the prophet Joel of a time when God “will pour out [his] spirit on all flesh” (Jl 2:28-32).<\/p>\nA second contrast is in the way God’s people know him under the two covenants. There is no doubt that Israel under the old covenant “knew” God; God had revealed himself, though at times the nation tended to forget this (Jgs 2:10; Hos 4:1, 6). What the prophets envisioned in the new covenant is a unique personal knowledge of God by each individual member of the covenant community.<\/p>\nFinally, the two covenants differ in regard to God’s dealing with human sin. Jeremiah promised that God would forgive the iniquity of his people and blot out their sin. Israel already knew that God delighted in mercy and forgiveness (Ex 34:6-7), but Jeremiah was saying that God would never again remember their sin (Jer 31:34). Under the old covenant there was a reminder of sin year after year (Heb 10:3); under the new covenant no remembrance of sin remains (v 14).<\/p>\nA New Covenant<\/p>\nThe expression “new covenant” is found at least six times in the NT (1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:8, 13; 9:15; 12:24; and probably Lk 22:20, according to some manuscripts). In certain Greek manuscripts the phrase is also found in Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24, where “new” seems to have been added by various scribes to “blood of the covenant,” in order to make these accounts conform to parallel accounts of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians or possibly in Luke.<\/p>\nEven though the term “new” is not found in the accounts in Matthew and Mark in the best Greek manuscripts, and was therefore probably not part of the original text, it is clear from all four accounts that Jesus saw the Lord’s Supper as instituting a different and therefore “new” covenant. The covenant was being sealed by his sacrificial death, that is, by his blood, just as the Mosaic covenant was sealed by the “blood of the covenant” (Ex 24:6-8). The cup of the Lord’s Supper symbolizes the blood of Christ’s sacrifice, sealing the new covenant God has at last made with his people. The new covenant, ratified by Christ’s death, is what the church therefore commemorates each time it celebrates the Lord’s Supper.<\/p>\nIn his institution of the Lord’s Supper, Jesus did not elucidate what the “newness” of the covenant entailed. Elsewhere he mentioned a “baptism with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:5; 11:16; cf. Mt 3:11; Mk 1:8; Lk 3:16; and Jn 1:33, where this promise is found on the lips of John the Baptist; cf. also 1 Cor 12:13). Yet both OT prophecies refer to the same new covenant that God would establish in the future, as shown in 2 Corinthians 3:6. There the apostle Paul stated that God “has qualified us to be ministers of a new covenant” (rsv<\/span>; cf. Jer 31:31), not “in a written code but in the Spirit” (rsv<\/span>; cf. Jl 2:28-32), for “the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life” (rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nSuperiority of the New Covenant<\/p>\nIn 2 Corinthians 3, Paul was showing that in contrast to the old (Mosaic) covenant (v 14), which was a dispensation of death, carved in letters on stone (v 7), the new covenant instituted by Jesus is one of far greater splendor (vv 8-9), written on the human heart by the Spirit of the living God himself (v 3).<\/p>\nThe new covenant concept is treated most exhaustively and systematically in the book of Hebrews. In Hebrews 8:8-12 the quotation of Jeremiah 31:31-34 is the longest OT quotation found in the NT. In Hebrews 12:24 a different Greek word for “new” is used, but the meaning remains the same. The theme of the new covenant dominates the book of Hebrews, which was written to encourage faltering Christians by demonstrating the superiority of the Christian faith over their old Jewish beliefs and practices. In Hebrews the new covenant is seen as better than the old “obsolete” covenant in a number of ways.<\/p>\n1. The new covenant has a better priesthood than the old covenant, since there is no longer any need for a continual change of priests due to death (Heb 7:23). One continual priest now lives forever to make intercession before God on behalf of his people (vv 24-25).<\/p>\n<li>2. The new covenant priest is better than those of the old covenant, since Jesus does not have to offer sacrifices continually for his own sins and then for the sins of his people. He has instead made one complete and perfect offering (7:27; 9:25-28; 10:12).<\/li>\n<li>3. The new covenant has a better sacrifice than the old covenant; what the blood of bulls and goats could not do, since the atonement they brought could at best be only partial (10:2-3), the blood of Christ has done once for all (9:11-14; 10:1-10).<\/li>\n<li>4. The new covenant is built on “better promises” than the old (8:6).<\/li>\n<li>5. Whereas the old covenant was imperfect (8:7) and thus became obsolete (8:13), the new covenant is perfect and eternal (13:20).<\/li>\n<li>6. Whereas the old covenant provided a believer with no direct access to God (9:6-8), the new covenant provides a direct access to God that can purify and perfect the believer’s conscience (cf. 9:14 with 9:9).<\/li>\n<li>7. The new covenant possesses a better “surety,” or guarantee, an oath sworn by God himself (7:20-22).<\/li>\n<li>8. The new covenant assures the presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of each believer. The new covenant community has been touched by the promised Spirit (6:4), who, according to Paul, is both the seal and guarantee of their inheritance (see 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:13-14).<\/li>\nConclusion<\/p>\nThe new covenant and its accompanying new commandment are both fulfillments of what was implicit in the old. The new covenant is written on the heart of each member of the new covenant community by the Holy Spirit. The power of God’s Spirit within, enabling the believer to carry out the new commandment (Rom 8:2-4; Gal 5:16-25), is a distinctive feature of the new covenant.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Covenant.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>COVENANT, The New<\/h3>\nA gracious provision of God given through Jesus Christ for the redemption of fallen humanity—replacing and fulfilling the old covenant, which was expressed primarily through the Mosaic law. The expression “new covenant” is found principally in the NT.<\/p>\nAlthough the concept of a new covenant is found in several places in the OT (Ez 34:23-31; 37:24-28; Jl 2:12-32), the actual phrase occurs only once (Jer 31:31-34). That passage contrasts the new covenant that the prophet Jeremiah saw God making with Israel “after those days” (vv 32-34) with the covenant God had made with his people in the days of Moses. The contrast is seen, first of all, in the internal nature of the new covenant. Whereas the old covenant was written on tablets of stone (Ex 31:18; 34:27-32; Dt 4:13; 5:22; 9:11; 10:3-4) and in a book (Ex 24:7; cf. the phrase “old written code,” Rom 7:6, rsv<\/span>), the new covenant is to be written on the human heart. One result is a clearer revelation of what God demands; another is the enablement of believers to fulfill those demands (see Rom 8:2-4). The interior nature of the new covenant is spoken of in several other passages (Ez 11:19-21; 36:26-27) and made explicit in the prophet Joel of a time when God “will pour out [his] spirit on all flesh” (Jl 2:28-32).<\/p>\nA second contrast is in the way God’s people know him under the two covenants. There is no doubt that Israel under the old covenant “knew” God; God had revealed himself, though at times the nation tended to forget this (Jgs 2:10; Hos 4:1, 6). What the prophets envisioned in the new covenant is a unique personal knowledge of God by each individual member of the covenant community.<\/p>\nFinally, the two covenants differ in regard to God’s dealing with human sin. Jeremiah promised that God would forgive the iniquity of his people and blot out their sin. Israel already knew that God delighted in mercy and forgiveness (Ex 34:6-7), but Jeremiah was saying that God would never again remember their sin (Jer 31:34). Under the old covenant there was a reminder of sin year after year (Heb 10:3); under the new covenant no remembrance of sin remains (v 14).<\/p>\nA New Covenant<\/p>\nThe expression “new covenant” is found at least six times in the NT (1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:8, 13; 9:15; 12:24; and probably Lk 22:20, according to some manuscripts). In certain Greek manuscripts the phrase is also found in Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24, where “new” seems to have been added by various scribes to “blood of the covenant,” in order to make these accounts conform to parallel accounts of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians or possibly in Luke.<\/p>\nEven though the term “new” is not found in the accounts in Matthew and Mark in the best Greek manuscripts, and was therefore probably not part of the original text, it is clear from all four accounts that Jesus saw the Lord’s Supper as instituting a different and therefore “new” covenant. The covenant was being sealed by his sacrificial death, that is, by his blood, just as the Mosaic covenant was sealed by the “blood of the covenant” (Ex 24:6-8). The cup of the Lord’s Supper symbolizes the blood of Christ’s sacrifice, sealing the new covenant God has at last made with his people. The new covenant, ratified by Christ’s death, is what the church therefore commemorates each time it celebrates the Lord’s Supper.<\/p>\nIn his institution of the Lord’s Supper, Jesus did not elucidate what the “newness” of the covenant entailed. Elsewhere he mentioned a “baptism with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:5; 11:16; cf. Mt 3:11; Mk 1:8; Lk 3:16; and Jn 1:33, where this promise is found on the lips of John the Baptist; cf. also 1 Cor 12:13). Yet both OT prophecies refer to the same new covenant that God would establish in the future, as shown in 2 Corinthians 3:6. There the apostle Paul stated that God “has qualified us to be ministers of a new covenant” (rsv<\/span>; cf. Jer 31:31), not “in a written code but in the Spirit” (rsv<\/span>; cf. Jl 2:28-32), for “the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life” (rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nSuperiority of the New Covenant<\/p>\nIn 2 Corinthians 3, Paul was showing that in contrast to the old (Mosaic) covenant (v 14), which was a dispensation of death, carved in letters on stone (v 7), the new covenant instituted by Jesus is one of far greater splendor (vv 8-9), written on the human heart by the Spirit of the living God himself (v 3).<\/p>\nThe new covenant concept is treated most exhaustively and systematically in the book of Hebrews. In Hebrews 8:8-12 the quotation of Jeremiah 31:31-34 is the longest OT quotation found in the NT. In Hebrews 12:24 a different Greek word for “new” is used, but the meaning remains the same. The theme of the new covenant dominates the book of Hebrews, which was written to encourage faltering Christians by demonstrating the superiority of the Christian faith over their old Jewish beliefs and practices. In Hebrews the new covenant is seen as better than the old “obsolete” covenant in a number of ways.<\/p>\n1. The new covenant has a better priesthood than the old covenant, since there is no longer any need for a continual change of priests due to death (Heb 7:23). One continual priest now lives forever to make intercession before God on behalf of his people (vv 24-25).<\/p>\n<li>2. The new covenant priest is better than those of the old covenant, since Jesus does not have to offer sacrifices continually for his own sins and then for the sins of his people. He has instead made one complete and perfect offering (7:27; 9:25-28; 10:12).<\/li>\n<li>3. The new covenant has a better sacrifice than the old covenant; what the blood of bulls and goats could not do, since the atonement they brought could at best be only partial (10:2-3), the blood of Christ has done once for all (9:11-14; 10:1-10).<\/li>\n<li>4. The new covenant is built on “better promises” than the old (8:6).<\/li>\n<li>5. Whereas the old covenant was imperfect (8:7) and thus became obsolete (8:13), the new covenant is perfect and eternal (13:20).<\/li>\n<li>6. Whereas the old covenant provided a believer with no direct access to God (9:6-8), the new covenant provides a direct access to God that can purify and perfect the believer’s conscience (cf. 9:14 with 9:9).<\/li>\n<li>7. The new covenant possesses a better “surety,” or guarantee, an oath sworn by God himself (7:20-22).<\/li>\n<li>8. The new covenant assures the presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of each believer. The new covenant community has been touched by the promised Spirit (6:4), who, according to Paul, is both the seal and guarantee of their inheritance (see 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:13-14).<\/li>\nConclusion<\/p>\nThe new covenant and its accompanying new commandment are both fulfillments of what was implicit in the old. The new covenant is written on the heart of each member of the new covenant community by the Holy Spirit. The power of God’s Spirit within, enabling the believer to carry out the new commandment (Rom 8:2-4; Gal 5:16-25), is a distinctive feature of the new covenant.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Covenant.<\/p>","summary_ro":"COVENANT, The New A gracious provision of God given through Jesus Christ for the redemption of fallen humanity—replacing and fulfilling the old covenant, which was expressed primarily through the Mosaic law. The expression “new covenant” is found principally in the NT. Although the concept of a new covenant is found in several places in the OT (Ez 34:23-31; 37:24-28; Jl 2:12-32), the actual phrase occurs only once (Jer 31:31-34). That passage contrasts the new covenant that the prophet Jeremi...","summary_en":"COVENANT, The New A gracious provision of God given through Jesus Christ for the redemption of fallen humanity—replacing and fulfilling the old covenant, which was expressed primarily through the Mosaic law. The expression “new covenant” is found principally in the NT. Although the concept of a new covenant is found in several places in the OT (Ez 34:23-31; 37:24-28; Jl 2:12-32), the actual phrase occurs only once (Jer 31:31-34). That passage contrasts the new covenant that the prophet Jeremi...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20350,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"John the Baptist","title_en":"John the Baptist","content_ro":"<h3>JOHN THE BAPTIST<\/h3>\nForerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD<\/span> 29, while Jesus was still ministering.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\n• Appearance and Identity<\/p>\n• John’s Proclamation<\/p>\n• John’s Baptism<\/p>\n• John’s View of Jesus<\/p>\n• Jesus’ View of John<\/p>\n• Arrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\n• The Disciples of John<\/p>\nBirth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\nLuke’s Gospel is our only source of information concerning the birth and boyhood of John. The Gospel writer states that John was born in the hill country of Judah (Lk 1:39) of priestly descent, being the son of Zechariah, a priest of the order of Abijah, and Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron (v 5). Both parents were righteous in the sight of God, following all the commandments closely (v 6). Like the birth of Jesus, only to a much lesser degree, the birth of John the Baptist is described in Luke as extraordinary. The angel Gabriel announced the coming birth to Zechariah in the temple; to the older, barren Elizabeth it came as an answer to prayer (vv 8-13). John’s name is announced to Zechariah by the angel, even as his purpose as forerunner is revealed before birth (vv 13-17). Such a consecration from birth is reminiscent of the call of the OT prophet Jeremiah (cf. Jer 1:5).<\/p>\nThere existed some familial relationship between the families of John and Jesus. Elizabeth is described as a relative of Mary (Lk 1:36), which may connote cousin or aunt, or may only mean being from the same tribe.<\/p>\nJohn’s childhood, as that of Jesus, is left quite vague in the Gospel account. All that is said is that “John grew up and became strong in spirit. Then he lived out in the wilderness until he began his public ministry to Israel” (Lk 1:80, nlt<\/span>). Some scholars have suggested that John might have been adopted as a boy by the Essenes (as was their practice) at Qumran and reared in their wilderness community, adjacent to the Dead Sea and near the Jordan River. There are some similarities between the activities of the Qumran sect, known through the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the later ministry of John the Baptist. Both practiced a type of asceticism and removed themselves from the life of Jerusalem. Both practiced baptism and associated this rite with initiation and repentance. Finally, John and the Qumran group were both eschatologically minded, awaiting God’s final end-time activity in history. Nevertheless, many significant differences exist between John and the Qumran sect.<\/p>\nAppearance and Identity<\/p>\nMark’s Gospel begins with an account of John the Baptist’s appearance: “John the Baptist . . . lived in the wilderness and was preaching that people should be baptized to show that they had turned from their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Mk 1:4, nlt<\/span>). A rich OT background lies behind John’s association with the wilderness, in this case the wilderness of Judea. It was in the wilderness that God revealed himself to Moses (Ex 3), gave the law, and entered into the covenant with Israel (ch 19). It was also the site of refuge for David (1 Sm 23–26; Ps 63) and Elijah (1 Kgs 19), and in this light became the anticipated site of God’s future deliverance (Is 40:3-5; Ez 47:1-12; Hos 2:14-15).<\/p>\nThe unusual dress of John the Baptist—“clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist” (Mk 1:6, niv<\/span>)—may have suggested to his audience an association with Elijah in particular (2 Kgs 1:8) or with the prophets in general (Zec 13:4). His diet, “locusts and wild honey” (Mk 1:6), was Levitically clean, reflecting one who lived off the desert (such food was also eaten at Qumran) and formed part of the broader asceticism practiced by John and his disciples (Mt 9:14; 11:18).<\/p>\nWho did John understand himself to be? In answer to questions by the multitude whether he was the Messiah, Elijah, or the expected prophet (Jn 1:20-23), John only identified himself as “a voice crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord’ ” (Is 40:3). The background for the question lies at the end of the OT period. Prophecy, on the one hand, was considered to have ceased (Zec 13:2-6); yet, on the other hand, it was expected to appear again before the coming of the messianic kingdom (see Jl 2:28-29; Mal 3:1-4). Some anticipated this final prophet to be one who was like Moses (Dt 18:15), others a returning Elijah as foretold in Malachi 4:5-6. While John personally refrained from identifying himself with these specific expectations (Jn 1:20-23), it is clear that his dress, lifestyle, and message caused the people to identify him with this end-time prophet (Mt 14:5; Mk 11:32). Jesus also saw John as this final “Elijah-like” prophet (Mt 11:7-15), who from Malachi’s prophecy was to be a forerunner to the coming of the Lord (Mal 3:1-4; 4:5-6).<\/p>\nJohn’s Proclamation<\/p>\nJohn’s proclamation involved three elements: a warning of imminent judgment at the hands of the Coming One, a call for repentance in light of the coming kingdom of heaven, and a demand to express this repentance in concrete ethical terms. Many Jews looked forward confidently to the messianic judgment as a time of blessing for themselves and destruction for the gentile oppressors. John, however, warned that Jewish ancestry was false security in the coming judgment (Lk 3:8); true repentance was the only means of escaping destruction (Mt 3:2). John anticipated this judgment at the hands of the Coming One, who would baptize the nation with “the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Lk 3:16). Fire represented the OT means of destruction in the end time (Mal 4:1) as well as purification (Mal 3:1-4), while the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the end time connoted blessing (Is 32:15; Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28) and purification (Is 4:2-4). The judgment anticipated by John was therefore twofold: destruction for the unrepentant, and blessing for the penitent and righteous (Mt 3:12).<\/p>\nIn light of this imminent event John called for repentance on the part of his listeners (Mt 3:2), a true “turning back” or “turning toward” God in obedience that would bring forgiveness of sin. Such a turnabout in an individual’s relation with God should be lived out in one’s everyday dealings: fairness on the part of tax collectors (Lk 3:12-13) and soldiers (v 14), and the general requirement of compassion for the poor (vv 10-11).<\/p>\nJohn’s Baptism<\/p>\nThe Gospels record that John baptized those repentant of their sins at several locations: the Jordan River (Mk 1:5), Bethany beyond the Jordan (Jn 1:28), and Aenon near Salim (Jn 3:23). This practice was an integral part of John’s call for repentance, given in light of the approaching judgment and the appearance of the Coming One. The baptism of the penitent symbolized desire for forgiveness of sin, a renunciation of past life, and a desire to be included in the coming messianic kingdom.<\/p>\nWhat was the background for John’s practice of baptism? From the OT we know of ceremonial lustrations or washings that guaranteed ritual purity (Lv 14–15; Nm 19). Unlike John’s baptism, these washings were repetitive in nature and referred predominantly to ritual rather than moral cleansing. The prophets, however, urged a moral purification associated with the washing of water (Is 1:16-18; Jer 4:14). More significantly, the prophets anticipated a cleansing by God in the end times preceding the Day of Judgment (Ez 36:25; Zec 13:1; cf. Is 44:3), an eschatological element that John may have assumed was being fulfilled in his water baptism.<\/p>\nAnother precedent for John’s practice may have been proselyte baptism, a rite (along with circumcision and the offering of sacrifices) that constituted the conversion of a Gentile to Judaism. Common to both proselyte baptism and John’s baptism were the emphasis on an ethical break with the past, a once-for-all character, and the similarity of immersion. Notable differences were that John’s baptism was for Jews, not Gentile converts, and that it had a marked eschatological character as a preparation for the new age. Unless John, in light of the imminence of the messianic age, consciously treated all Jews as “pagan” in need of a baptism of repentance (cf. Mt 3:7-10), it is doubtful that proselyte baptism formed the primary background for John’s baptismal ministry.<\/p>\nIf John’s baptism had a clear association with the forgiveness of sin, the question naturally arises as to why Jesus, the Son of God, sought baptism from John. John himself asks this very question of Jesus (Mt 3:14), to which Jesus responds, “It must be done, because we must do everything that is right” (v 15, nlt<\/span>). First, it is clear that Jesus’ baptism represented an act of obedience on his part to God’s will as he saw it. Second, by submitting to the baptism of John, Jesus was clearly validating the ministry and message of John. The imminent coming of the kingdom and its Messiah, and the need for repentance in anticipation of this event that John proclaimed, were affirmed by Jesus through baptism. Third, by being baptized, Jesus condemned the self-righteous for their lack of repentance and took a stand with the penitent publicans and sinners awaiting the kingdom of God (Lk 7:29-30). Fourth, Jesus stepped forward for baptism not as an individual in need of forgiveness but as one who represented the people of God. His baptism, therefore, demonstrated solidarity with the people in their need of deliverance, even as he is judged in their place on the cross. Finally, the voice from heaven (Mk 1:11) and the descent of the Spirit (Lk 3:21-22) signify the inauguration of Jesus’ own ministry through his baptism by John.<\/p>\nJohn’s View of Jesus<\/p>\nThroughout his ministry John pointed beyond himself to one “who is far greater than I am—so much greater that I am not even worthy to be his slave” (Mk 1:7, nlt<\/span>). His self-understanding apparently sprang from the application of Isaiah 40:3 to himself, that he was the preparer or forerunner for God’s coming activity through the Messiah (Lk 3:4-6). When asked by curious spectators, John firmly denied that he was the Messiah, and according to the Gospel accounts, subordinated himself to the Coming One (Mk 1:7-8; Jn 1:26-28; 3:28-31). The coming of Jesus to baptism seems to represent the first time John identified these expectations with Jesus himself (Jn 1:35-36). His recognition of Jesus as the Messiah prior to baptism (Mt 3:14) was confirmed by the descent of the Holy Spirit as a dove and the voice from heaven quoting a phrase from an OT messianic psalm (Mk 1:11a, from Ps 2:7), together with a phrase from a Suffering Servant song of Isaiah (Mk 1:11b, from Is 42:1). In the fourth Gospel, John the Baptist goes even further in acknowledging Jesus to be the “Lamb of God” (Jn 1:29), in anticipation of Jesus’ sacrificial role on the cross. And John recognized him as “God’s Chosen One” (v 34, neb<\/span>—another term for the Messiah; Ps 2:7, see Mk 1:11).<\/p>\nIn light of John’s strong affirmation, it is at first difficult to understand his questioning of Jesus while imprisoned: “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?” (Mt 11:3, rsv<\/span>). Some have suggested that John was merely asking for the sake of his disciples, or that the question reflected John’s despondency with being imprisoned. It is more likely, however, that the question represents John’s own confusion with the activity expected of the Messiah. John had proclaimed a Coming One who would bring a baptism of fire and judgment upon the wicked (Lk 3:16). It may have been difficult for him to understand Jesus’ different emphases on forgiveness and acceptance of sinners (Mt 9:9-13) and his healing of the sick (Mt 8–9). When John’s disciples brought their master’s question to Jesus, asking whether or not he was the Messiah, Jesus responded by quoting Isaiah 35:5-6 (see also Is 61:1). This text proclaims the activities of healing and proclaiming salvation to the poor to be fulfillments of the Messiah’s role, even though they may not have been what John or countless other Jews expected.<\/p>\nJesus’ View of John<\/p>\nThat Jesus highly regarded John the Baptist is indicated by his baptism by John. It is also explicitly stated on several occasions. Jesus called him the greatest man to have ever lived (Lk 7:28). (Of course, he was not as great as Jesus, the God-man.) Jesus also said that John was a burning and shining lamp (Jn 5:33-35) and that he practiced a baptism divinely ordained (Lk 20:1-8).<\/p>\nJohn’s uniqueness, however, lies in the fact that he stood at the turning of the ages. He was the last of the old era, the period of the law and the prophets (Lk 16:16), which was to precede the coming of the messianic age (the kingdom of God). John was the last of the prophets, the greatest of them, the Elijah figure who would prepare the way for the judgment of God (Mt 11:13-15; Lk 1:17). Because John belonged to the era of the law and the prophets, however, he was not as great as the “least” already in the kingdom of God (Mt 11:11)—that is, those who belonged to the era of the kingdom’s appearance in Jesus.<\/p>\nArrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\nTo understand why John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas, one has to grasp the messianic excitement caused by John’s appearance and message (Lk 3:15-18). Herod and other secular rulers were obviously suspicious of anyone who might stir up the crowds with predictions of a coming messianic ruler. Other messianic movements had arisen before John, which resulted in outbreaks of violence against the Roman-Herodian rulership. Moreover, Herod Antipas was under heavy criticism for his marriage with Herodias, the ex-wife of his brother Philip. His first marriage, with the daughter of Aretus II, constituted a political alliance between the Herodian family and the Nabatean kingdom of Perea. His new relationship with Herodias was perceived as a breach of the political alliance and led to friction between the two families. John’s denunciation of Herod’s new marriage (Mt 14:3-12) could thus have been interpreted by Herod as a subversive rousing of sentiment against his authority. The Jewish historian Josephus states that Herod did, in fact, arrest John because he feared John’s influence over the crowds. According to Josephus, John was imprisoned at the fortress Machaerus on the eastern side of the Dead Sea. That he was not killed immediately was due to Herod’s personal fear of the righteous John (Mk 6:2) and of the people’s reaction (Mt 14:5). On a point about which Josephus is silent, the Gospels record that it was Herodias’s feelings against John (Mk 6:17) and her plot, through the dancing of her daughter, which brought about the beheading of John (vv 21-29). John was beheaded at Herodias’s request in approximately AD<\/span> 29 or 30.<\/p>\nThe Disciples of John<\/p>\nWhile it is clear that a band of disciples formed around John in his lifetime (Jn 1:35), to suggest that he intended to begin a continuing movement is contradicted by his message on the imminent Day of Judgment. Apparently, John’s disciples consisted of a small group of those who had been baptized by him and were awaiting the coming Messiah. Some transferred their loyalty to Jesus after John had identified Jesus as the Coming One (Jn 1:37). Others, however, apparently stayed on with their teacher, communicating with the imprisoned John concerning the activities of Jesus (Lk 7:18-23) and, after his death, taking the body for burial (Mk 6:29).<\/p>\nWe know little about the activities and practices of the band of disciples clustered around John. We do know, however, that fasting was one practice specifically associated with the group, and one that marked them as similar to the Pharisees (Mt 9:14). In this practice they no doubt followed the example of John himself (Lk 7:33). Prayer and fasting were often linked in late Judaism. The disciples of John were also known for the prayers taught by their master (11:1). Seeing this practice, the disciples of Jesus asked the Lord to teach them to pray, to which Jesus responded with the Lord’s Prayer (vv 2-4).<\/p>\nAfter his death it is likely that other disciples of John joined the followers of Jesus (see Lk 7:29-30). Not all did so, however, as disciples of John were encountered by Paul and other Christians approximately 25 years later in Ephesus (Acts 18:24–29:7). Upon hearing witness to Jesus, these followers of John proclaimed Jesus as Messiah. When Paul baptized them in the name of Jesus they received the Holy Spirit (19:4-7). Even so, it is apparent from later documents that various groups continued to honor John, even considering him the Messiah, centuries after the NT period.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JOHN THE BAPTIST<\/h3>\nForerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD<\/span> 29, while Jesus was still ministering.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\n• Appearance and Identity<\/p>\n• John’s Proclamation<\/p>\n• John’s Baptism<\/p>\n• John’s View of Jesus<\/p>\n• Jesus’ View of John<\/p>\n• Arrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\n• The Disciples of John<\/p>\nBirth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\nLuke’s Gospel is our only source of information concerning the birth and boyhood of John. The Gospel writer states that John was born in the hill country of Judah (Lk 1:39) of priestly descent, being the son of Zechariah, a priest of the order of Abijah, and Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron (v 5). Both parents were righteous in the sight of God, following all the commandments closely (v 6). Like the birth of Jesus, only to a much lesser degree, the birth of John the Baptist is described in Luke as extraordinary. The angel Gabriel announced the coming birth to Zechariah in the temple; to the older, barren Elizabeth it came as an answer to prayer (vv 8-13). John’s name is announced to Zechariah by the angel, even as his purpose as forerunner is revealed before birth (vv 13-17). Such a consecration from birth is reminiscent of the call of the OT prophet Jeremiah (cf. Jer 1:5).<\/p>\nThere existed some familial relationship between the families of John and Jesus. Elizabeth is described as a relative of Mary (Lk 1:36), which may connote cousin or aunt, or may only mean being from the same tribe.<\/p>\nJohn’s childhood, as that of Jesus, is left quite vague in the Gospel account. All that is said is that “John grew up and became strong in spirit. Then he lived out in the wilderness until he began his public ministry to Israel” (Lk 1:80, nlt<\/span>). Some scholars have suggested that John might have been adopted as a boy by the Essenes (as was their practice) at Qumran and reared in their wilderness community, adjacent to the Dead Sea and near the Jordan River. There are some similarities between the activities of the Qumran sect, known through the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the later ministry of John the Baptist. Both practiced a type of asceticism and removed themselves from the life of Jerusalem. Both practiced baptism and associated this rite with initiation and repentance. Finally, John and the Qumran group were both eschatologically minded, awaiting God’s final end-time activity in history. Nevertheless, many significant differences exist between John and the Qumran sect.<\/p>\nAppearance and Identity<\/p>\nMark’s Gospel begins with an account of John the Baptist’s appearance: “John the Baptist . . . lived in the wilderness and was preaching that people should be baptized to show that they had turned from their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Mk 1:4, nlt<\/span>). A rich OT background lies behind John’s association with the wilderness, in this case the wilderness of Judea. It was in the wilderness that God revealed himself to Moses (Ex 3), gave the law, and entered into the covenant with Israel (ch 19). It was also the site of refuge for David (1 Sm 23–26; Ps 63) and Elijah (1 Kgs 19), and in this light became the anticipated site of God’s future deliverance (Is 40:3-5; Ez 47:1-12; Hos 2:14-15).<\/p>\nThe unusual dress of John the Baptist—“clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist” (Mk 1:6, niv<\/span>)—may have suggested to his audience an association with Elijah in particular (2 Kgs 1:8) or with the prophets in general (Zec 13:4). His diet, “locusts and wild honey” (Mk 1:6), was Levitically clean, reflecting one who lived off the desert (such food was also eaten at Qumran) and formed part of the broader asceticism practiced by John and his disciples (Mt 9:14; 11:18).<\/p>\nWho did John understand himself to be? In answer to questions by the multitude whether he was the Messiah, Elijah, or the expected prophet (Jn 1:20-23), John only identified himself as “a voice crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord’ ” (Is 40:3). The background for the question lies at the end of the OT period. Prophecy, on the one hand, was considered to have ceased (Zec 13:2-6); yet, on the other hand, it was expected to appear again before the coming of the messianic kingdom (see Jl 2:28-29; Mal 3:1-4). Some anticipated this final prophet to be one who was like Moses (Dt 18:15), others a returning Elijah as foretold in Malachi 4:5-6. While John personally refrained from identifying himself with these specific expectations (Jn 1:20-23), it is clear that his dress, lifestyle, and message caused the people to identify him with this end-time prophet (Mt 14:5; Mk 11:32). Jesus also saw John as this final “Elijah-like” prophet (Mt 11:7-15), who from Malachi’s prophecy was to be a forerunner to the coming of the Lord (Mal 3:1-4; 4:5-6).<\/p>\nJohn’s Proclamation<\/p>\nJohn’s proclamation involved three elements: a warning of imminent judgment at the hands of the Coming One, a call for repentance in light of the coming kingdom of heaven, and a demand to express this repentance in concrete ethical terms. Many Jews looked forward confidently to the messianic judgment as a time of blessing for themselves and destruction for the gentile oppressors. John, however, warned that Jewish ancestry was false security in the coming judgment (Lk 3:8); true repentance was the only means of escaping destruction (Mt 3:2). John anticipated this judgment at the hands of the Coming One, who would baptize the nation with “the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Lk 3:16). Fire represented the OT means of destruction in the end time (Mal 4:1) as well as purification (Mal 3:1-4), while the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the end time connoted blessing (Is 32:15; Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28) and purification (Is 4:2-4). The judgment anticipated by John was therefore twofold: destruction for the unrepentant, and blessing for the penitent and righteous (Mt 3:12).<\/p>\nIn light of this imminent event John called for repentance on the part of his listeners (Mt 3:2), a true “turning back” or “turning toward” God in obedience that would bring forgiveness of sin. Such a turnabout in an individual’s relation with God should be lived out in one’s everyday dealings: fairness on the part of tax collectors (Lk 3:12-13) and soldiers (v 14), and the general requirement of compassion for the poor (vv 10-11).<\/p>\nJohn’s Baptism<\/p>\nThe Gospels record that John baptized those repentant of their sins at several locations: the Jordan River (Mk 1:5), Bethany beyond the Jordan (Jn 1:28), and Aenon near Salim (Jn 3:23). This practice was an integral part of John’s call for repentance, given in light of the approaching judgment and the appearance of the Coming One. The baptism of the penitent symbolized desire for forgiveness of sin, a renunciation of past life, and a desire to be included in the coming messianic kingdom.<\/p>\nWhat was the background for John’s practice of baptism? From the OT we know of ceremonial lustrations or washings that guaranteed ritual purity (Lv 14–15; Nm 19). Unlike John’s baptism, these washings were repetitive in nature and referred predominantly to ritual rather than moral cleansing. The prophets, however, urged a moral purification associated with the washing of water (Is 1:16-18; Jer 4:14). More significantly, the prophets anticipated a cleansing by God in the end times preceding the Day of Judgment (Ez 36:25; Zec 13:1; cf. Is 44:3), an eschatological element that John may have assumed was being fulfilled in his water baptism.<\/p>\nAnother precedent for John’s practice may have been proselyte baptism, a rite (along with circumcision and the offering of sacrifices) that constituted the conversion of a Gentile to Judaism. Common to both proselyte baptism and John’s baptism were the emphasis on an ethical break with the past, a once-for-all character, and the similarity of immersion. Notable differences were that John’s baptism was for Jews, not Gentile converts, and that it had a marked eschatological character as a preparation for the new age. Unless John, in light of the imminence of the messianic age, consciously treated all Jews as “pagan” in need of a baptism of repentance (cf. Mt 3:7-10), it is doubtful that proselyte baptism formed the primary background for John’s baptismal ministry.<\/p>\nIf John’s baptism had a clear association with the forgiveness of sin, the question naturally arises as to why Jesus, the Son of God, sought baptism from John. John himself asks this very question of Jesus (Mt 3:14), to which Jesus responds, “It must be done, because we must do everything that is right” (v 15, nlt<\/span>). First, it is clear that Jesus’ baptism represented an act of obedience on his part to God’s will as he saw it. Second, by submitting to the baptism of John, Jesus was clearly validating the ministry and message of John. The imminent coming of the kingdom and its Messiah, and the need for repentance in anticipation of this event that John proclaimed, were affirmed by Jesus through baptism. Third, by being baptized, Jesus condemned the self-righteous for their lack of repentance and took a stand with the penitent publicans and sinners awaiting the kingdom of God (Lk 7:29-30). Fourth, Jesus stepped forward for baptism not as an individual in need of forgiveness but as one who represented the people of God. His baptism, therefore, demonstrated solidarity with the people in their need of deliverance, even as he is judged in their place on the cross. Finally, the voice from heaven (Mk 1:11) and the descent of the Spirit (Lk 3:21-22) signify the inauguration of Jesus’ own ministry through his baptism by John.<\/p>\nJohn’s View of Jesus<\/p>\nThroughout his ministry John pointed beyond himself to one “who is far greater than I am—so much greater that I am not even worthy to be his slave” (Mk 1:7, nlt<\/span>). His self-understanding apparently sprang from the application of Isaiah 40:3 to himself, that he was the preparer or forerunner for God’s coming activity through the Messiah (Lk 3:4-6). When asked by curious spectators, John firmly denied that he was the Messiah, and according to the Gospel accounts, subordinated himself to the Coming One (Mk 1:7-8; Jn 1:26-28; 3:28-31). The coming of Jesus to baptism seems to represent the first time John identified these expectations with Jesus himself (Jn 1:35-36). His recognition of Jesus as the Messiah prior to baptism (Mt 3:14) was confirmed by the descent of the Holy Spirit as a dove and the voice from heaven quoting a phrase from an OT messianic psalm (Mk 1:11a, from Ps 2:7), together with a phrase from a Suffering Servant song of Isaiah (Mk 1:11b, from Is 42:1). In the fourth Gospel, John the Baptist goes even further in acknowledging Jesus to be the “Lamb of God” (Jn 1:29), in anticipation of Jesus’ sacrificial role on the cross. And John recognized him as “God’s Chosen One” (v 34, neb<\/span>—another term for the Messiah; Ps 2:7, see Mk 1:11).<\/p>\nIn light of John’s strong affirmation, it is at first difficult to understand his questioning of Jesus while imprisoned: “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?” (Mt 11:3, rsv<\/span>). Some have suggested that John was merely asking for the sake of his disciples, or that the question reflected John’s despondency with being imprisoned. It is more likely, however, that the question represents John’s own confusion with the activity expected of the Messiah. John had proclaimed a Coming One who would bring a baptism of fire and judgment upon the wicked (Lk 3:16). It may have been difficult for him to understand Jesus’ different emphases on forgiveness and acceptance of sinners (Mt 9:9-13) and his healing of the sick (Mt 8–9). When John’s disciples brought their master’s question to Jesus, asking whether or not he was the Messiah, Jesus responded by quoting Isaiah 35:5-6 (see also Is 61:1). This text proclaims the activities of healing and proclaiming salvation to the poor to be fulfillments of the Messiah’s role, even though they may not have been what John or countless other Jews expected.<\/p>\nJesus’ View of John<\/p>\nThat Jesus highly regarded John the Baptist is indicated by his baptism by John. It is also explicitly stated on several occasions. Jesus called him the greatest man to have ever lived (Lk 7:28). (Of course, he was not as great as Jesus, the God-man.) Jesus also said that John was a burning and shining lamp (Jn 5:33-35) and that he practiced a baptism divinely ordained (Lk 20:1-8).<\/p>\nJohn’s uniqueness, however, lies in the fact that he stood at the turning of the ages. He was the last of the old era, the period of the law and the prophets (Lk 16:16), which was to precede the coming of the messianic age (the kingdom of God). John was the last of the prophets, the greatest of them, the Elijah figure who would prepare the way for the judgment of God (Mt 11:13-15; Lk 1:17). Because John belonged to the era of the law and the prophets, however, he was not as great as the “least” already in the kingdom of God (Mt 11:11)—that is, those who belonged to the era of the kingdom’s appearance in Jesus.<\/p>\nArrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\nTo understand why John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas, one has to grasp the messianic excitement caused by John’s appearance and message (Lk 3:15-18). Herod and other secular rulers were obviously suspicious of anyone who might stir up the crowds with predictions of a coming messianic ruler. Other messianic movements had arisen before John, which resulted in outbreaks of violence against the Roman-Herodian rulership. Moreover, Herod Antipas was under heavy criticism for his marriage with Herodias, the ex-wife of his brother Philip. His first marriage, with the daughter of Aretus II, constituted a political alliance between the Herodian family and the Nabatean kingdom of Perea. His new relationship with Herodias was perceived as a breach of the political alliance and led to friction between the two families. John’s denunciation of Herod’s new marriage (Mt 14:3-12) could thus have been interpreted by Herod as a subversive rousing of sentiment against his authority. The Jewish historian Josephus states that Herod did, in fact, arrest John because he feared John’s influence over the crowds. According to Josephus, John was imprisoned at the fortress Machaerus on the eastern side of the Dead Sea. That he was not killed immediately was due to Herod’s personal fear of the righteous John (Mk 6:2) and of the people’s reaction (Mt 14:5). On a point about which Josephus is silent, the Gospels record that it was Herodias’s feelings against John (Mk 6:17) and her plot, through the dancing of her daughter, which brought about the beheading of John (vv 21-29). John was beheaded at Herodias’s request in approximately AD<\/span> 29 or 30.<\/p>\nThe Disciples of John<\/p>\nWhile it is clear that a band of disciples formed around John in his lifetime (Jn 1:35), to suggest that he intended to begin a continuing movement is contradicted by his message on the imminent Day of Judgment. Apparently, John’s disciples consisted of a small group of those who had been baptized by him and were awaiting the coming Messiah. Some transferred their loyalty to Jesus after John had identified Jesus as the Coming One (Jn 1:37). Others, however, apparently stayed on with their teacher, communicating with the imprisoned John concerning the activities of Jesus (Lk 7:18-23) and, after his death, taking the body for burial (Mk 6:29).<\/p>\nWe know little about the activities and practices of the band of disciples clustered around John. We do know, however, that fasting was one practice specifically associated with the group, and one that marked them as similar to the Pharisees (Mt 9:14). In this practice they no doubt followed the example of John himself (Lk 7:33). Prayer and fasting were often linked in late Judaism. The disciples of John were also known for the prayers taught by their master (11:1). Seeing this practice, the disciples of Jesus asked the Lord to teach them to pray, to which Jesus responded with the Lord’s Prayer (vv 2-4).<\/p>\nAfter his death it is likely that other disciples of John joined the followers of Jesus (see Lk 7:29-30). Not all did so, however, as disciples of John were encountered by Paul and other Christians approximately 25 years later in Ephesus (Acts 18:24–29:7). Upon hearing witness to Jesus, these followers of John proclaimed Jesus as Messiah. When Paul baptized them in the name of Jesus they received the Holy Spirit (19:4-7). Even so, it is apparent from later documents that various groups continued to honor John, even considering him the Messiah, centuries after the NT period.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JOHN THE BAPTIST Forerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD 29, while Jesus was still ministering. Preview • Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood • Appearance and Identity • John’s Proclamation • ...","summary_en":"JOHN THE BAPTIST Forerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD 29, while Jesus was still ministering. Preview • Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood • Appearance and Identity • John’s Proclamation • ...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":31573,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Prophecy","title_en":"Prophecy","content_ro":"<h3>PROPHECY<\/h3>\nTerm, along with its English cognates (“prophet,” “to prophesy,” “prophetism,” and “prophetic”), derived from a group of Greek words that, in secular Greek, mean “speak forth,” “proclaim,” “announce.” In biblical Greek, however, these terms always carry the connotation of speaking, proclaiming, or announcing something under the influence of spiritual inspiration.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Prophecy in the Old Testament<\/p>\n• Types of Old Testament Prophets<\/p>\n• The Message of the Prophets<\/p>\n• Prophecy in the New Testament<\/p>\n• The Role of the Christian Prophet<\/p>\nProphecy in the Old Testament<\/p>\nOne of the clearest and most significant statements on the nature of prophetic inspiration in the OT is found in Numbers 12:6-8: “The Lord<\/span> said to them, ‘Now listen to me! Even with prophets, I the Lord<\/span> communicate by visions and dreams. But that is not how I communicate with my servant Moses. He is entrusted with my entire house. I speak to him face to face, directly and not in riddles! He sees the Lord<\/span> as he is’ ” (nlt<\/span>). Several important insights into the nature of prophetic inspiration are found in this passage: (1) The prophetic gift of Moses was unique in that he alone received revelations directly from God. (2) Ordinarily, prophetic revelation was received through the medium of a dream or a vision. (3) The meaning of prophetic revelation is not always completely clear; prophecy is sometimes ambiguous.<\/p>\nFurther insight into the nature of prophetic revelation is found in Deuteronomy 18:18: “I [God] will raise up for them a prophet like you [Moses] from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him” (rsv<\/span>). While this passage is of interest because Jesus was identified as “the prophet like Moses” who came in fulfillment of this prediction (Acts 3:22; 7:37), the more immediate historical reference is to the succession of prophets that guided Israel from Joshua to Malachi. The phrase “I will put my words in his mouth” refers to the process of divine inspiration and is reminiscent of the common OT prophetic formula “the word of the Lord came to [such and such a prophet]” (for examples, see 1 Sm 15:10; 2 Sm 24:11; 1 Kgs 19:9; Jon 1:1; Hg 1:1; 2:1, 20; Zec 7:1, 8; 8:1). A true prophet is one who speaks (or repeats) all that God has told him.<\/p>\n<h5>Modes of Prophetic Inspiration<\/h5>\nDreams were a commonly recognized mode of inspiration throughout the ancient world, though they were more highly regarded in Greece than in ancient Israel. Revelatory dreams in the Bible fall into two major categories: (1) dreams whose meaning is self-evident, and (2) symbolic dreams that usually require the expertise of an interpreter of dreams. Both types normally involve both visual and auditory elements. In those dreams whose meaning is self-evident, normally a supernatural being (God or an angel) appears to the dreamer and speaks to him or her in a straightforward manner.<\/p>\nMore frequently, revelatory dreams have symbolic elements that require interpretation. The two great dream interpreters of the OT are Joseph and Daniel; the latter is clearly a prophet. The two symbolic dreams that Joseph himself dreamed (Gn 37:5-11) had sufficiently self-evident meaning so that his brothers and father were able to interpret them immediately. More complex were the dreams of the butler and baker (40:1-19) and of Pharaoh (41:1-36), which Joseph was able to interpret with the help of God. Similarly, Daniel was enabled to interpret the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar (Dn 2:25-45; 4:4-27). The skill in interpreting such dreams was attributed by both Joseph and Daniel to God (Gn 40:8; 41:16, 25; Dn 2:27-30; cf. 4:9). While dreams are used almost interchangeably with visions in referring to modes of prophetic inspiration (Jl 2:28), dreams do not occupy a significant part in the prophetic revelations of any of the OT prophets, with the exception of Daniel.<\/p>\nOne of the most characteristic modes of prophetic inspiration was the vision (Nm 12:6; 24:4, 16; Hos 12:10). The revelatory visions experienced by the prophets were not limited to visual phenomena alone but also included the auditory dimension as well. In Isaiah 1:1, the author describes his entire prophetic book as a “vision”: “These visions concerning Judah and Jerusalem came to Isaiah son of Amoz during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah—all kings of Judah” (nlt<\/span>). Yet in the very next verse, Isaiah says, “Hear, O heavens! Listen, O earth! This is what the Lord<\/span> says.” Again, in Amos 1:1, “The words<\/em> of Amos, who was among the shepherds of Tekoa, which he saw<\/em> concerning Israel” (rsv<\/span>, emphasis added).<\/p>\n<h5>Manifestations of Prophetic Inspiration<\/h5>\nAll prophecy, whether biblical or not, presupposes that the prophet either possessed or was possessed by a personal supernatural power. The external behavioral manifestations of this possession can exhibit great variety.<\/p>\nThe prophetic phenomenon generally designated “ecstatic” prophecy appears to have existed in Canaan prior to the arrival of the Hebrew tribes in the 13th century BC<\/span>. The first reference to ecstatic prophecy in Israel occurs in 1 Samuel 10:5-13 (11th century BC<\/span>), and it persisted at least till the sixth century BC<\/span> (Jer 29:26).<\/p>\nThe ecstatic prophet achieves a trancelike state by self-induced means. The most common devices used to achieve a state of ecstasy were musical instruments, such as the harp, tambourine, flute, and lyre (1 Sm 10:5). Among the prophets of Baal, self-flagellation was another means of inducing ecstasy (1 Kgs 18:28-29).<\/p>\nThis kind of prophetic ecstasy was usually practiced by groups of prophets (1 Sm 10:5), and such ecstasy was contagious. When Saul met a band of such prophets, the Spirit of God came upon him and he, too, began to prophesy (vv 10-13), a phenomenon that occurred repeatedly to various messengers sent by Saul on a later occasion (19:20-22). At that time Saul again prophesied, and his ecstatic behavior is described in 1 Samuel 19:24. When Elisha was asked to prophesy for King Jehoram of Israel, he first requested a minstrel. When the minstrel played, the power of the Lord came upon him (2 Kgs 3:15).<\/p>\nTypes of Old Testament Prophets<\/p>\nThere are two basic types of prophetic commission in the OT. One type is that of a narrative call by God to a particular individual whose objections to the call are gradually overcome in a dialogue between himself and God. The classic example of this type of prophetic commission is found in Jeremiah 1:4-8:<\/p>\nThe Lord<\/span> gave me a message. He said, “I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb. Before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as my spokesman to the world.”<\/p>\n<blockquote>“O Sovereign Lord<\/span>,” I said, “I can’t speak for you! I’m too young!”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>“Don’t say that,” the Lord<\/span> replied, “for you must go wherever I send you and say whatever I tell you. And don’t be afraid of the people, for I will be with you and take care of you. I, the Lord<\/span>, have spoken!” (nlt<\/span>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nSimilar prophetic commissions including such dialogues are associated with the calls of Moses (Ex 3:1–4:17) and Gideon (Jgs 6:11-17).<\/p>\nThe second major form of prophetic commission is the “throne vision.” An outstanding example is Isaiah 6:1-8:<\/p>\nIn the year King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord. He was sitting on a lofty throne, and the train of his robe filled the Temple. . . .<\/p>\n<blockquote>Then I said, “My destruction is sealed, for I am a sinful man and a member of a sinful race. Yet I have seen the King, the Lord<\/span> Almighty!”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>Then one of the seraphim flew over to the altar, and he picked up a burning coal with a pair of tongs. He touched my lips with it and said, “See, this coal has touched your lips. Now your guilt is removed, and your sins are forgiven.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>Then I heard the Lord asking, “Whom should I send as a messenger to my people? Who will go for us?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>And I said, “Lord, I’ll go! Send me.” (nlt<\/span>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nHere we have an account of the visionary presence of a prophet in the heavenly council; in this case, however, the prophet participates in the deliberations and thereby receives a prophetic commission. Though few prophets have left accounts of their divine commissions, most of them appear to have been conscious of having been “sent” by God (Is 48:16; Hos 8:1; Am 7:14-15). According to Jeremiah, false prophets did not receive such divine commissions (Jer 23:21, 32; 28:15).<\/p>\nThe Message of the Prophets<\/p>\n<h5>The Form of the Message<\/h5>\nThe most common introductory formula for prophetic oracles in the OT is the phrase “Thus says the Lord,” which occurs hundreds of times in prophetic contexts. This formula clearly implies that the pronouncement so introduced is not the word of the prophet who utters the oracle but of the God of Israel who delivered his word to his prophet. The use of this formula also reiterates the prophet’s sense of divine commission. In oracles introduced in this manner, God speaks in the first person. In fact, virtually all Israelite prophetic utterance is formulated as the direct speech of the God of Israel.<\/p>\nThe prophets used many literary forms in which to express their oracles. Two of the more widely used forms of prophetic speech are the judgment speech and the oracle of salvation. The judgment speech is composed of at least two central elements: the speech of rebuke or invective, and the pronouncement of judgment (see 2 Kgs 1:3-4). The second common prophetic speech form is the oracle of salvation (see Is 41:8-13). Other fixed forms of prophetic speech include the prophecy of salvation (43:14-21), the proclamation of salvation (41:17-20; 42:14-17; 43:16-21; 49:7-12), and the woe oracle (Is 5:8-10; 10:1-4; Am 5:18-24; 6:1-7; Mi 2:1-5).<\/p>\n<h5>The Content of the Message<\/h5>\nThe common adage that OT prophets were not “foretellers” but “forthtellers” is not strictly correct. All of the prophets predict the future. Such prediction, however, is based not on human curiosity of what the future will hold but rather is rooted in the future consequences of past or present violations of the covenant, or on a future act of deliverance that will provide hope for a discouraged people. Most of the prophetic speeches that have been preserved in the OT were originally delivered as public proclamations or sermons. Most of these prophetic proclamations were evoked by the iniquity and apostasy of Israel. Hosea and Jeremiah condemned Israel because she had broken the covenant (Jer 11:2-3; Hos 8:1).<\/p>\nThe prophets are frequently associated with social justice and social reform, and these elements were unquestionably an important dimension of their message. Amos denounced the rich who afflicted the poor (Am 2:6-8; 4:1; 5:11; 8:4-6). He railed against sexual immorality (2:6-8) and against those who take bribes (5:12). Hosea provided a list of prevalent vices, including lying, killing, stealing, adultery, and idolatry (Hos 4:2). Idolatry was a particular target for his denunciations (8:5; 11:2). The background for such heated denunciations of Israel’s behavior is God’s unquenchable love for Israel (Is 43:4; Jer 31:3; Hos 3:1; 11:1-4; 14:4; Mal 1:2), which is inseparable from his election of Israel (Is 43:1; Jer 33:24; Ez 20:5; Hos 3).<\/p>\nThe prophets were concerned not only with the transgressions of Israel and the historical judgment that would inevitably follow but also with the achievement of a final future time of bliss. The message of many of the prophets is thoroughly eschatological (i.e., pertaining to the end times). One such eschatological concept is that of the Day of the Lord. The concept of the Day of the Lord first appears in Amos, where the emphasis lies on the disaster that will befall Israel on that day. Amos’s emphasis on disaster notwithstanding, the Day of the Lord is a conception that had both salvific as well as judgmental overtones for Israel. While the disaster that will occur in the Day of the Lord can be viewed in terms of a literal historical fulfillment in the tragic events of 722 BC<\/span> (the fall of Samaria) and 586 BC<\/span> (the fall of Judah), there are nevertheless features of these predictions that transcend historical fulfillment and reach toward eschatological fulfillment.<\/p>\nSince the Israelite conception of “salvation” was largely temporal in its dimensions, it included such blessings as length of life, fruitfulness of the womb and field, peace and victory over one’s enemies, the abundance of water, and so on. In harmony with this conception of salvation, the future age is conceived in precisely those terms, as in Amos 9:13-15.<\/p>\nThe prophets pictured a time when David himself, or someone very much like him, would return and inaugurate a golden era reminiscent of the great Davidic and Solomonic period. The covenant of God with David was not a conditional covenant but rather one that was absolutely inviolable (2 Sm 7:4-17; Ps 89; Jer 33:19-22), and it was with this knowledge that the prophets could look forward confidently to a restoration of David’s throne (Jer 17:24-26; 23:5-6; 33:14-15).<\/p>\n\nProphecy in the New Testament<\/p>\nIn contrast to the few self-proclaimed prophets of the intertestamental period, early Christianity began with a flurry of prophetic activity that lasted well into the second century AD<\/span>. Jesus, his disciples and followers, and the early Christians were convinced that the times in which they lived were times in which OT prophecy was being fulfilled (Mk 1:14-15; Acts 2:16-21; Rom 16:25-27; 1 Cor 10:11). Yet this era was not only one of fulfillment but also one of the renewal of the prophetic gift.<\/p>\n<h5>John the Baptist<\/h5>\nJohn the Baptist is remembered in the NT primarily as the forerunner of Jesus whose coming was predicted by Malachi (Mal 4:5-6). Yet, in his own right, John proclaimed the imminent judgment of God with a flair of denunciation and rebuke reminiscent of the OT prophets. John’s costume, consisting of a hairy cloak and a leather girdle (Mk 1:6), was reminiscent of the typical garb of OT prophets (1 Kgs 19:19; 2 Kgs 1:8; 2:13-14; Zec 13:4). John was regarded as a prophet by people everywhere (Mt 14:5; 17:10-13; Mk 9:11-13; 11:32; Lk 1:76; 7:26). Luke reports, in a style similar to the OT prophetic narratives, that “the word of God came to John” (Lk 3:2). Two short prophetic speeches have been preserved in Matthew 3:7-10 (cf. Lk 3:7-9) and Mark 1:7-8 (cf. Mt 3:11-12; Lk 3:15-18). In the first speech, John denounced those of his generation who had transgressed the covenant law and exhorted them to change their manner of life. In the second speech, John predicted the coming of the Mighty One, Jesus (Mt 3:11; Mk 1:7; Lk 3:16; Jn 1:15, 27, 30; Acts 13:25). John’s style, however, was not precisely that of the OT prophets. His pronouncements were made on his own authority; never did he use formulas such as “thus says the Lord,” or present his prophetic utterances as if they were speeches made by God. Yet, in spite of these differences, John is appropriately regarded as the last representative of the OT prophetic tradition (Mt 11:13; Lk 16:16).<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus of Nazareth<\/h5>\nJesus was popularly regarded as a prophet (Mt 16:14; 21:10-11; Mk 6:14-15; 8:28; Lk 7:16, 39; 9:8, 19; Jn 6:14; 7:40, 52). This assessment was based as much on the mighty deeds Jesus performed as on his prophetic speeches and predictions. Though Jesus nowhere claimed prophetic status directly, that claim is implicit in Mark 6:4: “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown” (cf. Mt 13:57; Lk 4:24). It is implicit as well in Luke 13:33: “Yes, today, tomorrow, and the next day I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be killed except in Jerusalem!” (nlt<\/span>). In Acts, Jesus is regarded as “the prophet like Moses” predicted in Deuteronomy 18:18 (Acts 3:22; 7:37). Matthew presents Jesus as the New Moses, but he does not particularly emphasize his prophetic role. John, however, like Luke, emphasizes Jesus’ role as the prophet (Jn 4:19; 6:14-15; 7:40).<\/p>\nWhile the Gospels and Acts reflect the notion that Jesus was a prophet, they also emphasize the fact that he was much more than a prophet. Nevertheless, the notion of prophetism was sufficiently important in early Judaism that Jesus’ recognition as a prophet is very significant. There are 12 solid reasons for regarding Jesus as a prophet in the OT tradition: (1) The sovereign authority of Jesus’ teaching (Mk 1:27), a feature underlined by his use of the introductory formula “(Amen) I say to you,” which is reminiscent of the formula “thus says the Lord” used by the OT prophets. (2) The poetic character of many of Jesus’ sayings is unlike contemporary rabbinic teaching but is similar to the poetic rhetoric of the OT prophets. (3) Jesus experienced visions (Lk 10:18) like the ancient prophets. (4) Jesus, like the prophets, made many predictions (Mt 23:38; Mk 13:2; 14:58; Lk 13:35; etc.). (5) Like the OT prophets, Jesus performed symbolic acts (such as the cleansing of the temple, the entry into Jerusalem, and the Last Supper). (6) Jesus, like the prophets, when necessary, rejected the formal observance of religious ritual and emphasized the moral and spiritual dimensions of obedience to God. (7) Jesus announced the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God—an eschatological proclamation similar to those made by the prophets. (8) Like the OT prophets, Jesus functioned as a preacher of repentance. (9) Jesus, like many of the prophets, was conscious of a special calling of God (Mt 15:24; Mk 8:31; 9:37; 14:36; Lk 4:18-26). (10) Jesus, like the prophets, received divine revelation through intimate communion with God (Mt 11:27; Lk 10:22). (11) Like the prophets, Jesus represented God; to obey him was to obey God, to reject him was to reject God (Mk 9:37; cf. Ez 33:30-33). (12) Like the prophets, Jesus was conscious of a mission to all Israel (Mt 15:24; 19:28; Lk 22:30).<\/p>\nAmong the many prophetic predictions of Jesus are the following:<\/p>\n1. Predictions of the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God (Mt 10:7-8, 23; 23:39; Mk 1:15; 9:1; 13:28-29)<\/p>\n<li>2. Predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (Mt 23:37-39; 24:2; 26:61; 27:40; Mk 13:2; 14:58; 15:29; Lk 13:34-35; 21:6; Jn 2:19-21)<\/li>\n<li>3. Predictions of the coming of the Son of Man (Mt 10:23, 32-33; 12:40; 13:40-41; 16:27; 24:27, 37-39; Mk 8:38; 13:26-27; 14:62; Lk 9:26; 11:30; 12:8-9; 17:24, 26)<\/li>\n<li>4. Predictions of the end of the age. The longest prophetic section in the Gospels is the eschatological discourse of Jesus in Mark 13:1-32 (cf. Mt 24:1-36; Lk 21:5-33), in which a number of predictions concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the age are woven into a lengthy discourse to the disciples.<\/li>\n<h5>Prophecy as a Gift for the Believers<\/h5>\nThe beginning of prophetic activity in early Christianity, according to Acts, coincided with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the earliest Christians on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-21). Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost indicates that the outpouring of the Spirit fulfilled Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:4, 17-21; cf. Jl 2:28-32). Further, since the Spirit had been poured out upon all early Christians (that Spirit being a Spirit of prophecy), all are actual or potential prophets.<\/p>\nAccording to 1 Corinthians 12:28 (see also Rom 12:6; Eph 4:11), God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, and third teachers. The names of several early Christian prophets have been preserved. These include Agabus (Acts 11:27-28; 21:10-11); Judas and Silas (15:32); Barnabas, Simeon Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, and Paul (13:1); and the four virgin daughters of Philip the evangelist (21:8-9). John, the author of Revelation, was certainly a prophet (Rv 1:3; 22:9, 18), though he never directly assumed that title.<\/p>\nThe Role of the Christian Prophet<\/p>\nChristian prophets were leaders in early Christian communities (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11), who exercised their gift in church gatherings (Acts 13:1-3; 11:27-28; 1 Cor 12–14; Rv 1:10). Since the Spirit of God was particularly active in Christian worship, prophecy was a major means whereby God communicated with his people. Prophets, like apostles and teachers, did not hold offices in local communities like bishops, elders, and deacons. Rather, they were chosen, not by individual congregations, but by divine commission and so were honored and accepted in all local communities.<\/p>\nEarly Christian prophets were both itinerant and settled, though itinerant prophets seem to have been more prevalent in Syria-Palestine and Asia Minor than in the European churches.<\/p>\n<h5>The Function of Prophecy<\/h5>\nAccording to Paul, the central purpose of prophecy (as of all other spiritual gifts) is that of building up or edifying the church. According to 1 Corinthians 14:3, “one who prophesies is helping others grow in the Lord, encouraging and comforting them” (nlt<\/span>). Again, in 1 Corinthians 14:4, Paul states that the “one who speaks a word of prophecy strengthens the entire church.” Paul discussed the subject of spiritual gifts, particularly tongues speaking and prophecy, because the Corinthians had placed an excessive emphasis on speaking in tongues. Paul did not object to speaking in tongues (1 Cor 14:18, 39), but he did point out that, since it was generally incomprehensible, the church could not be edified by it. Prophecy, which consisted of comprehensible speech inspired by the Spirit, contributed to the mutual edification, encouragement, and consolation of all present (1 Cor 14:20-25, 39).<\/p>\n<h5>The Content of Christian Prophecy<\/h5>\nWe know only a little about the content of prophecies uttered in the first-century church. Prophetic utterance occasionally provided divine guidance in making important decisions in early Christianity. Through a prophetic utterance, Paul and Barnabas were selected for a particular mission (Acts 13:1-3; cf. 1 Tm 1:18; 4:14). Probably through prophetic utterance, Paul and Timothy were forbidden to preach the gospel in Asia (Acts 16:6), and they were similarly forbidden by the Spirit of Jesus to go into Bithynia (v 7). Perhaps the most frequent use of prophecy is the prediction of the future. Agabus predicted a universal famine (11:28) and the imminent arrest of Paul (21:11). Other prophets had also predicted his impending imprisonment (20:23). The prophecies contained in the Revelation of John are all oriented toward the future events that will gradually unfold in the last days. Yet the purpose of John’s elaborate prophecy is not to satisfy the curiosity of his audience but rather to comfort and encourage them in the midst of persecution.<\/p>\n<h5>The Form of Christian Prophecy<\/h5>\nUnlike the prophets of the OT, Christian prophets did not always present their message in the form of a direct speech from God or Jesus. There are few, if any, formal indicators of the presence of prophetic speech in early Christian literature. The book of Revelation is one notable exception.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Dreams; Oracle; Promise; Prophet, Prophetess; Prophets, False; Visions.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PROPHECY<\/h3>\nTerm, along with its English cognates (“prophet,” “to prophesy,” “prophetism,” and “prophetic”), derived from a group of Greek words that, in secular Greek, mean “speak forth,” “proclaim,” “announce.” In biblical Greek, however, these terms always carry the connotation of speaking, proclaiming, or announcing something under the influence of spiritual inspiration.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Prophecy in the Old Testament<\/p>\n• Types of Old Testament Prophets<\/p>\n• The Message of the Prophets<\/p>\n• Prophecy in the New Testament<\/p>\n• The Role of the Christian Prophet<\/p>\nProphecy in the Old Testament<\/p>\nOne of the clearest and most significant statements on the nature of prophetic inspiration in the OT is found in Numbers 12:6-8: “The Lord<\/span> said to them, ‘Now listen to me! Even with prophets, I the Lord<\/span> communicate by visions and dreams. But that is not how I communicate with my servant Moses. He is entrusted with my entire house. I speak to him face to face, directly and not in riddles! He sees the Lord<\/span> as he is’ ” (nlt<\/span>). Several important insights into the nature of prophetic inspiration are found in this passage: (1) The prophetic gift of Moses was unique in that he alone received revelations directly from God. (2) Ordinarily, prophetic revelation was received through the medium of a dream or a vision. (3) The meaning of prophetic revelation is not always completely clear; prophecy is sometimes ambiguous.<\/p>\nFurther insight into the nature of prophetic revelation is found in Deuteronomy 18:18: “I [God] will raise up for them a prophet like you [Moses] from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him” (rsv<\/span>). While this passage is of interest because Jesus was identified as “the prophet like Moses” who came in fulfillment of this prediction (Acts 3:22; 7:37), the more immediate historical reference is to the succession of prophets that guided Israel from Joshua to Malachi. The phrase “I will put my words in his mouth” refers to the process of divine inspiration and is reminiscent of the common OT prophetic formula “the word of the Lord came to [such and such a prophet]” (for examples, see 1 Sm 15:10; 2 Sm 24:11; 1 Kgs 19:9; Jon 1:1; Hg 1:1; 2:1, 20; Zec 7:1, 8; 8:1). A true prophet is one who speaks (or repeats) all that God has told him.<\/p>\n<h5>Modes of Prophetic Inspiration<\/h5>\nDreams were a commonly recognized mode of inspiration throughout the ancient world, though they were more highly regarded in Greece than in ancient Israel. Revelatory dreams in the Bible fall into two major categories: (1) dreams whose meaning is self-evident, and (2) symbolic dreams that usually require the expertise of an interpreter of dreams. Both types normally involve both visual and auditory elements. In those dreams whose meaning is self-evident, normally a supernatural being (God or an angel) appears to the dreamer and speaks to him or her in a straightforward manner.<\/p>\nMore frequently, revelatory dreams have symbolic elements that require interpretation. The two great dream interpreters of the OT are Joseph and Daniel; the latter is clearly a prophet. The two symbolic dreams that Joseph himself dreamed (Gn 37:5-11) had sufficiently self-evident meaning so that his brothers and father were able to interpret them immediately. More complex were the dreams of the butler and baker (40:1-19) and of Pharaoh (41:1-36), which Joseph was able to interpret with the help of God. Similarly, Daniel was enabled to interpret the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar (Dn 2:25-45; 4:4-27). The skill in interpreting such dreams was attributed by both Joseph and Daniel to God (Gn 40:8; 41:16, 25; Dn 2:27-30; cf. 4:9). While dreams are used almost interchangeably with visions in referring to modes of prophetic inspiration (Jl 2:28), dreams do not occupy a significant part in the prophetic revelations of any of the OT prophets, with the exception of Daniel.<\/p>\nOne of the most characteristic modes of prophetic inspiration was the vision (Nm 12:6; 24:4, 16; Hos 12:10). The revelatory visions experienced by the prophets were not limited to visual phenomena alone but also included the auditory dimension as well. In Isaiah 1:1, the author describes his entire prophetic book as a “vision”: “These visions concerning Judah and Jerusalem came to Isaiah son of Amoz during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah—all kings of Judah” (nlt<\/span>). Yet in the very next verse, Isaiah says, “Hear, O heavens! Listen, O earth! This is what the Lord<\/span> says.” Again, in Amos 1:1, “The words<\/em> of Amos, who was among the shepherds of Tekoa, which he saw<\/em> concerning Israel” (rsv<\/span>, emphasis added).<\/p>\n<h5>Manifestations of Prophetic Inspiration<\/h5>\nAll prophecy, whether biblical or not, presupposes that the prophet either possessed or was possessed by a personal supernatural power. The external behavioral manifestations of this possession can exhibit great variety.<\/p>\nThe prophetic phenomenon generally designated “ecstatic” prophecy appears to have existed in Canaan prior to the arrival of the Hebrew tribes in the 13th century BC<\/span>. The first reference to ecstatic prophecy in Israel occurs in 1 Samuel 10:5-13 (11th century BC<\/span>), and it persisted at least till the sixth century BC<\/span> (Jer 29:26).<\/p>\nThe ecstatic prophet achieves a trancelike state by self-induced means. The most common devices used to achieve a state of ecstasy were musical instruments, such as the harp, tambourine, flute, and lyre (1 Sm 10:5). Among the prophets of Baal, self-flagellation was another means of inducing ecstasy (1 Kgs 18:28-29).<\/p>\nThis kind of prophetic ecstasy was usually practiced by groups of prophets (1 Sm 10:5), and such ecstasy was contagious. When Saul met a band of such prophets, the Spirit of God came upon him and he, too, began to prophesy (vv 10-13), a phenomenon that occurred repeatedly to various messengers sent by Saul on a later occasion (19:20-22). At that time Saul again prophesied, and his ecstatic behavior is described in 1 Samuel 19:24. When Elisha was asked to prophesy for King Jehoram of Israel, he first requested a minstrel. When the minstrel played, the power of the Lord came upon him (2 Kgs 3:15).<\/p>\nTypes of Old Testament Prophets<\/p>\nThere are two basic types of prophetic commission in the OT. One type is that of a narrative call by God to a particular individual whose objections to the call are gradually overcome in a dialogue between himself and God. The classic example of this type of prophetic commission is found in Jeremiah 1:4-8:<\/p>\nThe Lord<\/span> gave me a message. He said, “I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb. Before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as my spokesman to the world.”<\/p>\n<blockquote>“O Sovereign Lord<\/span>,” I said, “I can’t speak for you! I’m too young!”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>“Don’t say that,” the Lord<\/span> replied, “for you must go wherever I send you and say whatever I tell you. And don’t be afraid of the people, for I will be with you and take care of you. I, the Lord<\/span>, have spoken!” (nlt<\/span>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nSimilar prophetic commissions including such dialogues are associated with the calls of Moses (Ex 3:1–4:17) and Gideon (Jgs 6:11-17).<\/p>\nThe second major form of prophetic commission is the “throne vision.” An outstanding example is Isaiah 6:1-8:<\/p>\nIn the year King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord. He was sitting on a lofty throne, and the train of his robe filled the Temple. . . .<\/p>\n<blockquote>Then I said, “My destruction is sealed, for I am a sinful man and a member of a sinful race. Yet I have seen the King, the Lord<\/span> Almighty!”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>Then one of the seraphim flew over to the altar, and he picked up a burning coal with a pair of tongs. He touched my lips with it and said, “See, this coal has touched your lips. Now your guilt is removed, and your sins are forgiven.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>Then I heard the Lord asking, “Whom should I send as a messenger to my people? Who will go for us?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>And I said, “Lord, I’ll go! Send me.” (nlt<\/span>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nHere we have an account of the visionary presence of a prophet in the heavenly council; in this case, however, the prophet participates in the deliberations and thereby receives a prophetic commission. Though few prophets have left accounts of their divine commissions, most of them appear to have been conscious of having been “sent” by God (Is 48:16; Hos 8:1; Am 7:14-15). According to Jeremiah, false prophets did not receive such divine commissions (Jer 23:21, 32; 28:15).<\/p>\nThe Message of the Prophets<\/p>\n<h5>The Form of the Message<\/h5>\nThe most common introductory formula for prophetic oracles in the OT is the phrase “Thus says the Lord,” which occurs hundreds of times in prophetic contexts. This formula clearly implies that the pronouncement so introduced is not the word of the prophet who utters the oracle but of the God of Israel who delivered his word to his prophet. The use of this formula also reiterates the prophet’s sense of divine commission. In oracles introduced in this manner, God speaks in the first person. In fact, virtually all Israelite prophetic utterance is formulated as the direct speech of the God of Israel.<\/p>\nThe prophets used many literary forms in which to express their oracles. Two of the more widely used forms of prophetic speech are the judgment speech and the oracle of salvation. The judgment speech is composed of at least two central elements: the speech of rebuke or invective, and the pronouncement of judgment (see 2 Kgs 1:3-4). The second common prophetic speech form is the oracle of salvation (see Is 41:8-13). Other fixed forms of prophetic speech include the prophecy of salvation (43:14-21), the proclamation of salvation (41:17-20; 42:14-17; 43:16-21; 49:7-12), and the woe oracle (Is 5:8-10; 10:1-4; Am 5:18-24; 6:1-7; Mi 2:1-5).<\/p>\n<h5>The Content of the Message<\/h5>\nThe common adage that OT prophets were not “foretellers” but “forthtellers” is not strictly correct. All of the prophets predict the future. Such prediction, however, is based not on human curiosity of what the future will hold but rather is rooted in the future consequences of past or present violations of the covenant, or on a future act of deliverance that will provide hope for a discouraged people. Most of the prophetic speeches that have been preserved in the OT were originally delivered as public proclamations or sermons. Most of these prophetic proclamations were evoked by the iniquity and apostasy of Israel. Hosea and Jeremiah condemned Israel because she had broken the covenant (Jer 11:2-3; Hos 8:1).<\/p>\nThe prophets are frequently associated with social justice and social reform, and these elements were unquestionably an important dimension of their message. Amos denounced the rich who afflicted the poor (Am 2:6-8; 4:1; 5:11; 8:4-6). He railed against sexual immorality (2:6-8) and against those who take bribes (5:12). Hosea provided a list of prevalent vices, including lying, killing, stealing, adultery, and idolatry (Hos 4:2). Idolatry was a particular target for his denunciations (8:5; 11:2). The background for such heated denunciations of Israel’s behavior is God’s unquenchable love for Israel (Is 43:4; Jer 31:3; Hos 3:1; 11:1-4; 14:4; Mal 1:2), which is inseparable from his election of Israel (Is 43:1; Jer 33:24; Ez 20:5; Hos 3).<\/p>\nThe prophets were concerned not only with the transgressions of Israel and the historical judgment that would inevitably follow but also with the achievement of a final future time of bliss. The message of many of the prophets is thoroughly eschatological (i.e., pertaining to the end times). One such eschatological concept is that of the Day of the Lord. The concept of the Day of the Lord first appears in Amos, where the emphasis lies on the disaster that will befall Israel on that day. Amos’s emphasis on disaster notwithstanding, the Day of the Lord is a conception that had both salvific as well as judgmental overtones for Israel. While the disaster that will occur in the Day of the Lord can be viewed in terms of a literal historical fulfillment in the tragic events of 722 BC<\/span> (the fall of Samaria) and 586 BC<\/span> (the fall of Judah), there are nevertheless features of these predictions that transcend historical fulfillment and reach toward eschatological fulfillment.<\/p>\nSince the Israelite conception of “salvation” was largely temporal in its dimensions, it included such blessings as length of life, fruitfulness of the womb and field, peace and victory over one’s enemies, the abundance of water, and so on. In harmony with this conception of salvation, the future age is conceived in precisely those terms, as in Amos 9:13-15.<\/p>\nThe prophets pictured a time when David himself, or someone very much like him, would return and inaugurate a golden era reminiscent of the great Davidic and Solomonic period. The covenant of God with David was not a conditional covenant but rather one that was absolutely inviolable (2 Sm 7:4-17; Ps 89; Jer 33:19-22), and it was with this knowledge that the prophets could look forward confidently to a restoration of David’s throne (Jer 17:24-26; 23:5-6; 33:14-15).<\/p>\n\nProphecy in the New Testament<\/p>\nIn contrast to the few self-proclaimed prophets of the intertestamental period, early Christianity began with a flurry of prophetic activity that lasted well into the second century AD<\/span>. Jesus, his disciples and followers, and the early Christians were convinced that the times in which they lived were times in which OT prophecy was being fulfilled (Mk 1:14-15; Acts 2:16-21; Rom 16:25-27; 1 Cor 10:11). Yet this era was not only one of fulfillment but also one of the renewal of the prophetic gift.<\/p>\n<h5>John the Baptist<\/h5>\nJohn the Baptist is remembered in the NT primarily as the forerunner of Jesus whose coming was predicted by Malachi (Mal 4:5-6). Yet, in his own right, John proclaimed the imminent judgment of God with a flair of denunciation and rebuke reminiscent of the OT prophets. John’s costume, consisting of a hairy cloak and a leather girdle (Mk 1:6), was reminiscent of the typical garb of OT prophets (1 Kgs 19:19; 2 Kgs 1:8; 2:13-14; Zec 13:4). John was regarded as a prophet by people everywhere (Mt 14:5; 17:10-13; Mk 9:11-13; 11:32; Lk 1:76; 7:26). Luke reports, in a style similar to the OT prophetic narratives, that “the word of God came to John” (Lk 3:2). Two short prophetic speeches have been preserved in Matthew 3:7-10 (cf. Lk 3:7-9) and Mark 1:7-8 (cf. Mt 3:11-12; Lk 3:15-18). In the first speech, John denounced those of his generation who had transgressed the covenant law and exhorted them to change their manner of life. In the second speech, John predicted the coming of the Mighty One, Jesus (Mt 3:11; Mk 1:7; Lk 3:16; Jn 1:15, 27, 30; Acts 13:25). John’s style, however, was not precisely that of the OT prophets. His pronouncements were made on his own authority; never did he use formulas such as “thus says the Lord,” or present his prophetic utterances as if they were speeches made by God. Yet, in spite of these differences, John is appropriately regarded as the last representative of the OT prophetic tradition (Mt 11:13; Lk 16:16).<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus of Nazareth<\/h5>\nJesus was popularly regarded as a prophet (Mt 16:14; 21:10-11; Mk 6:14-15; 8:28; Lk 7:16, 39; 9:8, 19; Jn 6:14; 7:40, 52). This assessment was based as much on the mighty deeds Jesus performed as on his prophetic speeches and predictions. Though Jesus nowhere claimed prophetic status directly, that claim is implicit in Mark 6:4: “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown” (cf. Mt 13:57; Lk 4:24). It is implicit as well in Luke 13:33: “Yes, today, tomorrow, and the next day I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be killed except in Jerusalem!” (nlt<\/span>). In Acts, Jesus is regarded as “the prophet like Moses” predicted in Deuteronomy 18:18 (Acts 3:22; 7:37). Matthew presents Jesus as the New Moses, but he does not particularly emphasize his prophetic role. John, however, like Luke, emphasizes Jesus’ role as the prophet (Jn 4:19; 6:14-15; 7:40).<\/p>\nWhile the Gospels and Acts reflect the notion that Jesus was a prophet, they also emphasize the fact that he was much more than a prophet. Nevertheless, the notion of prophetism was sufficiently important in early Judaism that Jesus’ recognition as a prophet is very significant. There are 12 solid reasons for regarding Jesus as a prophet in the OT tradition: (1) The sovereign authority of Jesus’ teaching (Mk 1:27), a feature underlined by his use of the introductory formula “(Amen) I say to you,” which is reminiscent of the formula “thus says the Lord” used by the OT prophets. (2) The poetic character of many of Jesus’ sayings is unlike contemporary rabbinic teaching but is similar to the poetic rhetoric of the OT prophets. (3) Jesus experienced visions (Lk 10:18) like the ancient prophets. (4) Jesus, like the prophets, made many predictions (Mt 23:38; Mk 13:2; 14:58; Lk 13:35; etc.). (5) Like the OT prophets, Jesus performed symbolic acts (such as the cleansing of the temple, the entry into Jerusalem, and the Last Supper). (6) Jesus, like the prophets, when necessary, rejected the formal observance of religious ritual and emphasized the moral and spiritual dimensions of obedience to God. (7) Jesus announced the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God—an eschatological proclamation similar to those made by the prophets. (8) Like the OT prophets, Jesus functioned as a preacher of repentance. (9) Jesus, like many of the prophets, was conscious of a special calling of God (Mt 15:24; Mk 8:31; 9:37; 14:36; Lk 4:18-26). (10) Jesus, like the prophets, received divine revelation through intimate communion with God (Mt 11:27; Lk 10:22). (11) Like the prophets, Jesus represented God; to obey him was to obey God, to reject him was to reject God (Mk 9:37; cf. Ez 33:30-33). (12) Like the prophets, Jesus was conscious of a mission to all Israel (Mt 15:24; 19:28; Lk 22:30).<\/p>\nAmong the many prophetic predictions of Jesus are the following:<\/p>\n1. Predictions of the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God (Mt 10:7-8, 23; 23:39; Mk 1:15; 9:1; 13:28-29)<\/p>\n<li>2. Predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (Mt 23:37-39; 24:2; 26:61; 27:40; Mk 13:2; 14:58; 15:29; Lk 13:34-35; 21:6; Jn 2:19-21)<\/li>\n<li>3. Predictions of the coming of the Son of Man (Mt 10:23, 32-33; 12:40; 13:40-41; 16:27; 24:27, 37-39; Mk 8:38; 13:26-27; 14:62; Lk 9:26; 11:30; 12:8-9; 17:24, 26)<\/li>\n<li>4. Predictions of the end of the age. The longest prophetic section in the Gospels is the eschatological discourse of Jesus in Mark 13:1-32 (cf. Mt 24:1-36; Lk 21:5-33), in which a number of predictions concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the age are woven into a lengthy discourse to the disciples.<\/li>\n<h5>Prophecy as a Gift for the Believers<\/h5>\nThe beginning of prophetic activity in early Christianity, according to Acts, coincided with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the earliest Christians on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-21). Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost indicates that the outpouring of the Spirit fulfilled Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:4, 17-21; cf. Jl 2:28-32). Further, since the Spirit had been poured out upon all early Christians (that Spirit being a Spirit of prophecy), all are actual or potential prophets.<\/p>\nAccording to 1 Corinthians 12:28 (see also Rom 12:6; Eph 4:11), God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, and third teachers. The names of several early Christian prophets have been preserved. These include Agabus (Acts 11:27-28; 21:10-11); Judas and Silas (15:32); Barnabas, Simeon Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, and Paul (13:1); and the four virgin daughters of Philip the evangelist (21:8-9). John, the author of Revelation, was certainly a prophet (Rv 1:3; 22:9, 18), though he never directly assumed that title.<\/p>\nThe Role of the Christian Prophet<\/p>\nChristian prophets were leaders in early Christian communities (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11), who exercised their gift in church gatherings (Acts 13:1-3; 11:27-28; 1 Cor 12–14; Rv 1:10). Since the Spirit of God was particularly active in Christian worship, prophecy was a major means whereby God communicated with his people. Prophets, like apostles and teachers, did not hold offices in local communities like bishops, elders, and deacons. Rather, they were chosen, not by individual congregations, but by divine commission and so were honored and accepted in all local communities.<\/p>\nEarly Christian prophets were both itinerant and settled, though itinerant prophets seem to have been more prevalent in Syria-Palestine and Asia Minor than in the European churches.<\/p>\n<h5>The Function of Prophecy<\/h5>\nAccording to Paul, the central purpose of prophecy (as of all other spiritual gifts) is that of building up or edifying the church. According to 1 Corinthians 14:3, “one who prophesies is helping others grow in the Lord, encouraging and comforting them” (nlt<\/span>). Again, in 1 Corinthians 14:4, Paul states that the “one who speaks a word of prophecy strengthens the entire church.” Paul discussed the subject of spiritual gifts, particularly tongues speaking and prophecy, because the Corinthians had placed an excessive emphasis on speaking in tongues. Paul did not object to speaking in tongues (1 Cor 14:18, 39), but he did point out that, since it was generally incomprehensible, the church could not be edified by it. Prophecy, which consisted of comprehensible speech inspired by the Spirit, contributed to the mutual edification, encouragement, and consolation of all present (1 Cor 14:20-25, 39).<\/p>\n<h5>The Content of Christian Prophecy<\/h5>\nWe know only a little about the content of prophecies uttered in the first-century church. Prophetic utterance occasionally provided divine guidance in making important decisions in early Christianity. Through a prophetic utterance, Paul and Barnabas were selected for a particular mission (Acts 13:1-3; cf. 1 Tm 1:18; 4:14). Probably through prophetic utterance, Paul and Timothy were forbidden to preach the gospel in Asia (Acts 16:6), and they were similarly forbidden by the Spirit of Jesus to go into Bithynia (v 7). Perhaps the most frequent use of prophecy is the prediction of the future. Agabus predicted a universal famine (11:28) and the imminent arrest of Paul (21:11). Other prophets had also predicted his impending imprisonment (20:23). The prophecies contained in the Revelation of John are all oriented toward the future events that will gradually unfold in the last days. Yet the purpose of John’s elaborate prophecy is not to satisfy the curiosity of his audience but rather to comfort and encourage them in the midst of persecution.<\/p>\n<h5>The Form of Christian Prophecy<\/h5>\nUnlike the prophets of the OT, Christian prophets did not always present their message in the form of a direct speech from God or Jesus. There are few, if any, formal indicators of the presence of prophetic speech in early Christian literature. The book of Revelation is one notable exception.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Dreams; Oracle; Promise; Prophet, Prophetess; Prophets, False; Visions.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PROPHECY Term, along with its English cognates (“prophet,” “to prophesy,” “prophetism,” and “prophetic”), derived from a group of Greek words that, in secular Greek, mean “speak forth,” “proclaim,” “announce.” In biblical Greek, however, these terms always carry the connotation of speaking, proclaiming, or announcing something under the influence of spiritual inspiration. Preview • Prophecy in the Old Testament • Types of Old Testament Prophets • The Message of the Prophets • Prophecy in the ...","summary_en":"PROPHECY Term, along with its English cognates (“prophet,” “to prophesy,” “prophetism,” and “prophetic”), derived from a group of Greek words that, in secular Greek, mean “speak forth,” “proclaim,” “announce.” In biblical Greek, however, these terms always carry the connotation of speaking, proclaiming, or announcing something under the influence of spiritual inspiration. Preview • Prophecy in the Old Testament • Types of Old Testament Prophets • The Message of the Prophets • Prophecy in the ...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":37546,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Tongues of Fire","title_en":"Tongues of Fire","content_ro":"<h3>TONGUES OF FIRE<\/h3>\nPhrase occurring only in Acts 2:3, describing the visible manifestation of the Spirit. The tongues of fire seem to be the fulfillment of John the Baptist’s proclamation that the Coming One would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire (Mt 3:11; Lk 3:16). The disciples are described as filled with the Holy Spirit, thus fulfilling the OT promise reiterated by John the Baptist and Jesus of the baptism of the Spirit.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Pentecost.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TONGUES OF FIRE<\/h3>\nPhrase occurring only in Acts 2:3, describing the visible manifestation of the Spirit. The tongues of fire seem to be the fulfillment of John the Baptist’s proclamation that the Coming One would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire (Mt 3:11; Lk 3:16). The disciples are described as filled with the Holy Spirit, thus fulfilling the OT promise reiterated by John the Baptist and Jesus of the baptism of the Spirit.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Pentecost.<\/p>","summary_ro":"TONGUES OF FIRE Phrase occurring only in Acts 2:3, describing the visible manifestation of the Spirit. The tongues of fire seem to be the fulfillment of John the Baptist’s proclamation that the Coming One would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire (Mt 3:11; Lk 3:16). The disciples are described as filled with the Holy Spirit, thus fulfilling the OT promise reiterated by John the Baptist and Jesus of the baptism of the Spirit. See also Pentecost.","summary_en":"TONGUES OF FIRE Phrase occurring only in Acts 2:3, describing the visible manifestation of the Spirit. The tongues of fire seem to be the fulfillment of John the Baptist’s proclamation that the Coming One would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire (Mt 3:11; Lk 3:16). The disciples are described as filled with the Holy Spirit, thus fulfilling the OT promise reiterated by John the Baptist and Jesus of the baptism of the Spirit. See also Pentecost.","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":39988,"type":"textbox","type_label":"Notă explicativă","type_icon":"💡","type_color":"#8b5cf6","title_ro":"Community of the Spirit","title_en":"Community of the Spirit","content_ro":"<h3>Community of the Spirit<\/h3>\n<blockquote>The two-volume work of Luke the Evangelist, Luke–Acts, presents the church as that community of people in which, and through which, the Spirit of God is working. Insofar as the church is that, it is an extension of a reality already begun by Jesus of Nazareth. In Luke’s Gospel, John the Baptist announces the coming of one who would baptize with the Holy Spirit (Lk 3:16). In Acts, this promise is seen fulfilled in the outpouring of the Spirit (Acts 1:5). As Jesus was empowered for his mission by the Spirit (Lk 3:21-22), so the early Christian community was empowered for its witness in the world (Acts 1:8). As Jesus, the man of the Spirit, was confronted at the outset of his ministry with great obstacles (the temptation, Lk 4:1-13), so the church, as the community of the Spirit, faced the temptation to yield to pressures that would compromise its mission (Acts 2:12-13; 4:1-22; 5:27-42). As Jesus, empowered by the Spirit, proclaimed the Good News and touched the lives of people with reconciliation, release, and restoration (Lk 4:18-19), so the church was empowered by the Spirit to become a caring and sharing community (Acts 2:43-47; 4:33-37). As Jesus, the man of the Spirit, reached out to the weak, poor, and rejects of the Palestinian society (this is a special emphasis throughout Luke’s Gospel), so the community of the Spirit was concerned with taking care of people’s needs (Acts 4:34; 5:1-6). These parallels illustrate Luke’s understanding of the oneness of Jesus’ ministry with that of the church—all because the Spirit of Jesus was, and is, in his church.<\/p><\/blockquote>","content_en":"<h3>Community of the Spirit<\/h3>\n<blockquote>The two-volume work of Luke the Evangelist, Luke–Acts, presents the church as that community of people in which, and through which, the Spirit of God is working. Insofar as the church is that, it is an extension of a reality already begun by Jesus of Nazareth. In Luke’s Gospel, John the Baptist announces the coming of one who would baptize with the Holy Spirit (Lk 3:16). In Acts, this promise is seen fulfilled in the outpouring of the Spirit (Acts 1:5). As Jesus was empowered for his mission by the Spirit (Lk 3:21-22), so the early Christian community was empowered for its witness in the world (Acts 1:8). As Jesus, the man of the Spirit, was confronted at the outset of his ministry with great obstacles (the temptation, Lk 4:1-13), so the church, as the community of the Spirit, faced the temptation to yield to pressures that would compromise its mission (Acts 2:12-13; 4:1-22; 5:27-42). As Jesus, empowered by the Spirit, proclaimed the Good News and touched the lives of people with reconciliation, release, and restoration (Lk 4:18-19), so the church was empowered by the Spirit to become a caring and sharing community (Acts 2:43-47; 4:33-37). As Jesus, the man of the Spirit, reached out to the weak, poor, and rejects of the Palestinian society (this is a special emphasis throughout Luke’s Gospel), so the community of the Spirit was concerned with taking care of people’s needs (Acts 4:34; 5:1-6). These parallels illustrate Luke’s understanding of the oneness of Jesus’ ministry with that of the church—all because the Spirit of Jesus was, and is, in his church.<\/p><\/blockquote>","summary_ro":"Community of the Spirit The two-volume work of Luke the Evangelist, Luke–Acts, presents the church as that community of people in which, and through which, the Spirit of God is working. Insofar as the church is that, it is an extension of a reality already begun by Jesus of Nazareth. In Luke’s Gospel, John the Baptist announces the coming of one who would baptize with the Holy Spirit (Lk 3:16). In Acts, this promise is seen fulfilled in the outpouring of the Spirit (Acts 1:5). As Jesus was em...","summary_en":"Community of the Spirit The two-volume work of Luke the Evangelist, Luke–Acts, presents the church as that community of people in which, and through which, the Spirit of God is working. Insofar as the church is that, it is an extension of a reality already begun by Jesus of Nazareth. In Luke’s Gospel, John the Baptist announces the coming of one who would baptize with the Holy Spirit (Lk 3:16). In Acts, this promise is seen fulfilled in the outpouring of the Spirit (Acts 1:5). As Jesus was em...","source":"Textboxes\/Textboxes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55666,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:16","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:16","content_ro":"3:16<\/strong> I’m not even worthy to be his slave and untie the straps of his sandals:<\/em> The untying of sandals was done only by slaves (to make this connection clear, the NLT adds be his slave and<\/em>). John thus greatly honored the Messiah. • baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire:<\/em> The Old Testament prophets predicted that in the last days, God would pour out his Spirit on his people (Isa 32:15, Ezek 36:28-29; Joel 2:28). This prophecy was at least partially fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). Fire is an image of judgment (see Luke 3:9); it also has the power to cleanse and refine God’s people (see 1 Cor 3:10-15; cp. Isa 4:4; Mal 3:2).<\/p>","content_en":"3:16<\/strong> I’m not even worthy to be his slave and untie the straps of his sandals:<\/em> The untying of sandals was done only by slaves (to make this connection clear, the NLT adds be his slave and<\/em>). John thus greatly honored the Messiah. • baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire:<\/em> The Old Testament prophets predicted that in the last days, God would pour out his Spirit on his people (Isa 32:15, Ezek 36:28-29; Joel 2:28). This prophecy was at least partially fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). Fire is an image of judgment (see Luke 3:9); it also has the power to cleanse and refine God’s people (see 1 Cor 3:10-15; cp. Isa 4:4; Mal 3:2).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:16 I’m not even worthy to be his slave and untie the straps of his sandals: The untying of sandals was done only by slaves (to make this connection clear, the NLT adds be his slave and). John thus greatly honored the Messiah. • baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire: The Old Testament prophets predicted that in the last days, God would pour out his Spirit on his people (Isa 32:15, Ezek 36:28-29; Joel 2:28). This prophecy was at least partially fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts...","summary_en":"3:16 I’m not even worthy to be his slave and untie the straps of his sandals: The untying of sandals was done only by slaves (to make this connection clear, the NLT adds be his slave and). John thus greatly honored the Messiah. • baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire: The Old Testament prophets predicted that in the last days, God would pour out his Spirit on his people (Isa 32:15, Ezek 36:28-29; Joel 2:28). This prophecy was at least partially fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83292,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:16","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:16","content_ro":"3:16<\/strong> I’m not even worthy to be his slave and untie the straps of his sandals:<\/em> The untying of sandals was done only by slaves (to make this connection clear, the NLT adds be his slave and<\/em>). John thus greatly honored the Messiah. • baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire:<\/em> The Old Testament prophets predicted that in the last days, God would pour out his Spirit on his people (Isa 32:15, Ezek 36:28-29; Joel 2:28). This prophecy was at least partially fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). Fire is an image of judgment (see Luke 3:9); it also has the power to cleanse and refine God’s people (see 1 Cor 3:10-15; cp. Isa 4:4; Mal 3:2).<\/p>","content_en":"3:16<\/strong> I’m not even worthy to be his slave and untie the straps of his sandals:<\/em> The untying of sandals was done only by slaves (to make this connection clear, the NLT adds be his slave and<\/em>). John thus greatly honored the Messiah. • baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire:<\/em> The Old Testament prophets predicted that in the last days, God would pour out his Spirit on his people (Isa 32:15, Ezek 36:28-29; Joel 2:28). This prophecy was at least partially fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). Fire is an image of judgment (see Luke 3:9); it also has the power to cleanse and refine God’s people (see 1 Cor 3:10-15; cp. Isa 4:4; Mal 3:2).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:16 I’m not even worthy to be his slave and untie the straps of his sandals: The untying of sandals was done only by slaves (to make this connection clear, the NLT adds be his slave and). John thus greatly honored the Messiah. • baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire: The Old Testament prophets predicted that in the last days, God would pour out his Spirit on his people (Isa 32:15, Ezek 36:28-29; Joel 2:28). This prophecy was at least partially fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts...","summary_en":"3:16 I’m not even worthy to be his slave and untie the straps of his sandals: The untying of sandals was done only by slaves (to make this connection clear, the NLT adds be his slave and). John thus greatly honored the Messiah. • baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire: The Old Testament prophets predicted that in the last days, God would pour out his Spirit on his people (Isa 32:15, Ezek 36:28-29; Joel 2:28). This prophecy was at least partially fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110918,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:16","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:16","content_ro":"3:16<\/strong> I’m not even worthy to be his slave and untie the straps of his sandals:<\/em> The untying of sandals was done only by slaves (to make this connection clear, the NLT adds be his slave and<\/em>). John thus greatly honored the Messiah. • baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire:<\/em> The Old Testament prophets predicted that in the last days, God would pour out his Spirit on his people (Isa 32:15, Ezek 36:28-29; Joel 2:28). This prophecy was at least partially fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). Fire is an image of judgment (see Luke 3:9); it also has the power to cleanse and refine God’s people (see 1 Cor 3:10-15; cp. Isa 4:4; Mal 3:2).<\/p>","content_en":"3:16<\/strong> I’m not even worthy to be his slave and untie the straps of his sandals:<\/em> The untying of sandals was done only by slaves (to make this connection clear, the NLT adds be his slave and<\/em>). John thus greatly honored the Messiah. • baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire:<\/em> The Old Testament prophets predicted that in the last days, God would pour out his Spirit on his people (Isa 32:15, Ezek 36:28-29; Joel 2:28). This prophecy was at least partially fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). Fire is an image of judgment (see Luke 3:9); it also has the power to cleanse and refine God’s people (see 1 Cor 3:10-15; cp. Isa 4:4; Mal 3:2).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:16 I’m not even worthy to be his slave and untie the straps of his sandals: The untying of sandals was done only by slaves (to make this connection clear, the NLT adds be his slave and). John thus greatly honored the Messiah. • baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire: The Old Testament prophets predicted that in the last days, God would pour out his Spirit on his people (Isa 32:15, Ezek 36:28-29; Joel 2:28). This prophecy was at least partially fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts...","summary_en":"3:16 I’m not even worthy to be his slave and untie the straps of his sandals: The untying of sandals was done only by slaves (to make this connection clear, the NLT adds be his slave and). John thus greatly honored the Messiah. • baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire: The Old Testament prophets predicted that in the last days, God would pour out his Spirit on his people (Isa 32:15, Ezek 36:28-29; Joel 2:28). This prophecy was at least partially fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138544,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:16","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:16","content_ro":"3:16<\/strong> I’m not even worthy to be his slave and untie the straps of his sandals:<\/em> The untying of sandals was done only by slaves (to make this connection clear, the NLT adds be his slave and<\/em>). John thus greatly honored the Messiah. • baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire:<\/em> The Old Testament prophets predicted that in the last days, God would pour out his Spirit on his people (Isa 32:15, Ezek 36:28-29; Joel 2:28). This prophecy was at least partially fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). Fire is an image of judgment (see Luke 3:9); it also has the power to cleanse and refine God’s people (see 1 Cor 3:10-15; cp. Isa 4:4; Mal 3:2).<\/p>","content_en":"3:16<\/strong> I’m not even worthy to be his slave and untie the straps of his sandals:<\/em> The untying of sandals was done only by slaves (to make this connection clear, the NLT adds be his slave and<\/em>). John thus greatly honored the Messiah. • baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire:<\/em> The Old Testament prophets predicted that in the last days, God would pour out his Spirit on his people (Isa 32:15, Ezek 36:28-29; Joel 2:28). This prophecy was at least partially fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). Fire is an image of judgment (see Luke 3:9); it also has the power to cleanse and refine God’s people (see 1 Cor 3:10-15; cp. Isa 4:4; Mal 3:2).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:16 I’m not even worthy to be his slave and untie the straps of his sandals: The untying of sandals was done only by slaves (to make this connection clear, the NLT adds be his slave and). John thus greatly honored the Messiah. • baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire: The Old Testament prophets predicted that in the last days, God would pour out his Spirit on his people (Isa 32:15, Ezek 36:28-29; Joel 2:28). This prophecy was at least partially fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts...","summary_en":"3:16 I’m not even worthy to be his slave and untie the straps of his sandals: The untying of sandals was done only by slaves (to make this connection clear, the NLT adds be his slave and). John thus greatly honored the Messiah. • baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire: The Old Testament prophets predicted that in the last days, God would pour out his Spirit on his people (Isa 32:15, Ezek 36:28-29; Joel 2:28). This prophecy was at least partially fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":66217,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Baptism","title_en":"Baptism","content_ro":"<h3>Baptism<\/h3>\nBaptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a ritual bath to wash away the impurities of their Gentile background. This ritual cleansing was often done in special baths created for purification, called mikvahs. Mikvahs were located at many synagogues, and the Temple in Jerusalem had a large number of mikvahs, which suggests that those who approached for worship would ritually bathe.<\/p>\nJohn preached “that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Luke 3:3). John’s baptism was an aspect of his role in preparing people’s hearts to receive the Messiah (Luke 3:4-6), and those who had received his baptism and repented of their sins were those who were prepared for Jesus’ message (Luke 7:29-30).<\/p>\nAfter his resurrection, Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize new converts (Matt 28:19). Christian baptism is understood as dying and rising with Christ, signifying the death of the old life and the beginning of the new (Rom 6:1-4; Col 2:12) and also signifying a Christian’s spiritual union with Christ (Gal 3:27) and with his church. Baptism thus became the rite of initiation in the Christian community. For this reason, many interpreters see baptism as the Christian equivalent of circumcision, the rite that initiated membership into the nation of Israel under the old covenant (see Col 2:11-12). Whatever the connection with OT circumcision, baptism signifies a changed heart and a clean conscience that come from God’s forgiveness (1 Pet 3:21; cp. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29; Phil 3:3).<\/p>\nAs a ritual cleansing, Christian baptism signifies both forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 10:43; 13:38; 26:17-18) and the reception of the Holy Spirit (2:38; 9:17-18; 10:47-48; 11:15-17; 19:5-7; Luke 3:16). Many interpreters see baptism as the outward confirmation of the inward “seal” of the Spirit, whose presence is a “guarantee” of the eternal inheritance that awaits God’s faithful people (2 Cor 1:21-22; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Titus 3:5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 3:6-16; 21:25; 28:19; Mark 1:4-9; 10:38-39; 11:30; 16:16; Luke 3:3-22; 7:29-30; 12:50; 20:4; John 1:25-36; 3:22-23, 26; 4:1-2; 10:40; Acts 1:5, 22; 2:38, 41; 8:12-13, 16-17, 36-38; 9:18; 10:37, 47-48; 11:16; 13:24; 16:15, 33; 18:8, 25; 19:1-7; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 1:13-17; 10:2; 12:13; 15:29; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12; Heb 6:2; 1 Pet 3:21; 1 Jn 5:6<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Baptism<\/h3>\nBaptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a ritual bath to wash away the impurities of their Gentile background. This ritual cleansing was often done in special baths created for purification, called mikvahs. Mikvahs were located at many synagogues, and the Temple in Jerusalem had a large number of mikvahs, which suggests that those who approached for worship would ritually bathe.<\/p>\nJohn preached “that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Luke 3:3). John’s baptism was an aspect of his role in preparing people’s hearts to receive the Messiah (Luke 3:4-6), and those who had received his baptism and repented of their sins were those who were prepared for Jesus’ message (Luke 7:29-30).<\/p>\nAfter his resurrection, Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize new converts (Matt 28:19). Christian baptism is understood as dying and rising with Christ, signifying the death of the old life and the beginning of the new (Rom 6:1-4; Col 2:12) and also signifying a Christian’s spiritual union with Christ (Gal 3:27) and with his church. Baptism thus became the rite of initiation in the Christian community. For this reason, many interpreters see baptism as the Christian equivalent of circumcision, the rite that initiated membership into the nation of Israel under the old covenant (see Col 2:11-12). Whatever the connection with OT circumcision, baptism signifies a changed heart and a clean conscience that come from God’s forgiveness (1 Pet 3:21; cp. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29; Phil 3:3).<\/p>\nAs a ritual cleansing, Christian baptism signifies both forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 10:43; 13:38; 26:17-18) and the reception of the Holy Spirit (2:38; 9:17-18; 10:47-48; 11:15-17; 19:5-7; Luke 3:16). Many interpreters see baptism as the outward confirmation of the inward “seal” of the Spirit, whose presence is a “guarantee” of the eternal inheritance that awaits God’s faithful people (2 Cor 1:21-22; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Titus 3:5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 3:6-16; 21:25; 28:19; Mark 1:4-9; 10:38-39; 11:30; 16:16; Luke 3:3-22; 7:29-30; 12:50; 20:4; John 1:25-36; 3:22-23, 26; 4:1-2; 10:40; Acts 1:5, 22; 2:38, 41; 8:12-13, 16-17, 36-38; 9:18; 10:37, 47-48; 11:16; 13:24; 16:15, 33; 18:8, 25; 19:1-7; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 1:13-17; 10:2; 12:13; 15:29; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12; Heb 6:2; 1 Pet 3:21; 1 Jn 5:6<\/p>","summary_ro":"Baptism Baptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a...","summary_en":"Baptism Baptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":93843,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Baptism","title_en":"Baptism","content_ro":"<h3>Baptism<\/h3>\nBaptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a ritual bath to wash away the impurities of their Gentile background. This ritual cleansing was often done in special baths created for purification, called mikvahs. Mikvahs were located at many synagogues, and the Temple in Jerusalem had a large number of mikvahs, which suggests that those who approached for worship would ritually bathe.<\/p>\nJohn preached “that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Luke 3:3). John’s baptism was an aspect of his role in preparing people’s hearts to receive the Messiah (Luke 3:4-6), and those who had received his baptism and repented of their sins were those who were prepared for Jesus’ message (Luke 7:29-30).<\/p>\nAfter his resurrection, Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize new converts (Matt 28:19). Christian baptism is understood as dying and rising with Christ, signifying the death of the old life and the beginning of the new (Rom 6:1-4; Col 2:12) and also signifying a Christian’s spiritual union with Christ (Gal 3:27) and with his church. Baptism thus became the rite of initiation in the Christian community. For this reason, many interpreters see baptism as the Christian equivalent of circumcision, the rite that initiated membership into the nation of Israel under the old covenant (see Col 2:11-12). Whatever the connection with OT circumcision, baptism signifies a changed heart and a clean conscience that come from God’s forgiveness (1 Pet 3:21; cp. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29; Phil 3:3).<\/p>\nAs a ritual cleansing, Christian baptism signifies both forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 10:43; 13:38; 26:17-18) and the reception of the Holy Spirit (2:38; 9:17-18; 10:47-48; 11:15-17; 19:5-7; Luke 3:16). Many interpreters see baptism as the outward confirmation of the inward “seal” of the Spirit, whose presence is a “guarantee” of the eternal inheritance that awaits God’s faithful people (2 Cor 1:21-22; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Titus 3:5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 3:6-16; 21:25; 28:19; Mark 1:4-9; 10:38-39; 11:30; 16:16; Luke 3:3-22; 7:29-30; 12:50; 20:4; John 1:25-36; 3:22-23, 26; 4:1-2; 10:40; Acts 1:5, 22; 2:38, 41; 8:12-13, 16-17, 36-38; 9:18; 10:37, 47-48; 11:16; 13:24; 16:15, 33; 18:8, 25; 19:1-7; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 1:13-17; 10:2; 12:13; 15:29; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12; Heb 6:2; 1 Pet 3:21; 1 Jn 5:6<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Baptism<\/h3>\nBaptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a ritual bath to wash away the impurities of their Gentile background. This ritual cleansing was often done in special baths created for purification, called mikvahs. Mikvahs were located at many synagogues, and the Temple in Jerusalem had a large number of mikvahs, which suggests that those who approached for worship would ritually bathe.<\/p>\nJohn preached “that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Luke 3:3). John’s baptism was an aspect of his role in preparing people’s hearts to receive the Messiah (Luke 3:4-6), and those who had received his baptism and repented of their sins were those who were prepared for Jesus’ message (Luke 7:29-30).<\/p>\nAfter his resurrection, Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize new converts (Matt 28:19). Christian baptism is understood as dying and rising with Christ, signifying the death of the old life and the beginning of the new (Rom 6:1-4; Col 2:12) and also signifying a Christian’s spiritual union with Christ (Gal 3:27) and with his church. Baptism thus became the rite of initiation in the Christian community. For this reason, many interpreters see baptism as the Christian equivalent of circumcision, the rite that initiated membership into the nation of Israel under the old covenant (see Col 2:11-12). Whatever the connection with OT circumcision, baptism signifies a changed heart and a clean conscience that come from God’s forgiveness (1 Pet 3:21; cp. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29; Phil 3:3).<\/p>\nAs a ritual cleansing, Christian baptism signifies both forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 10:43; 13:38; 26:17-18) and the reception of the Holy Spirit (2:38; 9:17-18; 10:47-48; 11:15-17; 19:5-7; Luke 3:16). Many interpreters see baptism as the outward confirmation of the inward “seal” of the Spirit, whose presence is a “guarantee” of the eternal inheritance that awaits God’s faithful people (2 Cor 1:21-22; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Titus 3:5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 3:6-16; 21:25; 28:19; Mark 1:4-9; 10:38-39; 11:30; 16:16; Luke 3:3-22; 7:29-30; 12:50; 20:4; John 1:25-36; 3:22-23, 26; 4:1-2; 10:40; Acts 1:5, 22; 2:38, 41; 8:12-13, 16-17, 36-38; 9:18; 10:37, 47-48; 11:16; 13:24; 16:15, 33; 18:8, 25; 19:1-7; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 1:13-17; 10:2; 12:13; 15:29; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12; Heb 6:2; 1 Pet 3:21; 1 Jn 5:6<\/p>","summary_ro":"Baptism Baptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a...","summary_en":"Baptism Baptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":121469,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Baptism","title_en":"Baptism","content_ro":"<h3>Baptism<\/h3>\nBaptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a ritual bath to wash away the impurities of their Gentile background. This ritual cleansing was often done in special baths created for purification, called mikvahs. Mikvahs were located at many synagogues, and the Temple in Jerusalem had a large number of mikvahs, which suggests that those who approached for worship would ritually bathe.<\/p>\nJohn preached “that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Luke 3:3). John’s baptism was an aspect of his role in preparing people’s hearts to receive the Messiah (Luke 3:4-6), and those who had received his baptism and repented of their sins were those who were prepared for Jesus’ message (Luke 7:29-30).<\/p>\nAfter his resurrection, Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize new converts (Matt 28:19). Christian baptism is understood as dying and rising with Christ, signifying the death of the old life and the beginning of the new (Rom 6:1-4; Col 2:12) and also signifying a Christian’s spiritual union with Christ (Gal 3:27) and with his church. Baptism thus became the rite of initiation in the Christian community. For this reason, many interpreters see baptism as the Christian equivalent of circumcision, the rite that initiated membership into the nation of Israel under the old covenant (see Col 2:11-12). Whatever the connection with OT circumcision, baptism signifies a changed heart and a clean conscience that come from God’s forgiveness (1 Pet 3:21; cp. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29; Phil 3:3).<\/p>\nAs a ritual cleansing, Christian baptism signifies both forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 10:43; 13:38; 26:17-18) and the reception of the Holy Spirit (2:38; 9:17-18; 10:47-48; 11:15-17; 19:5-7; Luke 3:16). Many interpreters see baptism as the outward confirmation of the inward “seal” of the Spirit, whose presence is a “guarantee” of the eternal inheritance that awaits God’s faithful people (2 Cor 1:21-22; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Titus 3:5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 3:6-16; 21:25; 28:19; Mark 1:4-9; 10:38-39; 11:30; 16:16; Luke 3:3-22; 7:29-30; 12:50; 20:4; John 1:25-36; 3:22-23, 26; 4:1-2; 10:40; Acts 1:5, 22; 2:38, 41; 8:12-13, 16-17, 36-38; 9:18; 10:37, 47-48; 11:16; 13:24; 16:15, 33; 18:8, 25; 19:1-7; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 1:13-17; 10:2; 12:13; 15:29; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12; Heb 6:2; 1 Pet 3:21; 1 Jn 5:6<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Baptism<\/h3>\nBaptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a ritual bath to wash away the impurities of their Gentile background. This ritual cleansing was often done in special baths created for purification, called mikvahs. Mikvahs were located at many synagogues, and the Temple in Jerusalem had a large number of mikvahs, which suggests that those who approached for worship would ritually bathe.<\/p>\nJohn preached “that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Luke 3:3). John’s baptism was an aspect of his role in preparing people’s hearts to receive the Messiah (Luke 3:4-6), and those who had received his baptism and repented of their sins were those who were prepared for Jesus’ message (Luke 7:29-30).<\/p>\nAfter his resurrection, Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize new converts (Matt 28:19). Christian baptism is understood as dying and rising with Christ, signifying the death of the old life and the beginning of the new (Rom 6:1-4; Col 2:12) and also signifying a Christian’s spiritual union with Christ (Gal 3:27) and with his church. Baptism thus became the rite of initiation in the Christian community. For this reason, many interpreters see baptism as the Christian equivalent of circumcision, the rite that initiated membership into the nation of Israel under the old covenant (see Col 2:11-12). Whatever the connection with OT circumcision, baptism signifies a changed heart and a clean conscience that come from God’s forgiveness (1 Pet 3:21; cp. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29; Phil 3:3).<\/p>\nAs a ritual cleansing, Christian baptism signifies both forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 10:43; 13:38; 26:17-18) and the reception of the Holy Spirit (2:38; 9:17-18; 10:47-48; 11:15-17; 19:5-7; Luke 3:16). Many interpreters see baptism as the outward confirmation of the inward “seal” of the Spirit, whose presence is a “guarantee” of the eternal inheritance that awaits God’s faithful people (2 Cor 1:21-22; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Titus 3:5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 3:6-16; 21:25; 28:19; Mark 1:4-9; 10:38-39; 11:30; 16:16; Luke 3:3-22; 7:29-30; 12:50; 20:4; John 1:25-36; 3:22-23, 26; 4:1-2; 10:40; Acts 1:5, 22; 2:38, 41; 8:12-13, 16-17, 36-38; 9:18; 10:37, 47-48; 11:16; 13:24; 16:15, 33; 18:8, 25; 19:1-7; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 1:13-17; 10:2; 12:13; 15:29; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12; Heb 6:2; 1 Pet 3:21; 1 Jn 5:6<\/p>","summary_ro":"Baptism Baptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a...","summary_en":"Baptism Baptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":149095,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Baptism","title_en":"Baptism","content_ro":"<h3>Baptism<\/h3>\nBaptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a ritual bath to wash away the impurities of their Gentile background. This ritual cleansing was often done in special baths created for purification, called mikvahs. Mikvahs were located at many synagogues, and the Temple in Jerusalem had a large number of mikvahs, which suggests that those who approached for worship would ritually bathe.<\/p>\nJohn preached “that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Luke 3:3). John’s baptism was an aspect of his role in preparing people’s hearts to receive the Messiah (Luke 3:4-6), and those who had received his baptism and repented of their sins were those who were prepared for Jesus’ message (Luke 7:29-30).<\/p>\nAfter his resurrection, Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize new converts (Matt 28:19). Christian baptism is understood as dying and rising with Christ, signifying the death of the old life and the beginning of the new (Rom 6:1-4; Col 2:12) and also signifying a Christian’s spiritual union with Christ (Gal 3:27) and with his church. Baptism thus became the rite of initiation in the Christian community. For this reason, many interpreters see baptism as the Christian equivalent of circumcision, the rite that initiated membership into the nation of Israel under the old covenant (see Col 2:11-12). Whatever the connection with OT circumcision, baptism signifies a changed heart and a clean conscience that come from God’s forgiveness (1 Pet 3:21; cp. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29; Phil 3:3).<\/p>\nAs a ritual cleansing, Christian baptism signifies both forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 10:43; 13:38; 26:17-18) and the reception of the Holy Spirit (2:38; 9:17-18; 10:47-48; 11:15-17; 19:5-7; Luke 3:16). Many interpreters see baptism as the outward confirmation of the inward “seal” of the Spirit, whose presence is a “guarantee” of the eternal inheritance that awaits God’s faithful people (2 Cor 1:21-22; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Titus 3:5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 3:6-16; 21:25; 28:19; Mark 1:4-9; 10:38-39; 11:30; 16:16; Luke 3:3-22; 7:29-30; 12:50; 20:4; John 1:25-36; 3:22-23, 26; 4:1-2; 10:40; Acts 1:5, 22; 2:38, 41; 8:12-13, 16-17, 36-38; 9:18; 10:37, 47-48; 11:16; 13:24; 16:15, 33; 18:8, 25; 19:1-7; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 1:13-17; 10:2; 12:13; 15:29; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12; Heb 6:2; 1 Pet 3:21; 1 Jn 5:6<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Baptism<\/h3>\nBaptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a ritual bath to wash away the impurities of their Gentile background. This ritual cleansing was often done in special baths created for purification, called mikvahs. Mikvahs were located at many synagogues, and the Temple in Jerusalem had a large number of mikvahs, which suggests that those who approached for worship would ritually bathe.<\/p>\nJohn preached “that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Luke 3:3). John’s baptism was an aspect of his role in preparing people’s hearts to receive the Messiah (Luke 3:4-6), and those who had received his baptism and repented of their sins were those who were prepared for Jesus’ message (Luke 7:29-30).<\/p>\nAfter his resurrection, Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize new converts (Matt 28:19). Christian baptism is understood as dying and rising with Christ, signifying the death of the old life and the beginning of the new (Rom 6:1-4; Col 2:12) and also signifying a Christian’s spiritual union with Christ (Gal 3:27) and with his church. Baptism thus became the rite of initiation in the Christian community. For this reason, many interpreters see baptism as the Christian equivalent of circumcision, the rite that initiated membership into the nation of Israel under the old covenant (see Col 2:11-12). Whatever the connection with OT circumcision, baptism signifies a changed heart and a clean conscience that come from God’s forgiveness (1 Pet 3:21; cp. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29; Phil 3:3).<\/p>\nAs a ritual cleansing, Christian baptism signifies both forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 10:43; 13:38; 26:17-18) and the reception of the Holy Spirit (2:38; 9:17-18; 10:47-48; 11:15-17; 19:5-7; Luke 3:16). Many interpreters see baptism as the outward confirmation of the inward “seal” of the Spirit, whose presence is a “guarantee” of the eternal inheritance that awaits God’s faithful people (2 Cor 1:21-22; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Titus 3:5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 3:6-16; 21:25; 28:19; Mark 1:4-9; 10:38-39; 11:30; 16:16; Luke 3:3-22; 7:29-30; 12:50; 20:4; John 1:25-36; 3:22-23, 26; 4:1-2; 10:40; Acts 1:5, 22; 2:38, 41; 8:12-13, 16-17, 36-38; 9:18; 10:37, 47-48; 11:16; 13:24; 16:15, 33; 18:8, 25; 19:1-7; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 1:13-17; 10:2; 12:13; 15:29; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12; Heb 6:2; 1 Pet 3:21; 1 Jn 5:6<\/p>","summary_ro":"Baptism Baptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a...","summary_en":"Baptism Baptism was an important element of the Christian faith from the very beginning (Acts 2:38). The words “baptism” and “baptize” were already used in Judaism to refer to a religious rite for cleansing. The law of Moses established the use of water to cleanse people from ceremonial defilement (Num 19:14-19). Later, Gentile converts to Judaism from pagan religions were admitted to Judaism only after fulfilling certain obligations, which included the study of the Torah, circumcision, and a...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"17":[{"id":14520,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gospel","title_en":"Gospel","content_ro":"<h3>GOSPEL<\/h3>\nWord derived from the Anglo-Saxon godspell<\/em> denoting “glad tidings” or “good news.”<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Gospel Message of Isaiah<\/p>\n• The Gospel in the New Testament<\/p>\n• The Good News of Christ’s Coming<\/p>\n• The Gospel according to Jesus<\/p>\n• The Gospel after Jesus’ Resurrection<\/p>\nThe Gospel Message of Isaiah<\/p>\nOf all the passages cited, those of Isaiah provide the most important background for the gospel in the NT. According to Isaiah’s gospel, it is God alone who saves, and there is no explanation for his saving action except in his own nature. Israel’s deliverance is undeserved; she is no more worthy of the divine love now than when she went into captivity. In whatever measure she has paid the just due for her past sins (Is 40:2), she remains a sinful people (42:25; 46:12-13; 48:1). It is only by God’s grace that she is saved (55:1-7). By God’s design, Israel’s salvation depends not upon her own righteousness but upon his (41:10; 45:24; 46:13; 51:5-6). There being no righteousness to reward, the Lord acts to create<\/em> righteousness in Israel (45:8; 61:3, 10-11). Yet as these references indicate, salvation is not accomplished at the expense of justice. The penalty for Israel’s sins is to be paid in full. God’s mercy is not hereby called into question. On the contrary, it is precisely here that his mercy is most poignantly expressed, for the penalty is exacted not from his people but from the Servant appointed to stand in their place (53:4-12). Through the Servant’s work, many shall be justified (53:11). The coming of the Evangelist—the preacher of the good news—is predicted in Isaiah 61. He is called the anointed One (v 1) who proclaims the year of the Lord’s favor (v 2). God will be glorified through his preaching (v 3).<\/p>\nThe Gospel in the New Testament<\/p>\nIn only two places (Gal 3:8; Heb 4:2, 6) does the NT speak of the proclamation of the gospel prior to the Christian era. This is quite remarkable, given (1) the unmistakable presence of the gospel in the OT, (2) the extent of gospel terminology in the NT (in the Greek the noun appears 76 times; and the verb, 54), and (3) the fact that the NT presents Christ as the fulfillment of the OT and draws heavily on the OT to interpret his person and work. Not only is it remarkable; it is very significant. It indicates that the NT usage depends not only upon the character<\/em> of the message (truth about salvation) but also upon historical events.<\/em> Almost without exception, the NT restricts its application of gospel terminology to proclamations made during the time of fulfillment—the age in which the salvation promised in the OT is actually accomplished. The NT is preoccupied, not with promises of salvation, but with news of salvation. According to Mark 1:1-4, the gospel “begins” not in the OT but with John the Baptist, in whose work OT prophecy is fulfilled. In Romans 1:1-5 the gospel is represented as a blessing promised in the OT but not actually given until Jesus comes (see also Acts 13:32-33).<\/p>\nThe Good News of Christ’s Coming<\/p>\nThe promised birth of John the Baptist is good news (Lk 1:19), not only for his parents (vv 7, 24-25) but for all the people: John is sent to prepare them for Messiah’s coming (vv 14-17, 67-79). John’s own preaching is gospel (3:18) for the same reason. The Messiah would be coming to execute judgment, a process that involves both condemnation and salvation (vv 3-17). John’s message is gospel for sinners in that they are warned of impending doom and urged to repent before the ax falls (vv 7-9); it is gospel for the repentant in that they are promised forgiveness (v 3) and membership in Messiah’s community (v 17). The birth of the Savior himself is announced as good news bringing great joy (2:10-11).<\/p>\nThe Gospel according to Jesus<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming of the Kingdom of God<\/h5>\nJesus was authorized by God and anointed by the Spirit to proclaim the gospel (Mk 1:14; Lk 4:18). At the heart of his preaching stands the announcement “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mk 1:15). (For further references to this gospel, see Mt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; 26:13; Mk 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:9; Lk 4:43; 8:1; 16:16.) The message is good news for several reasons: (1) The kingdom is coming. The God whom Jesus proclaims is sovereign over all he has made. Yet paradoxically his rule is incomplete: his will is not done on earth as it is in heaven; wrong, not right, prevails. But these conditions are not final, according to Jesus. With the coming of the kingdom, God’s rule will be completed; wrong will be judged, righteousness established, and his people blessed. (2) The kingdom is now<\/em> being inaugurated. “The time is fulfilled,” declares Jesus (Mk 1:15a). The time appointed for the fulfillment of the OT promises has arrived. (3) The consummation of the kingdom is therefore no longer a distant prospect; the full realization of God’s rule is “at hand” (Mk 1:15b). (4) God is establishing his rule for a saving purpose. This is implied in Jesus’ call to repentance (Mk 1:15c). It is especially clear in the passages to which we now turn.<\/p>\n<h5>The Salvation of the Poor<\/h5>\nInvited to read the Scripture in the synagogue at Nazareth, Jesus turns to Isaiah 61: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord” (Lk 4:18-19, rsv<\/span>). Having read the prophecy, Jesus announces its fulfillment in his own ministry (v 21). Included among those whom Jesus has come to free are the physically infirm, such as the blind (v 18) and the leprous (v 27) (cf. the references to healing miracles in vv 23, 33-41; the close connection between evangelizing and healing in Mt 4:23; 9:35; 11:5; Lk 7:21-22; 9:6; and the description in Mt 12:22-29; Lk 13:11-16, of the physically afflicted as captives of Satan now liberated by Jesus). Also included are the materially poor—people like the widow helped by Elijah during the famine (Lk 4:25-26). It is the literally poor and hungry whom Jesus pronounces “blessed” in Luke 6:20-21. Yet it is primarily “spiritual” poverty that is in view. Still applying Isaiah 61, Jesus speaks in Matthew 5:3 of the “poor in spirit.” These are people broken and grieved by misery and poverty, oppression and injustice, suffering and death, national apostasy and personal sin—people who in their extremity turn to God and longingly wait for him to bring forth justice, bestow his mercy, and establish his kingdom. It is to just such people that Jesus brings good news (Mt 5:3-10). God sent him to usher in the kingdom, to rescue the lost, to liberate the enslaved, to cure the afflicted, to bind up hearts that are broken, and to forgive the guilty (Mk 2:5, 10, 17; 10:45; Lk 4:18-21; 7:48-49; 15:1-32; 19:10).<\/p>\n<h5>The Gift of Grace<\/h5>\nThe coming of the kingdom is not the effect or the reward of human effort but God’s answer to the human predicament—the gift of his favor (Lk 12:32). Correspondingly, the explanation for the salvation of the poor lies nowhere but in God’s own character. As the prodigal himself recognized, he hardly deserved to be his father’s servant, much less his son. Nothing he did, not even his repentance, accounted for the father’s love (15:11-32). In the parable of Matthew 20:1-16, it is owing entirely to the goodness of the employer that the last workers to be hired receive a full day’s wages. The first debtor in the story of Matthew 18:23-35 earned nothing but the right to be sold into slavery; instead, the king canceled his enormous debt. The publican, who had nothing to offer God but a confession of sin and plea for mercy, went home justified (Lk 18:13-14). The same holds true for the more virtuous among the poor, such as the persons described in Matthew 5:7-10. Their virtue is real, not imagined. Yet in keeping God’s commands, they do not put him in their debt; they are simply doing their duty (Lk 17:7-10). Furthermore, even the most merciful need divine mercy (Mt 5:7). For even those most zealous to obey God’s law are unable to fulfill all its requirements (cf. 11:28-30). The first servant in Matthew 18:23-35 owes far more money than someone in such a situation could possibly pay—which serves to magnify the generosity of the king. Grace depends for its exercise upon the inability of its objects (Lk 14:12-14).<\/p>\n<h5>The Call to Salvation<\/h5>\nThe Israelites are without exception a sinful people, all of them needing the salvation that Jesus brings (Mt 1:21; Lk 1:77). In demonstration of God’s grace, Jesus proclaimed his gospel to the entire nation (Mt 4:23; 9:35; 15:24; Lk 4:43; 9:6; 20:1). From the most respectable to the least, all are summoned to submit to God’s rule, all are invited to come and partake freely of the banquet he has spread (Lk 14:16-24). But the gift of salvation must be received if it is to be experienced (Mk 10:15). And while it is indeed a gift that costs nothing, it is also a priceless treasure for which a wise person will freely sacrifice everything else (Mt 13:44-46), a sacrifice exceeded only by the cost of rejecting the gospel (Mt 11:20-24; Mk 8:34-39; Lk 14:24, 33). “Repent and believe in the gospel,” Jesus commands (Mk 1:15). The self-righteous and the self-sufficient must be jolted out of their false sense of security and humbly recognize their need for God (Lk 6:24-26). Only then will Jesus’ message to the poor be seen as gospel. An announcement of liberation (4:18-19) is good news only to people who are enslaved and know they are. The command applies also to the destitute and the afflicted. Those among them who bemoan their lot must repent of their sins. But something further is needed for the response to be complete: a person cannot believe Jesus’ gospel without a commitment to the Person<\/em> of Christ (Jn 3:16). Even those who are already “poor in spirit,” in the sense defined earlier, are not really “blessed” until they acknowledge the truth of Jesus’ claims (Mt 11:6) and commit themselves to a life of obedience on his terms (7:21-27). This prepares us for the next point.<\/p>\n<h5>Summary<\/h5>\nThroughout Jesus’ earthly ministry, the theme of his gospel remains the dawning of God’s kingdom (Mt 4:23; 24:14; Lk 4:43; 16:16), a message that is preached almost exclusively to Jews (Mt 10:5-6; 15:24). Yet Jesus also provides glimpses into what the gospel was to become once his work on earth was accomplished: (1) In Mark 8:35 and 10:29 Jesus speaks of individuals who needed to make great sacrifices “for my sake and for the gospel.” While distinguished from each other, the person of Jesus and the gospel are here associated in the closest possible way. The time was approaching when the Proclaimer of the gospel would become the Proclaimed. (2) In Mark 13:10 and Matthew 24:14 (and the textually doubtful Mk 16:15) Jesus foretells the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom to the gentile nations. (3) In Mark 14, having interpreted a woman’s action (v 3) as an anointing of his body beforehand for burial (v 8), Jesus declares, “And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her” (v 9, rsv<\/span>; cf. Mt 26:13). This statement strongly implies that both the person of Jesus and the event of his death will figure prominently in the message that is to be proclaimed; otherwise, it is strange that the gospel and this particular act should be so solemnly bound together. Thus, here in the text already is an indication of how crucial Jesus’ death is both for the provision of the salvation announced in his gospel (cf. Mk 14:22-24) and for the launching of the evangelistic mission to the Gentiles (Mt 20:28 is vital for explaining the shift from Mt 15:24 to 28:18-20).<\/p>\nThe Gospel after Jesus’ Resurrection<\/p>\nAfter the resurrection of Jesus, the gospel was proclaimed by his eyewitnesses. The contents of this gospel are recorded in the book of Acts and in Paul’s letters. Of the 43 instances of euangelizomai<\/span> (“evangelize”) beyond the Gospels, 15 occur in Acts and 21 in Paul’s writings; of the 64 instances of euangelion<\/span> (“gospel”), 2 occur in Acts and no fewer than 60 in Paul.<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel of Christ<\/h5>\nHaving risen from the dead, Jesus Christ again evangelizes (Eph 2:16-17), doing so now through his appointed representatives (Rom 15:16-18; 1 Cor 1:17; 9:12-18; Gal 4:13-14; Eph 4:11; 2 Tm 1:9-11). More than that, Christ has become the central theme of the gospel; the Proclaimer is now the Proclaimed. This is repeatedly affirmed in Acts (5:42; 8:4-5, 35; 11:20; 17:18) and in Paul’s writings (Rom 1:1-4; 10:8-17; 15:19-20; 2 Cor 4:4-6; 11:4; Gal 1:16; Eph 3:8; Phil 1:15-18; 2 Tm 2:8). The NT always speaks of the gospel<\/em>—never the gospels—of Christ. A second gospel is as inconceivable and as unnecessary as a second Christ. This is the one gospel that God authorizes (e.g., Rom 1:1-17) and proclaims (e.g., 2 Thes 2:13-14). Galatians 2:7-9 speaks not of two gospels but of two mission fields. Paul (the apostle to the uncircumcised) and Peter (the apostle to the circumcised) are both entrusted with “the gospel of Christ” (Gal 1:7; cf. 1 Cor 15:1-11), the message that God has ordained for the salvation of Jews and Gentiles alike (Rom 1:16). The “different gospel” that Paul denounces in Galatians 1:6-9 and 2 Corinthians 11:4 is not another gospel about Jesus but a message about “another Jesus”—not the real one, but one who exists only in the minds and the messages of those who proclaim him. To preach the true Christ is to preach the true gospel, however questionable one’s motives (Phil 1:15-18, 27), and to respond rightly to the gospel is to turn to Christ (Acts 11:20-21; Rom 10:8-17; Gal 2:14-16).<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel as a Witness to Saving Events<\/h5>\nThe gospel bears witness to every aspect of Christ’s saving work, from his birth (Rom 1:3; 2 Tm 2:8) and public ministry (Mk 1:1; Acts 10:36-38) to his second coming (Col 1:5, 23; cf. 3:1-4; 1 Thes 1:5-10) and the last judgment (Rom 2:16). But it is the death and the resurrection of Christ that are most crucial for the accomplishment of salvation, and that are therefore most prominent in the gospel’s witness. These are the events with which Mark’s proclamation climaxes (chs 15–16), and for which everything else prepares (8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34; 12:6-8); special stress is placed upon Jesus’ death as the means of salvation from sin (10:45; 14:3-9, 22-24). In Paul’s gospel, too, the death and resurrection of Jesus are central (Rom 4:25; 1 Cor 15:1-4), with the cross occupying the very center (1 Cor 1:17–2:5). Had Christ not risen from the dead, Paul argues, the preaching of the cross would be a waste of time (1 Cor 15:14, 17; cf. Rom 6:3-11). However, now that Christ has risen, his death deserves special emphasis as the place where God provides atonement for sins (Rom 3:21-26; 5:6-11; 2 Cor 5:14-21; Eph 1:7). The gospel according to Acts proclaims Jesus’ death (Acts 8:25; 20:24, 28; cf. 10:36-43) and preeminently his resurrection, the event by which he conquered death and was exalted as Lord and coming Judge (10:36-43; 13:32-33; 17:18, 31). According to 1 Peter, the bearers of the gospel (1 Pt 1:12) concentrated, as had the OT prophets, on “the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glory” (1:11; cf. 1:18-19; 2:21-24; 3:18-22).<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel as a Power for Salvation<\/h5>\nThe gospel is much more than a report of past events and an exposition of doctrine. Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 1:17-18 and again in Romans 1:16 that the gospel is “the power of God”—not merely a witness to his power but an expression<\/em> of his power. Thus, it cannot be fettered (2 Tm 2:8-9). “Our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power,” Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 1:5. His point is not that the gospel was accompanied by mighty works (though this happened; cf. Rom 15:18-19), but that the gospel itself is a mighty work. God makes it so through his Holy Spirit (Rom 15:18-19; 1 Cor 2:1-5; 1 Thes 1:6). Furthermore, God’s singular purpose in exercising his power is to change people’s lives, to liberate them from sin and death, and to reconcile them to himself—in short, to save them. The gospel has power to effect the salvation it announces and to impart the life it promises (e.g., Rom 1:16; 10:8-17; 1 Cor 1:17-18; 15:1-2; Eph 1:13; 2 Thes 2:13-14; 2 Tm 1:8-11; 1 Pt 1:23-25). If people are to experience salvation, they must hear and believe the gospel. It is precisely in and through this message that the saving power manifested in the person and work of Christ (especially in his death and resurrection) is conveyed to men and made effective in their lives. Similarly it is in association with the gospel, or as a direct result of the reception of the gospel, that the Holy Spirit is imparted to believers (Acts 10:36-44; 15:7-8; 2 Cor 11:4; Gal 3:1-2). In short, the gospel is the decisive place of encounter between the sinner and God the Savior.<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel of Grace<\/h5>\nAccording to Peter’s testimony at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:7-11), an essential part of the gospel—for Gentiles and Jews alike—is salvation “through the grace of the Lord Jesus.” Toward the close of his missionary career, Paul states that his basic concern has been “to testify to the gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24, rsv<\/span>). This statement can be understood only in relation to Paul’s concept of the righteousness of God, particularly as set forth in Romans. Paul is here not merely expounding a divine attribute. Rather, he is dramatizing a divine activity—the manifestation of God’s righteousness now, “in the present time” (Rom 3:26), in the new age inaugurated by the coming of Jesus. The manifestation is twofold. Viewing the two aspects together, and doing so in the light of the gospel declared by Isaiah and by Jesus (both of whom strongly influenced Paul), respectively, will help us to understand why Paul speaks of “the gospel of the grace of God.”<\/p>\nFirst, the gospel is a witness<\/em> to God’s grace. In offering his Son as a sacrifice for sins (Rom 3:25a), God demonstrates his righteousness (vv 25b-26). That is, in the death of Jesus sins formerly “passed over” (v 25c) become the object of God’s wrath (cf. 1:18) and judgment. Yet in the very place where God deals justly and decisively with sins, he shows his grace to sinners. For the judgment against sin is focused not upon the sinners themselves but upon the One appointed to act on their behalf and to stand in their place (Rom 4:25; 5:6, 11; cf. 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 3:13). On this basis, sinners are freely pardoned (Rom 3:24). “The grace of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 15:11) toward the sinful is also in evidence, for he willingly bears their iniquities and suffers the consequences of their wrongdoing (Gal 2:20; cf. 2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:6-8).<\/p>\nSecond, the gospel is a channel<\/em> of God’s grace. “The righteousness of God is revealed” in the gospel, says Paul (Rom 1:17). By this he means, not that the gospel talks about the righteousness of God (though it does), but that God’s righteousness is actively at work in the gospel. This activity in turn explains how the gospel becomes “the power of God for salvation” (v 16). And just how does God demonstrate his righteousness at this stage? In short, by bestowing it as a free gift on sinful human beings. It remains the righteousness of God, but by God’s grace, it is a righteousness in which humans may share. Furthermore, partaking of God’s righteousness depends on being personally united with Jesus Christ. In Paul’s view the saved person is one who has been acquitted, justified, “declared righteous” by God the judge. The basis for the verdict is not that I in myself am righteous (God justifies the ungodly, Rom 4:5). Nor does God treat me as though I were righteous. According to Paul I am declared righteous because I really am<\/em> righteous—not in myself but in Christ (1 Cor 1:30; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9). This union is established through the revelation—and the free offer—of God’s righteousness in the gospel (Rom 1:16-17).<\/p>\n<h5>Responding to the Gospel<\/h5>\nThe gospel calls for a threefold response:<\/p>\n1. Believing.<\/em> The gospel, says Paul, is “the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith” (Rom 1:16). For Paul, faith is the abandonment of all reliance upon “works of law” for justification (3:28) and utter dependence upon the grace of God as demonstrated in the work of Christ, especially his death (v 25). Accordingly, the “different gospel” of Galatians 1:6 and 2 Corinthians 11:4 is spurious, for it preaches salvation by personal merit rather than (or together with) the work of Christ (cf. Gal 2:16). Ultimately faith rests upon God (Rom 4:24; 1 Thes 1:8-9) and upon Christ (Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 2:16, 20). Yet it is imperative that one believe the gospel also (Acts 8:12; 11:20-21; 15:7; Rom 1:16; 10:8-17; 1 Cor 1:17-24; Phil 1:27; Heb 4:2), for it is just by this means that God’s salvation is made known and mediated. Moreover, believing the gospel entails repentance (Acts 14:15; 20:21, 24; 1 Thes 1:5-10) and obedience (Rom 1:5; 15:16-18; Heb 4:6). Those who refuse to obey the gospel are imperiling their lives (2 Thes 1:5-10; 1 Pt 4:17).<\/p>\n2. Growing.<\/em> The Gospel is more than a message to be received—it is also a place in which to stand (1 Cor 15:1-2). It is sustainer of life as well as giver of life. One grows as a Christian not by turning from the gospel to other things (to turn away from the gospel is to abandon God and Christ, Gal 1:6), but by going ever more deeply into the gospel. In Romans 1:15 Paul expresses his eagerness to proclaim the gospel to the Christians in Rome. In the following chapters, anticipating his visit, he offers one of his most profound expositions of the gospel—one whose truth has never been fathomed and whose power has never been exhausted.<\/p>\n3. Hoping.<\/em> “The hope of the gospel” (Col 1:23) includes not only the return of Christ and the glory of heaven (Col 1:5; 3:1-4; 2 Thes 2:14-16) but the final judgment as well. For those who embrace the gospel, the last judgment holds no terrors, because the Judge is the very one who rescues them from the wrath to come (1 Thes 1:10). Those who are united to him need not dread condemnation now or at the end (Rom 8:1). Instead, the last judgment will mark their final vindication (1 Cor 4:5; Gal 5:5). Accordingly, this theme is not just a corollary but an integral part of the Good News (Rom 2:16). Those who have died since believing the gospel (1 Pt 4:6) may seem to have suffered a fate common to all people, or even the condemnation reserved for the lawless; in fact, their response to the gospel assures them of approval by the coming Lord (4:5-6; 5:4) and of a share in the imperishable inheritance of heaven (1:4).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GOSPEL<\/h3>\nWord derived from the Anglo-Saxon godspell<\/em> denoting “glad tidings” or “good news.”<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Gospel Message of Isaiah<\/p>\n• The Gospel in the New Testament<\/p>\n• The Good News of Christ’s Coming<\/p>\n• The Gospel according to Jesus<\/p>\n• The Gospel after Jesus’ Resurrection<\/p>\nThe Gospel Message of Isaiah<\/p>\nOf all the passages cited, those of Isaiah provide the most important background for the gospel in the NT. According to Isaiah’s gospel, it is God alone who saves, and there is no explanation for his saving action except in his own nature. Israel’s deliverance is undeserved; she is no more worthy of the divine love now than when she went into captivity. In whatever measure she has paid the just due for her past sins (Is 40:2), she remains a sinful people (42:25; 46:12-13; 48:1). It is only by God’s grace that she is saved (55:1-7). By God’s design, Israel’s salvation depends not upon her own righteousness but upon his (41:10; 45:24; 46:13; 51:5-6). There being no righteousness to reward, the Lord acts to create<\/em> righteousness in Israel (45:8; 61:3, 10-11). Yet as these references indicate, salvation is not accomplished at the expense of justice. The penalty for Israel’s sins is to be paid in full. God’s mercy is not hereby called into question. On the contrary, it is precisely here that his mercy is most poignantly expressed, for the penalty is exacted not from his people but from the Servant appointed to stand in their place (53:4-12). Through the Servant’s work, many shall be justified (53:11). The coming of the Evangelist—the preacher of the good news—is predicted in Isaiah 61. He is called the anointed One (v 1) who proclaims the year of the Lord’s favor (v 2). God will be glorified through his preaching (v 3).<\/p>\nThe Gospel in the New Testament<\/p>\nIn only two places (Gal 3:8; Heb 4:2, 6) does the NT speak of the proclamation of the gospel prior to the Christian era. This is quite remarkable, given (1) the unmistakable presence of the gospel in the OT, (2) the extent of gospel terminology in the NT (in the Greek the noun appears 76 times; and the verb, 54), and (3) the fact that the NT presents Christ as the fulfillment of the OT and draws heavily on the OT to interpret his person and work. Not only is it remarkable; it is very significant. It indicates that the NT usage depends not only upon the character<\/em> of the message (truth about salvation) but also upon historical events.<\/em> Almost without exception, the NT restricts its application of gospel terminology to proclamations made during the time of fulfillment—the age in which the salvation promised in the OT is actually accomplished. The NT is preoccupied, not with promises of salvation, but with news of salvation. According to Mark 1:1-4, the gospel “begins” not in the OT but with John the Baptist, in whose work OT prophecy is fulfilled. In Romans 1:1-5 the gospel is represented as a blessing promised in the OT but not actually given until Jesus comes (see also Acts 13:32-33).<\/p>\nThe Good News of Christ’s Coming<\/p>\nThe promised birth of John the Baptist is good news (Lk 1:19), not only for his parents (vv 7, 24-25) but for all the people: John is sent to prepare them for Messiah’s coming (vv 14-17, 67-79). John’s own preaching is gospel (3:18) for the same reason. The Messiah would be coming to execute judgment, a process that involves both condemnation and salvation (vv 3-17). John’s message is gospel for sinners in that they are warned of impending doom and urged to repent before the ax falls (vv 7-9); it is gospel for the repentant in that they are promised forgiveness (v 3) and membership in Messiah’s community (v 17). The birth of the Savior himself is announced as good news bringing great joy (2:10-11).<\/p>\nThe Gospel according to Jesus<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming of the Kingdom of God<\/h5>\nJesus was authorized by God and anointed by the Spirit to proclaim the gospel (Mk 1:14; Lk 4:18). At the heart of his preaching stands the announcement “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mk 1:15). (For further references to this gospel, see Mt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; 26:13; Mk 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:9; Lk 4:43; 8:1; 16:16.) The message is good news for several reasons: (1) The kingdom is coming. The God whom Jesus proclaims is sovereign over all he has made. Yet paradoxically his rule is incomplete: his will is not done on earth as it is in heaven; wrong, not right, prevails. But these conditions are not final, according to Jesus. With the coming of the kingdom, God’s rule will be completed; wrong will be judged, righteousness established, and his people blessed. (2) The kingdom is now<\/em> being inaugurated. “The time is fulfilled,” declares Jesus (Mk 1:15a). The time appointed for the fulfillment of the OT promises has arrived. (3) The consummation of the kingdom is therefore no longer a distant prospect; the full realization of God’s rule is “at hand” (Mk 1:15b). (4) God is establishing his rule for a saving purpose. This is implied in Jesus’ call to repentance (Mk 1:15c). It is especially clear in the passages to which we now turn.<\/p>\n<h5>The Salvation of the Poor<\/h5>\nInvited to read the Scripture in the synagogue at Nazareth, Jesus turns to Isaiah 61: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord” (Lk 4:18-19, rsv<\/span>). Having read the prophecy, Jesus announces its fulfillment in his own ministry (v 21). Included among those whom Jesus has come to free are the physically infirm, such as the blind (v 18) and the leprous (v 27) (cf. the references to healing miracles in vv 23, 33-41; the close connection between evangelizing and healing in Mt 4:23; 9:35; 11:5; Lk 7:21-22; 9:6; and the description in Mt 12:22-29; Lk 13:11-16, of the physically afflicted as captives of Satan now liberated by Jesus). Also included are the materially poor—people like the widow helped by Elijah during the famine (Lk 4:25-26). It is the literally poor and hungry whom Jesus pronounces “blessed” in Luke 6:20-21. Yet it is primarily “spiritual” poverty that is in view. Still applying Isaiah 61, Jesus speaks in Matthew 5:3 of the “poor in spirit.” These are people broken and grieved by misery and poverty, oppression and injustice, suffering and death, national apostasy and personal sin—people who in their extremity turn to God and longingly wait for him to bring forth justice, bestow his mercy, and establish his kingdom. It is to just such people that Jesus brings good news (Mt 5:3-10). God sent him to usher in the kingdom, to rescue the lost, to liberate the enslaved, to cure the afflicted, to bind up hearts that are broken, and to forgive the guilty (Mk 2:5, 10, 17; 10:45; Lk 4:18-21; 7:48-49; 15:1-32; 19:10).<\/p>\n<h5>The Gift of Grace<\/h5>\nThe coming of the kingdom is not the effect or the reward of human effort but God’s answer to the human predicament—the gift of his favor (Lk 12:32). Correspondingly, the explanation for the salvation of the poor lies nowhere but in God’s own character. As the prodigal himself recognized, he hardly deserved to be his father’s servant, much less his son. Nothing he did, not even his repentance, accounted for the father’s love (15:11-32). In the parable of Matthew 20:1-16, it is owing entirely to the goodness of the employer that the last workers to be hired receive a full day’s wages. The first debtor in the story of Matthew 18:23-35 earned nothing but the right to be sold into slavery; instead, the king canceled his enormous debt. The publican, who had nothing to offer God but a confession of sin and plea for mercy, went home justified (Lk 18:13-14). The same holds true for the more virtuous among the poor, such as the persons described in Matthew 5:7-10. Their virtue is real, not imagined. Yet in keeping God’s commands, they do not put him in their debt; they are simply doing their duty (Lk 17:7-10). Furthermore, even the most merciful need divine mercy (Mt 5:7). For even those most zealous to obey God’s law are unable to fulfill all its requirements (cf. 11:28-30). The first servant in Matthew 18:23-35 owes far more money than someone in such a situation could possibly pay—which serves to magnify the generosity of the king. Grace depends for its exercise upon the inability of its objects (Lk 14:12-14).<\/p>\n<h5>The Call to Salvation<\/h5>\nThe Israelites are without exception a sinful people, all of them needing the salvation that Jesus brings (Mt 1:21; Lk 1:77). In demonstration of God’s grace, Jesus proclaimed his gospel to the entire nation (Mt 4:23; 9:35; 15:24; Lk 4:43; 9:6; 20:1). From the most respectable to the least, all are summoned to submit to God’s rule, all are invited to come and partake freely of the banquet he has spread (Lk 14:16-24). But the gift of salvation must be received if it is to be experienced (Mk 10:15). And while it is indeed a gift that costs nothing, it is also a priceless treasure for which a wise person will freely sacrifice everything else (Mt 13:44-46), a sacrifice exceeded only by the cost of rejecting the gospel (Mt 11:20-24; Mk 8:34-39; Lk 14:24, 33). “Repent and believe in the gospel,” Jesus commands (Mk 1:15). The self-righteous and the self-sufficient must be jolted out of their false sense of security and humbly recognize their need for God (Lk 6:24-26). Only then will Jesus’ message to the poor be seen as gospel. An announcement of liberation (4:18-19) is good news only to people who are enslaved and know they are. The command applies also to the destitute and the afflicted. Those among them who bemoan their lot must repent of their sins. But something further is needed for the response to be complete: a person cannot believe Jesus’ gospel without a commitment to the Person<\/em> of Christ (Jn 3:16). Even those who are already “poor in spirit,” in the sense defined earlier, are not really “blessed” until they acknowledge the truth of Jesus’ claims (Mt 11:6) and commit themselves to a life of obedience on his terms (7:21-27). This prepares us for the next point.<\/p>\n<h5>Summary<\/h5>\nThroughout Jesus’ earthly ministry, the theme of his gospel remains the dawning of God’s kingdom (Mt 4:23; 24:14; Lk 4:43; 16:16), a message that is preached almost exclusively to Jews (Mt 10:5-6; 15:24). Yet Jesus also provides glimpses into what the gospel was to become once his work on earth was accomplished: (1) In Mark 8:35 and 10:29 Jesus speaks of individuals who needed to make great sacrifices “for my sake and for the gospel.” While distinguished from each other, the person of Jesus and the gospel are here associated in the closest possible way. The time was approaching when the Proclaimer of the gospel would become the Proclaimed. (2) In Mark 13:10 and Matthew 24:14 (and the textually doubtful Mk 16:15) Jesus foretells the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom to the gentile nations. (3) In Mark 14, having interpreted a woman’s action (v 3) as an anointing of his body beforehand for burial (v 8), Jesus declares, “And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her” (v 9, rsv<\/span>; cf. Mt 26:13). This statement strongly implies that both the person of Jesus and the event of his death will figure prominently in the message that is to be proclaimed; otherwise, it is strange that the gospel and this particular act should be so solemnly bound together. Thus, here in the text already is an indication of how crucial Jesus’ death is both for the provision of the salvation announced in his gospel (cf. Mk 14:22-24) and for the launching of the evangelistic mission to the Gentiles (Mt 20:28 is vital for explaining the shift from Mt 15:24 to 28:18-20).<\/p>\nThe Gospel after Jesus’ Resurrection<\/p>\nAfter the resurrection of Jesus, the gospel was proclaimed by his eyewitnesses. The contents of this gospel are recorded in the book of Acts and in Paul’s letters. Of the 43 instances of euangelizomai<\/span> (“evangelize”) beyond the Gospels, 15 occur in Acts and 21 in Paul’s writings; of the 64 instances of euangelion<\/span> (“gospel”), 2 occur in Acts and no fewer than 60 in Paul.<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel of Christ<\/h5>\nHaving risen from the dead, Jesus Christ again evangelizes (Eph 2:16-17), doing so now through his appointed representatives (Rom 15:16-18; 1 Cor 1:17; 9:12-18; Gal 4:13-14; Eph 4:11; 2 Tm 1:9-11). More than that, Christ has become the central theme of the gospel; the Proclaimer is now the Proclaimed. This is repeatedly affirmed in Acts (5:42; 8:4-5, 35; 11:20; 17:18) and in Paul’s writings (Rom 1:1-4; 10:8-17; 15:19-20; 2 Cor 4:4-6; 11:4; Gal 1:16; Eph 3:8; Phil 1:15-18; 2 Tm 2:8). The NT always speaks of the gospel<\/em>—never the gospels—of Christ. A second gospel is as inconceivable and as unnecessary as a second Christ. This is the one gospel that God authorizes (e.g., Rom 1:1-17) and proclaims (e.g., 2 Thes 2:13-14). Galatians 2:7-9 speaks not of two gospels but of two mission fields. Paul (the apostle to the uncircumcised) and Peter (the apostle to the circumcised) are both entrusted with “the gospel of Christ” (Gal 1:7; cf. 1 Cor 15:1-11), the message that God has ordained for the salvation of Jews and Gentiles alike (Rom 1:16). The “different gospel” that Paul denounces in Galatians 1:6-9 and 2 Corinthians 11:4 is not another gospel about Jesus but a message about “another Jesus”—not the real one, but one who exists only in the minds and the messages of those who proclaim him. To preach the true Christ is to preach the true gospel, however questionable one’s motives (Phil 1:15-18, 27), and to respond rightly to the gospel is to turn to Christ (Acts 11:20-21; Rom 10:8-17; Gal 2:14-16).<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel as a Witness to Saving Events<\/h5>\nThe gospel bears witness to every aspect of Christ’s saving work, from his birth (Rom 1:3; 2 Tm 2:8) and public ministry (Mk 1:1; Acts 10:36-38) to his second coming (Col 1:5, 23; cf. 3:1-4; 1 Thes 1:5-10) and the last judgment (Rom 2:16). But it is the death and the resurrection of Christ that are most crucial for the accomplishment of salvation, and that are therefore most prominent in the gospel’s witness. These are the events with which Mark’s proclamation climaxes (chs 15–16), and for which everything else prepares (8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34; 12:6-8); special stress is placed upon Jesus’ death as the means of salvation from sin (10:45; 14:3-9, 22-24). In Paul’s gospel, too, the death and resurrection of Jesus are central (Rom 4:25; 1 Cor 15:1-4), with the cross occupying the very center (1 Cor 1:17–2:5). Had Christ not risen from the dead, Paul argues, the preaching of the cross would be a waste of time (1 Cor 15:14, 17; cf. Rom 6:3-11). However, now that Christ has risen, his death deserves special emphasis as the place where God provides atonement for sins (Rom 3:21-26; 5:6-11; 2 Cor 5:14-21; Eph 1:7). The gospel according to Acts proclaims Jesus’ death (Acts 8:25; 20:24, 28; cf. 10:36-43) and preeminently his resurrection, the event by which he conquered death and was exalted as Lord and coming Judge (10:36-43; 13:32-33; 17:18, 31). According to 1 Peter, the bearers of the gospel (1 Pt 1:12) concentrated, as had the OT prophets, on “the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glory” (1:11; cf. 1:18-19; 2:21-24; 3:18-22).<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel as a Power for Salvation<\/h5>\nThe gospel is much more than a report of past events and an exposition of doctrine. Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 1:17-18 and again in Romans 1:16 that the gospel is “the power of God”—not merely a witness to his power but an expression<\/em> of his power. Thus, it cannot be fettered (2 Tm 2:8-9). “Our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power,” Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 1:5. His point is not that the gospel was accompanied by mighty works (though this happened; cf. Rom 15:18-19), but that the gospel itself is a mighty work. God makes it so through his Holy Spirit (Rom 15:18-19; 1 Cor 2:1-5; 1 Thes 1:6). Furthermore, God’s singular purpose in exercising his power is to change people’s lives, to liberate them from sin and death, and to reconcile them to himself—in short, to save them. The gospel has power to effect the salvation it announces and to impart the life it promises (e.g., Rom 1:16; 10:8-17; 1 Cor 1:17-18; 15:1-2; Eph 1:13; 2 Thes 2:13-14; 2 Tm 1:8-11; 1 Pt 1:23-25). If people are to experience salvation, they must hear and believe the gospel. It is precisely in and through this message that the saving power manifested in the person and work of Christ (especially in his death and resurrection) is conveyed to men and made effective in their lives. Similarly it is in association with the gospel, or as a direct result of the reception of the gospel, that the Holy Spirit is imparted to believers (Acts 10:36-44; 15:7-8; 2 Cor 11:4; Gal 3:1-2). In short, the gospel is the decisive place of encounter between the sinner and God the Savior.<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel of Grace<\/h5>\nAccording to Peter’s testimony at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:7-11), an essential part of the gospel—for Gentiles and Jews alike—is salvation “through the grace of the Lord Jesus.” Toward the close of his missionary career, Paul states that his basic concern has been “to testify to the gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24, rsv<\/span>). This statement can be understood only in relation to Paul’s concept of the righteousness of God, particularly as set forth in Romans. Paul is here not merely expounding a divine attribute. Rather, he is dramatizing a divine activity—the manifestation of God’s righteousness now, “in the present time” (Rom 3:26), in the new age inaugurated by the coming of Jesus. The manifestation is twofold. Viewing the two aspects together, and doing so in the light of the gospel declared by Isaiah and by Jesus (both of whom strongly influenced Paul), respectively, will help us to understand why Paul speaks of “the gospel of the grace of God.”<\/p>\nFirst, the gospel is a witness<\/em> to God’s grace. In offering his Son as a sacrifice for sins (Rom 3:25a), God demonstrates his righteousness (vv 25b-26). That is, in the death of Jesus sins formerly “passed over” (v 25c) become the object of God’s wrath (cf. 1:18) and judgment. Yet in the very place where God deals justly and decisively with sins, he shows his grace to sinners. For the judgment against sin is focused not upon the sinners themselves but upon the One appointed to act on their behalf and to stand in their place (Rom 4:25; 5:6, 11; cf. 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 3:13). On this basis, sinners are freely pardoned (Rom 3:24). “The grace of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 15:11) toward the sinful is also in evidence, for he willingly bears their iniquities and suffers the consequences of their wrongdoing (Gal 2:20; cf. 2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:6-8).<\/p>\nSecond, the gospel is a channel<\/em> of God’s grace. “The righteousness of God is revealed” in the gospel, says Paul (Rom 1:17). By this he means, not that the gospel talks about the righteousness of God (though it does), but that God’s righteousness is actively at work in the gospel. This activity in turn explains how the gospel becomes “the power of God for salvation” (v 16). And just how does God demonstrate his righteousness at this stage? In short, by bestowing it as a free gift on sinful human beings. It remains the righteousness of God, but by God’s grace, it is a righteousness in which humans may share. Furthermore, partaking of God’s righteousness depends on being personally united with Jesus Christ. In Paul’s view the saved person is one who has been acquitted, justified, “declared righteous” by God the judge. The basis for the verdict is not that I in myself am righteous (God justifies the ungodly, Rom 4:5). Nor does God treat me as though I were righteous. According to Paul I am declared righteous because I really am<\/em> righteous—not in myself but in Christ (1 Cor 1:30; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9). This union is established through the revelation—and the free offer—of God’s righteousness in the gospel (Rom 1:16-17).<\/p>\n<h5>Responding to the Gospel<\/h5>\nThe gospel calls for a threefold response:<\/p>\n1. Believing.<\/em> The gospel, says Paul, is “the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith” (Rom 1:16). For Paul, faith is the abandonment of all reliance upon “works of law” for justification (3:28) and utter dependence upon the grace of God as demonstrated in the work of Christ, especially his death (v 25). Accordingly, the “different gospel” of Galatians 1:6 and 2 Corinthians 11:4 is spurious, for it preaches salvation by personal merit rather than (or together with) the work of Christ (cf. Gal 2:16). Ultimately faith rests upon God (Rom 4:24; 1 Thes 1:8-9) and upon Christ (Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 2:16, 20). Yet it is imperative that one believe the gospel also (Acts 8:12; 11:20-21; 15:7; Rom 1:16; 10:8-17; 1 Cor 1:17-24; Phil 1:27; Heb 4:2), for it is just by this means that God’s salvation is made known and mediated. Moreover, believing the gospel entails repentance (Acts 14:15; 20:21, 24; 1 Thes 1:5-10) and obedience (Rom 1:5; 15:16-18; Heb 4:6). Those who refuse to obey the gospel are imperiling their lives (2 Thes 1:5-10; 1 Pt 4:17).<\/p>\n2. Growing.<\/em> The Gospel is more than a message to be received—it is also a place in which to stand (1 Cor 15:1-2). It is sustainer of life as well as giver of life. One grows as a Christian not by turning from the gospel to other things (to turn away from the gospel is to abandon God and Christ, Gal 1:6), but by going ever more deeply into the gospel. In Romans 1:15 Paul expresses his eagerness to proclaim the gospel to the Christians in Rome. In the following chapters, anticipating his visit, he offers one of his most profound expositions of the gospel—one whose truth has never been fathomed and whose power has never been exhausted.<\/p>\n3. Hoping.<\/em> “The hope of the gospel” (Col 1:23) includes not only the return of Christ and the glory of heaven (Col 1:5; 3:1-4; 2 Thes 2:14-16) but the final judgment as well. For those who embrace the gospel, the last judgment holds no terrors, because the Judge is the very one who rescues them from the wrath to come (1 Thes 1:10). Those who are united to him need not dread condemnation now or at the end (Rom 8:1). Instead, the last judgment will mark their final vindication (1 Cor 4:5; Gal 5:5). Accordingly, this theme is not just a corollary but an integral part of the Good News (Rom 2:16). Those who have died since believing the gospel (1 Pt 4:6) may seem to have suffered a fate common to all people, or even the condemnation reserved for the lawless; in fact, their response to the gospel assures them of approval by the coming Lord (4:5-6; 5:4) and of a share in the imperishable inheritance of heaven (1:4).<\/p>","summary_ro":"GOSPEL Word derived from the Anglo-Saxon godspell denoting “glad tidings” or “good news.” Preview • The Gospel Message of Isaiah • The Gospel in the New Testament • The Good News of Christ’s Coming • The Gospel according to Jesus • The Gospel after Jesus’ Resurrection The Gospel Message of Isaiah Of all the passages cited, those of Isaiah provide the most important background for the gospel in the NT. According to Isaiah’s gospel, it is God alone who saves, and there is no explanation for his...","summary_en":"GOSPEL Word derived from the Anglo-Saxon godspell denoting “glad tidings” or “good news.” Preview • The Gospel Message of Isaiah • The Gospel in the New Testament • The Good News of Christ’s Coming • The Gospel according to Jesus • The Gospel after Jesus’ Resurrection The Gospel Message of Isaiah Of all the passages cited, those of Isaiah provide the most important background for the gospel in the NT. According to Isaiah’s gospel, it is God alone who saves, and there is no explanation for his...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55667,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:17","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:17","content_ro":"3:17<\/strong> After being harvested, the kernels of wheat<\/em> would be beaten off the stalks and then tossed in the air with a winnowing fork to separate<\/em> them from the chaff<\/em>. The heavy grain would fall to the ground as the lighter chaff blew away. This is an image of separation for judgment. • never-ending fire:<\/em> See Isa 66:24.<\/p>","content_en":"3:17<\/strong> After being harvested, the kernels of wheat<\/em> would be beaten off the stalks and then tossed in the air with a winnowing fork to separate<\/em> them from the chaff<\/em>. The heavy grain would fall to the ground as the lighter chaff blew away. This is an image of separation for judgment. • never-ending fire:<\/em> See Isa 66:24.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:17 After being harvested, the kernels of wheat would be beaten off the stalks and then tossed in the air with a winnowing fork to separate them from the chaff. The heavy grain would fall to the ground as the lighter chaff blew away. This is an image of separation for judgment. • never-ending fire: See Isa 66:24.","summary_en":"3:17 After being harvested, the kernels of wheat would be beaten off the stalks and then tossed in the air with a winnowing fork to separate them from the chaff. The heavy grain would fall to the ground as the lighter chaff blew away. This is an image of separation for judgment. • never-ending fire: See Isa 66:24.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83293,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:17","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:17","content_ro":"3:17<\/strong> After being harvested, the kernels of wheat<\/em> would be beaten off the stalks and then tossed in the air with a winnowing fork to separate<\/em> them from the chaff<\/em>. The heavy grain would fall to the ground as the lighter chaff blew away. This is an image of separation for judgment. • never-ending fire:<\/em> See Isa 66:24.<\/p>","content_en":"3:17<\/strong> After being harvested, the kernels of wheat<\/em> would be beaten off the stalks and then tossed in the air with a winnowing fork to separate<\/em> them from the chaff<\/em>. The heavy grain would fall to the ground as the lighter chaff blew away. This is an image of separation for judgment. • never-ending fire:<\/em> See Isa 66:24.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:17 After being harvested, the kernels of wheat would be beaten off the stalks and then tossed in the air with a winnowing fork to separate them from the chaff. The heavy grain would fall to the ground as the lighter chaff blew away. This is an image of separation for judgment. • never-ending fire: See Isa 66:24.","summary_en":"3:17 After being harvested, the kernels of wheat would be beaten off the stalks and then tossed in the air with a winnowing fork to separate them from the chaff. The heavy grain would fall to the ground as the lighter chaff blew away. This is an image of separation for judgment. • never-ending fire: See Isa 66:24.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110919,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:17","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:17","content_ro":"3:17<\/strong> After being harvested, the kernels of wheat<\/em> would be beaten off the stalks and then tossed in the air with a winnowing fork to separate<\/em> them from the chaff<\/em>. The heavy grain would fall to the ground as the lighter chaff blew away. This is an image of separation for judgment. • never-ending fire:<\/em> See Isa 66:24.<\/p>","content_en":"3:17<\/strong> After being harvested, the kernels of wheat<\/em> would be beaten off the stalks and then tossed in the air with a winnowing fork to separate<\/em> them from the chaff<\/em>. The heavy grain would fall to the ground as the lighter chaff blew away. This is an image of separation for judgment. • never-ending fire:<\/em> See Isa 66:24.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:17 After being harvested, the kernels of wheat would be beaten off the stalks and then tossed in the air with a winnowing fork to separate them from the chaff. The heavy grain would fall to the ground as the lighter chaff blew away. This is an image of separation for judgment. • never-ending fire: See Isa 66:24.","summary_en":"3:17 After being harvested, the kernels of wheat would be beaten off the stalks and then tossed in the air with a winnowing fork to separate them from the chaff. The heavy grain would fall to the ground as the lighter chaff blew away. This is an image of separation for judgment. • never-ending fire: See Isa 66:24.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138545,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:17","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:17","content_ro":"3:17<\/strong> After being harvested, the kernels of wheat<\/em> would be beaten off the stalks and then tossed in the air with a winnowing fork to separate<\/em> them from the chaff<\/em>. The heavy grain would fall to the ground as the lighter chaff blew away. This is an image of separation for judgment. • never-ending fire:<\/em> See Isa 66:24.<\/p>","content_en":"3:17<\/strong> After being harvested, the kernels of wheat<\/em> would be beaten off the stalks and then tossed in the air with a winnowing fork to separate<\/em> them from the chaff<\/em>. The heavy grain would fall to the ground as the lighter chaff blew away. This is an image of separation for judgment. • never-ending fire:<\/em> See Isa 66:24.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:17 After being harvested, the kernels of wheat would be beaten off the stalks and then tossed in the air with a winnowing fork to separate them from the chaff. The heavy grain would fall to the ground as the lighter chaff blew away. This is an image of separation for judgment. • never-ending fire: See Isa 66:24.","summary_en":"3:17 After being harvested, the kernels of wheat would be beaten off the stalks and then tossed in the air with a winnowing fork to separate them from the chaff. The heavy grain would fall to the ground as the lighter chaff blew away. This is an image of separation for judgment. • never-ending fire: See Isa 66:24.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"18":[{"id":4769,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"and Text of the (New Testament) Bible*, Manuscripts","title_en":"and Text of the (New Testament) Bible*, Manuscripts","content_ro":"<h3>BIBLE*, Manuscripts and Text of the (New Testament)<\/span><\/h3>\nCopies of the NT books produced by scribes and editions made from these copies. In the centuries prior to the simultaneous-multiple production of copies via dictation (wherein many scribes in a scriptorium transcribed a text dictated to them by one reader), all manuscript copies were made singly—each scribe producing a copy from an exemplar.<\/p>\nPrior to the 15th century, when Johannes Gutenberg invented movable type for the printing press, all copies of any work of literature were made by hand (hence, the name “manuscript”). According to a current tabulation, there are 99 papyrus manuscripts, 257 uncial manuscripts, and 2,795 minuscule manuscripts. We can add 2,209 Greek lectionaries to this list. Therefore, we have over 5,350 manuscript copies of the Greek NT or portions thereof. No other work of Greek literature can boast of such numbers.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Important Papyrus Manuscripts<\/p>\n• Important Uncial Manuscripts<\/p>\n• The Text of the New Testament<\/p>\nImportant Papyrus Manuscripts<\/p>\nPapyrus is a tall, aquatic reed, the pith of which is cut into strips, laid in a crosswork pattern and glued together to make a page for writing. The papyrus rolls of Egypt have been used as a writing surface since the early third millennium BC<\/span>. The Greeks adopted papyrus around 900 BC<\/span>, and later the Romans adopted its use. However, the oldest extant Greek rolls of papyrus date from the fourth century BC<\/span>. Unfortunately, papyrus is perishable, requiring a dry climate for its preservation. That is why so many papyri have been discovered in the desert sands of Egypt.<\/p>\nThe NT papyrus manuscripts (abbreviated as “P”) are generally the earliest manuscripts of the NT. Broadly speaking, the most important ones can be categorized in three groups: the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (from Oxyrhynchus, Egypt), (2) the Beatty Papyri (named after the owner); and (3) the Bodmer Papyri (named after the owner).<\/p>\n<h5>The Oxyrhynchus Papyri<\/h5>\nBeginning in 1898 B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt discovered thousands of papyrus fragments in the ancient rubbish heaps of Oxyrhynchus, Egypt. This site yielded volumes of papyrus fragments containing all sorts of written material (literature, business and legal contracts, letters, etc.) as well as over 40 manuscripts containing portions of the NT. Some of the more noteworthy papyrus manuscripts from Oxyrhynchus are as follows:<\/p>\n<h6>P1 (P. Oxy. 2)<\/h6>\nThis late second-century manuscript contains Matthew 1:1-9, 12, 14-20. Grenfell and Hunt in the winter of 1896–97 went to Oxyrhynchus (now called El Bahnasa) in search of ancient Christian documents. P1 was discovered on the second day of the dig. At the time of this discovery, this was the earliest extant copy of any NT portion—at least 100 years earlier than Codex Vaticanus. The copyist of P1 seems to have faithfully followed a very reliable exemplar. Where there are major variants, P1 agrees with the best Alexandrian witnesses, especially B (Codex Vaticanus), from which it rarely varies.<\/p>\n<h6>P5 (P. Oxy. 208 and 1781)<\/h6>\nTwo separate portions of this third-century manuscript were unearthed from Oxyrhynchus by Grenfell and Hunt, both from the same papyrus manuscript. The first portion contains John 1:23-31, 33-40 on one fragment and John 20:11-17 on another—probably on the first and last quires of a manuscript containing only the Gospel of John. This portion was published in volume II of Oxyrhynchus Papyri<\/em> in 1899; the second portion—containing John 16:14-30—was not published until 1922 in volume XV of Oxyrhynchus Papyri.<\/em><\/p>\nAfter examining the first portion, Grenfell and Hunt said, “The text is a good one, and appears to have affinities with that of Codex Sinaiticus, with which the papyrus agrees in several readings not found elsewhere.” The papyrus, written in a documentary hand, is marked for its brevity.<\/p>\n<h6>P13 (P. Oxy. 657 and PSI 1292)<\/h6>\nThis manuscript, dated between 175 and 225, contains 12 columns from a roll preserving the text of Hebrews 2:14–5:5; 10:8-22; 10:29–11:13; 11:28–12:7. The text of Hebrews was written in a reformed documentary hand on the back of the papyrus containing the new epitome of Livy. For this reason, some scholars think the manuscript was possibly brought to Egpyt by a Roman official and left behind when he left his post. P13 very often agrees with B, and it supplements B where it is lacking—namely, from Hebrews 9:14 to the end of Hebrews. P13 and P46 display nearly the same text. Out of a total of 88 variation-units, there are 71 agreements and only 17 disagreements.<\/p>\n<h6>P77 (P. Oxy. 2683 + 4405)<\/h6>\nDated c. 150–75, this is the earliest manuscript of Matthew (23:30-39). The manuscript is clearly a literary production. It was written in an elegant hand and has what was or became a standard system of chapter division, as well as punctuation and breathing marks. P77 has close textual affinities with Codex Sinaiticus.<\/p>\n<h6>P90 (P. Oxy. 3523)<\/h6>\nThis second-century manuscript (c. 150–75) contains John 18:36–19:7. The handwriting (an upright, rounded, elegant script) is much like that found in P66. Furthermore, P90 has more affinity with P66 than with any other single manuscript, though it does not concur with P66 in its entirety.<\/p>\n\n<h6>P. Oxy. 4404<\/h6>\nContaining Matthew 21:34-37, 43, 45, this manuscript could be the earliest extant manuscript of the NT in that the script is early Roman and therefore could be dated to the early second century.<\/p>\n<h5>The Chester Beatty Papyri<\/h5>\nThese manuscripts were purchased from a dealer in Egypt during the 1930s by Chester Beatty and by the University of Michigan. The three manuscripts in this collection are very early and contain a large portion of the NT text. P45 (c. 200) contains portions of all four Gospels and Acts; P46 (c. 125) has almost all of Paul’s epistles and Hebrews; and P47 (third century) contains Revelation 9–17.<\/p>\n<h6>P45 (Chester Beatty Papyrus I)<\/h6>\nThis codex has the four Gospels and Acts (Mt 20:24-32; 21:13-19; 25:41–26:39; Mk 4:36–9:31; 11:27–12:28; Lk 6:31–7:7; 9:26–14:33; Jn 4:51–5:2, 21-25; 10:7-25; 10:30–11:10, 18-36, 42-57; Acts 4:27–17:17). The order of books in the original intact manuscript was probably as follows: Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, Acts (the so-called Western order). This manuscript was dated by Kenyon to the early third century, a date that was confirmed by the papyrologists W. Schubart and H. I. Bell. This continues to be the date assigned to this manuscript in modern handbooks on textual criticism and critical editions of the Greek NT, but the consistent formation of certain letters suggests an earlier date—maybe sometime in the late second century.<\/p>\nThe scribe of P45 worked without any intention of exactly reproducing his source. He wrote with a great amount of freedom—harmonizing, smoothing out, substituting at will. In short, the scribe did not actually copy words. He saw through the language to its idea-content, and copied that in words of his own choosing, or in rearranged order. Thus, in the scribe of P45 we see an exegete and a paraphraser.<\/p>\n<h6>P46 (Chester Beatty Papyrus II)<\/h6>\nThis codex has most of Paul’s epistles (excluding the Pastorals) in this order: Romans 5:17–6:14; 8:15–15:9; 15:11–16:27; Hebrews 1:1–13:25; 1 Corinthians 1:1–16:22; 2 Corinthians 1:1–13:13; Ephesians 1:1–6:24; Galatians 1:1–6:18; Philippians 1:1–4:23; Colossians 1:1–4:18; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 1:9–2:3; 5:5-9, 23-28 (with minor lacunae in each of the books).<\/p>\nThe manuscript was originally dated to the early third century. But others, since, have dated the manuscript earlier in the second century. The scribe who produced this manuscript used an early, excellent exemplar. He was a professional scribe because there are stichoi notations at the end of several books (see the conclusion of Romans, 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians). The stichoi were used by professionals to note how many lines had been copied for commensurate pay. Most likely, the ex officio of the scriptorium (perhaps connected with a church library) paginated the codex and indicated the stichoi. The scribe himself made a few corrections as he went, and then several other readers made corrections here and there.<\/p>\nThe text of P46 shows a strong affinity with B (especially in Ephesians, Colossians, and Hebrews) and next with א (Codex Sinaiticus). P46 agrees much less with the later representatives of the Alexandrian text. In short, P46 is proto-Alexandrian. In Hebrews, P46 and P13 display nearly the same text. Out of a total of 88 variation-units, there are 71 agreements and only 17 disagreements.<\/p>\n<h6>P47 (Chester Beatty Papyrus III)<\/h6>\nThis third-century codex contains Revelation 9:10–17:2. The text of P47 agrees more often with that of Codex Sinaiticus than with any other manuscript (including Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus), though it often shows independence.<\/p>\n<h5>The Bodmer Papyri<\/h5>\nThese manuscripts were purchased by M. Martin Bodmer from a dealer in Egypt during the 1950s and 1960s. The three important papyri in this collection are P66 (c. 175, containing almost all of John), P72 (third century, having all of 1 and 2 Peter and Jude), and P75 (c. 200, containing large parts of Luke 3—John 15).<\/p>\nP66 (Papyrus Bodmer II)<\/p>\nThis manuscript contains most of John’s Gospel (1:1–6:11; 6:35–14:26, 29-30; 15:2-26; 16:2-4, 6-7; 16:10–20:20, 22-23; 20:25–21:9). The manuscript does not include the pericope of the adulteress (7:53–8:11), making it the earliest witness to not include this spurious passage. The manuscript is usually dated as c. 200, but the renowned paleographer Herbert Hunger has argued that P66 should be dated to the first half, if not the first quarter, of the second century.<\/p>\nAccording to recent studies, it seems evident that P66 has preserved the work of three individuals: the original scribe, a thoroughgoing corrector, and a minor corrector. With a practiced calligraphic hand, the original scribe of P66 wrote in larger print as he went along in order to fill out the codex. The large print throughout indicates that it was written to be read aloud to a Christian congregation. The text exhibits the scribe’s knowledge of other portions of Scripture (inasmuch as he harmonized John 6:69 to Matthew 16:16 and John 21:6 to Luke 5:5), his use of standard nomina sacra<\/em> (a way of writing divine names), and his special use of nomina sacra<\/em> for the words “cross” and “crucify.”<\/p>\nThe original scribe was quite free in his interaction with the text; he produced several singular readings that reveal his independent interpretation of the text. While the numerous scribal mistakes would seem to indicate that the scribe was inattentive, many of the singular readings—prior to correction—reveal that he was not detached from the narrative of the text. Rather, he became so absorbed in his reading that he often forgot the exact words he was copying. His task as a copyist was to duplicate the exemplar word for word, but this was frustrated by the fact that he was reading the text in logical semantic chunks and often became a coproducer of a new text. As a result, he continually had to stop his reading and make many in-process corrections. But he left several places uncorrected, which were later fixed by the diorthotes<\/em> (official corrector). The finished product is quite good, presenting a text that is very close to the Alexandrian witnesses.<\/p>\n<h6>P72 (Papyrus Bodmer VII–VIII)<\/h6>\nThis manuscript, dated late third century, has an interesting collection of writings in one codex: 1 Peter 1:1–5:14; 2 Peter 1:1–3:18; Jude 1:1-25; the Nativity of Mary, the apocryphal correspondence of Paul to the Corinthians, the eleventh ode of Solomon, Melito’s Homily on the Passover, a fragment of a hymn, the Apology of Phileas, and Psalms 33 and 34.<\/p>\nScholars think that four scribes took part in producing the entire manuscript. First Peter has clear Alexandrian affinities—especially with B. Second Peter and (especially) Jude display more of an uncontrolled type text (usually associated with the “Western” text), with several independent readings.<\/p>\n<h6>P75 (Papyrus Bodmer XIV–XV)<\/h6>\nThis codex contains most of Luke and John (Lk 3:18–4:2; 4:34–5:10; 5:37–18:18; 22:4–24:53; Jn 1:1–11:45, 48-57; 12:3–13:1, 8-9; 14:8-30; 15:7-8.) The manuscript does not include the pericope of the adulteress (7:53–8:11). The manuscript can be dated to the late second or early third century.<\/p>\nThe copyist of P75 was a literate scribe trained in making books. His craftsmanship shows through in his tight calligraphy and controlled copying. The handwriting displayed in this manuscript is typically called by paleographers the common angular type of the late second to early third century. The scribe’s Christianity shows in his abbreviations of the nomina sacra<\/em>,<\/em> as well as in his abbreviation of the word “cross.” These are telltale signs of a scribe who belonged to the Christian community. Furthermore, the large typeface indicates that the manuscript was composed to be read aloud to a Christian congregation. The scribe even added a system of sectional divisions to aid any would-be lector. Thus, we have a manuscript written by a Christian for other Christians.<\/p>\nThere are several indications of the scribe’s Alexandrian orientation. First and foremost is his scriptoral acumen. He is the best of all the early Christian scribes, and his manuscript is an extremely accurate copy. P75 is the work of an extremely disciplined scribe who copied with the intention of being careful and accurate. Scholars generally agree that P75 displays the kind of text that was used in making Codex Vaticanus (there is 87 percent agreement between P75 and B). As such, textual scholars have a high regard for P75’s textual fidelity.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Other Papyrus Manuscripts<\/h5>\n<h6>P4 + P64 + P67<\/h6>\nThese three papyrus manuscripts are part of one codex dated AD<\/span> 150–175. The manuscript was the work of a professional scribe, and the text is extremely accurate.<\/p>\n<h6>P32 (Rylands Papyrus 5)<\/h6>\nThis manuscript, preserving Titus 1:11-15; 2:3-8, is dated c. 175, making it the earliest extant copy of any of the Pastoral Epistles. P32 shows agreement with א and with F and G. Since F and G (nearly identical manuscripts) go back to the same archetype, it is possible that P32 could be linked to the same source.<\/p>\n<h6>P52 (Rylands Papyrus 457)<\/h6>\nThis fragment, containing John 18:31-34, 37-38, is noteworthy because of its date: c. 110–125. Many scholars (F. Kenyon, H. I. Bell, A. Deissmann, and W. H. P. Hatch) have confirmed this dating. The manuscript came from the Fayum or Oxyrhynchus site. It was acquired in 1920 by Grenfell, but it remained unnoticed among hundreds of papyri until 1934, when C. H. Roberts recognized that this fragment preserves a few verses from John’s Gospel.<\/p>\nImportant Uncial Manuscripts<\/p>\nThe manuscripts typically classified as “uncial” are so designated to differentiate them from papyrus manuscripts. In a sense, this is a misnomer because the real difference has to do with the material they are written on—vellum (treated animal hide) as compared to papyrus—not the kind of letters used. Indeed, the papyri are also written in uncials (capital letters), but the term “uncial” typically describes the majuscule lettering that was prominent in fourth-century biblical texts, such as in א, A, B, C.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex Sinaiticus (or א)<\/h5>\nThis codex contains the entire OT and the NT in this order: the four Gospels, the Pauline Epistles (including Hebrews), Acts, the General Epistles, Revelation. It also includes the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. The codex cannot be earlier than 340 (the year Eusebius died) because the Eusebian sections of the text are indicated in the margins of the Gospels by a contemporary hand. Most scholars date it 350–375.<\/p>\nThis codex was discovered by Constantin von Tischendorf in St Catherine’s Monastery (situated at the foot of Mt Sinai). On a visit to the monastery in 1844 he noticed in a wastebasket some parchment leaves that were being used to light the lamps. He was allowed to take this waste paper, which proved to be 43 leaves from various parts of the Greek translation of the OT.<\/p>\nIn 1853 he made a second trip to the monastery and found nothing. In 1859, however, on his third trip, he found not only other parts of the OT but also the complete NT. He was finally able to persuade the monastery authorities to present the manuscript to the czar, the great patron of the Greek Catholic Church, who placed it in the Imperial Library in St Petersburg. The czar gave great honors to the monastery and its authorities, and everybody seemed well pleased. Later Tischendorf was charged with having stolen the manuscript from its lawful owners, but the better textual scholars do not accept that story.<\/p>\n\nThe manuscript remained in the Imperial Library until 1933, when it was purchased by the British Museum for the huge sum of £100,000 (about $500,000). Textual criticism made the headlines because one manuscript was bought for this much money, raised largely by public subscription during the Great Depression. The manuscript is now on display in the manuscript room of the museum, where it is considered one of its most prized possessions.<\/p>\nThe text of Sinaiticus is very closely related to that of Codex Vaticanus. They agree in presenting the purest type of text, usually called the Alexandrian text type. Tischendorf greatly used the textual evidence of Codex Sinaiticus in preparing his critical editions of the Greek NT. Tischendorf thought four scribes had originally produced the codex, whom he named scribes A, B, C, D. After reinvestigation, H. J. Milne and T. C. Skeat identified only three scribes: A (who wrote the historical and poetical books of the OT, as well as most of the NT), B (who wrote the Prophets and the Shepherd of Hermas), and D (who wrote some Psalms, Tobit, Judith, and 4 Maccabees, and redid small sections of the NT). Milne and Skeat demonstrated that scribe A of Codex Vaticanus was likely the same scribe as scribe D of Codex Sinaiticus. If this true, then א is contemporary with B—perhaps produced in the same scriptorium in Alexandria. Codex Sinaiticus provides a fairly reliable witness to the NT; however, the scribe was not as careful as the scribe of B.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex Alexandrinus (A)<\/h5>\nThis is one of the three most important codices containing early copies of the whole Bible in Greek (the other two being the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus codexes). The name Alexandrinus comes from ancient records suggesting that it was copied in Egypt during the early part of the fifth century AD<\/span>. The early history of this manuscript and its Egyptian provenance is partially revealed by its flyleaves. A note by Cyril of Lucar (patriarch of Alexandria and then of Constantinople in the 1620s) states that, according to tradition, it was written by Thecla, a noble lady of Egypt shortly after the Council of Nicaea (325) and that her name was originally inscribed at the end of the volume but the last page was lost due to mutilation. An Arabic note of the 13th or 14th century also says that the manuscript was written by “Thecla the martyr.” Another Arabic note says that is was presented to the patriarchal cell of Alexandria (c. 1098). Cyril of Lucar took the manuscript from Alexandria to Constantinople in 1621 and then gave it to Charles I of England in 1627, where it became part of the Royal Library, then later the British Museum.<\/p>\nOnly 773 of the original 820 or so pages still exist. The rest were lost as the book was passed down through the centuries. The surviving parts of Alexandrinus contain a Greek translation of the whole OT, the Apocrypha (including four books of Maccabees and Psalm 151), most of the NT, and some early Christian writings (of which the First and Second Epistles of Clement to the Corinthians are the most important).<\/p>\nFrederick Kenyon thought the codex was the work of five scribes, to each of whom he designated a Roman numeral. According to Kenyon, scribes I and II copied the OT; scribe III did Matthew, Mark, 1 Corinthians 10:8—Philemon 1:25; scribe IV did Luke—Acts, General Epistles, Romans 1:1—1 Corinthians 10:8; and scribe V did Revelation. Milne and Skeat, however, argued that the whole codex was the work of two copyists (I and II). W. H. P. Hatch noted that many corrections have been made in the manuscript, most of them at an early date. Some of these corrections were introduced by the scribe himself, and others came from later hands.<\/p>\nEvidently, the scribes of this codex used exemplars of varying quality for various sections of the NT. The exemplar used for the Gospels was of poor quality, reflecting a Byzantine text type. Its testimony in the Epistles is much better, and in Revelation it provides the best witness to the original text.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Codex Vaticanus (B)<\/h5>\nCodex Vaticanus is the Vatican Manuscript, so named because it is the most famous manuscript in the Vatican Library in Rome. This manuscript has been in the Vatican’s library since at least 1475, but it was not made available to scholars, such as Constantin von Tischendorf and Samuel Tregelles, until the middle of the 19th century.<\/p>\nAt one time, the codex contained the whole Greek Bible, including most of the books of the Apocrypha, but it has lost many of its leaves. Originally it must have had about 820 leaves (1,640 pp), but now it has 759—617 in the OT and 142 in the NT. The major gaps of the manuscript are Genesis 1:1–46:28; 2 Samuel 2:5-7, 10-13; Psalms 106:27–138:6; Hebrews 9:14–13:25; the Pastoral Epistles; and Revelation. Each leaf measures ten and a half by ten inches (26.7 by 25.4 centimeters). Each page has three columns (two for the poetical books) with 40 to 44 lines to the column. The manuscript was written by two different scribes. It is dated in the early to middle part of the fourth century. It is not known where the manuscript originated, but it has been in the Vatican Library from the time of its earliest catalog in 1475.<\/p>\n\nWhen Napoleon conquered Rome, he brought its treasures to Paris, including this manuscript. The scholar Hug identified it and called the attention of other scholars to it. After the downfall of Napoleon, the manuscript was returned to the Vatican Library. Competent textual scholars were not allowed to do careful work on it until a photographic edition was published in 1890. It is now on exhibit in the Vatican Library.<\/p>\nThe text of the Vatican Manuscript is much like that of Codex Sinaiticus. These are generally recognized as the two finest examples of the Alexandrian type of Greek text of the NT. The Greek text of the OT is very fine too, but it is not quite so important, as the original language of the OT was Hebrew. Virtually all the textual scholars since the days of Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort (who brought out their Greek Testament, including their theory of textual criticism, in 1881), recognize this neutral type of text as a very early text and a very pure text, an extremely accurate reproduction of what the original text must have been. Westcott and Hort called it a second-century text accurate in 999 out of 1,000 words so far as any matter of translatable difference was concerned. א and B are the finest examples of this type of text, but it is also found in a few other Greek uncial manuscripts, a few of the early translations, and in the writings of a few of the early church fathers. Since the days of Westcott and Hort, their theory has been confirmed by the discovery of some papyrus manuscripts, notably the Bodmer Papyri, discovered in the 1950s.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C)<\/h5>\nThis codex is a palimpsest (the original writing was erased and different words written on the same material). It originally contained the entire Bible but now has only parts of six OT books and portions of all NT books except 2 Thessalonians and 2 John. The single-column Bible text, written in the 5th century AD<\/span>, was erased in the 12th century and replaced by a two-column text of a Greek translation of sermons or treatises by a certain Ephraem, a 4th-century Syrian church leader. Such a practice was common in periods of economic depression or when parchment was scarce. The original writing was scraped from the writing surface and the surface smoothed. Then new compositions could be written on the prepared surface. Using chemicals Tischendorf was able to read much of the erased document.<\/p>\nThe manuscript may have been brought from the east to Florence by a learned Greek named Andrew John Lascar in the time of Lorenzo de’Medici. Since Lascar was known as Rhyndacenus (from the river Rhyndacus), he probably came from the region of Phrygia (site of ancient Laodicea). Where the manuscript was prior to this is not known. The Ephraemi manuscript was brought to Italy in the early sixth century, where it became the property of the Medici family. Catherine de’Medici took it to France, where it remains today.<\/p>\nThe text of this manuscript is mixed—it is compounded from all the major text types, agreeing frequently with the later koine of Byzantine type, which most scholars regard as the least valuable type of NT text.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex Bezae (D)<\/h5>\nThis is a Greek-Latin diglot containing Matthew—Acts, 3 John, with lacunae. Most scholars date it late fourth or early fifth century (c. 400). Some scholars think the codex was produced in either Egypt or North Africa by a scribe whose mother tongue was Latin. Another scholar (D. C. Parker) has argued that it was copied in Beirut, a center of Latin legal studies during the fifth century, where both Latin and Greek were used. Evidently, it was produced by a scribe who knew Latin better than Greek, and then was corrected by several scribes. In any event, the codex somehow came into the hands of Theodore Beza, French scholar and successor to Calvin. Beza gave it to the Cambridge University Library in 1581.<\/p>\nThis codex is probably the most controversial of the NT uncials because of its marked independence. Its many additions, omissions, and alterations (especially in Luke and Acts) are the work of a significant theologian. A few earlier manuscripts (P29, P38, P48, and 0171) appear to be precursors to the type of text found in D, which is considered the principal witness of the Western text-type. Thus, Codex Bezae could be a copy of an earlier revised edition. This reviser must have been a scholar who had a propensity for adding historical, biographical, and geographical details. More than anything, he was intent on filling in gaps in the narrative by adding circumstantial details.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex Washingtonianus, or The Freer Gospels (W)<\/h5>\nThis codex, dated around 400, has the four Gospels and Acts. It is often referred to as the Freer Gospels—named after its owner, Charles Freer. The codex likely came from the ruins of a monastery near Giza. The handwriting is quite similar to that found in a fifth-century fragment of the book of Enoch found at Akhmim in 1886.<\/p>\nCodex W was copied from a parent manuscript (exemplar) that had been pieced together from several different manuscripts. This is obvious because the textual presentation of W is noticeably variegated and even the stratification of the text is matched by similar variations in paragraphing. The scribe who collated the parent manuscript drew upon various sources to put together his Gospel codex. It is likely that the scribe of the parent manuscript used a text that came from North Africa (the “Western” text) for the first part of Mark, and the scribe of W used manuscripts from Antioch for Matthew and the second part of Luke to fill the gaps in the more ancient manuscript he was copying. Detailed textual analysis reveals the variegated textual stratifications of W, as follows: in Matthew the text is Byzantine; in Mark the text is first Western (1:1–5:30), then Caesarean in Mark 5:31–16:20 (akin to P45); in Luke the text is first Alexandrian (1:1–8:12), then Byzantine. John is more complicated because the first part of John (1:1–5:11), which fills a quire, was the work of a seventh-century scribe who must have replaced a damaged quire. (Ws<\/span> designates the work of this scribe.) This first section has a mixture of Alexandrian and Western readings, as does the rest of John.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex 1739<\/h5>\nThis tenth-century codex has Acts and the Epistles. The manuscript was discovered at Mt Athos in 1879 by E. von der Goltz. The manuscript has strong textual affinities with P46, B, 1739, Coptic Sahidic, Coptic Boharic, Clement, and Origen. The relationship between P46, B, and 1739 is remarkable because 1739 is a tenth-century manuscript that was copied from a fourth-century manuscript of excellent quality. According to a colophon, the scribe of 1739 for the Pauline Epistles followed a manuscript that came from Caesarea in the library of Pamphilus and that contained an Origenian text. The three manuscripts, P46, B, and 1739, form a clear textual line: from P46 (early second century) to B (early fourth century) to 1739 (tenth century based on fourth century).<\/p>\nThe Text of the New Testament<\/p>\nThe original text of the NT is the “published” text—that is, the text as it was in its final edited form and released for circulation in the Christian community. For some books of the NT, there is little difference between the original composition and the published text. After the author wrote or dictated his work, he (or an associate) made the final editorial corrections and then released it for distribution. As is the case for books published in modern times, so in ancient times, the original writing of the author is not always the same as what is published—due to the editorial process. Nonetheless, the author is credited with the final edited text, and the published book is attributed to the author and considered the autograph. This autograph is the original published text. Of course, in this case the autographs do not exist, so scholars have to rely on copies to recover or reconstruct the original wording.<\/p>\nSome scholars think it is impossible to recover the original text of the Greek NT because they have not been able to reconstruct the early history of textual transmission. Other modern scholars are less pessimistic but still quite guarded in affirming the possiblity. And yet others are optimistic because we possess many early manuscripts of excellent quality and because our view of the early period of textual transmission has been getting clearer and clearer.<\/p>\nWhen we speak of recovering the text of the NT, we are referring to individual books of the NT, not to the entire volume per se, because each book (or group of books—such as the Pauline Epistles) had its own unique history of textual transmission. The earliest extant copy of an entire NT text is the one preserved in Codex Sinaiticus (written about AD<\/span> 375). (Codex Vaticanus lacks the Pastoral Epistles and Revelation.) Prior to the fourth century, the NT was circulated in its various parts: as a single book or a group of books (such as the four Gospels or the Pauline Epistles). Manuscripts from the late first century to the third century have been found with individual books such as Matthew (P1, P77), Mark (P88), Luke (P69), John (P5, 22, 52, 66), Acts (P91), Revelation (P18, 47), or containing groups of books, such as the four Gospels with Acts (P45), the Pauline Epistles (P30, P46, P92), the Petrine Epistles and Jude (P72). Each of the books of the NT has had its own textual history and has been preserved with varying degrees of accuracy. Nonetheless, all of the books were altered from the original state due to the process of manual copying decade after decade and century after century. And the text of each of the books needs to be recovered.<\/p>\nThe NT text was affected with many variations in its early history. In the late first and early second century, the oral traditions and the written word existed side by side with equal status—especially with respect to the material of the Gospels. Often, the text was changed by scribes attempting to conform the written message to the oral tradition or attempting to conform one Gospel account to another. By the end of the second century and into the third century, many of the significant variant readings entered into the textual stream.<\/p>\nThe early period of textual transmission, however, was not completely marred by textual infidelity and scribal liberty. There were those scribes who copied the text faithfully and reverently—that is, they recognized that they were copying a sacred text written by an apostle. The formalization of canonization did not ascribe this sacredness to the text. Canonization came about as the result of common, historical recognition of the sacredness of various NT books. Certain NT books, such as the four Gospels, Acts, and Paul’s epistles were considered inspired literature from the onset. As such, certain scribes copied them with reverential fidelity.<\/p>\nOther scribes, however, felt free to make “improvements” in the text—either in the interest of doctrine and harmonization or due to the influence of a competitive oral tradition. The manuscripts produced in such a manner created a kind of “popular text”—i.e., an uncontrolled text. (This text type used to be called the “Western text,” but scholars now recognize this as a misnomer.)<\/p>\nDuring the second century, there were a few men who produced recensions of the NT text. According to Eusebius, Theodotus (and his followers) altered the text for their own purposes. In the middle of the second century, Marcion expunged his copies of the Gospel according to Luke of all references to the Jewish background of Jesus, and Tatian’s harmony of the Gospels contains several textual alterations that gave support to ascetic views. And yet another recendor created the D-type text for the Gospels and Acts. This theologically minded redactor, living in the late second or third century, created a text that had short-lived popularity. Three third-century papyri, P29, P38, P48, each containing a portion from the book of Acts, may be precursors to the D-type text in Acts. But there are other papyri containing portions of Acts that provide even earlier testimony to a purer form of Acts—namely, P45 (c. 150) and P91 (c. 200), thereby showing that the D-type text of Acts did not necessarily antedate the purer form.<\/p>\nBesides these endeavors—which are all noted for creating textual impurities—there was no recension of the NT text in the second century. Rather, it was a period in which there were scribes who exercised freedom in copying and those who demonstrated acumen. The manuscripts produced by the latter are those that come closest to preserving the original text. A prime example of an accurate late-second-century manuscript is P75.<\/p>\nIt is a well-known fact that the text produced by the scribe of P75 is a very accurate manuscript. It is also well-known that P75 was the kind of manuscript used in formulating Codex Vaticanus—the readings of P75 and B are remarkably similar. Prior to the discovery of P75, certain scholars thought Codex Vaticanus was the work of a fourth-century recension; others (chiefly Hort) thought it must trace back to a very early and accurate copy. Hort said that Codex Vaticanus preserves “not only a very ancient text, but a very pure line of a very ancient text” (Westcott and Hort, The<\/em> Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek,<\/em> pp 250–51). P75 appears to have shown that Hort was right.<\/p>\nPrior to the discovery of P75, many textual scholars were convinced that the second- and third-century papyri displayed a text in flux, a text characterized only by individual independence. The Chester Beatty Papyrus, P45, and the Bodmer Papyri, P66 and P72 (in 2 Peter and Jude), show this kind of independence. Scholars thought that scribes at Alexandria must have used several such texts to produce a good recension—as is exhibited in Codex Vaticanus. But we now know that Codex Vaticanus was not the result of a scholarly recension, resulting from editorial selection across the various textual histories. Rather, it is now quite clear that Codex Vaticanus was simply a copy (with some modifications) of a manuscript much like P75, not a fourth-century recension.<\/p>\nSome scholars may point out that this does not automatically mean that P75 and B represent the original text. What it does mean, they say, is that we have a second-century manuscript showing great affinity with a fourth-century manuscript whose quality has been highly esteemed. But various scholars have demonstrated that there was no Alexandrian recension before the time of P75 (late second century) and B (early fourth) and that both these manuscripts represent a relatively pure form of preservation of a relatively pure line of descent from the original text.<\/p>\nThe current view about the early text is that certain scribes in Alexandria and\/or scribes familiar with Alexandrian scriptoral practices (perhaps those in Oxyrhynchus) were probably responsible for maintaining a relatively pure text throughout the second, third, and fourth centuries. The Alexandrian scribes, associated with or actually employed by the scriptorium of the great Alexandrian library and\/or members of the scriptorium associated with the catechetical school at Alexandria (called the Didaskelion<\/em>), were trained philologists, grammarians, and textual critics. Their work on the NT was not recensional—that is, it was not an organized emendation of the text. Rather, the work of purification and preservation was probably done here and there by various individuals trained in text criticism. This is apparent in the production of P66, which contains the Gospel of John. This manuscript was probably produced in an Egyptian scriptorium by a novice scribe who made many blunders, which were subsequently corrected by another scribe working in the same scriptorium. The first text produced by the novice could be classified as being very “free,” but the corrected text is far more accurate. (See the discussion on this manuscript above.)<\/p>\nWhat appears to have happened with the copying of the NT text in the early period in Egypt has been poignantly characterized by Zuntz. He said that when a book was immensely popular (such as Homer’s Iliad<\/em> and Odyssey,<\/em> or Plato’s writings), it was copied with wild enthusiasm by novice and scholar alike. But when grammarians and scribes got ahold of it, they tried to rid it of textual corruption. In the process, however, they may have obliterated some authentic readings, but not many. Thus, the popular text (also known as the “Western text”) could have preserved the original wording in some cases. The popular or free kind of text is displayed in several third-century manuscripts: P9, P37, P40, P45, P72, and P78.<\/p>\nIn brief, this popular text is usually displayed in any kind of manuscript that was not produced by Alexandrian influences. This text, given to independence, is not as trustworthy as the Alexandrian text type. But because the Alexandrian text is known as a polished text, the popular text sometimes preserved the original wording. When a variant reading has the support of “Western” and Alexandrian texts, it is very likely original; but when the two are divided, the Alexandrian witnesses more often preserve the original wording.<\/p>\nOne dilemma still remains for some textual critics. They cannot explain how a P75\/B-type text coexisted with a Western-type text in the second century. All that can be said is that the Western text generally appears to be inferior to the P75\/B-type text. Of course, this kind of judgment troubles certain scholars, who point out that the esteem given to B and P75 is based on a subjective appreciation of the kind of text they contain (as over against the Western text) rather than on any kind of theoretical reconstruction of the early transmission of the text. This same subjective estimation was at work when Westcott and Hort decided that B was intrinsically superior to D (see their Introduction,<\/em> pp 32–42). Yet the praxis of textual criticism time and again demonstrates that the P75\/B-type text is intrinsically superior to the Western text.<\/p>\nIn the final analysis, the manuscripts that represent a pure preservation of the original text are usually those called “Alexandrian.” Some scholars, such as Bruce Metzger, have called the earlier manuscripts “protoAlexandrian,” for they (or manuscripts like them) are thought of as being used to compose an Alexandrian-type text. However, this is looking at things from the perspective of the fourth century. We should look at things from the second century onward and then compare fourth-century manuscripts to those of the second. The second-century manuscripts could still be called “Alexandrian” in the sense that they were produced under Alexandrian influences. Perhaps a distinguishing terminology could be “early Alexandrian” (pre-Constantine) and “later Alexandrian” (post-Constantine). Manuscripts designated as “early Alexandrian” would generally be purer, less editorialized. Manuscripts designated “later Alexandrian” would display editorialization, as well as the influence of other textual traditions.<\/p>\nThe “early Alexandrian” text is reflected in many second- and third-century manuscripts. On the top of the list is P75 (c. 175), the work of a competent and careful scribe. Not far behind in quality is P4+P64+P67 (c. 150), the work of an excellent copyist. Other extremely good copies are P1 (c. 200), P20 (early third century), P23 (c. 200), P27 (third century), P28 (third century), P32 (c. 150), P39 (third century), P46 (c. 125), P65 (third century), P66 (in its corrected form—P66c<\/span>; c. 150), P70 (third century), P77 (c. 150), P87 (c. 125), P90 (c. 175), and P91 (c. 200). Several of these manuscripts have been placed in the “strict” category by textual critics Kurt and Barbara Aland—that is, they exhibit “strict” scribal control and therefore are accurate copies of an exemplar, if not the original. These manuscripts are P1, P23, P35, P37, P39, P64\/67, P65, P70, and P75.<\/p>\nThe “later Alexandrian” text, which displays editorial polishing, is exhibited in a few manuscripts, such as א (fourth century), T (fifth century), ע (seventh century), L (eighth century), 33 (ninth century), 1739 (a tenth-century manuscript copied from a fourth-century Alexandrian manuscript much like P46), and 579 (13th century). Beginning in the fifth century, Byzantine-type manuscripts began to make their influence in Egypt. Some manuscripts dated around 400 that came from Egypt clearly reflect this influence; Codex Alexandrinus (A) is probably the best example. Other Egyptian manuscripts of this era, such as Codex Sinaiticus (א) and Codex Washingtonianus (W) display large-scale harmonization, which cannot be directly linked to any kind of recension.<\/p>\nAt the end of the third century, another kind of Greek text came into being and then grew in popularity until it became the dominant text-type throughout Christendom. This is the text-type first instigated by Lucian of Antioch, according to Jerome (in his introduction to his Latin translation of the Gospels). Lucian’s text was a definite recension (i.e., a purposely created edition)—as opposed to the Alexandrian text-type that came about as the result of a process wherein the Alexandrian scribes, upon comparing many manuscripts, attempted to preserve the best text—thereby serving more as textual critics than editors. Of course, the Alexandrians did do some editing—such as we would call copy-editing. The Lucianic text is the outgrowth and culmination of the popular text; it is characterized by smoothness of language, which is achieved by the removal of obscurities and awkward grammatical constructions and by the conflation of variant readings. Lucian (and\/or his associates) must have used many different kinds of manuscripts of varying qualities to produce a harmonized, edited NT text. The kind of editorial work that went into the Lucianic text is what we would call substantive editing.<\/p>\nLucian’s text was produced prior to the Diocletian persecution (c. 303), during which time many copies of the NT were confiscated and destroyed. Not long after this period of devastation, Constantine came to power and then recognized Christianity as the state religion. There was, of course, a great need for copies of the NT to be made and distributed to churches throughout the Mediterranean world. It was at this time that Lucian’s text began to be propagated by bishops going out from the Antiochan school to churches throughout the East, taking the text with them. Lucian’s text soon became the standard text of the Eastern church and formed the basis for the Byzantine text—and is thus the ultimate authority for the Textus Receptus.<\/p>\nWhile Lucian was forming his recension of the NT text, the Alexandrian text was taking on its final shape. As was mentioned earlier, the formation of the Alexandrian text-type was the result of a process (as opposed to a single editorial recension). The formation of the Alexandrian text involved minor textual criticism (i.e., selecting variant readings among various manuscripts) and copyediting (i.e., producing a readable text). There was far less tampering with the text in the Alexandrian text-type than in the Lucian, and the underlying manuscripts for the Alexandrian text-type were superior to those used by Lucian. Perhaps Hesychius was responsible for giving the Alexandrian text its final shape, and Athanasius of Alexandria may have been the one who made this text the archetypal text for Egypt.<\/p>\nAs the years went by, there were fewer and fewer Alexandrian manuscripts produced, and more and more Byzantine manuscripts manufactured. Very few Egyptians continued to read Greek (with the exception of those in St Catherine’s Monastery, the site of the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus), and the rest of the Mediterranean world turned to Latin. It was only those in the Greek-speaking churches in Greece and Byzantium that continued to make copies of the Greek text. For century after century—from the 6th to the 14th—the great majority of NT manuscripts were produced in Byzantium, all bearing the same kind of text. When the first Greek NT was printed (c. 1525), it was based on a Greek text that Erasmus had compiled, using a few late Byzantine manuscripts. This printed text, with minor revisions, became the Textus Receptus.<\/p>\nBeginning in the 17th century, earlier manuscripts began to be discovered—manuscripts with a text that differed from that found in the Textus Receptus. Around 1630, Codex Alexandrinus was brought to England. An early fifth-century manuscript, containing the entire NT, it provided a good, early witness to the NT text (it is an especially good witness to the original text of Revelation). Two hundred years later, a German scholar named Constantin von Tischendorf discovered Codex Sinaiticus in St Catherine’s Monastery (located near Mt Sinai). The manuscript, dated around AD<\/span> 360, is one of the two oldest vellum (treated animal hide) manuscripts of the Greek NT. The earliest vellum manuscript, Codex Vaticanus, had been in the Vatican’s library since at least 1481, but it had not been made available to scholars until the middle of the 19th century. This manuscript, dated slightly earlier (AD<\/span> 350) than Codex Sinaiticus, had both the OT and NT in Greek, excluding the last part of the NT (Hebrews 9:15 to Revelation 22:21 and the Pastoral Epistles). A hundred years of textual criticism has determined that this manuscript is one of the most accurate and reliable witnesses to the original text.<\/p>\nOther early and important manuscripts were discovered in the 19th century. Through the tireless labors of men like Constantin von Tischendorf, Samuel Tregelles, and F. H. A. Scrivener, manuscripts such as Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, Codex Zacynthius, and Codex Augiensis were deciphered, collated, and published.<\/p>\nAs the various manuscripts were discovered and made public, certain scholars labored to compile a Greek text that would more closely represent the original text than did the Textus Receptus. Around 1700 John Mill produced an improved Textus Receptus, and in the 1730s Johannes Albert Bengel (known as the father of modern textual and philological studies in the NT) published a text that deviated from the Textus Receptus according to the evidence of earlier manuscripts.<\/p>\nIn the 1800s certain scholars began to abandon the Textus Receptus. Karl Lachman, a classical philologist, produced a fresh text (in 1831) that represented the fourth-century manuscripts. Samuel Tregelles (self-taught in Latin, Hebrew, and Greek), laboring throughout his entire lifetime, concentrated all of his efforts in publishing one Greek text (which came out in six parts, from 1857 to 1872). As is stated in the introduction to this work, Tregelles’s goal was “to exhibit the text of the NT in the very words in which it has been transmitted on the evidence of ancient authority.” Henry Alford also compiled a Greek text based upon the best and earliest manuscripts. In his preface to The Greek New Testament<\/em> (a multivolume commentary on the Greek NT, published in 1849), Alford said he labored for the “demolition of the unworthy and pedantic reverence for the received text, which stood in the way of all chance of discovering the genuine word of God.”<\/p>\nDuring this same era, Tischendorf was devoting a lifetime of labor to discovering manuscripts and producing accurate editions of the Greek NT. In a letter to his fiancé he wrote, “I am confronted with a sacred task, the struggle to regain the original form of the NT.” In fulfillment of his desire, he discovered Codex Sinaiticus, deciphered the palimpsest Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, collated countless manuscripts, and produced several editions of the Greek NT (the eighth edition is considered the best).<\/p>\nAided by the work of the previous scholars, two British men, Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort, worked together for 28 years to produce a volume entitled The New Testament in the Original Greek<\/em> (1881). Along with this publication, they made known their theory (which was chiefly Hort’s) that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (along with a few other early manuscripts) represented a text that most closely replicated the original writing. They called this text the Neutral Text. (According to their studies, the Neutral Text described certain manuscripts that had the least amount of textual corruption.) This is the text that Westcott and Hort relied upon for compiling their volume.<\/p>\nThe 19th century was a fruitful era for the recovery of the Greek NT; the 20th century, no less so. Those living in the 20th century have witnessed the discovery of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, the Chester Beatty Papyri, and the Bodmer Papyri. To date, there are nearly 100 papyri containing portions of the NT—several of which date from the late first century to the early fourth century. These significant discoveries, providing scholars with many ancient manuscripts, have greatly enhanced the effort to recover the original wording of the NT.<\/p>\nAt the beginning of the 20th century, Eberhard Nestle used the best editions of the Greek NT produced in the 19th century to compile a text that represented the majority consensus. The work of making new editions was carried on by his son for several years, and then came under the care of Kurt Aland. The latest edition (the 27th) of Nestle-Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece<\/em> appeared in 1993. The same Greek text appears in another popular volume published by the United Bible Societies, called the Greek New Testament<\/em> (fourth edition). Aland has argued that the Nestle-Aland text, 27th edition (NA27<\/span>), comes closer to the original text of the NT than did Tischendorf or Westcott and Hort. And in several writings he intimates that NA27<\/span> may very well be the original text. Though few, if any, scholars would agree with this, the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland text is regarded by many as representing the latest and best in textual scholarship.<\/p>\n<h5>New Testament Textual Criticism<\/h5>\nTextual critics working with ancient literature universally acknowledge the supremacy of earlier manuscripts over later ones. Textual critics not working with the NT would love to have the same kind of early witnesses that biblical scholars possess. In fact, many of them work with manuscripts written 1,000 years after the autographs were composed! We all marvel that the Dead Sea Scrolls have provided a text that is nearly 800 years closer to the originals than the Masoretic manuscripts, and yet many of the Dead Sea manuscripts are still over 600 to 800 years removed from the time of original composition. NT textual critics have a great advantage!<\/p>\nThe 19th-century NT textual scholars—such as Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort—worked on the basis that the earliest witnesses are the best witnesses. Some textual scholars have continued this line of recovery using the testimony of the earlier witnesses. But many textual scholars since the time of Westcott and Hort have been less inclined to produce editions based on the theory that the earliest reading is the best. Most present-day textual critics are more inclined to endorse the maxim: the reading that is most likely original is the one that best explains the variants.<\/p>\nThis maxim (or “canon” as it is sometimes called), as good as it is, produces conflicting results. For example, two scholars, using this same principle to examine the same variant unit, will not agree. One will argue that one variant was produced by a copyist attempting to emulate the author’s style; the other will claim the same variant has to be original because it accords with the author’s style. One will argue that one variant was produced by an orthodox scribe attempting to rid the text of a reading that could be used to promote heterodoxy or heresy; another will claim that the same variant has to be original because it is orthodox and accords with Christian doctrine (thus a heterodox or heretical scribe must have changed it). Furthermore, this principle allows for the possibility that the reading selected for the text can be taken from any manuscript of any date. This can lead to subjective eclecticism.<\/p>\nModern textual scholars have attempted to temper the subjectivism by employing a method called “reasoned eclecticism.” This kind of eclecticism applies a combination of internal and external considerations, whereby the character of the variants is evaluated in light of the manuscripts’ evidence and vice versa. This is supposed to produce a balanced view and serve as a check against purely subjective tendencies.<\/p>\nThe Alands favor the same kind of approach, calling it the local-genealogical method, which is defined as follows:<\/p>\n<blockquote>It is impossible to proceed from the assumption of a manuscript stemma, and on the basis of a full review and analysis of the relationships obtaining among the variety of interrelated branches in the manuscript tradition, to undertake a recension of the data as one would do with other Greek texts. Decisions must be made one by one, instance by instance. This method has been characterized as eclecticism, but wrongly so. After carefully establishing the variety of readings offered in a passage and the possibilities of their interpretation, it must always then be determined afresh on the basis of external and internal criteria which of these readings (and frequently they are quite numerous) is the original, from which the others may be regarded as derivative. From the perspective of our present knowledge, this “local-genealogical” method (if it must be given a name) is the only one which meets the requirements of the NT textual tradition. (Introduction to Novum Testamentum Graece,<\/em> 26th edition)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nThe “local-genealogical” method assumes that for any given variation unit any manuscript (or manuscripts) may have preserved the original text. Applying this method produces an extremely uneven documentary presentation of the text. Anyone studying the critical apparatus of NA27<\/span> will detect that there is not an even documentary presentation. The eclecticism is dispersed throughout the text.<\/p>\n“Reasoned eclecticism” and\/or the “local-genealogical” method tend to give priority to internal evidence over external evidence. But it has to be the other way around if we are going to recover the original text. This was Westcott and Hort’s opinion. With respect to their compilation of The New Testament in the Original Greek,<\/em> Hort wrote, “Documentary evidence has been in most cases allowed to confer the place of honour against internal evidence” (The Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek,<\/em> p 17).<\/p>\nIn this respect, Westcott and Hort need to be revived. Earnest Colwell was of the same mind when he wrote “Hort Redivivus: A Plea and a Program.” Colwell decried the growing tendency to rely entirely on the internal evidence of readings, without serious consideration of documentary evidence. He called upon scholars to make an attempt to reconstruct a history of the manuscript tradition. The abundance of manuscripts—several of which are very early—will aid scholars in this ongoing task.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BIBLE*, Manuscripts and Text of the (New Testament)<\/span><\/h3>\nCopies of the NT books produced by scribes and editions made from these copies. In the centuries prior to the simultaneous-multiple production of copies via dictation (wherein many scribes in a scriptorium transcribed a text dictated to them by one reader), all manuscript copies were made singly—each scribe producing a copy from an exemplar.<\/p>\nPrior to the 15th century, when Johannes Gutenberg invented movable type for the printing press, all copies of any work of literature were made by hand (hence, the name “manuscript”). According to a current tabulation, there are 99 papyrus manuscripts, 257 uncial manuscripts, and 2,795 minuscule manuscripts. We can add 2,209 Greek lectionaries to this list. Therefore, we have over 5,350 manuscript copies of the Greek NT or portions thereof. No other work of Greek literature can boast of such numbers.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Important Papyrus Manuscripts<\/p>\n• Important Uncial Manuscripts<\/p>\n• The Text of the New Testament<\/p>\nImportant Papyrus Manuscripts<\/p>\nPapyrus is a tall, aquatic reed, the pith of which is cut into strips, laid in a crosswork pattern and glued together to make a page for writing. The papyrus rolls of Egypt have been used as a writing surface since the early third millennium BC<\/span>. The Greeks adopted papyrus around 900 BC<\/span>, and later the Romans adopted its use. However, the oldest extant Greek rolls of papyrus date from the fourth century BC<\/span>. Unfortunately, papyrus is perishable, requiring a dry climate for its preservation. That is why so many papyri have been discovered in the desert sands of Egypt.<\/p>\nThe NT papyrus manuscripts (abbreviated as “P”) are generally the earliest manuscripts of the NT. Broadly speaking, the most important ones can be categorized in three groups: the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (from Oxyrhynchus, Egypt), (2) the Beatty Papyri (named after the owner); and (3) the Bodmer Papyri (named after the owner).<\/p>\n<h5>The Oxyrhynchus Papyri<\/h5>\nBeginning in 1898 B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt discovered thousands of papyrus fragments in the ancient rubbish heaps of Oxyrhynchus, Egypt. This site yielded volumes of papyrus fragments containing all sorts of written material (literature, business and legal contracts, letters, etc.) as well as over 40 manuscripts containing portions of the NT. Some of the more noteworthy papyrus manuscripts from Oxyrhynchus are as follows:<\/p>\n<h6>P1 (P. Oxy. 2)<\/h6>\nThis late second-century manuscript contains Matthew 1:1-9, 12, 14-20. Grenfell and Hunt in the winter of 1896–97 went to Oxyrhynchus (now called El Bahnasa) in search of ancient Christian documents. P1 was discovered on the second day of the dig. At the time of this discovery, this was the earliest extant copy of any NT portion—at least 100 years earlier than Codex Vaticanus. The copyist of P1 seems to have faithfully followed a very reliable exemplar. Where there are major variants, P1 agrees with the best Alexandrian witnesses, especially B (Codex Vaticanus), from which it rarely varies.<\/p>\n<h6>P5 (P. Oxy. 208 and 1781)<\/h6>\nTwo separate portions of this third-century manuscript were unearthed from Oxyrhynchus by Grenfell and Hunt, both from the same papyrus manuscript. The first portion contains John 1:23-31, 33-40 on one fragment and John 20:11-17 on another—probably on the first and last quires of a manuscript containing only the Gospel of John. This portion was published in volume II of Oxyrhynchus Papyri<\/em> in 1899; the second portion—containing John 16:14-30—was not published until 1922 in volume XV of Oxyrhynchus Papyri.<\/em><\/p>\nAfter examining the first portion, Grenfell and Hunt said, “The text is a good one, and appears to have affinities with that of Codex Sinaiticus, with which the papyrus agrees in several readings not found elsewhere.” The papyrus, written in a documentary hand, is marked for its brevity.<\/p>\n<h6>P13 (P. Oxy. 657 and PSI 1292)<\/h6>\nThis manuscript, dated between 175 and 225, contains 12 columns from a roll preserving the text of Hebrews 2:14–5:5; 10:8-22; 10:29–11:13; 11:28–12:7. The text of Hebrews was written in a reformed documentary hand on the back of the papyrus containing the new epitome of Livy. For this reason, some scholars think the manuscript was possibly brought to Egpyt by a Roman official and left behind when he left his post. P13 very often agrees with B, and it supplements B where it is lacking—namely, from Hebrews 9:14 to the end of Hebrews. P13 and P46 display nearly the same text. Out of a total of 88 variation-units, there are 71 agreements and only 17 disagreements.<\/p>\n<h6>P77 (P. Oxy. 2683 + 4405)<\/h6>\nDated c. 150–75, this is the earliest manuscript of Matthew (23:30-39). The manuscript is clearly a literary production. It was written in an elegant hand and has what was or became a standard system of chapter division, as well as punctuation and breathing marks. P77 has close textual affinities with Codex Sinaiticus.<\/p>\n<h6>P90 (P. Oxy. 3523)<\/h6>\nThis second-century manuscript (c. 150–75) contains John 18:36–19:7. The handwriting (an upright, rounded, elegant script) is much like that found in P66. Furthermore, P90 has more affinity with P66 than with any other single manuscript, though it does not concur with P66 in its entirety.<\/p>\n\n<h6>P. Oxy. 4404<\/h6>\nContaining Matthew 21:34-37, 43, 45, this manuscript could be the earliest extant manuscript of the NT in that the script is early Roman and therefore could be dated to the early second century.<\/p>\n<h5>The Chester Beatty Papyri<\/h5>\nThese manuscripts were purchased from a dealer in Egypt during the 1930s by Chester Beatty and by the University of Michigan. The three manuscripts in this collection are very early and contain a large portion of the NT text. P45 (c. 200) contains portions of all four Gospels and Acts; P46 (c. 125) has almost all of Paul’s epistles and Hebrews; and P47 (third century) contains Revelation 9–17.<\/p>\n<h6>P45 (Chester Beatty Papyrus I)<\/h6>\nThis codex has the four Gospels and Acts (Mt 20:24-32; 21:13-19; 25:41–26:39; Mk 4:36–9:31; 11:27–12:28; Lk 6:31–7:7; 9:26–14:33; Jn 4:51–5:2, 21-25; 10:7-25; 10:30–11:10, 18-36, 42-57; Acts 4:27–17:17). The order of books in the original intact manuscript was probably as follows: Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, Acts (the so-called Western order). This manuscript was dated by Kenyon to the early third century, a date that was confirmed by the papyrologists W. Schubart and H. I. Bell. This continues to be the date assigned to this manuscript in modern handbooks on textual criticism and critical editions of the Greek NT, but the consistent formation of certain letters suggests an earlier date—maybe sometime in the late second century.<\/p>\nThe scribe of P45 worked without any intention of exactly reproducing his source. He wrote with a great amount of freedom—harmonizing, smoothing out, substituting at will. In short, the scribe did not actually copy words. He saw through the language to its idea-content, and copied that in words of his own choosing, or in rearranged order. Thus, in the scribe of P45 we see an exegete and a paraphraser.<\/p>\n<h6>P46 (Chester Beatty Papyrus II)<\/h6>\nThis codex has most of Paul’s epistles (excluding the Pastorals) in this order: Romans 5:17–6:14; 8:15–15:9; 15:11–16:27; Hebrews 1:1–13:25; 1 Corinthians 1:1–16:22; 2 Corinthians 1:1–13:13; Ephesians 1:1–6:24; Galatians 1:1–6:18; Philippians 1:1–4:23; Colossians 1:1–4:18; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 1:9–2:3; 5:5-9, 23-28 (with minor lacunae in each of the books).<\/p>\nThe manuscript was originally dated to the early third century. But others, since, have dated the manuscript earlier in the second century. The scribe who produced this manuscript used an early, excellent exemplar. He was a professional scribe because there are stichoi notations at the end of several books (see the conclusion of Romans, 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians). The stichoi were used by professionals to note how many lines had been copied for commensurate pay. Most likely, the ex officio of the scriptorium (perhaps connected with a church library) paginated the codex and indicated the stichoi. The scribe himself made a few corrections as he went, and then several other readers made corrections here and there.<\/p>\nThe text of P46 shows a strong affinity with B (especially in Ephesians, Colossians, and Hebrews) and next with א (Codex Sinaiticus). P46 agrees much less with the later representatives of the Alexandrian text. In short, P46 is proto-Alexandrian. In Hebrews, P46 and P13 display nearly the same text. Out of a total of 88 variation-units, there are 71 agreements and only 17 disagreements.<\/p>\n<h6>P47 (Chester Beatty Papyrus III)<\/h6>\nThis third-century codex contains Revelation 9:10–17:2. The text of P47 agrees more often with that of Codex Sinaiticus than with any other manuscript (including Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus), though it often shows independence.<\/p>\n<h5>The Bodmer Papyri<\/h5>\nThese manuscripts were purchased by M. Martin Bodmer from a dealer in Egypt during the 1950s and 1960s. The three important papyri in this collection are P66 (c. 175, containing almost all of John), P72 (third century, having all of 1 and 2 Peter and Jude), and P75 (c. 200, containing large parts of Luke 3—John 15).<\/p>\nP66 (Papyrus Bodmer II)<\/p>\nThis manuscript contains most of John’s Gospel (1:1–6:11; 6:35–14:26, 29-30; 15:2-26; 16:2-4, 6-7; 16:10–20:20, 22-23; 20:25–21:9). The manuscript does not include the pericope of the adulteress (7:53–8:11), making it the earliest witness to not include this spurious passage. The manuscript is usually dated as c. 200, but the renowned paleographer Herbert Hunger has argued that P66 should be dated to the first half, if not the first quarter, of the second century.<\/p>\nAccording to recent studies, it seems evident that P66 has preserved the work of three individuals: the original scribe, a thoroughgoing corrector, and a minor corrector. With a practiced calligraphic hand, the original scribe of P66 wrote in larger print as he went along in order to fill out the codex. The large print throughout indicates that it was written to be read aloud to a Christian congregation. The text exhibits the scribe’s knowledge of other portions of Scripture (inasmuch as he harmonized John 6:69 to Matthew 16:16 and John 21:6 to Luke 5:5), his use of standard nomina sacra<\/em> (a way of writing divine names), and his special use of nomina sacra<\/em> for the words “cross” and “crucify.”<\/p>\nThe original scribe was quite free in his interaction with the text; he produced several singular readings that reveal his independent interpretation of the text. While the numerous scribal mistakes would seem to indicate that the scribe was inattentive, many of the singular readings—prior to correction—reveal that he was not detached from the narrative of the text. Rather, he became so absorbed in his reading that he often forgot the exact words he was copying. His task as a copyist was to duplicate the exemplar word for word, but this was frustrated by the fact that he was reading the text in logical semantic chunks and often became a coproducer of a new text. As a result, he continually had to stop his reading and make many in-process corrections. But he left several places uncorrected, which were later fixed by the diorthotes<\/em> (official corrector). The finished product is quite good, presenting a text that is very close to the Alexandrian witnesses.<\/p>\n<h6>P72 (Papyrus Bodmer VII–VIII)<\/h6>\nThis manuscript, dated late third century, has an interesting collection of writings in one codex: 1 Peter 1:1–5:14; 2 Peter 1:1–3:18; Jude 1:1-25; the Nativity of Mary, the apocryphal correspondence of Paul to the Corinthians, the eleventh ode of Solomon, Melito’s Homily on the Passover, a fragment of a hymn, the Apology of Phileas, and Psalms 33 and 34.<\/p>\nScholars think that four scribes took part in producing the entire manuscript. First Peter has clear Alexandrian affinities—especially with B. Second Peter and (especially) Jude display more of an uncontrolled type text (usually associated with the “Western” text), with several independent readings.<\/p>\n<h6>P75 (Papyrus Bodmer XIV–XV)<\/h6>\nThis codex contains most of Luke and John (Lk 3:18–4:2; 4:34–5:10; 5:37–18:18; 22:4–24:53; Jn 1:1–11:45, 48-57; 12:3–13:1, 8-9; 14:8-30; 15:7-8.) The manuscript does not include the pericope of the adulteress (7:53–8:11). The manuscript can be dated to the late second or early third century.<\/p>\nThe copyist of P75 was a literate scribe trained in making books. His craftsmanship shows through in his tight calligraphy and controlled copying. The handwriting displayed in this manuscript is typically called by paleographers the common angular type of the late second to early third century. The scribe’s Christianity shows in his abbreviations of the nomina sacra<\/em>,<\/em> as well as in his abbreviation of the word “cross.” These are telltale signs of a scribe who belonged to the Christian community. Furthermore, the large typeface indicates that the manuscript was composed to be read aloud to a Christian congregation. The scribe even added a system of sectional divisions to aid any would-be lector. Thus, we have a manuscript written by a Christian for other Christians.<\/p>\nThere are several indications of the scribe’s Alexandrian orientation. First and foremost is his scriptoral acumen. He is the best of all the early Christian scribes, and his manuscript is an extremely accurate copy. P75 is the work of an extremely disciplined scribe who copied with the intention of being careful and accurate. Scholars generally agree that P75 displays the kind of text that was used in making Codex Vaticanus (there is 87 percent agreement between P75 and B). As such, textual scholars have a high regard for P75’s textual fidelity.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Other Papyrus Manuscripts<\/h5>\n<h6>P4 + P64 + P67<\/h6>\nThese three papyrus manuscripts are part of one codex dated AD<\/span> 150–175. The manuscript was the work of a professional scribe, and the text is extremely accurate.<\/p>\n<h6>P32 (Rylands Papyrus 5)<\/h6>\nThis manuscript, preserving Titus 1:11-15; 2:3-8, is dated c. 175, making it the earliest extant copy of any of the Pastoral Epistles. P32 shows agreement with א and with F and G. Since F and G (nearly identical manuscripts) go back to the same archetype, it is possible that P32 could be linked to the same source.<\/p>\n<h6>P52 (Rylands Papyrus 457)<\/h6>\nThis fragment, containing John 18:31-34, 37-38, is noteworthy because of its date: c. 110–125. Many scholars (F. Kenyon, H. I. Bell, A. Deissmann, and W. H. P. Hatch) have confirmed this dating. The manuscript came from the Fayum or Oxyrhynchus site. It was acquired in 1920 by Grenfell, but it remained unnoticed among hundreds of papyri until 1934, when C. H. Roberts recognized that this fragment preserves a few verses from John’s Gospel.<\/p>\nImportant Uncial Manuscripts<\/p>\nThe manuscripts typically classified as “uncial” are so designated to differentiate them from papyrus manuscripts. In a sense, this is a misnomer because the real difference has to do with the material they are written on—vellum (treated animal hide) as compared to papyrus—not the kind of letters used. Indeed, the papyri are also written in uncials (capital letters), but the term “uncial” typically describes the majuscule lettering that was prominent in fourth-century biblical texts, such as in א, A, B, C.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex Sinaiticus (or א)<\/h5>\nThis codex contains the entire OT and the NT in this order: the four Gospels, the Pauline Epistles (including Hebrews), Acts, the General Epistles, Revelation. It also includes the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. The codex cannot be earlier than 340 (the year Eusebius died) because the Eusebian sections of the text are indicated in the margins of the Gospels by a contemporary hand. Most scholars date it 350–375.<\/p>\nThis codex was discovered by Constantin von Tischendorf in St Catherine’s Monastery (situated at the foot of Mt Sinai). On a visit to the monastery in 1844 he noticed in a wastebasket some parchment leaves that were being used to light the lamps. He was allowed to take this waste paper, which proved to be 43 leaves from various parts of the Greek translation of the OT.<\/p>\nIn 1853 he made a second trip to the monastery and found nothing. In 1859, however, on his third trip, he found not only other parts of the OT but also the complete NT. He was finally able to persuade the monastery authorities to present the manuscript to the czar, the great patron of the Greek Catholic Church, who placed it in the Imperial Library in St Petersburg. The czar gave great honors to the monastery and its authorities, and everybody seemed well pleased. Later Tischendorf was charged with having stolen the manuscript from its lawful owners, but the better textual scholars do not accept that story.<\/p>\n\nThe manuscript remained in the Imperial Library until 1933, when it was purchased by the British Museum for the huge sum of £100,000 (about $500,000). Textual criticism made the headlines because one manuscript was bought for this much money, raised largely by public subscription during the Great Depression. The manuscript is now on display in the manuscript room of the museum, where it is considered one of its most prized possessions.<\/p>\nThe text of Sinaiticus is very closely related to that of Codex Vaticanus. They agree in presenting the purest type of text, usually called the Alexandrian text type. Tischendorf greatly used the textual evidence of Codex Sinaiticus in preparing his critical editions of the Greek NT. Tischendorf thought four scribes had originally produced the codex, whom he named scribes A, B, C, D. After reinvestigation, H. J. Milne and T. C. Skeat identified only three scribes: A (who wrote the historical and poetical books of the OT, as well as most of the NT), B (who wrote the Prophets and the Shepherd of Hermas), and D (who wrote some Psalms, Tobit, Judith, and 4 Maccabees, and redid small sections of the NT). Milne and Skeat demonstrated that scribe A of Codex Vaticanus was likely the same scribe as scribe D of Codex Sinaiticus. If this true, then א is contemporary with B—perhaps produced in the same scriptorium in Alexandria. Codex Sinaiticus provides a fairly reliable witness to the NT; however, the scribe was not as careful as the scribe of B.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex Alexandrinus (A)<\/h5>\nThis is one of the three most important codices containing early copies of the whole Bible in Greek (the other two being the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus codexes). The name Alexandrinus comes from ancient records suggesting that it was copied in Egypt during the early part of the fifth century AD<\/span>. The early history of this manuscript and its Egyptian provenance is partially revealed by its flyleaves. A note by Cyril of Lucar (patriarch of Alexandria and then of Constantinople in the 1620s) states that, according to tradition, it was written by Thecla, a noble lady of Egypt shortly after the Council of Nicaea (325) and that her name was originally inscribed at the end of the volume but the last page was lost due to mutilation. An Arabic note of the 13th or 14th century also says that the manuscript was written by “Thecla the martyr.” Another Arabic note says that is was presented to the patriarchal cell of Alexandria (c. 1098). Cyril of Lucar took the manuscript from Alexandria to Constantinople in 1621 and then gave it to Charles I of England in 1627, where it became part of the Royal Library, then later the British Museum.<\/p>\nOnly 773 of the original 820 or so pages still exist. The rest were lost as the book was passed down through the centuries. The surviving parts of Alexandrinus contain a Greek translation of the whole OT, the Apocrypha (including four books of Maccabees and Psalm 151), most of the NT, and some early Christian writings (of which the First and Second Epistles of Clement to the Corinthians are the most important).<\/p>\nFrederick Kenyon thought the codex was the work of five scribes, to each of whom he designated a Roman numeral. According to Kenyon, scribes I and II copied the OT; scribe III did Matthew, Mark, 1 Corinthians 10:8—Philemon 1:25; scribe IV did Luke—Acts, General Epistles, Romans 1:1—1 Corinthians 10:8; and scribe V did Revelation. Milne and Skeat, however, argued that the whole codex was the work of two copyists (I and II). W. H. P. Hatch noted that many corrections have been made in the manuscript, most of them at an early date. Some of these corrections were introduced by the scribe himself, and others came from later hands.<\/p>\nEvidently, the scribes of this codex used exemplars of varying quality for various sections of the NT. The exemplar used for the Gospels was of poor quality, reflecting a Byzantine text type. Its testimony in the Epistles is much better, and in Revelation it provides the best witness to the original text.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Codex Vaticanus (B)<\/h5>\nCodex Vaticanus is the Vatican Manuscript, so named because it is the most famous manuscript in the Vatican Library in Rome. This manuscript has been in the Vatican’s library since at least 1475, but it was not made available to scholars, such as Constantin von Tischendorf and Samuel Tregelles, until the middle of the 19th century.<\/p>\nAt one time, the codex contained the whole Greek Bible, including most of the books of the Apocrypha, but it has lost many of its leaves. Originally it must have had about 820 leaves (1,640 pp), but now it has 759—617 in the OT and 142 in the NT. The major gaps of the manuscript are Genesis 1:1–46:28; 2 Samuel 2:5-7, 10-13; Psalms 106:27–138:6; Hebrews 9:14–13:25; the Pastoral Epistles; and Revelation. Each leaf measures ten and a half by ten inches (26.7 by 25.4 centimeters). Each page has three columns (two for the poetical books) with 40 to 44 lines to the column. The manuscript was written by two different scribes. It is dated in the early to middle part of the fourth century. It is not known where the manuscript originated, but it has been in the Vatican Library from the time of its earliest catalog in 1475.<\/p>\n\nWhen Napoleon conquered Rome, he brought its treasures to Paris, including this manuscript. The scholar Hug identified it and called the attention of other scholars to it. After the downfall of Napoleon, the manuscript was returned to the Vatican Library. Competent textual scholars were not allowed to do careful work on it until a photographic edition was published in 1890. It is now on exhibit in the Vatican Library.<\/p>\nThe text of the Vatican Manuscript is much like that of Codex Sinaiticus. These are generally recognized as the two finest examples of the Alexandrian type of Greek text of the NT. The Greek text of the OT is very fine too, but it is not quite so important, as the original language of the OT was Hebrew. Virtually all the textual scholars since the days of Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort (who brought out their Greek Testament, including their theory of textual criticism, in 1881), recognize this neutral type of text as a very early text and a very pure text, an extremely accurate reproduction of what the original text must have been. Westcott and Hort called it a second-century text accurate in 999 out of 1,000 words so far as any matter of translatable difference was concerned. א and B are the finest examples of this type of text, but it is also found in a few other Greek uncial manuscripts, a few of the early translations, and in the writings of a few of the early church fathers. Since the days of Westcott and Hort, their theory has been confirmed by the discovery of some papyrus manuscripts, notably the Bodmer Papyri, discovered in the 1950s.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C)<\/h5>\nThis codex is a palimpsest (the original writing was erased and different words written on the same material). It originally contained the entire Bible but now has only parts of six OT books and portions of all NT books except 2 Thessalonians and 2 John. The single-column Bible text, written in the 5th century AD<\/span>, was erased in the 12th century and replaced by a two-column text of a Greek translation of sermons or treatises by a certain Ephraem, a 4th-century Syrian church leader. Such a practice was common in periods of economic depression or when parchment was scarce. The original writing was scraped from the writing surface and the surface smoothed. Then new compositions could be written on the prepared surface. Using chemicals Tischendorf was able to read much of the erased document.<\/p>\nThe manuscript may have been brought from the east to Florence by a learned Greek named Andrew John Lascar in the time of Lorenzo de’Medici. Since Lascar was known as Rhyndacenus (from the river Rhyndacus), he probably came from the region of Phrygia (site of ancient Laodicea). Where the manuscript was prior to this is not known. The Ephraemi manuscript was brought to Italy in the early sixth century, where it became the property of the Medici family. Catherine de’Medici took it to France, where it remains today.<\/p>\nThe text of this manuscript is mixed—it is compounded from all the major text types, agreeing frequently with the later koine of Byzantine type, which most scholars regard as the least valuable type of NT text.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex Bezae (D)<\/h5>\nThis is a Greek-Latin diglot containing Matthew—Acts, 3 John, with lacunae. Most scholars date it late fourth or early fifth century (c. 400). Some scholars think the codex was produced in either Egypt or North Africa by a scribe whose mother tongue was Latin. Another scholar (D. C. Parker) has argued that it was copied in Beirut, a center of Latin legal studies during the fifth century, where both Latin and Greek were used. Evidently, it was produced by a scribe who knew Latin better than Greek, and then was corrected by several scribes. In any event, the codex somehow came into the hands of Theodore Beza, French scholar and successor to Calvin. Beza gave it to the Cambridge University Library in 1581.<\/p>\nThis codex is probably the most controversial of the NT uncials because of its marked independence. Its many additions, omissions, and alterations (especially in Luke and Acts) are the work of a significant theologian. A few earlier manuscripts (P29, P38, P48, and 0171) appear to be precursors to the type of text found in D, which is considered the principal witness of the Western text-type. Thus, Codex Bezae could be a copy of an earlier revised edition. This reviser must have been a scholar who had a propensity for adding historical, biographical, and geographical details. More than anything, he was intent on filling in gaps in the narrative by adding circumstantial details.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex Washingtonianus, or The Freer Gospels (W)<\/h5>\nThis codex, dated around 400, has the four Gospels and Acts. It is often referred to as the Freer Gospels—named after its owner, Charles Freer. The codex likely came from the ruins of a monastery near Giza. The handwriting is quite similar to that found in a fifth-century fragment of the book of Enoch found at Akhmim in 1886.<\/p>\nCodex W was copied from a parent manuscript (exemplar) that had been pieced together from several different manuscripts. This is obvious because the textual presentation of W is noticeably variegated and even the stratification of the text is matched by similar variations in paragraphing. The scribe who collated the parent manuscript drew upon various sources to put together his Gospel codex. It is likely that the scribe of the parent manuscript used a text that came from North Africa (the “Western” text) for the first part of Mark, and the scribe of W used manuscripts from Antioch for Matthew and the second part of Luke to fill the gaps in the more ancient manuscript he was copying. Detailed textual analysis reveals the variegated textual stratifications of W, as follows: in Matthew the text is Byzantine; in Mark the text is first Western (1:1–5:30), then Caesarean in Mark 5:31–16:20 (akin to P45); in Luke the text is first Alexandrian (1:1–8:12), then Byzantine. John is more complicated because the first part of John (1:1–5:11), which fills a quire, was the work of a seventh-century scribe who must have replaced a damaged quire. (Ws<\/span> designates the work of this scribe.) This first section has a mixture of Alexandrian and Western readings, as does the rest of John.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex 1739<\/h5>\nThis tenth-century codex has Acts and the Epistles. The manuscript was discovered at Mt Athos in 1879 by E. von der Goltz. The manuscript has strong textual affinities with P46, B, 1739, Coptic Sahidic, Coptic Boharic, Clement, and Origen. The relationship between P46, B, and 1739 is remarkable because 1739 is a tenth-century manuscript that was copied from a fourth-century manuscript of excellent quality. According to a colophon, the scribe of 1739 for the Pauline Epistles followed a manuscript that came from Caesarea in the library of Pamphilus and that contained an Origenian text. The three manuscripts, P46, B, and 1739, form a clear textual line: from P46 (early second century) to B (early fourth century) to 1739 (tenth century based on fourth century).<\/p>\nThe Text of the New Testament<\/p>\nThe original text of the NT is the “published” text—that is, the text as it was in its final edited form and released for circulation in the Christian community. For some books of the NT, there is little difference between the original composition and the published text. After the author wrote or dictated his work, he (or an associate) made the final editorial corrections and then released it for distribution. As is the case for books published in modern times, so in ancient times, the original writing of the author is not always the same as what is published—due to the editorial process. Nonetheless, the author is credited with the final edited text, and the published book is attributed to the author and considered the autograph. This autograph is the original published text. Of course, in this case the autographs do not exist, so scholars have to rely on copies to recover or reconstruct the original wording.<\/p>\nSome scholars think it is impossible to recover the original text of the Greek NT because they have not been able to reconstruct the early history of textual transmission. Other modern scholars are less pessimistic but still quite guarded in affirming the possiblity. And yet others are optimistic because we possess many early manuscripts of excellent quality and because our view of the early period of textual transmission has been getting clearer and clearer.<\/p>\nWhen we speak of recovering the text of the NT, we are referring to individual books of the NT, not to the entire volume per se, because each book (or group of books—such as the Pauline Epistles) had its own unique history of textual transmission. The earliest extant copy of an entire NT text is the one preserved in Codex Sinaiticus (written about AD<\/span> 375). (Codex Vaticanus lacks the Pastoral Epistles and Revelation.) Prior to the fourth century, the NT was circulated in its various parts: as a single book or a group of books (such as the four Gospels or the Pauline Epistles). Manuscripts from the late first century to the third century have been found with individual books such as Matthew (P1, P77), Mark (P88), Luke (P69), John (P5, 22, 52, 66), Acts (P91), Revelation (P18, 47), or containing groups of books, such as the four Gospels with Acts (P45), the Pauline Epistles (P30, P46, P92), the Petrine Epistles and Jude (P72). Each of the books of the NT has had its own textual history and has been preserved with varying degrees of accuracy. Nonetheless, all of the books were altered from the original state due to the process of manual copying decade after decade and century after century. And the text of each of the books needs to be recovered.<\/p>\nThe NT text was affected with many variations in its early history. In the late first and early second century, the oral traditions and the written word existed side by side with equal status—especially with respect to the material of the Gospels. Often, the text was changed by scribes attempting to conform the written message to the oral tradition or attempting to conform one Gospel account to another. By the end of the second century and into the third century, many of the significant variant readings entered into the textual stream.<\/p>\nThe early period of textual transmission, however, was not completely marred by textual infidelity and scribal liberty. There were those scribes who copied the text faithfully and reverently—that is, they recognized that they were copying a sacred text written by an apostle. The formalization of canonization did not ascribe this sacredness to the text. Canonization came about as the result of common, historical recognition of the sacredness of various NT books. Certain NT books, such as the four Gospels, Acts, and Paul’s epistles were considered inspired literature from the onset. As such, certain scribes copied them with reverential fidelity.<\/p>\nOther scribes, however, felt free to make “improvements” in the text—either in the interest of doctrine and harmonization or due to the influence of a competitive oral tradition. The manuscripts produced in such a manner created a kind of “popular text”—i.e., an uncontrolled text. (This text type used to be called the “Western text,” but scholars now recognize this as a misnomer.)<\/p>\nDuring the second century, there were a few men who produced recensions of the NT text. According to Eusebius, Theodotus (and his followers) altered the text for their own purposes. In the middle of the second century, Marcion expunged his copies of the Gospel according to Luke of all references to the Jewish background of Jesus, and Tatian’s harmony of the Gospels contains several textual alterations that gave support to ascetic views. And yet another recendor created the D-type text for the Gospels and Acts. This theologically minded redactor, living in the late second or third century, created a text that had short-lived popularity. Three third-century papyri, P29, P38, P48, each containing a portion from the book of Acts, may be precursors to the D-type text in Acts. But there are other papyri containing portions of Acts that provide even earlier testimony to a purer form of Acts—namely, P45 (c. 150) and P91 (c. 200), thereby showing that the D-type text of Acts did not necessarily antedate the purer form.<\/p>\nBesides these endeavors—which are all noted for creating textual impurities—there was no recension of the NT text in the second century. Rather, it was a period in which there were scribes who exercised freedom in copying and those who demonstrated acumen. The manuscripts produced by the latter are those that come closest to preserving the original text. A prime example of an accurate late-second-century manuscript is P75.<\/p>\nIt is a well-known fact that the text produced by the scribe of P75 is a very accurate manuscript. It is also well-known that P75 was the kind of manuscript used in formulating Codex Vaticanus—the readings of P75 and B are remarkably similar. Prior to the discovery of P75, certain scholars thought Codex Vaticanus was the work of a fourth-century recension; others (chiefly Hort) thought it must trace back to a very early and accurate copy. Hort said that Codex Vaticanus preserves “not only a very ancient text, but a very pure line of a very ancient text” (Westcott and Hort, The<\/em> Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek,<\/em> pp 250–51). P75 appears to have shown that Hort was right.<\/p>\nPrior to the discovery of P75, many textual scholars were convinced that the second- and third-century papyri displayed a text in flux, a text characterized only by individual independence. The Chester Beatty Papyrus, P45, and the Bodmer Papyri, P66 and P72 (in 2 Peter and Jude), show this kind of independence. Scholars thought that scribes at Alexandria must have used several such texts to produce a good recension—as is exhibited in Codex Vaticanus. But we now know that Codex Vaticanus was not the result of a scholarly recension, resulting from editorial selection across the various textual histories. Rather, it is now quite clear that Codex Vaticanus was simply a copy (with some modifications) of a manuscript much like P75, not a fourth-century recension.<\/p>\nSome scholars may point out that this does not automatically mean that P75 and B represent the original text. What it does mean, they say, is that we have a second-century manuscript showing great affinity with a fourth-century manuscript whose quality has been highly esteemed. But various scholars have demonstrated that there was no Alexandrian recension before the time of P75 (late second century) and B (early fourth) and that both these manuscripts represent a relatively pure form of preservation of a relatively pure line of descent from the original text.<\/p>\nThe current view about the early text is that certain scribes in Alexandria and\/or scribes familiar with Alexandrian scriptoral practices (perhaps those in Oxyrhynchus) were probably responsible for maintaining a relatively pure text throughout the second, third, and fourth centuries. The Alexandrian scribes, associated with or actually employed by the scriptorium of the great Alexandrian library and\/or members of the scriptorium associated with the catechetical school at Alexandria (called the Didaskelion<\/em>), were trained philologists, grammarians, and textual critics. Their work on the NT was not recensional—that is, it was not an organized emendation of the text. Rather, the work of purification and preservation was probably done here and there by various individuals trained in text criticism. This is apparent in the production of P66, which contains the Gospel of John. This manuscript was probably produced in an Egyptian scriptorium by a novice scribe who made many blunders, which were subsequently corrected by another scribe working in the same scriptorium. The first text produced by the novice could be classified as being very “free,” but the corrected text is far more accurate. (See the discussion on this manuscript above.)<\/p>\nWhat appears to have happened with the copying of the NT text in the early period in Egypt has been poignantly characterized by Zuntz. He said that when a book was immensely popular (such as Homer’s Iliad<\/em> and Odyssey,<\/em> or Plato’s writings), it was copied with wild enthusiasm by novice and scholar alike. But when grammarians and scribes got ahold of it, they tried to rid it of textual corruption. In the process, however, they may have obliterated some authentic readings, but not many. Thus, the popular text (also known as the “Western text”) could have preserved the original wording in some cases. The popular or free kind of text is displayed in several third-century manuscripts: P9, P37, P40, P45, P72, and P78.<\/p>\nIn brief, this popular text is usually displayed in any kind of manuscript that was not produced by Alexandrian influences. This text, given to independence, is not as trustworthy as the Alexandrian text type. But because the Alexandrian text is known as a polished text, the popular text sometimes preserved the original wording. When a variant reading has the support of “Western” and Alexandrian texts, it is very likely original; but when the two are divided, the Alexandrian witnesses more often preserve the original wording.<\/p>\nOne dilemma still remains for some textual critics. They cannot explain how a P75\/B-type text coexisted with a Western-type text in the second century. All that can be said is that the Western text generally appears to be inferior to the P75\/B-type text. Of course, this kind of judgment troubles certain scholars, who point out that the esteem given to B and P75 is based on a subjective appreciation of the kind of text they contain (as over against the Western text) rather than on any kind of theoretical reconstruction of the early transmission of the text. This same subjective estimation was at work when Westcott and Hort decided that B was intrinsically superior to D (see their Introduction,<\/em> pp 32–42). Yet the praxis of textual criticism time and again demonstrates that the P75\/B-type text is intrinsically superior to the Western text.<\/p>\nIn the final analysis, the manuscripts that represent a pure preservation of the original text are usually those called “Alexandrian.” Some scholars, such as Bruce Metzger, have called the earlier manuscripts “protoAlexandrian,” for they (or manuscripts like them) are thought of as being used to compose an Alexandrian-type text. However, this is looking at things from the perspective of the fourth century. We should look at things from the second century onward and then compare fourth-century manuscripts to those of the second. The second-century manuscripts could still be called “Alexandrian” in the sense that they were produced under Alexandrian influences. Perhaps a distinguishing terminology could be “early Alexandrian” (pre-Constantine) and “later Alexandrian” (post-Constantine). Manuscripts designated as “early Alexandrian” would generally be purer, less editorialized. Manuscripts designated “later Alexandrian” would display editorialization, as well as the influence of other textual traditions.<\/p>\nThe “early Alexandrian” text is reflected in many second- and third-century manuscripts. On the top of the list is P75 (c. 175), the work of a competent and careful scribe. Not far behind in quality is P4+P64+P67 (c. 150), the work of an excellent copyist. Other extremely good copies are P1 (c. 200), P20 (early third century), P23 (c. 200), P27 (third century), P28 (third century), P32 (c. 150), P39 (third century), P46 (c. 125), P65 (third century), P66 (in its corrected form—P66c<\/span>; c. 150), P70 (third century), P77 (c. 150), P87 (c. 125), P90 (c. 175), and P91 (c. 200). Several of these manuscripts have been placed in the “strict” category by textual critics Kurt and Barbara Aland—that is, they exhibit “strict” scribal control and therefore are accurate copies of an exemplar, if not the original. These manuscripts are P1, P23, P35, P37, P39, P64\/67, P65, P70, and P75.<\/p>\nThe “later Alexandrian” text, which displays editorial polishing, is exhibited in a few manuscripts, such as א (fourth century), T (fifth century), ע (seventh century), L (eighth century), 33 (ninth century), 1739 (a tenth-century manuscript copied from a fourth-century Alexandrian manuscript much like P46), and 579 (13th century). Beginning in the fifth century, Byzantine-type manuscripts began to make their influence in Egypt. Some manuscripts dated around 400 that came from Egypt clearly reflect this influence; Codex Alexandrinus (A) is probably the best example. Other Egyptian manuscripts of this era, such as Codex Sinaiticus (א) and Codex Washingtonianus (W) display large-scale harmonization, which cannot be directly linked to any kind of recension.<\/p>\nAt the end of the third century, another kind of Greek text came into being and then grew in popularity until it became the dominant text-type throughout Christendom. This is the text-type first instigated by Lucian of Antioch, according to Jerome (in his introduction to his Latin translation of the Gospels). Lucian’s text was a definite recension (i.e., a purposely created edition)—as opposed to the Alexandrian text-type that came about as the result of a process wherein the Alexandrian scribes, upon comparing many manuscripts, attempted to preserve the best text—thereby serving more as textual critics than editors. Of course, the Alexandrians did do some editing—such as we would call copy-editing. The Lucianic text is the outgrowth and culmination of the popular text; it is characterized by smoothness of language, which is achieved by the removal of obscurities and awkward grammatical constructions and by the conflation of variant readings. Lucian (and\/or his associates) must have used many different kinds of manuscripts of varying qualities to produce a harmonized, edited NT text. The kind of editorial work that went into the Lucianic text is what we would call substantive editing.<\/p>\nLucian’s text was produced prior to the Diocletian persecution (c. 303), during which time many copies of the NT were confiscated and destroyed. Not long after this period of devastation, Constantine came to power and then recognized Christianity as the state religion. There was, of course, a great need for copies of the NT to be made and distributed to churches throughout the Mediterranean world. It was at this time that Lucian’s text began to be propagated by bishops going out from the Antiochan school to churches throughout the East, taking the text with them. Lucian’s text soon became the standard text of the Eastern church and formed the basis for the Byzantine text—and is thus the ultimate authority for the Textus Receptus.<\/p>\nWhile Lucian was forming his recension of the NT text, the Alexandrian text was taking on its final shape. As was mentioned earlier, the formation of the Alexandrian text-type was the result of a process (as opposed to a single editorial recension). The formation of the Alexandrian text involved minor textual criticism (i.e., selecting variant readings among various manuscripts) and copyediting (i.e., producing a readable text). There was far less tampering with the text in the Alexandrian text-type than in the Lucian, and the underlying manuscripts for the Alexandrian text-type were superior to those used by Lucian. Perhaps Hesychius was responsible for giving the Alexandrian text its final shape, and Athanasius of Alexandria may have been the one who made this text the archetypal text for Egypt.<\/p>\nAs the years went by, there were fewer and fewer Alexandrian manuscripts produced, and more and more Byzantine manuscripts manufactured. Very few Egyptians continued to read Greek (with the exception of those in St Catherine’s Monastery, the site of the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus), and the rest of the Mediterranean world turned to Latin. It was only those in the Greek-speaking churches in Greece and Byzantium that continued to make copies of the Greek text. For century after century—from the 6th to the 14th—the great majority of NT manuscripts were produced in Byzantium, all bearing the same kind of text. When the first Greek NT was printed (c. 1525), it was based on a Greek text that Erasmus had compiled, using a few late Byzantine manuscripts. This printed text, with minor revisions, became the Textus Receptus.<\/p>\nBeginning in the 17th century, earlier manuscripts began to be discovered—manuscripts with a text that differed from that found in the Textus Receptus. Around 1630, Codex Alexandrinus was brought to England. An early fifth-century manuscript, containing the entire NT, it provided a good, early witness to the NT text (it is an especially good witness to the original text of Revelation). Two hundred years later, a German scholar named Constantin von Tischendorf discovered Codex Sinaiticus in St Catherine’s Monastery (located near Mt Sinai). The manuscript, dated around AD<\/span> 360, is one of the two oldest vellum (treated animal hide) manuscripts of the Greek NT. The earliest vellum manuscript, Codex Vaticanus, had been in the Vatican’s library since at least 1481, but it had not been made available to scholars until the middle of the 19th century. This manuscript, dated slightly earlier (AD<\/span> 350) than Codex Sinaiticus, had both the OT and NT in Greek, excluding the last part of the NT (Hebrews 9:15 to Revelation 22:21 and the Pastoral Epistles). A hundred years of textual criticism has determined that this manuscript is one of the most accurate and reliable witnesses to the original text.<\/p>\nOther early and important manuscripts were discovered in the 19th century. Through the tireless labors of men like Constantin von Tischendorf, Samuel Tregelles, and F. H. A. Scrivener, manuscripts such as Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, Codex Zacynthius, and Codex Augiensis were deciphered, collated, and published.<\/p>\nAs the various manuscripts were discovered and made public, certain scholars labored to compile a Greek text that would more closely represent the original text than did the Textus Receptus. Around 1700 John Mill produced an improved Textus Receptus, and in the 1730s Johannes Albert Bengel (known as the father of modern textual and philological studies in the NT) published a text that deviated from the Textus Receptus according to the evidence of earlier manuscripts.<\/p>\nIn the 1800s certain scholars began to abandon the Textus Receptus. Karl Lachman, a classical philologist, produced a fresh text (in 1831) that represented the fourth-century manuscripts. Samuel Tregelles (self-taught in Latin, Hebrew, and Greek), laboring throughout his entire lifetime, concentrated all of his efforts in publishing one Greek text (which came out in six parts, from 1857 to 1872). As is stated in the introduction to this work, Tregelles’s goal was “to exhibit the text of the NT in the very words in which it has been transmitted on the evidence of ancient authority.” Henry Alford also compiled a Greek text based upon the best and earliest manuscripts. In his preface to The Greek New Testament<\/em> (a multivolume commentary on the Greek NT, published in 1849), Alford said he labored for the “demolition of the unworthy and pedantic reverence for the received text, which stood in the way of all chance of discovering the genuine word of God.”<\/p>\nDuring this same era, Tischendorf was devoting a lifetime of labor to discovering manuscripts and producing accurate editions of the Greek NT. In a letter to his fiancé he wrote, “I am confronted with a sacred task, the struggle to regain the original form of the NT.” In fulfillment of his desire, he discovered Codex Sinaiticus, deciphered the palimpsest Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, collated countless manuscripts, and produced several editions of the Greek NT (the eighth edition is considered the best).<\/p>\nAided by the work of the previous scholars, two British men, Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort, worked together for 28 years to produce a volume entitled The New Testament in the Original Greek<\/em> (1881). Along with this publication, they made known their theory (which was chiefly Hort’s) that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (along with a few other early manuscripts) represented a text that most closely replicated the original writing. They called this text the Neutral Text. (According to their studies, the Neutral Text described certain manuscripts that had the least amount of textual corruption.) This is the text that Westcott and Hort relied upon for compiling their volume.<\/p>\nThe 19th century was a fruitful era for the recovery of the Greek NT; the 20th century, no less so. Those living in the 20th century have witnessed the discovery of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, the Chester Beatty Papyri, and the Bodmer Papyri. To date, there are nearly 100 papyri containing portions of the NT—several of which date from the late first century to the early fourth century. These significant discoveries, providing scholars with many ancient manuscripts, have greatly enhanced the effort to recover the original wording of the NT.<\/p>\nAt the beginning of the 20th century, Eberhard Nestle used the best editions of the Greek NT produced in the 19th century to compile a text that represented the majority consensus. The work of making new editions was carried on by his son for several years, and then came under the care of Kurt Aland. The latest edition (the 27th) of Nestle-Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece<\/em> appeared in 1993. The same Greek text appears in another popular volume published by the United Bible Societies, called the Greek New Testament<\/em> (fourth edition). Aland has argued that the Nestle-Aland text, 27th edition (NA27<\/span>), comes closer to the original text of the NT than did Tischendorf or Westcott and Hort. And in several writings he intimates that NA27<\/span> may very well be the original text. Though few, if any, scholars would agree with this, the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland text is regarded by many as representing the latest and best in textual scholarship.<\/p>\n<h5>New Testament Textual Criticism<\/h5>\nTextual critics working with ancient literature universally acknowledge the supremacy of earlier manuscripts over later ones. Textual critics not working with the NT would love to have the same kind of early witnesses that biblical scholars possess. In fact, many of them work with manuscripts written 1,000 years after the autographs were composed! We all marvel that the Dead Sea Scrolls have provided a text that is nearly 800 years closer to the originals than the Masoretic manuscripts, and yet many of the Dead Sea manuscripts are still over 600 to 800 years removed from the time of original composition. NT textual critics have a great advantage!<\/p>\nThe 19th-century NT textual scholars—such as Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort—worked on the basis that the earliest witnesses are the best witnesses. Some textual scholars have continued this line of recovery using the testimony of the earlier witnesses. But many textual scholars since the time of Westcott and Hort have been less inclined to produce editions based on the theory that the earliest reading is the best. Most present-day textual critics are more inclined to endorse the maxim: the reading that is most likely original is the one that best explains the variants.<\/p>\nThis maxim (or “canon” as it is sometimes called), as good as it is, produces conflicting results. For example, two scholars, using this same principle to examine the same variant unit, will not agree. One will argue that one variant was produced by a copyist attempting to emulate the author’s style; the other will claim the same variant has to be original because it accords with the author’s style. One will argue that one variant was produced by an orthodox scribe attempting to rid the text of a reading that could be used to promote heterodoxy or heresy; another will claim that the same variant has to be original because it is orthodox and accords with Christian doctrine (thus a heterodox or heretical scribe must have changed it). Furthermore, this principle allows for the possibility that the reading selected for the text can be taken from any manuscript of any date. This can lead to subjective eclecticism.<\/p>\nModern textual scholars have attempted to temper the subjectivism by employing a method called “reasoned eclecticism.” This kind of eclecticism applies a combination of internal and external considerations, whereby the character of the variants is evaluated in light of the manuscripts’ evidence and vice versa. This is supposed to produce a balanced view and serve as a check against purely subjective tendencies.<\/p>\nThe Alands favor the same kind of approach, calling it the local-genealogical method, which is defined as follows:<\/p>\n<blockquote>It is impossible to proceed from the assumption of a manuscript stemma, and on the basis of a full review and analysis of the relationships obtaining among the variety of interrelated branches in the manuscript tradition, to undertake a recension of the data as one would do with other Greek texts. Decisions must be made one by one, instance by instance. This method has been characterized as eclecticism, but wrongly so. After carefully establishing the variety of readings offered in a passage and the possibilities of their interpretation, it must always then be determined afresh on the basis of external and internal criteria which of these readings (and frequently they are quite numerous) is the original, from which the others may be regarded as derivative. From the perspective of our present knowledge, this “local-genealogical” method (if it must be given a name) is the only one which meets the requirements of the NT textual tradition. (Introduction to Novum Testamentum Graece,<\/em> 26th edition)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nThe “local-genealogical” method assumes that for any given variation unit any manuscript (or manuscripts) may have preserved the original text. Applying this method produces an extremely uneven documentary presentation of the text. Anyone studying the critical apparatus of NA27<\/span> will detect that there is not an even documentary presentation. The eclecticism is dispersed throughout the text.<\/p>\n“Reasoned eclecticism” and\/or the “local-genealogical” method tend to give priority to internal evidence over external evidence. But it has to be the other way around if we are going to recover the original text. This was Westcott and Hort’s opinion. With respect to their compilation of The New Testament in the Original Greek,<\/em> Hort wrote, “Documentary evidence has been in most cases allowed to confer the place of honour against internal evidence” (The Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek,<\/em> p 17).<\/p>\nIn this respect, Westcott and Hort need to be revived. Earnest Colwell was of the same mind when he wrote “Hort Redivivus: A Plea and a Program.” Colwell decried the growing tendency to rely entirely on the internal evidence of readings, without serious consideration of documentary evidence. He called upon scholars to make an attempt to reconstruct a history of the manuscript tradition. The abundance of manuscripts—several of which are very early—will aid scholars in this ongoing task.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BIBLE*, Manuscripts and Text of the (New Testament) Copies of the NT books produced by scribes and editions made from these copies. In the centuries prior to the simultaneous-multiple production of copies via dictation (wherein many scribes in a scriptorium transcribed a text dictated to them by one reader), all manuscript copies were made singly—each scribe producing a copy from an exemplar. Prior to the 15th century, when Johannes Gutenberg invented movable type for the printing press, all ...","summary_en":"BIBLE*, Manuscripts and Text of the (New Testament) Copies of the NT books produced by scribes and editions made from these copies. In the centuries prior to the simultaneous-multiple production of copies via dictation (wherein many scribes in a scriptorium transcribed a text dictated to them by one reader), all manuscript copies were made singly—each scribe producing a copy from an exemplar. Prior to the 15th century, when Johannes Gutenberg invented movable type for the printing press, all ...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":14517,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gospel","title_en":"Gospel","content_ro":"<h3>GOSPEL<\/h3>\nWord derived from the Anglo-Saxon godspell<\/em> denoting “glad tidings” or “good news.”<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Gospel Message of Isaiah<\/p>\n• The Gospel in the New Testament<\/p>\n• The Good News of Christ’s Coming<\/p>\n• The Gospel according to Jesus<\/p>\n• The Gospel after Jesus’ Resurrection<\/p>\nThe Gospel Message of Isaiah<\/p>\nOf all the passages cited, those of Isaiah provide the most important background for the gospel in the NT. According to Isaiah’s gospel, it is God alone who saves, and there is no explanation for his saving action except in his own nature. Israel’s deliverance is undeserved; she is no more worthy of the divine love now than when she went into captivity. In whatever measure she has paid the just due for her past sins (Is 40:2), she remains a sinful people (42:25; 46:12-13; 48:1). It is only by God’s grace that she is saved (55:1-7). By God’s design, Israel’s salvation depends not upon her own righteousness but upon his (41:10; 45:24; 46:13; 51:5-6). There being no righteousness to reward, the Lord acts to create<\/em> righteousness in Israel (45:8; 61:3, 10-11). Yet as these references indicate, salvation is not accomplished at the expense of justice. The penalty for Israel’s sins is to be paid in full. God’s mercy is not hereby called into question. On the contrary, it is precisely here that his mercy is most poignantly expressed, for the penalty is exacted not from his people but from the Servant appointed to stand in their place (53:4-12). Through the Servant’s work, many shall be justified (53:11). The coming of the Evangelist—the preacher of the good news—is predicted in Isaiah 61. He is called the anointed One (v 1) who proclaims the year of the Lord’s favor (v 2). God will be glorified through his preaching (v 3).<\/p>\nThe Gospel in the New Testament<\/p>\nIn only two places (Gal 3:8; Heb 4:2, 6) does the NT speak of the proclamation of the gospel prior to the Christian era. This is quite remarkable, given (1) the unmistakable presence of the gospel in the OT, (2) the extent of gospel terminology in the NT (in the Greek the noun appears 76 times; and the verb, 54), and (3) the fact that the NT presents Christ as the fulfillment of the OT and draws heavily on the OT to interpret his person and work. Not only is it remarkable; it is very significant. It indicates that the NT usage depends not only upon the character<\/em> of the message (truth about salvation) but also upon historical events.<\/em> Almost without exception, the NT restricts its application of gospel terminology to proclamations made during the time of fulfillment—the age in which the salvation promised in the OT is actually accomplished. The NT is preoccupied, not with promises of salvation, but with news of salvation. According to Mark 1:1-4, the gospel “begins” not in the OT but with John the Baptist, in whose work OT prophecy is fulfilled. In Romans 1:1-5 the gospel is represented as a blessing promised in the OT but not actually given until Jesus comes (see also Acts 13:32-33).<\/p>\nThe Good News of Christ’s Coming<\/p>\nThe promised birth of John the Baptist is good news (Lk 1:19), not only for his parents (vv 7, 24-25) but for all the people: John is sent to prepare them for Messiah’s coming (vv 14-17, 67-79). John’s own preaching is gospel (3:18) for the same reason. The Messiah would be coming to execute judgment, a process that involves both condemnation and salvation (vv 3-17). John’s message is gospel for sinners in that they are warned of impending doom and urged to repent before the ax falls (vv 7-9); it is gospel for the repentant in that they are promised forgiveness (v 3) and membership in Messiah’s community (v 17). The birth of the Savior himself is announced as good news bringing great joy (2:10-11).<\/p>\nThe Gospel according to Jesus<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming of the Kingdom of God<\/h5>\nJesus was authorized by God and anointed by the Spirit to proclaim the gospel (Mk 1:14; Lk 4:18). At the heart of his preaching stands the announcement “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mk 1:15). (For further references to this gospel, see Mt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; 26:13; Mk 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:9; Lk 4:43; 8:1; 16:16.) The message is good news for several reasons: (1) The kingdom is coming. The God whom Jesus proclaims is sovereign over all he has made. Yet paradoxically his rule is incomplete: his will is not done on earth as it is in heaven; wrong, not right, prevails. But these conditions are not final, according to Jesus. With the coming of the kingdom, God’s rule will be completed; wrong will be judged, righteousness established, and his people blessed. (2) The kingdom is now<\/em> being inaugurated. “The time is fulfilled,” declares Jesus (Mk 1:15a). The time appointed for the fulfillment of the OT promises has arrived. (3) The consummation of the kingdom is therefore no longer a distant prospect; the full realization of God’s rule is “at hand” (Mk 1:15b). (4) God is establishing his rule for a saving purpose. This is implied in Jesus’ call to repentance (Mk 1:15c). It is especially clear in the passages to which we now turn.<\/p>\n<h5>The Salvation of the Poor<\/h5>\nInvited to read the Scripture in the synagogue at Nazareth, Jesus turns to Isaiah 61: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord” (Lk 4:18-19, rsv<\/span>). Having read the prophecy, Jesus announces its fulfillment in his own ministry (v 21). Included among those whom Jesus has come to free are the physically infirm, such as the blind (v 18) and the leprous (v 27) (cf. the references to healing miracles in vv 23, 33-41; the close connection between evangelizing and healing in Mt 4:23; 9:35; 11:5; Lk 7:21-22; 9:6; and the description in Mt 12:22-29; Lk 13:11-16, of the physically afflicted as captives of Satan now liberated by Jesus). Also included are the materially poor—people like the widow helped by Elijah during the famine (Lk 4:25-26). It is the literally poor and hungry whom Jesus pronounces “blessed” in Luke 6:20-21. Yet it is primarily “spiritual” poverty that is in view. Still applying Isaiah 61, Jesus speaks in Matthew 5:3 of the “poor in spirit.” These are people broken and grieved by misery and poverty, oppression and injustice, suffering and death, national apostasy and personal sin—people who in their extremity turn to God and longingly wait for him to bring forth justice, bestow his mercy, and establish his kingdom. It is to just such people that Jesus brings good news (Mt 5:3-10). God sent him to usher in the kingdom, to rescue the lost, to liberate the enslaved, to cure the afflicted, to bind up hearts that are broken, and to forgive the guilty (Mk 2:5, 10, 17; 10:45; Lk 4:18-21; 7:48-49; 15:1-32; 19:10).<\/p>\n<h5>The Gift of Grace<\/h5>\nThe coming of the kingdom is not the effect or the reward of human effort but God’s answer to the human predicament—the gift of his favor (Lk 12:32). Correspondingly, the explanation for the salvation of the poor lies nowhere but in God’s own character. As the prodigal himself recognized, he hardly deserved to be his father’s servant, much less his son. Nothing he did, not even his repentance, accounted for the father’s love (15:11-32). In the parable of Matthew 20:1-16, it is owing entirely to the goodness of the employer that the last workers to be hired receive a full day’s wages. The first debtor in the story of Matthew 18:23-35 earned nothing but the right to be sold into slavery; instead, the king canceled his enormous debt. The publican, who had nothing to offer God but a confession of sin and plea for mercy, went home justified (Lk 18:13-14). The same holds true for the more virtuous among the poor, such as the persons described in Matthew 5:7-10. Their virtue is real, not imagined. Yet in keeping God’s commands, they do not put him in their debt; they are simply doing their duty (Lk 17:7-10). Furthermore, even the most merciful need divine mercy (Mt 5:7). For even those most zealous to obey God’s law are unable to fulfill all its requirements (cf. 11:28-30). The first servant in Matthew 18:23-35 owes far more money than someone in such a situation could possibly pay—which serves to magnify the generosity of the king. Grace depends for its exercise upon the inability of its objects (Lk 14:12-14).<\/p>\n<h5>The Call to Salvation<\/h5>\nThe Israelites are without exception a sinful people, all of them needing the salvation that Jesus brings (Mt 1:21; Lk 1:77). In demonstration of God’s grace, Jesus proclaimed his gospel to the entire nation (Mt 4:23; 9:35; 15:24; Lk 4:43; 9:6; 20:1). From the most respectable to the least, all are summoned to submit to God’s rule, all are invited to come and partake freely of the banquet he has spread (Lk 14:16-24). But the gift of salvation must be received if it is to be experienced (Mk 10:15). And while it is indeed a gift that costs nothing, it is also a priceless treasure for which a wise person will freely sacrifice everything else (Mt 13:44-46), a sacrifice exceeded only by the cost of rejecting the gospel (Mt 11:20-24; Mk 8:34-39; Lk 14:24, 33). “Repent and believe in the gospel,” Jesus commands (Mk 1:15). The self-righteous and the self-sufficient must be jolted out of their false sense of security and humbly recognize their need for God (Lk 6:24-26). Only then will Jesus’ message to the poor be seen as gospel. An announcement of liberation (4:18-19) is good news only to people who are enslaved and know they are. The command applies also to the destitute and the afflicted. Those among them who bemoan their lot must repent of their sins. But something further is needed for the response to be complete: a person cannot believe Jesus’ gospel without a commitment to the Person<\/em> of Christ (Jn 3:16). Even those who are already “poor in spirit,” in the sense defined earlier, are not really “blessed” until they acknowledge the truth of Jesus’ claims (Mt 11:6) and commit themselves to a life of obedience on his terms (7:21-27). This prepares us for the next point.<\/p>\n<h5>Summary<\/h5>\nThroughout Jesus’ earthly ministry, the theme of his gospel remains the dawning of God’s kingdom (Mt 4:23; 24:14; Lk 4:43; 16:16), a message that is preached almost exclusively to Jews (Mt 10:5-6; 15:24). Yet Jesus also provides glimpses into what the gospel was to become once his work on earth was accomplished: (1) In Mark 8:35 and 10:29 Jesus speaks of individuals who needed to make great sacrifices “for my sake and for the gospel.” While distinguished from each other, the person of Jesus and the gospel are here associated in the closest possible way. The time was approaching when the Proclaimer of the gospel would become the Proclaimed. (2) In Mark 13:10 and Matthew 24:14 (and the textually doubtful Mk 16:15) Jesus foretells the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom to the gentile nations. (3) In Mark 14, having interpreted a woman’s action (v 3) as an anointing of his body beforehand for burial (v 8), Jesus declares, “And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her” (v 9, rsv<\/span>; cf. Mt 26:13). This statement strongly implies that both the person of Jesus and the event of his death will figure prominently in the message that is to be proclaimed; otherwise, it is strange that the gospel and this particular act should be so solemnly bound together. Thus, here in the text already is an indication of how crucial Jesus’ death is both for the provision of the salvation announced in his gospel (cf. Mk 14:22-24) and for the launching of the evangelistic mission to the Gentiles (Mt 20:28 is vital for explaining the shift from Mt 15:24 to 28:18-20).<\/p>\nThe Gospel after Jesus’ Resurrection<\/p>\nAfter the resurrection of Jesus, the gospel was proclaimed by his eyewitnesses. The contents of this gospel are recorded in the book of Acts and in Paul’s letters. Of the 43 instances of euangelizomai<\/span> (“evangelize”) beyond the Gospels, 15 occur in Acts and 21 in Paul’s writings; of the 64 instances of euangelion<\/span> (“gospel”), 2 occur in Acts and no fewer than 60 in Paul.<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel of Christ<\/h5>\nHaving risen from the dead, Jesus Christ again evangelizes (Eph 2:16-17), doing so now through his appointed representatives (Rom 15:16-18; 1 Cor 1:17; 9:12-18; Gal 4:13-14; Eph 4:11; 2 Tm 1:9-11). More than that, Christ has become the central theme of the gospel; the Proclaimer is now the Proclaimed. This is repeatedly affirmed in Acts (5:42; 8:4-5, 35; 11:20; 17:18) and in Paul’s writings (Rom 1:1-4; 10:8-17; 15:19-20; 2 Cor 4:4-6; 11:4; Gal 1:16; Eph 3:8; Phil 1:15-18; 2 Tm 2:8). The NT always speaks of the gospel<\/em>—never the gospels—of Christ. A second gospel is as inconceivable and as unnecessary as a second Christ. This is the one gospel that God authorizes (e.g., Rom 1:1-17) and proclaims (e.g., 2 Thes 2:13-14). Galatians 2:7-9 speaks not of two gospels but of two mission fields. Paul (the apostle to the uncircumcised) and Peter (the apostle to the circumcised) are both entrusted with “the gospel of Christ” (Gal 1:7; cf. 1 Cor 15:1-11), the message that God has ordained for the salvation of Jews and Gentiles alike (Rom 1:16). The “different gospel” that Paul denounces in Galatians 1:6-9 and 2 Corinthians 11:4 is not another gospel about Jesus but a message about “another Jesus”—not the real one, but one who exists only in the minds and the messages of those who proclaim him. To preach the true Christ is to preach the true gospel, however questionable one’s motives (Phil 1:15-18, 27), and to respond rightly to the gospel is to turn to Christ (Acts 11:20-21; Rom 10:8-17; Gal 2:14-16).<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel as a Witness to Saving Events<\/h5>\nThe gospel bears witness to every aspect of Christ’s saving work, from his birth (Rom 1:3; 2 Tm 2:8) and public ministry (Mk 1:1; Acts 10:36-38) to his second coming (Col 1:5, 23; cf. 3:1-4; 1 Thes 1:5-10) and the last judgment (Rom 2:16). But it is the death and the resurrection of Christ that are most crucial for the accomplishment of salvation, and that are therefore most prominent in the gospel’s witness. These are the events with which Mark’s proclamation climaxes (chs 15–16), and for which everything else prepares (8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34; 12:6-8); special stress is placed upon Jesus’ death as the means of salvation from sin (10:45; 14:3-9, 22-24). In Paul’s gospel, too, the death and resurrection of Jesus are central (Rom 4:25; 1 Cor 15:1-4), with the cross occupying the very center (1 Cor 1:17–2:5). Had Christ not risen from the dead, Paul argues, the preaching of the cross would be a waste of time (1 Cor 15:14, 17; cf. Rom 6:3-11). However, now that Christ has risen, his death deserves special emphasis as the place where God provides atonement for sins (Rom 3:21-26; 5:6-11; 2 Cor 5:14-21; Eph 1:7). The gospel according to Acts proclaims Jesus’ death (Acts 8:25; 20:24, 28; cf. 10:36-43) and preeminently his resurrection, the event by which he conquered death and was exalted as Lord and coming Judge (10:36-43; 13:32-33; 17:18, 31). According to 1 Peter, the bearers of the gospel (1 Pt 1:12) concentrated, as had the OT prophets, on “the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glory” (1:11; cf. 1:18-19; 2:21-24; 3:18-22).<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel as a Power for Salvation<\/h5>\nThe gospel is much more than a report of past events and an exposition of doctrine. Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 1:17-18 and again in Romans 1:16 that the gospel is “the power of God”—not merely a witness to his power but an expression<\/em> of his power. Thus, it cannot be fettered (2 Tm 2:8-9). “Our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power,” Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 1:5. His point is not that the gospel was accompanied by mighty works (though this happened; cf. Rom 15:18-19), but that the gospel itself is a mighty work. God makes it so through his Holy Spirit (Rom 15:18-19; 1 Cor 2:1-5; 1 Thes 1:6). Furthermore, God’s singular purpose in exercising his power is to change people’s lives, to liberate them from sin and death, and to reconcile them to himself—in short, to save them. The gospel has power to effect the salvation it announces and to impart the life it promises (e.g., Rom 1:16; 10:8-17; 1 Cor 1:17-18; 15:1-2; Eph 1:13; 2 Thes 2:13-14; 2 Tm 1:8-11; 1 Pt 1:23-25). If people are to experience salvation, they must hear and believe the gospel. It is precisely in and through this message that the saving power manifested in the person and work of Christ (especially in his death and resurrection) is conveyed to men and made effective in their lives. Similarly it is in association with the gospel, or as a direct result of the reception of the gospel, that the Holy Spirit is imparted to believers (Acts 10:36-44; 15:7-8; 2 Cor 11:4; Gal 3:1-2). In short, the gospel is the decisive place of encounter between the sinner and God the Savior.<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel of Grace<\/h5>\nAccording to Peter’s testimony at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:7-11), an essential part of the gospel—for Gentiles and Jews alike—is salvation “through the grace of the Lord Jesus.” Toward the close of his missionary career, Paul states that his basic concern has been “to testify to the gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24, rsv<\/span>). This statement can be understood only in relation to Paul’s concept of the righteousness of God, particularly as set forth in Romans. Paul is here not merely expounding a divine attribute. Rather, he is dramatizing a divine activity—the manifestation of God’s righteousness now, “in the present time” (Rom 3:26), in the new age inaugurated by the coming of Jesus. The manifestation is twofold. Viewing the two aspects together, and doing so in the light of the gospel declared by Isaiah and by Jesus (both of whom strongly influenced Paul), respectively, will help us to understand why Paul speaks of “the gospel of the grace of God.”<\/p>\nFirst, the gospel is a witness<\/em> to God’s grace. In offering his Son as a sacrifice for sins (Rom 3:25a), God demonstrates his righteousness (vv 25b-26). That is, in the death of Jesus sins formerly “passed over” (v 25c) become the object of God’s wrath (cf. 1:18) and judgment. Yet in the very place where God deals justly and decisively with sins, he shows his grace to sinners. For the judgment against sin is focused not upon the sinners themselves but upon the One appointed to act on their behalf and to stand in their place (Rom 4:25; 5:6, 11; cf. 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 3:13). On this basis, sinners are freely pardoned (Rom 3:24). “The grace of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 15:11) toward the sinful is also in evidence, for he willingly bears their iniquities and suffers the consequences of their wrongdoing (Gal 2:20; cf. 2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:6-8).<\/p>\nSecond, the gospel is a channel<\/em> of God’s grace. “The righteousness of God is revealed” in the gospel, says Paul (Rom 1:17). By this he means, not that the gospel talks about the righteousness of God (though it does), but that God’s righteousness is actively at work in the gospel. This activity in turn explains how the gospel becomes “the power of God for salvation” (v 16). And just how does God demonstrate his righteousness at this stage? In short, by bestowing it as a free gift on sinful human beings. It remains the righteousness of God, but by God’s grace, it is a righteousness in which humans may share. Furthermore, partaking of God’s righteousness depends on being personally united with Jesus Christ. In Paul’s view the saved person is one who has been acquitted, justified, “declared righteous” by God the judge. The basis for the verdict is not that I in myself am righteous (God justifies the ungodly, Rom 4:5). Nor does God treat me as though I were righteous. According to Paul I am declared righteous because I really am<\/em> righteous—not in myself but in Christ (1 Cor 1:30; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9). This union is established through the revelation—and the free offer—of God’s righteousness in the gospel (Rom 1:16-17).<\/p>\n<h5>Responding to the Gospel<\/h5>\nThe gospel calls for a threefold response:<\/p>\n1. Believing.<\/em> The gospel, says Paul, is “the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith” (Rom 1:16). For Paul, faith is the abandonment of all reliance upon “works of law” for justification (3:28) and utter dependence upon the grace of God as demonstrated in the work of Christ, especially his death (v 25). Accordingly, the “different gospel” of Galatians 1:6 and 2 Corinthians 11:4 is spurious, for it preaches salvation by personal merit rather than (or together with) the work of Christ (cf. Gal 2:16). Ultimately faith rests upon God (Rom 4:24; 1 Thes 1:8-9) and upon Christ (Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 2:16, 20). Yet it is imperative that one believe the gospel also (Acts 8:12; 11:20-21; 15:7; Rom 1:16; 10:8-17; 1 Cor 1:17-24; Phil 1:27; Heb 4:2), for it is just by this means that God’s salvation is made known and mediated. Moreover, believing the gospel entails repentance (Acts 14:15; 20:21, 24; 1 Thes 1:5-10) and obedience (Rom 1:5; 15:16-18; Heb 4:6). Those who refuse to obey the gospel are imperiling their lives (2 Thes 1:5-10; 1 Pt 4:17).<\/p>\n2. Growing.<\/em> The Gospel is more than a message to be received—it is also a place in which to stand (1 Cor 15:1-2). It is sustainer of life as well as giver of life. One grows as a Christian not by turning from the gospel to other things (to turn away from the gospel is to abandon God and Christ, Gal 1:6), but by going ever more deeply into the gospel. In Romans 1:15 Paul expresses his eagerness to proclaim the gospel to the Christians in Rome. In the following chapters, anticipating his visit, he offers one of his most profound expositions of the gospel—one whose truth has never been fathomed and whose power has never been exhausted.<\/p>\n3. Hoping.<\/em> “The hope of the gospel” (Col 1:23) includes not only the return of Christ and the glory of heaven (Col 1:5; 3:1-4; 2 Thes 2:14-16) but the final judgment as well. For those who embrace the gospel, the last judgment holds no terrors, because the Judge is the very one who rescues them from the wrath to come (1 Thes 1:10). Those who are united to him need not dread condemnation now or at the end (Rom 8:1). Instead, the last judgment will mark their final vindication (1 Cor 4:5; Gal 5:5). Accordingly, this theme is not just a corollary but an integral part of the Good News (Rom 2:16). Those who have died since believing the gospel (1 Pt 4:6) may seem to have suffered a fate common to all people, or even the condemnation reserved for the lawless; in fact, their response to the gospel assures them of approval by the coming Lord (4:5-6; 5:4) and of a share in the imperishable inheritance of heaven (1:4).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GOSPEL<\/h3>\nWord derived from the Anglo-Saxon godspell<\/em> denoting “glad tidings” or “good news.”<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Gospel Message of Isaiah<\/p>\n• The Gospel in the New Testament<\/p>\n• The Good News of Christ’s Coming<\/p>\n• The Gospel according to Jesus<\/p>\n• The Gospel after Jesus’ Resurrection<\/p>\nThe Gospel Message of Isaiah<\/p>\nOf all the passages cited, those of Isaiah provide the most important background for the gospel in the NT. According to Isaiah’s gospel, it is God alone who saves, and there is no explanation for his saving action except in his own nature. Israel’s deliverance is undeserved; she is no more worthy of the divine love now than when she went into captivity. In whatever measure she has paid the just due for her past sins (Is 40:2), she remains a sinful people (42:25; 46:12-13; 48:1). It is only by God’s grace that she is saved (55:1-7). By God’s design, Israel’s salvation depends not upon her own righteousness but upon his (41:10; 45:24; 46:13; 51:5-6). There being no righteousness to reward, the Lord acts to create<\/em> righteousness in Israel (45:8; 61:3, 10-11). Yet as these references indicate, salvation is not accomplished at the expense of justice. The penalty for Israel’s sins is to be paid in full. God’s mercy is not hereby called into question. On the contrary, it is precisely here that his mercy is most poignantly expressed, for the penalty is exacted not from his people but from the Servant appointed to stand in their place (53:4-12). Through the Servant’s work, many shall be justified (53:11). The coming of the Evangelist—the preacher of the good news—is predicted in Isaiah 61. He is called the anointed One (v 1) who proclaims the year of the Lord’s favor (v 2). God will be glorified through his preaching (v 3).<\/p>\nThe Gospel in the New Testament<\/p>\nIn only two places (Gal 3:8; Heb 4:2, 6) does the NT speak of the proclamation of the gospel prior to the Christian era. This is quite remarkable, given (1) the unmistakable presence of the gospel in the OT, (2) the extent of gospel terminology in the NT (in the Greek the noun appears 76 times; and the verb, 54), and (3) the fact that the NT presents Christ as the fulfillment of the OT and draws heavily on the OT to interpret his person and work. Not only is it remarkable; it is very significant. It indicates that the NT usage depends not only upon the character<\/em> of the message (truth about salvation) but also upon historical events.<\/em> Almost without exception, the NT restricts its application of gospel terminology to proclamations made during the time of fulfillment—the age in which the salvation promised in the OT is actually accomplished. The NT is preoccupied, not with promises of salvation, but with news of salvation. According to Mark 1:1-4, the gospel “begins” not in the OT but with John the Baptist, in whose work OT prophecy is fulfilled. In Romans 1:1-5 the gospel is represented as a blessing promised in the OT but not actually given until Jesus comes (see also Acts 13:32-33).<\/p>\nThe Good News of Christ’s Coming<\/p>\nThe promised birth of John the Baptist is good news (Lk 1:19), not only for his parents (vv 7, 24-25) but for all the people: John is sent to prepare them for Messiah’s coming (vv 14-17, 67-79). John’s own preaching is gospel (3:18) for the same reason. The Messiah would be coming to execute judgment, a process that involves both condemnation and salvation (vv 3-17). John’s message is gospel for sinners in that they are warned of impending doom and urged to repent before the ax falls (vv 7-9); it is gospel for the repentant in that they are promised forgiveness (v 3) and membership in Messiah’s community (v 17). The birth of the Savior himself is announced as good news bringing great joy (2:10-11).<\/p>\nThe Gospel according to Jesus<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming of the Kingdom of God<\/h5>\nJesus was authorized by God and anointed by the Spirit to proclaim the gospel (Mk 1:14; Lk 4:18). At the heart of his preaching stands the announcement “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mk 1:15). (For further references to this gospel, see Mt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; 26:13; Mk 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:9; Lk 4:43; 8:1; 16:16.) The message is good news for several reasons: (1) The kingdom is coming. The God whom Jesus proclaims is sovereign over all he has made. Yet paradoxically his rule is incomplete: his will is not done on earth as it is in heaven; wrong, not right, prevails. But these conditions are not final, according to Jesus. With the coming of the kingdom, God’s rule will be completed; wrong will be judged, righteousness established, and his people blessed. (2) The kingdom is now<\/em> being inaugurated. “The time is fulfilled,” declares Jesus (Mk 1:15a). The time appointed for the fulfillment of the OT promises has arrived. (3) The consummation of the kingdom is therefore no longer a distant prospect; the full realization of God’s rule is “at hand” (Mk 1:15b). (4) God is establishing his rule for a saving purpose. This is implied in Jesus’ call to repentance (Mk 1:15c). It is especially clear in the passages to which we now turn.<\/p>\n<h5>The Salvation of the Poor<\/h5>\nInvited to read the Scripture in the synagogue at Nazareth, Jesus turns to Isaiah 61: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord” (Lk 4:18-19, rsv<\/span>). Having read the prophecy, Jesus announces its fulfillment in his own ministry (v 21). Included among those whom Jesus has come to free are the physically infirm, such as the blind (v 18) and the leprous (v 27) (cf. the references to healing miracles in vv 23, 33-41; the close connection between evangelizing and healing in Mt 4:23; 9:35; 11:5; Lk 7:21-22; 9:6; and the description in Mt 12:22-29; Lk 13:11-16, of the physically afflicted as captives of Satan now liberated by Jesus). Also included are the materially poor—people like the widow helped by Elijah during the famine (Lk 4:25-26). It is the literally poor and hungry whom Jesus pronounces “blessed” in Luke 6:20-21. Yet it is primarily “spiritual” poverty that is in view. Still applying Isaiah 61, Jesus speaks in Matthew 5:3 of the “poor in spirit.” These are people broken and grieved by misery and poverty, oppression and injustice, suffering and death, national apostasy and personal sin—people who in their extremity turn to God and longingly wait for him to bring forth justice, bestow his mercy, and establish his kingdom. It is to just such people that Jesus brings good news (Mt 5:3-10). God sent him to usher in the kingdom, to rescue the lost, to liberate the enslaved, to cure the afflicted, to bind up hearts that are broken, and to forgive the guilty (Mk 2:5, 10, 17; 10:45; Lk 4:18-21; 7:48-49; 15:1-32; 19:10).<\/p>\n<h5>The Gift of Grace<\/h5>\nThe coming of the kingdom is not the effect or the reward of human effort but God’s answer to the human predicament—the gift of his favor (Lk 12:32). Correspondingly, the explanation for the salvation of the poor lies nowhere but in God’s own character. As the prodigal himself recognized, he hardly deserved to be his father’s servant, much less his son. Nothing he did, not even his repentance, accounted for the father’s love (15:11-32). In the parable of Matthew 20:1-16, it is owing entirely to the goodness of the employer that the last workers to be hired receive a full day’s wages. The first debtor in the story of Matthew 18:23-35 earned nothing but the right to be sold into slavery; instead, the king canceled his enormous debt. The publican, who had nothing to offer God but a confession of sin and plea for mercy, went home justified (Lk 18:13-14). The same holds true for the more virtuous among the poor, such as the persons described in Matthew 5:7-10. Their virtue is real, not imagined. Yet in keeping God’s commands, they do not put him in their debt; they are simply doing their duty (Lk 17:7-10). Furthermore, even the most merciful need divine mercy (Mt 5:7). For even those most zealous to obey God’s law are unable to fulfill all its requirements (cf. 11:28-30). The first servant in Matthew 18:23-35 owes far more money than someone in such a situation could possibly pay—which serves to magnify the generosity of the king. Grace depends for its exercise upon the inability of its objects (Lk 14:12-14).<\/p>\n<h5>The Call to Salvation<\/h5>\nThe Israelites are without exception a sinful people, all of them needing the salvation that Jesus brings (Mt 1:21; Lk 1:77). In demonstration of God’s grace, Jesus proclaimed his gospel to the entire nation (Mt 4:23; 9:35; 15:24; Lk 4:43; 9:6; 20:1). From the most respectable to the least, all are summoned to submit to God’s rule, all are invited to come and partake freely of the banquet he has spread (Lk 14:16-24). But the gift of salvation must be received if it is to be experienced (Mk 10:15). And while it is indeed a gift that costs nothing, it is also a priceless treasure for which a wise person will freely sacrifice everything else (Mt 13:44-46), a sacrifice exceeded only by the cost of rejecting the gospel (Mt 11:20-24; Mk 8:34-39; Lk 14:24, 33). “Repent and believe in the gospel,” Jesus commands (Mk 1:15). The self-righteous and the self-sufficient must be jolted out of their false sense of security and humbly recognize their need for God (Lk 6:24-26). Only then will Jesus’ message to the poor be seen as gospel. An announcement of liberation (4:18-19) is good news only to people who are enslaved and know they are. The command applies also to the destitute and the afflicted. Those among them who bemoan their lot must repent of their sins. But something further is needed for the response to be complete: a person cannot believe Jesus’ gospel without a commitment to the Person<\/em> of Christ (Jn 3:16). Even those who are already “poor in spirit,” in the sense defined earlier, are not really “blessed” until they acknowledge the truth of Jesus’ claims (Mt 11:6) and commit themselves to a life of obedience on his terms (7:21-27). This prepares us for the next point.<\/p>\n<h5>Summary<\/h5>\nThroughout Jesus’ earthly ministry, the theme of his gospel remains the dawning of God’s kingdom (Mt 4:23; 24:14; Lk 4:43; 16:16), a message that is preached almost exclusively to Jews (Mt 10:5-6; 15:24). Yet Jesus also provides glimpses into what the gospel was to become once his work on earth was accomplished: (1) In Mark 8:35 and 10:29 Jesus speaks of individuals who needed to make great sacrifices “for my sake and for the gospel.” While distinguished from each other, the person of Jesus and the gospel are here associated in the closest possible way. The time was approaching when the Proclaimer of the gospel would become the Proclaimed. (2) In Mark 13:10 and Matthew 24:14 (and the textually doubtful Mk 16:15) Jesus foretells the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom to the gentile nations. (3) In Mark 14, having interpreted a woman’s action (v 3) as an anointing of his body beforehand for burial (v 8), Jesus declares, “And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her” (v 9, rsv<\/span>; cf. Mt 26:13). This statement strongly implies that both the person of Jesus and the event of his death will figure prominently in the message that is to be proclaimed; otherwise, it is strange that the gospel and this particular act should be so solemnly bound together. Thus, here in the text already is an indication of how crucial Jesus’ death is both for the provision of the salvation announced in his gospel (cf. Mk 14:22-24) and for the launching of the evangelistic mission to the Gentiles (Mt 20:28 is vital for explaining the shift from Mt 15:24 to 28:18-20).<\/p>\nThe Gospel after Jesus’ Resurrection<\/p>\nAfter the resurrection of Jesus, the gospel was proclaimed by his eyewitnesses. The contents of this gospel are recorded in the book of Acts and in Paul’s letters. Of the 43 instances of euangelizomai<\/span> (“evangelize”) beyond the Gospels, 15 occur in Acts and 21 in Paul’s writings; of the 64 instances of euangelion<\/span> (“gospel”), 2 occur in Acts and no fewer than 60 in Paul.<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel of Christ<\/h5>\nHaving risen from the dead, Jesus Christ again evangelizes (Eph 2:16-17), doing so now through his appointed representatives (Rom 15:16-18; 1 Cor 1:17; 9:12-18; Gal 4:13-14; Eph 4:11; 2 Tm 1:9-11). More than that, Christ has become the central theme of the gospel; the Proclaimer is now the Proclaimed. This is repeatedly affirmed in Acts (5:42; 8:4-5, 35; 11:20; 17:18) and in Paul’s writings (Rom 1:1-4; 10:8-17; 15:19-20; 2 Cor 4:4-6; 11:4; Gal 1:16; Eph 3:8; Phil 1:15-18; 2 Tm 2:8). The NT always speaks of the gospel<\/em>—never the gospels—of Christ. A second gospel is as inconceivable and as unnecessary as a second Christ. This is the one gospel that God authorizes (e.g., Rom 1:1-17) and proclaims (e.g., 2 Thes 2:13-14). Galatians 2:7-9 speaks not of two gospels but of two mission fields. Paul (the apostle to the uncircumcised) and Peter (the apostle to the circumcised) are both entrusted with “the gospel of Christ” (Gal 1:7; cf. 1 Cor 15:1-11), the message that God has ordained for the salvation of Jews and Gentiles alike (Rom 1:16). The “different gospel” that Paul denounces in Galatians 1:6-9 and 2 Corinthians 11:4 is not another gospel about Jesus but a message about “another Jesus”—not the real one, but one who exists only in the minds and the messages of those who proclaim him. To preach the true Christ is to preach the true gospel, however questionable one’s motives (Phil 1:15-18, 27), and to respond rightly to the gospel is to turn to Christ (Acts 11:20-21; Rom 10:8-17; Gal 2:14-16).<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel as a Witness to Saving Events<\/h5>\nThe gospel bears witness to every aspect of Christ’s saving work, from his birth (Rom 1:3; 2 Tm 2:8) and public ministry (Mk 1:1; Acts 10:36-38) to his second coming (Col 1:5, 23; cf. 3:1-4; 1 Thes 1:5-10) and the last judgment (Rom 2:16). But it is the death and the resurrection of Christ that are most crucial for the accomplishment of salvation, and that are therefore most prominent in the gospel’s witness. These are the events with which Mark’s proclamation climaxes (chs 15–16), and for which everything else prepares (8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34; 12:6-8); special stress is placed upon Jesus’ death as the means of salvation from sin (10:45; 14:3-9, 22-24). In Paul’s gospel, too, the death and resurrection of Jesus are central (Rom 4:25; 1 Cor 15:1-4), with the cross occupying the very center (1 Cor 1:17–2:5). Had Christ not risen from the dead, Paul argues, the preaching of the cross would be a waste of time (1 Cor 15:14, 17; cf. Rom 6:3-11). However, now that Christ has risen, his death deserves special emphasis as the place where God provides atonement for sins (Rom 3:21-26; 5:6-11; 2 Cor 5:14-21; Eph 1:7). The gospel according to Acts proclaims Jesus’ death (Acts 8:25; 20:24, 28; cf. 10:36-43) and preeminently his resurrection, the event by which he conquered death and was exalted as Lord and coming Judge (10:36-43; 13:32-33; 17:18, 31). According to 1 Peter, the bearers of the gospel (1 Pt 1:12) concentrated, as had the OT prophets, on “the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glory” (1:11; cf. 1:18-19; 2:21-24; 3:18-22).<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel as a Power for Salvation<\/h5>\nThe gospel is much more than a report of past events and an exposition of doctrine. Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 1:17-18 and again in Romans 1:16 that the gospel is “the power of God”—not merely a witness to his power but an expression<\/em> of his power. Thus, it cannot be fettered (2 Tm 2:8-9). “Our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power,” Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 1:5. His point is not that the gospel was accompanied by mighty works (though this happened; cf. Rom 15:18-19), but that the gospel itself is a mighty work. God makes it so through his Holy Spirit (Rom 15:18-19; 1 Cor 2:1-5; 1 Thes 1:6). Furthermore, God’s singular purpose in exercising his power is to change people’s lives, to liberate them from sin and death, and to reconcile them to himself—in short, to save them. The gospel has power to effect the salvation it announces and to impart the life it promises (e.g., Rom 1:16; 10:8-17; 1 Cor 1:17-18; 15:1-2; Eph 1:13; 2 Thes 2:13-14; 2 Tm 1:8-11; 1 Pt 1:23-25). If people are to experience salvation, they must hear and believe the gospel. It is precisely in and through this message that the saving power manifested in the person and work of Christ (especially in his death and resurrection) is conveyed to men and made effective in their lives. Similarly it is in association with the gospel, or as a direct result of the reception of the gospel, that the Holy Spirit is imparted to believers (Acts 10:36-44; 15:7-8; 2 Cor 11:4; Gal 3:1-2). In short, the gospel is the decisive place of encounter between the sinner and God the Savior.<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel of Grace<\/h5>\nAccording to Peter’s testimony at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:7-11), an essential part of the gospel—for Gentiles and Jews alike—is salvation “through the grace of the Lord Jesus.” Toward the close of his missionary career, Paul states that his basic concern has been “to testify to the gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24, rsv<\/span>). This statement can be understood only in relation to Paul’s concept of the righteousness of God, particularly as set forth in Romans. Paul is here not merely expounding a divine attribute. Rather, he is dramatizing a divine activity—the manifestation of God’s righteousness now, “in the present time” (Rom 3:26), in the new age inaugurated by the coming of Jesus. The manifestation is twofold. Viewing the two aspects together, and doing so in the light of the gospel declared by Isaiah and by Jesus (both of whom strongly influenced Paul), respectively, will help us to understand why Paul speaks of “the gospel of the grace of God.”<\/p>\nFirst, the gospel is a witness<\/em> to God’s grace. In offering his Son as a sacrifice for sins (Rom 3:25a), God demonstrates his righteousness (vv 25b-26). That is, in the death of Jesus sins formerly “passed over” (v 25c) become the object of God’s wrath (cf. 1:18) and judgment. Yet in the very place where God deals justly and decisively with sins, he shows his grace to sinners. For the judgment against sin is focused not upon the sinners themselves but upon the One appointed to act on their behalf and to stand in their place (Rom 4:25; 5:6, 11; cf. 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 3:13). On this basis, sinners are freely pardoned (Rom 3:24). “The grace of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 15:11) toward the sinful is also in evidence, for he willingly bears their iniquities and suffers the consequences of their wrongdoing (Gal 2:20; cf. 2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:6-8).<\/p>\nSecond, the gospel is a channel<\/em> of God’s grace. “The righteousness of God is revealed” in the gospel, says Paul (Rom 1:17). By this he means, not that the gospel talks about the righteousness of God (though it does), but that God’s righteousness is actively at work in the gospel. This activity in turn explains how the gospel becomes “the power of God for salvation” (v 16). And just how does God demonstrate his righteousness at this stage? In short, by bestowing it as a free gift on sinful human beings. It remains the righteousness of God, but by God’s grace, it is a righteousness in which humans may share. Furthermore, partaking of God’s righteousness depends on being personally united with Jesus Christ. In Paul’s view the saved person is one who has been acquitted, justified, “declared righteous” by God the judge. The basis for the verdict is not that I in myself am righteous (God justifies the ungodly, Rom 4:5). Nor does God treat me as though I were righteous. According to Paul I am declared righteous because I really am<\/em> righteous—not in myself but in Christ (1 Cor 1:30; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9). This union is established through the revelation—and the free offer—of God’s righteousness in the gospel (Rom 1:16-17).<\/p>\n<h5>Responding to the Gospel<\/h5>\nThe gospel calls for a threefold response:<\/p>\n1. Believing.<\/em> The gospel, says Paul, is “the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith” (Rom 1:16). For Paul, faith is the abandonment of all reliance upon “works of law” for justification (3:28) and utter dependence upon the grace of God as demonstrated in the work of Christ, especially his death (v 25). Accordingly, the “different gospel” of Galatians 1:6 and 2 Corinthians 11:4 is spurious, for it preaches salvation by personal merit rather than (or together with) the work of Christ (cf. Gal 2:16). Ultimately faith rests upon God (Rom 4:24; 1 Thes 1:8-9) and upon Christ (Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 2:16, 20). Yet it is imperative that one believe the gospel also (Acts 8:12; 11:20-21; 15:7; Rom 1:16; 10:8-17; 1 Cor 1:17-24; Phil 1:27; Heb 4:2), for it is just by this means that God’s salvation is made known and mediated. Moreover, believing the gospel entails repentance (Acts 14:15; 20:21, 24; 1 Thes 1:5-10) and obedience (Rom 1:5; 15:16-18; Heb 4:6). Those who refuse to obey the gospel are imperiling their lives (2 Thes 1:5-10; 1 Pt 4:17).<\/p>\n2. Growing.<\/em> The Gospel is more than a message to be received—it is also a place in which to stand (1 Cor 15:1-2). It is sustainer of life as well as giver of life. One grows as a Christian not by turning from the gospel to other things (to turn away from the gospel is to abandon God and Christ, Gal 1:6), but by going ever more deeply into the gospel. In Romans 1:15 Paul expresses his eagerness to proclaim the gospel to the Christians in Rome. In the following chapters, anticipating his visit, he offers one of his most profound expositions of the gospel—one whose truth has never been fathomed and whose power has never been exhausted.<\/p>\n3. Hoping.<\/em> “The hope of the gospel” (Col 1:23) includes not only the return of Christ and the glory of heaven (Col 1:5; 3:1-4; 2 Thes 2:14-16) but the final judgment as well. For those who embrace the gospel, the last judgment holds no terrors, because the Judge is the very one who rescues them from the wrath to come (1 Thes 1:10). Those who are united to him need not dread condemnation now or at the end (Rom 8:1). Instead, the last judgment will mark their final vindication (1 Cor 4:5; Gal 5:5). Accordingly, this theme is not just a corollary but an integral part of the Good News (Rom 2:16). Those who have died since believing the gospel (1 Pt 4:6) may seem to have suffered a fate common to all people, or even the condemnation reserved for the lawless; in fact, their response to the gospel assures them of approval by the coming Lord (4:5-6; 5:4) and of a share in the imperishable inheritance of heaven (1:4).<\/p>","summary_ro":"GOSPEL Word derived from the Anglo-Saxon godspell denoting “glad tidings” or “good news.” Preview • The Gospel Message of Isaiah • The Gospel in the New Testament • The Good News of Christ’s Coming • The Gospel according to Jesus • The Gospel after Jesus’ Resurrection The Gospel Message of Isaiah Of all the passages cited, those of Isaiah provide the most important background for the gospel in the NT. According to Isaiah’s gospel, it is God alone who saves, and there is no explanation for his...","summary_en":"GOSPEL Word derived from the Anglo-Saxon godspell denoting “glad tidings” or “good news.” Preview • The Gospel Message of Isaiah • The Gospel in the New Testament • The Good News of Christ’s Coming • The Gospel according to Jesus • The Gospel after Jesus’ Resurrection The Gospel Message of Isaiah Of all the passages cited, those of Isaiah provide the most important background for the gospel in the NT. According to Isaiah’s gospel, it is God alone who saves, and there is no explanation for his...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"19":[{"id":42258,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Herod Antipas","title_en":"Herod Antipas","content_ro":"<h3>Herod Antipas<\/h3>\nHerod Antipas, sixth son of Herod the Great, was ruler of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC<\/span> to AD<\/span> 39, during the life of Jesus. His jurisdiction included the regions where Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries.<\/p>\nFollowing the example of his father, Herod Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris, his first project, was the largest city in Galilee. It was Antipas’s capital city until he built Tiberias, named in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius (AD<\/span> 14–37). The city Tiberias was on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. Antipas completed the city in AD<\/span> 23 and made it his capital.<\/p>\nHerod Antipas offended many Jews by divorcing his wife and marrying Herodias, the wife of his half brother, Herod Philip. Antipas’s marriage to Herodias was in violation of the law of Moses (Lev 18:16; 20:21) because Herod’s brother Philip was still alive. When John the Baptist spoke out strongly against this illegal marriage, Antipas imprisoned him (Mark 6:17-18); Herod was afraid John’s denunciation would lead to a political revolt (Josephus, Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2). Later, at a banquet, Herodias’s daughter pleased Herod with her dancing, evoking a rash promise from him to give her anything she wanted. Herodias took the opportunity to have John beheaded (Matt 14:1-12).<\/p>\nIt was obvious to Antipas that Jesus’ ministry was even more remarkable than John’s (see Mark 6:14-16; Matt 14:1-2; Luke 9:7-9), but he was reluctant to use force to bring about a meeting, for fear of arousing the people against him. Jesus, for his part, was openly critical of Herod Antipas (Mark 8:15; Luke 13:31-33).<\/p>\nWhen Jesus was finally arrested, Pilate could find no fault in Jesus, so he sent him to Herod Antipas, who was in Jerusalem for Passover. Pilate may also have been attempting to reconcile himself to Antipas. Their relationship had been rather strained since the Galilean massacre (Luke 13:1), and because Pilate had brought votive shields to Jerusalem that bore the image of Tiberius and were considered blasphemous by the Jews (Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius<\/em> 299–304). When Jesus was brought before Antipas, Herod only mocked him and sent him back to Pilate (Luke 23:6-11). The main political accomplishment of the incident was that Herod and Pilate were indeed reconciled (Luke 23:12).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas was later defeated in war by King Aretas, whose daughter he had divorced. (Jews interpreted this defeat as an act of divine judgment.) He was then deposed by Emperor Gaius in AD<\/span> 39 and sent into exile, in response to accusations from Herod Agrippa I of Antipas’s conspiracy against Rome.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 14:1-12; Mark 1:14; 6:14-29; Luke 3:1, 19-20; 9:7-9; 13:31-33; 23:7-12, 15; Acts 4:27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Herod Antipas<\/h3>\nHerod Antipas, sixth son of Herod the Great, was ruler of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC<\/span> to AD<\/span> 39, during the life of Jesus. His jurisdiction included the regions where Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries.<\/p>\nFollowing the example of his father, Herod Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris, his first project, was the largest city in Galilee. It was Antipas’s capital city until he built Tiberias, named in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius (AD<\/span> 14–37). The city Tiberias was on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. Antipas completed the city in AD<\/span> 23 and made it his capital.<\/p>\nHerod Antipas offended many Jews by divorcing his wife and marrying Herodias, the wife of his half brother, Herod Philip. Antipas’s marriage to Herodias was in violation of the law of Moses (Lev 18:16; 20:21) because Herod’s brother Philip was still alive. When John the Baptist spoke out strongly against this illegal marriage, Antipas imprisoned him (Mark 6:17-18); Herod was afraid John’s denunciation would lead to a political revolt (Josephus, Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2). Later, at a banquet, Herodias’s daughter pleased Herod with her dancing, evoking a rash promise from him to give her anything she wanted. Herodias took the opportunity to have John beheaded (Matt 14:1-12).<\/p>\nIt was obvious to Antipas that Jesus’ ministry was even more remarkable than John’s (see Mark 6:14-16; Matt 14:1-2; Luke 9:7-9), but he was reluctant to use force to bring about a meeting, for fear of arousing the people against him. Jesus, for his part, was openly critical of Herod Antipas (Mark 8:15; Luke 13:31-33).<\/p>\nWhen Jesus was finally arrested, Pilate could find no fault in Jesus, so he sent him to Herod Antipas, who was in Jerusalem for Passover. Pilate may also have been attempting to reconcile himself to Antipas. Their relationship had been rather strained since the Galilean massacre (Luke 13:1), and because Pilate had brought votive shields to Jerusalem that bore the image of Tiberius and were considered blasphemous by the Jews (Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius<\/em> 299–304). When Jesus was brought before Antipas, Herod only mocked him and sent him back to Pilate (Luke 23:6-11). The main political accomplishment of the incident was that Herod and Pilate were indeed reconciled (Luke 23:12).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas was later defeated in war by King Aretas, whose daughter he had divorced. (Jews interpreted this defeat as an act of divine judgment.) He was then deposed by Emperor Gaius in AD<\/span> 39 and sent into exile, in response to accusations from Herod Agrippa I of Antipas’s conspiracy against Rome.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 14:1-12; Mark 1:14; 6:14-29; Luke 3:1, 19-20; 9:7-9; 13:31-33; 23:7-12, 15; Acts 4:27<\/p>","summary_ro":"Herod Antipas Herod Antipas, sixth son of Herod the Great, was ruler of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC to AD 39, during the life of Jesus. His jurisdiction included the regions where Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries. Following the example of his father, Herod Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris, his first project, was the largest city in Galilee. It was Antipas’s capital city until he built Tiberias, named in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius (AD 14–37). The city Tibe...","summary_en":"Herod Antipas Herod Antipas, sixth son of Herod the Great, was ruler of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC to AD 39, during the life of Jesus. His jurisdiction included the regions where Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries. Following the example of his father, Herod Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris, his first project, was the largest city in Galilee. It was Antipas’s capital city until he built Tiberias, named in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius (AD 14–37). The city Tibe...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":42410,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"John the Baptist","title_en":"John the Baptist","content_ro":"<h3>John the Baptist<\/h3>\nJohn the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13).<\/p>\nJohn’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births around the same time signaled the beginning of God’s redeeming work.<\/p>\nJohn was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth and devoted his life to preparing people for the coming of the Lord (Luke 1:15-17). Living in the desert (Luke 1:80), he began preaching when he was about thirty years old. Dressed like a prophet and subsisting on desert food (locusts and wild honey, see Matt 3:4; Mark 1:6), he called everyone to repent and be baptized (Matt 3:1-2; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:1-3). He even castigated the religious leaders who came to hear him (Matt 3:7-10).<\/p>\nThough John reluctantly baptized Jesus (Matt 3:13-17), he considered Jesus his superior, the one who would “baptize with the Holy Spirit” (John 1:33; Matt 3:11; Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:16; cp. John 3:23-30). He encouraged his followers to become Jesus’ disciples—and many did, including Andrew (1:35-40), Apollos (Acts 18:24-26), and the twelve disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas received harsh judgment from John because of Herod’s unlawful marriage to Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. To please Herodias, Herod imprisoned John and then beheaded him (Matt 14:3-12; Mark 6:17-29; Luke 3:19-20). John’s imprisonment marked the beginning of Jesus’ public preaching (Matt 4:12; Mark 1:14).<\/p>\nShortly before his death, John seemed to be confused about Jesus and sent messengers from prison to ask him if he really was the Messiah. Jesus did not do what most people anticipated the Messiah would do. Rather than bringing judgment and a visible kingdom, he brought forgiveness, healing, and a spiritual kingdom. To reassure John, Jesus spoke of the miraculous things God was doing through him (Luke 7:18-23).<\/p>\nJohn remained faithful to his calling throughout his life, consistently preaching repentance and the judgment of God, even to people who had no desire to hear it. Jesus referred to John as one of the greatest servants of God who had ever lived (Matt 11:2-19; Luke 7:18-35), the end of a long line of prophets anticipating the coming of the Kingdom of God (Luke 16:16). John stood on the threshold of the new age, proclaiming its coming to all who would hear.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatthew 3:1-15; 4:12; 9:14; 11:2-19; 14:1-12; 16:14; 17:10-13; 21:24-27, 31-32; Mark 1:1-9, 14; 2:18; 6:14-29; 8:28; 9:11-13; 11:29-33; Luke 1:13-17, 36, 39-43, 57-66, 76-80; 3:1-21; 5:33; 7:18-35; 9:7-9, 19; 11:1; 16:16; 20:3-8; John 1:6-37; John 3:23-36; 4:1-3; 10:40-42; Acts 1:5; 10:37; 11:16; 18:25-26; 19:1-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>John the Baptist<\/h3>\nJohn the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13).<\/p>\nJohn’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births around the same time signaled the beginning of God’s redeeming work.<\/p>\nJohn was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth and devoted his life to preparing people for the coming of the Lord (Luke 1:15-17). Living in the desert (Luke 1:80), he began preaching when he was about thirty years old. Dressed like a prophet and subsisting on desert food (locusts and wild honey, see Matt 3:4; Mark 1:6), he called everyone to repent and be baptized (Matt 3:1-2; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:1-3). He even castigated the religious leaders who came to hear him (Matt 3:7-10).<\/p>\nThough John reluctantly baptized Jesus (Matt 3:13-17), he considered Jesus his superior, the one who would “baptize with the Holy Spirit” (John 1:33; Matt 3:11; Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:16; cp. John 3:23-30). He encouraged his followers to become Jesus’ disciples—and many did, including Andrew (1:35-40), Apollos (Acts 18:24-26), and the twelve disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas received harsh judgment from John because of Herod’s unlawful marriage to Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. To please Herodias, Herod imprisoned John and then beheaded him (Matt 14:3-12; Mark 6:17-29; Luke 3:19-20). John’s imprisonment marked the beginning of Jesus’ public preaching (Matt 4:12; Mark 1:14).<\/p>\nShortly before his death, John seemed to be confused about Jesus and sent messengers from prison to ask him if he really was the Messiah. Jesus did not do what most people anticipated the Messiah would do. Rather than bringing judgment and a visible kingdom, he brought forgiveness, healing, and a spiritual kingdom. To reassure John, Jesus spoke of the miraculous things God was doing through him (Luke 7:18-23).<\/p>\nJohn remained faithful to his calling throughout his life, consistently preaching repentance and the judgment of God, even to people who had no desire to hear it. Jesus referred to John as one of the greatest servants of God who had ever lived (Matt 11:2-19; Luke 7:18-35), the end of a long line of prophets anticipating the coming of the Kingdom of God (Luke 16:16). John stood on the threshold of the new age, proclaiming its coming to all who would hear.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatthew 3:1-15; 4:12; 9:14; 11:2-19; 14:1-12; 16:14; 17:10-13; 21:24-27, 31-32; Mark 1:1-9, 14; 2:18; 6:14-29; 8:28; 9:11-13; 11:29-33; Luke 1:13-17, 36, 39-43, 57-66, 76-80; 3:1-21; 5:33; 7:18-35; 9:7-9, 19; 11:1; 16:16; 20:3-8; John 1:6-37; John 3:23-36; 4:1-3; 10:40-42; Acts 1:5; 10:37; 11:16; 18:25-26; 19:1-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"John the Baptist John the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13). John’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births aroun...","summary_en":"John the Baptist John the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13). John’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births aroun...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":69884,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Herod Antipas","title_en":"Herod Antipas","content_ro":"<h3>Herod Antipas<\/h3>\nHerod Antipas, sixth son of Herod the Great, was ruler of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC<\/span> to AD<\/span> 39, during the life of Jesus. His jurisdiction included the regions where Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries.<\/p>\nFollowing the example of his father, Herod Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris, his first project, was the largest city in Galilee. It was Antipas’s capital city until he built Tiberias, named in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius (AD<\/span> 14–37). The city Tiberias was on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. Antipas completed the city in AD<\/span> 23 and made it his capital.<\/p>\nHerod Antipas offended many Jews by divorcing his wife and marrying Herodias, the wife of his half brother, Herod Philip. Antipas’s marriage to Herodias was in violation of the law of Moses (Lev 18:16; 20:21) because Herod’s brother Philip was still alive. When John the Baptist spoke out strongly against this illegal marriage, Antipas imprisoned him (Mark 6:17-18); Herod was afraid John’s denunciation would lead to a political revolt (Josephus, Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2). Later, at a banquet, Herodias’s daughter pleased Herod with her dancing, evoking a rash promise from him to give her anything she wanted. Herodias took the opportunity to have John beheaded (Matt 14:1-12).<\/p>\nIt was obvious to Antipas that Jesus’ ministry was even more remarkable than John’s (see Mark 6:14-16; Matt 14:1-2; Luke 9:7-9), but he was reluctant to use force to bring about a meeting, for fear of arousing the people against him. Jesus, for his part, was openly critical of Herod Antipas (Mark 8:15; Luke 13:31-33).<\/p>\nWhen Jesus was finally arrested, Pilate could find no fault in Jesus, so he sent him to Herod Antipas, who was in Jerusalem for Passover. Pilate may also have been attempting to reconcile himself to Antipas. Their relationship had been rather strained since the Galilean massacre (Luke 13:1), and because Pilate had brought votive shields to Jerusalem that bore the image of Tiberius and were considered blasphemous by the Jews (Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius<\/em> 299–304). When Jesus was brought before Antipas, Herod only mocked him and sent him back to Pilate (Luke 23:6-11). The main political accomplishment of the incident was that Herod and Pilate were indeed reconciled (Luke 23:12).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas was later defeated in war by King Aretas, whose daughter he had divorced. (Jews interpreted this defeat as an act of divine judgment.) He was then deposed by Emperor Gaius in AD<\/span> 39 and sent into exile, in response to accusations from Herod Agrippa I of Antipas’s conspiracy against Rome.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 14:1-12; Mark 1:14; 6:14-29; Luke 3:1, 19-20; 9:7-9; 13:31-33; 23:7-12, 15; Acts 4:27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Herod Antipas<\/h3>\nHerod Antipas, sixth son of Herod the Great, was ruler of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC<\/span> to AD<\/span> 39, during the life of Jesus. His jurisdiction included the regions where Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries.<\/p>\nFollowing the example of his father, Herod Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris, his first project, was the largest city in Galilee. It was Antipas’s capital city until he built Tiberias, named in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius (AD<\/span> 14–37). The city Tiberias was on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. Antipas completed the city in AD<\/span> 23 and made it his capital.<\/p>\nHerod Antipas offended many Jews by divorcing his wife and marrying Herodias, the wife of his half brother, Herod Philip. Antipas’s marriage to Herodias was in violation of the law of Moses (Lev 18:16; 20:21) because Herod’s brother Philip was still alive. When John the Baptist spoke out strongly against this illegal marriage, Antipas imprisoned him (Mark 6:17-18); Herod was afraid John’s denunciation would lead to a political revolt (Josephus, Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2). Later, at a banquet, Herodias’s daughter pleased Herod with her dancing, evoking a rash promise from him to give her anything she wanted. Herodias took the opportunity to have John beheaded (Matt 14:1-12).<\/p>\nIt was obvious to Antipas that Jesus’ ministry was even more remarkable than John’s (see Mark 6:14-16; Matt 14:1-2; Luke 9:7-9), but he was reluctant to use force to bring about a meeting, for fear of arousing the people against him. Jesus, for his part, was openly critical of Herod Antipas (Mark 8:15; Luke 13:31-33).<\/p>\nWhen Jesus was finally arrested, Pilate could find no fault in Jesus, so he sent him to Herod Antipas, who was in Jerusalem for Passover. Pilate may also have been attempting to reconcile himself to Antipas. Their relationship had been rather strained since the Galilean massacre (Luke 13:1), and because Pilate had brought votive shields to Jerusalem that bore the image of Tiberius and were considered blasphemous by the Jews (Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius<\/em> 299–304). When Jesus was brought before Antipas, Herod only mocked him and sent him back to Pilate (Luke 23:6-11). The main political accomplishment of the incident was that Herod and Pilate were indeed reconciled (Luke 23:12).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas was later defeated in war by King Aretas, whose daughter he had divorced. (Jews interpreted this defeat as an act of divine judgment.) He was then deposed by Emperor Gaius in AD<\/span> 39 and sent into exile, in response to accusations from Herod Agrippa I of Antipas’s conspiracy against Rome.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 14:1-12; Mark 1:14; 6:14-29; Luke 3:1, 19-20; 9:7-9; 13:31-33; 23:7-12, 15; Acts 4:27<\/p>","summary_ro":"Herod Antipas Herod Antipas, sixth son of Herod the Great, was ruler of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC to AD 39, during the life of Jesus. His jurisdiction included the regions where Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries. Following the example of his father, Herod Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris, his first project, was the largest city in Galilee. It was Antipas’s capital city until he built Tiberias, named in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius (AD 14–37). The city Tibe...","summary_en":"Herod Antipas Herod Antipas, sixth son of Herod the Great, was ruler of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC to AD 39, during the life of Jesus. His jurisdiction included the regions where Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries. Following the example of his father, Herod Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris, his first project, was the largest city in Galilee. It was Antipas’s capital city until he built Tiberias, named in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius (AD 14–37). The city Tibe...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70036,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"John the Baptist","title_en":"John the Baptist","content_ro":"<h3>John the Baptist<\/h3>\nJohn the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13).<\/p>\nJohn’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births around the same time signaled the beginning of God’s redeeming work.<\/p>\nJohn was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth and devoted his life to preparing people for the coming of the Lord (Luke 1:15-17). Living in the desert (Luke 1:80), he began preaching when he was about thirty years old. Dressed like a prophet and subsisting on desert food (locusts and wild honey, see Matt 3:4; Mark 1:6), he called everyone to repent and be baptized (Matt 3:1-2; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:1-3). He even castigated the religious leaders who came to hear him (Matt 3:7-10).<\/p>\nThough John reluctantly baptized Jesus (Matt 3:13-17), he considered Jesus his superior, the one who would “baptize with the Holy Spirit” (John 1:33; Matt 3:11; Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:16; cp. John 3:23-30). He encouraged his followers to become Jesus’ disciples—and many did, including Andrew (1:35-40), Apollos (Acts 18:24-26), and the twelve disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas received harsh judgment from John because of Herod’s unlawful marriage to Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. To please Herodias, Herod imprisoned John and then beheaded him (Matt 14:3-12; Mark 6:17-29; Luke 3:19-20). John’s imprisonment marked the beginning of Jesus’ public preaching (Matt 4:12; Mark 1:14).<\/p>\nShortly before his death, John seemed to be confused about Jesus and sent messengers from prison to ask him if he really was the Messiah. Jesus did not do what most people anticipated the Messiah would do. Rather than bringing judgment and a visible kingdom, he brought forgiveness, healing, and a spiritual kingdom. To reassure John, Jesus spoke of the miraculous things God was doing through him (Luke 7:18-23).<\/p>\nJohn remained faithful to his calling throughout his life, consistently preaching repentance and the judgment of God, even to people who had no desire to hear it. Jesus referred to John as one of the greatest servants of God who had ever lived (Matt 11:2-19; Luke 7:18-35), the end of a long line of prophets anticipating the coming of the Kingdom of God (Luke 16:16). John stood on the threshold of the new age, proclaiming its coming to all who would hear.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatthew 3:1-15; 4:12; 9:14; 11:2-19; 14:1-12; 16:14; 17:10-13; 21:24-27, 31-32; Mark 1:1-9, 14; 2:18; 6:14-29; 8:28; 9:11-13; 11:29-33; Luke 1:13-17, 36, 39-43, 57-66, 76-80; 3:1-21; 5:33; 7:18-35; 9:7-9, 19; 11:1; 16:16; 20:3-8; John 1:6-37; John 3:23-36; 4:1-3; 10:40-42; Acts 1:5; 10:37; 11:16; 18:25-26; 19:1-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>John the Baptist<\/h3>\nJohn the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13).<\/p>\nJohn’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births around the same time signaled the beginning of God’s redeeming work.<\/p>\nJohn was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth and devoted his life to preparing people for the coming of the Lord (Luke 1:15-17). Living in the desert (Luke 1:80), he began preaching when he was about thirty years old. Dressed like a prophet and subsisting on desert food (locusts and wild honey, see Matt 3:4; Mark 1:6), he called everyone to repent and be baptized (Matt 3:1-2; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:1-3). He even castigated the religious leaders who came to hear him (Matt 3:7-10).<\/p>\nThough John reluctantly baptized Jesus (Matt 3:13-17), he considered Jesus his superior, the one who would “baptize with the Holy Spirit” (John 1:33; Matt 3:11; Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:16; cp. John 3:23-30). He encouraged his followers to become Jesus’ disciples—and many did, including Andrew (1:35-40), Apollos (Acts 18:24-26), and the twelve disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas received harsh judgment from John because of Herod’s unlawful marriage to Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. To please Herodias, Herod imprisoned John and then beheaded him (Matt 14:3-12; Mark 6:17-29; Luke 3:19-20). John’s imprisonment marked the beginning of Jesus’ public preaching (Matt 4:12; Mark 1:14).<\/p>\nShortly before his death, John seemed to be confused about Jesus and sent messengers from prison to ask him if he really was the Messiah. Jesus did not do what most people anticipated the Messiah would do. Rather than bringing judgment and a visible kingdom, he brought forgiveness, healing, and a spiritual kingdom. To reassure John, Jesus spoke of the miraculous things God was doing through him (Luke 7:18-23).<\/p>\nJohn remained faithful to his calling throughout his life, consistently preaching repentance and the judgment of God, even to people who had no desire to hear it. Jesus referred to John as one of the greatest servants of God who had ever lived (Matt 11:2-19; Luke 7:18-35), the end of a long line of prophets anticipating the coming of the Kingdom of God (Luke 16:16). John stood on the threshold of the new age, proclaiming its coming to all who would hear.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatthew 3:1-15; 4:12; 9:14; 11:2-19; 14:1-12; 16:14; 17:10-13; 21:24-27, 31-32; Mark 1:1-9, 14; 2:18; 6:14-29; 8:28; 9:11-13; 11:29-33; Luke 1:13-17, 36, 39-43, 57-66, 76-80; 3:1-21; 5:33; 7:18-35; 9:7-9, 19; 11:1; 16:16; 20:3-8; John 1:6-37; John 3:23-36; 4:1-3; 10:40-42; Acts 1:5; 10:37; 11:16; 18:25-26; 19:1-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"John the Baptist John the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13). John’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births aroun...","summary_en":"John the Baptist John the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13). John’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births aroun...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":97510,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Herod Antipas","title_en":"Herod Antipas","content_ro":"<h3>Herod Antipas<\/h3>\nHerod Antipas, sixth son of Herod the Great, was ruler of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC<\/span> to AD<\/span> 39, during the life of Jesus. His jurisdiction included the regions where Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries.<\/p>\nFollowing the example of his father, Herod Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris, his first project, was the largest city in Galilee. It was Antipas’s capital city until he built Tiberias, named in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius (AD<\/span> 14–37). The city Tiberias was on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. Antipas completed the city in AD<\/span> 23 and made it his capital.<\/p>\nHerod Antipas offended many Jews by divorcing his wife and marrying Herodias, the wife of his half brother, Herod Philip. Antipas’s marriage to Herodias was in violation of the law of Moses (Lev 18:16; 20:21) because Herod’s brother Philip was still alive. When John the Baptist spoke out strongly against this illegal marriage, Antipas imprisoned him (Mark 6:17-18); Herod was afraid John’s denunciation would lead to a political revolt (Josephus, Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2). Later, at a banquet, Herodias’s daughter pleased Herod with her dancing, evoking a rash promise from him to give her anything she wanted. Herodias took the opportunity to have John beheaded (Matt 14:1-12).<\/p>\nIt was obvious to Antipas that Jesus’ ministry was even more remarkable than John’s (see Mark 6:14-16; Matt 14:1-2; Luke 9:7-9), but he was reluctant to use force to bring about a meeting, for fear of arousing the people against him. Jesus, for his part, was openly critical of Herod Antipas (Mark 8:15; Luke 13:31-33).<\/p>\nWhen Jesus was finally arrested, Pilate could find no fault in Jesus, so he sent him to Herod Antipas, who was in Jerusalem for Passover. Pilate may also have been attempting to reconcile himself to Antipas. Their relationship had been rather strained since the Galilean massacre (Luke 13:1), and because Pilate had brought votive shields to Jerusalem that bore the image of Tiberius and were considered blasphemous by the Jews (Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius<\/em> 299–304). When Jesus was brought before Antipas, Herod only mocked him and sent him back to Pilate (Luke 23:6-11). The main political accomplishment of the incident was that Herod and Pilate were indeed reconciled (Luke 23:12).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas was later defeated in war by King Aretas, whose daughter he had divorced. (Jews interpreted this defeat as an act of divine judgment.) He was then deposed by Emperor Gaius in AD<\/span> 39 and sent into exile, in response to accusations from Herod Agrippa I of Antipas’s conspiracy against Rome.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 14:1-12; Mark 1:14; 6:14-29; Luke 3:1, 19-20; 9:7-9; 13:31-33; 23:7-12, 15; Acts 4:27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Herod Antipas<\/h3>\nHerod Antipas, sixth son of Herod the Great, was ruler of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC<\/span> to AD<\/span> 39, during the life of Jesus. His jurisdiction included the regions where Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries.<\/p>\nFollowing the example of his father, Herod Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris, his first project, was the largest city in Galilee. It was Antipas’s capital city until he built Tiberias, named in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius (AD<\/span> 14–37). The city Tiberias was on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. Antipas completed the city in AD<\/span> 23 and made it his capital.<\/p>\nHerod Antipas offended many Jews by divorcing his wife and marrying Herodias, the wife of his half brother, Herod Philip. Antipas’s marriage to Herodias was in violation of the law of Moses (Lev 18:16; 20:21) because Herod’s brother Philip was still alive. When John the Baptist spoke out strongly against this illegal marriage, Antipas imprisoned him (Mark 6:17-18); Herod was afraid John’s denunciation would lead to a political revolt (Josephus, Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2). Later, at a banquet, Herodias’s daughter pleased Herod with her dancing, evoking a rash promise from him to give her anything she wanted. Herodias took the opportunity to have John beheaded (Matt 14:1-12).<\/p>\nIt was obvious to Antipas that Jesus’ ministry was even more remarkable than John’s (see Mark 6:14-16; Matt 14:1-2; Luke 9:7-9), but he was reluctant to use force to bring about a meeting, for fear of arousing the people against him. Jesus, for his part, was openly critical of Herod Antipas (Mark 8:15; Luke 13:31-33).<\/p>\nWhen Jesus was finally arrested, Pilate could find no fault in Jesus, so he sent him to Herod Antipas, who was in Jerusalem for Passover. Pilate may also have been attempting to reconcile himself to Antipas. Their relationship had been rather strained since the Galilean massacre (Luke 13:1), and because Pilate had brought votive shields to Jerusalem that bore the image of Tiberius and were considered blasphemous by the Jews (Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius<\/em> 299–304). When Jesus was brought before Antipas, Herod only mocked him and sent him back to Pilate (Luke 23:6-11). The main political accomplishment of the incident was that Herod and Pilate were indeed reconciled (Luke 23:12).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas was later defeated in war by King Aretas, whose daughter he had divorced. (Jews interpreted this defeat as an act of divine judgment.) He was then deposed by Emperor Gaius in AD<\/span> 39 and sent into exile, in response to accusations from Herod Agrippa I of Antipas’s conspiracy against Rome.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 14:1-12; Mark 1:14; 6:14-29; Luke 3:1, 19-20; 9:7-9; 13:31-33; 23:7-12, 15; Acts 4:27<\/p>","summary_ro":"Herod Antipas Herod Antipas, sixth son of Herod the Great, was ruler of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC to AD 39, during the life of Jesus. His jurisdiction included the regions where Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries. Following the example of his father, Herod Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris, his first project, was the largest city in Galilee. It was Antipas’s capital city until he built Tiberias, named in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius (AD 14–37). The city Tibe...","summary_en":"Herod Antipas Herod Antipas, sixth son of Herod the Great, was ruler of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC to AD 39, during the life of Jesus. His jurisdiction included the regions where Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries. Following the example of his father, Herod Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris, his first project, was the largest city in Galilee. It was Antipas’s capital city until he built Tiberias, named in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius (AD 14–37). The city Tibe...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":97662,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"John the Baptist","title_en":"John the Baptist","content_ro":"<h3>John the Baptist<\/h3>\nJohn the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13).<\/p>\nJohn’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births around the same time signaled the beginning of God’s redeeming work.<\/p>\nJohn was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth and devoted his life to preparing people for the coming of the Lord (Luke 1:15-17). Living in the desert (Luke 1:80), he began preaching when he was about thirty years old. Dressed like a prophet and subsisting on desert food (locusts and wild honey, see Matt 3:4; Mark 1:6), he called everyone to repent and be baptized (Matt 3:1-2; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:1-3). He even castigated the religious leaders who came to hear him (Matt 3:7-10).<\/p>\nThough John reluctantly baptized Jesus (Matt 3:13-17), he considered Jesus his superior, the one who would “baptize with the Holy Spirit” (John 1:33; Matt 3:11; Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:16; cp. John 3:23-30). He encouraged his followers to become Jesus’ disciples—and many did, including Andrew (1:35-40), Apollos (Acts 18:24-26), and the twelve disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas received harsh judgment from John because of Herod’s unlawful marriage to Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. To please Herodias, Herod imprisoned John and then beheaded him (Matt 14:3-12; Mark 6:17-29; Luke 3:19-20). John’s imprisonment marked the beginning of Jesus’ public preaching (Matt 4:12; Mark 1:14).<\/p>\nShortly before his death, John seemed to be confused about Jesus and sent messengers from prison to ask him if he really was the Messiah. Jesus did not do what most people anticipated the Messiah would do. Rather than bringing judgment and a visible kingdom, he brought forgiveness, healing, and a spiritual kingdom. To reassure John, Jesus spoke of the miraculous things God was doing through him (Luke 7:18-23).<\/p>\nJohn remained faithful to his calling throughout his life, consistently preaching repentance and the judgment of God, even to people who had no desire to hear it. Jesus referred to John as one of the greatest servants of God who had ever lived (Matt 11:2-19; Luke 7:18-35), the end of a long line of prophets anticipating the coming of the Kingdom of God (Luke 16:16). John stood on the threshold of the new age, proclaiming its coming to all who would hear.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatthew 3:1-15; 4:12; 9:14; 11:2-19; 14:1-12; 16:14; 17:10-13; 21:24-27, 31-32; Mark 1:1-9, 14; 2:18; 6:14-29; 8:28; 9:11-13; 11:29-33; Luke 1:13-17, 36, 39-43, 57-66, 76-80; 3:1-21; 5:33; 7:18-35; 9:7-9, 19; 11:1; 16:16; 20:3-8; John 1:6-37; John 3:23-36; 4:1-3; 10:40-42; Acts 1:5; 10:37; 11:16; 18:25-26; 19:1-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>John the Baptist<\/h3>\nJohn the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13).<\/p>\nJohn’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births around the same time signaled the beginning of God’s redeeming work.<\/p>\nJohn was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth and devoted his life to preparing people for the coming of the Lord (Luke 1:15-17). Living in the desert (Luke 1:80), he began preaching when he was about thirty years old. Dressed like a prophet and subsisting on desert food (locusts and wild honey, see Matt 3:4; Mark 1:6), he called everyone to repent and be baptized (Matt 3:1-2; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:1-3). He even castigated the religious leaders who came to hear him (Matt 3:7-10).<\/p>\nThough John reluctantly baptized Jesus (Matt 3:13-17), he considered Jesus his superior, the one who would “baptize with the Holy Spirit” (John 1:33; Matt 3:11; Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:16; cp. John 3:23-30). He encouraged his followers to become Jesus’ disciples—and many did, including Andrew (1:35-40), Apollos (Acts 18:24-26), and the twelve disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas received harsh judgment from John because of Herod’s unlawful marriage to Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. To please Herodias, Herod imprisoned John and then beheaded him (Matt 14:3-12; Mark 6:17-29; Luke 3:19-20). John’s imprisonment marked the beginning of Jesus’ public preaching (Matt 4:12; Mark 1:14).<\/p>\nShortly before his death, John seemed to be confused about Jesus and sent messengers from prison to ask him if he really was the Messiah. Jesus did not do what most people anticipated the Messiah would do. Rather than bringing judgment and a visible kingdom, he brought forgiveness, healing, and a spiritual kingdom. To reassure John, Jesus spoke of the miraculous things God was doing through him (Luke 7:18-23).<\/p>\nJohn remained faithful to his calling throughout his life, consistently preaching repentance and the judgment of God, even to people who had no desire to hear it. Jesus referred to John as one of the greatest servants of God who had ever lived (Matt 11:2-19; Luke 7:18-35), the end of a long line of prophets anticipating the coming of the Kingdom of God (Luke 16:16). John stood on the threshold of the new age, proclaiming its coming to all who would hear.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatthew 3:1-15; 4:12; 9:14; 11:2-19; 14:1-12; 16:14; 17:10-13; 21:24-27, 31-32; Mark 1:1-9, 14; 2:18; 6:14-29; 8:28; 9:11-13; 11:29-33; Luke 1:13-17, 36, 39-43, 57-66, 76-80; 3:1-21; 5:33; 7:18-35; 9:7-9, 19; 11:1; 16:16; 20:3-8; John 1:6-37; John 3:23-36; 4:1-3; 10:40-42; Acts 1:5; 10:37; 11:16; 18:25-26; 19:1-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"John the Baptist John the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13). John’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births aroun...","summary_en":"John the Baptist John the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13). John’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births aroun...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125136,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Herod Antipas","title_en":"Herod Antipas","content_ro":"<h3>Herod Antipas<\/h3>\nHerod Antipas, sixth son of Herod the Great, was ruler of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC<\/span> to AD<\/span> 39, during the life of Jesus. His jurisdiction included the regions where Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries.<\/p>\nFollowing the example of his father, Herod Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris, his first project, was the largest city in Galilee. It was Antipas’s capital city until he built Tiberias, named in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius (AD<\/span> 14–37). The city Tiberias was on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. Antipas completed the city in AD<\/span> 23 and made it his capital.<\/p>\nHerod Antipas offended many Jews by divorcing his wife and marrying Herodias, the wife of his half brother, Herod Philip. Antipas’s marriage to Herodias was in violation of the law of Moses (Lev 18:16; 20:21) because Herod’s brother Philip was still alive. When John the Baptist spoke out strongly against this illegal marriage, Antipas imprisoned him (Mark 6:17-18); Herod was afraid John’s denunciation would lead to a political revolt (Josephus, Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2). Later, at a banquet, Herodias’s daughter pleased Herod with her dancing, evoking a rash promise from him to give her anything she wanted. Herodias took the opportunity to have John beheaded (Matt 14:1-12).<\/p>\nIt was obvious to Antipas that Jesus’ ministry was even more remarkable than John’s (see Mark 6:14-16; Matt 14:1-2; Luke 9:7-9), but he was reluctant to use force to bring about a meeting, for fear of arousing the people against him. Jesus, for his part, was openly critical of Herod Antipas (Mark 8:15; Luke 13:31-33).<\/p>\nWhen Jesus was finally arrested, Pilate could find no fault in Jesus, so he sent him to Herod Antipas, who was in Jerusalem for Passover. Pilate may also have been attempting to reconcile himself to Antipas. Their relationship had been rather strained since the Galilean massacre (Luke 13:1), and because Pilate had brought votive shields to Jerusalem that bore the image of Tiberius and were considered blasphemous by the Jews (Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius<\/em> 299–304). When Jesus was brought before Antipas, Herod only mocked him and sent him back to Pilate (Luke 23:6-11). The main political accomplishment of the incident was that Herod and Pilate were indeed reconciled (Luke 23:12).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas was later defeated in war by King Aretas, whose daughter he had divorced. (Jews interpreted this defeat as an act of divine judgment.) He was then deposed by Emperor Gaius in AD<\/span> 39 and sent into exile, in response to accusations from Herod Agrippa I of Antipas’s conspiracy against Rome.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 14:1-12; Mark 1:14; 6:14-29; Luke 3:1, 19-20; 9:7-9; 13:31-33; 23:7-12, 15; Acts 4:27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Herod Antipas<\/h3>\nHerod Antipas, sixth son of Herod the Great, was ruler of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC<\/span> to AD<\/span> 39, during the life of Jesus. His jurisdiction included the regions where Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries.<\/p>\nFollowing the example of his father, Herod Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris, his first project, was the largest city in Galilee. It was Antipas’s capital city until he built Tiberias, named in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius (AD<\/span> 14–37). The city Tiberias was on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. Antipas completed the city in AD<\/span> 23 and made it his capital.<\/p>\nHerod Antipas offended many Jews by divorcing his wife and marrying Herodias, the wife of his half brother, Herod Philip. Antipas’s marriage to Herodias was in violation of the law of Moses (Lev 18:16; 20:21) because Herod’s brother Philip was still alive. When John the Baptist spoke out strongly against this illegal marriage, Antipas imprisoned him (Mark 6:17-18); Herod was afraid John’s denunciation would lead to a political revolt (Josephus, Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2). Later, at a banquet, Herodias’s daughter pleased Herod with her dancing, evoking a rash promise from him to give her anything she wanted. Herodias took the opportunity to have John beheaded (Matt 14:1-12).<\/p>\nIt was obvious to Antipas that Jesus’ ministry was even more remarkable than John’s (see Mark 6:14-16; Matt 14:1-2; Luke 9:7-9), but he was reluctant to use force to bring about a meeting, for fear of arousing the people against him. Jesus, for his part, was openly critical of Herod Antipas (Mark 8:15; Luke 13:31-33).<\/p>\nWhen Jesus was finally arrested, Pilate could find no fault in Jesus, so he sent him to Herod Antipas, who was in Jerusalem for Passover. Pilate may also have been attempting to reconcile himself to Antipas. Their relationship had been rather strained since the Galilean massacre (Luke 13:1), and because Pilate had brought votive shields to Jerusalem that bore the image of Tiberius and were considered blasphemous by the Jews (Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius<\/em> 299–304). When Jesus was brought before Antipas, Herod only mocked him and sent him back to Pilate (Luke 23:6-11). The main political accomplishment of the incident was that Herod and Pilate were indeed reconciled (Luke 23:12).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas was later defeated in war by King Aretas, whose daughter he had divorced. (Jews interpreted this defeat as an act of divine judgment.) He was then deposed by Emperor Gaius in AD<\/span> 39 and sent into exile, in response to accusations from Herod Agrippa I of Antipas’s conspiracy against Rome.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 14:1-12; Mark 1:14; 6:14-29; Luke 3:1, 19-20; 9:7-9; 13:31-33; 23:7-12, 15; Acts 4:27<\/p>","summary_ro":"Herod Antipas Herod Antipas, sixth son of Herod the Great, was ruler of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC to AD 39, during the life of Jesus. His jurisdiction included the regions where Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries. Following the example of his father, Herod Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris, his first project, was the largest city in Galilee. It was Antipas’s capital city until he built Tiberias, named in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius (AD 14–37). The city Tibe...","summary_en":"Herod Antipas Herod Antipas, sixth son of Herod the Great, was ruler of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC to AD 39, during the life of Jesus. His jurisdiction included the regions where Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries. Following the example of his father, Herod Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris, his first project, was the largest city in Galilee. It was Antipas’s capital city until he built Tiberias, named in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius (AD 14–37). The city Tibe...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125288,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"John the Baptist","title_en":"John the Baptist","content_ro":"<h3>John the Baptist<\/h3>\nJohn the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13).<\/p>\nJohn’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births around the same time signaled the beginning of God’s redeeming work.<\/p>\nJohn was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth and devoted his life to preparing people for the coming of the Lord (Luke 1:15-17). Living in the desert (Luke 1:80), he began preaching when he was about thirty years old. Dressed like a prophet and subsisting on desert food (locusts and wild honey, see Matt 3:4; Mark 1:6), he called everyone to repent and be baptized (Matt 3:1-2; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:1-3). He even castigated the religious leaders who came to hear him (Matt 3:7-10).<\/p>\nThough John reluctantly baptized Jesus (Matt 3:13-17), he considered Jesus his superior, the one who would “baptize with the Holy Spirit” (John 1:33; Matt 3:11; Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:16; cp. John 3:23-30). He encouraged his followers to become Jesus’ disciples—and many did, including Andrew (1:35-40), Apollos (Acts 18:24-26), and the twelve disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas received harsh judgment from John because of Herod’s unlawful marriage to Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. To please Herodias, Herod imprisoned John and then beheaded him (Matt 14:3-12; Mark 6:17-29; Luke 3:19-20). John’s imprisonment marked the beginning of Jesus’ public preaching (Matt 4:12; Mark 1:14).<\/p>\nShortly before his death, John seemed to be confused about Jesus and sent messengers from prison to ask him if he really was the Messiah. Jesus did not do what most people anticipated the Messiah would do. Rather than bringing judgment and a visible kingdom, he brought forgiveness, healing, and a spiritual kingdom. To reassure John, Jesus spoke of the miraculous things God was doing through him (Luke 7:18-23).<\/p>\nJohn remained faithful to his calling throughout his life, consistently preaching repentance and the judgment of God, even to people who had no desire to hear it. Jesus referred to John as one of the greatest servants of God who had ever lived (Matt 11:2-19; Luke 7:18-35), the end of a long line of prophets anticipating the coming of the Kingdom of God (Luke 16:16). John stood on the threshold of the new age, proclaiming its coming to all who would hear.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatthew 3:1-15; 4:12; 9:14; 11:2-19; 14:1-12; 16:14; 17:10-13; 21:24-27, 31-32; Mark 1:1-9, 14; 2:18; 6:14-29; 8:28; 9:11-13; 11:29-33; Luke 1:13-17, 36, 39-43, 57-66, 76-80; 3:1-21; 5:33; 7:18-35; 9:7-9, 19; 11:1; 16:16; 20:3-8; John 1:6-37; John 3:23-36; 4:1-3; 10:40-42; Acts 1:5; 10:37; 11:16; 18:25-26; 19:1-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>John the Baptist<\/h3>\nJohn the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13).<\/p>\nJohn’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births around the same time signaled the beginning of God’s redeeming work.<\/p>\nJohn was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth and devoted his life to preparing people for the coming of the Lord (Luke 1:15-17). Living in the desert (Luke 1:80), he began preaching when he was about thirty years old. Dressed like a prophet and subsisting on desert food (locusts and wild honey, see Matt 3:4; Mark 1:6), he called everyone to repent and be baptized (Matt 3:1-2; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:1-3). He even castigated the religious leaders who came to hear him (Matt 3:7-10).<\/p>\nThough John reluctantly baptized Jesus (Matt 3:13-17), he considered Jesus his superior, the one who would “baptize with the Holy Spirit” (John 1:33; Matt 3:11; Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:16; cp. John 3:23-30). He encouraged his followers to become Jesus’ disciples—and many did, including Andrew (1:35-40), Apollos (Acts 18:24-26), and the twelve disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7).<\/p>\nHerod Antipas received harsh judgment from John because of Herod’s unlawful marriage to Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. To please Herodias, Herod imprisoned John and then beheaded him (Matt 14:3-12; Mark 6:17-29; Luke 3:19-20). John’s imprisonment marked the beginning of Jesus’ public preaching (Matt 4:12; Mark 1:14).<\/p>\nShortly before his death, John seemed to be confused about Jesus and sent messengers from prison to ask him if he really was the Messiah. Jesus did not do what most people anticipated the Messiah would do. Rather than bringing judgment and a visible kingdom, he brought forgiveness, healing, and a spiritual kingdom. To reassure John, Jesus spoke of the miraculous things God was doing through him (Luke 7:18-23).<\/p>\nJohn remained faithful to his calling throughout his life, consistently preaching repentance and the judgment of God, even to people who had no desire to hear it. Jesus referred to John as one of the greatest servants of God who had ever lived (Matt 11:2-19; Luke 7:18-35), the end of a long line of prophets anticipating the coming of the Kingdom of God (Luke 16:16). John stood on the threshold of the new age, proclaiming its coming to all who would hear.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatthew 3:1-15; 4:12; 9:14; 11:2-19; 14:1-12; 16:14; 17:10-13; 21:24-27, 31-32; Mark 1:1-9, 14; 2:18; 6:14-29; 8:28; 9:11-13; 11:29-33; Luke 1:13-17, 36, 39-43, 57-66, 76-80; 3:1-21; 5:33; 7:18-35; 9:7-9, 19; 11:1; 16:16; 20:3-8; John 1:6-37; John 3:23-36; 4:1-3; 10:40-42; Acts 1:5; 10:37; 11:16; 18:25-26; 19:1-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"John the Baptist John the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13). John’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births aroun...","summary_en":"John the Baptist John the Baptist was a fiery open-air preacher who called people to repent and be baptized. John worked in the role of Elijah, to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:4-5; Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13). John’s birth, like that of Jesus, was miraculous. His parents were elderly and had been unable to have children (Luke 1:5-25). His mother, Elizabeth, was a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother (Luke 1:36), so John was related to Jesus. The two miraculous births aroun...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":16275,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Family* Herod, Herodian","title_en":"Family* Herod, Herodian","content_ro":"<h3>HEROD, HERODIAN FAMILY*<\/h3>\nPolitical rulers during the lifetime of Christ. Christ was born when Herod the Great was ruling. Herod’s son Herod Antipas was the ruler of Galilee and Perea, the territories in which Jesus and John the Baptist carried out most of their ministries. It was this ruler who beheaded John the Baptist and tried Christ just before his death. Herod Agrippa I is the persecutor of the church in Acts 12, and Herod Agrippa II heard Paul’s testimony (Acts 26) just before he went to Rome to be tried by Caesar. Without a knowledge of the Herodian family, one can hardly have a proper understanding of the times of Christ.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Herodian Dynasty<\/p>\n• Herod the Great<\/p>\n• Archelaus<\/p>\n• Antipas<\/p>\n• Philip the Tetrarch<\/p>\n• Agrippa I<\/p>\n• Agrippa II<\/p>\nThe Herodian Dynasty (67–47 BC<\/span>)<\/p>\nThe Herodian dynasty became prominent during the confusion that resulted in the decay of the Hasmonean dynasty, the transference of Syria and Palestine to Roman rule, and the civil wars that marked the decay of the nation. Much of what we know about the Herods comes from the historian Josephus’s writings: Antiquities of the Jews<\/em> and The Jewish War.<\/em><\/p>\nHerod the Great (47–4 BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<h5>As Governor of Galilee (47–37 BC<\/span>)<\/h5>\nHerod the Great became governor of Galilee at 25 years of age. Although he gained the respect of both the Romans and the Galilean Jews for quickly capturing and executing the bandit leader Ezekias, some in Hyrcanus’s court thought that he was becoming too powerful and arranged to have him brought to trial. He was acquitted and released and thereafter fled to Sextus Caesar at Damascus. Sextus Caesar, governor of Syria, appointed Herod governor of Coele-Syria, and thus he became involved with Roman affairs in Syria. He remained in this position under a series of rulers and was successful in collecting taxes and suppressing various revolts. Thus, in 41 BC<\/span> when Antony came to power under Octavius Caesar, after asking the advice of Hyrcanus II, Sextus appointed Herod and Phasael as tetrarchs of Judea.<\/p>\n<h5>As King (37–4 BC<\/span>)<\/h5>\nThe reign of Herod is divided by most scholars into three periods: (1) consolidation from 37 to 25 BC<\/span>; (2) prosperity from 25 to 13 BC<\/span>; and (3) domestic troubles from 13 to 4 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nThe period of consolidation extended from his accession as king in 37 BC<\/span> to the death of the sons of Babas, the last male representatives of the Hasmonean family. During this period, he had to contend with many powerful adversaries.<\/p>\nThe first adversaries, the people and the Pharisees, objected to his being an Idumean, a half Jew, and a friend of the Romans. Those who opposed him were punished, and those who took his side were rewarded with favors and honors.<\/p>\nThe second adversaries were those of the aristocracy who sided with Antigonus. Herod had executed 45 of the wealthiest and had confiscated their properties to replenish his own coffers.<\/p>\nThe third group of adversaries was the Hasmonean family. Herod’s chief problem was his mother-in-law, Alexandra. She was upset that he had not appointed another Hasmonean to the high priesthood to replace Hyrcanus, specifically her son Aristobulus. She wrote to Cleopatra, asking her to influence Antony to force Herod to remove the appointed high priest, Ananel, and replace him with Aristobulus. Finally, Herod gave way to the pressure. In the end, after a celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles, Herod had Aristobulus drowned, making it look like an accident. Herod put Alexandra in chains and placed her under guard to keep her from causing him more trouble.<\/p>\nHerod’s fourth adversary was Cleopatra. When civil war broke out between Antony and Octavius, Herod wanted to help Antony. But Cleopatra persuaded Antony to set Herod in battle against the Arabian king Malchus, who had failed to pay tribute to her. When she saw Herod winning, she ordered her troops to help Malchus, hoping to weaken both parties to the breaking point so that she could absorb them both. After a catastrophic earthquake in his domain in 31 BC<\/span>, Herod defeated the Arabs and returned home. Soon after, on September 2, 31 BC<\/span>, Octavius defeated Antony in the Battle of Actium, resulting in the suicides of Antony and Cleopatra.<\/p>\nThe second period of Herod’s reign was one of prosperity (25–14 BC<\/span>). It was a period of splendor and enjoyment interrupted by occasional disturbances. According to Josephus, the most noble of all Herod’s achievements was the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, begun in 20\/19 BC<\/span> (Antiquities<\/em> 15.8.1). Rabbinic literature claims, “He who has not seen the Temple of Herod has never seen a beautiful building” (Babylonian Talmud: Baba Bathra<\/em> 4a). Prior to this, he had built theaters, amphitheaters, and racecourses for both men and horses. In 24 BC<\/span> Herod built himself a royal palace and built or rebuilt many fortresses and gentile temples, including Strato’s Tower, later renamed Caesarea.<\/p>\nDuring this time, he became very interested in culture and gathered around him men accomplished in Greek literature and art. Greek rhetoricians were appointed to the highest offices of the state. One of these was Nicolas of Damascus, Herod’s instructor and adviser in philosophy, rhetoric, and history. In late 24 BC<\/span> he married Mariamne, daughter of Simon, a well-known priest in Jerusalem (she will be referred to as Mariamne II).<\/p>\nDuring this period, Herod’s rule was favorably accepted by the people. They were annoyed, however, by two things. First, he violated Jewish law by his introduction of the quinquennial games in honor of Caesar; and second, he built theaters and racecourses. He demanded a loyalty oath from his subjects, except for a privileged few. Also, he would not allow them to congregate freely for fear of a revolt. Despite these things, he had good control of the people and twice favored them by lowering taxes (in 14 BC<\/span> he reduced taxes by one-fourth).<\/p>\nThe third period of Herod’s rule was clearly marked by domestic troubles (13–4 BC<\/span>). By now he had married ten wives. His first wife, Doris, had only one son, Antipater. He repudiated Doris and Antipater when he married Mariamne I, allowing them to visit Jerusalem only during the festivals. He married Mariamne I in 37 BC<\/span>. She was the granddaughter of Hyrcanus and had five children, two daughters and three sons. The youngest son died while in Rome, and the remaining two sons were to play an important role in this part of Herod’s reign. In late 24 BC<\/span> he married his third wife, Mariamne II, to whom one child was born, Herod (Philip). Malthace, his fourth wife, was a Samaritan and mother of two sons, Archelaus and Antipas. His fifth wife, Cleopatra of Jerusalem, was the mother of Philip the tetrarch. Of the remaining five wives, only Pallas, Phaedra, and Elpsis are known by name, and none played a significant part in the events of this period.<\/p>\nAlexander and Aristobulus, the sons of Mariamne I, were his favorites. Immediately following their own marriages, troubles began within the Herodian household. Salome, Herod’s sister and mother of Berenice (wife of Aristobulus), hated these two sons, mainly because she wanted the position and favor they enjoyed for her own son. Herod decided to recall his exiled son Antipater to show Alexander and Aristobulus there was another heir to the throne. Antipater took full advantage of the situation and used every conceivable means to acquire the coveted throne. Finally, a man of bad character, Eurycles from Lacedaemon, took it upon himself to inflame the father against his two sons and vice versa. Soon other mischief makers joined Eurycles, and Herod’s patience became exhausted. He put Alexander and Aristobulus in prison and named Antipater heir.<\/p>\nIn his impatience to gain the throne, Antipater attempted to poison Herod. This plot failed when Pheroras, Herod’s brother, drank the poison by mistake. Herod put Antipater in prison and reported the matter to the emperor (c. 5 BC<\/span>). At this time Herod became very ill with an incurable disease. He drew up a new will that bypassed his older sons, Archelaus and Philip, because Antipater had poisoned his mind against them also. He chose his youngest son, Antipas, as his sole successor.<\/p>\nIt was during this time that the wise men arrived in Judea, searching for the newborn king of the Jews. Herod instructed them to report to him the whereabouts of this child as soon as they found him. Being warned in a dream, they did not do so, but rather returned to their homes by another route. God warned Joseph (husband of the mother of Jesus) to flee to Egypt because of Herod’s intention to kill Jesus. Joseph took his family and left Bethlehem. Shortly after, Herod killed all the male children in Bethlehem who were two years old and under.<\/p>\nHerod’s disease grew increasingly worse. Permission came from Rome to execute Antipater, which he promptly did. He again altered his will, making Archelaus king of Judea, Idumea, and Samaria; Antipas tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and Philip tetrarch of territories east of Galilee. On the fifth day after Antipater’s execution, Herod died at Jericho in the spring of 4 BC<\/span>. The people acclaimed Archelaus as their king.<\/p>\nArchelaus (4 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 6)<\/p>\nArchelaus was the son of Herod the Great and Malthace (a Samaritan) and was born around 22 BC<\/span>. Archelaus was faced with a multitude of problems. He had killed 3,000 people in putting down a revolution led by people avenging the blood of those killed by his father, Herod. Thus his rule got off to a bad start. At Pentecost in 4 BC<\/span>, another revolt broke out, which lasted about two and a half months and during which the temple porticoes were burned and the treasury was pillaged by the Romans. This unrest spread to the countryside of Judea and to Galilee and Perea.<\/p>\nArchelaus treated both the Jews and the Samaritans brutally (War<\/em> 2.7.3), a fact borne out by the Gospels. When Joseph returned from his flight to Egypt and learned that Archelaus was ruling Judea, he was afraid to go there and was warned against it by God; he took the infant Jesus to Galilee instead (Mt 2:22).<\/p>\nArchelaus’s tyranny finally caused the Jews and Samaritans to send a delegation to Rome and complain formally to Augustus. The fact that such bitter enemies as the Jews and Samaritans could cooperate in this matter indicates the serious nature of the complaint. Antipas and Philip also went to Rome to complain about him. Presumably they resented his neglect as their Roman representative for Palestine. Thus in AD<\/span> 6 Archelaus was deposed and exiled to Vienna in Gaul (modern Vienne on the Rhône, south of Lyons). Antipas and Philip were allowed to continue their respective rules, and Archelaus’s territories were reduced to a province ruled by prefects or procurators.<\/p>\nAntipas (4 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 39)<\/p>\nAntipas was the younger brother of Archelaus, born around 20 BC<\/span>. Of all the Herodians, he is mentioned most in the NT because he ruled over Galilee and Perea, where both Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries.<\/p>\nAntipas’s domain was in turmoil caused by the rebellion begun at Pentecost in 4 BC<\/span>. He immediately set out to restore order and rebuild what had been destroyed. Following the example of his father, Herod the Great, Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris was his first project; it was the largest city in Galilee and his capital city until he built Tiberias. Since Nazareth was only four miles (6.4 kilometers) south-southeast of Sepphoris, it is quite possible that Joseph, Mary’s husband, was employed as a carpenter (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3) to help rebuild that city.<\/p>\nOf the 12 cities built by the Herodian family, Tiberias is the most important. It was the first city in Jewish history to be founded with the municipal framework of a Greek polis<\/span>.<\/em> It was built in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius. Due to the fact that a cemetery was destroyed in the process of building, Tiberias was considered unclean by the Jews. Antipas offered free houses, land and tax exemptions for the first few years to anyone who would move into the city. He completed the city in AD<\/span> 23 and made it his capital.<\/p>\nIn the Christian world the incident for which Antipas is most remembered is his beheading of John the Baptist (Mt 14:3-12; Mk 6:17-29; Lk 3:19-20; Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2.116-119). There was a tangle of family events leading up to the death of John the Baptist. Antipas had married the daughter of Aretas IV (the daughter’s name is unknown). Aretas IV was the Nabatean king, and Augustus may have encouraged this marriage since he favored intermarriages between various rulers to promote peace in his empire.<\/p>\nAround AD<\/span> 29 Antipas took a trip to Rome, and on the way he paid a visit to his half brother Herod Philip, who must have lived in a coastal city in Palestine. Antipas fell in love with Herodias, Philip’s wife, who was also Antipas’s niece. The idea of becoming the wife of a tetrarch appealed to her, and she agreed to marry him when he returned from Rome if he would oust Aretas’s daughter. Antipas agreed to the plan, and when Aretas’s daughter heard of it, she fled to her father. This was a breach of political alliance as well as a personal insult, which led to retaliation by Aretas.<\/p>\nThe marriage of Antipas and Herodias was in violation of the Mosaic law that forbade marriage to a brother’s wife (Lv 18:16; 20:21) except in order to raise children for a deceased childless brother by a levirate marriage (Dt 25:5; Mk 12:19). In this case, Philip not only had a child, Salome, but he was still alive. This is the situation that John the Baptist spoke so boldly against, and Antipas threw him in prison. Herodias’s hatred of John the Baptist was too great merely to settle for his incarceration. At an appropriate time, possibly Antipas’s birthday, she planned a banquet at Machaerus in Perea. Her daughter, Salome, danced for the king, and in an impulsive moment Antipas promised her under oath that he would give her anything, up to half of his kingdom. Following her mother’s advice, she asked for John the Baptist’s head on a platter. Immediately Antipas was sorry for his rash promise, but in order to save face in the presence of his underlords, he granted the request. Thus, John’s ministry ended around AD<\/span> 31 or 32.<\/p>\nThere are three specific times when Antipas and Jesus are mentioned together in the Gospels.<\/p>\nEarly in Jesus’ ministry Antipas heard of him and commented, perhaps with irony, that Jesus was John the Baptist resurrected (Mt 14:1-2; Mk 6:14-16; Lk 9:7-9). It was obvious to Antipas that Jesus’ ministry was even more remarkable than John’s, but he was reluctant to use force to bring about the meeting for fear of once more arousing the people against him. Eventually, Jesus withdrew from Antipas’s territories without the two meeting.<\/p>\nLater, as Jesus became more popular, Antipas saw a potential threat to his own power and threatened to kill Jesus. Thus it was that on Jesus’ final trip to Jerusalem he was warned by some of the Pharisees that he should leave Antipas’s territories for his own safety (Lk 13:31-33). Jesus sent as answer to “that fox” that he would continue his ministry of healing and casting out demons for a little longer, and when he had finished, he would then go to Jerusalem to die. The lion and fox were often contrasted in ancient literature. The Lion of Judah, Jesus Christ, was not going to be coerced by the crafty coward, Antipas.<\/p>\nThe final encounter between the two occurred when Jesus was tried by Antipas in AD<\/span> 33 (Lk 23:6-12). Since this event is mentioned only by Luke, some scholars consider it legendary. It must be remembered, however, that Luke’s addressee was Theophilus, probably a Roman officer, who would be especially interested in the reconciliation between Pilate and Antipas mentioned in this passage.<\/p>\nAccording to Luke’s account, when Pilate could find no fault in Jesus, he sent him to Antipas (who was celebrating the Passover in Jerusalem). Pilate thus freed himself from an awkward situation. A more subtle reason may have been to reconcile himself to Antipas. Their relationship had been rather strained since the Galilean massacre (Lk 13:1), and because Pilate brought votive shields into Jerusalem, arousing the anger of the Jews (Philo’s Legatio ad Gaium<\/em> 299–304). When Jesus was brought before Antipas, the ruler only mocked him and sent him back to Pilate. The main political accomplishment of the incident was Antipas and Pilate’s reconciliation.<\/p>\nPhilip the Tetrarch (4 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 34)<\/p>\nPhilip the tetrarch was the son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem and was born around 22 BC<\/span>. When Herod’s will was resolved, Philip was made tetrarch over Gaulanitis, Auranitis, Batanea, Trachonitis, and Iturea, all in the northern part of Herod the Great’s domain (Lk 3:1). His subjects were mainly Syrian and Greek. Thus he was the first and only Herodian to have his image on his coins.<\/p>\nHe built two cities. First, he rebuilt and enlarged Paneas and renamed it Caesarea Philippi. Here Peter made his confession of faith to Jesus and was given the revelation of the church (Mt 16:13-20; Mk 8:27-30). Next, he rebuilt and enlarged Bethsaida and renamed it Julias. Here Jesus healed the blind man (Mk 8:22-26), and in a nearby desert place he fed the 5,000 (Lk 9:10-17).<\/p>\nPhilip was not as politically ambitious as his brothers. His rule was marked by tranquility and the loyalty of his subjects. When Philip died in AD<\/span> 34, Tiberius annexed his territories to Syria. After Caligula became emperor in AD<\/span> 37, he gave the territories to Agrippa I, brother of Herodias.<\/p>\nAgrippa I (AD<\/span> 37–44)<\/p>\n\nAgrippa I was the son of Aristobulus (son of Herod the Great and Mariamne I) and Berenice. He was born in 10 BC<\/span> and was the brother of Herodias.<\/p>\nAgrippa I might be considered the black sheep of the Herodian family. While at school in Rome, he lived a wanton life, incurring many debts. In Rome he became a friend of Gaius Caligula and at one point stated that he wished Caligula were king rather than Tiberius. This was overheard and reported to Tiberius, who imprisoned him. He remained in prison until Tiberius’s death six months later.<\/p>\nUpon Caligula’s accession to the throne, he released Agrippa and gave him Philip the tetrarch’s territories and the northern part of Lysanias’s territory as well as the title of king. The title of king aroused the jealousy of his sister Herodias, and that eventually led to her husband, Antipas’s, downfall. At that time (AD<\/span> 39) Agrippa acquired all of Antipas’s territories and property.<\/p>\nWhen Caligula died in AD<\/span> 41, Agrippa curried the favor of the new emperor Claudius, whereupon Claudius added Judea and Samaria to Agrippa’s territory. This territory was once ruled by Agrippa’s grandfather, Herod the Great.<\/p>\nAgrippa I is mentioned in the NT for his persecution of the early church in order to gain favor with the Jews (Acts 12:1-19). He killed James, the son of Zebedee, and imprisoned Peter. When Peter was released by an angel, Agrippa put the sentries to death.<\/p>\nAgrippa died in AD<\/span> 44 in Caesarea. Accounts of this incident are recorded both by Josephus (Antiquities<\/em> 19.9.1.274–275; War<\/em> 2.11.5.214–215) and the Scriptures. The incident occurred at Caesarea; he was wearing a sparkling silver robe, and when the people flattered him by calling him a god, he was suddenly struck with a mortal illness and died a horrible death. He was survived by his daughters, Bernice, Mariamne, and Drusilla, and by a son, Agrippa, who was 17 at the time. Because of Agrippa II’s youth, his father’s territories were temporarily made a province.<\/p>\nAgrippa II (AD<\/span> 50–100)<\/p>\nAgrippa II was the son of Agrippa I and Cypros. In AD<\/span> 50, six years after his father’s death, Claudius made him king of Chalcis.<\/p>\nAgrippa II was in control of the temple treasury and the vestments of the high priest and thus could appoint the high priest. The Romans consulted him on religious matters, which is probably why Festus asked him to hear the apostle Paul at Caesarea (AD<\/span> 59), where he was accompanied by his sister Bernice (Acts 25–26).<\/p>\nIn May AD<\/span> 66 the Palestinian revolution began (War<\/em> 2.14.4.284). When Agrippa’s attempt to quell the revolt failed, he became a staunch ally of the Romans throughout the entire war (AD<\/span> 66–70). During this time, Nero committed suicide, the new emperor Galba was murdered, and Vespasian became the emperor. After pledging his allegiance to the new emperor, Agrippa remained with Titus, Vespasian’s son, who was in charge of the war (Tacitus’s History<\/em> 5.81). After the fall of Jerusalem (August 6, AD<\/span> 70), Agrippa was probably present to celebrate the destruction of his own people.<\/p>\nFollowing this, Vespasian added new territories to Agrippa’s kingdom, though just which ones is not known. In AD<\/span> 79 Vespasian died and Titus became emperor. Little is known of Agrippa’s rule after this, except that he wrote to the historian Josephus praising him for The Jewish War,<\/em> and he purchased a copy of it (Josephus’s Life<\/em> 65.361–367; Apion<\/em> 1.9.47–52).<\/p>\nAlthough the Talmud implies that Agrippa II had two wives (Babylonian Talmud: Sukkah<\/em> 27a), Josephus gives no indication that he had any wives or children. Rather, he was known for his incestuous relationship with his sister Bernice. He died around AD<\/span> 100. His death marked the end of the Herodian dynasty.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Herodians; Judaism.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HEROD, HERODIAN FAMILY*<\/h3>\nPolitical rulers during the lifetime of Christ. Christ was born when Herod the Great was ruling. Herod’s son Herod Antipas was the ruler of Galilee and Perea, the territories in which Jesus and John the Baptist carried out most of their ministries. It was this ruler who beheaded John the Baptist and tried Christ just before his death. Herod Agrippa I is the persecutor of the church in Acts 12, and Herod Agrippa II heard Paul’s testimony (Acts 26) just before he went to Rome to be tried by Caesar. Without a knowledge of the Herodian family, one can hardly have a proper understanding of the times of Christ.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Herodian Dynasty<\/p>\n• Herod the Great<\/p>\n• Archelaus<\/p>\n• Antipas<\/p>\n• Philip the Tetrarch<\/p>\n• Agrippa I<\/p>\n• Agrippa II<\/p>\nThe Herodian Dynasty (67–47 BC<\/span>)<\/p>\nThe Herodian dynasty became prominent during the confusion that resulted in the decay of the Hasmonean dynasty, the transference of Syria and Palestine to Roman rule, and the civil wars that marked the decay of the nation. Much of what we know about the Herods comes from the historian Josephus’s writings: Antiquities of the Jews<\/em> and The Jewish War.<\/em><\/p>\nHerod the Great (47–4 BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<h5>As Governor of Galilee (47–37 BC<\/span>)<\/h5>\nHerod the Great became governor of Galilee at 25 years of age. Although he gained the respect of both the Romans and the Galilean Jews for quickly capturing and executing the bandit leader Ezekias, some in Hyrcanus’s court thought that he was becoming too powerful and arranged to have him brought to trial. He was acquitted and released and thereafter fled to Sextus Caesar at Damascus. Sextus Caesar, governor of Syria, appointed Herod governor of Coele-Syria, and thus he became involved with Roman affairs in Syria. He remained in this position under a series of rulers and was successful in collecting taxes and suppressing various revolts. Thus, in 41 BC<\/span> when Antony came to power under Octavius Caesar, after asking the advice of Hyrcanus II, Sextus appointed Herod and Phasael as tetrarchs of Judea.<\/p>\n<h5>As King (37–4 BC<\/span>)<\/h5>\nThe reign of Herod is divided by most scholars into three periods: (1) consolidation from 37 to 25 BC<\/span>; (2) prosperity from 25 to 13 BC<\/span>; and (3) domestic troubles from 13 to 4 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nThe period of consolidation extended from his accession as king in 37 BC<\/span> to the death of the sons of Babas, the last male representatives of the Hasmonean family. During this period, he had to contend with many powerful adversaries.<\/p>\nThe first adversaries, the people and the Pharisees, objected to his being an Idumean, a half Jew, and a friend of the Romans. Those who opposed him were punished, and those who took his side were rewarded with favors and honors.<\/p>\nThe second adversaries were those of the aristocracy who sided with Antigonus. Herod had executed 45 of the wealthiest and had confiscated their properties to replenish his own coffers.<\/p>\nThe third group of adversaries was the Hasmonean family. Herod’s chief problem was his mother-in-law, Alexandra. She was upset that he had not appointed another Hasmonean to the high priesthood to replace Hyrcanus, specifically her son Aristobulus. She wrote to Cleopatra, asking her to influence Antony to force Herod to remove the appointed high priest, Ananel, and replace him with Aristobulus. Finally, Herod gave way to the pressure. In the end, after a celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles, Herod had Aristobulus drowned, making it look like an accident. Herod put Alexandra in chains and placed her under guard to keep her from causing him more trouble.<\/p>\nHerod’s fourth adversary was Cleopatra. When civil war broke out between Antony and Octavius, Herod wanted to help Antony. But Cleopatra persuaded Antony to set Herod in battle against the Arabian king Malchus, who had failed to pay tribute to her. When she saw Herod winning, she ordered her troops to help Malchus, hoping to weaken both parties to the breaking point so that she could absorb them both. After a catastrophic earthquake in his domain in 31 BC<\/span>, Herod defeated the Arabs and returned home. Soon after, on September 2, 31 BC<\/span>, Octavius defeated Antony in the Battle of Actium, resulting in the suicides of Antony and Cleopatra.<\/p>\nThe second period of Herod’s reign was one of prosperity (25–14 BC<\/span>). It was a period of splendor and enjoyment interrupted by occasional disturbances. According to Josephus, the most noble of all Herod’s achievements was the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, begun in 20\/19 BC<\/span> (Antiquities<\/em> 15.8.1). Rabbinic literature claims, “He who has not seen the Temple of Herod has never seen a beautiful building” (Babylonian Talmud: Baba Bathra<\/em> 4a). Prior to this, he had built theaters, amphitheaters, and racecourses for both men and horses. In 24 BC<\/span> Herod built himself a royal palace and built or rebuilt many fortresses and gentile temples, including Strato’s Tower, later renamed Caesarea.<\/p>\nDuring this time, he became very interested in culture and gathered around him men accomplished in Greek literature and art. Greek rhetoricians were appointed to the highest offices of the state. One of these was Nicolas of Damascus, Herod’s instructor and adviser in philosophy, rhetoric, and history. In late 24 BC<\/span> he married Mariamne, daughter of Simon, a well-known priest in Jerusalem (she will be referred to as Mariamne II).<\/p>\nDuring this period, Herod’s rule was favorably accepted by the people. They were annoyed, however, by two things. First, he violated Jewish law by his introduction of the quinquennial games in honor of Caesar; and second, he built theaters and racecourses. He demanded a loyalty oath from his subjects, except for a privileged few. Also, he would not allow them to congregate freely for fear of a revolt. Despite these things, he had good control of the people and twice favored them by lowering taxes (in 14 BC<\/span> he reduced taxes by one-fourth).<\/p>\nThe third period of Herod’s rule was clearly marked by domestic troubles (13–4 BC<\/span>). By now he had married ten wives. His first wife, Doris, had only one son, Antipater. He repudiated Doris and Antipater when he married Mariamne I, allowing them to visit Jerusalem only during the festivals. He married Mariamne I in 37 BC<\/span>. She was the granddaughter of Hyrcanus and had five children, two daughters and three sons. The youngest son died while in Rome, and the remaining two sons were to play an important role in this part of Herod’s reign. In late 24 BC<\/span> he married his third wife, Mariamne II, to whom one child was born, Herod (Philip). Malthace, his fourth wife, was a Samaritan and mother of two sons, Archelaus and Antipas. His fifth wife, Cleopatra of Jerusalem, was the mother of Philip the tetrarch. Of the remaining five wives, only Pallas, Phaedra, and Elpsis are known by name, and none played a significant part in the events of this period.<\/p>\nAlexander and Aristobulus, the sons of Mariamne I, were his favorites. Immediately following their own marriages, troubles began within the Herodian household. Salome, Herod’s sister and mother of Berenice (wife of Aristobulus), hated these two sons, mainly because she wanted the position and favor they enjoyed for her own son. Herod decided to recall his exiled son Antipater to show Alexander and Aristobulus there was another heir to the throne. Antipater took full advantage of the situation and used every conceivable means to acquire the coveted throne. Finally, a man of bad character, Eurycles from Lacedaemon, took it upon himself to inflame the father against his two sons and vice versa. Soon other mischief makers joined Eurycles, and Herod’s patience became exhausted. He put Alexander and Aristobulus in prison and named Antipater heir.<\/p>\nIn his impatience to gain the throne, Antipater attempted to poison Herod. This plot failed when Pheroras, Herod’s brother, drank the poison by mistake. Herod put Antipater in prison and reported the matter to the emperor (c. 5 BC<\/span>). At this time Herod became very ill with an incurable disease. He drew up a new will that bypassed his older sons, Archelaus and Philip, because Antipater had poisoned his mind against them also. He chose his youngest son, Antipas, as his sole successor.<\/p>\nIt was during this time that the wise men arrived in Judea, searching for the newborn king of the Jews. Herod instructed them to report to him the whereabouts of this child as soon as they found him. Being warned in a dream, they did not do so, but rather returned to their homes by another route. God warned Joseph (husband of the mother of Jesus) to flee to Egypt because of Herod’s intention to kill Jesus. Joseph took his family and left Bethlehem. Shortly after, Herod killed all the male children in Bethlehem who were two years old and under.<\/p>\nHerod’s disease grew increasingly worse. Permission came from Rome to execute Antipater, which he promptly did. He again altered his will, making Archelaus king of Judea, Idumea, and Samaria; Antipas tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and Philip tetrarch of territories east of Galilee. On the fifth day after Antipater’s execution, Herod died at Jericho in the spring of 4 BC<\/span>. The people acclaimed Archelaus as their king.<\/p>\nArchelaus (4 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 6)<\/p>\nArchelaus was the son of Herod the Great and Malthace (a Samaritan) and was born around 22 BC<\/span>. Archelaus was faced with a multitude of problems. He had killed 3,000 people in putting down a revolution led by people avenging the blood of those killed by his father, Herod. Thus his rule got off to a bad start. At Pentecost in 4 BC<\/span>, another revolt broke out, which lasted about two and a half months and during which the temple porticoes were burned and the treasury was pillaged by the Romans. This unrest spread to the countryside of Judea and to Galilee and Perea.<\/p>\nArchelaus treated both the Jews and the Samaritans brutally (War<\/em> 2.7.3), a fact borne out by the Gospels. When Joseph returned from his flight to Egypt and learned that Archelaus was ruling Judea, he was afraid to go there and was warned against it by God; he took the infant Jesus to Galilee instead (Mt 2:22).<\/p>\nArchelaus’s tyranny finally caused the Jews and Samaritans to send a delegation to Rome and complain formally to Augustus. The fact that such bitter enemies as the Jews and Samaritans could cooperate in this matter indicates the serious nature of the complaint. Antipas and Philip also went to Rome to complain about him. Presumably they resented his neglect as their Roman representative for Palestine. Thus in AD<\/span> 6 Archelaus was deposed and exiled to Vienna in Gaul (modern Vienne on the Rhône, south of Lyons). Antipas and Philip were allowed to continue their respective rules, and Archelaus’s territories were reduced to a province ruled by prefects or procurators.<\/p>\nAntipas (4 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 39)<\/p>\nAntipas was the younger brother of Archelaus, born around 20 BC<\/span>. Of all the Herodians, he is mentioned most in the NT because he ruled over Galilee and Perea, where both Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries.<\/p>\nAntipas’s domain was in turmoil caused by the rebellion begun at Pentecost in 4 BC<\/span>. He immediately set out to restore order and rebuild what had been destroyed. Following the example of his father, Herod the Great, Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris was his first project; it was the largest city in Galilee and his capital city until he built Tiberias. Since Nazareth was only four miles (6.4 kilometers) south-southeast of Sepphoris, it is quite possible that Joseph, Mary’s husband, was employed as a carpenter (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3) to help rebuild that city.<\/p>\nOf the 12 cities built by the Herodian family, Tiberias is the most important. It was the first city in Jewish history to be founded with the municipal framework of a Greek polis<\/span>.<\/em> It was built in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius. Due to the fact that a cemetery was destroyed in the process of building, Tiberias was considered unclean by the Jews. Antipas offered free houses, land and tax exemptions for the first few years to anyone who would move into the city. He completed the city in AD<\/span> 23 and made it his capital.<\/p>\nIn the Christian world the incident for which Antipas is most remembered is his beheading of John the Baptist (Mt 14:3-12; Mk 6:17-29; Lk 3:19-20; Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2.116-119). There was a tangle of family events leading up to the death of John the Baptist. Antipas had married the daughter of Aretas IV (the daughter’s name is unknown). Aretas IV was the Nabatean king, and Augustus may have encouraged this marriage since he favored intermarriages between various rulers to promote peace in his empire.<\/p>\nAround AD<\/span> 29 Antipas took a trip to Rome, and on the way he paid a visit to his half brother Herod Philip, who must have lived in a coastal city in Palestine. Antipas fell in love with Herodias, Philip’s wife, who was also Antipas’s niece. The idea of becoming the wife of a tetrarch appealed to her, and she agreed to marry him when he returned from Rome if he would oust Aretas’s daughter. Antipas agreed to the plan, and when Aretas’s daughter heard of it, she fled to her father. This was a breach of political alliance as well as a personal insult, which led to retaliation by Aretas.<\/p>\nThe marriage of Antipas and Herodias was in violation of the Mosaic law that forbade marriage to a brother’s wife (Lv 18:16; 20:21) except in order to raise children for a deceased childless brother by a levirate marriage (Dt 25:5; Mk 12:19). In this case, Philip not only had a child, Salome, but he was still alive. This is the situation that John the Baptist spoke so boldly against, and Antipas threw him in prison. Herodias’s hatred of John the Baptist was too great merely to settle for his incarceration. At an appropriate time, possibly Antipas’s birthday, she planned a banquet at Machaerus in Perea. Her daughter, Salome, danced for the king, and in an impulsive moment Antipas promised her under oath that he would give her anything, up to half of his kingdom. Following her mother’s advice, she asked for John the Baptist’s head on a platter. Immediately Antipas was sorry for his rash promise, but in order to save face in the presence of his underlords, he granted the request. Thus, John’s ministry ended around AD<\/span> 31 or 32.<\/p>\nThere are three specific times when Antipas and Jesus are mentioned together in the Gospels.<\/p>\nEarly in Jesus’ ministry Antipas heard of him and commented, perhaps with irony, that Jesus was John the Baptist resurrected (Mt 14:1-2; Mk 6:14-16; Lk 9:7-9). It was obvious to Antipas that Jesus’ ministry was even more remarkable than John’s, but he was reluctant to use force to bring about the meeting for fear of once more arousing the people against him. Eventually, Jesus withdrew from Antipas’s territories without the two meeting.<\/p>\nLater, as Jesus became more popular, Antipas saw a potential threat to his own power and threatened to kill Jesus. Thus it was that on Jesus’ final trip to Jerusalem he was warned by some of the Pharisees that he should leave Antipas’s territories for his own safety (Lk 13:31-33). Jesus sent as answer to “that fox” that he would continue his ministry of healing and casting out demons for a little longer, and when he had finished, he would then go to Jerusalem to die. The lion and fox were often contrasted in ancient literature. The Lion of Judah, Jesus Christ, was not going to be coerced by the crafty coward, Antipas.<\/p>\nThe final encounter between the two occurred when Jesus was tried by Antipas in AD<\/span> 33 (Lk 23:6-12). Since this event is mentioned only by Luke, some scholars consider it legendary. It must be remembered, however, that Luke’s addressee was Theophilus, probably a Roman officer, who would be especially interested in the reconciliation between Pilate and Antipas mentioned in this passage.<\/p>\nAccording to Luke’s account, when Pilate could find no fault in Jesus, he sent him to Antipas (who was celebrating the Passover in Jerusalem). Pilate thus freed himself from an awkward situation. A more subtle reason may have been to reconcile himself to Antipas. Their relationship had been rather strained since the Galilean massacre (Lk 13:1), and because Pilate brought votive shields into Jerusalem, arousing the anger of the Jews (Philo’s Legatio ad Gaium<\/em> 299–304). When Jesus was brought before Antipas, the ruler only mocked him and sent him back to Pilate. The main political accomplishment of the incident was Antipas and Pilate’s reconciliation.<\/p>\nPhilip the Tetrarch (4 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 34)<\/p>\nPhilip the tetrarch was the son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem and was born around 22 BC<\/span>. When Herod’s will was resolved, Philip was made tetrarch over Gaulanitis, Auranitis, Batanea, Trachonitis, and Iturea, all in the northern part of Herod the Great’s domain (Lk 3:1). His subjects were mainly Syrian and Greek. Thus he was the first and only Herodian to have his image on his coins.<\/p>\nHe built two cities. First, he rebuilt and enlarged Paneas and renamed it Caesarea Philippi. Here Peter made his confession of faith to Jesus and was given the revelation of the church (Mt 16:13-20; Mk 8:27-30). Next, he rebuilt and enlarged Bethsaida and renamed it Julias. Here Jesus healed the blind man (Mk 8:22-26), and in a nearby desert place he fed the 5,000 (Lk 9:10-17).<\/p>\nPhilip was not as politically ambitious as his brothers. His rule was marked by tranquility and the loyalty of his subjects. When Philip died in AD<\/span> 34, Tiberius annexed his territories to Syria. After Caligula became emperor in AD<\/span> 37, he gave the territories to Agrippa I, brother of Herodias.<\/p>\nAgrippa I (AD<\/span> 37–44)<\/p>\n\nAgrippa I was the son of Aristobulus (son of Herod the Great and Mariamne I) and Berenice. He was born in 10 BC<\/span> and was the brother of Herodias.<\/p>\nAgrippa I might be considered the black sheep of the Herodian family. While at school in Rome, he lived a wanton life, incurring many debts. In Rome he became a friend of Gaius Caligula and at one point stated that he wished Caligula were king rather than Tiberius. This was overheard and reported to Tiberius, who imprisoned him. He remained in prison until Tiberius’s death six months later.<\/p>\nUpon Caligula’s accession to the throne, he released Agrippa and gave him Philip the tetrarch’s territories and the northern part of Lysanias’s territory as well as the title of king. The title of king aroused the jealousy of his sister Herodias, and that eventually led to her husband, Antipas’s, downfall. At that time (AD<\/span> 39) Agrippa acquired all of Antipas’s territories and property.<\/p>\nWhen Caligula died in AD<\/span> 41, Agrippa curried the favor of the new emperor Claudius, whereupon Claudius added Judea and Samaria to Agrippa’s territory. This territory was once ruled by Agrippa’s grandfather, Herod the Great.<\/p>\nAgrippa I is mentioned in the NT for his persecution of the early church in order to gain favor with the Jews (Acts 12:1-19). He killed James, the son of Zebedee, and imprisoned Peter. When Peter was released by an angel, Agrippa put the sentries to death.<\/p>\nAgrippa died in AD<\/span> 44 in Caesarea. Accounts of this incident are recorded both by Josephus (Antiquities<\/em> 19.9.1.274–275; War<\/em> 2.11.5.214–215) and the Scriptures. The incident occurred at Caesarea; he was wearing a sparkling silver robe, and when the people flattered him by calling him a god, he was suddenly struck with a mortal illness and died a horrible death. He was survived by his daughters, Bernice, Mariamne, and Drusilla, and by a son, Agrippa, who was 17 at the time. Because of Agrippa II’s youth, his father’s territories were temporarily made a province.<\/p>\nAgrippa II (AD<\/span> 50–100)<\/p>\nAgrippa II was the son of Agrippa I and Cypros. In AD<\/span> 50, six years after his father’s death, Claudius made him king of Chalcis.<\/p>\nAgrippa II was in control of the temple treasury and the vestments of the high priest and thus could appoint the high priest. The Romans consulted him on religious matters, which is probably why Festus asked him to hear the apostle Paul at Caesarea (AD<\/span> 59), where he was accompanied by his sister Bernice (Acts 25–26).<\/p>\nIn May AD<\/span> 66 the Palestinian revolution began (War<\/em> 2.14.4.284). When Agrippa’s attempt to quell the revolt failed, he became a staunch ally of the Romans throughout the entire war (AD<\/span> 66–70). During this time, Nero committed suicide, the new emperor Galba was murdered, and Vespasian became the emperor. After pledging his allegiance to the new emperor, Agrippa remained with Titus, Vespasian’s son, who was in charge of the war (Tacitus’s History<\/em> 5.81). After the fall of Jerusalem (August 6, AD<\/span> 70), Agrippa was probably present to celebrate the destruction of his own people.<\/p>\nFollowing this, Vespasian added new territories to Agrippa’s kingdom, though just which ones is not known. In AD<\/span> 79 Vespasian died and Titus became emperor. Little is known of Agrippa’s rule after this, except that he wrote to the historian Josephus praising him for The Jewish War,<\/em> and he purchased a copy of it (Josephus’s Life<\/em> 65.361–367; Apion<\/em> 1.9.47–52).<\/p>\nAlthough the Talmud implies that Agrippa II had two wives (Babylonian Talmud: Sukkah<\/em> 27a), Josephus gives no indication that he had any wives or children. Rather, he was known for his incestuous relationship with his sister Bernice. He died around AD<\/span> 100. His death marked the end of the Herodian dynasty.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Herodians; Judaism.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HEROD, HERODIAN FAMILY* Political rulers during the lifetime of Christ. Christ was born when Herod the Great was ruling. Herod’s son Herod Antipas was the ruler of Galilee and Perea, the territories in which Jesus and John the Baptist carried out most of their ministries. It was this ruler who beheaded John the Baptist and tried Christ just before his death. Herod Agrippa I is the persecutor of the church in Acts 12, and Herod Agrippa II heard Paul’s testimony (Acts 26) just before he went to...","summary_en":"HEROD, HERODIAN FAMILY* Political rulers during the lifetime of Christ. Christ was born when Herod the Great was ruling. Herod’s son Herod Antipas was the ruler of Galilee and Perea, the territories in which Jesus and John the Baptist carried out most of their ministries. It was this ruler who beheaded John the Baptist and tried Christ just before his death. Herod Agrippa I is the persecutor of the church in Acts 12, and Herod Agrippa II heard Paul’s testimony (Acts 26) just before he went to...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":16300,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Herodias","title_en":"Herodias","content_ro":"<h3>HERODIAS<\/h3>\nDaughter of Aristobulus, the son of Herod the Great, and Berenice. Born between 9 and 7 BC<\/span>, her older brother was Herod Agrippa I. In 6 BC<\/span>, while still in her infancy, she was betrothed by her grandfather, Herod the Great, to his son by Mariamne II named Herod Philip. Herodias was the mother of Salome, born between AD<\/span> 15 and 19.<\/p>\nHerodias and Herod Philip lived on the seacoast of Judea, possibly at Azotus or Caesarea. In AD<\/span> 29 Herod Antipas visited Herodias’s (his niece) residence on his way to Rome. They were attracted to each other and Herodias agreed to marry him provided he would divorce his present wife, the daughter of Aretas IV, the Nebatean king of Petra. Herodias, being a Hasmonean, did not want to share the house with an Arab—longtime foes of the Hasmonean dynasty. When Aretas’s daughter got word of this plot, she secretly escaped to her father, and Herodias and Antipas were married. This incident was the beginning of hostilities between Antipas and Aretas, which eventually led to Aretas’s war against and defeat of Antipas in AD<\/span> 36.<\/p>\nJohn the Baptist openly denounced this marriage (Mt 14:3-12; Mk 6:17-29; Lk 3:19-20) because Jewish law forbade marriage with one’s brother’s wife (Lv 18:16; 20:21), except in order to raise children for a deceased childless brother by a levirate marriage (Dt 25:5; Mk 12:19). In this case the brother, Herod Philip, was still alive and had a child, Salome. The bold denunciation by John the Baptist led to Antipas’s imprisoning him around AD<\/span> 30 or 31. Herodias wanted more than this. She arranged, possibly at Herod Antipas’s birthday, to have her daughter dance before him and his magistrates. In appreciation, Herod Antipas promised Salome up to half of his kingdom. At her mother’s bidding, she asked for John the Baptist’s head on a platter.<\/p>\nHerodias last appears in history involved in an intrigue between her brother, Agrippa I, who had been designated king by the emperor Caligula, and her husband Antipas, who had long wanted such a title. Antipas, at his wife’s insistence, went to Rome to plead his case, but he lost and was banished. Herodias, however, did remain faithful and followed him into exile, even though Caligula would not have punished her because she was Agrippa’s sister.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Herod, Herodian Family.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HERODIAS<\/h3>\nDaughter of Aristobulus, the son of Herod the Great, and Berenice. Born between 9 and 7 BC<\/span>, her older brother was Herod Agrippa I. In 6 BC<\/span>, while still in her infancy, she was betrothed by her grandfather, Herod the Great, to his son by Mariamne II named Herod Philip. Herodias was the mother of Salome, born between AD<\/span> 15 and 19.<\/p>\nHerodias and Herod Philip lived on the seacoast of Judea, possibly at Azotus or Caesarea. In AD<\/span> 29 Herod Antipas visited Herodias’s (his niece) residence on his way to Rome. They were attracted to each other and Herodias agreed to marry him provided he would divorce his present wife, the daughter of Aretas IV, the Nebatean king of Petra. Herodias, being a Hasmonean, did not want to share the house with an Arab—longtime foes of the Hasmonean dynasty. When Aretas’s daughter got word of this plot, she secretly escaped to her father, and Herodias and Antipas were married. This incident was the beginning of hostilities between Antipas and Aretas, which eventually led to Aretas’s war against and defeat of Antipas in AD<\/span> 36.<\/p>\nJohn the Baptist openly denounced this marriage (Mt 14:3-12; Mk 6:17-29; Lk 3:19-20) because Jewish law forbade marriage with one’s brother’s wife (Lv 18:16; 20:21), except in order to raise children for a deceased childless brother by a levirate marriage (Dt 25:5; Mk 12:19). In this case the brother, Herod Philip, was still alive and had a child, Salome. The bold denunciation by John the Baptist led to Antipas’s imprisoning him around AD<\/span> 30 or 31. Herodias wanted more than this. She arranged, possibly at Herod Antipas’s birthday, to have her daughter dance before him and his magistrates. In appreciation, Herod Antipas promised Salome up to half of his kingdom. At her mother’s bidding, she asked for John the Baptist’s head on a platter.<\/p>\nHerodias last appears in history involved in an intrigue between her brother, Agrippa I, who had been designated king by the emperor Caligula, and her husband Antipas, who had long wanted such a title. Antipas, at his wife’s insistence, went to Rome to plead his case, but he lost and was banished. Herodias, however, did remain faithful and followed him into exile, even though Caligula would not have punished her because she was Agrippa’s sister.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Herod, Herodian Family.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HERODIAS Daughter of Aristobulus, the son of Herod the Great, and Berenice. Born between 9 and 7 BC, her older brother was Herod Agrippa I. In 6 BC, while still in her infancy, she was betrothed by her grandfather, Herod the Great, to his son by Mariamne II named Herod Philip. Herodias was the mother of Salome, born between AD 15 and 19. Herodias and Herod Philip lived on the seacoast of Judea, possibly at Azotus or Caesarea. In AD 29 Herod Antipas visited Herodias’s (his niece) residence on ...","summary_en":"HERODIAS Daughter of Aristobulus, the son of Herod the Great, and Berenice. Born between 9 and 7 BC, her older brother was Herod Agrippa I. In 6 BC, while still in her infancy, she was betrothed by her grandfather, Herod the Great, to his son by Mariamne II named Herod Philip. Herodias was the mother of Salome, born between AD 15 and 19. Herodias and Herod Philip lived on the seacoast of Judea, possibly at Azotus or Caesarea. In AD 29 Herod Antipas visited Herodias’s (his niece) residence on ...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":30193,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Philip","title_en":"Philip","content_ro":"<h3>PHILIP<\/h3>\n<li>1. Apostle whose name is placed fifth in each of the lists of the twelve after the two pairs of brothers, Simon Peter and Andrew, and James and John (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:14). John says that when John the Baptist bore witness to Jesus with the words, “Behold, the Lamb of God!” two of his disciples began to follow Jesus, and that one of these two was Andrew, who then declared to his brother Simon Peter, “We have found the Messiah,” and brought him to Jesus. (The other unnamed disciple was quite probably John himself, the writer of this account.) On the next day Jesus went to Galilee and there found Philip and addressed the call to him: “Follow me.” John adds that Philip was from Bethsaida. Philip in turn found Nathanael and told him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote,” and invited Nathanael, who was skeptical that any good could come out of Nazareth, to come and see for himself (Jn 1:35-51, rsv<\/span>). From this is concluded that Philip was one of the first to follow Jesus and that he lost no time in persuading others to do the same.<\/li>\nLike the other apostles, however, he still had much to learn about the person and the power of Christ. Hence, the testing question of Jesus to him on the occasion of the feeding of the 5,000, “How are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?” and Philip’s puzzled response that even if they had 200 denarii (i.e., a large sum, roughly a person’s wages for half a year), it would not buy enough bread for each one to be given just a little to eat (Jn 6:5-7). The miracle that followed taught him that the feeding of this multitude presented no problem to the one who is the Lord of all creation. Philip’s next appearance is in Jerusalem after Christ’s triumphal entry into the city, when “some Greeks” (i.e., Greek-speaking non-Jews) approached him with the request “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” Philip informs Andrew, and together they bring them to Jesus (12:20-22). This perhaps indicates that Philip was a person whom others found readily approachable, and also that he spoke Greek. In the upper room, prior to his arrest and trial, Jesus took the opportunity to impart further instruction to Philip, who had said, “Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied.” Philip hoped perhaps, in all devoutness, for the privilege of some special revelation (reminiscent of the request of Moses, Ex 33:18). But Jesus taught him that he himself, the incarnate Son, is the all-sufficient revelation of the Father to humanity (Jn 14:8-10).<\/p>\nThere is a tendency to confuse the apostle with the evangelist (see below) of the same name. It seems probable, however, that after preaching in various parts, the apostle settled in Hierapolis, a city of the Roman province of Asia, and died there. Whether his was a natural or a martyr’s death is uncertain.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Apostle, Apostleship.<\/p>\n<li>2. Hellenistic Jew and one of the seven men appointed by the church in Jerusalem to supervise the daily ministry of assistance to the impoverished widows of the Christian community. They all, including Philip, had Greek names, and one of them, Nicolaus, was a proselyte (i.e., not a Jew by birth). Whether or not they were regarded as deacons in the technical sense is not absolutely clear from the account; this occasion has, however, been generally accepted as the origin of the order of the diaconate (Acts 6:1-7). Of the seven, Stephen and Philip are the only ones of whom we have any further record in the NT. They are described as men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom (v 3).<\/li>\nThat Philip became known as “the evangelist” is apparent from Acts 21:8. The designation was well deserved, for when the Jerusalem Christians were scattered by the persecution led by Saul of Tarsus, Philip went to a city of Samaria and proclaimed the gospel with such power there that a great number of people joyfully turned to Christ (Acts 8:1-8). In the midst of this spectacular work, Philip was divinely instructed to leave Samaria and go down to the desert area in the southern part of the country. Humanly speaking, for him to turn away from the multitudes, who were so eagerly responding to his preaching and to go to the uninhabited territory in the south, must have seemed foolish. Yet Philip showed himself not only sensitive but also obedient to the will of God and followed this guidance without question. In the desert he found not a crowd but a single person, an important Ethiopian court official who had visited Jerusalem and was now returning to Africa. The wisdom of God in directing Philip to this place was fully vindicated, for the Ethiopian was reading Isaiah 53, the great gospel chapter of the OT. Philip gave him the good news that this prophecy pointed to Jesus Christ. The Ethiopian subsequently believed and was baptized and went on his way rejoicing (vv 25-40). The conversion of this one person meant not only that Philip was the first to proclaim the gospel to a Gentile but also that the gospel was taken by this Ethiopian courtier to the continent of Africa.<\/p>\nThe prevailing nationalistic pride of the Jews was such that they despised the Samaritans and regarded the Gentiles as ceremonially unclean. But Philip, by his eager preaching of Christ first to the Samaritans and then to the Ethiopian, reflected the way in which the gospel penetrated social barriers and dissolved racial prejudices and demonstrated that the grace of God in Christ Jesus is freely available to all. Subsequently, Philip made his home in the coastal town of Caesarea. There he hospitably entertained Paul and Luke when they were en route to Jerusalem at the conclusion of the apostle’s third missionary journey. Luke tells us that Philip had four unmarried daughters who were prophetesses (Acts 21:8-9). Not long after this, when Paul was in custody in Caesarea for two years, the kindness and friendship of Philip must have meant much to him (23:31-35; 24:23, 27).<\/p>\n<li>3. Son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra and half brother of Antipas, whose mother was Malthace. He is called Herod in Luke 3:1. The latter was tetrarch of Perea and Galilee from 4 BC<\/span> to AD<\/span> 39; Philip was tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis (plus certain other territories) to the northeast of Galilee for 37 years (4 BC<\/span> to AD<\/span> 33). His wife was his niece Salome, who danced for Herod in exchange for the head of John the Baptist (Mt 14:3-12; Mk 6:17-29).<\/li>\nSee also<\/em> Herod, Herodian Family.<\/p>\n<li>4. Son of Herod the Great and Mariamne and husband of Salome’s mother, Herodias, who left him to become the mistress of his half brother Herod Antipas. It was for this immoral relationship that John the Baptist rebuked Herod and was later imprisoned and beheaded (Mt 14:3-12; Mk 6:17-29; Lk 3:19-20).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>PHILIP<\/h3>\n<li>1. Apostle whose name is placed fifth in each of the lists of the twelve after the two pairs of brothers, Simon Peter and Andrew, and James and John (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:14). John says that when John the Baptist bore witness to Jesus with the words, “Behold, the Lamb of God!” two of his disciples began to follow Jesus, and that one of these two was Andrew, who then declared to his brother Simon Peter, “We have found the Messiah,” and brought him to Jesus. (The other unnamed disciple was quite probably John himself, the writer of this account.) On the next day Jesus went to Galilee and there found Philip and addressed the call to him: “Follow me.” John adds that Philip was from Bethsaida. Philip in turn found Nathanael and told him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote,” and invited Nathanael, who was skeptical that any good could come out of Nazareth, to come and see for himself (Jn 1:35-51, rsv<\/span>). From this is concluded that Philip was one of the first to follow Jesus and that he lost no time in persuading others to do the same.<\/li>\nLike the other apostles, however, he still had much to learn about the person and the power of Christ. Hence, the testing question of Jesus to him on the occasion of the feeding of the 5,000, “How are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?” and Philip’s puzzled response that even if they had 200 denarii (i.e., a large sum, roughly a person’s wages for half a year), it would not buy enough bread for each one to be given just a little to eat (Jn 6:5-7). The miracle that followed taught him that the feeding of this multitude presented no problem to the one who is the Lord of all creation. Philip’s next appearance is in Jerusalem after Christ’s triumphal entry into the city, when “some Greeks” (i.e., Greek-speaking non-Jews) approached him with the request “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” Philip informs Andrew, and together they bring them to Jesus (12:20-22). This perhaps indicates that Philip was a person whom others found readily approachable, and also that he spoke Greek. In the upper room, prior to his arrest and trial, Jesus took the opportunity to impart further instruction to Philip, who had said, “Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied.” Philip hoped perhaps, in all devoutness, for the privilege of some special revelation (reminiscent of the request of Moses, Ex 33:18). But Jesus taught him that he himself, the incarnate Son, is the all-sufficient revelation of the Father to humanity (Jn 14:8-10).<\/p>\nThere is a tendency to confuse the apostle with the evangelist (see below) of the same name. It seems probable, however, that after preaching in various parts, the apostle settled in Hierapolis, a city of the Roman province of Asia, and died there. Whether his was a natural or a martyr’s death is uncertain.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Apostle, Apostleship.<\/p>\n<li>2. Hellenistic Jew and one of the seven men appointed by the church in Jerusalem to supervise the daily ministry of assistance to the impoverished widows of the Christian community. They all, including Philip, had Greek names, and one of them, Nicolaus, was a proselyte (i.e., not a Jew by birth). Whether or not they were regarded as deacons in the technical sense is not absolutely clear from the account; this occasion has, however, been generally accepted as the origin of the order of the diaconate (Acts 6:1-7). Of the seven, Stephen and Philip are the only ones of whom we have any further record in the NT. They are described as men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom (v 3).<\/li>\nThat Philip became known as “the evangelist” is apparent from Acts 21:8. The designation was well deserved, for when the Jerusalem Christians were scattered by the persecution led by Saul of Tarsus, Philip went to a city of Samaria and proclaimed the gospel with such power there that a great number of people joyfully turned to Christ (Acts 8:1-8). In the midst of this spectacular work, Philip was divinely instructed to leave Samaria and go down to the desert area in the southern part of the country. Humanly speaking, for him to turn away from the multitudes, who were so eagerly responding to his preaching and to go to the uninhabited territory in the south, must have seemed foolish. Yet Philip showed himself not only sensitive but also obedient to the will of God and followed this guidance without question. In the desert he found not a crowd but a single person, an important Ethiopian court official who had visited Jerusalem and was now returning to Africa. The wisdom of God in directing Philip to this place was fully vindicated, for the Ethiopian was reading Isaiah 53, the great gospel chapter of the OT. Philip gave him the good news that this prophecy pointed to Jesus Christ. The Ethiopian subsequently believed and was baptized and went on his way rejoicing (vv 25-40). The conversion of this one person meant not only that Philip was the first to proclaim the gospel to a Gentile but also that the gospel was taken by this Ethiopian courtier to the continent of Africa.<\/p>\nThe prevailing nationalistic pride of the Jews was such that they despised the Samaritans and regarded the Gentiles as ceremonially unclean. But Philip, by his eager preaching of Christ first to the Samaritans and then to the Ethiopian, reflected the way in which the gospel penetrated social barriers and dissolved racial prejudices and demonstrated that the grace of God in Christ Jesus is freely available to all. Subsequently, Philip made his home in the coastal town of Caesarea. There he hospitably entertained Paul and Luke when they were en route to Jerusalem at the conclusion of the apostle’s third missionary journey. Luke tells us that Philip had four unmarried daughters who were prophetesses (Acts 21:8-9). Not long after this, when Paul was in custody in Caesarea for two years, the kindness and friendship of Philip must have meant much to him (23:31-35; 24:23, 27).<\/p>\n<li>3. Son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra and half brother of Antipas, whose mother was Malthace. He is called Herod in Luke 3:1. The latter was tetrarch of Perea and Galilee from 4 BC<\/span> to AD<\/span> 39; Philip was tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis (plus certain other territories) to the northeast of Galilee for 37 years (4 BC<\/span> to AD<\/span> 33). His wife was his niece Salome, who danced for Herod in exchange for the head of John the Baptist (Mt 14:3-12; Mk 6:17-29).<\/li>\nSee also<\/em> Herod, Herodian Family.<\/p>\n<li>4. Son of Herod the Great and Mariamne and husband of Salome’s mother, Herodias, who left him to become the mistress of his half brother Herod Antipas. It was for this immoral relationship that John the Baptist rebuked Herod and was later imprisoned and beheaded (Mt 14:3-12; Mk 6:17-29; Lk 3:19-20).<\/li>","summary_ro":"PHILIP 1. Apostle whose name is placed fifth in each of the lists of the twelve after the two pairs of brothers, Simon Peter and Andrew, and James and John (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:14). John says that when John the Baptist bore witness to Jesus with the words, “Behold, the Lamb of God!” two of his disciples began to follow Jesus, and that one of these two was Andrew, who then declared to his brother Simon Peter, “We have found the Messiah,” and brought him to Jesus. (The other unnamed disciple...","summary_en":"PHILIP 1. Apostle whose name is placed fifth in each of the lists of the twelve after the two pairs of brothers, Simon Peter and Andrew, and James and John (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:14). John says that when John the Baptist bore witness to Jesus with the words, “Behold, the Lamb of God!” two of his disciples began to follow Jesus, and that one of these two was Andrew, who then declared to his brother Simon Peter, “We have found the Messiah,” and brought him to Jesus. (The other unnamed disciple...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":37136,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Tetrarch*","title_en":"Tetrarch*","content_ro":"<h3>TETRARCH*<\/h3>\nTitle of a class of Roman provincial officials. Tetrarchs were tributary princes who were not deemed important enough to be designated kings. The title was used in the Roman provinces of Thessaly, Galatia, and Syria. The origin of the title appears to have come from governors who ruled over a fourth part of a region or country, as was the case in Syria after the death of Herod the Great. By NT times, the etymological significance had diminished, so that the title merely designated secondary princes. Three tetrarchs are mentioned in the Bible. Luke reports that Herod (Antipas) was the tetrarch of Galilee, Philip was the tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanius was the tetrarch of Abilene (Lk 3:1). Of these, only Herod is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible (Mt 14:1; Lk 3:19; 9:7; Acts 13:1). Herod’s greater significance is indicated by the fact that he is also referred to as “king” by his Jewish subjects (Mt 14:9; Mk 6:14).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TETRARCH*<\/h3>\nTitle of a class of Roman provincial officials. Tetrarchs were tributary princes who were not deemed important enough to be designated kings. The title was used in the Roman provinces of Thessaly, Galatia, and Syria. The origin of the title appears to have come from governors who ruled over a fourth part of a region or country, as was the case in Syria after the death of Herod the Great. By NT times, the etymological significance had diminished, so that the title merely designated secondary princes. Three tetrarchs are mentioned in the Bible. Luke reports that Herod (Antipas) was the tetrarch of Galilee, Philip was the tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanius was the tetrarch of Abilene (Lk 3:1). Of these, only Herod is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible (Mt 14:1; Lk 3:19; 9:7; Acts 13:1). Herod’s greater significance is indicated by the fact that he is also referred to as “king” by his Jewish subjects (Mt 14:9; Mk 6:14).<\/p>","summary_ro":"TETRARCH* Title of a class of Roman provincial officials. Tetrarchs were tributary princes who were not deemed important enough to be designated kings. The title was used in the Roman provinces of Thessaly, Galatia, and Syria. The origin of the title appears to have come from governors who ruled over a fourth part of a region or country, as was the case in Syria after the death of Herod the Great. By NT times, the etymological significance had diminished, so that the title merely designated s...","summary_en":"TETRARCH* Title of a class of Roman provincial officials. Tetrarchs were tributary princes who were not deemed important enough to be designated kings. The title was used in the Roman provinces of Thessaly, Galatia, and Syria. The origin of the title appears to have come from governors who ruled over a fourth part of a region or country, as was the case in Syria after the death of Herod the Great. By NT times, the etymological significance had diminished, so that the title merely designated s...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55668,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:19","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:19","content_ro":"3:19-20<\/strong> Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee<\/em>,<\/em> divorced his first wife and married Herodias<\/em>,<\/em> the wife of his half brother<\/em> Herod Philip. When John publicly criticized<\/em> Herod for this sin, Herod imprisoned and later executed him (cp. 9:9; Mark 6:16-29). Herod’s execution of John is also recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2).<\/p>","content_en":"3:19-20<\/strong> Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee<\/em>,<\/em> divorced his first wife and married Herodias<\/em>,<\/em> the wife of his half brother<\/em> Herod Philip. When John publicly criticized<\/em> Herod for this sin, Herod imprisoned and later executed him (cp. 9:9; Mark 6:16-29). Herod’s execution of John is also recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:19-20 Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee, divorced his first wife and married Herodias, the wife of his half brother Herod Philip. When John publicly criticized Herod for this sin, Herod imprisoned and later executed him (cp. 9:9; Mark 6:16-29). Herod’s execution of John is also recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18.5.2).","summary_en":"3:19-20 Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee, divorced his first wife and married Herodias, the wife of his half brother Herod Philip. When John publicly criticized Herod for this sin, Herod imprisoned and later executed him (cp. 9:9; Mark 6:16-29). Herod’s execution of John is also recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18.5.2).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83294,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:19","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:19","content_ro":"3:19-20<\/strong> Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee<\/em>,<\/em> divorced his first wife and married Herodias<\/em>,<\/em> the wife of his half brother<\/em> Herod Philip. When John publicly criticized<\/em> Herod for this sin, Herod imprisoned and later executed him (cp. 9:9; Mark 6:16-29). Herod’s execution of John is also recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2).<\/p>","content_en":"3:19-20<\/strong> Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee<\/em>,<\/em> divorced his first wife and married Herodias<\/em>,<\/em> the wife of his half brother<\/em> Herod Philip. When John publicly criticized<\/em> Herod for this sin, Herod imprisoned and later executed him (cp. 9:9; Mark 6:16-29). Herod’s execution of John is also recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:19-20 Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee, divorced his first wife and married Herodias, the wife of his half brother Herod Philip. When John publicly criticized Herod for this sin, Herod imprisoned and later executed him (cp. 9:9; Mark 6:16-29). Herod’s execution of John is also recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18.5.2).","summary_en":"3:19-20 Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee, divorced his first wife and married Herodias, the wife of his half brother Herod Philip. When John publicly criticized Herod for this sin, Herod imprisoned and later executed him (cp. 9:9; Mark 6:16-29). Herod’s execution of John is also recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18.5.2).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110920,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:19","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:19","content_ro":"3:19-20<\/strong> Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee<\/em>,<\/em> divorced his first wife and married Herodias<\/em>,<\/em> the wife of his half brother<\/em> Herod Philip. When John publicly criticized<\/em> Herod for this sin, Herod imprisoned and later executed him (cp. 9:9; Mark 6:16-29). Herod’s execution of John is also recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2).<\/p>","content_en":"3:19-20<\/strong> Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee<\/em>,<\/em> divorced his first wife and married Herodias<\/em>,<\/em> the wife of his half brother<\/em> Herod Philip. When John publicly criticized<\/em> Herod for this sin, Herod imprisoned and later executed him (cp. 9:9; Mark 6:16-29). Herod’s execution of John is also recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:19-20 Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee, divorced his first wife and married Herodias, the wife of his half brother Herod Philip. When John publicly criticized Herod for this sin, Herod imprisoned and later executed him (cp. 9:9; Mark 6:16-29). Herod’s execution of John is also recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18.5.2).","summary_en":"3:19-20 Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee, divorced his first wife and married Herodias, the wife of his half brother Herod Philip. When John publicly criticized Herod for this sin, Herod imprisoned and later executed him (cp. 9:9; Mark 6:16-29). Herod’s execution of John is also recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18.5.2).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138546,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:19","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:19","content_ro":"3:19-20<\/strong> Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee<\/em>,<\/em> divorced his first wife and married Herodias<\/em>,<\/em> the wife of his half brother<\/em> Herod Philip. When John publicly criticized<\/em> Herod for this sin, Herod imprisoned and later executed him (cp. 9:9; Mark 6:16-29). Herod’s execution of John is also recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2).<\/p>","content_en":"3:19-20<\/strong> Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee<\/em>,<\/em> divorced his first wife and married Herodias<\/em>,<\/em> the wife of his half brother<\/em> Herod Philip. When John publicly criticized<\/em> Herod for this sin, Herod imprisoned and later executed him (cp. 9:9; Mark 6:16-29). Herod’s execution of John is also recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:19-20 Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee, divorced his first wife and married Herodias, the wife of his half brother Herod Philip. When John publicly criticized Herod for this sin, Herod imprisoned and later executed him (cp. 9:9; Mark 6:16-29). Herod’s execution of John is also recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18.5.2).","summary_en":"3:19-20 Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee, divorced his first wife and married Herodias, the wife of his half brother Herod Philip. When John publicly criticized Herod for this sin, Herod imprisoned and later executed him (cp. 9:9; Mark 6:16-29). Herod’s execution of John is also recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18.5.2).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"21":[{"id":3746,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of Jesus*, Baptism","title_en":"of Jesus*, Baptism","content_ro":"<h3>BAPTISM OF JESUS*<\/h3>\nMajor event in Jesus’ life, which marked the beginning of his ministry. The fact that John the Baptist baptized Jesus is disputed by very few scholars today, but the purpose and significance of Jesus’ baptism remain controversial.<\/p>\nThe Gospel accounts agree that John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance (Mt 3:6-10; Mk 1:4-5; Lk 3:3-14). He proclaimed that the kingdom of heaven was at hand and that God’s people should prepare for the Lord’s coming by a renewal of faith toward God. For John, that meant repentance, confession of sins, and practicing righteousness. That being so, why was Jesus baptized? If Jesus was sinless, as the NT proclaims (2 Cor 5:21; Heb 4:15; 1 Pt 2:22), why did he submit to a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins? The Gospels provide the answers.<\/p>\nThe Gospel of Mark<\/p>\nMark presents the baptism of Jesus as a necessary preparation for his period of temptation and ministry. At his baptism Jesus received the Father’s approval and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit (1:9-11). Mark’s focus on Jesus’ special relation to the Father, “You are my beloved Son, and I am fully pleased with you” (1:11, nlt<\/span>), brings together two important OT references. Jesus’ messiahship is presented in a radically new way, in which the ruling Messiah (Ps 2:7) is also the Suffering Servant of the Lord (Is 42:1). Popular Jewish belief expected a ruling Messiah who would establish the kingdom of God, not a Messiah who would suffer for the people. Mark intended to show that in Jesus alone had God’s appointed time for the fulfillment of his purpose come.<\/p>\nThe statement that the heavens opened at the baptism of Jesus (Mk 1:10) may proclaim the arrival of the “end times” (the time of fulfillment and the establishment of God’s kingdom). A then-current Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 64:1 held that in the last days God would open the heavens and come down to his people. In Jewish thought the rending of the heavens was also associated with hearing God’s voice and the bestowal of God’s Spirit.<\/p>\nThe Gospel of Matthew<\/p>\nMatthew’s account of Jesus’ baptism has more detail than Mark’s. It begins by noting John’s reluctance to baptize Jesus (3:14). John was persuaded only after Jesus explained to him that the act was “fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness” (3:15, rsv<\/span>). Although the full meaning of those words is uncertain, they at least suggest that Jesus’ baptism was necessary to accomplish God’s will. In both the Old and New Testaments (Ps 98:2-3; Rom 1:17) God’s righteousness is seen in his salvation for his people. That is why the Messiah can be called “The Lord<\/span> Is Our Righteousness” (Jer 23:6; cf. Is 11:1-5). Jesus told John that his baptism was necessary to do God’s will in bringing about salvation for his people. Thus the Father’s declaration at Jesus’ baptism is presented in the form of a public announcement, emphasizing that Jesus was God’s anointed Servant about to begin his ministry as the bringer of the Lord’s salvation.<\/p>\nThe Gospel of Luke<\/p>\nLuke passes over Jesus’ baptism quickly, placing it alongside the baptism of others who came to John (3:21-22). The context in Luke also sheds some light on the purpose of Jesus’ baptism. Luke, unlike Matthew, places the genealogy of Jesus after his baptism and just before his ministry begins. The parallel to Moses, whose genealogy occurs just before his primary work begins (Ex 6:14-25), seems more than coincidental. It is probably intended to illustrate Jesus’ role in bringing deliverance (salvation) to God’s people just as Moses did in the OT. At his baptism, by the descent of the Holy Spirit upon him, Jesus was equipped to do the mission God had called him to do. Following his temptation (Lk 4:1-13), Jesus entered the synagogue and declared to the people that he had been anointed by the Spirit to proclaim good news (4:16-21). That anointing came at Jesus’ baptism (cf. Acts 10:37-38).<\/p>\nIn his Gospel account, Luke tried to identify Jesus with the common people—for example, in the birth story (with Jesus born in a stable and visited by lowly shepherds, Lk 2:8-20) and through placing the genealogy (stressing Jesus’ relation to all of humanity, 3:38) right after the baptism. Thus, Luke saw the baptism as Jesus’ first step in identifying himself with those he had come to save.<\/p>\nIn the OT the Messiah was always inseparable from the people he represented (see especially Jer 30:21 and Ez 45–46). Although the “servant” in Isaiah is sometimes viewed corporately (Is 44:1) and sometimes individually (53:3), he is always viewed as the representative of the people<\/em> to the Lord (49:5-26), as well as the servant of the Lord.<\/em><\/p>\nEvidently Luke, along with Mark and Matthew, was trying to show that Jesus, as the divine representative of the people, had identified himself with them in his baptism.<\/p>\nThe Gospel of John<\/p>\nThe fourth Gospel does not say that Jesus was baptized but does say that John the Baptist saw the Spirit descend upon Jesus (Jn 1:32-34). The account emphasizes that Jesus went to John during John’s preaching and baptizing ministry; John recognized that Jesus was the Christ, that God’s Spirit was upon him, and that he was the Son of God. John also recognized that Jesus, unlike himself, baptized with the Holy Spirit (1:29-36).<\/p>\nJohn the Baptist described Jesus as the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (1:29, nlt<\/span>). The closest OT parallel to that statement comes from a “servant of the Lord” passage (Is 53:6-7). It is possible that “Lamb of God” could be an alternate translation of the Aramaic term “servant of God.”<\/p>\nThe sense of Jesus as the one who bears the sins of the people is obviously in view in the fourth Gospel. That Jesus was the promised representative and deliverer of the people was understood by John the Baptist and conveyed by the Gospel writer.<\/p>\nConclusion<\/p>\nIn the four Gospels it is clear that the Holy Spirit came upon Jesus at his baptism to enable him to do the work of God. All four Gospel writers saw that Jesus had been anointed by God to accomplish his mission of bringing salvation to the people. Those ideas provide a key to understanding why Jesus was baptized. On that occasion at the beginning of his ministry, God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit to do his mediating work between God and the people. At his baptism Jesus was identified as the one who would bear the people’s sins; Jesus was baptized to identify himself with sinful people.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BAPTISM OF JESUS*<\/h3>\nMajor event in Jesus’ life, which marked the beginning of his ministry. The fact that John the Baptist baptized Jesus is disputed by very few scholars today, but the purpose and significance of Jesus’ baptism remain controversial.<\/p>\nThe Gospel accounts agree that John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance (Mt 3:6-10; Mk 1:4-5; Lk 3:3-14). He proclaimed that the kingdom of heaven was at hand and that God’s people should prepare for the Lord’s coming by a renewal of faith toward God. For John, that meant repentance, confession of sins, and practicing righteousness. That being so, why was Jesus baptized? If Jesus was sinless, as the NT proclaims (2 Cor 5:21; Heb 4:15; 1 Pt 2:22), why did he submit to a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins? The Gospels provide the answers.<\/p>\nThe Gospel of Mark<\/p>\nMark presents the baptism of Jesus as a necessary preparation for his period of temptation and ministry. At his baptism Jesus received the Father’s approval and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit (1:9-11). Mark’s focus on Jesus’ special relation to the Father, “You are my beloved Son, and I am fully pleased with you” (1:11, nlt<\/span>), brings together two important OT references. Jesus’ messiahship is presented in a radically new way, in which the ruling Messiah (Ps 2:7) is also the Suffering Servant of the Lord (Is 42:1). Popular Jewish belief expected a ruling Messiah who would establish the kingdom of God, not a Messiah who would suffer for the people. Mark intended to show that in Jesus alone had God’s appointed time for the fulfillment of his purpose come.<\/p>\nThe statement that the heavens opened at the baptism of Jesus (Mk 1:10) may proclaim the arrival of the “end times” (the time of fulfillment and the establishment of God’s kingdom). A then-current Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 64:1 held that in the last days God would open the heavens and come down to his people. In Jewish thought the rending of the heavens was also associated with hearing God’s voice and the bestowal of God’s Spirit.<\/p>\nThe Gospel of Matthew<\/p>\nMatthew’s account of Jesus’ baptism has more detail than Mark’s. It begins by noting John’s reluctance to baptize Jesus (3:14). John was persuaded only after Jesus explained to him that the act was “fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness” (3:15, rsv<\/span>). Although the full meaning of those words is uncertain, they at least suggest that Jesus’ baptism was necessary to accomplish God’s will. In both the Old and New Testaments (Ps 98:2-3; Rom 1:17) God’s righteousness is seen in his salvation for his people. That is why the Messiah can be called “The Lord<\/span> Is Our Righteousness” (Jer 23:6; cf. Is 11:1-5). Jesus told John that his baptism was necessary to do God’s will in bringing about salvation for his people. Thus the Father’s declaration at Jesus’ baptism is presented in the form of a public announcement, emphasizing that Jesus was God’s anointed Servant about to begin his ministry as the bringer of the Lord’s salvation.<\/p>\nThe Gospel of Luke<\/p>\nLuke passes over Jesus’ baptism quickly, placing it alongside the baptism of others who came to John (3:21-22). The context in Luke also sheds some light on the purpose of Jesus’ baptism. Luke, unlike Matthew, places the genealogy of Jesus after his baptism and just before his ministry begins. The parallel to Moses, whose genealogy occurs just before his primary work begins (Ex 6:14-25), seems more than coincidental. It is probably intended to illustrate Jesus’ role in bringing deliverance (salvation) to God’s people just as Moses did in the OT. At his baptism, by the descent of the Holy Spirit upon him, Jesus was equipped to do the mission God had called him to do. Following his temptation (Lk 4:1-13), Jesus entered the synagogue and declared to the people that he had been anointed by the Spirit to proclaim good news (4:16-21). That anointing came at Jesus’ baptism (cf. Acts 10:37-38).<\/p>\nIn his Gospel account, Luke tried to identify Jesus with the common people—for example, in the birth story (with Jesus born in a stable and visited by lowly shepherds, Lk 2:8-20) and through placing the genealogy (stressing Jesus’ relation to all of humanity, 3:38) right after the baptism. Thus, Luke saw the baptism as Jesus’ first step in identifying himself with those he had come to save.<\/p>\nIn the OT the Messiah was always inseparable from the people he represented (see especially Jer 30:21 and Ez 45–46). Although the “servant” in Isaiah is sometimes viewed corporately (Is 44:1) and sometimes individually (53:3), he is always viewed as the representative of the people<\/em> to the Lord (49:5-26), as well as the servant of the Lord.<\/em><\/p>\nEvidently Luke, along with Mark and Matthew, was trying to show that Jesus, as the divine representative of the people, had identified himself with them in his baptism.<\/p>\nThe Gospel of John<\/p>\nThe fourth Gospel does not say that Jesus was baptized but does say that John the Baptist saw the Spirit descend upon Jesus (Jn 1:32-34). The account emphasizes that Jesus went to John during John’s preaching and baptizing ministry; John recognized that Jesus was the Christ, that God’s Spirit was upon him, and that he was the Son of God. John also recognized that Jesus, unlike himself, baptized with the Holy Spirit (1:29-36).<\/p>\nJohn the Baptist described Jesus as the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (1:29, nlt<\/span>). The closest OT parallel to that statement comes from a “servant of the Lord” passage (Is 53:6-7). It is possible that “Lamb of God” could be an alternate translation of the Aramaic term “servant of God.”<\/p>\nThe sense of Jesus as the one who bears the sins of the people is obviously in view in the fourth Gospel. That Jesus was the promised representative and deliverer of the people was understood by John the Baptist and conveyed by the Gospel writer.<\/p>\nConclusion<\/p>\nIn the four Gospels it is clear that the Holy Spirit came upon Jesus at his baptism to enable him to do the work of God. All four Gospel writers saw that Jesus had been anointed by God to accomplish his mission of bringing salvation to the people. Those ideas provide a key to understanding why Jesus was baptized. On that occasion at the beginning of his ministry, God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit to do his mediating work between God and the people. At his baptism Jesus was identified as the one who would bear the people’s sins; Jesus was baptized to identify himself with sinful people.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BAPTISM OF JESUS* Major event in Jesus’ life, which marked the beginning of his ministry. The fact that John the Baptist baptized Jesus is disputed by very few scholars today, but the purpose and significance of Jesus’ baptism remain controversial. The Gospel accounts agree that John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance (Mt 3:6-10; Mk 1:4-5; Lk 3:3-14). He proclaimed that the kingdom of heaven was at hand and that God’s people should prepare for the Lord’s coming by a renewal of faith toward...","summary_en":"BAPTISM OF JESUS* Major event in Jesus’ life, which marked the beginning of his ministry. The fact that John the Baptist baptized Jesus is disputed by very few scholars today, but the purpose and significance of Jesus’ baptism remain controversial. The Gospel accounts agree that John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance (Mt 3:6-10; Mk 1:4-5; Lk 3:3-14). He proclaimed that the kingdom of heaven was at hand and that God’s people should prepare for the Lord’s coming by a renewal of faith toward...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":19428,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jesus Christ","title_en":"Jesus Christ","content_ro":"<h3>JESUS CHRIST<\/h3>\nMessiah, Savior, and founder of the Christian church.<\/p>\nIn providing a biography of Jesus Christ it must be borne in mind that each of the Gospels has its own distinctive purpose. Matthew, for instance, presents Jesus as the messianic King, whereas the emphasis in Mark is more on Jesus as the servant of all. Luke tends to present Jesus in a softer light, showing particularly his amazing compassion to the less fortunate, whereas John plunges the reader into a deeper and more spiritual understanding of Jesus. These different aims caused the four Evangelists to select and arrange the events of Jesus’ life differently, resulting in a fourfold portrait of the same man. It was undoubtedly for this reason that the Christian church preserved four Gospels instead of only one.<\/p>\nThe following sections present the main events in what may be regarded as the chief stages of the life of Jesus. These stages show a definite progression from Christ’s incarnation to his cross. The amount of space devoted to each stage in each of the Gospels is dictated by theological rather than biographical interest. The whole presentation of Christ’s life centers on the cross and the subsequent triumphant resurrection and is more an account of God’s message to humanity than a plain historic account of the life of Jesus.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Incarnation<\/p>\n• The Birth of Jesus<\/p>\n• Life in Nazareth<\/p>\n• Preparatory Events<\/p>\n• The Early Ministry of Jesus in Judea and Samaria<\/p>\n• The Period of the Galilean Ministry<\/p>\n• On the Way to Jerusalem<\/p>\n• The Final Days in Jerusalem<\/p>\n• The Betrayal and Arrest<\/p>\n• The Trial<\/p>\n• The Crucifixion<\/p>\n• The Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension<\/p>\nThe Incarnation<\/p>\nThe major event of this initial stage was the Incarnation. Only Matthew and Luke give accounts of Jesus’ birth. John goes back and reflects on what preceded the birth.<\/p>\nIt may seem strange that John began his Gospel with a reference to the Word (Jn 1:1), but it is in this way that he delivers to the reader an exalted view of Jesus. John saw Jesus as existing even before the creation of the world (v 2). In fact, he saw him as having a part in the act of creation (v 3). Therefore, when Jesus was born, it was both an act of humiliation and an act of illumination. The light shone, but the world preferred to remain in darkness (vv 4-5, 10). Therefore, anyone coming to John’s records of the life of Jesus would know at once, before even being introduced to the man named Jesus, that here was the record of no ordinary man. The account of his life and teachings that followed could not be properly understood except against this background of his preexistence.<\/p>\nThe Birth of Jesus<\/p>\nJohn simply wrote that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Matthew and Luke fill in some of the details of how this happened. There is little in common between the two accounts. Each approaches the subject from a different point of view, but the supernatural is evident in both. The coming of Jesus is announced beforehand, through dreams to Joseph in Matthew’s account (Mt 1:20-21) and through an angel to Mary in Luke’s account (Lk 1:26-33). Matthew leaves his readers in no doubt that the one to be born had a mission to accomplish—to save people from their sins (Mt 1:21). Luke sets his story of Jesus’ coming in an atmosphere of great rejoicing. This is seen in the inclusion of some exquisite songs, which have formed part of the church’s worship ever since (Lk 1:46-55, 68-79). The homage of the wise men in Matthew 2:1-12 is significant because it sets the scene for a universalistic emphasis that links the beginning of the Gospel to its ending (cf. Mt 28:19-20). A similar emphasis is introduced in the angel’s announcement to the shepherds in Luke 2:14 and in Simeon’s song (Lk 2:32), where he predicts that Jesus would be a light for Gentiles as well as a glory for Israel. The flight into Egypt for safety (Mt 2:13-15) shows the contribution of a gentile nation in providing protection for a Jewish child.<\/p>\nOne feature of the birth stories in Matthew and Luke is that they are both linked to genealogies. It is difficult to harmonize these genealogies since they appear to be drawn from different sources, but the purpose in both cases is to show that Jesus was descended from Abraham and David. The latter fact gave rise to Jesus’ title Son of David.<\/p>\nLuke was the only Gospel writer who attempted to link the coming of Jesus with events in secular history. Although problems arise over the dating of the census of Quirinius (Lk 2:1-2), the firm setting of the contemporary scene is highly significant because the Christian faith is a historic faith centered on a historic person.<\/p>\nLife in Nazareth<\/p>\nThe years of Jesus Christ’s human development are given only a few lines in the Gospels. Details are given of only one incident belonging to the period of childhood, the discussion of the 12-year-old Jesus with the Jewish teachers in the temple (Lk 2:41-50). This event is a pointer to one of the most characteristic features of Jesus’ later ministry: his display of irrefutable wisdom in dialogue with his Jewish contemporaries. It also reveals that at an early age Jesus was acutely aware of a divine mission. Nevertheless, Luke notes that in Jesus’ formative years he was obedient to his parents (v 51). It is assumed that during 30 years at Nazareth Jesus learned the carpenter’s trade from Joseph and became the village carpenter after Joseph’s death. However, there is no account of this period in the Gospels. This has led to many fantastic imaginings about Jesus’ childhood. Many of these fables are recorded in apocryphal gospels, but Luke’s account is unembellished. Its remarkable reserve is a strong indication of its historical reliability.<\/p>\nPreparatory Events<\/p>\nAll four Gospels refer to a brief preparatory period that immediately preceded the commencement of Christ’s public ministry. This period focused on three important events.<\/p>\n<h5>The Preaching of John the Baptist<\/h5>\nJohn the Baptist appeared in the wilderness and caused an immediate stir in Judea, particularly as a result of his call to repentance and to baptism (Mt 3:1-6). John was like one of the OT prophets, but he disclaimed any importance in his own office except as the herald of a greater person to come. His stern appearance and uncompromising moral challenge effectively prepared the way for the public appearance of Jesus (Lk 3:4-6). It is important to note that John the Baptist’s announcement of the imminent coming of the kingdom (Mt 3:2) was the same theme with which Jesus began his own ministry (4:17). This shows that John the Baptist’s work was an integral part of the preparation for the public ministry of Jesus. The same may be said of the rite of baptism, although John recognized that Jesus would add a new dimension in that he would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (3:11). As the forerunner of Jesus Christ, John proclaimed that the one to follow would not only be greater than he but would also come with high standards of judgment (v 12). The stage was therefore set in stern terms for the initial public act of Jesus—his willingness to be baptized (Mt 3:13-15; Lk 3:21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Baptism of Jesus<\/h5>\nJohn’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. Since Jesus submitted to this, are we to suppose that Jesus himself needed to repent? If this were the case, it would involve the assumption that Jesus had sinned. This is contrary to other evidence in the NT. But if Jesus did not need to repent, what was the point of his requesting baptism at the hands of John? Jesus had come on a mission to others, and it is possible that he deliberately submitted to John’s baptism in order to show that he was prepared to take the place of others. This explanation is in line with Paul’s later understanding of the work of Jesus Christ (2 Cor 5:21). Matthew is the one Evangelist who records John’s hesitation to baptize Jesus (Mt 3:14-15).<\/p>\nThe most important part of the baptism of Jesus was the heavenly voice, which declared pleasure in the beloved Son (Mt 3:17). This announcement by God was the real starting point of the public ministry of Jesus. It revealed that the ministry was no accident or sudden inspiration on the part of Jesus. He went into his work with the full approval of the Father. A further important feature is the part played by the Holy Spirit in this scene. The dovelike description is full of symbolic meaning (v 16). It was not just an inner experience that Jesus had. The activity of the Spirit in the ministry of Jesus, although not much emphasized in the Gospels, is nevertheless sufficiently evident to be indispensable to a true understanding of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temptation of Jesus<\/h5>\nJesus’ baptism showed the nature of his mission. The temptation showed the nature of the environment in which he was to minister (Mt 4:1; Lk 4:1-2). Confrontation with adverse spiritual forces characterized Jesus’ whole ministry. Only Matthew and Luke record details of the temptations to which Jesus was subjected by the devil. All these temptations present shortcuts that, if pursued, would have deflected Jesus from his vocation. The record leaves us in no doubt that Jesus gained the victory. Both Gospels show that he accomplished this by appealing to Scripture. Jesus is also seen in this event as a genuine human who, like all other humans, was subject to temptation. The writer of the Letter to the Hebrews notes that this fact qualified Jesus to act as High Priest and to intercede on behalf of his people (Heb 2:18; 4:15).<\/p>\nThe Early Ministry of Jesus in Judea and Samaria<\/p>\nOnly John’s Gospel tells of the work of Jesus in Judea following his baptism. It first describes his calling of two disciples, John and Andrew (Jn 1:35-39). This event is set against the background of John the Baptist’s announcement of Jesus as the Lamb of God who was to take away the sin of the world (v 29). These first two disciples were soon joined by three others: Peter, Philip, and Nathanael (vv 41-51). These five formed part of the nucleus of Jesus’ followers who came to be known as the Twelve. One feature of John’s account is the early recognition by the disciples of Jesus as Messiah (Jn 1:41) and Son of God (v 49).<\/p>\nSoon after Jesus began his ministry in Jerusalem, John relates an incident at Cana in Galilee in which water was turned into wine (Jn 2:1-10). This event is important in John’s account because it is the first of the signs that he records (v 11). He saw Jesus’ miracles as “signs” of the truth of the gospel rather than as mere wonders.<\/p>\nJohn sets two incidents at Jerusalem in this initial period. The first is the cleansing of the temple (Jn 2:13-16). Matthew, Mark, and Luke all place this event just before Jesus’ trial, but John places it at this early stage. The moral intention of Jesus’ work is seen in his driving out the money changers who were profiting from worshipers more than was appropriate. This was apparently acceptable to Judaism but was unacceptable to Jesus. The other Evangelists imply that this authoritative act was the event that sparked the final hostility of his opponents. John tells the story for a theological reason; to him, the cleansing of the temple was a parable telling of what Jesus had come to do.<\/p>\nThe other incident in Jerusalem is the meeting between Jesus and Nicodemus (Jn 3). Nicodemus was closely associated with Judaism, yet he was also searching for truth. He was unable to understand, however, the spiritual truth about being born again through the Spirit.<\/p>\nJohn’s story then moves from Judea to Samaria and the story of the Samaritan woman at the well (Jn 4:1-42). Jesus used her physical thirst to point to her deeper spiritual thirst. She realized that Jesus had something to offer her that she had not previously known. As a result of this woman’s experience and testimony, many of the Samaritan people came to believe in Jesus as the Savior of the world (v 42). In this case John intends that his readers would appreciate the fuller significance of the words of Jesus by viewing them in the light of the resurrection.<\/p>\nThe Period of the Galilean Ministry<\/p>\n\nAlmost all the information on this period is found in the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke.) It may be conveniently divided into three sections. The first briefly outlines the events leading up to the choosing of the Twelve; the second deals with Jesus’ withdrawal from northern Galilee; and the third deals with his departure for Jerusalem. While the synoptic Gospels concentrate exclusively on the events in Galilee, John’s account indicates that there were some visits by Jesus to Jerusalem during this period. Also, John records another incident at Cana, where the son of a Capernaum official was healed. This is noted as the second of Jesus’ signs (Jn 4:54). It is chiefly important because of the extraordinary faith of the father, who was prepared to take Jesus at his word.<\/p>\n<h5>The Calling of the Disciples<\/h5>\nIn the synoptic Gospels there is an account of the initial call to four of the disciples to leave their fishing boats and to become fishers of men (Mt 4:18-22; Mk 1:16-20; Lk 5:1-11). They had already met Jesus and must have had some idea what was involved in following him. Jesus did not at this time appoint them to be apostles, but this call was an indispensable step toward the establishment of the Twelve as a group. Setting apart a particular number of disciples formed an important part of the ministry of Jesus. The miraculous catch of fish, which preceded the call of the disciples in Luke’s account, served to highlight the superiority of the spiritual task of catching people rather than fish.<\/p>\nAnother significant call came to Levi, otherwise known as Matthew (Mt 9:9; Mk 2:13-14; Lk 5:27-28). As a tax collector, he was of a different type from most of the other disciples. He would certainly have been despised by his Jewish contemporaries because of his profession. But his inclusion in the special circle of Jesus’ disciples shows the broad basis on which these men were chosen. One of the others, Simon the Zealot, may have belonged to a group of revolutionaries who were religious as well as political. Even a man like Judas Iscariot was numbered among the Twelve, and he would later betray Jesus to his enemies for a small sum of money. Jesus accepted them as they were and molded them into men who later came to learn how to be totally dependent on God and the power of his Spirit.<\/p>\n<h5>Sermon on the Mount<\/h5>\nThe Gospel of Matthew presents a substantial sample of Jesus’ teachings commonly called the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:1–7:29). Some of the same material occurs in Luke in a different context and different arrangement. It is possible that Jesus often repeated his teachings on different occasions and with different combinations. Matthew’s record of the Sermon on the Mount presents an impressive body of teaching, mainly of an ethical character. In it Jesus upholds the Mosaic law and at the same time goes beyond it. The beginning of this sermon has been called the Beatitudes (5:3-12). It commends moral and spiritual values. The teachings recorded in this section were radical, but not in a political sense. The Sermon on the Mount may be taken as a fair sample of the kind of discourses that must have abounded in the ministry of Jesus.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus as Healer<\/h5>\nThroughout the Gospels there are records of miracles involving Jesus healing people. There are more of these miracles than any other type. In a section in Matthew devoted to a sequence of healings (Mt 8:1–9:34), a leper, a centurion’s servant, Peter’s mother-in-law, a demoniac, a paralytic, a woman with a hemorrhage, blind men, and a man who was mute—all were healed. In addition, Jairus’s daughter was raised from the dead. This concentration of healings focuses on Jesus as a miracle worker, but throughout the Gospels there is no suggestion that Jesus healed by magical means. In some cases an individual’s faith was acknowledged (8:10; 9:22). In at least one incident, the healing was accompanied by an announcement of the forgiveness of the sins of the one healed (Mt 9:2; Mk 2:5). This shows that Jesus considered spiritual needs to be of greater consequence than the physical problems.<\/p>\nIn view of the widespread belief in the powerful influence of evil spirits over human lives, it is of great significance that Jesus is seen exercising his power of exorcism over demons. Jesus’ ministry was set in an atmosphere of spiritual conflict, so the confrontations between the forces of darkness and the Light of the World were to be expected. Those who explain away these cases of demon-possession in psychiatric terms miss this key feature of Jesus’ ministry. Each time he exorcised a demon, he was demonstrating victory, which reached its most dramatic expression in his victory over death at his resurrection.<\/p>\nIn addition to the healing miracles in this early section, one nature miracle is recorded, that of the stilling of the storm (Mt 8:23-27; Mk 4:35-41; Lk 8:22-25). This miracle focused both on the lack of faith in the disciples and the mysterious power of the presence of Jesus.<\/p>\n<h5>The Reaction to Jesus by His Contemporaries<\/h5>\nIn the early stages of his ministry, Jesus was very popular with the ordinary people. There are several notices to this effect (Mt 4:23-25; Mk 3:7-8). This popularity showed no appreciation of the spiritual purpose of Jesus’ mission (Lk 13:17). Nevertheless, it stands in stark contrast to the nit-picking opposition of the religious leaders, who even plotted to kill Jesus in the early period of his ministry (Mk 3:6).<\/p>\nJesus and the religious leaders often clashed over the observance of the Sabbath (Mt 12:1-14; Lk 13:10-17; Jn 5:9-18). Jesus adopted a more liberal view than the rigid and often illogical interpretation of some of his religious contemporaries—as in the instances when he was criticized for healing on the Sabbath even though the Jewish law allowed the rescuing of trapped animals on the Sabbath (Mt 12:11; Lk 13:15). To the Pharisaic mind, Jesus was a lawbreaker. The Pharisees feared that it would undermine their authority if his teaching were permitted to permeate popular opinion.<\/p>\n<h5>Preparing the Twelve<\/h5>\nThe synoptic Gospels supply lists of the names of the 12 apostles (Mt 10:2-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16). Both Matthew and Mark name them in the context of their exercising authority over evil spirits, thereby showing that these men were being called to enter the same spiritual conflict as Jesus.<\/p>\nThe synoptic Gospels also give details of the instructions Jesus gave to these disciples before sending them to minister in Israel (Mt 10:5-42; Mk 6:7-13; Lk 9:1-6). Matthew included material in his discourse that appears in a different context in Mark and Luke, but the discourse still shows the concern of Jesus to prepare his disciples for their future work. They were to proclaim the kingdom as he had done, but they were not to suppose that all would respond to it. They were warned about coming hostility and even persecution. It is important to note that Jesus warned his disciples against encumbering themselves with material possessions. Although the instructions given related immediately to a ministry tour, he was laying the foundation for the future work of the church.<\/p>\n<h5>The Relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist<\/h5>\nFor a while there were parallel preaching and parallel baptisms by John the Baptist with his followers and Jesus with his disciples (Jn 4:1-2). After John the Baptist was imprisoned by Herod because of his uncompromising condemnation of Herod’s marriage to Herodias, his brother’s wife (Mt 14:3-4), John began to have doubts about Jesus (Mt 11:1-19; Lk 7:18-35). He may have been expecting Jesus, if he really was the Messiah, to come to his rescue. When John sent his disciples to Jesus to express his doubts, Jesus took the opportunity to tell the crowds of the greatness of John the Baptist. He said there was none born of women who was greater than John.<\/p>\n<h5>Various Controversies<\/h5>\nJesus did not hesitate to confront his contemporaries on issues that involved moral or religious questions. The controversy recorded in John’s Gospel concerning the keeping of the Sabbath that arose when a lame man was healed on that day (Jn 5:1-18) shows once again that ritual observance of the Sabbath was regarded as of greater importance than a compassionate concern for the physical welfare of the lame man. This was typical of the Jewish approach and led at once to a persecuting attitude toward Jesus, particularly because he claimed to be doing the work of God.<\/p>\nA similar conflict arose after Jesus’ disciples had plucked grain in the fields on the Sabbath day (Mt 12:1-8). The Pharisees assumed that this act constituted work and saw it as a sufficient reason to plot how to destroy Jesus. After this event, he healed a paralytic on the same Sabbath day (vv 9-14). The Jewish leaders clearly regarded him as a direct threat to their position among the people.<\/p>\nThe rising opposition did not deter Jesus from further healings (Mt 12:15-32), which Matthew depicts as the fulfillment of Scripture. But when Jesus healed a blind and mute demoniac, the Pharisees charged him with casting out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of the demons. Jesus told them that to blaspheme the Holy Spirit was an unforgivable sin. This incident not only brings out the perversity of the religious leaders but also shows that the ministry of Jesus was under the direct control of the Spirit. Other notable miracles were the healing of the centurion’s servant, as recorded by Luke (Lk 7:1-10), and the raising from the dead of the widow’s son at Nain (vv 11-17). The former of these is notable because of the remarkable faith of a Gentile.<\/p>\nAnother example of the Pharisees’ criticism was when Jesus attended a meal in Simon the Pharisee’s house (Lk 7:36-50). His host had not provided for the usual courtesies toward guests and yet was critical of Jesus for allowing an immoral woman to wash his feet with tears, dry them with her hair, and anoint them with ointment. There is no doubt that most of Simon’s colleagues would have shared his reaction, but Jesus did not stop the woman because he knew that the motive impelling her to do it was love. He told Simon a parable to press home his point.<\/p>\nJohn records two visits by Jesus to Jerusalem. These are difficult to date, but they probably occurred during the early period of the ministry. He attended the Feast of Tabernacles (Jn 7:2) and the Feast of Dedication (10:22). At these times Jesus taught in the temple area and entered into dialogue with the religious leaders. The chief priests became alarmed at his presence and sent officers to arrest him (7:32). They were unable to do so; instead, they themselves were captivated by his teachings. More discussions with the Jewish leaders followed. They charged Jesus with being demon-possessed (8:48). Both in this case and in the event of the healing of the blind man (ch 9), the hostility of the Jewish leaders to Jesus surfaces. When Jesus spoke of himself as the Shepherd, his teaching again raised the anger of his Jewish hearers, who took up stones to kill him (10:31).<\/p>\n<h5>Teaching in Parables<\/h5>\nMatthew’s Gospel gives a sample of a continuous discourse by Jesus (Mt 5:1–7:29), but Jesus more often spoke in parables. Matthew collected into a group some of the parables that concern the theme of the kingdom (ch 13). Luke tends to preserve parables of a different kind that are not specially linked to the kingdom. Mark has the least number of parables among the synoptic Gospels, but his writing shows little interest in Jesus as a teacher. John does not relate any parables, although he does preserve two allegories—the Sheepfold and the Vine—which could be regarded as extended parables. The parable was a form of teaching particularly characteristic of Jesus. In addition, Jesus interspersed even his discourses with metaphors akin to the parabolic form. The parable was valuable because it could stimulate thought and challenge the hearer. This is because the form of the parable is easy to retain in the mind. Jesus did not speak in parables in order to obscure his meaning. This would be contrary to all that he aimed to do through his work and teaching.<\/p>\n<h5>Significant Events in Galilee<\/h5>\nIn Nazareth there was a striking instance of the unwillingness to respond to the ministry of Jesus. The people of his hometown proved so hostile that he could perform very few miracles there (Mt 13:53-58; Mk 6:1-6). This incident is important because it shows that faith was especially necessary for people to receive his healing miracles.<\/p>\nThe one miracle performed by Jesus that all four Evangelists describe is the feeding of the 5,000 (Mt 14:13-21; Mk 6:30-44; Lk 9:10-17; Jn 6:1-15). This occasion shows the great popularity of Jesus at this stage of his ministry. It also reveals that he was not unmindful of the physical needs of people. After this miracle, some wanted to make Jesus king. This casts considerable light on their real motives. They were more concerned with material and political expediency than with spiritual truth. This is why Jesus immediately withdrew from them. When the people found him the next day, he proceeded to instruct them about the spiritual bread that comes from heaven (Jn 6:25-40).<\/p>\nAt this point in John’s Gospel, Jesus is often seen in dialogue with his opponents. This style of teaching is different from the synoptic parables but familiar in Jewish-style debate. Many of the people found the spiritual themes in the teaching of Jesus too difficult to accept and consequently ceased to be his disciples (Jn 6:51-52, 60, 66). This incident demonstrates the unique challenge presented by Jesus and his teaching. Another miracle closely linked with this is when Jesus walked on the water, demonstrating his power in the natural world. Many have sought to rationalize the event by supposing that Jesus was really walking on the shore, and that the disciples did not realize this in the haze. But this miracle is no more extraordinary than the massive multiplication of loaves and fishes, nor is it inconceivable if the miracle worker was all that he claimed to be.<\/p>\n<h5>Leaving Northern Galilee<\/h5>\nJesus spent a brief time in the region of Tyre and Sidon, where he performed further healings and made it clear that his main mission was to the house of Israel (Mt 15:21-28). He then moved on to Caesarea Philippi; this was the turning point of his ministry (Mt 16:13-20; Mk 8:27-38; Lk 9:18-27). It was there that Jesus asked his disciples: “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” This caused Peter to confess: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This impressive confession led Jesus to promise that he would build his church on “this rock.” There has been much discussion about the meaning of this saying. It is open to some doubt whether Jesus intended to build his church on Peter, on his confession, or on Peter making the confession. Historically, Peter was the instrument God used for the entrance into the church of both Jews and Gentiles (Acts 2, 10). There is no doubt about Jesus’ intention to found a church, since the word occurs again in Matthew 18:17. Despite the glorious revelation of Jesus on this occasion, he took it as an opportunity to begin to inform his disciples of his death and resurrection (Mt 16:21-23).<\/p>\nThis revelation of Jesus was considerably reinforced by the event known as the Transfiguration, when Jesus was transformed in the presence of three of his disciples (Mt 17:1-8). It was natural for them to want to keep this glorious vision of Jesus for themselves, but the vision vanished as rapidly as it came. Its purpose was evidently to show the three leading disciples something of the nature of Jesus, which was obscured by his normal human form. A further feature of the vision was the appearance with Jesus of Moses and Elijah, representatives of the Law and the Prophets.<\/p>\nAfter the Transfiguration, Jesus made two predictions concerning his approaching death. These announcements were a total perplexity to the disciples. In Matthew 16, when Jesus mentioned his death, Peter attempted to rebuke Jesus and was rebuked by Jesus in kind. When Jesus mentioned his death again in chapter 17, Matthew noted that the disciples were greatly distressed (Mt 17:23), while Mark and Luke mentioned the disciples’ lack of understanding (Mk 9:32; Lk 9:45). Jesus was approaching the cross with no support from those closest to him. It is not surprising that when the hour arrived they all forsook him.<\/p>\nAfter the Transfiguration revealed that Jesus was greater than Moses and Elijah and in fact was the beloved Son of God, he was asked to pay the temple tax (Mt 17:24-27). This incident illustrates the attitude of Jesus toward the authorities and practical responsibilities. He paid the tax, although he did not acknowledge any obligation to do so. The method of payment was extraordinary, for it involved the miracle of the coin in the fish. But the greater importance of the incident is the light it throws on Jesus’ independence from the Jewish law.<\/p>\nLuke devotes more than half his Gospel to the period that begins with Jesus leaving Galilee and ends with his death and resurrection in Jerusalem. In this section of his Gospel, Luke introduces a great deal of material that does not occur elsewhere. We can do no more than summarize some of the more striking items that throw light on the life of Jesus.<\/p>\nIn addition to the mission of the Twelve, Luke records the mission of the Seventy (or Seventy-two—see Lk 10:17-20). Special parables are recorded by Luke in this section—the Good Samaritan (vv 29-37), the lost sheep (15:3-7), the lost coin (vv 8-10), and the prodigal son (vv 11-32). As Jesus moved toward Jerusalem, he was concerned with developing the spiritual life of his disciples. He was mindful of the fact that he would not be with them long and wished to prepare them for the future. He taught them about prayer (11:1-13), the Father’s care for them (12:13-34), and preparation for the coming of the Son of Man (vv 35-56).<\/p>\nOn the Way to Jerusalem<\/p>\nOn the approach to Jerusalem, Jesus visited both Jericho and Bethany. At Jericho he healed Bartimaeus (Lk 18:35-43) and had a fruitful encounter with Zacchaeus, who reformed his ways as a tax collector (19:1-10). Bethany was the home of Mary, Martha, and their brother, Lazarus, whom Jesus had raised from the dead (Jn 11). Jesus spent his remaining days in Jerusalem but returned each night to stay at Simon the Leper’s house in Bethany in the presence of those who loved him (Mt 26:6). It was there that a woman anointed his body with costly ointment. This was a controversial and prophetic act preparing Jesus for his burial and enhancing the gospel with loving consecration (vv 6-13).<\/p>\n\nThe Final Days in Jerusalem<\/p>\nAll four Gospels relate the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem (Mt 21:1-11; Mk 11:1-10; Lk 19:29-38; Jn 12:12-15). At this time multitudes greeted Jesus with praises acclaiming him as their king. This welcome stands in stark contrast with the crowd’s later cry for his crucifixion. In fact, it was the second crowd that was doing God’s bidding, since Jesus had not come to Jerusalem to reign but to die.<\/p>\nThe synoptic Gospels place the cleansing of the temple as the first main event following Jesus’ entry into the city (Mt 21:12-13; Mk 11:15-17; Lk 19:45-46). The clouds of opposition had been thickening, but the audacity of Jesus in clearing out the money changers from the temple area was too much for the authorities (Mk 11:18; Lk 19:47). The die was cast and the Crucifixion loomed closer.<\/p>\nIt was during this period that further controversies developed between Jesus and the Pharisees and Sadducees (Mt 21:23–22:45). In several cases trick questions were posed in order to trap Jesus, but with consummate skill he turned their questions against them. His opposers eventually reached the point where they dared not ask him any more questions (22:46).<\/p>\nNearing his final hour, Jesus took the opportunity to instruct his disciples about future events, especially the end of the world. He reiterated the certainty of his return and mentioned various signs that would precede that coming (Mt 24–25; Mk 13; Lk 21). The purpose of this teaching was to provide a challenge to the disciples to be watchful (Mt 25:13) and diligent (vv 14-30). This section prepares the way for the events of the arrest, the trial, the scourging, and the cross carrying and crucifixion that followed soon after. But first we must note the importance of the Last Supper.<\/p>\nWhen Jesus sat at the table with his disciples on the night before he died, he wished to give them a simple means by which the significance of his death could be grasped (Mt 26:26-30; Mk 14:22-25; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 11:23-26). The use of the bread and wine for this purpose was a happy choice because they were basic elements in everyday life. Through this symbolic significance Jesus gave an interpretation of his approaching death—his body broken and his blood poured out for others. It was necessary for Jesus to provide this reminder that his sacrificial death would seal a completely new covenant. It was to be an authentic memorial to prevent the church from losing sight of the centrality of the cross.<\/p>\nJohn’s Gospel does not relate the institution of the Last Supper. Nevertheless, it does record a significant act in which Jesus washed the feet of the disciples as an example of humility (Jn 13:1-20). He impressed on the disciples the principle of service to others. John follows this display of humility with a series of teachings Jesus gave on the eve of the Passion (chs 14–16). The most important feature of this teaching was the promise of the coming of the Holy Spirit to the disciples after Jesus had gone. Even with his mind occupied by thoughts of approaching death, Jesus showed himself more concerned about his disciples than about himself. This is evident in the prayer of Jesus in John 17. All the Evangelists refer in advance to the betrayal by Judas (Mt 26:21-25; Mk 14:18-21; Lk 22:21-23; Jn 13:21-30), which prepares readers for the final stages of the way of Jesus to the cross.<\/p>\nThe Betrayal and Arrest<\/p>\nThere is a sense in which the whole gospel story has been working up to a climax of rejection. The various outbursts of popular support were soon over and the determined opposition emerged as seemingly in control. In John’s Gospel the sense of approaching climax is expressed in terms of “his hour” (Jn 13:1). When this at length comes, the betrayal and arrest are seen as part of a larger plan. From the upper room where the Last Supper was eaten, Jesus went straight to the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:36-46; Mk 14:32-42; Lk 22:40-46), where he prayed to his Father with deep intensity and agony. In this we see part of what it cost Jesus to identify himself with man’s need. He prayed for the cup of suffering to pass from him but at the same time submitted to the Father’s will. The three disciples he took with him all fell asleep, while one of his other disciples, having betrayed his master, appeared at the gates at the head of the group who had come to arrest him. At the moment of confrontation with Judas, Jesus exhibits an amazing dignity when he addressed the betrayer as his “friend” (Mt 26:50). He offered no resistance when he was arrested and chided the crowd of people for their swords and clubs (v 55).<\/p>\nThe Trial<\/p>\nJesus was first taken to the house of Annas, one of the high priests, for a preliminary examination (Jn 18:13). During his trial, he was scorned by his enemies, and one of his disciples, Peter, denied him three times (Mt 26:69-75; Mk 14:66-72; Lk 22:54-62; Jn 18:15-27), as Jesus predicted he would (Mt 26:34; Mk 14:30; Jn 13:38). The official trial before the Sanhedrin was presided over by Caiaphas, who was nonplussed when Jesus at first refused to speak. At length Jesus predicted that the Son of Man would come on the clouds of heaven; this was enough to make the high priest charge him with blasphemy (Mk 14:62-64). Although he was spat upon and his face was struck, Jesus remained calm and dignified. He showed how much greater he was than those who were treating him with contempt.<\/p>\nThe further examinations before Pilate (Mt 27:1-2; Mk 15:1; Lk 23:1; Jn 18:28) and Herod (Lk 23:7-12) were no better examples of impartial justice. Again Jesus did not answer when asked about the charges before either Pilate (Mt 27:14) or Herod (Lk 23:9). He remained majestically silent, except to make a comment to Pilate about the true nature of his kingship (Jn 18:33-38). The pathetic governor declared Jesus innocent, offered the crowds the release of either Jesus or Barabbas, and then publicly disclaimed responsibility by washing his hands. Pilate then cruelly scourged Jesus and handed him over to be crucified. This judge has ever since been judged by the prisoner.<\/p>\n\nThe Crucifixion<\/p>\nThe reader of this scene cannot help but see man’s inhumanity to man—even the man of all men, Jesus Christ. The soldiers’ ribald mockery of Jesus (Mt 27:27-30), mixing a royal robe with a hurtful crown of thorns (Mk 15:17), compelling a passerby to carry the cross (Lk 23:26), the cruel procedure of nailing Jesus to the cross, the callous casting of lots for his garment (Jn 19:23-24), and the scornful challenge to him to use his power to escape (Mt 27:40-44)—all expose the cruelty of Jesus opponents. But against this is Jesus’ concern about the repentant criminal who was crucified with him (Lk 23:39-43), his concern for his mother (Jn 19:25-27), his prayer for forgiveness for those responsible for the Crucifixion (Lk 23:34), and his final triumphant cry (Mk 15:37)—all of which show a nobility of mind that contrasted strongly with the meanness of those about him. A few observers showed a better appreciation, like the centurion who was convinced of Jesus’ innocence (Mk 15:39) and the women who followed him and stood at a distance (Mt 27:55-56). There was one dark moment, as far as Jesus was concerned—his forsaken cry, which quickly passed (Mk 15:34). There was an accompanying darkness and an earthquake, as if nature itself were acknowledging the significance of the event. Even the temple veil was torn in two, as if it had no longer any right to bar the way into the Holy of Holies (Mt 27:51).<\/p>\nThe Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension<\/p>\nJesus’ body was placed in a tomb that belonged to Joseph of Arimathea, who was assisted by Nicodemus in laying the body to rest (Mt 27:57-60; Jn 19:39). But the tomb played only an incidental part in the resurrection. The Evangelists concentrate on the appearances of Jesus not only on the day of resurrection but also subsequently. The disciples were convinced that Jesus was alive. Some, like Thomas, had doubts to overcome (Jn 20:24-29). Others, like John, were more ready to believe when they saw the empty tomb (vv 2-10). It is not without significance that the first to see the risen Lord was a woman, Mary Magdalene (Mt 27:61; 28:1, 5-9), whose presence at the cross put to shame those disciples who had run away (Mt 26:56; Jn 19:25).<\/p>\nWe may note that in his glorified, risen state Jesus was in a human form, although he was not at once recognized (Jn 20:15-16). There was a definite continuity with the Jesus the disciples had known. The appearances were occasions of both joy and instruction (cf. Lk 24:44 and Acts 1:3). The resurrection, in fact, had transformed the Crucifixion from a tragedy into a triumph. Forty days after his resurrection, Jesus ascended into heaven to join his Father in glory (Lk 24:51; Jn 20:17; Acts 1:9-11).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JESUS CHRIST<\/h3>\nMessiah, Savior, and founder of the Christian church.<\/p>\nIn providing a biography of Jesus Christ it must be borne in mind that each of the Gospels has its own distinctive purpose. Matthew, for instance, presents Jesus as the messianic King, whereas the emphasis in Mark is more on Jesus as the servant of all. Luke tends to present Jesus in a softer light, showing particularly his amazing compassion to the less fortunate, whereas John plunges the reader into a deeper and more spiritual understanding of Jesus. These different aims caused the four Evangelists to select and arrange the events of Jesus’ life differently, resulting in a fourfold portrait of the same man. It was undoubtedly for this reason that the Christian church preserved four Gospels instead of only one.<\/p>\nThe following sections present the main events in what may be regarded as the chief stages of the life of Jesus. These stages show a definite progression from Christ’s incarnation to his cross. The amount of space devoted to each stage in each of the Gospels is dictated by theological rather than biographical interest. The whole presentation of Christ’s life centers on the cross and the subsequent triumphant resurrection and is more an account of God’s message to humanity than a plain historic account of the life of Jesus.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Incarnation<\/p>\n• The Birth of Jesus<\/p>\n• Life in Nazareth<\/p>\n• Preparatory Events<\/p>\n• The Early Ministry of Jesus in Judea and Samaria<\/p>\n• The Period of the Galilean Ministry<\/p>\n• On the Way to Jerusalem<\/p>\n• The Final Days in Jerusalem<\/p>\n• The Betrayal and Arrest<\/p>\n• The Trial<\/p>\n• The Crucifixion<\/p>\n• The Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension<\/p>\nThe Incarnation<\/p>\nThe major event of this initial stage was the Incarnation. Only Matthew and Luke give accounts of Jesus’ birth. John goes back and reflects on what preceded the birth.<\/p>\nIt may seem strange that John began his Gospel with a reference to the Word (Jn 1:1), but it is in this way that he delivers to the reader an exalted view of Jesus. John saw Jesus as existing even before the creation of the world (v 2). In fact, he saw him as having a part in the act of creation (v 3). Therefore, when Jesus was born, it was both an act of humiliation and an act of illumination. The light shone, but the world preferred to remain in darkness (vv 4-5, 10). Therefore, anyone coming to John’s records of the life of Jesus would know at once, before even being introduced to the man named Jesus, that here was the record of no ordinary man. The account of his life and teachings that followed could not be properly understood except against this background of his preexistence.<\/p>\nThe Birth of Jesus<\/p>\nJohn simply wrote that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Matthew and Luke fill in some of the details of how this happened. There is little in common between the two accounts. Each approaches the subject from a different point of view, but the supernatural is evident in both. The coming of Jesus is announced beforehand, through dreams to Joseph in Matthew’s account (Mt 1:20-21) and through an angel to Mary in Luke’s account (Lk 1:26-33). Matthew leaves his readers in no doubt that the one to be born had a mission to accomplish—to save people from their sins (Mt 1:21). Luke sets his story of Jesus’ coming in an atmosphere of great rejoicing. This is seen in the inclusion of some exquisite songs, which have formed part of the church’s worship ever since (Lk 1:46-55, 68-79). The homage of the wise men in Matthew 2:1-12 is significant because it sets the scene for a universalistic emphasis that links the beginning of the Gospel to its ending (cf. Mt 28:19-20). A similar emphasis is introduced in the angel’s announcement to the shepherds in Luke 2:14 and in Simeon’s song (Lk 2:32), where he predicts that Jesus would be a light for Gentiles as well as a glory for Israel. The flight into Egypt for safety (Mt 2:13-15) shows the contribution of a gentile nation in providing protection for a Jewish child.<\/p>\nOne feature of the birth stories in Matthew and Luke is that they are both linked to genealogies. It is difficult to harmonize these genealogies since they appear to be drawn from different sources, but the purpose in both cases is to show that Jesus was descended from Abraham and David. The latter fact gave rise to Jesus’ title Son of David.<\/p>\nLuke was the only Gospel writer who attempted to link the coming of Jesus with events in secular history. Although problems arise over the dating of the census of Quirinius (Lk 2:1-2), the firm setting of the contemporary scene is highly significant because the Christian faith is a historic faith centered on a historic person.<\/p>\nLife in Nazareth<\/p>\nThe years of Jesus Christ’s human development are given only a few lines in the Gospels. Details are given of only one incident belonging to the period of childhood, the discussion of the 12-year-old Jesus with the Jewish teachers in the temple (Lk 2:41-50). This event is a pointer to one of the most characteristic features of Jesus’ later ministry: his display of irrefutable wisdom in dialogue with his Jewish contemporaries. It also reveals that at an early age Jesus was acutely aware of a divine mission. Nevertheless, Luke notes that in Jesus’ formative years he was obedient to his parents (v 51). It is assumed that during 30 years at Nazareth Jesus learned the carpenter’s trade from Joseph and became the village carpenter after Joseph’s death. However, there is no account of this period in the Gospels. This has led to many fantastic imaginings about Jesus’ childhood. Many of these fables are recorded in apocryphal gospels, but Luke’s account is unembellished. Its remarkable reserve is a strong indication of its historical reliability.<\/p>\nPreparatory Events<\/p>\nAll four Gospels refer to a brief preparatory period that immediately preceded the commencement of Christ’s public ministry. This period focused on three important events.<\/p>\n<h5>The Preaching of John the Baptist<\/h5>\nJohn the Baptist appeared in the wilderness and caused an immediate stir in Judea, particularly as a result of his call to repentance and to baptism (Mt 3:1-6). John was like one of the OT prophets, but he disclaimed any importance in his own office except as the herald of a greater person to come. His stern appearance and uncompromising moral challenge effectively prepared the way for the public appearance of Jesus (Lk 3:4-6). It is important to note that John the Baptist’s announcement of the imminent coming of the kingdom (Mt 3:2) was the same theme with which Jesus began his own ministry (4:17). This shows that John the Baptist’s work was an integral part of the preparation for the public ministry of Jesus. The same may be said of the rite of baptism, although John recognized that Jesus would add a new dimension in that he would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (3:11). As the forerunner of Jesus Christ, John proclaimed that the one to follow would not only be greater than he but would also come with high standards of judgment (v 12). The stage was therefore set in stern terms for the initial public act of Jesus—his willingness to be baptized (Mt 3:13-15; Lk 3:21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Baptism of Jesus<\/h5>\nJohn’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. Since Jesus submitted to this, are we to suppose that Jesus himself needed to repent? If this were the case, it would involve the assumption that Jesus had sinned. This is contrary to other evidence in the NT. But if Jesus did not need to repent, what was the point of his requesting baptism at the hands of John? Jesus had come on a mission to others, and it is possible that he deliberately submitted to John’s baptism in order to show that he was prepared to take the place of others. This explanation is in line with Paul’s later understanding of the work of Jesus Christ (2 Cor 5:21). Matthew is the one Evangelist who records John’s hesitation to baptize Jesus (Mt 3:14-15).<\/p>\nThe most important part of the baptism of Jesus was the heavenly voice, which declared pleasure in the beloved Son (Mt 3:17). This announcement by God was the real starting point of the public ministry of Jesus. It revealed that the ministry was no accident or sudden inspiration on the part of Jesus. He went into his work with the full approval of the Father. A further important feature is the part played by the Holy Spirit in this scene. The dovelike description is full of symbolic meaning (v 16). It was not just an inner experience that Jesus had. The activity of the Spirit in the ministry of Jesus, although not much emphasized in the Gospels, is nevertheless sufficiently evident to be indispensable to a true understanding of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temptation of Jesus<\/h5>\nJesus’ baptism showed the nature of his mission. The temptation showed the nature of the environment in which he was to minister (Mt 4:1; Lk 4:1-2). Confrontation with adverse spiritual forces characterized Jesus’ whole ministry. Only Matthew and Luke record details of the temptations to which Jesus was subjected by the devil. All these temptations present shortcuts that, if pursued, would have deflected Jesus from his vocation. The record leaves us in no doubt that Jesus gained the victory. Both Gospels show that he accomplished this by appealing to Scripture. Jesus is also seen in this event as a genuine human who, like all other humans, was subject to temptation. The writer of the Letter to the Hebrews notes that this fact qualified Jesus to act as High Priest and to intercede on behalf of his people (Heb 2:18; 4:15).<\/p>\nThe Early Ministry of Jesus in Judea and Samaria<\/p>\nOnly John’s Gospel tells of the work of Jesus in Judea following his baptism. It first describes his calling of two disciples, John and Andrew (Jn 1:35-39). This event is set against the background of John the Baptist’s announcement of Jesus as the Lamb of God who was to take away the sin of the world (v 29). These first two disciples were soon joined by three others: Peter, Philip, and Nathanael (vv 41-51). These five formed part of the nucleus of Jesus’ followers who came to be known as the Twelve. One feature of John’s account is the early recognition by the disciples of Jesus as Messiah (Jn 1:41) and Son of God (v 49).<\/p>\nSoon after Jesus began his ministry in Jerusalem, John relates an incident at Cana in Galilee in which water was turned into wine (Jn 2:1-10). This event is important in John’s account because it is the first of the signs that he records (v 11). He saw Jesus’ miracles as “signs” of the truth of the gospel rather than as mere wonders.<\/p>\nJohn sets two incidents at Jerusalem in this initial period. The first is the cleansing of the temple (Jn 2:13-16). Matthew, Mark, and Luke all place this event just before Jesus’ trial, but John places it at this early stage. The moral intention of Jesus’ work is seen in his driving out the money changers who were profiting from worshipers more than was appropriate. This was apparently acceptable to Judaism but was unacceptable to Jesus. The other Evangelists imply that this authoritative act was the event that sparked the final hostility of his opponents. John tells the story for a theological reason; to him, the cleansing of the temple was a parable telling of what Jesus had come to do.<\/p>\nThe other incident in Jerusalem is the meeting between Jesus and Nicodemus (Jn 3). Nicodemus was closely associated with Judaism, yet he was also searching for truth. He was unable to understand, however, the spiritual truth about being born again through the Spirit.<\/p>\nJohn’s story then moves from Judea to Samaria and the story of the Samaritan woman at the well (Jn 4:1-42). Jesus used her physical thirst to point to her deeper spiritual thirst. She realized that Jesus had something to offer her that she had not previously known. As a result of this woman’s experience and testimony, many of the Samaritan people came to believe in Jesus as the Savior of the world (v 42). In this case John intends that his readers would appreciate the fuller significance of the words of Jesus by viewing them in the light of the resurrection.<\/p>\nThe Period of the Galilean Ministry<\/p>\n\nAlmost all the information on this period is found in the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke.) It may be conveniently divided into three sections. The first briefly outlines the events leading up to the choosing of the Twelve; the second deals with Jesus’ withdrawal from northern Galilee; and the third deals with his departure for Jerusalem. While the synoptic Gospels concentrate exclusively on the events in Galilee, John’s account indicates that there were some visits by Jesus to Jerusalem during this period. Also, John records another incident at Cana, where the son of a Capernaum official was healed. This is noted as the second of Jesus’ signs (Jn 4:54). It is chiefly important because of the extraordinary faith of the father, who was prepared to take Jesus at his word.<\/p>\n<h5>The Calling of the Disciples<\/h5>\nIn the synoptic Gospels there is an account of the initial call to four of the disciples to leave their fishing boats and to become fishers of men (Mt 4:18-22; Mk 1:16-20; Lk 5:1-11). They had already met Jesus and must have had some idea what was involved in following him. Jesus did not at this time appoint them to be apostles, but this call was an indispensable step toward the establishment of the Twelve as a group. Setting apart a particular number of disciples formed an important part of the ministry of Jesus. The miraculous catch of fish, which preceded the call of the disciples in Luke’s account, served to highlight the superiority of the spiritual task of catching people rather than fish.<\/p>\nAnother significant call came to Levi, otherwise known as Matthew (Mt 9:9; Mk 2:13-14; Lk 5:27-28). As a tax collector, he was of a different type from most of the other disciples. He would certainly have been despised by his Jewish contemporaries because of his profession. But his inclusion in the special circle of Jesus’ disciples shows the broad basis on which these men were chosen. One of the others, Simon the Zealot, may have belonged to a group of revolutionaries who were religious as well as political. Even a man like Judas Iscariot was numbered among the Twelve, and he would later betray Jesus to his enemies for a small sum of money. Jesus accepted them as they were and molded them into men who later came to learn how to be totally dependent on God and the power of his Spirit.<\/p>\n<h5>Sermon on the Mount<\/h5>\nThe Gospel of Matthew presents a substantial sample of Jesus’ teachings commonly called the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:1–7:29). Some of the same material occurs in Luke in a different context and different arrangement. It is possible that Jesus often repeated his teachings on different occasions and with different combinations. Matthew’s record of the Sermon on the Mount presents an impressive body of teaching, mainly of an ethical character. In it Jesus upholds the Mosaic law and at the same time goes beyond it. The beginning of this sermon has been called the Beatitudes (5:3-12). It commends moral and spiritual values. The teachings recorded in this section were radical, but not in a political sense. The Sermon on the Mount may be taken as a fair sample of the kind of discourses that must have abounded in the ministry of Jesus.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus as Healer<\/h5>\nThroughout the Gospels there are records of miracles involving Jesus healing people. There are more of these miracles than any other type. In a section in Matthew devoted to a sequence of healings (Mt 8:1–9:34), a leper, a centurion’s servant, Peter’s mother-in-law, a demoniac, a paralytic, a woman with a hemorrhage, blind men, and a man who was mute—all were healed. In addition, Jairus’s daughter was raised from the dead. This concentration of healings focuses on Jesus as a miracle worker, but throughout the Gospels there is no suggestion that Jesus healed by magical means. In some cases an individual’s faith was acknowledged (8:10; 9:22). In at least one incident, the healing was accompanied by an announcement of the forgiveness of the sins of the one healed (Mt 9:2; Mk 2:5). This shows that Jesus considered spiritual needs to be of greater consequence than the physical problems.<\/p>\nIn view of the widespread belief in the powerful influence of evil spirits over human lives, it is of great significance that Jesus is seen exercising his power of exorcism over demons. Jesus’ ministry was set in an atmosphere of spiritual conflict, so the confrontations between the forces of darkness and the Light of the World were to be expected. Those who explain away these cases of demon-possession in psychiatric terms miss this key feature of Jesus’ ministry. Each time he exorcised a demon, he was demonstrating victory, which reached its most dramatic expression in his victory over death at his resurrection.<\/p>\nIn addition to the healing miracles in this early section, one nature miracle is recorded, that of the stilling of the storm (Mt 8:23-27; Mk 4:35-41; Lk 8:22-25). This miracle focused both on the lack of faith in the disciples and the mysterious power of the presence of Jesus.<\/p>\n<h5>The Reaction to Jesus by His Contemporaries<\/h5>\nIn the early stages of his ministry, Jesus was very popular with the ordinary people. There are several notices to this effect (Mt 4:23-25; Mk 3:7-8). This popularity showed no appreciation of the spiritual purpose of Jesus’ mission (Lk 13:17). Nevertheless, it stands in stark contrast to the nit-picking opposition of the religious leaders, who even plotted to kill Jesus in the early period of his ministry (Mk 3:6).<\/p>\nJesus and the religious leaders often clashed over the observance of the Sabbath (Mt 12:1-14; Lk 13:10-17; Jn 5:9-18). Jesus adopted a more liberal view than the rigid and often illogical interpretation of some of his religious contemporaries—as in the instances when he was criticized for healing on the Sabbath even though the Jewish law allowed the rescuing of trapped animals on the Sabbath (Mt 12:11; Lk 13:15). To the Pharisaic mind, Jesus was a lawbreaker. The Pharisees feared that it would undermine their authority if his teaching were permitted to permeate popular opinion.<\/p>\n<h5>Preparing the Twelve<\/h5>\nThe synoptic Gospels supply lists of the names of the 12 apostles (Mt 10:2-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16). Both Matthew and Mark name them in the context of their exercising authority over evil spirits, thereby showing that these men were being called to enter the same spiritual conflict as Jesus.<\/p>\nThe synoptic Gospels also give details of the instructions Jesus gave to these disciples before sending them to minister in Israel (Mt 10:5-42; Mk 6:7-13; Lk 9:1-6). Matthew included material in his discourse that appears in a different context in Mark and Luke, but the discourse still shows the concern of Jesus to prepare his disciples for their future work. They were to proclaim the kingdom as he had done, but they were not to suppose that all would respond to it. They were warned about coming hostility and even persecution. It is important to note that Jesus warned his disciples against encumbering themselves with material possessions. Although the instructions given related immediately to a ministry tour, he was laying the foundation for the future work of the church.<\/p>\n<h5>The Relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist<\/h5>\nFor a while there were parallel preaching and parallel baptisms by John the Baptist with his followers and Jesus with his disciples (Jn 4:1-2). After John the Baptist was imprisoned by Herod because of his uncompromising condemnation of Herod’s marriage to Herodias, his brother’s wife (Mt 14:3-4), John began to have doubts about Jesus (Mt 11:1-19; Lk 7:18-35). He may have been expecting Jesus, if he really was the Messiah, to come to his rescue. When John sent his disciples to Jesus to express his doubts, Jesus took the opportunity to tell the crowds of the greatness of John the Baptist. He said there was none born of women who was greater than John.<\/p>\n<h5>Various Controversies<\/h5>\nJesus did not hesitate to confront his contemporaries on issues that involved moral or religious questions. The controversy recorded in John’s Gospel concerning the keeping of the Sabbath that arose when a lame man was healed on that day (Jn 5:1-18) shows once again that ritual observance of the Sabbath was regarded as of greater importance than a compassionate concern for the physical welfare of the lame man. This was typical of the Jewish approach and led at once to a persecuting attitude toward Jesus, particularly because he claimed to be doing the work of God.<\/p>\nA similar conflict arose after Jesus’ disciples had plucked grain in the fields on the Sabbath day (Mt 12:1-8). The Pharisees assumed that this act constituted work and saw it as a sufficient reason to plot how to destroy Jesus. After this event, he healed a paralytic on the same Sabbath day (vv 9-14). The Jewish leaders clearly regarded him as a direct threat to their position among the people.<\/p>\nThe rising opposition did not deter Jesus from further healings (Mt 12:15-32), which Matthew depicts as the fulfillment of Scripture. But when Jesus healed a blind and mute demoniac, the Pharisees charged him with casting out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of the demons. Jesus told them that to blaspheme the Holy Spirit was an unforgivable sin. This incident not only brings out the perversity of the religious leaders but also shows that the ministry of Jesus was under the direct control of the Spirit. Other notable miracles were the healing of the centurion’s servant, as recorded by Luke (Lk 7:1-10), and the raising from the dead of the widow’s son at Nain (vv 11-17). The former of these is notable because of the remarkable faith of a Gentile.<\/p>\nAnother example of the Pharisees’ criticism was when Jesus attended a meal in Simon the Pharisee’s house (Lk 7:36-50). His host had not provided for the usual courtesies toward guests and yet was critical of Jesus for allowing an immoral woman to wash his feet with tears, dry them with her hair, and anoint them with ointment. There is no doubt that most of Simon’s colleagues would have shared his reaction, but Jesus did not stop the woman because he knew that the motive impelling her to do it was love. He told Simon a parable to press home his point.<\/p>\nJohn records two visits by Jesus to Jerusalem. These are difficult to date, but they probably occurred during the early period of the ministry. He attended the Feast of Tabernacles (Jn 7:2) and the Feast of Dedication (10:22). At these times Jesus taught in the temple area and entered into dialogue with the religious leaders. The chief priests became alarmed at his presence and sent officers to arrest him (7:32). They were unable to do so; instead, they themselves were captivated by his teachings. More discussions with the Jewish leaders followed. They charged Jesus with being demon-possessed (8:48). Both in this case and in the event of the healing of the blind man (ch 9), the hostility of the Jewish leaders to Jesus surfaces. When Jesus spoke of himself as the Shepherd, his teaching again raised the anger of his Jewish hearers, who took up stones to kill him (10:31).<\/p>\n<h5>Teaching in Parables<\/h5>\nMatthew’s Gospel gives a sample of a continuous discourse by Jesus (Mt 5:1–7:29), but Jesus more often spoke in parables. Matthew collected into a group some of the parables that concern the theme of the kingdom (ch 13). Luke tends to preserve parables of a different kind that are not specially linked to the kingdom. Mark has the least number of parables among the synoptic Gospels, but his writing shows little interest in Jesus as a teacher. John does not relate any parables, although he does preserve two allegories—the Sheepfold and the Vine—which could be regarded as extended parables. The parable was a form of teaching particularly characteristic of Jesus. In addition, Jesus interspersed even his discourses with metaphors akin to the parabolic form. The parable was valuable because it could stimulate thought and challenge the hearer. This is because the form of the parable is easy to retain in the mind. Jesus did not speak in parables in order to obscure his meaning. This would be contrary to all that he aimed to do through his work and teaching.<\/p>\n<h5>Significant Events in Galilee<\/h5>\nIn Nazareth there was a striking instance of the unwillingness to respond to the ministry of Jesus. The people of his hometown proved so hostile that he could perform very few miracles there (Mt 13:53-58; Mk 6:1-6). This incident is important because it shows that faith was especially necessary for people to receive his healing miracles.<\/p>\nThe one miracle performed by Jesus that all four Evangelists describe is the feeding of the 5,000 (Mt 14:13-21; Mk 6:30-44; Lk 9:10-17; Jn 6:1-15). This occasion shows the great popularity of Jesus at this stage of his ministry. It also reveals that he was not unmindful of the physical needs of people. After this miracle, some wanted to make Jesus king. This casts considerable light on their real motives. They were more concerned with material and political expediency than with spiritual truth. This is why Jesus immediately withdrew from them. When the people found him the next day, he proceeded to instruct them about the spiritual bread that comes from heaven (Jn 6:25-40).<\/p>\nAt this point in John’s Gospel, Jesus is often seen in dialogue with his opponents. This style of teaching is different from the synoptic parables but familiar in Jewish-style debate. Many of the people found the spiritual themes in the teaching of Jesus too difficult to accept and consequently ceased to be his disciples (Jn 6:51-52, 60, 66). This incident demonstrates the unique challenge presented by Jesus and his teaching. Another miracle closely linked with this is when Jesus walked on the water, demonstrating his power in the natural world. Many have sought to rationalize the event by supposing that Jesus was really walking on the shore, and that the disciples did not realize this in the haze. But this miracle is no more extraordinary than the massive multiplication of loaves and fishes, nor is it inconceivable if the miracle worker was all that he claimed to be.<\/p>\n<h5>Leaving Northern Galilee<\/h5>\nJesus spent a brief time in the region of Tyre and Sidon, where he performed further healings and made it clear that his main mission was to the house of Israel (Mt 15:21-28). He then moved on to Caesarea Philippi; this was the turning point of his ministry (Mt 16:13-20; Mk 8:27-38; Lk 9:18-27). It was there that Jesus asked his disciples: “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” This caused Peter to confess: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This impressive confession led Jesus to promise that he would build his church on “this rock.” There has been much discussion about the meaning of this saying. It is open to some doubt whether Jesus intended to build his church on Peter, on his confession, or on Peter making the confession. Historically, Peter was the instrument God used for the entrance into the church of both Jews and Gentiles (Acts 2, 10). There is no doubt about Jesus’ intention to found a church, since the word occurs again in Matthew 18:17. Despite the glorious revelation of Jesus on this occasion, he took it as an opportunity to begin to inform his disciples of his death and resurrection (Mt 16:21-23).<\/p>\nThis revelation of Jesus was considerably reinforced by the event known as the Transfiguration, when Jesus was transformed in the presence of three of his disciples (Mt 17:1-8). It was natural for them to want to keep this glorious vision of Jesus for themselves, but the vision vanished as rapidly as it came. Its purpose was evidently to show the three leading disciples something of the nature of Jesus, which was obscured by his normal human form. A further feature of the vision was the appearance with Jesus of Moses and Elijah, representatives of the Law and the Prophets.<\/p>\nAfter the Transfiguration, Jesus made two predictions concerning his approaching death. These announcements were a total perplexity to the disciples. In Matthew 16, when Jesus mentioned his death, Peter attempted to rebuke Jesus and was rebuked by Jesus in kind. When Jesus mentioned his death again in chapter 17, Matthew noted that the disciples were greatly distressed (Mt 17:23), while Mark and Luke mentioned the disciples’ lack of understanding (Mk 9:32; Lk 9:45). Jesus was approaching the cross with no support from those closest to him. It is not surprising that when the hour arrived they all forsook him.<\/p>\nAfter the Transfiguration revealed that Jesus was greater than Moses and Elijah and in fact was the beloved Son of God, he was asked to pay the temple tax (Mt 17:24-27). This incident illustrates the attitude of Jesus toward the authorities and practical responsibilities. He paid the tax, although he did not acknowledge any obligation to do so. The method of payment was extraordinary, for it involved the miracle of the coin in the fish. But the greater importance of the incident is the light it throws on Jesus’ independence from the Jewish law.<\/p>\nLuke devotes more than half his Gospel to the period that begins with Jesus leaving Galilee and ends with his death and resurrection in Jerusalem. In this section of his Gospel, Luke introduces a great deal of material that does not occur elsewhere. We can do no more than summarize some of the more striking items that throw light on the life of Jesus.<\/p>\nIn addition to the mission of the Twelve, Luke records the mission of the Seventy (or Seventy-two—see Lk 10:17-20). Special parables are recorded by Luke in this section—the Good Samaritan (vv 29-37), the lost sheep (15:3-7), the lost coin (vv 8-10), and the prodigal son (vv 11-32). As Jesus moved toward Jerusalem, he was concerned with developing the spiritual life of his disciples. He was mindful of the fact that he would not be with them long and wished to prepare them for the future. He taught them about prayer (11:1-13), the Father’s care for them (12:13-34), and preparation for the coming of the Son of Man (vv 35-56).<\/p>\nOn the Way to Jerusalem<\/p>\nOn the approach to Jerusalem, Jesus visited both Jericho and Bethany. At Jericho he healed Bartimaeus (Lk 18:35-43) and had a fruitful encounter with Zacchaeus, who reformed his ways as a tax collector (19:1-10). Bethany was the home of Mary, Martha, and their brother, Lazarus, whom Jesus had raised from the dead (Jn 11). Jesus spent his remaining days in Jerusalem but returned each night to stay at Simon the Leper’s house in Bethany in the presence of those who loved him (Mt 26:6). It was there that a woman anointed his body with costly ointment. This was a controversial and prophetic act preparing Jesus for his burial and enhancing the gospel with loving consecration (vv 6-13).<\/p>\n\nThe Final Days in Jerusalem<\/p>\nAll four Gospels relate the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem (Mt 21:1-11; Mk 11:1-10; Lk 19:29-38; Jn 12:12-15). At this time multitudes greeted Jesus with praises acclaiming him as their king. This welcome stands in stark contrast with the crowd’s later cry for his crucifixion. In fact, it was the second crowd that was doing God’s bidding, since Jesus had not come to Jerusalem to reign but to die.<\/p>\nThe synoptic Gospels place the cleansing of the temple as the first main event following Jesus’ entry into the city (Mt 21:12-13; Mk 11:15-17; Lk 19:45-46). The clouds of opposition had been thickening, but the audacity of Jesus in clearing out the money changers from the temple area was too much for the authorities (Mk 11:18; Lk 19:47). The die was cast and the Crucifixion loomed closer.<\/p>\nIt was during this period that further controversies developed between Jesus and the Pharisees and Sadducees (Mt 21:23–22:45). In several cases trick questions were posed in order to trap Jesus, but with consummate skill he turned their questions against them. His opposers eventually reached the point where they dared not ask him any more questions (22:46).<\/p>\nNearing his final hour, Jesus took the opportunity to instruct his disciples about future events, especially the end of the world. He reiterated the certainty of his return and mentioned various signs that would precede that coming (Mt 24–25; Mk 13; Lk 21). The purpose of this teaching was to provide a challenge to the disciples to be watchful (Mt 25:13) and diligent (vv 14-30). This section prepares the way for the events of the arrest, the trial, the scourging, and the cross carrying and crucifixion that followed soon after. But first we must note the importance of the Last Supper.<\/p>\nWhen Jesus sat at the table with his disciples on the night before he died, he wished to give them a simple means by which the significance of his death could be grasped (Mt 26:26-30; Mk 14:22-25; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 11:23-26). The use of the bread and wine for this purpose was a happy choice because they were basic elements in everyday life. Through this symbolic significance Jesus gave an interpretation of his approaching death—his body broken and his blood poured out for others. It was necessary for Jesus to provide this reminder that his sacrificial death would seal a completely new covenant. It was to be an authentic memorial to prevent the church from losing sight of the centrality of the cross.<\/p>\nJohn’s Gospel does not relate the institution of the Last Supper. Nevertheless, it does record a significant act in which Jesus washed the feet of the disciples as an example of humility (Jn 13:1-20). He impressed on the disciples the principle of service to others. John follows this display of humility with a series of teachings Jesus gave on the eve of the Passion (chs 14–16). The most important feature of this teaching was the promise of the coming of the Holy Spirit to the disciples after Jesus had gone. Even with his mind occupied by thoughts of approaching death, Jesus showed himself more concerned about his disciples than about himself. This is evident in the prayer of Jesus in John 17. All the Evangelists refer in advance to the betrayal by Judas (Mt 26:21-25; Mk 14:18-21; Lk 22:21-23; Jn 13:21-30), which prepares readers for the final stages of the way of Jesus to the cross.<\/p>\nThe Betrayal and Arrest<\/p>\nThere is a sense in which the whole gospel story has been working up to a climax of rejection. The various outbursts of popular support were soon over and the determined opposition emerged as seemingly in control. In John’s Gospel the sense of approaching climax is expressed in terms of “his hour” (Jn 13:1). When this at length comes, the betrayal and arrest are seen as part of a larger plan. From the upper room where the Last Supper was eaten, Jesus went straight to the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:36-46; Mk 14:32-42; Lk 22:40-46), where he prayed to his Father with deep intensity and agony. In this we see part of what it cost Jesus to identify himself with man’s need. He prayed for the cup of suffering to pass from him but at the same time submitted to the Father’s will. The three disciples he took with him all fell asleep, while one of his other disciples, having betrayed his master, appeared at the gates at the head of the group who had come to arrest him. At the moment of confrontation with Judas, Jesus exhibits an amazing dignity when he addressed the betrayer as his “friend” (Mt 26:50). He offered no resistance when he was arrested and chided the crowd of people for their swords and clubs (v 55).<\/p>\nThe Trial<\/p>\nJesus was first taken to the house of Annas, one of the high priests, for a preliminary examination (Jn 18:13). During his trial, he was scorned by his enemies, and one of his disciples, Peter, denied him three times (Mt 26:69-75; Mk 14:66-72; Lk 22:54-62; Jn 18:15-27), as Jesus predicted he would (Mt 26:34; Mk 14:30; Jn 13:38). The official trial before the Sanhedrin was presided over by Caiaphas, who was nonplussed when Jesus at first refused to speak. At length Jesus predicted that the Son of Man would come on the clouds of heaven; this was enough to make the high priest charge him with blasphemy (Mk 14:62-64). Although he was spat upon and his face was struck, Jesus remained calm and dignified. He showed how much greater he was than those who were treating him with contempt.<\/p>\nThe further examinations before Pilate (Mt 27:1-2; Mk 15:1; Lk 23:1; Jn 18:28) and Herod (Lk 23:7-12) were no better examples of impartial justice. Again Jesus did not answer when asked about the charges before either Pilate (Mt 27:14) or Herod (Lk 23:9). He remained majestically silent, except to make a comment to Pilate about the true nature of his kingship (Jn 18:33-38). The pathetic governor declared Jesus innocent, offered the crowds the release of either Jesus or Barabbas, and then publicly disclaimed responsibility by washing his hands. Pilate then cruelly scourged Jesus and handed him over to be crucified. This judge has ever since been judged by the prisoner.<\/p>\n\nThe Crucifixion<\/p>\nThe reader of this scene cannot help but see man’s inhumanity to man—even the man of all men, Jesus Christ. The soldiers’ ribald mockery of Jesus (Mt 27:27-30), mixing a royal robe with a hurtful crown of thorns (Mk 15:17), compelling a passerby to carry the cross (Lk 23:26), the cruel procedure of nailing Jesus to the cross, the callous casting of lots for his garment (Jn 19:23-24), and the scornful challenge to him to use his power to escape (Mt 27:40-44)—all expose the cruelty of Jesus opponents. But against this is Jesus’ concern about the repentant criminal who was crucified with him (Lk 23:39-43), his concern for his mother (Jn 19:25-27), his prayer for forgiveness for those responsible for the Crucifixion (Lk 23:34), and his final triumphant cry (Mk 15:37)—all of which show a nobility of mind that contrasted strongly with the meanness of those about him. A few observers showed a better appreciation, like the centurion who was convinced of Jesus’ innocence (Mk 15:39) and the women who followed him and stood at a distance (Mt 27:55-56). There was one dark moment, as far as Jesus was concerned—his forsaken cry, which quickly passed (Mk 15:34). There was an accompanying darkness and an earthquake, as if nature itself were acknowledging the significance of the event. Even the temple veil was torn in two, as if it had no longer any right to bar the way into the Holy of Holies (Mt 27:51).<\/p>\nThe Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension<\/p>\nJesus’ body was placed in a tomb that belonged to Joseph of Arimathea, who was assisted by Nicodemus in laying the body to rest (Mt 27:57-60; Jn 19:39). But the tomb played only an incidental part in the resurrection. The Evangelists concentrate on the appearances of Jesus not only on the day of resurrection but also subsequently. The disciples were convinced that Jesus was alive. Some, like Thomas, had doubts to overcome (Jn 20:24-29). Others, like John, were more ready to believe when they saw the empty tomb (vv 2-10). It is not without significance that the first to see the risen Lord was a woman, Mary Magdalene (Mt 27:61; 28:1, 5-9), whose presence at the cross put to shame those disciples who had run away (Mt 26:56; Jn 19:25).<\/p>\nWe may note that in his glorified, risen state Jesus was in a human form, although he was not at once recognized (Jn 20:15-16). There was a definite continuity with the Jesus the disciples had known. The appearances were occasions of both joy and instruction (cf. Lk 24:44 and Acts 1:3). The resurrection, in fact, had transformed the Crucifixion from a tragedy into a triumph. Forty days after his resurrection, Jesus ascended into heaven to join his Father in glory (Lk 24:51; Jn 20:17; Acts 1:9-11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"JESUS CHRIST Messiah, Savior, and founder of the Christian church. In providing a biography of Jesus Christ it must be borne in mind that each of the Gospels has its own distinctive purpose. Matthew, for instance, presents Jesus as the messianic King, whereas the emphasis in Mark is more on Jesus as the servant of all. Luke tends to present Jesus in a softer light, showing particularly his amazing compassion to the less fortunate, whereas John plunges the reader into a deeper and more spiritu...","summary_en":"JESUS CHRIST Messiah, Savior, and founder of the Christian church. In providing a biography of Jesus Christ it must be borne in mind that each of the Gospels has its own distinctive purpose. Matthew, for instance, presents Jesus as the messianic King, whereas the emphasis in Mark is more on Jesus as the servant of all. Luke tends to present Jesus in a softer light, showing particularly his amazing compassion to the less fortunate, whereas John plunges the reader into a deeper and more spiritu...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20374,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"John the Baptist","title_en":"John the Baptist","content_ro":"<h3>JOHN THE BAPTIST<\/h3>\nForerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD<\/span> 29, while Jesus was still ministering.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\n• Appearance and Identity<\/p>\n• John’s Proclamation<\/p>\n• John’s Baptism<\/p>\n• John’s View of Jesus<\/p>\n• Jesus’ View of John<\/p>\n• Arrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\n• The Disciples of John<\/p>\nBirth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\nLuke’s Gospel is our only source of information concerning the birth and boyhood of John. The Gospel writer states that John was born in the hill country of Judah (Lk 1:39) of priestly descent, being the son of Zechariah, a priest of the order of Abijah, and Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron (v 5). Both parents were righteous in the sight of God, following all the commandments closely (v 6). Like the birth of Jesus, only to a much lesser degree, the birth of John the Baptist is described in Luke as extraordinary. The angel Gabriel announced the coming birth to Zechariah in the temple; to the older, barren Elizabeth it came as an answer to prayer (vv 8-13). John’s name is announced to Zechariah by the angel, even as his purpose as forerunner is revealed before birth (vv 13-17). Such a consecration from birth is reminiscent of the call of the OT prophet Jeremiah (cf. Jer 1:5).<\/p>\nThere existed some familial relationship between the families of John and Jesus. Elizabeth is described as a relative of Mary (Lk 1:36), which may connote cousin or aunt, or may only mean being from the same tribe.<\/p>\nJohn’s childhood, as that of Jesus, is left quite vague in the Gospel account. All that is said is that “John grew up and became strong in spirit. Then he lived out in the wilderness until he began his public ministry to Israel” (Lk 1:80, nlt<\/span>). Some scholars have suggested that John might have been adopted as a boy by the Essenes (as was their practice) at Qumran and reared in their wilderness community, adjacent to the Dead Sea and near the Jordan River. There are some similarities between the activities of the Qumran sect, known through the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the later ministry of John the Baptist. Both practiced a type of asceticism and removed themselves from the life of Jerusalem. Both practiced baptism and associated this rite with initiation and repentance. Finally, John and the Qumran group were both eschatologically minded, awaiting God’s final end-time activity in history. Nevertheless, many significant differences exist between John and the Qumran sect.<\/p>\nAppearance and Identity<\/p>\nMark’s Gospel begins with an account of John the Baptist’s appearance: “John the Baptist . . . lived in the wilderness and was preaching that people should be baptized to show that they had turned from their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Mk 1:4, nlt<\/span>). A rich OT background lies behind John’s association with the wilderness, in this case the wilderness of Judea. It was in the wilderness that God revealed himself to Moses (Ex 3), gave the law, and entered into the covenant with Israel (ch 19). It was also the site of refuge for David (1 Sm 23–26; Ps 63) and Elijah (1 Kgs 19), and in this light became the anticipated site of God’s future deliverance (Is 40:3-5; Ez 47:1-12; Hos 2:14-15).<\/p>\nThe unusual dress of John the Baptist—“clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist” (Mk 1:6, niv<\/span>)—may have suggested to his audience an association with Elijah in particular (2 Kgs 1:8) or with the prophets in general (Zec 13:4). His diet, “locusts and wild honey” (Mk 1:6), was Levitically clean, reflecting one who lived off the desert (such food was also eaten at Qumran) and formed part of the broader asceticism practiced by John and his disciples (Mt 9:14; 11:18).<\/p>\nWho did John understand himself to be? In answer to questions by the multitude whether he was the Messiah, Elijah, or the expected prophet (Jn 1:20-23), John only identified himself as “a voice crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord’ ” (Is 40:3). The background for the question lies at the end of the OT period. Prophecy, on the one hand, was considered to have ceased (Zec 13:2-6); yet, on the other hand, it was expected to appear again before the coming of the messianic kingdom (see Jl 2:28-29; Mal 3:1-4). Some anticipated this final prophet to be one who was like Moses (Dt 18:15), others a returning Elijah as foretold in Malachi 4:5-6. While John personally refrained from identifying himself with these specific expectations (Jn 1:20-23), it is clear that his dress, lifestyle, and message caused the people to identify him with this end-time prophet (Mt 14:5; Mk 11:32). Jesus also saw John as this final “Elijah-like” prophet (Mt 11:7-15), who from Malachi’s prophecy was to be a forerunner to the coming of the Lord (Mal 3:1-4; 4:5-6).<\/p>\nJohn’s Proclamation<\/p>\nJohn’s proclamation involved three elements: a warning of imminent judgment at the hands of the Coming One, a call for repentance in light of the coming kingdom of heaven, and a demand to express this repentance in concrete ethical terms. Many Jews looked forward confidently to the messianic judgment as a time of blessing for themselves and destruction for the gentile oppressors. John, however, warned that Jewish ancestry was false security in the coming judgment (Lk 3:8); true repentance was the only means of escaping destruction (Mt 3:2). John anticipated this judgment at the hands of the Coming One, who would baptize the nation with “the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Lk 3:16). Fire represented the OT means of destruction in the end time (Mal 4:1) as well as purification (Mal 3:1-4), while the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the end time connoted blessing (Is 32:15; Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28) and purification (Is 4:2-4). The judgment anticipated by John was therefore twofold: destruction for the unrepentant, and blessing for the penitent and righteous (Mt 3:12).<\/p>\nIn light of this imminent event John called for repentance on the part of his listeners (Mt 3:2), a true “turning back” or “turning toward” God in obedience that would bring forgiveness of sin. Such a turnabout in an individual’s relation with God should be lived out in one’s everyday dealings: fairness on the part of tax collectors (Lk 3:12-13) and soldiers (v 14), and the general requirement of compassion for the poor (vv 10-11).<\/p>\nJohn’s Baptism<\/p>\nThe Gospels record that John baptized those repentant of their sins at several locations: the Jordan River (Mk 1:5), Bethany beyond the Jordan (Jn 1:28), and Aenon near Salim (Jn 3:23). This practice was an integral part of John’s call for repentance, given in light of the approaching judgment and the appearance of the Coming One. The baptism of the penitent symbolized desire for forgiveness of sin, a renunciation of past life, and a desire to be included in the coming messianic kingdom.<\/p>\nWhat was the background for John’s practice of baptism? From the OT we know of ceremonial lustrations or washings that guaranteed ritual purity (Lv 14–15; Nm 19). Unlike John’s baptism, these washings were repetitive in nature and referred predominantly to ritual rather than moral cleansing. The prophets, however, urged a moral purification associated with the washing of water (Is 1:16-18; Jer 4:14). More significantly, the prophets anticipated a cleansing by God in the end times preceding the Day of Judgment (Ez 36:25; Zec 13:1; cf. Is 44:3), an eschatological element that John may have assumed was being fulfilled in his water baptism.<\/p>\nAnother precedent for John’s practice may have been proselyte baptism, a rite (along with circumcision and the offering of sacrifices) that constituted the conversion of a Gentile to Judaism. Common to both proselyte baptism and John’s baptism were the emphasis on an ethical break with the past, a once-for-all character, and the similarity of immersion. Notable differences were that John’s baptism was for Jews, not Gentile converts, and that it had a marked eschatological character as a preparation for the new age. Unless John, in light of the imminence of the messianic age, consciously treated all Jews as “pagan” in need of a baptism of repentance (cf. Mt 3:7-10), it is doubtful that proselyte baptism formed the primary background for John’s baptismal ministry.<\/p>\nIf John’s baptism had a clear association with the forgiveness of sin, the question naturally arises as to why Jesus, the Son of God, sought baptism from John. John himself asks this very question of Jesus (Mt 3:14), to which Jesus responds, “It must be done, because we must do everything that is right” (v 15, nlt<\/span>). First, it is clear that Jesus’ baptism represented an act of obedience on his part to God’s will as he saw it. Second, by submitting to the baptism of John, Jesus was clearly validating the ministry and message of John. The imminent coming of the kingdom and its Messiah, and the need for repentance in anticipation of this event that John proclaimed, were affirmed by Jesus through baptism. Third, by being baptized, Jesus condemned the self-righteous for their lack of repentance and took a stand with the penitent publicans and sinners awaiting the kingdom of God (Lk 7:29-30). Fourth, Jesus stepped forward for baptism not as an individual in need of forgiveness but as one who represented the people of God. His baptism, therefore, demonstrated solidarity with the people in their need of deliverance, even as he is judged in their place on the cross. Finally, the voice from heaven (Mk 1:11) and the descent of the Spirit (Lk 3:21-22) signify the inauguration of Jesus’ own ministry through his baptism by John.<\/p>\nJohn’s View of Jesus<\/p>\nThroughout his ministry John pointed beyond himself to one “who is far greater than I am—so much greater that I am not even worthy to be his slave” (Mk 1:7, nlt<\/span>). His self-understanding apparently sprang from the application of Isaiah 40:3 to himself, that he was the preparer or forerunner for God’s coming activity through the Messiah (Lk 3:4-6). When asked by curious spectators, John firmly denied that he was the Messiah, and according to the Gospel accounts, subordinated himself to the Coming One (Mk 1:7-8; Jn 1:26-28; 3:28-31). The coming of Jesus to baptism seems to represent the first time John identified these expectations with Jesus himself (Jn 1:35-36). His recognition of Jesus as the Messiah prior to baptism (Mt 3:14) was confirmed by the descent of the Holy Spirit as a dove and the voice from heaven quoting a phrase from an OT messianic psalm (Mk 1:11a, from Ps 2:7), together with a phrase from a Suffering Servant song of Isaiah (Mk 1:11b, from Is 42:1). In the fourth Gospel, John the Baptist goes even further in acknowledging Jesus to be the “Lamb of God” (Jn 1:29), in anticipation of Jesus’ sacrificial role on the cross. And John recognized him as “God’s Chosen One” (v 34, neb<\/span>—another term for the Messiah; Ps 2:7, see Mk 1:11).<\/p>\nIn light of John’s strong affirmation, it is at first difficult to understand his questioning of Jesus while imprisoned: “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?” (Mt 11:3, rsv<\/span>). Some have suggested that John was merely asking for the sake of his disciples, or that the question reflected John’s despondency with being imprisoned. It is more likely, however, that the question represents John’s own confusion with the activity expected of the Messiah. John had proclaimed a Coming One who would bring a baptism of fire and judgment upon the wicked (Lk 3:16). It may have been difficult for him to understand Jesus’ different emphases on forgiveness and acceptance of sinners (Mt 9:9-13) and his healing of the sick (Mt 8–9). When John’s disciples brought their master’s question to Jesus, asking whether or not he was the Messiah, Jesus responded by quoting Isaiah 35:5-6 (see also Is 61:1). This text proclaims the activities of healing and proclaiming salvation to the poor to be fulfillments of the Messiah’s role, even though they may not have been what John or countless other Jews expected.<\/p>\nJesus’ View of John<\/p>\nThat Jesus highly regarded John the Baptist is indicated by his baptism by John. It is also explicitly stated on several occasions. Jesus called him the greatest man to have ever lived (Lk 7:28). (Of course, he was not as great as Jesus, the God-man.) Jesus also said that John was a burning and shining lamp (Jn 5:33-35) and that he practiced a baptism divinely ordained (Lk 20:1-8).<\/p>\nJohn’s uniqueness, however, lies in the fact that he stood at the turning of the ages. He was the last of the old era, the period of the law and the prophets (Lk 16:16), which was to precede the coming of the messianic age (the kingdom of God). John was the last of the prophets, the greatest of them, the Elijah figure who would prepare the way for the judgment of God (Mt 11:13-15; Lk 1:17). Because John belonged to the era of the law and the prophets, however, he was not as great as the “least” already in the kingdom of God (Mt 11:11)—that is, those who belonged to the era of the kingdom’s appearance in Jesus.<\/p>\nArrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\nTo understand why John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas, one has to grasp the messianic excitement caused by John’s appearance and message (Lk 3:15-18). Herod and other secular rulers were obviously suspicious of anyone who might stir up the crowds with predictions of a coming messianic ruler. Other messianic movements had arisen before John, which resulted in outbreaks of violence against the Roman-Herodian rulership. Moreover, Herod Antipas was under heavy criticism for his marriage with Herodias, the ex-wife of his brother Philip. His first marriage, with the daughter of Aretus II, constituted a political alliance between the Herodian family and the Nabatean kingdom of Perea. His new relationship with Herodias was perceived as a breach of the political alliance and led to friction between the two families. John’s denunciation of Herod’s new marriage (Mt 14:3-12) could thus have been interpreted by Herod as a subversive rousing of sentiment against his authority. The Jewish historian Josephus states that Herod did, in fact, arrest John because he feared John’s influence over the crowds. According to Josephus, John was imprisoned at the fortress Machaerus on the eastern side of the Dead Sea. That he was not killed immediately was due to Herod’s personal fear of the righteous John (Mk 6:2) and of the people’s reaction (Mt 14:5). On a point about which Josephus is silent, the Gospels record that it was Herodias’s feelings against John (Mk 6:17) and her plot, through the dancing of her daughter, which brought about the beheading of John (vv 21-29). John was beheaded at Herodias’s request in approximately AD<\/span> 29 or 30.<\/p>\nThe Disciples of John<\/p>\nWhile it is clear that a band of disciples formed around John in his lifetime (Jn 1:35), to suggest that he intended to begin a continuing movement is contradicted by his message on the imminent Day of Judgment. Apparently, John’s disciples consisted of a small group of those who had been baptized by him and were awaiting the coming Messiah. Some transferred their loyalty to Jesus after John had identified Jesus as the Coming One (Jn 1:37). Others, however, apparently stayed on with their teacher, communicating with the imprisoned John concerning the activities of Jesus (Lk 7:18-23) and, after his death, taking the body for burial (Mk 6:29).<\/p>\nWe know little about the activities and practices of the band of disciples clustered around John. We do know, however, that fasting was one practice specifically associated with the group, and one that marked them as similar to the Pharisees (Mt 9:14). In this practice they no doubt followed the example of John himself (Lk 7:33). Prayer and fasting were often linked in late Judaism. The disciples of John were also known for the prayers taught by their master (11:1). Seeing this practice, the disciples of Jesus asked the Lord to teach them to pray, to which Jesus responded with the Lord’s Prayer (vv 2-4).<\/p>\nAfter his death it is likely that other disciples of John joined the followers of Jesus (see Lk 7:29-30). Not all did so, however, as disciples of John were encountered by Paul and other Christians approximately 25 years later in Ephesus (Acts 18:24–29:7). Upon hearing witness to Jesus, these followers of John proclaimed Jesus as Messiah. When Paul baptized them in the name of Jesus they received the Holy Spirit (19:4-7). Even so, it is apparent from later documents that various groups continued to honor John, even considering him the Messiah, centuries after the NT period.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JOHN THE BAPTIST<\/h3>\nForerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD<\/span> 29, while Jesus was still ministering.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\n• Appearance and Identity<\/p>\n• John’s Proclamation<\/p>\n• John’s Baptism<\/p>\n• John’s View of Jesus<\/p>\n• Jesus’ View of John<\/p>\n• Arrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\n• The Disciples of John<\/p>\nBirth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\nLuke’s Gospel is our only source of information concerning the birth and boyhood of John. The Gospel writer states that John was born in the hill country of Judah (Lk 1:39) of priestly descent, being the son of Zechariah, a priest of the order of Abijah, and Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron (v 5). Both parents were righteous in the sight of God, following all the commandments closely (v 6). Like the birth of Jesus, only to a much lesser degree, the birth of John the Baptist is described in Luke as extraordinary. The angel Gabriel announced the coming birth to Zechariah in the temple; to the older, barren Elizabeth it came as an answer to prayer (vv 8-13). John’s name is announced to Zechariah by the angel, even as his purpose as forerunner is revealed before birth (vv 13-17). Such a consecration from birth is reminiscent of the call of the OT prophet Jeremiah (cf. Jer 1:5).<\/p>\nThere existed some familial relationship between the families of John and Jesus. Elizabeth is described as a relative of Mary (Lk 1:36), which may connote cousin or aunt, or may only mean being from the same tribe.<\/p>\nJohn’s childhood, as that of Jesus, is left quite vague in the Gospel account. All that is said is that “John grew up and became strong in spirit. Then he lived out in the wilderness until he began his public ministry to Israel” (Lk 1:80, nlt<\/span>). Some scholars have suggested that John might have been adopted as a boy by the Essenes (as was their practice) at Qumran and reared in their wilderness community, adjacent to the Dead Sea and near the Jordan River. There are some similarities between the activities of the Qumran sect, known through the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the later ministry of John the Baptist. Both practiced a type of asceticism and removed themselves from the life of Jerusalem. Both practiced baptism and associated this rite with initiation and repentance. Finally, John and the Qumran group were both eschatologically minded, awaiting God’s final end-time activity in history. Nevertheless, many significant differences exist between John and the Qumran sect.<\/p>\nAppearance and Identity<\/p>\nMark’s Gospel begins with an account of John the Baptist’s appearance: “John the Baptist . . . lived in the wilderness and was preaching that people should be baptized to show that they had turned from their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Mk 1:4, nlt<\/span>). A rich OT background lies behind John’s association with the wilderness, in this case the wilderness of Judea. It was in the wilderness that God revealed himself to Moses (Ex 3), gave the law, and entered into the covenant with Israel (ch 19). It was also the site of refuge for David (1 Sm 23–26; Ps 63) and Elijah (1 Kgs 19), and in this light became the anticipated site of God’s future deliverance (Is 40:3-5; Ez 47:1-12; Hos 2:14-15).<\/p>\nThe unusual dress of John the Baptist—“clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist” (Mk 1:6, niv<\/span>)—may have suggested to his audience an association with Elijah in particular (2 Kgs 1:8) or with the prophets in general (Zec 13:4). His diet, “locusts and wild honey” (Mk 1:6), was Levitically clean, reflecting one who lived off the desert (such food was also eaten at Qumran) and formed part of the broader asceticism practiced by John and his disciples (Mt 9:14; 11:18).<\/p>\nWho did John understand himself to be? In answer to questions by the multitude whether he was the Messiah, Elijah, or the expected prophet (Jn 1:20-23), John only identified himself as “a voice crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord’ ” (Is 40:3). The background for the question lies at the end of the OT period. Prophecy, on the one hand, was considered to have ceased (Zec 13:2-6); yet, on the other hand, it was expected to appear again before the coming of the messianic kingdom (see Jl 2:28-29; Mal 3:1-4). Some anticipated this final prophet to be one who was like Moses (Dt 18:15), others a returning Elijah as foretold in Malachi 4:5-6. While John personally refrained from identifying himself with these specific expectations (Jn 1:20-23), it is clear that his dress, lifestyle, and message caused the people to identify him with this end-time prophet (Mt 14:5; Mk 11:32). Jesus also saw John as this final “Elijah-like” prophet (Mt 11:7-15), who from Malachi’s prophecy was to be a forerunner to the coming of the Lord (Mal 3:1-4; 4:5-6).<\/p>\nJohn’s Proclamation<\/p>\nJohn’s proclamation involved three elements: a warning of imminent judgment at the hands of the Coming One, a call for repentance in light of the coming kingdom of heaven, and a demand to express this repentance in concrete ethical terms. Many Jews looked forward confidently to the messianic judgment as a time of blessing for themselves and destruction for the gentile oppressors. John, however, warned that Jewish ancestry was false security in the coming judgment (Lk 3:8); true repentance was the only means of escaping destruction (Mt 3:2). John anticipated this judgment at the hands of the Coming One, who would baptize the nation with “the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Lk 3:16). Fire represented the OT means of destruction in the end time (Mal 4:1) as well as purification (Mal 3:1-4), while the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the end time connoted blessing (Is 32:15; Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28) and purification (Is 4:2-4). The judgment anticipated by John was therefore twofold: destruction for the unrepentant, and blessing for the penitent and righteous (Mt 3:12).<\/p>\nIn light of this imminent event John called for repentance on the part of his listeners (Mt 3:2), a true “turning back” or “turning toward” God in obedience that would bring forgiveness of sin. Such a turnabout in an individual’s relation with God should be lived out in one’s everyday dealings: fairness on the part of tax collectors (Lk 3:12-13) and soldiers (v 14), and the general requirement of compassion for the poor (vv 10-11).<\/p>\nJohn’s Baptism<\/p>\nThe Gospels record that John baptized those repentant of their sins at several locations: the Jordan River (Mk 1:5), Bethany beyond the Jordan (Jn 1:28), and Aenon near Salim (Jn 3:23). This practice was an integral part of John’s call for repentance, given in light of the approaching judgment and the appearance of the Coming One. The baptism of the penitent symbolized desire for forgiveness of sin, a renunciation of past life, and a desire to be included in the coming messianic kingdom.<\/p>\nWhat was the background for John’s practice of baptism? From the OT we know of ceremonial lustrations or washings that guaranteed ritual purity (Lv 14–15; Nm 19). Unlike John’s baptism, these washings were repetitive in nature and referred predominantly to ritual rather than moral cleansing. The prophets, however, urged a moral purification associated with the washing of water (Is 1:16-18; Jer 4:14). More significantly, the prophets anticipated a cleansing by God in the end times preceding the Day of Judgment (Ez 36:25; Zec 13:1; cf. Is 44:3), an eschatological element that John may have assumed was being fulfilled in his water baptism.<\/p>\nAnother precedent for John’s practice may have been proselyte baptism, a rite (along with circumcision and the offering of sacrifices) that constituted the conversion of a Gentile to Judaism. Common to both proselyte baptism and John’s baptism were the emphasis on an ethical break with the past, a once-for-all character, and the similarity of immersion. Notable differences were that John’s baptism was for Jews, not Gentile converts, and that it had a marked eschatological character as a preparation for the new age. Unless John, in light of the imminence of the messianic age, consciously treated all Jews as “pagan” in need of a baptism of repentance (cf. Mt 3:7-10), it is doubtful that proselyte baptism formed the primary background for John’s baptismal ministry.<\/p>\nIf John’s baptism had a clear association with the forgiveness of sin, the question naturally arises as to why Jesus, the Son of God, sought baptism from John. John himself asks this very question of Jesus (Mt 3:14), to which Jesus responds, “It must be done, because we must do everything that is right” (v 15, nlt<\/span>). First, it is clear that Jesus’ baptism represented an act of obedience on his part to God’s will as he saw it. Second, by submitting to the baptism of John, Jesus was clearly validating the ministry and message of John. The imminent coming of the kingdom and its Messiah, and the need for repentance in anticipation of this event that John proclaimed, were affirmed by Jesus through baptism. Third, by being baptized, Jesus condemned the self-righteous for their lack of repentance and took a stand with the penitent publicans and sinners awaiting the kingdom of God (Lk 7:29-30). Fourth, Jesus stepped forward for baptism not as an individual in need of forgiveness but as one who represented the people of God. His baptism, therefore, demonstrated solidarity with the people in their need of deliverance, even as he is judged in their place on the cross. Finally, the voice from heaven (Mk 1:11) and the descent of the Spirit (Lk 3:21-22) signify the inauguration of Jesus’ own ministry through his baptism by John.<\/p>\nJohn’s View of Jesus<\/p>\nThroughout his ministry John pointed beyond himself to one “who is far greater than I am—so much greater that I am not even worthy to be his slave” (Mk 1:7, nlt<\/span>). His self-understanding apparently sprang from the application of Isaiah 40:3 to himself, that he was the preparer or forerunner for God’s coming activity through the Messiah (Lk 3:4-6). When asked by curious spectators, John firmly denied that he was the Messiah, and according to the Gospel accounts, subordinated himself to the Coming One (Mk 1:7-8; Jn 1:26-28; 3:28-31). The coming of Jesus to baptism seems to represent the first time John identified these expectations with Jesus himself (Jn 1:35-36). His recognition of Jesus as the Messiah prior to baptism (Mt 3:14) was confirmed by the descent of the Holy Spirit as a dove and the voice from heaven quoting a phrase from an OT messianic psalm (Mk 1:11a, from Ps 2:7), together with a phrase from a Suffering Servant song of Isaiah (Mk 1:11b, from Is 42:1). In the fourth Gospel, John the Baptist goes even further in acknowledging Jesus to be the “Lamb of God” (Jn 1:29), in anticipation of Jesus’ sacrificial role on the cross. And John recognized him as “God’s Chosen One” (v 34, neb<\/span>—another term for the Messiah; Ps 2:7, see Mk 1:11).<\/p>\nIn light of John’s strong affirmation, it is at first difficult to understand his questioning of Jesus while imprisoned: “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?” (Mt 11:3, rsv<\/span>). Some have suggested that John was merely asking for the sake of his disciples, or that the question reflected John’s despondency with being imprisoned. It is more likely, however, that the question represents John’s own confusion with the activity expected of the Messiah. John had proclaimed a Coming One who would bring a baptism of fire and judgment upon the wicked (Lk 3:16). It may have been difficult for him to understand Jesus’ different emphases on forgiveness and acceptance of sinners (Mt 9:9-13) and his healing of the sick (Mt 8–9). When John’s disciples brought their master’s question to Jesus, asking whether or not he was the Messiah, Jesus responded by quoting Isaiah 35:5-6 (see also Is 61:1). This text proclaims the activities of healing and proclaiming salvation to the poor to be fulfillments of the Messiah’s role, even though they may not have been what John or countless other Jews expected.<\/p>\nJesus’ View of John<\/p>\nThat Jesus highly regarded John the Baptist is indicated by his baptism by John. It is also explicitly stated on several occasions. Jesus called him the greatest man to have ever lived (Lk 7:28). (Of course, he was not as great as Jesus, the God-man.) Jesus also said that John was a burning and shining lamp (Jn 5:33-35) and that he practiced a baptism divinely ordained (Lk 20:1-8).<\/p>\nJohn’s uniqueness, however, lies in the fact that he stood at the turning of the ages. He was the last of the old era, the period of the law and the prophets (Lk 16:16), which was to precede the coming of the messianic age (the kingdom of God). John was the last of the prophets, the greatest of them, the Elijah figure who would prepare the way for the judgment of God (Mt 11:13-15; Lk 1:17). Because John belonged to the era of the law and the prophets, however, he was not as great as the “least” already in the kingdom of God (Mt 11:11)—that is, those who belonged to the era of the kingdom’s appearance in Jesus.<\/p>\nArrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\nTo understand why John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas, one has to grasp the messianic excitement caused by John’s appearance and message (Lk 3:15-18). Herod and other secular rulers were obviously suspicious of anyone who might stir up the crowds with predictions of a coming messianic ruler. Other messianic movements had arisen before John, which resulted in outbreaks of violence against the Roman-Herodian rulership. Moreover, Herod Antipas was under heavy criticism for his marriage with Herodias, the ex-wife of his brother Philip. His first marriage, with the daughter of Aretus II, constituted a political alliance between the Herodian family and the Nabatean kingdom of Perea. His new relationship with Herodias was perceived as a breach of the political alliance and led to friction between the two families. John’s denunciation of Herod’s new marriage (Mt 14:3-12) could thus have been interpreted by Herod as a subversive rousing of sentiment against his authority. The Jewish historian Josephus states that Herod did, in fact, arrest John because he feared John’s influence over the crowds. According to Josephus, John was imprisoned at the fortress Machaerus on the eastern side of the Dead Sea. That he was not killed immediately was due to Herod’s personal fear of the righteous John (Mk 6:2) and of the people’s reaction (Mt 14:5). On a point about which Josephus is silent, the Gospels record that it was Herodias’s feelings against John (Mk 6:17) and her plot, through the dancing of her daughter, which brought about the beheading of John (vv 21-29). John was beheaded at Herodias’s request in approximately AD<\/span> 29 or 30.<\/p>\nThe Disciples of John<\/p>\nWhile it is clear that a band of disciples formed around John in his lifetime (Jn 1:35), to suggest that he intended to begin a continuing movement is contradicted by his message on the imminent Day of Judgment. Apparently, John’s disciples consisted of a small group of those who had been baptized by him and were awaiting the coming Messiah. Some transferred their loyalty to Jesus after John had identified Jesus as the Coming One (Jn 1:37). Others, however, apparently stayed on with their teacher, communicating with the imprisoned John concerning the activities of Jesus (Lk 7:18-23) and, after his death, taking the body for burial (Mk 6:29).<\/p>\nWe know little about the activities and practices of the band of disciples clustered around John. We do know, however, that fasting was one practice specifically associated with the group, and one that marked them as similar to the Pharisees (Mt 9:14). In this practice they no doubt followed the example of John himself (Lk 7:33). Prayer and fasting were often linked in late Judaism. The disciples of John were also known for the prayers taught by their master (11:1). Seeing this practice, the disciples of Jesus asked the Lord to teach them to pray, to which Jesus responded with the Lord’s Prayer (vv 2-4).<\/p>\nAfter his death it is likely that other disciples of John joined the followers of Jesus (see Lk 7:29-30). Not all did so, however, as disciples of John were encountered by Paul and other Christians approximately 25 years later in Ephesus (Acts 18:24–29:7). Upon hearing witness to Jesus, these followers of John proclaimed Jesus as Messiah. When Paul baptized them in the name of Jesus they received the Holy Spirit (19:4-7). Even so, it is apparent from later documents that various groups continued to honor John, even considering him the Messiah, centuries after the NT period.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JOHN THE BAPTIST Forerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD 29, while Jesus was still ministering. Preview • Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood • Appearance and Identity • John’s Proclamation • ...","summary_en":"JOHN THE BAPTIST Forerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD 29, while Jesus was still ministering. Preview • Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood • Appearance and Identity • John’s Proclamation • ...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":39990,"type":"textbox","type_label":"Notă explicativă","type_icon":"💡","type_color":"#8b5cf6","title_ro":"Community of the Spirit","title_en":"Community of the Spirit","content_ro":"<h3>Community of the Spirit<\/h3>\n<blockquote>The two-volume work of Luke the Evangelist, Luke–Acts, presents the church as that community of people in which, and through which, the Spirit of God is working. Insofar as the church is that, it is an extension of a reality already begun by Jesus of Nazareth. In Luke’s Gospel, John the Baptist announces the coming of one who would baptize with the Holy Spirit (Lk 3:16). In Acts, this promise is seen fulfilled in the outpouring of the Spirit (Acts 1:5). As Jesus was empowered for his mission by the Spirit (Lk 3:21-22), so the early Christian community was empowered for its witness in the world (Acts 1:8). As Jesus, the man of the Spirit, was confronted at the outset of his ministry with great obstacles (the temptation, Lk 4:1-13), so the church, as the community of the Spirit, faced the temptation to yield to pressures that would compromise its mission (Acts 2:12-13; 4:1-22; 5:27-42). As Jesus, empowered by the Spirit, proclaimed the Good News and touched the lives of people with reconciliation, release, and restoration (Lk 4:18-19), so the church was empowered by the Spirit to become a caring and sharing community (Acts 2:43-47; 4:33-37). As Jesus, the man of the Spirit, reached out to the weak, poor, and rejects of the Palestinian society (this is a special emphasis throughout Luke’s Gospel), so the community of the Spirit was concerned with taking care of people’s needs (Acts 4:34; 5:1-6). These parallels illustrate Luke’s understanding of the oneness of Jesus’ ministry with that of the church—all because the Spirit of Jesus was, and is, in his church.<\/p><\/blockquote>","content_en":"<h3>Community of the Spirit<\/h3>\n<blockquote>The two-volume work of Luke the Evangelist, Luke–Acts, presents the church as that community of people in which, and through which, the Spirit of God is working. Insofar as the church is that, it is an extension of a reality already begun by Jesus of Nazareth. In Luke’s Gospel, John the Baptist announces the coming of one who would baptize with the Holy Spirit (Lk 3:16). In Acts, this promise is seen fulfilled in the outpouring of the Spirit (Acts 1:5). As Jesus was empowered for his mission by the Spirit (Lk 3:21-22), so the early Christian community was empowered for its witness in the world (Acts 1:8). As Jesus, the man of the Spirit, was confronted at the outset of his ministry with great obstacles (the temptation, Lk 4:1-13), so the church, as the community of the Spirit, faced the temptation to yield to pressures that would compromise its mission (Acts 2:12-13; 4:1-22; 5:27-42). As Jesus, empowered by the Spirit, proclaimed the Good News and touched the lives of people with reconciliation, release, and restoration (Lk 4:18-19), so the church was empowered by the Spirit to become a caring and sharing community (Acts 2:43-47; 4:33-37). As Jesus, the man of the Spirit, reached out to the weak, poor, and rejects of the Palestinian society (this is a special emphasis throughout Luke’s Gospel), so the community of the Spirit was concerned with taking care of people’s needs (Acts 4:34; 5:1-6). These parallels illustrate Luke’s understanding of the oneness of Jesus’ ministry with that of the church—all because the Spirit of Jesus was, and is, in his church.<\/p><\/blockquote>","summary_ro":"Community of the Spirit The two-volume work of Luke the Evangelist, Luke–Acts, presents the church as that community of people in which, and through which, the Spirit of God is working. Insofar as the church is that, it is an extension of a reality already begun by Jesus of Nazareth. In Luke’s Gospel, John the Baptist announces the coming of one who would baptize with the Holy Spirit (Lk 3:16). In Acts, this promise is seen fulfilled in the outpouring of the Spirit (Acts 1:5). As Jesus was em...","summary_en":"Community of the Spirit The two-volume work of Luke the Evangelist, Luke–Acts, presents the church as that community of people in which, and through which, the Spirit of God is working. Insofar as the church is that, it is an extension of a reality already begun by Jesus of Nazareth. In Luke’s Gospel, John the Baptist announces the coming of one who would baptize with the Holy Spirit (Lk 3:16). In Acts, this promise is seen fulfilled in the outpouring of the Spirit (Acts 1:5). As Jesus was em...","source":"Textboxes\/Textboxes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55669,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:21","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:21","content_ro":"3:21-22<\/strong> Jesus’ baptism marked the beginning of his public ministry and his anointing as the Messiah (the “Anointed One”). The voice of God from heaven confirmed Jesus’ identity and mission.<\/p>","content_en":"3:21-22<\/strong> Jesus’ baptism marked the beginning of his public ministry and his anointing as the Messiah (the “Anointed One”). The voice of God from heaven confirmed Jesus’ identity and mission.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:21-22 Jesus’ baptism marked the beginning of his public ministry and his anointing as the Messiah (the “Anointed One”). The voice of God from heaven confirmed Jesus’ identity and mission.","summary_en":"3:21-22 Jesus’ baptism marked the beginning of his public ministry and his anointing as the Messiah (the “Anointed One”). The voice of God from heaven confirmed Jesus’ identity and mission.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55670,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:21","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:21","content_ro":"3:21<\/strong> As he was praying:<\/em> Luke emphasizes Jesus’ trust and reliance on God in prayer (5:16; 6:12; 9:18, 28; 11:1; 22:32, 41, 44; 23:34, 46). • the heavens opened:<\/em> This image was a sign of God’s presence (Isa 64:1), divine revelation (Ezek 1:1; John 1:51), and the end of an age (Rev 4:1; 15:5; 19:11).<\/p>","content_en":"3:21<\/strong> As he was praying:<\/em> Luke emphasizes Jesus’ trust and reliance on God in prayer (5:16; 6:12; 9:18, 28; 11:1; 22:32, 41, 44; 23:34, 46). • the heavens opened:<\/em> This image was a sign of God’s presence (Isa 64:1), divine revelation (Ezek 1:1; John 1:51), and the end of an age (Rev 4:1; 15:5; 19:11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:21 As he was praying: Luke emphasizes Jesus’ trust and reliance on God in prayer (5:16; 6:12; 9:18, 28; 11:1; 22:32, 41, 44; 23:34, 46). • the heavens opened: This image was a sign of God’s presence (Isa 64:1), divine revelation (Ezek 1:1; John 1:51), and the end of an age (Rev 4:1; 15:5; 19:11).","summary_en":"3:21 As he was praying: Luke emphasizes Jesus’ trust and reliance on God in prayer (5:16; 6:12; 9:18, 28; 11:1; 22:32, 41, 44; 23:34, 46). • the heavens opened: This image was a sign of God’s presence (Isa 64:1), divine revelation (Ezek 1:1; John 1:51), and the end of an age (Rev 4:1; 15:5; 19:11).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83295,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:21","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:21","content_ro":"3:21-22<\/strong> Jesus’ baptism marked the beginning of his public ministry and his anointing as the Messiah (the “Anointed One”). The voice of God from heaven confirmed Jesus’ identity and mission.<\/p>","content_en":"3:21-22<\/strong> Jesus’ baptism marked the beginning of his public ministry and his anointing as the Messiah (the “Anointed One”). The voice of God from heaven confirmed Jesus’ identity and mission.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:21-22 Jesus’ baptism marked the beginning of his public ministry and his anointing as the Messiah (the “Anointed One”). The voice of God from heaven confirmed Jesus’ identity and mission.","summary_en":"3:21-22 Jesus’ baptism marked the beginning of his public ministry and his anointing as the Messiah (the “Anointed One”). The voice of God from heaven confirmed Jesus’ identity and mission.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83296,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:21","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:21","content_ro":"3:21<\/strong> As he was praying:<\/em> Luke emphasizes Jesus’ trust and reliance on God in prayer (5:16; 6:12; 9:18, 28; 11:1; 22:32, 41, 44; 23:34, 46). • the heavens opened:<\/em> This image was a sign of God’s presence (Isa 64:1), divine revelation (Ezek 1:1; John 1:51), and the end of an age (Rev 4:1; 15:5; 19:11).<\/p>","content_en":"3:21<\/strong> As he was praying:<\/em> Luke emphasizes Jesus’ trust and reliance on God in prayer (5:16; 6:12; 9:18, 28; 11:1; 22:32, 41, 44; 23:34, 46). • the heavens opened:<\/em> This image was a sign of God’s presence (Isa 64:1), divine revelation (Ezek 1:1; John 1:51), and the end of an age (Rev 4:1; 15:5; 19:11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:21 As he was praying: Luke emphasizes Jesus’ trust and reliance on God in prayer (5:16; 6:12; 9:18, 28; 11:1; 22:32, 41, 44; 23:34, 46). • the heavens opened: This image was a sign of God’s presence (Isa 64:1), divine revelation (Ezek 1:1; John 1:51), and the end of an age (Rev 4:1; 15:5; 19:11).","summary_en":"3:21 As he was praying: Luke emphasizes Jesus’ trust and reliance on God in prayer (5:16; 6:12; 9:18, 28; 11:1; 22:32, 41, 44; 23:34, 46). • the heavens opened: This image was a sign of God’s presence (Isa 64:1), divine revelation (Ezek 1:1; John 1:51), and the end of an age (Rev 4:1; 15:5; 19:11).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110921,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:21","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:21","content_ro":"3:21-22<\/strong> Jesus’ baptism marked the beginning of his public ministry and his anointing as the Messiah (the “Anointed One”). The voice of God from heaven confirmed Jesus’ identity and mission.<\/p>","content_en":"3:21-22<\/strong> Jesus’ baptism marked the beginning of his public ministry and his anointing as the Messiah (the “Anointed One”). The voice of God from heaven confirmed Jesus’ identity and mission.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:21-22 Jesus’ baptism marked the beginning of his public ministry and his anointing as the Messiah (the “Anointed One”). The voice of God from heaven confirmed Jesus’ identity and mission.","summary_en":"3:21-22 Jesus’ baptism marked the beginning of his public ministry and his anointing as the Messiah (the “Anointed One”). The voice of God from heaven confirmed Jesus’ identity and mission.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110922,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:21","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:21","content_ro":"3:21<\/strong> As he was praying:<\/em> Luke emphasizes Jesus’ trust and reliance on God in prayer (5:16; 6:12; 9:18, 28; 11:1; 22:32, 41, 44; 23:34, 46). • the heavens opened:<\/em> This image was a sign of God’s presence (Isa 64:1), divine revelation (Ezek 1:1; John 1:51), and the end of an age (Rev 4:1; 15:5; 19:11).<\/p>","content_en":"3:21<\/strong> As he was praying:<\/em> Luke emphasizes Jesus’ trust and reliance on God in prayer (5:16; 6:12; 9:18, 28; 11:1; 22:32, 41, 44; 23:34, 46). • the heavens opened:<\/em> This image was a sign of God’s presence (Isa 64:1), divine revelation (Ezek 1:1; John 1:51), and the end of an age (Rev 4:1; 15:5; 19:11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:21 As he was praying: Luke emphasizes Jesus’ trust and reliance on God in prayer (5:16; 6:12; 9:18, 28; 11:1; 22:32, 41, 44; 23:34, 46). • the heavens opened: This image was a sign of God’s presence (Isa 64:1), divine revelation (Ezek 1:1; John 1:51), and the end of an age (Rev 4:1; 15:5; 19:11).","summary_en":"3:21 As he was praying: Luke emphasizes Jesus’ trust and reliance on God in prayer (5:16; 6:12; 9:18, 28; 11:1; 22:32, 41, 44; 23:34, 46). • the heavens opened: This image was a sign of God’s presence (Isa 64:1), divine revelation (Ezek 1:1; John 1:51), and the end of an age (Rev 4:1; 15:5; 19:11).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138547,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:21","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:21","content_ro":"3:21-22<\/strong> Jesus’ baptism marked the beginning of his public ministry and his anointing as the Messiah (the “Anointed One”). The voice of God from heaven confirmed Jesus’ identity and mission.<\/p>","content_en":"3:21-22<\/strong> Jesus’ baptism marked the beginning of his public ministry and his anointing as the Messiah (the “Anointed One”). The voice of God from heaven confirmed Jesus’ identity and mission.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:21-22 Jesus’ baptism marked the beginning of his public ministry and his anointing as the Messiah (the “Anointed One”). The voice of God from heaven confirmed Jesus’ identity and mission.","summary_en":"3:21-22 Jesus’ baptism marked the beginning of his public ministry and his anointing as the Messiah (the “Anointed One”). The voice of God from heaven confirmed Jesus’ identity and mission.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138548,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:21","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:21","content_ro":"3:21<\/strong> As he was praying:<\/em> Luke emphasizes Jesus’ trust and reliance on God in prayer (5:16; 6:12; 9:18, 28; 11:1; 22:32, 41, 44; 23:34, 46). • the heavens opened:<\/em> This image was a sign of God’s presence (Isa 64:1), divine revelation (Ezek 1:1; John 1:51), and the end of an age (Rev 4:1; 15:5; 19:11).<\/p>","content_en":"3:21<\/strong> As he was praying:<\/em> Luke emphasizes Jesus’ trust and reliance on God in prayer (5:16; 6:12; 9:18, 28; 11:1; 22:32, 41, 44; 23:34, 46). • the heavens opened:<\/em> This image was a sign of God’s presence (Isa 64:1), divine revelation (Ezek 1:1; John 1:51), and the end of an age (Rev 4:1; 15:5; 19:11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:21 As he was praying: Luke emphasizes Jesus’ trust and reliance on God in prayer (5:16; 6:12; 9:18, 28; 11:1; 22:32, 41, 44; 23:34, 46). • the heavens opened: This image was a sign of God’s presence (Isa 64:1), divine revelation (Ezek 1:1; John 1:51), and the end of an age (Rev 4:1; 15:5; 19:11).","summary_en":"3:21 As he was praying: Luke emphasizes Jesus’ trust and reliance on God in prayer (5:16; 6:12; 9:18, 28; 11:1; 22:32, 41, 44; 23:34, 46). • the heavens opened: This image was a sign of God’s presence (Isa 64:1), divine revelation (Ezek 1:1; John 1:51), and the end of an age (Rev 4:1; 15:5; 19:11).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":65718,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Jesus’ Prayers","title_en":"Jesus’ Prayers","content_ro":"<h3>Jesus’ Prayers<\/h3>\nIn Luke’s Gospel, Jesus prayed at critical events in his life: at his baptism (3:21), before calling the Twelve (6:12), at the Transfiguration (9:28-29), for Peter before his denial (22:32), and for his murderers from the cross (23:34). At times, Jesus withdrew from others so that he could pray alone (Matt 14:23; Mark 1:35; Luke 5:16). He also taught the disciples to pray (Luke 11:1-4; see also Matt 6:5-13) and told parables about the need for persistent prayer (Luke 11:5-13; 18:1-8).<\/p>\nJesus’ prayers are part of Luke’s emphasis on the intimacy between the Father and the Son. Jesus lived in communion with the Father, followed the Father’s purpose, and remained faithful to the Father’s will. In Gethsemane, Jesus agonized over the suffering that lay ahead, but he prayed, “I want your will to be done, not mine” (Luke 22:42). On the cross, he expressed total dependence on the Father, uttering as his last words, “Father, I entrust my spirit into your hands!” (Luke 23:46). Jesus modeled for us a life of trust and dependence on our heavenly Father.<\/p>\nJohn records a prayer of Jesus on his final night with the disciples, often referred to as the High Priestly Prayer (John 17:1-26). In this prayer, Jesus intercedes for his followers, praying for their protection, understanding, holiness, and unity.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 6:9-13; Luke 3:21; 6:12; 9:28; 11:1-13; 18:1-8; 22:32, 39-46; 23:34, 46; John 17:1-26<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Jesus’ Prayers<\/h3>\nIn Luke’s Gospel, Jesus prayed at critical events in his life: at his baptism (3:21), before calling the Twelve (6:12), at the Transfiguration (9:28-29), for Peter before his denial (22:32), and for his murderers from the cross (23:34). At times, Jesus withdrew from others so that he could pray alone (Matt 14:23; Mark 1:35; Luke 5:16). He also taught the disciples to pray (Luke 11:1-4; see also Matt 6:5-13) and told parables about the need for persistent prayer (Luke 11:5-13; 18:1-8).<\/p>\nJesus’ prayers are part of Luke’s emphasis on the intimacy between the Father and the Son. Jesus lived in communion with the Father, followed the Father’s purpose, and remained faithful to the Father’s will. In Gethsemane, Jesus agonized over the suffering that lay ahead, but he prayed, “I want your will to be done, not mine” (Luke 22:42). On the cross, he expressed total dependence on the Father, uttering as his last words, “Father, I entrust my spirit into your hands!” (Luke 23:46). Jesus modeled for us a life of trust and dependence on our heavenly Father.<\/p>\nJohn records a prayer of Jesus on his final night with the disciples, often referred to as the High Priestly Prayer (John 17:1-26). In this prayer, Jesus intercedes for his followers, praying for their protection, understanding, holiness, and unity.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 6:9-13; Luke 3:21; 6:12; 9:28; 11:1-13; 18:1-8; 22:32, 39-46; 23:34, 46; John 17:1-26<\/p>","summary_ro":"Jesus’ Prayers In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus prayed at critical events in his life: at his baptism (3:21), before calling the Twelve (6:12), at the Transfiguration (9:28-29), for Peter before his denial (22:32), and for his murderers from the cross (23:34). At times, Jesus withdrew from others so that he could pray alone (Matt 14:23; Mark 1:35; Luke 5:16). He also taught the disciples to pray (Luke 11:1-4; see also Matt 6:5-13) and told parables about the need for persistent prayer (Luke 11:5-13; 1...","summary_en":"Jesus’ Prayers In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus prayed at critical events in his life: at his baptism (3:21), before calling the Twelve (6:12), at the Transfiguration (9:28-29), for Peter before his denial (22:32), and for his murderers from the cross (23:34). At times, Jesus withdrew from others so that he could pray alone (Matt 14:23; Mark 1:35; Luke 5:16). He also taught the disciples to pray (Luke 11:1-4; see also Matt 6:5-13) and told parables about the need for persistent prayer (Luke 11:5-13; 1...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":65791,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Coming of the Spirit of God","title_en":"The Coming of the Spirit of God","content_ro":"<h3>The Coming of the Spirit of God<\/h3>\nIn the Old Testament, the Spirit of God occasionally came upon individuals to empower them for God’s service and to prophesy (Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Ezek 11:5). In the Judaism of Jesus’ day, there was a widespread belief that the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel with the last of the Old Testament prophets. But the prophets had predicted that when God’s salvation arrived, he would pour out his Spirit on all people (Isa 32:15; Ezek 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32).<\/p>\nThis prophecy finds its initial fulfillment in the birth narrative in Luke. The Holy Spirit inspired prophetic witness and guided the events of Jesus’ birth. John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit even before he was born (Luke 1:15, 41), and Zechariah broke forth in a Spirit-filled hymn of praise to God (1:67). Mary conceived Jesus and prophesied through the power of the Spirit (1:35; 1:46-55), and Simeon was led by the Spirit to the Temple to see the Messiah (2:25-27). Later in his life, Jesus was anointed by the Spirit at his baptism and empowered to accomplish his role as the Messiah (3:21-22; 4:1, 18).<\/p>\nFollowing his ascension, Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies by pouring out his Spirit on his disciples on the Day of Pentecost, empowering them to take the Good News of salvation to the ends of the earth (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8; 2:4, 17-18). Throughout Acts, the church accomplished its mission through the guidance, power, and direction of the Holy Spirit. The coming of the Spirit marks the beginning of God’s salvation—God’s presence and power now reside with his people.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nNum 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Isa 32:15; Ezek 11:5; 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32; Luke 1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:24-27; 3:22; 4:1, 18; 24:49; Acts 2:4, 17-18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Coming of the Spirit of God<\/h3>\nIn the Old Testament, the Spirit of God occasionally came upon individuals to empower them for God’s service and to prophesy (Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Ezek 11:5). In the Judaism of Jesus’ day, there was a widespread belief that the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel with the last of the Old Testament prophets. But the prophets had predicted that when God’s salvation arrived, he would pour out his Spirit on all people (Isa 32:15; Ezek 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32).<\/p>\nThis prophecy finds its initial fulfillment in the birth narrative in Luke. The Holy Spirit inspired prophetic witness and guided the events of Jesus’ birth. John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit even before he was born (Luke 1:15, 41), and Zechariah broke forth in a Spirit-filled hymn of praise to God (1:67). Mary conceived Jesus and prophesied through the power of the Spirit (1:35; 1:46-55), and Simeon was led by the Spirit to the Temple to see the Messiah (2:25-27). Later in his life, Jesus was anointed by the Spirit at his baptism and empowered to accomplish his role as the Messiah (3:21-22; 4:1, 18).<\/p>\nFollowing his ascension, Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies by pouring out his Spirit on his disciples on the Day of Pentecost, empowering them to take the Good News of salvation to the ends of the earth (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8; 2:4, 17-18). Throughout Acts, the church accomplished its mission through the guidance, power, and direction of the Holy Spirit. The coming of the Spirit marks the beginning of God’s salvation—God’s presence and power now reside with his people.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nNum 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Isa 32:15; Ezek 11:5; 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32; Luke 1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:24-27; 3:22; 4:1, 18; 24:49; Acts 2:4, 17-18<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Coming of the Spirit of God In the Old Testament, the Spirit of God occasionally came upon individuals to empower them for God’s service and to prophesy (Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Ezek 11:5). In the Judaism of Jesus’ day, there was a widespread belief that the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel with the last of the Old Testament prophets. But the prophets had predicted that when God’s salvation arrived, he would pour out his Spirit on all people (Isa 32:15; Ezek 36...","summary_en":"The Coming of the Spirit of God In the Old Testament, the Spirit of God occasionally came upon individuals to empower them for God’s service and to prophesy (Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Ezek 11:5). In the Judaism of Jesus’ day, there was a widespread belief that the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel with the last of the Old Testament prophets. But the prophets had predicted that when God’s salvation arrived, he would pour out his Spirit on all people (Isa 32:15; Ezek 36...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":93344,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Jesus’ Prayers","title_en":"Jesus’ Prayers","content_ro":"<h3>Jesus’ Prayers<\/h3>\nIn Luke’s Gospel, Jesus prayed at critical events in his life: at his baptism (3:21), before calling the Twelve (6:12), at the Transfiguration (9:28-29), for Peter before his denial (22:32), and for his murderers from the cross (23:34). At times, Jesus withdrew from others so that he could pray alone (Matt 14:23; Mark 1:35; Luke 5:16). He also taught the disciples to pray (Luke 11:1-4; see also Matt 6:5-13) and told parables about the need for persistent prayer (Luke 11:5-13; 18:1-8).<\/p>\nJesus’ prayers are part of Luke’s emphasis on the intimacy between the Father and the Son. Jesus lived in communion with the Father, followed the Father’s purpose, and remained faithful to the Father’s will. In Gethsemane, Jesus agonized over the suffering that lay ahead, but he prayed, “I want your will to be done, not mine” (Luke 22:42). On the cross, he expressed total dependence on the Father, uttering as his last words, “Father, I entrust my spirit into your hands!” (Luke 23:46). Jesus modeled for us a life of trust and dependence on our heavenly Father.<\/p>\nJohn records a prayer of Jesus on his final night with the disciples, often referred to as the High Priestly Prayer (John 17:1-26). In this prayer, Jesus intercedes for his followers, praying for their protection, understanding, holiness, and unity.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 6:9-13; Luke 3:21; 6:12; 9:28; 11:1-13; 18:1-8; 22:32, 39-46; 23:34, 46; John 17:1-26<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Jesus’ Prayers<\/h3>\nIn Luke’s Gospel, Jesus prayed at critical events in his life: at his baptism (3:21), before calling the Twelve (6:12), at the Transfiguration (9:28-29), for Peter before his denial (22:32), and for his murderers from the cross (23:34). At times, Jesus withdrew from others so that he could pray alone (Matt 14:23; Mark 1:35; Luke 5:16). He also taught the disciples to pray (Luke 11:1-4; see also Matt 6:5-13) and told parables about the need for persistent prayer (Luke 11:5-13; 18:1-8).<\/p>\nJesus’ prayers are part of Luke’s emphasis on the intimacy between the Father and the Son. Jesus lived in communion with the Father, followed the Father’s purpose, and remained faithful to the Father’s will. In Gethsemane, Jesus agonized over the suffering that lay ahead, but he prayed, “I want your will to be done, not mine” (Luke 22:42). On the cross, he expressed total dependence on the Father, uttering as his last words, “Father, I entrust my spirit into your hands!” (Luke 23:46). Jesus modeled for us a life of trust and dependence on our heavenly Father.<\/p>\nJohn records a prayer of Jesus on his final night with the disciples, often referred to as the High Priestly Prayer (John 17:1-26). In this prayer, Jesus intercedes for his followers, praying for their protection, understanding, holiness, and unity.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 6:9-13; Luke 3:21; 6:12; 9:28; 11:1-13; 18:1-8; 22:32, 39-46; 23:34, 46; John 17:1-26<\/p>","summary_ro":"Jesus’ Prayers In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus prayed at critical events in his life: at his baptism (3:21), before calling the Twelve (6:12), at the Transfiguration (9:28-29), for Peter before his denial (22:32), and for his murderers from the cross (23:34). At times, Jesus withdrew from others so that he could pray alone (Matt 14:23; Mark 1:35; Luke 5:16). He also taught the disciples to pray (Luke 11:1-4; see also Matt 6:5-13) and told parables about the need for persistent prayer (Luke 11:5-13; 1...","summary_en":"Jesus’ Prayers In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus prayed at critical events in his life: at his baptism (3:21), before calling the Twelve (6:12), at the Transfiguration (9:28-29), for Peter before his denial (22:32), and for his murderers from the cross (23:34). At times, Jesus withdrew from others so that he could pray alone (Matt 14:23; Mark 1:35; Luke 5:16). He also taught the disciples to pray (Luke 11:1-4; see also Matt 6:5-13) and told parables about the need for persistent prayer (Luke 11:5-13; 1...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":93417,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Coming of the Spirit of God","title_en":"The Coming of the Spirit of God","content_ro":"<h3>The Coming of the Spirit of God<\/h3>\nIn the Old Testament, the Spirit of God occasionally came upon individuals to empower them for God’s service and to prophesy (Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Ezek 11:5). In the Judaism of Jesus’ day, there was a widespread belief that the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel with the last of the Old Testament prophets. But the prophets had predicted that when God’s salvation arrived, he would pour out his Spirit on all people (Isa 32:15; Ezek 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32).<\/p>\nThis prophecy finds its initial fulfillment in the birth narrative in Luke. The Holy Spirit inspired prophetic witness and guided the events of Jesus’ birth. John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit even before he was born (Luke 1:15, 41), and Zechariah broke forth in a Spirit-filled hymn of praise to God (1:67). Mary conceived Jesus and prophesied through the power of the Spirit (1:35; 1:46-55), and Simeon was led by the Spirit to the Temple to see the Messiah (2:25-27). Later in his life, Jesus was anointed by the Spirit at his baptism and empowered to accomplish his role as the Messiah (3:21-22; 4:1, 18).<\/p>\nFollowing his ascension, Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies by pouring out his Spirit on his disciples on the Day of Pentecost, empowering them to take the Good News of salvation to the ends of the earth (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8; 2:4, 17-18). Throughout Acts, the church accomplished its mission through the guidance, power, and direction of the Holy Spirit. The coming of the Spirit marks the beginning of God’s salvation—God’s presence and power now reside with his people.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nNum 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Isa 32:15; Ezek 11:5; 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32; Luke 1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:24-27; 3:22; 4:1, 18; 24:49; Acts 2:4, 17-18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Coming of the Spirit of God<\/h3>\nIn the Old Testament, the Spirit of God occasionally came upon individuals to empower them for God’s service and to prophesy (Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Ezek 11:5). In the Judaism of Jesus’ day, there was a widespread belief that the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel with the last of the Old Testament prophets. But the prophets had predicted that when God’s salvation arrived, he would pour out his Spirit on all people (Isa 32:15; Ezek 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32).<\/p>\nThis prophecy finds its initial fulfillment in the birth narrative in Luke. The Holy Spirit inspired prophetic witness and guided the events of Jesus’ birth. John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit even before he was born (Luke 1:15, 41), and Zechariah broke forth in a Spirit-filled hymn of praise to God (1:67). Mary conceived Jesus and prophesied through the power of the Spirit (1:35; 1:46-55), and Simeon was led by the Spirit to the Temple to see the Messiah (2:25-27). Later in his life, Jesus was anointed by the Spirit at his baptism and empowered to accomplish his role as the Messiah (3:21-22; 4:1, 18).<\/p>\nFollowing his ascension, Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies by pouring out his Spirit on his disciples on the Day of Pentecost, empowering them to take the Good News of salvation to the ends of the earth (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8; 2:4, 17-18). Throughout Acts, the church accomplished its mission through the guidance, power, and direction of the Holy Spirit. The coming of the Spirit marks the beginning of God’s salvation—God’s presence and power now reside with his people.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nNum 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Isa 32:15; Ezek 11:5; 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32; Luke 1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:24-27; 3:22; 4:1, 18; 24:49; Acts 2:4, 17-18<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Coming of the Spirit of God In the Old Testament, the Spirit of God occasionally came upon individuals to empower them for God’s service and to prophesy (Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Ezek 11:5). In the Judaism of Jesus’ day, there was a widespread belief that the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel with the last of the Old Testament prophets. But the prophets had predicted that when God’s salvation arrived, he would pour out his Spirit on all people (Isa 32:15; Ezek 36...","summary_en":"The Coming of the Spirit of God In the Old Testament, the Spirit of God occasionally came upon individuals to empower them for God’s service and to prophesy (Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Ezek 11:5). In the Judaism of Jesus’ day, there was a widespread belief that the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel with the last of the Old Testament prophets. But the prophets had predicted that when God’s salvation arrived, he would pour out his Spirit on all people (Isa 32:15; Ezek 36...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":120970,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Jesus’ Prayers","title_en":"Jesus’ Prayers","content_ro":"<h3>Jesus’ Prayers<\/h3>\nIn Luke’s Gospel, Jesus prayed at critical events in his life: at his baptism (3:21), before calling the Twelve (6:12), at the Transfiguration (9:28-29), for Peter before his denial (22:32), and for his murderers from the cross (23:34). At times, Jesus withdrew from others so that he could pray alone (Matt 14:23; Mark 1:35; Luke 5:16). He also taught the disciples to pray (Luke 11:1-4; see also Matt 6:5-13) and told parables about the need for persistent prayer (Luke 11:5-13; 18:1-8).<\/p>\nJesus’ prayers are part of Luke’s emphasis on the intimacy between the Father and the Son. Jesus lived in communion with the Father, followed the Father’s purpose, and remained faithful to the Father’s will. In Gethsemane, Jesus agonized over the suffering that lay ahead, but he prayed, “I want your will to be done, not mine” (Luke 22:42). On the cross, he expressed total dependence on the Father, uttering as his last words, “Father, I entrust my spirit into your hands!” (Luke 23:46). Jesus modeled for us a life of trust and dependence on our heavenly Father.<\/p>\nJohn records a prayer of Jesus on his final night with the disciples, often referred to as the High Priestly Prayer (John 17:1-26). In this prayer, Jesus intercedes for his followers, praying for their protection, understanding, holiness, and unity.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 6:9-13; Luke 3:21; 6:12; 9:28; 11:1-13; 18:1-8; 22:32, 39-46; 23:34, 46; John 17:1-26<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Jesus’ Prayers<\/h3>\nIn Luke’s Gospel, Jesus prayed at critical events in his life: at his baptism (3:21), before calling the Twelve (6:12), at the Transfiguration (9:28-29), for Peter before his denial (22:32), and for his murderers from the cross (23:34). At times, Jesus withdrew from others so that he could pray alone (Matt 14:23; Mark 1:35; Luke 5:16). He also taught the disciples to pray (Luke 11:1-4; see also Matt 6:5-13) and told parables about the need for persistent prayer (Luke 11:5-13; 18:1-8).<\/p>\nJesus’ prayers are part of Luke’s emphasis on the intimacy between the Father and the Son. Jesus lived in communion with the Father, followed the Father’s purpose, and remained faithful to the Father’s will. In Gethsemane, Jesus agonized over the suffering that lay ahead, but he prayed, “I want your will to be done, not mine” (Luke 22:42). On the cross, he expressed total dependence on the Father, uttering as his last words, “Father, I entrust my spirit into your hands!” (Luke 23:46). Jesus modeled for us a life of trust and dependence on our heavenly Father.<\/p>\nJohn records a prayer of Jesus on his final night with the disciples, often referred to as the High Priestly Prayer (John 17:1-26). In this prayer, Jesus intercedes for his followers, praying for their protection, understanding, holiness, and unity.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 6:9-13; Luke 3:21; 6:12; 9:28; 11:1-13; 18:1-8; 22:32, 39-46; 23:34, 46; John 17:1-26<\/p>","summary_ro":"Jesus’ Prayers In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus prayed at critical events in his life: at his baptism (3:21), before calling the Twelve (6:12), at the Transfiguration (9:28-29), for Peter before his denial (22:32), and for his murderers from the cross (23:34). At times, Jesus withdrew from others so that he could pray alone (Matt 14:23; Mark 1:35; Luke 5:16). He also taught the disciples to pray (Luke 11:1-4; see also Matt 6:5-13) and told parables about the need for persistent prayer (Luke 11:5-13; 1...","summary_en":"Jesus’ Prayers In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus prayed at critical events in his life: at his baptism (3:21), before calling the Twelve (6:12), at the Transfiguration (9:28-29), for Peter before his denial (22:32), and for his murderers from the cross (23:34). At times, Jesus withdrew from others so that he could pray alone (Matt 14:23; Mark 1:35; Luke 5:16). He also taught the disciples to pray (Luke 11:1-4; see also Matt 6:5-13) and told parables about the need for persistent prayer (Luke 11:5-13; 1...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":121043,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Coming of the Spirit of God","title_en":"The Coming of the Spirit of God","content_ro":"<h3>The Coming of the Spirit of God<\/h3>\nIn the Old Testament, the Spirit of God occasionally came upon individuals to empower them for God’s service and to prophesy (Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Ezek 11:5). In the Judaism of Jesus’ day, there was a widespread belief that the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel with the last of the Old Testament prophets. But the prophets had predicted that when God’s salvation arrived, he would pour out his Spirit on all people (Isa 32:15; Ezek 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32).<\/p>\nThis prophecy finds its initial fulfillment in the birth narrative in Luke. The Holy Spirit inspired prophetic witness and guided the events of Jesus’ birth. John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit even before he was born (Luke 1:15, 41), and Zechariah broke forth in a Spirit-filled hymn of praise to God (1:67). Mary conceived Jesus and prophesied through the power of the Spirit (1:35; 1:46-55), and Simeon was led by the Spirit to the Temple to see the Messiah (2:25-27). Later in his life, Jesus was anointed by the Spirit at his baptism and empowered to accomplish his role as the Messiah (3:21-22; 4:1, 18).<\/p>\nFollowing his ascension, Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies by pouring out his Spirit on his disciples on the Day of Pentecost, empowering them to take the Good News of salvation to the ends of the earth (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8; 2:4, 17-18). Throughout Acts, the church accomplished its mission through the guidance, power, and direction of the Holy Spirit. The coming of the Spirit marks the beginning of God’s salvation—God’s presence and power now reside with his people.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nNum 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Isa 32:15; Ezek 11:5; 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32; Luke 1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:24-27; 3:22; 4:1, 18; 24:49; Acts 2:4, 17-18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Coming of the Spirit of God<\/h3>\nIn the Old Testament, the Spirit of God occasionally came upon individuals to empower them for God’s service and to prophesy (Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Ezek 11:5). In the Judaism of Jesus’ day, there was a widespread belief that the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel with the last of the Old Testament prophets. But the prophets had predicted that when God’s salvation arrived, he would pour out his Spirit on all people (Isa 32:15; Ezek 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32).<\/p>\nThis prophecy finds its initial fulfillment in the birth narrative in Luke. The Holy Spirit inspired prophetic witness and guided the events of Jesus’ birth. John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit even before he was born (Luke 1:15, 41), and Zechariah broke forth in a Spirit-filled hymn of praise to God (1:67). Mary conceived Jesus and prophesied through the power of the Spirit (1:35; 1:46-55), and Simeon was led by the Spirit to the Temple to see the Messiah (2:25-27). Later in his life, Jesus was anointed by the Spirit at his baptism and empowered to accomplish his role as the Messiah (3:21-22; 4:1, 18).<\/p>\nFollowing his ascension, Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies by pouring out his Spirit on his disciples on the Day of Pentecost, empowering them to take the Good News of salvation to the ends of the earth (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8; 2:4, 17-18). Throughout Acts, the church accomplished its mission through the guidance, power, and direction of the Holy Spirit. The coming of the Spirit marks the beginning of God’s salvation—God’s presence and power now reside with his people.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nNum 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Isa 32:15; Ezek 11:5; 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32; Luke 1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:24-27; 3:22; 4:1, 18; 24:49; Acts 2:4, 17-18<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Coming of the Spirit of God In the Old Testament, the Spirit of God occasionally came upon individuals to empower them for God’s service and to prophesy (Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Ezek 11:5). In the Judaism of Jesus’ day, there was a widespread belief that the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel with the last of the Old Testament prophets. But the prophets had predicted that when God’s salvation arrived, he would pour out his Spirit on all people (Isa 32:15; Ezek 36...","summary_en":"The Coming of the Spirit of God In the Old Testament, the Spirit of God occasionally came upon individuals to empower them for God’s service and to prophesy (Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Ezek 11:5). In the Judaism of Jesus’ day, there was a widespread belief that the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel with the last of the Old Testament prophets. But the prophets had predicted that when God’s salvation arrived, he would pour out his Spirit on all people (Isa 32:15; Ezek 36...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":148596,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Jesus’ Prayers","title_en":"Jesus’ Prayers","content_ro":"<h3>Jesus’ Prayers<\/h3>\nIn Luke’s Gospel, Jesus prayed at critical events in his life: at his baptism (3:21), before calling the Twelve (6:12), at the Transfiguration (9:28-29), for Peter before his denial (22:32), and for his murderers from the cross (23:34). At times, Jesus withdrew from others so that he could pray alone (Matt 14:23; Mark 1:35; Luke 5:16). He also taught the disciples to pray (Luke 11:1-4; see also Matt 6:5-13) and told parables about the need for persistent prayer (Luke 11:5-13; 18:1-8).<\/p>\nJesus’ prayers are part of Luke’s emphasis on the intimacy between the Father and the Son. Jesus lived in communion with the Father, followed the Father’s purpose, and remained faithful to the Father’s will. In Gethsemane, Jesus agonized over the suffering that lay ahead, but he prayed, “I want your will to be done, not mine” (Luke 22:42). On the cross, he expressed total dependence on the Father, uttering as his last words, “Father, I entrust my spirit into your hands!” (Luke 23:46). Jesus modeled for us a life of trust and dependence on our heavenly Father.<\/p>\nJohn records a prayer of Jesus on his final night with the disciples, often referred to as the High Priestly Prayer (John 17:1-26). In this prayer, Jesus intercedes for his followers, praying for their protection, understanding, holiness, and unity.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 6:9-13; Luke 3:21; 6:12; 9:28; 11:1-13; 18:1-8; 22:32, 39-46; 23:34, 46; John 17:1-26<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Jesus’ Prayers<\/h3>\nIn Luke’s Gospel, Jesus prayed at critical events in his life: at his baptism (3:21), before calling the Twelve (6:12), at the Transfiguration (9:28-29), for Peter before his denial (22:32), and for his murderers from the cross (23:34). At times, Jesus withdrew from others so that he could pray alone (Matt 14:23; Mark 1:35; Luke 5:16). He also taught the disciples to pray (Luke 11:1-4; see also Matt 6:5-13) and told parables about the need for persistent prayer (Luke 11:5-13; 18:1-8).<\/p>\nJesus’ prayers are part of Luke’s emphasis on the intimacy between the Father and the Son. Jesus lived in communion with the Father, followed the Father’s purpose, and remained faithful to the Father’s will. In Gethsemane, Jesus agonized over the suffering that lay ahead, but he prayed, “I want your will to be done, not mine” (Luke 22:42). On the cross, he expressed total dependence on the Father, uttering as his last words, “Father, I entrust my spirit into your hands!” (Luke 23:46). Jesus modeled for us a life of trust and dependence on our heavenly Father.<\/p>\nJohn records a prayer of Jesus on his final night with the disciples, often referred to as the High Priestly Prayer (John 17:1-26). In this prayer, Jesus intercedes for his followers, praying for their protection, understanding, holiness, and unity.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 6:9-13; Luke 3:21; 6:12; 9:28; 11:1-13; 18:1-8; 22:32, 39-46; 23:34, 46; John 17:1-26<\/p>","summary_ro":"Jesus’ Prayers In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus prayed at critical events in his life: at his baptism (3:21), before calling the Twelve (6:12), at the Transfiguration (9:28-29), for Peter before his denial (22:32), and for his murderers from the cross (23:34). At times, Jesus withdrew from others so that he could pray alone (Matt 14:23; Mark 1:35; Luke 5:16). He also taught the disciples to pray (Luke 11:1-4; see also Matt 6:5-13) and told parables about the need for persistent prayer (Luke 11:5-13; 1...","summary_en":"Jesus’ Prayers In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus prayed at critical events in his life: at his baptism (3:21), before calling the Twelve (6:12), at the Transfiguration (9:28-29), for Peter before his denial (22:32), and for his murderers from the cross (23:34). At times, Jesus withdrew from others so that he could pray alone (Matt 14:23; Mark 1:35; Luke 5:16). He also taught the disciples to pray (Luke 11:1-4; see also Matt 6:5-13) and told parables about the need for persistent prayer (Luke 11:5-13; 1...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":148669,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Coming of the Spirit of God","title_en":"The Coming of the Spirit of God","content_ro":"<h3>The Coming of the Spirit of God<\/h3>\nIn the Old Testament, the Spirit of God occasionally came upon individuals to empower them for God’s service and to prophesy (Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Ezek 11:5). In the Judaism of Jesus’ day, there was a widespread belief that the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel with the last of the Old Testament prophets. But the prophets had predicted that when God’s salvation arrived, he would pour out his Spirit on all people (Isa 32:15; Ezek 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32).<\/p>\nThis prophecy finds its initial fulfillment in the birth narrative in Luke. The Holy Spirit inspired prophetic witness and guided the events of Jesus’ birth. John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit even before he was born (Luke 1:15, 41), and Zechariah broke forth in a Spirit-filled hymn of praise to God (1:67). Mary conceived Jesus and prophesied through the power of the Spirit (1:35; 1:46-55), and Simeon was led by the Spirit to the Temple to see the Messiah (2:25-27). Later in his life, Jesus was anointed by the Spirit at his baptism and empowered to accomplish his role as the Messiah (3:21-22; 4:1, 18).<\/p>\nFollowing his ascension, Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies by pouring out his Spirit on his disciples on the Day of Pentecost, empowering them to take the Good News of salvation to the ends of the earth (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8; 2:4, 17-18). Throughout Acts, the church accomplished its mission through the guidance, power, and direction of the Holy Spirit. The coming of the Spirit marks the beginning of God’s salvation—God’s presence and power now reside with his people.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nNum 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Isa 32:15; Ezek 11:5; 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32; Luke 1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:24-27; 3:22; 4:1, 18; 24:49; Acts 2:4, 17-18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Coming of the Spirit of God<\/h3>\nIn the Old Testament, the Spirit of God occasionally came upon individuals to empower them for God’s service and to prophesy (Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Ezek 11:5). In the Judaism of Jesus’ day, there was a widespread belief that the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel with the last of the Old Testament prophets. But the prophets had predicted that when God’s salvation arrived, he would pour out his Spirit on all people (Isa 32:15; Ezek 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32).<\/p>\nThis prophecy finds its initial fulfillment in the birth narrative in Luke. The Holy Spirit inspired prophetic witness and guided the events of Jesus’ birth. John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit even before he was born (Luke 1:15, 41), and Zechariah broke forth in a Spirit-filled hymn of praise to God (1:67). Mary conceived Jesus and prophesied through the power of the Spirit (1:35; 1:46-55), and Simeon was led by the Spirit to the Temple to see the Messiah (2:25-27). Later in his life, Jesus was anointed by the Spirit at his baptism and empowered to accomplish his role as the Messiah (3:21-22; 4:1, 18).<\/p>\nFollowing his ascension, Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies by pouring out his Spirit on his disciples on the Day of Pentecost, empowering them to take the Good News of salvation to the ends of the earth (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8; 2:4, 17-18). Throughout Acts, the church accomplished its mission through the guidance, power, and direction of the Holy Spirit. The coming of the Spirit marks the beginning of God’s salvation—God’s presence and power now reside with his people.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nNum 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Isa 32:15; Ezek 11:5; 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32; Luke 1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:24-27; 3:22; 4:1, 18; 24:49; Acts 2:4, 17-18<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Coming of the Spirit of God In the Old Testament, the Spirit of God occasionally came upon individuals to empower them for God’s service and to prophesy (Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Ezek 11:5). In the Judaism of Jesus’ day, there was a widespread belief that the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel with the last of the Old Testament prophets. But the prophets had predicted that when God’s salvation arrived, he would pour out his Spirit on all people (Isa 32:15; Ezek 36...","summary_en":"The Coming of the Spirit of God In the Old Testament, the Spirit of God occasionally came upon individuals to empower them for God’s service and to prophesy (Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Ezek 11:5). In the Judaism of Jesus’ day, there was a widespread belief that the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel with the last of the Old Testament prophets. But the prophets had predicted that when God’s salvation arrived, he would pour out his Spirit on all people (Isa 32:15; Ezek 36...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"22":[{"id":431,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of the Acts of the Apostles","title_en":"Book of the Acts of the Apostles","content_ro":"<h3>ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, Book of the<\/span><\/h3>\nNT book presenting the history of the early church and written as a sequel to the Gospel of Luke. In the arrangement of the NT books, Acts comes after the four Gospels and before the Epistles.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Author<\/p>\n• Date, Origin, Destination<\/p>\n• Background and Content<\/p>\n• Purpose<\/p>\nAuthor<\/p>\nThe book of Acts does not state clearly who its writer is, but the general consensus is that Luke was its author.<\/p>\nEarly church tradition from the second century states that Acts (as well as the third Gospel) was written by a traveling companion and fellow worker of the apostle Paul. That companion is identified in Colossians 4:14 as “Luke, the beloved physician” (nasb<\/span>) and mentioned among Paul’s coworkers (Col 4:10-17; see also 2 Tm 4:11; Phlm 1:24).<\/p>\nStrong support for the tradition that the author of Acts was a companion of Paul comes from the second half of the book recounting Paul’s ministry. There, several narratives are told in the first person plural:<\/p>\n1. “That night Paul had a vision. He saw a man from Macedonia in northern Greece, pleading with him, ‘Come over here and help us.’ So we decided to leave for Macedonia at once, for we could only conclude that God was calling us to preach the Good News there” (16:9-10, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<li>2. “They went ahead and waited for us at Troas . . . we boarded a ship at Philippi in Macedonia and five days later arrived in Troas, where we stayed a week” (20:5-6, nlt<\/span>).<\/li>\n<li>3. “When the time came, we set sail for Italy” (27:1, nlt<\/span>).<\/li>\nThese “we” sections (16:9-18; 20:5–21:18; 27:1–28:16) sound like part of a travel narrative or diary written by an eyewitness who accompanied Paul from Troas to Philippi on his second missionary journey; from Philippi to Miletus on the third; from Miletus to Jerusalem; and from Caesarea to Rome. Since the style and vocabulary of these travel narratives resemble those of the rest of the book, it is highly probably that the diarist was also the author of the entire book.<\/p>\nThe sophisticated literary style and polished use of the Greek language in the book, as well as the fact that it is addressed to someone called Theophilus (possibly a high-ranking Roman official), provide strong support for the tradition that Luke was a gentile convert to Christianity. His consistent and frequent use of the Greek OT may indicate that he had been a gentile “God-fearer” before conversion to the new faith.<\/p>\nDate, Origin, Destination<\/p>\n\nThe question of the date and place of the origin of Acts continues to be debated. There are no clear indications in the book itself. With regard to its destination, however, Luke did not leave any doubt. In the opening verse he addresses a certain Theophilus, to whom he had already written an earlier book about the life of Jesus. There can be no doubt that he was referring to the work we know as the Gospel of Luke. In the preface to that Gospel (Lk 1:1-4), Luke clearly stated his purpose for writing and addressed his account to the “most honorable Theophilus.” It is not clear who that person was. Some interpreters think that Theophilus (which means “dear to God” or “lover of God”) stands for Christian readers in general rather than any specific individual. However, the designation “most honorable” argues against such an assumption. That ascription was a common title of honor, designating a person with official standing in the Roman sociopolitical order (cf. use of the title for Felix, Acts 23:26; 24:2; and for Festus, 26:25). It is thus likely that Luke intended his two-volume work for an official representative of Roman society.<\/p>\nWhen was Acts written? Some scholars date it in the last quarter of the first century. Since the Gospel was written first, and since Luke based his story of Jesus on eyewitness accounts and written sources (among which was possibly the Gospel of Mark, probably written in the 60s), Acts should not be dated much before AD<\/span> 85. Proponents of such a late date claim support from the theology of Acts, which they see as picturing a Christian church settled into history, adjusted to the prospect of a lengthy period before the Lord’s return. Since expectation of the Lord’s imminent return was fanned into a living flame by the Jewish revolt and the fall of Jerusalem in AD<\/span> 70, time must be allowed for that flame to have died down a bit.<\/p>\nOther scholars date Acts around AD<\/span> 70 or shortly thereafter. The Jewish rebellion of AD<\/span> 66–70, which culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem, brought the Jewish faith—legal until then—into disrepute. The Christian movement, which had been accepted as a Jewish sect, became suspect. Christians were increasingly charged with being enemies of Rome. A study of Acts shows that among a number of purposes (see below), Luke seems to have been defending the Christians against the charge of hostility toward the state. He showed how Roman officials repeatedly testified to the complete innocence of Christians and above all else of Paul (16:39; 18:14-17; 19:37; 23:29; 25:25; 26:32). Luke also made it clear that Paul was allowed to carry on his mission with full approval of Roman officials in the very heart of the imperial capital (28:16-31).<\/p>\nA still earlier date, closer to Paul’s Roman imprisonment (early 60s), has been advocated by a number of scholars. There are two compelling reasons: (1) The abrupt ending of Acts, describing Paul carrying on a ministry in Rome before his trial had commenced, may indicate that Luke was writing at that point. It is possible, of course, that Luke ended his story with Paul preaching the gospel in Rome because one of his purposes had been accomplished: namely, showing how the gospel spread from Jerusalem to Rome. But it seems highly unlikely that Luke would close his history without Paul’s defense of the gospel before Caesar himself if that had already happened. (2) The most appropriate period for Luke’s history, with its defense of the Christian movement against all kinds of accusations from both Jews and Gentiles, is the period when Christianity was becoming suspect but was not yet proscribed. That was the time before the start of the persecutions under Nero in AD<\/span> 64. The early date would correspond with the contention that Luke was with Paul during his Roman imprisonment and that he wrote his history in Rome while waiting for Paul’s trial to begin. It is possible that Luke’s work was partially intended to influence the verdict. Luke presented a picture of Christianity and of Paul that he hoped would enable Paul to continue his work among the Gentiles.<\/p>\nBackground and Content<\/p>\nLuke grounds his documentary of the rapid expansion of Christianity in the history of the Roman Empire and Palestine during the three decades from AD<\/span> 30 to 60. Some brief historical and geographical considerations will aid in understanding Luke’s history.<\/p>\nActs 1–12 reports the beginnings of the Christian movement within the imperial province of Syria, which included Judea and Samaria. In the first century AD<\/span>, those regions were generally governed by Roman procurators or puppet kings. At the time of Jesus’ death and resurrection (c. AD<\/span> 30), Pontius Pilate was procurator in Judea and Samaria (AD<\/span> 26–36). Galilee was ruled by King Herod Antipas (4 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 39). Tiberius was emperor of the Roman Empire (AD<\/span> 14–37). The account of Acts 1–12 took place in the period AD<\/span> 30–44.<\/p>\nThe conversion of Saul (Acts 9) is generally dated in AD <\/span>33. After Saul’s conversion and departure to his native Tarsus, the church evidently enjoyed a period of tranquility, consolidating its gains and growing steadily (9:31–11:26). It can be assumed, from Galatians 1:18-21 and the existence of Christian communities that Paul and Silas visited on the second missionary tour (Acts 15:40-41), that Paul was not idle during that decade, but intensely involved in the mission to the Gentiles. (After Acts 13:9, the name “Saul” is dropped from the narrative.)<\/p>\nIn AD<\/span> 41, Claudius became emperor of Rome and installed Herod Agrippa I as king of the Jews. (The procurator Pontius Pilate had been removed several years earlier for inept administration of the region.) Agrippa I was grandson of Herod the Great and his Jewish princess Mariamne. Because of his Jewish roots, he was more popular with his subjects than the former Herods. No doubt it was his desire to increase that popularity and gain the support of the Jewish religious authorities that led to a renewed outbreak of violence against the Jerusalem church. Acts 12 recounts the execution of James (the brother of the apostle John) and the imprisonment of Peter. The story of Agrippa I’s death (12:20-23) is paralleled in an account by the Jewish historian Josephus, who dates the event in AD<\/span> 44.<\/p>\nA second event providing a time reference for the unfolding story of the early church is the collection of famine relief in Antioch for Christians in Judea (11:27-29). Luke stated that a severe famine took place (v 28) during the reign of Emperor Claudius (AD<\/span> 41–54). Josephus, writing his Antiquities<\/em> at the end of the first century, spoke of a severe famine in Palestine between the years AD<\/span> 44 and 48. According to Acts 12:25, Barnabas and Paul finished their mission to famine-stricken Christians in Judea after the death of Agrippa I, making it possible to date their mission about AD<\/span> 45.<\/p>\nAt that point in the narrative of Acts, Paul is launched officially into his mission to the Gentiles (13:1-3), for which the history and geography of the larger Roman Empire form the backdrop. The official Roman policy toward the various religions in the empire was one of toleration. That policy, plus use of the Greek language throughout the empire and a phenomenal network of roads and sea routes, paved the way for Paul’s far-ranging missionary work.<\/p>\nThe first tour (AD<\/span> 46–47) took Paul and Barnabas through the island province of Cyprus in the northeastern tip of the Mediterranean Sea and into the province of Galatia, where churches were established in several cities of southern Galatia (Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe). Galatia is located in Asia Minor, bordered by the Black Sea, the Aegean Sea, and the Mediterranean Sea on its northern, western, and southern sides. Those cities, important colonial outposts for the Romans, contained mixed populations, including large Jewish communities. It was in the synagogues of those communities that Paul launched his missionary efforts, almost always meeting with considerable opposition (chs 13–14).<\/p>\nThe deliberation of the Jerusalem Council about differences between Jewish and gentile Christians (ch 15) can be dated in the year AD<\/span> 48. It was followed by Paul’s second missionary journey, which led him through the already evangelized territory of his native Cilicia, Galatia, and through Troas on the Aegean coast to Macedonia and down into Achaia, the Greek Peninsula (15:40–18:22). Churches were established in the important Macedonian cities of Philippi, Thessalonica, and Beroea.<\/p>\nPaul’s one and a half years in Corinth (18:11) can be dated with some certainty in AD<\/span> 51–52. An ancient inscription among the ruins of Delphi, a city in central Greece, states that Gallio became proconsul of Achaia in 51. Acts 18:12-17 tells how Paul was accused by antagonistic Jews before Gallio. The implication is that Paul’s adversaries in Corinth felt that a new proconsul could be persuaded to side with their cause. Thus, Paul’s stay in Corinth can be dated around the beginning of Gallio’s proconsulship.<\/p>\nLuke’s account of Paul’s return to Palestine and the beginning of his third missionary tour brings up a fascinating historical question about what happened to the followers of John the Baptist (13:13–19:7). Acts 18:24-28 refers to a learned Jew, Apollos, who was actively teaching about Jesus in the synagogue at Ephesus, but who was apparently not a member of a distinctively Christian community, not having been baptized in the name of Jesus. He was acquainted only with the baptism of repentance practiced by John the Baptist. After Apollos went to Corinth to minister to the young congregation that Paul founded the previous year, Paul went to Ephesus. There he met several disciples of Jesus who, like Apollos, had experienced John’s baptism of repentance, but who had not been baptized as Christians.<\/p>\nLuke’s reference to Apollos and those disciples, as well as several passages in the Gospels, indicate that the movement begun by John the Baptist did not simply come to an end when Jesus began his ministry. Evidently John continued to baptize until his death (Jn 3:22-24), and many of his disciples maintained John’s work after his death. Probably both Apollos and the disciples at Ephesus were products of the continuing ministry of John’s disciples. Eventually they were introduced to “the way of the Lord” (18:25). Their lack of knowledge about a distinctive Christian baptism or about the reality of the Holy Spirit (19:2-4) shows how much diversity in both belief and practice existed in early Christianity.<\/p>\nPaul’s third missionary tour began with a three-year ministry in Ephesus (19:1–20:1), continued with a visit to churches established on the previous journey (20:2-12), and came to a climax with his arrest in Jerusalem (Acts 21). It took place in the mid-50s (AD<\/span> 53–57). Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem and arraignment before the provincial governor, Felix, in Caesarea (23:23–24:23) must be dated about 57. After Paul had spent two years under house arrest, no doubt prolonged by Felix to gain favor with Jewish subjects, Felix was replaced by Porcius Festus (AD<\/span> 59–60). Josephus noted that Felix was recalled because of an outbreak of civil strife between Jewish and gentile inhabitants of Caesarea and Felix’s unwise handling of the situation.<\/p>\nThe new procurator, Festus, was uncertain about what to do with his prisoner. The Jewish leadership sought to seize that opportunity, aware of the desire of new procurators to gain popularity with their subjects (25:1-9). Realizing the threat, Paul appealed his case to the highest court of the empire, presided over by Caesar himself (25:10-12).<\/p>\nFestus was then left with a problem. He had to send with his prisoner a report to the emperor, clearly outlining the charges. Since he did not really comprehend the case (25:25-27), he sought the advice of Herod Agrippa II, who with his sister had come to Caesarea to pay their respects to the new imperial governor of Palestine (25:13). Agrippa II was the son of Herod Agrippa I and, at least in theory, a Jew. He ruled over parts of Palestine from AD<\/span> 50 to 100 and had been given the right to appoint the Jewish high priests. His familiarity with Jewish religious traditions and the Law thus put him in a better position to understand Jerusalem’s case against Paul. The outcome of Paul’s appearance before Festus and Agrippa (26:1-29) was recognition of Paul’s innocence (26:31). Yet Paul’s appeal to Rome had to be honored; the law governing such cases had to be followed (26:32).<\/p>\nPaul’s relative freedom during the next two-year period (28:30) seems unusual but was a rather common practice in Roman judicial proceedings, especially for Roman citizens who had appealed to the emperor. There is no good reason to believe that Paul was executed at the time when Luke’s narrative ends (c. AD<\/span> 61–62). The great fire of Rome and Nero’s subsequent persecution of Christians were still a few years away (AD<\/span> 64). It is likely that the case against Paul was dismissed, especially in light of the favorable verdict by Festus and King Agrippa. It is also likely that Paul was executed during the later, more general persecution of Christians. Such a sequence would correspond with the tradition cited by Eusebius, a fourth-century church historian, that Paul resumed his ministry and later suffered martyrdom under Nero.<\/p>\nPurpose<\/p>\nIn the preface to the Gospel, intended to cover the second volume also, Luke told Theophilus (and the audience he represented) that he had set out to write an accurate, orderly account about the beginnings of the Christian movement in the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth (Lk 1:1-4). The opening lines in Acts indicate that the narrative beginning with Jesus of Nazareth (vol 1) is continuing and that Luke’s second volume intends to trace the story from Palestine to Rome (Acts 1:1-8).<\/p>\nWhile recounting this story, Luke attempted to defend the Christian movement against false charges brought against it. A number of misconceptions attended the birth and growth of the Christian movement. One concerned the relationship between the new faith and Judaism. Many, both within the church and among Roman officials, understood the Christian faith as no more than a particular expression of, or sect within, Judaism. Against that restricted notion, Luke-Acts strikes a universal note. The Gospel proclaims Jesus as Savior of the world (Lk 2:29-32). In Acts, Stephen’s defense before the Jewish council (ch 7), Peter’s experience in Joppa with Cornelius (ch 10), and Paul’s speech at Athens (ch 17) all demonstrate that Christianity is not merely a Jewish sect, some narrow messianic movement, but rather a universal faith. Another problem was popular identification of the new faith with the various religious cults and mystery religions in the Roman Empire. The accounts of the early church’s conflict with Simon the magician (ch 8) and of Paul and Barnabas’s rejection of an attempt to worship them at Lystra (ch 14) undermine the popular charge of superstition. Also, Christianity is not a mystery cult in which esoteric, secret rites bring a worshiper into union with the divine. The Lord worshiped by Christians, said Luke, belongs to real history; he lived his life in Palestine in the then-recent past, openly, for all to observe (see the speeches of Peter and Paul in Acts 2; 10; 13).<\/p>\nLuke’s major purpose, however, was defense of Christianity against the charge that it posed a threat to the order and stability of the Roman Empire. There were, of course, grounds for such suspicions. After all, the founder of the movement had been crucified on a charge of sedition by a Roman procurator, and the movement that claimed his name seemed to evoke tumult, disorder, and riots wherever it spread. Luke’s account met those problems head-on. In the Gospel he presented the trial of Jesus as a serious miscarriage of justice. Pilate had handed Jesus over for crucifixion, but he had found Jesus not guilty. Herod Antipas likewise found no substance in the charges against Jesus (Lk 23:13-16; Acts 13:28). A neutral or even friendly attitude of Roman officials toward leading Christians and the movement as a whole is documented throughout Acts. The Roman proconsul of Cyprus, Sergius Paulus, gladly received Paul and Barnabas and responded positively to their message (Acts 13:7-12). The chief magistrate in Philippi apologized for the illegal beating and imprisonment of Paul and Silas (16:37-39). The proconsul of Achaia, Gallio, found Paul guiltless in the eyes of Roman law (18:12-16). In Ephesus the magistrate intervened in a crowd’s attack on Paul and his companions, rejecting the charges against them (19:35-39). A tribune of the Roman military contingent in Jerusalem arrested Paul, but it turned out that he really saved the apostle from the wrath of a mob; in his letter to the procurator Felix, the tribune acknowledged that Paul was not guilty by Roman law (23:26-29). The same verdict was repeated after Paul’s arraignment before Felix, his successor Festus, and Herod Agrippa II: “This man hasn’t done anything worthy of death or imprisonment” (26:31, nlt<\/span>). Luke climaxed his story by telling how Paul carried on his missionary activity in Rome, the very heart of the empire, and with the permission of the imperial guards (28:30-31). It is clear throughout Luke’s defense that the strife that attended the beginnings and progress of Christianity was not due primarily to anything within the movement, but rather to Jewish opposition and falsification.<\/p>\nWithin his lengthy apology for the integrity of Christianity, Luke’s specific theological perspectives can be clearly seen. The two volume work presents a grand scheme of the history of redemption, extending from the time of Israel<\/em> (Lk 1–2) through the time of Jesus,<\/em> and continuing through the time of the church,<\/em> when the good news for Israel is extended to all nations. Paralleling that emphasis is an insistence that God is present in the redemptive story through the Holy Spirit. In the Gospel, Jesus is presented as the Man of the Spirit; the reality of the Spirit empowered him for his work (Lk 3:22; 4:1, 14, 18). In Acts, the fellowship of Jesus’ disciples is presented as the community of the Spirit (1:8; 2:1-8). What Jesus in the power of the Spirit had begun in his own ministry, the church in the power of the Spirit continues to do.<\/p>\nFor Luke, the empowering presence of God’s Spirit was a reality that gave the new faith its power, integrity, and perseverance. It enabled faithful witness (1:8) and created genuine community (2:44-47; 4:32-37), something for which the ancient world desperately longed. The Spirit in the new community produced courage and boldness (see Peter’s defenses in chs 2–5), empowered for service (ch 6), overcame prejudice as in the mission in Samaria (ch 8), broke down walls as in the Cornelius episode (chs 10–11), and sent believers out on missions (ch 13).<\/p>\nThe entire story is also punctuated by the centrality of Jesus’ resurrection. Luke, like Paul (see 1 Cor 15:12-21), must have been convinced that without the resurrection of Jesus there would be no Christian faith at all. More than that, the resurrection put God’s stamp of approval on Jesus’ life and ministry, authenticating the truth of his claims. Luke announced his interest in that theme at the outset: the ultimate criterion for an apostolic replacement for Judas was that he must have been, with the other disciples, a witness to Jesus’ resurrection. Throughout Acts, from Peter’s Pentecost sermon and defenses before the Sanhedrin to Paul’s speeches before Felix and Agrippa, the church is shown bearing witness to Jesus’ resurrection as a great reversal executed by God (2:22-24, 36; 3:14-15; 5:30-31; 10:39-42).<\/p>\nActs falls naturally into two parts, chapters 1–12, and 13–28. The first part, roughly speaking, contains the “acts of Peter.” Part two is largely concerned with the “acts of Paul.” In the first 12 chapters, Peter is the central figure who initiates the choosing of a replacement for Judas Iscariot (ch 1); addresses the multitudes at Pentecost (ch 2); interprets the significance of the healing of a lame man to a temple crowd (ch 3); delivers a defense of the Christian proclamation before the supreme Jewish council (ch 4); leads the apostles in a healing ministry and speaks for them (ch 5); stands in the forefront of conflict with a Samaritan magician, “Simon the Great” (ch 8); launches—though somewhat unwillingly—the movement of the gospel to the Gentiles through Cornelius (chs 10–11); and draws the fire of Herod’s campaign against the church but is miraculously delivered from prison (ch 12).<\/p>\nProclamation of the gospel to the Gentiles through Paul’s ministry is the theme of part two of Acts (chs 13–28). The story primarily concerns three major missionary tours, each of which moved the gospel into yet untouched territory and expanded earlier missionary efforts. The account of Paul’s life and work climaxes in his arrest in Jerusalem (chs 21–22), a lengthy imprisonment in Caesarea (chs 23–26), and a voyage to Rome (chs 27–28).<\/p>\nAnother way of getting at the structure and content of Acts is thematic. It has its starting point in Jesus’ statement, “You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the ends of the earth” (1:8). Acts can be seen as the story of the fulfillment of that “Great Commission,” unfolding essentially in three stages: (1) witness to Judaism, focused in Jerusalem but also expanding into surrounding Judea and north into Galilee (chs 1–7); (2) witness to Samaria through Philip, Peter, and John (8:1–9:31); (3) witness to the gentile world, first haltingly through Peter (9:32–12:25), and then decisively through Paul (chs 13–28).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Luke (Person); Paul, The Apostle; Simon Peter; Theophilus #1; Chronology of the Bible (New Testament).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, Book of the<\/span><\/h3>\nNT book presenting the history of the early church and written as a sequel to the Gospel of Luke. In the arrangement of the NT books, Acts comes after the four Gospels and before the Epistles.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Author<\/p>\n• Date, Origin, Destination<\/p>\n• Background and Content<\/p>\n• Purpose<\/p>\nAuthor<\/p>\nThe book of Acts does not state clearly who its writer is, but the general consensus is that Luke was its author.<\/p>\nEarly church tradition from the second century states that Acts (as well as the third Gospel) was written by a traveling companion and fellow worker of the apostle Paul. That companion is identified in Colossians 4:14 as “Luke, the beloved physician” (nasb<\/span>) and mentioned among Paul’s coworkers (Col 4:10-17; see also 2 Tm 4:11; Phlm 1:24).<\/p>\nStrong support for the tradition that the author of Acts was a companion of Paul comes from the second half of the book recounting Paul’s ministry. There, several narratives are told in the first person plural:<\/p>\n1. “That night Paul had a vision. He saw a man from Macedonia in northern Greece, pleading with him, ‘Come over here and help us.’ So we decided to leave for Macedonia at once, for we could only conclude that God was calling us to preach the Good News there” (16:9-10, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<li>2. “They went ahead and waited for us at Troas . . . we boarded a ship at Philippi in Macedonia and five days later arrived in Troas, where we stayed a week” (20:5-6, nlt<\/span>).<\/li>\n<li>3. “When the time came, we set sail for Italy” (27:1, nlt<\/span>).<\/li>\nThese “we” sections (16:9-18; 20:5–21:18; 27:1–28:16) sound like part of a travel narrative or diary written by an eyewitness who accompanied Paul from Troas to Philippi on his second missionary journey; from Philippi to Miletus on the third; from Miletus to Jerusalem; and from Caesarea to Rome. Since the style and vocabulary of these travel narratives resemble those of the rest of the book, it is highly probably that the diarist was also the author of the entire book.<\/p>\nThe sophisticated literary style and polished use of the Greek language in the book, as well as the fact that it is addressed to someone called Theophilus (possibly a high-ranking Roman official), provide strong support for the tradition that Luke was a gentile convert to Christianity. His consistent and frequent use of the Greek OT may indicate that he had been a gentile “God-fearer” before conversion to the new faith.<\/p>\nDate, Origin, Destination<\/p>\n\nThe question of the date and place of the origin of Acts continues to be debated. There are no clear indications in the book itself. With regard to its destination, however, Luke did not leave any doubt. In the opening verse he addresses a certain Theophilus, to whom he had already written an earlier book about the life of Jesus. There can be no doubt that he was referring to the work we know as the Gospel of Luke. In the preface to that Gospel (Lk 1:1-4), Luke clearly stated his purpose for writing and addressed his account to the “most honorable Theophilus.” It is not clear who that person was. Some interpreters think that Theophilus (which means “dear to God” or “lover of God”) stands for Christian readers in general rather than any specific individual. However, the designation “most honorable” argues against such an assumption. That ascription was a common title of honor, designating a person with official standing in the Roman sociopolitical order (cf. use of the title for Felix, Acts 23:26; 24:2; and for Festus, 26:25). It is thus likely that Luke intended his two-volume work for an official representative of Roman society.<\/p>\nWhen was Acts written? Some scholars date it in the last quarter of the first century. Since the Gospel was written first, and since Luke based his story of Jesus on eyewitness accounts and written sources (among which was possibly the Gospel of Mark, probably written in the 60s), Acts should not be dated much before AD<\/span> 85. Proponents of such a late date claim support from the theology of Acts, which they see as picturing a Christian church settled into history, adjusted to the prospect of a lengthy period before the Lord’s return. Since expectation of the Lord’s imminent return was fanned into a living flame by the Jewish revolt and the fall of Jerusalem in AD<\/span> 70, time must be allowed for that flame to have died down a bit.<\/p>\nOther scholars date Acts around AD<\/span> 70 or shortly thereafter. The Jewish rebellion of AD<\/span> 66–70, which culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem, brought the Jewish faith—legal until then—into disrepute. The Christian movement, which had been accepted as a Jewish sect, became suspect. Christians were increasingly charged with being enemies of Rome. A study of Acts shows that among a number of purposes (see below), Luke seems to have been defending the Christians against the charge of hostility toward the state. He showed how Roman officials repeatedly testified to the complete innocence of Christians and above all else of Paul (16:39; 18:14-17; 19:37; 23:29; 25:25; 26:32). Luke also made it clear that Paul was allowed to carry on his mission with full approval of Roman officials in the very heart of the imperial capital (28:16-31).<\/p>\nA still earlier date, closer to Paul’s Roman imprisonment (early 60s), has been advocated by a number of scholars. There are two compelling reasons: (1) The abrupt ending of Acts, describing Paul carrying on a ministry in Rome before his trial had commenced, may indicate that Luke was writing at that point. It is possible, of course, that Luke ended his story with Paul preaching the gospel in Rome because one of his purposes had been accomplished: namely, showing how the gospel spread from Jerusalem to Rome. But it seems highly unlikely that Luke would close his history without Paul’s defense of the gospel before Caesar himself if that had already happened. (2) The most appropriate period for Luke’s history, with its defense of the Christian movement against all kinds of accusations from both Jews and Gentiles, is the period when Christianity was becoming suspect but was not yet proscribed. That was the time before the start of the persecutions under Nero in AD<\/span> 64. The early date would correspond with the contention that Luke was with Paul during his Roman imprisonment and that he wrote his history in Rome while waiting for Paul’s trial to begin. It is possible that Luke’s work was partially intended to influence the verdict. Luke presented a picture of Christianity and of Paul that he hoped would enable Paul to continue his work among the Gentiles.<\/p>\nBackground and Content<\/p>\nLuke grounds his documentary of the rapid expansion of Christianity in the history of the Roman Empire and Palestine during the three decades from AD<\/span> 30 to 60. Some brief historical and geographical considerations will aid in understanding Luke’s history.<\/p>\nActs 1–12 reports the beginnings of the Christian movement within the imperial province of Syria, which included Judea and Samaria. In the first century AD<\/span>, those regions were generally governed by Roman procurators or puppet kings. At the time of Jesus’ death and resurrection (c. AD<\/span> 30), Pontius Pilate was procurator in Judea and Samaria (AD<\/span> 26–36). Galilee was ruled by King Herod Antipas (4 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 39). Tiberius was emperor of the Roman Empire (AD<\/span> 14–37). The account of Acts 1–12 took place in the period AD<\/span> 30–44.<\/p>\nThe conversion of Saul (Acts 9) is generally dated in AD <\/span>33. After Saul’s conversion and departure to his native Tarsus, the church evidently enjoyed a period of tranquility, consolidating its gains and growing steadily (9:31–11:26). It can be assumed, from Galatians 1:18-21 and the existence of Christian communities that Paul and Silas visited on the second missionary tour (Acts 15:40-41), that Paul was not idle during that decade, but intensely involved in the mission to the Gentiles. (After Acts 13:9, the name “Saul” is dropped from the narrative.)<\/p>\nIn AD<\/span> 41, Claudius became emperor of Rome and installed Herod Agrippa I as king of the Jews. (The procurator Pontius Pilate had been removed several years earlier for inept administration of the region.) Agrippa I was grandson of Herod the Great and his Jewish princess Mariamne. Because of his Jewish roots, he was more popular with his subjects than the former Herods. No doubt it was his desire to increase that popularity and gain the support of the Jewish religious authorities that led to a renewed outbreak of violence against the Jerusalem church. Acts 12 recounts the execution of James (the brother of the apostle John) and the imprisonment of Peter. The story of Agrippa I’s death (12:20-23) is paralleled in an account by the Jewish historian Josephus, who dates the event in AD<\/span> 44.<\/p>\nA second event providing a time reference for the unfolding story of the early church is the collection of famine relief in Antioch for Christians in Judea (11:27-29). Luke stated that a severe famine took place (v 28) during the reign of Emperor Claudius (AD<\/span> 41–54). Josephus, writing his Antiquities<\/em> at the end of the first century, spoke of a severe famine in Palestine between the years AD<\/span> 44 and 48. According to Acts 12:25, Barnabas and Paul finished their mission to famine-stricken Christians in Judea after the death of Agrippa I, making it possible to date their mission about AD<\/span> 45.<\/p>\nAt that point in the narrative of Acts, Paul is launched officially into his mission to the Gentiles (13:1-3), for which the history and geography of the larger Roman Empire form the backdrop. The official Roman policy toward the various religions in the empire was one of toleration. That policy, plus use of the Greek language throughout the empire and a phenomenal network of roads and sea routes, paved the way for Paul’s far-ranging missionary work.<\/p>\nThe first tour (AD<\/span> 46–47) took Paul and Barnabas through the island province of Cyprus in the northeastern tip of the Mediterranean Sea and into the province of Galatia, where churches were established in several cities of southern Galatia (Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe). Galatia is located in Asia Minor, bordered by the Black Sea, the Aegean Sea, and the Mediterranean Sea on its northern, western, and southern sides. Those cities, important colonial outposts for the Romans, contained mixed populations, including large Jewish communities. It was in the synagogues of those communities that Paul launched his missionary efforts, almost always meeting with considerable opposition (chs 13–14).<\/p>\nThe deliberation of the Jerusalem Council about differences between Jewish and gentile Christians (ch 15) can be dated in the year AD<\/span> 48. It was followed by Paul’s second missionary journey, which led him through the already evangelized territory of his native Cilicia, Galatia, and through Troas on the Aegean coast to Macedonia and down into Achaia, the Greek Peninsula (15:40–18:22). Churches were established in the important Macedonian cities of Philippi, Thessalonica, and Beroea.<\/p>\nPaul’s one and a half years in Corinth (18:11) can be dated with some certainty in AD<\/span> 51–52. An ancient inscription among the ruins of Delphi, a city in central Greece, states that Gallio became proconsul of Achaia in 51. Acts 18:12-17 tells how Paul was accused by antagonistic Jews before Gallio. The implication is that Paul’s adversaries in Corinth felt that a new proconsul could be persuaded to side with their cause. Thus, Paul’s stay in Corinth can be dated around the beginning of Gallio’s proconsulship.<\/p>\nLuke’s account of Paul’s return to Palestine and the beginning of his third missionary tour brings up a fascinating historical question about what happened to the followers of John the Baptist (13:13–19:7). Acts 18:24-28 refers to a learned Jew, Apollos, who was actively teaching about Jesus in the synagogue at Ephesus, but who was apparently not a member of a distinctively Christian community, not having been baptized in the name of Jesus. He was acquainted only with the baptism of repentance practiced by John the Baptist. After Apollos went to Corinth to minister to the young congregation that Paul founded the previous year, Paul went to Ephesus. There he met several disciples of Jesus who, like Apollos, had experienced John’s baptism of repentance, but who had not been baptized as Christians.<\/p>\nLuke’s reference to Apollos and those disciples, as well as several passages in the Gospels, indicate that the movement begun by John the Baptist did not simply come to an end when Jesus began his ministry. Evidently John continued to baptize until his death (Jn 3:22-24), and many of his disciples maintained John’s work after his death. Probably both Apollos and the disciples at Ephesus were products of the continuing ministry of John’s disciples. Eventually they were introduced to “the way of the Lord” (18:25). Their lack of knowledge about a distinctive Christian baptism or about the reality of the Holy Spirit (19:2-4) shows how much diversity in both belief and practice existed in early Christianity.<\/p>\nPaul’s third missionary tour began with a three-year ministry in Ephesus (19:1–20:1), continued with a visit to churches established on the previous journey (20:2-12), and came to a climax with his arrest in Jerusalem (Acts 21). It took place in the mid-50s (AD<\/span> 53–57). Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem and arraignment before the provincial governor, Felix, in Caesarea (23:23–24:23) must be dated about 57. After Paul had spent two years under house arrest, no doubt prolonged by Felix to gain favor with Jewish subjects, Felix was replaced by Porcius Festus (AD<\/span> 59–60). Josephus noted that Felix was recalled because of an outbreak of civil strife between Jewish and gentile inhabitants of Caesarea and Felix’s unwise handling of the situation.<\/p>\nThe new procurator, Festus, was uncertain about what to do with his prisoner. The Jewish leadership sought to seize that opportunity, aware of the desire of new procurators to gain popularity with their subjects (25:1-9). Realizing the threat, Paul appealed his case to the highest court of the empire, presided over by Caesar himself (25:10-12).<\/p>\nFestus was then left with a problem. He had to send with his prisoner a report to the emperor, clearly outlining the charges. Since he did not really comprehend the case (25:25-27), he sought the advice of Herod Agrippa II, who with his sister had come to Caesarea to pay their respects to the new imperial governor of Palestine (25:13). Agrippa II was the son of Herod Agrippa I and, at least in theory, a Jew. He ruled over parts of Palestine from AD<\/span> 50 to 100 and had been given the right to appoint the Jewish high priests. His familiarity with Jewish religious traditions and the Law thus put him in a better position to understand Jerusalem’s case against Paul. The outcome of Paul’s appearance before Festus and Agrippa (26:1-29) was recognition of Paul’s innocence (26:31). Yet Paul’s appeal to Rome had to be honored; the law governing such cases had to be followed (26:32).<\/p>\nPaul’s relative freedom during the next two-year period (28:30) seems unusual but was a rather common practice in Roman judicial proceedings, especially for Roman citizens who had appealed to the emperor. There is no good reason to believe that Paul was executed at the time when Luke’s narrative ends (c. AD<\/span> 61–62). The great fire of Rome and Nero’s subsequent persecution of Christians were still a few years away (AD<\/span> 64). It is likely that the case against Paul was dismissed, especially in light of the favorable verdict by Festus and King Agrippa. It is also likely that Paul was executed during the later, more general persecution of Christians. Such a sequence would correspond with the tradition cited by Eusebius, a fourth-century church historian, that Paul resumed his ministry and later suffered martyrdom under Nero.<\/p>\nPurpose<\/p>\nIn the preface to the Gospel, intended to cover the second volume also, Luke told Theophilus (and the audience he represented) that he had set out to write an accurate, orderly account about the beginnings of the Christian movement in the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth (Lk 1:1-4). The opening lines in Acts indicate that the narrative beginning with Jesus of Nazareth (vol 1) is continuing and that Luke’s second volume intends to trace the story from Palestine to Rome (Acts 1:1-8).<\/p>\nWhile recounting this story, Luke attempted to defend the Christian movement against false charges brought against it. A number of misconceptions attended the birth and growth of the Christian movement. One concerned the relationship between the new faith and Judaism. Many, both within the church and among Roman officials, understood the Christian faith as no more than a particular expression of, or sect within, Judaism. Against that restricted notion, Luke-Acts strikes a universal note. The Gospel proclaims Jesus as Savior of the world (Lk 2:29-32). In Acts, Stephen’s defense before the Jewish council (ch 7), Peter’s experience in Joppa with Cornelius (ch 10), and Paul’s speech at Athens (ch 17) all demonstrate that Christianity is not merely a Jewish sect, some narrow messianic movement, but rather a universal faith. Another problem was popular identification of the new faith with the various religious cults and mystery religions in the Roman Empire. The accounts of the early church’s conflict with Simon the magician (ch 8) and of Paul and Barnabas’s rejection of an attempt to worship them at Lystra (ch 14) undermine the popular charge of superstition. Also, Christianity is not a mystery cult in which esoteric, secret rites bring a worshiper into union with the divine. The Lord worshiped by Christians, said Luke, belongs to real history; he lived his life in Palestine in the then-recent past, openly, for all to observe (see the speeches of Peter and Paul in Acts 2; 10; 13).<\/p>\nLuke’s major purpose, however, was defense of Christianity against the charge that it posed a threat to the order and stability of the Roman Empire. There were, of course, grounds for such suspicions. After all, the founder of the movement had been crucified on a charge of sedition by a Roman procurator, and the movement that claimed his name seemed to evoke tumult, disorder, and riots wherever it spread. Luke’s account met those problems head-on. In the Gospel he presented the trial of Jesus as a serious miscarriage of justice. Pilate had handed Jesus over for crucifixion, but he had found Jesus not guilty. Herod Antipas likewise found no substance in the charges against Jesus (Lk 23:13-16; Acts 13:28). A neutral or even friendly attitude of Roman officials toward leading Christians and the movement as a whole is documented throughout Acts. The Roman proconsul of Cyprus, Sergius Paulus, gladly received Paul and Barnabas and responded positively to their message (Acts 13:7-12). The chief magistrate in Philippi apologized for the illegal beating and imprisonment of Paul and Silas (16:37-39). The proconsul of Achaia, Gallio, found Paul guiltless in the eyes of Roman law (18:12-16). In Ephesus the magistrate intervened in a crowd’s attack on Paul and his companions, rejecting the charges against them (19:35-39). A tribune of the Roman military contingent in Jerusalem arrested Paul, but it turned out that he really saved the apostle from the wrath of a mob; in his letter to the procurator Felix, the tribune acknowledged that Paul was not guilty by Roman law (23:26-29). The same verdict was repeated after Paul’s arraignment before Felix, his successor Festus, and Herod Agrippa II: “This man hasn’t done anything worthy of death or imprisonment” (26:31, nlt<\/span>). Luke climaxed his story by telling how Paul carried on his missionary activity in Rome, the very heart of the empire, and with the permission of the imperial guards (28:30-31). It is clear throughout Luke’s defense that the strife that attended the beginnings and progress of Christianity was not due primarily to anything within the movement, but rather to Jewish opposition and falsification.<\/p>\nWithin his lengthy apology for the integrity of Christianity, Luke’s specific theological perspectives can be clearly seen. The two volume work presents a grand scheme of the history of redemption, extending from the time of Israel<\/em> (Lk 1–2) through the time of Jesus,<\/em> and continuing through the time of the church,<\/em> when the good news for Israel is extended to all nations. Paralleling that emphasis is an insistence that God is present in the redemptive story through the Holy Spirit. In the Gospel, Jesus is presented as the Man of the Spirit; the reality of the Spirit empowered him for his work (Lk 3:22; 4:1, 14, 18). In Acts, the fellowship of Jesus’ disciples is presented as the community of the Spirit (1:8; 2:1-8). What Jesus in the power of the Spirit had begun in his own ministry, the church in the power of the Spirit continues to do.<\/p>\nFor Luke, the empowering presence of God’s Spirit was a reality that gave the new faith its power, integrity, and perseverance. It enabled faithful witness (1:8) and created genuine community (2:44-47; 4:32-37), something for which the ancient world desperately longed. The Spirit in the new community produced courage and boldness (see Peter’s defenses in chs 2–5), empowered for service (ch 6), overcame prejudice as in the mission in Samaria (ch 8), broke down walls as in the Cornelius episode (chs 10–11), and sent believers out on missions (ch 13).<\/p>\nThe entire story is also punctuated by the centrality of Jesus’ resurrection. Luke, like Paul (see 1 Cor 15:12-21), must have been convinced that without the resurrection of Jesus there would be no Christian faith at all. More than that, the resurrection put God’s stamp of approval on Jesus’ life and ministry, authenticating the truth of his claims. Luke announced his interest in that theme at the outset: the ultimate criterion for an apostolic replacement for Judas was that he must have been, with the other disciples, a witness to Jesus’ resurrection. Throughout Acts, from Peter’s Pentecost sermon and defenses before the Sanhedrin to Paul’s speeches before Felix and Agrippa, the church is shown bearing witness to Jesus’ resurrection as a great reversal executed by God (2:22-24, 36; 3:14-15; 5:30-31; 10:39-42).<\/p>\nActs falls naturally into two parts, chapters 1–12, and 13–28. The first part, roughly speaking, contains the “acts of Peter.” Part two is largely concerned with the “acts of Paul.” In the first 12 chapters, Peter is the central figure who initiates the choosing of a replacement for Judas Iscariot (ch 1); addresses the multitudes at Pentecost (ch 2); interprets the significance of the healing of a lame man to a temple crowd (ch 3); delivers a defense of the Christian proclamation before the supreme Jewish council (ch 4); leads the apostles in a healing ministry and speaks for them (ch 5); stands in the forefront of conflict with a Samaritan magician, “Simon the Great” (ch 8); launches—though somewhat unwillingly—the movement of the gospel to the Gentiles through Cornelius (chs 10–11); and draws the fire of Herod’s campaign against the church but is miraculously delivered from prison (ch 12).<\/p>\nProclamation of the gospel to the Gentiles through Paul’s ministry is the theme of part two of Acts (chs 13–28). The story primarily concerns three major missionary tours, each of which moved the gospel into yet untouched territory and expanded earlier missionary efforts. The account of Paul’s life and work climaxes in his arrest in Jerusalem (chs 21–22), a lengthy imprisonment in Caesarea (chs 23–26), and a voyage to Rome (chs 27–28).<\/p>\nAnother way of getting at the structure and content of Acts is thematic. It has its starting point in Jesus’ statement, “You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the ends of the earth” (1:8). Acts can be seen as the story of the fulfillment of that “Great Commission,” unfolding essentially in three stages: (1) witness to Judaism, focused in Jerusalem but also expanding into surrounding Judea and north into Galilee (chs 1–7); (2) witness to Samaria through Philip, Peter, and John (8:1–9:31); (3) witness to the gentile world, first haltingly through Peter (9:32–12:25), and then decisively through Paul (chs 13–28).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Luke (Person); Paul, The Apostle; Simon Peter; Theophilus #1; Chronology of the Bible (New Testament).<\/p>","summary_ro":"ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, Book of the NT book presenting the history of the early church and written as a sequel to the Gospel of Luke. In the arrangement of the NT books, Acts comes after the four Gospels and before the Epistles. Preview • Author • Date, Origin, Destination • Background and Content • Purpose Author The book of Acts does not state clearly who its writer is, but the general consensus is that Luke was its author. Early church tradition from the second century states that Acts (as w...","summary_en":"ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, Book of the NT book presenting the history of the early church and written as a sequel to the Gospel of Luke. In the arrangement of the NT books, Acts comes after the four Gospels and before the Epistles. Preview • Author • Date, Origin, Destination • Background and Content • Purpose Author The book of Acts does not state clearly who its writer is, but the general consensus is that Luke was its author. Early church tradition from the second century states that Acts (as w...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":23648,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gospel of Luke","title_en":"Gospel of Luke","content_ro":"<h3>LUKE, Gospel of<\/span><\/h3>\nThird book of the NT; also the third of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke).<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Author<\/p>\n• Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n• Background<\/p>\n• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nAuthor<\/p>\nTradition attributes the authorship of the Gospel to the esteemed companion of Paul, Luke the physician (Col 4:14). The Gospel does not identify its author by name, but he is apparently well known in the company of early believers. He had obviously been gathering information for his project for some time. In both Luke and Acts the recipient is identified as Theophilus.<\/p>\nThe internal testimony of Acts for Lucan authorship must also be weighed, since there is a close relationship between the two books. In three extensive “we” passages the author reports his presence (Acts 16:10-17; 20:5–21:18; 27:1–28:16). These appear to be excerpts from a travel diary; the last of them places the author in Rome with the apostle Paul. We can, by the process of elimination, virtually establish Luke as the author.<\/p>\nDate, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\nThe dating of Luke is debatable. Some argue for a date after AD<\/span> 70, but this robs Luke 21:20 of its predictive value. Others suggest a date prior to the death of Paul (AD<\/span> 64). The latter would readily account for Acts concluding with his ministry in Rome while in prison.<\/p>\nThe Gospel may have been written in Rome, but this is by no means certain. Asia Minor and Greece have also been suggested as possibilities. The Monarchian Prologue to Luke<\/em> promotes the latter option, but its reliability is suspect. It was at Rome that Luke could have used the time profitably to put the finishing touches on the third Gospel.<\/p>\nLuke wrote to Theophilus. Theophilus (“beloved of God”) is probably not, as some suggest, a generic term for all believers. He was a person apparently unfamiliar with the geography of Palestine, for Luke takes care to detail it from time to time. He has a much better grasp of the Greco-Roman world as a whole, for Luke predictably assumes his reader’s familiarity with it. Luke also avoids terms that might prove puzzling to a gentile reader, such as “hosanna” in connection with Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem.<\/p>\nIn all probability the third Gospel was composed in Rome while Paul awaited trial, on or before AD<\/span> 64. It was dedicated to the “most excellent Theophilus” (Lk 1:3), as an appropriate custom of the time. He was a prominent Gentile who had become a believer. Luke wanted to instruct him (and others) more carefully in the faith.<\/p>\nBackground<\/p>\nJesus lived out his life within an area roughly 50 miles (80.5 kilometers) wide and 150 miles (241.4 kilometers) long, from Dan in the north to Beersheba in the south. Apart from Jerusalem, the places he is reported to have visited are not important to the secular history of the region. He was raised in the humble village of Nazareth and lived there until about 30 years of age. Capernaum became the center for his Galilean ministry. He passed through Samaria on occasion, and he ministered in Perea. He was betrayed and crucified in Jerusalem. He was raised in triumph on the third day.<\/p>\nLuke writes in retrospect. His perspective had shifted during the interim—geographically from Palestine to the Roman Empire, politically from Israel to Rome, socially from Jewish society to pagan, and religiously from the temple to the horizon of Christian mission. It is as if one era were superimposed on the other, so that the significance of the life and ministry of Jesus can be seen for the early church.<\/p>\nPurpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\nSimeon beautifully expressed the redemptive theme of Luke’s Gospel when he held Jesus in his arms and exclaimed: “I have seen the Savior you have given to all people. He is a light to reveal God to the nations, and he is the glory of your people Israel!” (Lk 2:30-32, nlt<\/span>). He pointed to Jesus as the long-anticipated Savior, the hope of Gentiles and Jews alike.<\/p>\nLuke wove the work of the Holy Spirit into the life and ministry of Jesus. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Lk 1:35); the Spirit descended on him at his baptism (3:22); he was led into the desert by the Spirit to be tempted (4:2); he was anointed by the Spirit for his ministry (v 18). The Spirit is, as it were, in the background with regard to Jesus’ subsequent labors, but the relationship is understood even when it is not repeated.<\/p>\nLuke accented the experience of messianic joy. The angelic host announced Jesus’ birth with the words, “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and peace on earth to all whom God favors” (2:14, nlt<\/span>). Then, as he was approaching Jerusalem, the multitude that accompanied him began to praise God, saying, “Bless the King who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in highest heaven!” (19:38, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nAll this suggests that the redemptive theme in Luke is complex in character. It points to Jesus as the Christ. It invites the favorable response of Gentiles no less than Jews. It blends in the empowering of the Holy Spirit for Jesus’ ministry and that of his disciples. It emphasizes the joy that accompanies the publication of the gospel. These are simply variations on the one redemptive design of Luke.<\/p>\nOther concerns surface incidentally. Luke’s interest in historical accuracy is one of these. His apologetic burden is another. The critical place he gives to prayer is a third. The list could be extended.<\/p>\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>Prologue (1:1-4)<\/h5>\nThe Gospel begins with a formal prologue. Luke sought to record in orderly fashion what others had handed down as a legacy of faith. He did so in order to establish the historical credentials of the faith and to assure his readers of their validity.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Nativity and Childhood of Jesus (1:5–2:52)<\/h5>\nNone of the Gospels is a thoroughgoing biography of Jesus. But Luke took a special interest in historical incidents, first with regard to the nativity and childhood narratives. He recounted 10 episodes in all: the annunciation of John the Baptist’s birth as the forerunner of Christ; the announcement of Jesus’ birth to Mary; the visit of Mary to Elizabeth; the birth of John the Baptist; John the Baptist’s time in the wilderness; the birth of Jesus; the visit of the shepherds; the circumcision of Jesus; Jesus’ presentation in the temple; and the visit to the temple as a youth.<\/p>\nJohn the Baptist received considerable attention from the outset. Luke recorded that it was during the reign of Herod (Herod the Great, 37–4 BC<\/span>) that Zechariah the priest was ministering in the temple. (Twenty-four platoons of priests served in this capacity for two separate weeks out of the year. The privilege of burning incense was determined by casting lots, and once the priest had done so, he was disqualified from repeating the act.) An angel of the Lord appeared to Zechariah as he was about to burn incense, announcing that he and his wife, Elizabeth, would have a son, whose name should be John. He was to live as a Nazirite (see Nm 6:1-4) and prepare the way for the Messiah. When Zechariah was reluctant to believe (he and Elizabeth were of advanced age), the angel struck him dumb until the time of the promised birth.<\/p>\nWe next hear of John in connection with Mary’s visit to Elizabeth. The baby leaped within Elizabeth’s womb as she heard Mary’s greeting (Lk 1:41). Luke immediately followed this account with the birth of John the Baptist. Zechariah named the child as he had been directed, received back his speech, and proceeded to prophesy concerning the coming Messiah and the preparatory role his son would play. The child grew and became “strong in spirit,” abiding in the wilderness until his public ministry began.<\/p>\nLuke told the nativity story from the perspective of Mary. The angel Gabriel visited her and announced that she would give birth to the Messiah (1:26-38). She would conceive miraculously by the Holy Spirit. Mary is portrayed as being devoutly submissive to the purposes of God.<\/p>\nThe birth is said to have taken place when Quirinius was governor of Syria, and persons had to travel to their ancestral towns to register for a census. Mary gave birth in a Bethlehem stable. Angels announced the birth to shepherds, who left their flocks to observe the child. Mary treasured these events and continued to ponder their significance.<\/p>\nAfter Mary had observed her 40 days of ritual purification, she went with Joseph to the temple to present Jesus to the Lord (2:21-40). There Simeon and Anna, two elderly and devout persons, recognized the infant as the promised Messiah. Simeon concluded that Jesus would cause many in Israel to fall and rise, and would bring deep sorrow to the heart of Mary.<\/p>\nThe nativity and childhood narratives close with Jesus’ visit to the temple at age 12 to celebrate the Feast of the Passover. Joseph and Mary left Jesus behind in the temple, supposing that he was among relatives or friends. They retraced their steps and found him in the temple conversing with the rabbis—listening to them and amazing them with his own understanding. Luke concluded by saying that “Jesus grew both in height and in wisdom, and he was loved by God and by all who knew him” (2:52, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>Beginning of the Public Ministry (3:1–4:30)<\/h5>\nLuke then recorded those events related to the inauguration of Jesus’ ministry. These include the ministry of John the Baptist, the baptism of Jesus, his genealogy, his temptation, and the public announcement in Nazareth. Luke dated the beginning of John the Baptist’s ministry in no fewer than six ways: with the terms of office of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Herod Antipas, Philip, Lysanias, and Annas and Caiaphas. John came preaching a baptism of repentance in preparation for the coming of the Messiah. Multitudes came out into the wilderness to hear him and to be baptized by him.<\/p>\nJesus also came to be baptized. (Luke does not record John’s protest that Jesus ought rather to baptize him, or Jesus’ insistence that it had to be done—apparently to identify with the people and anticipate his vicarious death on their behalf.) The baptism marked Jesus’ entry into public ministry. Luke inserted what may be the genealogical record through Mary, consistent with his earlier efforts to narrate the events from her perspective.<\/p>\nThe temptation of Jesus was a probationary test of his messianic ministry. The introduction to two of the temptations, “If you are the Son of God,” was calculated to make him doubt the words heard at his baptism, “You are my Son” (3:22; 4:3, 9). Satan hoped to persuade Jesus to seek to fulfill his calling and yet avoid the cross. Each time Jesus parried the temptation with a quotation from Scripture.<\/p>\nJesus returned to Galilee and to the synagogue in Nazareth. Here he announced his public ministry in words borrowed from the jubilee observance and associated with the messianic age (4:18-19; cf. Is 61:1-2). They reflected both the religious focus and broad social implications of the ministry to come. The announcement especially held out hope to those who were downtrodden and ostracized by society. When those in attendance challenged his credentials, Jesus replied, “No prophet is accepted in his own hometown” (Lk 4:24). And when they would have cast him from the brow of a hill, he passed through their midst and went on his way.<\/p>\n<h5>The Galilean Ministry (4:31–9:50)<\/h5>\nJesus moved the center of his activity to Capernaum. Luke records a variety of episodes associated with the Galilean ministry that follows. Approximately 30 instances are mentioned. About a third involve some extraordinary occurrence, such as healing, exorcism, raising from the dead, or feeding a multitude. These were events associated with the messianic age.<\/p>\nHowever, it was Jesus’ teaching that first seems to have caught the people’s attention. He did not teach as the rabbis, by drawing upon traditional precedent, but he taught in the authority of his messianic office. Luke interlaced his narrative with a considerable amount of Jesus’ teaching. There is a fairly extended section on the observance of the Sabbath (6:1-11). But it is less prominent than Jesus’ sermon “on the plain,” with its extended comments concerning blessings and woes, love for enemies, judging others, knowing one by his fruit, and wise and foolish builders (6:12-49). Jesus taught by way of parables, and Luke recorded those of the sower and lamp (8:1-18). In the former instance, the seed represents the word of God, and the soil the varying preparation to receive the Word. Thereby the disciples might better understand the mixed results of Jesus’ ministry and their own. Others would be perplexed by the parables.<\/p>\nLuke described the calling of select disciples. He mentioned Peter, James, and John, and at a later point Levi (5:1-11, 27-32). The former were called from their fishing boats and the latter from his tax booth. All were summoned to follow Christ in his messianic ministry through the Galilean countryside. Later on, when there were 12 disciples, Jesus sent them out to preach the kingdom and heal the sick (9:1-11). No doubt many contributed to the extended ministry. Luke recorded certain women who traveled with them and “were contributing from their own resources to support Jesus and his disciples” (8:3, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nOne senses a rising tide of enthusiasm with regard to the Galilean enterprise. It begins with Jesus alone, working in obscurity; it terminates with a faithful band of followers, multitudes hanging on his words, and his name circulated throughout the region. The section peaks with Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ and the transfiguration of Jesus (9:10-36). The presence of Moses and Elijah represents the Law and Prophets as subordinate to the Messiah.<\/p>\nThe scene shifts abruptly to the foot of the mount, where the disciples have been ineffective in delivering a demon-possessed boy. Here Jesus pointed out the need for spiritual resources to accomplish kingdom needs, and thereafter (in response to the disciples’ argument over who would be greatest) an appeal to humility.<\/p>\n<h5>The Journey toward Jerusalem (9:51–19:27)<\/h5>\nLuke next reported Jesus’ ministry on the way to Jerusalem. This has sometimes been called the Perean ministry, assuming that much of it took place across the Jordan in the district of Perea. It has also been graphically described as “the road to the cross.” The number of incidents are roughly the same as those in the preceding section, although the text is about 25 percent longer.<\/p>\nOpposition is seen building at the outset. Jesus sent messengers ahead to prepare for his arrival at a Samaritan village. But the inhabitants would not welcome him, because he was on the way to Jerusalem. There was bad blood between the Jews and Samaritans. The latter had been settled in the land during the Assyrian occupation and brought with them foreign religious and social customs, resulting in a syncretism repugnant to the Jews. Certain disciples asked if Jesus would have them bring down fire from heaven on the village, but Jesus rebuked them. He evidenced a more conciliatory spirit.<\/p>\nLuke reintroduced the Samaritans in connection with a story Jesus tells (10:25-37). It seems that a man was attacked by thieves, who left him for dead. First a priest and then a Levite came along, each walking by on the opposite side of the road. Another passed that way and took pity on the injured stranger. He bound up his wounds and brought him to an inn where he could be cared for at the expense of his benefactor. Jesus added the detail that the man who stopped to help was a Samaritan. He alone understood that a neighbor is the one we befriend rather than the one who befriends us. (The Samaritans reappear once more in the account of 10 lepers who were healed, of whom only a Samaritan returned to give thanks—17:11-19.)<\/p>\nThe story of the good Samaritan suggests the opposition Jesus was encountering from the religious establishment centered in Jerusalem. Even as the crowds increased, Jesus observed: “The queen of Sheba will rise up against this generation on judgment day and condemn it, because she came from a distant land to hear the wisdom of Solomon. And now someone greater than Solomon is here—and you refuse to listen to him” (11:31, nlt<\/span>). So also will the men of Nineveh stand to condemn the present generation, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here.<\/p>\nJesus reserved the severest rebuke for those Pharisees who had come to contest his every move. Jesus and the Pharisees traveled in much the same circles. Some had been sympathetic to his message, but these seem to have been in the minority. Jesus pictured the Pharisees as meticulous legalists (11:37-44). Events were building to a climax. Jesus had prophesied his impending death and subsequent resurrection. His face was set toward Jerusalem. When some solicitous Pharisees warned him of Herod Antipas’s plan to have him killed, he refused to be intimidated (13:32-33).<\/p>\nParables abound in this section of the Gospel. They include those of the Good Samaritan, mustard seed, yeast, narrow door, invitation to a marriage feast, great banquet, tower builder, king who goes to war, lost sheep, lost coin, Prodigal Son, unjust steward, rich man and Lazarus, Pharisee and publican, and ten minas. These seem to fall into one of three categories, although perhaps not exclusively so. The one has to do with accepting sinners. (While Scripture reveals that we are all sinners, “sinners” in the synoptic Gospels refers to nonobservant Jews.) A classic instance is the story of the Prodigal Son (15:11-32).<\/p>\nThe second category might be called kingdom parables. They suggest that while the kingdom begins in some relatively insignificant fashion, it will expand to incredible proportions. They also warn that not all that seems a part of the growth is a true extension of the kingdom. These emphases can be recognized by comparing the parables of the mustard seed, yeast, and narrow door (13:18-30).<\/p>\nThe third category deals with stewardship. Jesus told one such parable as they neared Jerusalem (19:11-27). It involved a man of noble birth who went to a far country, leaving his servants with ten minas each (a mina was about a three-month wage for laborers). They were to invest the minas so that the man would have a good profit when he came back. Upon returning, the nobleman called his servants to get an accounting from them. Those who were found faithful in lesser things were given greater opportunity, but one who failed lost even that which he had been given.<\/p>\nThere are some especially touching scenes in the Gospel narrative. One shows Jesus welcoming little children (18:15-17). Another describes a rich ruler who inquired of Jesus how he might obtain eternal life (vv 18-30). Still another episode concerns a tax collector called Zacchaeus (19:1-10). These help us to gain a better appreciation of Jesus’ diversified ministry.<\/p>\nSlowly but surely Jesus had worked his way to Jerusalem. He had met increasing opposition. The cross was just over the horizon. He ministered while time allowed.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Death and Resurrection (19:28–24:53)<\/h5>\nLuke concluded his account with the Passion week. First is the Triumphal Entry of Christ (19:28-44). As those with Jesus came over the crest of the Mt of Olives, they began to praise God for all the miracles they had seen: “Bless the King who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in highest heaven!” (19:38, nlt<\/span>). The jubilation of the multitude stands in sharp contrast to Jesus’ weeping over an unrepentant city and lamenting the destruction to be visited upon it.<\/p>\nEntering the temple area, Jesus began driving out those who were selling goods there. God’s house should be a house of prayer, but—Jesus protests—they have made it a den of robbers. He continued to teach daily in the temple precincts, while the religious leaders plotted how to put him to death without inciting the anger of the people.<\/p>\nLuke recorded some of the interchange with the leaders and people (chs 20–21). This includes a challenge to Jesus’ authority, the parable of the wicked tenants, the question about paying taxes to Caesar, another question concerning the resurrection, Jesus’ question about how to understand the Messiah’s Davidic ancestry and lordship, warning against the scribes, comments on the widow’s offering, and discourse on the end of the age. This broad range of topics is related to the messianic disputation in progress.<\/p>\nThe problem as Luke represents it seems less an intellectual than a moral one. The religious establishment was determined to retain its privileged position at all costs. This Galilean rabbi was a serious threat that had to be eliminated. It was only a matter of waiting for the right opportunity. It appeared when Judas Iscariot offered to betray Jesus (22:1-6).<\/p>\nThe Last Supper and the prayer vigil in Gethsemane intervene between the plot of the leaders and the arrest of Jesus (22:7-46). From the upper room Jesus and the disciples made their way across the Kidron Valley to the Mt of Olives. Here Jesus prayed in preparation for the crucifixion to follow. The disciples slept, being weary from the heavy demands of those days. Soon Judas appeared to point Jesus out, and the soldiers rushed him away to stand before the high priest. Peter denied Christ, fearing for his own life. Jesus was condemned by the Sanhedrin. (Commentators debate whether this was a formal session of the council of Jewish elders.) He was sent to the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, then to Herod Antipas, and back again to Pilate. Pilate saw no reason for putting Jesus to death, but the multitude was stirred up by the Jewish leaders to demand his crucifixion. Pilate yielded to their pressure when alternatives seemed to escape him.<\/p>\nJesus was led away to be crucified. Luke alone mentioned those who mourned him (23:27). Jesus warned them rather to mourn for themselves and their children. Here and hereafter we see Jesus’ concern for others in the midst of his own agony: those crucifying him, the repentant criminal, and his mother, Mary.<\/p>\nLuke records a mixed response to the crucifixion. The people stood watching, as if immobilized by the rush of events. They may have felt helpless to intervene even if disposed to do so. Some of the religious leaders went so far as to mock Jesus; “He saved others, . . . let him save himself if he is really God’s Chosen One, the Messiah” (23:35, nlt<\/span>). One hardened criminal joined in their derision; the other asked for clemency.<\/p>\nDarkness shrouded the scene. The curtain of the temple was torn, as if to suggest that access was being made available through the shed blood of Christ. Jesus commended his spirit to the Father. He breathed his last. His body was laid in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. Women went to prepare spices and perfumes for the interment, but they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.<\/p>\nEarly on the first day of the week the women approached the tomb, only to find the stone guarding its entrance rolled away and the body of Jesus missing. Suddenly two figures in gleaming array stood by them. They announced to the frightened women: “He isn’t here! He has risen from the dead!” (24:6, nlt<\/span>). The women returned to report to the apostles. Peter ran to confirm their findings. He discovered the strips of linen laid out as they had been, but with the body absent. He wondered what had happened.<\/p>\nThe same day two disciples were going to a village called Emmaus. They were discussing what had happened in Jerusalem when Jesus joined them. They were kept from recognizing him until later on when he broke bread with them. They hurriedly returned to Jerusalem to reassure the fellowship that it was true that the Lord was risen.<\/p>\nWhile they were still talking, Jesus appeared in their midst. “Look at my hands. Look at my feet. You can see that it’s really me. Touch me and make sure that I am not a ghost, because ghosts don’t have bodies, as you see that I do!” (24:39, nlt<\/span>). Then he helped them understand the implications of what had happened: “Yes, it was written long ago that the Messiah must suffer and die and rise again from the dead on the third day. With my authority, take this message of repentance to all the nations, beginning in Jerusalem: ‘There is forgiveness of sins for all who turn to me.’ You are witnesses of all these things. And now I will send the Holy Spirit, just as my Father promised. But stay here in the city until the Holy Spirit comes and fills you with power from heaven” (vv 46-49, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nLuke concludes his Gospel with an account of the ascension (24:50-53). It was as Jesus blessed them that he was lifted up before their eyes. They worshiped him as the ascended Lord and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. There they remained in the temple precinct, praising God and anticipating the coming of the Holy Spirit to empower them for witnessing to all the world.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Acts of the Apostles, Book of the; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Luke (Person); Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LUKE, Gospel of<\/span><\/h3>\nThird book of the NT; also the third of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke).<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Author<\/p>\n• Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n• Background<\/p>\n• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nAuthor<\/p>\nTradition attributes the authorship of the Gospel to the esteemed companion of Paul, Luke the physician (Col 4:14). The Gospel does not identify its author by name, but he is apparently well known in the company of early believers. He had obviously been gathering information for his project for some time. In both Luke and Acts the recipient is identified as Theophilus.<\/p>\nThe internal testimony of Acts for Lucan authorship must also be weighed, since there is a close relationship between the two books. In three extensive “we” passages the author reports his presence (Acts 16:10-17; 20:5–21:18; 27:1–28:16). These appear to be excerpts from a travel diary; the last of them places the author in Rome with the apostle Paul. We can, by the process of elimination, virtually establish Luke as the author.<\/p>\nDate, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\nThe dating of Luke is debatable. Some argue for a date after AD<\/span> 70, but this robs Luke 21:20 of its predictive value. Others suggest a date prior to the death of Paul (AD<\/span> 64). The latter would readily account for Acts concluding with his ministry in Rome while in prison.<\/p>\nThe Gospel may have been written in Rome, but this is by no means certain. Asia Minor and Greece have also been suggested as possibilities. The Monarchian Prologue to Luke<\/em> promotes the latter option, but its reliability is suspect. It was at Rome that Luke could have used the time profitably to put the finishing touches on the third Gospel.<\/p>\nLuke wrote to Theophilus. Theophilus (“beloved of God”) is probably not, as some suggest, a generic term for all believers. He was a person apparently unfamiliar with the geography of Palestine, for Luke takes care to detail it from time to time. He has a much better grasp of the Greco-Roman world as a whole, for Luke predictably assumes his reader’s familiarity with it. Luke also avoids terms that might prove puzzling to a gentile reader, such as “hosanna” in connection with Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem.<\/p>\nIn all probability the third Gospel was composed in Rome while Paul awaited trial, on or before AD<\/span> 64. It was dedicated to the “most excellent Theophilus” (Lk 1:3), as an appropriate custom of the time. He was a prominent Gentile who had become a believer. Luke wanted to instruct him (and others) more carefully in the faith.<\/p>\nBackground<\/p>\nJesus lived out his life within an area roughly 50 miles (80.5 kilometers) wide and 150 miles (241.4 kilometers) long, from Dan in the north to Beersheba in the south. Apart from Jerusalem, the places he is reported to have visited are not important to the secular history of the region. He was raised in the humble village of Nazareth and lived there until about 30 years of age. Capernaum became the center for his Galilean ministry. He passed through Samaria on occasion, and he ministered in Perea. He was betrayed and crucified in Jerusalem. He was raised in triumph on the third day.<\/p>\nLuke writes in retrospect. His perspective had shifted during the interim—geographically from Palestine to the Roman Empire, politically from Israel to Rome, socially from Jewish society to pagan, and religiously from the temple to the horizon of Christian mission. It is as if one era were superimposed on the other, so that the significance of the life and ministry of Jesus can be seen for the early church.<\/p>\nPurpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\nSimeon beautifully expressed the redemptive theme of Luke’s Gospel when he held Jesus in his arms and exclaimed: “I have seen the Savior you have given to all people. He is a light to reveal God to the nations, and he is the glory of your people Israel!” (Lk 2:30-32, nlt<\/span>). He pointed to Jesus as the long-anticipated Savior, the hope of Gentiles and Jews alike.<\/p>\nLuke wove the work of the Holy Spirit into the life and ministry of Jesus. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Lk 1:35); the Spirit descended on him at his baptism (3:22); he was led into the desert by the Spirit to be tempted (4:2); he was anointed by the Spirit for his ministry (v 18). The Spirit is, as it were, in the background with regard to Jesus’ subsequent labors, but the relationship is understood even when it is not repeated.<\/p>\nLuke accented the experience of messianic joy. The angelic host announced Jesus’ birth with the words, “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and peace on earth to all whom God favors” (2:14, nlt<\/span>). Then, as he was approaching Jerusalem, the multitude that accompanied him began to praise God, saying, “Bless the King who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in highest heaven!” (19:38, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nAll this suggests that the redemptive theme in Luke is complex in character. It points to Jesus as the Christ. It invites the favorable response of Gentiles no less than Jews. It blends in the empowering of the Holy Spirit for Jesus’ ministry and that of his disciples. It emphasizes the joy that accompanies the publication of the gospel. These are simply variations on the one redemptive design of Luke.<\/p>\nOther concerns surface incidentally. Luke’s interest in historical accuracy is one of these. His apologetic burden is another. The critical place he gives to prayer is a third. The list could be extended.<\/p>\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>Prologue (1:1-4)<\/h5>\nThe Gospel begins with a formal prologue. Luke sought to record in orderly fashion what others had handed down as a legacy of faith. He did so in order to establish the historical credentials of the faith and to assure his readers of their validity.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Nativity and Childhood of Jesus (1:5–2:52)<\/h5>\nNone of the Gospels is a thoroughgoing biography of Jesus. But Luke took a special interest in historical incidents, first with regard to the nativity and childhood narratives. He recounted 10 episodes in all: the annunciation of John the Baptist’s birth as the forerunner of Christ; the announcement of Jesus’ birth to Mary; the visit of Mary to Elizabeth; the birth of John the Baptist; John the Baptist’s time in the wilderness; the birth of Jesus; the visit of the shepherds; the circumcision of Jesus; Jesus’ presentation in the temple; and the visit to the temple as a youth.<\/p>\nJohn the Baptist received considerable attention from the outset. Luke recorded that it was during the reign of Herod (Herod the Great, 37–4 BC<\/span>) that Zechariah the priest was ministering in the temple. (Twenty-four platoons of priests served in this capacity for two separate weeks out of the year. The privilege of burning incense was determined by casting lots, and once the priest had done so, he was disqualified from repeating the act.) An angel of the Lord appeared to Zechariah as he was about to burn incense, announcing that he and his wife, Elizabeth, would have a son, whose name should be John. He was to live as a Nazirite (see Nm 6:1-4) and prepare the way for the Messiah. When Zechariah was reluctant to believe (he and Elizabeth were of advanced age), the angel struck him dumb until the time of the promised birth.<\/p>\nWe next hear of John in connection with Mary’s visit to Elizabeth. The baby leaped within Elizabeth’s womb as she heard Mary’s greeting (Lk 1:41). Luke immediately followed this account with the birth of John the Baptist. Zechariah named the child as he had been directed, received back his speech, and proceeded to prophesy concerning the coming Messiah and the preparatory role his son would play. The child grew and became “strong in spirit,” abiding in the wilderness until his public ministry began.<\/p>\nLuke told the nativity story from the perspective of Mary. The angel Gabriel visited her and announced that she would give birth to the Messiah (1:26-38). She would conceive miraculously by the Holy Spirit. Mary is portrayed as being devoutly submissive to the purposes of God.<\/p>\nThe birth is said to have taken place when Quirinius was governor of Syria, and persons had to travel to their ancestral towns to register for a census. Mary gave birth in a Bethlehem stable. Angels announced the birth to shepherds, who left their flocks to observe the child. Mary treasured these events and continued to ponder their significance.<\/p>\nAfter Mary had observed her 40 days of ritual purification, she went with Joseph to the temple to present Jesus to the Lord (2:21-40). There Simeon and Anna, two elderly and devout persons, recognized the infant as the promised Messiah. Simeon concluded that Jesus would cause many in Israel to fall and rise, and would bring deep sorrow to the heart of Mary.<\/p>\nThe nativity and childhood narratives close with Jesus’ visit to the temple at age 12 to celebrate the Feast of the Passover. Joseph and Mary left Jesus behind in the temple, supposing that he was among relatives or friends. They retraced their steps and found him in the temple conversing with the rabbis—listening to them and amazing them with his own understanding. Luke concluded by saying that “Jesus grew both in height and in wisdom, and he was loved by God and by all who knew him” (2:52, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>Beginning of the Public Ministry (3:1–4:30)<\/h5>\nLuke then recorded those events related to the inauguration of Jesus’ ministry. These include the ministry of John the Baptist, the baptism of Jesus, his genealogy, his temptation, and the public announcement in Nazareth. Luke dated the beginning of John the Baptist’s ministry in no fewer than six ways: with the terms of office of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Herod Antipas, Philip, Lysanias, and Annas and Caiaphas. John came preaching a baptism of repentance in preparation for the coming of the Messiah. Multitudes came out into the wilderness to hear him and to be baptized by him.<\/p>\nJesus also came to be baptized. (Luke does not record John’s protest that Jesus ought rather to baptize him, or Jesus’ insistence that it had to be done—apparently to identify with the people and anticipate his vicarious death on their behalf.) The baptism marked Jesus’ entry into public ministry. Luke inserted what may be the genealogical record through Mary, consistent with his earlier efforts to narrate the events from her perspective.<\/p>\nThe temptation of Jesus was a probationary test of his messianic ministry. The introduction to two of the temptations, “If you are the Son of God,” was calculated to make him doubt the words heard at his baptism, “You are my Son” (3:22; 4:3, 9). Satan hoped to persuade Jesus to seek to fulfill his calling and yet avoid the cross. Each time Jesus parried the temptation with a quotation from Scripture.<\/p>\nJesus returned to Galilee and to the synagogue in Nazareth. Here he announced his public ministry in words borrowed from the jubilee observance and associated with the messianic age (4:18-19; cf. Is 61:1-2). They reflected both the religious focus and broad social implications of the ministry to come. The announcement especially held out hope to those who were downtrodden and ostracized by society. When those in attendance challenged his credentials, Jesus replied, “No prophet is accepted in his own hometown” (Lk 4:24). And when they would have cast him from the brow of a hill, he passed through their midst and went on his way.<\/p>\n<h5>The Galilean Ministry (4:31–9:50)<\/h5>\nJesus moved the center of his activity to Capernaum. Luke records a variety of episodes associated with the Galilean ministry that follows. Approximately 30 instances are mentioned. About a third involve some extraordinary occurrence, such as healing, exorcism, raising from the dead, or feeding a multitude. These were events associated with the messianic age.<\/p>\nHowever, it was Jesus’ teaching that first seems to have caught the people’s attention. He did not teach as the rabbis, by drawing upon traditional precedent, but he taught in the authority of his messianic office. Luke interlaced his narrative with a considerable amount of Jesus’ teaching. There is a fairly extended section on the observance of the Sabbath (6:1-11). But it is less prominent than Jesus’ sermon “on the plain,” with its extended comments concerning blessings and woes, love for enemies, judging others, knowing one by his fruit, and wise and foolish builders (6:12-49). Jesus taught by way of parables, and Luke recorded those of the sower and lamp (8:1-18). In the former instance, the seed represents the word of God, and the soil the varying preparation to receive the Word. Thereby the disciples might better understand the mixed results of Jesus’ ministry and their own. Others would be perplexed by the parables.<\/p>\nLuke described the calling of select disciples. He mentioned Peter, James, and John, and at a later point Levi (5:1-11, 27-32). The former were called from their fishing boats and the latter from his tax booth. All were summoned to follow Christ in his messianic ministry through the Galilean countryside. Later on, when there were 12 disciples, Jesus sent them out to preach the kingdom and heal the sick (9:1-11). No doubt many contributed to the extended ministry. Luke recorded certain women who traveled with them and “were contributing from their own resources to support Jesus and his disciples” (8:3, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nOne senses a rising tide of enthusiasm with regard to the Galilean enterprise. It begins with Jesus alone, working in obscurity; it terminates with a faithful band of followers, multitudes hanging on his words, and his name circulated throughout the region. The section peaks with Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ and the transfiguration of Jesus (9:10-36). The presence of Moses and Elijah represents the Law and Prophets as subordinate to the Messiah.<\/p>\nThe scene shifts abruptly to the foot of the mount, where the disciples have been ineffective in delivering a demon-possessed boy. Here Jesus pointed out the need for spiritual resources to accomplish kingdom needs, and thereafter (in response to the disciples’ argument over who would be greatest) an appeal to humility.<\/p>\n<h5>The Journey toward Jerusalem (9:51–19:27)<\/h5>\nLuke next reported Jesus’ ministry on the way to Jerusalem. This has sometimes been called the Perean ministry, assuming that much of it took place across the Jordan in the district of Perea. It has also been graphically described as “the road to the cross.” The number of incidents are roughly the same as those in the preceding section, although the text is about 25 percent longer.<\/p>\nOpposition is seen building at the outset. Jesus sent messengers ahead to prepare for his arrival at a Samaritan village. But the inhabitants would not welcome him, because he was on the way to Jerusalem. There was bad blood between the Jews and Samaritans. The latter had been settled in the land during the Assyrian occupation and brought with them foreign religious and social customs, resulting in a syncretism repugnant to the Jews. Certain disciples asked if Jesus would have them bring down fire from heaven on the village, but Jesus rebuked them. He evidenced a more conciliatory spirit.<\/p>\nLuke reintroduced the Samaritans in connection with a story Jesus tells (10:25-37). It seems that a man was attacked by thieves, who left him for dead. First a priest and then a Levite came along, each walking by on the opposite side of the road. Another passed that way and took pity on the injured stranger. He bound up his wounds and brought him to an inn where he could be cared for at the expense of his benefactor. Jesus added the detail that the man who stopped to help was a Samaritan. He alone understood that a neighbor is the one we befriend rather than the one who befriends us. (The Samaritans reappear once more in the account of 10 lepers who were healed, of whom only a Samaritan returned to give thanks—17:11-19.)<\/p>\nThe story of the good Samaritan suggests the opposition Jesus was encountering from the religious establishment centered in Jerusalem. Even as the crowds increased, Jesus observed: “The queen of Sheba will rise up against this generation on judgment day and condemn it, because she came from a distant land to hear the wisdom of Solomon. And now someone greater than Solomon is here—and you refuse to listen to him” (11:31, nlt<\/span>). So also will the men of Nineveh stand to condemn the present generation, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here.<\/p>\nJesus reserved the severest rebuke for those Pharisees who had come to contest his every move. Jesus and the Pharisees traveled in much the same circles. Some had been sympathetic to his message, but these seem to have been in the minority. Jesus pictured the Pharisees as meticulous legalists (11:37-44). Events were building to a climax. Jesus had prophesied his impending death and subsequent resurrection. His face was set toward Jerusalem. When some solicitous Pharisees warned him of Herod Antipas’s plan to have him killed, he refused to be intimidated (13:32-33).<\/p>\nParables abound in this section of the Gospel. They include those of the Good Samaritan, mustard seed, yeast, narrow door, invitation to a marriage feast, great banquet, tower builder, king who goes to war, lost sheep, lost coin, Prodigal Son, unjust steward, rich man and Lazarus, Pharisee and publican, and ten minas. These seem to fall into one of three categories, although perhaps not exclusively so. The one has to do with accepting sinners. (While Scripture reveals that we are all sinners, “sinners” in the synoptic Gospels refers to nonobservant Jews.) A classic instance is the story of the Prodigal Son (15:11-32).<\/p>\nThe second category might be called kingdom parables. They suggest that while the kingdom begins in some relatively insignificant fashion, it will expand to incredible proportions. They also warn that not all that seems a part of the growth is a true extension of the kingdom. These emphases can be recognized by comparing the parables of the mustard seed, yeast, and narrow door (13:18-30).<\/p>\nThe third category deals with stewardship. Jesus told one such parable as they neared Jerusalem (19:11-27). It involved a man of noble birth who went to a far country, leaving his servants with ten minas each (a mina was about a three-month wage for laborers). They were to invest the minas so that the man would have a good profit when he came back. Upon returning, the nobleman called his servants to get an accounting from them. Those who were found faithful in lesser things were given greater opportunity, but one who failed lost even that which he had been given.<\/p>\nThere are some especially touching scenes in the Gospel narrative. One shows Jesus welcoming little children (18:15-17). Another describes a rich ruler who inquired of Jesus how he might obtain eternal life (vv 18-30). Still another episode concerns a tax collector called Zacchaeus (19:1-10). These help us to gain a better appreciation of Jesus’ diversified ministry.<\/p>\nSlowly but surely Jesus had worked his way to Jerusalem. He had met increasing opposition. The cross was just over the horizon. He ministered while time allowed.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Death and Resurrection (19:28–24:53)<\/h5>\nLuke concluded his account with the Passion week. First is the Triumphal Entry of Christ (19:28-44). As those with Jesus came over the crest of the Mt of Olives, they began to praise God for all the miracles they had seen: “Bless the King who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in highest heaven!” (19:38, nlt<\/span>). The jubilation of the multitude stands in sharp contrast to Jesus’ weeping over an unrepentant city and lamenting the destruction to be visited upon it.<\/p>\nEntering the temple area, Jesus began driving out those who were selling goods there. God’s house should be a house of prayer, but—Jesus protests—they have made it a den of robbers. He continued to teach daily in the temple precincts, while the religious leaders plotted how to put him to death without inciting the anger of the people.<\/p>\nLuke recorded some of the interchange with the leaders and people (chs 20–21). This includes a challenge to Jesus’ authority, the parable of the wicked tenants, the question about paying taxes to Caesar, another question concerning the resurrection, Jesus’ question about how to understand the Messiah’s Davidic ancestry and lordship, warning against the scribes, comments on the widow’s offering, and discourse on the end of the age. This broad range of topics is related to the messianic disputation in progress.<\/p>\nThe problem as Luke represents it seems less an intellectual than a moral one. The religious establishment was determined to retain its privileged position at all costs. This Galilean rabbi was a serious threat that had to be eliminated. It was only a matter of waiting for the right opportunity. It appeared when Judas Iscariot offered to betray Jesus (22:1-6).<\/p>\nThe Last Supper and the prayer vigil in Gethsemane intervene between the plot of the leaders and the arrest of Jesus (22:7-46). From the upper room Jesus and the disciples made their way across the Kidron Valley to the Mt of Olives. Here Jesus prayed in preparation for the crucifixion to follow. The disciples slept, being weary from the heavy demands of those days. Soon Judas appeared to point Jesus out, and the soldiers rushed him away to stand before the high priest. Peter denied Christ, fearing for his own life. Jesus was condemned by the Sanhedrin. (Commentators debate whether this was a formal session of the council of Jewish elders.) He was sent to the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, then to Herod Antipas, and back again to Pilate. Pilate saw no reason for putting Jesus to death, but the multitude was stirred up by the Jewish leaders to demand his crucifixion. Pilate yielded to their pressure when alternatives seemed to escape him.<\/p>\nJesus was led away to be crucified. Luke alone mentioned those who mourned him (23:27). Jesus warned them rather to mourn for themselves and their children. Here and hereafter we see Jesus’ concern for others in the midst of his own agony: those crucifying him, the repentant criminal, and his mother, Mary.<\/p>\nLuke records a mixed response to the crucifixion. The people stood watching, as if immobilized by the rush of events. They may have felt helpless to intervene even if disposed to do so. Some of the religious leaders went so far as to mock Jesus; “He saved others, . . . let him save himself if he is really God’s Chosen One, the Messiah” (23:35, nlt<\/span>). One hardened criminal joined in their derision; the other asked for clemency.<\/p>\nDarkness shrouded the scene. The curtain of the temple was torn, as if to suggest that access was being made available through the shed blood of Christ. Jesus commended his spirit to the Father. He breathed his last. His body was laid in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. Women went to prepare spices and perfumes for the interment, but they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.<\/p>\nEarly on the first day of the week the women approached the tomb, only to find the stone guarding its entrance rolled away and the body of Jesus missing. Suddenly two figures in gleaming array stood by them. They announced to the frightened women: “He isn’t here! He has risen from the dead!” (24:6, nlt<\/span>). The women returned to report to the apostles. Peter ran to confirm their findings. He discovered the strips of linen laid out as they had been, but with the body absent. He wondered what had happened.<\/p>\nThe same day two disciples were going to a village called Emmaus. They were discussing what had happened in Jerusalem when Jesus joined them. They were kept from recognizing him until later on when he broke bread with them. They hurriedly returned to Jerusalem to reassure the fellowship that it was true that the Lord was risen.<\/p>\nWhile they were still talking, Jesus appeared in their midst. “Look at my hands. Look at my feet. You can see that it’s really me. Touch me and make sure that I am not a ghost, because ghosts don’t have bodies, as you see that I do!” (24:39, nlt<\/span>). Then he helped them understand the implications of what had happened: “Yes, it was written long ago that the Messiah must suffer and die and rise again from the dead on the third day. With my authority, take this message of repentance to all the nations, beginning in Jerusalem: ‘There is forgiveness of sins for all who turn to me.’ You are witnesses of all these things. And now I will send the Holy Spirit, just as my Father promised. But stay here in the city until the Holy Spirit comes and fills you with power from heaven” (vv 46-49, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nLuke concludes his Gospel with an account of the ascension (24:50-53). It was as Jesus blessed them that he was lifted up before their eyes. They worshiped him as the ascended Lord and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. There they remained in the temple precinct, praising God and anticipating the coming of the Holy Spirit to empower them for witnessing to all the world.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Acts of the Apostles, Book of the; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Luke (Person); Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","summary_ro":"LUKE, Gospel of Third book of the NT; also the third of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke). Preview • Author • Date, Origin, and Destination • Background • Purpose and Theological Teaching • Content Author Tradition attributes the authorship of the Gospel to the esteemed companion of Paul, Luke the physician (Col 4:14). The Gospel does not identify its author by name, but he is apparently well known in the company of early believers. He had obviously been gathering information for his...","summary_en":"LUKE, Gospel of Third book of the NT; also the third of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke). Preview • Author • Date, Origin, and Destination • Background • Purpose and Theological Teaching • Content Author Tradition attributes the authorship of the Gospel to the esteemed companion of Paul, Luke the physician (Col 4:14). The Gospel does not identify its author by name, but he is apparently well known in the company of early believers. He had obviously been gathering information for his...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":35786,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Son of God","title_en":"Son of God","content_ro":"<h3>SON OF GOD<\/h3>\nTerm used to express the deity of Jesus of Nazareth as the unique divine Son.<\/p>\nJesus’ unique sonship is antithetical to concepts of sonship popular in the ancient world. In Hellenism, people believed a man could be a “son of the gods” in many ways: in mythology, by cohabitation of a god with a woman whose offspring was imagined to be superhuman; in politics, by giving generals and emperors high honors in the cult of Roman emperor worship; in medicine, by calling a doctor “son of Asclepius”; and eventually by ascribing to anyone with mysterious powers or qualities the title or reputation of “divine man.”<\/p>\nThe Term in the Old Testament<\/p>\nIn the OT, certain men who lived before the time of Noah (Gn 6:1-4), “the angels” (including Satan, Jb 1:6; 2:1), and other heavenly beings (Pss 29:1; 82:6; 89:6, rsv<\/span> mg) are called “sons of God.” Israel as a people was the chosen son of God. This corporate sonship became the basis of Israel’s redemption from Egypt: “Israel is my first-born son” (Ex 4:22; cf. Jer 31:9). Corporate sonship was the context for focus on personal sonship in the divine sanction of David as king: “I will be his father, and he will be my son” (2 Sm 7:14). David’s “adoptive” sonship was by divine decree: “I will proclaim the decree: . . . ‘You are my son; today I have become your Father’ ” (Ps 2:7); and it was the prophetic prototype of the “essential” sonship of Jesus, David’s royal son (Mt 3:17; Mk 1:11; Lk 3:22; Acts 13:33; Heb 1:5; 5:5). Other messianic prophecies ascribe divine names to the Davidic Messiah: “Immanuel” (Is 7:13-14) and “Mighty God, Everlasting Father” (Is 9:6-7). These are fulfilled in Jesus (Mt 1:23; 21:4-10; 22:41-45).<\/p>\nIn the Gospels<\/p>\nJesus’ identity as the Son of God is revealed in the Gospels in three distinct ways.<\/p>\nThe first is his eternal, personal sonship.<\/em> Jesus’ personal sonship is revealed in Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16) and in Jesus’ identification of himself at his trial: “ ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?’ . . . ‘I am,’ said Jesus” (Mk 14:61-62). In both instances, the issue is his personal being or essence, his eternal identity.<\/p>\nLong before Creation, even from eternity, the Father and the Son enjoyed fellowship with each other. We know this because the Bible tells us so—but not in any great detail. For the most part, the Scriptures are silent about the premundane scene. And yet there are a few verses that lift the veil slightly and give us a glimpse into that sublime, divine relationship that always existed between the Father and the Son.<\/p>\nOf all the books in the Bible, the Gospel of John has the most to say about the relationship between the Father and the Son. It is from John’s inspired pen that we read from the outset, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This is a rather flat rendering. The Greek conveys something more picturesque: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was face to face with God, and the Word was himself God.” Imagine, the Word, who was the preincarnate Son of God, was face to face with God. The expression “face to face” translates the Greek preposition pros<\/span> (short for prosopon pros prosopon<\/span>,<\/em> “face to face,” a common expression in koine Greek.) The expression signifies intimate fellowship. The Father and Son enjoyed such an intimate fellowship from eternity. How they must have delighted in each other!<\/p>\nAfter the Son of God became a man and began his ministry on earth, he referred to the relationship he enjoyed with the Father before the foundation of the world. Jesus spoke of what he had seen and heard together with the Father before coming to earth (see John 3:13 and 8:38). Jesus longed to return to that glorious sphere. In his prayer before going to the cross (in ch 17), he asked the Father to glorify him with the glory he had with the Father before the world was (v 5). Jesus wanted to recapture his primordial equality with the Father—something he had willingly relinquished for the sake of his Father’s plan (see Phil 2:6-7). As he prayed to the Father, a wonderful utterance escaped from his lips: “Father, . . . you loved me before the foundation of the world” (Jn 17:24). God’s Son, the unique Son, was the single object of the Father’s love.<\/p>\nThe second aspect of Jesus’ sonship is his nativity sonship.<\/em> The nativity of Jesus is traced to the direct, spiritual paternity of God. Jesus is the Son of God because his incarnation and birth into the human race was created by the Holy Spirit. In Matthew, Jesus’ conception “is of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 1:20). He is to be named “Jesus” (meaning Yahweh is salvation) “because he will save his people from their sins” (v 21), and “Immanuel” (God with us) because he is himself the Son of God in human flesh (v 23). In Luke, Jesus’ conception was by the Holy Spirit and the power of the Most High (Lk 1:31, 35), so Jesus was called “the Son of God” (v 35). If the father of Jesus had been the man Joseph, he would have been called “Jesus, the son of Joseph.” Luke’s teaching clearly means that since the Spirit of God was the father of Jesus, this son of the virgin Mary is properly called “Jesus, the Son of God.”<\/p>\nThe third aspect is his messianic sonship.<\/em> Jesus is the Father’s Son and representative, whose earthly mission is to establish the kingdom of God. At his baptism, he began his mission with the Father’s coronation: “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Mt 3:17; cf. Ps 2:7). Jesus received a similar pronouncement from heaven at his Transfiguration (Lk 9:35). As the messianic Son, Jesus perfectly completed the redeeming work given him to do by his Father.<\/p>\nIn the New Testament Epistles<\/p>\nPaul spoke of the essential, ontological sonship of Jesus—not as an isolated fact, but in the context of his redemptive work. It was as God’s Son that Jesus took human nature (Rom 1:3) and as “the Son of God” that he was resurrected and enthroned in power (Mt 28:18; Rom 1:4; 1 Cor 15:28). The Incarnation is spoken of as “God sending his own Son” (Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4) for humanity’s redemption, a redemption that was accomplished “through the death of his Son” (Rom 5:10; 8:29, 32). As a consequence, believers can have “fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor 1:9), and they can live by faith in “the Son of God” (Gal 2:20). Paul’s first preaching was “that Jesus is the Son of God” (Acts 9:20); this was later expounded by Paul in the light of Psalm 2:7 (see Acts 13:33).<\/p>\nIn Hebrews, Jesus is “the Son,” who is God’s “firstborn” and personal “heir,” who is creator and sustainer of the universe, and who is the “radiance of God’s glory” (Heb 1:2-12; 3:6; 5:5). As the Son, he is the final and eternal High Priest who ascended to heaven and whose mediatorial work remains perfect forever (4:14; 6:6; 7:3, 28). In 1 John 4 and 5, belief in Jesus as the incarnate Son of God is essential for salvation; disbelief comes from the spirit of the Antichrist.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Christology; Jesus Christ, Teachings of; Messiah; Son of Man.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SON OF GOD<\/h3>\nTerm used to express the deity of Jesus of Nazareth as the unique divine Son.<\/p>\nJesus’ unique sonship is antithetical to concepts of sonship popular in the ancient world. In Hellenism, people believed a man could be a “son of the gods” in many ways: in mythology, by cohabitation of a god with a woman whose offspring was imagined to be superhuman; in politics, by giving generals and emperors high honors in the cult of Roman emperor worship; in medicine, by calling a doctor “son of Asclepius”; and eventually by ascribing to anyone with mysterious powers or qualities the title or reputation of “divine man.”<\/p>\nThe Term in the Old Testament<\/p>\nIn the OT, certain men who lived before the time of Noah (Gn 6:1-4), “the angels” (including Satan, Jb 1:6; 2:1), and other heavenly beings (Pss 29:1; 82:6; 89:6, rsv<\/span> mg) are called “sons of God.” Israel as a people was the chosen son of God. This corporate sonship became the basis of Israel’s redemption from Egypt: “Israel is my first-born son” (Ex 4:22; cf. Jer 31:9). Corporate sonship was the context for focus on personal sonship in the divine sanction of David as king: “I will be his father, and he will be my son” (2 Sm 7:14). David’s “adoptive” sonship was by divine decree: “I will proclaim the decree: . . . ‘You are my son; today I have become your Father’ ” (Ps 2:7); and it was the prophetic prototype of the “essential” sonship of Jesus, David’s royal son (Mt 3:17; Mk 1:11; Lk 3:22; Acts 13:33; Heb 1:5; 5:5). Other messianic prophecies ascribe divine names to the Davidic Messiah: “Immanuel” (Is 7:13-14) and “Mighty God, Everlasting Father” (Is 9:6-7). These are fulfilled in Jesus (Mt 1:23; 21:4-10; 22:41-45).<\/p>\nIn the Gospels<\/p>\nJesus’ identity as the Son of God is revealed in the Gospels in three distinct ways.<\/p>\nThe first is his eternal, personal sonship.<\/em> Jesus’ personal sonship is revealed in Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16) and in Jesus’ identification of himself at his trial: “ ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?’ . . . ‘I am,’ said Jesus” (Mk 14:61-62). In both instances, the issue is his personal being or essence, his eternal identity.<\/p>\nLong before Creation, even from eternity, the Father and the Son enjoyed fellowship with each other. We know this because the Bible tells us so—but not in any great detail. For the most part, the Scriptures are silent about the premundane scene. And yet there are a few verses that lift the veil slightly and give us a glimpse into that sublime, divine relationship that always existed between the Father and the Son.<\/p>\nOf all the books in the Bible, the Gospel of John has the most to say about the relationship between the Father and the Son. It is from John’s inspired pen that we read from the outset, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This is a rather flat rendering. The Greek conveys something more picturesque: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was face to face with God, and the Word was himself God.” Imagine, the Word, who was the preincarnate Son of God, was face to face with God. The expression “face to face” translates the Greek preposition pros<\/span> (short for prosopon pros prosopon<\/span>,<\/em> “face to face,” a common expression in koine Greek.) The expression signifies intimate fellowship. The Father and Son enjoyed such an intimate fellowship from eternity. How they must have delighted in each other!<\/p>\nAfter the Son of God became a man and began his ministry on earth, he referred to the relationship he enjoyed with the Father before the foundation of the world. Jesus spoke of what he had seen and heard together with the Father before coming to earth (see John 3:13 and 8:38). Jesus longed to return to that glorious sphere. In his prayer before going to the cross (in ch 17), he asked the Father to glorify him with the glory he had with the Father before the world was (v 5). Jesus wanted to recapture his primordial equality with the Father—something he had willingly relinquished for the sake of his Father’s plan (see Phil 2:6-7). As he prayed to the Father, a wonderful utterance escaped from his lips: “Father, . . . you loved me before the foundation of the world” (Jn 17:24). God’s Son, the unique Son, was the single object of the Father’s love.<\/p>\nThe second aspect of Jesus’ sonship is his nativity sonship.<\/em> The nativity of Jesus is traced to the direct, spiritual paternity of God. Jesus is the Son of God because his incarnation and birth into the human race was created by the Holy Spirit. In Matthew, Jesus’ conception “is of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 1:20). He is to be named “Jesus” (meaning Yahweh is salvation) “because he will save his people from their sins” (v 21), and “Immanuel” (God with us) because he is himself the Son of God in human flesh (v 23). In Luke, Jesus’ conception was by the Holy Spirit and the power of the Most High (Lk 1:31, 35), so Jesus was called “the Son of God” (v 35). If the father of Jesus had been the man Joseph, he would have been called “Jesus, the son of Joseph.” Luke’s teaching clearly means that since the Spirit of God was the father of Jesus, this son of the virgin Mary is properly called “Jesus, the Son of God.”<\/p>\nThe third aspect is his messianic sonship.<\/em> Jesus is the Father’s Son and representative, whose earthly mission is to establish the kingdom of God. At his baptism, he began his mission with the Father’s coronation: “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Mt 3:17; cf. Ps 2:7). Jesus received a similar pronouncement from heaven at his Transfiguration (Lk 9:35). As the messianic Son, Jesus perfectly completed the redeeming work given him to do by his Father.<\/p>\nIn the New Testament Epistles<\/p>\nPaul spoke of the essential, ontological sonship of Jesus—not as an isolated fact, but in the context of his redemptive work. It was as God’s Son that Jesus took human nature (Rom 1:3) and as “the Son of God” that he was resurrected and enthroned in power (Mt 28:18; Rom 1:4; 1 Cor 15:28). The Incarnation is spoken of as “God sending his own Son” (Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4) for humanity’s redemption, a redemption that was accomplished “through the death of his Son” (Rom 5:10; 8:29, 32). As a consequence, believers can have “fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor 1:9), and they can live by faith in “the Son of God” (Gal 2:20). Paul’s first preaching was “that Jesus is the Son of God” (Acts 9:20); this was later expounded by Paul in the light of Psalm 2:7 (see Acts 13:33).<\/p>\nIn Hebrews, Jesus is “the Son,” who is God’s “firstborn” and personal “heir,” who is creator and sustainer of the universe, and who is the “radiance of God’s glory” (Heb 1:2-12; 3:6; 5:5). As the Son, he is the final and eternal High Priest who ascended to heaven and whose mediatorial work remains perfect forever (4:14; 6:6; 7:3, 28). In 1 John 4 and 5, belief in Jesus as the incarnate Son of God is essential for salvation; disbelief comes from the spirit of the Antichrist.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Christology; Jesus Christ, Teachings of; Messiah; Son of Man.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SON OF GOD Term used to express the deity of Jesus of Nazareth as the unique divine Son. Jesus’ unique sonship is antithetical to concepts of sonship popular in the ancient world. In Hellenism, people believed a man could be a “son of the gods” in many ways: in mythology, by cohabitation of a god with a woman whose offspring was imagined to be superhuman; in politics, by giving generals and emperors high honors in the cult of Roman emperor worship; in medicine, by calling a doctor “son of Asc...","summary_en":"SON OF GOD Term used to express the deity of Jesus of Nazareth as the unique divine Son. Jesus’ unique sonship is antithetical to concepts of sonship popular in the ancient world. In Hellenism, people believed a man could be a “son of the gods” in many ways: in mythology, by cohabitation of a god with a woman whose offspring was imagined to be superhuman; in politics, by giving generals and emperors high honors in the cult of Roman emperor worship; in medicine, by calling a doctor “son of Asc...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":37586,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Transfiguration*","title_en":"Transfiguration*","content_ro":"<h3>TRANSFIGURATION*<\/h3>\nEvent in Jesus’ earthly ministry described in four passages in the NT (Mt 17:1-8; Mk 9:2-8; Lk 9:28-36; 2 Pt 1:16-18), wherein Jesus was glorified in the presence of three disciples: James, Peter, and John.<\/p>\nThe Location of the Event<\/p>\nThe exact site where the Transfiguration took place is not given in the NT. Matthew 17:1 and Mark 9:2 simply state that it took place on a “high mountain.” Various suggestions have been made as to which mountain, with the traditional site being Mt Tabor, a round hill located in the plain of Esdraelon approximately 10 miles (16.1 kilometers) southwest of the Sea of Galilee. There are, however, two major problems with this suggested location. For one, it is difficult to see how Mt Tabor can justifiably be called a “high mountain,” for it is less than 2,000 feet (609.6 meters) above sea level. Second, in the time of Jesus a Roman garrison was stationed on Mt Tabor, and thus it would be unlikely that Jesus would have walked with his disciples up this mountain. A second suggestion for the site is Mt Carmel, which is located on the coast, but this seems off the main route of Jesus’ travel after the events of Caesarea Philippi. A third suggestion is Mt Hermon, which is over 9,000 feet (2,743.2 meters) high and lies about 12 miles (19.3 kilometers) to the northeast of Caesarea Philippi. Mt Hermon is indeed a high mountain and has the additional advantage of being located near Caesarea Philippi.<\/p>\nThe Event<\/p>\nSix days after the events of Caesarea Philippi, Jesus took Peter, James, and John to be alone with him on a high mountain. As on several other instances, these three disciples alone accompanied Jesus (cf. also Mk 5:35-43; 14:32-42). According to the Gospel accounts, three things took place at the Transfiguration:<\/p>\n1. “He was transfigured.” The various accounts all witness to an unusual transformation of Jesus. Jesus is transfigured: “his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light” (Mt 17:2). This transformation is described in Matthew and Mark by the Greek verb metamorpheo<\/span>,<\/em> the root for the word “metamorphosis.” This indicates that a tremendous change occurred.<\/p>\n<li>2. Moses and Elijah appeared and spoke to Jesus. These men, who undoubtedly represent the Law and the Prophets, are said to have spoken to Jesus of his “exodus,” or departure (Lk 9:31). The term used in Luke 9:31 to describe Jesus’ “exodus” (or death) is rather unusual and clearly portrays the death of Jesus not as a tragedy or defeat but as a victorious journey.<\/li>\n<li>3. After Peter’s remark that it was good for the three disciples to be present and witness this, and after his suggestion that they build three booths, a voice came from heaven saying, “This is my beloved Son; listen to him” (Mk 9:7). These words were clearly a rebuke for Peter having placed Jesus on the same level as Moses and Elijah. To make three booths (one for Moses, one for Elijah, and one for Jesus) loses sight of who Jesus is, and the voice from heaven pointed out Peter’s error. The rebuke also must be understood in light of what Peter had said a few days earlier at Caesarea Philippi. Had Peter forgotten that he had just said to Jesus, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”?<\/li>\nThe Meaning of the Event<\/p>\nIn order to understand the significance of the Transfiguration, it is important to contrast the heavenly voice at Jesus’ transfiguration with the heavenly voice at Jesus’ baptism. At the baptism both Mark 1:11 and Luke 3:22 indicate that the voice was addressed to Jesus: “You are my beloved Son.” At the Transfiguration, however, the voice is not addressed to Jesus but to Peter, James, and John: “This is my beloved Son” (Mk 9:7). Clearly the events of the Transfiguration are primarily directed toward the disciples rather than Jesus. “He was transfigured before them” (v 2); “there appeared to them Elijah with Moses” (v 4); “a cloud overshadowed them . . . ‘listen to him’ ” (v 7); “they no longer saw any one with them but Jesus only” (v 8). Evidently from these references, the incident is not meant so much for Jesus’ sake as for the disciples’. Following closely after the events of Caesarea Philippi, God appeared to affirm at the Transfiguration what Peter had previously confessed at Caesarea Philippi: Jesus is indeed the Christ, the Son of God.<\/p>\nIn 2 Peter 1:16-18 the writer recounts that he was an eyewitness of the Transfiguration. John seems to have done the same thing when he wrote the prologue to his Gospel and said, “We have beheld his glory” (Jn 1:14). At the Transfiguration the true form (Greek morphe<\/span>) of the Son of God temporarily broke through the veil of his humanity and the disciples saw his preexistent glory. In this transformation of Jesus, the three disciples witnessed something of Jesus’ preincarnate glory, as well as his future glory, which he received at his resurrection and which all will see when he returns to judge the world.<\/p>\nWhen Christ returns in his glory, all the believers will be transfigured and thereby receive a glorious, resurrected body. Thus, Christ’s transfiguration is the preview of every believer’s transfiguration (see 1 Cor 15:42-45; Phil 3:20-21; Col 3:4).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TRANSFIGURATION*<\/h3>\nEvent in Jesus’ earthly ministry described in four passages in the NT (Mt 17:1-8; Mk 9:2-8; Lk 9:28-36; 2 Pt 1:16-18), wherein Jesus was glorified in the presence of three disciples: James, Peter, and John.<\/p>\nThe Location of the Event<\/p>\nThe exact site where the Transfiguration took place is not given in the NT. Matthew 17:1 and Mark 9:2 simply state that it took place on a “high mountain.” Various suggestions have been made as to which mountain, with the traditional site being Mt Tabor, a round hill located in the plain of Esdraelon approximately 10 miles (16.1 kilometers) southwest of the Sea of Galilee. There are, however, two major problems with this suggested location. For one, it is difficult to see how Mt Tabor can justifiably be called a “high mountain,” for it is less than 2,000 feet (609.6 meters) above sea level. Second, in the time of Jesus a Roman garrison was stationed on Mt Tabor, and thus it would be unlikely that Jesus would have walked with his disciples up this mountain. A second suggestion for the site is Mt Carmel, which is located on the coast, but this seems off the main route of Jesus’ travel after the events of Caesarea Philippi. A third suggestion is Mt Hermon, which is over 9,000 feet (2,743.2 meters) high and lies about 12 miles (19.3 kilometers) to the northeast of Caesarea Philippi. Mt Hermon is indeed a high mountain and has the additional advantage of being located near Caesarea Philippi.<\/p>\nThe Event<\/p>\nSix days after the events of Caesarea Philippi, Jesus took Peter, James, and John to be alone with him on a high mountain. As on several other instances, these three disciples alone accompanied Jesus (cf. also Mk 5:35-43; 14:32-42). According to the Gospel accounts, three things took place at the Transfiguration:<\/p>\n1. “He was transfigured.” The various accounts all witness to an unusual transformation of Jesus. Jesus is transfigured: “his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light” (Mt 17:2). This transformation is described in Matthew and Mark by the Greek verb metamorpheo<\/span>,<\/em> the root for the word “metamorphosis.” This indicates that a tremendous change occurred.<\/p>\n<li>2. Moses and Elijah appeared and spoke to Jesus. These men, who undoubtedly represent the Law and the Prophets, are said to have spoken to Jesus of his “exodus,” or departure (Lk 9:31). The term used in Luke 9:31 to describe Jesus’ “exodus” (or death) is rather unusual and clearly portrays the death of Jesus not as a tragedy or defeat but as a victorious journey.<\/li>\n<li>3. After Peter’s remark that it was good for the three disciples to be present and witness this, and after his suggestion that they build three booths, a voice came from heaven saying, “This is my beloved Son; listen to him” (Mk 9:7). These words were clearly a rebuke for Peter having placed Jesus on the same level as Moses and Elijah. To make three booths (one for Moses, one for Elijah, and one for Jesus) loses sight of who Jesus is, and the voice from heaven pointed out Peter’s error. The rebuke also must be understood in light of what Peter had said a few days earlier at Caesarea Philippi. Had Peter forgotten that he had just said to Jesus, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”?<\/li>\nThe Meaning of the Event<\/p>\nIn order to understand the significance of the Transfiguration, it is important to contrast the heavenly voice at Jesus’ transfiguration with the heavenly voice at Jesus’ baptism. At the baptism both Mark 1:11 and Luke 3:22 indicate that the voice was addressed to Jesus: “You are my beloved Son.” At the Transfiguration, however, the voice is not addressed to Jesus but to Peter, James, and John: “This is my beloved Son” (Mk 9:7). Clearly the events of the Transfiguration are primarily directed toward the disciples rather than Jesus. “He was transfigured before them” (v 2); “there appeared to them Elijah with Moses” (v 4); “a cloud overshadowed them . . . ‘listen to him’ ” (v 7); “they no longer saw any one with them but Jesus only” (v 8). Evidently from these references, the incident is not meant so much for Jesus’ sake as for the disciples’. Following closely after the events of Caesarea Philippi, God appeared to affirm at the Transfiguration what Peter had previously confessed at Caesarea Philippi: Jesus is indeed the Christ, the Son of God.<\/p>\nIn 2 Peter 1:16-18 the writer recounts that he was an eyewitness of the Transfiguration. John seems to have done the same thing when he wrote the prologue to his Gospel and said, “We have beheld his glory” (Jn 1:14). At the Transfiguration the true form (Greek morphe<\/span>) of the Son of God temporarily broke through the veil of his humanity and the disciples saw his preexistent glory. In this transformation of Jesus, the three disciples witnessed something of Jesus’ preincarnate glory, as well as his future glory, which he received at his resurrection and which all will see when he returns to judge the world.<\/p>\nWhen Christ returns in his glory, all the believers will be transfigured and thereby receive a glorious, resurrected body. Thus, Christ’s transfiguration is the preview of every believer’s transfiguration (see 1 Cor 15:42-45; Phil 3:20-21; Col 3:4).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"TRANSFIGURATION* Event in Jesus’ earthly ministry described in four passages in the NT (Mt 17:1-8; Mk 9:2-8; Lk 9:28-36; 2 Pt 1:16-18), wherein Jesus was glorified in the presence of three disciples: James, Peter, and John. The Location of the Event The exact site where the Transfiguration took place is not given in the NT. Matthew 17:1 and Mark 9:2 simply state that it took place on a “high mountain.” Various suggestions have been made as to which mountain, with the traditional site being Mt...","summary_en":"TRANSFIGURATION* Event in Jesus’ earthly ministry described in four passages in the NT (Mt 17:1-8; Mk 9:2-8; Lk 9:28-36; 2 Pt 1:16-18), wherein Jesus was glorified in the presence of three disciples: James, Peter, and John. The Location of the Event The exact site where the Transfiguration took place is not given in the NT. Matthew 17:1 and Mark 9:2 simply state that it took place on a “high mountain.” Various suggestions have been made as to which mountain, with the traditional site being Mt...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55671,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:22","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:22","content_ro":"3:22<\/strong> The Spirit might have looked like a dove<\/em>, or perhaps it descended<\/em> in a dove-like manner. • You are my dearly loved Son, and you bring me great joy:<\/em> This statement resonates with Ps 2:7 and Isa 42:1. The former identifies Jesus as the Messiah from David’s line; the latter indicates his role as servant of the Lord. Jesus’ identity was again declared from heaven at his transfiguration (Luke 9:35).<\/p>","content_en":"3:22<\/strong> The Spirit might have looked like a dove<\/em>, or perhaps it descended<\/em> in a dove-like manner. • You are my dearly loved Son, and you bring me great joy:<\/em> This statement resonates with Ps 2:7 and Isa 42:1. The former identifies Jesus as the Messiah from David’s line; the latter indicates his role as servant of the Lord. Jesus’ identity was again declared from heaven at his transfiguration (Luke 9:35).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:22 The Spirit might have looked like a dove, or perhaps it descended in a dove-like manner. • You are my dearly loved Son, and you bring me great joy: This statement resonates with Ps 2:7 and Isa 42:1. The former identifies Jesus as the Messiah from David’s line; the latter indicates his role as servant of the Lord. Jesus’ identity was again declared from heaven at his transfiguration (Luke 9:35).","summary_en":"3:22 The Spirit might have looked like a dove, or perhaps it descended in a dove-like manner. • You are my dearly loved Son, and you bring me great joy: This statement resonates with Ps 2:7 and Isa 42:1. The former identifies Jesus as the Messiah from David’s line; the latter indicates his role as servant of the Lord. Jesus’ identity was again declared from heaven at his transfiguration (Luke 9:35).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83297,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:22","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:22","content_ro":"3:22<\/strong> The Spirit might have looked like a dove<\/em>, or perhaps it descended<\/em> in a dove-like manner. • You are my dearly loved Son, and you bring me great joy:<\/em> This statement resonates with Ps 2:7 and Isa 42:1. The former identifies Jesus as the Messiah from David’s line; the latter indicates his role as servant of the Lord. Jesus’ identity was again declared from heaven at his transfiguration (Luke 9:35).<\/p>","content_en":"3:22<\/strong> The Spirit might have looked like a dove<\/em>, or perhaps it descended<\/em> in a dove-like manner. • You are my dearly loved Son, and you bring me great joy:<\/em> This statement resonates with Ps 2:7 and Isa 42:1. The former identifies Jesus as the Messiah from David’s line; the latter indicates his role as servant of the Lord. Jesus’ identity was again declared from heaven at his transfiguration (Luke 9:35).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:22 The Spirit might have looked like a dove, or perhaps it descended in a dove-like manner. • You are my dearly loved Son, and you bring me great joy: This statement resonates with Ps 2:7 and Isa 42:1. The former identifies Jesus as the Messiah from David’s line; the latter indicates his role as servant of the Lord. Jesus’ identity was again declared from heaven at his transfiguration (Luke 9:35).","summary_en":"3:22 The Spirit might have looked like a dove, or perhaps it descended in a dove-like manner. • You are my dearly loved Son, and you bring me great joy: This statement resonates with Ps 2:7 and Isa 42:1. The former identifies Jesus as the Messiah from David’s line; the latter indicates his role as servant of the Lord. Jesus’ identity was again declared from heaven at his transfiguration (Luke 9:35).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110923,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:22","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:22","content_ro":"3:22<\/strong> The Spirit might have looked like a dove<\/em>, or perhaps it descended<\/em> in a dove-like manner. • You are my dearly loved Son, and you bring me great joy:<\/em> This statement resonates with Ps 2:7 and Isa 42:1. The former identifies Jesus as the Messiah from David’s line; the latter indicates his role as servant of the Lord. Jesus’ identity was again declared from heaven at his transfiguration (Luke 9:35).<\/p>","content_en":"3:22<\/strong> The Spirit might have looked like a dove<\/em>, or perhaps it descended<\/em> in a dove-like manner. • You are my dearly loved Son, and you bring me great joy:<\/em> This statement resonates with Ps 2:7 and Isa 42:1. The former identifies Jesus as the Messiah from David’s line; the latter indicates his role as servant of the Lord. Jesus’ identity was again declared from heaven at his transfiguration (Luke 9:35).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:22 The Spirit might have looked like a dove, or perhaps it descended in a dove-like manner. • You are my dearly loved Son, and you bring me great joy: This statement resonates with Ps 2:7 and Isa 42:1. The former identifies Jesus as the Messiah from David’s line; the latter indicates his role as servant of the Lord. Jesus’ identity was again declared from heaven at his transfiguration (Luke 9:35).","summary_en":"3:22 The Spirit might have looked like a dove, or perhaps it descended in a dove-like manner. • You are my dearly loved Son, and you bring me great joy: This statement resonates with Ps 2:7 and Isa 42:1. The former identifies Jesus as the Messiah from David’s line; the latter indicates his role as servant of the Lord. Jesus’ identity was again declared from heaven at his transfiguration (Luke 9:35).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138549,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:22","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:22","content_ro":"3:22<\/strong> The Spirit might have looked like a dove<\/em>, or perhaps it descended<\/em> in a dove-like manner. • You are my dearly loved Son, and you bring me great joy:<\/em> This statement resonates with Ps 2:7 and Isa 42:1. The former identifies Jesus as the Messiah from David’s line; the latter indicates his role as servant of the Lord. Jesus’ identity was again declared from heaven at his transfiguration (Luke 9:35).<\/p>","content_en":"3:22<\/strong> The Spirit might have looked like a dove<\/em>, or perhaps it descended<\/em> in a dove-like manner. • You are my dearly loved Son, and you bring me great joy:<\/em> This statement resonates with Ps 2:7 and Isa 42:1. The former identifies Jesus as the Messiah from David’s line; the latter indicates his role as servant of the Lord. Jesus’ identity was again declared from heaven at his transfiguration (Luke 9:35).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:22 The Spirit might have looked like a dove, or perhaps it descended in a dove-like manner. • You are my dearly loved Son, and you bring me great joy: This statement resonates with Ps 2:7 and Isa 42:1. The former identifies Jesus as the Messiah from David’s line; the latter indicates his role as servant of the Lord. Jesus’ identity was again declared from heaven at his transfiguration (Luke 9:35).","summary_en":"3:22 The Spirit might have looked like a dove, or perhaps it descended in a dove-like manner. • You are my dearly loved Son, and you bring me great joy: This statement resonates with Ps 2:7 and Isa 42:1. The former identifies Jesus as the Messiah from David’s line; the latter indicates his role as servant of the Lord. Jesus’ identity was again declared from heaven at his transfiguration (Luke 9:35).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":65415,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Son of God","title_en":"The Son of God","content_ro":"<h3>The Son of God<\/h3>\nTime and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the title “Son of God” is applied to the people of Israel (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6, 18-19; Ps 82:6; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) and to angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1). It is also applied in a special way to Israel’s king—the anointed king was seen as God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27). The title also appears in intertestamental Jewish literature (including the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls), possibly in reference to the coming Messiah. Jews in the first century would have likely considered the coming Messiah as a “Son of God.”<\/p>\nJesus’ identity as “the Son of God” was affirmed by God at his baptism (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22) and by demons he encountered during his ministry (Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24; 1:34; 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28). Later, the disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20) and Jesus immediately began to teach them of his forthcoming death (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). Then, at Jesus’ transfiguration, God affirmed the disciples’ confession (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). As Jesus approached his death, he affirmed his unique identity as God’s Son, both through his teaching (Mark 12:1-12; 13:32) and at his trial (Mark 14:61-62).<\/p>\nIn the Gospels, the climactic confession of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman centurion became the first human in the narrative to recognize that Jesus is truly the Son of God (Mark 15:39). While Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is demonstrated in his exorcisms and by his Father’s declarations, his sacrificial death and the way he died (Mark 15:33-39) provide the supreme evidence that he is the Son of God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Matt 26:63-68; Mark 1:1, 11, 24; 4:35-41; 8:31; 9:7; 12:1-12; 14:61-62; 15:32-39; Luke 1:32-35; 4:41; John 1:18; 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-26; 17:5, 24; 20:31; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:4; 5:10; 8:3, 32; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 4:13; 1 Thes 1:10; Heb 1:2-14; 3:6; 5:5; 1 Jn 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:9-10, 14; 5:20; 2 Jn 1:3, 9; Rev 2:18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Son of God<\/h3>\nTime and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the title “Son of God” is applied to the people of Israel (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6, 18-19; Ps 82:6; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) and to angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1). It is also applied in a special way to Israel’s king—the anointed king was seen as God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27). The title also appears in intertestamental Jewish literature (including the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls), possibly in reference to the coming Messiah. Jews in the first century would have likely considered the coming Messiah as a “Son of God.”<\/p>\nJesus’ identity as “the Son of God” was affirmed by God at his baptism (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22) and by demons he encountered during his ministry (Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24; 1:34; 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28). Later, the disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20) and Jesus immediately began to teach them of his forthcoming death (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). Then, at Jesus’ transfiguration, God affirmed the disciples’ confession (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). As Jesus approached his death, he affirmed his unique identity as God’s Son, both through his teaching (Mark 12:1-12; 13:32) and at his trial (Mark 14:61-62).<\/p>\nIn the Gospels, the climactic confession of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman centurion became the first human in the narrative to recognize that Jesus is truly the Son of God (Mark 15:39). While Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is demonstrated in his exorcisms and by his Father’s declarations, his sacrificial death and the way he died (Mark 15:33-39) provide the supreme evidence that he is the Son of God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Matt 26:63-68; Mark 1:1, 11, 24; 4:35-41; 8:31; 9:7; 12:1-12; 14:61-62; 15:32-39; Luke 1:32-35; 4:41; John 1:18; 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-26; 17:5, 24; 20:31; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:4; 5:10; 8:3, 32; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 4:13; 1 Thes 1:10; Heb 1:2-14; 3:6; 5:5; 1 Jn 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:9-10, 14; 5:20; 2 Jn 1:3, 9; Rev 2:18<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Son of God Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: ...","summary_en":"The Son of God Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":65799,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Coming of the Spirit of God","title_en":"The Coming of the Spirit of God","content_ro":"<h3>The Coming of the Spirit of God<\/h3>\nIn the Old Testament, the Spirit of God occasionally came upon individuals to empower them for God’s service and to prophesy (Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Ezek 11:5). In the Judaism of Jesus’ day, there was a widespread belief that the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel with the last of the Old Testament prophets. But the prophets had predicted that when God’s salvation arrived, he would pour out his Spirit on all people (Isa 32:15; Ezek 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32).<\/p>\nThis prophecy finds its initial fulfillment in the birth narrative in Luke. The Holy Spirit inspired prophetic witness and guided the events of Jesus’ birth. John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit even before he was born (Luke 1:15, 41), and Zechariah broke forth in a Spirit-filled hymn of praise to God (1:67). Mary conceived Jesus and prophesied through the power of the Spirit (1:35; 1:46-55), and Simeon was led by the Spirit to the Temple to see the Messiah (2:25-27). Later in his life, Jesus was anointed by the Spirit at his baptism and empowered to accomplish his role as the Messiah (3:21-22; 4:1, 18).<\/p>\nFollowing his ascension, Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies by pouring out his Spirit on his disciples on the Day of Pentecost, empowering them to take the Good News of salvation to the ends of the earth (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8; 2:4, 17-18). Throughout Acts, the church accomplished its mission through the guidance, power, and direction of the Holy Spirit. The coming of the Spirit marks the beginning of God’s salvation—God’s presence and power now reside with his people.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nNum 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Isa 32:15; Ezek 11:5; 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32; Luke 1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:24-27; 3:22; 4:1, 18; 24:49; Acts 2:4, 17-18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Coming of the Spirit of God<\/h3>\nIn the Old Testament, the Spirit of God occasionally came upon individuals to empower them for God’s service and to prophesy (Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Ezek 11:5). In the Judaism of Jesus’ day, there was a widespread belief that the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel with the last of the Old Testament prophets. But the prophets had predicted that when God’s salvation arrived, he would pour out his Spirit on all people (Isa 32:15; Ezek 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32).<\/p>\nThis prophecy finds its initial fulfillment in the birth narrative in Luke. The Holy Spirit inspired prophetic witness and guided the events of Jesus’ birth. John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit even before he was born (Luke 1:15, 41), and Zechariah broke forth in a Spirit-filled hymn of praise to God (1:67). Mary conceived Jesus and prophesied through the power of the Spirit (1:35; 1:46-55), and Simeon was led by the Spirit to the Temple to see the Messiah (2:25-27). Later in his life, Jesus was anointed by the Spirit at his baptism and empowered to accomplish his role as the Messiah (3:21-22; 4:1, 18).<\/p>\nFollowing his ascension, Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies by pouring out his Spirit on his disciples on the Day of Pentecost, empowering them to take the Good News of salvation to the ends of the earth (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8; 2:4, 17-18). Throughout Acts, the church accomplished its mission through the guidance, power, and direction of the Holy Spirit. The coming of the Spirit marks the beginning of God’s salvation—God’s presence and power now reside with his people.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nNum 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Isa 32:15; Ezek 11:5; 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32; Luke 1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:24-27; 3:22; 4:1, 18; 24:49; Acts 2:4, 17-18<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Coming of the Spirit of God In the Old Testament, the Spirit of God occasionally came upon individuals to empower them for God’s service and to prophesy (Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Ezek 11:5). In the Judaism of Jesus’ day, there was a widespread belief that the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel with the last of the Old Testament prophets. But the prophets had predicted that when God’s salvation arrived, he would pour out his Spirit on all people (Isa 32:15; Ezek 36...","summary_en":"The Coming of the Spirit of God In the Old Testament, the Spirit of God occasionally came upon individuals to empower them for God’s service and to prophesy (Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Ezek 11:5). In the Judaism of Jesus’ day, there was a widespread belief that the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel with the last of the Old Testament prophets. But the prophets had predicted that when God’s salvation arrived, he would pour out his Spirit on all people (Isa 32:15; Ezek 36...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":93041,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Son of God","title_en":"The Son of God","content_ro":"<h3>The Son of God<\/h3>\nTime and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the title “Son of God” is applied to the people of Israel (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6, 18-19; Ps 82:6; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) and to angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1). It is also applied in a special way to Israel’s king—the anointed king was seen as God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27). The title also appears in intertestamental Jewish literature (including the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls), possibly in reference to the coming Messiah. Jews in the first century would have likely considered the coming Messiah as a “Son of God.”<\/p>\nJesus’ identity as “the Son of God” was affirmed by God at his baptism (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22) and by demons he encountered during his ministry (Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24; 1:34; 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28). Later, the disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20) and Jesus immediately began to teach them of his forthcoming death (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). Then, at Jesus’ transfiguration, God affirmed the disciples’ confession (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). As Jesus approached his death, he affirmed his unique identity as God’s Son, both through his teaching (Mark 12:1-12; 13:32) and at his trial (Mark 14:61-62).<\/p>\nIn the Gospels, the climactic confession of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman centurion became the first human in the narrative to recognize that Jesus is truly the Son of God (Mark 15:39). While Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is demonstrated in his exorcisms and by his Father’s declarations, his sacrificial death and the way he died (Mark 15:33-39) provide the supreme evidence that he is the Son of God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Matt 26:63-68; Mark 1:1, 11, 24; 4:35-41; 8:31; 9:7; 12:1-12; 14:61-62; 15:32-39; Luke 1:32-35; 4:41; John 1:18; 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-26; 17:5, 24; 20:31; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:4; 5:10; 8:3, 32; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 4:13; 1 Thes 1:10; Heb 1:2-14; 3:6; 5:5; 1 Jn 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:9-10, 14; 5:20; 2 Jn 1:3, 9; Rev 2:18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Son of God<\/h3>\nTime and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the title “Son of God” is applied to the people of Israel (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6, 18-19; Ps 82:6; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) and to angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1). It is also applied in a special way to Israel’s king—the anointed king was seen as God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27). The title also appears in intertestamental Jewish literature (including the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls), possibly in reference to the coming Messiah. Jews in the first century would have likely considered the coming Messiah as a “Son of God.”<\/p>\nJesus’ identity as “the Son of God” was affirmed by God at his baptism (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22) and by demons he encountered during his ministry (Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24; 1:34; 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28). Later, the disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20) and Jesus immediately began to teach them of his forthcoming death (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). Then, at Jesus’ transfiguration, God affirmed the disciples’ confession (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). As Jesus approached his death, he affirmed his unique identity as God’s Son, both through his teaching (Mark 12:1-12; 13:32) and at his trial (Mark 14:61-62).<\/p>\nIn the Gospels, the climactic confession of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman centurion became the first human in the narrative to recognize that Jesus is truly the Son of God (Mark 15:39). While Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is demonstrated in his exorcisms and by his Father’s declarations, his sacrificial death and the way he died (Mark 15:33-39) provide the supreme evidence that he is the Son of God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Matt 26:63-68; Mark 1:1, 11, 24; 4:35-41; 8:31; 9:7; 12:1-12; 14:61-62; 15:32-39; Luke 1:32-35; 4:41; John 1:18; 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-26; 17:5, 24; 20:31; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:4; 5:10; 8:3, 32; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 4:13; 1 Thes 1:10; Heb 1:2-14; 3:6; 5:5; 1 Jn 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:9-10, 14; 5:20; 2 Jn 1:3, 9; Rev 2:18<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Son of God Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: ...","summary_en":"The Son of God Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":93425,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Coming of the Spirit of God","title_en":"The Coming of the Spirit of God","content_ro":"<h3>The Coming of the Spirit of God<\/h3>\nIn the Old Testament, the Spirit of God occasionally came upon individuals to empower them for God’s service and to prophesy (Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Ezek 11:5). In the Judaism of Jesus’ day, there was a widespread belief that the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel with the last of the Old Testament prophets. But the prophets had predicted that when God’s salvation arrived, he would pour out his Spirit on all people (Isa 32:15; Ezek 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32).<\/p>\nThis prophecy finds its initial fulfillment in the birth narrative in Luke. The Holy Spirit inspired prophetic witness and guided the events of Jesus’ birth. John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit even before he was born (Luke 1:15, 41), and Zechariah broke forth in a Spirit-filled hymn of praise to God (1:67). Mary conceived Jesus and prophesied through the power of the Spirit (1:35; 1:46-55), and Simeon was led by the Spirit to the Temple to see the Messiah (2:25-27). Later in his life, Jesus was anointed by the Spirit at his baptism and empowered to accomplish his role as the Messiah (3:21-22; 4:1, 18).<\/p>\nFollowing his ascension, Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies by pouring out his Spirit on his disciples on the Day of Pentecost, empowering them to take the Good News of salvation to the ends of the earth (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8; 2:4, 17-18). Throughout Acts, the church accomplished its mission through the guidance, power, and direction of the Holy Spirit. The coming of the Spirit marks the beginning of God’s salvation—God’s presence and power now reside with his people.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nNum 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Isa 32:15; Ezek 11:5; 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32; Luke 1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:24-27; 3:22; 4:1, 18; 24:49; Acts 2:4, 17-18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Coming of the Spirit of God<\/h3>\nIn the Old Testament, the Spirit of God occasionally came upon individuals to empower them for God’s service and to prophesy (Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Ezek 11:5). In the Judaism of Jesus’ day, there was a widespread belief that the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel with the last of the Old Testament prophets. But the prophets had predicted that when God’s salvation arrived, he would pour out his Spirit on all people (Isa 32:15; Ezek 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32).<\/p>\nThis prophecy finds its initial fulfillment in the birth narrative in Luke. The Holy Spirit inspired prophetic witness and guided the events of Jesus’ birth. John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit even before he was born (Luke 1:15, 41), and Zechariah broke forth in a Spirit-filled hymn of praise to God (1:67). Mary conceived Jesus and prophesied through the power of the Spirit (1:35; 1:46-55), and Simeon was led by the Spirit to the Temple to see the Messiah (2:25-27). Later in his life, Jesus was anointed by the Spirit at his baptism and empowered to accomplish his role as the Messiah (3:21-22; 4:1, 18).<\/p>\nFollowing his ascension, Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies by pouring out his Spirit on his disciples on the Day of Pentecost, empowering them to take the Good News of salvation to the ends of the earth (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8; 2:4, 17-18). Throughout Acts, the church accomplished its mission through the guidance, power, and direction of the Holy Spirit. The coming of the Spirit marks the beginning of God’s salvation—God’s presence and power now reside with his people.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nNum 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Isa 32:15; Ezek 11:5; 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32; Luke 1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:24-27; 3:22; 4:1, 18; 24:49; Acts 2:4, 17-18<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Coming of the Spirit of God In the Old Testament, the Spirit of God occasionally came upon individuals to empower them for God’s service and to prophesy (Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Ezek 11:5). In the Judaism of Jesus’ day, there was a widespread belief that the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel with the last of the Old Testament prophets. But the prophets had predicted that when God’s salvation arrived, he would pour out his Spirit on all people (Isa 32:15; Ezek 36...","summary_en":"The Coming of the Spirit of God In the Old Testament, the Spirit of God occasionally came upon individuals to empower them for God’s service and to prophesy (Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Ezek 11:5). In the Judaism of Jesus’ day, there was a widespread belief that the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel with the last of the Old Testament prophets. But the prophets had predicted that when God’s salvation arrived, he would pour out his Spirit on all people (Isa 32:15; Ezek 36...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":120667,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Son of God","title_en":"The Son of God","content_ro":"<h3>The Son of God<\/h3>\nTime and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the title “Son of God” is applied to the people of Israel (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6, 18-19; Ps 82:6; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) and to angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1). It is also applied in a special way to Israel’s king—the anointed king was seen as God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27). The title also appears in intertestamental Jewish literature (including the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls), possibly in reference to the coming Messiah. Jews in the first century would have likely considered the coming Messiah as a “Son of God.”<\/p>\nJesus’ identity as “the Son of God” was affirmed by God at his baptism (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22) and by demons he encountered during his ministry (Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24; 1:34; 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28). Later, the disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20) and Jesus immediately began to teach them of his forthcoming death (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). Then, at Jesus’ transfiguration, God affirmed the disciples’ confession (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). As Jesus approached his death, he affirmed his unique identity as God’s Son, both through his teaching (Mark 12:1-12; 13:32) and at his trial (Mark 14:61-62).<\/p>\nIn the Gospels, the climactic confession of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman centurion became the first human in the narrative to recognize that Jesus is truly the Son of God (Mark 15:39). While Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is demonstrated in his exorcisms and by his Father’s declarations, his sacrificial death and the way he died (Mark 15:33-39) provide the supreme evidence that he is the Son of God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Matt 26:63-68; Mark 1:1, 11, 24; 4:35-41; 8:31; 9:7; 12:1-12; 14:61-62; 15:32-39; Luke 1:32-35; 4:41; John 1:18; 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-26; 17:5, 24; 20:31; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:4; 5:10; 8:3, 32; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 4:13; 1 Thes 1:10; Heb 1:2-14; 3:6; 5:5; 1 Jn 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:9-10, 14; 5:20; 2 Jn 1:3, 9; Rev 2:18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Son of God<\/h3>\nTime and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the title “Son of God” is applied to the people of Israel (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6, 18-19; Ps 82:6; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) and to angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1). It is also applied in a special way to Israel’s king—the anointed king was seen as God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27). The title also appears in intertestamental Jewish literature (including the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls), possibly in reference to the coming Messiah. Jews in the first century would have likely considered the coming Messiah as a “Son of God.”<\/p>\nJesus’ identity as “the Son of God” was affirmed by God at his baptism (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22) and by demons he encountered during his ministry (Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24; 1:34; 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28). Later, the disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20) and Jesus immediately began to teach them of his forthcoming death (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). Then, at Jesus’ transfiguration, God affirmed the disciples’ confession (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). As Jesus approached his death, he affirmed his unique identity as God’s Son, both through his teaching (Mark 12:1-12; 13:32) and at his trial (Mark 14:61-62).<\/p>\nIn the Gospels, the climactic confession of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman centurion became the first human in the narrative to recognize that Jesus is truly the Son of God (Mark 15:39). While Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is demonstrated in his exorcisms and by his Father’s declarations, his sacrificial death and the way he died (Mark 15:33-39) provide the supreme evidence that he is the Son of God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Matt 26:63-68; Mark 1:1, 11, 24; 4:35-41; 8:31; 9:7; 12:1-12; 14:61-62; 15:32-39; Luke 1:32-35; 4:41; John 1:18; 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-26; 17:5, 24; 20:31; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:4; 5:10; 8:3, 32; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 4:13; 1 Thes 1:10; Heb 1:2-14; 3:6; 5:5; 1 Jn 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:9-10, 14; 5:20; 2 Jn 1:3, 9; Rev 2:18<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Son of God Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: ...","summary_en":"The Son of God Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":121051,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Coming of the Spirit of God","title_en":"The Coming of the Spirit of God","content_ro":"<h3>The Coming of the Spirit of God<\/h3>\nIn the Old Testament, the Spirit of God occasionally came upon individuals to empower them for God’s service and to prophesy (Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Ezek 11:5). In the Judaism of Jesus’ day, there was a widespread belief that the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel with the last of the Old Testament prophets. But the prophets had predicted that when God’s salvation arrived, he would pour out his Spirit on all people (Isa 32:15; Ezek 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32).<\/p>\nThis prophecy finds its initial fulfillment in the birth narrative in Luke. The Holy Spirit inspired prophetic witness and guided the events of Jesus’ birth. John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit even before he was born (Luke 1:15, 41), and Zechariah broke forth in a Spirit-filled hymn of praise to God (1:67). Mary conceived Jesus and prophesied through the power of the Spirit (1:35; 1:46-55), and Simeon was led by the Spirit to the Temple to see the Messiah (2:25-27). Later in his life, Jesus was anointed by the Spirit at his baptism and empowered to accomplish his role as the Messiah (3:21-22; 4:1, 18).<\/p>\nFollowing his ascension, Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies by pouring out his Spirit on his disciples on the Day of Pentecost, empowering them to take the Good News of salvation to the ends of the earth (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8; 2:4, 17-18). Throughout Acts, the church accomplished its mission through the guidance, power, and direction of the Holy Spirit. The coming of the Spirit marks the beginning of God’s salvation—God’s presence and power now reside with his people.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nNum 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Isa 32:15; Ezek 11:5; 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32; Luke 1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:24-27; 3:22; 4:1, 18; 24:49; Acts 2:4, 17-18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Coming of the Spirit of God<\/h3>\nIn the Old Testament, the Spirit of God occasionally came upon individuals to empower them for God’s service and to prophesy (Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Ezek 11:5). In the Judaism of Jesus’ day, there was a widespread belief that the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel with the last of the Old Testament prophets. But the prophets had predicted that when God’s salvation arrived, he would pour out his Spirit on all people (Isa 32:15; Ezek 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32).<\/p>\nThis prophecy finds its initial fulfillment in the birth narrative in Luke. The Holy Spirit inspired prophetic witness and guided the events of Jesus’ birth. John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit even before he was born (Luke 1:15, 41), and Zechariah broke forth in a Spirit-filled hymn of praise to God (1:67). Mary conceived Jesus and prophesied through the power of the Spirit (1:35; 1:46-55), and Simeon was led by the Spirit to the Temple to see the Messiah (2:25-27). Later in his life, Jesus was anointed by the Spirit at his baptism and empowered to accomplish his role as the Messiah (3:21-22; 4:1, 18).<\/p>\nFollowing his ascension, Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies by pouring out his Spirit on his disciples on the Day of Pentecost, empowering them to take the Good News of salvation to the ends of the earth (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8; 2:4, 17-18). Throughout Acts, the church accomplished its mission through the guidance, power, and direction of the Holy Spirit. The coming of the Spirit marks the beginning of God’s salvation—God’s presence and power now reside with his people.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nNum 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Isa 32:15; Ezek 11:5; 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32; Luke 1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:24-27; 3:22; 4:1, 18; 24:49; Acts 2:4, 17-18<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Coming of the Spirit of God In the Old Testament, the Spirit of God occasionally came upon individuals to empower them for God’s service and to prophesy (Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Ezek 11:5). In the Judaism of Jesus’ day, there was a widespread belief that the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel with the last of the Old Testament prophets. But the prophets had predicted that when God’s salvation arrived, he would pour out his Spirit on all people (Isa 32:15; Ezek 36...","summary_en":"The Coming of the Spirit of God In the Old Testament, the Spirit of God occasionally came upon individuals to empower them for God’s service and to prophesy (Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Ezek 11:5). In the Judaism of Jesus’ day, there was a widespread belief that the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel with the last of the Old Testament prophets. But the prophets had predicted that when God’s salvation arrived, he would pour out his Spirit on all people (Isa 32:15; Ezek 36...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":148293,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Son of God","title_en":"The Son of God","content_ro":"<h3>The Son of God<\/h3>\nTime and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the title “Son of God” is applied to the people of Israel (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6, 18-19; Ps 82:6; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) and to angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1). It is also applied in a special way to Israel’s king—the anointed king was seen as God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27). The title also appears in intertestamental Jewish literature (including the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls), possibly in reference to the coming Messiah. Jews in the first century would have likely considered the coming Messiah as a “Son of God.”<\/p>\nJesus’ identity as “the Son of God” was affirmed by God at his baptism (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22) and by demons he encountered during his ministry (Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24; 1:34; 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28). Later, the disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20) and Jesus immediately began to teach them of his forthcoming death (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). Then, at Jesus’ transfiguration, God affirmed the disciples’ confession (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). As Jesus approached his death, he affirmed his unique identity as God’s Son, both through his teaching (Mark 12:1-12; 13:32) and at his trial (Mark 14:61-62).<\/p>\nIn the Gospels, the climactic confession of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman centurion became the first human in the narrative to recognize that Jesus is truly the Son of God (Mark 15:39). While Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is demonstrated in his exorcisms and by his Father’s declarations, his sacrificial death and the way he died (Mark 15:33-39) provide the supreme evidence that he is the Son of God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Matt 26:63-68; Mark 1:1, 11, 24; 4:35-41; 8:31; 9:7; 12:1-12; 14:61-62; 15:32-39; Luke 1:32-35; 4:41; John 1:18; 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-26; 17:5, 24; 20:31; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:4; 5:10; 8:3, 32; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 4:13; 1 Thes 1:10; Heb 1:2-14; 3:6; 5:5; 1 Jn 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:9-10, 14; 5:20; 2 Jn 1:3, 9; Rev 2:18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Son of God<\/h3>\nTime and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the title “Son of God” is applied to the people of Israel (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6, 18-19; Ps 82:6; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) and to angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1). It is also applied in a special way to Israel’s king—the anointed king was seen as God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27). The title also appears in intertestamental Jewish literature (including the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls), possibly in reference to the coming Messiah. Jews in the first century would have likely considered the coming Messiah as a “Son of God.”<\/p>\nJesus’ identity as “the Son of God” was affirmed by God at his baptism (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22) and by demons he encountered during his ministry (Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24; 1:34; 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28). Later, the disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20) and Jesus immediately began to teach them of his forthcoming death (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). Then, at Jesus’ transfiguration, God affirmed the disciples’ confession (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). As Jesus approached his death, he affirmed his unique identity as God’s Son, both through his teaching (Mark 12:1-12; 13:32) and at his trial (Mark 14:61-62).<\/p>\nIn the Gospels, the climactic confession of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman centurion became the first human in the narrative to recognize that Jesus is truly the Son of God (Mark 15:39). While Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is demonstrated in his exorcisms and by his Father’s declarations, his sacrificial death and the way he died (Mark 15:33-39) provide the supreme evidence that he is the Son of God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Matt 26:63-68; Mark 1:1, 11, 24; 4:35-41; 8:31; 9:7; 12:1-12; 14:61-62; 15:32-39; Luke 1:32-35; 4:41; John 1:18; 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-26; 17:5, 24; 20:31; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:4; 5:10; 8:3, 32; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 4:13; 1 Thes 1:10; Heb 1:2-14; 3:6; 5:5; 1 Jn 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:9-10, 14; 5:20; 2 Jn 1:3, 9; Rev 2:18<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Son of God Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: ...","summary_en":"The Son of God Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":148677,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Coming of the Spirit of God","title_en":"The Coming of the Spirit of God","content_ro":"<h3>The Coming of the Spirit of God<\/h3>\nIn the Old Testament, the Spirit of God occasionally came upon individuals to empower them for God’s service and to prophesy (Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Ezek 11:5). In the Judaism of Jesus’ day, there was a widespread belief that the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel with the last of the Old Testament prophets. But the prophets had predicted that when God’s salvation arrived, he would pour out his Spirit on all people (Isa 32:15; Ezek 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32).<\/p>\nThis prophecy finds its initial fulfillment in the birth narrative in Luke. The Holy Spirit inspired prophetic witness and guided the events of Jesus’ birth. John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit even before he was born (Luke 1:15, 41), and Zechariah broke forth in a Spirit-filled hymn of praise to God (1:67). Mary conceived Jesus and prophesied through the power of the Spirit (1:35; 1:46-55), and Simeon was led by the Spirit to the Temple to see the Messiah (2:25-27). Later in his life, Jesus was anointed by the Spirit at his baptism and empowered to accomplish his role as the Messiah (3:21-22; 4:1, 18).<\/p>\nFollowing his ascension, Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies by pouring out his Spirit on his disciples on the Day of Pentecost, empowering them to take the Good News of salvation to the ends of the earth (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8; 2:4, 17-18). Throughout Acts, the church accomplished its mission through the guidance, power, and direction of the Holy Spirit. The coming of the Spirit marks the beginning of God’s salvation—God’s presence and power now reside with his people.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nNum 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Isa 32:15; Ezek 11:5; 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32; Luke 1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:24-27; 3:22; 4:1, 18; 24:49; Acts 2:4, 17-18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Coming of the Spirit of God<\/h3>\nIn the Old Testament, the Spirit of God occasionally came upon individuals to empower them for God’s service and to prophesy (Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Ezek 11:5). In the Judaism of Jesus’ day, there was a widespread belief that the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel with the last of the Old Testament prophets. But the prophets had predicted that when God’s salvation arrived, he would pour out his Spirit on all people (Isa 32:15; Ezek 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32).<\/p>\nThis prophecy finds its initial fulfillment in the birth narrative in Luke. The Holy Spirit inspired prophetic witness and guided the events of Jesus’ birth. John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit even before he was born (Luke 1:15, 41), and Zechariah broke forth in a Spirit-filled hymn of praise to God (1:67). Mary conceived Jesus and prophesied through the power of the Spirit (1:35; 1:46-55), and Simeon was led by the Spirit to the Temple to see the Messiah (2:25-27). Later in his life, Jesus was anointed by the Spirit at his baptism and empowered to accomplish his role as the Messiah (3:21-22; 4:1, 18).<\/p>\nFollowing his ascension, Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies by pouring out his Spirit on his disciples on the Day of Pentecost, empowering them to take the Good News of salvation to the ends of the earth (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8; 2:4, 17-18). Throughout Acts, the church accomplished its mission through the guidance, power, and direction of the Holy Spirit. The coming of the Spirit marks the beginning of God’s salvation—God’s presence and power now reside with his people.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nNum 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Isa 32:15; Ezek 11:5; 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32; Luke 1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:24-27; 3:22; 4:1, 18; 24:49; Acts 2:4, 17-18<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Coming of the Spirit of God In the Old Testament, the Spirit of God occasionally came upon individuals to empower them for God’s service and to prophesy (Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Ezek 11:5). In the Judaism of Jesus’ day, there was a widespread belief that the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel with the last of the Old Testament prophets. But the prophets had predicted that when God’s salvation arrived, he would pour out his Spirit on all people (Isa 32:15; Ezek 36...","summary_en":"The Coming of the Spirit of God In the Old Testament, the Spirit of God occasionally came upon individuals to empower them for God’s service and to prophesy (Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:13; Ezek 11:5). In the Judaism of Jesus’ day, there was a widespread belief that the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel with the last of the Old Testament prophets. But the prophets had predicted that when God’s salvation arrived, he would pour out his Spirit on all people (Isa 32:15; Ezek 36...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"23":[{"id":40764,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Judah","title_en":"Judah","content_ro":"<h3>Judah<\/h3>\nJudah is remembered most often as the ancestor of King David and of Jesus Christ. Despite his birth as a middle child and his sins as an adult (Gen 38), God chose Judah to carry the line of King David (1 Chr 2:1-17; 3:1-24) and of the Messiah (Gen 49:8-12; Matt 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-34).<\/p>\nJudah was the fourth of Jacob’s twelve sons (Gen 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1). Leah, overjoyed to have borne her fourth son, named him Judah, meaning “praise” (Gen 29:35). Judah fathered five sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah by Bathshua, a woman from Canaan (Gen 38:1-5; 1 Chr 2:3); and the twins, Perez and Zerah, by his daughter-in-law Tamar (Gen 38:27-30; 1 Chr 2:4). God killed his first two sons, Er and Onan, in Canaan for disobedience (Gen 46:12). Judah eventually settled his family in Egypt with his father and brothers (Exod 1:1-2).<\/p>\nThough reckless in his behavior with Tamar (Gen 38:6-30), Judah took personal responsibility for Benjamin’s safety in Egypt and interceded with Joseph for his brothers (44:14-34). When Jacob gave his dying blessing, he granted Judah a position of leadership; the future kings of Israel would come through Judah’s offspring (see 49:10).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 29:35; 37:26-27; 38:1-30; 43:1-10; 44:14-34; 46:28; 49:8-12; Ruth 4:12; 1 Chr 2:3-4; 5:2; Ps 108:8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Judah<\/h3>\nJudah is remembered most often as the ancestor of King David and of Jesus Christ. Despite his birth as a middle child and his sins as an adult (Gen 38), God chose Judah to carry the line of King David (1 Chr 2:1-17; 3:1-24) and of the Messiah (Gen 49:8-12; Matt 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-34).<\/p>\nJudah was the fourth of Jacob’s twelve sons (Gen 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1). Leah, overjoyed to have borne her fourth son, named him Judah, meaning “praise” (Gen 29:35). Judah fathered five sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah by Bathshua, a woman from Canaan (Gen 38:1-5; 1 Chr 2:3); and the twins, Perez and Zerah, by his daughter-in-law Tamar (Gen 38:27-30; 1 Chr 2:4). God killed his first two sons, Er and Onan, in Canaan for disobedience (Gen 46:12). Judah eventually settled his family in Egypt with his father and brothers (Exod 1:1-2).<\/p>\nThough reckless in his behavior with Tamar (Gen 38:6-30), Judah took personal responsibility for Benjamin’s safety in Egypt and interceded with Joseph for his brothers (44:14-34). When Jacob gave his dying blessing, he granted Judah a position of leadership; the future kings of Israel would come through Judah’s offspring (see 49:10).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 29:35; 37:26-27; 38:1-30; 43:1-10; 44:14-34; 46:28; 49:8-12; Ruth 4:12; 1 Chr 2:3-4; 5:2; Ps 108:8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Judah Judah is remembered most often as the ancestor of King David and of Jesus Christ. Despite his birth as a middle child and his sins as an adult (Gen 38), God chose Judah to carry the line of King David (1 Chr 2:1-17; 3:1-24) and of the Messiah (Gen 49:8-12; Matt 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-34). Judah was the fourth of Jacob’s twelve sons (Gen 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1). Leah, overjoyed to have borne her fourth son, named him Judah, meaning “praise” (Gen 29:35). Judah fathered five sons: Er, Onan, and Shela...","summary_en":"Judah Judah is remembered most often as the ancestor of King David and of Jesus Christ. Despite his birth as a middle child and his sins as an adult (Gen 38), God chose Judah to carry the line of King David (1 Chr 2:1-17; 3:1-24) and of the Messiah (Gen 49:8-12; Matt 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-34). Judah was the fourth of Jacob’s twelve sons (Gen 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1). Leah, overjoyed to have borne her fourth son, named him Judah, meaning “praise” (Gen 29:35). Judah fathered five sons: Er, Onan, and Shela...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":68390,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Judah","title_en":"Judah","content_ro":"<h3>Judah<\/h3>\nJudah is remembered most often as the ancestor of King David and of Jesus Christ. Despite his birth as a middle child and his sins as an adult (Gen 38), God chose Judah to carry the line of King David (1 Chr 2:1-17; 3:1-24) and of the Messiah (Gen 49:8-12; Matt 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-34).<\/p>\nJudah was the fourth of Jacob’s twelve sons (Gen 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1). Leah, overjoyed to have borne her fourth son, named him Judah, meaning “praise” (Gen 29:35). Judah fathered five sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah by Bathshua, a woman from Canaan (Gen 38:1-5; 1 Chr 2:3); and the twins, Perez and Zerah, by his daughter-in-law Tamar (Gen 38:27-30; 1 Chr 2:4). God killed his first two sons, Er and Onan, in Canaan for disobedience (Gen 46:12). Judah eventually settled his family in Egypt with his father and brothers (Exod 1:1-2).<\/p>\nThough reckless in his behavior with Tamar (Gen 38:6-30), Judah took personal responsibility for Benjamin’s safety in Egypt and interceded with Joseph for his brothers (44:14-34). When Jacob gave his dying blessing, he granted Judah a position of leadership; the future kings of Israel would come through Judah’s offspring (see 49:10).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 29:35; 37:26-27; 38:1-30; 43:1-10; 44:14-34; 46:28; 49:8-12; Ruth 4:12; 1 Chr 2:3-4; 5:2; Ps 108:8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Judah<\/h3>\nJudah is remembered most often as the ancestor of King David and of Jesus Christ. Despite his birth as a middle child and his sins as an adult (Gen 38), God chose Judah to carry the line of King David (1 Chr 2:1-17; 3:1-24) and of the Messiah (Gen 49:8-12; Matt 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-34).<\/p>\nJudah was the fourth of Jacob’s twelve sons (Gen 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1). Leah, overjoyed to have borne her fourth son, named him Judah, meaning “praise” (Gen 29:35). Judah fathered five sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah by Bathshua, a woman from Canaan (Gen 38:1-5; 1 Chr 2:3); and the twins, Perez and Zerah, by his daughter-in-law Tamar (Gen 38:27-30; 1 Chr 2:4). God killed his first two sons, Er and Onan, in Canaan for disobedience (Gen 46:12). Judah eventually settled his family in Egypt with his father and brothers (Exod 1:1-2).<\/p>\nThough reckless in his behavior with Tamar (Gen 38:6-30), Judah took personal responsibility for Benjamin’s safety in Egypt and interceded with Joseph for his brothers (44:14-34). When Jacob gave his dying blessing, he granted Judah a position of leadership; the future kings of Israel would come through Judah’s offspring (see 49:10).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 29:35; 37:26-27; 38:1-30; 43:1-10; 44:14-34; 46:28; 49:8-12; Ruth 4:12; 1 Chr 2:3-4; 5:2; Ps 108:8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Judah Judah is remembered most often as the ancestor of King David and of Jesus Christ. Despite his birth as a middle child and his sins as an adult (Gen 38), God chose Judah to carry the line of King David (1 Chr 2:1-17; 3:1-24) and of the Messiah (Gen 49:8-12; Matt 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-34). Judah was the fourth of Jacob’s twelve sons (Gen 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1). Leah, overjoyed to have borne her fourth son, named him Judah, meaning “praise” (Gen 29:35). Judah fathered five sons: Er, Onan, and Shela...","summary_en":"Judah Judah is remembered most often as the ancestor of King David and of Jesus Christ. Despite his birth as a middle child and his sins as an adult (Gen 38), God chose Judah to carry the line of King David (1 Chr 2:1-17; 3:1-24) and of the Messiah (Gen 49:8-12; Matt 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-34). Judah was the fourth of Jacob’s twelve sons (Gen 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1). Leah, overjoyed to have borne her fourth son, named him Judah, meaning “praise” (Gen 29:35). Judah fathered five sons: Er, Onan, and Shela...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":96016,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Judah","title_en":"Judah","content_ro":"<h3>Judah<\/h3>\nJudah is remembered most often as the ancestor of King David and of Jesus Christ. Despite his birth as a middle child and his sins as an adult (Gen 38), God chose Judah to carry the line of King David (1 Chr 2:1-17; 3:1-24) and of the Messiah (Gen 49:8-12; Matt 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-34).<\/p>\nJudah was the fourth of Jacob’s twelve sons (Gen 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1). Leah, overjoyed to have borne her fourth son, named him Judah, meaning “praise” (Gen 29:35). Judah fathered five sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah by Bathshua, a woman from Canaan (Gen 38:1-5; 1 Chr 2:3); and the twins, Perez and Zerah, by his daughter-in-law Tamar (Gen 38:27-30; 1 Chr 2:4). God killed his first two sons, Er and Onan, in Canaan for disobedience (Gen 46:12). Judah eventually settled his family in Egypt with his father and brothers (Exod 1:1-2).<\/p>\nThough reckless in his behavior with Tamar (Gen 38:6-30), Judah took personal responsibility for Benjamin’s safety in Egypt and interceded with Joseph for his brothers (44:14-34). When Jacob gave his dying blessing, he granted Judah a position of leadership; the future kings of Israel would come through Judah’s offspring (see 49:10).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 29:35; 37:26-27; 38:1-30; 43:1-10; 44:14-34; 46:28; 49:8-12; Ruth 4:12; 1 Chr 2:3-4; 5:2; Ps 108:8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Judah<\/h3>\nJudah is remembered most often as the ancestor of King David and of Jesus Christ. Despite his birth as a middle child and his sins as an adult (Gen 38), God chose Judah to carry the line of King David (1 Chr 2:1-17; 3:1-24) and of the Messiah (Gen 49:8-12; Matt 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-34).<\/p>\nJudah was the fourth of Jacob’s twelve sons (Gen 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1). Leah, overjoyed to have borne her fourth son, named him Judah, meaning “praise” (Gen 29:35). Judah fathered five sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah by Bathshua, a woman from Canaan (Gen 38:1-5; 1 Chr 2:3); and the twins, Perez and Zerah, by his daughter-in-law Tamar (Gen 38:27-30; 1 Chr 2:4). God killed his first two sons, Er and Onan, in Canaan for disobedience (Gen 46:12). Judah eventually settled his family in Egypt with his father and brothers (Exod 1:1-2).<\/p>\nThough reckless in his behavior with Tamar (Gen 38:6-30), Judah took personal responsibility for Benjamin’s safety in Egypt and interceded with Joseph for his brothers (44:14-34). When Jacob gave his dying blessing, he granted Judah a position of leadership; the future kings of Israel would come through Judah’s offspring (see 49:10).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 29:35; 37:26-27; 38:1-30; 43:1-10; 44:14-34; 46:28; 49:8-12; Ruth 4:12; 1 Chr 2:3-4; 5:2; Ps 108:8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Judah Judah is remembered most often as the ancestor of King David and of Jesus Christ. Despite his birth as a middle child and his sins as an adult (Gen 38), God chose Judah to carry the line of King David (1 Chr 2:1-17; 3:1-24) and of the Messiah (Gen 49:8-12; Matt 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-34). Judah was the fourth of Jacob’s twelve sons (Gen 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1). Leah, overjoyed to have borne her fourth son, named him Judah, meaning “praise” (Gen 29:35). Judah fathered five sons: Er, Onan, and Shela...","summary_en":"Judah Judah is remembered most often as the ancestor of King David and of Jesus Christ. Despite his birth as a middle child and his sins as an adult (Gen 38), God chose Judah to carry the line of King David (1 Chr 2:1-17; 3:1-24) and of the Messiah (Gen 49:8-12; Matt 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-34). Judah was the fourth of Jacob’s twelve sons (Gen 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1). Leah, overjoyed to have borne her fourth son, named him Judah, meaning “praise” (Gen 29:35). Judah fathered five sons: Er, Onan, and Shela...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":123642,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Judah","title_en":"Judah","content_ro":"<h3>Judah<\/h3>\nJudah is remembered most often as the ancestor of King David and of Jesus Christ. Despite his birth as a middle child and his sins as an adult (Gen 38), God chose Judah to carry the line of King David (1 Chr 2:1-17; 3:1-24) and of the Messiah (Gen 49:8-12; Matt 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-34).<\/p>\nJudah was the fourth of Jacob’s twelve sons (Gen 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1). Leah, overjoyed to have borne her fourth son, named him Judah, meaning “praise” (Gen 29:35). Judah fathered five sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah by Bathshua, a woman from Canaan (Gen 38:1-5; 1 Chr 2:3); and the twins, Perez and Zerah, by his daughter-in-law Tamar (Gen 38:27-30; 1 Chr 2:4). God killed his first two sons, Er and Onan, in Canaan for disobedience (Gen 46:12). Judah eventually settled his family in Egypt with his father and brothers (Exod 1:1-2).<\/p>\nThough reckless in his behavior with Tamar (Gen 38:6-30), Judah took personal responsibility for Benjamin’s safety in Egypt and interceded with Joseph for his brothers (44:14-34). When Jacob gave his dying blessing, he granted Judah a position of leadership; the future kings of Israel would come through Judah’s offspring (see 49:10).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 29:35; 37:26-27; 38:1-30; 43:1-10; 44:14-34; 46:28; 49:8-12; Ruth 4:12; 1 Chr 2:3-4; 5:2; Ps 108:8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Judah<\/h3>\nJudah is remembered most often as the ancestor of King David and of Jesus Christ. Despite his birth as a middle child and his sins as an adult (Gen 38), God chose Judah to carry the line of King David (1 Chr 2:1-17; 3:1-24) and of the Messiah (Gen 49:8-12; Matt 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-34).<\/p>\nJudah was the fourth of Jacob’s twelve sons (Gen 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1). Leah, overjoyed to have borne her fourth son, named him Judah, meaning “praise” (Gen 29:35). Judah fathered five sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah by Bathshua, a woman from Canaan (Gen 38:1-5; 1 Chr 2:3); and the twins, Perez and Zerah, by his daughter-in-law Tamar (Gen 38:27-30; 1 Chr 2:4). God killed his first two sons, Er and Onan, in Canaan for disobedience (Gen 46:12). Judah eventually settled his family in Egypt with his father and brothers (Exod 1:1-2).<\/p>\nThough reckless in his behavior with Tamar (Gen 38:6-30), Judah took personal responsibility for Benjamin’s safety in Egypt and interceded with Joseph for his brothers (44:14-34). When Jacob gave his dying blessing, he granted Judah a position of leadership; the future kings of Israel would come through Judah’s offspring (see 49:10).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 29:35; 37:26-27; 38:1-30; 43:1-10; 44:14-34; 46:28; 49:8-12; Ruth 4:12; 1 Chr 2:3-4; 5:2; Ps 108:8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Judah Judah is remembered most often as the ancestor of King David and of Jesus Christ. Despite his birth as a middle child and his sins as an adult (Gen 38), God chose Judah to carry the line of King David (1 Chr 2:1-17; 3:1-24) and of the Messiah (Gen 49:8-12; Matt 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-34). Judah was the fourth of Jacob’s twelve sons (Gen 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1). Leah, overjoyed to have borne her fourth son, named him Judah, meaning “praise” (Gen 29:35). Judah fathered five sons: Er, Onan, and Shela...","summary_en":"Judah Judah is remembered most often as the ancestor of King David and of Jesus Christ. Despite his birth as a middle child and his sins as an adult (Gen 38), God chose Judah to carry the line of King David (1 Chr 2:1-17; 3:1-24) and of the Messiah (Gen 49:8-12; Matt 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-34). Judah was the fourth of Jacob’s twelve sons (Gen 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1). Leah, overjoyed to have borne her fourth son, named him Judah, meaning “praise” (Gen 29:35). Judah fathered five sons: Er, Onan, and Shela...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":6470,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of the Bible* (New Testament), Chronology","title_en":"of the Bible* (New Testament), Chronology","content_ro":"<h3>CHRONOLOGY OF THE BIBLE* (New Testament)<\/h3>\nBranch of biblical studies that attempts to discover the sequence of NT events and the amount of time that elapsed between them. Chronology is essential to historians, whose task it is to determine the causes and effects of past events. Generally, for a historian’s purpose, assigning absolute dates is less important than knowing the sequence of events that may have influenced each other. Very few NT happenings, in fact, can be given exact dates.<\/p>\n\nA remarkable testimony to the influence of Christianity is the fact that the entire Western world now divides history into BC<\/span> (before Christ) and AD<\/span> (anno Domini,<\/em> “in the year of the Lord”). Before that method of dating became widespread in the Middle Ages, events were dated by their relation to other important events such as the founding of Rome or the beginning of a king’s reign. When a monk named Dionysius Exiguus (sixth century) invented our present method of dating, with the birth of Christ dividing history, he made a mistake in his computations. The odd result is the historical anomaly that Jesus himself was born no later than four years “before Christ.”<\/p>\nChronology of Jesus’ Life<\/p>\n<h5>Birth<\/h5>\nAccording to Matthew 2:1 Jesus was born “in the days of Herod the king.” A first-century AD<\/span> historian, Josephus, recorded that Herod died in the spring of the year we identify as 4 BC<\/span>. Hence, Jesus was born sometime before that, but how much before is uncertain. Luke 2:1-2 records that Jesus’ birth occurred when “Caesar Augustus,” the Roman emperor, decreed that a census, or enrollment, should be taken throughout the nation. “This was the first census taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria” (nlt<\/span>). Those statements raise two questions: When was such a census taken, and when was Quirinius governor of Syria? Neither question has received a completely satisfying answer.<\/p>\nCensus documents discovered in Egypt, together with earlier references, suggest that such enrollments were held every 14 years. That would put a census roughly in 8 or 9 BC<\/span>. In view of the time needed to carry out the census (which required a person to travel to his birthplace), the birth of Jesus may have been somewhat later than the actual year of the decree (perhaps 7 BC<\/span>).<\/p>\nJosephus recorded that Quirinius became governor of Syria in AD<\/span> 6, rather late as a date for Jesus’ birth. But some scholars have argued from ancient inscriptions that Quirinius also served in Syria as a special legate of the emperor Augustus before 6 BC<\/span>. That could be the period referred to in Luke 2:2. Why did Luke choose to cite Quirinius instead of the regular governor of Syria at that time? Perhaps by so doing he could provide a more exact date for the birth of Jesus, since Quirinius was in authority for a shorter time than the regular governor of Syria.<\/p>\nA reasonable conclusion is that Jesus was born about 7 or 6 BC<\/span>. That fits with Matthew 2:16, which seems to say that Jesus was born at least two years before Herod’s death in 4 BC<\/span>. No clear evidence exists concerning the day and month of his birth. Celebration of December 25 as Christmas originated in the fourth century, probably as a Christian alternative to the pagan winter solstice festival (Saturnalia).<\/p>\n<h5>The Beginning of Public Ministry<\/h5>\nLuke 3:23 says that Jesus, “when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age”; since the age given is only approximate, he may have been two or three years older or younger (cf. the pseudepigraphal Testament of Levi 2:2; 12:5). If exactly 30 is added to the suggested date of birth, one gets AD<\/span> 24. That date cannot be right, because Jesus’ ministry began after John the Baptist appears; Luke 3:1-3 dates John’s public appearance precisely in “the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias Caesar” while Pilate was procurator (governor) over Judea. Pilate governed from AD<\/span> 26 to 36, and the 15th year of Tiberius was most likely AD<\/span> 27. Therefore Jesus did not begin his public ministry before AD<\/span> 27. If only a short time elapsed between the beginning of John’s ministry and the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, then Jesus probably began in AD<\/span> 27 or 28 when he was approximately 33 years old.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Death<\/h5>\nAll four Gospel records seem to imply that Jesus ate the Last Supper with his disciples on Thursday evening, was crucified on Friday, and rose from the dead early Sunday morning (Mt 28:1; Mk 16:1; Lk 24:1). The claim that Jesus rose on the third day (1 Cor 15:4) comes from the Jewish custom of counting a part of the day as a whole day. According to Matthew (26:19), Mark (14:12), and Luke (22:15), the Last Supper was the Passover meal, a yearly celebration of Israel’s escape from Egypt (Ex 12–15). But according to John 13:1 and 19:14, the Passover meal had not yet been eaten on Friday; hence the Last Supper in John was not the Passover meal.<\/p>\nNo completely satisfying solution to the apparent discrepancy has been put forward. Some scholars suggest plausibly that the use of two different calendars was responsible. According to that theory, Jesus was following a calendar that placed the Passover meal on Thursday night. Temple officials, on the other hand, followed an alternate calendar that placed the killing of sacrificial victims on the next day. John may have used the second system to emphasize the fact that Christ was offered as the Passover sacrifice (cf. Jn 19:36; 1 Cor 5:7).<\/p>\nTo find out how long Jesus’ public ministry lasted and thus the year in which he died, one can turn to time references in John’s Gospel. John referred to at least three Passovers (2:13; 6:4; 13:1) and possibly four (5:1). Since the Passover was a yearly feast, the ministry of Jesus would have lasted at least two and possibly three years. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke the Friday of Jesus’ death occurred on the 15th of the Jewish month Nisan (which overlaps March and April). According to John, Jesus died on 14 Nisan. The question is: In which years from 26 to 36 (when Pilate was procurator in Judea) did 14 or 15 Nisan fall on a Friday? The answer is AD<\/span> 27, 29, 30, and 33. Of those, the year 27 is too early and 33 is probably too late. Thus Jesus was probably crucified in 29 or 30, his public ministry lasted two or three years, and he was 35 or 36 years old when he died.<\/p>\n<h4>Events from AD<\/span> 30 to 50<\/h4>\nActs is the only NT book that records how much time elapsed between Jesus’ death and his ascension: “To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3, rsv<\/span>). The next key event after the ascension of Jesus into heaven was Pentecost (Acts 2:1). Pentecost, the Greek word for “fiftieth,” referred to a celebration of the Feast of Weeks\/Harvest (cf. Ex 34:22; Dt 16:9-12) 50 days after the Passover. Since Jesus was crucified during the Passover season, the Pentecost of Acts 2:1, during which the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit, took place in AD<\/span> 29 or 30, some 50 days after the Crucifixion and about 10 days after the Ascension.<\/p>\nAfter that, events of the early chapters of Acts are hard to date because no precise statements are made about the amount of time between various events. Therefore, the usual method for dating events of the apostolic age is first to find at least one event that can be dated with relative certainty from sources outside the NT; one then dates events before and after that event by figuring out how much time elapsed between them. Sometimes Acts records how much time passed between two events; usually it does not, so dating can only be approximate.<\/p>\nOne pivotal starting point is the great famine prophesied by Agabus, which befell Palestine during the reign of the Roman emperor Claudius (Acts 11:28-29). Josephus, who was alive at the time, gives enough information to locate the famine sometime between the years 46 and 48. We also know from the Mishnah, a collection of Jewish laws, that the autumn of 47 to the autumn of 48 was a sabbatical year, when the Jews let the land rest and harvested nothing (cf. Lv 25:2-7). That could have aggravated and prolonged a famine, but one cannot be sure how early the famine started; some scholars propose 46 and some 47.<\/p>\nAt first, it seems peculiar that Luke, the author of Acts, should have recorded that famine (Acts 11:28) before recording the death of Herod Agrippa (12:20-23). From facts reported by Josephus, the death of Herod (a grandson of Herod the Great) can be dated in AD<\/span> 44, probably in the spring. That means that Herod must have died several years before the famine Luke recorded earlier. Some scholars think that Luke simply got his chronological facts wrong. Others see Acts 12:1-24 as a kind of flashback to bring the history of the church in Jerusalem up to date. Such a practice was common among ancient historians, who often followed one source up to a suitable stopping point before moving on to another source. To charge Luke with inaccurate dating, it is argued, is to misunderstand the techniques of historical writing he was using.<\/p>\nSince Herod Agrippa died in AD<\/span> 44 (Acts 12:23), the apostle James, whom Herod put to death with the sword (v 2), must have died soon before 44, perhaps during the Passover season of 43 (v 3). The apostle Peter’s imprisonment and his miraculous escape (vv 3-17) also belong to that period.<\/p>\nWhen the Christians of Antioch decided to send relief to the Christians in Jerusalem in the midst of the great famine (Acts 11:29), Barnabas and Paul were appointed to transport the money to Jerusalem. That was Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem after his conversion. The first visit is recorded in Acts 9:26-30. The third comes in Acts 15 when Paul and Barnabas were sent to discuss with the apostles and elders whether gentile converts to Christianity had to be circumcised. How one dates the first and third visits to Jerusalem, as well as Paul’s conversion, depends on how those Jerusalem visits are related to those reported in Paul’s letter to the Galatians.<\/p>\nThe basic problem, which still divides NT scholars, is this: In Galatians 1:15–2:10 Paul recounted that his conversion was followed by two visits to Jerusalem, one three years after his conversion (1:18) and one 14 years after that (2:1-10). All scholars agree that the first visit three years after his conversion is the same as the first visit recorded in Acts 9:26-30. Answers differ, however, to the question of whether Galatians 2:1-10 refers to the second (famine) visit to Jerusalem in Acts 11:30 (in which case the third visit of Acts 15 is the one omitted from Galatians) or whether Galatians 2:1-10 refers to the visit in Acts 15 (in which case the famine visit was the one omitted from Galatians).<\/p>\n\nThose who favor the first reconstruction offer six arguments: (1) The reason Paul gave such a rigorous account of his comings and goings in Galatians 1:15-24 was to show that he did not get his gospel from men, nor was he taught it (1:12). In other words, his visits to the Jerusalem apostles were not for the purpose of receiving his gospel. If that is so, for Paul to omit the second Jerusalem visit would jeopardize his integrity and his authority with the Galatians. The first reconstruction avoids that difficulty; omission of a third Jerusalem visit from Galatians 2:1-10 could mean that it had not yet happened when Galatians was written. (2) Galatians 2:1-10 pictures a private meeting between Paul and Barnabas on one hand and the “pillar” apostles on the other. But the meeting in Acts 15 was public and before the whole church. Hence Galatians 2:1-10 more likely refers to a private meeting during the visit of Acts 11:30, which Galatians does not record. (3) Paul’s eagerness to give to the poor mentioned in Galatians 2:10 connects naturally with the second Jerusalem visit, when he was in fact delivering relief to the poor (Acts 11:30). (4) If Galatians 2 recorded the same trip as Acts 15, one would expect some mention of the decision reached by the Jerusalem Council, especially since that decision related directly to the problem of circumcision that Paul was handling in his Letter to the Galatians. (5) Further, it seems unlikely that the Jerusalem Council preceded the event of Galatians 2:11-21, when Peter was rebuked by Paul for withdrawing from fellowship with gentile believers; that incident could hardly have happened so soon after the issue of gentile status in the church had been settled in Jerusalem. (6) According to Galatians 1:6, the letter was written “quickly” after Paul had established the Galatian churches. That makes sense if Galatians was written soon after the first missionary journey, hence just before the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15; that would make Galatians Paul’s first letter.<\/p>\nScholars who favor the second reconstruction offer four arguments: (1) The main purpose of Paul’s visit in Galatians 2:1-10 appears to be the same as that in Acts 15:1-20; both dealt with the issue of whether circumcision should be required of gentile converts (Gal 2:3-5; Acts 15:1, 5). That similarity is obvious, but there is no such explicit similarity between Galatians 2 and Acts 11:30. (2) On the basis of form and content Galatians is similar to Romans and to 1 and 2 Corinthians; it would thus seem to come from the same period—considerably later than the Jerusalem Council. If so, it is likely that Paul would have included a reference to the Jerusalem Council (namely Gal 2:1-10) in his recollections, since its outcome supported his own stance on circumcision set forth in the letter. (3) Acts 11:30 pictures Barnabas as the leader of the Barnabas\/Paul team, since his name is given first place (as in Acts 12:25; 13:1-2, 7; cf. 11:25-26). But in the description Paul gives of the visit in Galatians 2, he sees himself as the leader of the team. Since Acts does picture Paul as the leader from the time of the first missionary journey (Acts 13:9, 13, 43, 46, 50), including the third Jerusalem visit (15:2), it is more likely that Galatians 2 records the trip of Acts 15. (4) Finally, in Galatians 2:7-8 Paul was recognized as an apostle to the Gentiles with a standing equal to that of Peter. But if Galatians 2 recorded the events of Acts 11:30 and the first missionary journey had not yet occurred, the “pillar” apostles could hardly have recognized Paul’s authority as apostle to the Gentiles. It is more likely that Galatians 2 followed the first missionary journey, just as Acts 15 followed the first missionary journey in Acts, and that both refer to the same event.<\/p>\nThe significance of those arguments for chronology is that, according to the first view, Paul’s conversion came 17 years before the famine visit of Acts 11:30 (cf. Gal 1:18; 2:1). According to the second view, Paul’s conversion took place 17 years before the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. The difference amounts to only one year, however.<\/p>\nIt is helpful to consider one more date that can be fixed with high probability—namely, Paul’s arrival in Corinth on his second missionary journey (Acts 18:1). On the second missionary journey (15:40–18:22), Paul and Silas set out on land through Syria, Cilicia, Phrygia, and Galatia, visiting churches founded on the first missionary journey. They came to Troas, then passed over to Philippi and continued down the coast through Thessalonica and Berea. Paul went on to Athens before arriving at Corinth. From Acts 18:12 we know that Gallio was a proconsul in Corinth while Paul was there. An inscription discovered at nearby Delphi indicates that in all likelihood Gallio’s term of office was from mid-51 to mid-52. The incident recorded in Acts 18:12-17 probably occurred at the beginning of Gallio’s term, since the Jews hoped to get a ruling against Paul from their new proconsul. Not long after that, Paul left Corinth, probably in the summer or autumn of 52. According to Acts 18:11 Paul had spent 18 months in Corinth; that means that he probably arrived in the early months of 50 or the end of 49. That arrival date is confirmed by Acts 18:2, which says that Aquila and Priscilla had only recently been exiled from Rome when Paul came to Corinth. A fifth-century historian, Orosius, dated the edict of Claudius expelling the Jews from Rome in AD<\/span> 49. Therefore, Paul and Aquila and Priscilla probably arrived close together late in 49 or early in 50. Early in his 18-month stay Paul wrote his First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians.<\/p>\nThe two fixed dates, then, are 46 or 47 for the famine visit (Acts 11:30) and late 49 or early 50 for Paul’s arrival in Corinth (Acts 18:1). Taking into account the time gaps mentioned in Galatians 1:18 and 2:1, as well as the supposition that the first missionary journey lasted about a year, the two reconstructions are presented in the following table. Keep in mind that they are approximations and that they reflect the ancient custom of counting a part of a year as a whole year.<\/p>\n\n<h4>Events from AD<\/span> 50 to 70<\/h4>\nActs 24:27 describes an event that helps us date events in the rest of the book, namely, Porcius Festus’s replacement of Felix as the governor of Judea. A careful analysis of the evidence given by Eusebius, a fourth-century historian, leads to the probable conclusion that Felix was replaced in the summer of 59.<\/p>\nWorking backward from that date, Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem (Acts 21:33) must have occurred in 57, some two years before the coming of Festus. More precisely, Paul’s arrest probably occurred in the late spring or summer of 57; Paul’s goal (20:16) was to arrive in Jerusalem by Pentecost of that year, and Pentecost occurred at the end of May. He was not long in the city before he was arrested.<\/p>\nThe Passover festival, 50 days before Pentecost, was celebrated by Paul with the church in Philippi (Acts 20:6). That would have been April 7–14, AD<\/span> 57. Only after the feast did he continue his hurried journey to Caesarea and Jerusalem (20:6–21:16). Before his Passover visit to Philippi, Paul had spent three months in Greece (20:3). Allowing some time for him to travel through Macedonia and visit the Thessalonians and Bereans, those three months were probably the winter months of 56–57 (Acts 20:3; cf. 1 Cor 16:6). No doubt they were spent in the main church of Greece, Corinth, and were used in part for the writing of the Letter to the Romans.<\/p>\nBetween Paul’s departure from Corinth on the second missionary journey (Acts 18:18) in the autumn of 51 and his arrival in Corinth on the third missionary journey (20:2) in the late winter of 56 are five years of activities that cannot be given exact dates. Paul said that he worked during three of those years in Ephesus (20:31; cf. 19:1–20:1). With enough time allowed for the travels before and after, that stay at Ephesus probably lasted from 52 or 53 to the summer of 55 or 56 (cf. 1 Cor 16:8). During his long stay in Ephesus, Paul wrote his First Letter to the Corinthians. Then, on his way to Corinth in 56, he wrote 2 Corinthians from Macedonia.<\/p>\nFestus arrived as governor in the summer of 59, after Paul had been in prison in Caesarea for two years. Within a matter of days, Paul was tried before Festus (Acts 25:1-12). Not wanting to be remanded to the Jewish authorities, Paul appealed to Caesar (v 12), which meant that he would go to Rome. The account in Acts gives no hint of a delay, so the voyage most likely began in the summer or fall of 59 (27:2).<\/p>\nLuke reported that when Paul the prisoner got to Fair Havens on the island of Crete, the weather had become dangerous for sea travel “because the fast had already gone by” (Acts 27:8-9). One ancient writer said that sailing became dangerous between mid-September and mid-November, and after that, impossible until spring. The fast referred to was no doubt the one in preparation for the Day of Atonement, which in the year 59 fell on October 5. It is not surprising that, 14 days after leaving Fair Havens, the ship in which Paul was traveling was wrecked on the coast of Malta, south of Sicily (vv 27-44). Three months later Paul set sail for Rome again in a ship that had spent the winter at Malta (28:11). Soon he was welcomed into Rome by Christians who came out to meet him (v 15). Thus Paul arrived in Rome in the early part of AD<\/span> 60. The book of Acts closes with the remark that “For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house” (v 30, niv<\/span>). The NT does not report the outcome of his trial. During that period, according to the traditional view, he wrote Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon.<\/p>\nEusebius wrote, “Tradition has it that after defending himself the Apostle was again sent on the ministry of preaching, and coming a second time to the same city suffered martyrdom under Nero.” Nero, who was the Roman emperor from 54 to 68, put to death a multitude of Christians in Rome soon after a disastrous fire in July of 64, according to the Roman historian Tacitus. A number of early Christian writings (e.g., Clement) seem to indicate that Peter and Paul were both killed in Rome during that savage persecution. If so, and if Eusebius was right, then Paul may have spent the two years from 62 to 64 freely ministering back in the eastern provinces. Many conservative scholars date Paul’s First Letter to Timothy and his Letter to Titus from that period. Written from Rome shortly before Paul’s martyrdom in 64, 2 Timothy was probably his last letter (2 Tm 2:9; 4:6).<\/p>\nIn Jerusalem, within three years after Paul had been carried off to Rome, James the brother of Jesus was stoned to death by the Jewish authorities. According to Josephus, that occurred in 62. Not long afterward, according to Eusebius, the church in Jerusalem received a prophecy warning them to leave that doomed city and settle in Pella, one of the cities of the Decapolis (“ten cities”) east of the Jordan. Thus when war broke out between the Jews and the Romans in 66, the Christians for the most part escaped its fury. That war ended in 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (cf. Mk 13:2; Lk 21:24).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Acts of the Apostles, Book of the; Apostle, Apostleship; Age; “Date” under each NT book; First Jewish Revolt; Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Paul, The Apostle.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CHRONOLOGY OF THE BIBLE* (New Testament)<\/h3>\nBranch of biblical studies that attempts to discover the sequence of NT events and the amount of time that elapsed between them. Chronology is essential to historians, whose task it is to determine the causes and effects of past events. Generally, for a historian’s purpose, assigning absolute dates is less important than knowing the sequence of events that may have influenced each other. Very few NT happenings, in fact, can be given exact dates.<\/p>\n\nA remarkable testimony to the influence of Christianity is the fact that the entire Western world now divides history into BC<\/span> (before Christ) and AD<\/span> (anno Domini,<\/em> “in the year of the Lord”). Before that method of dating became widespread in the Middle Ages, events were dated by their relation to other important events such as the founding of Rome or the beginning of a king’s reign. When a monk named Dionysius Exiguus (sixth century) invented our present method of dating, with the birth of Christ dividing history, he made a mistake in his computations. The odd result is the historical anomaly that Jesus himself was born no later than four years “before Christ.”<\/p>\nChronology of Jesus’ Life<\/p>\n<h5>Birth<\/h5>\nAccording to Matthew 2:1 Jesus was born “in the days of Herod the king.” A first-century AD<\/span> historian, Josephus, recorded that Herod died in the spring of the year we identify as 4 BC<\/span>. Hence, Jesus was born sometime before that, but how much before is uncertain. Luke 2:1-2 records that Jesus’ birth occurred when “Caesar Augustus,” the Roman emperor, decreed that a census, or enrollment, should be taken throughout the nation. “This was the first census taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria” (nlt<\/span>). Those statements raise two questions: When was such a census taken, and when was Quirinius governor of Syria? Neither question has received a completely satisfying answer.<\/p>\nCensus documents discovered in Egypt, together with earlier references, suggest that such enrollments were held every 14 years. That would put a census roughly in 8 or 9 BC<\/span>. In view of the time needed to carry out the census (which required a person to travel to his birthplace), the birth of Jesus may have been somewhat later than the actual year of the decree (perhaps 7 BC<\/span>).<\/p>\nJosephus recorded that Quirinius became governor of Syria in AD<\/span> 6, rather late as a date for Jesus’ birth. But some scholars have argued from ancient inscriptions that Quirinius also served in Syria as a special legate of the emperor Augustus before 6 BC<\/span>. That could be the period referred to in Luke 2:2. Why did Luke choose to cite Quirinius instead of the regular governor of Syria at that time? Perhaps by so doing he could provide a more exact date for the birth of Jesus, since Quirinius was in authority for a shorter time than the regular governor of Syria.<\/p>\nA reasonable conclusion is that Jesus was born about 7 or 6 BC<\/span>. That fits with Matthew 2:16, which seems to say that Jesus was born at least two years before Herod’s death in 4 BC<\/span>. No clear evidence exists concerning the day and month of his birth. Celebration of December 25 as Christmas originated in the fourth century, probably as a Christian alternative to the pagan winter solstice festival (Saturnalia).<\/p>\n<h5>The Beginning of Public Ministry<\/h5>\nLuke 3:23 says that Jesus, “when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age”; since the age given is only approximate, he may have been two or three years older or younger (cf. the pseudepigraphal Testament of Levi 2:2; 12:5). If exactly 30 is added to the suggested date of birth, one gets AD<\/span> 24. That date cannot be right, because Jesus’ ministry began after John the Baptist appears; Luke 3:1-3 dates John’s public appearance precisely in “the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias Caesar” while Pilate was procurator (governor) over Judea. Pilate governed from AD<\/span> 26 to 36, and the 15th year of Tiberius was most likely AD<\/span> 27. Therefore Jesus did not begin his public ministry before AD<\/span> 27. If only a short time elapsed between the beginning of John’s ministry and the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, then Jesus probably began in AD<\/span> 27 or 28 when he was approximately 33 years old.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Death<\/h5>\nAll four Gospel records seem to imply that Jesus ate the Last Supper with his disciples on Thursday evening, was crucified on Friday, and rose from the dead early Sunday morning (Mt 28:1; Mk 16:1; Lk 24:1). The claim that Jesus rose on the third day (1 Cor 15:4) comes from the Jewish custom of counting a part of the day as a whole day. According to Matthew (26:19), Mark (14:12), and Luke (22:15), the Last Supper was the Passover meal, a yearly celebration of Israel’s escape from Egypt (Ex 12–15). But according to John 13:1 and 19:14, the Passover meal had not yet been eaten on Friday; hence the Last Supper in John was not the Passover meal.<\/p>\nNo completely satisfying solution to the apparent discrepancy has been put forward. Some scholars suggest plausibly that the use of two different calendars was responsible. According to that theory, Jesus was following a calendar that placed the Passover meal on Thursday night. Temple officials, on the other hand, followed an alternate calendar that placed the killing of sacrificial victims on the next day. John may have used the second system to emphasize the fact that Christ was offered as the Passover sacrifice (cf. Jn 19:36; 1 Cor 5:7).<\/p>\nTo find out how long Jesus’ public ministry lasted and thus the year in which he died, one can turn to time references in John’s Gospel. John referred to at least three Passovers (2:13; 6:4; 13:1) and possibly four (5:1). Since the Passover was a yearly feast, the ministry of Jesus would have lasted at least two and possibly three years. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke the Friday of Jesus’ death occurred on the 15th of the Jewish month Nisan (which overlaps March and April). According to John, Jesus died on 14 Nisan. The question is: In which years from 26 to 36 (when Pilate was procurator in Judea) did 14 or 15 Nisan fall on a Friday? The answer is AD<\/span> 27, 29, 30, and 33. Of those, the year 27 is too early and 33 is probably too late. Thus Jesus was probably crucified in 29 or 30, his public ministry lasted two or three years, and he was 35 or 36 years old when he died.<\/p>\n<h4>Events from AD<\/span> 30 to 50<\/h4>\nActs is the only NT book that records how much time elapsed between Jesus’ death and his ascension: “To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3, rsv<\/span>). The next key event after the ascension of Jesus into heaven was Pentecost (Acts 2:1). Pentecost, the Greek word for “fiftieth,” referred to a celebration of the Feast of Weeks\/Harvest (cf. Ex 34:22; Dt 16:9-12) 50 days after the Passover. Since Jesus was crucified during the Passover season, the Pentecost of Acts 2:1, during which the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit, took place in AD<\/span> 29 or 30, some 50 days after the Crucifixion and about 10 days after the Ascension.<\/p>\nAfter that, events of the early chapters of Acts are hard to date because no precise statements are made about the amount of time between various events. Therefore, the usual method for dating events of the apostolic age is first to find at least one event that can be dated with relative certainty from sources outside the NT; one then dates events before and after that event by figuring out how much time elapsed between them. Sometimes Acts records how much time passed between two events; usually it does not, so dating can only be approximate.<\/p>\nOne pivotal starting point is the great famine prophesied by Agabus, which befell Palestine during the reign of the Roman emperor Claudius (Acts 11:28-29). Josephus, who was alive at the time, gives enough information to locate the famine sometime between the years 46 and 48. We also know from the Mishnah, a collection of Jewish laws, that the autumn of 47 to the autumn of 48 was a sabbatical year, when the Jews let the land rest and harvested nothing (cf. Lv 25:2-7). That could have aggravated and prolonged a famine, but one cannot be sure how early the famine started; some scholars propose 46 and some 47.<\/p>\nAt first, it seems peculiar that Luke, the author of Acts, should have recorded that famine (Acts 11:28) before recording the death of Herod Agrippa (12:20-23). From facts reported by Josephus, the death of Herod (a grandson of Herod the Great) can be dated in AD<\/span> 44, probably in the spring. That means that Herod must have died several years before the famine Luke recorded earlier. Some scholars think that Luke simply got his chronological facts wrong. Others see Acts 12:1-24 as a kind of flashback to bring the history of the church in Jerusalem up to date. Such a practice was common among ancient historians, who often followed one source up to a suitable stopping point before moving on to another source. To charge Luke with inaccurate dating, it is argued, is to misunderstand the techniques of historical writing he was using.<\/p>\nSince Herod Agrippa died in AD<\/span> 44 (Acts 12:23), the apostle James, whom Herod put to death with the sword (v 2), must have died soon before 44, perhaps during the Passover season of 43 (v 3). The apostle Peter’s imprisonment and his miraculous escape (vv 3-17) also belong to that period.<\/p>\nWhen the Christians of Antioch decided to send relief to the Christians in Jerusalem in the midst of the great famine (Acts 11:29), Barnabas and Paul were appointed to transport the money to Jerusalem. That was Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem after his conversion. The first visit is recorded in Acts 9:26-30. The third comes in Acts 15 when Paul and Barnabas were sent to discuss with the apostles and elders whether gentile converts to Christianity had to be circumcised. How one dates the first and third visits to Jerusalem, as well as Paul’s conversion, depends on how those Jerusalem visits are related to those reported in Paul’s letter to the Galatians.<\/p>\nThe basic problem, which still divides NT scholars, is this: In Galatians 1:15–2:10 Paul recounted that his conversion was followed by two visits to Jerusalem, one three years after his conversion (1:18) and one 14 years after that (2:1-10). All scholars agree that the first visit three years after his conversion is the same as the first visit recorded in Acts 9:26-30. Answers differ, however, to the question of whether Galatians 2:1-10 refers to the second (famine) visit to Jerusalem in Acts 11:30 (in which case the third visit of Acts 15 is the one omitted from Galatians) or whether Galatians 2:1-10 refers to the visit in Acts 15 (in which case the famine visit was the one omitted from Galatians).<\/p>\n\nThose who favor the first reconstruction offer six arguments: (1) The reason Paul gave such a rigorous account of his comings and goings in Galatians 1:15-24 was to show that he did not get his gospel from men, nor was he taught it (1:12). In other words, his visits to the Jerusalem apostles were not for the purpose of receiving his gospel. If that is so, for Paul to omit the second Jerusalem visit would jeopardize his integrity and his authority with the Galatians. The first reconstruction avoids that difficulty; omission of a third Jerusalem visit from Galatians 2:1-10 could mean that it had not yet happened when Galatians was written. (2) Galatians 2:1-10 pictures a private meeting between Paul and Barnabas on one hand and the “pillar” apostles on the other. But the meeting in Acts 15 was public and before the whole church. Hence Galatians 2:1-10 more likely refers to a private meeting during the visit of Acts 11:30, which Galatians does not record. (3) Paul’s eagerness to give to the poor mentioned in Galatians 2:10 connects naturally with the second Jerusalem visit, when he was in fact delivering relief to the poor (Acts 11:30). (4) If Galatians 2 recorded the same trip as Acts 15, one would expect some mention of the decision reached by the Jerusalem Council, especially since that decision related directly to the problem of circumcision that Paul was handling in his Letter to the Galatians. (5) Further, it seems unlikely that the Jerusalem Council preceded the event of Galatians 2:11-21, when Peter was rebuked by Paul for withdrawing from fellowship with gentile believers; that incident could hardly have happened so soon after the issue of gentile status in the church had been settled in Jerusalem. (6) According to Galatians 1:6, the letter was written “quickly” after Paul had established the Galatian churches. That makes sense if Galatians was written soon after the first missionary journey, hence just before the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15; that would make Galatians Paul’s first letter.<\/p>\nScholars who favor the second reconstruction offer four arguments: (1) The main purpose of Paul’s visit in Galatians 2:1-10 appears to be the same as that in Acts 15:1-20; both dealt with the issue of whether circumcision should be required of gentile converts (Gal 2:3-5; Acts 15:1, 5). That similarity is obvious, but there is no such explicit similarity between Galatians 2 and Acts 11:30. (2) On the basis of form and content Galatians is similar to Romans and to 1 and 2 Corinthians; it would thus seem to come from the same period—considerably later than the Jerusalem Council. If so, it is likely that Paul would have included a reference to the Jerusalem Council (namely Gal 2:1-10) in his recollections, since its outcome supported his own stance on circumcision set forth in the letter. (3) Acts 11:30 pictures Barnabas as the leader of the Barnabas\/Paul team, since his name is given first place (as in Acts 12:25; 13:1-2, 7; cf. 11:25-26). But in the description Paul gives of the visit in Galatians 2, he sees himself as the leader of the team. Since Acts does picture Paul as the leader from the time of the first missionary journey (Acts 13:9, 13, 43, 46, 50), including the third Jerusalem visit (15:2), it is more likely that Galatians 2 records the trip of Acts 15. (4) Finally, in Galatians 2:7-8 Paul was recognized as an apostle to the Gentiles with a standing equal to that of Peter. But if Galatians 2 recorded the events of Acts 11:30 and the first missionary journey had not yet occurred, the “pillar” apostles could hardly have recognized Paul’s authority as apostle to the Gentiles. It is more likely that Galatians 2 followed the first missionary journey, just as Acts 15 followed the first missionary journey in Acts, and that both refer to the same event.<\/p>\nThe significance of those arguments for chronology is that, according to the first view, Paul’s conversion came 17 years before the famine visit of Acts 11:30 (cf. Gal 1:18; 2:1). According to the second view, Paul’s conversion took place 17 years before the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. The difference amounts to only one year, however.<\/p>\nIt is helpful to consider one more date that can be fixed with high probability—namely, Paul’s arrival in Corinth on his second missionary journey (Acts 18:1). On the second missionary journey (15:40–18:22), Paul and Silas set out on land through Syria, Cilicia, Phrygia, and Galatia, visiting churches founded on the first missionary journey. They came to Troas, then passed over to Philippi and continued down the coast through Thessalonica and Berea. Paul went on to Athens before arriving at Corinth. From Acts 18:12 we know that Gallio was a proconsul in Corinth while Paul was there. An inscription discovered at nearby Delphi indicates that in all likelihood Gallio’s term of office was from mid-51 to mid-52. The incident recorded in Acts 18:12-17 probably occurred at the beginning of Gallio’s term, since the Jews hoped to get a ruling against Paul from their new proconsul. Not long after that, Paul left Corinth, probably in the summer or autumn of 52. According to Acts 18:11 Paul had spent 18 months in Corinth; that means that he probably arrived in the early months of 50 or the end of 49. That arrival date is confirmed by Acts 18:2, which says that Aquila and Priscilla had only recently been exiled from Rome when Paul came to Corinth. A fifth-century historian, Orosius, dated the edict of Claudius expelling the Jews from Rome in AD<\/span> 49. Therefore, Paul and Aquila and Priscilla probably arrived close together late in 49 or early in 50. Early in his 18-month stay Paul wrote his First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians.<\/p>\nThe two fixed dates, then, are 46 or 47 for the famine visit (Acts 11:30) and late 49 or early 50 for Paul’s arrival in Corinth (Acts 18:1). Taking into account the time gaps mentioned in Galatians 1:18 and 2:1, as well as the supposition that the first missionary journey lasted about a year, the two reconstructions are presented in the following table. Keep in mind that they are approximations and that they reflect the ancient custom of counting a part of a year as a whole year.<\/p>\n\n<h4>Events from AD<\/span> 50 to 70<\/h4>\nActs 24:27 describes an event that helps us date events in the rest of the book, namely, Porcius Festus’s replacement of Felix as the governor of Judea. A careful analysis of the evidence given by Eusebius, a fourth-century historian, leads to the probable conclusion that Felix was replaced in the summer of 59.<\/p>\nWorking backward from that date, Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem (Acts 21:33) must have occurred in 57, some two years before the coming of Festus. More precisely, Paul’s arrest probably occurred in the late spring or summer of 57; Paul’s goal (20:16) was to arrive in Jerusalem by Pentecost of that year, and Pentecost occurred at the end of May. He was not long in the city before he was arrested.<\/p>\nThe Passover festival, 50 days before Pentecost, was celebrated by Paul with the church in Philippi (Acts 20:6). That would have been April 7–14, AD<\/span> 57. Only after the feast did he continue his hurried journey to Caesarea and Jerusalem (20:6–21:16). Before his Passover visit to Philippi, Paul had spent three months in Greece (20:3). Allowing some time for him to travel through Macedonia and visit the Thessalonians and Bereans, those three months were probably the winter months of 56–57 (Acts 20:3; cf. 1 Cor 16:6). No doubt they were spent in the main church of Greece, Corinth, and were used in part for the writing of the Letter to the Romans.<\/p>\nBetween Paul’s departure from Corinth on the second missionary journey (Acts 18:18) in the autumn of 51 and his arrival in Corinth on the third missionary journey (20:2) in the late winter of 56 are five years of activities that cannot be given exact dates. Paul said that he worked during three of those years in Ephesus (20:31; cf. 19:1–20:1). With enough time allowed for the travels before and after, that stay at Ephesus probably lasted from 52 or 53 to the summer of 55 or 56 (cf. 1 Cor 16:8). During his long stay in Ephesus, Paul wrote his First Letter to the Corinthians. Then, on his way to Corinth in 56, he wrote 2 Corinthians from Macedonia.<\/p>\nFestus arrived as governor in the summer of 59, after Paul had been in prison in Caesarea for two years. Within a matter of days, Paul was tried before Festus (Acts 25:1-12). Not wanting to be remanded to the Jewish authorities, Paul appealed to Caesar (v 12), which meant that he would go to Rome. The account in Acts gives no hint of a delay, so the voyage most likely began in the summer or fall of 59 (27:2).<\/p>\nLuke reported that when Paul the prisoner got to Fair Havens on the island of Crete, the weather had become dangerous for sea travel “because the fast had already gone by” (Acts 27:8-9). One ancient writer said that sailing became dangerous between mid-September and mid-November, and after that, impossible until spring. The fast referred to was no doubt the one in preparation for the Day of Atonement, which in the year 59 fell on October 5. It is not surprising that, 14 days after leaving Fair Havens, the ship in which Paul was traveling was wrecked on the coast of Malta, south of Sicily (vv 27-44). Three months later Paul set sail for Rome again in a ship that had spent the winter at Malta (28:11). Soon he was welcomed into Rome by Christians who came out to meet him (v 15). Thus Paul arrived in Rome in the early part of AD<\/span> 60. The book of Acts closes with the remark that “For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house” (v 30, niv<\/span>). The NT does not report the outcome of his trial. During that period, according to the traditional view, he wrote Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon.<\/p>\nEusebius wrote, “Tradition has it that after defending himself the Apostle was again sent on the ministry of preaching, and coming a second time to the same city suffered martyrdom under Nero.” Nero, who was the Roman emperor from 54 to 68, put to death a multitude of Christians in Rome soon after a disastrous fire in July of 64, according to the Roman historian Tacitus. A number of early Christian writings (e.g., Clement) seem to indicate that Peter and Paul were both killed in Rome during that savage persecution. If so, and if Eusebius was right, then Paul may have spent the two years from 62 to 64 freely ministering back in the eastern provinces. Many conservative scholars date Paul’s First Letter to Timothy and his Letter to Titus from that period. Written from Rome shortly before Paul’s martyrdom in 64, 2 Timothy was probably his last letter (2 Tm 2:9; 4:6).<\/p>\nIn Jerusalem, within three years after Paul had been carried off to Rome, James the brother of Jesus was stoned to death by the Jewish authorities. According to Josephus, that occurred in 62. Not long afterward, according to Eusebius, the church in Jerusalem received a prophecy warning them to leave that doomed city and settle in Pella, one of the cities of the Decapolis (“ten cities”) east of the Jordan. Thus when war broke out between the Jews and the Romans in 66, the Christians for the most part escaped its fury. That war ended in 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (cf. Mk 13:2; Lk 21:24).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Acts of the Apostles, Book of the; Apostle, Apostleship; Age; “Date” under each NT book; First Jewish Revolt; Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Paul, The Apostle.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CHRONOLOGY OF THE BIBLE* (New Testament) Branch of biblical studies that attempts to discover the sequence of NT events and the amount of time that elapsed between them. Chronology is essential to historians, whose task it is to determine the causes and effects of past events. Generally, for a historian’s purpose, assigning absolute dates is less important than knowing the sequence of events that may have influenced each other. Very few NT happenings, in fact, can be given exact dates. A rema...","summary_en":"CHRONOLOGY OF THE BIBLE* (New Testament) Branch of biblical studies that attempts to discover the sequence of NT events and the amount of time that elapsed between them. Chronology is essential to historians, whose task it is to determine the causes and effects of past events. Generally, for a historian’s purpose, assigning absolute dates is less important than knowing the sequence of events that may have influenced each other. Very few NT happenings, in fact, can be given exact dates. A rema...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":13460,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Genealogy","title_en":"Genealogy","content_ro":"<h3>GENEALOGY<\/h3>\nRecord or study of descent involving a tracing backward or forward of the ancestry of a nation, tribe, family, or individual. The Hebrews were not the only people in the ancient world to take an interest in maintaining genealogical records. The Sumerian king list of the third millennium BC<\/span> contains records of the early rulers of Mesopotamia. In Babylonian records the word “son” was frequently used in the sense of “descendant of.” King Tirhakah of Egypt (c. 685 BC<\/span>) referred to his “father,” Sesostris III, who lived some 1,200 years before him. Greeks and Romans also kept genealogical records. However, the biblical genealogies, especially those in Genesis and 1 Chronicles 1–9, are unique in the literature of the ancient Near East. Only at the beginning of the Islamic age are such broad genealogical records found. Even today among tribal Semites, such as Arab nomads, there is an intense interest in genealogy, and it is not unusual for an Arab to be able to recite accurately the names of his ancestors for 10 or 15 generations back, covering a period of several hundred years.<\/p>\nTerms Used<\/p>\nThe word “genealogy” occurs only once as a noun in the Hebrew OT (Neh 7:5), where it refers to a register of those who returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel at the end of the exile. The verbal form of the same word is found a total of 20 times in 1—2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. The terms “generations” and “book of the generations,” used in Genesis and elsewhere in the OT, convey the same idea. The equivalent NT terms are found in 1 Timothy 1:4 and Titus 3:9 (“genealogies”) and Matthew 1:1, which refers to the “book of the genealogy” of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\nPurpose of Genealogical Records<\/p>\nThe keeping of genealogical records in ancient Israel was an important activity and served a number of useful purposes. God’s promise of a land to Abraham and his descendants made such records necessary to establish and preserve the allotment of the land; a genealogical record served as evidence of a legitimate title to the ancestral property. Genealogies were essential for the preservation of the exclusive priesthood that had been established by the Mosaic law. In the time of Josephus every priest was supposed to be able to prove his descent.<\/p>\nOne of the most important reasons for keeping genealogical records was to establish and maintain the right of royal succession in Judah through the family of David. The belief that the Messiah would come from the Davidic house made such records even more important.<\/p>\nOther purposes served by these family records included the imposition of military duty according to families (Nm 1:2-3). Position in camp and on the march from Egypt was determined by tribes and families (2:2, 17; 10:11-28). Also, God’s blessings were passed from one member of the family to his descendants (Gn 27). The stress placed on the purity of the congregation (Dt 7:1-4; 23:1-8) required complete family records, particularly in the postexilic period. With the insistence of Ezra and Nehemiah upon racial purity, and with the purging of foreign elements from among the people (Ezr 2:59-63; 10:9-44; Neh 13:23-28), written evidence of purity of descent became essential; interest in the compilation of genealogies became intense after the exile.<\/p>\nLineage was ordinarily traced through the male members of the family, with females being mentioned only rarely (e.g., Gn 11:29, Sarah and Milcah; 22:23, Rebekah; and Nm 26:33–27:11, where the property inheritance of the daughters of Zelophehad was involved). Matthew mentions three women: Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth; and in the second group alludes to Bathsheba (see discussion below).<\/p>\nPrincipal Genealogical Lists in the Bible<\/p>\nThe principal sources of genealogical material in the OT are found in Genesis, Numbers, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 1—2 Chronicles (which contain the greatest amount of genealogical material in the Bible), Ezra, and Nehemiah. The genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 are the only NT records. Together they contain a genealogical record from Adam to Christ.<\/p>\nGrouped together by historical periods, the following are the principal genealogical lists found in the Bible:<\/p>\n<h5>Before the Flood<\/h5>\nThree lists are from this period. The first, found in Genesis 4:17-22, traces the descendants of Cain through seven generations and explains the hereditary origin of certain occupations and crafts. The second, Genesis 4:25-26, begins the account of the descendants of Seth, the posterity of Adam whose faithfulness to God is contrasted with the ungodly posterity of Cain. The third list, Genesis 5:1-32 (cf. 1 Chr 1:1-4), traces the descendants of Adam through Seth down to Noah and his sons at the time of the Flood.<\/p>\n<h5>From Noah to Abraham<\/h5>\nGenesis 10:1-32 (cf. 1 Chr 1:4-23), frequently called the “table of nations,” contains a list of the nations descended from the sons of Noah (Shem, Ham, and Japheth). Genesis 11:10-26 (cf. 1 Chr 1:24-27) traces the descendants of Shem to the time of Abraham, and Genesis 11:27-30 (see also Gn 22:20-24) lists the descendants of Nahor, Abraham’s brother.<\/p>\n<h5>From Abraham to the Descent into Egypt<\/h5>\nThe descendants of Abraham by Hagar, Sarah, and Keturah are found in Genesis 16:15, 21:1-3, and 25:1-4 (introducing the Arabs as descendants of Abraham; cf. 1 Chr 1:28-34). Genesis 19:37-38 links the Moabites and Ammonites to Abraham through his nephew Lot. A very important genealogical list during this period is that of the descendants of Jacob, giving the account of the parentage, birth, and naming of the founders of the 12 tribes of Israel (Gn 29:31–30:24; 35:16-26). Esau is acknowledged as the ancestor of the Edomites; his Edomite descendants are traced through his three wives (Gn 26:34; 36:1-43; 1 Chr 1:35-54). The list of Jacob’s family at the time he entered Egypt, numbering 70, is found in Genesis 46:1-27 (cf. Ex 6:14-16; Nm 26:1-51; 1 Chr 2–8). A partial list of the heads of the fathers’ houses of Reuben, Simeon, and Levi is found in Exodus 6:14-25; the chief purpose of this genealogy is to establish Aaron and Moses as members of Levi’s tribe.<\/p>\n<h5>From the Exodus to the Conquest of Canaan<\/h5>\nWhile the tribes were still in the desert after leaving Egypt, a census was taken to determine the total number of Israelites (Nm 1:4-54; 2:2-33). During this same period, a genealogy of the family of Aaron was compiled, and a separate census was taken of the Levites (3:1-39). A list of the 12 spies who searched out the land and the tribes they represented is given in Numbers 13:4-16; the most important names on this list are Caleb and Joshua. Near the end of the wilderness wanderings, another census of the people was ordered; the total number was approximately the same as that of the first census almost 40 years earlier (26:4-51, 57-62). As the tribes neared the Promised Land, a list was prepared of the tribal representatives who would take part in the division of the land (34:16-29).<\/p>\n<h5>Period of the Kings<\/h5>\nDuring the entire period of the monarchy, over 400 years, the only genealogical records of any consequence are those that pertain to David. His descendants are traced through 20 rulers who sat upon the throne of Judah until the nation fell to the Babylonians in 586 BC<\/span> (1—2 Kgs; cf. 1 Chr 11:1—2 Chr 36:21). A list of David’s children is found in 2 Samuel 3:2-5 and 5:14-16 (cf. 1 Chr 3:1-9; 14:4-7). His mighty men, an elite group of soldiers, are named in 2 Samuel 23:8-39 (cf. 1 Chr 11:10-47). His recruits at Ziklag are recorded in 1 Chronicles 12:1-22. Those who were his musicians and doorkeepers when the ark was brought to Jerusalem are named in 1 Chronicles 15:1-24 (cf. 1 Chr 16:5-6, 37-43). David’s political and religious organization of the kingdom—including the Levites, priests, singers, porters and other administrative officials, and military officers—is found in 1 Chronicles 23–27. In spite of the literary activity associated with the reign of Solomon, the only genealogical record preserved from this period is that of Solomon’s princes and 12 officers (1 Kgs 4:1-19). The genealogy of one prophet is traced back four generations (Zep 1:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Postexilic Period<\/h5>\nDuring the postexilic period, the keeping of genealogical records probably received its greatest impetus through the activity of Ezra and Nehemiah, primarily because of their insistence upon racial purity and the purging of foreign elements from the community. A list of the exiles who returned with Zerubbabel is found in Ezra 2:1-70 (cf. Neh 7:6-73, where the same list is found). A list of those who returned with Ezra is included in 8:1-20. Ezra’s own genealogy is also recorded (Ezr 7:5). There is a list of the Jews who married foreign women that included priests, Levites, singers, porters, and other Israelites (Ezr 10:18-44). Nehemiah 8:4-7 names the Levites and others who assisted Ezra when he read the law publicly. Nehemiah also contains a list of those who participated in the ceremony of sealing the covenant (Neh 10:1-27) and a list of those who lived in Jerusalem and other cities (11:3-36). His interest in the priesthood is reflected in the list of priests and Levites who returned with Zerubbabel (12:1-9), of the high priests from Jeshua to Jaddua (vv 10-11), of the heads of the priestly families (vv 12-21), of the Levites and porters who served under the high priest (vv 22-26), and of the princes and priests who were present at the dedication of the rebuilt wall of Jerusalem (vv 31-42).<\/p>\nThe final genealogical record that must be mentioned is the genealogy from Adam to Saul (1 Chr 1–8), the longest section of genealogical material in the Bible. It is properly included with the genealogies compiled during the postexilic period, as the unknown chronicler (some think he was Ezra) prepared this list around 400 BC<\/span> from extant records and documents available to him. His purpose seems to have been to conserve the purity of blood in the restored nation and to insist that the nation’s well-being depended on its faithfulness to God’s law.<\/p>\n<h5>The New Testament Period<\/h5>\nThe only genealogies of consequence in the NT are those concerning Jesus Christ in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GENEALOGY<\/h3>\nRecord or study of descent involving a tracing backward or forward of the ancestry of a nation, tribe, family, or individual. The Hebrews were not the only people in the ancient world to take an interest in maintaining genealogical records. The Sumerian king list of the third millennium BC<\/span> contains records of the early rulers of Mesopotamia. In Babylonian records the word “son” was frequently used in the sense of “descendant of.” King Tirhakah of Egypt (c. 685 BC<\/span>) referred to his “father,” Sesostris III, who lived some 1,200 years before him. Greeks and Romans also kept genealogical records. However, the biblical genealogies, especially those in Genesis and 1 Chronicles 1–9, are unique in the literature of the ancient Near East. Only at the beginning of the Islamic age are such broad genealogical records found. Even today among tribal Semites, such as Arab nomads, there is an intense interest in genealogy, and it is not unusual for an Arab to be able to recite accurately the names of his ancestors for 10 or 15 generations back, covering a period of several hundred years.<\/p>\nTerms Used<\/p>\nThe word “genealogy” occurs only once as a noun in the Hebrew OT (Neh 7:5), where it refers to a register of those who returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel at the end of the exile. The verbal form of the same word is found a total of 20 times in 1—2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. The terms “generations” and “book of the generations,” used in Genesis and elsewhere in the OT, convey the same idea. The equivalent NT terms are found in 1 Timothy 1:4 and Titus 3:9 (“genealogies”) and Matthew 1:1, which refers to the “book of the genealogy” of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\nPurpose of Genealogical Records<\/p>\nThe keeping of genealogical records in ancient Israel was an important activity and served a number of useful purposes. God’s promise of a land to Abraham and his descendants made such records necessary to establish and preserve the allotment of the land; a genealogical record served as evidence of a legitimate title to the ancestral property. Genealogies were essential for the preservation of the exclusive priesthood that had been established by the Mosaic law. In the time of Josephus every priest was supposed to be able to prove his descent.<\/p>\nOne of the most important reasons for keeping genealogical records was to establish and maintain the right of royal succession in Judah through the family of David. The belief that the Messiah would come from the Davidic house made such records even more important.<\/p>\nOther purposes served by these family records included the imposition of military duty according to families (Nm 1:2-3). Position in camp and on the march from Egypt was determined by tribes and families (2:2, 17; 10:11-28). Also, God’s blessings were passed from one member of the family to his descendants (Gn 27). The stress placed on the purity of the congregation (Dt 7:1-4; 23:1-8) required complete family records, particularly in the postexilic period. With the insistence of Ezra and Nehemiah upon racial purity, and with the purging of foreign elements from among the people (Ezr 2:59-63; 10:9-44; Neh 13:23-28), written evidence of purity of descent became essential; interest in the compilation of genealogies became intense after the exile.<\/p>\nLineage was ordinarily traced through the male members of the family, with females being mentioned only rarely (e.g., Gn 11:29, Sarah and Milcah; 22:23, Rebekah; and Nm 26:33–27:11, where the property inheritance of the daughters of Zelophehad was involved). Matthew mentions three women: Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth; and in the second group alludes to Bathsheba (see discussion below).<\/p>\nPrincipal Genealogical Lists in the Bible<\/p>\nThe principal sources of genealogical material in the OT are found in Genesis, Numbers, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 1—2 Chronicles (which contain the greatest amount of genealogical material in the Bible), Ezra, and Nehemiah. The genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 are the only NT records. Together they contain a genealogical record from Adam to Christ.<\/p>\nGrouped together by historical periods, the following are the principal genealogical lists found in the Bible:<\/p>\n<h5>Before the Flood<\/h5>\nThree lists are from this period. The first, found in Genesis 4:17-22, traces the descendants of Cain through seven generations and explains the hereditary origin of certain occupations and crafts. The second, Genesis 4:25-26, begins the account of the descendants of Seth, the posterity of Adam whose faithfulness to God is contrasted with the ungodly posterity of Cain. The third list, Genesis 5:1-32 (cf. 1 Chr 1:1-4), traces the descendants of Adam through Seth down to Noah and his sons at the time of the Flood.<\/p>\n<h5>From Noah to Abraham<\/h5>\nGenesis 10:1-32 (cf. 1 Chr 1:4-23), frequently called the “table of nations,” contains a list of the nations descended from the sons of Noah (Shem, Ham, and Japheth). Genesis 11:10-26 (cf. 1 Chr 1:24-27) traces the descendants of Shem to the time of Abraham, and Genesis 11:27-30 (see also Gn 22:20-24) lists the descendants of Nahor, Abraham’s brother.<\/p>\n<h5>From Abraham to the Descent into Egypt<\/h5>\nThe descendants of Abraham by Hagar, Sarah, and Keturah are found in Genesis 16:15, 21:1-3, and 25:1-4 (introducing the Arabs as descendants of Abraham; cf. 1 Chr 1:28-34). Genesis 19:37-38 links the Moabites and Ammonites to Abraham through his nephew Lot. A very important genealogical list during this period is that of the descendants of Jacob, giving the account of the parentage, birth, and naming of the founders of the 12 tribes of Israel (Gn 29:31–30:24; 35:16-26). Esau is acknowledged as the ancestor of the Edomites; his Edomite descendants are traced through his three wives (Gn 26:34; 36:1-43; 1 Chr 1:35-54). The list of Jacob’s family at the time he entered Egypt, numbering 70, is found in Genesis 46:1-27 (cf. Ex 6:14-16; Nm 26:1-51; 1 Chr 2–8). A partial list of the heads of the fathers’ houses of Reuben, Simeon, and Levi is found in Exodus 6:14-25; the chief purpose of this genealogy is to establish Aaron and Moses as members of Levi’s tribe.<\/p>\n<h5>From the Exodus to the Conquest of Canaan<\/h5>\nWhile the tribes were still in the desert after leaving Egypt, a census was taken to determine the total number of Israelites (Nm 1:4-54; 2:2-33). During this same period, a genealogy of the family of Aaron was compiled, and a separate census was taken of the Levites (3:1-39). A list of the 12 spies who searched out the land and the tribes they represented is given in Numbers 13:4-16; the most important names on this list are Caleb and Joshua. Near the end of the wilderness wanderings, another census of the people was ordered; the total number was approximately the same as that of the first census almost 40 years earlier (26:4-51, 57-62). As the tribes neared the Promised Land, a list was prepared of the tribal representatives who would take part in the division of the land (34:16-29).<\/p>\n<h5>Period of the Kings<\/h5>\nDuring the entire period of the monarchy, over 400 years, the only genealogical records of any consequence are those that pertain to David. His descendants are traced through 20 rulers who sat upon the throne of Judah until the nation fell to the Babylonians in 586 BC<\/span> (1—2 Kgs; cf. 1 Chr 11:1—2 Chr 36:21). A list of David’s children is found in 2 Samuel 3:2-5 and 5:14-16 (cf. 1 Chr 3:1-9; 14:4-7). His mighty men, an elite group of soldiers, are named in 2 Samuel 23:8-39 (cf. 1 Chr 11:10-47). His recruits at Ziklag are recorded in 1 Chronicles 12:1-22. Those who were his musicians and doorkeepers when the ark was brought to Jerusalem are named in 1 Chronicles 15:1-24 (cf. 1 Chr 16:5-6, 37-43). David’s political and religious organization of the kingdom—including the Levites, priests, singers, porters and other administrative officials, and military officers—is found in 1 Chronicles 23–27. In spite of the literary activity associated with the reign of Solomon, the only genealogical record preserved from this period is that of Solomon’s princes and 12 officers (1 Kgs 4:1-19). The genealogy of one prophet is traced back four generations (Zep 1:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Postexilic Period<\/h5>\nDuring the postexilic period, the keeping of genealogical records probably received its greatest impetus through the activity of Ezra and Nehemiah, primarily because of their insistence upon racial purity and the purging of foreign elements from the community. A list of the exiles who returned with Zerubbabel is found in Ezra 2:1-70 (cf. Neh 7:6-73, where the same list is found). A list of those who returned with Ezra is included in 8:1-20. Ezra’s own genealogy is also recorded (Ezr 7:5). There is a list of the Jews who married foreign women that included priests, Levites, singers, porters, and other Israelites (Ezr 10:18-44). Nehemiah 8:4-7 names the Levites and others who assisted Ezra when he read the law publicly. Nehemiah also contains a list of those who participated in the ceremony of sealing the covenant (Neh 10:1-27) and a list of those who lived in Jerusalem and other cities (11:3-36). His interest in the priesthood is reflected in the list of priests and Levites who returned with Zerubbabel (12:1-9), of the high priests from Jeshua to Jaddua (vv 10-11), of the heads of the priestly families (vv 12-21), of the Levites and porters who served under the high priest (vv 22-26), and of the princes and priests who were present at the dedication of the rebuilt wall of Jerusalem (vv 31-42).<\/p>\nThe final genealogical record that must be mentioned is the genealogy from Adam to Saul (1 Chr 1–8), the longest section of genealogical material in the Bible. It is properly included with the genealogies compiled during the postexilic period, as the unknown chronicler (some think he was Ezra) prepared this list around 400 BC<\/span> from extant records and documents available to him. His purpose seems to have been to conserve the purity of blood in the restored nation and to insist that the nation’s well-being depended on its faithfulness to God’s law.<\/p>\n<h5>The New Testament Period<\/h5>\nThe only genealogies of consequence in the NT are those concerning Jesus Christ in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GENEALOGY Record or study of descent involving a tracing backward or forward of the ancestry of a nation, tribe, family, or individual. The Hebrews were not the only people in the ancient world to take an interest in maintaining genealogical records. The Sumerian king list of the third millennium BC contains records of the early rulers of Mesopotamia. In Babylonian records the word “son” was frequently used in the sense of “descendant of.” King Tirhakah of Egypt (c. 685 BC) referred to his “f...","summary_en":"GENEALOGY Record or study of descent involving a tracing backward or forward of the ancestry of a nation, tribe, family, or individual. The Hebrews were not the only people in the ancient world to take an interest in maintaining genealogical records. The Sumerian king list of the third millennium BC contains records of the early rulers of Mesopotamia. In Babylonian records the word “son” was frequently used in the sense of “descendant of.” King Tirhakah of Egypt (c. 685 BC) referred to his “f...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":13462,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Genealogy of Jesus Christ","title_en":"Genealogy of Jesus Christ","content_ro":"<h3>GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST<\/h3>\nAccount of Jesus’ human descent. The NT records Jesus’ genealogy twice in great detail: in Matthew 1:1-17 and in Luke 3:23-38.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Matthew’s Genealogy<\/p>\n• Luke’s Genealogy<\/p>\n• The Relationship between the Two Records<\/p>\nMatthew’s Genealogy (1:1-17)<\/p>\nMatthew 1:1 presents Jesus Christ as “the son of David, the son of Abraham.” By those two names, Matthew highlights Jesus’ earthly relationship to the Abrahamic (Gn 17:1-8) and Davidic (2 Sm 7:12-16) covenants of promise. Then beginning with the patriarch Abraham, Matthew traces Jesus’ human ancestry through King David to Joseph, “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ” (Mt 1:16). Matthew summarizes his account: “So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations” (v 17, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nAn examination of Matthew’s handling of this genealogical material discloses several interesting peculiarities:<\/p>\n\n1. The arrangement of the names into three groups of 14 seems to be an artificial device.<\/p>\n<li>2. To have 14 names in the second group, Matthew omits three kings—Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah—between Joram and Uzziah (v 8), and one, Jehoiakim, between Josiah and Jeconiah (v 11).<\/li>\n<li>3. In the first group Matthew mentions three women—Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth; and in the second group, he alludes to Bathsheba. This is an uncommon practice in genealogies, and all the more strange when it is noted that these four represent what could be regarded as moral blemishes in the history of the Davidic dynasty— Tamar, a victim of incest; Rahab, a prostitute; Ruth, a Moabitess; and Bathsheba, an adulteress.<\/li>\n<li>4. In the first group Matthew mentions Judah’s brothers and Zerah, Perez’s brother. In the second group he refers to Jeconiah’s brothers.<\/li>\n<li>5. In verse 6 David is called “the king.”<\/li>\nFrom these data, it is obvious that Matthew does not intend to present a strict genealogy; the arrangement is contrived, and extraneous material is included, probably for some other purpose than merely to present Jesus’ forebears. Matthew’s arrangement of the names into groups of 14, probably guided by an interest in portraying Jesus to Jews as the promised king of Israel and rightful heir to the Davidic throne, gives a definite historical movement to the genealogy by dividing it into three periods of time. These respectively highlight the origin, rise to power, and decay of the Davidic house, the last point represented by the lowly birth of the promised heir to a carpenter of Nazareth.<\/p>\nThe 14 names in each group may be an effort to call attention to the thrice-royal character of Mary’s son by focusing on the numerical value 14 of the Hebrew letters in David’s name (d=4, v=6, d=4). This number also happens to be twice the sacred number seven, so that the whole list is composed of three sets of two sevens each. It may be, however, that the contrived groupings were merely intended to aid in memorization.<\/p>\nWith respect to the second peculiarity—the “missing name” in the third group—one must conclude that either David or Jeconiah is to be counted twice, these being the pivotal names separating the three groups, or that a name was mistakenly dropped out in a copy of Matthew’s original Gospel.<\/p>\nThe third peculiarity presents no difficulty at all. Numerous genealogies in Scripture omit some names. Ancient Near Eastern writers often used the phrase “the son of,” or the word “begat,” quite flexibly, relating grandsons or great-grandsons, for instance, to earlier forebears without indicating every intervening ancestor. The modern mind should not require a precision in ancient records that ancient writers themselves did not insist on.<\/p>\nThe women listed in the genealogy—the fourth peculiarity—may have been intended to disarm Jewish criticism about Jesus’ birth (1:18-25) by showing that irregular unions were not disqualifications for the Messiah’s legal ancestry.<\/p>\nThe reason for including several brothers in the genealogy at three points—the fifth peculiarity—is not readily discernible. The mention of “Judah and his brothers” (1:2) may simply be following an established practice of speaking of the 12 patriarchs together.<\/p>\nFinally, David’s description as “the king” (1:6) underscores the Davidic or royal character of the list.<\/p>\nThe sources employed in compiling the first group in the genealogy drew upon records preserved in 1 Chronicles 1:27–2:15 and in Ruth 4:18-22. The second group followed the records found in 1—2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. The third group relied mainly on public or private records from the intertestamental period; the nine names from Abiud to Jacob are not mentioned elsewhere in Scripture.<\/p>\nOn the basis of this genealogy, if there had been a Davidic throne in Joseph’s day, the lowly carpenter would have been the legal heir to it, and Jesus stood after him as the next in line to inherit the royal seat.<\/p>\nIt has been argued against this understanding of Matthew’s genealogy that the presence of Jeconiah in the list (Mt 1:11) jeopardizes, if not completely negates, the legal claim to the Davidic throne of everyone descending directly from him. That is because the Lord declared of him: “Write this man down as childless, . . . for none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David, and ruling again in Judah” (Jer 22:30, rsv<\/span>). Therefore, it is said, it could not have been Matthew’s intention to represent the men from Shealtiel to Joseph as legal heirs to the throne.<\/p>\nThis is a point that admittedly could dispose of the view that the list presents David’s descendants if it were not for the fact that Shealtiel, who in Matthew’s record is represented as the son of Jeconiah, appears also in Luke’s genealogy as the son of Neri (Lk 3:27). Neri’s name is unique to Luke’s Gospel, so it is impossible to check its use elsewhere to discover the actual parentage of Shealtiel. But it is not surprising in the light of Jeremiah 22:30 to find him listed in both accounts with different parents. Neri most likely was Shealtiel’s real father, and while it is impossible to determine Neri’s precise relationship to Jeconiah, it may be that those responsible for determining and keeping the record of the legal heirs to the Davidic throne looked to the collateral line of Neri and selected Shealtiel as the man to be legally adopted into the line and the one through whom the line would continue. Shealtiel may well have died without a male descendant, which made it necessary to look to Zerubbabel, the son of Pedaiah, Shealtiel’s brother by adoption, as the legal heir to the Davidic throne. By this pair of adoptions, the curse upon Jeconiah was fulfilled while an actual grandson of Jeconiah continued the line, inasmuch as the grandson was legally the son of Shealtiel, who in turn was the actual son of Neri. Jeconiah’s presence in the genealogy is a strength, rather than a weakness, for the interpretation that Matthew’s Gospel intended to present the legal heirs of the Davidic throne, since only a writer conscious of the problems surrounding Jeconiah’s lineage, but also aware of an explanation, would present such an ancestry to a Jewish audience he was seeking to convince that Jesus was indeed the royal Messiah.<\/p>\nLuke’s Genealogy (3:23-38)<\/p>\nLuke’s genealogy also has peculiarities.<\/p>\n1. Some expositors have thought it significant that Luke’s genealogy appears not at the beginning of the Gospel but at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry.<\/p>\n<li>2. Luke’s account, in contrast to Matthew’s, begins with Jesus and traces his lineage back through OT history. This seems irregular, for most genealogies follow the order of succession.<\/li>\n<li>3. Luke’s account, furthermore, does not end with Abraham but goes all the way back to “Adam, the son of God” (Lk 3:38).<\/li>\nSome have seen the first peculiarity as a result of Luke’s desire to bring a period of sacred history to its close, and to signal the beginning of another with the person and especially the ministry of Jesus. The genealogy, located as it is, sets off the work of Christ from the accounts of his birth and preparation.<\/p>\nMany have suggested that the regressive order in the genealogy is probably Luke’s instrument to focus attention on Jesus. The fact that Luke traced Jesus’ ancestry back to Adam, “the son of God,” was probably due to the fact that he wrote for Romans and Greeks. By tracing Jesus’ ancestry back to Adam, he shows Jesus to be related to the whole human race. In Luke’s genealogy Jesus and Adam are both “sons of God”; Jesus, of course, is the son of God by nature; Adam, the son of God by having been created in God’s image.<\/p>\nAs to his sources, it is rather certain that Luke used the Septuagint version (ancient Greek version of the OT) of Genesis 11:12, which inserts the name Cainan between Shelah and Arphaxad (Lk 3:36), and the records of 1 Chronicles 1–3 for the history down to David. For the period from David to Jesus, most expositors agree that Luke relied upon information probably received directly from Mary or from persons close to her. It was a common practice among the Jewish people for genealogical records to be maintained both publicly and privately. There was special concern in families of Davidic descent to preserve their ancestral records because of OT prophecies that Messiah would be born in the house of David.<\/p>\nLuke no doubt intended to accomplish more by his list than merely a presentation of a number of Jesus’ ancestors. Since Luke did not highlight David in his list, it may be assumed that he was not zealous to present a list of legal heirs to the Davidic throne—not that the issue is of no concern to him (cf. Lk 1:27, 32, 69; 2:4, 11). Rather, a concern throughout Luke’s Gospel is this emphasis—that of portraying the Christ as the Savior of Romans and Greeks—indeed, of the world. Therefore, though Luke traced Jesus’ ancestry through Joseph’s ancestral line to David, he continued beyond David to Adam. Jesus is a member of the race to which all people belong.<\/p>\nThe Relationship between the Two Records<\/p>\nEven a cursory examination of the two genealogies of Jesus will show several differences. For example, Matthew’s genealogy comprises 41 generations, while Luke lists 76. Luke includes the period between Adam and Abraham; Matthew does not. While the two lists are practically identical from Abraham to David, they diverge for the period from David to Jesus, Matthew tracing Jesus’ lineage from David through Solomon in 27 generations, whereas Luke traces Jesus’ lineage from David through Nathan, another son, in 42 generations. Furthermore, at only one point do the lines converge during this period: at the names of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, who are doubtless the same men in both lists. Finally, Matthew represents Joseph as the son of Jacob (Mt 1:16), whereas in Luke’s account he is the son of Heli (Lk 3:23).<\/p>\nHow are these differences to be explained? The differences between these lists stem from the purposes for which they were compiled and the meanings they were intended to convey.<\/p>\nA widely held explanation is that Matthew gives Jesus’ ancestry through Joseph and that Luke gives his ancestry through Mary. On this interpretation Jacob was Joseph’s real father, and Heli (probably Mary’s father) became Joseph’s foster father, that is, Joseph was Heli’s “son,” or heir, by his marriage to Mary, assuming that Heli had no sons (cf. Nm 27:1-11; 36:1-12). This view is certainly a possibility and should not be rejected out of hand. If Mary was a direct descendant of David, it could be literally said of any son of hers, “He is the seed of David.”<\/p>\nOn the other hand, many scholars prefer to regard Luke’s genealogy as that of Joseph rather than Mary, since it is to Joseph’s ancestry that Luke calls the reader’s attention (Lk 1:27; 2:4). Furthermore, nowhere in Scripture is Mary said to be of Davidic descent. If the fact that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus nullifies any value that Joseph’s lineage might otherwise possess for a real son, why does Luke point to Joseph’s lineage twice, and to Mary’s not at all?<\/p>\nA major difficulty for the view that regards both genealogies as Joseph’s is related to Joseph’s two fathers. One solution is that Matthew gives the legal descendants of David but Luke gives the actual descendants of David in the line to which Joseph belonged. This would mean that Heli was Joseph’s real father and that Jacob was his legal foster father. How this could be is readily explainable. Assuming that Jacob’s father, Matthan (Mt 1:15), and Heli’s father, Matthat (Lk 3:24), are the same person, then Jacob (the elder) may have died without a male descendant so that his nephew, the son of his brother Heli, would have become his heir.<\/p>\nIf Matthan and Matthat are not the same person, one might postulate that Jacob, the legal heir to the throne, died without a descendant and that Joseph, son of Heli, became the legal heir immediately upon the death of Heli and was counted as Jacob’s son in a list of legal heirs to the throne. Possibly Heli, a relative, married Jacob’s widow, thereby making Joseph, the son of that union, Heli’s son and Jacob’s son by levirate marriage. In other words, there are a number of possible explanations of this divergence.<\/p>\nOne other major objection to the view that regards both genealogies as Joseph’s is that, because of the virgin birth of Jesus, one may in no sense speak of Jesus as being literally the seed of David—a proposition that Scripture seems to insist upon. This objection has been adequately countered: (1) because of the realistic manner in which the Jews looked upon adoptive fatherhood; and (2) because the relationship in which Jesus stood to Joseph was much closer than a case of ordinary adoption, there being no earthly father to dispute Joseph’s paternal relation to Jesus. Jesus could and would have been regarded as Joseph’s son and heir with complete propriety, satisfying every scriptural demand that he be the “seed of David.” The question, therefore, whether Mary as well as Joseph was a descendant of David does not need to be answered one way or the other by one who desires to defend Jesus’ Davidic descent.<\/p>\nIt is beyond human reach to discover for certain the full solution to the divergences between the two genealogies of Jesus, or the actual relationship of Jesus to them. Enough has been said to demonstrate that they are reconcilable, and the purposes of each, suggested here, indicate that either of the ways outlined above does full justice to the Davidic descent of Jesus, as rightful heir to his ancestor’s covenanted throne, and also to his virgin birth by Mary.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy; Incarnation; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Virgin Birth of Jesus.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST<\/h3>\nAccount of Jesus’ human descent. The NT records Jesus’ genealogy twice in great detail: in Matthew 1:1-17 and in Luke 3:23-38.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Matthew’s Genealogy<\/p>\n• Luke’s Genealogy<\/p>\n• The Relationship between the Two Records<\/p>\nMatthew’s Genealogy (1:1-17)<\/p>\nMatthew 1:1 presents Jesus Christ as “the son of David, the son of Abraham.” By those two names, Matthew highlights Jesus’ earthly relationship to the Abrahamic (Gn 17:1-8) and Davidic (2 Sm 7:12-16) covenants of promise. Then beginning with the patriarch Abraham, Matthew traces Jesus’ human ancestry through King David to Joseph, “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ” (Mt 1:16). Matthew summarizes his account: “So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations” (v 17, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nAn examination of Matthew’s handling of this genealogical material discloses several interesting peculiarities:<\/p>\n\n1. The arrangement of the names into three groups of 14 seems to be an artificial device.<\/p>\n<li>2. To have 14 names in the second group, Matthew omits three kings—Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah—between Joram and Uzziah (v 8), and one, Jehoiakim, between Josiah and Jeconiah (v 11).<\/li>\n<li>3. In the first group Matthew mentions three women—Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth; and in the second group, he alludes to Bathsheba. This is an uncommon practice in genealogies, and all the more strange when it is noted that these four represent what could be regarded as moral blemishes in the history of the Davidic dynasty— Tamar, a victim of incest; Rahab, a prostitute; Ruth, a Moabitess; and Bathsheba, an adulteress.<\/li>\n<li>4. In the first group Matthew mentions Judah’s brothers and Zerah, Perez’s brother. In the second group he refers to Jeconiah’s brothers.<\/li>\n<li>5. In verse 6 David is called “the king.”<\/li>\nFrom these data, it is obvious that Matthew does not intend to present a strict genealogy; the arrangement is contrived, and extraneous material is included, probably for some other purpose than merely to present Jesus’ forebears. Matthew’s arrangement of the names into groups of 14, probably guided by an interest in portraying Jesus to Jews as the promised king of Israel and rightful heir to the Davidic throne, gives a definite historical movement to the genealogy by dividing it into three periods of time. These respectively highlight the origin, rise to power, and decay of the Davidic house, the last point represented by the lowly birth of the promised heir to a carpenter of Nazareth.<\/p>\nThe 14 names in each group may be an effort to call attention to the thrice-royal character of Mary’s son by focusing on the numerical value 14 of the Hebrew letters in David’s name (d=4, v=6, d=4). This number also happens to be twice the sacred number seven, so that the whole list is composed of three sets of two sevens each. It may be, however, that the contrived groupings were merely intended to aid in memorization.<\/p>\nWith respect to the second peculiarity—the “missing name” in the third group—one must conclude that either David or Jeconiah is to be counted twice, these being the pivotal names separating the three groups, or that a name was mistakenly dropped out in a copy of Matthew’s original Gospel.<\/p>\nThe third peculiarity presents no difficulty at all. Numerous genealogies in Scripture omit some names. Ancient Near Eastern writers often used the phrase “the son of,” or the word “begat,” quite flexibly, relating grandsons or great-grandsons, for instance, to earlier forebears without indicating every intervening ancestor. The modern mind should not require a precision in ancient records that ancient writers themselves did not insist on.<\/p>\nThe women listed in the genealogy—the fourth peculiarity—may have been intended to disarm Jewish criticism about Jesus’ birth (1:18-25) by showing that irregular unions were not disqualifications for the Messiah’s legal ancestry.<\/p>\nThe reason for including several brothers in the genealogy at three points—the fifth peculiarity—is not readily discernible. The mention of “Judah and his brothers” (1:2) may simply be following an established practice of speaking of the 12 patriarchs together.<\/p>\nFinally, David’s description as “the king” (1:6) underscores the Davidic or royal character of the list.<\/p>\nThe sources employed in compiling the first group in the genealogy drew upon records preserved in 1 Chronicles 1:27–2:15 and in Ruth 4:18-22. The second group followed the records found in 1—2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. The third group relied mainly on public or private records from the intertestamental period; the nine names from Abiud to Jacob are not mentioned elsewhere in Scripture.<\/p>\nOn the basis of this genealogy, if there had been a Davidic throne in Joseph’s day, the lowly carpenter would have been the legal heir to it, and Jesus stood after him as the next in line to inherit the royal seat.<\/p>\nIt has been argued against this understanding of Matthew’s genealogy that the presence of Jeconiah in the list (Mt 1:11) jeopardizes, if not completely negates, the legal claim to the Davidic throne of everyone descending directly from him. That is because the Lord declared of him: “Write this man down as childless, . . . for none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David, and ruling again in Judah” (Jer 22:30, rsv<\/span>). Therefore, it is said, it could not have been Matthew’s intention to represent the men from Shealtiel to Joseph as legal heirs to the throne.<\/p>\nThis is a point that admittedly could dispose of the view that the list presents David’s descendants if it were not for the fact that Shealtiel, who in Matthew’s record is represented as the son of Jeconiah, appears also in Luke’s genealogy as the son of Neri (Lk 3:27). Neri’s name is unique to Luke’s Gospel, so it is impossible to check its use elsewhere to discover the actual parentage of Shealtiel. But it is not surprising in the light of Jeremiah 22:30 to find him listed in both accounts with different parents. Neri most likely was Shealtiel’s real father, and while it is impossible to determine Neri’s precise relationship to Jeconiah, it may be that those responsible for determining and keeping the record of the legal heirs to the Davidic throne looked to the collateral line of Neri and selected Shealtiel as the man to be legally adopted into the line and the one through whom the line would continue. Shealtiel may well have died without a male descendant, which made it necessary to look to Zerubbabel, the son of Pedaiah, Shealtiel’s brother by adoption, as the legal heir to the Davidic throne. By this pair of adoptions, the curse upon Jeconiah was fulfilled while an actual grandson of Jeconiah continued the line, inasmuch as the grandson was legally the son of Shealtiel, who in turn was the actual son of Neri. Jeconiah’s presence in the genealogy is a strength, rather than a weakness, for the interpretation that Matthew’s Gospel intended to present the legal heirs of the Davidic throne, since only a writer conscious of the problems surrounding Jeconiah’s lineage, but also aware of an explanation, would present such an ancestry to a Jewish audience he was seeking to convince that Jesus was indeed the royal Messiah.<\/p>\nLuke’s Genealogy (3:23-38)<\/p>\nLuke’s genealogy also has peculiarities.<\/p>\n1. Some expositors have thought it significant that Luke’s genealogy appears not at the beginning of the Gospel but at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry.<\/p>\n<li>2. Luke’s account, in contrast to Matthew’s, begins with Jesus and traces his lineage back through OT history. This seems irregular, for most genealogies follow the order of succession.<\/li>\n<li>3. Luke’s account, furthermore, does not end with Abraham but goes all the way back to “Adam, the son of God” (Lk 3:38).<\/li>\nSome have seen the first peculiarity as a result of Luke’s desire to bring a period of sacred history to its close, and to signal the beginning of another with the person and especially the ministry of Jesus. The genealogy, located as it is, sets off the work of Christ from the accounts of his birth and preparation.<\/p>\nMany have suggested that the regressive order in the genealogy is probably Luke’s instrument to focus attention on Jesus. The fact that Luke traced Jesus’ ancestry back to Adam, “the son of God,” was probably due to the fact that he wrote for Romans and Greeks. By tracing Jesus’ ancestry back to Adam, he shows Jesus to be related to the whole human race. In Luke’s genealogy Jesus and Adam are both “sons of God”; Jesus, of course, is the son of God by nature; Adam, the son of God by having been created in God’s image.<\/p>\nAs to his sources, it is rather certain that Luke used the Septuagint version (ancient Greek version of the OT) of Genesis 11:12, which inserts the name Cainan between Shelah and Arphaxad (Lk 3:36), and the records of 1 Chronicles 1–3 for the history down to David. For the period from David to Jesus, most expositors agree that Luke relied upon information probably received directly from Mary or from persons close to her. It was a common practice among the Jewish people for genealogical records to be maintained both publicly and privately. There was special concern in families of Davidic descent to preserve their ancestral records because of OT prophecies that Messiah would be born in the house of David.<\/p>\nLuke no doubt intended to accomplish more by his list than merely a presentation of a number of Jesus’ ancestors. Since Luke did not highlight David in his list, it may be assumed that he was not zealous to present a list of legal heirs to the Davidic throne—not that the issue is of no concern to him (cf. Lk 1:27, 32, 69; 2:4, 11). Rather, a concern throughout Luke’s Gospel is this emphasis—that of portraying the Christ as the Savior of Romans and Greeks—indeed, of the world. Therefore, though Luke traced Jesus’ ancestry through Joseph’s ancestral line to David, he continued beyond David to Adam. Jesus is a member of the race to which all people belong.<\/p>\nThe Relationship between the Two Records<\/p>\nEven a cursory examination of the two genealogies of Jesus will show several differences. For example, Matthew’s genealogy comprises 41 generations, while Luke lists 76. Luke includes the period between Adam and Abraham; Matthew does not. While the two lists are practically identical from Abraham to David, they diverge for the period from David to Jesus, Matthew tracing Jesus’ lineage from David through Solomon in 27 generations, whereas Luke traces Jesus’ lineage from David through Nathan, another son, in 42 generations. Furthermore, at only one point do the lines converge during this period: at the names of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, who are doubtless the same men in both lists. Finally, Matthew represents Joseph as the son of Jacob (Mt 1:16), whereas in Luke’s account he is the son of Heli (Lk 3:23).<\/p>\nHow are these differences to be explained? The differences between these lists stem from the purposes for which they were compiled and the meanings they were intended to convey.<\/p>\nA widely held explanation is that Matthew gives Jesus’ ancestry through Joseph and that Luke gives his ancestry through Mary. On this interpretation Jacob was Joseph’s real father, and Heli (probably Mary’s father) became Joseph’s foster father, that is, Joseph was Heli’s “son,” or heir, by his marriage to Mary, assuming that Heli had no sons (cf. Nm 27:1-11; 36:1-12). This view is certainly a possibility and should not be rejected out of hand. If Mary was a direct descendant of David, it could be literally said of any son of hers, “He is the seed of David.”<\/p>\nOn the other hand, many scholars prefer to regard Luke’s genealogy as that of Joseph rather than Mary, since it is to Joseph’s ancestry that Luke calls the reader’s attention (Lk 1:27; 2:4). Furthermore, nowhere in Scripture is Mary said to be of Davidic descent. If the fact that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus nullifies any value that Joseph’s lineage might otherwise possess for a real son, why does Luke point to Joseph’s lineage twice, and to Mary’s not at all?<\/p>\nA major difficulty for the view that regards both genealogies as Joseph’s is related to Joseph’s two fathers. One solution is that Matthew gives the legal descendants of David but Luke gives the actual descendants of David in the line to which Joseph belonged. This would mean that Heli was Joseph’s real father and that Jacob was his legal foster father. How this could be is readily explainable. Assuming that Jacob’s father, Matthan (Mt 1:15), and Heli’s father, Matthat (Lk 3:24), are the same person, then Jacob (the elder) may have died without a male descendant so that his nephew, the son of his brother Heli, would have become his heir.<\/p>\nIf Matthan and Matthat are not the same person, one might postulate that Jacob, the legal heir to the throne, died without a descendant and that Joseph, son of Heli, became the legal heir immediately upon the death of Heli and was counted as Jacob’s son in a list of legal heirs to the throne. Possibly Heli, a relative, married Jacob’s widow, thereby making Joseph, the son of that union, Heli’s son and Jacob’s son by levirate marriage. In other words, there are a number of possible explanations of this divergence.<\/p>\nOne other major objection to the view that regards both genealogies as Joseph’s is that, because of the virgin birth of Jesus, one may in no sense speak of Jesus as being literally the seed of David—a proposition that Scripture seems to insist upon. This objection has been adequately countered: (1) because of the realistic manner in which the Jews looked upon adoptive fatherhood; and (2) because the relationship in which Jesus stood to Joseph was much closer than a case of ordinary adoption, there being no earthly father to dispute Joseph’s paternal relation to Jesus. Jesus could and would have been regarded as Joseph’s son and heir with complete propriety, satisfying every scriptural demand that he be the “seed of David.” The question, therefore, whether Mary as well as Joseph was a descendant of David does not need to be answered one way or the other by one who desires to defend Jesus’ Davidic descent.<\/p>\nIt is beyond human reach to discover for certain the full solution to the divergences between the two genealogies of Jesus, or the actual relationship of Jesus to them. Enough has been said to demonstrate that they are reconcilable, and the purposes of each, suggested here, indicate that either of the ways outlined above does full justice to the Davidic descent of Jesus, as rightful heir to his ancestor’s covenanted throne, and also to his virgin birth by Mary.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy; Incarnation; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Virgin Birth of Jesus.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST Account of Jesus’ human descent. The NT records Jesus’ genealogy twice in great detail: in Matthew 1:1-17 and in Luke 3:23-38. Preview • Matthew’s Genealogy • Luke’s Genealogy • The Relationship between the Two Records Matthew’s Genealogy (1:1-17) Matthew 1:1 presents Jesus Christ as “the son of David, the son of Abraham.” By those two names, Matthew highlights Jesus’ earthly relationship to the Abrahamic (Gn 17:1-8) and Davidic (2 Sm 7:12-16) covenants of promise. T...","summary_en":"GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST Account of Jesus’ human descent. The NT records Jesus’ genealogy twice in great detail: in Matthew 1:1-17 and in Luke 3:23-38. Preview • Matthew’s Genealogy • Luke’s Genealogy • The Relationship between the Two Records Matthew’s Genealogy (1:1-17) Matthew 1:1 presents Jesus Christ as “the son of David, the son of Abraham.” By those two names, Matthew highlights Jesus’ earthly relationship to the Abrahamic (Gn 17:1-8) and Davidic (2 Sm 7:12-16) covenants of promise. T...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":16093,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Heli","title_en":"Heli","content_ro":"<h3>HELI<\/h3>\nAncestor of Joseph in Luke’s genealogy of Christ (Lk 3:23). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HELI<\/h3>\nAncestor of Joseph in Luke’s genealogy of Christ (Lk 3:23). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HELI Ancestor of Joseph in Luke’s genealogy of Christ (Lk 3:23). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"HELI Ancestor of Joseph in Luke’s genealogy of Christ (Lk 3:23). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20571,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Joseph","title_en":"Joseph","content_ro":"<h3>JOSEPH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Jacob’s 11th son and the firstborn son of Rachel. Rachel named the boy Joseph, meaning “may he add,” expressing her desire that God would give her another son (Gn 30:24).<\/li>\nNothing more is said about Joseph until, at the age of 17, he is seen tending his father’s flocks with his brothers (Gn 37:2). Joseph was the favorite of his father, since he was the son of his old age (v 3) and the firstborn son of his favorite wife. Because of this, his brothers hated Joseph. This envy was magnified when Jacob gave Joseph a ground-length, long-sleeved, multicolored robe (vv 3-4). (This type of garment is illustrated by the paintings in the Asiatic tombs of Khnumhotep II at Beni Hasan and of the nobles at Gurneh, near Luxor.) The animosity of his brothers increased still more when Joseph revealed to them his dreams of dominion over them (vv 5-11). Subsequently, when Joseph was sent to check on his brothers and the flocks near Shechem, his brothers sold him to a caravan of traders going down to Egypt (vv 25-28). His brothers then took his robe, dipped it in goat’s blood, and brought it to Jacob, who concluded that Joseph had been killed by wild animals (vv 31-33); Jacob was overwhelmed with grief (vv 34-35).<\/p>\nIn Egypt, Joseph was sold to Potiphar, an Egyptian officer of the guard (Gn 37:36; 39:1), who eventually put Joseph in charge of his entire household. However, trouble arose from Potiphar’s wife, who was attracted to the young Hebrew and tried to seduce him (39:6-10). He steadfastly resisted her advances, protesting that to comply with her wishes would be a disservice to his master and a sin against God (v 9). One day she seized his garment, but he left the garment behind and fled. Potiphar’s wife accused Joseph of attempted rape; her report was believed, and Joseph was incarcerated in the king’s prison (v 20), where Pharaoh’s butler and baker were also confined. While in prison, Joseph, with the Lord’s help, interpreted these men’s troublesome dreams. As Joseph had foretold, the baker was executed and the butler was restored to royal favor (ch 40).<\/p>\nTwo years later Pharaoh had two dreams that his magicians and wise men could not interpret. The butler, remembering Joseph, had him summoned from prison. God revealed to Joseph that the dreams foretold seven years of abundance, followed by seven years of famine (Gn 41:25-36). Pharaoh, impressed with Joseph’s interpretation, made him ruler of Egypt, second only to himself (vv 39-44). Joseph was given a new name, Zaphenath-paneah, and a wife, Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera (v 45).<\/p>\nJoseph was 30 years old when he became ruler of Egypt. During the seven years of prosperity, he gathered the good supplies for the seven years of famine to come (Gn 41:53-56). When the famine eventually became severe in Palestine, Jacob sent all his sons, except Benjamin, his youngest son, to Egypt to purchase grain. Appearing before Joseph in Egypt, they did not recognize him. But he knew them and remembered his dreams of years before (42:8-9). After listening to the report of their family, he accused them of being spies (vv 9-14) and insisted that they leave one of their brothers as hostage and return with Benjamin to verify the truthfulness of their report (vv 19-20). Thus Simeon was bound and left in Egypt (v 24).<\/p>\nAfter the famine worsened in Palestine, Jacob asked his sons to go back to Egypt to buy more grain (Gn 43:1-2); reluctantly agreeing to the conditions that the Egyptian administrator had placed on them, Jacob allowed Benjamin to go with them (vv 11-13). When they arrived in Egypt, they were taken to Joseph’s house, where Simeon was restored to them (v 23) and a meal was prepared for them (v 33). Joseph at last disclosed his identity and declared that God had sent him before them to preserve their lives (45:4-8). Arrangements were then made to send for Jacob; wagons were provided, along with provisions for the journey (v 21). When Jacob came to Goshen in the Nile Delta, Joseph went out to meet him, and another great reunion took place (46:28-29). He also presented his father and brothers to Pharaoh, who let them live in the land of Goshen (47:6).<\/p>\nUpon learning that his father was ill, Joseph took his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to him for his blessing. He presented the sons so that the older would be at Jacob’s right hand and the younger at his left in order that Manasseh would receive the blessing of the firstborn. Jacob, however, crossed his hands and with his right hand on Ephraim gave him the greater blessing (Gn 48:14-20). He also gave to Joseph the land that he had taken from the Amorites (v 22). At Jacob’s death, Joseph made the funeral arrangements; and after the customary funerary practices were carried out, a great funeral procession went to Canaan, where Jacob was buried by his sons in the cave of Machpelah near Hebron (50:1-12).<\/p>\nWhen Joseph was 110 years old, he called his brothers and told them that he was about to die. He made them take an oath that when they returned to Canaan they would take his bones with them. So he died, was embalmed, and was placed in a coffin in Egypt (Gn 50:26). Many years later, during the exodus, Moses took the bones of Joseph with him from Egypt (Ex 13:19). Joseph’s remains were eventually interred at Shechem in the parcel of land that Jacob had bought from Hamor, the father of Shechem (Gn 33:18-20; Jos 24:32). See<\/em> Israel, History of; Patriarchs, Period of the.<\/p>\n<li>2. Igal’s father from Issachar’s tribe. Igal was one of the 12 spies sent by Moses to search out the land of Canaan (Nm 13:7).<\/li>\n<li>3. Asaph’s second son and the leader of the first course of priests serving in the sanctuary during David’s reign (1 Chr 25:2, 9).<\/li>\n<li>4. One of Binnui’s descendants who was encouraged by Ezra to divorce his foreign wife during the postexilic era (Ezr 10:42).<\/li>\n<li>5. Priest and family leader from Shebaniah’s line during the days of Joiakim, the high priest (Neh 12:14).<\/li>\n<li>6. Descendant of David (Mt 1:16; Lk 3:23) and the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Joseph was betrothed to Mary, a young woman of the city of Nazareth. Mary had learned from the angel Gabriel that she was to bear the Son of God, whom she was to name Jesus (Lk 1:31) and that this conception was to be a work of the Holy Spirit (v 35). Joseph was not aware of this, so when he learned that Mary was pregnant, he decided to divorce her quietly, for he was a just man and did not want to humiliate her publicly (Mt 1:19). An angel subsequently appeared to him in a dream to tell him what was happening (Mt 1:21; cf. Is 7:14). The text of Matthew makes it clear that there was no sexual union between Joseph and Mary until after Jesus was born (Mt 1:18, 25; see also Lk 1:34-37).<\/li>\nWhen Caesar Augustus issued a decree that everyone had to register in his native city for purposes of taxation, Joseph and Mary returned to Bethlehem, where Jesus was subsequently born (Lk 2:1-6). Later, Joseph and Mary took the infant Jesus to the temple to present him to the Lord (vv 22, 33). After the visit of the wise men, an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream and instructed him to take Jesus and Mary to Egypt to protect the child from King Herod (Mt 2:13). Upon the death of Herod, an angel similarly advised him to return to Israel, so the family went to live in Nazareth. The last recorded event that involves Joseph is the incident of Jesus at the temple at age 12 (Lk 2:41-51). Joseph is not mentioned by name, but Mary told Jesus that she and his father had been looking for him anxiously.<\/p>\nJesus was identified by people around Nazareth as “Joseph’s son” (Lk 4:22; Jn 1:45; 6:42). It is only through references identifying Jesus that we learn of Joseph’s trade. Twice Jesus is referred to as “the carpenter’s son” (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). Joseph was not a carpenter in our sense of the word, for houses were built mostly of stone and earth. He was a woodworker or artificer in wood, and probably most of his work was with furniture and agricultural implements.<\/p>\nDuring the ministry of Jesus, it was his mother and his brothers who came to look for him (Mt 12:46-50; Mk 3:31-35), so it is assumed that by this time Joseph was dead. Joseph was most likely the father of James, Joseph, Simon, Judas, and unnamed sisters (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Brothers of Jesus; Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<li>7. Joseph and Mary’s son and the brother of Jesus (Mt 13:55); alternately called Joses in Mark 6:3. See<\/em> Brothers of Jesus.<\/li>\n<li>8. Native of Arimathea and the follower of Jesus who provided for his burial. He was a rich man from the town of Arimathea and a respected member of the Sanhedrin, or council (Mk 15:43). He was a good and righteous man and did not go along with the decision to crucify Jesus (Lk 23:50-51). Joseph had been a secret follower of Jesus because he was afraid of the Jews (Jn 19:38), but after the Crucifixion he took courage and went to Pilate to ask for Jesus’ body. He and Nicodemus took the body, treated it with spices, and wrapped it in linen cloths, according to the Jewish burial customs. In a nearby garden was Joseph’s own new rock-cut tomb in which no one had ever been buried. Here they placed Jesus and sealed the tomb with a large stone.<\/li>\n<li> 9. Mattathias’s son and an ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:25). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>10. KJV rendering of Josech, an ancestor of Jesus, in Luke 3:26. See<\/em> Josech.<\/li>\n<li>11. Jonam’s son and an ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:30). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>12. Disciple of Jesus who was “called Barsabbas” and “surnamed Justus” (Acts 1:23). Joseph was one of the candidates put forward by the 11 apostles to replace Judas Iscariot. It was Matthias, however, who was chosen.<\/li>\n<li>13. Cypriot Levite who sold a field and gave the proceeds to the apostles. He was surnamed “Barnabas,” meaning “son of encouragement,” by the apostles (Acts 4:36). See<\/em> Barnabas.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>JOSEPH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Jacob’s 11th son and the firstborn son of Rachel. Rachel named the boy Joseph, meaning “may he add,” expressing her desire that God would give her another son (Gn 30:24).<\/li>\nNothing more is said about Joseph until, at the age of 17, he is seen tending his father’s flocks with his brothers (Gn 37:2). Joseph was the favorite of his father, since he was the son of his old age (v 3) and the firstborn son of his favorite wife. Because of this, his brothers hated Joseph. This envy was magnified when Jacob gave Joseph a ground-length, long-sleeved, multicolored robe (vv 3-4). (This type of garment is illustrated by the paintings in the Asiatic tombs of Khnumhotep II at Beni Hasan and of the nobles at Gurneh, near Luxor.) The animosity of his brothers increased still more when Joseph revealed to them his dreams of dominion over them (vv 5-11). Subsequently, when Joseph was sent to check on his brothers and the flocks near Shechem, his brothers sold him to a caravan of traders going down to Egypt (vv 25-28). His brothers then took his robe, dipped it in goat’s blood, and brought it to Jacob, who concluded that Joseph had been killed by wild animals (vv 31-33); Jacob was overwhelmed with grief (vv 34-35).<\/p>\nIn Egypt, Joseph was sold to Potiphar, an Egyptian officer of the guard (Gn 37:36; 39:1), who eventually put Joseph in charge of his entire household. However, trouble arose from Potiphar’s wife, who was attracted to the young Hebrew and tried to seduce him (39:6-10). He steadfastly resisted her advances, protesting that to comply with her wishes would be a disservice to his master and a sin against God (v 9). One day she seized his garment, but he left the garment behind and fled. Potiphar’s wife accused Joseph of attempted rape; her report was believed, and Joseph was incarcerated in the king’s prison (v 20), where Pharaoh’s butler and baker were also confined. While in prison, Joseph, with the Lord’s help, interpreted these men’s troublesome dreams. As Joseph had foretold, the baker was executed and the butler was restored to royal favor (ch 40).<\/p>\nTwo years later Pharaoh had two dreams that his magicians and wise men could not interpret. The butler, remembering Joseph, had him summoned from prison. God revealed to Joseph that the dreams foretold seven years of abundance, followed by seven years of famine (Gn 41:25-36). Pharaoh, impressed with Joseph’s interpretation, made him ruler of Egypt, second only to himself (vv 39-44). Joseph was given a new name, Zaphenath-paneah, and a wife, Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera (v 45).<\/p>\nJoseph was 30 years old when he became ruler of Egypt. During the seven years of prosperity, he gathered the good supplies for the seven years of famine to come (Gn 41:53-56). When the famine eventually became severe in Palestine, Jacob sent all his sons, except Benjamin, his youngest son, to Egypt to purchase grain. Appearing before Joseph in Egypt, they did not recognize him. But he knew them and remembered his dreams of years before (42:8-9). After listening to the report of their family, he accused them of being spies (vv 9-14) and insisted that they leave one of their brothers as hostage and return with Benjamin to verify the truthfulness of their report (vv 19-20). Thus Simeon was bound and left in Egypt (v 24).<\/p>\nAfter the famine worsened in Palestine, Jacob asked his sons to go back to Egypt to buy more grain (Gn 43:1-2); reluctantly agreeing to the conditions that the Egyptian administrator had placed on them, Jacob allowed Benjamin to go with them (vv 11-13). When they arrived in Egypt, they were taken to Joseph’s house, where Simeon was restored to them (v 23) and a meal was prepared for them (v 33). Joseph at last disclosed his identity and declared that God had sent him before them to preserve their lives (45:4-8). Arrangements were then made to send for Jacob; wagons were provided, along with provisions for the journey (v 21). When Jacob came to Goshen in the Nile Delta, Joseph went out to meet him, and another great reunion took place (46:28-29). He also presented his father and brothers to Pharaoh, who let them live in the land of Goshen (47:6).<\/p>\nUpon learning that his father was ill, Joseph took his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to him for his blessing. He presented the sons so that the older would be at Jacob’s right hand and the younger at his left in order that Manasseh would receive the blessing of the firstborn. Jacob, however, crossed his hands and with his right hand on Ephraim gave him the greater blessing (Gn 48:14-20). He also gave to Joseph the land that he had taken from the Amorites (v 22). At Jacob’s death, Joseph made the funeral arrangements; and after the customary funerary practices were carried out, a great funeral procession went to Canaan, where Jacob was buried by his sons in the cave of Machpelah near Hebron (50:1-12).<\/p>\nWhen Joseph was 110 years old, he called his brothers and told them that he was about to die. He made them take an oath that when they returned to Canaan they would take his bones with them. So he died, was embalmed, and was placed in a coffin in Egypt (Gn 50:26). Many years later, during the exodus, Moses took the bones of Joseph with him from Egypt (Ex 13:19). Joseph’s remains were eventually interred at Shechem in the parcel of land that Jacob had bought from Hamor, the father of Shechem (Gn 33:18-20; Jos 24:32). See<\/em> Israel, History of; Patriarchs, Period of the.<\/p>\n<li>2. Igal’s father from Issachar’s tribe. Igal was one of the 12 spies sent by Moses to search out the land of Canaan (Nm 13:7).<\/li>\n<li>3. Asaph’s second son and the leader of the first course of priests serving in the sanctuary during David’s reign (1 Chr 25:2, 9).<\/li>\n<li>4. One of Binnui’s descendants who was encouraged by Ezra to divorce his foreign wife during the postexilic era (Ezr 10:42).<\/li>\n<li>5. Priest and family leader from Shebaniah’s line during the days of Joiakim, the high priest (Neh 12:14).<\/li>\n<li>6. Descendant of David (Mt 1:16; Lk 3:23) and the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Joseph was betrothed to Mary, a young woman of the city of Nazareth. Mary had learned from the angel Gabriel that she was to bear the Son of God, whom she was to name Jesus (Lk 1:31) and that this conception was to be a work of the Holy Spirit (v 35). Joseph was not aware of this, so when he learned that Mary was pregnant, he decided to divorce her quietly, for he was a just man and did not want to humiliate her publicly (Mt 1:19). An angel subsequently appeared to him in a dream to tell him what was happening (Mt 1:21; cf. Is 7:14). The text of Matthew makes it clear that there was no sexual union between Joseph and Mary until after Jesus was born (Mt 1:18, 25; see also Lk 1:34-37).<\/li>\nWhen Caesar Augustus issued a decree that everyone had to register in his native city for purposes of taxation, Joseph and Mary returned to Bethlehem, where Jesus was subsequently born (Lk 2:1-6). Later, Joseph and Mary took the infant Jesus to the temple to present him to the Lord (vv 22, 33). After the visit of the wise men, an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream and instructed him to take Jesus and Mary to Egypt to protect the child from King Herod (Mt 2:13). Upon the death of Herod, an angel similarly advised him to return to Israel, so the family went to live in Nazareth. The last recorded event that involves Joseph is the incident of Jesus at the temple at age 12 (Lk 2:41-51). Joseph is not mentioned by name, but Mary told Jesus that she and his father had been looking for him anxiously.<\/p>\nJesus was identified by people around Nazareth as “Joseph’s son” (Lk 4:22; Jn 1:45; 6:42). It is only through references identifying Jesus that we learn of Joseph’s trade. Twice Jesus is referred to as “the carpenter’s son” (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). Joseph was not a carpenter in our sense of the word, for houses were built mostly of stone and earth. He was a woodworker or artificer in wood, and probably most of his work was with furniture and agricultural implements.<\/p>\nDuring the ministry of Jesus, it was his mother and his brothers who came to look for him (Mt 12:46-50; Mk 3:31-35), so it is assumed that by this time Joseph was dead. Joseph was most likely the father of James, Joseph, Simon, Judas, and unnamed sisters (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Brothers of Jesus; Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<li>7. Joseph and Mary’s son and the brother of Jesus (Mt 13:55); alternately called Joses in Mark 6:3. See<\/em> Brothers of Jesus.<\/li>\n<li>8. Native of Arimathea and the follower of Jesus who provided for his burial. He was a rich man from the town of Arimathea and a respected member of the Sanhedrin, or council (Mk 15:43). He was a good and righteous man and did not go along with the decision to crucify Jesus (Lk 23:50-51). Joseph had been a secret follower of Jesus because he was afraid of the Jews (Jn 19:38), but after the Crucifixion he took courage and went to Pilate to ask for Jesus’ body. He and Nicodemus took the body, treated it with spices, and wrapped it in linen cloths, according to the Jewish burial customs. In a nearby garden was Joseph’s own new rock-cut tomb in which no one had ever been buried. Here they placed Jesus and sealed the tomb with a large stone.<\/li>\n<li> 9. Mattathias’s son and an ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:25). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>10. KJV rendering of Josech, an ancestor of Jesus, in Luke 3:26. See<\/em> Josech.<\/li>\n<li>11. Jonam’s son and an ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:30). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>12. Disciple of Jesus who was “called Barsabbas” and “surnamed Justus” (Acts 1:23). Joseph was one of the candidates put forward by the 11 apostles to replace Judas Iscariot. It was Matthias, however, who was chosen.<\/li>\n<li>13. Cypriot Levite who sold a field and gave the proceeds to the apostles. He was surnamed “Barnabas,” meaning “son of encouragement,” by the apostles (Acts 4:36). See<\/em> Barnabas.<\/li>","summary_ro":"JOSEPH 1. Jacob’s 11th son and the firstborn son of Rachel. Rachel named the boy Joseph, meaning “may he add,” expressing her desire that God would give her another son (Gn 30:24). Nothing more is said about Joseph until, at the age of 17, he is seen tending his father’s flocks with his brothers (Gn 37:2). Joseph was the favorite of his father, since he was the son of his old age (v 3) and the firstborn son of his favorite wife. Because of this, his brothers hated Joseph. This envy was magnif...","summary_en":"JOSEPH 1. Jacob’s 11th son and the firstborn son of Rachel. Rachel named the boy Joseph, meaning “may he add,” expressing her desire that God would give her another son (Gn 30:24). Nothing more is said about Joseph until, at the age of 17, he is seen tending his father’s flocks with his brothers (Gn 37:2). Joseph was the favorite of his father, since he was the son of his old age (v 3) and the firstborn son of his favorite wife. Because of this, his brothers hated Joseph. This envy was magnif...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":25444,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Messiah","title_en":"Messiah","content_ro":"<h3>MESSIAH<\/h3>\nTitle derived from the Hebrew, mashiach<\/span>,<\/em> a verbal adjective meaning “anointed one.” Along with its NT equivalent, christos<\/span> (Christ), it refers to an act of consecration whereby an individual is set apart to serve God and then anointed with oil. The verbal root (<\/em>mashach<\/span>)<\/em> conveys this idea as well.<\/p>\nIsrael’s practice of ceremonially anointing with oil is present in several contexts. Priests were regularly anointed prior to their divinely given service at the altar of sacrifice (Lv 4:3). While there is evidence for a literal anointing of prophets (1 Kgs 19:16), this does not appear to have been a standard practice. The anointing of Saul and David by Samuel established the act as a significant prerequisite for Hebrew kings before they assumed their positions of royal leadership. The king was especially considered to be the Lord’s anointed and as such was viewed to hold a secure position before men (1 Sm 12:14; 2 Sm 19:21) and God (Pss 2:2; 20:6). Along with numerous messianic prophecies, these proceedings helped inform the Jews of the Anointed One, par excellence, who would eventually come to bring salvation to Israel.<\/p>\nConcluding the 13 articles of Hebraic faith attributed to Moses Maimonides (13th century AD<\/span>) is the statement still found in many Hebrew prayer books: “I believe with a perfect heart that the Messiah will come; and although his coming be delayed, I will still wait patiently for his speedy appearance.”<\/p>\nMessiah in the Old Testament<\/p>\nJewish hope for the advent of the Messiah developed dynamically from the period of David’s reign, when it was prophesied that his kingdom would endure to the end of time (2 Sm 7:16). Israel was told that, through David’s descendants, his throne would exert a never-ending dominion over all the earth (2 Sm 22:48-51; Jer 33). It is with this aspect of messianic salvation that Jewish minds have traditionally been preoccupied (cf. Acts 1:6).<\/p>\nAmong Orthodox rabbis there has never been a lack of conjecture respecting the details of the Messiah’s ministry. At one time the rabbis applied no less than 456 passages of Scripture to his person and salvation. Preoccupation with the Messiah is evident in the tractate Sanhedrin<\/em> (Babylonian Talmud), where passages state that the world was created for him and that all the prophets prophesied of his days (Sanhedrin<\/em> 98b, 99a). By and large, Orthodoxy still retains its time-worn belief in the Messiah’s reign in Jerusalem, the rebuilding of the temple, and the reestablishment of both priesthood and sacrifice.<\/p>\nWhile later Judaism looked for the Messiah as an eschatological figure who will reign at the end of time, modern Jewish thought has largely jettisoned the traditional notion of a personal Messiah in favor of belief in a messianic age. Prevalent liberal Judaism envisions the world ultimately perfected through the influence of the twin Judaic ideals of justice and compassion. Such conviction, ignoring the plight of fallen humans and the teaching of Scripture, substitutes humanistic thinking for miraculous heavenly intervention.<\/p>\nWhile the Messiah’s origin is linked firmly to the house of David (2 Sm 7:14; Hos 3:5), the promise for a Messiah was given long before David lived. In fact, the hope for the Messiah is implicit in the first promise of the establishment of the kingdom of God. Addressed to Satan, Genesis 3:15 declares that God will place hostility between the serpent and the woman until, in the fullness of time, the “seed” of the woman inflicts a fatal blow to the head of the serpent.<\/p>\nThe nature of messianic prophecy is progressive; each prophecy casts more light on the subject. This occurs, for example, respecting the concept of the “seed”: Messiah is to be born of a woman (Gn 3:15), through the line of Shem (9:26) and specifically through Abraham (22:18). Yet even as late as Genesis 22:18, the “seed” is not clearly presented as a person, since zerah<\/span> (seed) may indicate a singular or plural object. Still less apparent in these early stages of messianic prophecy is the nature of the “bruising” that is to occur. Yet the idea of the Messiah being crushed for sin is implicit in the Genesis pronouncement, as is the violence associated with that act. Chief among the messianic prophets, Isaiah gives full range to the axiom that the Anointed One must endure extensive suffering (Is 53:1). Under the figure “the Servant of the Lord,” four “servant songs” delineate the mission of the future deliverer (Is 42:1-7; 49:1-9; 50:4-11; 52:13–53:12). While it is true that Isaiah does not explicitly link the title Messiah with the Servant of the Lord, identifying both figures as one and the same person is justifiable. Both figures are uniquely anointed (61:1); each brings light to the Gentiles (55:4; cf. 49:6); neither is pretentious in his first appearance (7:14-15; 11:1; cf. 42:3; 53:1); and the title of Davidic “branch” rests upon them both (11:1-4). Equally significant are the dual facts of their humiliation and exaltation (49:7; 52:13-15). Jewish scholars of the early Christian era in the Aramaic Targum on the prophets paraphrase Isaiah 42:1, “Behold my Servant Messiah” and begin Isaiah 53, “Behold my Servant Messiah will prosper.” While Cyrus may be spoken of as “anointed,” no final salvific work is attributed to him (45:1-5). Israel, although elect and loved by God (41:8), is ill-equipped as God’s servant to bring his redeeming work to mankind (42:18). The collapse of David’s dynasty points eloquently to Israel’s need for an anointed monarch who will heal the apostasy and disobedience (Ex 33:5; Hos 4:1). More and more, OT history presents Israel’s comprehensive moral failure. Her problem, which she shares with mankind, can only be solved by the making of a covenant whose surety and focal point is both a personal Savior and sovereign Lord (Jer 31:31-34). The advent of such a champion lives in the recorded promise of a shoot from the stump of Jesse’s fallen tree, who will bring the light of life to God’s benighted people (Is 9:2; 11:1).<\/p>\nIt is difficult to get away from the idea that the concept of servanthood and lowliness belongs within the sphere of royalty (Zec 9:9). The concept of the Messiah filling the complementary offices of priest and king is incontrovertible (Ps 110:1-4); a suffering priest-king is far less obvious. Some among the Talmudic writers apparently recognized the likelihood that the Messiah would have to suffer. In the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin<\/em> 98b, the Messiah is said to bear sicknesses and pain. Among the prayers for the Day of Atonement may be found the words of Eleazar ben Qalir (perhaps as late as AD<\/span> 1000): “Our righteous Messiah has departed from us; we are horror-stricken, and there is none to justify us. Our iniquities and the yoke of our transgressions he carries, and is wounded for our transgressions. He bears on his shoulders our sins to find pardon for our iniquities. May we be healed by his stripes.” In a similar vein Rabbi Eliyya de Vidas writes, “The meaning of ‘He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities,’ is that since the Messiah bears our iniquities, which produce the effect of His being bruised, it follows that whosoever will not admit that the Messiah thus suffers for our iniquities must endure and suffer for them himself.” For all this, it is highly doubtful that anyone imagined the Messiah would accomplish his salvational work by means of his own death (cf. Is 53:12). When rabbinic speculation failed to satisfactorily harmonize the paradoxical facts of humiliation and exaltation, some hypothesized that God would send a Messiah to suffer as well as a Messiah to reign. Biblically, it is evident that the Anointed One’s terrible ordeal of suffering is but the necessary prelude to infinite glory. He is pictured not only as a great king (52:13; 53:12) but also as humble (53:2), humiliated (52:14), rejected (53:3), and bearing the consequences of mankind’s rebellion (vv 5-6). Yet he is raised up to intercede for, and richly bless, his people (v 12). The Messiah, having accomplished that full obedience that Adam and Israel failed to achieve, will bring Israel and the nations back to God (42:18-19; 49:3, 6).<\/p>\nThe writings of Daniel contain important messianic data. Daniel is unique in that he boldly speaks of “Messiah the Prince” (Dn 9:25), identifies him as the “Son of Man” (7:13), and says he suffers (“cut off,” 9:26). This statement of the cutting off (i.e., death) of the Messiah makes possible his work of atonement (9:24). The doctrine of a vicarious substitutionary atonement is the only doctrine of atonement found in the Bible (cf. Lv 17:11). Israel understood that to bear sin meant enduring the consequences, or penalty, for sin (cf. Nm 14:33). The same penal substitution is evident in the working principle of the Messiah’s atoning sacrifice. He is the victim’s substitute to whom is transferred the suffering due the sinner. The penalty having been thus borne vicariously, the suppliant is fully pardoned.<\/p>\nPsalm 22:1 records the plaintive cry of the Messiah bearing man’s penalty for sin (cf. Mt 27:46) as he becomes sin on behalf of his people (2 Cor 5:21). Yet his cry, “My God,” indicates an intimate relationship that cannot be radically severed. Once again the motif of messianic humiliation prior to great exaltation is in view (Ps 22:27). In the so-called “royal psalms” (e.g., 2; 72; 110) it is the priestly intercessor who is also ordained to function as monarch and judge.<\/p>\nJeremiah brings the portrait a step further. The one who will enable humans to enter into a salvational covenant with God conveys God’s imputed righteousness: the Messiah, God’s righteous branch, becomes “the Lord our Righteousness.” Paradoxically, under the law no one could be crucified who was not guilty of sin (Dt 21:22). But it is Christ the righteous one who was crucified, thereby forever undermining any supposed legalistic confidence (Dt 21:23; Gal 3:13). More than forgiven, believers are deemed righteous in him (Jer 23:5-6).<\/p>\nWhile the birthplace of the Messiah was well established (Mi 5:2), his deity was a hotly contested matter. Although few in ancient Israel disputed the belief in a superhuman Messiah, it is doubtful that anyone imagined him to be “God with us” in the fullest sense of the expression (cf. Heb 1:3).<\/p>\nMessiah in the New Testament<\/p>\nThe NT writers present the picture that he who was the child of supernatural origins (Is 7:14; Mi 5:2) carried the full weight of divinity (Is 9:6; Phil 2:6; Col 1:19). He is the Son of God, worthy to receive the worship of all people (Ps 45:6-7; cf. Heb 1:8-9).<\/p>\nThe Jews of first-century Palestine knew that the messianic promise would be fulfilled in the coming of one like Moses (Dt 18:18). Parallels between Jesus and Moses are abundant. As mediators, innovators, and propagators of new phases of spiritual life for the people, they are unexcelled. Specifically, both are miraculously spared in infancy (Ex 2; Mt 2:13-23); both renounce a royal court for the sake of serving the people of God (Phil 2:5-8; Heb 11:24-28); both exhibit intense compassion for others (Nm 27:17; Mt 9:36); both commune “face to face” with God (Ex 34:29-30; 2 Cor 3:7); and each mediates a covenant of redemption (Dt 29:1; Heb 8:6-7). But, as Luther observes, “Christ is no Moses.” In the final analysis Moses is but a household servant; the Messiah is the maker and master of all things (Heb 3:3-6; cf. Jn 1:1-2, 18).<\/p>\nFamily genealogies are important in Scripture. Rabbis agreed upon the absolute necessity of the Messiah’s Davidic lineage based on Hosea 3:5 and Jeremiah 30:9. The angelic announcement immediately establishes the correct lineage for Jesus (Lk 1:32-33; cf. 2:4), as does Matthew’s (Mt 1:1-17). The Lukan list, like that of Matthew, sets forth the exclusive kingly descent verifying Jesus as Messiah (Lk 3:23-38). Although variations occur between the two genealogies, there is a firm solidarity emphasizing an ancestry within the unique messianic stock. Fully aware of the messianic focus of Scripture (Jn 5:46; 8:56), Jesus acknowledged himself to be the Christ on numerous occasions. He accepted the title from blind Bartimaeus (Mk 10:46-48); from the crowds when he entered Jerusalem (Mt 21:9); from the children at the temple (v 15); and in other contexts as well (Mt 16:16-18; Mk 14:61-62; Lk 4:21; Jn 4:25-26). Nonetheless, he warned his disciples not to broadcast his mighty acts as Messiah prior to his resurrection (Mt 17:9; cf. Lk 9:20-21). Owing to the commonly held (but false) notion that the Messiah’s role was primarily that of a political liberator, Jesus actually avoided use of that term and preferred to identify himself as “the Son of Man.” It was by no means assumed that both designations referred to the same person (cf. Mk 14:61-62). Borrowing essentially from Daniel’s vision of a heavenly conqueror (Dn 7:13-14), Jesus consistently employed this less-known title and filled it with the true character and scope of messianic salvation. Jesus’ teaching in this regard enabled his disciples to correct their erroneous views concerning his mission (Mt 16:21-23). In the fullness of time they would come to see him not only as Messiah but also as the theme of the entire OT (Mt 5:17; Lk 24:27, 44; Jn 5:39; cf. Heb 10:7). When Jesus expounded the Scriptures beginning with the Torah (Lk 24:27), he did so as the living exegesis of God, the Word made flesh (Jn 1:14, 18). Legitimate messianic exposition is found in a host of texts, such as Psalms 2; 16; 22; 40; 110; Isaiah 7:14; 9:6; 11:1; 40:10-11; 50:6; 52:13–53:12; 61:1; 63:1-6; Jeremiah 23:5-6; 33:14-16; Ezekiel 34:23; 37:25; Daniel 9:24-27; Hosea 11:1; Micah 5:2; Zechariah 9:9; 11:13; 12:10; 13:7; Malachi 3:1; 4:2.<\/p>\nThe messiahship of Jesus is firmly proclaimed by all four evangelists (Mt 1:1; Mk 1:1; Lk 24:26; Jn 20:31). Peter on Pentecost, Philip before the Ethiopian eunuch, and Apollos in open debate all argue convincingly that Jesus is the Messiah (Acts 2:36; 8:35; 28:28). Peter says he was “made” both Lord and Christ (2:36), signifying that the resurrection rightfully confirms him as such. Similarly, the apostle Paul speaks of Jesus’ resurrection as a patent declaration of his inalienable right to the title (Rom 1:4). For the ex-Pharisee and former persecutor of the church, “Jesus the Christ” is the very heart and soul of Paul’s preaching. Nothing is worthy to be compared to the glory of the Messiah; everything pales by comparison (Phil 3:5-10). The apostle’s all-consuming passion is for others to know the fullness of God in the person of his only Son (Eph 3:14-19).<\/p>\nThe Holy Spirit in Scripture speaks of Jesus with wide-ranging appellatives—Holy One, Judge, Righteous One, King, Son of God, and Lord—but these are not exhaustive. In him all the lines of messianic prediction converge; he is the touchstone whereby their validity is firmly established. The Lord Jesus Christ is himself the heart and substance of that covenant through which sinful people may be reconciled to a holy God (Is 42:6; Jn 14:6). That Jesus is the Messiah of Israel, God incarnate, exhaustively fulfills prophecy, type, and symbol—all shadows of his coming. Therefore, all should trust in him, the source of all grace, the only abiding treasure (Mt 12:21; Jn 1:16-17; Col 2:3). Anointed as prophet, he leads us into all truth (Jn 6:14; 7:16); as priest he intercedes for us (Heb 7:21); and as king he reigns over us (Phil 2:9-10).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Atonement; Branch; Christology; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Redeemer, Redemption; Son of God; Son of Man.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MESSIAH<\/h3>\nTitle derived from the Hebrew, mashiach<\/span>,<\/em> a verbal adjective meaning “anointed one.” Along with its NT equivalent, christos<\/span> (Christ), it refers to an act of consecration whereby an individual is set apart to serve God and then anointed with oil. The verbal root (<\/em>mashach<\/span>)<\/em> conveys this idea as well.<\/p>\nIsrael’s practice of ceremonially anointing with oil is present in several contexts. Priests were regularly anointed prior to their divinely given service at the altar of sacrifice (Lv 4:3). While there is evidence for a literal anointing of prophets (1 Kgs 19:16), this does not appear to have been a standard practice. The anointing of Saul and David by Samuel established the act as a significant prerequisite for Hebrew kings before they assumed their positions of royal leadership. The king was especially considered to be the Lord’s anointed and as such was viewed to hold a secure position before men (1 Sm 12:14; 2 Sm 19:21) and God (Pss 2:2; 20:6). Along with numerous messianic prophecies, these proceedings helped inform the Jews of the Anointed One, par excellence, who would eventually come to bring salvation to Israel.<\/p>\nConcluding the 13 articles of Hebraic faith attributed to Moses Maimonides (13th century AD<\/span>) is the statement still found in many Hebrew prayer books: “I believe with a perfect heart that the Messiah will come; and although his coming be delayed, I will still wait patiently for his speedy appearance.”<\/p>\nMessiah in the Old Testament<\/p>\nJewish hope for the advent of the Messiah developed dynamically from the period of David’s reign, when it was prophesied that his kingdom would endure to the end of time (2 Sm 7:16). Israel was told that, through David’s descendants, his throne would exert a never-ending dominion over all the earth (2 Sm 22:48-51; Jer 33). It is with this aspect of messianic salvation that Jewish minds have traditionally been preoccupied (cf. Acts 1:6).<\/p>\nAmong Orthodox rabbis there has never been a lack of conjecture respecting the details of the Messiah’s ministry. At one time the rabbis applied no less than 456 passages of Scripture to his person and salvation. Preoccupation with the Messiah is evident in the tractate Sanhedrin<\/em> (Babylonian Talmud), where passages state that the world was created for him and that all the prophets prophesied of his days (Sanhedrin<\/em> 98b, 99a). By and large, Orthodoxy still retains its time-worn belief in the Messiah’s reign in Jerusalem, the rebuilding of the temple, and the reestablishment of both priesthood and sacrifice.<\/p>\nWhile later Judaism looked for the Messiah as an eschatological figure who will reign at the end of time, modern Jewish thought has largely jettisoned the traditional notion of a personal Messiah in favor of belief in a messianic age. Prevalent liberal Judaism envisions the world ultimately perfected through the influence of the twin Judaic ideals of justice and compassion. Such conviction, ignoring the plight of fallen humans and the teaching of Scripture, substitutes humanistic thinking for miraculous heavenly intervention.<\/p>\nWhile the Messiah’s origin is linked firmly to the house of David (2 Sm 7:14; Hos 3:5), the promise for a Messiah was given long before David lived. In fact, the hope for the Messiah is implicit in the first promise of the establishment of the kingdom of God. Addressed to Satan, Genesis 3:15 declares that God will place hostility between the serpent and the woman until, in the fullness of time, the “seed” of the woman inflicts a fatal blow to the head of the serpent.<\/p>\nThe nature of messianic prophecy is progressive; each prophecy casts more light on the subject. This occurs, for example, respecting the concept of the “seed”: Messiah is to be born of a woman (Gn 3:15), through the line of Shem (9:26) and specifically through Abraham (22:18). Yet even as late as Genesis 22:18, the “seed” is not clearly presented as a person, since zerah<\/span> (seed) may indicate a singular or plural object. Still less apparent in these early stages of messianic prophecy is the nature of the “bruising” that is to occur. Yet the idea of the Messiah being crushed for sin is implicit in the Genesis pronouncement, as is the violence associated with that act. Chief among the messianic prophets, Isaiah gives full range to the axiom that the Anointed One must endure extensive suffering (Is 53:1). Under the figure “the Servant of the Lord,” four “servant songs” delineate the mission of the future deliverer (Is 42:1-7; 49:1-9; 50:4-11; 52:13–53:12). While it is true that Isaiah does not explicitly link the title Messiah with the Servant of the Lord, identifying both figures as one and the same person is justifiable. Both figures are uniquely anointed (61:1); each brings light to the Gentiles (55:4; cf. 49:6); neither is pretentious in his first appearance (7:14-15; 11:1; cf. 42:3; 53:1); and the title of Davidic “branch” rests upon them both (11:1-4). Equally significant are the dual facts of their humiliation and exaltation (49:7; 52:13-15). Jewish scholars of the early Christian era in the Aramaic Targum on the prophets paraphrase Isaiah 42:1, “Behold my Servant Messiah” and begin Isaiah 53, “Behold my Servant Messiah will prosper.” While Cyrus may be spoken of as “anointed,” no final salvific work is attributed to him (45:1-5). Israel, although elect and loved by God (41:8), is ill-equipped as God’s servant to bring his redeeming work to mankind (42:18). The collapse of David’s dynasty points eloquently to Israel’s need for an anointed monarch who will heal the apostasy and disobedience (Ex 33:5; Hos 4:1). More and more, OT history presents Israel’s comprehensive moral failure. Her problem, which she shares with mankind, can only be solved by the making of a covenant whose surety and focal point is both a personal Savior and sovereign Lord (Jer 31:31-34). The advent of such a champion lives in the recorded promise of a shoot from the stump of Jesse’s fallen tree, who will bring the light of life to God’s benighted people (Is 9:2; 11:1).<\/p>\nIt is difficult to get away from the idea that the concept of servanthood and lowliness belongs within the sphere of royalty (Zec 9:9). The concept of the Messiah filling the complementary offices of priest and king is incontrovertible (Ps 110:1-4); a suffering priest-king is far less obvious. Some among the Talmudic writers apparently recognized the likelihood that the Messiah would have to suffer. In the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin<\/em> 98b, the Messiah is said to bear sicknesses and pain. Among the prayers for the Day of Atonement may be found the words of Eleazar ben Qalir (perhaps as late as AD<\/span> 1000): “Our righteous Messiah has departed from us; we are horror-stricken, and there is none to justify us. Our iniquities and the yoke of our transgressions he carries, and is wounded for our transgressions. He bears on his shoulders our sins to find pardon for our iniquities. May we be healed by his stripes.” In a similar vein Rabbi Eliyya de Vidas writes, “The meaning of ‘He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities,’ is that since the Messiah bears our iniquities, which produce the effect of His being bruised, it follows that whosoever will not admit that the Messiah thus suffers for our iniquities must endure and suffer for them himself.” For all this, it is highly doubtful that anyone imagined the Messiah would accomplish his salvational work by means of his own death (cf. Is 53:12). When rabbinic speculation failed to satisfactorily harmonize the paradoxical facts of humiliation and exaltation, some hypothesized that God would send a Messiah to suffer as well as a Messiah to reign. Biblically, it is evident that the Anointed One’s terrible ordeal of suffering is but the necessary prelude to infinite glory. He is pictured not only as a great king (52:13; 53:12) but also as humble (53:2), humiliated (52:14), rejected (53:3), and bearing the consequences of mankind’s rebellion (vv 5-6). Yet he is raised up to intercede for, and richly bless, his people (v 12). The Messiah, having accomplished that full obedience that Adam and Israel failed to achieve, will bring Israel and the nations back to God (42:18-19; 49:3, 6).<\/p>\nThe writings of Daniel contain important messianic data. Daniel is unique in that he boldly speaks of “Messiah the Prince” (Dn 9:25), identifies him as the “Son of Man” (7:13), and says he suffers (“cut off,” 9:26). This statement of the cutting off (i.e., death) of the Messiah makes possible his work of atonement (9:24). The doctrine of a vicarious substitutionary atonement is the only doctrine of atonement found in the Bible (cf. Lv 17:11). Israel understood that to bear sin meant enduring the consequences, or penalty, for sin (cf. Nm 14:33). The same penal substitution is evident in the working principle of the Messiah’s atoning sacrifice. He is the victim’s substitute to whom is transferred the suffering due the sinner. The penalty having been thus borne vicariously, the suppliant is fully pardoned.<\/p>\nPsalm 22:1 records the plaintive cry of the Messiah bearing man’s penalty for sin (cf. Mt 27:46) as he becomes sin on behalf of his people (2 Cor 5:21). Yet his cry, “My God,” indicates an intimate relationship that cannot be radically severed. Once again the motif of messianic humiliation prior to great exaltation is in view (Ps 22:27). In the so-called “royal psalms” (e.g., 2; 72; 110) it is the priestly intercessor who is also ordained to function as monarch and judge.<\/p>\nJeremiah brings the portrait a step further. The one who will enable humans to enter into a salvational covenant with God conveys God’s imputed righteousness: the Messiah, God’s righteous branch, becomes “the Lord our Righteousness.” Paradoxically, under the law no one could be crucified who was not guilty of sin (Dt 21:22). But it is Christ the righteous one who was crucified, thereby forever undermining any supposed legalistic confidence (Dt 21:23; Gal 3:13). More than forgiven, believers are deemed righteous in him (Jer 23:5-6).<\/p>\nWhile the birthplace of the Messiah was well established (Mi 5:2), his deity was a hotly contested matter. Although few in ancient Israel disputed the belief in a superhuman Messiah, it is doubtful that anyone imagined him to be “God with us” in the fullest sense of the expression (cf. Heb 1:3).<\/p>\nMessiah in the New Testament<\/p>\nThe NT writers present the picture that he who was the child of supernatural origins (Is 7:14; Mi 5:2) carried the full weight of divinity (Is 9:6; Phil 2:6; Col 1:19). He is the Son of God, worthy to receive the worship of all people (Ps 45:6-7; cf. Heb 1:8-9).<\/p>\nThe Jews of first-century Palestine knew that the messianic promise would be fulfilled in the coming of one like Moses (Dt 18:18). Parallels between Jesus and Moses are abundant. As mediators, innovators, and propagators of new phases of spiritual life for the people, they are unexcelled. Specifically, both are miraculously spared in infancy (Ex 2; Mt 2:13-23); both renounce a royal court for the sake of serving the people of God (Phil 2:5-8; Heb 11:24-28); both exhibit intense compassion for others (Nm 27:17; Mt 9:36); both commune “face to face” with God (Ex 34:29-30; 2 Cor 3:7); and each mediates a covenant of redemption (Dt 29:1; Heb 8:6-7). But, as Luther observes, “Christ is no Moses.” In the final analysis Moses is but a household servant; the Messiah is the maker and master of all things (Heb 3:3-6; cf. Jn 1:1-2, 18).<\/p>\nFamily genealogies are important in Scripture. Rabbis agreed upon the absolute necessity of the Messiah’s Davidic lineage based on Hosea 3:5 and Jeremiah 30:9. The angelic announcement immediately establishes the correct lineage for Jesus (Lk 1:32-33; cf. 2:4), as does Matthew’s (Mt 1:1-17). The Lukan list, like that of Matthew, sets forth the exclusive kingly descent verifying Jesus as Messiah (Lk 3:23-38). Although variations occur between the two genealogies, there is a firm solidarity emphasizing an ancestry within the unique messianic stock. Fully aware of the messianic focus of Scripture (Jn 5:46; 8:56), Jesus acknowledged himself to be the Christ on numerous occasions. He accepted the title from blind Bartimaeus (Mk 10:46-48); from the crowds when he entered Jerusalem (Mt 21:9); from the children at the temple (v 15); and in other contexts as well (Mt 16:16-18; Mk 14:61-62; Lk 4:21; Jn 4:25-26). Nonetheless, he warned his disciples not to broadcast his mighty acts as Messiah prior to his resurrection (Mt 17:9; cf. Lk 9:20-21). Owing to the commonly held (but false) notion that the Messiah’s role was primarily that of a political liberator, Jesus actually avoided use of that term and preferred to identify himself as “the Son of Man.” It was by no means assumed that both designations referred to the same person (cf. Mk 14:61-62). Borrowing essentially from Daniel’s vision of a heavenly conqueror (Dn 7:13-14), Jesus consistently employed this less-known title and filled it with the true character and scope of messianic salvation. Jesus’ teaching in this regard enabled his disciples to correct their erroneous views concerning his mission (Mt 16:21-23). In the fullness of time they would come to see him not only as Messiah but also as the theme of the entire OT (Mt 5:17; Lk 24:27, 44; Jn 5:39; cf. Heb 10:7). When Jesus expounded the Scriptures beginning with the Torah (Lk 24:27), he did so as the living exegesis of God, the Word made flesh (Jn 1:14, 18). Legitimate messianic exposition is found in a host of texts, such as Psalms 2; 16; 22; 40; 110; Isaiah 7:14; 9:6; 11:1; 40:10-11; 50:6; 52:13–53:12; 61:1; 63:1-6; Jeremiah 23:5-6; 33:14-16; Ezekiel 34:23; 37:25; Daniel 9:24-27; Hosea 11:1; Micah 5:2; Zechariah 9:9; 11:13; 12:10; 13:7; Malachi 3:1; 4:2.<\/p>\nThe messiahship of Jesus is firmly proclaimed by all four evangelists (Mt 1:1; Mk 1:1; Lk 24:26; Jn 20:31). Peter on Pentecost, Philip before the Ethiopian eunuch, and Apollos in open debate all argue convincingly that Jesus is the Messiah (Acts 2:36; 8:35; 28:28). Peter says he was “made” both Lord and Christ (2:36), signifying that the resurrection rightfully confirms him as such. Similarly, the apostle Paul speaks of Jesus’ resurrection as a patent declaration of his inalienable right to the title (Rom 1:4). For the ex-Pharisee and former persecutor of the church, “Jesus the Christ” is the very heart and soul of Paul’s preaching. Nothing is worthy to be compared to the glory of the Messiah; everything pales by comparison (Phil 3:5-10). The apostle’s all-consuming passion is for others to know the fullness of God in the person of his only Son (Eph 3:14-19).<\/p>\nThe Holy Spirit in Scripture speaks of Jesus with wide-ranging appellatives—Holy One, Judge, Righteous One, King, Son of God, and Lord—but these are not exhaustive. In him all the lines of messianic prediction converge; he is the touchstone whereby their validity is firmly established. The Lord Jesus Christ is himself the heart and substance of that covenant through which sinful people may be reconciled to a holy God (Is 42:6; Jn 14:6). That Jesus is the Messiah of Israel, God incarnate, exhaustively fulfills prophecy, type, and symbol—all shadows of his coming. Therefore, all should trust in him, the source of all grace, the only abiding treasure (Mt 12:21; Jn 1:16-17; Col 2:3). Anointed as prophet, he leads us into all truth (Jn 6:14; 7:16); as priest he intercedes for us (Heb 7:21); and as king he reigns over us (Phil 2:9-10).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Atonement; Branch; Christology; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Redeemer, Redemption; Son of God; Son of Man.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MESSIAH Title derived from the Hebrew, mashiach, a verbal adjective meaning “anointed one.” Along with its NT equivalent, christos (Christ), it refers to an act of consecration whereby an individual is set apart to serve God and then anointed with oil. The verbal root (mashach) conveys this idea as well. Israel’s practice of ceremonially anointing with oil is present in several contexts. Priests were regularly anointed prior to their divinely given service at the altar of sacrifice (Lv 4:3). ...","summary_en":"MESSIAH Title derived from the Hebrew, mashiach, a verbal adjective meaning “anointed one.” Along with its NT equivalent, christos (Christ), it refers to an act of consecration whereby an individual is set apart to serve God and then anointed with oil. The verbal root (mashach) conveys this idea as well. Israel’s practice of ceremonially anointing with oil is present in several contexts. Priests were regularly anointed prior to their divinely given service at the altar of sacrifice (Lv 4:3). ...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":39799,"type":"chart","type_label":"Diagramă","type_icon":"📊","type_color":"#3b82f6","title_ro":"The Genealogy of Jesus Christ","title_en":"The Genealogy of Jesus Christ","content_ro":"<h3>The Genealogy of Jesus Christ<\/h3>\nMatthew 1:1-17<\/strong> (that of Joseph?)<\/p>\nAbraham ➤<\/span> Isaac ➤<\/span> Jacob ➤<\/span> Judah ➤<\/span> Perez ➤<\/span> Hezron ➤<\/span> Ram ➤<\/span> Amminadab ➤<\/span> Nahshon ➤<\/span> Salmon ➤<\/span> Boaz ➤<\/span> Obed ➤<\/span> Jesse ➤<\/span> David ➤<\/span> Solomon ➤<\/span> Rehoboam ➤<\/span> Abijah ➤<\/span> Asa ➤<\/span> Jehoshaphat ➤<\/span> Joram ➤<\/span> Uzziah ➤<\/span> Jotham ➤<\/span> Ahaz ➤<\/span> Hezekiah ➤<\/span> Manasseh ➤<\/span> Amos ➤<\/span> Josiah ➤<\/span> Jeconiah ➤<\/span> Shealtiel ➤<\/span> Zerubbabel ➤<\/span> Abiud ➤<\/span> Eliakim ➤<\/span> Azor ➤<\/span> Zadok ➤<\/span> Achim ➤<\/span> Eliud ➤<\/span> Eleazer ➤<\/span> Matthan ➤<\/span> Jacob ➤<\/span> Joseph ➤<\/span> (Jesus)<\/p>\nLuke 3:23-38<\/strong> (that of Mary?)<\/p>\nGod ➤<\/span> Adam ➤<\/span> Seth ➤<\/span> Enos ➤<\/span> Cainan ➤<\/span> Mahalaleel ➤<\/span> Jared ➤<\/span> Enoch ➤<\/span> Methuselah ➤<\/span> Lamech ➤<\/span> Noah ➤<\/span> Shem ➤<\/span> Arphaxad ➤<\/span> Cainan ➤<\/span> Shelah ➤<\/span> Eber ➤<\/span> Peleg ➤<\/span> Reu ➤<\/span> Serug ➤<\/span> Nahor ➤<\/span> Terah ➤<\/span> Abraham ➤<\/span> Isaac ➤<\/span> Jacob ➤<\/span> Judah ➤<\/span> Perez ➤<\/span> Hezron ➤<\/span> Arni ➤<\/span> Admin ➤<\/span> Amminadab ➤<\/span> Nahshon ➤<\/span> Sala ➤<\/span> Boaz ➤<\/span> Obed ➤<\/span> Jesse ➤<\/span> David ➤<\/span> Nathan ➤<\/span> Mattatha ➤<\/span> Menna ➤<\/span> Melea ➤<\/span> Eliakim ➤<\/span> Jonam ➤<\/span> Joseph ➤<\/span> Judah ➤<\/span> Simeon ➤<\/span> Levi ➤<\/span> Matthat ➤<\/span> Jorim ➤<\/span> Eliezer ➤<\/span> Joshua ➤<\/span> Er ➤<\/span> Elmadam ➤<\/span> Cosam ➤<\/span> Addi ➤<\/span> Melki ➤<\/span> Neri ➤<\/span> Shealtiel ➤<\/span> Zerubbabel ➤<\/span> Rhesa ➤<\/span> Joanan ➤<\/span> Joda ➤<\/span> Josech ➤<\/span> Semein ➤<\/span> Mattathias ➤<\/span> Maath ➤<\/span> Naggai ➤<\/span> Esli ➤<\/span> Nahum ➤<\/span> Amos ➤<\/span> Mattathias ➤<\/span> Joseph ➤<\/span> Jannai ➤<\/span> Melki ➤<\/span> Levi ➤<\/span> Matthat ➤<\/span> Heli ➤<\/span> Joseph ➤<\/span> (Jesus)<\/p>\nBoth Gospels are careful to not connect Joseph to Jesus in a physical father-son relationship.<\/strong><\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Genealogy of Jesus Christ<\/h3>\nMatthew 1:1-17<\/strong> (that of Joseph?)<\/p>\nAbraham ➤<\/span> Isaac ➤<\/span> Jacob ➤<\/span> Judah ➤<\/span> Perez ➤<\/span> Hezron ➤<\/span> Ram ➤<\/span> Amminadab ➤<\/span> Nahshon ➤<\/span> Salmon ➤<\/span> Boaz ➤<\/span> Obed ➤<\/span> Jesse ➤<\/span> David ➤<\/span> Solomon ➤<\/span> Rehoboam ➤<\/span> Abijah ➤<\/span> Asa ➤<\/span> Jehoshaphat ➤<\/span> Joram ➤<\/span> Uzziah ➤<\/span> Jotham ➤<\/span> Ahaz ➤<\/span> Hezekiah ➤<\/span> Manasseh ➤<\/span> Amos ➤<\/span> Josiah ➤<\/span> Jeconiah ➤<\/span> Shealtiel ➤<\/span> Zerubbabel ➤<\/span> Abiud ➤<\/span> Eliakim ➤<\/span> Azor ➤<\/span> Zadok ➤<\/span> Achim ➤<\/span> Eliud ➤<\/span> Eleazer ➤<\/span> Matthan ➤<\/span> Jacob ➤<\/span> Joseph ➤<\/span> (Jesus)<\/p>\nLuke 3:23-38<\/strong> (that of Mary?)<\/p>\nGod ➤<\/span> Adam ➤<\/span> Seth ➤<\/span> Enos ➤<\/span> Cainan ➤<\/span> Mahalaleel ➤<\/span> Jared ➤<\/span> Enoch ➤<\/span> Methuselah ➤<\/span> Lamech ➤<\/span> Noah ➤<\/span> Shem ➤<\/span> Arphaxad ➤<\/span> Cainan ➤<\/span> Shelah ➤<\/span> Eber ➤<\/span> Peleg ➤<\/span> Reu ➤<\/span> Serug ➤<\/span> Nahor ➤<\/span> Terah ➤<\/span> Abraham ➤<\/span> Isaac ➤<\/span> Jacob ➤<\/span> Judah ➤<\/span> Perez ➤<\/span> Hezron ➤<\/span> Arni ➤<\/span> Admin ➤<\/span> Amminadab ➤<\/span> Nahshon ➤<\/span> Sala ➤<\/span> Boaz ➤<\/span> Obed ➤<\/span> Jesse ➤<\/span> David ➤<\/span> Nathan ➤<\/span> Mattatha ➤<\/span> Menna ➤<\/span> Melea ➤<\/span> Eliakim ➤<\/span> Jonam ➤<\/span> Joseph ➤<\/span> Judah ➤<\/span> Simeon ➤<\/span> Levi ➤<\/span> Matthat ➤<\/span> Jorim ➤<\/span> Eliezer ➤<\/span> Joshua ➤<\/span> Er ➤<\/span> Elmadam ➤<\/span> Cosam ➤<\/span> Addi ➤<\/span> Melki ➤<\/span> Neri ➤<\/span> Shealtiel ➤<\/span> Zerubbabel ➤<\/span> Rhesa ➤<\/span> Joanan ➤<\/span> Joda ➤<\/span> Josech ➤<\/span> Semein ➤<\/span> Mattathias ➤<\/span> Maath ➤<\/span> Naggai ➤<\/span> Esli ➤<\/span> Nahum ➤<\/span> Amos ➤<\/span> Mattathias ➤<\/span> Joseph ➤<\/span> Jannai ➤<\/span> Melki ➤<\/span> Levi ➤<\/span> Matthat ➤<\/span> Heli ➤<\/span> Joseph ➤<\/span> (Jesus)<\/p>\nBoth Gospels are careful to not connect Joseph to Jesus in a physical father-son relationship.<\/strong><\/p>","summary_ro":"The Genealogy of Jesus Christ Matthew 1:1-17 (that of Joseph?) Abraham ➤ Isaac ➤ Jacob ➤ Judah ➤ Perez ➤ Hezron ➤ Ram ➤ Amminadab ➤ Nahshon ➤ Salmon ➤ Boaz ➤ Obed ➤ Jesse ➤ David ➤ Solomon ➤ Rehoboam ➤ Abijah ➤ Asa ➤ Jehoshaphat ➤ Joram ➤ Uzziah ➤ Jotham ➤ Ahaz ➤ Hezekiah ➤ Manasseh ➤ Amos ➤ Josiah ➤ Jeconiah ➤ Shealtiel ➤ Zerubbabel ➤ Abiud ➤ Eliakim ➤ Azor ➤ Zadok ➤ Achim ➤ Eliud ➤ Eleazer ➤ Matthan ➤ Jacob ➤ Joseph ➤ (Jesus) Luke 3:23-38 (that of Mary?) God ➤ Adam ➤ Seth ➤ Enos ➤ Cainan ➤ ...","summary_en":"The Genealogy of Jesus Christ Matthew 1:1-17 (that of Joseph?) Abraham ➤ Isaac ➤ Jacob ➤ Judah ➤ Perez ➤ Hezron ➤ Ram ➤ Amminadab ➤ Nahshon ➤ Salmon ➤ Boaz ➤ Obed ➤ Jesse ➤ David ➤ Solomon ➤ Rehoboam ➤ Abijah ➤ Asa ➤ Jehoshaphat ➤ Joram ➤ Uzziah ➤ Jotham ➤ Ahaz ➤ Hezekiah ➤ Manasseh ➤ Amos ➤ Josiah ➤ Jeconiah ➤ Shealtiel ➤ Zerubbabel ➤ Abiud ➤ Eliakim ➤ Azor ➤ Zadok ➤ Achim ➤ Eliud ➤ Eleazer ➤ Matthan ➤ Jacob ➤ Joseph ➤ (Jesus) Luke 3:23-38 (that of Mary?) God ➤ Adam ➤ Seth ➤ Enos ➤ Cainan ➤ ...","source":"Charts\/Charts.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55672,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:23","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:23","content_ro":"3:23-38<\/strong> This genealogy reverses Matthew’s order (Matt 1:1-17). Luke lists Jesus’ lineage back to Adam, possibly to show Jesus’ connection with all humanity as the Son of God (Luke 3:38). Matthew’s genealogy descends from Abraham to Joseph, highlighting Jesus’ status as the rightful heir of David’s throne and the recipient of God’s promises to Abraham. The great differences between the two genealogies have led some to propose that Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary (see study note on 3:23), who was probably among Luke’s primary sources.<\/p>","content_en":"3:23-38<\/strong> This genealogy reverses Matthew’s order (Matt 1:1-17). Luke lists Jesus’ lineage back to Adam, possibly to show Jesus’ connection with all humanity as the Son of God (Luke 3:38). Matthew’s genealogy descends from Abraham to Joseph, highlighting Jesus’ status as the rightful heir of David’s throne and the recipient of God’s promises to Abraham. The great differences between the two genealogies have led some to propose that Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary (see study note on 3:23), who was probably among Luke’s primary sources.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:23-38 This genealogy reverses Matthew’s order (Matt 1:1-17). Luke lists Jesus’ lineage back to Adam, possibly to show Jesus’ connection with all humanity as the Son of God (Luke 3:38). Matthew’s genealogy descends from Abraham to Joseph, highlighting Jesus’ status as the rightful heir of David’s throne and the recipient of God’s promises to Abraham. The great differences between the two genealogies have led some to propose that Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary (see study note on 3:23), who ...","summary_en":"3:23-38 This genealogy reverses Matthew’s order (Matt 1:1-17). Luke lists Jesus’ lineage back to Adam, possibly to show Jesus’ connection with all humanity as the Son of God (Luke 3:38). Matthew’s genealogy descends from Abraham to Joseph, highlighting Jesus’ status as the rightful heir of David’s throne and the recipient of God’s promises to Abraham. The great differences between the two genealogies have led some to propose that Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary (see study note on 3:23), who ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55673,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:23","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:23","content_ro":"3:23<\/strong> Jesus was about thirty years old:<\/em> This is the only reference in the New Testament to Jesus’ age during his public ministry, and it is an approximation. Jesus was born 6~4 BC<\/span> (see study note on 2:2) and began his ministry AD<\/span> 27~29 (see study note on 3:1), so Jesus was evidently 31~35 years old when he began his public ministry<\/em>. • known as the son of Joseph:<\/em> Jesus was the legal but not the biological son of Joseph. • Joseph was the son of Heli:<\/em> If this is actually Mary’s genealogy (see study note on 3:23-38), then Joseph was Heli’s son-in-law, a possible understanding of the Greek sentence.<\/p>","content_en":"3:23<\/strong> Jesus was about thirty years old:<\/em> This is the only reference in the New Testament to Jesus’ age during his public ministry, and it is an approximation. Jesus was born 6~4 BC<\/span> (see study note on 2:2) and began his ministry AD<\/span> 27~29 (see study note on 3:1), so Jesus was evidently 31~35 years old when he began his public ministry<\/em>. • known as the son of Joseph:<\/em> Jesus was the legal but not the biological son of Joseph. • Joseph was the son of Heli:<\/em> If this is actually Mary’s genealogy (see study note on 3:23-38), then Joseph was Heli’s son-in-law, a possible understanding of the Greek sentence.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:23 Jesus was about thirty years old: This is the only reference in the New Testament to Jesus’ age during his public ministry, and it is an approximation. Jesus was born 6~4 BC (see study note on 2:2) and began his ministry AD 27~29 (see study note on 3:1), so Jesus was evidently 31~35 years old when he began his public ministry. • known as the son of Joseph: Jesus was the legal but not the biological son of Joseph. • Joseph was the son of Heli: If this is actually Mary’s genealogy (see stu...","summary_en":"3:23 Jesus was about thirty years old: This is the only reference in the New Testament to Jesus’ age during his public ministry, and it is an approximation. Jesus was born 6~4 BC (see study note on 2:2) and began his ministry AD 27~29 (see study note on 3:1), so Jesus was evidently 31~35 years old when he began his public ministry. • known as the son of Joseph: Jesus was the legal but not the biological son of Joseph. • Joseph was the son of Heli: If this is actually Mary’s genealogy (see stu...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83298,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:23","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:23","content_ro":"3:23-38<\/strong> This genealogy reverses Matthew’s order (Matt 1:1-17). Luke lists Jesus’ lineage back to Adam, possibly to show Jesus’ connection with all humanity as the Son of God (Luke 3:38). Matthew’s genealogy descends from Abraham to Joseph, highlighting Jesus’ status as the rightful heir of David’s throne and the recipient of God’s promises to Abraham. The great differences between the two genealogies have led some to propose that Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary (see study note on 3:23), who was probably among Luke’s primary sources.<\/p>","content_en":"3:23-38<\/strong> This genealogy reverses Matthew’s order (Matt 1:1-17). Luke lists Jesus’ lineage back to Adam, possibly to show Jesus’ connection with all humanity as the Son of God (Luke 3:38). Matthew’s genealogy descends from Abraham to Joseph, highlighting Jesus’ status as the rightful heir of David’s throne and the recipient of God’s promises to Abraham. The great differences between the two genealogies have led some to propose that Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary (see study note on 3:23), who was probably among Luke’s primary sources.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:23-38 This genealogy reverses Matthew’s order (Matt 1:1-17). Luke lists Jesus’ lineage back to Adam, possibly to show Jesus’ connection with all humanity as the Son of God (Luke 3:38). Matthew’s genealogy descends from Abraham to Joseph, highlighting Jesus’ status as the rightful heir of David’s throne and the recipient of God’s promises to Abraham. The great differences between the two genealogies have led some to propose that Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary (see study note on 3:23), who ...","summary_en":"3:23-38 This genealogy reverses Matthew’s order (Matt 1:1-17). Luke lists Jesus’ lineage back to Adam, possibly to show Jesus’ connection with all humanity as the Son of God (Luke 3:38). Matthew’s genealogy descends from Abraham to Joseph, highlighting Jesus’ status as the rightful heir of David’s throne and the recipient of God’s promises to Abraham. The great differences between the two genealogies have led some to propose that Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary (see study note on 3:23), who ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83299,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:23","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:23","content_ro":"3:23<\/strong> Jesus was about thirty years old:<\/em> This is the only reference in the New Testament to Jesus’ age during his public ministry, and it is an approximation. Jesus was born 6~4 BC<\/span> (see study note on 2:2) and began his ministry AD<\/span> 27~29 (see study note on 3:1), so Jesus was evidently 31~35 years old when he began his public ministry<\/em>. • known as the son of Joseph:<\/em> Jesus was the legal but not the biological son of Joseph. • Joseph was the son of Heli:<\/em> If this is actually Mary’s genealogy (see study note on 3:23-38), then Joseph was Heli’s son-in-law, a possible understanding of the Greek sentence.<\/p>","content_en":"3:23<\/strong> Jesus was about thirty years old:<\/em> This is the only reference in the New Testament to Jesus’ age during his public ministry, and it is an approximation. Jesus was born 6~4 BC<\/span> (see study note on 2:2) and began his ministry AD<\/span> 27~29 (see study note on 3:1), so Jesus was evidently 31~35 years old when he began his public ministry<\/em>. • known as the son of Joseph:<\/em> Jesus was the legal but not the biological son of Joseph. • Joseph was the son of Heli:<\/em> If this is actually Mary’s genealogy (see study note on 3:23-38), then Joseph was Heli’s son-in-law, a possible understanding of the Greek sentence.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:23 Jesus was about thirty years old: This is the only reference in the New Testament to Jesus’ age during his public ministry, and it is an approximation. Jesus was born 6~4 BC (see study note on 2:2) and began his ministry AD 27~29 (see study note on 3:1), so Jesus was evidently 31~35 years old when he began his public ministry. • known as the son of Joseph: Jesus was the legal but not the biological son of Joseph. • Joseph was the son of Heli: If this is actually Mary’s genealogy (see stu...","summary_en":"3:23 Jesus was about thirty years old: This is the only reference in the New Testament to Jesus’ age during his public ministry, and it is an approximation. Jesus was born 6~4 BC (see study note on 2:2) and began his ministry AD 27~29 (see study note on 3:1), so Jesus was evidently 31~35 years old when he began his public ministry. • known as the son of Joseph: Jesus was the legal but not the biological son of Joseph. • Joseph was the son of Heli: If this is actually Mary’s genealogy (see stu...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110924,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:23","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:23","content_ro":"3:23-38<\/strong> This genealogy reverses Matthew’s order (Matt 1:1-17). Luke lists Jesus’ lineage back to Adam, possibly to show Jesus’ connection with all humanity as the Son of God (Luke 3:38). Matthew’s genealogy descends from Abraham to Joseph, highlighting Jesus’ status as the rightful heir of David’s throne and the recipient of God’s promises to Abraham. The great differences between the two genealogies have led some to propose that Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary (see study note on 3:23), who was probably among Luke’s primary sources.<\/p>","content_en":"3:23-38<\/strong> This genealogy reverses Matthew’s order (Matt 1:1-17). Luke lists Jesus’ lineage back to Adam, possibly to show Jesus’ connection with all humanity as the Son of God (Luke 3:38). Matthew’s genealogy descends from Abraham to Joseph, highlighting Jesus’ status as the rightful heir of David’s throne and the recipient of God’s promises to Abraham. The great differences between the two genealogies have led some to propose that Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary (see study note on 3:23), who was probably among Luke’s primary sources.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:23-38 This genealogy reverses Matthew’s order (Matt 1:1-17). Luke lists Jesus’ lineage back to Adam, possibly to show Jesus’ connection with all humanity as the Son of God (Luke 3:38). Matthew’s genealogy descends from Abraham to Joseph, highlighting Jesus’ status as the rightful heir of David’s throne and the recipient of God’s promises to Abraham. The great differences between the two genealogies have led some to propose that Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary (see study note on 3:23), who ...","summary_en":"3:23-38 This genealogy reverses Matthew’s order (Matt 1:1-17). Luke lists Jesus’ lineage back to Adam, possibly to show Jesus’ connection with all humanity as the Son of God (Luke 3:38). Matthew’s genealogy descends from Abraham to Joseph, highlighting Jesus’ status as the rightful heir of David’s throne and the recipient of God’s promises to Abraham. The great differences between the two genealogies have led some to propose that Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary (see study note on 3:23), who ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110925,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:23","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:23","content_ro":"3:23<\/strong> Jesus was about thirty years old:<\/em> This is the only reference in the New Testament to Jesus’ age during his public ministry, and it is an approximation. Jesus was born 6~4 BC<\/span> (see study note on 2:2) and began his ministry AD<\/span> 27~29 (see study note on 3:1), so Jesus was evidently 31~35 years old when he began his public ministry<\/em>. • known as the son of Joseph:<\/em> Jesus was the legal but not the biological son of Joseph. • Joseph was the son of Heli:<\/em> If this is actually Mary’s genealogy (see study note on 3:23-38), then Joseph was Heli’s son-in-law, a possible understanding of the Greek sentence.<\/p>","content_en":"3:23<\/strong> Jesus was about thirty years old:<\/em> This is the only reference in the New Testament to Jesus’ age during his public ministry, and it is an approximation. Jesus was born 6~4 BC<\/span> (see study note on 2:2) and began his ministry AD<\/span> 27~29 (see study note on 3:1), so Jesus was evidently 31~35 years old when he began his public ministry<\/em>. • known as the son of Joseph:<\/em> Jesus was the legal but not the biological son of Joseph. • Joseph was the son of Heli:<\/em> If this is actually Mary’s genealogy (see study note on 3:23-38), then Joseph was Heli’s son-in-law, a possible understanding of the Greek sentence.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:23 Jesus was about thirty years old: This is the only reference in the New Testament to Jesus’ age during his public ministry, and it is an approximation. Jesus was born 6~4 BC (see study note on 2:2) and began his ministry AD 27~29 (see study note on 3:1), so Jesus was evidently 31~35 years old when he began his public ministry. • known as the son of Joseph: Jesus was the legal but not the biological son of Joseph. • Joseph was the son of Heli: If this is actually Mary’s genealogy (see stu...","summary_en":"3:23 Jesus was about thirty years old: This is the only reference in the New Testament to Jesus’ age during his public ministry, and it is an approximation. Jesus was born 6~4 BC (see study note on 2:2) and began his ministry AD 27~29 (see study note on 3:1), so Jesus was evidently 31~35 years old when he began his public ministry. • known as the son of Joseph: Jesus was the legal but not the biological son of Joseph. • Joseph was the son of Heli: If this is actually Mary’s genealogy (see stu...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138550,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:23","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:23","content_ro":"3:23-38<\/strong> This genealogy reverses Matthew’s order (Matt 1:1-17). Luke lists Jesus’ lineage back to Adam, possibly to show Jesus’ connection with all humanity as the Son of God (Luke 3:38). Matthew’s genealogy descends from Abraham to Joseph, highlighting Jesus’ status as the rightful heir of David’s throne and the recipient of God’s promises to Abraham. The great differences between the two genealogies have led some to propose that Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary (see study note on 3:23), who was probably among Luke’s primary sources.<\/p>","content_en":"3:23-38<\/strong> This genealogy reverses Matthew’s order (Matt 1:1-17). Luke lists Jesus’ lineage back to Adam, possibly to show Jesus’ connection with all humanity as the Son of God (Luke 3:38). Matthew’s genealogy descends from Abraham to Joseph, highlighting Jesus’ status as the rightful heir of David’s throne and the recipient of God’s promises to Abraham. The great differences between the two genealogies have led some to propose that Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary (see study note on 3:23), who was probably among Luke’s primary sources.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:23-38 This genealogy reverses Matthew’s order (Matt 1:1-17). Luke lists Jesus’ lineage back to Adam, possibly to show Jesus’ connection with all humanity as the Son of God (Luke 3:38). Matthew’s genealogy descends from Abraham to Joseph, highlighting Jesus’ status as the rightful heir of David’s throne and the recipient of God’s promises to Abraham. The great differences between the two genealogies have led some to propose that Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary (see study note on 3:23), who ...","summary_en":"3:23-38 This genealogy reverses Matthew’s order (Matt 1:1-17). Luke lists Jesus’ lineage back to Adam, possibly to show Jesus’ connection with all humanity as the Son of God (Luke 3:38). Matthew’s genealogy descends from Abraham to Joseph, highlighting Jesus’ status as the rightful heir of David’s throne and the recipient of God’s promises to Abraham. The great differences between the two genealogies have led some to propose that Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary (see study note on 3:23), who ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138551,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:23","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:23","content_ro":"3:23<\/strong> Jesus was about thirty years old:<\/em> This is the only reference in the New Testament to Jesus’ age during his public ministry, and it is an approximation. Jesus was born 6~4 BC<\/span> (see study note on 2:2) and began his ministry AD<\/span> 27~29 (see study note on 3:1), so Jesus was evidently 31~35 years old when he began his public ministry<\/em>. • known as the son of Joseph:<\/em> Jesus was the legal but not the biological son of Joseph. • Joseph was the son of Heli:<\/em> If this is actually Mary’s genealogy (see study note on 3:23-38), then Joseph was Heli’s son-in-law, a possible understanding of the Greek sentence.<\/p>","content_en":"3:23<\/strong> Jesus was about thirty years old:<\/em> This is the only reference in the New Testament to Jesus’ age during his public ministry, and it is an approximation. Jesus was born 6~4 BC<\/span> (see study note on 2:2) and began his ministry AD<\/span> 27~29 (see study note on 3:1), so Jesus was evidently 31~35 years old when he began his public ministry<\/em>. • known as the son of Joseph:<\/em> Jesus was the legal but not the biological son of Joseph. • Joseph was the son of Heli:<\/em> If this is actually Mary’s genealogy (see study note on 3:23-38), then Joseph was Heli’s son-in-law, a possible understanding of the Greek sentence.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:23 Jesus was about thirty years old: This is the only reference in the New Testament to Jesus’ age during his public ministry, and it is an approximation. Jesus was born 6~4 BC (see study note on 2:2) and began his ministry AD 27~29 (see study note on 3:1), so Jesus was evidently 31~35 years old when he began his public ministry. • known as the son of Joseph: Jesus was the legal but not the biological son of Joseph. • Joseph was the son of Heli: If this is actually Mary’s genealogy (see stu...","summary_en":"3:23 Jesus was about thirty years old: This is the only reference in the New Testament to Jesus’ age during his public ministry, and it is an approximation. Jesus was born 6~4 BC (see study note on 2:2) and began his ministry AD 27~29 (see study note on 3:1), so Jesus was evidently 31~35 years old when he began his public ministry. • known as the son of Joseph: Jesus was the legal but not the biological son of Joseph. • Joseph was the son of Heli: If this is actually Mary’s genealogy (see stu...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":64894,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Genealogy of Jesus","title_en":"Genealogy of Jesus","content_ro":"<h3>Genealogy of Jesus<\/h3>\nBoth Matthew and Luke provide genealogies of Jesus (Matt 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38). The two genealogies differ for the generations following King David. Matthew follows the line of David’s son Solomon, while Luke follows the line of David’s son Nathan. One possible explanation is that Matthew records Joseph’s genealogy while Luke records Mary’s (in which case Joseph would have been Heli’s son-in-law).<\/p>\nGenealogies were kept quite accurately in Judaism, as Josephus confirms (Josephus, Life<\/em> 1). Genealogies were important in the Old Testament and in Judaism generally because land rights were apportioned to families in Israel and because certain offices, such as priest and king, were inherited from father to son. Genealogies sometimes ran a record from the past to the present to illustrate religious themes, family descent, or political ties, as well as simple chronology (1 Chr 1–9). Most such lists were representative rather than a complete list of every individual.<\/p>\nThe purpose of Matthew’s genealogy, unlike Luke’s, is to show Jesus’ heritage as running from Abraham through David. Jesus’ genealogy confirms him as a legitimate heir to the throne of David. So Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew goes back to Abraham, the father of the Jewish race. By contrast, the genealogy in Luke goes all the way back to Adam. This is consistent with Luke’s emphasis on Jesus as the Savior for all people everywhere.<\/p>\nIn Matthew’s genealogy, the unusual mention of women with stained reputations (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba), some of them Gentiles, is noteworthy and emphasizes God’s grace to redeem even those deemed unworthy by others.<\/p>\nJesus’ genealogies do not prove that Jesus is the Messiah, but they do make him a possible candidate. His identity as the Messiah becomes evident in other ways (Matt 11:2-6). God had guided the course of history to its climax. Jesus is the anticipated Messiah of the Old Testament, the Savior of his people, and the King descended from David assuming his throne (see 2 Sam 7:16). He is heir to Abraham and ultimately fulfills God’s promises to Abraham (Gen 12:1-3).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 12:1-3; 2 Sam 7:16; Matt 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Genealogy of Jesus<\/h3>\nBoth Matthew and Luke provide genealogies of Jesus (Matt 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38). The two genealogies differ for the generations following King David. Matthew follows the line of David’s son Solomon, while Luke follows the line of David’s son Nathan. One possible explanation is that Matthew records Joseph’s genealogy while Luke records Mary’s (in which case Joseph would have been Heli’s son-in-law).<\/p>\nGenealogies were kept quite accurately in Judaism, as Josephus confirms (Josephus, Life<\/em> 1). Genealogies were important in the Old Testament and in Judaism generally because land rights were apportioned to families in Israel and because certain offices, such as priest and king, were inherited from father to son. Genealogies sometimes ran a record from the past to the present to illustrate religious themes, family descent, or political ties, as well as simple chronology (1 Chr 1–9). Most such lists were representative rather than a complete list of every individual.<\/p>\nThe purpose of Matthew’s genealogy, unlike Luke’s, is to show Jesus’ heritage as running from Abraham through David. Jesus’ genealogy confirms him as a legitimate heir to the throne of David. So Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew goes back to Abraham, the father of the Jewish race. By contrast, the genealogy in Luke goes all the way back to Adam. This is consistent with Luke’s emphasis on Jesus as the Savior for all people everywhere.<\/p>\nIn Matthew’s genealogy, the unusual mention of women with stained reputations (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba), some of them Gentiles, is noteworthy and emphasizes God’s grace to redeem even those deemed unworthy by others.<\/p>\nJesus’ genealogies do not prove that Jesus is the Messiah, but they do make him a possible candidate. His identity as the Messiah becomes evident in other ways (Matt 11:2-6). God had guided the course of history to its climax. Jesus is the anticipated Messiah of the Old Testament, the Savior of his people, and the King descended from David assuming his throne (see 2 Sam 7:16). He is heir to Abraham and ultimately fulfills God’s promises to Abraham (Gen 12:1-3).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 12:1-3; 2 Sam 7:16; Matt 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38<\/p>","summary_ro":"Genealogy of Jesus Both Matthew and Luke provide genealogies of Jesus (Matt 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38). The two genealogies differ for the generations following King David. Matthew follows the line of David’s son Solomon, while Luke follows the line of David’s son Nathan. One possible explanation is that Matthew records Joseph’s genealogy while Luke records Mary’s (in which case Joseph would have been Heli’s son-in-law). Genealogies were kept quite accurately in Judaism, as Josephus confirms (Jose...","summary_en":"Genealogy of Jesus Both Matthew and Luke provide genealogies of Jesus (Matt 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38). The two genealogies differ for the generations following King David. Matthew follows the line of David’s son Solomon, while Luke follows the line of David’s son Nathan. One possible explanation is that Matthew records Joseph’s genealogy while Luke records Mary’s (in which case Joseph would have been Heli’s son-in-law). Genealogies were kept quite accurately in Judaism, as Josephus confirms (Jose...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":92520,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Genealogy of Jesus","title_en":"Genealogy of Jesus","content_ro":"<h3>Genealogy of Jesus<\/h3>\nBoth Matthew and Luke provide genealogies of Jesus (Matt 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38). The two genealogies differ for the generations following King David. Matthew follows the line of David’s son Solomon, while Luke follows the line of David’s son Nathan. One possible explanation is that Matthew records Joseph’s genealogy while Luke records Mary’s (in which case Joseph would have been Heli’s son-in-law).<\/p>\nGenealogies were kept quite accurately in Judaism, as Josephus confirms (Josephus, Life<\/em> 1). Genealogies were important in the Old Testament and in Judaism generally because land rights were apportioned to families in Israel and because certain offices, such as priest and king, were inherited from father to son. Genealogies sometimes ran a record from the past to the present to illustrate religious themes, family descent, or political ties, as well as simple chronology (1 Chr 1–9). Most such lists were representative rather than a complete list of every individual.<\/p>\nThe purpose of Matthew’s genealogy, unlike Luke’s, is to show Jesus’ heritage as running from Abraham through David. Jesus’ genealogy confirms him as a legitimate heir to the throne of David. So Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew goes back to Abraham, the father of the Jewish race. By contrast, the genealogy in Luke goes all the way back to Adam. This is consistent with Luke’s emphasis on Jesus as the Savior for all people everywhere.<\/p>\nIn Matthew’s genealogy, the unusual mention of women with stained reputations (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba), some of them Gentiles, is noteworthy and emphasizes God’s grace to redeem even those deemed unworthy by others.<\/p>\nJesus’ genealogies do not prove that Jesus is the Messiah, but they do make him a possible candidate. His identity as the Messiah becomes evident in other ways (Matt 11:2-6). God had guided the course of history to its climax. Jesus is the anticipated Messiah of the Old Testament, the Savior of his people, and the King descended from David assuming his throne (see 2 Sam 7:16). He is heir to Abraham and ultimately fulfills God’s promises to Abraham (Gen 12:1-3).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 12:1-3; 2 Sam 7:16; Matt 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Genealogy of Jesus<\/h3>\nBoth Matthew and Luke provide genealogies of Jesus (Matt 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38). The two genealogies differ for the generations following King David. Matthew follows the line of David’s son Solomon, while Luke follows the line of David’s son Nathan. One possible explanation is that Matthew records Joseph’s genealogy while Luke records Mary’s (in which case Joseph would have been Heli’s son-in-law).<\/p>\nGenealogies were kept quite accurately in Judaism, as Josephus confirms (Josephus, Life<\/em> 1). Genealogies were important in the Old Testament and in Judaism generally because land rights were apportioned to families in Israel and because certain offices, such as priest and king, were inherited from father to son. Genealogies sometimes ran a record from the past to the present to illustrate religious themes, family descent, or political ties, as well as simple chronology (1 Chr 1–9). Most such lists were representative rather than a complete list of every individual.<\/p>\nThe purpose of Matthew’s genealogy, unlike Luke’s, is to show Jesus’ heritage as running from Abraham through David. Jesus’ genealogy confirms him as a legitimate heir to the throne of David. So Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew goes back to Abraham, the father of the Jewish race. By contrast, the genealogy in Luke goes all the way back to Adam. This is consistent with Luke’s emphasis on Jesus as the Savior for all people everywhere.<\/p>\nIn Matthew’s genealogy, the unusual mention of women with stained reputations (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba), some of them Gentiles, is noteworthy and emphasizes God’s grace to redeem even those deemed unworthy by others.<\/p>\nJesus’ genealogies do not prove that Jesus is the Messiah, but they do make him a possible candidate. His identity as the Messiah becomes evident in other ways (Matt 11:2-6). God had guided the course of history to its climax. Jesus is the anticipated Messiah of the Old Testament, the Savior of his people, and the King descended from David assuming his throne (see 2 Sam 7:16). He is heir to Abraham and ultimately fulfills God’s promises to Abraham (Gen 12:1-3).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 12:1-3; 2 Sam 7:16; Matt 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38<\/p>","summary_ro":"Genealogy of Jesus Both Matthew and Luke provide genealogies of Jesus (Matt 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38). The two genealogies differ for the generations following King David. Matthew follows the line of David’s son Solomon, while Luke follows the line of David’s son Nathan. One possible explanation is that Matthew records Joseph’s genealogy while Luke records Mary’s (in which case Joseph would have been Heli’s son-in-law). Genealogies were kept quite accurately in Judaism, as Josephus confirms (Jose...","summary_en":"Genealogy of Jesus Both Matthew and Luke provide genealogies of Jesus (Matt 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38). The two genealogies differ for the generations following King David. Matthew follows the line of David’s son Solomon, while Luke follows the line of David’s son Nathan. One possible explanation is that Matthew records Joseph’s genealogy while Luke records Mary’s (in which case Joseph would have been Heli’s son-in-law). Genealogies were kept quite accurately in Judaism, as Josephus confirms (Jose...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":120146,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Genealogy of Jesus","title_en":"Genealogy of Jesus","content_ro":"<h3>Genealogy of Jesus<\/h3>\nBoth Matthew and Luke provide genealogies of Jesus (Matt 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38). The two genealogies differ for the generations following King David. Matthew follows the line of David’s son Solomon, while Luke follows the line of David’s son Nathan. One possible explanation is that Matthew records Joseph’s genealogy while Luke records Mary’s (in which case Joseph would have been Heli’s son-in-law).<\/p>\nGenealogies were kept quite accurately in Judaism, as Josephus confirms (Josephus, Life<\/em> 1). Genealogies were important in the Old Testament and in Judaism generally because land rights were apportioned to families in Israel and because certain offices, such as priest and king, were inherited from father to son. Genealogies sometimes ran a record from the past to the present to illustrate religious themes, family descent, or political ties, as well as simple chronology (1 Chr 1–9). Most such lists were representative rather than a complete list of every individual.<\/p>\nThe purpose of Matthew’s genealogy, unlike Luke’s, is to show Jesus’ heritage as running from Abraham through David. Jesus’ genealogy confirms him as a legitimate heir to the throne of David. So Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew goes back to Abraham, the father of the Jewish race. By contrast, the genealogy in Luke goes all the way back to Adam. This is consistent with Luke’s emphasis on Jesus as the Savior for all people everywhere.<\/p>\nIn Matthew’s genealogy, the unusual mention of women with stained reputations (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba), some of them Gentiles, is noteworthy and emphasizes God’s grace to redeem even those deemed unworthy by others.<\/p>\nJesus’ genealogies do not prove that Jesus is the Messiah, but they do make him a possible candidate. His identity as the Messiah becomes evident in other ways (Matt 11:2-6). God had guided the course of history to its climax. Jesus is the anticipated Messiah of the Old Testament, the Savior of his people, and the King descended from David assuming his throne (see 2 Sam 7:16). He is heir to Abraham and ultimately fulfills God’s promises to Abraham (Gen 12:1-3).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 12:1-3; 2 Sam 7:16; Matt 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Genealogy of Jesus<\/h3>\nBoth Matthew and Luke provide genealogies of Jesus (Matt 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38). The two genealogies differ for the generations following King David. Matthew follows the line of David’s son Solomon, while Luke follows the line of David’s son Nathan. One possible explanation is that Matthew records Joseph’s genealogy while Luke records Mary’s (in which case Joseph would have been Heli’s son-in-law).<\/p>\nGenealogies were kept quite accurately in Judaism, as Josephus confirms (Josephus, Life<\/em> 1). Genealogies were important in the Old Testament and in Judaism generally because land rights were apportioned to families in Israel and because certain offices, such as priest and king, were inherited from father to son. Genealogies sometimes ran a record from the past to the present to illustrate religious themes, family descent, or political ties, as well as simple chronology (1 Chr 1–9). Most such lists were representative rather than a complete list of every individual.<\/p>\nThe purpose of Matthew’s genealogy, unlike Luke’s, is to show Jesus’ heritage as running from Abraham through David. Jesus’ genealogy confirms him as a legitimate heir to the throne of David. So Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew goes back to Abraham, the father of the Jewish race. By contrast, the genealogy in Luke goes all the way back to Adam. This is consistent with Luke’s emphasis on Jesus as the Savior for all people everywhere.<\/p>\nIn Matthew’s genealogy, the unusual mention of women with stained reputations (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba), some of them Gentiles, is noteworthy and emphasizes God’s grace to redeem even those deemed unworthy by others.<\/p>\nJesus’ genealogies do not prove that Jesus is the Messiah, but they do make him a possible candidate. His identity as the Messiah becomes evident in other ways (Matt 11:2-6). God had guided the course of history to its climax. Jesus is the anticipated Messiah of the Old Testament, the Savior of his people, and the King descended from David assuming his throne (see 2 Sam 7:16). He is heir to Abraham and ultimately fulfills God’s promises to Abraham (Gen 12:1-3).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 12:1-3; 2 Sam 7:16; Matt 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38<\/p>","summary_ro":"Genealogy of Jesus Both Matthew and Luke provide genealogies of Jesus (Matt 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38). The two genealogies differ for the generations following King David. Matthew follows the line of David’s son Solomon, while Luke follows the line of David’s son Nathan. One possible explanation is that Matthew records Joseph’s genealogy while Luke records Mary’s (in which case Joseph would have been Heli’s son-in-law). Genealogies were kept quite accurately in Judaism, as Josephus confirms (Jose...","summary_en":"Genealogy of Jesus Both Matthew and Luke provide genealogies of Jesus (Matt 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38). The two genealogies differ for the generations following King David. Matthew follows the line of David’s son Solomon, while Luke follows the line of David’s son Nathan. One possible explanation is that Matthew records Joseph’s genealogy while Luke records Mary’s (in which case Joseph would have been Heli’s son-in-law). Genealogies were kept quite accurately in Judaism, as Josephus confirms (Jose...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":147772,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Genealogy of Jesus","title_en":"Genealogy of Jesus","content_ro":"<h3>Genealogy of Jesus<\/h3>\nBoth Matthew and Luke provide genealogies of Jesus (Matt 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38). The two genealogies differ for the generations following King David. Matthew follows the line of David’s son Solomon, while Luke follows the line of David’s son Nathan. One possible explanation is that Matthew records Joseph’s genealogy while Luke records Mary’s (in which case Joseph would have been Heli’s son-in-law).<\/p>\nGenealogies were kept quite accurately in Judaism, as Josephus confirms (Josephus, Life<\/em> 1). Genealogies were important in the Old Testament and in Judaism generally because land rights were apportioned to families in Israel and because certain offices, such as priest and king, were inherited from father to son. Genealogies sometimes ran a record from the past to the present to illustrate religious themes, family descent, or political ties, as well as simple chronology (1 Chr 1–9). Most such lists were representative rather than a complete list of every individual.<\/p>\nThe purpose of Matthew’s genealogy, unlike Luke’s, is to show Jesus’ heritage as running from Abraham through David. Jesus’ genealogy confirms him as a legitimate heir to the throne of David. So Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew goes back to Abraham, the father of the Jewish race. By contrast, the genealogy in Luke goes all the way back to Adam. This is consistent with Luke’s emphasis on Jesus as the Savior for all people everywhere.<\/p>\nIn Matthew’s genealogy, the unusual mention of women with stained reputations (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba), some of them Gentiles, is noteworthy and emphasizes God’s grace to redeem even those deemed unworthy by others.<\/p>\nJesus’ genealogies do not prove that Jesus is the Messiah, but they do make him a possible candidate. His identity as the Messiah becomes evident in other ways (Matt 11:2-6). God had guided the course of history to its climax. Jesus is the anticipated Messiah of the Old Testament, the Savior of his people, and the King descended from David assuming his throne (see 2 Sam 7:16). He is heir to Abraham and ultimately fulfills God’s promises to Abraham (Gen 12:1-3).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 12:1-3; 2 Sam 7:16; Matt 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Genealogy of Jesus<\/h3>\nBoth Matthew and Luke provide genealogies of Jesus (Matt 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38). The two genealogies differ for the generations following King David. Matthew follows the line of David’s son Solomon, while Luke follows the line of David’s son Nathan. One possible explanation is that Matthew records Joseph’s genealogy while Luke records Mary’s (in which case Joseph would have been Heli’s son-in-law).<\/p>\nGenealogies were kept quite accurately in Judaism, as Josephus confirms (Josephus, Life<\/em> 1). Genealogies were important in the Old Testament and in Judaism generally because land rights were apportioned to families in Israel and because certain offices, such as priest and king, were inherited from father to son. Genealogies sometimes ran a record from the past to the present to illustrate religious themes, family descent, or political ties, as well as simple chronology (1 Chr 1–9). Most such lists were representative rather than a complete list of every individual.<\/p>\nThe purpose of Matthew’s genealogy, unlike Luke’s, is to show Jesus’ heritage as running from Abraham through David. Jesus’ genealogy confirms him as a legitimate heir to the throne of David. So Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew goes back to Abraham, the father of the Jewish race. By contrast, the genealogy in Luke goes all the way back to Adam. This is consistent with Luke’s emphasis on Jesus as the Savior for all people everywhere.<\/p>\nIn Matthew’s genealogy, the unusual mention of women with stained reputations (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba), some of them Gentiles, is noteworthy and emphasizes God’s grace to redeem even those deemed unworthy by others.<\/p>\nJesus’ genealogies do not prove that Jesus is the Messiah, but they do make him a possible candidate. His identity as the Messiah becomes evident in other ways (Matt 11:2-6). God had guided the course of history to its climax. Jesus is the anticipated Messiah of the Old Testament, the Savior of his people, and the King descended from David assuming his throne (see 2 Sam 7:16). He is heir to Abraham and ultimately fulfills God’s promises to Abraham (Gen 12:1-3).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 12:1-3; 2 Sam 7:16; Matt 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38<\/p>","summary_ro":"Genealogy of Jesus Both Matthew and Luke provide genealogies of Jesus (Matt 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38). The two genealogies differ for the generations following King David. Matthew follows the line of David’s son Solomon, while Luke follows the line of David’s son Nathan. One possible explanation is that Matthew records Joseph’s genealogy while Luke records Mary’s (in which case Joseph would have been Heli’s son-in-law). Genealogies were kept quite accurately in Judaism, as Josephus confirms (Jose...","summary_en":"Genealogy of Jesus Both Matthew and Luke provide genealogies of Jesus (Matt 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38). The two genealogies differ for the generations following King David. Matthew follows the line of David’s son Solomon, while Luke follows the line of David’s son Nathan. One possible explanation is that Matthew records Joseph’s genealogy while Luke records Mary’s (in which case Joseph would have been Heli’s son-in-law). Genealogies were kept quite accurately in Judaism, as Josephus confirms (Jose...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"24":[{"id":13485,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Genealogy of Jesus Christ","title_en":"Genealogy of Jesus Christ","content_ro":"<h3>GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST<\/h3>\nAccount of Jesus’ human descent. The NT records Jesus’ genealogy twice in great detail: in Matthew 1:1-17 and in Luke 3:23-38.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Matthew’s Genealogy<\/p>\n• Luke’s Genealogy<\/p>\n• The Relationship between the Two Records<\/p>\nMatthew’s Genealogy (1:1-17)<\/p>\nMatthew 1:1 presents Jesus Christ as “the son of David, the son of Abraham.” By those two names, Matthew highlights Jesus’ earthly relationship to the Abrahamic (Gn 17:1-8) and Davidic (2 Sm 7:12-16) covenants of promise. Then beginning with the patriarch Abraham, Matthew traces Jesus’ human ancestry through King David to Joseph, “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ” (Mt 1:16). Matthew summarizes his account: “So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations” (v 17, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nAn examination of Matthew’s handling of this genealogical material discloses several interesting peculiarities:<\/p>\n\n1. The arrangement of the names into three groups of 14 seems to be an artificial device.<\/p>\n<li>2. To have 14 names in the second group, Matthew omits three kings—Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah—between Joram and Uzziah (v 8), and one, Jehoiakim, between Josiah and Jeconiah (v 11).<\/li>\n<li>3. In the first group Matthew mentions three women—Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth; and in the second group, he alludes to Bathsheba. This is an uncommon practice in genealogies, and all the more strange when it is noted that these four represent what could be regarded as moral blemishes in the history of the Davidic dynasty— Tamar, a victim of incest; Rahab, a prostitute; Ruth, a Moabitess; and Bathsheba, an adulteress.<\/li>\n<li>4. In the first group Matthew mentions Judah’s brothers and Zerah, Perez’s brother. In the second group he refers to Jeconiah’s brothers.<\/li>\n<li>5. In verse 6 David is called “the king.”<\/li>\nFrom these data, it is obvious that Matthew does not intend to present a strict genealogy; the arrangement is contrived, and extraneous material is included, probably for some other purpose than merely to present Jesus’ forebears. Matthew’s arrangement of the names into groups of 14, probably guided by an interest in portraying Jesus to Jews as the promised king of Israel and rightful heir to the Davidic throne, gives a definite historical movement to the genealogy by dividing it into three periods of time. These respectively highlight the origin, rise to power, and decay of the Davidic house, the last point represented by the lowly birth of the promised heir to a carpenter of Nazareth.<\/p>\nThe 14 names in each group may be an effort to call attention to the thrice-royal character of Mary’s son by focusing on the numerical value 14 of the Hebrew letters in David’s name (d=4, v=6, d=4). This number also happens to be twice the sacred number seven, so that the whole list is composed of three sets of two sevens each. It may be, however, that the contrived groupings were merely intended to aid in memorization.<\/p>\nWith respect to the second peculiarity—the “missing name” in the third group—one must conclude that either David or Jeconiah is to be counted twice, these being the pivotal names separating the three groups, or that a name was mistakenly dropped out in a copy of Matthew’s original Gospel.<\/p>\nThe third peculiarity presents no difficulty at all. Numerous genealogies in Scripture omit some names. Ancient Near Eastern writers often used the phrase “the son of,” or the word “begat,” quite flexibly, relating grandsons or great-grandsons, for instance, to earlier forebears without indicating every intervening ancestor. The modern mind should not require a precision in ancient records that ancient writers themselves did not insist on.<\/p>\nThe women listed in the genealogy—the fourth peculiarity—may have been intended to disarm Jewish criticism about Jesus’ birth (1:18-25) by showing that irregular unions were not disqualifications for the Messiah’s legal ancestry.<\/p>\nThe reason for including several brothers in the genealogy at three points—the fifth peculiarity—is not readily discernible. The mention of “Judah and his brothers” (1:2) may simply be following an established practice of speaking of the 12 patriarchs together.<\/p>\nFinally, David’s description as “the king” (1:6) underscores the Davidic or royal character of the list.<\/p>\nThe sources employed in compiling the first group in the genealogy drew upon records preserved in 1 Chronicles 1:27–2:15 and in Ruth 4:18-22. The second group followed the records found in 1—2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. The third group relied mainly on public or private records from the intertestamental period; the nine names from Abiud to Jacob are not mentioned elsewhere in Scripture.<\/p>\nOn the basis of this genealogy, if there had been a Davidic throne in Joseph’s day, the lowly carpenter would have been the legal heir to it, and Jesus stood after him as the next in line to inherit the royal seat.<\/p>\nIt has been argued against this understanding of Matthew’s genealogy that the presence of Jeconiah in the list (Mt 1:11) jeopardizes, if not completely negates, the legal claim to the Davidic throne of everyone descending directly from him. That is because the Lord declared of him: “Write this man down as childless, . . . for none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David, and ruling again in Judah” (Jer 22:30, rsv<\/span>). Therefore, it is said, it could not have been Matthew’s intention to represent the men from Shealtiel to Joseph as legal heirs to the throne.<\/p>\nThis is a point that admittedly could dispose of the view that the list presents David’s descendants if it were not for the fact that Shealtiel, who in Matthew’s record is represented as the son of Jeconiah, appears also in Luke’s genealogy as the son of Neri (Lk 3:27). Neri’s name is unique to Luke’s Gospel, so it is impossible to check its use elsewhere to discover the actual parentage of Shealtiel. But it is not surprising in the light of Jeremiah 22:30 to find him listed in both accounts with different parents. Neri most likely was Shealtiel’s real father, and while it is impossible to determine Neri’s precise relationship to Jeconiah, it may be that those responsible for determining and keeping the record of the legal heirs to the Davidic throne looked to the collateral line of Neri and selected Shealtiel as the man to be legally adopted into the line and the one through whom the line would continue. Shealtiel may well have died without a male descendant, which made it necessary to look to Zerubbabel, the son of Pedaiah, Shealtiel’s brother by adoption, as the legal heir to the Davidic throne. By this pair of adoptions, the curse upon Jeconiah was fulfilled while an actual grandson of Jeconiah continued the line, inasmuch as the grandson was legally the son of Shealtiel, who in turn was the actual son of Neri. Jeconiah’s presence in the genealogy is a strength, rather than a weakness, for the interpretation that Matthew’s Gospel intended to present the legal heirs of the Davidic throne, since only a writer conscious of the problems surrounding Jeconiah’s lineage, but also aware of an explanation, would present such an ancestry to a Jewish audience he was seeking to convince that Jesus was indeed the royal Messiah.<\/p>\nLuke’s Genealogy (3:23-38)<\/p>\nLuke’s genealogy also has peculiarities.<\/p>\n1. Some expositors have thought it significant that Luke’s genealogy appears not at the beginning of the Gospel but at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry.<\/p>\n<li>2. Luke’s account, in contrast to Matthew’s, begins with Jesus and traces his lineage back through OT history. This seems irregular, for most genealogies follow the order of succession.<\/li>\n<li>3. Luke’s account, furthermore, does not end with Abraham but goes all the way back to “Adam, the son of God” (Lk 3:38).<\/li>\nSome have seen the first peculiarity as a result of Luke’s desire to bring a period of sacred history to its close, and to signal the beginning of another with the person and especially the ministry of Jesus. The genealogy, located as it is, sets off the work of Christ from the accounts of his birth and preparation.<\/p>\nMany have suggested that the regressive order in the genealogy is probably Luke’s instrument to focus attention on Jesus. The fact that Luke traced Jesus’ ancestry back to Adam, “the son of God,” was probably due to the fact that he wrote for Romans and Greeks. By tracing Jesus’ ancestry back to Adam, he shows Jesus to be related to the whole human race. In Luke’s genealogy Jesus and Adam are both “sons of God”; Jesus, of course, is the son of God by nature; Adam, the son of God by having been created in God’s image.<\/p>\nAs to his sources, it is rather certain that Luke used the Septuagint version (ancient Greek version of the OT) of Genesis 11:12, which inserts the name Cainan between Shelah and Arphaxad (Lk 3:36), and the records of 1 Chronicles 1–3 for the history down to David. For the period from David to Jesus, most expositors agree that Luke relied upon information probably received directly from Mary or from persons close to her. It was a common practice among the Jewish people for genealogical records to be maintained both publicly and privately. There was special concern in families of Davidic descent to preserve their ancestral records because of OT prophecies that Messiah would be born in the house of David.<\/p>\nLuke no doubt intended to accomplish more by his list than merely a presentation of a number of Jesus’ ancestors. Since Luke did not highlight David in his list, it may be assumed that he was not zealous to present a list of legal heirs to the Davidic throne—not that the issue is of no concern to him (cf. Lk 1:27, 32, 69; 2:4, 11). Rather, a concern throughout Luke’s Gospel is this emphasis—that of portraying the Christ as the Savior of Romans and Greeks—indeed, of the world. Therefore, though Luke traced Jesus’ ancestry through Joseph’s ancestral line to David, he continued beyond David to Adam. Jesus is a member of the race to which all people belong.<\/p>\nThe Relationship between the Two Records<\/p>\nEven a cursory examination of the two genealogies of Jesus will show several differences. For example, Matthew’s genealogy comprises 41 generations, while Luke lists 76. Luke includes the period between Adam and Abraham; Matthew does not. While the two lists are practically identical from Abraham to David, they diverge for the period from David to Jesus, Matthew tracing Jesus’ lineage from David through Solomon in 27 generations, whereas Luke traces Jesus’ lineage from David through Nathan, another son, in 42 generations. Furthermore, at only one point do the lines converge during this period: at the names of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, who are doubtless the same men in both lists. Finally, Matthew represents Joseph as the son of Jacob (Mt 1:16), whereas in Luke’s account he is the son of Heli (Lk 3:23).<\/p>\nHow are these differences to be explained? The differences between these lists stem from the purposes for which they were compiled and the meanings they were intended to convey.<\/p>\nA widely held explanation is that Matthew gives Jesus’ ancestry through Joseph and that Luke gives his ancestry through Mary. On this interpretation Jacob was Joseph’s real father, and Heli (probably Mary’s father) became Joseph’s foster father, that is, Joseph was Heli’s “son,” or heir, by his marriage to Mary, assuming that Heli had no sons (cf. Nm 27:1-11; 36:1-12). This view is certainly a possibility and should not be rejected out of hand. If Mary was a direct descendant of David, it could be literally said of any son of hers, “He is the seed of David.”<\/p>\nOn the other hand, many scholars prefer to regard Luke’s genealogy as that of Joseph rather than Mary, since it is to Joseph’s ancestry that Luke calls the reader’s attention (Lk 1:27; 2:4). Furthermore, nowhere in Scripture is Mary said to be of Davidic descent. If the fact that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus nullifies any value that Joseph’s lineage might otherwise possess for a real son, why does Luke point to Joseph’s lineage twice, and to Mary’s not at all?<\/p>\nA major difficulty for the view that regards both genealogies as Joseph’s is related to Joseph’s two fathers. One solution is that Matthew gives the legal descendants of David but Luke gives the actual descendants of David in the line to which Joseph belonged. This would mean that Heli was Joseph’s real father and that Jacob was his legal foster father. How this could be is readily explainable. Assuming that Jacob’s father, Matthan (Mt 1:15), and Heli’s father, Matthat (Lk 3:24), are the same person, then Jacob (the elder) may have died without a male descendant so that his nephew, the son of his brother Heli, would have become his heir.<\/p>\nIf Matthan and Matthat are not the same person, one might postulate that Jacob, the legal heir to the throne, died without a descendant and that Joseph, son of Heli, became the legal heir immediately upon the death of Heli and was counted as Jacob’s son in a list of legal heirs to the throne. Possibly Heli, a relative, married Jacob’s widow, thereby making Joseph, the son of that union, Heli’s son and Jacob’s son by levirate marriage. In other words, there are a number of possible explanations of this divergence.<\/p>\nOne other major objection to the view that regards both genealogies as Joseph’s is that, because of the virgin birth of Jesus, one may in no sense speak of Jesus as being literally the seed of David—a proposition that Scripture seems to insist upon. This objection has been adequately countered: (1) because of the realistic manner in which the Jews looked upon adoptive fatherhood; and (2) because the relationship in which Jesus stood to Joseph was much closer than a case of ordinary adoption, there being no earthly father to dispute Joseph’s paternal relation to Jesus. Jesus could and would have been regarded as Joseph’s son and heir with complete propriety, satisfying every scriptural demand that he be the “seed of David.” The question, therefore, whether Mary as well as Joseph was a descendant of David does not need to be answered one way or the other by one who desires to defend Jesus’ Davidic descent.<\/p>\nIt is beyond human reach to discover for certain the full solution to the divergences between the two genealogies of Jesus, or the actual relationship of Jesus to them. Enough has been said to demonstrate that they are reconcilable, and the purposes of each, suggested here, indicate that either of the ways outlined above does full justice to the Davidic descent of Jesus, as rightful heir to his ancestor’s covenanted throne, and also to his virgin birth by Mary.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy; Incarnation; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Virgin Birth of Jesus.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST<\/h3>\nAccount of Jesus’ human descent. The NT records Jesus’ genealogy twice in great detail: in Matthew 1:1-17 and in Luke 3:23-38.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Matthew’s Genealogy<\/p>\n• Luke’s Genealogy<\/p>\n• The Relationship between the Two Records<\/p>\nMatthew’s Genealogy (1:1-17)<\/p>\nMatthew 1:1 presents Jesus Christ as “the son of David, the son of Abraham.” By those two names, Matthew highlights Jesus’ earthly relationship to the Abrahamic (Gn 17:1-8) and Davidic (2 Sm 7:12-16) covenants of promise. Then beginning with the patriarch Abraham, Matthew traces Jesus’ human ancestry through King David to Joseph, “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ” (Mt 1:16). Matthew summarizes his account: “So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations” (v 17, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nAn examination of Matthew’s handling of this genealogical material discloses several interesting peculiarities:<\/p>\n\n1. The arrangement of the names into three groups of 14 seems to be an artificial device.<\/p>\n<li>2. To have 14 names in the second group, Matthew omits three kings—Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah—between Joram and Uzziah (v 8), and one, Jehoiakim, between Josiah and Jeconiah (v 11).<\/li>\n<li>3. In the first group Matthew mentions three women—Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth; and in the second group, he alludes to Bathsheba. This is an uncommon practice in genealogies, and all the more strange when it is noted that these four represent what could be regarded as moral blemishes in the history of the Davidic dynasty— Tamar, a victim of incest; Rahab, a prostitute; Ruth, a Moabitess; and Bathsheba, an adulteress.<\/li>\n<li>4. In the first group Matthew mentions Judah’s brothers and Zerah, Perez’s brother. In the second group he refers to Jeconiah’s brothers.<\/li>\n<li>5. In verse 6 David is called “the king.”<\/li>\nFrom these data, it is obvious that Matthew does not intend to present a strict genealogy; the arrangement is contrived, and extraneous material is included, probably for some other purpose than merely to present Jesus’ forebears. Matthew’s arrangement of the names into groups of 14, probably guided by an interest in portraying Jesus to Jews as the promised king of Israel and rightful heir to the Davidic throne, gives a definite historical movement to the genealogy by dividing it into three periods of time. These respectively highlight the origin, rise to power, and decay of the Davidic house, the last point represented by the lowly birth of the promised heir to a carpenter of Nazareth.<\/p>\nThe 14 names in each group may be an effort to call attention to the thrice-royal character of Mary’s son by focusing on the numerical value 14 of the Hebrew letters in David’s name (d=4, v=6, d=4). This number also happens to be twice the sacred number seven, so that the whole list is composed of three sets of two sevens each. It may be, however, that the contrived groupings were merely intended to aid in memorization.<\/p>\nWith respect to the second peculiarity—the “missing name” in the third group—one must conclude that either David or Jeconiah is to be counted twice, these being the pivotal names separating the three groups, or that a name was mistakenly dropped out in a copy of Matthew’s original Gospel.<\/p>\nThe third peculiarity presents no difficulty at all. Numerous genealogies in Scripture omit some names. Ancient Near Eastern writers often used the phrase “the son of,” or the word “begat,” quite flexibly, relating grandsons or great-grandsons, for instance, to earlier forebears without indicating every intervening ancestor. The modern mind should not require a precision in ancient records that ancient writers themselves did not insist on.<\/p>\nThe women listed in the genealogy—the fourth peculiarity—may have been intended to disarm Jewish criticism about Jesus’ birth (1:18-25) by showing that irregular unions were not disqualifications for the Messiah’s legal ancestry.<\/p>\nThe reason for including several brothers in the genealogy at three points—the fifth peculiarity—is not readily discernible. The mention of “Judah and his brothers” (1:2) may simply be following an established practice of speaking of the 12 patriarchs together.<\/p>\nFinally, David’s description as “the king” (1:6) underscores the Davidic or royal character of the list.<\/p>\nThe sources employed in compiling the first group in the genealogy drew upon records preserved in 1 Chronicles 1:27–2:15 and in Ruth 4:18-22. The second group followed the records found in 1—2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. The third group relied mainly on public or private records from the intertestamental period; the nine names from Abiud to Jacob are not mentioned elsewhere in Scripture.<\/p>\nOn the basis of this genealogy, if there had been a Davidic throne in Joseph’s day, the lowly carpenter would have been the legal heir to it, and Jesus stood after him as the next in line to inherit the royal seat.<\/p>\nIt has been argued against this understanding of Matthew’s genealogy that the presence of Jeconiah in the list (Mt 1:11) jeopardizes, if not completely negates, the legal claim to the Davidic throne of everyone descending directly from him. That is because the Lord declared of him: “Write this man down as childless, . . . for none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David, and ruling again in Judah” (Jer 22:30, rsv<\/span>). Therefore, it is said, it could not have been Matthew’s intention to represent the men from Shealtiel to Joseph as legal heirs to the throne.<\/p>\nThis is a point that admittedly could dispose of the view that the list presents David’s descendants if it were not for the fact that Shealtiel, who in Matthew’s record is represented as the son of Jeconiah, appears also in Luke’s genealogy as the son of Neri (Lk 3:27). Neri’s name is unique to Luke’s Gospel, so it is impossible to check its use elsewhere to discover the actual parentage of Shealtiel. But it is not surprising in the light of Jeremiah 22:30 to find him listed in both accounts with different parents. Neri most likely was Shealtiel’s real father, and while it is impossible to determine Neri’s precise relationship to Jeconiah, it may be that those responsible for determining and keeping the record of the legal heirs to the Davidic throne looked to the collateral line of Neri and selected Shealtiel as the man to be legally adopted into the line and the one through whom the line would continue. Shealtiel may well have died without a male descendant, which made it necessary to look to Zerubbabel, the son of Pedaiah, Shealtiel’s brother by adoption, as the legal heir to the Davidic throne. By this pair of adoptions, the curse upon Jeconiah was fulfilled while an actual grandson of Jeconiah continued the line, inasmuch as the grandson was legally the son of Shealtiel, who in turn was the actual son of Neri. Jeconiah’s presence in the genealogy is a strength, rather than a weakness, for the interpretation that Matthew’s Gospel intended to present the legal heirs of the Davidic throne, since only a writer conscious of the problems surrounding Jeconiah’s lineage, but also aware of an explanation, would present such an ancestry to a Jewish audience he was seeking to convince that Jesus was indeed the royal Messiah.<\/p>\nLuke’s Genealogy (3:23-38)<\/p>\nLuke’s genealogy also has peculiarities.<\/p>\n1. Some expositors have thought it significant that Luke’s genealogy appears not at the beginning of the Gospel but at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry.<\/p>\n<li>2. Luke’s account, in contrast to Matthew’s, begins with Jesus and traces his lineage back through OT history. This seems irregular, for most genealogies follow the order of succession.<\/li>\n<li>3. Luke’s account, furthermore, does not end with Abraham but goes all the way back to “Adam, the son of God” (Lk 3:38).<\/li>\nSome have seen the first peculiarity as a result of Luke’s desire to bring a period of sacred history to its close, and to signal the beginning of another with the person and especially the ministry of Jesus. The genealogy, located as it is, sets off the work of Christ from the accounts of his birth and preparation.<\/p>\nMany have suggested that the regressive order in the genealogy is probably Luke’s instrument to focus attention on Jesus. The fact that Luke traced Jesus’ ancestry back to Adam, “the son of God,” was probably due to the fact that he wrote for Romans and Greeks. By tracing Jesus’ ancestry back to Adam, he shows Jesus to be related to the whole human race. In Luke’s genealogy Jesus and Adam are both “sons of God”; Jesus, of course, is the son of God by nature; Adam, the son of God by having been created in God’s image.<\/p>\nAs to his sources, it is rather certain that Luke used the Septuagint version (ancient Greek version of the OT) of Genesis 11:12, which inserts the name Cainan between Shelah and Arphaxad (Lk 3:36), and the records of 1 Chronicles 1–3 for the history down to David. For the period from David to Jesus, most expositors agree that Luke relied upon information probably received directly from Mary or from persons close to her. It was a common practice among the Jewish people for genealogical records to be maintained both publicly and privately. There was special concern in families of Davidic descent to preserve their ancestral records because of OT prophecies that Messiah would be born in the house of David.<\/p>\nLuke no doubt intended to accomplish more by his list than merely a presentation of a number of Jesus’ ancestors. Since Luke did not highlight David in his list, it may be assumed that he was not zealous to present a list of legal heirs to the Davidic throne—not that the issue is of no concern to him (cf. Lk 1:27, 32, 69; 2:4, 11). Rather, a concern throughout Luke’s Gospel is this emphasis—that of portraying the Christ as the Savior of Romans and Greeks—indeed, of the world. Therefore, though Luke traced Jesus’ ancestry through Joseph’s ancestral line to David, he continued beyond David to Adam. Jesus is a member of the race to which all people belong.<\/p>\nThe Relationship between the Two Records<\/p>\nEven a cursory examination of the two genealogies of Jesus will show several differences. For example, Matthew’s genealogy comprises 41 generations, while Luke lists 76. Luke includes the period between Adam and Abraham; Matthew does not. While the two lists are practically identical from Abraham to David, they diverge for the period from David to Jesus, Matthew tracing Jesus’ lineage from David through Solomon in 27 generations, whereas Luke traces Jesus’ lineage from David through Nathan, another son, in 42 generations. Furthermore, at only one point do the lines converge during this period: at the names of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, who are doubtless the same men in both lists. Finally, Matthew represents Joseph as the son of Jacob (Mt 1:16), whereas in Luke’s account he is the son of Heli (Lk 3:23).<\/p>\nHow are these differences to be explained? The differences between these lists stem from the purposes for which they were compiled and the meanings they were intended to convey.<\/p>\nA widely held explanation is that Matthew gives Jesus’ ancestry through Joseph and that Luke gives his ancestry through Mary. On this interpretation Jacob was Joseph’s real father, and Heli (probably Mary’s father) became Joseph’s foster father, that is, Joseph was Heli’s “son,” or heir, by his marriage to Mary, assuming that Heli had no sons (cf. Nm 27:1-11; 36:1-12). This view is certainly a possibility and should not be rejected out of hand. If Mary was a direct descendant of David, it could be literally said of any son of hers, “He is the seed of David.”<\/p>\nOn the other hand, many scholars prefer to regard Luke’s genealogy as that of Joseph rather than Mary, since it is to Joseph’s ancestry that Luke calls the reader’s attention (Lk 1:27; 2:4). Furthermore, nowhere in Scripture is Mary said to be of Davidic descent. If the fact that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus nullifies any value that Joseph’s lineage might otherwise possess for a real son, why does Luke point to Joseph’s lineage twice, and to Mary’s not at all?<\/p>\nA major difficulty for the view that regards both genealogies as Joseph’s is related to Joseph’s two fathers. One solution is that Matthew gives the legal descendants of David but Luke gives the actual descendants of David in the line to which Joseph belonged. This would mean that Heli was Joseph’s real father and that Jacob was his legal foster father. How this could be is readily explainable. Assuming that Jacob’s father, Matthan (Mt 1:15), and Heli’s father, Matthat (Lk 3:24), are the same person, then Jacob (the elder) may have died without a male descendant so that his nephew, the son of his brother Heli, would have become his heir.<\/p>\nIf Matthan and Matthat are not the same person, one might postulate that Jacob, the legal heir to the throne, died without a descendant and that Joseph, son of Heli, became the legal heir immediately upon the death of Heli and was counted as Jacob’s son in a list of legal heirs to the throne. Possibly Heli, a relative, married Jacob’s widow, thereby making Joseph, the son of that union, Heli’s son and Jacob’s son by levirate marriage. In other words, there are a number of possible explanations of this divergence.<\/p>\nOne other major objection to the view that regards both genealogies as Joseph’s is that, because of the virgin birth of Jesus, one may in no sense speak of Jesus as being literally the seed of David—a proposition that Scripture seems to insist upon. This objection has been adequately countered: (1) because of the realistic manner in which the Jews looked upon adoptive fatherhood; and (2) because the relationship in which Jesus stood to Joseph was much closer than a case of ordinary adoption, there being no earthly father to dispute Joseph’s paternal relation to Jesus. Jesus could and would have been regarded as Joseph’s son and heir with complete propriety, satisfying every scriptural demand that he be the “seed of David.” The question, therefore, whether Mary as well as Joseph was a descendant of David does not need to be answered one way or the other by one who desires to defend Jesus’ Davidic descent.<\/p>\nIt is beyond human reach to discover for certain the full solution to the divergences between the two genealogies of Jesus, or the actual relationship of Jesus to them. Enough has been said to demonstrate that they are reconcilable, and the purposes of each, suggested here, indicate that either of the ways outlined above does full justice to the Davidic descent of Jesus, as rightful heir to his ancestor’s covenanted throne, and also to his virgin birth by Mary.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy; Incarnation; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Virgin Birth of Jesus.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST Account of Jesus’ human descent. The NT records Jesus’ genealogy twice in great detail: in Matthew 1:1-17 and in Luke 3:23-38. Preview • Matthew’s Genealogy • Luke’s Genealogy • The Relationship between the Two Records Matthew’s Genealogy (1:1-17) Matthew 1:1 presents Jesus Christ as “the son of David, the son of Abraham.” By those two names, Matthew highlights Jesus’ earthly relationship to the Abrahamic (Gn 17:1-8) and Davidic (2 Sm 7:12-16) covenants of promise. T...","summary_en":"GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST Account of Jesus’ human descent. The NT records Jesus’ genealogy twice in great detail: in Matthew 1:1-17 and in Luke 3:23-38. Preview • Matthew’s Genealogy • Luke’s Genealogy • The Relationship between the Two Records Matthew’s Genealogy (1:1-17) Matthew 1:1 presents Jesus Christ as “the son of David, the son of Abraham.” By those two names, Matthew highlights Jesus’ earthly relationship to the Abrahamic (Gn 17:1-8) and Davidic (2 Sm 7:12-16) covenants of promise. T...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":18277,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jacob","title_en":"Jacob","content_ro":"<h3>JACOB<\/h3>\n<li>1. Younger of twin sons born to Isaac and Rebekah (Gn 25:24-26). Isaac had prayed for his barren wife, Rebekah, and she conceived the twins, who jostled each other in the womb. When she asked the Lord about this, he told her that she was carrying two nations and that the older son would serve the younger (v 23). Esau was hairy and red (later he was called Edom, “red,” 25:30; 36:1), but Jacob was born holding the heel of his brother, so that he was named Jacob, “he takes by the heel” (cf. Hos 12:3), with the derived meaning “to supplant, deceive, attack from the rear.”<\/li>\nPersonal History<\/p>\nEsau and Jacob were very different from each other. Esau was an outdoorsman, the favorite of his father, while Jacob stayed around the tents and was loved by his mother.<\/p>\nOne day when Jacob was preparing red pottage, Esau came in famished and asked Jacob for some food. Jacob offered to sell Esau some stew in exchange for his birthright as firstborn, and Esau agreed, thus repudiating his birthright (cf. Heb 12:16). The significance of this episode of the red pottage is demonstrated by its association with Esau’s second name, Edom (“red”) (Gn 25:30).<\/p>\nIsaac became old and blind. One day he asked Esau to take his weapons and get some wild game, of which Isaac was very fond (Gn 27:6-7; cf 25:28), so that he could eat and then confer his blessing upon Esau. Rebekah overheard this, so she called Jacob and told him to go to the flock and select two good kids. She would prepare a dish that would pass for the game while Esau was out hunting. Jacob feared that Isaac would detect the deception, for Esau was very hairy, but Rebekah had everything planned. She placed the skins of the kids on Jacob’s hands and neck to give the impression of hairiness (27:16) and clothed him in Esau’s best garments, which had the smell of the outdoors on them. Although Isaac recognized the voice of Jacob, his other senses failed him, and he was deceived by the feel of the skins and the smell of the garments. He proceeded to give the blessing to Jacob (vv 27-29).<\/p>\nNo sooner had Jacob left than Esau arrived with the game he had cooked. Jacob’s ruse was discovered, but the deed could not be undone (Gn 27:33), for, as the Nuzi tablets show, an oral blessing had legal validity and could not be revoked. Esau was heartbroken (cf. Heb 12:17). Isaac gave him a blessing inferior to the one given to Jacob (Gn 27:39-40).<\/p>\nThe animosity between the brothers deepened, and Esau plotted to kill Jacob after the death of their father. Rebekah learned of this, so she instructed Jacob to flee to her brother Laban in Haran (Gn 27:42-45). Esau’s Hittite wives, meanwhile, had been making life miserable for Rebekah; she complained to Isaac, who called Jacob and sent him to Laban to marry one of his uncle’s daughters (27:46–28:4).<\/p>\nJacob set out for Haran. Using a stone for a pillow, he dreamed one night of a ladder reaching up to heaven, with the angels of God ascending and descending on it. God spoke to Jacob and gave to him the promise he had given to Abraham and Isaac concerning the land and descendants. The next morning Jacob took his stone pillow and set it up as a pillar, anointing it with oil. He named the place Bethel (“house of God”) and made a vow that if the Lord would be with him and provide for him, he would give a tithe to the Lord (Gn 28:10-22).<\/p>\nWhen Jacob reached the area of Haran, he met shepherds who knew Laban. Rachel, Laban’s younger daughter, arrived with her father’s flock, and Jacob rolled the large stone from the mouth of the well and watered the sheep for her (Gn 29:1-10). When Rachel learned that Jacob was from their own family, she ran to tell her father, who greeted Jacob warmly. After staying with them for a month, Jacob was hired to tend Laban’s flocks. When wages were discussed, Jacob proposed to work seven years to earn Rachel as his wife (vv 15-20).<\/p>\nAt the end of seven years Jacob was set to claim his wages, but on the night of the wedding feast, Laban gave his older daughter, Leah, to Jacob; Jacob did not discover the substitution until morning. He felt cheated and protested to Laban, but Laban insisted that according to custom the older daughter must marry first and proposed that Jacob work another seven years for Rachel. Jacob agreed to this and put in his time (Gn 29:21-30).<\/p>\nGenesis 29 and 30 relate the births of most of Jacob’s children. Leah bore Jacob four sons: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah (Gn 29:31-35). She named her first son Reuben (“see, a son”) since she felt that her husband would love her because she bore a son. Simeon is derived from the root “hear,” since Leah thought that God had given her this son because he had heard that she was hated. Levi is related to the verb “join,” for Leah thought that her husband would be joined to her because of this third son. Judah means “praise,” for she praised the Lord at the birth of her fourth son.<\/p>\nRachel had not conceived any children, so she gave her maid Bilhah to Jacob. She bore him Dan and Naphtali (Gn 30:1-8). Rachel named the first son Dan (“he judged”) because God had judged, that is, vindicated her. Naphtali means “my struggle, my wrestling,” for Rachel said she had wrestled with and overcome her sister.<\/p>\nThereupon Leah gave her maid Zilpah to Jacob as a wife; she brought forth Gad and Asher (Gn 30:11). Gad means “fortune”; Leah said, “Good fortune,” when he was born. Asher (“happy”) was so named because Leah said, “Now the women will call me happy.”<\/p>\nReuben found some mandrakes in the field, and Leah traded them to Rachel for Jacob’s services. Leah then bore sons five and six, Issachar and Zebulun, followed by a daughter, whom she named Dinah (Gn 30:14-21). Issachar perhaps means “reward,” for Leah said that God had rewarded her for giving her maidservant to her husband. Zebulun probably means “honor”; Leah thought that now her husband would honor her.<\/p>\nAt last Rachel herself conceived and bore her first child, a son whom she named Joseph. “Joseph” means “he will add” or “may he add,” for Rachel wanted God to add another son to her.<\/p>\nJacob wanted to leave and go back to Canaan, but Laban wanted him to stay, for through divination he had learned that the Lord had blessed him because of Jacob (Gn 30:27). They discussed the matter of wages, and Jacob proposed that every speckled and spotted sheep and goat and every black lamb become his (vv 32-33). Laban agreed to this, but he quickly removed all the animals marked in that fashion and put them under the care of his sons, some three days’ distance from the rest of the flocks (vv 35-36).<\/p>\nJacob also contrived to gain an advantage; he tried to influence the genetics of the animals by putting speckled and streaked wooden rods by the water troughs when the best animals were breeding. The Lord blessed Jacob and he became rich in flocks and herds (Gn 30:37-43).<\/p>\nThe sons of Laban became very bitter toward Jacob, and Laban’s attitude toward him changed also. Jacob noticed this, and now the Lord spoke to Jacob and told him to return to Canaan (Gn 31:3-16). Jacob held a family council with his two wives and told them how God had blessed him, even though their father had cheated him and had changed his wages ten times. Jacob organized his caravan while Laban was away shearing sheep. Rachel stole her father’s household gods, for their possession would make the holder heir to Laban’s estate (see Nuzi Tablets). The party took off, crossed the Euphrates, and headed for Gilead. Laban and his relatives pursued them, but God spoke to Laban in a dream, warning him not to say anything to Jacob.<\/p>\nWhen Laban caught up with Jacob, he upbraided him for sneaking away and inquired about his household gods. Jacob did not know what Rachel had done, so he said that the one found with the gods should be put to death (Gn 31:32). Rachel had hidden them in a camel saddle and was sitting on the saddle when her father searched the tent. Laban did not find the idols. After this, Jacob became angry and complained that he had served Laban for 20 years and that Laban had reduced his wages ten times.<\/p>\nLaban suggested a covenant of peace, so the two men gathered stones to make a monument and called it “heap of witness.” Early the next morning Laban said his farewells and returned home.<\/p>\nAs Jacob and his household journeyed on, he was met by the angels of God (“God’s camp,” Gn 32:2), so he named that place Mahanaim, “the two camps.” Jacob sent messengers ahead to inform Esau of his return. They came back with the news that Esau was approaching with 400 men. Jacob was afraid and sought the Lord’s protection. To win Esau’s favor, Jacob sent ahead gifts of animals, and that night he sent his family and possessions across the ford of the Jabbok River. Jacob was left alone, and “a man” wrestled with him throughout the night. Toward dawn the man touched Jacob’s thigh, and his hip was dislocated, but Jacob would not give up until the “man” blessed him. Here the Lord changed Jacob’s name to Israel (“he strives with God”), and Jacob named the place Peniel (“face of God”) because he had seen God face to face and lived (Gn 32:30).<\/p>\nEsau was getting near, so Jacob arranged his family and went forward, bowing low before his brother. But Esau was gracious and forgiving and the meeting was a happy one (Gn 33:4). Esau was surprised at Jacob’s large family and property and made every gesture of friendship. Esau returned to Seir, and Jacob moved on to Shechem, where he bought a piece of land from Hamor, the father of Shechem. Jacob built an altar there and named it El-Elohe-Israel, “God, the God of Israel” (v 20).<\/p>\nActing on the Lord’s instructions, Jacob moved to Bethel and expelled the foreign gods from his household. At Luz (Bethel) the Lord again met him and reaffirmed his new name, renewing his promise of land and descendants (Gn 35:9-15). As they journeyed south, Rachel died while giving birth to her second son (vv 16-20). She named him Ben-oni (“son of my sorrow”), but Jacob changed his name to Benjamin (“son of the right hand”). Jacob went on to Hebron and found that Isaac was still living. Isaac died at age 180 and was buried by Esau and Jacob.<\/p>\nAlthough the story of Jacob continues in the book of Genesis, the central figure of chapters 37–50 is Joseph, Jacob’s favorite son, the firstborn of Rachel. Jacob showed this favoritism so openly that the other sons became jealous of Joseph. They plotted to kill Joseph but instead sold him to a caravan of traders on their way to Egypt (Gn 37:9-28). They took Joseph’s coat, dipped it into the blood of a goat, and took it to their father, telling him that they had found the robe. Jacob recognized the coat he had given his son and concluded that he was dead. Jacob was heartbroken and would not be comforted.<\/p>\nWhen a famine hit Canaan, Jacob sent his sons to Egypt to buy grain (Gn 42:1-5), keeping Benjamin at home. When the brothers returned to Canaan, they reported to Jacob that the governor (who was really Joseph) had kept Simeon as a hostage and demanded that they bring Benjamin with them when they came again for grain. The famine continued, and Jacob again sent his sons to Egypt for grain. Very reluctantly, he permitted Benjamin to go with them, also sending a gift for the Egyptian governor (43:11-14).<\/p>\nThe next news Jacob received was that Joseph was alive in Egypt and wanted his father and all his family to join him (Gn 45:21-28). Jacob went first to Beersheba and made offerings to the Lord. The Lord spoke to Jacob, telling him to go down to Egypt and confirming once more the promises he had previously made. Jacob and his descendants who were in Egypt numbered 70, including the two sons of Joseph.<\/p>\nWhen Jacob reached Goshen, Joseph came to meet him, and there was a joyous reunion (Gn 46:28-30). Joseph reported the arrival of his father and brothers to the pharaoh (47:1) and took five of the brothers and his father to meet the ruler. Israel settled in the area of Goshen and prospered there. Jacob spent 17 years in Egypt and reached the age of 147.<\/p>\nWhen Jacob sensed his death was near, he called Joseph and made him swear that he would bury him with his forebears in Canaan. Joseph took his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to his father for the patriarchal blessing. He presented the boys so that Manasseh, the firstborn, would be on Jacob’s right and Ephraim on his left. Jacob, however crossed his hands and gave the younger son the greater blessing (48:13-20). Jacob prophesied that his people would return to Canaan, and he gave Joseph a double portion of the land. Then Jacob called for all his sons and gave to each of them a blessing (49:1-28). Judah received the place of preeminence, and it is he who appears in the genealogies of Jesus (vv 8-12). The blessing of Joseph shows the mark of special favor (vv 22-26). Jacob also charged his sons to bury him in the cave of Machpelah near Hebron, then he drew his feet up on the bed and died.<\/p>\nJoseph summoned the physicians to embalm his father according to Egyptian practice; there were 40 days for embalming and 70 days for the period of mourning (Gn 50:1-3). Arrangements were made to go to Canaan to bury Jacob as Joseph had promised, and a large funeral procession, including many Egyptian officials as well as the family of Jacob, went up from Egypt. The company mourned for seven days at the threshing floor of Atad; then the sons of Jacob buried him in the cave of Machpelah as he had requested. The entire group returned to Egypt, and Joseph assured his brothers that he had no intention of avenging the wrong they had done him. God had meant the whole episode for good (vv 15-21).<\/p>\nJacob as the Nation Israel<\/p>\nGod made the same promises concerning the land and the nation to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but it is by Jacob’s God-given name, Israel, that the nation is known.<\/p>\nThe name Jacob is used for the nation about 100 times (e.g., Nm 24:5, 19; Dt 32:9; Ps 59:13). It is often found as a parallel to Israel (e.g., Nm 23:7; Dt 33:10; Is 14:1). “Jacob” is also used specifically of the northern kingdom of Israel (Am 7:2, 5). In Isaiah 41:21 “the King of Jacob” refers to God himself.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Genesis, Book of; Israel, History of; Patriarchs, Period of the.<\/p>\n<li>2. Father of Joseph, the husband of Mary and earthly father of Jesus according to Matthew’s genealogy (Mt 1:16). Luke, however, names Heli as Joseph’s father (Lk 3:24). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ (The Relationship between the Two Records).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>JACOB<\/h3>\n<li>1. Younger of twin sons born to Isaac and Rebekah (Gn 25:24-26). Isaac had prayed for his barren wife, Rebekah, and she conceived the twins, who jostled each other in the womb. When she asked the Lord about this, he told her that she was carrying two nations and that the older son would serve the younger (v 23). Esau was hairy and red (later he was called Edom, “red,” 25:30; 36:1), but Jacob was born holding the heel of his brother, so that he was named Jacob, “he takes by the heel” (cf. Hos 12:3), with the derived meaning “to supplant, deceive, attack from the rear.”<\/li>\nPersonal History<\/p>\nEsau and Jacob were very different from each other. Esau was an outdoorsman, the favorite of his father, while Jacob stayed around the tents and was loved by his mother.<\/p>\nOne day when Jacob was preparing red pottage, Esau came in famished and asked Jacob for some food. Jacob offered to sell Esau some stew in exchange for his birthright as firstborn, and Esau agreed, thus repudiating his birthright (cf. Heb 12:16). The significance of this episode of the red pottage is demonstrated by its association with Esau’s second name, Edom (“red”) (Gn 25:30).<\/p>\nIsaac became old and blind. One day he asked Esau to take his weapons and get some wild game, of which Isaac was very fond (Gn 27:6-7; cf 25:28), so that he could eat and then confer his blessing upon Esau. Rebekah overheard this, so she called Jacob and told him to go to the flock and select two good kids. She would prepare a dish that would pass for the game while Esau was out hunting. Jacob feared that Isaac would detect the deception, for Esau was very hairy, but Rebekah had everything planned. She placed the skins of the kids on Jacob’s hands and neck to give the impression of hairiness (27:16) and clothed him in Esau’s best garments, which had the smell of the outdoors on them. Although Isaac recognized the voice of Jacob, his other senses failed him, and he was deceived by the feel of the skins and the smell of the garments. He proceeded to give the blessing to Jacob (vv 27-29).<\/p>\nNo sooner had Jacob left than Esau arrived with the game he had cooked. Jacob’s ruse was discovered, but the deed could not be undone (Gn 27:33), for, as the Nuzi tablets show, an oral blessing had legal validity and could not be revoked. Esau was heartbroken (cf. Heb 12:17). Isaac gave him a blessing inferior to the one given to Jacob (Gn 27:39-40).<\/p>\nThe animosity between the brothers deepened, and Esau plotted to kill Jacob after the death of their father. Rebekah learned of this, so she instructed Jacob to flee to her brother Laban in Haran (Gn 27:42-45). Esau’s Hittite wives, meanwhile, had been making life miserable for Rebekah; she complained to Isaac, who called Jacob and sent him to Laban to marry one of his uncle’s daughters (27:46–28:4).<\/p>\nJacob set out for Haran. Using a stone for a pillow, he dreamed one night of a ladder reaching up to heaven, with the angels of God ascending and descending on it. God spoke to Jacob and gave to him the promise he had given to Abraham and Isaac concerning the land and descendants. The next morning Jacob took his stone pillow and set it up as a pillar, anointing it with oil. He named the place Bethel (“house of God”) and made a vow that if the Lord would be with him and provide for him, he would give a tithe to the Lord (Gn 28:10-22).<\/p>\nWhen Jacob reached the area of Haran, he met shepherds who knew Laban. Rachel, Laban’s younger daughter, arrived with her father’s flock, and Jacob rolled the large stone from the mouth of the well and watered the sheep for her (Gn 29:1-10). When Rachel learned that Jacob was from their own family, she ran to tell her father, who greeted Jacob warmly. After staying with them for a month, Jacob was hired to tend Laban’s flocks. When wages were discussed, Jacob proposed to work seven years to earn Rachel as his wife (vv 15-20).<\/p>\nAt the end of seven years Jacob was set to claim his wages, but on the night of the wedding feast, Laban gave his older daughter, Leah, to Jacob; Jacob did not discover the substitution until morning. He felt cheated and protested to Laban, but Laban insisted that according to custom the older daughter must marry first and proposed that Jacob work another seven years for Rachel. Jacob agreed to this and put in his time (Gn 29:21-30).<\/p>\nGenesis 29 and 30 relate the births of most of Jacob’s children. Leah bore Jacob four sons: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah (Gn 29:31-35). She named her first son Reuben (“see, a son”) since she felt that her husband would love her because she bore a son. Simeon is derived from the root “hear,” since Leah thought that God had given her this son because he had heard that she was hated. Levi is related to the verb “join,” for Leah thought that her husband would be joined to her because of this third son. Judah means “praise,” for she praised the Lord at the birth of her fourth son.<\/p>\nRachel had not conceived any children, so she gave her maid Bilhah to Jacob. She bore him Dan and Naphtali (Gn 30:1-8). Rachel named the first son Dan (“he judged”) because God had judged, that is, vindicated her. Naphtali means “my struggle, my wrestling,” for Rachel said she had wrestled with and overcome her sister.<\/p>\nThereupon Leah gave her maid Zilpah to Jacob as a wife; she brought forth Gad and Asher (Gn 30:11). Gad means “fortune”; Leah said, “Good fortune,” when he was born. Asher (“happy”) was so named because Leah said, “Now the women will call me happy.”<\/p>\nReuben found some mandrakes in the field, and Leah traded them to Rachel for Jacob’s services. Leah then bore sons five and six, Issachar and Zebulun, followed by a daughter, whom she named Dinah (Gn 30:14-21). Issachar perhaps means “reward,” for Leah said that God had rewarded her for giving her maidservant to her husband. Zebulun probably means “honor”; Leah thought that now her husband would honor her.<\/p>\nAt last Rachel herself conceived and bore her first child, a son whom she named Joseph. “Joseph” means “he will add” or “may he add,” for Rachel wanted God to add another son to her.<\/p>\nJacob wanted to leave and go back to Canaan, but Laban wanted him to stay, for through divination he had learned that the Lord had blessed him because of Jacob (Gn 30:27). They discussed the matter of wages, and Jacob proposed that every speckled and spotted sheep and goat and every black lamb become his (vv 32-33). Laban agreed to this, but he quickly removed all the animals marked in that fashion and put them under the care of his sons, some three days’ distance from the rest of the flocks (vv 35-36).<\/p>\nJacob also contrived to gain an advantage; he tried to influence the genetics of the animals by putting speckled and streaked wooden rods by the water troughs when the best animals were breeding. The Lord blessed Jacob and he became rich in flocks and herds (Gn 30:37-43).<\/p>\nThe sons of Laban became very bitter toward Jacob, and Laban’s attitude toward him changed also. Jacob noticed this, and now the Lord spoke to Jacob and told him to return to Canaan (Gn 31:3-16). Jacob held a family council with his two wives and told them how God had blessed him, even though their father had cheated him and had changed his wages ten times. Jacob organized his caravan while Laban was away shearing sheep. Rachel stole her father’s household gods, for their possession would make the holder heir to Laban’s estate (see Nuzi Tablets). The party took off, crossed the Euphrates, and headed for Gilead. Laban and his relatives pursued them, but God spoke to Laban in a dream, warning him not to say anything to Jacob.<\/p>\nWhen Laban caught up with Jacob, he upbraided him for sneaking away and inquired about his household gods. Jacob did not know what Rachel had done, so he said that the one found with the gods should be put to death (Gn 31:32). Rachel had hidden them in a camel saddle and was sitting on the saddle when her father searched the tent. Laban did not find the idols. After this, Jacob became angry and complained that he had served Laban for 20 years and that Laban had reduced his wages ten times.<\/p>\nLaban suggested a covenant of peace, so the two men gathered stones to make a monument and called it “heap of witness.” Early the next morning Laban said his farewells and returned home.<\/p>\nAs Jacob and his household journeyed on, he was met by the angels of God (“God’s camp,” Gn 32:2), so he named that place Mahanaim, “the two camps.” Jacob sent messengers ahead to inform Esau of his return. They came back with the news that Esau was approaching with 400 men. Jacob was afraid and sought the Lord’s protection. To win Esau’s favor, Jacob sent ahead gifts of animals, and that night he sent his family and possessions across the ford of the Jabbok River. Jacob was left alone, and “a man” wrestled with him throughout the night. Toward dawn the man touched Jacob’s thigh, and his hip was dislocated, but Jacob would not give up until the “man” blessed him. Here the Lord changed Jacob’s name to Israel (“he strives with God”), and Jacob named the place Peniel (“face of God”) because he had seen God face to face and lived (Gn 32:30).<\/p>\nEsau was getting near, so Jacob arranged his family and went forward, bowing low before his brother. But Esau was gracious and forgiving and the meeting was a happy one (Gn 33:4). Esau was surprised at Jacob’s large family and property and made every gesture of friendship. Esau returned to Seir, and Jacob moved on to Shechem, where he bought a piece of land from Hamor, the father of Shechem. Jacob built an altar there and named it El-Elohe-Israel, “God, the God of Israel” (v 20).<\/p>\nActing on the Lord’s instructions, Jacob moved to Bethel and expelled the foreign gods from his household. At Luz (Bethel) the Lord again met him and reaffirmed his new name, renewing his promise of land and descendants (Gn 35:9-15). As they journeyed south, Rachel died while giving birth to her second son (vv 16-20). She named him Ben-oni (“son of my sorrow”), but Jacob changed his name to Benjamin (“son of the right hand”). Jacob went on to Hebron and found that Isaac was still living. Isaac died at age 180 and was buried by Esau and Jacob.<\/p>\nAlthough the story of Jacob continues in the book of Genesis, the central figure of chapters 37–50 is Joseph, Jacob’s favorite son, the firstborn of Rachel. Jacob showed this favoritism so openly that the other sons became jealous of Joseph. They plotted to kill Joseph but instead sold him to a caravan of traders on their way to Egypt (Gn 37:9-28). They took Joseph’s coat, dipped it into the blood of a goat, and took it to their father, telling him that they had found the robe. Jacob recognized the coat he had given his son and concluded that he was dead. Jacob was heartbroken and would not be comforted.<\/p>\nWhen a famine hit Canaan, Jacob sent his sons to Egypt to buy grain (Gn 42:1-5), keeping Benjamin at home. When the brothers returned to Canaan, they reported to Jacob that the governor (who was really Joseph) had kept Simeon as a hostage and demanded that they bring Benjamin with them when they came again for grain. The famine continued, and Jacob again sent his sons to Egypt for grain. Very reluctantly, he permitted Benjamin to go with them, also sending a gift for the Egyptian governor (43:11-14).<\/p>\nThe next news Jacob received was that Joseph was alive in Egypt and wanted his father and all his family to join him (Gn 45:21-28). Jacob went first to Beersheba and made offerings to the Lord. The Lord spoke to Jacob, telling him to go down to Egypt and confirming once more the promises he had previously made. Jacob and his descendants who were in Egypt numbered 70, including the two sons of Joseph.<\/p>\nWhen Jacob reached Goshen, Joseph came to meet him, and there was a joyous reunion (Gn 46:28-30). Joseph reported the arrival of his father and brothers to the pharaoh (47:1) and took five of the brothers and his father to meet the ruler. Israel settled in the area of Goshen and prospered there. Jacob spent 17 years in Egypt and reached the age of 147.<\/p>\nWhen Jacob sensed his death was near, he called Joseph and made him swear that he would bury him with his forebears in Canaan. Joseph took his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to his father for the patriarchal blessing. He presented the boys so that Manasseh, the firstborn, would be on Jacob’s right and Ephraim on his left. Jacob, however crossed his hands and gave the younger son the greater blessing (48:13-20). Jacob prophesied that his people would return to Canaan, and he gave Joseph a double portion of the land. Then Jacob called for all his sons and gave to each of them a blessing (49:1-28). Judah received the place of preeminence, and it is he who appears in the genealogies of Jesus (vv 8-12). The blessing of Joseph shows the mark of special favor (vv 22-26). Jacob also charged his sons to bury him in the cave of Machpelah near Hebron, then he drew his feet up on the bed and died.<\/p>\nJoseph summoned the physicians to embalm his father according to Egyptian practice; there were 40 days for embalming and 70 days for the period of mourning (Gn 50:1-3). Arrangements were made to go to Canaan to bury Jacob as Joseph had promised, and a large funeral procession, including many Egyptian officials as well as the family of Jacob, went up from Egypt. The company mourned for seven days at the threshing floor of Atad; then the sons of Jacob buried him in the cave of Machpelah as he had requested. The entire group returned to Egypt, and Joseph assured his brothers that he had no intention of avenging the wrong they had done him. God had meant the whole episode for good (vv 15-21).<\/p>\nJacob as the Nation Israel<\/p>\nGod made the same promises concerning the land and the nation to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but it is by Jacob’s God-given name, Israel, that the nation is known.<\/p>\nThe name Jacob is used for the nation about 100 times (e.g., Nm 24:5, 19; Dt 32:9; Ps 59:13). It is often found as a parallel to Israel (e.g., Nm 23:7; Dt 33:10; Is 14:1). “Jacob” is also used specifically of the northern kingdom of Israel (Am 7:2, 5). In Isaiah 41:21 “the King of Jacob” refers to God himself.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Genesis, Book of; Israel, History of; Patriarchs, Period of the.<\/p>\n<li>2. Father of Joseph, the husband of Mary and earthly father of Jesus according to Matthew’s genealogy (Mt 1:16). Luke, however, names Heli as Joseph’s father (Lk 3:24). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ (The Relationship between the Two Records).<\/li>","summary_ro":"JACOB 1. Younger of twin sons born to Isaac and Rebekah (Gn 25:24-26). Isaac had prayed for his barren wife, Rebekah, and she conceived the twins, who jostled each other in the womb. When she asked the Lord about this, he told her that she was carrying two nations and that the older son would serve the younger (v 23). Esau was hairy and red (later he was called Edom, “red,” 25:30; 36:1), but Jacob was born holding the heel of his brother, so that he was named Jacob, “he takes by the heel” (cf...","summary_en":"JACOB 1. Younger of twin sons born to Isaac and Rebekah (Gn 25:24-26). Isaac had prayed for his barren wife, Rebekah, and she conceived the twins, who jostled each other in the womb. When she asked the Lord about this, he told her that she was carrying two nations and that the older son would serve the younger (v 23). Esau was hairy and red (later he was called Edom, “red,” 25:30; 36:1), but Jacob was born holding the heel of his brother, so that he was named Jacob, “he takes by the heel” (cf...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":18491,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jannai","title_en":"Jannai","content_ro":"<h3>JANNAI<\/h3>\nAncestor of Jesus recorded in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:24). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JANNAI<\/h3>\nAncestor of Jesus recorded in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:24). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JANNAI Ancestor of Jesus recorded in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:24). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"JANNAI Ancestor of Jesus recorded in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:24). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":22995,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Levi (Person)","title_en":"Levi (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>LEVI (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Jacob’s third son by Leah (Gn 29:34). The etymology of the name is uncertain. Levi’s name is associated with the tragedy at Shechem, where the male inhabitants of the city were ruthlessly murdered when Levi and Simeon sought to avenge the violation of their sister Dinah by Shechem the Hivite. Jacob condemned the act and before his death pronounced a judgment on Levi’s behavior (49:5-7). According to these words, Levi’s descendants were to be dispersed among the tribes.<\/li>\nThe tribe of Levi was composed of the descendants of Levi’s three sons: Gershon (Gershom), Kohath, and Merari. Moses, Aaron, and Miriam traced their genealogy to Kohath (Ex 6:16). The Levites remained faithful to Yahweh at the occasion of the golden calf by Mt Horeb. They were rewarded with the right to special service in and around the tabernacle (ch 32) and later in the temple.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Levi, Tribe of.<\/p>\n<li>2. Tax collector in Capernaum (Mk 2:14); one of the 12 disciples who was also named Matthew (Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27; cf. Mt 9:9). See<\/em> Matthew (Person).<\/li>\n<li>3. Son of Melki and ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:24). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>4. Son of Simeon and ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:29). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>LEVI (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Jacob’s third son by Leah (Gn 29:34). The etymology of the name is uncertain. Levi’s name is associated with the tragedy at Shechem, where the male inhabitants of the city were ruthlessly murdered when Levi and Simeon sought to avenge the violation of their sister Dinah by Shechem the Hivite. Jacob condemned the act and before his death pronounced a judgment on Levi’s behavior (49:5-7). According to these words, Levi’s descendants were to be dispersed among the tribes.<\/li>\nThe tribe of Levi was composed of the descendants of Levi’s three sons: Gershon (Gershom), Kohath, and Merari. Moses, Aaron, and Miriam traced their genealogy to Kohath (Ex 6:16). The Levites remained faithful to Yahweh at the occasion of the golden calf by Mt Horeb. They were rewarded with the right to special service in and around the tabernacle (ch 32) and later in the temple.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Levi, Tribe of.<\/p>\n<li>2. Tax collector in Capernaum (Mk 2:14); one of the 12 disciples who was also named Matthew (Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27; cf. Mt 9:9). See<\/em> Matthew (Person).<\/li>\n<li>3. Son of Melki and ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:24). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>4. Son of Simeon and ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:29). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>","summary_ro":"LEVI (Person) 1. Jacob’s third son by Leah (Gn 29:34). The etymology of the name is uncertain. Levi’s name is associated with the tragedy at Shechem, where the male inhabitants of the city were ruthlessly murdered when Levi and Simeon sought to avenge the violation of their sister Dinah by Shechem the Hivite. Jacob condemned the act and before his death pronounced a judgment on Levi’s behavior (49:5-7). According to these words, Levi’s descendants were to be dispersed among the tribes. The tr...","summary_en":"LEVI (Person) 1. Jacob’s third son by Leah (Gn 29:34). The etymology of the name is uncertain. Levi’s name is associated with the tragedy at Shechem, where the male inhabitants of the city were ruthlessly murdered when Levi and Simeon sought to avenge the violation of their sister Dinah by Shechem the Hivite. Jacob condemned the act and before his death pronounced a judgment on Levi’s behavior (49:5-7). According to these words, Levi’s descendants were to be dispersed among the tribes. The tr...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24662,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Matthan","title_en":"Matthan","content_ro":"<h3>MATTHAN<\/h3>\nAncestor of Jesus (Mt 1:15); perhaps identifiable with Matthat in Luke 3:24. See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MATTHAN<\/h3>\nAncestor of Jesus (Mt 1:15); perhaps identifiable with Matthat in Luke 3:24. See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MATTHAN Ancestor of Jesus (Mt 1:15); perhaps identifiable with Matthat in Luke 3:24. See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"MATTHAN Ancestor of Jesus (Mt 1:15); perhaps identifiable with Matthat in Luke 3:24. See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24663,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Matthat","title_en":"Matthat","content_ro":"<h3>MATTHAT<\/h3>\n<li>1. Ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:24), perhaps the same as Matthan (Mt 1:15).<\/li>\n<li>2. Ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:29).<\/li>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MATTHAT<\/h3>\n<li>1. Ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:24), perhaps the same as Matthan (Mt 1:15).<\/li>\n<li>2. Ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:29).<\/li>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MATTHAT 1. Ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:24), perhaps the same as Matthan (Mt 1:15). 2. Ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:29). See also Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"MATTHAT 1. Ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:24), perhaps the same as Matthan (Mt 1:15). 2. Ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:29). See also Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":25016,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Melchi*","title_en":"Melchi*","content_ro":"<h3>MELCHI*<\/h3>\n<li>1. Jannai’s son, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:24).<\/li>\n<li>2. Addi’s son, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:28).<\/li>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MELCHI*<\/h3>\n<li>1. Jannai’s son, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:24).<\/li>\n<li>2. Addi’s son, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:28).<\/li>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MELCHI* 1. Jannai’s son, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:24). 2. Addi’s son, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:28). See also Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"MELCHI* 1. Jannai’s son, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:24). 2. Addi’s son, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:28). See also Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"25":[{"id":11114,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Esli","title_en":"Esli","content_ro":"<h3>ESLI<\/h3>\nNahum’s father and ancestor of Jesus, according to Luke’s genealogy (3:25). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ESLI<\/h3>\nNahum’s father and ancestor of Jesus, according to Luke’s genealogy (3:25). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ESLI Nahum’s father and ancestor of Jesus, according to Luke’s genealogy (3:25). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"ESLI Nahum’s father and ancestor of Jesus, according to Luke’s genealogy (3:25). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20593,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Joseph","title_en":"Joseph","content_ro":"<h3>JOSEPH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Jacob’s 11th son and the firstborn son of Rachel. Rachel named the boy Joseph, meaning “may he add,” expressing her desire that God would give her another son (Gn 30:24).<\/li>\nNothing more is said about Joseph until, at the age of 17, he is seen tending his father’s flocks with his brothers (Gn 37:2). Joseph was the favorite of his father, since he was the son of his old age (v 3) and the firstborn son of his favorite wife. Because of this, his brothers hated Joseph. This envy was magnified when Jacob gave Joseph a ground-length, long-sleeved, multicolored robe (vv 3-4). (This type of garment is illustrated by the paintings in the Asiatic tombs of Khnumhotep II at Beni Hasan and of the nobles at Gurneh, near Luxor.) The animosity of his brothers increased still more when Joseph revealed to them his dreams of dominion over them (vv 5-11). Subsequently, when Joseph was sent to check on his brothers and the flocks near Shechem, his brothers sold him to a caravan of traders going down to Egypt (vv 25-28). His brothers then took his robe, dipped it in goat’s blood, and brought it to Jacob, who concluded that Joseph had been killed by wild animals (vv 31-33); Jacob was overwhelmed with grief (vv 34-35).<\/p>\nIn Egypt, Joseph was sold to Potiphar, an Egyptian officer of the guard (Gn 37:36; 39:1), who eventually put Joseph in charge of his entire household. However, trouble arose from Potiphar’s wife, who was attracted to the young Hebrew and tried to seduce him (39:6-10). He steadfastly resisted her advances, protesting that to comply with her wishes would be a disservice to his master and a sin against God (v 9). One day she seized his garment, but he left the garment behind and fled. Potiphar’s wife accused Joseph of attempted rape; her report was believed, and Joseph was incarcerated in the king’s prison (v 20), where Pharaoh’s butler and baker were also confined. While in prison, Joseph, with the Lord’s help, interpreted these men’s troublesome dreams. As Joseph had foretold, the baker was executed and the butler was restored to royal favor (ch 40).<\/p>\nTwo years later Pharaoh had two dreams that his magicians and wise men could not interpret. The butler, remembering Joseph, had him summoned from prison. God revealed to Joseph that the dreams foretold seven years of abundance, followed by seven years of famine (Gn 41:25-36). Pharaoh, impressed with Joseph’s interpretation, made him ruler of Egypt, second only to himself (vv 39-44). Joseph was given a new name, Zaphenath-paneah, and a wife, Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera (v 45).<\/p>\nJoseph was 30 years old when he became ruler of Egypt. During the seven years of prosperity, he gathered the good supplies for the seven years of famine to come (Gn 41:53-56). When the famine eventually became severe in Palestine, Jacob sent all his sons, except Benjamin, his youngest son, to Egypt to purchase grain. Appearing before Joseph in Egypt, they did not recognize him. But he knew them and remembered his dreams of years before (42:8-9). After listening to the report of their family, he accused them of being spies (vv 9-14) and insisted that they leave one of their brothers as hostage and return with Benjamin to verify the truthfulness of their report (vv 19-20). Thus Simeon was bound and left in Egypt (v 24).<\/p>\nAfter the famine worsened in Palestine, Jacob asked his sons to go back to Egypt to buy more grain (Gn 43:1-2); reluctantly agreeing to the conditions that the Egyptian administrator had placed on them, Jacob allowed Benjamin to go with them (vv 11-13). When they arrived in Egypt, they were taken to Joseph’s house, where Simeon was restored to them (v 23) and a meal was prepared for them (v 33). Joseph at last disclosed his identity and declared that God had sent him before them to preserve their lives (45:4-8). Arrangements were then made to send for Jacob; wagons were provided, along with provisions for the journey (v 21). When Jacob came to Goshen in the Nile Delta, Joseph went out to meet him, and another great reunion took place (46:28-29). He also presented his father and brothers to Pharaoh, who let them live in the land of Goshen (47:6).<\/p>\nUpon learning that his father was ill, Joseph took his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to him for his blessing. He presented the sons so that the older would be at Jacob’s right hand and the younger at his left in order that Manasseh would receive the blessing of the firstborn. Jacob, however, crossed his hands and with his right hand on Ephraim gave him the greater blessing (Gn 48:14-20). He also gave to Joseph the land that he had taken from the Amorites (v 22). At Jacob’s death, Joseph made the funeral arrangements; and after the customary funerary practices were carried out, a great funeral procession went to Canaan, where Jacob was buried by his sons in the cave of Machpelah near Hebron (50:1-12).<\/p>\nWhen Joseph was 110 years old, he called his brothers and told them that he was about to die. He made them take an oath that when they returned to Canaan they would take his bones with them. So he died, was embalmed, and was placed in a coffin in Egypt (Gn 50:26). Many years later, during the exodus, Moses took the bones of Joseph with him from Egypt (Ex 13:19). Joseph’s remains were eventually interred at Shechem in the parcel of land that Jacob had bought from Hamor, the father of Shechem (Gn 33:18-20; Jos 24:32). See<\/em> Israel, History of; Patriarchs, Period of the.<\/p>\n<li>2. Igal’s father from Issachar’s tribe. Igal was one of the 12 spies sent by Moses to search out the land of Canaan (Nm 13:7).<\/li>\n<li>3. Asaph’s second son and the leader of the first course of priests serving in the sanctuary during David’s reign (1 Chr 25:2, 9).<\/li>\n<li>4. One of Binnui’s descendants who was encouraged by Ezra to divorce his foreign wife during the postexilic era (Ezr 10:42).<\/li>\n<li>5. Priest and family leader from Shebaniah’s line during the days of Joiakim, the high priest (Neh 12:14).<\/li>\n<li>6. Descendant of David (Mt 1:16; Lk 3:23) and the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Joseph was betrothed to Mary, a young woman of the city of Nazareth. Mary had learned from the angel Gabriel that she was to bear the Son of God, whom she was to name Jesus (Lk 1:31) and that this conception was to be a work of the Holy Spirit (v 35). Joseph was not aware of this, so when he learned that Mary was pregnant, he decided to divorce her quietly, for he was a just man and did not want to humiliate her publicly (Mt 1:19). An angel subsequently appeared to him in a dream to tell him what was happening (Mt 1:21; cf. Is 7:14). The text of Matthew makes it clear that there was no sexual union between Joseph and Mary until after Jesus was born (Mt 1:18, 25; see also Lk 1:34-37).<\/li>\nWhen Caesar Augustus issued a decree that everyone had to register in his native city for purposes of taxation, Joseph and Mary returned to Bethlehem, where Jesus was subsequently born (Lk 2:1-6). Later, Joseph and Mary took the infant Jesus to the temple to present him to the Lord (vv 22, 33). After the visit of the wise men, an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream and instructed him to take Jesus and Mary to Egypt to protect the child from King Herod (Mt 2:13). Upon the death of Herod, an angel similarly advised him to return to Israel, so the family went to live in Nazareth. The last recorded event that involves Joseph is the incident of Jesus at the temple at age 12 (Lk 2:41-51). Joseph is not mentioned by name, but Mary told Jesus that she and his father had been looking for him anxiously.<\/p>\nJesus was identified by people around Nazareth as “Joseph’s son” (Lk 4:22; Jn 1:45; 6:42). It is only through references identifying Jesus that we learn of Joseph’s trade. Twice Jesus is referred to as “the carpenter’s son” (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). Joseph was not a carpenter in our sense of the word, for houses were built mostly of stone and earth. He was a woodworker or artificer in wood, and probably most of his work was with furniture and agricultural implements.<\/p>\nDuring the ministry of Jesus, it was his mother and his brothers who came to look for him (Mt 12:46-50; Mk 3:31-35), so it is assumed that by this time Joseph was dead. Joseph was most likely the father of James, Joseph, Simon, Judas, and unnamed sisters (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Brothers of Jesus; Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<li>7. Joseph and Mary’s son and the brother of Jesus (Mt 13:55); alternately called Joses in Mark 6:3. See<\/em> Brothers of Jesus.<\/li>\n<li>8. Native of Arimathea and the follower of Jesus who provided for his burial. He was a rich man from the town of Arimathea and a respected member of the Sanhedrin, or council (Mk 15:43). He was a good and righteous man and did not go along with the decision to crucify Jesus (Lk 23:50-51). Joseph had been a secret follower of Jesus because he was afraid of the Jews (Jn 19:38), but after the Crucifixion he took courage and went to Pilate to ask for Jesus’ body. He and Nicodemus took the body, treated it with spices, and wrapped it in linen cloths, according to the Jewish burial customs. In a nearby garden was Joseph’s own new rock-cut tomb in which no one had ever been buried. Here they placed Jesus and sealed the tomb with a large stone.<\/li>\n<li> 9. Mattathias’s son and an ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:25). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>10. KJV rendering of Josech, an ancestor of Jesus, in Luke 3:26. See<\/em> Josech.<\/li>\n<li>11. Jonam’s son and an ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:30). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>12. Disciple of Jesus who was “called Barsabbas” and “surnamed Justus” (Acts 1:23). Joseph was one of the candidates put forward by the 11 apostles to replace Judas Iscariot. It was Matthias, however, who was chosen.<\/li>\n<li>13. Cypriot Levite who sold a field and gave the proceeds to the apostles. He was surnamed “Barnabas,” meaning “son of encouragement,” by the apostles (Acts 4:36). See<\/em> Barnabas.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>JOSEPH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Jacob’s 11th son and the firstborn son of Rachel. Rachel named the boy Joseph, meaning “may he add,” expressing her desire that God would give her another son (Gn 30:24).<\/li>\nNothing more is said about Joseph until, at the age of 17, he is seen tending his father’s flocks with his brothers (Gn 37:2). Joseph was the favorite of his father, since he was the son of his old age (v 3) and the firstborn son of his favorite wife. Because of this, his brothers hated Joseph. This envy was magnified when Jacob gave Joseph a ground-length, long-sleeved, multicolored robe (vv 3-4). (This type of garment is illustrated by the paintings in the Asiatic tombs of Khnumhotep II at Beni Hasan and of the nobles at Gurneh, near Luxor.) The animosity of his brothers increased still more when Joseph revealed to them his dreams of dominion over them (vv 5-11). Subsequently, when Joseph was sent to check on his brothers and the flocks near Shechem, his brothers sold him to a caravan of traders going down to Egypt (vv 25-28). His brothers then took his robe, dipped it in goat’s blood, and brought it to Jacob, who concluded that Joseph had been killed by wild animals (vv 31-33); Jacob was overwhelmed with grief (vv 34-35).<\/p>\nIn Egypt, Joseph was sold to Potiphar, an Egyptian officer of the guard (Gn 37:36; 39:1), who eventually put Joseph in charge of his entire household. However, trouble arose from Potiphar’s wife, who was attracted to the young Hebrew and tried to seduce him (39:6-10). He steadfastly resisted her advances, protesting that to comply with her wishes would be a disservice to his master and a sin against God (v 9). One day she seized his garment, but he left the garment behind and fled. Potiphar’s wife accused Joseph of attempted rape; her report was believed, and Joseph was incarcerated in the king’s prison (v 20), where Pharaoh’s butler and baker were also confined. While in prison, Joseph, with the Lord’s help, interpreted these men’s troublesome dreams. As Joseph had foretold, the baker was executed and the butler was restored to royal favor (ch 40).<\/p>\nTwo years later Pharaoh had two dreams that his magicians and wise men could not interpret. The butler, remembering Joseph, had him summoned from prison. God revealed to Joseph that the dreams foretold seven years of abundance, followed by seven years of famine (Gn 41:25-36). Pharaoh, impressed with Joseph’s interpretation, made him ruler of Egypt, second only to himself (vv 39-44). Joseph was given a new name, Zaphenath-paneah, and a wife, Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera (v 45).<\/p>\nJoseph was 30 years old when he became ruler of Egypt. During the seven years of prosperity, he gathered the good supplies for the seven years of famine to come (Gn 41:53-56). When the famine eventually became severe in Palestine, Jacob sent all his sons, except Benjamin, his youngest son, to Egypt to purchase grain. Appearing before Joseph in Egypt, they did not recognize him. But he knew them and remembered his dreams of years before (42:8-9). After listening to the report of their family, he accused them of being spies (vv 9-14) and insisted that they leave one of their brothers as hostage and return with Benjamin to verify the truthfulness of their report (vv 19-20). Thus Simeon was bound and left in Egypt (v 24).<\/p>\nAfter the famine worsened in Palestine, Jacob asked his sons to go back to Egypt to buy more grain (Gn 43:1-2); reluctantly agreeing to the conditions that the Egyptian administrator had placed on them, Jacob allowed Benjamin to go with them (vv 11-13). When they arrived in Egypt, they were taken to Joseph’s house, where Simeon was restored to them (v 23) and a meal was prepared for them (v 33). Joseph at last disclosed his identity and declared that God had sent him before them to preserve their lives (45:4-8). Arrangements were then made to send for Jacob; wagons were provided, along with provisions for the journey (v 21). When Jacob came to Goshen in the Nile Delta, Joseph went out to meet him, and another great reunion took place (46:28-29). He also presented his father and brothers to Pharaoh, who let them live in the land of Goshen (47:6).<\/p>\nUpon learning that his father was ill, Joseph took his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to him for his blessing. He presented the sons so that the older would be at Jacob’s right hand and the younger at his left in order that Manasseh would receive the blessing of the firstborn. Jacob, however, crossed his hands and with his right hand on Ephraim gave him the greater blessing (Gn 48:14-20). He also gave to Joseph the land that he had taken from the Amorites (v 22). At Jacob’s death, Joseph made the funeral arrangements; and after the customary funerary practices were carried out, a great funeral procession went to Canaan, where Jacob was buried by his sons in the cave of Machpelah near Hebron (50:1-12).<\/p>\nWhen Joseph was 110 years old, he called his brothers and told them that he was about to die. He made them take an oath that when they returned to Canaan they would take his bones with them. So he died, was embalmed, and was placed in a coffin in Egypt (Gn 50:26). Many years later, during the exodus, Moses took the bones of Joseph with him from Egypt (Ex 13:19). Joseph’s remains were eventually interred at Shechem in the parcel of land that Jacob had bought from Hamor, the father of Shechem (Gn 33:18-20; Jos 24:32). See<\/em> Israel, History of; Patriarchs, Period of the.<\/p>\n<li>2. Igal’s father from Issachar’s tribe. Igal was one of the 12 spies sent by Moses to search out the land of Canaan (Nm 13:7).<\/li>\n<li>3. Asaph’s second son and the leader of the first course of priests serving in the sanctuary during David’s reign (1 Chr 25:2, 9).<\/li>\n<li>4. One of Binnui’s descendants who was encouraged by Ezra to divorce his foreign wife during the postexilic era (Ezr 10:42).<\/li>\n<li>5. Priest and family leader from Shebaniah’s line during the days of Joiakim, the high priest (Neh 12:14).<\/li>\n<li>6. Descendant of David (Mt 1:16; Lk 3:23) and the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Joseph was betrothed to Mary, a young woman of the city of Nazareth. Mary had learned from the angel Gabriel that she was to bear the Son of God, whom she was to name Jesus (Lk 1:31) and that this conception was to be a work of the Holy Spirit (v 35). Joseph was not aware of this, so when he learned that Mary was pregnant, he decided to divorce her quietly, for he was a just man and did not want to humiliate her publicly (Mt 1:19). An angel subsequently appeared to him in a dream to tell him what was happening (Mt 1:21; cf. Is 7:14). The text of Matthew makes it clear that there was no sexual union between Joseph and Mary until after Jesus was born (Mt 1:18, 25; see also Lk 1:34-37).<\/li>\nWhen Caesar Augustus issued a decree that everyone had to register in his native city for purposes of taxation, Joseph and Mary returned to Bethlehem, where Jesus was subsequently born (Lk 2:1-6). Later, Joseph and Mary took the infant Jesus to the temple to present him to the Lord (vv 22, 33). After the visit of the wise men, an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream and instructed him to take Jesus and Mary to Egypt to protect the child from King Herod (Mt 2:13). Upon the death of Herod, an angel similarly advised him to return to Israel, so the family went to live in Nazareth. The last recorded event that involves Joseph is the incident of Jesus at the temple at age 12 (Lk 2:41-51). Joseph is not mentioned by name, but Mary told Jesus that she and his father had been looking for him anxiously.<\/p>\nJesus was identified by people around Nazareth as “Joseph’s son” (Lk 4:22; Jn 1:45; 6:42). It is only through references identifying Jesus that we learn of Joseph’s trade. Twice Jesus is referred to as “the carpenter’s son” (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). Joseph was not a carpenter in our sense of the word, for houses were built mostly of stone and earth. He was a woodworker or artificer in wood, and probably most of his work was with furniture and agricultural implements.<\/p>\nDuring the ministry of Jesus, it was his mother and his brothers who came to look for him (Mt 12:46-50; Mk 3:31-35), so it is assumed that by this time Joseph was dead. Joseph was most likely the father of James, Joseph, Simon, Judas, and unnamed sisters (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Brothers of Jesus; Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<li>7. Joseph and Mary’s son and the brother of Jesus (Mt 13:55); alternately called Joses in Mark 6:3. See<\/em> Brothers of Jesus.<\/li>\n<li>8. Native of Arimathea and the follower of Jesus who provided for his burial. He was a rich man from the town of Arimathea and a respected member of the Sanhedrin, or council (Mk 15:43). He was a good and righteous man and did not go along with the decision to crucify Jesus (Lk 23:50-51). Joseph had been a secret follower of Jesus because he was afraid of the Jews (Jn 19:38), but after the Crucifixion he took courage and went to Pilate to ask for Jesus’ body. He and Nicodemus took the body, treated it with spices, and wrapped it in linen cloths, according to the Jewish burial customs. In a nearby garden was Joseph’s own new rock-cut tomb in which no one had ever been buried. Here they placed Jesus and sealed the tomb with a large stone.<\/li>\n<li> 9. Mattathias’s son and an ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:25). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>10. KJV rendering of Josech, an ancestor of Jesus, in Luke 3:26. See<\/em> Josech.<\/li>\n<li>11. Jonam’s son and an ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:30). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>12. Disciple of Jesus who was “called Barsabbas” and “surnamed Justus” (Acts 1:23). Joseph was one of the candidates put forward by the 11 apostles to replace Judas Iscariot. It was Matthias, however, who was chosen.<\/li>\n<li>13. Cypriot Levite who sold a field and gave the proceeds to the apostles. He was surnamed “Barnabas,” meaning “son of encouragement,” by the apostles (Acts 4:36). See<\/em> Barnabas.<\/li>","summary_ro":"JOSEPH 1. Jacob’s 11th son and the firstborn son of Rachel. Rachel named the boy Joseph, meaning “may he add,” expressing her desire that God would give her another son (Gn 30:24). Nothing more is said about Joseph until, at the age of 17, he is seen tending his father’s flocks with his brothers (Gn 37:2). Joseph was the favorite of his father, since he was the son of his old age (v 3) and the firstborn son of his favorite wife. Because of this, his brothers hated Joseph. This envy was magnif...","summary_en":"JOSEPH 1. Jacob’s 11th son and the firstborn son of Rachel. Rachel named the boy Joseph, meaning “may he add,” expressing her desire that God would give her another son (Gn 30:24). Nothing more is said about Joseph until, at the age of 17, he is seen tending his father’s flocks with his brothers (Gn 37:2). Joseph was the favorite of his father, since he was the son of his old age (v 3) and the firstborn son of his favorite wife. Because of this, his brothers hated Joseph. This envy was magnif...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24655,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Mattathias","title_en":"Mattathias","content_ro":"<h3>MATTATHIAS<\/h3>\n<li>1. Member of the priestly family of Joarib (his genealogy can be traced in 1 Macc 2:1 and in Josephus’s Antiquities<\/em> 12.6.3). He was a native of Jerusalem who settled in Modein and became the father of the nationalistic leaders, the Maccabeans, who led the Jewish revolt against the Syrians (167 BC<\/span>). In his attempt to wipe out Judaism and establish Hellenism, Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria, outlawed Jewish sacrifices, built pagan altars (including one to Zeus in the temple), and executed anyone who possessed the law (1 Macc 2:1-49). Mattathias ignited the revolt against this oppression when Greek officers set up a pagan altar at Modein and ordered that sacrifices be offered to heathen gods. Mattathias refused, killed the Jew who volunteered, killed the Greek officer, destroyed the altar, and fled to the hills with a band of followers. He led guerrilla warfare against the Syrians, continued to circumcise children, and made strenuous efforts to preserve the law. His motto was “Let everyone who is zealous for the law come after me.”<\/li>\nHe led the revolt for about a year and died, probably in 167 BC<\/span>. His last bequest to his sons was “Obey the ordinance of the law.” He was succeeded in military leadership by his son Judas, and the Hasmonean dynasty of priests were his descendants. He is remembered in special Hanukkah prayers because of his zeal in fighting for religious freedom.<\/p>\n<li>2. Amos’s son and an ancestor of Jesus, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:25). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>3. Semein’s son and an ancestor of Jesus, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:26). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>MATTATHIAS<\/h3>\n<li>1. Member of the priestly family of Joarib (his genealogy can be traced in 1 Macc 2:1 and in Josephus’s Antiquities<\/em> 12.6.3). He was a native of Jerusalem who settled in Modein and became the father of the nationalistic leaders, the Maccabeans, who led the Jewish revolt against the Syrians (167 BC<\/span>). In his attempt to wipe out Judaism and establish Hellenism, Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria, outlawed Jewish sacrifices, built pagan altars (including one to Zeus in the temple), and executed anyone who possessed the law (1 Macc 2:1-49). Mattathias ignited the revolt against this oppression when Greek officers set up a pagan altar at Modein and ordered that sacrifices be offered to heathen gods. Mattathias refused, killed the Jew who volunteered, killed the Greek officer, destroyed the altar, and fled to the hills with a band of followers. He led guerrilla warfare against the Syrians, continued to circumcise children, and made strenuous efforts to preserve the law. His motto was “Let everyone who is zealous for the law come after me.”<\/li>\nHe led the revolt for about a year and died, probably in 167 BC<\/span>. His last bequest to his sons was “Obey the ordinance of the law.” He was succeeded in military leadership by his son Judas, and the Hasmonean dynasty of priests were his descendants. He is remembered in special Hanukkah prayers because of his zeal in fighting for religious freedom.<\/p>\n<li>2. Amos’s son and an ancestor of Jesus, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:25). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>3. Semein’s son and an ancestor of Jesus, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:26). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>","summary_ro":"MATTATHIAS 1. Member of the priestly family of Joarib (his genealogy can be traced in 1 Macc 2:1 and in Josephus’s Antiquities 12.6.3). He was a native of Jerusalem who settled in Modein and became the father of the nationalistic leaders, the Maccabeans, who led the Jewish revolt against the Syrians (167 BC). In his attempt to wipe out Judaism and establish Hellenism, Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria, outlawed Jewish sacrifices, built pagan altars (including one to Zeus in the temple), and ...","summary_en":"MATTATHIAS 1. Member of the priestly family of Joarib (his genealogy can be traced in 1 Macc 2:1 and in Josephus’s Antiquities 12.6.3). He was a native of Jerusalem who settled in Modein and became the father of the nationalistic leaders, the Maccabeans, who led the Jewish revolt against the Syrians (167 BC). In his attempt to wipe out Judaism and establish Hellenism, Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria, outlawed Jewish sacrifices, built pagan altars (including one to Zeus in the temple), and ...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":26829,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Naggai, Nagge*","title_en":"Naggai, Nagge*","content_ro":"<h3>NAGGAI, NAGGE*<\/h3>\nAncestor of Jesus, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:25, kjv<\/span> “Nagge”). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>NAGGAI, NAGGE*<\/h3>\nAncestor of Jesus, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:25, kjv<\/span> “Nagge”). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"NAGGAI, NAGGE* Ancestor of Jesus, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:25, kjv “Nagge”). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"NAGGAI, NAGGE* Ancestor of Jesus, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:25, kjv “Nagge”). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/N.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":26875,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Nahum (Person)","title_en":"Nahum (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>NAHUM (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. A prophet of Judah whose name means “consolation” or “consoler.” This name fits his message, as he wrote to encourage the people of Judah while they were being oppressed by the Assyrians (Na 1:1). Other than being the prophet who wrote the book of Nahum, nothing is known of him except that he came from the village of Elkosh. Its exact location is unknown, but four suggestions have been made. First, it was the town of Alqush, near Mosul on the Tigris River just north of Nineveh. A tradition declares this to be the site of Nahum’s tomb, but it is first mentioned by Masius in the 16th century. The tomb and its location have no archaeological confirmation, and its authenticity is highly suspect. Second, Jerome recounts a Jewish tradition identifying it with “a village in Galilee called ‘Helcesaei’ ” (Helcesei or Elcesi), and writes, “A very small one, indeed, and containing in its ruins hardly any traces of ancient buildings, but one which is well known to the Jews and was also pointed out to me by my guide.” This village is located about 15 miles (24.1 kilometers) northwest of the Sea of Galilee. Third, on the northern edge of the Sea of Galilee rest the ruins of Capernaum, meaning “village of Nahum.” But there is no proof that this name goes back to the prophet. Finally, some believe it should be identified with Elcesi, near Bet-gabre, about halfway between Gaza and Jerusalem in the territory of Judah. Internal evidence seems to support this position (Na 1:15).<\/li>\nIt is entirely possible that Nahum may have been a member of the northern tribes but migrated to Judah after the conquest of 722 BC<\/span> and ministered there.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Nahum, Book of; Prophet, Prophetess.<\/p>\n<li>2. Ancestor of Jesus, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:25). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>NAHUM (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. A prophet of Judah whose name means “consolation” or “consoler.” This name fits his message, as he wrote to encourage the people of Judah while they were being oppressed by the Assyrians (Na 1:1). Other than being the prophet who wrote the book of Nahum, nothing is known of him except that he came from the village of Elkosh. Its exact location is unknown, but four suggestions have been made. First, it was the town of Alqush, near Mosul on the Tigris River just north of Nineveh. A tradition declares this to be the site of Nahum’s tomb, but it is first mentioned by Masius in the 16th century. The tomb and its location have no archaeological confirmation, and its authenticity is highly suspect. Second, Jerome recounts a Jewish tradition identifying it with “a village in Galilee called ‘Helcesaei’ ” (Helcesei or Elcesi), and writes, “A very small one, indeed, and containing in its ruins hardly any traces of ancient buildings, but one which is well known to the Jews and was also pointed out to me by my guide.” This village is located about 15 miles (24.1 kilometers) northwest of the Sea of Galilee. Third, on the northern edge of the Sea of Galilee rest the ruins of Capernaum, meaning “village of Nahum.” But there is no proof that this name goes back to the prophet. Finally, some believe it should be identified with Elcesi, near Bet-gabre, about halfway between Gaza and Jerusalem in the territory of Judah. Internal evidence seems to support this position (Na 1:15).<\/li>\nIt is entirely possible that Nahum may have been a member of the northern tribes but migrated to Judah after the conquest of 722 BC<\/span> and ministered there.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Nahum, Book of; Prophet, Prophetess.<\/p>\n<li>2. Ancestor of Jesus, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:25). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>","summary_ro":"NAHUM (Person) 1. A prophet of Judah whose name means “consolation” or “consoler.” This name fits his message, as he wrote to encourage the people of Judah while they were being oppressed by the Assyrians (Na 1:1). Other than being the prophet who wrote the book of Nahum, nothing is known of him except that he came from the village of Elkosh. Its exact location is unknown, but four suggestions have been made. First, it was the town of Alqush, near Mosul on the Tigris River just north of Ninev...","summary_en":"NAHUM (Person) 1. A prophet of Judah whose name means “consolation” or “consoler.” This name fits his message, as he wrote to encourage the people of Judah while they were being oppressed by the Assyrians (Na 1:1). Other than being the prophet who wrote the book of Nahum, nothing is known of him except that he came from the village of Elkosh. Its exact location is unknown, but four suggestions have been made. First, it was the town of Alqush, near Mosul on the Tigris River just north of Ninev...","source":"Articles\/N.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":27073,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Naum*","title_en":"Naum*","content_ro":"<h3>NAUM*<\/h3>\nKJV spelling of Nahum, an ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:25). See<\/em> Nahum (Person) #2.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>NAUM*<\/h3>\nKJV spelling of Nahum, an ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:25). See<\/em> Nahum (Person) #2.<\/p>","summary_ro":"NAUM* KJV spelling of Nahum, an ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:25). See Nahum (Person) #2.","summary_en":"NAUM* KJV spelling of Nahum, an ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:25). See Nahum (Person) #2.","source":"Articles\/N.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"26":[{"id":20026,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Joda","title_en":"Joda","content_ro":"<h3>JODA<\/h3>\nJoanan’s son, the father of Josech, and a forefather of Jesus Christ living in Palestine during the postexilic era (Lk 3:26). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JODA<\/h3>\nJoanan’s son, the father of Josech, and a forefather of Jesus Christ living in Palestine during the postexilic era (Lk 3:26). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JODA Joanan’s son, the father of Josech, and a forefather of Jesus Christ living in Palestine during the postexilic era (Lk 3:26). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"JODA Joanan’s son, the father of Josech, and a forefather of Jesus Christ living in Palestine during the postexilic era (Lk 3:26). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20528,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Josech","title_en":"Josech","content_ro":"<h3>JOSECH<\/h3>\nAncestor of Jesus mentioned only in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:26). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JOSECH<\/h3>\nAncestor of Jesus mentioned only in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:26). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JOSECH Ancestor of Jesus mentioned only in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:26). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"JOSECH Ancestor of Jesus mentioned only in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:26). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20594,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Joseph","title_en":"Joseph","content_ro":"<h3>JOSEPH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Jacob’s 11th son and the firstborn son of Rachel. Rachel named the boy Joseph, meaning “may he add,” expressing her desire that God would give her another son (Gn 30:24).<\/li>\nNothing more is said about Joseph until, at the age of 17, he is seen tending his father’s flocks with his brothers (Gn 37:2). Joseph was the favorite of his father, since he was the son of his old age (v 3) and the firstborn son of his favorite wife. Because of this, his brothers hated Joseph. This envy was magnified when Jacob gave Joseph a ground-length, long-sleeved, multicolored robe (vv 3-4). (This type of garment is illustrated by the paintings in the Asiatic tombs of Khnumhotep II at Beni Hasan and of the nobles at Gurneh, near Luxor.) The animosity of his brothers increased still more when Joseph revealed to them his dreams of dominion over them (vv 5-11). Subsequently, when Joseph was sent to check on his brothers and the flocks near Shechem, his brothers sold him to a caravan of traders going down to Egypt (vv 25-28). His brothers then took his robe, dipped it in goat’s blood, and brought it to Jacob, who concluded that Joseph had been killed by wild animals (vv 31-33); Jacob was overwhelmed with grief (vv 34-35).<\/p>\nIn Egypt, Joseph was sold to Potiphar, an Egyptian officer of the guard (Gn 37:36; 39:1), who eventually put Joseph in charge of his entire household. However, trouble arose from Potiphar’s wife, who was attracted to the young Hebrew and tried to seduce him (39:6-10). He steadfastly resisted her advances, protesting that to comply with her wishes would be a disservice to his master and a sin against God (v 9). One day she seized his garment, but he left the garment behind and fled. Potiphar’s wife accused Joseph of attempted rape; her report was believed, and Joseph was incarcerated in the king’s prison (v 20), where Pharaoh’s butler and baker were also confined. While in prison, Joseph, with the Lord’s help, interpreted these men’s troublesome dreams. As Joseph had foretold, the baker was executed and the butler was restored to royal favor (ch 40).<\/p>\nTwo years later Pharaoh had two dreams that his magicians and wise men could not interpret. The butler, remembering Joseph, had him summoned from prison. God revealed to Joseph that the dreams foretold seven years of abundance, followed by seven years of famine (Gn 41:25-36). Pharaoh, impressed with Joseph’s interpretation, made him ruler of Egypt, second only to himself (vv 39-44). Joseph was given a new name, Zaphenath-paneah, and a wife, Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera (v 45).<\/p>\nJoseph was 30 years old when he became ruler of Egypt. During the seven years of prosperity, he gathered the good supplies for the seven years of famine to come (Gn 41:53-56). When the famine eventually became severe in Palestine, Jacob sent all his sons, except Benjamin, his youngest son, to Egypt to purchase grain. Appearing before Joseph in Egypt, they did not recognize him. But he knew them and remembered his dreams of years before (42:8-9). After listening to the report of their family, he accused them of being spies (vv 9-14) and insisted that they leave one of their brothers as hostage and return with Benjamin to verify the truthfulness of their report (vv 19-20). Thus Simeon was bound and left in Egypt (v 24).<\/p>\nAfter the famine worsened in Palestine, Jacob asked his sons to go back to Egypt to buy more grain (Gn 43:1-2); reluctantly agreeing to the conditions that the Egyptian administrator had placed on them, Jacob allowed Benjamin to go with them (vv 11-13). When they arrived in Egypt, they were taken to Joseph’s house, where Simeon was restored to them (v 23) and a meal was prepared for them (v 33). Joseph at last disclosed his identity and declared that God had sent him before them to preserve their lives (45:4-8). Arrangements were then made to send for Jacob; wagons were provided, along with provisions for the journey (v 21). When Jacob came to Goshen in the Nile Delta, Joseph went out to meet him, and another great reunion took place (46:28-29). He also presented his father and brothers to Pharaoh, who let them live in the land of Goshen (47:6).<\/p>\nUpon learning that his father was ill, Joseph took his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to him for his blessing. He presented the sons so that the older would be at Jacob’s right hand and the younger at his left in order that Manasseh would receive the blessing of the firstborn. Jacob, however, crossed his hands and with his right hand on Ephraim gave him the greater blessing (Gn 48:14-20). He also gave to Joseph the land that he had taken from the Amorites (v 22). At Jacob’s death, Joseph made the funeral arrangements; and after the customary funerary practices were carried out, a great funeral procession went to Canaan, where Jacob was buried by his sons in the cave of Machpelah near Hebron (50:1-12).<\/p>\nWhen Joseph was 110 years old, he called his brothers and told them that he was about to die. He made them take an oath that when they returned to Canaan they would take his bones with them. So he died, was embalmed, and was placed in a coffin in Egypt (Gn 50:26). Many years later, during the exodus, Moses took the bones of Joseph with him from Egypt (Ex 13:19). Joseph’s remains were eventually interred at Shechem in the parcel of land that Jacob had bought from Hamor, the father of Shechem (Gn 33:18-20; Jos 24:32). See<\/em> Israel, History of; Patriarchs, Period of the.<\/p>\n<li>2. Igal’s father from Issachar’s tribe. Igal was one of the 12 spies sent by Moses to search out the land of Canaan (Nm 13:7).<\/li>\n<li>3. Asaph’s second son and the leader of the first course of priests serving in the sanctuary during David’s reign (1 Chr 25:2, 9).<\/li>\n<li>4. One of Binnui’s descendants who was encouraged by Ezra to divorce his foreign wife during the postexilic era (Ezr 10:42).<\/li>\n<li>5. Priest and family leader from Shebaniah’s line during the days of Joiakim, the high priest (Neh 12:14).<\/li>\n<li>6. Descendant of David (Mt 1:16; Lk 3:23) and the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Joseph was betrothed to Mary, a young woman of the city of Nazareth. Mary had learned from the angel Gabriel that she was to bear the Son of God, whom she was to name Jesus (Lk 1:31) and that this conception was to be a work of the Holy Spirit (v 35). Joseph was not aware of this, so when he learned that Mary was pregnant, he decided to divorce her quietly, for he was a just man and did not want to humiliate her publicly (Mt 1:19). An angel subsequently appeared to him in a dream to tell him what was happening (Mt 1:21; cf. Is 7:14). The text of Matthew makes it clear that there was no sexual union between Joseph and Mary until after Jesus was born (Mt 1:18, 25; see also Lk 1:34-37).<\/li>\nWhen Caesar Augustus issued a decree that everyone had to register in his native city for purposes of taxation, Joseph and Mary returned to Bethlehem, where Jesus was subsequently born (Lk 2:1-6). Later, Joseph and Mary took the infant Jesus to the temple to present him to the Lord (vv 22, 33). After the visit of the wise men, an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream and instructed him to take Jesus and Mary to Egypt to protect the child from King Herod (Mt 2:13). Upon the death of Herod, an angel similarly advised him to return to Israel, so the family went to live in Nazareth. The last recorded event that involves Joseph is the incident of Jesus at the temple at age 12 (Lk 2:41-51). Joseph is not mentioned by name, but Mary told Jesus that she and his father had been looking for him anxiously.<\/p>\nJesus was identified by people around Nazareth as “Joseph’s son” (Lk 4:22; Jn 1:45; 6:42). It is only through references identifying Jesus that we learn of Joseph’s trade. Twice Jesus is referred to as “the carpenter’s son” (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). Joseph was not a carpenter in our sense of the word, for houses were built mostly of stone and earth. He was a woodworker or artificer in wood, and probably most of his work was with furniture and agricultural implements.<\/p>\nDuring the ministry of Jesus, it was his mother and his brothers who came to look for him (Mt 12:46-50; Mk 3:31-35), so it is assumed that by this time Joseph was dead. Joseph was most likely the father of James, Joseph, Simon, Judas, and unnamed sisters (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Brothers of Jesus; Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<li>7. Joseph and Mary’s son and the brother of Jesus (Mt 13:55); alternately called Joses in Mark 6:3. See<\/em> Brothers of Jesus.<\/li>\n<li>8. Native of Arimathea and the follower of Jesus who provided for his burial. He was a rich man from the town of Arimathea and a respected member of the Sanhedrin, or council (Mk 15:43). He was a good and righteous man and did not go along with the decision to crucify Jesus (Lk 23:50-51). Joseph had been a secret follower of Jesus because he was afraid of the Jews (Jn 19:38), but after the Crucifixion he took courage and went to Pilate to ask for Jesus’ body. He and Nicodemus took the body, treated it with spices, and wrapped it in linen cloths, according to the Jewish burial customs. In a nearby garden was Joseph’s own new rock-cut tomb in which no one had ever been buried. Here they placed Jesus and sealed the tomb with a large stone.<\/li>\n<li> 9. Mattathias’s son and an ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:25). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>10. KJV rendering of Josech, an ancestor of Jesus, in Luke 3:26. See<\/em> Josech.<\/li>\n<li>11. Jonam’s son and an ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:30). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>12. Disciple of Jesus who was “called Barsabbas” and “surnamed Justus” (Acts 1:23). Joseph was one of the candidates put forward by the 11 apostles to replace Judas Iscariot. It was Matthias, however, who was chosen.<\/li>\n<li>13. Cypriot Levite who sold a field and gave the proceeds to the apostles. He was surnamed “Barnabas,” meaning “son of encouragement,” by the apostles (Acts 4:36). See<\/em> Barnabas.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>JOSEPH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Jacob’s 11th son and the firstborn son of Rachel. Rachel named the boy Joseph, meaning “may he add,” expressing her desire that God would give her another son (Gn 30:24).<\/li>\nNothing more is said about Joseph until, at the age of 17, he is seen tending his father’s flocks with his brothers (Gn 37:2). Joseph was the favorite of his father, since he was the son of his old age (v 3) and the firstborn son of his favorite wife. Because of this, his brothers hated Joseph. This envy was magnified when Jacob gave Joseph a ground-length, long-sleeved, multicolored robe (vv 3-4). (This type of garment is illustrated by the paintings in the Asiatic tombs of Khnumhotep II at Beni Hasan and of the nobles at Gurneh, near Luxor.) The animosity of his brothers increased still more when Joseph revealed to them his dreams of dominion over them (vv 5-11). Subsequently, when Joseph was sent to check on his brothers and the flocks near Shechem, his brothers sold him to a caravan of traders going down to Egypt (vv 25-28). His brothers then took his robe, dipped it in goat’s blood, and brought it to Jacob, who concluded that Joseph had been killed by wild animals (vv 31-33); Jacob was overwhelmed with grief (vv 34-35).<\/p>\nIn Egypt, Joseph was sold to Potiphar, an Egyptian officer of the guard (Gn 37:36; 39:1), who eventually put Joseph in charge of his entire household. However, trouble arose from Potiphar’s wife, who was attracted to the young Hebrew and tried to seduce him (39:6-10). He steadfastly resisted her advances, protesting that to comply with her wishes would be a disservice to his master and a sin against God (v 9). One day she seized his garment, but he left the garment behind and fled. Potiphar’s wife accused Joseph of attempted rape; her report was believed, and Joseph was incarcerated in the king’s prison (v 20), where Pharaoh’s butler and baker were also confined. While in prison, Joseph, with the Lord’s help, interpreted these men’s troublesome dreams. As Joseph had foretold, the baker was executed and the butler was restored to royal favor (ch 40).<\/p>\nTwo years later Pharaoh had two dreams that his magicians and wise men could not interpret. The butler, remembering Joseph, had him summoned from prison. God revealed to Joseph that the dreams foretold seven years of abundance, followed by seven years of famine (Gn 41:25-36). Pharaoh, impressed with Joseph’s interpretation, made him ruler of Egypt, second only to himself (vv 39-44). Joseph was given a new name, Zaphenath-paneah, and a wife, Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera (v 45).<\/p>\nJoseph was 30 years old when he became ruler of Egypt. During the seven years of prosperity, he gathered the good supplies for the seven years of famine to come (Gn 41:53-56). When the famine eventually became severe in Palestine, Jacob sent all his sons, except Benjamin, his youngest son, to Egypt to purchase grain. Appearing before Joseph in Egypt, they did not recognize him. But he knew them and remembered his dreams of years before (42:8-9). After listening to the report of their family, he accused them of being spies (vv 9-14) and insisted that they leave one of their brothers as hostage and return with Benjamin to verify the truthfulness of their report (vv 19-20). Thus Simeon was bound and left in Egypt (v 24).<\/p>\nAfter the famine worsened in Palestine, Jacob asked his sons to go back to Egypt to buy more grain (Gn 43:1-2); reluctantly agreeing to the conditions that the Egyptian administrator had placed on them, Jacob allowed Benjamin to go with them (vv 11-13). When they arrived in Egypt, they were taken to Joseph’s house, where Simeon was restored to them (v 23) and a meal was prepared for them (v 33). Joseph at last disclosed his identity and declared that God had sent him before them to preserve their lives (45:4-8). Arrangements were then made to send for Jacob; wagons were provided, along with provisions for the journey (v 21). When Jacob came to Goshen in the Nile Delta, Joseph went out to meet him, and another great reunion took place (46:28-29). He also presented his father and brothers to Pharaoh, who let them live in the land of Goshen (47:6).<\/p>\nUpon learning that his father was ill, Joseph took his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to him for his blessing. He presented the sons so that the older would be at Jacob’s right hand and the younger at his left in order that Manasseh would receive the blessing of the firstborn. Jacob, however, crossed his hands and with his right hand on Ephraim gave him the greater blessing (Gn 48:14-20). He also gave to Joseph the land that he had taken from the Amorites (v 22). At Jacob’s death, Joseph made the funeral arrangements; and after the customary funerary practices were carried out, a great funeral procession went to Canaan, where Jacob was buried by his sons in the cave of Machpelah near Hebron (50:1-12).<\/p>\nWhen Joseph was 110 years old, he called his brothers and told them that he was about to die. He made them take an oath that when they returned to Canaan they would take his bones with them. So he died, was embalmed, and was placed in a coffin in Egypt (Gn 50:26). Many years later, during the exodus, Moses took the bones of Joseph with him from Egypt (Ex 13:19). Joseph’s remains were eventually interred at Shechem in the parcel of land that Jacob had bought from Hamor, the father of Shechem (Gn 33:18-20; Jos 24:32). See<\/em> Israel, History of; Patriarchs, Period of the.<\/p>\n<li>2. Igal’s father from Issachar’s tribe. Igal was one of the 12 spies sent by Moses to search out the land of Canaan (Nm 13:7).<\/li>\n<li>3. Asaph’s second son and the leader of the first course of priests serving in the sanctuary during David’s reign (1 Chr 25:2, 9).<\/li>\n<li>4. One of Binnui’s descendants who was encouraged by Ezra to divorce his foreign wife during the postexilic era (Ezr 10:42).<\/li>\n<li>5. Priest and family leader from Shebaniah’s line during the days of Joiakim, the high priest (Neh 12:14).<\/li>\n<li>6. Descendant of David (Mt 1:16; Lk 3:23) and the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Joseph was betrothed to Mary, a young woman of the city of Nazareth. Mary had learned from the angel Gabriel that she was to bear the Son of God, whom she was to name Jesus (Lk 1:31) and that this conception was to be a work of the Holy Spirit (v 35). Joseph was not aware of this, so when he learned that Mary was pregnant, he decided to divorce her quietly, for he was a just man and did not want to humiliate her publicly (Mt 1:19). An angel subsequently appeared to him in a dream to tell him what was happening (Mt 1:21; cf. Is 7:14). The text of Matthew makes it clear that there was no sexual union between Joseph and Mary until after Jesus was born (Mt 1:18, 25; see also Lk 1:34-37).<\/li>\nWhen Caesar Augustus issued a decree that everyone had to register in his native city for purposes of taxation, Joseph and Mary returned to Bethlehem, where Jesus was subsequently born (Lk 2:1-6). Later, Joseph and Mary took the infant Jesus to the temple to present him to the Lord (vv 22, 33). After the visit of the wise men, an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream and instructed him to take Jesus and Mary to Egypt to protect the child from King Herod (Mt 2:13). Upon the death of Herod, an angel similarly advised him to return to Israel, so the family went to live in Nazareth. The last recorded event that involves Joseph is the incident of Jesus at the temple at age 12 (Lk 2:41-51). Joseph is not mentioned by name, but Mary told Jesus that she and his father had been looking for him anxiously.<\/p>\nJesus was identified by people around Nazareth as “Joseph’s son” (Lk 4:22; Jn 1:45; 6:42). It is only through references identifying Jesus that we learn of Joseph’s trade. Twice Jesus is referred to as “the carpenter’s son” (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). Joseph was not a carpenter in our sense of the word, for houses were built mostly of stone and earth. He was a woodworker or artificer in wood, and probably most of his work was with furniture and agricultural implements.<\/p>\nDuring the ministry of Jesus, it was his mother and his brothers who came to look for him (Mt 12:46-50; Mk 3:31-35), so it is assumed that by this time Joseph was dead. Joseph was most likely the father of James, Joseph, Simon, Judas, and unnamed sisters (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Brothers of Jesus; Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<li>7. Joseph and Mary’s son and the brother of Jesus (Mt 13:55); alternately called Joses in Mark 6:3. See<\/em> Brothers of Jesus.<\/li>\n<li>8. Native of Arimathea and the follower of Jesus who provided for his burial. He was a rich man from the town of Arimathea and a respected member of the Sanhedrin, or council (Mk 15:43). He was a good and righteous man and did not go along with the decision to crucify Jesus (Lk 23:50-51). Joseph had been a secret follower of Jesus because he was afraid of the Jews (Jn 19:38), but after the Crucifixion he took courage and went to Pilate to ask for Jesus’ body. He and Nicodemus took the body, treated it with spices, and wrapped it in linen cloths, according to the Jewish burial customs. In a nearby garden was Joseph’s own new rock-cut tomb in which no one had ever been buried. Here they placed Jesus and sealed the tomb with a large stone.<\/li>\n<li> 9. Mattathias’s son and an ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:25). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>10. KJV rendering of Josech, an ancestor of Jesus, in Luke 3:26. See<\/em> Josech.<\/li>\n<li>11. Jonam’s son and an ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:30). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>12. Disciple of Jesus who was “called Barsabbas” and “surnamed Justus” (Acts 1:23). Joseph was one of the candidates put forward by the 11 apostles to replace Judas Iscariot. It was Matthias, however, who was chosen.<\/li>\n<li>13. Cypriot Levite who sold a field and gave the proceeds to the apostles. He was surnamed “Barnabas,” meaning “son of encouragement,” by the apostles (Acts 4:36). See<\/em> Barnabas.<\/li>","summary_ro":"JOSEPH 1. Jacob’s 11th son and the firstborn son of Rachel. Rachel named the boy Joseph, meaning “may he add,” expressing her desire that God would give her another son (Gn 30:24). Nothing more is said about Joseph until, at the age of 17, he is seen tending his father’s flocks with his brothers (Gn 37:2). Joseph was the favorite of his father, since he was the son of his old age (v 3) and the firstborn son of his favorite wife. Because of this, his brothers hated Joseph. This envy was magnif...","summary_en":"JOSEPH 1. Jacob’s 11th son and the firstborn son of Rachel. Rachel named the boy Joseph, meaning “may he add,” expressing her desire that God would give her another son (Gn 30:24). Nothing more is said about Joseph until, at the age of 17, he is seen tending his father’s flocks with his brothers (Gn 37:2). Joseph was the favorite of his father, since he was the son of his old age (v 3) and the firstborn son of his favorite wife. Because of this, his brothers hated Joseph. This envy was magnif...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20984,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Juda* (Person)","title_en":"Juda* (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>JUDA* (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Alternate kjv<\/span> spelling of Judas, Jesus’ brother, in Mark 6:3. Judas is also called Jude in Jude 1. See<\/em> Jude (Person).<\/li>\n<li>2. Alternate kjv<\/span> spelling of Joda, Joanan’s son, in Luke 3:26. See<\/em> Joda.<\/li>\n<li>3. Alternate kjv<\/span> spelling of Judah, Joseph’s son, in Luke 3:30. See<\/em> Judah (Person) #8.<\/li>\n<li>4. Alternate kjv<\/span> spelling of Judah, Jacob’s son, in Luke 3:33. See<\/em> Judah (Person) #1.<\/li>\n<li>5. Alternate kjv<\/span> spelling for Judah’s tribe (Heb 7:14; Rv 5:5; 7:5). See<\/em> Judah, Tribe of.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>JUDA* (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Alternate kjv<\/span> spelling of Judas, Jesus’ brother, in Mark 6:3. Judas is also called Jude in Jude 1. See<\/em> Jude (Person).<\/li>\n<li>2. Alternate kjv<\/span> spelling of Joda, Joanan’s son, in Luke 3:26. See<\/em> Joda.<\/li>\n<li>3. Alternate kjv<\/span> spelling of Judah, Joseph’s son, in Luke 3:30. See<\/em> Judah (Person) #8.<\/li>\n<li>4. Alternate kjv<\/span> spelling of Judah, Jacob’s son, in Luke 3:33. See<\/em> Judah (Person) #1.<\/li>\n<li>5. Alternate kjv<\/span> spelling for Judah’s tribe (Heb 7:14; Rv 5:5; 7:5). See<\/em> Judah, Tribe of.<\/li>","summary_ro":"JUDA* (Person) 1. Alternate kjv spelling of Judas, Jesus’ brother, in Mark 6:3. Judas is also called Jude in Jude 1. See Jude (Person). 2. Alternate kjv spelling of Joda, Joanan’s son, in Luke 3:26. See Joda. 3. Alternate kjv spelling of Judah, Joseph’s son, in Luke 3:30. See Judah (Person) #8. 4. Alternate kjv spelling of Judah, Jacob’s son, in Luke 3:33. See Judah (Person) #1. 5. Alternate kjv spelling for Judah’s tribe (Heb 7:14; Rv 5:5; 7:5). See Judah, Tribe of.","summary_en":"JUDA* (Person) 1. Alternate kjv spelling of Judas, Jesus’ brother, in Mark 6:3. Judas is also called Jude in Jude 1. See Jude (Person). 2. Alternate kjv spelling of Joda, Joanan’s son, in Luke 3:26. See Joda. 3. Alternate kjv spelling of Judah, Joseph’s son, in Luke 3:30. See Judah (Person) #8. 4. Alternate kjv spelling of Judah, Jacob’s son, in Luke 3:33. See Judah (Person) #1. 5. Alternate kjv spelling for Judah’s tribe (Heb 7:14; Rv 5:5; 7:5). See Judah, Tribe of.","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":23782,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Maath","title_en":"Maath","content_ro":"<h3>MAATH<\/h3>\nAncestor of Jesus in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:26). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MAATH<\/h3>\nAncestor of Jesus in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:26). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MAATH Ancestor of Jesus in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:26). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"MAATH Ancestor of Jesus in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:26). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24656,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Mattathias","title_en":"Mattathias","content_ro":"<h3>MATTATHIAS<\/h3>\n<li>1. Member of the priestly family of Joarib (his genealogy can be traced in 1 Macc 2:1 and in Josephus’s Antiquities<\/em> 12.6.3). He was a native of Jerusalem who settled in Modein and became the father of the nationalistic leaders, the Maccabeans, who led the Jewish revolt against the Syrians (167 BC<\/span>). In his attempt to wipe out Judaism and establish Hellenism, Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria, outlawed Jewish sacrifices, built pagan altars (including one to Zeus in the temple), and executed anyone who possessed the law (1 Macc 2:1-49). Mattathias ignited the revolt against this oppression when Greek officers set up a pagan altar at Modein and ordered that sacrifices be offered to heathen gods. Mattathias refused, killed the Jew who volunteered, killed the Greek officer, destroyed the altar, and fled to the hills with a band of followers. He led guerrilla warfare against the Syrians, continued to circumcise children, and made strenuous efforts to preserve the law. His motto was “Let everyone who is zealous for the law come after me.”<\/li>\nHe led the revolt for about a year and died, probably in 167 BC<\/span>. His last bequest to his sons was “Obey the ordinance of the law.” He was succeeded in military leadership by his son Judas, and the Hasmonean dynasty of priests were his descendants. He is remembered in special Hanukkah prayers because of his zeal in fighting for religious freedom.<\/p>\n<li>2. Amos’s son and an ancestor of Jesus, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:25). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>3. Semein’s son and an ancestor of Jesus, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:26). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>MATTATHIAS<\/h3>\n<li>1. Member of the priestly family of Joarib (his genealogy can be traced in 1 Macc 2:1 and in Josephus’s Antiquities<\/em> 12.6.3). He was a native of Jerusalem who settled in Modein and became the father of the nationalistic leaders, the Maccabeans, who led the Jewish revolt against the Syrians (167 BC<\/span>). In his attempt to wipe out Judaism and establish Hellenism, Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria, outlawed Jewish sacrifices, built pagan altars (including one to Zeus in the temple), and executed anyone who possessed the law (1 Macc 2:1-49). Mattathias ignited the revolt against this oppression when Greek officers set up a pagan altar at Modein and ordered that sacrifices be offered to heathen gods. Mattathias refused, killed the Jew who volunteered, killed the Greek officer, destroyed the altar, and fled to the hills with a band of followers. He led guerrilla warfare against the Syrians, continued to circumcise children, and made strenuous efforts to preserve the law. His motto was “Let everyone who is zealous for the law come after me.”<\/li>\nHe led the revolt for about a year and died, probably in 167 BC<\/span>. His last bequest to his sons was “Obey the ordinance of the law.” He was succeeded in military leadership by his son Judas, and the Hasmonean dynasty of priests were his descendants. He is remembered in special Hanukkah prayers because of his zeal in fighting for religious freedom.<\/p>\n<li>2. Amos’s son and an ancestor of Jesus, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:25). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>3. Semein’s son and an ancestor of Jesus, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:26). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>","summary_ro":"MATTATHIAS 1. Member of the priestly family of Joarib (his genealogy can be traced in 1 Macc 2:1 and in Josephus’s Antiquities 12.6.3). He was a native of Jerusalem who settled in Modein and became the father of the nationalistic leaders, the Maccabeans, who led the Jewish revolt against the Syrians (167 BC). In his attempt to wipe out Judaism and establish Hellenism, Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria, outlawed Jewish sacrifices, built pagan altars (including one to Zeus in the temple), and ...","summary_en":"MATTATHIAS 1. Member of the priestly family of Joarib (his genealogy can be traced in 1 Macc 2:1 and in Josephus’s Antiquities 12.6.3). He was a native of Jerusalem who settled in Modein and became the father of the nationalistic leaders, the Maccabeans, who led the Jewish revolt against the Syrians (167 BC). In his attempt to wipe out Judaism and establish Hellenism, Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria, outlawed Jewish sacrifices, built pagan altars (including one to Zeus in the temple), and ...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":34330,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Semei*, Semein","title_en":"Semei*, Semein","content_ro":"<h3>SEMEI*, SEMEIN<\/h3>\nDescendant of Josech and an ancestor of Jesus Christ (Lk 3:26). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SEMEI*, SEMEIN<\/h3>\nDescendant of Josech and an ancestor of Jesus Christ (Lk 3:26). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SEMEI*, SEMEIN Descendant of Josech and an ancestor of Jesus Christ (Lk 3:26). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"SEMEI*, SEMEIN Descendant of Josech and an ancestor of Jesus Christ (Lk 3:26). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"27":[{"id":13475,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Genealogy of Jesus Christ","title_en":"Genealogy of Jesus Christ","content_ro":"<h3>GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST<\/h3>\nAccount of Jesus’ human descent. The NT records Jesus’ genealogy twice in great detail: in Matthew 1:1-17 and in Luke 3:23-38.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Matthew’s Genealogy<\/p>\n• Luke’s Genealogy<\/p>\n• The Relationship between the Two Records<\/p>\nMatthew’s Genealogy (1:1-17)<\/p>\nMatthew 1:1 presents Jesus Christ as “the son of David, the son of Abraham.” By those two names, Matthew highlights Jesus’ earthly relationship to the Abrahamic (Gn 17:1-8) and Davidic (2 Sm 7:12-16) covenants of promise. Then beginning with the patriarch Abraham, Matthew traces Jesus’ human ancestry through King David to Joseph, “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ” (Mt 1:16). Matthew summarizes his account: “So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations” (v 17, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nAn examination of Matthew’s handling of this genealogical material discloses several interesting peculiarities:<\/p>\n\n1. The arrangement of the names into three groups of 14 seems to be an artificial device.<\/p>\n<li>2. To have 14 names in the second group, Matthew omits three kings—Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah—between Joram and Uzziah (v 8), and one, Jehoiakim, between Josiah and Jeconiah (v 11).<\/li>\n<li>3. In the first group Matthew mentions three women—Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth; and in the second group, he alludes to Bathsheba. This is an uncommon practice in genealogies, and all the more strange when it is noted that these four represent what could be regarded as moral blemishes in the history of the Davidic dynasty— Tamar, a victim of incest; Rahab, a prostitute; Ruth, a Moabitess; and Bathsheba, an adulteress.<\/li>\n<li>4. In the first group Matthew mentions Judah’s brothers and Zerah, Perez’s brother. In the second group he refers to Jeconiah’s brothers.<\/li>\n<li>5. In verse 6 David is called “the king.”<\/li>\nFrom these data, it is obvious that Matthew does not intend to present a strict genealogy; the arrangement is contrived, and extraneous material is included, probably for some other purpose than merely to present Jesus’ forebears. Matthew’s arrangement of the names into groups of 14, probably guided by an interest in portraying Jesus to Jews as the promised king of Israel and rightful heir to the Davidic throne, gives a definite historical movement to the genealogy by dividing it into three periods of time. These respectively highlight the origin, rise to power, and decay of the Davidic house, the last point represented by the lowly birth of the promised heir to a carpenter of Nazareth.<\/p>\nThe 14 names in each group may be an effort to call attention to the thrice-royal character of Mary’s son by focusing on the numerical value 14 of the Hebrew letters in David’s name (d=4, v=6, d=4). This number also happens to be twice the sacred number seven, so that the whole list is composed of three sets of two sevens each. It may be, however, that the contrived groupings were merely intended to aid in memorization.<\/p>\nWith respect to the second peculiarity—the “missing name” in the third group—one must conclude that either David or Jeconiah is to be counted twice, these being the pivotal names separating the three groups, or that a name was mistakenly dropped out in a copy of Matthew’s original Gospel.<\/p>\nThe third peculiarity presents no difficulty at all. Numerous genealogies in Scripture omit some names. Ancient Near Eastern writers often used the phrase “the son of,” or the word “begat,” quite flexibly, relating grandsons or great-grandsons, for instance, to earlier forebears without indicating every intervening ancestor. The modern mind should not require a precision in ancient records that ancient writers themselves did not insist on.<\/p>\nThe women listed in the genealogy—the fourth peculiarity—may have been intended to disarm Jewish criticism about Jesus’ birth (1:18-25) by showing that irregular unions were not disqualifications for the Messiah’s legal ancestry.<\/p>\nThe reason for including several brothers in the genealogy at three points—the fifth peculiarity—is not readily discernible. The mention of “Judah and his brothers” (1:2) may simply be following an established practice of speaking of the 12 patriarchs together.<\/p>\nFinally, David’s description as “the king” (1:6) underscores the Davidic or royal character of the list.<\/p>\nThe sources employed in compiling the first group in the genealogy drew upon records preserved in 1 Chronicles 1:27–2:15 and in Ruth 4:18-22. The second group followed the records found in 1—2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. The third group relied mainly on public or private records from the intertestamental period; the nine names from Abiud to Jacob are not mentioned elsewhere in Scripture.<\/p>\nOn the basis of this genealogy, if there had been a Davidic throne in Joseph’s day, the lowly carpenter would have been the legal heir to it, and Jesus stood after him as the next in line to inherit the royal seat.<\/p>\nIt has been argued against this understanding of Matthew’s genealogy that the presence of Jeconiah in the list (Mt 1:11) jeopardizes, if not completely negates, the legal claim to the Davidic throne of everyone descending directly from him. That is because the Lord declared of him: “Write this man down as childless, . . . for none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David, and ruling again in Judah” (Jer 22:30, rsv<\/span>). Therefore, it is said, it could not have been Matthew’s intention to represent the men from Shealtiel to Joseph as legal heirs to the throne.<\/p>\nThis is a point that admittedly could dispose of the view that the list presents David’s descendants if it were not for the fact that Shealtiel, who in Matthew’s record is represented as the son of Jeconiah, appears also in Luke’s genealogy as the son of Neri (Lk 3:27). Neri’s name is unique to Luke’s Gospel, so it is impossible to check its use elsewhere to discover the actual parentage of Shealtiel. But it is not surprising in the light of Jeremiah 22:30 to find him listed in both accounts with different parents. Neri most likely was Shealtiel’s real father, and while it is impossible to determine Neri’s precise relationship to Jeconiah, it may be that those responsible for determining and keeping the record of the legal heirs to the Davidic throne looked to the collateral line of Neri and selected Shealtiel as the man to be legally adopted into the line and the one through whom the line would continue. Shealtiel may well have died without a male descendant, which made it necessary to look to Zerubbabel, the son of Pedaiah, Shealtiel’s brother by adoption, as the legal heir to the Davidic throne. By this pair of adoptions, the curse upon Jeconiah was fulfilled while an actual grandson of Jeconiah continued the line, inasmuch as the grandson was legally the son of Shealtiel, who in turn was the actual son of Neri. Jeconiah’s presence in the genealogy is a strength, rather than a weakness, for the interpretation that Matthew’s Gospel intended to present the legal heirs of the Davidic throne, since only a writer conscious of the problems surrounding Jeconiah’s lineage, but also aware of an explanation, would present such an ancestry to a Jewish audience he was seeking to convince that Jesus was indeed the royal Messiah.<\/p>\nLuke’s Genealogy (3:23-38)<\/p>\nLuke’s genealogy also has peculiarities.<\/p>\n1. Some expositors have thought it significant that Luke’s genealogy appears not at the beginning of the Gospel but at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry.<\/p>\n<li>2. Luke’s account, in contrast to Matthew’s, begins with Jesus and traces his lineage back through OT history. This seems irregular, for most genealogies follow the order of succession.<\/li>\n<li>3. Luke’s account, furthermore, does not end with Abraham but goes all the way back to “Adam, the son of God” (Lk 3:38).<\/li>\nSome have seen the first peculiarity as a result of Luke’s desire to bring a period of sacred history to its close, and to signal the beginning of another with the person and especially the ministry of Jesus. The genealogy, located as it is, sets off the work of Christ from the accounts of his birth and preparation.<\/p>\nMany have suggested that the regressive order in the genealogy is probably Luke’s instrument to focus attention on Jesus. The fact that Luke traced Jesus’ ancestry back to Adam, “the son of God,” was probably due to the fact that he wrote for Romans and Greeks. By tracing Jesus’ ancestry back to Adam, he shows Jesus to be related to the whole human race. In Luke’s genealogy Jesus and Adam are both “sons of God”; Jesus, of course, is the son of God by nature; Adam, the son of God by having been created in God’s image.<\/p>\nAs to his sources, it is rather certain that Luke used the Septuagint version (ancient Greek version of the OT) of Genesis 11:12, which inserts the name Cainan between Shelah and Arphaxad (Lk 3:36), and the records of 1 Chronicles 1–3 for the history down to David. For the period from David to Jesus, most expositors agree that Luke relied upon information probably received directly from Mary or from persons close to her. It was a common practice among the Jewish people for genealogical records to be maintained both publicly and privately. There was special concern in families of Davidic descent to preserve their ancestral records because of OT prophecies that Messiah would be born in the house of David.<\/p>\nLuke no doubt intended to accomplish more by his list than merely a presentation of a number of Jesus’ ancestors. Since Luke did not highlight David in his list, it may be assumed that he was not zealous to present a list of legal heirs to the Davidic throne—not that the issue is of no concern to him (cf. Lk 1:27, 32, 69; 2:4, 11). Rather, a concern throughout Luke’s Gospel is this emphasis—that of portraying the Christ as the Savior of Romans and Greeks—indeed, of the world. Therefore, though Luke traced Jesus’ ancestry through Joseph’s ancestral line to David, he continued beyond David to Adam. Jesus is a member of the race to which all people belong.<\/p>\nThe Relationship between the Two Records<\/p>\nEven a cursory examination of the two genealogies of Jesus will show several differences. For example, Matthew’s genealogy comprises 41 generations, while Luke lists 76. Luke includes the period between Adam and Abraham; Matthew does not. While the two lists are practically identical from Abraham to David, they diverge for the period from David to Jesus, Matthew tracing Jesus’ lineage from David through Solomon in 27 generations, whereas Luke traces Jesus’ lineage from David through Nathan, another son, in 42 generations. Furthermore, at only one point do the lines converge during this period: at the names of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, who are doubtless the same men in both lists. Finally, Matthew represents Joseph as the son of Jacob (Mt 1:16), whereas in Luke’s account he is the son of Heli (Lk 3:23).<\/p>\nHow are these differences to be explained? The differences between these lists stem from the purposes for which they were compiled and the meanings they were intended to convey.<\/p>\nA widely held explanation is that Matthew gives Jesus’ ancestry through Joseph and that Luke gives his ancestry through Mary. On this interpretation Jacob was Joseph’s real father, and Heli (probably Mary’s father) became Joseph’s foster father, that is, Joseph was Heli’s “son,” or heir, by his marriage to Mary, assuming that Heli had no sons (cf. Nm 27:1-11; 36:1-12). This view is certainly a possibility and should not be rejected out of hand. If Mary was a direct descendant of David, it could be literally said of any son of hers, “He is the seed of David.”<\/p>\nOn the other hand, many scholars prefer to regard Luke’s genealogy as that of Joseph rather than Mary, since it is to Joseph’s ancestry that Luke calls the reader’s attention (Lk 1:27; 2:4). Furthermore, nowhere in Scripture is Mary said to be of Davidic descent. If the fact that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus nullifies any value that Joseph’s lineage might otherwise possess for a real son, why does Luke point to Joseph’s lineage twice, and to Mary’s not at all?<\/p>\nA major difficulty for the view that regards both genealogies as Joseph’s is related to Joseph’s two fathers. One solution is that Matthew gives the legal descendants of David but Luke gives the actual descendants of David in the line to which Joseph belonged. This would mean that Heli was Joseph’s real father and that Jacob was his legal foster father. How this could be is readily explainable. Assuming that Jacob’s father, Matthan (Mt 1:15), and Heli’s father, Matthat (Lk 3:24), are the same person, then Jacob (the elder) may have died without a male descendant so that his nephew, the son of his brother Heli, would have become his heir.<\/p>\nIf Matthan and Matthat are not the same person, one might postulate that Jacob, the legal heir to the throne, died without a descendant and that Joseph, son of Heli, became the legal heir immediately upon the death of Heli and was counted as Jacob’s son in a list of legal heirs to the throne. Possibly Heli, a relative, married Jacob’s widow, thereby making Joseph, the son of that union, Heli’s son and Jacob’s son by levirate marriage. In other words, there are a number of possible explanations of this divergence.<\/p>\nOne other major objection to the view that regards both genealogies as Joseph’s is that, because of the virgin birth of Jesus, one may in no sense speak of Jesus as being literally the seed of David—a proposition that Scripture seems to insist upon. This objection has been adequately countered: (1) because of the realistic manner in which the Jews looked upon adoptive fatherhood; and (2) because the relationship in which Jesus stood to Joseph was much closer than a case of ordinary adoption, there being no earthly father to dispute Joseph’s paternal relation to Jesus. Jesus could and would have been regarded as Joseph’s son and heir with complete propriety, satisfying every scriptural demand that he be the “seed of David.” The question, therefore, whether Mary as well as Joseph was a descendant of David does not need to be answered one way or the other by one who desires to defend Jesus’ Davidic descent.<\/p>\nIt is beyond human reach to discover for certain the full solution to the divergences between the two genealogies of Jesus, or the actual relationship of Jesus to them. Enough has been said to demonstrate that they are reconcilable, and the purposes of each, suggested here, indicate that either of the ways outlined above does full justice to the Davidic descent of Jesus, as rightful heir to his ancestor’s covenanted throne, and also to his virgin birth by Mary.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy; Incarnation; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Virgin Birth of Jesus.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST<\/h3>\nAccount of Jesus’ human descent. The NT records Jesus’ genealogy twice in great detail: in Matthew 1:1-17 and in Luke 3:23-38.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Matthew’s Genealogy<\/p>\n• Luke’s Genealogy<\/p>\n• The Relationship between the Two Records<\/p>\nMatthew’s Genealogy (1:1-17)<\/p>\nMatthew 1:1 presents Jesus Christ as “the son of David, the son of Abraham.” By those two names, Matthew highlights Jesus’ earthly relationship to the Abrahamic (Gn 17:1-8) and Davidic (2 Sm 7:12-16) covenants of promise. Then beginning with the patriarch Abraham, Matthew traces Jesus’ human ancestry through King David to Joseph, “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ” (Mt 1:16). Matthew summarizes his account: “So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations” (v 17, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nAn examination of Matthew’s handling of this genealogical material discloses several interesting peculiarities:<\/p>\n\n1. The arrangement of the names into three groups of 14 seems to be an artificial device.<\/p>\n<li>2. To have 14 names in the second group, Matthew omits three kings—Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah—between Joram and Uzziah (v 8), and one, Jehoiakim, between Josiah and Jeconiah (v 11).<\/li>\n<li>3. In the first group Matthew mentions three women—Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth; and in the second group, he alludes to Bathsheba. This is an uncommon practice in genealogies, and all the more strange when it is noted that these four represent what could be regarded as moral blemishes in the history of the Davidic dynasty— Tamar, a victim of incest; Rahab, a prostitute; Ruth, a Moabitess; and Bathsheba, an adulteress.<\/li>\n<li>4. In the first group Matthew mentions Judah’s brothers and Zerah, Perez’s brother. In the second group he refers to Jeconiah’s brothers.<\/li>\n<li>5. In verse 6 David is called “the king.”<\/li>\nFrom these data, it is obvious that Matthew does not intend to present a strict genealogy; the arrangement is contrived, and extraneous material is included, probably for some other purpose than merely to present Jesus’ forebears. Matthew’s arrangement of the names into groups of 14, probably guided by an interest in portraying Jesus to Jews as the promised king of Israel and rightful heir to the Davidic throne, gives a definite historical movement to the genealogy by dividing it into three periods of time. These respectively highlight the origin, rise to power, and decay of the Davidic house, the last point represented by the lowly birth of the promised heir to a carpenter of Nazareth.<\/p>\nThe 14 names in each group may be an effort to call attention to the thrice-royal character of Mary’s son by focusing on the numerical value 14 of the Hebrew letters in David’s name (d=4, v=6, d=4). This number also happens to be twice the sacred number seven, so that the whole list is composed of three sets of two sevens each. It may be, however, that the contrived groupings were merely intended to aid in memorization.<\/p>\nWith respect to the second peculiarity—the “missing name” in the third group—one must conclude that either David or Jeconiah is to be counted twice, these being the pivotal names separating the three groups, or that a name was mistakenly dropped out in a copy of Matthew’s original Gospel.<\/p>\nThe third peculiarity presents no difficulty at all. Numerous genealogies in Scripture omit some names. Ancient Near Eastern writers often used the phrase “the son of,” or the word “begat,” quite flexibly, relating grandsons or great-grandsons, for instance, to earlier forebears without indicating every intervening ancestor. The modern mind should not require a precision in ancient records that ancient writers themselves did not insist on.<\/p>\nThe women listed in the genealogy—the fourth peculiarity—may have been intended to disarm Jewish criticism about Jesus’ birth (1:18-25) by showing that irregular unions were not disqualifications for the Messiah’s legal ancestry.<\/p>\nThe reason for including several brothers in the genealogy at three points—the fifth peculiarity—is not readily discernible. The mention of “Judah and his brothers” (1:2) may simply be following an established practice of speaking of the 12 patriarchs together.<\/p>\nFinally, David’s description as “the king” (1:6) underscores the Davidic or royal character of the list.<\/p>\nThe sources employed in compiling the first group in the genealogy drew upon records preserved in 1 Chronicles 1:27–2:15 and in Ruth 4:18-22. The second group followed the records found in 1—2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. The third group relied mainly on public or private records from the intertestamental period; the nine names from Abiud to Jacob are not mentioned elsewhere in Scripture.<\/p>\nOn the basis of this genealogy, if there had been a Davidic throne in Joseph’s day, the lowly carpenter would have been the legal heir to it, and Jesus stood after him as the next in line to inherit the royal seat.<\/p>\nIt has been argued against this understanding of Matthew’s genealogy that the presence of Jeconiah in the list (Mt 1:11) jeopardizes, if not completely negates, the legal claim to the Davidic throne of everyone descending directly from him. That is because the Lord declared of him: “Write this man down as childless, . . . for none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David, and ruling again in Judah” (Jer 22:30, rsv<\/span>). Therefore, it is said, it could not have been Matthew’s intention to represent the men from Shealtiel to Joseph as legal heirs to the throne.<\/p>\nThis is a point that admittedly could dispose of the view that the list presents David’s descendants if it were not for the fact that Shealtiel, who in Matthew’s record is represented as the son of Jeconiah, appears also in Luke’s genealogy as the son of Neri (Lk 3:27). Neri’s name is unique to Luke’s Gospel, so it is impossible to check its use elsewhere to discover the actual parentage of Shealtiel. But it is not surprising in the light of Jeremiah 22:30 to find him listed in both accounts with different parents. Neri most likely was Shealtiel’s real father, and while it is impossible to determine Neri’s precise relationship to Jeconiah, it may be that those responsible for determining and keeping the record of the legal heirs to the Davidic throne looked to the collateral line of Neri and selected Shealtiel as the man to be legally adopted into the line and the one through whom the line would continue. Shealtiel may well have died without a male descendant, which made it necessary to look to Zerubbabel, the son of Pedaiah, Shealtiel’s brother by adoption, as the legal heir to the Davidic throne. By this pair of adoptions, the curse upon Jeconiah was fulfilled while an actual grandson of Jeconiah continued the line, inasmuch as the grandson was legally the son of Shealtiel, who in turn was the actual son of Neri. Jeconiah’s presence in the genealogy is a strength, rather than a weakness, for the interpretation that Matthew’s Gospel intended to present the legal heirs of the Davidic throne, since only a writer conscious of the problems surrounding Jeconiah’s lineage, but also aware of an explanation, would present such an ancestry to a Jewish audience he was seeking to convince that Jesus was indeed the royal Messiah.<\/p>\nLuke’s Genealogy (3:23-38)<\/p>\nLuke’s genealogy also has peculiarities.<\/p>\n1. Some expositors have thought it significant that Luke’s genealogy appears not at the beginning of the Gospel but at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry.<\/p>\n<li>2. Luke’s account, in contrast to Matthew’s, begins with Jesus and traces his lineage back through OT history. This seems irregular, for most genealogies follow the order of succession.<\/li>\n<li>3. Luke’s account, furthermore, does not end with Abraham but goes all the way back to “Adam, the son of God” (Lk 3:38).<\/li>\nSome have seen the first peculiarity as a result of Luke’s desire to bring a period of sacred history to its close, and to signal the beginning of another with the person and especially the ministry of Jesus. The genealogy, located as it is, sets off the work of Christ from the accounts of his birth and preparation.<\/p>\nMany have suggested that the regressive order in the genealogy is probably Luke’s instrument to focus attention on Jesus. The fact that Luke traced Jesus’ ancestry back to Adam, “the son of God,” was probably due to the fact that he wrote for Romans and Greeks. By tracing Jesus’ ancestry back to Adam, he shows Jesus to be related to the whole human race. In Luke’s genealogy Jesus and Adam are both “sons of God”; Jesus, of course, is the son of God by nature; Adam, the son of God by having been created in God’s image.<\/p>\nAs to his sources, it is rather certain that Luke used the Septuagint version (ancient Greek version of the OT) of Genesis 11:12, which inserts the name Cainan between Shelah and Arphaxad (Lk 3:36), and the records of 1 Chronicles 1–3 for the history down to David. For the period from David to Jesus, most expositors agree that Luke relied upon information probably received directly from Mary or from persons close to her. It was a common practice among the Jewish people for genealogical records to be maintained both publicly and privately. There was special concern in families of Davidic descent to preserve their ancestral records because of OT prophecies that Messiah would be born in the house of David.<\/p>\nLuke no doubt intended to accomplish more by his list than merely a presentation of a number of Jesus’ ancestors. Since Luke did not highlight David in his list, it may be assumed that he was not zealous to present a list of legal heirs to the Davidic throne—not that the issue is of no concern to him (cf. Lk 1:27, 32, 69; 2:4, 11). Rather, a concern throughout Luke’s Gospel is this emphasis—that of portraying the Christ as the Savior of Romans and Greeks—indeed, of the world. Therefore, though Luke traced Jesus’ ancestry through Joseph’s ancestral line to David, he continued beyond David to Adam. Jesus is a member of the race to which all people belong.<\/p>\nThe Relationship between the Two Records<\/p>\nEven a cursory examination of the two genealogies of Jesus will show several differences. For example, Matthew’s genealogy comprises 41 generations, while Luke lists 76. Luke includes the period between Adam and Abraham; Matthew does not. While the two lists are practically identical from Abraham to David, they diverge for the period from David to Jesus, Matthew tracing Jesus’ lineage from David through Solomon in 27 generations, whereas Luke traces Jesus’ lineage from David through Nathan, another son, in 42 generations. Furthermore, at only one point do the lines converge during this period: at the names of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, who are doubtless the same men in both lists. Finally, Matthew represents Joseph as the son of Jacob (Mt 1:16), whereas in Luke’s account he is the son of Heli (Lk 3:23).<\/p>\nHow are these differences to be explained? The differences between these lists stem from the purposes for which they were compiled and the meanings they were intended to convey.<\/p>\nA widely held explanation is that Matthew gives Jesus’ ancestry through Joseph and that Luke gives his ancestry through Mary. On this interpretation Jacob was Joseph’s real father, and Heli (probably Mary’s father) became Joseph’s foster father, that is, Joseph was Heli’s “son,” or heir, by his marriage to Mary, assuming that Heli had no sons (cf. Nm 27:1-11; 36:1-12). This view is certainly a possibility and should not be rejected out of hand. If Mary was a direct descendant of David, it could be literally said of any son of hers, “He is the seed of David.”<\/p>\nOn the other hand, many scholars prefer to regard Luke’s genealogy as that of Joseph rather than Mary, since it is to Joseph’s ancestry that Luke calls the reader’s attention (Lk 1:27; 2:4). Furthermore, nowhere in Scripture is Mary said to be of Davidic descent. If the fact that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus nullifies any value that Joseph’s lineage might otherwise possess for a real son, why does Luke point to Joseph’s lineage twice, and to Mary’s not at all?<\/p>\nA major difficulty for the view that regards both genealogies as Joseph’s is related to Joseph’s two fathers. One solution is that Matthew gives the legal descendants of David but Luke gives the actual descendants of David in the line to which Joseph belonged. This would mean that Heli was Joseph’s real father and that Jacob was his legal foster father. How this could be is readily explainable. Assuming that Jacob’s father, Matthan (Mt 1:15), and Heli’s father, Matthat (Lk 3:24), are the same person, then Jacob (the elder) may have died without a male descendant so that his nephew, the son of his brother Heli, would have become his heir.<\/p>\nIf Matthan and Matthat are not the same person, one might postulate that Jacob, the legal heir to the throne, died without a descendant and that Joseph, son of Heli, became the legal heir immediately upon the death of Heli and was counted as Jacob’s son in a list of legal heirs to the throne. Possibly Heli, a relative, married Jacob’s widow, thereby making Joseph, the son of that union, Heli’s son and Jacob’s son by levirate marriage. In other words, there are a number of possible explanations of this divergence.<\/p>\nOne other major objection to the view that regards both genealogies as Joseph’s is that, because of the virgin birth of Jesus, one may in no sense speak of Jesus as being literally the seed of David—a proposition that Scripture seems to insist upon. This objection has been adequately countered: (1) because of the realistic manner in which the Jews looked upon adoptive fatherhood; and (2) because the relationship in which Jesus stood to Joseph was much closer than a case of ordinary adoption, there being no earthly father to dispute Joseph’s paternal relation to Jesus. Jesus could and would have been regarded as Joseph’s son and heir with complete propriety, satisfying every scriptural demand that he be the “seed of David.” The question, therefore, whether Mary as well as Joseph was a descendant of David does not need to be answered one way or the other by one who desires to defend Jesus’ Davidic descent.<\/p>\nIt is beyond human reach to discover for certain the full solution to the divergences between the two genealogies of Jesus, or the actual relationship of Jesus to them. Enough has been said to demonstrate that they are reconcilable, and the purposes of each, suggested here, indicate that either of the ways outlined above does full justice to the Davidic descent of Jesus, as rightful heir to his ancestor’s covenanted throne, and also to his virgin birth by Mary.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy; Incarnation; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Virgin Birth of Jesus.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST Account of Jesus’ human descent. The NT records Jesus’ genealogy twice in great detail: in Matthew 1:1-17 and in Luke 3:23-38. Preview • Matthew’s Genealogy • Luke’s Genealogy • The Relationship between the Two Records Matthew’s Genealogy (1:1-17) Matthew 1:1 presents Jesus Christ as “the son of David, the son of Abraham.” By those two names, Matthew highlights Jesus’ earthly relationship to the Abrahamic (Gn 17:1-8) and Davidic (2 Sm 7:12-16) covenants of promise. T...","summary_en":"GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST Account of Jesus’ human descent. The NT records Jesus’ genealogy twice in great detail: in Matthew 1:1-17 and in Luke 3:23-38. Preview • Matthew’s Genealogy • Luke’s Genealogy • The Relationship between the Two Records Matthew’s Genealogy (1:1-17) Matthew 1:1 presents Jesus Christ as “the son of David, the son of Abraham.” By those two names, Matthew highlights Jesus’ earthly relationship to the Abrahamic (Gn 17:1-8) and Davidic (2 Sm 7:12-16) covenants of promise. T...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":15043,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Haggai","title_en":"Book of Haggai","content_ro":"<h3>HAGGAI, Book of<\/h3>\nTenth of the 12 short prophetic books at the end of the OT.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Author and Date<\/p>\n• Purpose<\/p>\n• Teaching<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nAuthor and Date<\/p>\nHaggai was among the Jewish colonists at Jerusalem in the year 520 BC<\/span> when his prophetic words were recorded (Ezr 5:1-2; 6:14). The four messages the Lord gave to Haggai were to be directed to specific individuals. The first was to Zerubbabel the governor and Joshua the high priest (Hg 1:1). The second was to Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the remnant of the people (2:2). The third was a word to the priests (v 11). The final message was limited to Zerubbabel (v 21).<\/p>\nPurpose<\/p>\nThe key phrase of Haggai’s prophecies is “Consider your ways” or “Consider” (1:5, 7; 2:15, 18). The purpose of God’s messages to the Judean leadership and people, therefore, was to awaken them to their spiritual responsibilities. Two different classes of Judeans had to be turned from their indifference. The true believers needed to be reminded that God was merciful. The situation could be remedied, even though they thought the sins committed by their fathers were unforgivable. The hypocrites among the Judeans had only sought the promised blessings. They had only exchanged one form of idolatry for another. When the blessings did not materialize, they were disappointed.<\/p>\nThe unifying message was that today gives no key to what God will do tomorrow. God’s fulfillment of his promises cannot be judged by appearances. Haggai’s message was twofold: reproof and encouragement. The colonists needed to be chastised for their indifference and consoled in the midst of their troubles.<\/p>\nTeaching<\/p>\nHaggai is a practical book, dealing with the believer’s service to God. Procrastination and indifference have been debilitating sins among God’s people throughout all ages. Concern and a sense of urgency are always pleasing to God (Rom 13:11-14).<\/p>\nThe presence of God is the primary motivation for boldness and the means of banishing discouragement (Mt 28:19-20; Eph 3:8-21; Heb 13:5-6).<\/p>\nSeparation from contaminating influences and sin is demanded of all believers (2 Cor 6:14–7:1). Without this quality of life, the believer cannot expect to be found fit for God’s service (2 Tm 2:19-26). The disobedient child of God can expect removal of blessing and chastisement from God (Heb 12:3-13; Jas 4:1-3).<\/p>\nThe message concerning God’s judgment of sin and the establishment of the messianic kingdom is a message of hope to the NT believer as well as the Jews of Haggai’s day (Rom 15:4-13; 2 Pt 3:10-18).<\/p>\nThe key phrase of Haggai (“consider your ways”) has echoes in 1 Corinthians 11:28 and 2 Corinthians 13:5, as do his writings about the effects of sin and the blessings of God (Jude 1:1-25).<\/p>\nThe God of Haggai is given the title “Lord of hosts” (“Lord<\/span> Almighty”) 14 times in the book. This title is characteristic of the postexilic prophetic books, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, where it is found more than 80 times. It teaches that God is all-powerful and is Master of all spirit beings in heaven and all created beings on the earth.<\/p>\nHaggai also testifies to the God-breathed quality of the Word of God and its divine authority. Over and over the prophet announces ways that God has spoken to him and is the author of these messages (at least 25 times in the space of 28 verses).<\/p>\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>First Message<\/h5>\nThe first message Haggai was to deliver to the Judeans was given to him “on the first day of the month” (Hg 1:1). Upon the first day of each month, the Jews were to bring special offerings to the sanctuary (Nm 28:11-15). God chose this special time to reveal the sin of the people with regard to the unfinished sanctuary.<\/p>\nThe leaders of the Judeans were singled out for the first message from the Lord (Hg 1:1). Zerubbabel was the civil leader or governor, and Joshua was the spiritual leader or high priest. Together, they were responsible for the activity (or inactivity) of God’s people.<\/p>\nThe word of the Lord revealed the procrastination of the people (1:2). God’s temple had not been completed because his people had determined for themselves that “the time is not come.” The energies and finances of God’s people had been channeled selfishly into their own homes (v 4).<\/p>\n“Now” (1:5, rsv<\/span>) focused the attention of the Jews upon the present requirement of God in the light of their sinful indifference. They were to give attention to their own condition spiritually and materially: “Consider how you have fared.” This key phrase of Haggai’s prophecies is literally “Set your heart on your ways” or “Lay your ways to your heart.” Self-examination would reveal that their procrastination had robbed them of more than just 16 years.<\/p>\nVerse 6 reveals the poverty in which the Jews were living as a result of God’s chastisement for their sin. The blessings of God had been withdrawn in accord with his covenant (see Dt 28:15–29:1).<\/p>\nFollowing another exhortation to “consider” their ways (Hg 1:7), the Lord revealed the remedy for the Jews’ cursed condition: “rebuild my house” (v 8). The disobedience with regard to the completion of the temple was the reason for their poverty (vv 9-11).<\/p>\nThe response of the leaders and the people was encouraging. The resumption of the construction of the temple was a definite manifestation of belief in the word of God (1:12). Immediate obedience also testified to the acceptance of the ministry of Haggai, who was “the Lord<\/span>’s messenger” delivering “the Lord<\/span>’s message” (v 13).<\/p>\n<h5>Second Message<\/h5>\nApproximately one month later Haggai was summoned again by the Lord (2:1). The second message continued the note of encouragement with which the first message closed. Perhaps the builders had begun to feel the pressures of their service. Perhaps the old doubts and discouragements had plagued their faith again. The adversaries had reappeared to hinder them (Ezr 5:3–6:12). Haggai’s second message was similar to Ezra’s claim that “the eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews” (Ezr 5:5, rsv<\/span>). The Lord not only sees his servants’ needs but also sends relief and encouragement.<\/p>\nThe day of this second message was the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles (Lv 23:33-43). Perhaps this reminder of God’s glorious presence with their ancestors in the wilderness made their present situation all the more discouraging. Therefore, the Lord spoke to all the people rather than just to their leaders (Hg 2:2). Was there any survivor of the preexilic days who had personally beheld the glory of God as it resided in the Solomonic temple (cf. 1 Kgs 8:1-11; Ez 9:1–11:23)? Was the present temple “as nothing” in comparison (Hg 2:3)? The Babylonian Talmud listed five things that were absent in the new temple that had been present in the Solomonic temple: (1) the ark of the covenant, (2) the sacred fire, (3) the shekinah glory, (4) the Holy Spirit, and (5) the Urim and Thummim.<\/p>\nAgain, “now” calls attention to God’s remedy. Three times the command “take courage” is proclaimed (2:4). Each time the command is given, one of the recipients of God’s message is addressed (cf. v 2). The concluding command was “work.” The reason for the strength and the activity was God’s presence. The Holy Spirit might seem to be absent from the temple, but he would remain among the people “according to the word” of God (v 5).<\/p>\nTo encourage the workers further, God revealed the future glory of his house (2:6-9). That glory would come to pass after a time of judgment (vv 6-7a), when the treasures of all nations come in (v 7b). The exact meaning of this verse has been variously interpreted. The views center around two different translations: “the desire of all nations shall come” (kjv<\/span>) and “and the treasures of all the nations will come to this Temple” (nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe arguments for the messianic interpretation based on the first translation may be summarized as follows: (1) The vast majority of both Christian and Jewish interpreters took this phrase as a reference to the Messiah. (2) The abstract noun “desire” may have the concrete concept of the one who is desirable. (3) Though the verb in the Hebrew is plural, it is grammatically possible for the agreement of subject and predicate to be based upon the second noun (“nations”) in a genitive relationship. (4) The time element is suitable since God has just judged the nations and the hour of Christ’s coming would be at hand. (5) An alternate translation is available that meets the grammatical difficulties but retains the messianic import: “They [the nations] have come to the desire of all the nations.”<\/p>\nIn spite of the weight of the arguments for this first view, it seems better to accept the second translation and corresponding view. The arguments are as follows: (1) The vast majority of early Christian and Jewish interpreters base their view on the Latin Vulgate translation (c. AD<\/span> 400), while the second translation is in agreement with an older version, the Greek Septuagint (c. 300 BC<\/span>). (2) The singular “desire” may be taken as a collective noun referring to “features” or “wealth.” (3) The principle of Hebrew grammar that allows the noun “nations” to be the one with which the verb agrees is a rare occurrence in poetic books for such constructions as this. It is unlikely that such phraseology would be used without Haggai’s declaring the exact meaning in the immediate context. (4) The immediate context does solve the difficulty by the plain declaration that the silver and the gold belong to the Lord (2:8). (5) The kingdom context of these verses accords well with such parallel passages as Isaiah 60:5, 11 and Revelation 21:24.<\/p>\nThe conclusion to this message of encouragement is that the future glory of the temple (cf. Hg 2:3) will be greater than in the days of the Solomonic temple (v 9), because the shekinah glory will return (Hg 2:7; Ez 43:1-5) and the building will have great beauty (cf. Hg 2:8; Is 60:13, 17). God will also grant peace (Hg 2:9) in his kingdom at the time of this future glorious temple (see Is 9:6-7; 66:12; Zec 6:13).<\/p>\n<h5>Third Message<\/h5>\nAbout two months later Haggai received a third message from God (Hg 2:10). This time exhortation would be the theme, and the message was directed to the priests alone (v 11). Haggai used questions concerning the law of Moses to instruct the priests in the polluting character of sin. Something clean or holy cannot transfer its sanctity to something else (v 12). But that which is unholy can<\/em> transfer its<\/em> character to something clean, defiling it (Hg 2:13; cf. Lv 22:4-6; Nm 19:11).<\/p>\nThe application of this principle to the Judeans was clear: the offerings they brought during their years of disobedience were unacceptable to God because of Judah’s uncleanness (Hg 2:14).<\/p>\nBy reviving the memory of past disobedience and chastisement, God was exhorting the Jews to constantly “consider” (2:15, 18) the consequences of disobedience. Such consideration should prevent future spiritual indifference. The conclusion of the message was a reminder of the blessing of God upon the obedient (v 19).<\/p>\n<h5>Fourth Message<\/h5>\nOn the same day Haggai received another message from God (2:20). This message was to be directed toward Zerubbabel (v 21), who was to be encouraged by the permanency of his inherited Davidic office (cf. Hg 1:1; 2 Sm 7:4-17; 1 Chr 3:1, 5, 10, 17-20). The gentile nations would be judged and the kingdoms of the world overthrown (Hg 2:6-7, 21-22). This would be but the preparation for God’s rule (cf. Rv 11:15-18).<\/p>\nThe promise to Zerubbabel in Haggai 2:23 was God’s means of confirming that his promises to David were still operative even after the 70-year Babylonian captivity and the 16-year stagnation among the Judeans who had returned to Jerusalem. Zerubbabel was appointed “as a signet ring” by God. A signet was a personal cylinder or ring seal and a sign of the authenticity of their signature. Kings used them for identifying their decrees (Est 3:10; 8:8-10) and for confirming the authority of their deputies (Gn 41:42). God’s appointment of Zerubbabel “as a signet ring,” therefore, meant that Zerubbabel would be God’s seal of authority on the continuation of the Davidic line from which the Messiah should come and reign (cf. Mt 1:12; Lk 3:27).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Haggai (Person); Israel, History of; Postexilic Period; Prophecy; Prophet, Prophetess.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HAGGAI, Book of<\/h3>\nTenth of the 12 short prophetic books at the end of the OT.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Author and Date<\/p>\n• Purpose<\/p>\n• Teaching<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nAuthor and Date<\/p>\nHaggai was among the Jewish colonists at Jerusalem in the year 520 BC<\/span> when his prophetic words were recorded (Ezr 5:1-2; 6:14). The four messages the Lord gave to Haggai were to be directed to specific individuals. The first was to Zerubbabel the governor and Joshua the high priest (Hg 1:1). The second was to Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the remnant of the people (2:2). The third was a word to the priests (v 11). The final message was limited to Zerubbabel (v 21).<\/p>\nPurpose<\/p>\nThe key phrase of Haggai’s prophecies is “Consider your ways” or “Consider” (1:5, 7; 2:15, 18). The purpose of God’s messages to the Judean leadership and people, therefore, was to awaken them to their spiritual responsibilities. Two different classes of Judeans had to be turned from their indifference. The true believers needed to be reminded that God was merciful. The situation could be remedied, even though they thought the sins committed by their fathers were unforgivable. The hypocrites among the Judeans had only sought the promised blessings. They had only exchanged one form of idolatry for another. When the blessings did not materialize, they were disappointed.<\/p>\nThe unifying message was that today gives no key to what God will do tomorrow. God’s fulfillment of his promises cannot be judged by appearances. Haggai’s message was twofold: reproof and encouragement. The colonists needed to be chastised for their indifference and consoled in the midst of their troubles.<\/p>\nTeaching<\/p>\nHaggai is a practical book, dealing with the believer’s service to God. Procrastination and indifference have been debilitating sins among God’s people throughout all ages. Concern and a sense of urgency are always pleasing to God (Rom 13:11-14).<\/p>\nThe presence of God is the primary motivation for boldness and the means of banishing discouragement (Mt 28:19-20; Eph 3:8-21; Heb 13:5-6).<\/p>\nSeparation from contaminating influences and sin is demanded of all believers (2 Cor 6:14–7:1). Without this quality of life, the believer cannot expect to be found fit for God’s service (2 Tm 2:19-26). The disobedient child of God can expect removal of blessing and chastisement from God (Heb 12:3-13; Jas 4:1-3).<\/p>\nThe message concerning God’s judgment of sin and the establishment of the messianic kingdom is a message of hope to the NT believer as well as the Jews of Haggai’s day (Rom 15:4-13; 2 Pt 3:10-18).<\/p>\nThe key phrase of Haggai (“consider your ways”) has echoes in 1 Corinthians 11:28 and 2 Corinthians 13:5, as do his writings about the effects of sin and the blessings of God (Jude 1:1-25).<\/p>\nThe God of Haggai is given the title “Lord of hosts” (“Lord<\/span> Almighty”) 14 times in the book. This title is characteristic of the postexilic prophetic books, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, where it is found more than 80 times. It teaches that God is all-powerful and is Master of all spirit beings in heaven and all created beings on the earth.<\/p>\nHaggai also testifies to the God-breathed quality of the Word of God and its divine authority. Over and over the prophet announces ways that God has spoken to him and is the author of these messages (at least 25 times in the space of 28 verses).<\/p>\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>First Message<\/h5>\nThe first message Haggai was to deliver to the Judeans was given to him “on the first day of the month” (Hg 1:1). Upon the first day of each month, the Jews were to bring special offerings to the sanctuary (Nm 28:11-15). God chose this special time to reveal the sin of the people with regard to the unfinished sanctuary.<\/p>\nThe leaders of the Judeans were singled out for the first message from the Lord (Hg 1:1). Zerubbabel was the civil leader or governor, and Joshua was the spiritual leader or high priest. Together, they were responsible for the activity (or inactivity) of God’s people.<\/p>\nThe word of the Lord revealed the procrastination of the people (1:2). God’s temple had not been completed because his people had determined for themselves that “the time is not come.” The energies and finances of God’s people had been channeled selfishly into their own homes (v 4).<\/p>\n“Now” (1:5, rsv<\/span>) focused the attention of the Jews upon the present requirement of God in the light of their sinful indifference. They were to give attention to their own condition spiritually and materially: “Consider how you have fared.” This key phrase of Haggai’s prophecies is literally “Set your heart on your ways” or “Lay your ways to your heart.” Self-examination would reveal that their procrastination had robbed them of more than just 16 years.<\/p>\nVerse 6 reveals the poverty in which the Jews were living as a result of God’s chastisement for their sin. The blessings of God had been withdrawn in accord with his covenant (see Dt 28:15–29:1).<\/p>\nFollowing another exhortation to “consider” their ways (Hg 1:7), the Lord revealed the remedy for the Jews’ cursed condition: “rebuild my house” (v 8). The disobedience with regard to the completion of the temple was the reason for their poverty (vv 9-11).<\/p>\nThe response of the leaders and the people was encouraging. The resumption of the construction of the temple was a definite manifestation of belief in the word of God (1:12). Immediate obedience also testified to the acceptance of the ministry of Haggai, who was “the Lord<\/span>’s messenger” delivering “the Lord<\/span>’s message” (v 13).<\/p>\n<h5>Second Message<\/h5>\nApproximately one month later Haggai was summoned again by the Lord (2:1). The second message continued the note of encouragement with which the first message closed. Perhaps the builders had begun to feel the pressures of their service. Perhaps the old doubts and discouragements had plagued their faith again. The adversaries had reappeared to hinder them (Ezr 5:3–6:12). Haggai’s second message was similar to Ezra’s claim that “the eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews” (Ezr 5:5, rsv<\/span>). The Lord not only sees his servants’ needs but also sends relief and encouragement.<\/p>\nThe day of this second message was the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles (Lv 23:33-43). Perhaps this reminder of God’s glorious presence with their ancestors in the wilderness made their present situation all the more discouraging. Therefore, the Lord spoke to all the people rather than just to their leaders (Hg 2:2). Was there any survivor of the preexilic days who had personally beheld the glory of God as it resided in the Solomonic temple (cf. 1 Kgs 8:1-11; Ez 9:1–11:23)? Was the present temple “as nothing” in comparison (Hg 2:3)? The Babylonian Talmud listed five things that were absent in the new temple that had been present in the Solomonic temple: (1) the ark of the covenant, (2) the sacred fire, (3) the shekinah glory, (4) the Holy Spirit, and (5) the Urim and Thummim.<\/p>\nAgain, “now” calls attention to God’s remedy. Three times the command “take courage” is proclaimed (2:4). Each time the command is given, one of the recipients of God’s message is addressed (cf. v 2). The concluding command was “work.” The reason for the strength and the activity was God’s presence. The Holy Spirit might seem to be absent from the temple, but he would remain among the people “according to the word” of God (v 5).<\/p>\nTo encourage the workers further, God revealed the future glory of his house (2:6-9). That glory would come to pass after a time of judgment (vv 6-7a), when the treasures of all nations come in (v 7b). The exact meaning of this verse has been variously interpreted. The views center around two different translations: “the desire of all nations shall come” (kjv<\/span>) and “and the treasures of all the nations will come to this Temple” (nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe arguments for the messianic interpretation based on the first translation may be summarized as follows: (1) The vast majority of both Christian and Jewish interpreters took this phrase as a reference to the Messiah. (2) The abstract noun “desire” may have the concrete concept of the one who is desirable. (3) Though the verb in the Hebrew is plural, it is grammatically possible for the agreement of subject and predicate to be based upon the second noun (“nations”) in a genitive relationship. (4) The time element is suitable since God has just judged the nations and the hour of Christ’s coming would be at hand. (5) An alternate translation is available that meets the grammatical difficulties but retains the messianic import: “They [the nations] have come to the desire of all the nations.”<\/p>\nIn spite of the weight of the arguments for this first view, it seems better to accept the second translation and corresponding view. The arguments are as follows: (1) The vast majority of early Christian and Jewish interpreters base their view on the Latin Vulgate translation (c. AD<\/span> 400), while the second translation is in agreement with an older version, the Greek Septuagint (c. 300 BC<\/span>). (2) The singular “desire” may be taken as a collective noun referring to “features” or “wealth.” (3) The principle of Hebrew grammar that allows the noun “nations” to be the one with which the verb agrees is a rare occurrence in poetic books for such constructions as this. It is unlikely that such phraseology would be used without Haggai’s declaring the exact meaning in the immediate context. (4) The immediate context does solve the difficulty by the plain declaration that the silver and the gold belong to the Lord (2:8). (5) The kingdom context of these verses accords well with such parallel passages as Isaiah 60:5, 11 and Revelation 21:24.<\/p>\nThe conclusion to this message of encouragement is that the future glory of the temple (cf. Hg 2:3) will be greater than in the days of the Solomonic temple (v 9), because the shekinah glory will return (Hg 2:7; Ez 43:1-5) and the building will have great beauty (cf. Hg 2:8; Is 60:13, 17). God will also grant peace (Hg 2:9) in his kingdom at the time of this future glorious temple (see Is 9:6-7; 66:12; Zec 6:13).<\/p>\n<h5>Third Message<\/h5>\nAbout two months later Haggai received a third message from God (Hg 2:10). This time exhortation would be the theme, and the message was directed to the priests alone (v 11). Haggai used questions concerning the law of Moses to instruct the priests in the polluting character of sin. Something clean or holy cannot transfer its sanctity to something else (v 12). But that which is unholy can<\/em> transfer its<\/em> character to something clean, defiling it (Hg 2:13; cf. Lv 22:4-6; Nm 19:11).<\/p>\nThe application of this principle to the Judeans was clear: the offerings they brought during their years of disobedience were unacceptable to God because of Judah’s uncleanness (Hg 2:14).<\/p>\nBy reviving the memory of past disobedience and chastisement, God was exhorting the Jews to constantly “consider” (2:15, 18) the consequences of disobedience. Such consideration should prevent future spiritual indifference. The conclusion of the message was a reminder of the blessing of God upon the obedient (v 19).<\/p>\n<h5>Fourth Message<\/h5>\nOn the same day Haggai received another message from God (2:20). This message was to be directed toward Zerubbabel (v 21), who was to be encouraged by the permanency of his inherited Davidic office (cf. Hg 1:1; 2 Sm 7:4-17; 1 Chr 3:1, 5, 10, 17-20). The gentile nations would be judged and the kingdoms of the world overthrown (Hg 2:6-7, 21-22). This would be but the preparation for God’s rule (cf. Rv 11:15-18).<\/p>\nThe promise to Zerubbabel in Haggai 2:23 was God’s means of confirming that his promises to David were still operative even after the 70-year Babylonian captivity and the 16-year stagnation among the Judeans who had returned to Jerusalem. Zerubbabel was appointed “as a signet ring” by God. A signet was a personal cylinder or ring seal and a sign of the authenticity of their signature. Kings used them for identifying their decrees (Est 3:10; 8:8-10) and for confirming the authority of their deputies (Gn 41:42). God’s appointment of Zerubbabel “as a signet ring,” therefore, meant that Zerubbabel would be God’s seal of authority on the continuation of the Davidic line from which the Messiah should come and reign (cf. Mt 1:12; Lk 3:27).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Haggai (Person); Israel, History of; Postexilic Period; Prophecy; Prophet, Prophetess.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HAGGAI, Book of Tenth of the 12 short prophetic books at the end of the OT. Preview • Author and Date • Purpose • Teaching • Content Author and Date Haggai was among the Jewish colonists at Jerusalem in the year 520 BC when his prophetic words were recorded (Ezr 5:1-2; 6:14). The four messages the Lord gave to Haggai were to be directed to specific individuals. The first was to Zerubbabel the governor and Joshua the high priest (Hg 1:1). The second was to Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the remnant o...","summary_en":"HAGGAI, Book of Tenth of the 12 short prophetic books at the end of the OT. Preview • Author and Date • Purpose • Teaching • Content Author and Date Haggai was among the Jewish colonists at Jerusalem in the year 520 BC when his prophetic words were recorded (Ezr 5:1-2; 6:14). The four messages the Lord gave to Haggai were to be directed to specific individuals. The first was to Zerubbabel the governor and Joshua the high priest (Hg 1:1). The second was to Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the remnant o...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":19921,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Joanan","title_en":"Joanan","content_ro":"<h3>JOANAN<\/h3>\nAncestor of Jesus mentioned in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:27). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JOANAN<\/h3>\nAncestor of Jesus mentioned in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:27). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JOANAN Ancestor of Jesus mentioned in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:27). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"JOANAN Ancestor of Jesus mentioned in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:27). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":19922,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Joanna","title_en":"Joanna","content_ro":"<h3>JOANNA<\/h3>\n<li>1. KJV form of Joanan in Luke 3:27. See<\/em> Joanan.<\/li>\n<li>2. Wife of Chuza, a steward of Herod the tetrarch. She was among those healed of evil spirits and sickness by Jesus, and contributed to his support (Lk 8:2-3). She probably witnessed the Crucifixion and prepared spices for the body; later she found Jesus’ tomb empty (23:55–24:10).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>JOANNA<\/h3>\n<li>1. KJV form of Joanan in Luke 3:27. See<\/em> Joanan.<\/li>\n<li>2. Wife of Chuza, a steward of Herod the tetrarch. She was among those healed of evil spirits and sickness by Jesus, and contributed to his support (Lk 8:2-3). She probably witnessed the Crucifixion and prepared spices for the body; later she found Jesus’ tomb empty (23:55–24:10).<\/li>","summary_ro":"JOANNA 1. KJV form of Joanan in Luke 3:27. See Joanan. 2. Wife of Chuza, a steward of Herod the tetrarch. She was among those healed of evil spirits and sickness by Jesus, and contributed to his support (Lk 8:2-3). She probably witnessed the Crucifixion and prepared spices for the body; later she found Jesus’ tomb empty (23:55–24:10).","summary_en":"JOANNA 1. KJV form of Joanan in Luke 3:27. See Joanan. 2. Wife of Chuza, a steward of Herod the tetrarch. She was among those healed of evil spirits and sickness by Jesus, and contributed to his support (Lk 8:2-3). She probably witnessed the Crucifixion and prepared spices for the body; later she found Jesus’ tomb empty (23:55–24:10).","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":27343,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Neri","title_en":"Neri","content_ro":"<h3>NERI<\/h3>\nAncestor of Jesus in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:27). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>NERI<\/h3>\nAncestor of Jesus in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:27). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"NERI Ancestor of Jesus in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:27). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"NERI Ancestor of Jesus in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:27). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/N.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":33054,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Rhesa","title_en":"Rhesa","content_ro":"<h3>RHESA<\/h3>\nDescendant of Zerubbabel and an ancestor of Jesus Christ (Lk 3:27). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>RHESA<\/h3>\nDescendant of Zerubbabel and an ancestor of Jesus Christ (Lk 3:27). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"RHESA Descendant of Zerubbabel and an ancestor of Jesus Christ (Lk 3:27). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"RHESA Descendant of Zerubbabel and an ancestor of Jesus Christ (Lk 3:27). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/R.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":33545,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Salathiel*","title_en":"Salathiel*","content_ro":"<h3>SALATHIEL*<\/h3>\nKJV alternate spelling of Shealtiel, King Jehoiachin’s son, in 1 Chronicles 3:17, Matthew 1:12, and Luke 3:27. See<\/em> Shealtiel.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SALATHIEL*<\/h3>\nKJV alternate spelling of Shealtiel, King Jehoiachin’s son, in 1 Chronicles 3:17, Matthew 1:12, and Luke 3:27. See<\/em> Shealtiel.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SALATHIEL* KJV alternate spelling of Shealtiel, King Jehoiachin’s son, in 1 Chronicles 3:17, Matthew 1:12, and Luke 3:27. See Shealtiel.","summary_en":"SALATHIEL* KJV alternate spelling of Shealtiel, King Jehoiachin’s son, in 1 Chronicles 3:17, Matthew 1:12, and Luke 3:27. See Shealtiel.","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":34701,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Shealtiel","title_en":"Shealtiel","content_ro":"<h3>SHEALTIEL<\/h3>\nSon of King Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) of Judah (598–597 BC<\/span>) and the father of Zerubbabel. Zerubbabel led the Jews back to Palestine and there ruled as governor of Judah during the postexilic period (Ezr 3:2; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hg 1:1, 12-14). In the genealogies of Jesus Christ, Shealtiel is variously mentioned as the son of Jeconiah (Mt 1:12) and as the son of Neri (Lk 3:27). In 1 Chronicles 3:17-19, Shealtiel appears to be the grandfather or perhaps the uncle of Zerubbabel. One probable solution is that Shealtiel was the son of Neri and the heir apparent to the throne of Jeconiah and that, at Shealtiel’s death, Zerubbabel was next in succession.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SHEALTIEL<\/h3>\nSon of King Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) of Judah (598–597 BC<\/span>) and the father of Zerubbabel. Zerubbabel led the Jews back to Palestine and there ruled as governor of Judah during the postexilic period (Ezr 3:2; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hg 1:1, 12-14). In the genealogies of Jesus Christ, Shealtiel is variously mentioned as the son of Jeconiah (Mt 1:12) and as the son of Neri (Lk 3:27). In 1 Chronicles 3:17-19, Shealtiel appears to be the grandfather or perhaps the uncle of Zerubbabel. One probable solution is that Shealtiel was the son of Neri and the heir apparent to the throne of Jeconiah and that, at Shealtiel’s death, Zerubbabel was next in succession.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SHEALTIEL Son of King Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) of Judah (598–597 BC) and the father of Zerubbabel. Zerubbabel led the Jews back to Palestine and there ruled as governor of Judah during the postexilic period (Ezr 3:2; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hg 1:1, 12-14). In the genealogies of Jesus Christ, Shealtiel is variously mentioned as the son of Jeconiah (Mt 1:12) and as the son of Neri (Lk 3:27). In 1 Chronicles 3:17-19, Shealtiel appears to be the grandfather or perhaps the uncle of Zerubbabel. One probable so...","summary_en":"SHEALTIEL Son of King Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) of Judah (598–597 BC) and the father of Zerubbabel. Zerubbabel led the Jews back to Palestine and there ruled as governor of Judah during the postexilic period (Ezr 3:2; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hg 1:1, 12-14). In the genealogies of Jesus Christ, Shealtiel is variously mentioned as the son of Jeconiah (Mt 1:12) and as the son of Neri (Lk 3:27). In 1 Chronicles 3:17-19, Shealtiel appears to be the grandfather or perhaps the uncle of Zerubbabel. One probable so...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":39273,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Zerubbabel","title_en":"Zerubbabel","content_ro":"<h3>ZERUBBABEL<\/h3>\nBabylonian-born Jew who returned to Palestine in 538 BC<\/span> to serve as governor of Jerusalem under Persian rule. The name presumably means “seed [offspring] of Babylon,” referring to someone born in Babylon.<\/p>\nThe exact identity of Zerubbabel’s biological father is uncertain. All biblical references except one mention Shealtiel as his father (Ezr 3:2, 8; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hg 1:1, 12-14; 2:2, 23; Mt 1:12-13; Lk 3:27). This would make Zerubbabel the grandson of the Davidic king Jehoiachin. However, 1 Chronicles 3:19 identifies Pedaiah, the brother of Shealtiel, as Zerubbabel’s father.<\/p>\nTwo solutions have been proposed. Many scholars have assumed that Shealtiel died before fathering an heir. His brother, Pedaiah, would then have fathered Zerubbabel by Shealtiel’s widow. Hence, Zerubbabel would have retained the name of Shealtiel rather than Pedaiah in accordance with the law of levirate marriage (Dt 25:5-10). This solution is weakened by its lack of textual support; similarly, the Chronicler would hardly have failed to state such an important piece of information if he had been desirous of “correcting” an error pertaining to Zerubbabel’s parentage.<\/p>\nA simpler solution is obtained by reading the Septuagint text of 1 Chronicles 3:19, which lists Salathiel (Shealtiel) as the father of Zerubbabel. In this way, the single reference to 1 Chronicles may be harmonized with the other verses cited above.<\/p>\nIn either case, whether Shealtiel or Pedaiah was Zerubbabel’s biological father, it is clear that Zerubbabel was of Davidic lineage and was viewed by members of the Israelite community as a viable candidate for leading them back to a position of power.<\/p>\nFollowing the edict of Cyrus in 538 BC<\/span>, Jews were permitted to return to Palestine and reclaim their former homeland. Zerubbabel was appointed governor, and probably by the decade of 529–520 had started work on the reconstruction of the Jerusalem temple. However, because of several discouraging events, little was accomplished until the year 520 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nThe writings of Haggai and Zechariah reveal much information about Zerubbabel’s standing in the community. These two prophets evidently viewed Jeshua and Zerubbabel as the two men chosen by God for the task. Accordingly, in many of their oracles, support for one or both men is openly stated (e.g., Hg 2:21-23; Zec 3:8; 4:6-7; 6:12). The prophets viewed Jeshua and Zerubbabel’s work as being messianic. This is most clearly seen in the vision of Zechariah (Zec 4:11-14). In the vision, two olive branches, one on either side of the lampstand, are identified as “the two anointed who stand by the Lord of the whole earth.” As the context clearly shows, none other than Jeshua (or Joshua; named in 3:1-9) and Zerubbabel (named in 4:6-10) are meant. Because of his association with the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, Zerubbabel had been accorded a place of great honor in Jewish tradition.<\/p>\nSome hold that Zerubbabel was known to the Persians as Sheshbazzar. See<\/em> Sheshbazzar.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ZERUBBABEL<\/h3>\nBabylonian-born Jew who returned to Palestine in 538 BC<\/span> to serve as governor of Jerusalem under Persian rule. The name presumably means “seed [offspring] of Babylon,” referring to someone born in Babylon.<\/p>\nThe exact identity of Zerubbabel’s biological father is uncertain. All biblical references except one mention Shealtiel as his father (Ezr 3:2, 8; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hg 1:1, 12-14; 2:2, 23; Mt 1:12-13; Lk 3:27). This would make Zerubbabel the grandson of the Davidic king Jehoiachin. However, 1 Chronicles 3:19 identifies Pedaiah, the brother of Shealtiel, as Zerubbabel’s father.<\/p>\nTwo solutions have been proposed. Many scholars have assumed that Shealtiel died before fathering an heir. His brother, Pedaiah, would then have fathered Zerubbabel by Shealtiel’s widow. Hence, Zerubbabel would have retained the name of Shealtiel rather than Pedaiah in accordance with the law of levirate marriage (Dt 25:5-10). This solution is weakened by its lack of textual support; similarly, the Chronicler would hardly have failed to state such an important piece of information if he had been desirous of “correcting” an error pertaining to Zerubbabel’s parentage.<\/p>\nA simpler solution is obtained by reading the Septuagint text of 1 Chronicles 3:19, which lists Salathiel (Shealtiel) as the father of Zerubbabel. In this way, the single reference to 1 Chronicles may be harmonized with the other verses cited above.<\/p>\nIn either case, whether Shealtiel or Pedaiah was Zerubbabel’s biological father, it is clear that Zerubbabel was of Davidic lineage and was viewed by members of the Israelite community as a viable candidate for leading them back to a position of power.<\/p>\nFollowing the edict of Cyrus in 538 BC<\/span>, Jews were permitted to return to Palestine and reclaim their former homeland. Zerubbabel was appointed governor, and probably by the decade of 529–520 had started work on the reconstruction of the Jerusalem temple. However, because of several discouraging events, little was accomplished until the year 520 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nThe writings of Haggai and Zechariah reveal much information about Zerubbabel’s standing in the community. These two prophets evidently viewed Jeshua and Zerubbabel as the two men chosen by God for the task. Accordingly, in many of their oracles, support for one or both men is openly stated (e.g., Hg 2:21-23; Zec 3:8; 4:6-7; 6:12). The prophets viewed Jeshua and Zerubbabel’s work as being messianic. This is most clearly seen in the vision of Zechariah (Zec 4:11-14). In the vision, two olive branches, one on either side of the lampstand, are identified as “the two anointed who stand by the Lord of the whole earth.” As the context clearly shows, none other than Jeshua (or Joshua; named in 3:1-9) and Zerubbabel (named in 4:6-10) are meant. Because of his association with the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, Zerubbabel had been accorded a place of great honor in Jewish tradition.<\/p>\nSome hold that Zerubbabel was known to the Persians as Sheshbazzar. See<\/em> Sheshbazzar.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ZERUBBABEL Babylonian-born Jew who returned to Palestine in 538 BC to serve as governor of Jerusalem under Persian rule. The name presumably means “seed [offspring] of Babylon,” referring to someone born in Babylon. The exact identity of Zerubbabel’s biological father is uncertain. All biblical references except one mention Shealtiel as his father (Ezr 3:2, 8; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hg 1:1, 12-14; 2:2, 23; Mt 1:12-13; Lk 3:27). This would make Zerubbabel the grandson of the Davidic king Jehoiachin. H...","summary_en":"ZERUBBABEL Babylonian-born Jew who returned to Palestine in 538 BC to serve as governor of Jerusalem under Persian rule. The name presumably means “seed [offspring] of Babylon,” referring to someone born in Babylon. The exact identity of Zerubbabel’s biological father is uncertain. All biblical references except one mention Shealtiel as his father (Ezr 3:2, 8; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hg 1:1, 12-14; 2:2, 23; Mt 1:12-13; Lk 3:27). This would make Zerubbabel the grandson of the Davidic king Jehoiachin. H...","source":"Articles\/Z.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":39528,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Zorobabel*","title_en":"Zorobabel*","content_ro":"<h3>ZOROBABEL*<\/h3>\nKJV form of Zerubbabel, Jerusalem’s governor after the exile, in Matthew 1:12-13 and Luke 3:27. See<\/em> Zerubbabel.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ZOROBABEL*<\/h3>\nKJV form of Zerubbabel, Jerusalem’s governor after the exile, in Matthew 1:12-13 and Luke 3:27. See<\/em> Zerubbabel.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ZOROBABEL* KJV form of Zerubbabel, Jerusalem’s governor after the exile, in Matthew 1:12-13 and Luke 3:27. See Zerubbabel.","summary_en":"ZOROBABEL* KJV form of Zerubbabel, Jerusalem’s governor after the exile, in Matthew 1:12-13 and Luke 3:27. See Zerubbabel.","source":"Articles\/Z.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55674,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:27","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:27","content_ro":"3:27<\/strong> Zerubbabel<\/em> was the governor of Judea appointed by the Persians when the Jews returned from Babylonian exile. He supervised the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra 3:2, 8).<\/p>","content_en":"3:27<\/strong> Zerubbabel<\/em> was the governor of Judea appointed by the Persians when the Jews returned from Babylonian exile. He supervised the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra 3:2, 8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:27 Zerubbabel was the governor of Judea appointed by the Persians when the Jews returned from Babylonian exile. He supervised the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra 3:2, 8).","summary_en":"3:27 Zerubbabel was the governor of Judea appointed by the Persians when the Jews returned from Babylonian exile. He supervised the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra 3:2, 8).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83300,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:27","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:27","content_ro":"3:27<\/strong> Zerubbabel<\/em> was the governor of Judea appointed by the Persians when the Jews returned from Babylonian exile. He supervised the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra 3:2, 8).<\/p>","content_en":"3:27<\/strong> Zerubbabel<\/em> was the governor of Judea appointed by the Persians when the Jews returned from Babylonian exile. He supervised the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra 3:2, 8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:27 Zerubbabel was the governor of Judea appointed by the Persians when the Jews returned from Babylonian exile. He supervised the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra 3:2, 8).","summary_en":"3:27 Zerubbabel was the governor of Judea appointed by the Persians when the Jews returned from Babylonian exile. He supervised the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra 3:2, 8).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110926,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:27","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:27","content_ro":"3:27<\/strong> Zerubbabel<\/em> was the governor of Judea appointed by the Persians when the Jews returned from Babylonian exile. He supervised the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra 3:2, 8).<\/p>","content_en":"3:27<\/strong> Zerubbabel<\/em> was the governor of Judea appointed by the Persians when the Jews returned from Babylonian exile. He supervised the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra 3:2, 8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:27 Zerubbabel was the governor of Judea appointed by the Persians when the Jews returned from Babylonian exile. He supervised the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra 3:2, 8).","summary_en":"3:27 Zerubbabel was the governor of Judea appointed by the Persians when the Jews returned from Babylonian exile. He supervised the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra 3:2, 8).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138552,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:27","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:27","content_ro":"3:27<\/strong> Zerubbabel<\/em> was the governor of Judea appointed by the Persians when the Jews returned from Babylonian exile. He supervised the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra 3:2, 8).<\/p>","content_en":"3:27<\/strong> Zerubbabel<\/em> was the governor of Judea appointed by the Persians when the Jews returned from Babylonian exile. He supervised the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra 3:2, 8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:27 Zerubbabel was the governor of Judea appointed by the Persians when the Jews returned from Babylonian exile. He supervised the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra 3:2, 8).","summary_en":"3:27 Zerubbabel was the governor of Judea appointed by the Persians when the Jews returned from Babylonian exile. He supervised the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra 3:2, 8).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"28":[{"id":576,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Addi","title_en":"Addi","content_ro":"<h3>ADDI<\/h3>\n<li>1. One whose descendants obeyed Ezra’s exhortation to divorce their pagan wives after the exile (1 Esd 9:31). The parallel list of Ezra has Pahath-moab in place of Addi (Ezr 10:30).<\/li>\n<li>2. Ancestor of Jesus, mentioned in Luke’s genealogy (3:28). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>ADDI<\/h3>\n<li>1. One whose descendants obeyed Ezra’s exhortation to divorce their pagan wives after the exile (1 Esd 9:31). The parallel list of Ezra has Pahath-moab in place of Addi (Ezr 10:30).<\/li>\n<li>2. Ancestor of Jesus, mentioned in Luke’s genealogy (3:28). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>","summary_ro":"ADDI 1. One whose descendants obeyed Ezra’s exhortation to divorce their pagan wives after the exile (1 Esd 9:31). The parallel list of Ezra has Pahath-moab in place of Addi (Ezr 10:30). 2. Ancestor of Jesus, mentioned in Luke’s genealogy (3:28). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"ADDI 1. One whose descendants obeyed Ezra’s exhortation to divorce their pagan wives after the exile (1 Esd 9:31). The parallel list of Ezra has Pahath-moab in place of Addi (Ezr 10:30). 2. Ancestor of Jesus, mentioned in Luke’s genealogy (3:28). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":7771,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Cosam","title_en":"Cosam","content_ro":"<h3>COSAM<\/h3>\nAncestor of Jesus, Addi’s father and Elmadam’s son, listed only in Luke’s genealogy (3:28). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>COSAM<\/h3>\nAncestor of Jesus, Addi’s father and Elmadam’s son, listed only in Luke’s genealogy (3:28). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"COSAM Ancestor of Jesus, Addi’s father and Elmadam’s son, listed only in Luke’s genealogy (3:28). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"COSAM Ancestor of Jesus, Addi’s father and Elmadam’s son, listed only in Luke’s genealogy (3:28). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":10726,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Elmadam, Elmodam*","title_en":"Elmadam, Elmodam*","content_ro":"<h3>ELMADAM, ELMODAM*<\/h3>\nAncestor of Jesus Christ, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:28, kjv<\/span> “Elmodam”). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ELMADAM, ELMODAM*<\/h3>\nAncestor of Jesus Christ, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:28, kjv<\/span> “Elmodam”). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ELMADAM, ELMODAM* Ancestor of Jesus Christ, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:28, kjv “Elmodam”). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"ELMADAM, ELMODAM* Ancestor of Jesus Christ, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:28, kjv “Elmodam”). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":11032,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Er","title_en":"Er","content_ro":"<h3>ER<\/h3>\n<li>1. Eldest son of Judah and Bathshua, a Canaanite woman (Gn 38:3). The Lord killed him before he and his wife, Tamar, could have any children (Gn 38:7; 46:12; 1 Chr 2:3).<\/li>\n<li>2. Grandson of Judah and father of Lecah (1 Chr 4:21); a nephew of #1 above.<\/li>\n<li>3. Joshua’s son and an ancestor of Joseph, the husband of Mary (Lk 3:28). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>ER<\/h3>\n<li>1. Eldest son of Judah and Bathshua, a Canaanite woman (Gn 38:3). The Lord killed him before he and his wife, Tamar, could have any children (Gn 38:7; 46:12; 1 Chr 2:3).<\/li>\n<li>2. Grandson of Judah and father of Lecah (1 Chr 4:21); a nephew of #1 above.<\/li>\n<li>3. Joshua’s son and an ancestor of Joseph, the husband of Mary (Lk 3:28). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>","summary_ro":"ER 1. Eldest son of Judah and Bathshua, a Canaanite woman (Gn 38:3). The Lord killed him before he and his wife, Tamar, could have any children (Gn 38:7; 46:12; 1 Chr 2:3). 2. Grandson of Judah and father of Lecah (1 Chr 4:21); a nephew of #1 above. 3. Joshua’s son and an ancestor of Joseph, the husband of Mary (Lk 3:28). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"ER 1. Eldest son of Judah and Bathshua, a Canaanite woman (Gn 38:3). The Lord killed him before he and his wife, Tamar, could have any children (Gn 38:7; 46:12; 1 Chr 2:3). 2. Grandson of Judah and father of Lecah (1 Chr 4:21); a nephew of #1 above. 3. Joshua’s son and an ancestor of Joseph, the husband of Mary (Lk 3:28). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":25017,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Melchi*","title_en":"Melchi*","content_ro":"<h3>MELCHI*<\/h3>\n<li>1. Jannai’s son, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:24).<\/li>\n<li>2. Addi’s son, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:28).<\/li>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MELCHI*<\/h3>\n<li>1. Jannai’s son, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:24).<\/li>\n<li>2. Addi’s son, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:28).<\/li>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MELCHI* 1. Jannai’s son, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:24). 2. Addi’s son, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:28). See also Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"MELCHI* 1. Jannai’s son, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:24). 2. Addi’s son, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:28). See also Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"29":[{"id":10557,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Eliezer","title_en":"Eliezer","content_ro":"<h3>ELIEZER<\/h3>\n<li> 1. Native of Damascus and Abraham’s servant, who according to custom was the adopted heir before Ishmael and Isaac were born (Gn 15:2).<\/li>\n<li> 2. Moses and Zipporah’s second son (Ex 18:4; 1 Chr 23:15-17).<\/li>\n<li> 3. Benjamite and Becher’s son (1 Chr 7:8).<\/li>\n<li> 4. One of the seven priests who blew a trumpet before the ark of the covenant when David moved it to Jerusalem (1 Chr 15:24).<\/li>\n<li> 5. Zichri’s son and a chief officer in Reuben’s tribe (1 Chr 27:16).<\/li>\n<li> 6. Son of Dodavahu of Mareshah, who prophesied against King Jehoshaphat of Judah because of his alliance with Ahaziah, king of Israel (2 Chr 20:37).<\/li>\n<li> 7. One of the leaders sent by Ezra to Iddo at Casiphia to request Levites for the house of God (Ezr 8:16).<\/li>\n<li> 8, 9, 10. Three men of Israel—a priest, Levite, and Israelite—who were encouraged by Ezra to divorce their foreign wives during the postexilic era (Ezr 10:18, 23, 31).<\/li>\n<li>11. Ancestor of Christ (Lk 3:29). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>ELIEZER<\/h3>\n<li> 1. Native of Damascus and Abraham’s servant, who according to custom was the adopted heir before Ishmael and Isaac were born (Gn 15:2).<\/li>\n<li> 2. Moses and Zipporah’s second son (Ex 18:4; 1 Chr 23:15-17).<\/li>\n<li> 3. Benjamite and Becher’s son (1 Chr 7:8).<\/li>\n<li> 4. One of the seven priests who blew a trumpet before the ark of the covenant when David moved it to Jerusalem (1 Chr 15:24).<\/li>\n<li> 5. Zichri’s son and a chief officer in Reuben’s tribe (1 Chr 27:16).<\/li>\n<li> 6. Son of Dodavahu of Mareshah, who prophesied against King Jehoshaphat of Judah because of his alliance with Ahaziah, king of Israel (2 Chr 20:37).<\/li>\n<li> 7. One of the leaders sent by Ezra to Iddo at Casiphia to request Levites for the house of God (Ezr 8:16).<\/li>\n<li> 8, 9, 10. Three men of Israel—a priest, Levite, and Israelite—who were encouraged by Ezra to divorce their foreign wives during the postexilic era (Ezr 10:18, 23, 31).<\/li>\n<li>11. Ancestor of Christ (Lk 3:29). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>","summary_ro":"ELIEZER 1. Native of Damascus and Abraham’s servant, who according to custom was the adopted heir before Ishmael and Isaac were born (Gn 15:2). 2. Moses and Zipporah’s second son (Ex 18:4; 1 Chr 23:15-17). 3. Benjamite and Becher’s son (1 Chr 7:8). 4. One of the seven priests who blew a trumpet before the ark of the covenant when David moved it to Jerusalem (1 Chr 15:24). 5. Zichri’s son and a chief officer in Reuben’s tribe (1 Chr 27:16). 6. Son of Dodavahu of Mareshah, who prophesied agains...","summary_en":"ELIEZER 1. Native of Damascus and Abraham’s servant, who according to custom was the adopted heir before Ishmael and Isaac were born (Gn 15:2). 2. Moses and Zipporah’s second son (Ex 18:4; 1 Chr 23:15-17). 3. Benjamite and Becher’s son (1 Chr 7:8). 4. One of the seven priests who blew a trumpet before the ark of the covenant when David moved it to Jerusalem (1 Chr 15:24). 5. Zichri’s son and a chief officer in Reuben’s tribe (1 Chr 27:16). 6. Son of Dodavahu of Mareshah, who prophesied agains...","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20522,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jorim","title_en":"Jorim","content_ro":"<h3>JORIM<\/h3>\nAncestor of Jesus listed in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:29). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JORIM<\/h3>\nAncestor of Jesus listed in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:29). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JORIM Ancestor of Jesus listed in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:29). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"JORIM Ancestor of Jesus listed in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:29). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20527,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jose*","title_en":"Jose*","content_ro":"<h3>JOSE*<\/h3>\nKJV spelling of Joshua, Eliezer’s son, in Luke 3:29. See<\/em> Joshua (Person) #5.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JOSE*<\/h3>\nKJV spelling of Joshua, Eliezer’s son, in Luke 3:29. See<\/em> Joshua (Person) #5.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JOSE* KJV spelling of Joshua, Eliezer’s son, in Luke 3:29. See Joshua (Person) #5.","summary_en":"JOSE* KJV spelling of Joshua, Eliezer’s son, in Luke 3:29. See Joshua (Person) #5.","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20653,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Joshua (Person)","title_en":"Joshua (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>JOSHUA (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Son of Nun, Moses’ assistant and successor, and the military leader whom God chose to lead the Israelites in the conquest of Canaan (Nm 13:16, kjv<\/span> “Jehoshua”; also spelled “Jehoshuah” in 1 Chr 7:27 and “Jeshua” in Neh 8:17).<\/li>\nEarly in the exodus, Joshua was sent by Moses to fight against the Amalekites (Ex 17:8-15). Joshua defeated Amalek, and Moses wrote of the event and built an altar that he called “The Lord<\/span> Is My Banner” (v 15).<\/p>\nWhen Moses sent 12 men from Kadesh-barnea to spy out the land of Canaan, Joshua represented the tribe of Ephraim (Nm 13:8). At that time Joshua was called Hoshea, but Moses changed his name to Joshua (vv 8, 16). Joshua and Caleb were the only two spies to bring back an affirmative report concerning an Israelite invasion of the land (14:6-9). Consequently, of all the adult Israelite males to leave Egypt in the exodus, only these two crossed the Jordan River and entered the Promised Land (v 30).<\/p>\nWhen the Lord announced to Moses his impending death, Moses asked about his successor, and the Lord appointed Joshua to that position (Nm 27:12-23). After the death of Moses on Mt Nebo, Joshua’s leadership was confirmed (34:17), and the Lord told Joshua to go over the Jordan and take the land (Jos 1:1-2).<\/p>\nFrom the Transjordan, Joshua sent two men across the river to reconnoiter Jericho (ch 2). In Jericho they were concealed by Rahab and later safely made their way back to Joshua to report that the people of the land were fainthearted because of the Israelites (vv 23-24).<\/p>\nWhen Israel had crossed the river, the Lord instructed Joshua to set up a circle of 12 stones at Gilgal to commemorate this passage (Jos 4:1-7). The Lord then commanded all of the males who had been born during the exodus to be circumcised (5:2-9).<\/p>\nWhile camped at Gilgal, near Jericho, Joshua was confronted by a man with a drawn sword. When Joshua challenged the man, he learned that it was the Lord, who told him to remove his shoes, for the ground was holy (Jos 5:13-15). The Lord gave Joshua directions for the destruction of Jericho; these were followed explicitly and the city fell (ch 6). The attack on Ai ended in temporary defeat, until the matter of Achan’s sin was discovered and judged (7:10-26). Then Ai was taken and destroyed.<\/p>\nJoshua built an altar on Mt Ebal (Jos 8:30-32), and the blessings and curses were read, as commanded by God through Moses (Jos 8:33-35; cf. Dt 27–28).<\/p>\nBecause the Israelites failed to ask direction from the Lord (Jos 9:14), Joshua was tricked into making a covenant of peace with the Hivites of Gibeon. Joshua then reduced them to doing menial tasks in Israel (vv 21-27).<\/p>\nThe kings of the various Canaanite cities allied themselves against the Israelite threat (Jos 9:1-2) and a league of five Amorite cities (Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon) attacked Gibeon (10:1-5). The Gibeonites appealed to Joshua for help; he responded quickly against this Amorite confederation and routed the Amorite forces. It was on this occasion that Joshua commanded the sun and the moon to stand still so that Israel could have more time to defeat these adversaries (vv 12-14). This victory was followed by a series of successful attacks on enemy towns (vv 28-43).<\/p>\nA northern alliance headed by Jabin, king of Hazor, was the next opposition (Jos 11:1-5). The Lord assured Joshua of success, and the city of Hazor was taken and destroyed by fire (vv 6-15). Joshua 11:23 summarizes the conquest of the land, and chapter 12 enumerates the kings who were conquered.<\/p>\nJoshua was now old, and the Lord told him that much land remained to be possessed. These territories are listed, but the Lord directed Joshua to proceed with the division of the land among the nine and a half tribes (Jos 13:7; cf. 13:8–18:28). Joshua himself was given the city he asked for, Timnath-serah, in the hill country of Ephraim, which he rebuilt and settled (19:49-50).<\/p>\nThe Lord told Joshua to appoint cities of refuge to which a person guilty of manslaughter could flee to escape the avenger of blood (Jos 20). Then the Levites came to Eleazar the priest and Joshua to request that they be given their cities, as the Lord had commanded through Moses (21:1-42).<\/p>\n\nIn his advanced years Joshua summoned all Israel and solemnly charged them to continue in faithfulness to the Lord (Jos 23). Finally, he called all Israel to Shechem, where he gave them his farewell message. He summed up the Lord’s dealings with them from the time of Abraham and again challenged them to serve the Lord, putting before them the well-known choice and decision: “Choose today whom you will serve. . . . As for me and my family, we will serve the Lord<\/span>” (24:15, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nJoshua died at the age of 110 years and was buried in the land of his inheritance at Timnath-serah (Jos 24:29-30; the parallel account in Jgs 2:8-9 reads “Timnath-heres,” nlt<\/span> mg). Israel served the Lord during all the days of Joshua and the elders who outlived him (Jos 24:31; Jgs 2:7).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Conquest and Allotment of the Land; Israel, History of; Joshua, Book of.<\/p>\n<li>2. Inhabitant of Beth-shemesh. It was his grainfield into which the cart carrying the ark sent by the Philistines came. It stopped by a large stone which was then used to commemorate this event (1 Sm 6:14, 18).<\/li>\n<li>3. Governor of Jerusalem during King Josiah’s reign (2 Kgs 23:8).<\/li>\n<li>4. Jozadak’s son and high priest during the days of Zerubbabel in postexilic Jerusalem (Hg 1:1-14; 2:2-4; Zec 3:1-9; 6:11; nlt<\/span> “Jeshua”). Joshua is alternately called Jeshua in Ezra and Nehemiah. See<\/em> Jeshua (Person) #3.<\/li>\n<li>5. Eliezer’s son and an ancestor of Jesus Christ (Lk 3:29). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>JOSHUA (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Son of Nun, Moses’ assistant and successor, and the military leader whom God chose to lead the Israelites in the conquest of Canaan (Nm 13:16, kjv<\/span> “Jehoshua”; also spelled “Jehoshuah” in 1 Chr 7:27 and “Jeshua” in Neh 8:17).<\/li>\nEarly in the exodus, Joshua was sent by Moses to fight against the Amalekites (Ex 17:8-15). Joshua defeated Amalek, and Moses wrote of the event and built an altar that he called “The Lord<\/span> Is My Banner” (v 15).<\/p>\nWhen Moses sent 12 men from Kadesh-barnea to spy out the land of Canaan, Joshua represented the tribe of Ephraim (Nm 13:8). At that time Joshua was called Hoshea, but Moses changed his name to Joshua (vv 8, 16). Joshua and Caleb were the only two spies to bring back an affirmative report concerning an Israelite invasion of the land (14:6-9). Consequently, of all the adult Israelite males to leave Egypt in the exodus, only these two crossed the Jordan River and entered the Promised Land (v 30).<\/p>\nWhen the Lord announced to Moses his impending death, Moses asked about his successor, and the Lord appointed Joshua to that position (Nm 27:12-23). After the death of Moses on Mt Nebo, Joshua’s leadership was confirmed (34:17), and the Lord told Joshua to go over the Jordan and take the land (Jos 1:1-2).<\/p>\nFrom the Transjordan, Joshua sent two men across the river to reconnoiter Jericho (ch 2). In Jericho they were concealed by Rahab and later safely made their way back to Joshua to report that the people of the land were fainthearted because of the Israelites (vv 23-24).<\/p>\nWhen Israel had crossed the river, the Lord instructed Joshua to set up a circle of 12 stones at Gilgal to commemorate this passage (Jos 4:1-7). The Lord then commanded all of the males who had been born during the exodus to be circumcised (5:2-9).<\/p>\nWhile camped at Gilgal, near Jericho, Joshua was confronted by a man with a drawn sword. When Joshua challenged the man, he learned that it was the Lord, who told him to remove his shoes, for the ground was holy (Jos 5:13-15). The Lord gave Joshua directions for the destruction of Jericho; these were followed explicitly and the city fell (ch 6). The attack on Ai ended in temporary defeat, until the matter of Achan’s sin was discovered and judged (7:10-26). Then Ai was taken and destroyed.<\/p>\nJoshua built an altar on Mt Ebal (Jos 8:30-32), and the blessings and curses were read, as commanded by God through Moses (Jos 8:33-35; cf. Dt 27–28).<\/p>\nBecause the Israelites failed to ask direction from the Lord (Jos 9:14), Joshua was tricked into making a covenant of peace with the Hivites of Gibeon. Joshua then reduced them to doing menial tasks in Israel (vv 21-27).<\/p>\nThe kings of the various Canaanite cities allied themselves against the Israelite threat (Jos 9:1-2) and a league of five Amorite cities (Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon) attacked Gibeon (10:1-5). The Gibeonites appealed to Joshua for help; he responded quickly against this Amorite confederation and routed the Amorite forces. It was on this occasion that Joshua commanded the sun and the moon to stand still so that Israel could have more time to defeat these adversaries (vv 12-14). This victory was followed by a series of successful attacks on enemy towns (vv 28-43).<\/p>\nA northern alliance headed by Jabin, king of Hazor, was the next opposition (Jos 11:1-5). The Lord assured Joshua of success, and the city of Hazor was taken and destroyed by fire (vv 6-15). Joshua 11:23 summarizes the conquest of the land, and chapter 12 enumerates the kings who were conquered.<\/p>\nJoshua was now old, and the Lord told him that much land remained to be possessed. These territories are listed, but the Lord directed Joshua to proceed with the division of the land among the nine and a half tribes (Jos 13:7; cf. 13:8–18:28). Joshua himself was given the city he asked for, Timnath-serah, in the hill country of Ephraim, which he rebuilt and settled (19:49-50).<\/p>\nThe Lord told Joshua to appoint cities of refuge to which a person guilty of manslaughter could flee to escape the avenger of blood (Jos 20). Then the Levites came to Eleazar the priest and Joshua to request that they be given their cities, as the Lord had commanded through Moses (21:1-42).<\/p>\n\nIn his advanced years Joshua summoned all Israel and solemnly charged them to continue in faithfulness to the Lord (Jos 23). Finally, he called all Israel to Shechem, where he gave them his farewell message. He summed up the Lord’s dealings with them from the time of Abraham and again challenged them to serve the Lord, putting before them the well-known choice and decision: “Choose today whom you will serve. . . . As for me and my family, we will serve the Lord<\/span>” (24:15, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nJoshua died at the age of 110 years and was buried in the land of his inheritance at Timnath-serah (Jos 24:29-30; the parallel account in Jgs 2:8-9 reads “Timnath-heres,” nlt<\/span> mg). Israel served the Lord during all the days of Joshua and the elders who outlived him (Jos 24:31; Jgs 2:7).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Conquest and Allotment of the Land; Israel, History of; Joshua, Book of.<\/p>\n<li>2. Inhabitant of Beth-shemesh. It was his grainfield into which the cart carrying the ark sent by the Philistines came. It stopped by a large stone which was then used to commemorate this event (1 Sm 6:14, 18).<\/li>\n<li>3. Governor of Jerusalem during King Josiah’s reign (2 Kgs 23:8).<\/li>\n<li>4. Jozadak’s son and high priest during the days of Zerubbabel in postexilic Jerusalem (Hg 1:1-14; 2:2-4; Zec 3:1-9; 6:11; nlt<\/span> “Jeshua”). Joshua is alternately called Jeshua in Ezra and Nehemiah. See<\/em> Jeshua (Person) #3.<\/li>\n<li>5. Eliezer’s son and an ancestor of Jesus Christ (Lk 3:29). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>","summary_ro":"JOSHUA (Person) 1. Son of Nun, Moses’ assistant and successor, and the military leader whom God chose to lead the Israelites in the conquest of Canaan (Nm 13:16, kjv “Jehoshua”; also spelled “Jehoshuah” in 1 Chr 7:27 and “Jeshua” in Neh 8:17). Early in the exodus, Joshua was sent by Moses to fight against the Amalekites (Ex 17:8-15). Joshua defeated Amalek, and Moses wrote of the event and built an altar that he called “The Lord Is My Banner” (v 15). When Moses sent 12 men from Kadesh-barnea ...","summary_en":"JOSHUA (Person) 1. Son of Nun, Moses’ assistant and successor, and the military leader whom God chose to lead the Israelites in the conquest of Canaan (Nm 13:16, kjv “Jehoshua”; also spelled “Jehoshuah” in 1 Chr 7:27 and “Jeshua” in Neh 8:17). Early in the exodus, Joshua was sent by Moses to fight against the Amalekites (Ex 17:8-15). Joshua defeated Amalek, and Moses wrote of the event and built an altar that he called “The Lord Is My Banner” (v 15). When Moses sent 12 men from Kadesh-barnea ...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":22996,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Levi (Person)","title_en":"Levi (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>LEVI (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Jacob’s third son by Leah (Gn 29:34). The etymology of the name is uncertain. Levi’s name is associated with the tragedy at Shechem, where the male inhabitants of the city were ruthlessly murdered when Levi and Simeon sought to avenge the violation of their sister Dinah by Shechem the Hivite. Jacob condemned the act and before his death pronounced a judgment on Levi’s behavior (49:5-7). According to these words, Levi’s descendants were to be dispersed among the tribes.<\/li>\nThe tribe of Levi was composed of the descendants of Levi’s three sons: Gershon (Gershom), Kohath, and Merari. Moses, Aaron, and Miriam traced their genealogy to Kohath (Ex 6:16). The Levites remained faithful to Yahweh at the occasion of the golden calf by Mt Horeb. They were rewarded with the right to special service in and around the tabernacle (ch 32) and later in the temple.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Levi, Tribe of.<\/p>\n<li>2. Tax collector in Capernaum (Mk 2:14); one of the 12 disciples who was also named Matthew (Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27; cf. Mt 9:9). See<\/em> Matthew (Person).<\/li>\n<li>3. Son of Melki and ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:24). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>4. Son of Simeon and ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:29). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>LEVI (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Jacob’s third son by Leah (Gn 29:34). The etymology of the name is uncertain. Levi’s name is associated with the tragedy at Shechem, where the male inhabitants of the city were ruthlessly murdered when Levi and Simeon sought to avenge the violation of their sister Dinah by Shechem the Hivite. Jacob condemned the act and before his death pronounced a judgment on Levi’s behavior (49:5-7). According to these words, Levi’s descendants were to be dispersed among the tribes.<\/li>\nThe tribe of Levi was composed of the descendants of Levi’s three sons: Gershon (Gershom), Kohath, and Merari. Moses, Aaron, and Miriam traced their genealogy to Kohath (Ex 6:16). The Levites remained faithful to Yahweh at the occasion of the golden calf by Mt Horeb. They were rewarded with the right to special service in and around the tabernacle (ch 32) and later in the temple.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Levi, Tribe of.<\/p>\n<li>2. Tax collector in Capernaum (Mk 2:14); one of the 12 disciples who was also named Matthew (Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27; cf. Mt 9:9). See<\/em> Matthew (Person).<\/li>\n<li>3. Son of Melki and ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:24). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>4. Son of Simeon and ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:29). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>","summary_ro":"LEVI (Person) 1. Jacob’s third son by Leah (Gn 29:34). The etymology of the name is uncertain. Levi’s name is associated with the tragedy at Shechem, where the male inhabitants of the city were ruthlessly murdered when Levi and Simeon sought to avenge the violation of their sister Dinah by Shechem the Hivite. Jacob condemned the act and before his death pronounced a judgment on Levi’s behavior (49:5-7). According to these words, Levi’s descendants were to be dispersed among the tribes. The tr...","summary_en":"LEVI (Person) 1. Jacob’s third son by Leah (Gn 29:34). The etymology of the name is uncertain. Levi’s name is associated with the tragedy at Shechem, where the male inhabitants of the city were ruthlessly murdered when Levi and Simeon sought to avenge the violation of their sister Dinah by Shechem the Hivite. Jacob condemned the act and before his death pronounced a judgment on Levi’s behavior (49:5-7). According to these words, Levi’s descendants were to be dispersed among the tribes. The tr...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24665,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Matthat","title_en":"Matthat","content_ro":"<h3>MATTHAT<\/h3>\n<li>1. Ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:24), perhaps the same as Matthan (Mt 1:15).<\/li>\n<li>2. Ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:29).<\/li>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MATTHAT<\/h3>\n<li>1. Ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:24), perhaps the same as Matthan (Mt 1:15).<\/li>\n<li>2. Ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:29).<\/li>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MATTHAT 1. Ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:24), perhaps the same as Matthan (Mt 1:15). 2. Ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:29). See also Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"MATTHAT 1. Ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:24), perhaps the same as Matthan (Mt 1:15). 2. Ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:29). See also Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"30":[{"id":10515,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Eliakim","title_en":"Eliakim","content_ro":"<h3>ELIAKIM<\/h3>\n<li>1. Hilkiah’s son and a royal officer in the household and court of King Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:18, 26, 37). His position had increased in importance since Solomon’s reign (1 Kgs 4:2-6) until he was second only to the king. As such, Eliakim had absolute authority as the king’s representative.<\/li>\nWhen Sennacherib of Assyria moved against Jerusalem in 701 BC<\/span>, Eliakim was one of the diplomatic emissaries who conferred with the Assyrian officers on behalf of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:18, 26). He was also sent by Hezekiah in sackcloth to Isaiah to ask for prayer on Jerusalem’s behalf (2 Kgs 19:1-5).<\/p>\n<li>2. King Josiah’s second son. When Eliakim was made king of Judah by Pharaoh Neco, his name was changed to Jehoiakim (2 Kgs 23:34; 2 Chr 36:4). See<\/em> Jehoiakim.<\/li>\n<li>3. One of the priests who assisted at the dedication of the Jerusalem wall after it was rebuilt by Zerubbabel (Neh 12:41).<\/li>\n<li>4. Abiud’s son in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus (Mt 1:13). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>5. Melea’s son in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3:30). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>ELIAKIM<\/h3>\n<li>1. Hilkiah’s son and a royal officer in the household and court of King Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:18, 26, 37). His position had increased in importance since Solomon’s reign (1 Kgs 4:2-6) until he was second only to the king. As such, Eliakim had absolute authority as the king’s representative.<\/li>\nWhen Sennacherib of Assyria moved against Jerusalem in 701 BC<\/span>, Eliakim was one of the diplomatic emissaries who conferred with the Assyrian officers on behalf of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:18, 26). He was also sent by Hezekiah in sackcloth to Isaiah to ask for prayer on Jerusalem’s behalf (2 Kgs 19:1-5).<\/p>\n<li>2. King Josiah’s second son. When Eliakim was made king of Judah by Pharaoh Neco, his name was changed to Jehoiakim (2 Kgs 23:34; 2 Chr 36:4). See<\/em> Jehoiakim.<\/li>\n<li>3. One of the priests who assisted at the dedication of the Jerusalem wall after it was rebuilt by Zerubbabel (Neh 12:41).<\/li>\n<li>4. Abiud’s son in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus (Mt 1:13). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>5. Melea’s son in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3:30). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>","summary_ro":"ELIAKIM 1. Hilkiah’s son and a royal officer in the household and court of King Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:18, 26, 37). His position had increased in importance since Solomon’s reign (1 Kgs 4:2-6) until he was second only to the king. As such, Eliakim had absolute authority as the king’s representative. When Sennacherib of Assyria moved against Jerusalem in 701 BC, Eliakim was one of the diplomatic emissaries who conferred with the Assyrian officers on behalf of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:18, 26). He was als...","summary_en":"ELIAKIM 1. Hilkiah’s son and a royal officer in the household and court of King Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:18, 26, 37). His position had increased in importance since Solomon’s reign (1 Kgs 4:2-6) until he was second only to the king. As such, Eliakim had absolute authority as the king’s representative. When Sennacherib of Assyria moved against Jerusalem in 701 BC, Eliakim was one of the diplomatic emissaries who conferred with the Assyrian officers on behalf of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:18, 26). He was als...","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20457,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jonam, Jonan*","title_en":"Jonam, Jonan*","content_ro":"<h3>JONAM, JONAN*<\/h3>\nAncestor of Jesus mentioned in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:30). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JONAM, JONAN*<\/h3>\nAncestor of Jesus mentioned in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:30). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JONAM, JONAN* Ancestor of Jesus mentioned in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:30). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"JONAM, JONAN* Ancestor of Jesus mentioned in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:30). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20595,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Joseph","title_en":"Joseph","content_ro":"<h3>JOSEPH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Jacob’s 11th son and the firstborn son of Rachel. Rachel named the boy Joseph, meaning “may he add,” expressing her desire that God would give her another son (Gn 30:24).<\/li>\nNothing more is said about Joseph until, at the age of 17, he is seen tending his father’s flocks with his brothers (Gn 37:2). Joseph was the favorite of his father, since he was the son of his old age (v 3) and the firstborn son of his favorite wife. Because of this, his brothers hated Joseph. This envy was magnified when Jacob gave Joseph a ground-length, long-sleeved, multicolored robe (vv 3-4). (This type of garment is illustrated by the paintings in the Asiatic tombs of Khnumhotep II at Beni Hasan and of the nobles at Gurneh, near Luxor.) The animosity of his brothers increased still more when Joseph revealed to them his dreams of dominion over them (vv 5-11). Subsequently, when Joseph was sent to check on his brothers and the flocks near Shechem, his brothers sold him to a caravan of traders going down to Egypt (vv 25-28). His brothers then took his robe, dipped it in goat’s blood, and brought it to Jacob, who concluded that Joseph had been killed by wild animals (vv 31-33); Jacob was overwhelmed with grief (vv 34-35).<\/p>\nIn Egypt, Joseph was sold to Potiphar, an Egyptian officer of the guard (Gn 37:36; 39:1), who eventually put Joseph in charge of his entire household. However, trouble arose from Potiphar’s wife, who was attracted to the young Hebrew and tried to seduce him (39:6-10). He steadfastly resisted her advances, protesting that to comply with her wishes would be a disservice to his master and a sin against God (v 9). One day she seized his garment, but he left the garment behind and fled. Potiphar’s wife accused Joseph of attempted rape; her report was believed, and Joseph was incarcerated in the king’s prison (v 20), where Pharaoh’s butler and baker were also confined. While in prison, Joseph, with the Lord’s help, interpreted these men’s troublesome dreams. As Joseph had foretold, the baker was executed and the butler was restored to royal favor (ch 40).<\/p>\nTwo years later Pharaoh had two dreams that his magicians and wise men could not interpret. The butler, remembering Joseph, had him summoned from prison. God revealed to Joseph that the dreams foretold seven years of abundance, followed by seven years of famine (Gn 41:25-36). Pharaoh, impressed with Joseph’s interpretation, made him ruler of Egypt, second only to himself (vv 39-44). Joseph was given a new name, Zaphenath-paneah, and a wife, Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera (v 45).<\/p>\nJoseph was 30 years old when he became ruler of Egypt. During the seven years of prosperity, he gathered the good supplies for the seven years of famine to come (Gn 41:53-56). When the famine eventually became severe in Palestine, Jacob sent all his sons, except Benjamin, his youngest son, to Egypt to purchase grain. Appearing before Joseph in Egypt, they did not recognize him. But he knew them and remembered his dreams of years before (42:8-9). After listening to the report of their family, he accused them of being spies (vv 9-14) and insisted that they leave one of their brothers as hostage and return with Benjamin to verify the truthfulness of their report (vv 19-20). Thus Simeon was bound and left in Egypt (v 24).<\/p>\nAfter the famine worsened in Palestine, Jacob asked his sons to go back to Egypt to buy more grain (Gn 43:1-2); reluctantly agreeing to the conditions that the Egyptian administrator had placed on them, Jacob allowed Benjamin to go with them (vv 11-13). When they arrived in Egypt, they were taken to Joseph’s house, where Simeon was restored to them (v 23) and a meal was prepared for them (v 33). Joseph at last disclosed his identity and declared that God had sent him before them to preserve their lives (45:4-8). Arrangements were then made to send for Jacob; wagons were provided, along with provisions for the journey (v 21). When Jacob came to Goshen in the Nile Delta, Joseph went out to meet him, and another great reunion took place (46:28-29). He also presented his father and brothers to Pharaoh, who let them live in the land of Goshen (47:6).<\/p>\nUpon learning that his father was ill, Joseph took his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to him for his blessing. He presented the sons so that the older would be at Jacob’s right hand and the younger at his left in order that Manasseh would receive the blessing of the firstborn. Jacob, however, crossed his hands and with his right hand on Ephraim gave him the greater blessing (Gn 48:14-20). He also gave to Joseph the land that he had taken from the Amorites (v 22). At Jacob’s death, Joseph made the funeral arrangements; and after the customary funerary practices were carried out, a great funeral procession went to Canaan, where Jacob was buried by his sons in the cave of Machpelah near Hebron (50:1-12).<\/p>\nWhen Joseph was 110 years old, he called his brothers and told them that he was about to die. He made them take an oath that when they returned to Canaan they would take his bones with them. So he died, was embalmed, and was placed in a coffin in Egypt (Gn 50:26). Many years later, during the exodus, Moses took the bones of Joseph with him from Egypt (Ex 13:19). Joseph’s remains were eventually interred at Shechem in the parcel of land that Jacob had bought from Hamor, the father of Shechem (Gn 33:18-20; Jos 24:32). See<\/em> Israel, History of; Patriarchs, Period of the.<\/p>\n<li>2. Igal’s father from Issachar’s tribe. Igal was one of the 12 spies sent by Moses to search out the land of Canaan (Nm 13:7).<\/li>\n<li>3. Asaph’s second son and the leader of the first course of priests serving in the sanctuary during David’s reign (1 Chr 25:2, 9).<\/li>\n<li>4. One of Binnui’s descendants who was encouraged by Ezra to divorce his foreign wife during the postexilic era (Ezr 10:42).<\/li>\n<li>5. Priest and family leader from Shebaniah’s line during the days of Joiakim, the high priest (Neh 12:14).<\/li>\n<li>6. Descendant of David (Mt 1:16; Lk 3:23) and the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Joseph was betrothed to Mary, a young woman of the city of Nazareth. Mary had learned from the angel Gabriel that she was to bear the Son of God, whom she was to name Jesus (Lk 1:31) and that this conception was to be a work of the Holy Spirit (v 35). Joseph was not aware of this, so when he learned that Mary was pregnant, he decided to divorce her quietly, for he was a just man and did not want to humiliate her publicly (Mt 1:19). An angel subsequently appeared to him in a dream to tell him what was happening (Mt 1:21; cf. Is 7:14). The text of Matthew makes it clear that there was no sexual union between Joseph and Mary until after Jesus was born (Mt 1:18, 25; see also Lk 1:34-37).<\/li>\nWhen Caesar Augustus issued a decree that everyone had to register in his native city for purposes of taxation, Joseph and Mary returned to Bethlehem, where Jesus was subsequently born (Lk 2:1-6). Later, Joseph and Mary took the infant Jesus to the temple to present him to the Lord (vv 22, 33). After the visit of the wise men, an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream and instructed him to take Jesus and Mary to Egypt to protect the child from King Herod (Mt 2:13). Upon the death of Herod, an angel similarly advised him to return to Israel, so the family went to live in Nazareth. The last recorded event that involves Joseph is the incident of Jesus at the temple at age 12 (Lk 2:41-51). Joseph is not mentioned by name, but Mary told Jesus that she and his father had been looking for him anxiously.<\/p>\nJesus was identified by people around Nazareth as “Joseph’s son” (Lk 4:22; Jn 1:45; 6:42). It is only through references identifying Jesus that we learn of Joseph’s trade. Twice Jesus is referred to as “the carpenter’s son” (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). Joseph was not a carpenter in our sense of the word, for houses were built mostly of stone and earth. He was a woodworker or artificer in wood, and probably most of his work was with furniture and agricultural implements.<\/p>\nDuring the ministry of Jesus, it was his mother and his brothers who came to look for him (Mt 12:46-50; Mk 3:31-35), so it is assumed that by this time Joseph was dead. Joseph was most likely the father of James, Joseph, Simon, Judas, and unnamed sisters (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Brothers of Jesus; Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<li>7. Joseph and Mary’s son and the brother of Jesus (Mt 13:55); alternately called Joses in Mark 6:3. See<\/em> Brothers of Jesus.<\/li>\n<li>8. Native of Arimathea and the follower of Jesus who provided for his burial. He was a rich man from the town of Arimathea and a respected member of the Sanhedrin, or council (Mk 15:43). He was a good and righteous man and did not go along with the decision to crucify Jesus (Lk 23:50-51). Joseph had been a secret follower of Jesus because he was afraid of the Jews (Jn 19:38), but after the Crucifixion he took courage and went to Pilate to ask for Jesus’ body. He and Nicodemus took the body, treated it with spices, and wrapped it in linen cloths, according to the Jewish burial customs. In a nearby garden was Joseph’s own new rock-cut tomb in which no one had ever been buried. Here they placed Jesus and sealed the tomb with a large stone.<\/li>\n<li> 9. Mattathias’s son and an ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:25). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>10. KJV rendering of Josech, an ancestor of Jesus, in Luke 3:26. See<\/em> Josech.<\/li>\n<li>11. Jonam’s son and an ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:30). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>12. Disciple of Jesus who was “called Barsabbas” and “surnamed Justus” (Acts 1:23). Joseph was one of the candidates put forward by the 11 apostles to replace Judas Iscariot. It was Matthias, however, who was chosen.<\/li>\n<li>13. Cypriot Levite who sold a field and gave the proceeds to the apostles. He was surnamed “Barnabas,” meaning “son of encouragement,” by the apostles (Acts 4:36). See<\/em> Barnabas.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>JOSEPH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Jacob’s 11th son and the firstborn son of Rachel. Rachel named the boy Joseph, meaning “may he add,” expressing her desire that God would give her another son (Gn 30:24).<\/li>\nNothing more is said about Joseph until, at the age of 17, he is seen tending his father’s flocks with his brothers (Gn 37:2). Joseph was the favorite of his father, since he was the son of his old age (v 3) and the firstborn son of his favorite wife. Because of this, his brothers hated Joseph. This envy was magnified when Jacob gave Joseph a ground-length, long-sleeved, multicolored robe (vv 3-4). (This type of garment is illustrated by the paintings in the Asiatic tombs of Khnumhotep II at Beni Hasan and of the nobles at Gurneh, near Luxor.) The animosity of his brothers increased still more when Joseph revealed to them his dreams of dominion over them (vv 5-11). Subsequently, when Joseph was sent to check on his brothers and the flocks near Shechem, his brothers sold him to a caravan of traders going down to Egypt (vv 25-28). His brothers then took his robe, dipped it in goat’s blood, and brought it to Jacob, who concluded that Joseph had been killed by wild animals (vv 31-33); Jacob was overwhelmed with grief (vv 34-35).<\/p>\nIn Egypt, Joseph was sold to Potiphar, an Egyptian officer of the guard (Gn 37:36; 39:1), who eventually put Joseph in charge of his entire household. However, trouble arose from Potiphar’s wife, who was attracted to the young Hebrew and tried to seduce him (39:6-10). He steadfastly resisted her advances, protesting that to comply with her wishes would be a disservice to his master and a sin against God (v 9). One day she seized his garment, but he left the garment behind and fled. Potiphar’s wife accused Joseph of attempted rape; her report was believed, and Joseph was incarcerated in the king’s prison (v 20), where Pharaoh’s butler and baker were also confined. While in prison, Joseph, with the Lord’s help, interpreted these men’s troublesome dreams. As Joseph had foretold, the baker was executed and the butler was restored to royal favor (ch 40).<\/p>\nTwo years later Pharaoh had two dreams that his magicians and wise men could not interpret. The butler, remembering Joseph, had him summoned from prison. God revealed to Joseph that the dreams foretold seven years of abundance, followed by seven years of famine (Gn 41:25-36). Pharaoh, impressed with Joseph’s interpretation, made him ruler of Egypt, second only to himself (vv 39-44). Joseph was given a new name, Zaphenath-paneah, and a wife, Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera (v 45).<\/p>\nJoseph was 30 years old when he became ruler of Egypt. During the seven years of prosperity, he gathered the good supplies for the seven years of famine to come (Gn 41:53-56). When the famine eventually became severe in Palestine, Jacob sent all his sons, except Benjamin, his youngest son, to Egypt to purchase grain. Appearing before Joseph in Egypt, they did not recognize him. But he knew them and remembered his dreams of years before (42:8-9). After listening to the report of their family, he accused them of being spies (vv 9-14) and insisted that they leave one of their brothers as hostage and return with Benjamin to verify the truthfulness of their report (vv 19-20). Thus Simeon was bound and left in Egypt (v 24).<\/p>\nAfter the famine worsened in Palestine, Jacob asked his sons to go back to Egypt to buy more grain (Gn 43:1-2); reluctantly agreeing to the conditions that the Egyptian administrator had placed on them, Jacob allowed Benjamin to go with them (vv 11-13). When they arrived in Egypt, they were taken to Joseph’s house, where Simeon was restored to them (v 23) and a meal was prepared for them (v 33). Joseph at last disclosed his identity and declared that God had sent him before them to preserve their lives (45:4-8). Arrangements were then made to send for Jacob; wagons were provided, along with provisions for the journey (v 21). When Jacob came to Goshen in the Nile Delta, Joseph went out to meet him, and another great reunion took place (46:28-29). He also presented his father and brothers to Pharaoh, who let them live in the land of Goshen (47:6).<\/p>\nUpon learning that his father was ill, Joseph took his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to him for his blessing. He presented the sons so that the older would be at Jacob’s right hand and the younger at his left in order that Manasseh would receive the blessing of the firstborn. Jacob, however, crossed his hands and with his right hand on Ephraim gave him the greater blessing (Gn 48:14-20). He also gave to Joseph the land that he had taken from the Amorites (v 22). At Jacob’s death, Joseph made the funeral arrangements; and after the customary funerary practices were carried out, a great funeral procession went to Canaan, where Jacob was buried by his sons in the cave of Machpelah near Hebron (50:1-12).<\/p>\nWhen Joseph was 110 years old, he called his brothers and told them that he was about to die. He made them take an oath that when they returned to Canaan they would take his bones with them. So he died, was embalmed, and was placed in a coffin in Egypt (Gn 50:26). Many years later, during the exodus, Moses took the bones of Joseph with him from Egypt (Ex 13:19). Joseph’s remains were eventually interred at Shechem in the parcel of land that Jacob had bought from Hamor, the father of Shechem (Gn 33:18-20; Jos 24:32). See<\/em> Israel, History of; Patriarchs, Period of the.<\/p>\n<li>2. Igal’s father from Issachar’s tribe. Igal was one of the 12 spies sent by Moses to search out the land of Canaan (Nm 13:7).<\/li>\n<li>3. Asaph’s second son and the leader of the first course of priests serving in the sanctuary during David’s reign (1 Chr 25:2, 9).<\/li>\n<li>4. One of Binnui’s descendants who was encouraged by Ezra to divorce his foreign wife during the postexilic era (Ezr 10:42).<\/li>\n<li>5. Priest and family leader from Shebaniah’s line during the days of Joiakim, the high priest (Neh 12:14).<\/li>\n<li>6. Descendant of David (Mt 1:16; Lk 3:23) and the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Joseph was betrothed to Mary, a young woman of the city of Nazareth. Mary had learned from the angel Gabriel that she was to bear the Son of God, whom she was to name Jesus (Lk 1:31) and that this conception was to be a work of the Holy Spirit (v 35). Joseph was not aware of this, so when he learned that Mary was pregnant, he decided to divorce her quietly, for he was a just man and did not want to humiliate her publicly (Mt 1:19). An angel subsequently appeared to him in a dream to tell him what was happening (Mt 1:21; cf. Is 7:14). The text of Matthew makes it clear that there was no sexual union between Joseph and Mary until after Jesus was born (Mt 1:18, 25; see also Lk 1:34-37).<\/li>\nWhen Caesar Augustus issued a decree that everyone had to register in his native city for purposes of taxation, Joseph and Mary returned to Bethlehem, where Jesus was subsequently born (Lk 2:1-6). Later, Joseph and Mary took the infant Jesus to the temple to present him to the Lord (vv 22, 33). After the visit of the wise men, an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream and instructed him to take Jesus and Mary to Egypt to protect the child from King Herod (Mt 2:13). Upon the death of Herod, an angel similarly advised him to return to Israel, so the family went to live in Nazareth. The last recorded event that involves Joseph is the incident of Jesus at the temple at age 12 (Lk 2:41-51). Joseph is not mentioned by name, but Mary told Jesus that she and his father had been looking for him anxiously.<\/p>\nJesus was identified by people around Nazareth as “Joseph’s son” (Lk 4:22; Jn 1:45; 6:42). It is only through references identifying Jesus that we learn of Joseph’s trade. Twice Jesus is referred to as “the carpenter’s son” (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). Joseph was not a carpenter in our sense of the word, for houses were built mostly of stone and earth. He was a woodworker or artificer in wood, and probably most of his work was with furniture and agricultural implements.<\/p>\nDuring the ministry of Jesus, it was his mother and his brothers who came to look for him (Mt 12:46-50; Mk 3:31-35), so it is assumed that by this time Joseph was dead. Joseph was most likely the father of James, Joseph, Simon, Judas, and unnamed sisters (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Brothers of Jesus; Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<li>7. Joseph and Mary’s son and the brother of Jesus (Mt 13:55); alternately called Joses in Mark 6:3. See<\/em> Brothers of Jesus.<\/li>\n<li>8. Native of Arimathea and the follower of Jesus who provided for his burial. He was a rich man from the town of Arimathea and a respected member of the Sanhedrin, or council (Mk 15:43). He was a good and righteous man and did not go along with the decision to crucify Jesus (Lk 23:50-51). Joseph had been a secret follower of Jesus because he was afraid of the Jews (Jn 19:38), but after the Crucifixion he took courage and went to Pilate to ask for Jesus’ body. He and Nicodemus took the body, treated it with spices, and wrapped it in linen cloths, according to the Jewish burial customs. In a nearby garden was Joseph’s own new rock-cut tomb in which no one had ever been buried. Here they placed Jesus and sealed the tomb with a large stone.<\/li>\n<li> 9. Mattathias’s son and an ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:25). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>10. KJV rendering of Josech, an ancestor of Jesus, in Luke 3:26. See<\/em> Josech.<\/li>\n<li>11. Jonam’s son and an ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:30). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>12. Disciple of Jesus who was “called Barsabbas” and “surnamed Justus” (Acts 1:23). Joseph was one of the candidates put forward by the 11 apostles to replace Judas Iscariot. It was Matthias, however, who was chosen.<\/li>\n<li>13. Cypriot Levite who sold a field and gave the proceeds to the apostles. He was surnamed “Barnabas,” meaning “son of encouragement,” by the apostles (Acts 4:36). See<\/em> Barnabas.<\/li>","summary_ro":"JOSEPH 1. Jacob’s 11th son and the firstborn son of Rachel. Rachel named the boy Joseph, meaning “may he add,” expressing her desire that God would give her another son (Gn 30:24). Nothing more is said about Joseph until, at the age of 17, he is seen tending his father’s flocks with his brothers (Gn 37:2). Joseph was the favorite of his father, since he was the son of his old age (v 3) and the firstborn son of his favorite wife. Because of this, his brothers hated Joseph. This envy was magnif...","summary_en":"JOSEPH 1. Jacob’s 11th son and the firstborn son of Rachel. Rachel named the boy Joseph, meaning “may he add,” expressing her desire that God would give her another son (Gn 30:24). Nothing more is said about Joseph until, at the age of 17, he is seen tending his father’s flocks with his brothers (Gn 37:2). Joseph was the favorite of his father, since he was the son of his old age (v 3) and the firstborn son of his favorite wife. Because of this, his brothers hated Joseph. This envy was magnif...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20985,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Juda* (Person)","title_en":"Juda* (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>JUDA* (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Alternate kjv<\/span> spelling of Judas, Jesus’ brother, in Mark 6:3. Judas is also called Jude in Jude 1. See<\/em> Jude (Person).<\/li>\n<li>2. Alternate kjv<\/span> spelling of Joda, Joanan’s son, in Luke 3:26. See<\/em> Joda.<\/li>\n<li>3. Alternate kjv<\/span> spelling of Judah, Joseph’s son, in Luke 3:30. See<\/em> Judah (Person) #8.<\/li>\n<li>4. Alternate kjv<\/span> spelling of Judah, Jacob’s son, in Luke 3:33. See<\/em> Judah (Person) #1.<\/li>\n<li>5. Alternate kjv<\/span> spelling for Judah’s tribe (Heb 7:14; Rv 5:5; 7:5). See<\/em> Judah, Tribe of.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>JUDA* (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Alternate kjv<\/span> spelling of Judas, Jesus’ brother, in Mark 6:3. Judas is also called Jude in Jude 1. See<\/em> Jude (Person).<\/li>\n<li>2. Alternate kjv<\/span> spelling of Joda, Joanan’s son, in Luke 3:26. See<\/em> Joda.<\/li>\n<li>3. Alternate kjv<\/span> spelling of Judah, Joseph’s son, in Luke 3:30. See<\/em> Judah (Person) #8.<\/li>\n<li>4. Alternate kjv<\/span> spelling of Judah, Jacob’s son, in Luke 3:33. See<\/em> Judah (Person) #1.<\/li>\n<li>5. Alternate kjv<\/span> spelling for Judah’s tribe (Heb 7:14; Rv 5:5; 7:5). See<\/em> Judah, Tribe of.<\/li>","summary_ro":"JUDA* (Person) 1. Alternate kjv spelling of Judas, Jesus’ brother, in Mark 6:3. Judas is also called Jude in Jude 1. See Jude (Person). 2. Alternate kjv spelling of Joda, Joanan’s son, in Luke 3:26. See Joda. 3. Alternate kjv spelling of Judah, Joseph’s son, in Luke 3:30. See Judah (Person) #8. 4. Alternate kjv spelling of Judah, Jacob’s son, in Luke 3:33. See Judah (Person) #1. 5. Alternate kjv spelling for Judah’s tribe (Heb 7:14; Rv 5:5; 7:5). See Judah, Tribe of.","summary_en":"JUDA* (Person) 1. Alternate kjv spelling of Judas, Jesus’ brother, in Mark 6:3. Judas is also called Jude in Jude 1. See Jude (Person). 2. Alternate kjv spelling of Joda, Joanan’s son, in Luke 3:26. See Joda. 3. Alternate kjv spelling of Judah, Joseph’s son, in Luke 3:30. See Judah (Person) #8. 4. Alternate kjv spelling of Judah, Jacob’s son, in Luke 3:33. See Judah (Person) #1. 5. Alternate kjv spelling for Judah’s tribe (Heb 7:14; Rv 5:5; 7:5). See Judah, Tribe of.","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":21016,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Judah (Person)","title_en":"Judah (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>JUDAH (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Fourth of Jacob’s 12 sons (Gn 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1) and the fourth son born to Jacob by Leah, who, overjoyed with the thought of bearing Jacob another son, named him Judah, meaning “praise” (Gn 29:35). Judah fathered five sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah by Bathshua the Canaanitess (Gn 38:3-5; 1 Chr 2:3); and the twins Perez and Zerah by Tamar, his daughter-in-law (Gn 38:29-30; 1 Chr 2:4). He eventually settled his family in Egypt with his father and brothers (Ex 1:2), although his first two sons, Er and Onan, were divinely killed in Canaan for their disobedience (Gn 46:12). Judah became the founder of one of Israel’s 12 tribes (Nm 1:26-27).<\/li>\nThough reckless in his behavior with Tamar (Gn 38:6-30), Judah showed firm resolve in taking personal responsibility for Benjamin’s safety in Egypt and acting as intercessor for his brothers before Joseph (44:14-18). At the time of Jacob’s blessing, Judah was granted the birthright privileges of the firstborn; the leadership of Jacob’s family would come through Judah’s seed, as would the promised Messiah of Abraham’s covenant (49:8-12). Later, Judah’s family was praised at the time of Ruth’s engagement to Boaz (Ru 4:12), and both the Davidic lines of kings (1 Chr 2:1-15; 3:1-24) and Jesus Christ’s ancestors traced their descent from Judah (Mt 1:2-3; Lk 3:33).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Judah, Tribe of.<\/p>\n<li>2. Forefather of a family of Levites who assisted Jeshua, the high priest, with rebuilding the temple during the postexilic era (Ezr 3:9, nlt<\/span> mg). He is alternately called Hodaviah in Ezra 2:40 and Hodevah in Nehemiah 7:43. See<\/em> Hodaviah #4.<\/li>\n<li>3. One of the Levites who was encouraged by Ezra to divorce his foreign wife (Ezr 10:23).<\/li>\n<li>4. Benjamite, son of Hassenuah, who was second in command over the city of Jerusalem during the days of Nehemiah (Neh 11:9).<\/li>\n<li>5. One of the leaders of the Levites who returned with Zerubbabel and Jeshua to Judah after the exile (Neh 12:8).<\/li>\n<li>6. One of the princes of Judah who participated in the dedication of the Jerusalem wall during the postexilic period (Neh 12:34).<\/li>\n<li>7. One of the priests who played a musical instrument at the dedication of the Jerusalem wall during the days of Nehemiah (Neh 12:36). He is perhaps identical with #5 above.<\/li>\n<li>8. Joseph’s son, father of Simeon and an ancestor of Jesus Christ (Lk 3:30). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>JUDAH (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Fourth of Jacob’s 12 sons (Gn 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1) and the fourth son born to Jacob by Leah, who, overjoyed with the thought of bearing Jacob another son, named him Judah, meaning “praise” (Gn 29:35). Judah fathered five sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah by Bathshua the Canaanitess (Gn 38:3-5; 1 Chr 2:3); and the twins Perez and Zerah by Tamar, his daughter-in-law (Gn 38:29-30; 1 Chr 2:4). He eventually settled his family in Egypt with his father and brothers (Ex 1:2), although his first two sons, Er and Onan, were divinely killed in Canaan for their disobedience (Gn 46:12). Judah became the founder of one of Israel’s 12 tribes (Nm 1:26-27).<\/li>\nThough reckless in his behavior with Tamar (Gn 38:6-30), Judah showed firm resolve in taking personal responsibility for Benjamin’s safety in Egypt and acting as intercessor for his brothers before Joseph (44:14-18). At the time of Jacob’s blessing, Judah was granted the birthright privileges of the firstborn; the leadership of Jacob’s family would come through Judah’s seed, as would the promised Messiah of Abraham’s covenant (49:8-12). Later, Judah’s family was praised at the time of Ruth’s engagement to Boaz (Ru 4:12), and both the Davidic lines of kings (1 Chr 2:1-15; 3:1-24) and Jesus Christ’s ancestors traced their descent from Judah (Mt 1:2-3; Lk 3:33).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Judah, Tribe of.<\/p>\n<li>2. Forefather of a family of Levites who assisted Jeshua, the high priest, with rebuilding the temple during the postexilic era (Ezr 3:9, nlt<\/span> mg). He is alternately called Hodaviah in Ezra 2:40 and Hodevah in Nehemiah 7:43. See<\/em> Hodaviah #4.<\/li>\n<li>3. One of the Levites who was encouraged by Ezra to divorce his foreign wife (Ezr 10:23).<\/li>\n<li>4. Benjamite, son of Hassenuah, who was second in command over the city of Jerusalem during the days of Nehemiah (Neh 11:9).<\/li>\n<li>5. One of the leaders of the Levites who returned with Zerubbabel and Jeshua to Judah after the exile (Neh 12:8).<\/li>\n<li>6. One of the princes of Judah who participated in the dedication of the Jerusalem wall during the postexilic period (Neh 12:34).<\/li>\n<li>7. One of the priests who played a musical instrument at the dedication of the Jerusalem wall during the days of Nehemiah (Neh 12:36). He is perhaps identical with #5 above.<\/li>\n<li>8. Joseph’s son, father of Simeon and an ancestor of Jesus Christ (Lk 3:30). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>","summary_ro":"JUDAH (Person) 1. Fourth of Jacob’s 12 sons (Gn 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1) and the fourth son born to Jacob by Leah, who, overjoyed with the thought of bearing Jacob another son, named him Judah, meaning “praise” (Gn 29:35). Judah fathered five sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah by Bathshua the Canaanitess (Gn 38:3-5; 1 Chr 2:3); and the twins Perez and Zerah by Tamar, his daughter-in-law (Gn 38:29-30; 1 Chr 2:4). He eventually settled his family in Egypt with his father and brothers (Ex 1:2), although his fi...","summary_en":"JUDAH (Person) 1. Fourth of Jacob’s 12 sons (Gn 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1) and the fourth son born to Jacob by Leah, who, overjoyed with the thought of bearing Jacob another son, named him Judah, meaning “praise” (Gn 29:35). Judah fathered five sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah by Bathshua the Canaanitess (Gn 38:3-5; 1 Chr 2:3); and the twins Perez and Zerah by Tamar, his daughter-in-law (Gn 38:29-30; 1 Chr 2:4). He eventually settled his family in Egypt with his father and brothers (Ex 1:2), although his fi...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":35411,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Simeon (Person)","title_en":"Simeon (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>SIMEON (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Second of the 12 sons of Jacob (Gn 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1) and the second son borne to him by Leah (Gn 29:33). Simeon fathered six sons (Ex 6:15) and settled his family in Egypt with Jacob and his brothers (1:2). He was the founder of the Simeonites (Nm 26:12-14) and one of the 12 tribes of Israel (1:23). He is remembered most for his vengeance on the men of Shechem because of Dinah’s rape (Gn 34:25).<\/li>\nSee also<\/em> Simeon, Tribe of.<\/p>\n<li>2. Pious Jew living in Jerusalem who was assured that he would not die before he saw the promised Messiah. Led by the Holy Spirit to the temple, Simeon met Mary and Joseph there, held Jesus in his arms, and prophesied about the Messiah’s coming mission (Lk 2:25-35).<\/li>\n<li>3. Ancestor of Jesus in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:30). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>4. One of five prophets and teachers mentioned in Acts 13:1 who was serving in the church of Antioch. Simeon was surnamed Niger and was perhaps from Africa. Symeon is a better reading of the Greek in this text.<\/li>\n<li>5. Reference to Simon Peter in Acts 15:14. See<\/em> Peter, The Apostle.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>SIMEON (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Second of the 12 sons of Jacob (Gn 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1) and the second son borne to him by Leah (Gn 29:33). Simeon fathered six sons (Ex 6:15) and settled his family in Egypt with Jacob and his brothers (1:2). He was the founder of the Simeonites (Nm 26:12-14) and one of the 12 tribes of Israel (1:23). He is remembered most for his vengeance on the men of Shechem because of Dinah’s rape (Gn 34:25).<\/li>\nSee also<\/em> Simeon, Tribe of.<\/p>\n<li>2. Pious Jew living in Jerusalem who was assured that he would not die before he saw the promised Messiah. Led by the Holy Spirit to the temple, Simeon met Mary and Joseph there, held Jesus in his arms, and prophesied about the Messiah’s coming mission (Lk 2:25-35).<\/li>\n<li>3. Ancestor of Jesus in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:30). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>4. One of five prophets and teachers mentioned in Acts 13:1 who was serving in the church of Antioch. Simeon was surnamed Niger and was perhaps from Africa. Symeon is a better reading of the Greek in this text.<\/li>\n<li>5. Reference to Simon Peter in Acts 15:14. See<\/em> Peter, The Apostle.<\/li>","summary_ro":"SIMEON (Person) 1. Second of the 12 sons of Jacob (Gn 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1) and the second son borne to him by Leah (Gn 29:33). Simeon fathered six sons (Ex 6:15) and settled his family in Egypt with Jacob and his brothers (1:2). He was the founder of the Simeonites (Nm 26:12-14) and one of the 12 tribes of Israel (1:23). He is remembered most for his vengeance on the men of Shechem because of Dinah’s rape (Gn 34:25). See also Simeon, Tribe of. 2. Pious Jew living in Jerusalem who was assured tha...","summary_en":"SIMEON (Person) 1. Second of the 12 sons of Jacob (Gn 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1) and the second son borne to him by Leah (Gn 29:33). Simeon fathered six sons (Ex 6:15) and settled his family in Egypt with Jacob and his brothers (1:2). He was the founder of the Simeonites (Nm 26:12-14) and one of the 12 tribes of Israel (1:23). He is remembered most for his vengeance on the men of Shechem because of Dinah’s rape (Gn 34:25). See also Simeon, Tribe of. 2. Pious Jew living in Jerusalem who was assured tha...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"31":[{"id":41295,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"David","title_en":"David","content_ro":"<h3>David<\/h3>\nDavid is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance.<\/p>\nDavid was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use David to complete the conquest of the land.<\/p>\nAs a youth, David was a simple shepherd, watching his father’s sheep (1 Sam 16:11; 17:14-15). His life took an unexpected turn when the prophet Samuel came to Jesse and anointed David as the next king of Israel. However, David’s kingship was not initiated by a coup or an assassination. In fact, David became a faithful servant to King Saul. David first entered Saul’s service as a musician, playing songs that soothed Saul’s tormented soul (16:14-23). This service anticipated David’s role as the composer of many of the psalms. The youthful David also helped Saul by famously defeating the Philistine champion Goliath in individual combat (17:32-51). This victory anticipated David’s role as a victorious military leader.<\/p>\nAlthough David was loyal, Saul grew deeply suspicious of him, and David had to flee. He was able to escape with help from Saul’s own children, Jonathan and Michal. David led a virtual kingdom in exile. He had a standing army of six hundred men. The prophet Gad and the priest Abiathar were also with him, providing direction and guidance from the Lord.<\/p>\nGod’s long-suffering patience finally ran out with Saul, and Saul died on the battlefield. Yet it was still not easy for David to establish his rule over all Israel. The tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed him its king, but at first the northern tribes chose Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, to be their leader. Ishbosheth was not a powerful or good leader; he only stayed in power because of the protection of his father’s military leader, Abner. However, Ishbosheth foolishly insulted Abner, so the general helped turn the kingdom over to David.<\/p>\nAs king over a united Israel, David proceeded to solidify the kingdom. He and his men captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made this central city his capital. He also expelled the remaining Philistines from the land. He then brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. David wanted to build a permanent temple to God in Jerusalem to replace the Tabernacle. God denied this wish, but he showed his love for David by entering into a covenant with him that established his descendants as a dynasty (2 Sam 7).<\/p>\nDavid’s life soon took a turn for the worse, however (see 2 Sam 11–12). At a time when he probably should have been on the battlefield with his army, he was lounging around on the palace roof. He saw a beautiful woman named Bathsheba taking a bath. He wanted her, so, like a Near Eastern despot, he took her. She became pregnant, and his attempt to cover up his adultery failed. In a desperate attempt to keep things secret, he had her husband, Uriah, killed. But not even a great king like David can keep secrets from God, and God sent his prophet Nathan to confront David. David repented (see Pss 32, 51), but the consequences of his actions plagued his family and the rest of his reign.<\/p>\nFrom that point on, David’s family fell apart. David’s son Amnon raped his half sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:1-14). Her brother Absalom then murdered Amnon (2 Sam 13:20-29). Absalom later created a civil war as he tried to steal the throne from his father (2 Sam 15–18). Another son, Adonijah, tried to take the throne from David by having himself proclaimed king while his father was still alive (1 Kgs 1:5-10). But David was able to muster enough strength to ensure that Solomon would succeed him (1 Kgs 1:28-40). David died, Solomon was proclaimed king, and David’s long dynasty began (as promised in 2 Sam 7).<\/p>\nDavid’s successors seldom measured up. Only rarely did his descendants lead the nation to worship God faithfully; the united monarchy did not even outlive Solomon. In the centuries that followed, the descendants of David ruled only Judah in the south. Eventually, the kingdom of Judah was destroyed. Never again did a descendant of David reign as king in Israel.<\/p>\nWhat, then, of the promise to David that “your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sam 7:16)? The New Testament points to Jesus. He was the descendant of David, and God proclaimed him the Christ, or Messiah—the anointed king (see Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37; Luke 18:38-39; 20:41-44; John 7:42; Rev 5:5; 22:16). The life and rule of David foreshadows the messianic reign of Jesus Christ, which will last forever (see Luke 1:32-33; Rev 11:15).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nRuth 4:13-22; 1 Sam 16:1–17:58; 18:1–27:12; 29:1–30:31; 2 Sam 1:1–24:25; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:12; 1 Chr 11:1–29:30; Pss 1–32, 34–41, 51–71, 86, 91–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145; Matt 1:1; 9:27; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; John 7:40-44; Acts 2:22-37; 13:20-43; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>David<\/h3>\nDavid is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance.<\/p>\nDavid was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use David to complete the conquest of the land.<\/p>\nAs a youth, David was a simple shepherd, watching his father’s sheep (1 Sam 16:11; 17:14-15). His life took an unexpected turn when the prophet Samuel came to Jesse and anointed David as the next king of Israel. However, David’s kingship was not initiated by a coup or an assassination. In fact, David became a faithful servant to King Saul. David first entered Saul’s service as a musician, playing songs that soothed Saul’s tormented soul (16:14-23). This service anticipated David’s role as the composer of many of the psalms. The youthful David also helped Saul by famously defeating the Philistine champion Goliath in individual combat (17:32-51). This victory anticipated David’s role as a victorious military leader.<\/p>\nAlthough David was loyal, Saul grew deeply suspicious of him, and David had to flee. He was able to escape with help from Saul’s own children, Jonathan and Michal. David led a virtual kingdom in exile. He had a standing army of six hundred men. The prophet Gad and the priest Abiathar were also with him, providing direction and guidance from the Lord.<\/p>\nGod’s long-suffering patience finally ran out with Saul, and Saul died on the battlefield. Yet it was still not easy for David to establish his rule over all Israel. The tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed him its king, but at first the northern tribes chose Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, to be their leader. Ishbosheth was not a powerful or good leader; he only stayed in power because of the protection of his father’s military leader, Abner. However, Ishbosheth foolishly insulted Abner, so the general helped turn the kingdom over to David.<\/p>\nAs king over a united Israel, David proceeded to solidify the kingdom. He and his men captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made this central city his capital. He also expelled the remaining Philistines from the land. He then brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. David wanted to build a permanent temple to God in Jerusalem to replace the Tabernacle. God denied this wish, but he showed his love for David by entering into a covenant with him that established his descendants as a dynasty (2 Sam 7).<\/p>\nDavid’s life soon took a turn for the worse, however (see 2 Sam 11–12). At a time when he probably should have been on the battlefield with his army, he was lounging around on the palace roof. He saw a beautiful woman named Bathsheba taking a bath. He wanted her, so, like a Near Eastern despot, he took her. She became pregnant, and his attempt to cover up his adultery failed. In a desperate attempt to keep things secret, he had her husband, Uriah, killed. But not even a great king like David can keep secrets from God, and God sent his prophet Nathan to confront David. David repented (see Pss 32, 51), but the consequences of his actions plagued his family and the rest of his reign.<\/p>\nFrom that point on, David’s family fell apart. David’s son Amnon raped his half sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:1-14). Her brother Absalom then murdered Amnon (2 Sam 13:20-29). Absalom later created a civil war as he tried to steal the throne from his father (2 Sam 15–18). Another son, Adonijah, tried to take the throne from David by having himself proclaimed king while his father was still alive (1 Kgs 1:5-10). But David was able to muster enough strength to ensure that Solomon would succeed him (1 Kgs 1:28-40). David died, Solomon was proclaimed king, and David’s long dynasty began (as promised in 2 Sam 7).<\/p>\nDavid’s successors seldom measured up. Only rarely did his descendants lead the nation to worship God faithfully; the united monarchy did not even outlive Solomon. In the centuries that followed, the descendants of David ruled only Judah in the south. Eventually, the kingdom of Judah was destroyed. Never again did a descendant of David reign as king in Israel.<\/p>\nWhat, then, of the promise to David that “your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sam 7:16)? The New Testament points to Jesus. He was the descendant of David, and God proclaimed him the Christ, or Messiah—the anointed king (see Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37; Luke 18:38-39; 20:41-44; John 7:42; Rev 5:5; 22:16). The life and rule of David foreshadows the messianic reign of Jesus Christ, which will last forever (see Luke 1:32-33; Rev 11:15).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nRuth 4:13-22; 1 Sam 16:1–17:58; 18:1–27:12; 29:1–30:31; 2 Sam 1:1–24:25; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:12; 1 Chr 11:1–29:30; Pss 1–32, 34–41, 51–71, 86, 91–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145; Matt 1:1; 9:27; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; John 7:40-44; Acts 2:22-37; 13:20-43; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16<\/p>","summary_ro":"David David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance. David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use Dav...","summary_en":"David David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance. David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use Dav...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":68921,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"David","title_en":"David","content_ro":"<h3>David<\/h3>\nDavid is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance.<\/p>\nDavid was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use David to complete the conquest of the land.<\/p>\nAs a youth, David was a simple shepherd, watching his father’s sheep (1 Sam 16:11; 17:14-15). His life took an unexpected turn when the prophet Samuel came to Jesse and anointed David as the next king of Israel. However, David’s kingship was not initiated by a coup or an assassination. In fact, David became a faithful servant to King Saul. David first entered Saul’s service as a musician, playing songs that soothed Saul’s tormented soul (16:14-23). This service anticipated David’s role as the composer of many of the psalms. The youthful David also helped Saul by famously defeating the Philistine champion Goliath in individual combat (17:32-51). This victory anticipated David’s role as a victorious military leader.<\/p>\nAlthough David was loyal, Saul grew deeply suspicious of him, and David had to flee. He was able to escape with help from Saul’s own children, Jonathan and Michal. David led a virtual kingdom in exile. He had a standing army of six hundred men. The prophet Gad and the priest Abiathar were also with him, providing direction and guidance from the Lord.<\/p>\nGod’s long-suffering patience finally ran out with Saul, and Saul died on the battlefield. Yet it was still not easy for David to establish his rule over all Israel. The tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed him its king, but at first the northern tribes chose Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, to be their leader. Ishbosheth was not a powerful or good leader; he only stayed in power because of the protection of his father’s military leader, Abner. However, Ishbosheth foolishly insulted Abner, so the general helped turn the kingdom over to David.<\/p>\nAs king over a united Israel, David proceeded to solidify the kingdom. He and his men captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made this central city his capital. He also expelled the remaining Philistines from the land. He then brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. David wanted to build a permanent temple to God in Jerusalem to replace the Tabernacle. God denied this wish, but he showed his love for David by entering into a covenant with him that established his descendants as a dynasty (2 Sam 7).<\/p>\nDavid’s life soon took a turn for the worse, however (see 2 Sam 11–12). At a time when he probably should have been on the battlefield with his army, he was lounging around on the palace roof. He saw a beautiful woman named Bathsheba taking a bath. He wanted her, so, like a Near Eastern despot, he took her. She became pregnant, and his attempt to cover up his adultery failed. In a desperate attempt to keep things secret, he had her husband, Uriah, killed. But not even a great king like David can keep secrets from God, and God sent his prophet Nathan to confront David. David repented (see Pss 32, 51), but the consequences of his actions plagued his family and the rest of his reign.<\/p>\nFrom that point on, David’s family fell apart. David’s son Amnon raped his half sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:1-14). Her brother Absalom then murdered Amnon (2 Sam 13:20-29). Absalom later created a civil war as he tried to steal the throne from his father (2 Sam 15–18). Another son, Adonijah, tried to take the throne from David by having himself proclaimed king while his father was still alive (1 Kgs 1:5-10). But David was able to muster enough strength to ensure that Solomon would succeed him (1 Kgs 1:28-40). David died, Solomon was proclaimed king, and David’s long dynasty began (as promised in 2 Sam 7).<\/p>\nDavid’s successors seldom measured up. Only rarely did his descendants lead the nation to worship God faithfully; the united monarchy did not even outlive Solomon. In the centuries that followed, the descendants of David ruled only Judah in the south. Eventually, the kingdom of Judah was destroyed. Never again did a descendant of David reign as king in Israel.<\/p>\nWhat, then, of the promise to David that “your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sam 7:16)? The New Testament points to Jesus. He was the descendant of David, and God proclaimed him the Christ, or Messiah—the anointed king (see Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37; Luke 18:38-39; 20:41-44; John 7:42; Rev 5:5; 22:16). The life and rule of David foreshadows the messianic reign of Jesus Christ, which will last forever (see Luke 1:32-33; Rev 11:15).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nRuth 4:13-22; 1 Sam 16:1–17:58; 18:1–27:12; 29:1–30:31; 2 Sam 1:1–24:25; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:12; 1 Chr 11:1–29:30; Pss 1–32, 34–41, 51–71, 86, 91–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145; Matt 1:1; 9:27; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; John 7:40-44; Acts 2:22-37; 13:20-43; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>David<\/h3>\nDavid is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance.<\/p>\nDavid was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use David to complete the conquest of the land.<\/p>\nAs a youth, David was a simple shepherd, watching his father’s sheep (1 Sam 16:11; 17:14-15). His life took an unexpected turn when the prophet Samuel came to Jesse and anointed David as the next king of Israel. However, David’s kingship was not initiated by a coup or an assassination. In fact, David became a faithful servant to King Saul. David first entered Saul’s service as a musician, playing songs that soothed Saul’s tormented soul (16:14-23). This service anticipated David’s role as the composer of many of the psalms. The youthful David also helped Saul by famously defeating the Philistine champion Goliath in individual combat (17:32-51). This victory anticipated David’s role as a victorious military leader.<\/p>\nAlthough David was loyal, Saul grew deeply suspicious of him, and David had to flee. He was able to escape with help from Saul’s own children, Jonathan and Michal. David led a virtual kingdom in exile. He had a standing army of six hundred men. The prophet Gad and the priest Abiathar were also with him, providing direction and guidance from the Lord.<\/p>\nGod’s long-suffering patience finally ran out with Saul, and Saul died on the battlefield. Yet it was still not easy for David to establish his rule over all Israel. The tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed him its king, but at first the northern tribes chose Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, to be their leader. Ishbosheth was not a powerful or good leader; he only stayed in power because of the protection of his father’s military leader, Abner. However, Ishbosheth foolishly insulted Abner, so the general helped turn the kingdom over to David.<\/p>\nAs king over a united Israel, David proceeded to solidify the kingdom. He and his men captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made this central city his capital. He also expelled the remaining Philistines from the land. He then brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. David wanted to build a permanent temple to God in Jerusalem to replace the Tabernacle. God denied this wish, but he showed his love for David by entering into a covenant with him that established his descendants as a dynasty (2 Sam 7).<\/p>\nDavid’s life soon took a turn for the worse, however (see 2 Sam 11–12). At a time when he probably should have been on the battlefield with his army, he was lounging around on the palace roof. He saw a beautiful woman named Bathsheba taking a bath. He wanted her, so, like a Near Eastern despot, he took her. She became pregnant, and his attempt to cover up his adultery failed. In a desperate attempt to keep things secret, he had her husband, Uriah, killed. But not even a great king like David can keep secrets from God, and God sent his prophet Nathan to confront David. David repented (see Pss 32, 51), but the consequences of his actions plagued his family and the rest of his reign.<\/p>\nFrom that point on, David’s family fell apart. David’s son Amnon raped his half sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:1-14). Her brother Absalom then murdered Amnon (2 Sam 13:20-29). Absalom later created a civil war as he tried to steal the throne from his father (2 Sam 15–18). Another son, Adonijah, tried to take the throne from David by having himself proclaimed king while his father was still alive (1 Kgs 1:5-10). But David was able to muster enough strength to ensure that Solomon would succeed him (1 Kgs 1:28-40). David died, Solomon was proclaimed king, and David’s long dynasty began (as promised in 2 Sam 7).<\/p>\nDavid’s successors seldom measured up. Only rarely did his descendants lead the nation to worship God faithfully; the united monarchy did not even outlive Solomon. In the centuries that followed, the descendants of David ruled only Judah in the south. Eventually, the kingdom of Judah was destroyed. Never again did a descendant of David reign as king in Israel.<\/p>\nWhat, then, of the promise to David that “your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sam 7:16)? The New Testament points to Jesus. He was the descendant of David, and God proclaimed him the Christ, or Messiah—the anointed king (see Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37; Luke 18:38-39; 20:41-44; John 7:42; Rev 5:5; 22:16). The life and rule of David foreshadows the messianic reign of Jesus Christ, which will last forever (see Luke 1:32-33; Rev 11:15).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nRuth 4:13-22; 1 Sam 16:1–17:58; 18:1–27:12; 29:1–30:31; 2 Sam 1:1–24:25; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:12; 1 Chr 11:1–29:30; Pss 1–32, 34–41, 51–71, 86, 91–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145; Matt 1:1; 9:27; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; John 7:40-44; Acts 2:22-37; 13:20-43; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16<\/p>","summary_ro":"David David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance. David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use Dav...","summary_en":"David David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance. David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use Dav...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":96547,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"David","title_en":"David","content_ro":"<h3>David<\/h3>\nDavid is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance.<\/p>\nDavid was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use David to complete the conquest of the land.<\/p>\nAs a youth, David was a simple shepherd, watching his father’s sheep (1 Sam 16:11; 17:14-15). His life took an unexpected turn when the prophet Samuel came to Jesse and anointed David as the next king of Israel. However, David’s kingship was not initiated by a coup or an assassination. In fact, David became a faithful servant to King Saul. David first entered Saul’s service as a musician, playing songs that soothed Saul’s tormented soul (16:14-23). This service anticipated David’s role as the composer of many of the psalms. The youthful David also helped Saul by famously defeating the Philistine champion Goliath in individual combat (17:32-51). This victory anticipated David’s role as a victorious military leader.<\/p>\nAlthough David was loyal, Saul grew deeply suspicious of him, and David had to flee. He was able to escape with help from Saul’s own children, Jonathan and Michal. David led a virtual kingdom in exile. He had a standing army of six hundred men. The prophet Gad and the priest Abiathar were also with him, providing direction and guidance from the Lord.<\/p>\nGod’s long-suffering patience finally ran out with Saul, and Saul died on the battlefield. Yet it was still not easy for David to establish his rule over all Israel. The tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed him its king, but at first the northern tribes chose Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, to be their leader. Ishbosheth was not a powerful or good leader; he only stayed in power because of the protection of his father’s military leader, Abner. However, Ishbosheth foolishly insulted Abner, so the general helped turn the kingdom over to David.<\/p>\nAs king over a united Israel, David proceeded to solidify the kingdom. He and his men captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made this central city his capital. He also expelled the remaining Philistines from the land. He then brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. David wanted to build a permanent temple to God in Jerusalem to replace the Tabernacle. God denied this wish, but he showed his love for David by entering into a covenant with him that established his descendants as a dynasty (2 Sam 7).<\/p>\nDavid’s life soon took a turn for the worse, however (see 2 Sam 11–12). At a time when he probably should have been on the battlefield with his army, he was lounging around on the palace roof. He saw a beautiful woman named Bathsheba taking a bath. He wanted her, so, like a Near Eastern despot, he took her. She became pregnant, and his attempt to cover up his adultery failed. In a desperate attempt to keep things secret, he had her husband, Uriah, killed. But not even a great king like David can keep secrets from God, and God sent his prophet Nathan to confront David. David repented (see Pss 32, 51), but the consequences of his actions plagued his family and the rest of his reign.<\/p>\nFrom that point on, David’s family fell apart. David’s son Amnon raped his half sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:1-14). Her brother Absalom then murdered Amnon (2 Sam 13:20-29). Absalom later created a civil war as he tried to steal the throne from his father (2 Sam 15–18). Another son, Adonijah, tried to take the throne from David by having himself proclaimed king while his father was still alive (1 Kgs 1:5-10). But David was able to muster enough strength to ensure that Solomon would succeed him (1 Kgs 1:28-40). David died, Solomon was proclaimed king, and David’s long dynasty began (as promised in 2 Sam 7).<\/p>\nDavid’s successors seldom measured up. Only rarely did his descendants lead the nation to worship God faithfully; the united monarchy did not even outlive Solomon. In the centuries that followed, the descendants of David ruled only Judah in the south. Eventually, the kingdom of Judah was destroyed. Never again did a descendant of David reign as king in Israel.<\/p>\nWhat, then, of the promise to David that “your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sam 7:16)? The New Testament points to Jesus. He was the descendant of David, and God proclaimed him the Christ, or Messiah—the anointed king (see Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37; Luke 18:38-39; 20:41-44; John 7:42; Rev 5:5; 22:16). The life and rule of David foreshadows the messianic reign of Jesus Christ, which will last forever (see Luke 1:32-33; Rev 11:15).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nRuth 4:13-22; 1 Sam 16:1–17:58; 18:1–27:12; 29:1–30:31; 2 Sam 1:1–24:25; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:12; 1 Chr 11:1–29:30; Pss 1–32, 34–41, 51–71, 86, 91–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145; Matt 1:1; 9:27; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; John 7:40-44; Acts 2:22-37; 13:20-43; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>David<\/h3>\nDavid is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance.<\/p>\nDavid was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use David to complete the conquest of the land.<\/p>\nAs a youth, David was a simple shepherd, watching his father’s sheep (1 Sam 16:11; 17:14-15). His life took an unexpected turn when the prophet Samuel came to Jesse and anointed David as the next king of Israel. However, David’s kingship was not initiated by a coup or an assassination. In fact, David became a faithful servant to King Saul. David first entered Saul’s service as a musician, playing songs that soothed Saul’s tormented soul (16:14-23). This service anticipated David’s role as the composer of many of the psalms. The youthful David also helped Saul by famously defeating the Philistine champion Goliath in individual combat (17:32-51). This victory anticipated David’s role as a victorious military leader.<\/p>\nAlthough David was loyal, Saul grew deeply suspicious of him, and David had to flee. He was able to escape with help from Saul’s own children, Jonathan and Michal. David led a virtual kingdom in exile. He had a standing army of six hundred men. The prophet Gad and the priest Abiathar were also with him, providing direction and guidance from the Lord.<\/p>\nGod’s long-suffering patience finally ran out with Saul, and Saul died on the battlefield. Yet it was still not easy for David to establish his rule over all Israel. The tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed him its king, but at first the northern tribes chose Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, to be their leader. Ishbosheth was not a powerful or good leader; he only stayed in power because of the protection of his father’s military leader, Abner. However, Ishbosheth foolishly insulted Abner, so the general helped turn the kingdom over to David.<\/p>\nAs king over a united Israel, David proceeded to solidify the kingdom. He and his men captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made this central city his capital. He also expelled the remaining Philistines from the land. He then brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. David wanted to build a permanent temple to God in Jerusalem to replace the Tabernacle. God denied this wish, but he showed his love for David by entering into a covenant with him that established his descendants as a dynasty (2 Sam 7).<\/p>\nDavid’s life soon took a turn for the worse, however (see 2 Sam 11–12). At a time when he probably should have been on the battlefield with his army, he was lounging around on the palace roof. He saw a beautiful woman named Bathsheba taking a bath. He wanted her, so, like a Near Eastern despot, he took her. She became pregnant, and his attempt to cover up his adultery failed. In a desperate attempt to keep things secret, he had her husband, Uriah, killed. But not even a great king like David can keep secrets from God, and God sent his prophet Nathan to confront David. David repented (see Pss 32, 51), but the consequences of his actions plagued his family and the rest of his reign.<\/p>\nFrom that point on, David’s family fell apart. David’s son Amnon raped his half sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:1-14). Her brother Absalom then murdered Amnon (2 Sam 13:20-29). Absalom later created a civil war as he tried to steal the throne from his father (2 Sam 15–18). Another son, Adonijah, tried to take the throne from David by having himself proclaimed king while his father was still alive (1 Kgs 1:5-10). But David was able to muster enough strength to ensure that Solomon would succeed him (1 Kgs 1:28-40). David died, Solomon was proclaimed king, and David’s long dynasty began (as promised in 2 Sam 7).<\/p>\nDavid’s successors seldom measured up. Only rarely did his descendants lead the nation to worship God faithfully; the united monarchy did not even outlive Solomon. In the centuries that followed, the descendants of David ruled only Judah in the south. Eventually, the kingdom of Judah was destroyed. Never again did a descendant of David reign as king in Israel.<\/p>\nWhat, then, of the promise to David that “your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sam 7:16)? The New Testament points to Jesus. He was the descendant of David, and God proclaimed him the Christ, or Messiah—the anointed king (see Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37; Luke 18:38-39; 20:41-44; John 7:42; Rev 5:5; 22:16). The life and rule of David foreshadows the messianic reign of Jesus Christ, which will last forever (see Luke 1:32-33; Rev 11:15).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nRuth 4:13-22; 1 Sam 16:1–17:58; 18:1–27:12; 29:1–30:31; 2 Sam 1:1–24:25; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:12; 1 Chr 11:1–29:30; Pss 1–32, 34–41, 51–71, 86, 91–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145; Matt 1:1; 9:27; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; John 7:40-44; Acts 2:22-37; 13:20-43; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16<\/p>","summary_ro":"David David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance. David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use Dav...","summary_en":"David David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance. David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use Dav...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":124173,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"David","title_en":"David","content_ro":"<h3>David<\/h3>\nDavid is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance.<\/p>\nDavid was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use David to complete the conquest of the land.<\/p>\nAs a youth, David was a simple shepherd, watching his father’s sheep (1 Sam 16:11; 17:14-15). His life took an unexpected turn when the prophet Samuel came to Jesse and anointed David as the next king of Israel. However, David’s kingship was not initiated by a coup or an assassination. In fact, David became a faithful servant to King Saul. David first entered Saul’s service as a musician, playing songs that soothed Saul’s tormented soul (16:14-23). This service anticipated David’s role as the composer of many of the psalms. The youthful David also helped Saul by famously defeating the Philistine champion Goliath in individual combat (17:32-51). This victory anticipated David’s role as a victorious military leader.<\/p>\nAlthough David was loyal, Saul grew deeply suspicious of him, and David had to flee. He was able to escape with help from Saul’s own children, Jonathan and Michal. David led a virtual kingdom in exile. He had a standing army of six hundred men. The prophet Gad and the priest Abiathar were also with him, providing direction and guidance from the Lord.<\/p>\nGod’s long-suffering patience finally ran out with Saul, and Saul died on the battlefield. Yet it was still not easy for David to establish his rule over all Israel. The tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed him its king, but at first the northern tribes chose Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, to be their leader. Ishbosheth was not a powerful or good leader; he only stayed in power because of the protection of his father’s military leader, Abner. However, Ishbosheth foolishly insulted Abner, so the general helped turn the kingdom over to David.<\/p>\nAs king over a united Israel, David proceeded to solidify the kingdom. He and his men captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made this central city his capital. He also expelled the remaining Philistines from the land. He then brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. David wanted to build a permanent temple to God in Jerusalem to replace the Tabernacle. God denied this wish, but he showed his love for David by entering into a covenant with him that established his descendants as a dynasty (2 Sam 7).<\/p>\nDavid’s life soon took a turn for the worse, however (see 2 Sam 11–12). At a time when he probably should have been on the battlefield with his army, he was lounging around on the palace roof. He saw a beautiful woman named Bathsheba taking a bath. He wanted her, so, like a Near Eastern despot, he took her. She became pregnant, and his attempt to cover up his adultery failed. In a desperate attempt to keep things secret, he had her husband, Uriah, killed. But not even a great king like David can keep secrets from God, and God sent his prophet Nathan to confront David. David repented (see Pss 32, 51), but the consequences of his actions plagued his family and the rest of his reign.<\/p>\nFrom that point on, David’s family fell apart. David’s son Amnon raped his half sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:1-14). Her brother Absalom then murdered Amnon (2 Sam 13:20-29). Absalom later created a civil war as he tried to steal the throne from his father (2 Sam 15–18). Another son, Adonijah, tried to take the throne from David by having himself proclaimed king while his father was still alive (1 Kgs 1:5-10). But David was able to muster enough strength to ensure that Solomon would succeed him (1 Kgs 1:28-40). David died, Solomon was proclaimed king, and David’s long dynasty began (as promised in 2 Sam 7).<\/p>\nDavid’s successors seldom measured up. Only rarely did his descendants lead the nation to worship God faithfully; the united monarchy did not even outlive Solomon. In the centuries that followed, the descendants of David ruled only Judah in the south. Eventually, the kingdom of Judah was destroyed. Never again did a descendant of David reign as king in Israel.<\/p>\nWhat, then, of the promise to David that “your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sam 7:16)? The New Testament points to Jesus. He was the descendant of David, and God proclaimed him the Christ, or Messiah—the anointed king (see Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37; Luke 18:38-39; 20:41-44; John 7:42; Rev 5:5; 22:16). The life and rule of David foreshadows the messianic reign of Jesus Christ, which will last forever (see Luke 1:32-33; Rev 11:15).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nRuth 4:13-22; 1 Sam 16:1–17:58; 18:1–27:12; 29:1–30:31; 2 Sam 1:1–24:25; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:12; 1 Chr 11:1–29:30; Pss 1–32, 34–41, 51–71, 86, 91–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145; Matt 1:1; 9:27; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; John 7:40-44; Acts 2:22-37; 13:20-43; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>David<\/h3>\nDavid is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance.<\/p>\nDavid was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use David to complete the conquest of the land.<\/p>\nAs a youth, David was a simple shepherd, watching his father’s sheep (1 Sam 16:11; 17:14-15). His life took an unexpected turn when the prophet Samuel came to Jesse and anointed David as the next king of Israel. However, David’s kingship was not initiated by a coup or an assassination. In fact, David became a faithful servant to King Saul. David first entered Saul’s service as a musician, playing songs that soothed Saul’s tormented soul (16:14-23). This service anticipated David’s role as the composer of many of the psalms. The youthful David also helped Saul by famously defeating the Philistine champion Goliath in individual combat (17:32-51). This victory anticipated David’s role as a victorious military leader.<\/p>\nAlthough David was loyal, Saul grew deeply suspicious of him, and David had to flee. He was able to escape with help from Saul’s own children, Jonathan and Michal. David led a virtual kingdom in exile. He had a standing army of six hundred men. The prophet Gad and the priest Abiathar were also with him, providing direction and guidance from the Lord.<\/p>\nGod’s long-suffering patience finally ran out with Saul, and Saul died on the battlefield. Yet it was still not easy for David to establish his rule over all Israel. The tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed him its king, but at first the northern tribes chose Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, to be their leader. Ishbosheth was not a powerful or good leader; he only stayed in power because of the protection of his father’s military leader, Abner. However, Ishbosheth foolishly insulted Abner, so the general helped turn the kingdom over to David.<\/p>\nAs king over a united Israel, David proceeded to solidify the kingdom. He and his men captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made this central city his capital. He also expelled the remaining Philistines from the land. He then brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. David wanted to build a permanent temple to God in Jerusalem to replace the Tabernacle. God denied this wish, but he showed his love for David by entering into a covenant with him that established his descendants as a dynasty (2 Sam 7).<\/p>\nDavid’s life soon took a turn for the worse, however (see 2 Sam 11–12). At a time when he probably should have been on the battlefield with his army, he was lounging around on the palace roof. He saw a beautiful woman named Bathsheba taking a bath. He wanted her, so, like a Near Eastern despot, he took her. She became pregnant, and his attempt to cover up his adultery failed. In a desperate attempt to keep things secret, he had her husband, Uriah, killed. But not even a great king like David can keep secrets from God, and God sent his prophet Nathan to confront David. David repented (see Pss 32, 51), but the consequences of his actions plagued his family and the rest of his reign.<\/p>\nFrom that point on, David’s family fell apart. David’s son Amnon raped his half sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:1-14). Her brother Absalom then murdered Amnon (2 Sam 13:20-29). Absalom later created a civil war as he tried to steal the throne from his father (2 Sam 15–18). Another son, Adonijah, tried to take the throne from David by having himself proclaimed king while his father was still alive (1 Kgs 1:5-10). But David was able to muster enough strength to ensure that Solomon would succeed him (1 Kgs 1:28-40). David died, Solomon was proclaimed king, and David’s long dynasty began (as promised in 2 Sam 7).<\/p>\nDavid’s successors seldom measured up. Only rarely did his descendants lead the nation to worship God faithfully; the united monarchy did not even outlive Solomon. In the centuries that followed, the descendants of David ruled only Judah in the south. Eventually, the kingdom of Judah was destroyed. Never again did a descendant of David reign as king in Israel.<\/p>\nWhat, then, of the promise to David that “your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sam 7:16)? The New Testament points to Jesus. He was the descendant of David, and God proclaimed him the Christ, or Messiah—the anointed king (see Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37; Luke 18:38-39; 20:41-44; John 7:42; Rev 5:5; 22:16). The life and rule of David foreshadows the messianic reign of Jesus Christ, which will last forever (see Luke 1:32-33; Rev 11:15).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nRuth 4:13-22; 1 Sam 16:1–17:58; 18:1–27:12; 29:1–30:31; 2 Sam 1:1–24:25; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:12; 1 Chr 11:1–29:30; Pss 1–32, 34–41, 51–71, 86, 91–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145; Matt 1:1; 9:27; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; John 7:40-44; Acts 2:22-37; 13:20-43; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16<\/p>","summary_ro":"David David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance. David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use Dav...","summary_en":"David David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance. David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use Dav...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":3971,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Bathsheba","title_en":"Bathsheba","content_ro":"<h3>BATHSHEBA<\/h3>\nUriah’s wife, with whom David committed adultery and whom he later married. Bathsheba, also spelled Bathshua (1 Chr 3:5), was the daughter of Ammiel or Eliam (2 Sm 11:3) and possibly the granddaughter of Ahithophel, the king’s adviser (2 Sm 15:12; 23:34). Her Hittite husband was one of David’s top military heroes (2 Sm 23:39).<\/p>\nWhile Uriah was off fighting under Joab, King David saw a beautiful woman taking her evening bath. Discovering her name and that her husband was away on duty, he sent for Bathsheba and had sexual intercourse with her (2 Sm 11:1-4). When Bathsheba later informed him that she was pregnant, the king ordered Uriah back to Jerusalem, hoping that the husband’s return would make Bathsheba’s pregnancy appear legitimate. But Uriah considered himself still on active duty and slept with the palace guard, refusing to go home (vv 5-13). Frustrated, David sent him back to the front and ordered Joab to put Uriah in the front lines and then pull back. Consequently, Uriah was killed (vv 14-25).<\/p>\nAfter Bathsheba’s period of mourning, David installed her in the palace as his seventh wife, and she bore the child. The Lord sent the prophet Nathan to pronounce judgment on David’s sin through a parable. Nathan prophesied a series of tragedies in David’s household, beginning with the death of Bathsheba’s infant son (2 Sm 11:26–12:14). David confessed his sin and repented, but the infant became sick and died. The prologue (or superscription) of Psalm 51 describes it as the psalm of repentance David wrote when confronted by Nathan over his adultery with Bathsheba and his murder of Uriah. David comforted Bathsheba, and eventually they had other children (2 Sm 12:15-25).<\/p>\nOf David’s 19 sons by his seven wives (1 Chr 3:1-9), the sons born to Bathsheba were Shimea (also spelled Shammua, 2 Sm 5:14; 1 Chr 14:4), Shobab, Nathan, and Solomon. Nathan (Lk 3:31) and Solomon (Mt 1:6) appear in NT genealogies of Jesus Christ. Bathsheba also appears in Matthew’s genealogy under the description “she who had been the wife of Uriah.” At the very end of David’s life, the prophet Nathan told Bathsheba that David’s son Adonijah (by his wife Haggith) was conspiring to usurp the throne. Bathsheba and Nathan persuaded David to make Solomon king as he had promised (1 Kgs 1).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> David.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BATHSHEBA<\/h3>\nUriah’s wife, with whom David committed adultery and whom he later married. Bathsheba, also spelled Bathshua (1 Chr 3:5), was the daughter of Ammiel or Eliam (2 Sm 11:3) and possibly the granddaughter of Ahithophel, the king’s adviser (2 Sm 15:12; 23:34). Her Hittite husband was one of David’s top military heroes (2 Sm 23:39).<\/p>\nWhile Uriah was off fighting under Joab, King David saw a beautiful woman taking her evening bath. Discovering her name and that her husband was away on duty, he sent for Bathsheba and had sexual intercourse with her (2 Sm 11:1-4). When Bathsheba later informed him that she was pregnant, the king ordered Uriah back to Jerusalem, hoping that the husband’s return would make Bathsheba’s pregnancy appear legitimate. But Uriah considered himself still on active duty and slept with the palace guard, refusing to go home (vv 5-13). Frustrated, David sent him back to the front and ordered Joab to put Uriah in the front lines and then pull back. Consequently, Uriah was killed (vv 14-25).<\/p>\nAfter Bathsheba’s period of mourning, David installed her in the palace as his seventh wife, and she bore the child. The Lord sent the prophet Nathan to pronounce judgment on David’s sin through a parable. Nathan prophesied a series of tragedies in David’s household, beginning with the death of Bathsheba’s infant son (2 Sm 11:26–12:14). David confessed his sin and repented, but the infant became sick and died. The prologue (or superscription) of Psalm 51 describes it as the psalm of repentance David wrote when confronted by Nathan over his adultery with Bathsheba and his murder of Uriah. David comforted Bathsheba, and eventually they had other children (2 Sm 12:15-25).<\/p>\nOf David’s 19 sons by his seven wives (1 Chr 3:1-9), the sons born to Bathsheba were Shimea (also spelled Shammua, 2 Sm 5:14; 1 Chr 14:4), Shobab, Nathan, and Solomon. Nathan (Lk 3:31) and Solomon (Mt 1:6) appear in NT genealogies of Jesus Christ. Bathsheba also appears in Matthew’s genealogy under the description “she who had been the wife of Uriah.” At the very end of David’s life, the prophet Nathan told Bathsheba that David’s son Adonijah (by his wife Haggith) was conspiring to usurp the throne. Bathsheba and Nathan persuaded David to make Solomon king as he had promised (1 Kgs 1).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> David.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BATHSHEBA Uriah’s wife, with whom David committed adultery and whom he later married. Bathsheba, also spelled Bathshua (1 Chr 3:5), was the daughter of Ammiel or Eliam (2 Sm 11:3) and possibly the granddaughter of Ahithophel, the king’s adviser (2 Sm 15:12; 23:34). Her Hittite husband was one of David’s top military heroes (2 Sm 23:39). While Uriah was off fighting under Joab, King David saw a beautiful woman taking her evening bath. Discovering her name and that her husband was away on duty,...","summary_en":"BATHSHEBA Uriah’s wife, with whom David committed adultery and whom he later married. Bathsheba, also spelled Bathshua (1 Chr 3:5), was the daughter of Ammiel or Eliam (2 Sm 11:3) and possibly the granddaughter of Ahithophel, the king’s adviser (2 Sm 15:12; 23:34). Her Hittite husband was one of David’s top military heroes (2 Sm 23:39). While Uriah was off fighting under Joab, King David saw a beautiful woman taking her evening bath. Discovering her name and that her husband was away on duty,...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":7882,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Covenant","title_en":"Covenant","content_ro":"<h3>COVENANT<\/h3>\nArrangement between two parties involving mutual obligations; especially the arrangement that established the relationship between God and his people, expressed in grace first with Israel and then with the church. Through that covenant God has conveyed to humanity the meaning of human life and salvation. Covenant is one of the central themes of the Bible, where some covenants are between human beings, others between God and human beings.<\/p>\nThe covenant theme in the OT is developed from Noah to Abraham and reaches its first climax in the covenant formed between God and Israel at Mt Sinai. After King David’s time, the history of the covenant becomes a less prominent theme.<\/p>\nAt a low point in covenant history the Bible introduces the prophet Jeremiah’s prophecy of a “new covenant” in Israel’s future. Christians believe that Jeremiah’s prophecy eventually found fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus Christ. It is not accidental that the two volumes of the Christian Bible have been called the Old Covenant and New Covenant (the word commonly translated “testament” means “covenant”).<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Meaning of Covenant<\/p>\n• Human Covenants<\/p>\n• Divine-Human Covenants<\/p>\n• Beginnings of the Covenant Tradition<\/p>\n• The Sinai Covenant<\/p>\n• The Covenant with David<\/p>\n• The New Covenant Predicted in the Old Testament<\/p>\nThe Meaning of Covenant<\/p>\nThe essence of covenant is to be found in a particular kind of relationship between persons. Mutual obligations characterize that kind of relationship. Thus a covenant relationship is not merely a mutual acquaintance but a commitment to responsibility and action. A key word in Scripture to describe that commitment is “faithfulness,” acted out in a context of abiding friendship.<\/p>\nIn the OT the word “covenant” was used in an ordinary human sense as well as in a theological sense. An understanding of human covenants provides a starting point for understanding the covenant between God and human beings.<\/p>\nHuman Covenants<\/p>\nA variety of human relationships, from profoundly personal to distantly political, may be described as covenantal. The deep brotherly love that David and Jonathan shared led to a formal covenant between them (1 Sm 18:3). Their covenant of friendship was more than a token of esteem; it bound them to demonstrate mutual loyalty and loving-kindness in certain tangible ways. Jonathan’s covenant faithfulness was typified on an occasion when David was out of favor with the king; Jonathan braved his father’s wrath to speak favorably for his friend. Subsequently, he warned David secretly to flee into hiding (1 Sm 19–20).<\/p>\nTo appreciate the many OT laws on marriage and divorce, one must understand that marriage itself was a covenant relationship (Mal 2:14). The solemn promises exchanged by a man and woman became their covenant obligations. Faithfulness to those promises brought marital blessing (cf. Ps 128; Prv 18:22); violation brought a curse.<\/p>\nAn individual could, at least figuratively, make a covenant or vow with himself or herself (something like a New Year’s resolution). Job, arguing his integrity before God, referred to a covenant he had made with his eyes to keep him from looking at women licentiously (Jb 31:1).<\/p>\nCovenants could also have a national or international character. The elders of Israel made a national covenant with King David in Hebron (2 Sm 5:3). Probably it contained explicit promises both from the elders on behalf of the people to submit themselves to the king’s authority and from David to rule the nation justly and according to the law of God (Dt 17:15-20). The covenant relationship described mutual obligations between a senior partner (the king) and junior partners (the Israelites). In international relationships OT covenants were similar to modern treaties or alliances. King Solomon entered into such a covenant with Hiram, king of Tyre; that covenant, like many modern international treaties, was a trade agreement between the two nations (1 Kgs 5:12).<\/p>\nCovenant is thus an interpersonal framework of trust, responsibilities, and benefits, with broad application to almost every human relationship from personal friendship to international trade agreements. In Scripture covenant is also the most comprehensive concept covering an individual’s relationship to God.<\/p>\nDivine-Human Covenants<\/p>\nThe same basic characteristics of a strictly human covenant are present in a divine covenant: (1) a relationship between two parties (God and a human being or nation), and (2) mutual obligations between the covenant partners. To the OT believer, religion meant covenant. OT religion was faithfulness to the covenant relationship between God and his chosen people; religious responsibilities for both the faith and practice of Israel were covenant responsibilities.<\/p>\nThe concept of a divine-human covenant in the OT was not static. Although the fundamental character of covenant remains the same throughout the Bible, the specific nature and form of the covenant changed and developed in the course of ancient Israel’s history. A brief survey of covenant history will further clarify its dimensions.<\/p>\nBeginnings of the Covenant Tradition<\/p>\n<h5>Adam<\/h5>\nAdam and Eve were placed in the Garden. God was their Creator; they were his creatures. The meaning of their lives was to be found in relationship with each other and with God, the giver of the Garden. The fall, however, brought a disruption of the divine relationship, and they were expelled from the Garden.<\/p>\nThe fall substantially influenced the nature of subsequent religious covenants. The separation of humankind from God clarifies the nature of the human predicament. Created for a relationship with the Creator, sinning humans are excluded from that relationship and cannot, on their own accord, reestablish it. From that circumstance emerges a distinctive feature of divine-human covenants, namely, that God alone can initiate the relationship of covenant.<\/p>\n<h5>Noah<\/h5>\nThe first explicit mention of covenant in Scripture refers to the initiative taken by God to bind himself again to human beings in a covenant, despite human faithlessness. When God warned Noah to build an ark in order to escape the impending Flood, he also promised to establish a covenant with him (Gn 6:18). The corruption and violence of the human race had provoked God’s anger, but his grace was shown in his dealings with Noah. The promised covenant provided that God would maintain a relationship with one family, even though other divine-human relationships were being formally severed. Significantly, God’s covenant promise to Noah came in a context of demand: God ordered Noah to build an ark (v 14). Noah’s receipt of the covenant blessing depended on his obedience to a divine command.<\/p>\nThe covenant was elaborated only after the Flood, when Noah had made an offering to God (Gn 8:20-22). The covenant with Noah was in fact a universal covenant with humankind and all living creatures (9:8-10). God promised never to send such a flood again as judgment on the world. The sign of that covenant was the rainbow.<\/p>\nThe covenant with Noah affords some perspective for understanding the “covenant God.” Although human beings may deserve destruction because of their wickedness, God withholds that destruction. The covenant of Noah did not establish an intimate relationship between God and each living being; nevertheless, it left open the possibility of a more intimate covenant. Human beings, in spite of their evil, are allowed for a time to live in God’s world; during those years, they may seek a deeper relationship with that world’s Creator.<\/p>\n<h5>Abraham<\/h5>\nThe first explicit reference to God’s covenant with Abraham is in Genesis 15. When the Lord called the 75-year-old Abram (as he was first called) to leave his home city of Ur and set out on a journey, a relationship already existed between God and Abram. In that relationship, which enabled God to command Abram’s obedience, God made certain promises to him: “I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing” (Gn 12:2, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nFormal establishment of the covenant with Abram is described in Genesis 15 as a profound religious experience. The initiative lay entirely with God, who approached Abram in a vision and spoke with him. Abram raised a fundamental objection: how could he experience the blessing of God if it was to come to him through a son he did not have? His wife Sarai was past the childbearing age, and he himself was “as good as dead” (Rom 4:19). God assured the old man that he would have a son through whom his descendants would eventually be as numerous as the stars of heaven. Abram’s belief at that point introduced the theme of righteousness central to the covenant concept: Abram “believed the Lord<\/span>, and he reckoned it to him as righteousness” (Gn 15:6, rsv<\/span>). At the end of that day, Abram knew that his own future and the future of his descendants were firmly in the hands of the covenant God. “On that day the Lord<\/span> made a covenant with Abram, saying, ‘To your descendants I give this land’ ” (v 18, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe covenant is more fully expressed in Genesis 17, which probably records a renewal of God’s covenant with Abram. The initiative once again lay with God (Gn 17:1). God addressed the 99-year-old Abram in words that made clear that the covenant was not a relationship between equal partners. God was the Almighty; Abram was a human being to whom an extraordinary privilege had been granted.<\/p>\nYet the details of the covenant in Genesis 17 show that both partners assumed responsibilities. God committed himself voluntarily to Abram and his descendants while requiring certain commitments from Abram. The blessing Abram would receive as a covenant partner became clear from the new name God gave him. “I am changing your name. It will no longer be Abram; now you will be known as Abraham, for you will be the father of many nations” (Gn 17:5, nlt<\/span>). God would give to Abraham, through his descendants, the land of Canaan as an everlasting gift and would be the personal God of Abraham and his family in perpetuity (vv 7-8).<\/p>\nGod’s giving required a response of obedience from Abraham: “Live a blameless life” (Gn 17:1, nlt<\/span>). Those simple words indicate the essence of covenant relationship: to relate to God is to live in his presence; since God is holy, one who knows him is expected to live a life of integrity and blamelessness.<\/p>\nThe covenant also had a more formal aspect. Abraham and the male members of his household were to undergo the rite of circumcision as a symbol of covenant commitment. Abraham was an old man when he was circumcised (Gn 17:24), though male children born into the covenant family were to be circumcised when they were eight days old (v 12). Circumcision was not in itself a ritual peculiar to the Hebrews; it was practiced in most societies in the ancient Near East (the Philistines were one exception). The distinctiveness lay in what the act symbolized: among other things, a continuing and faithful relationship with the living God.<\/p>\nGod’s covenant with Abraham was characterized by both present and future realities. The covenant established a continuing relationship between Abraham and his Creator. Yet its thrust pointed to future blessing—in the children yet to be born, the “chosen people,” and in the land that eventually his descendants would call their own.<\/p>\nAnother dimension of the covenant lay still further in the future: “All the families of the earth will be blessed through you” (Gn 12:3, nlt<\/span>). Early in the OT, the idea of election (God’s unconditional preference; cf. 2 Thes 2:13) is present. God chose to enter into a covenant relationship with a particular man and his particular descendants. Yet God always elects a person to serve: Adam, to cultivate the Garden; Noah, to build an ark; Abraham, to leave his home for another land and to live blamelessly before God (cf. Eph 2:8-10). Further, the “particularity” of Abraham’s election contained within it a universality: through his descendants the blessing of God would be offered to all.<\/p>\nThus, the future aspects of Abraham’s covenant reflect two stages. From Abraham’s perspective, in the relatively near future his descendants would possess a land given them by God. But in the more distant future was the prospect of a universal blessing, the culmination of God’s work in the world. The initial fulfillment of that distant future is perceived in the NT, but the more immediate fulfillment of God’s promise was the Sinai covenant at the time of Moses.<\/p>\nThe Sinai Covenant<\/p>\nThe covenant established between God and Israel at Mt Sinai is the focal point of the covenant tradition in the OT. It was anticipated in the covenant of Abraham and lay behind the covenant of David and the proclamation of the prophets. It was central to OT religion, laying down the foundations of Judaism that continue into the modern world. The Sinai covenant was the formal institution of a relationship between God and his chosen people, Israel.<\/p>\nIn order to appreciate the impact of the Sinai covenant, one must understand its historical context. It was preceded by the exodus of the Hebrew people from Egypt under the leadership of Moses. The exodus was an extraordinary act of liberation in which God intervened in the normal course of history to free his people from slavery in Egypt. The exodus is interpreted in the OT as a divine act comparable to Creation, the act through which God “created” the nation of Israel. Examination of the two versions of the fourth commandment (Ex 20:8-11; Dt 5:12-15) shows that the exodus from Egypt directly parallels the creation of the world as a basis for Sabbath observance. Although Israel was created in the exodus, the nation had neither a constitution nor land. The covenant provided the nascent state of Israel with a constitution, making it a theocratic state (a state ruled by God).<\/p>\nThe basic account of the Sinai covenant is contained in Exodus 19 and 20. The initiative came from God, who gave instructions through Moses to prepare for the covenant; God spoke the words that contained the covenant offer. There was no doubt that the God of Israel was the senior partner in the relationship made formal at Sinai. The God who had revealed himself through his acts in the exodus then revealed himself in words. Those two aspects—the God who acts and speaks—are central to OT theology. And although the covenant contained law, it was preceded by the exodus, an act of divine grace.<\/p>\nGod’s offer of covenant carried with it a divine promise: “You will be to me a kingdom of priests, my holy nation” (Ex 19:6, nlt<\/span>). The promise was one of extraordinary privilege; an entire nation was called upon to represent all other nations before the God of the universe. But the priestly office, though it carried privilege, was also a demanding office. A priest had to be pure and had to know the God whose presence he was required to enter. Thus Israel, the priestly nation, received a law that would provide direction in living, in loving God, and in serving all people. The law given with the covenant expressed the requirements for God’s covenant people.<\/p>\n<h5>The Covenant Law<\/h5>\nThe covenant law had two principal parts. First, the Ten Commandments expressed God’s requirements of Israel in a concise form (Ex 20:2-17). The commandments specified the covenant people’s relationship both to God and to other human beings. Although the tendency in the present day is to view the Ten Commandments as a system of ethics or morality, they had a different role in ancient Israel. The covenant law was the foundation or constitution of a new nation, a special “nation of priests.” The head of the nation-state was God. Hence, in ancient Israel the status of the Ten Commandments was approximately that of the code of criminal law in a modern nation-state. To break one of those laws was to commit a crime against God, the head of the state. Yet the laws had a positive purpose. They set down a way of life that would result in a full and rich communion with God and community with others.<\/p>\nThe second part of the covenant law was a detailed law code covering the activities of everyday life. Examples of such laws are found in Exodus 21–23. These laws were compiled and recorded in the “Book of the Covenant” (Ex 24:7). Although many laws were contained in this book, it was impossible to codify every aspect of human behavior. The diversity of the examples given indicates that for the covenant member no area of human life was beyond the influence of the covenant. Persons who entered into a relationship with God entered into a relationship that impinged on every possible aspect of their lives.<\/p>\n<h5>Covenant Renewal<\/h5>\nThe covenant at Sinai was made with a particular group of people under the leadership of Moses but was binding on future generations. Consequently, the covenant was renewed from time to time. Covenant renewals are recorded in the time of Joshua (Jos 8:30-35; 24:1-28) and, much later, during the reign of King Josiah (2 Kgs 23:1-3).<\/p>\nThe most important passage in the Bible for understanding covenant renewal and the nature of covenant is the book of Deuteronomy. The entire book describes a particular covenant renewal ceremony that occurred at a critical juncture in Israel’s early history. The Sinai covenant was renewed just before Moses’ death, before the transition of leadership to Joshua, and before a major military campaign to possess the Promised Land.<\/p>\nThe covenant since the time of Abraham had contained a promise of land. Immediately before they entered that land (c. 1250 BC<\/span>), the covenant vows were renewed with a new generation of Israelites, most of whom had not stood at the foot of Mt Sinai some 40 years earlier. Although covenant renewal is the central theme of Deuteronomy, the writer focused primarily on Moses’ sermon rather than on a detailed account of the renewal ceremony.<\/p>\nMany aspects of the ceremony were simply a repetition of what happened at the original ratification of the covenant. The Ten Commandments were repeated (Dt 5:6-21), and the laws of the Book of the Covenant were expounded in greater detail (Dt 12–26). Two points emerging in Deuteronomy are particularly significant for an understanding of covenant: a clear statement of covenant love and a detailed statement of the blessings and curses that accompanied the making and renewing of the covenant.<\/p>\nThe Covenant with David<\/p>\nThe covenant tradition underwent modification during the time of King David (c. 1000 BC<\/span>). The Sinai covenant had been established between God and Israel, with Moses acting as mediator. In David’s time an additional element was added: God entered into a covenant with David as king. That royal covenant was intimated to David through the prophet Nathan (2 Sm 7:8-16), indicating once again the divine initiative. It was to be an everlasting covenant with David’s royal lineage (23:5).<\/p>\n\nChristians generally interpret the covenant with David as a messianic covenant. For several centuries the dynasty established by David ruled a united Israel, then ruled the remaining southern kingdom of Judah. But in 586 BC<\/span> Judah was conquered by the Babylonians. At that point a descendant of David was no longer ruling an independent kingdom of God’s chosen people. The everlasting nature of the covenant with David was brought out, however, not in the pages of ancient history but in the expectation of a Messiah who would be born of David’s descendants. Matthew and Luke both pointed to Jesus’ Davidic descent (Mt 1:1; Lk 3:31). The NT thus extends the covenant acts of God into the new age in the person of Jesus.<\/p>\nThe New Covenant Predicted in the Old Testament<\/p>\nAlthough David’s covenant with God was eternal, in a sense the covenant established with Israel on Mt Sinai was temporal. The Sinai covenant included conditional clauses, stated in the blessings and curses of Deuteronomy. Israel’s disobedience of the covenant law would at worst bring exile from the Promised Land, a central covenant theme from Abraham to Moses and beyond.<\/p>\nThe Hebrew prophets often perceived the danger of an end to the covenant as a result of Israel’s sins. Some of the prophets, especially Hosea and Jeremiah, also perceived a deeper truth; namely, that the covenant was rooted in divine love and that therefore even the curse of God could not be final.<\/p>\nHosea dramatically expressed that truth through the “living parable” of his marriage (Hos 1–3). He married Gomer at God’s command, but later, as a result of her unfaithfulness, the marital covenant was dissolved by divorce. Although Gomer’s adulterous acts compelled Hosea to divorce her, he did not cease to love her. God later commanded Hosea to go back to Gomer (Hos 3:1). Despite her unfaithfulness, the prophet was to take her again into the covenant relationship of marriage. That acted-out parable depicted God’s actions with Israel. Israel’s sin would inevitably culminate in a divorce from God, but Hosea perceived a new marriage. In the new covenant between God and Israel, Israel would be graciously accepted back into a relationship with God (2:14-18).<\/p>\nThe new covenant is given powerful expression in the writings of the prophet Jeremiah, who lived through the end of the seventh and beginning of the sixth centuries BC<\/span>. In his lifetime Jeremiah saw the kingdom of Judah defeated in war. The nation lost its independence and became a vassal of the Babylonian Empire. In an external sense, that defeat in 586 BC<\/span> marked the end of the Sinai covenant. Israel could no longer call the Promised Land its own. Yet Jeremiah perceived a truth beyond the contemporary political realities. God’s work in the world, like his love for the world, was not over.<\/p>\nThus Jeremiah spoke of a new covenant that God would bring into effect: “The days are coming, says the Lord<\/span>, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah” (Jer 31:31, rsv<\/span>). The new covenant would be marked by an act of God within human hearts, a radical spiritual transformation (Jer 31:34). At the Last Supper Jesus declared to his disciples that “this cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Lk 22:20, rsv<\/span>). To the writer of Hebrews, the new covenant was central to a full understanding of the ministry of Jesus Christ (Heb 8:8-12).<\/p>\nConclusion<\/p>\nCovenant is a concept central to the message and the history of the OT. The covenant theme continues into the NT as a way of interpreting the Christian gospel. Meaning in human life is to be found in a covenant relationship with the living God. Yet sinful human beings cannot work their way into such a relationship; God alone can initiate it. According to the NT, God’s act in giving his son, Jesus, to die opened up the covenant relationship to all human beings. The forgiveness made available by Jesus’ “blood of the new covenant” makes it possible for any individual to enter into a covenant relationship with God. Entry into such a relationship, today as in Abraham’s time, hinges upon faith (Gal 3:6-14).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Alliance; Covenant, The New; Law, Biblical Concept of; Oath; Vows.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>COVENANT<\/h3>\nArrangement between two parties involving mutual obligations; especially the arrangement that established the relationship between God and his people, expressed in grace first with Israel and then with the church. Through that covenant God has conveyed to humanity the meaning of human life and salvation. Covenant is one of the central themes of the Bible, where some covenants are between human beings, others between God and human beings.<\/p>\nThe covenant theme in the OT is developed from Noah to Abraham and reaches its first climax in the covenant formed between God and Israel at Mt Sinai. After King David’s time, the history of the covenant becomes a less prominent theme.<\/p>\nAt a low point in covenant history the Bible introduces the prophet Jeremiah’s prophecy of a “new covenant” in Israel’s future. Christians believe that Jeremiah’s prophecy eventually found fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus Christ. It is not accidental that the two volumes of the Christian Bible have been called the Old Covenant and New Covenant (the word commonly translated “testament” means “covenant”).<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Meaning of Covenant<\/p>\n• Human Covenants<\/p>\n• Divine-Human Covenants<\/p>\n• Beginnings of the Covenant Tradition<\/p>\n• The Sinai Covenant<\/p>\n• The Covenant with David<\/p>\n• The New Covenant Predicted in the Old Testament<\/p>\nThe Meaning of Covenant<\/p>\nThe essence of covenant is to be found in a particular kind of relationship between persons. Mutual obligations characterize that kind of relationship. Thus a covenant relationship is not merely a mutual acquaintance but a commitment to responsibility and action. A key word in Scripture to describe that commitment is “faithfulness,” acted out in a context of abiding friendship.<\/p>\nIn the OT the word “covenant” was used in an ordinary human sense as well as in a theological sense. An understanding of human covenants provides a starting point for understanding the covenant between God and human beings.<\/p>\nHuman Covenants<\/p>\nA variety of human relationships, from profoundly personal to distantly political, may be described as covenantal. The deep brotherly love that David and Jonathan shared led to a formal covenant between them (1 Sm 18:3). Their covenant of friendship was more than a token of esteem; it bound them to demonstrate mutual loyalty and loving-kindness in certain tangible ways. Jonathan’s covenant faithfulness was typified on an occasion when David was out of favor with the king; Jonathan braved his father’s wrath to speak favorably for his friend. Subsequently, he warned David secretly to flee into hiding (1 Sm 19–20).<\/p>\nTo appreciate the many OT laws on marriage and divorce, one must understand that marriage itself was a covenant relationship (Mal 2:14). The solemn promises exchanged by a man and woman became their covenant obligations. Faithfulness to those promises brought marital blessing (cf. Ps 128; Prv 18:22); violation brought a curse.<\/p>\nAn individual could, at least figuratively, make a covenant or vow with himself or herself (something like a New Year’s resolution). Job, arguing his integrity before God, referred to a covenant he had made with his eyes to keep him from looking at women licentiously (Jb 31:1).<\/p>\nCovenants could also have a national or international character. The elders of Israel made a national covenant with King David in Hebron (2 Sm 5:3). Probably it contained explicit promises both from the elders on behalf of the people to submit themselves to the king’s authority and from David to rule the nation justly and according to the law of God (Dt 17:15-20). The covenant relationship described mutual obligations between a senior partner (the king) and junior partners (the Israelites). In international relationships OT covenants were similar to modern treaties or alliances. King Solomon entered into such a covenant with Hiram, king of Tyre; that covenant, like many modern international treaties, was a trade agreement between the two nations (1 Kgs 5:12).<\/p>\nCovenant is thus an interpersonal framework of trust, responsibilities, and benefits, with broad application to almost every human relationship from personal friendship to international trade agreements. In Scripture covenant is also the most comprehensive concept covering an individual’s relationship to God.<\/p>\nDivine-Human Covenants<\/p>\nThe same basic characteristics of a strictly human covenant are present in a divine covenant: (1) a relationship between two parties (God and a human being or nation), and (2) mutual obligations between the covenant partners. To the OT believer, religion meant covenant. OT religion was faithfulness to the covenant relationship between God and his chosen people; religious responsibilities for both the faith and practice of Israel were covenant responsibilities.<\/p>\nThe concept of a divine-human covenant in the OT was not static. Although the fundamental character of covenant remains the same throughout the Bible, the specific nature and form of the covenant changed and developed in the course of ancient Israel’s history. A brief survey of covenant history will further clarify its dimensions.<\/p>\nBeginnings of the Covenant Tradition<\/p>\n<h5>Adam<\/h5>\nAdam and Eve were placed in the Garden. God was their Creator; they were his creatures. The meaning of their lives was to be found in relationship with each other and with God, the giver of the Garden. The fall, however, brought a disruption of the divine relationship, and they were expelled from the Garden.<\/p>\nThe fall substantially influenced the nature of subsequent religious covenants. The separation of humankind from God clarifies the nature of the human predicament. Created for a relationship with the Creator, sinning humans are excluded from that relationship and cannot, on their own accord, reestablish it. From that circumstance emerges a distinctive feature of divine-human covenants, namely, that God alone can initiate the relationship of covenant.<\/p>\n<h5>Noah<\/h5>\nThe first explicit mention of covenant in Scripture refers to the initiative taken by God to bind himself again to human beings in a covenant, despite human faithlessness. When God warned Noah to build an ark in order to escape the impending Flood, he also promised to establish a covenant with him (Gn 6:18). The corruption and violence of the human race had provoked God’s anger, but his grace was shown in his dealings with Noah. The promised covenant provided that God would maintain a relationship with one family, even though other divine-human relationships were being formally severed. Significantly, God’s covenant promise to Noah came in a context of demand: God ordered Noah to build an ark (v 14). Noah’s receipt of the covenant blessing depended on his obedience to a divine command.<\/p>\nThe covenant was elaborated only after the Flood, when Noah had made an offering to God (Gn 8:20-22). The covenant with Noah was in fact a universal covenant with humankind and all living creatures (9:8-10). God promised never to send such a flood again as judgment on the world. The sign of that covenant was the rainbow.<\/p>\nThe covenant with Noah affords some perspective for understanding the “covenant God.” Although human beings may deserve destruction because of their wickedness, God withholds that destruction. The covenant of Noah did not establish an intimate relationship between God and each living being; nevertheless, it left open the possibility of a more intimate covenant. Human beings, in spite of their evil, are allowed for a time to live in God’s world; during those years, they may seek a deeper relationship with that world’s Creator.<\/p>\n<h5>Abraham<\/h5>\nThe first explicit reference to God’s covenant with Abraham is in Genesis 15. When the Lord called the 75-year-old Abram (as he was first called) to leave his home city of Ur and set out on a journey, a relationship already existed between God and Abram. In that relationship, which enabled God to command Abram’s obedience, God made certain promises to him: “I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing” (Gn 12:2, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nFormal establishment of the covenant with Abram is described in Genesis 15 as a profound religious experience. The initiative lay entirely with God, who approached Abram in a vision and spoke with him. Abram raised a fundamental objection: how could he experience the blessing of God if it was to come to him through a son he did not have? His wife Sarai was past the childbearing age, and he himself was “as good as dead” (Rom 4:19). God assured the old man that he would have a son through whom his descendants would eventually be as numerous as the stars of heaven. Abram’s belief at that point introduced the theme of righteousness central to the covenant concept: Abram “believed the Lord<\/span>, and he reckoned it to him as righteousness” (Gn 15:6, rsv<\/span>). At the end of that day, Abram knew that his own future and the future of his descendants were firmly in the hands of the covenant God. “On that day the Lord<\/span> made a covenant with Abram, saying, ‘To your descendants I give this land’ ” (v 18, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe covenant is more fully expressed in Genesis 17, which probably records a renewal of God’s covenant with Abram. The initiative once again lay with God (Gn 17:1). God addressed the 99-year-old Abram in words that made clear that the covenant was not a relationship between equal partners. God was the Almighty; Abram was a human being to whom an extraordinary privilege had been granted.<\/p>\nYet the details of the covenant in Genesis 17 show that both partners assumed responsibilities. God committed himself voluntarily to Abram and his descendants while requiring certain commitments from Abram. The blessing Abram would receive as a covenant partner became clear from the new name God gave him. “I am changing your name. It will no longer be Abram; now you will be known as Abraham, for you will be the father of many nations” (Gn 17:5, nlt<\/span>). God would give to Abraham, through his descendants, the land of Canaan as an everlasting gift and would be the personal God of Abraham and his family in perpetuity (vv 7-8).<\/p>\nGod’s giving required a response of obedience from Abraham: “Live a blameless life” (Gn 17:1, nlt<\/span>). Those simple words indicate the essence of covenant relationship: to relate to God is to live in his presence; since God is holy, one who knows him is expected to live a life of integrity and blamelessness.<\/p>\nThe covenant also had a more formal aspect. Abraham and the male members of his household were to undergo the rite of circumcision as a symbol of covenant commitment. Abraham was an old man when he was circumcised (Gn 17:24), though male children born into the covenant family were to be circumcised when they were eight days old (v 12). Circumcision was not in itself a ritual peculiar to the Hebrews; it was practiced in most societies in the ancient Near East (the Philistines were one exception). The distinctiveness lay in what the act symbolized: among other things, a continuing and faithful relationship with the living God.<\/p>\nGod’s covenant with Abraham was characterized by both present and future realities. The covenant established a continuing relationship between Abraham and his Creator. Yet its thrust pointed to future blessing—in the children yet to be born, the “chosen people,” and in the land that eventually his descendants would call their own.<\/p>\nAnother dimension of the covenant lay still further in the future: “All the families of the earth will be blessed through you” (Gn 12:3, nlt<\/span>). Early in the OT, the idea of election (God’s unconditional preference; cf. 2 Thes 2:13) is present. God chose to enter into a covenant relationship with a particular man and his particular descendants. Yet God always elects a person to serve: Adam, to cultivate the Garden; Noah, to build an ark; Abraham, to leave his home for another land and to live blamelessly before God (cf. Eph 2:8-10). Further, the “particularity” of Abraham’s election contained within it a universality: through his descendants the blessing of God would be offered to all.<\/p>\nThus, the future aspects of Abraham’s covenant reflect two stages. From Abraham’s perspective, in the relatively near future his descendants would possess a land given them by God. But in the more distant future was the prospect of a universal blessing, the culmination of God’s work in the world. The initial fulfillment of that distant future is perceived in the NT, but the more immediate fulfillment of God’s promise was the Sinai covenant at the time of Moses.<\/p>\nThe Sinai Covenant<\/p>\nThe covenant established between God and Israel at Mt Sinai is the focal point of the covenant tradition in the OT. It was anticipated in the covenant of Abraham and lay behind the covenant of David and the proclamation of the prophets. It was central to OT religion, laying down the foundations of Judaism that continue into the modern world. The Sinai covenant was the formal institution of a relationship between God and his chosen people, Israel.<\/p>\nIn order to appreciate the impact of the Sinai covenant, one must understand its historical context. It was preceded by the exodus of the Hebrew people from Egypt under the leadership of Moses. The exodus was an extraordinary act of liberation in which God intervened in the normal course of history to free his people from slavery in Egypt. The exodus is interpreted in the OT as a divine act comparable to Creation, the act through which God “created” the nation of Israel. Examination of the two versions of the fourth commandment (Ex 20:8-11; Dt 5:12-15) shows that the exodus from Egypt directly parallels the creation of the world as a basis for Sabbath observance. Although Israel was created in the exodus, the nation had neither a constitution nor land. The covenant provided the nascent state of Israel with a constitution, making it a theocratic state (a state ruled by God).<\/p>\nThe basic account of the Sinai covenant is contained in Exodus 19 and 20. The initiative came from God, who gave instructions through Moses to prepare for the covenant; God spoke the words that contained the covenant offer. There was no doubt that the God of Israel was the senior partner in the relationship made formal at Sinai. The God who had revealed himself through his acts in the exodus then revealed himself in words. Those two aspects—the God who acts and speaks—are central to OT theology. And although the covenant contained law, it was preceded by the exodus, an act of divine grace.<\/p>\nGod’s offer of covenant carried with it a divine promise: “You will be to me a kingdom of priests, my holy nation” (Ex 19:6, nlt<\/span>). The promise was one of extraordinary privilege; an entire nation was called upon to represent all other nations before the God of the universe. But the priestly office, though it carried privilege, was also a demanding office. A priest had to be pure and had to know the God whose presence he was required to enter. Thus Israel, the priestly nation, received a law that would provide direction in living, in loving God, and in serving all people. The law given with the covenant expressed the requirements for God’s covenant people.<\/p>\n<h5>The Covenant Law<\/h5>\nThe covenant law had two principal parts. First, the Ten Commandments expressed God’s requirements of Israel in a concise form (Ex 20:2-17). The commandments specified the covenant people’s relationship both to God and to other human beings. Although the tendency in the present day is to view the Ten Commandments as a system of ethics or morality, they had a different role in ancient Israel. The covenant law was the foundation or constitution of a new nation, a special “nation of priests.” The head of the nation-state was God. Hence, in ancient Israel the status of the Ten Commandments was approximately that of the code of criminal law in a modern nation-state. To break one of those laws was to commit a crime against God, the head of the state. Yet the laws had a positive purpose. They set down a way of life that would result in a full and rich communion with God and community with others.<\/p>\nThe second part of the covenant law was a detailed law code covering the activities of everyday life. Examples of such laws are found in Exodus 21–23. These laws were compiled and recorded in the “Book of the Covenant” (Ex 24:7). Although many laws were contained in this book, it was impossible to codify every aspect of human behavior. The diversity of the examples given indicates that for the covenant member no area of human life was beyond the influence of the covenant. Persons who entered into a relationship with God entered into a relationship that impinged on every possible aspect of their lives.<\/p>\n<h5>Covenant Renewal<\/h5>\nThe covenant at Sinai was made with a particular group of people under the leadership of Moses but was binding on future generations. Consequently, the covenant was renewed from time to time. Covenant renewals are recorded in the time of Joshua (Jos 8:30-35; 24:1-28) and, much later, during the reign of King Josiah (2 Kgs 23:1-3).<\/p>\nThe most important passage in the Bible for understanding covenant renewal and the nature of covenant is the book of Deuteronomy. The entire book describes a particular covenant renewal ceremony that occurred at a critical juncture in Israel’s early history. The Sinai covenant was renewed just before Moses’ death, before the transition of leadership to Joshua, and before a major military campaign to possess the Promised Land.<\/p>\nThe covenant since the time of Abraham had contained a promise of land. Immediately before they entered that land (c. 1250 BC<\/span>), the covenant vows were renewed with a new generation of Israelites, most of whom had not stood at the foot of Mt Sinai some 40 years earlier. Although covenant renewal is the central theme of Deuteronomy, the writer focused primarily on Moses’ sermon rather than on a detailed account of the renewal ceremony.<\/p>\nMany aspects of the ceremony were simply a repetition of what happened at the original ratification of the covenant. The Ten Commandments were repeated (Dt 5:6-21), and the laws of the Book of the Covenant were expounded in greater detail (Dt 12–26). Two points emerging in Deuteronomy are particularly significant for an understanding of covenant: a clear statement of covenant love and a detailed statement of the blessings and curses that accompanied the making and renewing of the covenant.<\/p>\nThe Covenant with David<\/p>\nThe covenant tradition underwent modification during the time of King David (c. 1000 BC<\/span>). The Sinai covenant had been established between God and Israel, with Moses acting as mediator. In David’s time an additional element was added: God entered into a covenant with David as king. That royal covenant was intimated to David through the prophet Nathan (2 Sm 7:8-16), indicating once again the divine initiative. It was to be an everlasting covenant with David’s royal lineage (23:5).<\/p>\n\nChristians generally interpret the covenant with David as a messianic covenant. For several centuries the dynasty established by David ruled a united Israel, then ruled the remaining southern kingdom of Judah. But in 586 BC<\/span> Judah was conquered by the Babylonians. At that point a descendant of David was no longer ruling an independent kingdom of God’s chosen people. The everlasting nature of the covenant with David was brought out, however, not in the pages of ancient history but in the expectation of a Messiah who would be born of David’s descendants. Matthew and Luke both pointed to Jesus’ Davidic descent (Mt 1:1; Lk 3:31). The NT thus extends the covenant acts of God into the new age in the person of Jesus.<\/p>\nThe New Covenant Predicted in the Old Testament<\/p>\nAlthough David’s covenant with God was eternal, in a sense the covenant established with Israel on Mt Sinai was temporal. The Sinai covenant included conditional clauses, stated in the blessings and curses of Deuteronomy. Israel’s disobedience of the covenant law would at worst bring exile from the Promised Land, a central covenant theme from Abraham to Moses and beyond.<\/p>\nThe Hebrew prophets often perceived the danger of an end to the covenant as a result of Israel’s sins. Some of the prophets, especially Hosea and Jeremiah, also perceived a deeper truth; namely, that the covenant was rooted in divine love and that therefore even the curse of God could not be final.<\/p>\nHosea dramatically expressed that truth through the “living parable” of his marriage (Hos 1–3). He married Gomer at God’s command, but later, as a result of her unfaithfulness, the marital covenant was dissolved by divorce. Although Gomer’s adulterous acts compelled Hosea to divorce her, he did not cease to love her. God later commanded Hosea to go back to Gomer (Hos 3:1). Despite her unfaithfulness, the prophet was to take her again into the covenant relationship of marriage. That acted-out parable depicted God’s actions with Israel. Israel’s sin would inevitably culminate in a divorce from God, but Hosea perceived a new marriage. In the new covenant between God and Israel, Israel would be graciously accepted back into a relationship with God (2:14-18).<\/p>\nThe new covenant is given powerful expression in the writings of the prophet Jeremiah, who lived through the end of the seventh and beginning of the sixth centuries BC<\/span>. In his lifetime Jeremiah saw the kingdom of Judah defeated in war. The nation lost its independence and became a vassal of the Babylonian Empire. In an external sense, that defeat in 586 BC<\/span> marked the end of the Sinai covenant. Israel could no longer call the Promised Land its own. Yet Jeremiah perceived a truth beyond the contemporary political realities. God’s work in the world, like his love for the world, was not over.<\/p>\nThus Jeremiah spoke of a new covenant that God would bring into effect: “The days are coming, says the Lord<\/span>, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah” (Jer 31:31, rsv<\/span>). The new covenant would be marked by an act of God within human hearts, a radical spiritual transformation (Jer 31:34). At the Last Supper Jesus declared to his disciples that “this cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Lk 22:20, rsv<\/span>). To the writer of Hebrews, the new covenant was central to a full understanding of the ministry of Jesus Christ (Heb 8:8-12).<\/p>\nConclusion<\/p>\nCovenant is a concept central to the message and the history of the OT. The covenant theme continues into the NT as a way of interpreting the Christian gospel. Meaning in human life is to be found in a covenant relationship with the living God. Yet sinful human beings cannot work their way into such a relationship; God alone can initiate it. According to the NT, God’s act in giving his son, Jesus, to die opened up the covenant relationship to all human beings. The forgiveness made available by Jesus’ “blood of the new covenant” makes it possible for any individual to enter into a covenant relationship with God. Entry into such a relationship, today as in Abraham’s time, hinges upon faith (Gal 3:6-14).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Alliance; Covenant, The New; Law, Biblical Concept of; Oath; Vows.<\/p>","summary_ro":"COVENANT Arrangement between two parties involving mutual obligations; especially the arrangement that established the relationship between God and his people, expressed in grace first with Israel and then with the church. Through that covenant God has conveyed to humanity the meaning of human life and salvation. Covenant is one of the central themes of the Bible, where some covenants are between human beings, others between God and human beings. The covenant theme in the OT is developed from...","summary_en":"COVENANT Arrangement between two parties involving mutual obligations; especially the arrangement that established the relationship between God and his people, expressed in grace first with Israel and then with the church. Through that covenant God has conveyed to humanity the meaning of human life and salvation. Covenant is one of the central themes of the Bible, where some covenants are between human beings, others between God and human beings. The covenant theme in the OT is developed from...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":8703,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"David","title_en":"David","content_ro":"<h3>DAVID<\/h3>\nIsrael’s most important king. David’s kingdom represented the epitome of Israel’s power and influence during the nation’s OT history.<\/p>\nThe two books in the OT devoted to David’s reign are 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. His earlier years are recorded in 1 Samuel, beginning at chapter 16. Almost half of the biblical psalms are ascribed to David. His importance extends into the NT, where he is identified as an ancestor of Jesus Christ and forerunner of the messianic king.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Early Years<\/p>\n• Preparation for Kingship<\/p>\n• David as King<\/p>\nDavid’s Lasting Influence<\/p>\nEarly Years<\/p>\n<h5>Family<\/h5>\nDavid was the youngest son in Jesse’s family, part of Judah’s tribe. The family lived in Bethlehem, about six miles (10 kilometers) south of Jerusalem. His great-grandmother was Ruth, from the land of Moab (Ru 4:18-22). Genealogies in both the OT and the NT trace David’s lineage back to Judah, son of the patriarch Jacob (1 Chr 2:3-15; Mt 1:3-6; Lk 3:31-33).<\/p>\n<h5>Training and Talents<\/h5>\nLittle is known about David’s early life. As a boy, he took care of his father’s sheep, risking his life to kill attacking bears and lions. Later, David publicly acknowledged God’s help and strength in protecting the flocks under his care (1 Sm 17:34-37).<\/p>\nDavid was an accomplished musician. He had developed his ability as a harpist so well that, when a musician was needed at the royal court of King Saul, someone immediately recommended David.<\/p>\nIn Jesse’s family, David was regarded as unimportant. When the nationally known prophet Samuel visited Jesse’s home, all the older sons were on hand to meet him; David was tending the sheep. Samuel had been instructed by God to anoint a king from Jesse’s family, not knowing beforehand which son to anoint. Sensing divine restraint as seven brothers passed before him, he made further inquiry. When he learned that Jesse had one other son, David was immediately summoned. David was anointed by Samuel and endowed with the Spirit of the Lord (1 Sm 16:1-13). Whatever Jesse and his family understood by that anointing, it seems to have made no immediate change in David’s pattern of living. He continued to tend the sheep.<\/p>\nPreparation for Kingship<\/p>\nDuring his youth, David was willing to serve others, even though he had been anointed king. It was his willingness to take supplies to three of his older brothers in the army that gave him his opportunity for national fame.<\/p>\nAs a young man, David was also sensitive toward God. While greeting his brothers on the battlefield, he was disturbed by the Philistine Goliath’s defiance of God’s armies. Although rebuked by his brothers, David accepted the challenge to take on Goliath. He had a reasonable confidence that God, who had helped him encounter a lion and a bear, would aid him against a champion warrior. So, with faith in God and using his ability to sling stones, David killed Goliath (1 Sm 17:12-58).<\/p>\n<h5>National Fame<\/h5>\nKilling Goliath made David a hero to the nation of Israel. It also brought him into close relationship with the royal family of Saul. But success and national acclaim brought on the jealousy of Saul and ultimately resulted in David’s expulsion from the land of Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>In the Royal Court<\/h5>\nSaul promised his oldest daughter, Merab, to David in marriage, but then Saul went back on the promise and offered David another daughter, Michal. The dowry of trophies from dead Philistines demanded by Saul was designed to bring about David’s death at Philistine hands. But again David was victorious. Women sang praises of his exploits, intensifying Saul’s jealousy and further endangering David’s life (1 Sm 18:6-30).<\/p>\nIn the meantime, David and Saul’s son Jonathan developed a deep friendship. When they made a covenant, Jonathan gave David his choicest military equipment (sword, bow, and belt). Although Saul tried to turn Jonathan against David, the friendship deepened. Because Saul was trying to kill him, David had to flee from the court and live as a fugitive.<\/p>\nAfter Jonathan had warned David of Saul’s continuing designs on his life, David went to Ramah to see the prophet Samuel. Together they went to Naioth, near Ramah. After sending several groups of men after David, Saul finally went with them himself. All his attempts to seize David were thwarted by the Spirit of God, who caused Saul and his men to prophesy all night in religious fervor (1 Sm 19).<\/p>\nConferring again with Jonathan, David realized that Saul’s jealousy had developed into hatred. Jonathan, aware that David would be the future king of Israel, requested assurance that his descendants would receive protection under David’s rule (1 Sm 20).<\/p>\n<h5>Life as a Fugitive<\/h5>\nFleeing from Saul, David stopped at Nob. By deceiving Ahimelech, who was officiating as priest there, David obtained food supplies and Goliath’s sword (kept as a trophy). An Edomite named Doeg, chief of Saul’s herdsmen, saw what happened at Nob. David continued his flight, taking refuge temporarily in Gath with King Achish (1 Sm 21), then finding shelter in the cave of Adullam, located 10 miles (16.1 kilometers) southwest of Bethlehem. There his relatives and about 400 fighting men joined him. He went to Mizpeh in Moab, appealing to the Moabite king for protection, especially for his parents. When the prophet Gad warned him not to stay there, David moved back to Judah to the Hereth woods (1 Sm 22:1-5).<\/p>\nDavid’s freedom of movement enraged Saul, who charged his own people with conspiracy. When Doeg reported what he had witnessed at Nob, Saul executed Ahimelech and 84 other priests, then massacred all of Nob’s inhabitants. One priest named Abiathar escaped to report Saul’s atrocities to David, who assured him of protection (1 Sm 22:6-23).<\/p>\nThe Philistines were always ready to take advantage of any weakness in Israel. David’s reprisal after a Philistine raid on Keilah, 12 miles (19.3 kilometers) southwest of Bethlehem, gave Saul an opportunity to attack David, who escaped to the wilderness of Ziph, a desert area near Hebron. David and Jonathan met for the last time in that wilderness. Pursued by Saul’s army, David fled still farther south. He was almost encircled in uninhabited country near Maon when Saul had to march his army off to respond to a Philistine attack (1 Sm 23).<\/p>\nAt his next place of refuge, En-gedi, on the western shore of the Dead Sea, David was attacked by Saul with 3,000 soldiers. David had an opportunity to kill Saul but refused to harm the “Lord’s anointed” king of Israel. Learning of David’s loyalty, Saul confessed his sin in seeking David’s life (1 Sm 24).<\/p>\nDuring the years they roamed the wilderness in the Maon\/Ziph\/En-gedi area, David’s band provided protection for Nabal, a rich man living in Maon with large flocks of sheep at Carmel. In exchange for that protection, David proposed that Nabal share some of his wealth. Nabal’s scorn angered David, but Nabal’s wife, Abigail, appealed to David not to take revenge. When Abigail told Nabal of his narrow escape, he was evidently so shocked that he had a heart seizure. He died ten days later, and Abigail later became David’s wife (1 Sm 25).<\/p>\nOnce more Saul came with an army of 3,000 men into the Ziph Desert to find David, and David again passed up an opportunity to harm the king. Finally realizing the folly of seeking David’s life, Saul abandoned pursuit (1 Sm 26).<\/p>\n<h5>Refuge in Philistia<\/h5>\nDavid continued to feel unsafe in Saul’s kingdom. Returning to Gath in Philistine country, he was welcomed by King Achish. His followers were allotted the city of Ziklag, where they lived for about 16 months, attracting new recruits from Judah and the rest of Israel (1 Sm 27; 1 Chr 12:19-22).<\/p>\nThe Philistine army, marching up to the Megiddo Valley to fight Saul’s army, was uneasy with David’s guerrillas in their rear column, so the commanders put pressure on Achish to dismiss David. When he returned to Ziklag, David found that the city had just been raided by the Amalekites. He pursued the enemy, rescued his people and goods, and divided the spoils with those who had remained behind to guard the supplies (1 Sm 29–30). Meanwhile, the Philistines routed the Israelites at Mt Gilboa, killing Jonathan and two of Saul’s other sons in a fierce battle. Saul, badly wounded, killed himself with his own sword (ch 31).<\/p>\n\nDavid as King<\/p>\nDavid ruled over Israel for about 40 years, although the accounts of his reign do not contain enough information for an exact chronology. He began his rule at Hebron and reigned over Judah’s territory for seven or eight years. With the death of Saul’s successor, Ishbosheth, David was recognized as king by all the tribes and made Jerusalem his capital. During the next decade, he unified Israel through military and economic expansion. Then came approximately 10 years of disruption in the royal family. The last years of David’s reign seem to have been devoted to plans for the Jerusalem temple, which was built in the reign of his son Solomon.<\/p>\n<h5>The Years in Hebron<\/h5>\nDavid was subjected to an unusually rugged period of training for his kingship. Serving under Saul, he gained experience in military exploits against the Philistines. Then, during his fugitive wanderings in the desert area of southern Judah, he ingratiated himself with the landholders and sheep raisers by giving them protection. Being recognized as an outlaw of Israel even enabled him to negotiate diplomatic relations with Moab and Philistia.<\/p>\nDavid was in Philistine country when news came to him that both Saul and Jonathan had been slain. In a beautiful elegy he paid tribute to his friend Jonathan as well as to King Saul (2 Sm 1).<\/p>\nSure of God’s guidance, David returned to his home, where the leaders of Judah anointed him king at Hebron. He sent a message of commendation to the men of Jabesh for providing a respectable burial for King Saul, probably also bidding for their support.<\/p>\nConfusion probably swept through Israel when Saul was killed, because the Philistines occupied much of the land. Various leaders gathered whatever fighting men they could find, as old tribal loyalties reasserted themselves. David had most of Judah’s tribe firmly behind him.<\/p>\nA kind of civil war broke out between the followers of David and those of Saul, with David gaining the allegiance of more and more people. Saul’s general, Abner, eventually negotiated peace with David, who requested the restoration of Michal as his wife, indicating that he held no animosity toward Saul’s dynasty. With the consent of Saul’s son Ishbosheth, whom Abner had enthroned as king, Abner went to Hebron and pledged Israel’s support for David. But Abner was killed by Joab, one of David’s captains, in a family vendetta, and soon afterward Ishbosheth was assassinated. David publicly mourned Abner’s death and had Ishbosheth’s two murderers executed. Thus, when Saul’s dynasty ended, David was seen by the people not so much as a challenger but as a logical successor. Hence, he was recognized as king by all Israel (2 Sm 2–4).<\/p>\n<h5>Consolidation in Jerusalem<\/h5>\nWhen the Israelites turned to David as king, the Philistines became alarmed and attacked (2 Sm 5; 1 Chr 14:8-17). David was strong enough to defeat them and thus unify the people of Israel.<\/p>\nIn search of a more central location for his capital, David turned toward the city of Jerusalem, a Jebusite stronghold. Joab responded to his challenge to conquer the city and was rewarded by being made general of David’s army. Jerusalem became known as the “city of David” (1 Chr 11:4-9).<\/p>\nIn the same way that he had organized his earliest followers into an effective guerrilla band (1 Chr 11:1–12:22) at Hebron, David began organizing the whole nation (12:23-40). Once established in Jerusalem, he quickly gained recognition from the Phoenicians, contracting for their artisans to build him a magnificent palace in the new capital (14:1-2). He also made sure that Jerusalem would become Israel’s religious center (2 Sm 6; 1 Chr 13–16). His abortive attempt to move the ark of the covenant by oxcart (cf. Nm 4) reminded the powerful king that he still had to do things God’s way to be successful.<\/p>\nWith Jerusalem well established as the nation’s capital, David intended to build God a temple. He shared his plan with the prophet Nathan, whose immediate response was positive. That night, however, God sent a message via Nathan that David should not build the temple. David’s throne would be established eternally, the prophet said, and unlike Saul, King David would have a son to succeed him and perpetuate the kingdom; that son would build the temple (2 Sm 7; 1 Chr 17).<\/p>\n<h5>Prosperity and Supremacy<\/h5>\nLittle is recorded about the expansion of David’s rule from the tribal area of Judah to a vast empire stretching from the Nile River of Egypt to regions of the Tigris-Euphrates valley. Nothing in secular history negates the biblical perspective that David had the most powerful kingdom in the heart of that “Fertile Crescent” about 1000 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nIt is likely that skirmishes with the Philistines to the west were frequent until they finally became subservient to David and paid him tribute. In Saul’s day the Philistines had enjoyed a monopoly on the use of iron (1 Sm 13:19-21). The fact that David freely used iron near the end of his reign (1 Chr 22:3) hints at profound economic changes in Israel.<\/p>\nDavid’s kingdom expanded southward as he built military garrisons in Edomite territory. Beyond Edom, he controlled the Moabites and Amalekites, who paid him tribute in silver and gold. To the northeast, Israelite domination was extended over the Ammonites and the Arameans, whose capital was Damascus. David’s treatment of both friends and enemies seemed to contribute to the strength of his kingdom (2 Sm 8–10). Although he was a brilliant military strategist who used all the means and resources available to bring Israel success, David was humble enough to glorify God (2 Sm 22; see Ps 18).<\/p>\n<h5>Sin in the Royal Family<\/h5>\nA lengthy section of the book of 2 Samuel (chs 11–20) gives a remarkably frank account of sin, crime, and rebellion in David’s family. The king’s own imperfections are clearly portrayed; the king of Israel himself could not escape God’s judgement when he did wrong.<\/p>\nAlthough polygamy was then a Near Eastern status symbol, it was forbidden for a king of Israel (Dt 17:17). David practiced polygamy, however; some of his marriages undoubtedly had political implications (such as his marriages to Saul’s daughter Michal and to princess Maacah of Geshur). Flagrant sins of incest, murder, and rebellion in his family brought David much suffering and almost cost him the throne.<\/p>\nDavid’s sin of adultery with Bathsheba, committed at the height of his military success and territorial expansion, led him further into evil: he planned a strategy to have Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah, killed on the front line of battle. David seems to have excluded God from consideration in that segment of his personal life. Yet when the prophet Nathan confronted the king with his sins, David acknowledged his guilt. He confessed his sin and pleaded with God for forgiveness (as in Pss 32 and 51). God forgave him, but for nearly ten years David endured the consequences of his lack of self-restraint and his failure to exercise discipline in his family. Although unsurpassed in military and diplomatic strategy, David lacked strength of character in his domestic affairs. Evil fermented in his own house; the father’s self-indulgence was soon reflected in Amnon’s crime of incest, followed by Absalom’s murder of his brother.<\/p>\nHaving incurred his father’s disfavor, Absalom took refuge in Geshur with his mother’s people for three years. Joab, David’s general, was eventually able to reconcile David with his alienated son. Absalom, however, having taken advantage of his position in the royal family to gain a following, went to Hebron, staged a surprise rebellion, and proclaimed himself king throughout Israel. His strong following posed such a threat that David fled from Jerusalem. David, still a master strategist, gained time through a ruse to organize his forces and put down his son’s rebellion. Absalom was killed while trying to flee; his death plunged David into grief.<\/p>\nOn his return to Jerusalem, David had to work at undoing the damage caused by Absalom’s revolt. His own tribe of Judah, for example, had supported Absalom. Another rebellion, fomented by Sheba of Benjamin’s tribe, had to be suppressed by Joab before the nation could settle down.<\/p>\n<h5>David’s Last Years<\/h5>\nAlthough David was not permitted to build the temple in Jerusalem, he made extensive preparations for that project during the last years of his reign. He stockpiled materials and organized the kingdom for efficient use of domestic and foreign labor. He also outlined details for religious worship in the new structure (1 Chr 21–29).<\/p>\nThe military and civic organization developed by David was probably patterned after Egyptian practice. The army, rigidly controlled by officers of proven loyalty to the king, included mercenaries. The king also appointed trusted supervisors over farms, livestock, and orchards in various parts of his empire (1 Chr 27:25-31).<\/p>\nDavid took, or at least began, a census of Israel (2 Sm 24; 1 Chr 21). The incompleteness of the accounts leaves unanswered such questions as the reason for God’s punishment. The king overruled Joab’s objection and insisted that the census be taken. Since David later seemed keenly aware that he had sinned in taking the census, it may be that he was motivated by pride to ascertain his exact military strength (approx. 1.5 million men). God may also have been judging the people for their support of the rebellions of Absalom and Sheba.<\/p>\nThrough the prophet Gad, David was given a choice of punishments for his sin. He chose a three-day pestilence. As David and the elders repented, they saw an angel on the threshing floor of the Jebusite Ornan (Araunah). David offered sacrifice there and prayed for his people. Later he purchased the threshing floor, located just outside the city of Jerusalem, concluding that it should be the site for the temple to be built by his son Solomon (1 Chr 21:28–22:1).<\/p>\nDavid’s Lasting Influence<\/p>\n<h5>The Writer of Psalms<\/h5>\nThe OT book of Psalms became one of the most popular books in ancient Israel, and has remained so among countless millions of people throughout the centuries. These words of praise prepared by David were intended for use in the temple worship (2 Chr 29:30). The 73 psalms ascribed to David generally grew out of his own relationship to God and to other persons.<\/p>\n\nDavid probably compiled Book I of the book of Psalms (1–41) and Book IV (90–106), since most of those psalms were written by David himself. Other psalms of his (Pss 51–71) are in Book II (42–72), which was probably compiled by Solomon. As those psalms were used for worship in later generations, various people added others until the time of Ezra.<\/p>\nDavid’s psalms provided much of the poetry that was set to music for Israel’s worship. His organization of the priests and Levites and his provision of instruments for worship (2 Chr 7:6; 8:14) set the pattern for generations to come in the religious life of Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>David in the Writings of the Prophets<\/h5>\nDavid, recognized as the greatest Israelite king, is often mentioned as a standard of comparison in the writings of the OT prophets. Isaiah (as in Is 7:2, 13; 22:22) and Jeremiah often referred to their contemporary kings as belonging to the “house” or “throne” of David. Contrasting David with some of his descendants who did not honor God, both Isaiah and Jeremiah predicted a messianic ruler who would establish justice and righteousness on the throne of David forever (Is 9:7; Jer 33:15). When Isaiah described the coming ruler, he identified him as being from the lineage of Jesse, David’s father (Is 11:1-10). Predicting a period of universal peace, Isaiah saw the capital in “Zion,” identified with the city of David (2:1-4).<\/p>\nEzekiel promised the restoration of David as king in an eschatological and messianic sense (Ez 37:24-25), and of “my servant David” as Israel’s shepherd (34:23). Hosea likewise identified the future ruler as King David (Hos 3:5). Amos assured the people that God would restore the “tabernacle” of David (Am 9:11) so that they could again dwell in safety. Zechariah referred five times to the “house of David” (in Zec 12–13, rsv<\/span>), encouraging the hope of a restoration of David’s glorious dynasty. The concept of the eternal throne promised to David during his reign was delineated in the message of the prophets even while they were announcing judgments to come on the rulers and people of their time.<\/p>\n<h5>David in the New Testament<\/h5>\nDavid is frequently mentioned by the Gospel writers, who established Jesus’ identity as the “son of David.” The covenant God made with David was that an eternal king would come from David’s family (Mt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mk 10:48; 12:35; Lk 18:38-39; 20:41). According to Mark 11:10 and John 7:42, the Jews of Jesus’ day expected the Messiah (Christ) to be a descendant of David. While stating that Jesus came from the lineage of David, the Gospels also clearly teach that Jesus was the Son of God (Mt 22:41-45; Mk 12:35-37; Lk 20:41-44).<\/p>\nIn the book of Acts, David is recognized as the recipient of God’s promises that were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. David is also seen as a prophet whom the Holy Spirit inspired to write the psalms (Acts 1:16; 2:22-36; 4:25; 13:26-39).<\/p>\nIn the book of Revelation, Jesus is designated as having the “key of David” (Rv 3:7), and as being “the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David” (5:5). Jesus is quoted as asserting that “I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star” (22:16).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Christology; Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Israel, History of; King; Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven; Messiah.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DAVID<\/h3>\nIsrael’s most important king. David’s kingdom represented the epitome of Israel’s power and influence during the nation’s OT history.<\/p>\nThe two books in the OT devoted to David’s reign are 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. His earlier years are recorded in 1 Samuel, beginning at chapter 16. Almost half of the biblical psalms are ascribed to David. His importance extends into the NT, where he is identified as an ancestor of Jesus Christ and forerunner of the messianic king.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Early Years<\/p>\n• Preparation for Kingship<\/p>\n• David as King<\/p>\nDavid’s Lasting Influence<\/p>\nEarly Years<\/p>\n<h5>Family<\/h5>\nDavid was the youngest son in Jesse’s family, part of Judah’s tribe. The family lived in Bethlehem, about six miles (10 kilometers) south of Jerusalem. His great-grandmother was Ruth, from the land of Moab (Ru 4:18-22). Genealogies in both the OT and the NT trace David’s lineage back to Judah, son of the patriarch Jacob (1 Chr 2:3-15; Mt 1:3-6; Lk 3:31-33).<\/p>\n<h5>Training and Talents<\/h5>\nLittle is known about David’s early life. As a boy, he took care of his father’s sheep, risking his life to kill attacking bears and lions. Later, David publicly acknowledged God’s help and strength in protecting the flocks under his care (1 Sm 17:34-37).<\/p>\nDavid was an accomplished musician. He had developed his ability as a harpist so well that, when a musician was needed at the royal court of King Saul, someone immediately recommended David.<\/p>\nIn Jesse’s family, David was regarded as unimportant. When the nationally known prophet Samuel visited Jesse’s home, all the older sons were on hand to meet him; David was tending the sheep. Samuel had been instructed by God to anoint a king from Jesse’s family, not knowing beforehand which son to anoint. Sensing divine restraint as seven brothers passed before him, he made further inquiry. When he learned that Jesse had one other son, David was immediately summoned. David was anointed by Samuel and endowed with the Spirit of the Lord (1 Sm 16:1-13). Whatever Jesse and his family understood by that anointing, it seems to have made no immediate change in David’s pattern of living. He continued to tend the sheep.<\/p>\nPreparation for Kingship<\/p>\nDuring his youth, David was willing to serve others, even though he had been anointed king. It was his willingness to take supplies to three of his older brothers in the army that gave him his opportunity for national fame.<\/p>\nAs a young man, David was also sensitive toward God. While greeting his brothers on the battlefield, he was disturbed by the Philistine Goliath’s defiance of God’s armies. Although rebuked by his brothers, David accepted the challenge to take on Goliath. He had a reasonable confidence that God, who had helped him encounter a lion and a bear, would aid him against a champion warrior. So, with faith in God and using his ability to sling stones, David killed Goliath (1 Sm 17:12-58).<\/p>\n<h5>National Fame<\/h5>\nKilling Goliath made David a hero to the nation of Israel. It also brought him into close relationship with the royal family of Saul. But success and national acclaim brought on the jealousy of Saul and ultimately resulted in David’s expulsion from the land of Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>In the Royal Court<\/h5>\nSaul promised his oldest daughter, Merab, to David in marriage, but then Saul went back on the promise and offered David another daughter, Michal. The dowry of trophies from dead Philistines demanded by Saul was designed to bring about David’s death at Philistine hands. But again David was victorious. Women sang praises of his exploits, intensifying Saul’s jealousy and further endangering David’s life (1 Sm 18:6-30).<\/p>\nIn the meantime, David and Saul’s son Jonathan developed a deep friendship. When they made a covenant, Jonathan gave David his choicest military equipment (sword, bow, and belt). Although Saul tried to turn Jonathan against David, the friendship deepened. Because Saul was trying to kill him, David had to flee from the court and live as a fugitive.<\/p>\nAfter Jonathan had warned David of Saul’s continuing designs on his life, David went to Ramah to see the prophet Samuel. Together they went to Naioth, near Ramah. After sending several groups of men after David, Saul finally went with them himself. All his attempts to seize David were thwarted by the Spirit of God, who caused Saul and his men to prophesy all night in religious fervor (1 Sm 19).<\/p>\nConferring again with Jonathan, David realized that Saul’s jealousy had developed into hatred. Jonathan, aware that David would be the future king of Israel, requested assurance that his descendants would receive protection under David’s rule (1 Sm 20).<\/p>\n<h5>Life as a Fugitive<\/h5>\nFleeing from Saul, David stopped at Nob. By deceiving Ahimelech, who was officiating as priest there, David obtained food supplies and Goliath’s sword (kept as a trophy). An Edomite named Doeg, chief of Saul’s herdsmen, saw what happened at Nob. David continued his flight, taking refuge temporarily in Gath with King Achish (1 Sm 21), then finding shelter in the cave of Adullam, located 10 miles (16.1 kilometers) southwest of Bethlehem. There his relatives and about 400 fighting men joined him. He went to Mizpeh in Moab, appealing to the Moabite king for protection, especially for his parents. When the prophet Gad warned him not to stay there, David moved back to Judah to the Hereth woods (1 Sm 22:1-5).<\/p>\nDavid’s freedom of movement enraged Saul, who charged his own people with conspiracy. When Doeg reported what he had witnessed at Nob, Saul executed Ahimelech and 84 other priests, then massacred all of Nob’s inhabitants. One priest named Abiathar escaped to report Saul’s atrocities to David, who assured him of protection (1 Sm 22:6-23).<\/p>\nThe Philistines were always ready to take advantage of any weakness in Israel. David’s reprisal after a Philistine raid on Keilah, 12 miles (19.3 kilometers) southwest of Bethlehem, gave Saul an opportunity to attack David, who escaped to the wilderness of Ziph, a desert area near Hebron. David and Jonathan met for the last time in that wilderness. Pursued by Saul’s army, David fled still farther south. He was almost encircled in uninhabited country near Maon when Saul had to march his army off to respond to a Philistine attack (1 Sm 23).<\/p>\nAt his next place of refuge, En-gedi, on the western shore of the Dead Sea, David was attacked by Saul with 3,000 soldiers. David had an opportunity to kill Saul but refused to harm the “Lord’s anointed” king of Israel. Learning of David’s loyalty, Saul confessed his sin in seeking David’s life (1 Sm 24).<\/p>\nDuring the years they roamed the wilderness in the Maon\/Ziph\/En-gedi area, David’s band provided protection for Nabal, a rich man living in Maon with large flocks of sheep at Carmel. In exchange for that protection, David proposed that Nabal share some of his wealth. Nabal’s scorn angered David, but Nabal’s wife, Abigail, appealed to David not to take revenge. When Abigail told Nabal of his narrow escape, he was evidently so shocked that he had a heart seizure. He died ten days later, and Abigail later became David’s wife (1 Sm 25).<\/p>\nOnce more Saul came with an army of 3,000 men into the Ziph Desert to find David, and David again passed up an opportunity to harm the king. Finally realizing the folly of seeking David’s life, Saul abandoned pursuit (1 Sm 26).<\/p>\n<h5>Refuge in Philistia<\/h5>\nDavid continued to feel unsafe in Saul’s kingdom. Returning to Gath in Philistine country, he was welcomed by King Achish. His followers were allotted the city of Ziklag, where they lived for about 16 months, attracting new recruits from Judah and the rest of Israel (1 Sm 27; 1 Chr 12:19-22).<\/p>\nThe Philistine army, marching up to the Megiddo Valley to fight Saul’s army, was uneasy with David’s guerrillas in their rear column, so the commanders put pressure on Achish to dismiss David. When he returned to Ziklag, David found that the city had just been raided by the Amalekites. He pursued the enemy, rescued his people and goods, and divided the spoils with those who had remained behind to guard the supplies (1 Sm 29–30). Meanwhile, the Philistines routed the Israelites at Mt Gilboa, killing Jonathan and two of Saul’s other sons in a fierce battle. Saul, badly wounded, killed himself with his own sword (ch 31).<\/p>\n\nDavid as King<\/p>\nDavid ruled over Israel for about 40 years, although the accounts of his reign do not contain enough information for an exact chronology. He began his rule at Hebron and reigned over Judah’s territory for seven or eight years. With the death of Saul’s successor, Ishbosheth, David was recognized as king by all the tribes and made Jerusalem his capital. During the next decade, he unified Israel through military and economic expansion. Then came approximately 10 years of disruption in the royal family. The last years of David’s reign seem to have been devoted to plans for the Jerusalem temple, which was built in the reign of his son Solomon.<\/p>\n<h5>The Years in Hebron<\/h5>\nDavid was subjected to an unusually rugged period of training for his kingship. Serving under Saul, he gained experience in military exploits against the Philistines. Then, during his fugitive wanderings in the desert area of southern Judah, he ingratiated himself with the landholders and sheep raisers by giving them protection. Being recognized as an outlaw of Israel even enabled him to negotiate diplomatic relations with Moab and Philistia.<\/p>\nDavid was in Philistine country when news came to him that both Saul and Jonathan had been slain. In a beautiful elegy he paid tribute to his friend Jonathan as well as to King Saul (2 Sm 1).<\/p>\nSure of God’s guidance, David returned to his home, where the leaders of Judah anointed him king at Hebron. He sent a message of commendation to the men of Jabesh for providing a respectable burial for King Saul, probably also bidding for their support.<\/p>\nConfusion probably swept through Israel when Saul was killed, because the Philistines occupied much of the land. Various leaders gathered whatever fighting men they could find, as old tribal loyalties reasserted themselves. David had most of Judah’s tribe firmly behind him.<\/p>\nA kind of civil war broke out between the followers of David and those of Saul, with David gaining the allegiance of more and more people. Saul’s general, Abner, eventually negotiated peace with David, who requested the restoration of Michal as his wife, indicating that he held no animosity toward Saul’s dynasty. With the consent of Saul’s son Ishbosheth, whom Abner had enthroned as king, Abner went to Hebron and pledged Israel’s support for David. But Abner was killed by Joab, one of David’s captains, in a family vendetta, and soon afterward Ishbosheth was assassinated. David publicly mourned Abner’s death and had Ishbosheth’s two murderers executed. Thus, when Saul’s dynasty ended, David was seen by the people not so much as a challenger but as a logical successor. Hence, he was recognized as king by all Israel (2 Sm 2–4).<\/p>\n<h5>Consolidation in Jerusalem<\/h5>\nWhen the Israelites turned to David as king, the Philistines became alarmed and attacked (2 Sm 5; 1 Chr 14:8-17). David was strong enough to defeat them and thus unify the people of Israel.<\/p>\nIn search of a more central location for his capital, David turned toward the city of Jerusalem, a Jebusite stronghold. Joab responded to his challenge to conquer the city and was rewarded by being made general of David’s army. Jerusalem became known as the “city of David” (1 Chr 11:4-9).<\/p>\nIn the same way that he had organized his earliest followers into an effective guerrilla band (1 Chr 11:1–12:22) at Hebron, David began organizing the whole nation (12:23-40). Once established in Jerusalem, he quickly gained recognition from the Phoenicians, contracting for their artisans to build him a magnificent palace in the new capital (14:1-2). He also made sure that Jerusalem would become Israel’s religious center (2 Sm 6; 1 Chr 13–16). His abortive attempt to move the ark of the covenant by oxcart (cf. Nm 4) reminded the powerful king that he still had to do things God’s way to be successful.<\/p>\nWith Jerusalem well established as the nation’s capital, David intended to build God a temple. He shared his plan with the prophet Nathan, whose immediate response was positive. That night, however, God sent a message via Nathan that David should not build the temple. David’s throne would be established eternally, the prophet said, and unlike Saul, King David would have a son to succeed him and perpetuate the kingdom; that son would build the temple (2 Sm 7; 1 Chr 17).<\/p>\n<h5>Prosperity and Supremacy<\/h5>\nLittle is recorded about the expansion of David’s rule from the tribal area of Judah to a vast empire stretching from the Nile River of Egypt to regions of the Tigris-Euphrates valley. Nothing in secular history negates the biblical perspective that David had the most powerful kingdom in the heart of that “Fertile Crescent” about 1000 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nIt is likely that skirmishes with the Philistines to the west were frequent until they finally became subservient to David and paid him tribute. In Saul’s day the Philistines had enjoyed a monopoly on the use of iron (1 Sm 13:19-21). The fact that David freely used iron near the end of his reign (1 Chr 22:3) hints at profound economic changes in Israel.<\/p>\nDavid’s kingdom expanded southward as he built military garrisons in Edomite territory. Beyond Edom, he controlled the Moabites and Amalekites, who paid him tribute in silver and gold. To the northeast, Israelite domination was extended over the Ammonites and the Arameans, whose capital was Damascus. David’s treatment of both friends and enemies seemed to contribute to the strength of his kingdom (2 Sm 8–10). Although he was a brilliant military strategist who used all the means and resources available to bring Israel success, David was humble enough to glorify God (2 Sm 22; see Ps 18).<\/p>\n<h5>Sin in the Royal Family<\/h5>\nA lengthy section of the book of 2 Samuel (chs 11–20) gives a remarkably frank account of sin, crime, and rebellion in David’s family. The king’s own imperfections are clearly portrayed; the king of Israel himself could not escape God’s judgement when he did wrong.<\/p>\nAlthough polygamy was then a Near Eastern status symbol, it was forbidden for a king of Israel (Dt 17:17). David practiced polygamy, however; some of his marriages undoubtedly had political implications (such as his marriages to Saul’s daughter Michal and to princess Maacah of Geshur). Flagrant sins of incest, murder, and rebellion in his family brought David much suffering and almost cost him the throne.<\/p>\nDavid’s sin of adultery with Bathsheba, committed at the height of his military success and territorial expansion, led him further into evil: he planned a strategy to have Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah, killed on the front line of battle. David seems to have excluded God from consideration in that segment of his personal life. Yet when the prophet Nathan confronted the king with his sins, David acknowledged his guilt. He confessed his sin and pleaded with God for forgiveness (as in Pss 32 and 51). God forgave him, but for nearly ten years David endured the consequences of his lack of self-restraint and his failure to exercise discipline in his family. Although unsurpassed in military and diplomatic strategy, David lacked strength of character in his domestic affairs. Evil fermented in his own house; the father’s self-indulgence was soon reflected in Amnon’s crime of incest, followed by Absalom’s murder of his brother.<\/p>\nHaving incurred his father’s disfavor, Absalom took refuge in Geshur with his mother’s people for three years. Joab, David’s general, was eventually able to reconcile David with his alienated son. Absalom, however, having taken advantage of his position in the royal family to gain a following, went to Hebron, staged a surprise rebellion, and proclaimed himself king throughout Israel. His strong following posed such a threat that David fled from Jerusalem. David, still a master strategist, gained time through a ruse to organize his forces and put down his son’s rebellion. Absalom was killed while trying to flee; his death plunged David into grief.<\/p>\nOn his return to Jerusalem, David had to work at undoing the damage caused by Absalom’s revolt. His own tribe of Judah, for example, had supported Absalom. Another rebellion, fomented by Sheba of Benjamin’s tribe, had to be suppressed by Joab before the nation could settle down.<\/p>\n<h5>David’s Last Years<\/h5>\nAlthough David was not permitted to build the temple in Jerusalem, he made extensive preparations for that project during the last years of his reign. He stockpiled materials and organized the kingdom for efficient use of domestic and foreign labor. He also outlined details for religious worship in the new structure (1 Chr 21–29).<\/p>\nThe military and civic organization developed by David was probably patterned after Egyptian practice. The army, rigidly controlled by officers of proven loyalty to the king, included mercenaries. The king also appointed trusted supervisors over farms, livestock, and orchards in various parts of his empire (1 Chr 27:25-31).<\/p>\nDavid took, or at least began, a census of Israel (2 Sm 24; 1 Chr 21). The incompleteness of the accounts leaves unanswered such questions as the reason for God’s punishment. The king overruled Joab’s objection and insisted that the census be taken. Since David later seemed keenly aware that he had sinned in taking the census, it may be that he was motivated by pride to ascertain his exact military strength (approx. 1.5 million men). God may also have been judging the people for their support of the rebellions of Absalom and Sheba.<\/p>\nThrough the prophet Gad, David was given a choice of punishments for his sin. He chose a three-day pestilence. As David and the elders repented, they saw an angel on the threshing floor of the Jebusite Ornan (Araunah). David offered sacrifice there and prayed for his people. Later he purchased the threshing floor, located just outside the city of Jerusalem, concluding that it should be the site for the temple to be built by his son Solomon (1 Chr 21:28–22:1).<\/p>\nDavid’s Lasting Influence<\/p>\n<h5>The Writer of Psalms<\/h5>\nThe OT book of Psalms became one of the most popular books in ancient Israel, and has remained so among countless millions of people throughout the centuries. These words of praise prepared by David were intended for use in the temple worship (2 Chr 29:30). The 73 psalms ascribed to David generally grew out of his own relationship to God and to other persons.<\/p>\n\nDavid probably compiled Book I of the book of Psalms (1–41) and Book IV (90–106), since most of those psalms were written by David himself. Other psalms of his (Pss 51–71) are in Book II (42–72), which was probably compiled by Solomon. As those psalms were used for worship in later generations, various people added others until the time of Ezra.<\/p>\nDavid’s psalms provided much of the poetry that was set to music for Israel’s worship. His organization of the priests and Levites and his provision of instruments for worship (2 Chr 7:6; 8:14) set the pattern for generations to come in the religious life of Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>David in the Writings of the Prophets<\/h5>\nDavid, recognized as the greatest Israelite king, is often mentioned as a standard of comparison in the writings of the OT prophets. Isaiah (as in Is 7:2, 13; 22:22) and Jeremiah often referred to their contemporary kings as belonging to the “house” or “throne” of David. Contrasting David with some of his descendants who did not honor God, both Isaiah and Jeremiah predicted a messianic ruler who would establish justice and righteousness on the throne of David forever (Is 9:7; Jer 33:15). When Isaiah described the coming ruler, he identified him as being from the lineage of Jesse, David’s father (Is 11:1-10). Predicting a period of universal peace, Isaiah saw the capital in “Zion,” identified with the city of David (2:1-4).<\/p>\nEzekiel promised the restoration of David as king in an eschatological and messianic sense (Ez 37:24-25), and of “my servant David” as Israel’s shepherd (34:23). Hosea likewise identified the future ruler as King David (Hos 3:5). Amos assured the people that God would restore the “tabernacle” of David (Am 9:11) so that they could again dwell in safety. Zechariah referred five times to the “house of David” (in Zec 12–13, rsv<\/span>), encouraging the hope of a restoration of David’s glorious dynasty. The concept of the eternal throne promised to David during his reign was delineated in the message of the prophets even while they were announcing judgments to come on the rulers and people of their time.<\/p>\n<h5>David in the New Testament<\/h5>\nDavid is frequently mentioned by the Gospel writers, who established Jesus’ identity as the “son of David.” The covenant God made with David was that an eternal king would come from David’s family (Mt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mk 10:48; 12:35; Lk 18:38-39; 20:41). According to Mark 11:10 and John 7:42, the Jews of Jesus’ day expected the Messiah (Christ) to be a descendant of David. While stating that Jesus came from the lineage of David, the Gospels also clearly teach that Jesus was the Son of God (Mt 22:41-45; Mk 12:35-37; Lk 20:41-44).<\/p>\nIn the book of Acts, David is recognized as the recipient of God’s promises that were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. David is also seen as a prophet whom the Holy Spirit inspired to write the psalms (Acts 1:16; 2:22-36; 4:25; 13:26-39).<\/p>\nIn the book of Revelation, Jesus is designated as having the “key of David” (Rv 3:7), and as being “the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David” (5:5). Jesus is quoted as asserting that “I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star” (22:16).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Christology; Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Israel, History of; King; Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven; Messiah.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DAVID Israel’s most important king. David’s kingdom represented the epitome of Israel’s power and influence during the nation’s OT history. The two books in the OT devoted to David’s reign are 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. His earlier years are recorded in 1 Samuel, beginning at chapter 16. Almost half of the biblical psalms are ascribed to David. His importance extends into the NT, where he is identified as an ancestor of Jesus Christ and forerunner of the messianic king. Preview • Early Years ...","summary_en":"DAVID Israel’s most important king. David’s kingdom represented the epitome of Israel’s power and influence during the nation’s OT history. The two books in the OT devoted to David’s reign are 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. His earlier years are recorded in 1 Samuel, beginning at chapter 16. Almost half of the biblical psalms are ascribed to David. His importance extends into the NT, where he is identified as an ancestor of Jesus Christ and forerunner of the messianic king. Preview • Early Years ...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24652,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Mattatha","title_en":"Mattatha","content_ro":"<h3>MATTATHA<\/h3>\nAncestor of Jesus, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:31). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MATTATHA<\/h3>\nAncestor of Jesus, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:31). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MATTATHA Ancestor of Jesus, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:31). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"MATTATHA Ancestor of Jesus, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:31). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":25042,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Melea","title_en":"Melea","content_ro":"<h3>MELEA<\/h3>\nAncestor of Jesus, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:31). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MELEA<\/h3>\nAncestor of Jesus, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:31). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MELEA Ancestor of Jesus, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:31). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"MELEA Ancestor of Jesus, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:31). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":25081,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Menan*","title_en":"Menan*","content_ro":"<h3>MENAN*<\/h3>\nKJV form of Menna, an ancestor of Jesus in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:31).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MENAN*<\/h3>\nKJV form of Menna, an ancestor of Jesus in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:31).<\/p>","summary_ro":"MENAN* KJV form of Menna, an ancestor of Jesus in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:31).","summary_en":"MENAN* KJV form of Menna, an ancestor of Jesus in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:31).","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":25089,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Menna","title_en":"Menna","content_ro":"<h3>MENNA<\/h3>\nAncestor of Jesus, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:31). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MENNA<\/h3>\nAncestor of Jesus, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:31). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MENNA Ancestor of Jesus, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:31). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"MENNA Ancestor of Jesus, according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:31). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":26996,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Nathan","title_en":"Nathan","content_ro":"<h3>NATHAN<\/h3>\n<li>1. Son of David by Bathsheba, the third son to be born in Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:14; 1 Chr 3:5; 14:4). Nathan, Solomon’s older brother, is featured in the apocalyptic oracle of Zechariah 12:12 and Christ’s line of descent via Joseph (Lk 3:31).<\/li>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<li>2. One of the early prophets and adviser of David. When David’s military campaigns were almost completed, he shared with Nathan his desire to erect a suitable dwelling place for God. Nathan’s immediate reaction was favorable, but on receiving direct instructions from the Lord, he countermanded his initial approval. He foretold that one of David’s sons would build God a house, and that God would establish a house (dynasty) for David through his son Solomon. The prophecy includes not only the Davidic line but also the messianic king. Nathan’s oracle, therefore, was of vital importance, since it dealt with two great institutions, the temple and the Davidic monarchy (2 Sm 7:1-7; 1 Chr 17:1-15).<\/li>\nDuring the Ammonite war, David, having fathered an illegitimate child, tried to cover his sin by involving the woman’s husband, Uriah (2 Sm 11:1-13; 23:39). When this attempt failed, he had Joab, the general of the army, engineer Uriah’s death, whereupon David took Bathsheba openly as his wife (11:14-27). Nathan confronted the king, courageously exposing the enormity of David’s crime by a parable that provoked the king’s righteous anger and turned the finger of condemnation upon David himself (12:1-9). Nathan foretold the fearful consequences for David’s family resulting from his sin and evil example (vv 10-12). This prophecy was fulfilled in rape, the deaths of three of David’s sons, and civil war (2 Sm 13–18; 1 Kgs 1). Bathsheba’s child also would not live (2 Sm 12:14).<\/p>\nWhen David was near death, one of his sons, Adonijah, seized power (1 Kgs 1:1, 10). Nathan prompted Bathsheba to remind David of an earlier promise concerning Solomon’s succession, supporting her by his own timely intervention (vv 10-27). David immediately authorized Solomon’s coronation (vv 28-53).<\/p>\nNathan was an important chronicler (1 Chr 29:29; 2 Chr 9:29). With David he played a vital part in developing the musical aspects of temple worship (2 Chr 29:25).<\/p>\n<li>3. Man of Zobah and the father of Igal, one of David’s 30 heroes (2 Sm 23:36). He was possibly the Nathan noted as the brother of Joel (1 Chr 11:38).<\/li>\n<li>4. Father of two important court officials (1 Kgs 4:5); probably either the prophet or David’s son.<\/li>\n<li>5. Descendant of Judah, in the clan of Jerahmeel, the son of Attai and the father of Zabad (1 Chr 2:36).<\/li>\n<li>6. One of a deputation sent by Ezra to secure Levitical reinforcements for the Israelites returning to Jerusalem (Ezr 8:16). Possibly Nathan was among those who covenanted to divorce their foreign wives (10:39), but the name, meaning “gift,” was a very common one.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>NATHAN<\/h3>\n<li>1. Son of David by Bathsheba, the third son to be born in Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:14; 1 Chr 3:5; 14:4). Nathan, Solomon’s older brother, is featured in the apocalyptic oracle of Zechariah 12:12 and Christ’s line of descent via Joseph (Lk 3:31).<\/li>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<li>2. One of the early prophets and adviser of David. When David’s military campaigns were almost completed, he shared with Nathan his desire to erect a suitable dwelling place for God. Nathan’s immediate reaction was favorable, but on receiving direct instructions from the Lord, he countermanded his initial approval. He foretold that one of David’s sons would build God a house, and that God would establish a house (dynasty) for David through his son Solomon. The prophecy includes not only the Davidic line but also the messianic king. Nathan’s oracle, therefore, was of vital importance, since it dealt with two great institutions, the temple and the Davidic monarchy (2 Sm 7:1-7; 1 Chr 17:1-15).<\/li>\nDuring the Ammonite war, David, having fathered an illegitimate child, tried to cover his sin by involving the woman’s husband, Uriah (2 Sm 11:1-13; 23:39). When this attempt failed, he had Joab, the general of the army, engineer Uriah’s death, whereupon David took Bathsheba openly as his wife (11:14-27). Nathan confronted the king, courageously exposing the enormity of David’s crime by a parable that provoked the king’s righteous anger and turned the finger of condemnation upon David himself (12:1-9). Nathan foretold the fearful consequences for David’s family resulting from his sin and evil example (vv 10-12). This prophecy was fulfilled in rape, the deaths of three of David’s sons, and civil war (2 Sm 13–18; 1 Kgs 1). Bathsheba’s child also would not live (2 Sm 12:14).<\/p>\nWhen David was near death, one of his sons, Adonijah, seized power (1 Kgs 1:1, 10). Nathan prompted Bathsheba to remind David of an earlier promise concerning Solomon’s succession, supporting her by his own timely intervention (vv 10-27). David immediately authorized Solomon’s coronation (vv 28-53).<\/p>\nNathan was an important chronicler (1 Chr 29:29; 2 Chr 9:29). With David he played a vital part in developing the musical aspects of temple worship (2 Chr 29:25).<\/p>\n<li>3. Man of Zobah and the father of Igal, one of David’s 30 heroes (2 Sm 23:36). He was possibly the Nathan noted as the brother of Joel (1 Chr 11:38).<\/li>\n<li>4. Father of two important court officials (1 Kgs 4:5); probably either the prophet or David’s son.<\/li>\n<li>5. Descendant of Judah, in the clan of Jerahmeel, the son of Attai and the father of Zabad (1 Chr 2:36).<\/li>\n<li>6. One of a deputation sent by Ezra to secure Levitical reinforcements for the Israelites returning to Jerusalem (Ezr 8:16). Possibly Nathan was among those who covenanted to divorce their foreign wives (10:39), but the name, meaning “gift,” was a very common one.<\/li>","summary_ro":"NATHAN 1. Son of David by Bathsheba, the third son to be born in Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:14; 1 Chr 3:5; 14:4). Nathan, Solomon’s older brother, is featured in the apocalyptic oracle of Zechariah 12:12 and Christ’s line of descent via Joseph (Lk 3:31). See also Genealogy of Jesus Christ. 2. One of the early prophets and adviser of David. When David’s military campaigns were almost completed, he shared with Nathan his desire to erect a suitable dwelling place for God. Nathan’s immediate reaction was ...","summary_en":"NATHAN 1. Son of David by Bathsheba, the third son to be born in Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:14; 1 Chr 3:5; 14:4). Nathan, Solomon’s older brother, is featured in the apocalyptic oracle of Zechariah 12:12 and Christ’s line of descent via Joseph (Lk 3:31). See also Genealogy of Jesus Christ. 2. One of the early prophets and adviser of David. When David’s military campaigns were almost completed, he shared with Nathan his desire to erect a suitable dwelling place for God. Nathan’s immediate reaction was ...","source":"Articles\/N.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55675,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:31","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:31","content_ro":"3:31<\/strong> Nathan<\/em> was David’s third son, born to him in Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:14); he is not to be confused with Nathan the prophet (2 Sam 7:2).<\/p>","content_en":"3:31<\/strong> Nathan<\/em> was David’s third son, born to him in Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:14); he is not to be confused with Nathan the prophet (2 Sam 7:2).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:31 Nathan was David’s third son, born to him in Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:14); he is not to be confused with Nathan the prophet (2 Sam 7:2).","summary_en":"3:31 Nathan was David’s third son, born to him in Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:14); he is not to be confused with Nathan the prophet (2 Sam 7:2).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83301,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:31","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:31","content_ro":"3:31<\/strong> Nathan<\/em> was David’s third son, born to him in Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:14); he is not to be confused with Nathan the prophet (2 Sam 7:2).<\/p>","content_en":"3:31<\/strong> Nathan<\/em> was David’s third son, born to him in Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:14); he is not to be confused with Nathan the prophet (2 Sam 7:2).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:31 Nathan was David’s third son, born to him in Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:14); he is not to be confused with Nathan the prophet (2 Sam 7:2).","summary_en":"3:31 Nathan was David’s third son, born to him in Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:14); he is not to be confused with Nathan the prophet (2 Sam 7:2).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110927,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:31","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:31","content_ro":"3:31<\/strong> Nathan<\/em> was David’s third son, born to him in Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:14); he is not to be confused with Nathan the prophet (2 Sam 7:2).<\/p>","content_en":"3:31<\/strong> Nathan<\/em> was David’s third son, born to him in Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:14); he is not to be confused with Nathan the prophet (2 Sam 7:2).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:31 Nathan was David’s third son, born to him in Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:14); he is not to be confused with Nathan the prophet (2 Sam 7:2).","summary_en":"3:31 Nathan was David’s third son, born to him in Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:14); he is not to be confused with Nathan the prophet (2 Sam 7:2).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138553,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:31","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:31","content_ro":"3:31<\/strong> Nathan<\/em> was David’s third son, born to him in Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:14); he is not to be confused with Nathan the prophet (2 Sam 7:2).<\/p>","content_en":"3:31<\/strong> Nathan<\/em> was David’s third son, born to him in Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:14); he is not to be confused with Nathan the prophet (2 Sam 7:2).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:31 Nathan was David’s third son, born to him in Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:14); he is not to be confused with Nathan the prophet (2 Sam 7:2).","summary_en":"3:31 Nathan was David’s third son, born to him in Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:14); he is not to be confused with Nathan the prophet (2 Sam 7:2).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"32":[{"id":5347,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Boaz (Person)","title_en":"Boaz (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>BOAZ (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\nSalmon’s son of Judah’s tribe (Ru 4:18-22). Boaz lived in Bethlehem in the days of the judges and married Ruth, a Moabite woman. Boaz was an ancestor of Christ (Mt 1:5; Lk 3:32) and a wealthy relative by marriage of Ruth’s mother-in-law, Naomi. Ruth attracted the attention of Boaz when she was gleaning in one of his fields (Ru 2). His kindness to Ruth convinced Naomi that Boaz might be willing to redeem some land her husband had owned and at the same time accept the levirate marriage with Ruth that such a transaction required.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Ruth, Book of; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BOAZ (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\nSalmon’s son of Judah’s tribe (Ru 4:18-22). Boaz lived in Bethlehem in the days of the judges and married Ruth, a Moabite woman. Boaz was an ancestor of Christ (Mt 1:5; Lk 3:32) and a wealthy relative by marriage of Ruth’s mother-in-law, Naomi. Ruth attracted the attention of Boaz when she was gleaning in one of his fields (Ru 2). His kindness to Ruth convinced Naomi that Boaz might be willing to redeem some land her husband had owned and at the same time accept the levirate marriage with Ruth that such a transaction required.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Ruth, Book of; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BOAZ (Person) Salmon’s son of Judah’s tribe (Ru 4:18-22). Boaz lived in Bethlehem in the days of the judges and married Ruth, a Moabite woman. Boaz was an ancestor of Christ (Mt 1:5; Lk 3:32) and a wealthy relative by marriage of Ruth’s mother-in-law, Naomi. Ruth attracted the attention of Boaz when she was gleaning in one of his fields (Ru 2). His kindness to Ruth convinced Naomi that Boaz might be willing to redeem some land her husband had owned and at the same time accept the levirate mar...","summary_en":"BOAZ (Person) Salmon’s son of Judah’s tribe (Ru 4:18-22). Boaz lived in Bethlehem in the days of the judges and married Ruth, a Moabite woman. Boaz was an ancestor of Christ (Mt 1:5; Lk 3:32) and a wealthy relative by marriage of Ruth’s mother-in-law, Naomi. Ruth attracted the attention of Boaz when she was gleaning in one of his fields (Ru 2). His kindness to Ruth convinced Naomi that Boaz might be willing to redeem some land her husband had owned and at the same time accept the levirate mar...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":5551,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Booz*","title_en":"Booz*","content_ro":"<h3>BOOZ*<\/h3>\nKJV form of Boaz in Matthew 1:5 and Luke 3:32. See<\/em> Boaz (Person).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BOOZ*<\/h3>\nKJV form of Boaz in Matthew 1:5 and Luke 3:32. See<\/em> Boaz (Person).<\/p>","summary_ro":"BOOZ* KJV form of Boaz in Matthew 1:5 and Luke 3:32. See Boaz (Person).","summary_en":"BOOZ* KJV form of Boaz in Matthew 1:5 and Luke 3:32. See Boaz (Person).","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":19385,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of Jesse*, Root","title_en":"of Jesse*, Root","content_ro":"<h3>JESSE*, Root of<\/h3>\nFigure of speech used by Isaiah (Is 11:10) to express the hope of a messianic king from the line of David. The “root” of a family is its progenitor. Jesse, David’s father, is listed as an ancestor of the Messiah (Is 11:1, 10; Mt 1:5-6; Lk 3:32; Acts 13:22-23). Isaiah pictures God’s judgment upon Assyria as the cutting down of a forest (Is 10:33-34); Judah likewise will be felled and the proud tree of David’s sovereignty hewn down, but a remnant will remain, described by Isaiah as a shoot from a stump (6:13). The messianic shoot will come forth from the stump of Jesse as a branch from his roots. The Spirit of the Lord will rest upon this one who stands as an ensign to the people, so that the nations will seek him in the glory of his dwelling place (Is 11:1-10; see Is 53:2; Jer 23:5; 33:15; Ez 17:22-23; Zec 3:8; 6:12).<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul, quoting Isaiah’s prophecy, identified Jesus as “the root of Jesse” in whom the Gentiles hope (Rom 15:12). Christ is not only “a shoot from the stump of Jesse” (Is 11:1) but is himself the “root of Jesse” (Is 11:10; Rom 15:12; see Rv 5:5; 22:16, “root of David”). This means that Jesus not only came from Jesse’s line but that Jesse (and David) came from Jesus. In other words, the image points to Jesus’ divinity. While Jesus was the son of David, Jesus was also David’s “Lord.” This is the point Jesus made in his debate with the religious leaders of his day who recognized only that the Messiah was a human descendant of David. Matthew 22:42-45 reads: “ ‘What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?’ They replied, ‘He is the son of David.’ Jesus responded, ‘Then why does David, speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, call him Lord? For David said, “The Lord<\/span> said to my Lord, sit in honor at my right hand until I humble your enemies beneath your feet.” Since David called him Lord, how can he be his son at the same time?’ ”<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Christology; David; Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Jesse (Person); Jesus Christ, Teachings of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JESSE*, Root of<\/h3>\nFigure of speech used by Isaiah (Is 11:10) to express the hope of a messianic king from the line of David. The “root” of a family is its progenitor. Jesse, David’s father, is listed as an ancestor of the Messiah (Is 11:1, 10; Mt 1:5-6; Lk 3:32; Acts 13:22-23). Isaiah pictures God’s judgment upon Assyria as the cutting down of a forest (Is 10:33-34); Judah likewise will be felled and the proud tree of David’s sovereignty hewn down, but a remnant will remain, described by Isaiah as a shoot from a stump (6:13). The messianic shoot will come forth from the stump of Jesse as a branch from his roots. The Spirit of the Lord will rest upon this one who stands as an ensign to the people, so that the nations will seek him in the glory of his dwelling place (Is 11:1-10; see Is 53:2; Jer 23:5; 33:15; Ez 17:22-23; Zec 3:8; 6:12).<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul, quoting Isaiah’s prophecy, identified Jesus as “the root of Jesse” in whom the Gentiles hope (Rom 15:12). Christ is not only “a shoot from the stump of Jesse” (Is 11:1) but is himself the “root of Jesse” (Is 11:10; Rom 15:12; see Rv 5:5; 22:16, “root of David”). This means that Jesus not only came from Jesse’s line but that Jesse (and David) came from Jesus. In other words, the image points to Jesus’ divinity. While Jesus was the son of David, Jesus was also David’s “Lord.” This is the point Jesus made in his debate with the religious leaders of his day who recognized only that the Messiah was a human descendant of David. Matthew 22:42-45 reads: “ ‘What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?’ They replied, ‘He is the son of David.’ Jesus responded, ‘Then why does David, speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, call him Lord? For David said, “The Lord<\/span> said to my Lord, sit in honor at my right hand until I humble your enemies beneath your feet.” Since David called him Lord, how can he be his son at the same time?’ ”<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Christology; David; Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Jesse (Person); Jesus Christ, Teachings of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JESSE*, Root of Figure of speech used by Isaiah (Is 11:10) to express the hope of a messianic king from the line of David. The “root” of a family is its progenitor. Jesse, David’s father, is listed as an ancestor of the Messiah (Is 11:1, 10; Mt 1:5-6; Lk 3:32; Acts 13:22-23). Isaiah pictures God’s judgment upon Assyria as the cutting down of a forest (Is 10:33-34); Judah likewise will be felled and the proud tree of David’s sovereignty hewn down, but a remnant will remain, described by Isaiah...","summary_en":"JESSE*, Root of Figure of speech used by Isaiah (Is 11:10) to express the hope of a messianic king from the line of David. The “root” of a family is its progenitor. Jesse, David’s father, is listed as an ancestor of the Messiah (Is 11:1, 10; Mt 1:5-6; Lk 3:32; Acts 13:22-23). Isaiah pictures God’s judgment upon Assyria as the cutting down of a forest (Is 10:33-34); Judah likewise will be felled and the proud tree of David’s sovereignty hewn down, but a remnant will remain, described by Isaiah...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":26795,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Naasson*","title_en":"Naasson*","content_ro":"<h3>NAASSON*<\/h3>\nKJV form of Nahshon, Amminadab’s son, in Matthew 1:4 and Luke 3:32. See<\/em> Nahshon.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>NAASSON*<\/h3>\nKJV form of Nahshon, Amminadab’s son, in Matthew 1:4 and Luke 3:32. See<\/em> Nahshon.<\/p>","summary_ro":"NAASSON* KJV form of Nahshon, Amminadab’s son, in Matthew 1:4 and Luke 3:32. See Nahshon.","summary_en":"NAASSON* KJV form of Nahshon, Amminadab’s son, in Matthew 1:4 and Luke 3:32. See Nahshon.","source":"Articles\/N.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":26872,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Nahshon","title_en":"Nahshon","content_ro":"<h3>NAHSHON<\/h3>\nAmminadab’s son; brother of Elisheba and Salmon’s father (Ex 6:23; 1 Chr 2:10-11). Nahshon, the prince of Judah’s tribe at the start of Israel’s wilderness wanderings (Nm 1:7; 2:3; 10:14), represented his kinsmen at the altar’s dedication (7:12). In Ruth 4:20 he is listed as David’s forefather and a descendant of Judah through the line of Perez, and in Matthew and Luke’s genealogies as an ancestor of Jesus Christ (Mt 1:4; Lk 3:32).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>NAHSHON<\/h3>\nAmminadab’s son; brother of Elisheba and Salmon’s father (Ex 6:23; 1 Chr 2:10-11). Nahshon, the prince of Judah’s tribe at the start of Israel’s wilderness wanderings (Nm 1:7; 2:3; 10:14), represented his kinsmen at the altar’s dedication (7:12). In Ruth 4:20 he is listed as David’s forefather and a descendant of Judah through the line of Perez, and in Matthew and Luke’s genealogies as an ancestor of Jesus Christ (Mt 1:4; Lk 3:32).<\/p>","summary_ro":"NAHSHON Amminadab’s son; brother of Elisheba and Salmon’s father (Ex 6:23; 1 Chr 2:10-11). Nahshon, the prince of Judah’s tribe at the start of Israel’s wilderness wanderings (Nm 1:7; 2:3; 10:14), represented his kinsmen at the altar’s dedication (7:12). In Ruth 4:20 he is listed as David’s forefather and a descendant of Judah through the line of Perez, and in Matthew and Luke’s genealogies as an ancestor of Jesus Christ (Mt 1:4; Lk 3:32).","summary_en":"NAHSHON Amminadab’s son; brother of Elisheba and Salmon’s father (Ex 6:23; 1 Chr 2:10-11). Nahshon, the prince of Judah’s tribe at the start of Israel’s wilderness wanderings (Nm 1:7; 2:3; 10:14), represented his kinsmen at the altar’s dedication (7:12). In Ruth 4:20 he is listed as David’s forefather and a descendant of Judah through the line of Perez, and in Matthew and Luke’s genealogies as an ancestor of Jesus Christ (Mt 1:4; Lk 3:32).","source":"Articles\/N.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":28064,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Obed","title_en":"Obed","content_ro":"<h3>OBED<\/h3>\n<li>1. Ruth and Boaz’s first child, listed among the ancestors of Jesus (Ru 4:17, 21-22; 1 Chr 2:12; Mt 1:5; Lk 3:32). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>2. Jerahmeelite and Ephlal’s son (1 Chr 2:37-38).<\/li>\n<li>3. One of David’s mighty men (1 Chr 11:47).<\/li>\n<li>4. Shemaiah’s son and an able leader who ruled his father’s house (1 Chr 26:6-7).<\/li>\n<li>5. Father of Azariah, a captain of Jehoiada (2 Chr 23:1).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>OBED<\/h3>\n<li>1. Ruth and Boaz’s first child, listed among the ancestors of Jesus (Ru 4:17, 21-22; 1 Chr 2:12; Mt 1:5; Lk 3:32). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>2. Jerahmeelite and Ephlal’s son (1 Chr 2:37-38).<\/li>\n<li>3. One of David’s mighty men (1 Chr 11:47).<\/li>\n<li>4. Shemaiah’s son and an able leader who ruled his father’s house (1 Chr 26:6-7).<\/li>\n<li>5. Father of Azariah, a captain of Jehoiada (2 Chr 23:1).<\/li>","summary_ro":"OBED 1. Ruth and Boaz’s first child, listed among the ancestors of Jesus (Ru 4:17, 21-22; 1 Chr 2:12; Mt 1:5; Lk 3:32). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ. 2. Jerahmeelite and Ephlal’s son (1 Chr 2:37-38). 3. One of David’s mighty men (1 Chr 11:47). 4. Shemaiah’s son and an able leader who ruled his father’s house (1 Chr 26:6-7). 5. Father of Azariah, a captain of Jehoiada (2 Chr 23:1).","summary_en":"OBED 1. Ruth and Boaz’s first child, listed among the ancestors of Jesus (Ru 4:17, 21-22; 1 Chr 2:12; Mt 1:5; Lk 3:32). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ. 2. Jerahmeelite and Ephlal’s son (1 Chr 2:37-38). 3. One of David’s mighty men (1 Chr 11:47). 4. Shemaiah’s son and an able leader who ruled his father’s house (1 Chr 26:6-7). 5. Father of Azariah, a captain of Jehoiada (2 Chr 23:1).","source":"Articles\/O.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":33538,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Sala*","title_en":"Sala*","content_ro":"<h3>SALA*<\/h3>\n<li>1. Alternate name for Salmon, Boaz’s father, in Luke 3:32 (see nlt<\/span> mg). See<\/em> Salmon (Person).<\/li>\n<li>2. KJV rendering of Shelah, Eber’s father, in Luke 3:35. See<\/em> Shelah #1.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>SALA*<\/h3>\n<li>1. Alternate name for Salmon, Boaz’s father, in Luke 3:32 (see nlt<\/span> mg). See<\/em> Salmon (Person).<\/li>\n<li>2. KJV rendering of Shelah, Eber’s father, in Luke 3:35. See<\/em> Shelah #1.<\/li>","summary_ro":"SALA* 1. Alternate name for Salmon, Boaz’s father, in Luke 3:32 (see nlt mg). See Salmon (Person). 2. KJV rendering of Shelah, Eber’s father, in Luke 3:35. See Shelah #1.","summary_en":"SALA* 1. Alternate name for Salmon, Boaz’s father, in Luke 3:32 (see nlt mg). See Salmon (Person). 2. KJV rendering of Shelah, Eber’s father, in Luke 3:35. See Shelah #1.","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":33566,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Salmon (Person)","title_en":"Salmon (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>SALMON (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\nNahshon’s son and an ancestor of David from Judah’s tribe (1 Chr 2:11). Salmon fathered Boaz by Rahab (Ru 4:20-21) and is listed in Matthew’s genealogy as a forefather of Jesus Christ (Mt 1:4-5); in the Greek his name is spelled Sala in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:32).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SALMON (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\nNahshon’s son and an ancestor of David from Judah’s tribe (1 Chr 2:11). Salmon fathered Boaz by Rahab (Ru 4:20-21) and is listed in Matthew’s genealogy as a forefather of Jesus Christ (Mt 1:4-5); in the Greek his name is spelled Sala in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:32).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SALMON (Person) Nahshon’s son and an ancestor of David from Judah’s tribe (1 Chr 2:11). Salmon fathered Boaz by Rahab (Ru 4:20-21) and is listed in Matthew’s genealogy as a forefather of Jesus Christ (Mt 1:4-5); in the Greek his name is spelled Sala in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:32). See also Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"SALMON (Person) Nahshon’s son and an ancestor of David from Judah’s tribe (1 Chr 2:11). Salmon fathered Boaz by Rahab (Ru 4:20-21) and is listed in Matthew’s genealogy as a forefather of Jesus Christ (Mt 1:4-5); in the Greek his name is spelled Sala in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:32). See also Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55676,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:32","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:32","content_ro":"3:32<\/strong> Boaz<\/em> was the husband of Ruth the Moabite (see Ruth 2–4).<\/p>","content_en":"3:32<\/strong> Boaz<\/em> was the husband of Ruth the Moabite (see Ruth 2–4).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:32 Boaz was the husband of Ruth the Moabite (see Ruth 2–4).","summary_en":"3:32 Boaz was the husband of Ruth the Moabite (see Ruth 2–4).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83302,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:32","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:32","content_ro":"3:32<\/strong> Boaz<\/em> was the husband of Ruth the Moabite (see Ruth 2–4).<\/p>","content_en":"3:32<\/strong> Boaz<\/em> was the husband of Ruth the Moabite (see Ruth 2–4).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:32 Boaz was the husband of Ruth the Moabite (see Ruth 2–4).","summary_en":"3:32 Boaz was the husband of Ruth the Moabite (see Ruth 2–4).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110928,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:32","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:32","content_ro":"3:32<\/strong> Boaz<\/em> was the husband of Ruth the Moabite (see Ruth 2–4).<\/p>","content_en":"3:32<\/strong> Boaz<\/em> was the husband of Ruth the Moabite (see Ruth 2–4).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:32 Boaz was the husband of Ruth the Moabite (see Ruth 2–4).","summary_en":"3:32 Boaz was the husband of Ruth the Moabite (see Ruth 2–4).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138554,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:32","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:32","content_ro":"3:32<\/strong> Boaz<\/em> was the husband of Ruth the Moabite (see Ruth 2–4).<\/p>","content_en":"3:32<\/strong> Boaz<\/em> was the husband of Ruth the Moabite (see Ruth 2–4).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:32 Boaz was the husband of Ruth the Moabite (see Ruth 2–4).","summary_en":"3:32 Boaz was the husband of Ruth the Moabite (see Ruth 2–4).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"33":[{"id":602,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Admin","title_en":"Admin","content_ro":"<h3>ADMIN<\/h3>\nAncestor of Jesus mentioned in Luke’s genealogy (3:33). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ADMIN<\/h3>\nAncestor of Jesus mentioned in Luke’s genealogy (3:33). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ADMIN Ancestor of Jesus mentioned in Luke’s genealogy (3:33). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"ADMIN Ancestor of Jesus mentioned in Luke’s genealogy (3:33). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":1290,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Aminadab*","title_en":"Aminadab*","content_ro":"<h3>AMINADAB*<\/h3>\nKJV form of Amminadab in Matthew 1:4 and Luke 3:33. See<\/em> Amminadab #1.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>AMINADAB*<\/h3>\nKJV form of Amminadab in Matthew 1:4 and Luke 3:33. See<\/em> Amminadab #1.<\/p>","summary_ro":"AMINADAB* KJV form of Amminadab in Matthew 1:4 and Luke 3:33. See Amminadab #1.","summary_en":"AMINADAB* KJV form of Amminadab in Matthew 1:4 and Luke 3:33. See Amminadab #1.","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":1326,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Amminadab","title_en":"Amminadab","content_ro":"<h3>AMMINADAB<\/h3>\n<li>1. Father of Elisheba, who was Aaron’s wife (Ex 6:23). Amminadab was also the father of Nahshon, Judah’s tribal leader in the wilderness (Nm 1:7; 2:3; 7:12, 17; 10:14; 1 Chr 2:10). Amminadab is listed in the genealogy of David (Ru 4:18-22) and later in the genealogy of Jesus Christ (Mt 1:4; Lk 3:33). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>2. Alternate name for Izhar, one of Kohath’s sons (1 Chr 6:22). See<\/em> Izhar #1.<\/li>\n<li>3. Levite contemporary of King David who helped bring the ark of the Lord to Jerusalem (1 Chr 15:1-4, 10-11).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>AMMINADAB<\/h3>\n<li>1. Father of Elisheba, who was Aaron’s wife (Ex 6:23). Amminadab was also the father of Nahshon, Judah’s tribal leader in the wilderness (Nm 1:7; 2:3; 7:12, 17; 10:14; 1 Chr 2:10). Amminadab is listed in the genealogy of David (Ru 4:18-22) and later in the genealogy of Jesus Christ (Mt 1:4; Lk 3:33). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>2. Alternate name for Izhar, one of Kohath’s sons (1 Chr 6:22). See<\/em> Izhar #1.<\/li>\n<li>3. Levite contemporary of King David who helped bring the ark of the Lord to Jerusalem (1 Chr 15:1-4, 10-11).<\/li>","summary_ro":"AMMINADAB 1. Father of Elisheba, who was Aaron’s wife (Ex 6:23). Amminadab was also the father of Nahshon, Judah’s tribal leader in the wilderness (Nm 1:7; 2:3; 7:12, 17; 10:14; 1 Chr 2:10). Amminadab is listed in the genealogy of David (Ru 4:18-22) and later in the genealogy of Jesus Christ (Mt 1:4; Lk 3:33). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ. 2. Alternate name for Izhar, one of Kohath’s sons (1 Chr 6:22). See Izhar #1. 3. Levite contemporary of King David who helped bring the ark of the Lord to...","summary_en":"AMMINADAB 1. Father of Elisheba, who was Aaron’s wife (Ex 6:23). Amminadab was also the father of Nahshon, Judah’s tribal leader in the wilderness (Nm 1:7; 2:3; 7:12, 17; 10:14; 1 Chr 2:10). Amminadab is listed in the genealogy of David (Ru 4:18-22) and later in the genealogy of Jesus Christ (Mt 1:4; Lk 3:33). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ. 2. Alternate name for Izhar, one of Kohath’s sons (1 Chr 6:22). See Izhar #1. 3. Levite contemporary of King David who helped bring the ark of the Lord to...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":2752,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Arni","title_en":"Arni","content_ro":"<h3>ARNI<\/h3>\nAncestor of Jesus according to Luke’s genealogy (3:33); also called Ram in Ruth 4:19 and 1 Chronicles 2:9-10.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ARNI<\/h3>\nAncestor of Jesus according to Luke’s genealogy (3:33); also called Ram in Ruth 4:19 and 1 Chronicles 2:9-10.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ARNI Ancestor of Jesus according to Luke’s genealogy (3:33); also called Ram in Ruth 4:19 and 1 Chronicles 2:9-10.","summary_en":"ARNI Ancestor of Jesus according to Luke’s genealogy (3:33); also called Ram in Ruth 4:19 and 1 Chronicles 2:9-10.","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":11116,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Esrom*","title_en":"Esrom*","content_ro":"<h3>ESROM*<\/h3>\nKJV rendering of Hezron, Perez’s son, in Matthew 1:3 and Luke 3:33. See<\/em> Hezron (Person) #2.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ESROM*<\/h3>\nKJV rendering of Hezron, Perez’s son, in Matthew 1:3 and Luke 3:33. See<\/em> Hezron (Person) #2.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ESROM* KJV rendering of Hezron, Perez’s son, in Matthew 1:3 and Luke 3:33. See Hezron (Person) #2.","summary_en":"ESROM* KJV rendering of Hezron, Perez’s son, in Matthew 1:3 and Luke 3:33. See Hezron (Person) #2.","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":13588,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Genesis","title_en":"Book of Genesis","content_ro":"<h3>GENESIS, Book of<\/h3>\nFirst book of the Bible.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Name<\/p>\n• Author<\/p>\n• Date<\/p>\n• Purpose<\/p>\n• Structure<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nName<\/p>\nThe name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith<\/span>,<\/em> “in the beginning.”<\/p>\nAuthor<\/p>\nThe authorship of Genesis is closely related to the authorship of the entire Pentateuch (lit. “five-volumed,” the first five books of the Bible, which in Hebrew are called the Torah). It is clear that the Bible regards the human author of these books as Moses. On several occasions the Lord commanded Moses to write down various things: “in a book” (Ex 17:14) “write these words” (34:27). The Pentateuch reports that “Moses wrote all the words of the Lord<\/span>” (24:4); he wrote the itinerary of the exodus wanderings (Nm 33:2); “Moses wrote this law” (Dt 31:9). (Here it is not certain that all five books are meant, but it must refer to at least the greater part of Deuteronomy.) In Exodus 24:7 it is said that Moses read the Book of the Covenant, which he must have just completed.<\/p>\nThe rest of the OT bears witness to the writing of the Pentateuch by Moses. David referred to “the law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3). In the time of Josiah, there was found in the temple the “Book of the Law of the Lord<\/span> . . . given through Moses” (2 Chr 34:14, nlt<\/span>). Day by day Ezra read from “the Book of the Law of God” (Neh 8:18, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nIn the NT, Jesus refers to “the book of Moses” (Mk 12:26; Lk 20:37) and otherwise mentions the commands or statements of Moses (Mt 8:4; 19:8; Mk 7:10; cf. Lk 16:31; 24:44). The Jews also quoted from the Torah as coming from Moses, and Jesus did not contradict them.<\/p>\nOf Genesis in particular, it may be said that Moses had the opportunity and ability to write the book. He could have written it during his years in Egypt or while exiled with the Kenites. As the recognized leader of the Israelites, he would have had access to, or perhaps even custody of, the records that Jacob brought from Canaan. He was “instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22) and probably could have written in several languages and in several scripts (hieroglyphic, cuneiform, Old Hebrew). Although Moses was admirably fitted for the task of writing, one must remember that he was not putting together a human composition but was writing under the inspiration of God (2 Pt 1:21). We may with confidence conclude that Moses was the human author of Genesis.<\/p>\nThe liberal view of the authorship of Genesis is that the book is an editorial composite—a view first put forward by a French physician, Jean Astruc, who suggested that the different names for God indicated different documents or sources for the writing of the book. The German higher critics expanded the view of the use of documents in the writing of Genesis and developed it into the Graf-Wellhausen-Kuenen, or Documentary, Hypothesis, which may also be called the JEDP theory of the authorship of the book. This view holds that there were four basic documents: (1) J, which uses the name YHWH (Jehovah or Yahweh) for God, dates from about the ninth century BC<\/span> and comes from Judah; (2) E uses the name Elohim, dates from the eighth century, and comes from the northern kingdom; (3) D is Deuteronomy and is supposed to come from the time of Josiah, about 621 BC<\/span>; and (4) P is the priestly element, which deals with matters of the priesthood and ritual, dating to the fifth century BC<\/span> or later. Some may date portions of Genesis as late as the Hellenistic period. According to this theory, the various documents were blended together by editors, so that there was a JE, JED, and so on.<\/p>\nThe science of archaeology discredited many of the extreme postulations of these critics, and the work of W. F. Albright and his followers did much to restore confidence in the historicity of Genesis. Within the last several decades, the patriarchal narratives and the account of Joseph have again come under strong attack, but these views are extreme, and much of the evidence adduced by Albright and earlier scholars like R. D. Wilson, W. H. Green, and others still has validity.<\/p>\nDate<\/p>\nThe date of the book is also a matter of debate. Even among those who accept Mosaic authorship there is debate as to when Moses lived. Based on the biblical data, Moses should have lived in the 15th century BC<\/span> (cf. Jgs 11:26; 1 Kgs 6:1), but many scholars incline toward a 13th-century date. As outlined above, the liberal view of the date of Genesis would be from the ninth to the fifth centuries BC<\/span>, with the final editing coming around the fifth century or perhaps even later.<\/p>\nPurpose<\/p>\nGenesis sketches the origin of many things: the universe, the earth, plants, animals, and mankind. It gives the beginnings of human institutions, professions, and crafts. It describes the origin of sin and death, and illustrates the insidious working of Satan in human life. Above all, Genesis relates the beginning of the history of redemption with the announcement of a Redeemer who was to come (Gn 3:15). It names the early progenitors in the lineage of the Messiah and the beginning of the Hebrew people through whom the Bible and the Savior came. Genesis also gives a selective history of people and events as viewed from the perspective of the purposes of God.<\/p>\nStructure<\/p>\nThe book is divided into 11 parts of uneven length, each set off by the expression “these are the generations [descendants, history] of” (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). Only three times does the formula coincide with the first verse of a chapter. Usually called a heading or superscription, the expression serves as a kind of link between what precedes and what follows.<\/p>\n\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>The Creation (1:1–2:25)<\/h5>\nThese two chapters have been a scientific-theological battleground for many years, as researchers and students have tried to probe the origins of the universe and of life. Much of the evidence is not subject to scientific scrutiny, for science by definition requires that the evidence must be reproducible by experiment.<\/p>\nThe statement of Genesis 1:1 remains the grandest, most precise, and most accurate statement of origins: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” He did this ex nihilo<\/em> (“out of nothing”) by his word (Heb 11:3); he spoke the word of command and it was done (Gn 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20; Ps 33:6, 9).<\/p>\nThe date of the beginning is unknown. Uniformitarian cosmogonists (students of the origins of the universe who believe that natural events have always followed a uniform pattern; cf. 2 Pt 3:3-7) have speculated that the beginning of the universe was billions of years ago. But some creationists posit a world thousands of years old.<\/p>\nTo accommodate geological ages and the existence of extinct animals, some interpreters have proposed a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, with Genesis 1:2–2:3 representing a second or new creation. But this is conjecture. So is the idea that each day represents a geological age.<\/p>\nAs the text stands, there is a correlation between the first three days and the second three days. Day one saw the creation of light; day four, the light bearers. Day two was the time of the creation of the firmament (better, “expanse”), which divided the waters; day five, birds and swarming water creatures. On day three, God made the dry land and plants; on day six he created the land animals and man. He made man in the image of God (Gn 1:26), “a little less than God” (Ps 8:5), and gave him dominion over the earth. He made everything “according to their kinds,” so that each kind is distinct and unique. The perfection of his work is affirmed in that “God saw that it was good” (Gn 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21; “very good,” v 31). The seventh day was a time of cessation from the activity of creating and served as a type for mankind’s day of rest (2:1-3).<\/p>\nCritical scholarship eyes 2:4-25 as a doublet in conflict with Genesis 1:1–2:3. To conservative scholars, the second chapter is the same account from a different perspective. Chapter 1 gives the Creation from the standpoint of sequence; chapter 2 shows it in view of the centrality of mankind in God’s creative work.<\/p>\nChapter 2 gives details of the creation of man of “dust from the ground” (v 7) and woman from a rib of the man (vv 21-22). She was created to be “a companion who will help him” (vv 18-20). They were created as mature adults, with the gift of speech and with great intelligence. Adam had imagination and vocabulary sufficient for naming all of the animal species (v 19).<\/p>\nThe location of the Garden of Eden is given (vv 10-14). Two of the four rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, can be identified with certainty. So man lived in this beautiful garden in the bliss of innocence.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Humankind from Eden to Babel (3:1–11:26)<\/h5>\n<h6>The Fall<\/h6>\nThe loss of Eden and the break in fellowship with God is the saddest chapter in human history. The serpent, the devil, approached Eve with the same philosophy he always uses: doubt of God’s word (Gn 3:1), denial of death (v 4), and the suggestion of equality with God (v 5). He gained access to her will by deceiving her with the promise that the fruit would make her as wise as God is (Gn 3:5; cf. 1 Jn 2:16). Eve was deceived, but when she offered the fruit to Adam, he took it willingly, knowing what he was doing (Gn 3:6; cf. 1 Tm 2:14). Later, he tried to blame God for giving him the wife who gave him the fruit (Gn 3:12). Fellowship with God was broken (v 8), yet God came seeking Adam and found him.<\/p>\nWith sin came judgment, and the Lord pronounced righteous judgment on the serpent, the woman, and the man. The earth was also “subjected to frustration” and now groans as it awaits renewal (Rom 8:21-22). God gave hope to man and a promise of a Redeemer (Gn 3:15), who was to bruise the serpent’s head. Adam and Eve were forced out of the Garden, and it was made inaccessible to them.<\/p>\nThe impatience of humankind is shown in Eve’s expectation that her son Cain was the promised Deliverer. Instead, he developed a wrong-hearted attitude toward God and became so jealous of his younger brother that he murdered him. Apprehended by God and confronted with his crime, Cain showed only self-pity and went east from Eden, where he built a city (4:1-16). Chapter 4 closes with another contrast: the brazen Lamech, who called for vengeance, while others began to call upon the name of the Lord.<\/p>\n<h6>The Generations of Adam<\/h6>\nThis genealogical table (5:1-32) brings humankind to the time of Noah and the Flood. The longevity of the antediluvian patriarchs seems very striking to us, but one must remember that the earth had not yet been subjected to pollution and that the effects of sin on the human race were still nominal. The refrain “and he died” reminds us of man’s mortality. For Enoch, however, there was something better: “He enjoyed a close relationship with God throughout his life. Then, suddenly, he disappeared because God took him” (5:24, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>The Flood<\/h6>\nWith increased population came an eruption of sin (6:1-5). As men multiplied, so did their corruption. The universal condemnation of verse 5 shows a world ripe for judgment. Noah, however, “found favor with the Lord<\/span>,” for he was a righteous and blameless man who walked with God (6:8-9).<\/p>\nThe Lord planned to annihilate the human race, but he determined to save Noah and his family. Intending to flood the earth, God instructed Noah to build an ark. Noah was directed to take animals aboard the ark, two by two, male and female, for the preservation of each species. When all was in readiness, the Flood came: “the underground waters burst forth on the earth, and the rain fell in mighty torrents from the sky” (7:11, nlt<\/span>). It rained for 40 days and 40 nights. The highest mountains were covered, and life outside the ark perished. “But God remembered Noah” and sent a wind to evaporate the waters (8:1). Eventually the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (v 4). Noah made a sacrifice to the Lord, and the Lord determined that he would never again bring such destruction upon the earth.<\/p>\nThe Flood is another of God’s acts that has been much debated. Many have argued for a local flood, which affected only part of Mesopotamia. Archaeologists have pointed to various flood strata in the excavation of Mesopotamian city-mounds as evidence for the account of the flood and have cited the various flood stories from that area as the source of the Genesis record. The epic of Gilgamesh gives an interesting tale of this hero, who went on a mission to visit Utnapishtim, the cuneiform Noah, in quest of eternal life. The flood story told by Utnapishtim has many parallels to Genesis, but there are greater contrasts, which demonstrate that the Bible preserves the true account.<\/p>\nBoth the Genesis account and the references to it in the NT (cf. 2 Pt 3:6) favor the view that the deluge was not a minor episode in the Tigris-Euphrates area but was an unprecedented worldwide catastrophe. Christian geologists affirm that the Flood had far-reaching effects on the earth itself. Flood stories are almost universally known, lending support to the conclusion that the Flood covered the whole earth. Following the Flood, God blessed Noah and his sons, Ham, Shem, and Japheth. God made a covenant with Noah, promising that he would never again send a worldwide flood. As a sign of this, he established the rainbow.<\/p>\nNoah was the first tiller of the soil, and he planted a vineyard (9:20). Noah became drunk from wine he made and lay uncovered in his tent. Ham saw him and reported this to his brothers, who discreetly covered him. Ham and his son Canaan were cursed; Shem and Japheth were blessed.<\/p>\n<h6>The History of the Nations<\/h6>\n“This is the history of the families of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the three sons of Noah. Many children were born to them after the Flood” (10:1, nlt<\/span>). This chapter lists the descendants of Noah’s three sons, in the order of Japheth (vv 2-5), Ham (vv 6-20), and Shem (vv 21-31). Many of the names of their descendants are preserved in tribes and nations of the world.<\/p>\n<h6>The Tower of Babel<\/h6>\nThe building of the Tower of Babel (“Gate of God”) illustrates man’s perversity and his tendency to want independence from God. The desire of man to displace God follows the fateful example of Lucifer and is a basic tenet of many cults. God thwarted the designs of the builders of Babel by confusing their languages, so that the project came to a halt (11:1-9). The site of this tower is not known with certainty. Some associate it with Birs Nimrud, not far from the ruins of the city of Babylon. Genesis 11:10-25 picks up the line of Shem and carries it down to Terah, the father of Abram.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Abraham (11:27–25:10) and Isaac (21:1–28:5)<\/h5>\nAbram came from Ur of the Chaldees, a prosperous city. The city had an imposing ziggurat (temple-tower), with many temples, storehouses, and residences. Abram and Sarai, his half sister and wife, went with his father to Haran in Syria, which like Ur was a center of the worship of the moon god, Sin (or Annar).<\/p>\n<h6>Abram’s Call<\/h6>\nThe call of God came to Abram directing him to leave his relatives and move to a land that the Lord would show him (12:1; cf. Acts 7:2-3). Abram obeyed. At the age of 75, he, Sarai, and his nephew Lot left Haran and went to Shechem, where the Lord appeared to him and promised that land to his descendants.<\/p>\nFamine drove Abram down to Egypt (Gn 12:10-20). Because of Sarai’s beauty, he feared that someone might kill him to get her, so he passed her off as his sister. She was taken into the pharaoh’s harem. When the Lord plagued Pharaoh because of this, Abram’s lie was discovered and Sarai was returned to him.<\/p>\n<h6>Abram and Lot<\/h6>\nAbram and Lot returned to Canaan, where strife broke out between Abram’s herdsmen and those of Lot. Abram suggested that they should separate, and he gave Lot the choice of territory. Lot chose the well-watered Jordan Valley and the cities of the plain, Sodom and Gomorrah (ch 13).<\/p>\n<h6>The Invasion of the Four Kings from the East<\/h6>\nThe four kings who invaded along the King’s Highway in Transjordan cannot be identified with certainty. Those kings were successful in their attack against the five cities of the plain, and they moved off with much booty and many captives, including Lot. Abram took 318 retainers, born in his household, and set off after them. By surprise attack, Abram recovered both Lot and the loot. On his return he was met by Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem, to whom Abram paid tithes (ch 14).<\/p>\n<h6>The Covenant<\/h6>\nThe Lord promised Abram a son as heir, and in an impressive nighttime ceremony, God made a covenant with Abram and promised him the land from the River of Egypt (Wadi el Arish) to the Euphrates (ch 15). Because of her own barrenness, Sarai gave her Egyptian maid, Hagar, to Abram. Hagar gave birth to Ishmael, the progenitor of the Arab peoples. When trouble arose between the women, Sarai sent Hagar away, which was her right according to Near Eastern customs (as illustrated by the Nuzi tablets). God showed mercy to Hagar and promised that she would have a great posterity (ch 16).<\/p>\nGod repeated his promise to Abram concerning his descendants and changed the names of Abram (“exalted father”) and Sarai to Abraham (“father of many”) and Sarah (“princess”). A covenant sign of circumcision was given to Abraham (ch 17). This operation had already been practiced among the Egyptians for several centuries.<\/p>\n<h6>The Destruction of the Cities of the Plain<\/h6>\nThe Lord and two angels appeared to Abraham and announced the birth of the promised heir within a year, as well as proclaimed the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, concerning which Abraham bargained with God (18:22-33). Lot and his immediate family were rescued from Sodom, and the cities were destroyed by God with brimstone and fire (19:24-25). Lot’s two daughters, wishing to preserve their family line, got their father drunk and had sexual relations with him. Moab and Ammon, enemies of Israel in later times, were the result.<\/p>\nIn Genesis 20:1-18, Abraham again represented Sarah as his sister and got into trouble with Abimelech, king of Gerar.<\/p>\n<h6>Isaac<\/h6>\nWhen Isaac was born (21:1-3), trouble again broke out between Sarah and Hagar. Hagar was driven out a second time, and once more was befriended by the Lord.<\/p>\nA disagreement arose between Abraham and Abimelech concerning a well, but they made a covenant of peace at Beersheba (21:25-34).<\/p>\nGod tested Abraham’s faith by asking him to sacrifice Isaac on Mt Moriah, which probably is the same site David later bought from Araunah the Jebusite (2 Sm 24:16-25), the place where the temple was to stand. As Abraham was about to use the knife, God called to him and showed him a ram caught in a thicket. Isaac was freed and the animal was sacrificed in his stead.<\/p>\nSarah died at Hebron, and Abraham purchased the cave of Machpelah as a burial place from Ephron the Hittite (ch 23), in a transaction typical of Near Eastern business dealings. To find a wife for Isaac, Abraham sent his servant Eliezer back to the area of Haran, and the Lord directed Eliezer to Rebekah (ch 24).<\/p>\nChapter 25 records the marriage of Abraham to Keturah, who bore him a number of children. Abraham died at the age of 175 years and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by his two sons, Isaac and Ishmael.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Jacob and Esau (25:19–37:1)<\/h5>\nRebekah gave birth to twin sons, Esau and Jacob. When the boys were grown, Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for a meal of red pottage (25:27-34).<\/p>\nWhen famine came to the land, Isaac went to Gerar, as his father had done (ch 20), and repeated his father’s lie by calling his wife his sister (26:1-11). Trouble arose with the Philistines over wells, but Isaac was a peaceable man and preferred digging new wells rather than fighting over old ones (vv 17-33).<\/p>\nIn Isaac’s old age, when his sight had failed, Rebekah connived with Jacob to trick Isaac into giving to Jacob the blessing of the firstborn, which was rightfully Esau’s. This oral blessing had legal validity and was irrevocable, according to the ancient Nuzi tablets. Fearing for Jacob’s life at the hands of Esau, Rebekah arranged to send Jacob to Haran to find a wife from among her own people. At Bethel, God appeared to Jacob in a dream of a ladder leading up to heaven; God renewed with Jacob the promise made to Abraham and Isaac (28:10-22).<\/p>\nJacob reached Haran, found his uncle Laban, and was employed by him (ch 29). His wages for seven years of labor were to be Laban’s younger daughter, Rachel, as his wife. But Laban substituted Leah, so that Jacob had to work another seven years for Rachel. The Lord prospered Jacob, but he continually had difficulties with Laban. The Lord directed Jacob back to Canaan (31:3), so he left secretly with his wives, children, and property. Laban pursued them because his household gods were missing (possession of these “gods” made the holder heir to the owner’s estate, according to Nuzi custom). Rachel had taken them but successfully concealed them from her father, and Laban went back to Haran.<\/p>\nFearing a meeting with Esau as they passed through Edom, Jacob sent gifts to his brother and divided his own party into two camps for security. On this return journey, Jacob had an unexpected wrestling bout with the Angel of the Lord, and he was left with a limp and a new name, Israel (ch 32).<\/p>\nThe meeting with Esau was friendly, and Jacob went on to Shechem (ch 33), where his sons killed the male Shechemites because of the rape of their sister Dinah (ch 34). God told Jacob to go to Bethel and build an altar to the Lord. All idols of foreign gods were buried (35:1-4). At Bethel, God reaffirmed his promise of a posterity and the land (vv 9-15). Rachel died on the way to Bethlehem, while giving birth to Benjamin, Jacob’s 12th and last son. Isaac died at Hebron at age 180 and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by Esau and Jacob.<\/p>\nGenesis 36 records “the generations of Esau” (v 1). Here Esau is also named Edom (“Red”; cf. 25:30).<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Joseph (37:2–50:26)<\/h5>\nJoseph was Jacob’s favorite son and thus incurred the jealousy of his brothers. This was heightened by Joseph’s dreams of lordship over them. Their resentment of Joseph came to a climax when Jacob gave Joseph a beautiful coat. The brothers determined to kill Joseph, but they compromised by selling him to a caravan of merchants, who took him to Egypt and sold him as a slave to Potiphar, an Egyptian captain of the guard (37:36; 39:1).<\/p>\nChapter 38 relates a historic case of levirate marriage. Judah failed to give his widowed daughter-in-law to his third son. She deceived him into fathering twin sons and forced him to acknowledge his faults. The elder son, Perez, is named in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3:33).<\/p>\nThe Lord blessed Joseph, who soon was put in charge of Potiphar’s household (Gn 39). The young man attracted the attention of Potiphar’s wife, who, after many attempts to seduce him, at last accused him of attempted rape. Sentenced on this charge, Joseph met with favor in prison, where he had opportunity to interpret dreams for two of the pharaoh’s servants (ch 40). When the king had dreams that his magicians and wise men could not interpret, Joseph was summoned from jail. Joseph told Pharaoh that the dreams meant seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine. Joseph was then exalted to the office of vizier, or prime minister, second only to the king, and put in charge of the administration of the land (41:37-44).<\/p>\nWhen the famine came to Palestine, Jacob sent his sons to Egypt to purchase grain. Joseph recognized his brothers but did not reveal his identity to them. Joseph put them to the test by accusing them of being spies (42:9), by keeping one of the brothers (Simeon) hostage (v 19), and by demanding that if they came to Egypt again, they must bring their youngest brother with them (42:20; 43:3). The famine became so severe in Canaan (43:1) that Jacob at last allowed Benjamin to go with his brothers to Egypt. The brothers were again set up by Joseph, who had his silver cup put into Benjamin’s grain sack and then had him apprehended as a thief (ch 44).<\/p>\nAt this point Joseph revealed his identity to his brothers (45:4-15) and there was much rejoicing. Joseph pointed out that it was God who had sent him to Egypt (vv 7-8), in order to preserve the lives of all the family. Jacob was then sent for (46:1), and Joseph met him in the land of Goshen (46:28-29). The Israelites were assigned land in the region of Goshen, where they prospered (47:27).<\/p>\nIn Jacob’s final illness, Joseph brought his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to his father for his blessing. Jacob gave the primary blessing to the second-born, Ephraim (48:13-20). Jacob blessed each of his own sons and then died at the age of at least 130 years. Joseph arranged for Jacob’s body to be prepared for burial according to Egyptian custom (50:2-3). After the burial of their father in the cave of Machpelah at Hebron, Joseph’s brothers worried about vengeance, but Joseph declared, “As far as I am concerned, God turned into good what you meant for evil. He brought me to the high position I have today so I could save the lives of many people” (v 20, nlt<\/span>). Joseph died at age 110 with the prophetic request that when the Israelites went up from Egypt they would take his bones with them (50:25; cf. Ex 13:19; Jos 24:32).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Abraham; Adam (Person); Covenant; Creation; Eve; Fall of Man; Flood, The; Isaac; Jacob #1; Joseph #1; Nations; Noah #1; Patriarchs, Period of the.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GENESIS, Book of<\/h3>\nFirst book of the Bible.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Name<\/p>\n• Author<\/p>\n• Date<\/p>\n• Purpose<\/p>\n• Structure<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nName<\/p>\nThe name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith<\/span>,<\/em> “in the beginning.”<\/p>\nAuthor<\/p>\nThe authorship of Genesis is closely related to the authorship of the entire Pentateuch (lit. “five-volumed,” the first five books of the Bible, which in Hebrew are called the Torah). It is clear that the Bible regards the human author of these books as Moses. On several occasions the Lord commanded Moses to write down various things: “in a book” (Ex 17:14) “write these words” (34:27). The Pentateuch reports that “Moses wrote all the words of the Lord<\/span>” (24:4); he wrote the itinerary of the exodus wanderings (Nm 33:2); “Moses wrote this law” (Dt 31:9). (Here it is not certain that all five books are meant, but it must refer to at least the greater part of Deuteronomy.) In Exodus 24:7 it is said that Moses read the Book of the Covenant, which he must have just completed.<\/p>\nThe rest of the OT bears witness to the writing of the Pentateuch by Moses. David referred to “the law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3). In the time of Josiah, there was found in the temple the “Book of the Law of the Lord<\/span> . . . given through Moses” (2 Chr 34:14, nlt<\/span>). Day by day Ezra read from “the Book of the Law of God” (Neh 8:18, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nIn the NT, Jesus refers to “the book of Moses” (Mk 12:26; Lk 20:37) and otherwise mentions the commands or statements of Moses (Mt 8:4; 19:8; Mk 7:10; cf. Lk 16:31; 24:44). The Jews also quoted from the Torah as coming from Moses, and Jesus did not contradict them.<\/p>\nOf Genesis in particular, it may be said that Moses had the opportunity and ability to write the book. He could have written it during his years in Egypt or while exiled with the Kenites. As the recognized leader of the Israelites, he would have had access to, or perhaps even custody of, the records that Jacob brought from Canaan. He was “instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22) and probably could have written in several languages and in several scripts (hieroglyphic, cuneiform, Old Hebrew). Although Moses was admirably fitted for the task of writing, one must remember that he was not putting together a human composition but was writing under the inspiration of God (2 Pt 1:21). We may with confidence conclude that Moses was the human author of Genesis.<\/p>\nThe liberal view of the authorship of Genesis is that the book is an editorial composite—a view first put forward by a French physician, Jean Astruc, who suggested that the different names for God indicated different documents or sources for the writing of the book. The German higher critics expanded the view of the use of documents in the writing of Genesis and developed it into the Graf-Wellhausen-Kuenen, or Documentary, Hypothesis, which may also be called the JEDP theory of the authorship of the book. This view holds that there were four basic documents: (1) J, which uses the name YHWH (Jehovah or Yahweh) for God, dates from about the ninth century BC<\/span> and comes from Judah; (2) E uses the name Elohim, dates from the eighth century, and comes from the northern kingdom; (3) D is Deuteronomy and is supposed to come from the time of Josiah, about 621 BC<\/span>; and (4) P is the priestly element, which deals with matters of the priesthood and ritual, dating to the fifth century BC<\/span> or later. Some may date portions of Genesis as late as the Hellenistic period. According to this theory, the various documents were blended together by editors, so that there was a JE, JED, and so on.<\/p>\nThe science of archaeology discredited many of the extreme postulations of these critics, and the work of W. F. Albright and his followers did much to restore confidence in the historicity of Genesis. Within the last several decades, the patriarchal narratives and the account of Joseph have again come under strong attack, but these views are extreme, and much of the evidence adduced by Albright and earlier scholars like R. D. Wilson, W. H. Green, and others still has validity.<\/p>\nDate<\/p>\nThe date of the book is also a matter of debate. Even among those who accept Mosaic authorship there is debate as to when Moses lived. Based on the biblical data, Moses should have lived in the 15th century BC<\/span> (cf. Jgs 11:26; 1 Kgs 6:1), but many scholars incline toward a 13th-century date. As outlined above, the liberal view of the date of Genesis would be from the ninth to the fifth centuries BC<\/span>, with the final editing coming around the fifth century or perhaps even later.<\/p>\nPurpose<\/p>\nGenesis sketches the origin of many things: the universe, the earth, plants, animals, and mankind. It gives the beginnings of human institutions, professions, and crafts. It describes the origin of sin and death, and illustrates the insidious working of Satan in human life. Above all, Genesis relates the beginning of the history of redemption with the announcement of a Redeemer who was to come (Gn 3:15). It names the early progenitors in the lineage of the Messiah and the beginning of the Hebrew people through whom the Bible and the Savior came. Genesis also gives a selective history of people and events as viewed from the perspective of the purposes of God.<\/p>\nStructure<\/p>\nThe book is divided into 11 parts of uneven length, each set off by the expression “these are the generations [descendants, history] of” (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). Only three times does the formula coincide with the first verse of a chapter. Usually called a heading or superscription, the expression serves as a kind of link between what precedes and what follows.<\/p>\n\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>The Creation (1:1–2:25)<\/h5>\nThese two chapters have been a scientific-theological battleground for many years, as researchers and students have tried to probe the origins of the universe and of life. Much of the evidence is not subject to scientific scrutiny, for science by definition requires that the evidence must be reproducible by experiment.<\/p>\nThe statement of Genesis 1:1 remains the grandest, most precise, and most accurate statement of origins: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” He did this ex nihilo<\/em> (“out of nothing”) by his word (Heb 11:3); he spoke the word of command and it was done (Gn 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20; Ps 33:6, 9).<\/p>\nThe date of the beginning is unknown. Uniformitarian cosmogonists (students of the origins of the universe who believe that natural events have always followed a uniform pattern; cf. 2 Pt 3:3-7) have speculated that the beginning of the universe was billions of years ago. But some creationists posit a world thousands of years old.<\/p>\nTo accommodate geological ages and the existence of extinct animals, some interpreters have proposed a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, with Genesis 1:2–2:3 representing a second or new creation. But this is conjecture. So is the idea that each day represents a geological age.<\/p>\nAs the text stands, there is a correlation between the first three days and the second three days. Day one saw the creation of light; day four, the light bearers. Day two was the time of the creation of the firmament (better, “expanse”), which divided the waters; day five, birds and swarming water creatures. On day three, God made the dry land and plants; on day six he created the land animals and man. He made man in the image of God (Gn 1:26), “a little less than God” (Ps 8:5), and gave him dominion over the earth. He made everything “according to their kinds,” so that each kind is distinct and unique. The perfection of his work is affirmed in that “God saw that it was good” (Gn 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21; “very good,” v 31). The seventh day was a time of cessation from the activity of creating and served as a type for mankind’s day of rest (2:1-3).<\/p>\nCritical scholarship eyes 2:4-25 as a doublet in conflict with Genesis 1:1–2:3. To conservative scholars, the second chapter is the same account from a different perspective. Chapter 1 gives the Creation from the standpoint of sequence; chapter 2 shows it in view of the centrality of mankind in God’s creative work.<\/p>\nChapter 2 gives details of the creation of man of “dust from the ground” (v 7) and woman from a rib of the man (vv 21-22). She was created to be “a companion who will help him” (vv 18-20). They were created as mature adults, with the gift of speech and with great intelligence. Adam had imagination and vocabulary sufficient for naming all of the animal species (v 19).<\/p>\nThe location of the Garden of Eden is given (vv 10-14). Two of the four rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, can be identified with certainty. So man lived in this beautiful garden in the bliss of innocence.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Humankind from Eden to Babel (3:1–11:26)<\/h5>\n<h6>The Fall<\/h6>\nThe loss of Eden and the break in fellowship with God is the saddest chapter in human history. The serpent, the devil, approached Eve with the same philosophy he always uses: doubt of God’s word (Gn 3:1), denial of death (v 4), and the suggestion of equality with God (v 5). He gained access to her will by deceiving her with the promise that the fruit would make her as wise as God is (Gn 3:5; cf. 1 Jn 2:16). Eve was deceived, but when she offered the fruit to Adam, he took it willingly, knowing what he was doing (Gn 3:6; cf. 1 Tm 2:14). Later, he tried to blame God for giving him the wife who gave him the fruit (Gn 3:12). Fellowship with God was broken (v 8), yet God came seeking Adam and found him.<\/p>\nWith sin came judgment, and the Lord pronounced righteous judgment on the serpent, the woman, and the man. The earth was also “subjected to frustration” and now groans as it awaits renewal (Rom 8:21-22). God gave hope to man and a promise of a Redeemer (Gn 3:15), who was to bruise the serpent’s head. Adam and Eve were forced out of the Garden, and it was made inaccessible to them.<\/p>\nThe impatience of humankind is shown in Eve’s expectation that her son Cain was the promised Deliverer. Instead, he developed a wrong-hearted attitude toward God and became so jealous of his younger brother that he murdered him. Apprehended by God and confronted with his crime, Cain showed only self-pity and went east from Eden, where he built a city (4:1-16). Chapter 4 closes with another contrast: the brazen Lamech, who called for vengeance, while others began to call upon the name of the Lord.<\/p>\n<h6>The Generations of Adam<\/h6>\nThis genealogical table (5:1-32) brings humankind to the time of Noah and the Flood. The longevity of the antediluvian patriarchs seems very striking to us, but one must remember that the earth had not yet been subjected to pollution and that the effects of sin on the human race were still nominal. The refrain “and he died” reminds us of man’s mortality. For Enoch, however, there was something better: “He enjoyed a close relationship with God throughout his life. Then, suddenly, he disappeared because God took him” (5:24, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>The Flood<\/h6>\nWith increased population came an eruption of sin (6:1-5). As men multiplied, so did their corruption. The universal condemnation of verse 5 shows a world ripe for judgment. Noah, however, “found favor with the Lord<\/span>,” for he was a righteous and blameless man who walked with God (6:8-9).<\/p>\nThe Lord planned to annihilate the human race, but he determined to save Noah and his family. Intending to flood the earth, God instructed Noah to build an ark. Noah was directed to take animals aboard the ark, two by two, male and female, for the preservation of each species. When all was in readiness, the Flood came: “the underground waters burst forth on the earth, and the rain fell in mighty torrents from the sky” (7:11, nlt<\/span>). It rained for 40 days and 40 nights. The highest mountains were covered, and life outside the ark perished. “But God remembered Noah” and sent a wind to evaporate the waters (8:1). Eventually the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (v 4). Noah made a sacrifice to the Lord, and the Lord determined that he would never again bring such destruction upon the earth.<\/p>\nThe Flood is another of God’s acts that has been much debated. Many have argued for a local flood, which affected only part of Mesopotamia. Archaeologists have pointed to various flood strata in the excavation of Mesopotamian city-mounds as evidence for the account of the flood and have cited the various flood stories from that area as the source of the Genesis record. The epic of Gilgamesh gives an interesting tale of this hero, who went on a mission to visit Utnapishtim, the cuneiform Noah, in quest of eternal life. The flood story told by Utnapishtim has many parallels to Genesis, but there are greater contrasts, which demonstrate that the Bible preserves the true account.<\/p>\nBoth the Genesis account and the references to it in the NT (cf. 2 Pt 3:6) favor the view that the deluge was not a minor episode in the Tigris-Euphrates area but was an unprecedented worldwide catastrophe. Christian geologists affirm that the Flood had far-reaching effects on the earth itself. Flood stories are almost universally known, lending support to the conclusion that the Flood covered the whole earth. Following the Flood, God blessed Noah and his sons, Ham, Shem, and Japheth. God made a covenant with Noah, promising that he would never again send a worldwide flood. As a sign of this, he established the rainbow.<\/p>\nNoah was the first tiller of the soil, and he planted a vineyard (9:20). Noah became drunk from wine he made and lay uncovered in his tent. Ham saw him and reported this to his brothers, who discreetly covered him. Ham and his son Canaan were cursed; Shem and Japheth were blessed.<\/p>\n<h6>The History of the Nations<\/h6>\n“This is the history of the families of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the three sons of Noah. Many children were born to them after the Flood” (10:1, nlt<\/span>). This chapter lists the descendants of Noah’s three sons, in the order of Japheth (vv 2-5), Ham (vv 6-20), and Shem (vv 21-31). Many of the names of their descendants are preserved in tribes and nations of the world.<\/p>\n<h6>The Tower of Babel<\/h6>\nThe building of the Tower of Babel (“Gate of God”) illustrates man’s perversity and his tendency to want independence from God. The desire of man to displace God follows the fateful example of Lucifer and is a basic tenet of many cults. God thwarted the designs of the builders of Babel by confusing their languages, so that the project came to a halt (11:1-9). The site of this tower is not known with certainty. Some associate it with Birs Nimrud, not far from the ruins of the city of Babylon. Genesis 11:10-25 picks up the line of Shem and carries it down to Terah, the father of Abram.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Abraham (11:27–25:10) and Isaac (21:1–28:5)<\/h5>\nAbram came from Ur of the Chaldees, a prosperous city. The city had an imposing ziggurat (temple-tower), with many temples, storehouses, and residences. Abram and Sarai, his half sister and wife, went with his father to Haran in Syria, which like Ur was a center of the worship of the moon god, Sin (or Annar).<\/p>\n<h6>Abram’s Call<\/h6>\nThe call of God came to Abram directing him to leave his relatives and move to a land that the Lord would show him (12:1; cf. Acts 7:2-3). Abram obeyed. At the age of 75, he, Sarai, and his nephew Lot left Haran and went to Shechem, where the Lord appeared to him and promised that land to his descendants.<\/p>\nFamine drove Abram down to Egypt (Gn 12:10-20). Because of Sarai’s beauty, he feared that someone might kill him to get her, so he passed her off as his sister. She was taken into the pharaoh’s harem. When the Lord plagued Pharaoh because of this, Abram’s lie was discovered and Sarai was returned to him.<\/p>\n<h6>Abram and Lot<\/h6>\nAbram and Lot returned to Canaan, where strife broke out between Abram’s herdsmen and those of Lot. Abram suggested that they should separate, and he gave Lot the choice of territory. Lot chose the well-watered Jordan Valley and the cities of the plain, Sodom and Gomorrah (ch 13).<\/p>\n<h6>The Invasion of the Four Kings from the East<\/h6>\nThe four kings who invaded along the King’s Highway in Transjordan cannot be identified with certainty. Those kings were successful in their attack against the five cities of the plain, and they moved off with much booty and many captives, including Lot. Abram took 318 retainers, born in his household, and set off after them. By surprise attack, Abram recovered both Lot and the loot. On his return he was met by Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem, to whom Abram paid tithes (ch 14).<\/p>\n<h6>The Covenant<\/h6>\nThe Lord promised Abram a son as heir, and in an impressive nighttime ceremony, God made a covenant with Abram and promised him the land from the River of Egypt (Wadi el Arish) to the Euphrates (ch 15). Because of her own barrenness, Sarai gave her Egyptian maid, Hagar, to Abram. Hagar gave birth to Ishmael, the progenitor of the Arab peoples. When trouble arose between the women, Sarai sent Hagar away, which was her right according to Near Eastern customs (as illustrated by the Nuzi tablets). God showed mercy to Hagar and promised that she would have a great posterity (ch 16).<\/p>\nGod repeated his promise to Abram concerning his descendants and changed the names of Abram (“exalted father”) and Sarai to Abraham (“father of many”) and Sarah (“princess”). A covenant sign of circumcision was given to Abraham (ch 17). This operation had already been practiced among the Egyptians for several centuries.<\/p>\n<h6>The Destruction of the Cities of the Plain<\/h6>\nThe Lord and two angels appeared to Abraham and announced the birth of the promised heir within a year, as well as proclaimed the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, concerning which Abraham bargained with God (18:22-33). Lot and his immediate family were rescued from Sodom, and the cities were destroyed by God with brimstone and fire (19:24-25). Lot’s two daughters, wishing to preserve their family line, got their father drunk and had sexual relations with him. Moab and Ammon, enemies of Israel in later times, were the result.<\/p>\nIn Genesis 20:1-18, Abraham again represented Sarah as his sister and got into trouble with Abimelech, king of Gerar.<\/p>\n<h6>Isaac<\/h6>\nWhen Isaac was born (21:1-3), trouble again broke out between Sarah and Hagar. Hagar was driven out a second time, and once more was befriended by the Lord.<\/p>\nA disagreement arose between Abraham and Abimelech concerning a well, but they made a covenant of peace at Beersheba (21:25-34).<\/p>\nGod tested Abraham’s faith by asking him to sacrifice Isaac on Mt Moriah, which probably is the same site David later bought from Araunah the Jebusite (2 Sm 24:16-25), the place where the temple was to stand. As Abraham was about to use the knife, God called to him and showed him a ram caught in a thicket. Isaac was freed and the animal was sacrificed in his stead.<\/p>\nSarah died at Hebron, and Abraham purchased the cave of Machpelah as a burial place from Ephron the Hittite (ch 23), in a transaction typical of Near Eastern business dealings. To find a wife for Isaac, Abraham sent his servant Eliezer back to the area of Haran, and the Lord directed Eliezer to Rebekah (ch 24).<\/p>\nChapter 25 records the marriage of Abraham to Keturah, who bore him a number of children. Abraham died at the age of 175 years and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by his two sons, Isaac and Ishmael.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Jacob and Esau (25:19–37:1)<\/h5>\nRebekah gave birth to twin sons, Esau and Jacob. When the boys were grown, Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for a meal of red pottage (25:27-34).<\/p>\nWhen famine came to the land, Isaac went to Gerar, as his father had done (ch 20), and repeated his father’s lie by calling his wife his sister (26:1-11). Trouble arose with the Philistines over wells, but Isaac was a peaceable man and preferred digging new wells rather than fighting over old ones (vv 17-33).<\/p>\nIn Isaac’s old age, when his sight had failed, Rebekah connived with Jacob to trick Isaac into giving to Jacob the blessing of the firstborn, which was rightfully Esau’s. This oral blessing had legal validity and was irrevocable, according to the ancient Nuzi tablets. Fearing for Jacob’s life at the hands of Esau, Rebekah arranged to send Jacob to Haran to find a wife from among her own people. At Bethel, God appeared to Jacob in a dream of a ladder leading up to heaven; God renewed with Jacob the promise made to Abraham and Isaac (28:10-22).<\/p>\nJacob reached Haran, found his uncle Laban, and was employed by him (ch 29). His wages for seven years of labor were to be Laban’s younger daughter, Rachel, as his wife. But Laban substituted Leah, so that Jacob had to work another seven years for Rachel. The Lord prospered Jacob, but he continually had difficulties with Laban. The Lord directed Jacob back to Canaan (31:3), so he left secretly with his wives, children, and property. Laban pursued them because his household gods were missing (possession of these “gods” made the holder heir to the owner’s estate, according to Nuzi custom). Rachel had taken them but successfully concealed them from her father, and Laban went back to Haran.<\/p>\nFearing a meeting with Esau as they passed through Edom, Jacob sent gifts to his brother and divided his own party into two camps for security. On this return journey, Jacob had an unexpected wrestling bout with the Angel of the Lord, and he was left with a limp and a new name, Israel (ch 32).<\/p>\nThe meeting with Esau was friendly, and Jacob went on to Shechem (ch 33), where his sons killed the male Shechemites because of the rape of their sister Dinah (ch 34). God told Jacob to go to Bethel and build an altar to the Lord. All idols of foreign gods were buried (35:1-4). At Bethel, God reaffirmed his promise of a posterity and the land (vv 9-15). Rachel died on the way to Bethlehem, while giving birth to Benjamin, Jacob’s 12th and last son. Isaac died at Hebron at age 180 and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by Esau and Jacob.<\/p>\nGenesis 36 records “the generations of Esau” (v 1). Here Esau is also named Edom (“Red”; cf. 25:30).<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Joseph (37:2–50:26)<\/h5>\nJoseph was Jacob’s favorite son and thus incurred the jealousy of his brothers. This was heightened by Joseph’s dreams of lordship over them. Their resentment of Joseph came to a climax when Jacob gave Joseph a beautiful coat. The brothers determined to kill Joseph, but they compromised by selling him to a caravan of merchants, who took him to Egypt and sold him as a slave to Potiphar, an Egyptian captain of the guard (37:36; 39:1).<\/p>\nChapter 38 relates a historic case of levirate marriage. Judah failed to give his widowed daughter-in-law to his third son. She deceived him into fathering twin sons and forced him to acknowledge his faults. The elder son, Perez, is named in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3:33).<\/p>\nThe Lord blessed Joseph, who soon was put in charge of Potiphar’s household (Gn 39). The young man attracted the attention of Potiphar’s wife, who, after many attempts to seduce him, at last accused him of attempted rape. Sentenced on this charge, Joseph met with favor in prison, where he had opportunity to interpret dreams for two of the pharaoh’s servants (ch 40). When the king had dreams that his magicians and wise men could not interpret, Joseph was summoned from jail. Joseph told Pharaoh that the dreams meant seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine. Joseph was then exalted to the office of vizier, or prime minister, second only to the king, and put in charge of the administration of the land (41:37-44).<\/p>\nWhen the famine came to Palestine, Jacob sent his sons to Egypt to purchase grain. Joseph recognized his brothers but did not reveal his identity to them. Joseph put them to the test by accusing them of being spies (42:9), by keeping one of the brothers (Simeon) hostage (v 19), and by demanding that if they came to Egypt again, they must bring their youngest brother with them (42:20; 43:3). The famine became so severe in Canaan (43:1) that Jacob at last allowed Benjamin to go with his brothers to Egypt. The brothers were again set up by Joseph, who had his silver cup put into Benjamin’s grain sack and then had him apprehended as a thief (ch 44).<\/p>\nAt this point Joseph revealed his identity to his brothers (45:4-15) and there was much rejoicing. Joseph pointed out that it was God who had sent him to Egypt (vv 7-8), in order to preserve the lives of all the family. Jacob was then sent for (46:1), and Joseph met him in the land of Goshen (46:28-29). The Israelites were assigned land in the region of Goshen, where they prospered (47:27).<\/p>\nIn Jacob’s final illness, Joseph brought his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to his father for his blessing. Jacob gave the primary blessing to the second-born, Ephraim (48:13-20). Jacob blessed each of his own sons and then died at the age of at least 130 years. Joseph arranged for Jacob’s body to be prepared for burial according to Egyptian custom (50:2-3). After the burial of their father in the cave of Machpelah at Hebron, Joseph’s brothers worried about vengeance, but Joseph declared, “As far as I am concerned, God turned into good what you meant for evil. He brought me to the high position I have today so I could save the lives of many people” (v 20, nlt<\/span>). Joseph died at age 110 with the prophetic request that when the Israelites went up from Egypt they would take his bones with them (50:25; cf. Ex 13:19; Jos 24:32).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Abraham; Adam (Person); Covenant; Creation; Eve; Fall of Man; Flood, The; Isaac; Jacob #1; Joseph #1; Nations; Noah #1; Patriarchs, Period of the.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GENESIS, Book of First book of the Bible. Preview • Name • Author • Date • Purpose • Structure • Content Name The name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith, “in the beginning.” Author The authorship of Gene...","summary_en":"GENESIS, Book of First book of the Bible. Preview • Name • Author • Date • Purpose • Structure • Content Name The name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith, “in the beginning.” Author The authorship of Gene...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":16370,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Hezron (Person)","title_en":"Hezron (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>HEZRON (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Reuben’s son (Gn 46:9; Ex 6:14; 1 Chr 5:3) and founder of the Hezronite family in Reuben’s tribe (Nm 26:6).<\/li>\n<li>2. Perez’s son (Gn 46:12; Ru 4:18-19; 1 Chr 2:5-25; 4:1), founder of the Hezronite family in Judah’s tribe (Nm 26:21), and an ancestor of Jesus Christ (Mt 1:3; Lk 3:33).<\/li>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HEZRON (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Reuben’s son (Gn 46:9; Ex 6:14; 1 Chr 5:3) and founder of the Hezronite family in Reuben’s tribe (Nm 26:6).<\/li>\n<li>2. Perez’s son (Gn 46:12; Ru 4:18-19; 1 Chr 2:5-25; 4:1), founder of the Hezronite family in Judah’s tribe (Nm 26:21), and an ancestor of Jesus Christ (Mt 1:3; Lk 3:33).<\/li>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HEZRON (Person) 1. Reuben’s son (Gn 46:9; Ex 6:14; 1 Chr 5:3) and founder of the Hezronite family in Reuben’s tribe (Nm 26:6). 2. Perez’s son (Gn 46:12; Ru 4:18-19; 1 Chr 2:5-25; 4:1), founder of the Hezronite family in Judah’s tribe (Nm 26:21), and an ancestor of Jesus Christ (Mt 1:3; Lk 3:33). See also Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"HEZRON (Person) 1. Reuben’s son (Gn 46:9; Ex 6:14; 1 Chr 5:3) and founder of the Hezronite family in Reuben’s tribe (Nm 26:6). 2. Perez’s son (Gn 46:12; Ru 4:18-19; 1 Chr 2:5-25; 4:1), founder of the Hezronite family in Judah’s tribe (Nm 26:21), and an ancestor of Jesus Christ (Mt 1:3; Lk 3:33). See also Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20986,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Juda* (Person)","title_en":"Juda* (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>JUDA* (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Alternate kjv<\/span> spelling of Judas, Jesus’ brother, in Mark 6:3. Judas is also called Jude in Jude 1. See<\/em> Jude (Person).<\/li>\n<li>2. Alternate kjv<\/span> spelling of Joda, Joanan’s son, in Luke 3:26. See<\/em> Joda.<\/li>\n<li>3. Alternate kjv<\/span> spelling of Judah, Joseph’s son, in Luke 3:30. See<\/em> Judah (Person) #8.<\/li>\n<li>4. Alternate kjv<\/span> spelling of Judah, Jacob’s son, in Luke 3:33. See<\/em> Judah (Person) #1.<\/li>\n<li>5. Alternate kjv<\/span> spelling for Judah’s tribe (Heb 7:14; Rv 5:5; 7:5). See<\/em> Judah, Tribe of.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>JUDA* (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Alternate kjv<\/span> spelling of Judas, Jesus’ brother, in Mark 6:3. Judas is also called Jude in Jude 1. See<\/em> Jude (Person).<\/li>\n<li>2. Alternate kjv<\/span> spelling of Joda, Joanan’s son, in Luke 3:26. See<\/em> Joda.<\/li>\n<li>3. Alternate kjv<\/span> spelling of Judah, Joseph’s son, in Luke 3:30. See<\/em> Judah (Person) #8.<\/li>\n<li>4. Alternate kjv<\/span> spelling of Judah, Jacob’s son, in Luke 3:33. See<\/em> Judah (Person) #1.<\/li>\n<li>5. Alternate kjv<\/span> spelling for Judah’s tribe (Heb 7:14; Rv 5:5; 7:5). See<\/em> Judah, Tribe of.<\/li>","summary_ro":"JUDA* (Person) 1. Alternate kjv spelling of Judas, Jesus’ brother, in Mark 6:3. Judas is also called Jude in Jude 1. See Jude (Person). 2. Alternate kjv spelling of Joda, Joanan’s son, in Luke 3:26. See Joda. 3. Alternate kjv spelling of Judah, Joseph’s son, in Luke 3:30. See Judah (Person) #8. 4. Alternate kjv spelling of Judah, Jacob’s son, in Luke 3:33. See Judah (Person) #1. 5. Alternate kjv spelling for Judah’s tribe (Heb 7:14; Rv 5:5; 7:5). See Judah, Tribe of.","summary_en":"JUDA* (Person) 1. Alternate kjv spelling of Judas, Jesus’ brother, in Mark 6:3. Judas is also called Jude in Jude 1. See Jude (Person). 2. Alternate kjv spelling of Joda, Joanan’s son, in Luke 3:26. See Joda. 3. Alternate kjv spelling of Judah, Joseph’s son, in Luke 3:30. See Judah (Person) #8. 4. Alternate kjv spelling of Judah, Jacob’s son, in Luke 3:33. See Judah (Person) #1. 5. Alternate kjv spelling for Judah’s tribe (Heb 7:14; Rv 5:5; 7:5). See Judah, Tribe of.","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":21007,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Judah (Person)","title_en":"Judah (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>JUDAH (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Fourth of Jacob’s 12 sons (Gn 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1) and the fourth son born to Jacob by Leah, who, overjoyed with the thought of bearing Jacob another son, named him Judah, meaning “praise” (Gn 29:35). Judah fathered five sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah by Bathshua the Canaanitess (Gn 38:3-5; 1 Chr 2:3); and the twins Perez and Zerah by Tamar, his daughter-in-law (Gn 38:29-30; 1 Chr 2:4). He eventually settled his family in Egypt with his father and brothers (Ex 1:2), although his first two sons, Er and Onan, were divinely killed in Canaan for their disobedience (Gn 46:12). Judah became the founder of one of Israel’s 12 tribes (Nm 1:26-27).<\/li>\nThough reckless in his behavior with Tamar (Gn 38:6-30), Judah showed firm resolve in taking personal responsibility for Benjamin’s safety in Egypt and acting as intercessor for his brothers before Joseph (44:14-18). At the time of Jacob’s blessing, Judah was granted the birthright privileges of the firstborn; the leadership of Jacob’s family would come through Judah’s seed, as would the promised Messiah of Abraham’s covenant (49:8-12). Later, Judah’s family was praised at the time of Ruth’s engagement to Boaz (Ru 4:12), and both the Davidic lines of kings (1 Chr 2:1-15; 3:1-24) and Jesus Christ’s ancestors traced their descent from Judah (Mt 1:2-3; Lk 3:33).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Judah, Tribe of.<\/p>\n<li>2. Forefather of a family of Levites who assisted Jeshua, the high priest, with rebuilding the temple during the postexilic era (Ezr 3:9, nlt<\/span> mg). He is alternately called Hodaviah in Ezra 2:40 and Hodevah in Nehemiah 7:43. See<\/em> Hodaviah #4.<\/li>\n<li>3. One of the Levites who was encouraged by Ezra to divorce his foreign wife (Ezr 10:23).<\/li>\n<li>4. Benjamite, son of Hassenuah, who was second in command over the city of Jerusalem during the days of Nehemiah (Neh 11:9).<\/li>\n<li>5. One of the leaders of the Levites who returned with Zerubbabel and Jeshua to Judah after the exile (Neh 12:8).<\/li>\n<li>6. One of the princes of Judah who participated in the dedication of the Jerusalem wall during the postexilic period (Neh 12:34).<\/li>\n<li>7. One of the priests who played a musical instrument at the dedication of the Jerusalem wall during the days of Nehemiah (Neh 12:36). He is perhaps identical with #5 above.<\/li>\n<li>8. Joseph’s son, father of Simeon and an ancestor of Jesus Christ (Lk 3:30). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>JUDAH (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Fourth of Jacob’s 12 sons (Gn 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1) and the fourth son born to Jacob by Leah, who, overjoyed with the thought of bearing Jacob another son, named him Judah, meaning “praise” (Gn 29:35). Judah fathered five sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah by Bathshua the Canaanitess (Gn 38:3-5; 1 Chr 2:3); and the twins Perez and Zerah by Tamar, his daughter-in-law (Gn 38:29-30; 1 Chr 2:4). He eventually settled his family in Egypt with his father and brothers (Ex 1:2), although his first two sons, Er and Onan, were divinely killed in Canaan for their disobedience (Gn 46:12). Judah became the founder of one of Israel’s 12 tribes (Nm 1:26-27).<\/li>\nThough reckless in his behavior with Tamar (Gn 38:6-30), Judah showed firm resolve in taking personal responsibility for Benjamin’s safety in Egypt and acting as intercessor for his brothers before Joseph (44:14-18). At the time of Jacob’s blessing, Judah was granted the birthright privileges of the firstborn; the leadership of Jacob’s family would come through Judah’s seed, as would the promised Messiah of Abraham’s covenant (49:8-12). Later, Judah’s family was praised at the time of Ruth’s engagement to Boaz (Ru 4:12), and both the Davidic lines of kings (1 Chr 2:1-15; 3:1-24) and Jesus Christ’s ancestors traced their descent from Judah (Mt 1:2-3; Lk 3:33).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Judah, Tribe of.<\/p>\n<li>2. Forefather of a family of Levites who assisted Jeshua, the high priest, with rebuilding the temple during the postexilic era (Ezr 3:9, nlt<\/span> mg). He is alternately called Hodaviah in Ezra 2:40 and Hodevah in Nehemiah 7:43. See<\/em> Hodaviah #4.<\/li>\n<li>3. One of the Levites who was encouraged by Ezra to divorce his foreign wife (Ezr 10:23).<\/li>\n<li>4. Benjamite, son of Hassenuah, who was second in command over the city of Jerusalem during the days of Nehemiah (Neh 11:9).<\/li>\n<li>5. One of the leaders of the Levites who returned with Zerubbabel and Jeshua to Judah after the exile (Neh 12:8).<\/li>\n<li>6. One of the princes of Judah who participated in the dedication of the Jerusalem wall during the postexilic period (Neh 12:34).<\/li>\n<li>7. One of the priests who played a musical instrument at the dedication of the Jerusalem wall during the days of Nehemiah (Neh 12:36). He is perhaps identical with #5 above.<\/li>\n<li>8. Joseph’s son, father of Simeon and an ancestor of Jesus Christ (Lk 3:30). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>","summary_ro":"JUDAH (Person) 1. Fourth of Jacob’s 12 sons (Gn 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1) and the fourth son born to Jacob by Leah, who, overjoyed with the thought of bearing Jacob another son, named him Judah, meaning “praise” (Gn 29:35). Judah fathered five sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah by Bathshua the Canaanitess (Gn 38:3-5; 1 Chr 2:3); and the twins Perez and Zerah by Tamar, his daughter-in-law (Gn 38:29-30; 1 Chr 2:4). He eventually settled his family in Egypt with his father and brothers (Ex 1:2), although his fi...","summary_en":"JUDAH (Person) 1. Fourth of Jacob’s 12 sons (Gn 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1) and the fourth son born to Jacob by Leah, who, overjoyed with the thought of bearing Jacob another son, named him Judah, meaning “praise” (Gn 29:35). Judah fathered five sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah by Bathshua the Canaanitess (Gn 38:3-5; 1 Chr 2:3); and the twins Perez and Zerah by Tamar, his daughter-in-law (Gn 38:29-30; 1 Chr 2:4). He eventually settled his family in Egypt with his father and brothers (Ex 1:2), although his fi...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":29593,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Perezite Perez","title_en":"Perezite Perez","content_ro":"<h3>PEREZ, PEREZITE<\/h3>\nSon of Judah whose name is derived from a Hebrew word meaning “he who bursts forth”; his name refers to the manner in which he unexpectedly came first from Tamar’s womb before his twin brother, Zerah (Gn 38:29). He fathered two sons, Hezron and Hamul, and became the ancestral head of the Perezite family (Gn 46:12; Nm 26:20-21; 1 Chr 2:4-5; 4:1). The kjv<\/span> and the Apocrypha translate the name variously as Pharez, Phares, and Pharzite.<\/p>\nThrough the descent of his son Hezron, he became the ancestor of David and Jesus Christ (Ru 4:18-22; Mt 1:3; Lk 3:33). The esteem this clan enjoyed in the tribe of Judah is evidenced by the blessing pronounced upon it by the men of Bethlehem (Ru 4:12). A descendant named Jashobeam commanded David’s captains for the first month of each year (1 Chr 27:2-3). Upon the return from captivity in Babylon, 468 Perezites were chosen to live in Jerusalem (1 Chr 9:4; Neh 11:4-6).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PEREZ, PEREZITE<\/h3>\nSon of Judah whose name is derived from a Hebrew word meaning “he who bursts forth”; his name refers to the manner in which he unexpectedly came first from Tamar’s womb before his twin brother, Zerah (Gn 38:29). He fathered two sons, Hezron and Hamul, and became the ancestral head of the Perezite family (Gn 46:12; Nm 26:20-21; 1 Chr 2:4-5; 4:1). The kjv<\/span> and the Apocrypha translate the name variously as Pharez, Phares, and Pharzite.<\/p>\nThrough the descent of his son Hezron, he became the ancestor of David and Jesus Christ (Ru 4:18-22; Mt 1:3; Lk 3:33). The esteem this clan enjoyed in the tribe of Judah is evidenced by the blessing pronounced upon it by the men of Bethlehem (Ru 4:12). A descendant named Jashobeam commanded David’s captains for the first month of each year (1 Chr 27:2-3). Upon the return from captivity in Babylon, 468 Perezites were chosen to live in Jerusalem (1 Chr 9:4; Neh 11:4-6).<\/p>","summary_ro":"PEREZ, PEREZITE Son of Judah whose name is derived from a Hebrew word meaning “he who bursts forth”; his name refers to the manner in which he unexpectedly came first from Tamar’s womb before his twin brother, Zerah (Gn 38:29). He fathered two sons, Hezron and Hamul, and became the ancestral head of the Perezite family (Gn 46:12; Nm 26:20-21; 1 Chr 2:4-5; 4:1). The kjv and the Apocrypha translate the name variously as Pharez, Phares, and Pharzite. Through the descent of his son Hezron, he bec...","summary_en":"PEREZ, PEREZITE Son of Judah whose name is derived from a Hebrew word meaning “he who bursts forth”; his name refers to the manner in which he unexpectedly came first from Tamar’s womb before his twin brother, Zerah (Gn 38:29). He fathered two sons, Hezron and Hamul, and became the ancestral head of the Perezite family (Gn 46:12; Nm 26:20-21; 1 Chr 2:4-5; 4:1). The kjv and the Apocrypha translate the name variously as Pharez, Phares, and Pharzite. Through the descent of his son Hezron, he bec...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":32349,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Ram (Person)","title_en":"Ram (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>RAM (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Ancestor of King David (Ru 4:19; 1 Chr 2:9-10), listed in Matthew’s genealogy of Christ (Mt 1:3-4; called Arni in Lk 3:33). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>2. Jerahmeel’s eldest son (1 Chr 2:25-27), and perhaps the nephew of #1 above.<\/li>\n<li>3. Head of the family of Elihu, one of Job’s friends (Jb 32:2).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>RAM (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Ancestor of King David (Ru 4:19; 1 Chr 2:9-10), listed in Matthew’s genealogy of Christ (Mt 1:3-4; called Arni in Lk 3:33). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>2. Jerahmeel’s eldest son (1 Chr 2:25-27), and perhaps the nephew of #1 above.<\/li>\n<li>3. Head of the family of Elihu, one of Job’s friends (Jb 32:2).<\/li>","summary_ro":"RAM (Person) 1. Ancestor of King David (Ru 4:19; 1 Chr 2:9-10), listed in Matthew’s genealogy of Christ (Mt 1:3-4; called Arni in Lk 3:33). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ. 2. Jerahmeel’s eldest son (1 Chr 2:25-27), and perhaps the nephew of #1 above. 3. Head of the family of Elihu, one of Job’s friends (Jb 32:2).","summary_en":"RAM (Person) 1. Ancestor of King David (Ru 4:19; 1 Chr 2:9-10), listed in Matthew’s genealogy of Christ (Mt 1:3-4; called Arni in Lk 3:33). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ. 2. Jerahmeel’s eldest son (1 Chr 2:25-27), and perhaps the nephew of #1 above. 3. Head of the family of Elihu, one of Job’s friends (Jb 32:2).","source":"Articles\/R.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"34":[{"id":26808,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Nachor*","title_en":"Nachor*","content_ro":"<h3>NACHOR*<\/h3>\nKJV form of Nahor, Abraham’s ancestor, in Joshua 24:2 and Luke 3:34. See<\/em> Nahor (Person) #1.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>NACHOR*<\/h3>\nKJV form of Nahor, Abraham’s ancestor, in Joshua 24:2 and Luke 3:34. See<\/em> Nahor (Person) #1.<\/p>","summary_ro":"NACHOR* KJV form of Nahor, Abraham’s ancestor, in Joshua 24:2 and Luke 3:34. See Nahor (Person) #1.","summary_en":"NACHOR* KJV form of Nahor, Abraham’s ancestor, in Joshua 24:2 and Luke 3:34. See Nahor (Person) #1.","source":"Articles\/N.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":26855,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Nahor (Person)","title_en":"Nahor (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>NAHOR (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Abraham’s grandfather (Gn 11:22-25; 1 Chr 1:26); also an ancestor of Jesus according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:34, where some English translations follow the Greek spelling, Nachor). The Genesis and 1 Chronicles passages show that Nahor is from Shem’s line. Hence, Abraham and his descendants are part of the Semitic family of nations.<\/li>\n<li>2. Son of Terah and Abraham’s brother (Gn 11:26-29; Jos 24:2). He married Milcah, Haran’s daughter, and his family is named in Genesis 22:20-23. Abraham sent his servant to seek a wife for Isaac at Nahor’s residence in Mesopotamia (see Gn 24:10, which possibly suggests that the city itself was called Nahor). There he found Rebekah, Nahor’s granddaughter (Gn 24:1-51). Nahor is also named as the father (perhaps grandfather) of Laban, to whom Jacob went when he fled from his brother Esau (Gn 29:5). Both of these texts link Abraham’s family with related Semitic people. In Genesis 31:53 God is spoken of as “the God of Abraham and Nahor.”<\/li>\nSee also<\/em> Nahor (Place).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>NAHOR (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Abraham’s grandfather (Gn 11:22-25; 1 Chr 1:26); also an ancestor of Jesus according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:34, where some English translations follow the Greek spelling, Nachor). The Genesis and 1 Chronicles passages show that Nahor is from Shem’s line. Hence, Abraham and his descendants are part of the Semitic family of nations.<\/li>\n<li>2. Son of Terah and Abraham’s brother (Gn 11:26-29; Jos 24:2). He married Milcah, Haran’s daughter, and his family is named in Genesis 22:20-23. Abraham sent his servant to seek a wife for Isaac at Nahor’s residence in Mesopotamia (see Gn 24:10, which possibly suggests that the city itself was called Nahor). There he found Rebekah, Nahor’s granddaughter (Gn 24:1-51). Nahor is also named as the father (perhaps grandfather) of Laban, to whom Jacob went when he fled from his brother Esau (Gn 29:5). Both of these texts link Abraham’s family with related Semitic people. In Genesis 31:53 God is spoken of as “the God of Abraham and Nahor.”<\/li>\nSee also<\/em> Nahor (Place).<\/p>","summary_ro":"NAHOR (Person) 1. Abraham’s grandfather (Gn 11:22-25; 1 Chr 1:26); also an ancestor of Jesus according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:34, where some English translations follow the Greek spelling, Nachor). The Genesis and 1 Chronicles passages show that Nahor is from Shem’s line. Hence, Abraham and his descendants are part of the Semitic family of nations. 2. Son of Terah and Abraham’s brother (Gn 11:26-29; Jos 24:2). He married Milcah, Haran’s daughter, and his family is named in Genesis 22:20-23...","summary_en":"NAHOR (Person) 1. Abraham’s grandfather (Gn 11:22-25; 1 Chr 1:26); also an ancestor of Jesus according to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:34, where some English translations follow the Greek spelling, Nachor). The Genesis and 1 Chronicles passages show that Nahor is from Shem’s line. Hence, Abraham and his descendants are part of the Semitic family of nations. 2. Son of Terah and Abraham’s brother (Gn 11:26-29; Jos 24:2). He married Milcah, Haran’s daughter, and his family is named in Genesis 22:20-23...","source":"Articles\/N.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":37102,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Terah (Person)","title_en":"Terah (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>TERAH (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\nFather of Abram (Abraham), Nahor, and Haran (Gn 11:26; 1 Chr 1:26; Lk 3:34). Though Abram is listed first among his sons, it is likely that Abram was not the oldest. After Terah lived 70 years, he fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran (Gn 11:26). Stephen reports in the NT, however, that Abram left Haran after the death of his father, at which time Abram was 75 years old (Gn 12:4; Acts 7:4). Terah died at the age of 205 (v Gn 11:32), which suggests that Terah was at least 130 when Abram was born. Terah initiated the trip to Canaan, though he failed to go beyond Haran (Gn 11:31-32). Abram was commanded there to leave his family and proceed to Canaan (12:1).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Abraham.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TERAH (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\nFather of Abram (Abraham), Nahor, and Haran (Gn 11:26; 1 Chr 1:26; Lk 3:34). Though Abram is listed first among his sons, it is likely that Abram was not the oldest. After Terah lived 70 years, he fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran (Gn 11:26). Stephen reports in the NT, however, that Abram left Haran after the death of his father, at which time Abram was 75 years old (Gn 12:4; Acts 7:4). Terah died at the age of 205 (v Gn 11:32), which suggests that Terah was at least 130 when Abram was born. Terah initiated the trip to Canaan, though he failed to go beyond Haran (Gn 11:31-32). Abram was commanded there to leave his family and proceed to Canaan (12:1).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Abraham.<\/p>","summary_ro":"TERAH (Person) Father of Abram (Abraham), Nahor, and Haran (Gn 11:26; 1 Chr 1:26; Lk 3:34). Though Abram is listed first among his sons, it is likely that Abram was not the oldest. After Terah lived 70 years, he fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran (Gn 11:26). Stephen reports in the NT, however, that Abram left Haran after the death of his father, at which time Abram was 75 years old (Gn 12:4; Acts 7:4). Terah died at the age of 205 (v Gn 11:32), which suggests that Terah was at least 130 when Ab...","summary_en":"TERAH (Person) Father of Abram (Abraham), Nahor, and Haran (Gn 11:26; 1 Chr 1:26; Lk 3:34). Though Abram is listed first among his sons, it is likely that Abram was not the oldest. After Terah lived 70 years, he fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran (Gn 11:26). Stephen reports in the NT, however, that Abram left Haran after the death of his father, at which time Abram was 75 years old (Gn 12:4; Acts 7:4). Terah died at the age of 205 (v Gn 11:32), which suggests that Terah was at least 130 when Ab...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":37148,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Thara*","title_en":"Thara*","content_ro":"<h3>THARA*<\/h3>\nKJV form of Terah, Abraham’s father, in Luke 3:34. See<\/em> Terah (Person).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>THARA*<\/h3>\nKJV form of Terah, Abraham’s father, in Luke 3:34. See<\/em> Terah (Person).<\/p>","summary_ro":"THARA* KJV form of Terah, Abraham’s father, in Luke 3:34. See Terah (Person).","summary_en":"THARA* KJV form of Terah, Abraham’s father, in Luke 3:34. See Terah (Person).","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"35":[{"id":2788,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Arphaxad","title_en":"Arphaxad","content_ro":"<h3>ARPHAXAD<\/h3>\nShem’s son and Noah’s grandson, born two years after the Flood. Arphaxad’s descendants were probably the Chaldeans (Gn 10:22-24; 11:10-13; 1 Chr 1:17-18, 24; Lk 3:36). Arphaxad was born two years after the Flood when his father was one hundred years old (Gn 11:10) and was the grandfather of Eber, whom some believe was ancestor of the Hebrews (1 Chr 1:17-25; Lk 3:35-36).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ARPHAXAD<\/h3>\nShem’s son and Noah’s grandson, born two years after the Flood. Arphaxad’s descendants were probably the Chaldeans (Gn 10:22-24; 11:10-13; 1 Chr 1:17-18, 24; Lk 3:36). Arphaxad was born two years after the Flood when his father was one hundred years old (Gn 11:10) and was the grandfather of Eber, whom some believe was ancestor of the Hebrews (1 Chr 1:17-25; Lk 3:35-36).<\/p>","summary_ro":"ARPHAXAD Shem’s son and Noah’s grandson, born two years after the Flood. Arphaxad’s descendants were probably the Chaldeans (Gn 10:22-24; 11:10-13; 1 Chr 1:17-18, 24; Lk 3:36). Arphaxad was born two years after the Flood when his father was one hundred years old (Gn 11:10) and was the grandfather of Eber, whom some believe was ancestor of the Hebrews (1 Chr 1:17-25; Lk 3:35-36).","summary_en":"ARPHAXAD Shem’s son and Noah’s grandson, born two years after the Flood. Arphaxad’s descendants were probably the Chaldeans (Gn 10:22-24; 11:10-13; 1 Chr 1:17-18, 24; Lk 3:36). Arphaxad was born two years after the Flood when his father was one hundred years old (Gn 11:10) and was the grandfather of Eber, whom some believe was ancestor of the Hebrews (1 Chr 1:17-25; Lk 3:35-36).","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":9997,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Eber","title_en":"Eber","content_ro":"<h3>EBER<\/h3>\n<li>1. Abraham’s ancestor (Gn 10:21-25; 11:14-17; 1 Chr 1:18-25; Lk 3:35) from whom the word “Hebrew” may be derived. Eber lived 464 years and was the ancestor of the “sons of Eber,” a phrase possibly equal to the “Hebrews,” as “sons of Heth” equals the “Hittites” (Gn 23:10, nasb<\/span>). However, the term “Hebrew” may be an indication of social class rather than of descent from Eber. Eber had a son in whose time the earth was divided, a division possibly into nomadic and sedentary groups.<\/li>\n<li>2. Gadite leader registered during the reigns of Jothan, king of Judah (950–932 BC<\/span>), and Jeroboam II, king of Israel (993–953 BC<\/span>; 1 Chr 5:13, kjv<\/span> “Heber”).<\/li>\n<li>3. Benjamite and Elpaal’s descendant (1 Chr 8:12).<\/li>\n<li>4. Benjamite and Shashak’s descendant (1 Chr 8:22).<\/li>\n<li>5. Head of Amok’s priestly family during the days of the high priest Joiakim (Neh 12:20).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>EBER<\/h3>\n<li>1. Abraham’s ancestor (Gn 10:21-25; 11:14-17; 1 Chr 1:18-25; Lk 3:35) from whom the word “Hebrew” may be derived. Eber lived 464 years and was the ancestor of the “sons of Eber,” a phrase possibly equal to the “Hebrews,” as “sons of Heth” equals the “Hittites” (Gn 23:10, nasb<\/span>). However, the term “Hebrew” may be an indication of social class rather than of descent from Eber. Eber had a son in whose time the earth was divided, a division possibly into nomadic and sedentary groups.<\/li>\n<li>2. Gadite leader registered during the reigns of Jothan, king of Judah (950–932 BC<\/span>), and Jeroboam II, king of Israel (993–953 BC<\/span>; 1 Chr 5:13, kjv<\/span> “Heber”).<\/li>\n<li>3. Benjamite and Elpaal’s descendant (1 Chr 8:12).<\/li>\n<li>4. Benjamite and Shashak’s descendant (1 Chr 8:22).<\/li>\n<li>5. Head of Amok’s priestly family during the days of the high priest Joiakim (Neh 12:20).<\/li>","summary_ro":"EBER 1. Abraham’s ancestor (Gn 10:21-25; 11:14-17; 1 Chr 1:18-25; Lk 3:35) from whom the word “Hebrew” may be derived. Eber lived 464 years and was the ancestor of the “sons of Eber,” a phrase possibly equal to the “Hebrews,” as “sons of Heth” equals the “Hittites” (Gn 23:10, nasb). However, the term “Hebrew” may be an indication of social class rather than of descent from Eber. Eber had a son in whose time the earth was divided, a division possibly into nomadic and sedentary groups. 2. Gadit...","summary_en":"EBER 1. Abraham’s ancestor (Gn 10:21-25; 11:14-17; 1 Chr 1:18-25; Lk 3:35) from whom the word “Hebrew” may be derived. Eber lived 464 years and was the ancestor of the “sons of Eber,” a phrase possibly equal to the “Hebrews,” as “sons of Heth” equals the “Hittites” (Gn 23:10, nasb). However, the term “Hebrew” may be an indication of social class rather than of descent from Eber. Eber had a son in whose time the earth was divided, a division possibly into nomadic and sedentary groups. 2. Gadit...","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":15859,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Heber","title_en":"Heber","content_ro":"<h3>HEBER<\/h3>\n<li>1. Descendant of Jacob through Asher and Beriah (Gn 46:17) and father of the family of Heberites (Nm 26:45; 1 Chr 7:31-32).<\/li>\n<li>2. Husband of Jael, the woman who deceptively killed Sisera, known as Heber the Kenite (Jgs 4:11-21; 5:24).<\/li>\n<li>3. Judahite, Mered’s son and the father of Soco (1 Chr 4:18).<\/li>\n<li>4. Elpaal’s son from Judah’s tribe (1 Chr 8:17).<\/li>\n<li>5. KJV spelling for Eber in 1 Chronicles 5:13; 8:22; and Luke 3:35. See<\/em> Eber #1, #2, #4.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>HEBER<\/h3>\n<li>1. Descendant of Jacob through Asher and Beriah (Gn 46:17) and father of the family of Heberites (Nm 26:45; 1 Chr 7:31-32).<\/li>\n<li>2. Husband of Jael, the woman who deceptively killed Sisera, known as Heber the Kenite (Jgs 4:11-21; 5:24).<\/li>\n<li>3. Judahite, Mered’s son and the father of Soco (1 Chr 4:18).<\/li>\n<li>4. Elpaal’s son from Judah’s tribe (1 Chr 8:17).<\/li>\n<li>5. KJV spelling for Eber in 1 Chronicles 5:13; 8:22; and Luke 3:35. See<\/em> Eber #1, #2, #4.<\/li>","summary_ro":"HEBER 1. Descendant of Jacob through Asher and Beriah (Gn 46:17) and father of the family of Heberites (Nm 26:45; 1 Chr 7:31-32). 2. Husband of Jael, the woman who deceptively killed Sisera, known as Heber the Kenite (Jgs 4:11-21; 5:24). 3. Judahite, Mered’s son and the father of Soco (1 Chr 4:18). 4. Elpaal’s son from Judah’s tribe (1 Chr 8:17). 5. KJV spelling for Eber in 1 Chronicles 5:13; 8:22; and Luke 3:35. See Eber #1, #2, #4.","summary_en":"HEBER 1. Descendant of Jacob through Asher and Beriah (Gn 46:17) and father of the family of Heberites (Nm 26:45; 1 Chr 7:31-32). 2. Husband of Jael, the woman who deceptively killed Sisera, known as Heber the Kenite (Jgs 4:11-21; 5:24). 3. Judahite, Mered’s son and the father of Soco (1 Chr 4:18). 4. Elpaal’s son from Judah’s tribe (1 Chr 8:17). 5. KJV spelling for Eber in 1 Chronicles 5:13; 8:22; and Luke 3:35. See Eber #1, #2, #4.","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":29447,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Peleg","title_en":"Peleg","content_ro":"<h3>PELEG<\/h3>\nSon of Eber and father of Reu (Gn 10:25; 11:16-19; 1 Chr 1:19, 25; Lk 3:35). During his lifetime, the earth was divided (Peleg means “division” or “watercourse”). Precisely what the division refers to is still debated. Suggestions include (1) the geographical and linguistic dispersion following the Tower of Babel fiasco (Gn 11:1-9); (2) dispersion of Noah’s descendants; (3) separation of the people of Arphaxad from Joktanide Arabs (Gn 10:24-29); and (4) the division of land by irrigation canals (the term is so used in Jb 29:6; 38:25; Is 30:25; 32:2). The origin of the name is usually traced to the city of Phalga, north of the junction of the Euphrates and Khabur rivers.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PELEG<\/h3>\nSon of Eber and father of Reu (Gn 10:25; 11:16-19; 1 Chr 1:19, 25; Lk 3:35). During his lifetime, the earth was divided (Peleg means “division” or “watercourse”). Precisely what the division refers to is still debated. Suggestions include (1) the geographical and linguistic dispersion following the Tower of Babel fiasco (Gn 11:1-9); (2) dispersion of Noah’s descendants; (3) separation of the people of Arphaxad from Joktanide Arabs (Gn 10:24-29); and (4) the division of land by irrigation canals (the term is so used in Jb 29:6; 38:25; Is 30:25; 32:2). The origin of the name is usually traced to the city of Phalga, north of the junction of the Euphrates and Khabur rivers.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PELEG Son of Eber and father of Reu (Gn 10:25; 11:16-19; 1 Chr 1:19, 25; Lk 3:35). During his lifetime, the earth was divided (Peleg means “division” or “watercourse”). Precisely what the division refers to is still debated. Suggestions include (1) the geographical and linguistic dispersion following the Tower of Babel fiasco (Gn 11:1-9); (2) dispersion of Noah’s descendants; (3) separation of the people of Arphaxad from Joktanide Arabs (Gn 10:24-29); and (4) the division of land by irrigatio...","summary_en":"PELEG Son of Eber and father of Reu (Gn 10:25; 11:16-19; 1 Chr 1:19, 25; Lk 3:35). During his lifetime, the earth was divided (Peleg means “division” or “watercourse”). Precisely what the division refers to is still debated. Suggestions include (1) the geographical and linguistic dispersion following the Tower of Babel fiasco (Gn 11:1-9); (2) dispersion of Noah’s descendants; (3) separation of the people of Arphaxad from Joktanide Arabs (Gn 10:24-29); and (4) the division of land by irrigatio...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":30106,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Phalec*","title_en":"Phalec*","content_ro":"<h3>PHALEC*<\/h3>\nKJV rendering of Peleg, a descendant of Shem and an ancestor of Jesus, in Luke 3:35. See<\/em> Peleg.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PHALEC*<\/h3>\nKJV rendering of Peleg, a descendant of Shem and an ancestor of Jesus, in Luke 3:35. See<\/em> Peleg.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PHALEC* KJV rendering of Peleg, a descendant of Shem and an ancestor of Jesus, in Luke 3:35. See Peleg.","summary_en":"PHALEC* KJV rendering of Peleg, a descendant of Shem and an ancestor of Jesus, in Luke 3:35. See Peleg.","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":32315,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Ragau*","title_en":"Ragau*","content_ro":"<h3>RAGAU*<\/h3>\nKJV rendering of Reu, Peleg’s son, in Luke 3:35. See<\/em> Reu.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>RAGAU*<\/h3>\nKJV rendering of Reu, Peleg’s son, in Luke 3:35. See<\/em> Reu.<\/p>","summary_ro":"RAGAU* KJV rendering of Reu, Peleg’s son, in Luke 3:35. See Reu.","summary_en":"RAGAU* KJV rendering of Reu, Peleg’s son, in Luke 3:35. See Reu.","source":"Articles\/R.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":32855,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Reu","title_en":"Reu","content_ro":"<h3>REU<\/h3>\nPeleg’s son, the father of Serug, and a descendant of Shem (Gn 11:18-21; 1 Chr 1:25), listed in Luke’s genealogy of Christ (Lk 3:35). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>REU<\/h3>\nPeleg’s son, the father of Serug, and a descendant of Shem (Gn 11:18-21; 1 Chr 1:25), listed in Luke’s genealogy of Christ (Lk 3:35). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"REU Peleg’s son, the father of Serug, and a descendant of Shem (Gn 11:18-21; 1 Chr 1:25), listed in Luke’s genealogy of Christ (Lk 3:35). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"REU Peleg’s son, the father of Serug, and a descendant of Shem (Gn 11:18-21; 1 Chr 1:25), listed in Luke’s genealogy of Christ (Lk 3:35). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/R.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":33539,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Sala*","title_en":"Sala*","content_ro":"<h3>SALA*<\/h3>\n<li>1. Alternate name for Salmon, Boaz’s father, in Luke 3:32 (see nlt<\/span> mg). See<\/em> Salmon (Person).<\/li>\n<li>2. KJV rendering of Shelah, Eber’s father, in Luke 3:35. See<\/em> Shelah #1.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>SALA*<\/h3>\n<li>1. Alternate name for Salmon, Boaz’s father, in Luke 3:32 (see nlt<\/span> mg). See<\/em> Salmon (Person).<\/li>\n<li>2. KJV rendering of Shelah, Eber’s father, in Luke 3:35. See<\/em> Shelah #1.<\/li>","summary_ro":"SALA* 1. Alternate name for Salmon, Boaz’s father, in Luke 3:32 (see nlt mg). See Salmon (Person). 2. KJV rendering of Shelah, Eber’s father, in Luke 3:35. See Shelah #1.","summary_en":"SALA* 1. Alternate name for Salmon, Boaz’s father, in Luke 3:32 (see nlt mg). See Salmon (Person). 2. KJV rendering of Shelah, Eber’s father, in Luke 3:35. See Shelah #1.","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":33961,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Saruch*","title_en":"Saruch*","content_ro":"<h3>SARUCH*<\/h3>\nKJV rendering of Serug, an ancestor of Jesus, in Luke 3:35. See<\/em> Serug.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SARUCH*<\/h3>\nKJV rendering of Serug, an ancestor of Jesus, in Luke 3:35. See<\/em> Serug.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SARUCH* KJV rendering of Serug, an ancestor of Jesus, in Luke 3:35. See Serug.","summary_en":"SARUCH* KJV rendering of Serug, an ancestor of Jesus, in Luke 3:35. See Serug.","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":34405,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Serug","title_en":"Serug","content_ro":"<h3>SERUG<\/h3>\nReu’s son from Shem’s line (Gn 11:20-23), Abraham’s forefather and an ancestor of Jesus Christ (Lk 3:35; kjv<\/span> “Saruch”). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SERUG<\/h3>\nReu’s son from Shem’s line (Gn 11:20-23), Abraham’s forefather and an ancestor of Jesus Christ (Lk 3:35; kjv<\/span> “Saruch”). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SERUG Reu’s son from Shem’s line (Gn 11:20-23), Abraham’s forefather and an ancestor of Jesus Christ (Lk 3:35; kjv “Saruch”). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"SERUG Reu’s son from Shem’s line (Gn 11:20-23), Abraham’s forefather and an ancestor of Jesus Christ (Lk 3:35; kjv “Saruch”). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":34817,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Shelah","title_en":"Shelah","content_ro":"<h3>SHELAH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Arphaxad’s son and the father of Eber (Gn 10:24; 11:12-15; 1 Chr 1:18). Shelah is listed in Luke’s genealogy of Christ as the son of Cainan the son of Arphaxad (Lk 3:35). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>2. Judah’s third son by Bathshua the Canaanitess. He was born at Kezib, a small town in Judah (Gn 38:5; 1 Chr 2:3). Shelah founded the Shelanite family (Nm 26:20), which should possibly be read instead of “Shilonite” in Nehemiah 11:5; 1 Chronicles 9:5.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>SHELAH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Arphaxad’s son and the father of Eber (Gn 10:24; 11:12-15; 1 Chr 1:18). Shelah is listed in Luke’s genealogy of Christ as the son of Cainan the son of Arphaxad (Lk 3:35). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>2. Judah’s third son by Bathshua the Canaanitess. He was born at Kezib, a small town in Judah (Gn 38:5; 1 Chr 2:3). Shelah founded the Shelanite family (Nm 26:20), which should possibly be read instead of “Shilonite” in Nehemiah 11:5; 1 Chronicles 9:5.<\/li>","summary_ro":"SHELAH 1. Arphaxad’s son and the father of Eber (Gn 10:24; 11:12-15; 1 Chr 1:18). Shelah is listed in Luke’s genealogy of Christ as the son of Cainan the son of Arphaxad (Lk 3:35). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ. 2. Judah’s third son by Bathshua the Canaanitess. He was born at Kezib, a small town in Judah (Gn 38:5; 1 Chr 2:3). Shelah founded the Shelanite family (Nm 26:20), which should possibly be read instead of “Shilonite” in Nehemiah 11:5; 1 Chronicles 9:5.","summary_en":"SHELAH 1. Arphaxad’s son and the father of Eber (Gn 10:24; 11:12-15; 1 Chr 1:18). Shelah is listed in Luke’s genealogy of Christ as the son of Cainan the son of Arphaxad (Lk 3:35). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ. 2. Judah’s third son by Bathshua the Canaanitess. He was born at Kezib, a small town in Judah (Gn 38:5; 1 Chr 2:3). Shelah founded the Shelanite family (Nm 26:20), which should possibly be read instead of “Shilonite” in Nehemiah 11:5; 1 Chronicles 9:5.","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"36":[{"id":40508,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Noah","title_en":"Noah","content_ro":"<h3>Noah<\/h3>\nNoah was the son of Lamech, a descendant of Seth (Gen 5:3-29). Lamech might have hoped that Noah (whose name means “rest” or “relief”) would ease the curse of hardship in working the ground. Instead, God used Noah to help relieve the world of evil.<\/p>\nGod intended to destroy creation because of pervasive human wickedness (Gen 6:1-7; see Matt 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-27), but he decided to preserve Noah (Gen 6:8). God gave Noah, a righteous and blameless man (Gen 6:9), precise instructions for building the ark in which only the eight people of his family would be saved, along with every kind of creature (Gen 6:14–8:19). When Noah and his family finally emerged from the ark after the flood, Noah pleased God by building an altar and sacrificing burnt offerings. God promised that he would never again flood the whole earth or disrupt the sequence of the seasons, despite human sin (Gen 8:20–9:17).<\/p>\nNoah’s sons were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. All the nations of the earth descended from them (Gen 9:18-19). When Noah became drunk on wine from his vineyard, his sons and their descendants were cursed or blessed in accord with how they responded to him (Gen 9:20-27). Noah lived for 950 years, including 350 years after the flood (Gen 9:28-29). He is an example of righteousness, obedience, courage, and faith (see Ezek 14:12-20; Heb 11:7; 2 Pet 2:5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 5:28–10:1; 1 Chr 1:4; Isa 54:9; Ezek 14:12-20; Matt 24:37-38; Luke 3:36; 17:26-27; Heb 11:7; 1 Pet 3:20-21; 2 Pet 2:5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Noah<\/h3>\nNoah was the son of Lamech, a descendant of Seth (Gen 5:3-29). Lamech might have hoped that Noah (whose name means “rest” or “relief”) would ease the curse of hardship in working the ground. Instead, God used Noah to help relieve the world of evil.<\/p>\nGod intended to destroy creation because of pervasive human wickedness (Gen 6:1-7; see Matt 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-27), but he decided to preserve Noah (Gen 6:8). God gave Noah, a righteous and blameless man (Gen 6:9), precise instructions for building the ark in which only the eight people of his family would be saved, along with every kind of creature (Gen 6:14–8:19). When Noah and his family finally emerged from the ark after the flood, Noah pleased God by building an altar and sacrificing burnt offerings. God promised that he would never again flood the whole earth or disrupt the sequence of the seasons, despite human sin (Gen 8:20–9:17).<\/p>\nNoah’s sons were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. All the nations of the earth descended from them (Gen 9:18-19). When Noah became drunk on wine from his vineyard, his sons and their descendants were cursed or blessed in accord with how they responded to him (Gen 9:20-27). Noah lived for 950 years, including 350 years after the flood (Gen 9:28-29). He is an example of righteousness, obedience, courage, and faith (see Ezek 14:12-20; Heb 11:7; 2 Pet 2:5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 5:28–10:1; 1 Chr 1:4; Isa 54:9; Ezek 14:12-20; Matt 24:37-38; Luke 3:36; 17:26-27; Heb 11:7; 1 Pet 3:20-21; 2 Pet 2:5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Noah Noah was the son of Lamech, a descendant of Seth (Gen 5:3-29). Lamech might have hoped that Noah (whose name means “rest” or “relief”) would ease the curse of hardship in working the ground. Instead, God used Noah to help relieve the world of evil. God intended to destroy creation because of pervasive human wickedness (Gen 6:1-7; see Matt 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-27), but he decided to preserve Noah (Gen 6:8). God gave Noah, a righteous and blameless man (Gen 6:9), precise instructions for b...","summary_en":"Noah Noah was the son of Lamech, a descendant of Seth (Gen 5:3-29). Lamech might have hoped that Noah (whose name means “rest” or “relief”) would ease the curse of hardship in working the ground. Instead, God used Noah to help relieve the world of evil. God intended to destroy creation because of pervasive human wickedness (Gen 6:1-7; see Matt 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-27), but he decided to preserve Noah (Gen 6:8). God gave Noah, a righteous and blameless man (Gen 6:9), precise instructions for b...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":68134,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Noah","title_en":"Noah","content_ro":"<h3>Noah<\/h3>\nNoah was the son of Lamech, a descendant of Seth (Gen 5:3-29). Lamech might have hoped that Noah (whose name means “rest” or “relief”) would ease the curse of hardship in working the ground. Instead, God used Noah to help relieve the world of evil.<\/p>\nGod intended to destroy creation because of pervasive human wickedness (Gen 6:1-7; see Matt 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-27), but he decided to preserve Noah (Gen 6:8). God gave Noah, a righteous and blameless man (Gen 6:9), precise instructions for building the ark in which only the eight people of his family would be saved, along with every kind of creature (Gen 6:14–8:19). When Noah and his family finally emerged from the ark after the flood, Noah pleased God by building an altar and sacrificing burnt offerings. God promised that he would never again flood the whole earth or disrupt the sequence of the seasons, despite human sin (Gen 8:20–9:17).<\/p>\nNoah’s sons were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. All the nations of the earth descended from them (Gen 9:18-19). When Noah became drunk on wine from his vineyard, his sons and their descendants were cursed or blessed in accord with how they responded to him (Gen 9:20-27). Noah lived for 950 years, including 350 years after the flood (Gen 9:28-29). He is an example of righteousness, obedience, courage, and faith (see Ezek 14:12-20; Heb 11:7; 2 Pet 2:5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 5:28–10:1; 1 Chr 1:4; Isa 54:9; Ezek 14:12-20; Matt 24:37-38; Luke 3:36; 17:26-27; Heb 11:7; 1 Pet 3:20-21; 2 Pet 2:5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Noah<\/h3>\nNoah was the son of Lamech, a descendant of Seth (Gen 5:3-29). Lamech might have hoped that Noah (whose name means “rest” or “relief”) would ease the curse of hardship in working the ground. Instead, God used Noah to help relieve the world of evil.<\/p>\nGod intended to destroy creation because of pervasive human wickedness (Gen 6:1-7; see Matt 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-27), but he decided to preserve Noah (Gen 6:8). God gave Noah, a righteous and blameless man (Gen 6:9), precise instructions for building the ark in which only the eight people of his family would be saved, along with every kind of creature (Gen 6:14–8:19). When Noah and his family finally emerged from the ark after the flood, Noah pleased God by building an altar and sacrificing burnt offerings. God promised that he would never again flood the whole earth or disrupt the sequence of the seasons, despite human sin (Gen 8:20–9:17).<\/p>\nNoah’s sons were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. All the nations of the earth descended from them (Gen 9:18-19). When Noah became drunk on wine from his vineyard, his sons and their descendants were cursed or blessed in accord with how they responded to him (Gen 9:20-27). Noah lived for 950 years, including 350 years after the flood (Gen 9:28-29). He is an example of righteousness, obedience, courage, and faith (see Ezek 14:12-20; Heb 11:7; 2 Pet 2:5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 5:28–10:1; 1 Chr 1:4; Isa 54:9; Ezek 14:12-20; Matt 24:37-38; Luke 3:36; 17:26-27; Heb 11:7; 1 Pet 3:20-21; 2 Pet 2:5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Noah Noah was the son of Lamech, a descendant of Seth (Gen 5:3-29). Lamech might have hoped that Noah (whose name means “rest” or “relief”) would ease the curse of hardship in working the ground. Instead, God used Noah to help relieve the world of evil. God intended to destroy creation because of pervasive human wickedness (Gen 6:1-7; see Matt 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-27), but he decided to preserve Noah (Gen 6:8). God gave Noah, a righteous and blameless man (Gen 6:9), precise instructions for b...","summary_en":"Noah Noah was the son of Lamech, a descendant of Seth (Gen 5:3-29). Lamech might have hoped that Noah (whose name means “rest” or “relief”) would ease the curse of hardship in working the ground. Instead, God used Noah to help relieve the world of evil. God intended to destroy creation because of pervasive human wickedness (Gen 6:1-7; see Matt 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-27), but he decided to preserve Noah (Gen 6:8). God gave Noah, a righteous and blameless man (Gen 6:9), precise instructions for b...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":95760,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Noah","title_en":"Noah","content_ro":"<h3>Noah<\/h3>\nNoah was the son of Lamech, a descendant of Seth (Gen 5:3-29). Lamech might have hoped that Noah (whose name means “rest” or “relief”) would ease the curse of hardship in working the ground. Instead, God used Noah to help relieve the world of evil.<\/p>\nGod intended to destroy creation because of pervasive human wickedness (Gen 6:1-7; see Matt 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-27), but he decided to preserve Noah (Gen 6:8). God gave Noah, a righteous and blameless man (Gen 6:9), precise instructions for building the ark in which only the eight people of his family would be saved, along with every kind of creature (Gen 6:14–8:19). When Noah and his family finally emerged from the ark after the flood, Noah pleased God by building an altar and sacrificing burnt offerings. God promised that he would never again flood the whole earth or disrupt the sequence of the seasons, despite human sin (Gen 8:20–9:17).<\/p>\nNoah’s sons were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. All the nations of the earth descended from them (Gen 9:18-19). When Noah became drunk on wine from his vineyard, his sons and their descendants were cursed or blessed in accord with how they responded to him (Gen 9:20-27). Noah lived for 950 years, including 350 years after the flood (Gen 9:28-29). He is an example of righteousness, obedience, courage, and faith (see Ezek 14:12-20; Heb 11:7; 2 Pet 2:5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 5:28–10:1; 1 Chr 1:4; Isa 54:9; Ezek 14:12-20; Matt 24:37-38; Luke 3:36; 17:26-27; Heb 11:7; 1 Pet 3:20-21; 2 Pet 2:5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Noah<\/h3>\nNoah was the son of Lamech, a descendant of Seth (Gen 5:3-29). Lamech might have hoped that Noah (whose name means “rest” or “relief”) would ease the curse of hardship in working the ground. Instead, God used Noah to help relieve the world of evil.<\/p>\nGod intended to destroy creation because of pervasive human wickedness (Gen 6:1-7; see Matt 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-27), but he decided to preserve Noah (Gen 6:8). God gave Noah, a righteous and blameless man (Gen 6:9), precise instructions for building the ark in which only the eight people of his family would be saved, along with every kind of creature (Gen 6:14–8:19). When Noah and his family finally emerged from the ark after the flood, Noah pleased God by building an altar and sacrificing burnt offerings. God promised that he would never again flood the whole earth or disrupt the sequence of the seasons, despite human sin (Gen 8:20–9:17).<\/p>\nNoah’s sons were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. All the nations of the earth descended from them (Gen 9:18-19). When Noah became drunk on wine from his vineyard, his sons and their descendants were cursed or blessed in accord with how they responded to him (Gen 9:20-27). Noah lived for 950 years, including 350 years after the flood (Gen 9:28-29). He is an example of righteousness, obedience, courage, and faith (see Ezek 14:12-20; Heb 11:7; 2 Pet 2:5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 5:28–10:1; 1 Chr 1:4; Isa 54:9; Ezek 14:12-20; Matt 24:37-38; Luke 3:36; 17:26-27; Heb 11:7; 1 Pet 3:20-21; 2 Pet 2:5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Noah Noah was the son of Lamech, a descendant of Seth (Gen 5:3-29). Lamech might have hoped that Noah (whose name means “rest” or “relief”) would ease the curse of hardship in working the ground. Instead, God used Noah to help relieve the world of evil. God intended to destroy creation because of pervasive human wickedness (Gen 6:1-7; see Matt 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-27), but he decided to preserve Noah (Gen 6:8). God gave Noah, a righteous and blameless man (Gen 6:9), precise instructions for b...","summary_en":"Noah Noah was the son of Lamech, a descendant of Seth (Gen 5:3-29). Lamech might have hoped that Noah (whose name means “rest” or “relief”) would ease the curse of hardship in working the ground. Instead, God used Noah to help relieve the world of evil. God intended to destroy creation because of pervasive human wickedness (Gen 6:1-7; see Matt 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-27), but he decided to preserve Noah (Gen 6:8). God gave Noah, a righteous and blameless man (Gen 6:9), precise instructions for b...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":123386,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Noah","title_en":"Noah","content_ro":"<h3>Noah<\/h3>\nNoah was the son of Lamech, a descendant of Seth (Gen 5:3-29). Lamech might have hoped that Noah (whose name means “rest” or “relief”) would ease the curse of hardship in working the ground. Instead, God used Noah to help relieve the world of evil.<\/p>\nGod intended to destroy creation because of pervasive human wickedness (Gen 6:1-7; see Matt 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-27), but he decided to preserve Noah (Gen 6:8). God gave Noah, a righteous and blameless man (Gen 6:9), precise instructions for building the ark in which only the eight people of his family would be saved, along with every kind of creature (Gen 6:14–8:19). When Noah and his family finally emerged from the ark after the flood, Noah pleased God by building an altar and sacrificing burnt offerings. God promised that he would never again flood the whole earth or disrupt the sequence of the seasons, despite human sin (Gen 8:20–9:17).<\/p>\nNoah’s sons were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. All the nations of the earth descended from them (Gen 9:18-19). When Noah became drunk on wine from his vineyard, his sons and their descendants were cursed or blessed in accord with how they responded to him (Gen 9:20-27). Noah lived for 950 years, including 350 years after the flood (Gen 9:28-29). He is an example of righteousness, obedience, courage, and faith (see Ezek 14:12-20; Heb 11:7; 2 Pet 2:5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 5:28–10:1; 1 Chr 1:4; Isa 54:9; Ezek 14:12-20; Matt 24:37-38; Luke 3:36; 17:26-27; Heb 11:7; 1 Pet 3:20-21; 2 Pet 2:5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Noah<\/h3>\nNoah was the son of Lamech, a descendant of Seth (Gen 5:3-29). Lamech might have hoped that Noah (whose name means “rest” or “relief”) would ease the curse of hardship in working the ground. Instead, God used Noah to help relieve the world of evil.<\/p>\nGod intended to destroy creation because of pervasive human wickedness (Gen 6:1-7; see Matt 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-27), but he decided to preserve Noah (Gen 6:8). God gave Noah, a righteous and blameless man (Gen 6:9), precise instructions for building the ark in which only the eight people of his family would be saved, along with every kind of creature (Gen 6:14–8:19). When Noah and his family finally emerged from the ark after the flood, Noah pleased God by building an altar and sacrificing burnt offerings. God promised that he would never again flood the whole earth or disrupt the sequence of the seasons, despite human sin (Gen 8:20–9:17).<\/p>\nNoah’s sons were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. All the nations of the earth descended from them (Gen 9:18-19). When Noah became drunk on wine from his vineyard, his sons and their descendants were cursed or blessed in accord with how they responded to him (Gen 9:20-27). Noah lived for 950 years, including 350 years after the flood (Gen 9:28-29). He is an example of righteousness, obedience, courage, and faith (see Ezek 14:12-20; Heb 11:7; 2 Pet 2:5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 5:28–10:1; 1 Chr 1:4; Isa 54:9; Ezek 14:12-20; Matt 24:37-38; Luke 3:36; 17:26-27; Heb 11:7; 1 Pet 3:20-21; 2 Pet 2:5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Noah Noah was the son of Lamech, a descendant of Seth (Gen 5:3-29). Lamech might have hoped that Noah (whose name means “rest” or “relief”) would ease the curse of hardship in working the ground. Instead, God used Noah to help relieve the world of evil. God intended to destroy creation because of pervasive human wickedness (Gen 6:1-7; see Matt 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-27), but he decided to preserve Noah (Gen 6:8). God gave Noah, a righteous and blameless man (Gen 6:9), precise instructions for b...","summary_en":"Noah Noah was the son of Lamech, a descendant of Seth (Gen 5:3-29). Lamech might have hoped that Noah (whose name means “rest” or “relief”) would ease the curse of hardship in working the ground. Instead, God used Noah to help relieve the world of evil. God intended to destroy creation because of pervasive human wickedness (Gen 6:1-7; see Matt 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-27), but he decided to preserve Noah (Gen 6:8). God gave Noah, a righteous and blameless man (Gen 6:9), precise instructions for b...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":2787,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Arphaxad","title_en":"Arphaxad","content_ro":"<h3>ARPHAXAD<\/h3>\nShem’s son and Noah’s grandson, born two years after the Flood. Arphaxad’s descendants were probably the Chaldeans (Gn 10:22-24; 11:10-13; 1 Chr 1:17-18, 24; Lk 3:36). Arphaxad was born two years after the Flood when his father was one hundred years old (Gn 11:10) and was the grandfather of Eber, whom some believe was ancestor of the Hebrews (1 Chr 1:17-25; Lk 3:35-36).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ARPHAXAD<\/h3>\nShem’s son and Noah’s grandson, born two years after the Flood. Arphaxad’s descendants were probably the Chaldeans (Gn 10:22-24; 11:10-13; 1 Chr 1:17-18, 24; Lk 3:36). Arphaxad was born two years after the Flood when his father was one hundred years old (Gn 11:10) and was the grandfather of Eber, whom some believe was ancestor of the Hebrews (1 Chr 1:17-25; Lk 3:35-36).<\/p>","summary_ro":"ARPHAXAD Shem’s son and Noah’s grandson, born two years after the Flood. Arphaxad’s descendants were probably the Chaldeans (Gn 10:22-24; 11:10-13; 1 Chr 1:17-18, 24; Lk 3:36). Arphaxad was born two years after the Flood when his father was one hundred years old (Gn 11:10) and was the grandfather of Eber, whom some believe was ancestor of the Hebrews (1 Chr 1:17-25; Lk 3:35-36).","summary_en":"ARPHAXAD Shem’s son and Noah’s grandson, born two years after the Flood. Arphaxad’s descendants were probably the Chaldeans (Gn 10:22-24; 11:10-13; 1 Chr 1:17-18, 24; Lk 3:36). Arphaxad was born two years after the Flood when his father was one hundred years old (Gn 11:10) and was the grandfather of Eber, whom some believe was ancestor of the Hebrews (1 Chr 1:17-25; Lk 3:35-36).","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":5940,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Cainan","title_en":"Cainan","content_ro":"<h3>CAINAN<\/h3>\n<li>1. A son of Arphaxad (Lk 3:36; Gn 10:24, LXX; 11:12-13).<\/li>\n<li>2. Adam’s great-grandson, also called Kenan (Gn 5:9-14; 1 Chr 1:2; Lk 3:37). See<\/em> Kenan.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>CAINAN<\/h3>\n<li>1. A son of Arphaxad (Lk 3:36; Gn 10:24, LXX; 11:12-13).<\/li>\n<li>2. Adam’s great-grandson, also called Kenan (Gn 5:9-14; 1 Chr 1:2; Lk 3:37). See<\/em> Kenan.<\/li>","summary_ro":"CAINAN 1. A son of Arphaxad (Lk 3:36; Gn 10:24, LXX; 11:12-13). 2. Adam’s great-grandson, also called Kenan (Gn 5:9-14; 1 Chr 1:2; Lk 3:37). See Kenan.","summary_en":"CAINAN 1. A son of Arphaxad (Lk 3:36; Gn 10:24, LXX; 11:12-13). 2. Adam’s great-grandson, also called Kenan (Gn 5:9-14; 1 Chr 1:2; Lk 3:37). See Kenan.","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":6421,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of the Bible* (Old Testament), Chronology","title_en":"of the Bible* (Old Testament), Chronology","content_ro":"<h3>CHRONOLOGY OF THE BIBLE* (Old Testament)<\/h3>\nBranch of biblical studies that attempts to assign dates and sequences to OT events. Chronology is a science. It deals with evidence, theories, assumptions, and the balance of probabilities. Often it boils down to a matter of choosing among theories that are equally unable to solve all the problems raised by other points of view. OT chronology is an accredited branch of biblical studies primarily because it is essential for understanding the proper historical background of the biblical texts. In general, the chronology of the OT is understood well enough to vindicate the basic accuracy and sequential order of Scripture.<\/p>\nBoth biblical and nonbiblical materials are utilized by students of OT chronology. Biblical data include (1) genealogies showing personal and tribal affiliations among various peoples; (2) specific numbers given by biblical authors to indicate a person’s longevity, a king’s reign, or the duration of a specific event; (3) synchronizing statements that date an event in a specific year of a king’s reign or relate it to a natural phenomenon assumed to be common knowledge at the time of writing (e.g., Am 1:1; Zec 14:5).<\/p>\nFrom the abundance of such chronological passages in the OT, one might conclude that establishment of OT dates and sequences would be a simple procedure. Each of the three kinds of biblical materials, however, exhibits special problems that must be solved first.<\/p>\nNonbiblical materials that shed light on OT chronology are quite numerous, and more are discovered year by year. They include (1) official records of important affairs such as military campaigns from countries like Egypt or Babylonia; (2) official inscriptions that are dedicatory or commemorate a great victory; (3) annals listing major accomplishments of a ruler year by year; (4) ostraca (inscribed pieces of pottery) containing letters, tax transactions and economic records, military dispatches between field leaders and command headquarters, or other information. Ostraca may be dated archaeologically and are often used to supplement the biblical record.<\/p>\nThe chronologist tries to examine the pertinent biblical and nonbiblical information, notes areas of correlation among all the data, and finally establishes a working system into which the most facts can be fitted. New evidence uncovered at any time may necessitate shifts in the present working system. Although the basic structure of biblical chronology seems reasonably firm, many details will no doubt be subject to change as new evidence is discovered.<\/p>\nAs a general rule, the earlier the period, the less certain one can be of one’s dating. In the second millennium BC<\/span>, for example, many dates can be assigned within a range of about 100 years. By the time of David and Solomon (c. 1000 BC<\/span>), the margin of error over which scholars debate is a decade or less. The range narrows as one comes toward the present, so that, with the exception of one or two problem eras, dates accurate to within one or two years are possible by roughly the middle of the ninth century BC<\/span>. Such limitations must be kept in mind in any examination of the major periods of OT history.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Prepatriarchal Period<\/p>\n• From Abraham to Moses<\/p>\n• Conquest and Consolidation<\/p>\n• The Monarchy<\/p>\n• Judah after the Fall of Israel<\/p>\n• Beyond 587 BC<\/span><\/p>\nPrepatriarchal Period<\/p>\n<h5>Biblical Evidence<\/h5>\nIn the first 11 chapters of Genesis are found accounts of the Creation (chs 1–2), the fall (ch 3), Cain and Abel (ch 4), the Flood (chs 6–9), and the Tower of Babel (ch 11). Those events are set within a certain chronological framework.<\/p>\nAccording to Genesis 5, a period of 10 generations elapsed between the Creation and the Flood. Although the individuals listed enjoyed a total life span of a hefty 847 years plus, the total time elapsing between Adam and the Flood was only 1,656 years.<\/p>\nAccording to Genesis 11, another 10 generations elapsed from the time of the Flood until the time of Abraham (at least in the Septuagint, the third-century BC<\/span> Greek translation of the OT; the Hebrew Masoretic text has 9). In that period the average age attained by individuals in the list is 346 years (using a figure of 460 for Arphaxad’s son Cainan, who is included in v 13 of the LXX; cf. Lk 3:36); the total elapsed time from the Flood to Abraham is only 520 years. Taken literally, that would mean that all of Abraham’s ancestors as far back as Noah’s son Shem were still alive at Abraham’s birth, and that a total of only 2,176 years elapsed from the time of Creation to Abraham.<\/p>\n<h5>Interpretation of the Biblical Data<\/h5>\nA literalistic or slavishly mathematical interpretation of the figures, as has appeared in the margin of many kjv<\/span> Bibles, requires a number of assumptions: that no names are omitted from the genealogies, that all the numbers given are consecutive, and especially that numbers used in an ancient biblical source carry the same meaning as that associated with them in the modern Western mind. Each assumption needs serious examination in the light of other established facts.<\/p>\nA cursory reading of other biblical genealogies, for example, reveals that not all the names of a given family were always included. Even Matthew recorded a total of 28 generations (two sets of 14 each) between David and Jesus, and comparison with OT genealogies reveals that Matthew omitted several names. Luke listed a total of 42 generations for the same interval. Omissions are also obvious when one compares the genealogical lists given in 1 Chronicles 1–8 with those recorded earlier in Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings.<\/p>\nFurther, ancient peoples thought of numbers in a schematic or stylized way. Use of numbers among the ancient Near Eastern nations differed sharply from current Western practice. Examples of that practice are known from both biblical and nonbiblical sources. For example, a list of eight Sumerian kings who ruled in the city of Shurruppak before the “great flood” of the Jemdet Nar era (c. 3000 BC<\/span>) assigns each man an average reign of more than 30,000 years. Berossus, a Babylonian priest of Marduk living in the third century BC<\/span>, added two names to the eight found in that earlier list of kings and assigned an average of 43,200 years to each king. Such extraordinarily high numbers provide a perspective for considering the numbers of Genesis.<\/p>\nTherefore, although one can assume that the numbers assigned to the ages of the patriarchs preceding Abraham in Genesis had real meaning for those responsible for their preservation, they should not be employed in a purely literal sense to compute the length of the various generations mentioned in the text. Further, the numbers given in the Septuagint and in the Samaritan Pentateuch, another early version of the Pentateuch, diverge in many details from those of the Hebrew Masoretic Text. That means, among other things, that the Genesis numbers caused problems for even the earliest scholars of Scripture.<\/p>\n<h5>Nonbiblical Evidence<\/h5>\nArchaeology provides no evidence that may be used to date either the Creation or any other account preserved in Genesis 1–11. The Flood is an example that illustrates some of the difficulties. Many claims have been made by persons from a wide variety of backgrounds (scientists, explorers, theologians, and others) to the effect that archaeology has proven the Genesis Flood narrative to be true. Yet no city so far excavated in Palestine and Syria (including some of the oldest towns in the world) shows archaeological evidence of the Flood.<\/p>\nAlthough several cities in Mesopotamia do exhibit evidence of a flood, three factors make it difficult to link that evidence with Genesis 6–9. Each of the flood levels so far discovered dates from a different period. Further, since nearby sites show no evidence of flooding, all of the Mesopotamian flood evidence points to relatively small local floods. Finally, the evidence indicates no great cultural discontinuities of the sort that would result from destruction of an entire population. Thus, it seems that the ancient Mesopotamian floods discovered through archaeological research are of the same kind as the floods that still occur in the Euphrates River valley.<\/p>\nClearly, certain questions one might ask of the Genesis narratives simply cannot be answered. Many who regard the Bible as the Word of God have concluded that the dating of events found in Genesis 1–11 must be less important than the theological truths of salvation, faith, and obedience that these accounts present.<\/p>\n\nFrom Abraham to Moses<\/p>\n<h5>The Patriarchal Age<\/h5>\nThe date of Abraham is still a lively topic among biblical scholars who agree that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were indeed historical persons. Opinions range from an early-date view that estimates that the patriarchal age extended from 2086 to 1871 BC<\/span>, to a late-date view placing Abraham at around 1400 BC<\/span>. Since each position claims to fit the biblical data, a closer look at the two points of view is in order.<\/p>\nMany OT passages seem to support the view that puts Abraham at a comparatively early date. First Kings 6:1 computes 480 years back from the founding of the temple in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign (961 BC<\/span>, according to the early-date view) to the exodus from Egypt, which would then be dated 1441 BC<\/span>. Counting 430 years as the period of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt (see Gn 15:13; Ex 12:40) takes the date back to 1871 BC<\/span>. To that date are added the 215 years demanded by the total of (1) Abraham’s age upon entering Canaan (75 years according to Gn 12:4); (2) 25 additional years before the birth of Isaac (Gn 21:5); (3) 60 more years to the birth of Jacob (Gn 25:26); and (4) the appearance of Jacob before the pharaoh at age 130 (Gn 47:9). Those 215 years added to the previous total give a date of 2086 BC<\/span> for the entrance of Abraham into Canaan and a date of 2161 BC<\/span> for his birth.<\/p>\nSuch a calculation does not use all of the chronological evidence presented in the OT; consequently, the date for Abraham is open to challenge. For example, the 480 years between the exodus and Solomon’s fourth regnal year represent a period of time into which the wilderness wanderings, the career of Joshua and his immediate successors, the period of the judges, Samuel, Saul, and David must all be placed. Although the OT does not specifically say how long were the careers of Joshua, Samuel, or Saul, even a modest reckoning pushes the total years required by all the biblical data together to approximately 600.<\/p>\nIn addition, the length of time to be assigned to the Egyptian sojourn is problematic. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint both view the number 430 (in Ex 12:40) as applicable not only to the years in Egypt but to the years of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in Canaan as well. Evidently Paul followed the Septuagint tradition when he dated the giving of the law 430 years later than the time of God’s promise to Abraham (see Gal 3:15-18). That means the Septuagint figure cannot be dismissed lightly.<\/p>\nThe late dating of Abraham (c. 1400 BC<\/span>) is based on two propositions: (1) The picture of patriarchal society portrayed in Genesis most closely parallels that reflected in the cuneiform tablets recovered from Nuzi, a town in northeastern Mesopotamia about 175 miles (282 kilometers) north of Baghdad. (2) Because those tablets must be dated in the 15th and 14th centuries BC<\/span>, the parallel patriarchal age must have fallen within the same general time period.<\/p>\nThose who hold the late-date view are aware that their date for Abraham cannot be equated with the set of numbers on which the early-date view depends. They point to other data, also from the OT. Joseph, who was already a highly placed Egyptian official when Jacob moved to Egypt, lived to be 110 years old (Gn 50:26). Moses was a great-grandson of Levi, Joseph’s older brother. Since Joseph lived to see his own greatgrandchildren born (who would probably be younger than Moses since their great-grandfather was younger than his), the late-date view concludes that Joseph could have been alive when Moses was born. The four-generation genealogy of Moses (Levi-Kohath-Amram-Moses, in Ex 6:16-20; Nm 3:17-19; 26:58-59; 1 Chr 6:1-3) was evidently thought to be complete according to Genesis 15:16, which predicted that Abraham’s descendants would be freed from Egyptian bondage “in the fourth generation.”<\/p>\nHowever, a date of around 1400 BC<\/span> for Abraham cannot be aligned with certain other biblical data, including the long Egyptian sojourn demanded by Genesis 15:13 and Exodus 12:40 and a 40-year (or “one-generation”) wilderness existence. Some normally moderate scholars are forced to reduce the wilderness time to two years in order to maintain their late date for Abraham.<\/p>\nIn short, the late-date theory is consistent with part of the biblical evidence (the genealogies of Moses), but the early-date theory conforms to another part (the actual year figures listed in scattered verses from Genesis and Exodus). The late-date theory holds that the genealogies represent more reliable information in Semitic societies generally, whereas the early-date theory computes years given in the biblical account literally throughout its scheme.<\/p>\nBecause of problems attached to both positions, a large group of scholars take a middle ground in dating the patriarchal age. Archaeologically, they say, Abraham and his life and times fit perfectly within the early second millennium, but imperfectly within any later period. By placing Abraham roughly between 1800 and 1600 BC<\/span>, they provide enough latitude for a merging of all the available evidence, biblical and nonbiblical, into a workable chronological scheme. Archaeology provides four major bits of evidence for an early second-millennium patriarchal era.<\/p>\n1. Though the Nuzi tablets furnish a clear parallel to patriarchal social life, other tablets from other towns and an earlier era reflect many of the same customs common to Nuzi and Genesis. Since the Nuzians were Hurrians who came to northeastern Mesopotamia from elsewhere (perhaps Armenia), their social customs originated no doubt much earlier than the time of their tablets now in our possession. Accordingly, the 15th-century BC<\/span> date of the Nuzi tablets does not preclude an earlier date for Abraham.<\/p>\n<li>2. The names of several of Abraham’s ancestors listed in Genesis 11 can now be identified with towns in the northern area of Mesopotamia around Haran, the city from which Abraham migrated to Canaan (Gn 11:31–12:3). Significantly, Haran flourished in the 19th and 18th centuries BC<\/span>.<\/li>\n<li>3. Shortly after 2000 BC<\/span> Semitic nomads from the desert invaded the civilized communities of the Fertile Crescent. Those invaders, called Amorites in the OT, established themselves in several cities in northern Syria and Mesopotamia. One of the Amorite cities was Babylon, ruled by Hammurabi sometime around the beginning of the 18th century BC<\/span>. Although the King Amraphel of Genesis 14:1 is not linguistically identifiable with the Babylonian king Hammurabi, as earlier scholars believed, the picture of the times following the Amorite invasion still accords well with the Genesis narratives generally.<\/li>\n<li>4. Mari, another Amorite town, is now well known because of more than 20,000 tablets recovered from its royal palace and archives. Geographically, Mari is located in the general area of Haran. Chronologically, the tablets recovered come from the 18th century BC<\/span>. One 18th-century king of Mari, Zimri Lim, carried on extensive correspondence with Hammurabi of Babylon. The tablets from Mari also furnish valuable information about tribal and ethnic groups and their movements in the general region. Of basic importance for dating the Genesis materials are certain documents from Mari that include personal names very similar to Abraham (Abi-ram), Jacob, Laban, and several other West Semitic names.<\/li>\nArchaeological evidence neither proves nor disproves the actual existence of Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. That is admitted on all sides. What archaeology has done is to provide a framework of probabilities within which the biblical patriarchal narratives appear more and more to be at home.<\/p>\n<h5>Date of the Exodus<\/h5>\nThe problem of dating the patriarchal age is closely related to the problem of assigning a date to the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. Since the evidence does not permit a precise date for Abraham, a precise date for the entry of Joseph or Jacob into Egypt is likewise unobtainable. Further, the biblical evidence does not yield an exact figure for the length of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt.<\/p>\nFor many years biblical scholars viewed 1 Kings 6:1 as a foundation upon which to build an unshakable date for the exodus. Because Solomon’s fourth year could be unquestionably fixed to within at least a 10-year span (967–958 BC<\/span>), the exodus too could be dated with the same precision simply by adding 480 years. But other biblical data raise serious questions about that simple procedure. When the Bible deals with all the events between the time of the exodus and the founding of Solomon’s temple, that is, from Numbers to 1 Kings 5:18, the precise numbers given total not 480 but closer to 600 years.<\/p>\nBecause the evidence is insufficient to allow a precise date for the exodus, scholarly opinion remains divided between two possibilities. A 15th-century exodus is supported by several pieces of evidence. The chronology in 1 Kings 6:1 appears to be independently corroborated by a passage in Judges 11:26. It claims that Israel had occupied the area around Heshbon for 300 years preceding Jephthah’s own day. If Jephthah is dated at roughly 1100 BC<\/span>, one is obviously led back to an exodus in the middle of the 15th century. Also, three successive generations of pharaohs who ruled in the 16th and 15th centuries produced no male offspring, making it more likely that Moses would have become the foster son of a royal princess during that time; all of the 19th-dynasty kings (1306–1200 BC<\/span>) had legitimate male heirs.<\/p>\nIn addition, a 15th-century date makes possible a connection between the Habiru invasion of Canaan (1400–1350 BC<\/span>)—described in the Amarna letters found at Tell el-Amarna, Egypt—and the invasion of Canaan by the Hebrews described in the OT book of Joshua. Related to that is a reference to “Israel” in the Merneptah Stele, a stone pillar inscribed with the deeds of the Egyptian king, Merneptah, of about 1220 BC<\/span>. It implies that the people referred to, met by Merneptah in the course of a Canaanite military campaign, had been in existence for some time. Finally, an excavator of Jericho, John Garstang, placed the destruction of that city at around 1400 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nOther evidence, however, strongly implies not a 15th- but a 13th-century date for the exodus. Many scholars assign a date between 1290 and 1275 BC<\/span> on the basis of that evidence. First, the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1 discussed above may be interpreted as schematically representing 12 generations, as indicated by 1 Chronicles 6:3-8. Thus if 12 generations averaged 25 years instead of 40 years, the reduction of 480 schematized years to 300 actual years would point to an exodus date of around 1266 BC<\/span>. Second, archaeological evidence exists that dates destruction at the assumed sites of several cities conquered by Joshua (Lachish, Debir, Bethel, and Hazor) to the late 13th century. Third, there is no biblical mention of Egyptian military campaigns (such as Merneptah’s 1220 BC<\/span> incursion); Israelites living in Canaan before the time of the militarily active pharaohs Seti I (1319–1301 BC<\/span>) and Ramses II (1301–1234 BC<\/span>) would certainly have been affected by such activity. Fourth, Exodus 1:11 mentions the city of Rameses, the capital built by Ramses II, according to his own inscriptions. A fifth line of argument comes from archaeological conclusions that Transjordan and the Negev Desert were not occupied by sedentary people between 1900 and 1300 BC<\/span>, whereas the Bible states clearly that the Israelites encountered stiff opposition from groups in that same region. Thus, it is argued, the Israelites must have entered that region after 1300 BC<\/span>. Sixth, connecting the Habiru with the Israelites of the Conquest lacks weight because many texts besides the Amarna tablets attest to the existence of Habiru groups virtually all over the ancient Near East. “Habiru” seems to be a much broader term, possibly meaning “trespasser,” and is probably unrelated etymologically or semantically to “Hebrew.” Seventh, and finally, Garstang’s work at Jericho has now been revised by archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon, who showed that the fallen walls that Garstang had dated about 1400 BC<\/span> in reality were destroyed in 1800 BC<\/span> or earlier.<\/p>\nSo far, it has been impossible to decide with precision between the two centuries proposed for the exodus. The majority opinion among OT scholars generally, including a growing number of moderate or conservative scholars, is in favor of the 13th-century option. On the other hand, many other conservative scholars continue to favor the 15th-century date. Dogmatism is unwarranted since problems remain unresolved with either option.<\/p>\nIn accordance with the majority opinion, however, a date of about 1290 BC<\/span> for the exodus will be used in dealing with subsequent problems.<\/p>\nConquest and Consolidation<\/p>\nThe chronological task for the period of conquest and consolidation is to fit all the events narrated by the OT, chiefly in Joshua and Judges, between the exodus (c. 1290 BC<\/span>) and the times of David (c. 1000 BC<\/span>) and Solomon (d. 930 BC<\/span>). In other words, one must fit roughly 550 years of biblical events between Moses and David into a 290-year span.<\/p>\nAlthough assigning an early date for the exodus (c. 1447 BC<\/span>) would make the task somewhat easier, the mere addition of about 157 years does not by itself solve all the problems. Neither date allows enough time for all the OT events from Joshua to David to take place singly and consecutively. Accordingly, advocates of both dates assume that some of the judges ruled simultaneously rather than consecutively. The difference is one of degree only.<\/p>\nThe book of Joshua furnishes most of the OT evidence regarding the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites. Unfortunately, the book of Joshua has no chronological notes that specify the amount of time elapsing during Joshua’s career. Further, there are no biblical references to major contemporary events in other parts of the ancient world, the dates of which could be used to fix the chronology. Rather, in what is obviously a telescoped account, the book of Joshua records the fall of Jericho and Ai, followed closely by a southern and then a northern campaign. After those victories, covering much of the total territory of Canaan, various parcels of land were distributed to the tribal groups of Israel; the tribes were expected to complete the task of destroying whatever Canaanite inhabitants remained in their particular region. One seeks in vain, however, for any statements indicating how long those events took.<\/p>\nIn the book of Judges a slightly different circumstance prevails. There the OT furnishes a rather complete list of figures to indicate the duration of periods of foreign oppression, judgeships, and ensuing peace. The total number of years described for that period is 410, but that total does not include any time for the many “minor” judges. It seems obvious, therefore, that most if not all of the judges were simply local chieftains whose activity was simultaneous with that of other judges, at least for part of their reign. Unfortunately, the book of Judges provides no cross-reference system to indicate which judges were contemporaries of which others. Perhaps the best one can do is to assume general guidelines for the chronology of that period between Moses and David.<\/p>\nTwo significant facts should be kept in mind. First, archaeological information seems to demand a Conquest date beginning about 1250 BC<\/span> rather than 200 years earlier. Assuming concurrent careers for the judges allows one to compress the literal OT figures into the general scheme demanded by other evidence.<\/p>\nSecond, the ancient scribes evidently related the chronology of the period to a 40-year or generation-based schema, a practice that lasted until the time of the divided kingdom, when a regular dynastic chronology was introduced. In the face of so many careers being assigned exactly 40 years, the fact remains that the literal totals of such numbers cannot be harmonized with either the biblical or the archaeological evidence for the period. Accordingly, most scholars doubt that the number 40 was ever intended to be an exact mathematical calculation. That view permits enough leeway for cautious fitting of biblical and other evidence into a general timetable.<\/p>\nThe Monarchy<\/p>\n<h5>Types of Evidence<\/h5>\nFor the period of the Israelite monarchy, chronological evidence is abundant.<\/p>\nThe OT itself strives to provide all the information necessary for the chronology of the period, including (1) a complete list of all the kings in Israel and in Judah both before and after the division of the kingdom; (2) the age of each king (except Saul) at his accession; (3) synchronisms of the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah showing in what year of his contemporary in the other kingdom each king came to the throne; and (4) precise calculations of the length of each king’s reign. In addition some important events are dated by reference to another event; others are coordinated with concurrent events in secular history.<\/p>\nOutside the OT an abundance of material provides evidence for a chronology of the period. By far the most important single source is a collection of Assyrian limmu<\/em> lists. In Assyria a record of each king’s reign was kept on a particular kind of annal. Each year of reign was named after an individual of high rank in the court; the first year was named after the king himself, the second after the next highest-ranking official (though that name appears to have been selected by lot originally), and so on, down until the death of the king. The word limmu<\/em> was used to introduce the name of the official after whom the current year was to be named, hence the designation “limmu<\/em> lists.”<\/p>\nAssyrian limmu<\/em> lists are tied precisely to the solar year, making the documents highly reliable. Further, in addition to many events in Assyrian history, notable natural phenomena were dated on the basis of the limmu<\/em> in which they occurred. For example, a solar eclipse dated by the Assyrian scribes in the limmu<\/em> year of Bur-Sagale has been computed astronomically as June 15, 763 BC<\/span>. Beginning with the year 763, then, and working both backward and forward, a complete list of Assyrian limmu<\/em> officials has been obtained for the period between 891 and 648 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nWith the accuracy of the Assyrian limmu<\/em> lists corroborated by a number of sources, they can be used with confidence in reconstructing the chronology of the corresponding period of biblical history. That is especially true where a biblical writer related an Israelite or a Judahite event to a particular year in the reign of an Assyrian king whose limmu<\/em> list indicates the precise years of his reign.<\/p>\nThere are also records from Chaldean (Babylonian) king lists and from later Greek historians. Ptolemy, in the second century AD<\/span>, for example, gave dates for Babylonian kings from 747 BC<\/span> and continued with dates for Persian, Greek, and Roman rulers down to AD<\/span> 161. Finally, useful information is found in inscriptions from monuments, stelae, and other artifacts from Assyria and elsewhere.<\/p>\n<h5>Monarchical Chronology<\/h5>\nThe limmu<\/em> list of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III provides a basis for the first comparison of dates among Assyria, Israel, and Judah. In the limmu<\/em> of Daian-Assur, Shalmaneser’s sixth year on the throne, Ahab of Israel was listed as one of the kings who fought against the Assyrians in the battle of Qarqar. Thus the date for that battle may be placed confidently in 853 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nAssyrian records also indicate that Shalmaneser III came into contact with an Israelite king 12 years later, in 841 BC<\/span>. That king was Jehu. Thus two fixed points are available for correlating the biblical information. Following the death of Ahab, which is not dated exactly by reference to the Assyrian records, two of his sons came to power. The first, Ahaziah, reigned two years (1 Kgs 22:51); the second, Joram (also called Jehoram), reigned a total of 12 years (2 Kgs 3:1). Recognizing a nonaccession-year reckoning by the Israelites in that era, the apparent total of 14 years may be reduced to an actual total of 12. Thus it seems evident that Ahab not only fought Shalmaneser III in 853 BC<\/span> but also died in that year. Ahab was then followed by his two sons for a total of 12 years before the accession of Jehu in time to account for his contact with Shalmaneser II in 841 BC<\/span>. Further, because Jehu murdered both the king of Israel (Jehoram) and the king of Judah (Ahaziah) at the same time (2 Kgs 9:24-27), a fixed synchronism is provided between the two kingdoms for the year 841 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nThe first nine kings of Israel ruled an apparent total of 98 years or an actual total (taking into account Israel’s nonaccession-year policy) of 90 years. Zimri, who ruled only seven days (1 Kgs 16:15-18), counts as one of the nine but does not insert an extra year in either the actual or apparent totals. The accession of Jeroboam I thus occurred in 930 BC<\/span> (adding 90 years to 841 BC<\/span>), and Rehoboam of Judah began to rule in that same year as well. Allowing Solomon the 40-year reign indicated in 1 Kings 11:42 points to the year 970 BC<\/span> for his accession. The death of David would also be pinpointed in that period, although allowance must be made for the possibility of a short co-regency of David and Solomon before David’s death. The reign of Saul then falls approximately in the late 11th century BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nIn Judah the period between the death of Solomon in 930 BC<\/span> and the murder of Ahaziah by Jehu in 841 BC<\/span> was occupied by the kingships of six men whose time on the throne totals 95 biblical years. Computation of that era in Judah is not as simple as for the Israelite kings for several reasons. Problems include a change from accession- to nonaccession-year reckoning sometime around 850 BC<\/span>, at least two co-regencies (Jehoshaphat with Asa and then Jehoram with Jehoshaphat), and the calendar differences between the two kingdoms. It is clear that the 95 apparent years must be reduced, on the basis of the differences in computation and calendar, to 90 actual years in order to bring the Judahite figures into line with the established Assyrian and Israelite synchronisms.<\/p>\nAfter the year 841, the next biblical event to be certified by nonbiblical materials is the fall of Samaria in 722 BC<\/span>. That date is furnished by the annals of Sargon II of Assyria (722–705 BC<\/span>), successor to Shalmaneser V (727–722 BC<\/span>). Although that date comes just 120 years after the fixed point of 841 BC<\/span> in Israelite history, the chronological materials for that period are quite difficult to interpret accurately. In the past, scholars resorted to assumptions of extensive co-regencies, to presumed confusion on the part of certain scribes over methods to be followed in computations, or to other theories in attempting to understand the period. In spite of the many difficulties, however, all the biblical and Assyrian dates for the period of the divided monarchy have been harmonized—with the exception of four figures related to the closing years of the Israelite kingdom, all connected in some way with the problematic reign of Hoshea.<\/p>\nJudah after the Fall of Israel<\/p>\nFollowing the fall of Samaria in 722 BC<\/span>, OT chronology is concerned only with the southern kingdom of Judah until its destruction some 135 years later. Two events in the biblical record important for establishing a chronology for that period are the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib of Assyria in the late eighth century and the eventual fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in the early sixth century.<\/p>\n<h5>Sennacherib’s Invasion of Judah<\/h5>\nThe Assyrian invasion (704–681 BC<\/span>) is recorded in 2 Kings 18:13-16, where verse 13 dates the event to the 14th year of King Hezekiah. Sennacherib’s own inscriptions include a lengthier version of the affair. From them the date of 701 BC<\/span> is established, placing the accession of Hezekiah in 715 BC<\/span>. That much is simple, but problems still arise. For example, 2 Kings 19:9 reports that Sennacherib was in contact with an Ethiopian king, Tirhakah (c. 690–664 BC<\/span>), during the course of his campaign, which included a siege of Jerusalem. Obviously, contact with a ruler who came to power in 690 BC<\/span> at the earliest could not refer to events in 701 BC<\/span>. It is possible, however, that Sennacherib actually made two invasions of Judah, the first in 701 and the second sometime later. The date of that supposed second invasion is not assured, although 2 Kings 19:35-37 may imply that Sennacherib was murdered only shortly after his withdrawal from Jerusalem. Since Sennacherib was succeeded by his son Esarhaddon in the year 681, the presumed second invasion of Judah would have occurred somewhere in the last half of the same decade.<\/p>\nA number of scholars oppose the assumption of a second invasion of Jerusalem by Sennacherib. They suggest the possibility that Tirhakah, though king only from 690 BC<\/span>, may have led troops against Sennacherib as early as 701, before acceding to the throne. The reference to King Tirhakah in 2 Kings 19:9 would then be understood as use of his eventual title in an effort to identify him to a later generation of readers.<\/p>\nHowever the question of the number of invasions is decided, it is certain that Sennacherib invaded Judah in 701 BC<\/span>, the 14th regnal year of Hezekiah. Such a synchronism establishes Hezekiah’s accession year as 715 BC<\/span>, but that date raises another problem. The fall of Samaria, now established at 722, is dated by 2 Kings 18:10 in the sixth year of Hezekiah’s reign. The most likely solution is that Hezekiah began a co-regency with his father, Ahaz, six years before Samaria fell. The possibility for confusion arises from the fact that one verse (2 Kgs 18:13; repeated in Is 36:1) synchronizes Sennacherib’s 701 BC<\/span> invasion with the 14th year of Hezekiah’s independent reign; another verse (2 Kgs 18:10) correlates the fall of Samaria with the beginning of Hezekiah’s co-regency. Thus from about 728 to 715 BC<\/span> Hezekiah was co-regent with Ahaz. From 715 to 697 he reigned alone. From 696 to 686 his son Manasseh was co-ruler with him.<\/p>\nAccording to the chronological information given by a number of verses in 2 Kings, a total of 128 years and six months elapsed between the time of Hezekiah’s accession in 715 and the capture of King Jehoiachin in 597, a date to be discussed below. Thus another problem is to explain the more than 10-year excess apparently demanded by the biblical totals. The best solution appears to lie in the assumption that Manasseh first came to power in 697 as co-regent with his father, Hezekiah. Manasseh died in 642, following what 2 Kings 21:1 states was a 55-year reign. Hezekiah, who came to the throne in 715, is said to have reigned 29 years (2 Kgs 18:2), which would mean that he was king until 686, roughly 11 years after the time when Manasseh must have come to the throne in order to have completed a 55-year reign by 642.<\/p>\n<h5>Fall of Jerusalem<\/h5>\nContemporary Babylonian records are available to shed valuable light on the last few years of Judah’s existence. For the years 626–623, 618–595, and 556 BC<\/span> the Babylonian Chronicle, a formal record of Babylonian affairs of state, has been recovered. From information contained in that chronicle and other cuneiform documents of the period, three dates in Judah’s history may be fixed firmly. The first is the death of Josiah in 609; the second is the battle of Carchemish in 605; the third is the end of the reign of Jehoiachin, which is dated by the Babylonian Chronicle to the second month of Adar in the ninth year of Nebuchadnezzar, or March 16, 597.<\/p>\nAfter Jehoiachin’s capture, Zedekiah became puppet king of Judah for 11 years (2 Kgs 24:18). On the tenth day of the tenth month during Zedekiah’s ninth regnal year (2 Kgs 25:1), the final siege of Jerusalem was begun by the Babylonian army. That day was January 15, 588. On the ninth day of the fourth month during the 11th regnal year of Zedekiah, after a siege of almost 18 months, the wall of Jerusalem was broken through (2 Kgs 25:3-4). The temple was burned on day seven of the following (fifth) month.<\/p>\nBeyond 586 BC<\/span><\/p>\nFollowing the tragedy of 586 BC<\/span>, several further developments are given chronological notice in the OT. Jeremiah 52:30 records a third deportation of Jews to Babylonia in the 23d year of King Nebuchadnezzar (582 or 581 BC<\/span>). Both 2 Kings 25:27 and Jeremiah 52:31 give evidence of the release of King Jehoiachin from prison; the Babylonian Chronicle dates that event at 27 Adar, or March 21, 561 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nIn 539 BC<\/span> the Babylonians themselves were destined to learn the meaning of defeat. In that year a Persian ruler, Cyrus the Great, launched a successful campaign against Babylon and its king, Nabonidus. Inheriting control over the exiled Jews and many other groups of people conquered earlier by Babylonia, Cyrus moved quickly to initiate a policy of tolerance toward his new subjects. In the first year of his rule Cyrus issued an edict making it possible for Jews to return to their former land (Ezr 1:1). On the first day of the following year, 1 Tishri (Ezr 3:6), an altar was set up in Jerusalem. In Iyyar of the following year (April\/May 536) work was begun on the temple itself (Ezr 3:8).<\/p>\nAfter a period of frustrating work stoppages of varying lengths, the preaching of Haggai and Zechariah spurred on the Jews to complete the temple. Work resumed in 520 (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1, 15) and was finally completed on 3 Adar, or March 12, 515 (Ezr 6:15). The final stages of OT chronology pertain to the careers of Ezra and Nehemiah. The traditional view of their era places Ezra in the seventh year of Artaxerxes I (458 BC<\/span>) and Nehemiah in the 20th (445 BC<\/span>).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> “Date” under each OT book; Conquest and Allotment of the Land; Diaspora of the Jews; Exodus, The; Israel, History of; Patriarchs, Period of the; Postexilic Period; Wilderness Wanderings.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CHRONOLOGY OF THE BIBLE* (Old Testament)<\/h3>\nBranch of biblical studies that attempts to assign dates and sequences to OT events. Chronology is a science. It deals with evidence, theories, assumptions, and the balance of probabilities. Often it boils down to a matter of choosing among theories that are equally unable to solve all the problems raised by other points of view. OT chronology is an accredited branch of biblical studies primarily because it is essential for understanding the proper historical background of the biblical texts. In general, the chronology of the OT is understood well enough to vindicate the basic accuracy and sequential order of Scripture.<\/p>\nBoth biblical and nonbiblical materials are utilized by students of OT chronology. Biblical data include (1) genealogies showing personal and tribal affiliations among various peoples; (2) specific numbers given by biblical authors to indicate a person’s longevity, a king’s reign, or the duration of a specific event; (3) synchronizing statements that date an event in a specific year of a king’s reign or relate it to a natural phenomenon assumed to be common knowledge at the time of writing (e.g., Am 1:1; Zec 14:5).<\/p>\nFrom the abundance of such chronological passages in the OT, one might conclude that establishment of OT dates and sequences would be a simple procedure. Each of the three kinds of biblical materials, however, exhibits special problems that must be solved first.<\/p>\nNonbiblical materials that shed light on OT chronology are quite numerous, and more are discovered year by year. They include (1) official records of important affairs such as military campaigns from countries like Egypt or Babylonia; (2) official inscriptions that are dedicatory or commemorate a great victory; (3) annals listing major accomplishments of a ruler year by year; (4) ostraca (inscribed pieces of pottery) containing letters, tax transactions and economic records, military dispatches between field leaders and command headquarters, or other information. Ostraca may be dated archaeologically and are often used to supplement the biblical record.<\/p>\nThe chronologist tries to examine the pertinent biblical and nonbiblical information, notes areas of correlation among all the data, and finally establishes a working system into which the most facts can be fitted. New evidence uncovered at any time may necessitate shifts in the present working system. Although the basic structure of biblical chronology seems reasonably firm, many details will no doubt be subject to change as new evidence is discovered.<\/p>\nAs a general rule, the earlier the period, the less certain one can be of one’s dating. In the second millennium BC<\/span>, for example, many dates can be assigned within a range of about 100 years. By the time of David and Solomon (c. 1000 BC<\/span>), the margin of error over which scholars debate is a decade or less. The range narrows as one comes toward the present, so that, with the exception of one or two problem eras, dates accurate to within one or two years are possible by roughly the middle of the ninth century BC<\/span>. Such limitations must be kept in mind in any examination of the major periods of OT history.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Prepatriarchal Period<\/p>\n• From Abraham to Moses<\/p>\n• Conquest and Consolidation<\/p>\n• The Monarchy<\/p>\n• Judah after the Fall of Israel<\/p>\n• Beyond 587 BC<\/span><\/p>\nPrepatriarchal Period<\/p>\n<h5>Biblical Evidence<\/h5>\nIn the first 11 chapters of Genesis are found accounts of the Creation (chs 1–2), the fall (ch 3), Cain and Abel (ch 4), the Flood (chs 6–9), and the Tower of Babel (ch 11). Those events are set within a certain chronological framework.<\/p>\nAccording to Genesis 5, a period of 10 generations elapsed between the Creation and the Flood. Although the individuals listed enjoyed a total life span of a hefty 847 years plus, the total time elapsing between Adam and the Flood was only 1,656 years.<\/p>\nAccording to Genesis 11, another 10 generations elapsed from the time of the Flood until the time of Abraham (at least in the Septuagint, the third-century BC<\/span> Greek translation of the OT; the Hebrew Masoretic text has 9). In that period the average age attained by individuals in the list is 346 years (using a figure of 460 for Arphaxad’s son Cainan, who is included in v 13 of the LXX; cf. Lk 3:36); the total elapsed time from the Flood to Abraham is only 520 years. Taken literally, that would mean that all of Abraham’s ancestors as far back as Noah’s son Shem were still alive at Abraham’s birth, and that a total of only 2,176 years elapsed from the time of Creation to Abraham.<\/p>\n<h5>Interpretation of the Biblical Data<\/h5>\nA literalistic or slavishly mathematical interpretation of the figures, as has appeared in the margin of many kjv<\/span> Bibles, requires a number of assumptions: that no names are omitted from the genealogies, that all the numbers given are consecutive, and especially that numbers used in an ancient biblical source carry the same meaning as that associated with them in the modern Western mind. Each assumption needs serious examination in the light of other established facts.<\/p>\nA cursory reading of other biblical genealogies, for example, reveals that not all the names of a given family were always included. Even Matthew recorded a total of 28 generations (two sets of 14 each) between David and Jesus, and comparison with OT genealogies reveals that Matthew omitted several names. Luke listed a total of 42 generations for the same interval. Omissions are also obvious when one compares the genealogical lists given in 1 Chronicles 1–8 with those recorded earlier in Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings.<\/p>\nFurther, ancient peoples thought of numbers in a schematic or stylized way. Use of numbers among the ancient Near Eastern nations differed sharply from current Western practice. Examples of that practice are known from both biblical and nonbiblical sources. For example, a list of eight Sumerian kings who ruled in the city of Shurruppak before the “great flood” of the Jemdet Nar era (c. 3000 BC<\/span>) assigns each man an average reign of more than 30,000 years. Berossus, a Babylonian priest of Marduk living in the third century BC<\/span>, added two names to the eight found in that earlier list of kings and assigned an average of 43,200 years to each king. Such extraordinarily high numbers provide a perspective for considering the numbers of Genesis.<\/p>\nTherefore, although one can assume that the numbers assigned to the ages of the patriarchs preceding Abraham in Genesis had real meaning for those responsible for their preservation, they should not be employed in a purely literal sense to compute the length of the various generations mentioned in the text. Further, the numbers given in the Septuagint and in the Samaritan Pentateuch, another early version of the Pentateuch, diverge in many details from those of the Hebrew Masoretic Text. That means, among other things, that the Genesis numbers caused problems for even the earliest scholars of Scripture.<\/p>\n<h5>Nonbiblical Evidence<\/h5>\nArchaeology provides no evidence that may be used to date either the Creation or any other account preserved in Genesis 1–11. The Flood is an example that illustrates some of the difficulties. Many claims have been made by persons from a wide variety of backgrounds (scientists, explorers, theologians, and others) to the effect that archaeology has proven the Genesis Flood narrative to be true. Yet no city so far excavated in Palestine and Syria (including some of the oldest towns in the world) shows archaeological evidence of the Flood.<\/p>\nAlthough several cities in Mesopotamia do exhibit evidence of a flood, three factors make it difficult to link that evidence with Genesis 6–9. Each of the flood levels so far discovered dates from a different period. Further, since nearby sites show no evidence of flooding, all of the Mesopotamian flood evidence points to relatively small local floods. Finally, the evidence indicates no great cultural discontinuities of the sort that would result from destruction of an entire population. Thus, it seems that the ancient Mesopotamian floods discovered through archaeological research are of the same kind as the floods that still occur in the Euphrates River valley.<\/p>\nClearly, certain questions one might ask of the Genesis narratives simply cannot be answered. Many who regard the Bible as the Word of God have concluded that the dating of events found in Genesis 1–11 must be less important than the theological truths of salvation, faith, and obedience that these accounts present.<\/p>\n\nFrom Abraham to Moses<\/p>\n<h5>The Patriarchal Age<\/h5>\nThe date of Abraham is still a lively topic among biblical scholars who agree that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were indeed historical persons. Opinions range from an early-date view that estimates that the patriarchal age extended from 2086 to 1871 BC<\/span>, to a late-date view placing Abraham at around 1400 BC<\/span>. Since each position claims to fit the biblical data, a closer look at the two points of view is in order.<\/p>\nMany OT passages seem to support the view that puts Abraham at a comparatively early date. First Kings 6:1 computes 480 years back from the founding of the temple in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign (961 BC<\/span>, according to the early-date view) to the exodus from Egypt, which would then be dated 1441 BC<\/span>. Counting 430 years as the period of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt (see Gn 15:13; Ex 12:40) takes the date back to 1871 BC<\/span>. To that date are added the 215 years demanded by the total of (1) Abraham’s age upon entering Canaan (75 years according to Gn 12:4); (2) 25 additional years before the birth of Isaac (Gn 21:5); (3) 60 more years to the birth of Jacob (Gn 25:26); and (4) the appearance of Jacob before the pharaoh at age 130 (Gn 47:9). Those 215 years added to the previous total give a date of 2086 BC<\/span> for the entrance of Abraham into Canaan and a date of 2161 BC<\/span> for his birth.<\/p>\nSuch a calculation does not use all of the chronological evidence presented in the OT; consequently, the date for Abraham is open to challenge. For example, the 480 years between the exodus and Solomon’s fourth regnal year represent a period of time into which the wilderness wanderings, the career of Joshua and his immediate successors, the period of the judges, Samuel, Saul, and David must all be placed. Although the OT does not specifically say how long were the careers of Joshua, Samuel, or Saul, even a modest reckoning pushes the total years required by all the biblical data together to approximately 600.<\/p>\nIn addition, the length of time to be assigned to the Egyptian sojourn is problematic. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint both view the number 430 (in Ex 12:40) as applicable not only to the years in Egypt but to the years of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in Canaan as well. Evidently Paul followed the Septuagint tradition when he dated the giving of the law 430 years later than the time of God’s promise to Abraham (see Gal 3:15-18). That means the Septuagint figure cannot be dismissed lightly.<\/p>\nThe late dating of Abraham (c. 1400 BC<\/span>) is based on two propositions: (1) The picture of patriarchal society portrayed in Genesis most closely parallels that reflected in the cuneiform tablets recovered from Nuzi, a town in northeastern Mesopotamia about 175 miles (282 kilometers) north of Baghdad. (2) Because those tablets must be dated in the 15th and 14th centuries BC<\/span>, the parallel patriarchal age must have fallen within the same general time period.<\/p>\nThose who hold the late-date view are aware that their date for Abraham cannot be equated with the set of numbers on which the early-date view depends. They point to other data, also from the OT. Joseph, who was already a highly placed Egyptian official when Jacob moved to Egypt, lived to be 110 years old (Gn 50:26). Moses was a great-grandson of Levi, Joseph’s older brother. Since Joseph lived to see his own greatgrandchildren born (who would probably be younger than Moses since their great-grandfather was younger than his), the late-date view concludes that Joseph could have been alive when Moses was born. The four-generation genealogy of Moses (Levi-Kohath-Amram-Moses, in Ex 6:16-20; Nm 3:17-19; 26:58-59; 1 Chr 6:1-3) was evidently thought to be complete according to Genesis 15:16, which predicted that Abraham’s descendants would be freed from Egyptian bondage “in the fourth generation.”<\/p>\nHowever, a date of around 1400 BC<\/span> for Abraham cannot be aligned with certain other biblical data, including the long Egyptian sojourn demanded by Genesis 15:13 and Exodus 12:40 and a 40-year (or “one-generation”) wilderness existence. Some normally moderate scholars are forced to reduce the wilderness time to two years in order to maintain their late date for Abraham.<\/p>\nIn short, the late-date theory is consistent with part of the biblical evidence (the genealogies of Moses), but the early-date theory conforms to another part (the actual year figures listed in scattered verses from Genesis and Exodus). The late-date theory holds that the genealogies represent more reliable information in Semitic societies generally, whereas the early-date theory computes years given in the biblical account literally throughout its scheme.<\/p>\nBecause of problems attached to both positions, a large group of scholars take a middle ground in dating the patriarchal age. Archaeologically, they say, Abraham and his life and times fit perfectly within the early second millennium, but imperfectly within any later period. By placing Abraham roughly between 1800 and 1600 BC<\/span>, they provide enough latitude for a merging of all the available evidence, biblical and nonbiblical, into a workable chronological scheme. Archaeology provides four major bits of evidence for an early second-millennium patriarchal era.<\/p>\n1. Though the Nuzi tablets furnish a clear parallel to patriarchal social life, other tablets from other towns and an earlier era reflect many of the same customs common to Nuzi and Genesis. Since the Nuzians were Hurrians who came to northeastern Mesopotamia from elsewhere (perhaps Armenia), their social customs originated no doubt much earlier than the time of their tablets now in our possession. Accordingly, the 15th-century BC<\/span> date of the Nuzi tablets does not preclude an earlier date for Abraham.<\/p>\n<li>2. The names of several of Abraham’s ancestors listed in Genesis 11 can now be identified with towns in the northern area of Mesopotamia around Haran, the city from which Abraham migrated to Canaan (Gn 11:31–12:3). Significantly, Haran flourished in the 19th and 18th centuries BC<\/span>.<\/li>\n<li>3. Shortly after 2000 BC<\/span> Semitic nomads from the desert invaded the civilized communities of the Fertile Crescent. Those invaders, called Amorites in the OT, established themselves in several cities in northern Syria and Mesopotamia. One of the Amorite cities was Babylon, ruled by Hammurabi sometime around the beginning of the 18th century BC<\/span>. Although the King Amraphel of Genesis 14:1 is not linguistically identifiable with the Babylonian king Hammurabi, as earlier scholars believed, the picture of the times following the Amorite invasion still accords well with the Genesis narratives generally.<\/li>\n<li>4. Mari, another Amorite town, is now well known because of more than 20,000 tablets recovered from its royal palace and archives. Geographically, Mari is located in the general area of Haran. Chronologically, the tablets recovered come from the 18th century BC<\/span>. One 18th-century king of Mari, Zimri Lim, carried on extensive correspondence with Hammurabi of Babylon. The tablets from Mari also furnish valuable information about tribal and ethnic groups and their movements in the general region. Of basic importance for dating the Genesis materials are certain documents from Mari that include personal names very similar to Abraham (Abi-ram), Jacob, Laban, and several other West Semitic names.<\/li>\nArchaeological evidence neither proves nor disproves the actual existence of Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. That is admitted on all sides. What archaeology has done is to provide a framework of probabilities within which the biblical patriarchal narratives appear more and more to be at home.<\/p>\n<h5>Date of the Exodus<\/h5>\nThe problem of dating the patriarchal age is closely related to the problem of assigning a date to the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. Since the evidence does not permit a precise date for Abraham, a precise date for the entry of Joseph or Jacob into Egypt is likewise unobtainable. Further, the biblical evidence does not yield an exact figure for the length of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt.<\/p>\nFor many years biblical scholars viewed 1 Kings 6:1 as a foundation upon which to build an unshakable date for the exodus. Because Solomon’s fourth year could be unquestionably fixed to within at least a 10-year span (967–958 BC<\/span>), the exodus too could be dated with the same precision simply by adding 480 years. But other biblical data raise serious questions about that simple procedure. When the Bible deals with all the events between the time of the exodus and the founding of Solomon’s temple, that is, from Numbers to 1 Kings 5:18, the precise numbers given total not 480 but closer to 600 years.<\/p>\nBecause the evidence is insufficient to allow a precise date for the exodus, scholarly opinion remains divided between two possibilities. A 15th-century exodus is supported by several pieces of evidence. The chronology in 1 Kings 6:1 appears to be independently corroborated by a passage in Judges 11:26. It claims that Israel had occupied the area around Heshbon for 300 years preceding Jephthah’s own day. If Jephthah is dated at roughly 1100 BC<\/span>, one is obviously led back to an exodus in the middle of the 15th century. Also, three successive generations of pharaohs who ruled in the 16th and 15th centuries produced no male offspring, making it more likely that Moses would have become the foster son of a royal princess during that time; all of the 19th-dynasty kings (1306–1200 BC<\/span>) had legitimate male heirs.<\/p>\nIn addition, a 15th-century date makes possible a connection between the Habiru invasion of Canaan (1400–1350 BC<\/span>)—described in the Amarna letters found at Tell el-Amarna, Egypt—and the invasion of Canaan by the Hebrews described in the OT book of Joshua. Related to that is a reference to “Israel” in the Merneptah Stele, a stone pillar inscribed with the deeds of the Egyptian king, Merneptah, of about 1220 BC<\/span>. It implies that the people referred to, met by Merneptah in the course of a Canaanite military campaign, had been in existence for some time. Finally, an excavator of Jericho, John Garstang, placed the destruction of that city at around 1400 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nOther evidence, however, strongly implies not a 15th- but a 13th-century date for the exodus. Many scholars assign a date between 1290 and 1275 BC<\/span> on the basis of that evidence. First, the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1 discussed above may be interpreted as schematically representing 12 generations, as indicated by 1 Chronicles 6:3-8. Thus if 12 generations averaged 25 years instead of 40 years, the reduction of 480 schematized years to 300 actual years would point to an exodus date of around 1266 BC<\/span>. Second, archaeological evidence exists that dates destruction at the assumed sites of several cities conquered by Joshua (Lachish, Debir, Bethel, and Hazor) to the late 13th century. Third, there is no biblical mention of Egyptian military campaigns (such as Merneptah’s 1220 BC<\/span> incursion); Israelites living in Canaan before the time of the militarily active pharaohs Seti I (1319–1301 BC<\/span>) and Ramses II (1301–1234 BC<\/span>) would certainly have been affected by such activity. Fourth, Exodus 1:11 mentions the city of Rameses, the capital built by Ramses II, according to his own inscriptions. A fifth line of argument comes from archaeological conclusions that Transjordan and the Negev Desert were not occupied by sedentary people between 1900 and 1300 BC<\/span>, whereas the Bible states clearly that the Israelites encountered stiff opposition from groups in that same region. Thus, it is argued, the Israelites must have entered that region after 1300 BC<\/span>. Sixth, connecting the Habiru with the Israelites of the Conquest lacks weight because many texts besides the Amarna tablets attest to the existence of Habiru groups virtually all over the ancient Near East. “Habiru” seems to be a much broader term, possibly meaning “trespasser,” and is probably unrelated etymologically or semantically to “Hebrew.” Seventh, and finally, Garstang’s work at Jericho has now been revised by archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon, who showed that the fallen walls that Garstang had dated about 1400 BC<\/span> in reality were destroyed in 1800 BC<\/span> or earlier.<\/p>\nSo far, it has been impossible to decide with precision between the two centuries proposed for the exodus. The majority opinion among OT scholars generally, including a growing number of moderate or conservative scholars, is in favor of the 13th-century option. On the other hand, many other conservative scholars continue to favor the 15th-century date. Dogmatism is unwarranted since problems remain unresolved with either option.<\/p>\nIn accordance with the majority opinion, however, a date of about 1290 BC<\/span> for the exodus will be used in dealing with subsequent problems.<\/p>\nConquest and Consolidation<\/p>\nThe chronological task for the period of conquest and consolidation is to fit all the events narrated by the OT, chiefly in Joshua and Judges, between the exodus (c. 1290 BC<\/span>) and the times of David (c. 1000 BC<\/span>) and Solomon (d. 930 BC<\/span>). In other words, one must fit roughly 550 years of biblical events between Moses and David into a 290-year span.<\/p>\nAlthough assigning an early date for the exodus (c. 1447 BC<\/span>) would make the task somewhat easier, the mere addition of about 157 years does not by itself solve all the problems. Neither date allows enough time for all the OT events from Joshua to David to take place singly and consecutively. Accordingly, advocates of both dates assume that some of the judges ruled simultaneously rather than consecutively. The difference is one of degree only.<\/p>\nThe book of Joshua furnishes most of the OT evidence regarding the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites. Unfortunately, the book of Joshua has no chronological notes that specify the amount of time elapsing during Joshua’s career. Further, there are no biblical references to major contemporary events in other parts of the ancient world, the dates of which could be used to fix the chronology. Rather, in what is obviously a telescoped account, the book of Joshua records the fall of Jericho and Ai, followed closely by a southern and then a northern campaign. After those victories, covering much of the total territory of Canaan, various parcels of land were distributed to the tribal groups of Israel; the tribes were expected to complete the task of destroying whatever Canaanite inhabitants remained in their particular region. One seeks in vain, however, for any statements indicating how long those events took.<\/p>\nIn the book of Judges a slightly different circumstance prevails. There the OT furnishes a rather complete list of figures to indicate the duration of periods of foreign oppression, judgeships, and ensuing peace. The total number of years described for that period is 410, but that total does not include any time for the many “minor” judges. It seems obvious, therefore, that most if not all of the judges were simply local chieftains whose activity was simultaneous with that of other judges, at least for part of their reign. Unfortunately, the book of Judges provides no cross-reference system to indicate which judges were contemporaries of which others. Perhaps the best one can do is to assume general guidelines for the chronology of that period between Moses and David.<\/p>\nTwo significant facts should be kept in mind. First, archaeological information seems to demand a Conquest date beginning about 1250 BC<\/span> rather than 200 years earlier. Assuming concurrent careers for the judges allows one to compress the literal OT figures into the general scheme demanded by other evidence.<\/p>\nSecond, the ancient scribes evidently related the chronology of the period to a 40-year or generation-based schema, a practice that lasted until the time of the divided kingdom, when a regular dynastic chronology was introduced. In the face of so many careers being assigned exactly 40 years, the fact remains that the literal totals of such numbers cannot be harmonized with either the biblical or the archaeological evidence for the period. Accordingly, most scholars doubt that the number 40 was ever intended to be an exact mathematical calculation. That view permits enough leeway for cautious fitting of biblical and other evidence into a general timetable.<\/p>\nThe Monarchy<\/p>\n<h5>Types of Evidence<\/h5>\nFor the period of the Israelite monarchy, chronological evidence is abundant.<\/p>\nThe OT itself strives to provide all the information necessary for the chronology of the period, including (1) a complete list of all the kings in Israel and in Judah both before and after the division of the kingdom; (2) the age of each king (except Saul) at his accession; (3) synchronisms of the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah showing in what year of his contemporary in the other kingdom each king came to the throne; and (4) precise calculations of the length of each king’s reign. In addition some important events are dated by reference to another event; others are coordinated with concurrent events in secular history.<\/p>\nOutside the OT an abundance of material provides evidence for a chronology of the period. By far the most important single source is a collection of Assyrian limmu<\/em> lists. In Assyria a record of each king’s reign was kept on a particular kind of annal. Each year of reign was named after an individual of high rank in the court; the first year was named after the king himself, the second after the next highest-ranking official (though that name appears to have been selected by lot originally), and so on, down until the death of the king. The word limmu<\/em> was used to introduce the name of the official after whom the current year was to be named, hence the designation “limmu<\/em> lists.”<\/p>\nAssyrian limmu<\/em> lists are tied precisely to the solar year, making the documents highly reliable. Further, in addition to many events in Assyrian history, notable natural phenomena were dated on the basis of the limmu<\/em> in which they occurred. For example, a solar eclipse dated by the Assyrian scribes in the limmu<\/em> year of Bur-Sagale has been computed astronomically as June 15, 763 BC<\/span>. Beginning with the year 763, then, and working both backward and forward, a complete list of Assyrian limmu<\/em> officials has been obtained for the period between 891 and 648 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nWith the accuracy of the Assyrian limmu<\/em> lists corroborated by a number of sources, they can be used with confidence in reconstructing the chronology of the corresponding period of biblical history. That is especially true where a biblical writer related an Israelite or a Judahite event to a particular year in the reign of an Assyrian king whose limmu<\/em> list indicates the precise years of his reign.<\/p>\nThere are also records from Chaldean (Babylonian) king lists and from later Greek historians. Ptolemy, in the second century AD<\/span>, for example, gave dates for Babylonian kings from 747 BC<\/span> and continued with dates for Persian, Greek, and Roman rulers down to AD<\/span> 161. Finally, useful information is found in inscriptions from monuments, stelae, and other artifacts from Assyria and elsewhere.<\/p>\n<h5>Monarchical Chronology<\/h5>\nThe limmu<\/em> list of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III provides a basis for the first comparison of dates among Assyria, Israel, and Judah. In the limmu<\/em> of Daian-Assur, Shalmaneser’s sixth year on the throne, Ahab of Israel was listed as one of the kings who fought against the Assyrians in the battle of Qarqar. Thus the date for that battle may be placed confidently in 853 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nAssyrian records also indicate that Shalmaneser III came into contact with an Israelite king 12 years later, in 841 BC<\/span>. That king was Jehu. Thus two fixed points are available for correlating the biblical information. Following the death of Ahab, which is not dated exactly by reference to the Assyrian records, two of his sons came to power. The first, Ahaziah, reigned two years (1 Kgs 22:51); the second, Joram (also called Jehoram), reigned a total of 12 years (2 Kgs 3:1). Recognizing a nonaccession-year reckoning by the Israelites in that era, the apparent total of 14 years may be reduced to an actual total of 12. Thus it seems evident that Ahab not only fought Shalmaneser III in 853 BC<\/span> but also died in that year. Ahab was then followed by his two sons for a total of 12 years before the accession of Jehu in time to account for his contact with Shalmaneser II in 841 BC<\/span>. Further, because Jehu murdered both the king of Israel (Jehoram) and the king of Judah (Ahaziah) at the same time (2 Kgs 9:24-27), a fixed synchronism is provided between the two kingdoms for the year 841 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nThe first nine kings of Israel ruled an apparent total of 98 years or an actual total (taking into account Israel’s nonaccession-year policy) of 90 years. Zimri, who ruled only seven days (1 Kgs 16:15-18), counts as one of the nine but does not insert an extra year in either the actual or apparent totals. The accession of Jeroboam I thus occurred in 930 BC<\/span> (adding 90 years to 841 BC<\/span>), and Rehoboam of Judah began to rule in that same year as well. Allowing Solomon the 40-year reign indicated in 1 Kings 11:42 points to the year 970 BC<\/span> for his accession. The death of David would also be pinpointed in that period, although allowance must be made for the possibility of a short co-regency of David and Solomon before David’s death. The reign of Saul then falls approximately in the late 11th century BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nIn Judah the period between the death of Solomon in 930 BC<\/span> and the murder of Ahaziah by Jehu in 841 BC<\/span> was occupied by the kingships of six men whose time on the throne totals 95 biblical years. Computation of that era in Judah is not as simple as for the Israelite kings for several reasons. Problems include a change from accession- to nonaccession-year reckoning sometime around 850 BC<\/span>, at least two co-regencies (Jehoshaphat with Asa and then Jehoram with Jehoshaphat), and the calendar differences between the two kingdoms. It is clear that the 95 apparent years must be reduced, on the basis of the differences in computation and calendar, to 90 actual years in order to bring the Judahite figures into line with the established Assyrian and Israelite synchronisms.<\/p>\nAfter the year 841, the next biblical event to be certified by nonbiblical materials is the fall of Samaria in 722 BC<\/span>. That date is furnished by the annals of Sargon II of Assyria (722–705 BC<\/span>), successor to Shalmaneser V (727–722 BC<\/span>). Although that date comes just 120 years after the fixed point of 841 BC<\/span> in Israelite history, the chronological materials for that period are quite difficult to interpret accurately. In the past, scholars resorted to assumptions of extensive co-regencies, to presumed confusion on the part of certain scribes over methods to be followed in computations, or to other theories in attempting to understand the period. In spite of the many difficulties, however, all the biblical and Assyrian dates for the period of the divided monarchy have been harmonized—with the exception of four figures related to the closing years of the Israelite kingdom, all connected in some way with the problematic reign of Hoshea.<\/p>\nJudah after the Fall of Israel<\/p>\nFollowing the fall of Samaria in 722 BC<\/span>, OT chronology is concerned only with the southern kingdom of Judah until its destruction some 135 years later. Two events in the biblical record important for establishing a chronology for that period are the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib of Assyria in the late eighth century and the eventual fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in the early sixth century.<\/p>\n<h5>Sennacherib’s Invasion of Judah<\/h5>\nThe Assyrian invasion (704–681 BC<\/span>) is recorded in 2 Kings 18:13-16, where verse 13 dates the event to the 14th year of King Hezekiah. Sennacherib’s own inscriptions include a lengthier version of the affair. From them the date of 701 BC<\/span> is established, placing the accession of Hezekiah in 715 BC<\/span>. That much is simple, but problems still arise. For example, 2 Kings 19:9 reports that Sennacherib was in contact with an Ethiopian king, Tirhakah (c. 690–664 BC<\/span>), during the course of his campaign, which included a siege of Jerusalem. Obviously, contact with a ruler who came to power in 690 BC<\/span> at the earliest could not refer to events in 701 BC<\/span>. It is possible, however, that Sennacherib actually made two invasions of Judah, the first in 701 and the second sometime later. The date of that supposed second invasion is not assured, although 2 Kings 19:35-37 may imply that Sennacherib was murdered only shortly after his withdrawal from Jerusalem. Since Sennacherib was succeeded by his son Esarhaddon in the year 681, the presumed second invasion of Judah would have occurred somewhere in the last half of the same decade.<\/p>\nA number of scholars oppose the assumption of a second invasion of Jerusalem by Sennacherib. They suggest the possibility that Tirhakah, though king only from 690 BC<\/span>, may have led troops against Sennacherib as early as 701, before acceding to the throne. The reference to King Tirhakah in 2 Kings 19:9 would then be understood as use of his eventual title in an effort to identify him to a later generation of readers.<\/p>\nHowever the question of the number of invasions is decided, it is certain that Sennacherib invaded Judah in 701 BC<\/span>, the 14th regnal year of Hezekiah. Such a synchronism establishes Hezekiah’s accession year as 715 BC<\/span>, but that date raises another problem. The fall of Samaria, now established at 722, is dated by 2 Kings 18:10 in the sixth year of Hezekiah’s reign. The most likely solution is that Hezekiah began a co-regency with his father, Ahaz, six years before Samaria fell. The possibility for confusion arises from the fact that one verse (2 Kgs 18:13; repeated in Is 36:1) synchronizes Sennacherib’s 701 BC<\/span> invasion with the 14th year of Hezekiah’s independent reign; another verse (2 Kgs 18:10) correlates the fall of Samaria with the beginning of Hezekiah’s co-regency. Thus from about 728 to 715 BC<\/span> Hezekiah was co-regent with Ahaz. From 715 to 697 he reigned alone. From 696 to 686 his son Manasseh was co-ruler with him.<\/p>\nAccording to the chronological information given by a number of verses in 2 Kings, a total of 128 years and six months elapsed between the time of Hezekiah’s accession in 715 and the capture of King Jehoiachin in 597, a date to be discussed below. Thus another problem is to explain the more than 10-year excess apparently demanded by the biblical totals. The best solution appears to lie in the assumption that Manasseh first came to power in 697 as co-regent with his father, Hezekiah. Manasseh died in 642, following what 2 Kings 21:1 states was a 55-year reign. Hezekiah, who came to the throne in 715, is said to have reigned 29 years (2 Kgs 18:2), which would mean that he was king until 686, roughly 11 years after the time when Manasseh must have come to the throne in order to have completed a 55-year reign by 642.<\/p>\n<h5>Fall of Jerusalem<\/h5>\nContemporary Babylonian records are available to shed valuable light on the last few years of Judah’s existence. For the years 626–623, 618–595, and 556 BC<\/span> the Babylonian Chronicle, a formal record of Babylonian affairs of state, has been recovered. From information contained in that chronicle and other cuneiform documents of the period, three dates in Judah’s history may be fixed firmly. The first is the death of Josiah in 609; the second is the battle of Carchemish in 605; the third is the end of the reign of Jehoiachin, which is dated by the Babylonian Chronicle to the second month of Adar in the ninth year of Nebuchadnezzar, or March 16, 597.<\/p>\nAfter Jehoiachin’s capture, Zedekiah became puppet king of Judah for 11 years (2 Kgs 24:18). On the tenth day of the tenth month during Zedekiah’s ninth regnal year (2 Kgs 25:1), the final siege of Jerusalem was begun by the Babylonian army. That day was January 15, 588. On the ninth day of the fourth month during the 11th regnal year of Zedekiah, after a siege of almost 18 months, the wall of Jerusalem was broken through (2 Kgs 25:3-4). The temple was burned on day seven of the following (fifth) month.<\/p>\nBeyond 586 BC<\/span><\/p>\nFollowing the tragedy of 586 BC<\/span>, several further developments are given chronological notice in the OT. Jeremiah 52:30 records a third deportation of Jews to Babylonia in the 23d year of King Nebuchadnezzar (582 or 581 BC<\/span>). Both 2 Kings 25:27 and Jeremiah 52:31 give evidence of the release of King Jehoiachin from prison; the Babylonian Chronicle dates that event at 27 Adar, or March 21, 561 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nIn 539 BC<\/span> the Babylonians themselves were destined to learn the meaning of defeat. In that year a Persian ruler, Cyrus the Great, launched a successful campaign against Babylon and its king, Nabonidus. Inheriting control over the exiled Jews and many other groups of people conquered earlier by Babylonia, Cyrus moved quickly to initiate a policy of tolerance toward his new subjects. In the first year of his rule Cyrus issued an edict making it possible for Jews to return to their former land (Ezr 1:1). On the first day of the following year, 1 Tishri (Ezr 3:6), an altar was set up in Jerusalem. In Iyyar of the following year (April\/May 536) work was begun on the temple itself (Ezr 3:8).<\/p>\nAfter a period of frustrating work stoppages of varying lengths, the preaching of Haggai and Zechariah spurred on the Jews to complete the temple. Work resumed in 520 (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1, 15) and was finally completed on 3 Adar, or March 12, 515 (Ezr 6:15). The final stages of OT chronology pertain to the careers of Ezra and Nehemiah. The traditional view of their era places Ezra in the seventh year of Artaxerxes I (458 BC<\/span>) and Nehemiah in the 20th (445 BC<\/span>).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> “Date” under each OT book; Conquest and Allotment of the Land; Diaspora of the Jews; Exodus, The; Israel, History of; Patriarchs, Period of the; Postexilic Period; Wilderness Wanderings.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CHRONOLOGY OF THE BIBLE* (Old Testament) Branch of biblical studies that attempts to assign dates and sequences to OT events. Chronology is a science. It deals with evidence, theories, assumptions, and the balance of probabilities. Often it boils down to a matter of choosing among theories that are equally unable to solve all the problems raised by other points of view. OT chronology is an accredited branch of biblical studies primarily because it is essential for understanding the proper his...","summary_en":"CHRONOLOGY OF THE BIBLE* (Old Testament) Branch of biblical studies that attempts to assign dates and sequences to OT events. Chronology is a science. It deals with evidence, theories, assumptions, and the balance of probabilities. Often it boils down to a matter of choosing among theories that are equally unable to solve all the problems raised by other points of view. OT chronology is an accredited branch of biblical studies primarily because it is essential for understanding the proper his...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":13478,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Genealogy of Jesus Christ","title_en":"Genealogy of Jesus Christ","content_ro":"<h3>GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST<\/h3>\nAccount of Jesus’ human descent. The NT records Jesus’ genealogy twice in great detail: in Matthew 1:1-17 and in Luke 3:23-38.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Matthew’s Genealogy<\/p>\n• Luke’s Genealogy<\/p>\n• The Relationship between the Two Records<\/p>\nMatthew’s Genealogy (1:1-17)<\/p>\nMatthew 1:1 presents Jesus Christ as “the son of David, the son of Abraham.” By those two names, Matthew highlights Jesus’ earthly relationship to the Abrahamic (Gn 17:1-8) and Davidic (2 Sm 7:12-16) covenants of promise. Then beginning with the patriarch Abraham, Matthew traces Jesus’ human ancestry through King David to Joseph, “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ” (Mt 1:16). Matthew summarizes his account: “So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations” (v 17, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nAn examination of Matthew’s handling of this genealogical material discloses several interesting peculiarities:<\/p>\n\n1. The arrangement of the names into three groups of 14 seems to be an artificial device.<\/p>\n<li>2. To have 14 names in the second group, Matthew omits three kings—Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah—between Joram and Uzziah (v 8), and one, Jehoiakim, between Josiah and Jeconiah (v 11).<\/li>\n<li>3. In the first group Matthew mentions three women—Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth; and in the second group, he alludes to Bathsheba. This is an uncommon practice in genealogies, and all the more strange when it is noted that these four represent what could be regarded as moral blemishes in the history of the Davidic dynasty— Tamar, a victim of incest; Rahab, a prostitute; Ruth, a Moabitess; and Bathsheba, an adulteress.<\/li>\n<li>4. In the first group Matthew mentions Judah’s brothers and Zerah, Perez’s brother. In the second group he refers to Jeconiah’s brothers.<\/li>\n<li>5. In verse 6 David is called “the king.”<\/li>\nFrom these data, it is obvious that Matthew does not intend to present a strict genealogy; the arrangement is contrived, and extraneous material is included, probably for some other purpose than merely to present Jesus’ forebears. Matthew’s arrangement of the names into groups of 14, probably guided by an interest in portraying Jesus to Jews as the promised king of Israel and rightful heir to the Davidic throne, gives a definite historical movement to the genealogy by dividing it into three periods of time. These respectively highlight the origin, rise to power, and decay of the Davidic house, the last point represented by the lowly birth of the promised heir to a carpenter of Nazareth.<\/p>\nThe 14 names in each group may be an effort to call attention to the thrice-royal character of Mary’s son by focusing on the numerical value 14 of the Hebrew letters in David’s name (d=4, v=6, d=4). This number also happens to be twice the sacred number seven, so that the whole list is composed of three sets of two sevens each. It may be, however, that the contrived groupings were merely intended to aid in memorization.<\/p>\nWith respect to the second peculiarity—the “missing name” in the third group—one must conclude that either David or Jeconiah is to be counted twice, these being the pivotal names separating the three groups, or that a name was mistakenly dropped out in a copy of Matthew’s original Gospel.<\/p>\nThe third peculiarity presents no difficulty at all. Numerous genealogies in Scripture omit some names. Ancient Near Eastern writers often used the phrase “the son of,” or the word “begat,” quite flexibly, relating grandsons or great-grandsons, for instance, to earlier forebears without indicating every intervening ancestor. The modern mind should not require a precision in ancient records that ancient writers themselves did not insist on.<\/p>\nThe women listed in the genealogy—the fourth peculiarity—may have been intended to disarm Jewish criticism about Jesus’ birth (1:18-25) by showing that irregular unions were not disqualifications for the Messiah’s legal ancestry.<\/p>\nThe reason for including several brothers in the genealogy at three points—the fifth peculiarity—is not readily discernible. The mention of “Judah and his brothers” (1:2) may simply be following an established practice of speaking of the 12 patriarchs together.<\/p>\nFinally, David’s description as “the king” (1:6) underscores the Davidic or royal character of the list.<\/p>\nThe sources employed in compiling the first group in the genealogy drew upon records preserved in 1 Chronicles 1:27–2:15 and in Ruth 4:18-22. The second group followed the records found in 1—2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. The third group relied mainly on public or private records from the intertestamental period; the nine names from Abiud to Jacob are not mentioned elsewhere in Scripture.<\/p>\nOn the basis of this genealogy, if there had been a Davidic throne in Joseph’s day, the lowly carpenter would have been the legal heir to it, and Jesus stood after him as the next in line to inherit the royal seat.<\/p>\nIt has been argued against this understanding of Matthew’s genealogy that the presence of Jeconiah in the list (Mt 1:11) jeopardizes, if not completely negates, the legal claim to the Davidic throne of everyone descending directly from him. That is because the Lord declared of him: “Write this man down as childless, . . . for none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David, and ruling again in Judah” (Jer 22:30, rsv<\/span>). Therefore, it is said, it could not have been Matthew’s intention to represent the men from Shealtiel to Joseph as legal heirs to the throne.<\/p>\nThis is a point that admittedly could dispose of the view that the list presents David’s descendants if it were not for the fact that Shealtiel, who in Matthew’s record is represented as the son of Jeconiah, appears also in Luke’s genealogy as the son of Neri (Lk 3:27). Neri’s name is unique to Luke’s Gospel, so it is impossible to check its use elsewhere to discover the actual parentage of Shealtiel. But it is not surprising in the light of Jeremiah 22:30 to find him listed in both accounts with different parents. Neri most likely was Shealtiel’s real father, and while it is impossible to determine Neri’s precise relationship to Jeconiah, it may be that those responsible for determining and keeping the record of the legal heirs to the Davidic throne looked to the collateral line of Neri and selected Shealtiel as the man to be legally adopted into the line and the one through whom the line would continue. Shealtiel may well have died without a male descendant, which made it necessary to look to Zerubbabel, the son of Pedaiah, Shealtiel’s brother by adoption, as the legal heir to the Davidic throne. By this pair of adoptions, the curse upon Jeconiah was fulfilled while an actual grandson of Jeconiah continued the line, inasmuch as the grandson was legally the son of Shealtiel, who in turn was the actual son of Neri. Jeconiah’s presence in the genealogy is a strength, rather than a weakness, for the interpretation that Matthew’s Gospel intended to present the legal heirs of the Davidic throne, since only a writer conscious of the problems surrounding Jeconiah’s lineage, but also aware of an explanation, would present such an ancestry to a Jewish audience he was seeking to convince that Jesus was indeed the royal Messiah.<\/p>\nLuke’s Genealogy (3:23-38)<\/p>\nLuke’s genealogy also has peculiarities.<\/p>\n1. Some expositors have thought it significant that Luke’s genealogy appears not at the beginning of the Gospel but at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry.<\/p>\n<li>2. Luke’s account, in contrast to Matthew’s, begins with Jesus and traces his lineage back through OT history. This seems irregular, for most genealogies follow the order of succession.<\/li>\n<li>3. Luke’s account, furthermore, does not end with Abraham but goes all the way back to “Adam, the son of God” (Lk 3:38).<\/li>\nSome have seen the first peculiarity as a result of Luke’s desire to bring a period of sacred history to its close, and to signal the beginning of another with the person and especially the ministry of Jesus. The genealogy, located as it is, sets off the work of Christ from the accounts of his birth and preparation.<\/p>\nMany have suggested that the regressive order in the genealogy is probably Luke’s instrument to focus attention on Jesus. The fact that Luke traced Jesus’ ancestry back to Adam, “the son of God,” was probably due to the fact that he wrote for Romans and Greeks. By tracing Jesus’ ancestry back to Adam, he shows Jesus to be related to the whole human race. In Luke’s genealogy Jesus and Adam are both “sons of God”; Jesus, of course, is the son of God by nature; Adam, the son of God by having been created in God’s image.<\/p>\nAs to his sources, it is rather certain that Luke used the Septuagint version (ancient Greek version of the OT) of Genesis 11:12, which inserts the name Cainan between Shelah and Arphaxad (Lk 3:36), and the records of 1 Chronicles 1–3 for the history down to David. For the period from David to Jesus, most expositors agree that Luke relied upon information probably received directly from Mary or from persons close to her. It was a common practice among the Jewish people for genealogical records to be maintained both publicly and privately. There was special concern in families of Davidic descent to preserve their ancestral records because of OT prophecies that Messiah would be born in the house of David.<\/p>\nLuke no doubt intended to accomplish more by his list than merely a presentation of a number of Jesus’ ancestors. Since Luke did not highlight David in his list, it may be assumed that he was not zealous to present a list of legal heirs to the Davidic throne—not that the issue is of no concern to him (cf. Lk 1:27, 32, 69; 2:4, 11). Rather, a concern throughout Luke’s Gospel is this emphasis—that of portraying the Christ as the Savior of Romans and Greeks—indeed, of the world. Therefore, though Luke traced Jesus’ ancestry through Joseph’s ancestral line to David, he continued beyond David to Adam. Jesus is a member of the race to which all people belong.<\/p>\nThe Relationship between the Two Records<\/p>\nEven a cursory examination of the two genealogies of Jesus will show several differences. For example, Matthew’s genealogy comprises 41 generations, while Luke lists 76. Luke includes the period between Adam and Abraham; Matthew does not. While the two lists are practically identical from Abraham to David, they diverge for the period from David to Jesus, Matthew tracing Jesus’ lineage from David through Solomon in 27 generations, whereas Luke traces Jesus’ lineage from David through Nathan, another son, in 42 generations. Furthermore, at only one point do the lines converge during this period: at the names of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, who are doubtless the same men in both lists. Finally, Matthew represents Joseph as the son of Jacob (Mt 1:16), whereas in Luke’s account he is the son of Heli (Lk 3:23).<\/p>\nHow are these differences to be explained? The differences between these lists stem from the purposes for which they were compiled and the meanings they were intended to convey.<\/p>\nA widely held explanation is that Matthew gives Jesus’ ancestry through Joseph and that Luke gives his ancestry through Mary. On this interpretation Jacob was Joseph’s real father, and Heli (probably Mary’s father) became Joseph’s foster father, that is, Joseph was Heli’s “son,” or heir, by his marriage to Mary, assuming that Heli had no sons (cf. Nm 27:1-11; 36:1-12). This view is certainly a possibility and should not be rejected out of hand. If Mary was a direct descendant of David, it could be literally said of any son of hers, “He is the seed of David.”<\/p>\nOn the other hand, many scholars prefer to regard Luke’s genealogy as that of Joseph rather than Mary, since it is to Joseph’s ancestry that Luke calls the reader’s attention (Lk 1:27; 2:4). Furthermore, nowhere in Scripture is Mary said to be of Davidic descent. If the fact that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus nullifies any value that Joseph’s lineage might otherwise possess for a real son, why does Luke point to Joseph’s lineage twice, and to Mary’s not at all?<\/p>\nA major difficulty for the view that regards both genealogies as Joseph’s is related to Joseph’s two fathers. One solution is that Matthew gives the legal descendants of David but Luke gives the actual descendants of David in the line to which Joseph belonged. This would mean that Heli was Joseph’s real father and that Jacob was his legal foster father. How this could be is readily explainable. Assuming that Jacob’s father, Matthan (Mt 1:15), and Heli’s father, Matthat (Lk 3:24), are the same person, then Jacob (the elder) may have died without a male descendant so that his nephew, the son of his brother Heli, would have become his heir.<\/p>\nIf Matthan and Matthat are not the same person, one might postulate that Jacob, the legal heir to the throne, died without a descendant and that Joseph, son of Heli, became the legal heir immediately upon the death of Heli and was counted as Jacob’s son in a list of legal heirs to the throne. Possibly Heli, a relative, married Jacob’s widow, thereby making Joseph, the son of that union, Heli’s son and Jacob’s son by levirate marriage. In other words, there are a number of possible explanations of this divergence.<\/p>\nOne other major objection to the view that regards both genealogies as Joseph’s is that, because of the virgin birth of Jesus, one may in no sense speak of Jesus as being literally the seed of David—a proposition that Scripture seems to insist upon. This objection has been adequately countered: (1) because of the realistic manner in which the Jews looked upon adoptive fatherhood; and (2) because the relationship in which Jesus stood to Joseph was much closer than a case of ordinary adoption, there being no earthly father to dispute Joseph’s paternal relation to Jesus. Jesus could and would have been regarded as Joseph’s son and heir with complete propriety, satisfying every scriptural demand that he be the “seed of David.” The question, therefore, whether Mary as well as Joseph was a descendant of David does not need to be answered one way or the other by one who desires to defend Jesus’ Davidic descent.<\/p>\nIt is beyond human reach to discover for certain the full solution to the divergences between the two genealogies of Jesus, or the actual relationship of Jesus to them. Enough has been said to demonstrate that they are reconcilable, and the purposes of each, suggested here, indicate that either of the ways outlined above does full justice to the Davidic descent of Jesus, as rightful heir to his ancestor’s covenanted throne, and also to his virgin birth by Mary.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy; Incarnation; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Virgin Birth of Jesus.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST<\/h3>\nAccount of Jesus’ human descent. The NT records Jesus’ genealogy twice in great detail: in Matthew 1:1-17 and in Luke 3:23-38.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Matthew’s Genealogy<\/p>\n• Luke’s Genealogy<\/p>\n• The Relationship between the Two Records<\/p>\nMatthew’s Genealogy (1:1-17)<\/p>\nMatthew 1:1 presents Jesus Christ as “the son of David, the son of Abraham.” By those two names, Matthew highlights Jesus’ earthly relationship to the Abrahamic (Gn 17:1-8) and Davidic (2 Sm 7:12-16) covenants of promise. Then beginning with the patriarch Abraham, Matthew traces Jesus’ human ancestry through King David to Joseph, “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ” (Mt 1:16). Matthew summarizes his account: “So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations” (v 17, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nAn examination of Matthew’s handling of this genealogical material discloses several interesting peculiarities:<\/p>\n\n1. The arrangement of the names into three groups of 14 seems to be an artificial device.<\/p>\n<li>2. To have 14 names in the second group, Matthew omits three kings—Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah—between Joram and Uzziah (v 8), and one, Jehoiakim, between Josiah and Jeconiah (v 11).<\/li>\n<li>3. In the first group Matthew mentions three women—Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth; and in the second group, he alludes to Bathsheba. This is an uncommon practice in genealogies, and all the more strange when it is noted that these four represent what could be regarded as moral blemishes in the history of the Davidic dynasty— Tamar, a victim of incest; Rahab, a prostitute; Ruth, a Moabitess; and Bathsheba, an adulteress.<\/li>\n<li>4. In the first group Matthew mentions Judah’s brothers and Zerah, Perez’s brother. In the second group he refers to Jeconiah’s brothers.<\/li>\n<li>5. In verse 6 David is called “the king.”<\/li>\nFrom these data, it is obvious that Matthew does not intend to present a strict genealogy; the arrangement is contrived, and extraneous material is included, probably for some other purpose than merely to present Jesus’ forebears. Matthew’s arrangement of the names into groups of 14, probably guided by an interest in portraying Jesus to Jews as the promised king of Israel and rightful heir to the Davidic throne, gives a definite historical movement to the genealogy by dividing it into three periods of time. These respectively highlight the origin, rise to power, and decay of the Davidic house, the last point represented by the lowly birth of the promised heir to a carpenter of Nazareth.<\/p>\nThe 14 names in each group may be an effort to call attention to the thrice-royal character of Mary’s son by focusing on the numerical value 14 of the Hebrew letters in David’s name (d=4, v=6, d=4). This number also happens to be twice the sacred number seven, so that the whole list is composed of three sets of two sevens each. It may be, however, that the contrived groupings were merely intended to aid in memorization.<\/p>\nWith respect to the second peculiarity—the “missing name” in the third group—one must conclude that either David or Jeconiah is to be counted twice, these being the pivotal names separating the three groups, or that a name was mistakenly dropped out in a copy of Matthew’s original Gospel.<\/p>\nThe third peculiarity presents no difficulty at all. Numerous genealogies in Scripture omit some names. Ancient Near Eastern writers often used the phrase “the son of,” or the word “begat,” quite flexibly, relating grandsons or great-grandsons, for instance, to earlier forebears without indicating every intervening ancestor. The modern mind should not require a precision in ancient records that ancient writers themselves did not insist on.<\/p>\nThe women listed in the genealogy—the fourth peculiarity—may have been intended to disarm Jewish criticism about Jesus’ birth (1:18-25) by showing that irregular unions were not disqualifications for the Messiah’s legal ancestry.<\/p>\nThe reason for including several brothers in the genealogy at three points—the fifth peculiarity—is not readily discernible. The mention of “Judah and his brothers” (1:2) may simply be following an established practice of speaking of the 12 patriarchs together.<\/p>\nFinally, David’s description as “the king” (1:6) underscores the Davidic or royal character of the list.<\/p>\nThe sources employed in compiling the first group in the genealogy drew upon records preserved in 1 Chronicles 1:27–2:15 and in Ruth 4:18-22. The second group followed the records found in 1—2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. The third group relied mainly on public or private records from the intertestamental period; the nine names from Abiud to Jacob are not mentioned elsewhere in Scripture.<\/p>\nOn the basis of this genealogy, if there had been a Davidic throne in Joseph’s day, the lowly carpenter would have been the legal heir to it, and Jesus stood after him as the next in line to inherit the royal seat.<\/p>\nIt has been argued against this understanding of Matthew’s genealogy that the presence of Jeconiah in the list (Mt 1:11) jeopardizes, if not completely negates, the legal claim to the Davidic throne of everyone descending directly from him. That is because the Lord declared of him: “Write this man down as childless, . . . for none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David, and ruling again in Judah” (Jer 22:30, rsv<\/span>). Therefore, it is said, it could not have been Matthew’s intention to represent the men from Shealtiel to Joseph as legal heirs to the throne.<\/p>\nThis is a point that admittedly could dispose of the view that the list presents David’s descendants if it were not for the fact that Shealtiel, who in Matthew’s record is represented as the son of Jeconiah, appears also in Luke’s genealogy as the son of Neri (Lk 3:27). Neri’s name is unique to Luke’s Gospel, so it is impossible to check its use elsewhere to discover the actual parentage of Shealtiel. But it is not surprising in the light of Jeremiah 22:30 to find him listed in both accounts with different parents. Neri most likely was Shealtiel’s real father, and while it is impossible to determine Neri’s precise relationship to Jeconiah, it may be that those responsible for determining and keeping the record of the legal heirs to the Davidic throne looked to the collateral line of Neri and selected Shealtiel as the man to be legally adopted into the line and the one through whom the line would continue. Shealtiel may well have died without a male descendant, which made it necessary to look to Zerubbabel, the son of Pedaiah, Shealtiel’s brother by adoption, as the legal heir to the Davidic throne. By this pair of adoptions, the curse upon Jeconiah was fulfilled while an actual grandson of Jeconiah continued the line, inasmuch as the grandson was legally the son of Shealtiel, who in turn was the actual son of Neri. Jeconiah’s presence in the genealogy is a strength, rather than a weakness, for the interpretation that Matthew’s Gospel intended to present the legal heirs of the Davidic throne, since only a writer conscious of the problems surrounding Jeconiah’s lineage, but also aware of an explanation, would present such an ancestry to a Jewish audience he was seeking to convince that Jesus was indeed the royal Messiah.<\/p>\nLuke’s Genealogy (3:23-38)<\/p>\nLuke’s genealogy also has peculiarities.<\/p>\n1. Some expositors have thought it significant that Luke’s genealogy appears not at the beginning of the Gospel but at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry.<\/p>\n<li>2. Luke’s account, in contrast to Matthew’s, begins with Jesus and traces his lineage back through OT history. This seems irregular, for most genealogies follow the order of succession.<\/li>\n<li>3. Luke’s account, furthermore, does not end with Abraham but goes all the way back to “Adam, the son of God” (Lk 3:38).<\/li>\nSome have seen the first peculiarity as a result of Luke’s desire to bring a period of sacred history to its close, and to signal the beginning of another with the person and especially the ministry of Jesus. The genealogy, located as it is, sets off the work of Christ from the accounts of his birth and preparation.<\/p>\nMany have suggested that the regressive order in the genealogy is probably Luke’s instrument to focus attention on Jesus. The fact that Luke traced Jesus’ ancestry back to Adam, “the son of God,” was probably due to the fact that he wrote for Romans and Greeks. By tracing Jesus’ ancestry back to Adam, he shows Jesus to be related to the whole human race. In Luke’s genealogy Jesus and Adam are both “sons of God”; Jesus, of course, is the son of God by nature; Adam, the son of God by having been created in God’s image.<\/p>\nAs to his sources, it is rather certain that Luke used the Septuagint version (ancient Greek version of the OT) of Genesis 11:12, which inserts the name Cainan between Shelah and Arphaxad (Lk 3:36), and the records of 1 Chronicles 1–3 for the history down to David. For the period from David to Jesus, most expositors agree that Luke relied upon information probably received directly from Mary or from persons close to her. It was a common practice among the Jewish people for genealogical records to be maintained both publicly and privately. There was special concern in families of Davidic descent to preserve their ancestral records because of OT prophecies that Messiah would be born in the house of David.<\/p>\nLuke no doubt intended to accomplish more by his list than merely a presentation of a number of Jesus’ ancestors. Since Luke did not highlight David in his list, it may be assumed that he was not zealous to present a list of legal heirs to the Davidic throne—not that the issue is of no concern to him (cf. Lk 1:27, 32, 69; 2:4, 11). Rather, a concern throughout Luke’s Gospel is this emphasis—that of portraying the Christ as the Savior of Romans and Greeks—indeed, of the world. Therefore, though Luke traced Jesus’ ancestry through Joseph’s ancestral line to David, he continued beyond David to Adam. Jesus is a member of the race to which all people belong.<\/p>\nThe Relationship between the Two Records<\/p>\nEven a cursory examination of the two genealogies of Jesus will show several differences. For example, Matthew’s genealogy comprises 41 generations, while Luke lists 76. Luke includes the period between Adam and Abraham; Matthew does not. While the two lists are practically identical from Abraham to David, they diverge for the period from David to Jesus, Matthew tracing Jesus’ lineage from David through Solomon in 27 generations, whereas Luke traces Jesus’ lineage from David through Nathan, another son, in 42 generations. Furthermore, at only one point do the lines converge during this period: at the names of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, who are doubtless the same men in both lists. Finally, Matthew represents Joseph as the son of Jacob (Mt 1:16), whereas in Luke’s account he is the son of Heli (Lk 3:23).<\/p>\nHow are these differences to be explained? The differences between these lists stem from the purposes for which they were compiled and the meanings they were intended to convey.<\/p>\nA widely held explanation is that Matthew gives Jesus’ ancestry through Joseph and that Luke gives his ancestry through Mary. On this interpretation Jacob was Joseph’s real father, and Heli (probably Mary’s father) became Joseph’s foster father, that is, Joseph was Heli’s “son,” or heir, by his marriage to Mary, assuming that Heli had no sons (cf. Nm 27:1-11; 36:1-12). This view is certainly a possibility and should not be rejected out of hand. If Mary was a direct descendant of David, it could be literally said of any son of hers, “He is the seed of David.”<\/p>\nOn the other hand, many scholars prefer to regard Luke’s genealogy as that of Joseph rather than Mary, since it is to Joseph’s ancestry that Luke calls the reader’s attention (Lk 1:27; 2:4). Furthermore, nowhere in Scripture is Mary said to be of Davidic descent. If the fact that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus nullifies any value that Joseph’s lineage might otherwise possess for a real son, why does Luke point to Joseph’s lineage twice, and to Mary’s not at all?<\/p>\nA major difficulty for the view that regards both genealogies as Joseph’s is related to Joseph’s two fathers. One solution is that Matthew gives the legal descendants of David but Luke gives the actual descendants of David in the line to which Joseph belonged. This would mean that Heli was Joseph’s real father and that Jacob was his legal foster father. How this could be is readily explainable. Assuming that Jacob’s father, Matthan (Mt 1:15), and Heli’s father, Matthat (Lk 3:24), are the same person, then Jacob (the elder) may have died without a male descendant so that his nephew, the son of his brother Heli, would have become his heir.<\/p>\nIf Matthan and Matthat are not the same person, one might postulate that Jacob, the legal heir to the throne, died without a descendant and that Joseph, son of Heli, became the legal heir immediately upon the death of Heli and was counted as Jacob’s son in a list of legal heirs to the throne. Possibly Heli, a relative, married Jacob’s widow, thereby making Joseph, the son of that union, Heli’s son and Jacob’s son by levirate marriage. In other words, there are a number of possible explanations of this divergence.<\/p>\nOne other major objection to the view that regards both genealogies as Joseph’s is that, because of the virgin birth of Jesus, one may in no sense speak of Jesus as being literally the seed of David—a proposition that Scripture seems to insist upon. This objection has been adequately countered: (1) because of the realistic manner in which the Jews looked upon adoptive fatherhood; and (2) because the relationship in which Jesus stood to Joseph was much closer than a case of ordinary adoption, there being no earthly father to dispute Joseph’s paternal relation to Jesus. Jesus could and would have been regarded as Joseph’s son and heir with complete propriety, satisfying every scriptural demand that he be the “seed of David.” The question, therefore, whether Mary as well as Joseph was a descendant of David does not need to be answered one way or the other by one who desires to defend Jesus’ Davidic descent.<\/p>\nIt is beyond human reach to discover for certain the full solution to the divergences between the two genealogies of Jesus, or the actual relationship of Jesus to them. Enough has been said to demonstrate that they are reconcilable, and the purposes of each, suggested here, indicate that either of the ways outlined above does full justice to the Davidic descent of Jesus, as rightful heir to his ancestor’s covenanted throne, and also to his virgin birth by Mary.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy; Incarnation; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Virgin Birth of Jesus.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST Account of Jesus’ human descent. The NT records Jesus’ genealogy twice in great detail: in Matthew 1:1-17 and in Luke 3:23-38. Preview • Matthew’s Genealogy • Luke’s Genealogy • The Relationship between the Two Records Matthew’s Genealogy (1:1-17) Matthew 1:1 presents Jesus Christ as “the son of David, the son of Abraham.” By those two names, Matthew highlights Jesus’ earthly relationship to the Abrahamic (Gn 17:1-8) and Davidic (2 Sm 7:12-16) covenants of promise. T...","summary_en":"GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST Account of Jesus’ human descent. The NT records Jesus’ genealogy twice in great detail: in Matthew 1:1-17 and in Luke 3:23-38. Preview • Matthew’s Genealogy • Luke’s Genealogy • The Relationship between the Two Records Matthew’s Genealogy (1:1-17) Matthew 1:1 presents Jesus Christ as “the son of David, the son of Abraham.” By those two names, Matthew highlights Jesus’ earthly relationship to the Abrahamic (Gn 17:1-8) and Davidic (2 Sm 7:12-16) covenants of promise. T...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":22433,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Lamech","title_en":"Lamech","content_ro":"<h3>LAMECH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Methushael’s son, a descendant of Cain, and the husband of Adah and Zillah. Lamech’s sons by Adah were Jabal, “the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock,” and Jubal, “the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe.” A son, Tubal-cain, “the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron,” and a daughter, Naamah, were Lamech’s children by Zillah (Gn 4:18-22). In the account of beginnings given in the early chapters of Genesis, the sons of Lamech are the first herdsmen, musicians, and metalworkers. His song of vengeance (vv 23-24) is an example of early Hebrew poetry. In the song Lamech declares that he has killed a man for wounding him and compares the act to his forebear Cain’s slaying of Abel (cf. vv 8-12). He asserts that “if anyone who kills Cain is to be punished seven times, anyone who takes revenge against me will be punished seventy-seven times!” Lamech’s song indicates that, as civilization became more complex, pride and the propensity for violence increased. Jesus’ word about forgiving “seventy times seven” (Mt 18:22) stands in sharp contrast to Lamech’s example.<\/li>\n<li>2. Methuselah’s son, and the father of Noah (Gn 5:25-31; 1 Chr 1:3). When Noah was born, Lamech expressed his hope that the child would bring relief to humanity from the curse placed upon Adam (Gn 5:29; cf. 3:17). His life span—777 years—is one of the longest in the listing of those who lived before the Flood. Fanciful conversations in old age between Lamech and his father, Methuselah, are recorded in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Lamech is listed as an ancestor of Jesus in the genealogy recorded in Luke 3:36.<\/li>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LAMECH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Methushael’s son, a descendant of Cain, and the husband of Adah and Zillah. Lamech’s sons by Adah were Jabal, “the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock,” and Jubal, “the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe.” A son, Tubal-cain, “the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron,” and a daughter, Naamah, were Lamech’s children by Zillah (Gn 4:18-22). In the account of beginnings given in the early chapters of Genesis, the sons of Lamech are the first herdsmen, musicians, and metalworkers. His song of vengeance (vv 23-24) is an example of early Hebrew poetry. In the song Lamech declares that he has killed a man for wounding him and compares the act to his forebear Cain’s slaying of Abel (cf. vv 8-12). He asserts that “if anyone who kills Cain is to be punished seven times, anyone who takes revenge against me will be punished seventy-seven times!” Lamech’s song indicates that, as civilization became more complex, pride and the propensity for violence increased. Jesus’ word about forgiving “seventy times seven” (Mt 18:22) stands in sharp contrast to Lamech’s example.<\/li>\n<li>2. Methuselah’s son, and the father of Noah (Gn 5:25-31; 1 Chr 1:3). When Noah was born, Lamech expressed his hope that the child would bring relief to humanity from the curse placed upon Adam (Gn 5:29; cf. 3:17). His life span—777 years—is one of the longest in the listing of those who lived before the Flood. Fanciful conversations in old age between Lamech and his father, Methuselah, are recorded in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Lamech is listed as an ancestor of Jesus in the genealogy recorded in Luke 3:36.<\/li>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"LAMECH 1. Methushael’s son, a descendant of Cain, and the husband of Adah and Zillah. Lamech’s sons by Adah were Jabal, “the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock,” and Jubal, “the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe.” A son, Tubal-cain, “the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron,” and a daughter, Naamah, were Lamech’s children by Zillah (Gn 4:18-22). In the account of beginnings given in the early chapters of Genesis, the sons of Lamech are the first herdsme...","summary_en":"LAMECH 1. Methushael’s son, a descendant of Cain, and the husband of Adah and Zillah. Lamech’s sons by Adah were Jabal, “the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock,” and Jubal, “the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe.” A son, Tubal-cain, “the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron,” and a daughter, Naamah, were Lamech’s children by Zillah (Gn 4:18-22). In the account of beginnings given in the early chapters of Genesis, the sons of Lamech are the first herdsme...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":27652,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Noe*","title_en":"Noe*","content_ro":"<h3>NOE*<\/h3>\nKJV rendering of Noah in Matthew 24:37-38 and Luke 3:36; 17:26-27. See<\/em> Noah #1.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>NOE*<\/h3>\nKJV rendering of Noah in Matthew 24:37-38 and Luke 3:36; 17:26-27. See<\/em> Noah #1.<\/p>","summary_ro":"NOE* KJV rendering of Noah in Matthew 24:37-38 and Luke 3:36; 17:26-27. See Noah #1.","summary_en":"NOE* KJV rendering of Noah in Matthew 24:37-38 and Luke 3:36; 17:26-27. See Noah #1.","source":"Articles\/N.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":34328,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Sem*","title_en":"Sem*","content_ro":"<h3>SEM*<\/h3>\nKJV form of Shem, Noah’s son, in Luke 3:36. See<\/em> Shem.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SEM*<\/h3>\nKJV form of Shem, Noah’s son, in Luke 3:36. See<\/em> Shem.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SEM* KJV form of Shem, Noah’s son, in Luke 3:36. See Shem.","summary_en":"SEM* KJV form of Shem, Noah’s son, in Luke 3:36. See Shem.","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":34861,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Shem","title_en":"Shem","content_ro":"<h3>SHEM<\/h3>\nEldest son of Noah (Gn 5:32; 6:10; 7:13; 9:18, 23, 26-27; 11:10; 1 Chr 1:4, 17-27; Lk 3:36) and the ancestor of the Semitic peoples (Gn 10:1, 21-31). Shem lived 600 years (11:10-11). In Hebrew, Shem means “name,” perhaps implying that Noah expected this son’s name to become great.<\/p>\nAfter their deliverance from the great Flood, Shem and Japheth acted with respect and dignity toward their drunken father Noah on an occasion when their brother Ham dishonored him (Gn 9:20-29). Because of this act, Noah later pronounced a curse on Canaan, the son of Ham, and a blessing on both Shem and Japheth.<\/p>\nIn Genesis 11:10-27, the line of descent for the promised seed, which was to crush Satan (Gn 3:15; 5:1-32), is traced through Shem to Abraham, and ultimately through Judah and David to Christ (cf. Lk 3:36). The blessing of Noah on Shem is thus to be taken as an indication that the line of Shem will be the line through which the seed of Genesis 3:15 will come. This is the first time in the Bible that God is called the God of some particular individual or group of people. The statement that Canaan would be a servant to Shem was fulfilled centuries later when the Israelites, who descended from Shem, entered the land of Canaan and subdued the inhabitants of the land (cf. 1 Kgs 9:20-21).<\/p>\nNoah also said that Japheth would be enlarged and dwell in the tents of Shem (Gn 9:27), the latter of which would seem to imply sustenance and protection. After Japheth would be greatly increased in numbers, the Japhethites would be brought into contact with Shem and would share in the blessings and promises of the Semitic faith. Many scholars see fulfillment of this prophecy in the opening of the gospel to the Gentiles during the NT era of the establishment of the church.<\/p>\nIn the “table of nations” recorded in Genesis 10, five descendants of Shem are mentioned (Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Lud, and Aram). Receiving particular emphasis among these descendants is Eber from the line of Arphaxad, whose line is traced to Abraham in Genesis 11:16-27.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Abraham; Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Nations; Noah #1.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SHEM<\/h3>\nEldest son of Noah (Gn 5:32; 6:10; 7:13; 9:18, 23, 26-27; 11:10; 1 Chr 1:4, 17-27; Lk 3:36) and the ancestor of the Semitic peoples (Gn 10:1, 21-31). Shem lived 600 years (11:10-11). In Hebrew, Shem means “name,” perhaps implying that Noah expected this son’s name to become great.<\/p>\nAfter their deliverance from the great Flood, Shem and Japheth acted with respect and dignity toward their drunken father Noah on an occasion when their brother Ham dishonored him (Gn 9:20-29). Because of this act, Noah later pronounced a curse on Canaan, the son of Ham, and a blessing on both Shem and Japheth.<\/p>\nIn Genesis 11:10-27, the line of descent for the promised seed, which was to crush Satan (Gn 3:15; 5:1-32), is traced through Shem to Abraham, and ultimately through Judah and David to Christ (cf. Lk 3:36). The blessing of Noah on Shem is thus to be taken as an indication that the line of Shem will be the line through which the seed of Genesis 3:15 will come. This is the first time in the Bible that God is called the God of some particular individual or group of people. The statement that Canaan would be a servant to Shem was fulfilled centuries later when the Israelites, who descended from Shem, entered the land of Canaan and subdued the inhabitants of the land (cf. 1 Kgs 9:20-21).<\/p>\nNoah also said that Japheth would be enlarged and dwell in the tents of Shem (Gn 9:27), the latter of which would seem to imply sustenance and protection. After Japheth would be greatly increased in numbers, the Japhethites would be brought into contact with Shem and would share in the blessings and promises of the Semitic faith. Many scholars see fulfillment of this prophecy in the opening of the gospel to the Gentiles during the NT era of the establishment of the church.<\/p>\nIn the “table of nations” recorded in Genesis 10, five descendants of Shem are mentioned (Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Lud, and Aram). Receiving particular emphasis among these descendants is Eber from the line of Arphaxad, whose line is traced to Abraham in Genesis 11:16-27.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Abraham; Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Nations; Noah #1.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SHEM Eldest son of Noah (Gn 5:32; 6:10; 7:13; 9:18, 23, 26-27; 11:10; 1 Chr 1:4, 17-27; Lk 3:36) and the ancestor of the Semitic peoples (Gn 10:1, 21-31). Shem lived 600 years (11:10-11). In Hebrew, Shem means “name,” perhaps implying that Noah expected this son’s name to become great. After their deliverance from the great Flood, Shem and Japheth acted with respect and dignity toward their drunken father Noah on an occasion when their brother Ham dishonored him (Gn 9:20-29). Because of this ...","summary_en":"SHEM Eldest son of Noah (Gn 5:32; 6:10; 7:13; 9:18, 23, 26-27; 11:10; 1 Chr 1:4, 17-27; Lk 3:36) and the ancestor of the Semitic peoples (Gn 10:1, 21-31). Shem lived 600 years (11:10-11). In Hebrew, Shem means “name,” perhaps implying that Noah expected this son’s name to become great. After their deliverance from the great Flood, Shem and Japheth acted with respect and dignity toward their drunken father Noah on an occasion when their brother Ham dishonored him (Gn 9:20-29). Because of this ...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"37":[{"id":5945,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Cainan","title_en":"Cainan","content_ro":"<h3>CAINAN<\/h3>\n<li>1. A son of Arphaxad (Lk 3:36; Gn 10:24, LXX; 11:12-13).<\/li>\n<li>2. Adam’s great-grandson, also called Kenan (Gn 5:9-14; 1 Chr 1:2; Lk 3:37). See<\/em> Kenan.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>CAINAN<\/h3>\n<li>1. A son of Arphaxad (Lk 3:36; Gn 10:24, LXX; 11:12-13).<\/li>\n<li>2. Adam’s great-grandson, also called Kenan (Gn 5:9-14; 1 Chr 1:2; Lk 3:37). See<\/em> Kenan.<\/li>","summary_ro":"CAINAN 1. A son of Arphaxad (Lk 3:36; Gn 10:24, LXX; 11:12-13). 2. Adam’s great-grandson, also called Kenan (Gn 5:9-14; 1 Chr 1:2; Lk 3:37). See Kenan.","summary_en":"CAINAN 1. A son of Arphaxad (Lk 3:36; Gn 10:24, LXX; 11:12-13). 2. Adam’s great-grandson, also called Kenan (Gn 5:9-14; 1 Chr 1:2; Lk 3:37). See Kenan.","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":18521,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jared","title_en":"Jared","content_ro":"<h3>JARED<\/h3>\nMahalalel’s son and a descendant of Seth. He was the father of Enoch (Gn 5:15-20; 1 Chr 1:2; Lk 3:37). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JARED<\/h3>\nMahalalel’s son and a descendant of Seth. He was the father of Enoch (Gn 5:15-20; 1 Chr 1:2; Lk 3:37). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JARED Mahalalel’s son and a descendant of Seth. He was the father of Enoch (Gn 5:15-20; 1 Chr 1:2; Lk 3:37). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"JARED Mahalalel’s son and a descendant of Seth. He was the father of Enoch (Gn 5:15-20; 1 Chr 1:2; Lk 3:37). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":21579,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Kenan","title_en":"Kenan","content_ro":"<h3>KENAN<\/h3>\nFourth-generation descendant of Adam (Gn 5:9-14; 1 Chr 1:2); alternately called Cainan in Luke’s genealogy of Christ (Lk 3:37, rsv<\/span>). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>KENAN<\/h3>\nFourth-generation descendant of Adam (Gn 5:9-14; 1 Chr 1:2); alternately called Cainan in Luke’s genealogy of Christ (Lk 3:37, rsv<\/span>). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"KENAN Fourth-generation descendant of Adam (Gn 5:9-14; 1 Chr 1:2); alternately called Cainan in Luke’s genealogy of Christ (Lk 3:37, rsv). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"KENAN Fourth-generation descendant of Adam (Gn 5:9-14; 1 Chr 1:2); alternately called Cainan in Luke’s genealogy of Christ (Lk 3:37, rsv). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/K.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":23925,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Mahalaleel*, Mahalalel","title_en":"Mahalaleel*, Mahalalel","content_ro":"<h3>MAHALALEEL*, MAHALALEL<\/h3>\n<li>1. Kenan’s son and the father of Jared in Seth’s line (Gn 5:12-17; 1 Chr 1:2), also mentioned in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:37). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>2. Perez’s son and a postexilic Judahite (Neh 11:4).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>MAHALALEEL*, MAHALALEL<\/h3>\n<li>1. Kenan’s son and the father of Jared in Seth’s line (Gn 5:12-17; 1 Chr 1:2), also mentioned in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:37). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>2. Perez’s son and a postexilic Judahite (Neh 11:4).<\/li>","summary_ro":"MAHALALEEL*, MAHALALEL 1. Kenan’s son and the father of Jared in Seth’s line (Gn 5:12-17; 1 Chr 1:2), also mentioned in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:37). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ. 2. Perez’s son and a postexilic Judahite (Neh 11:4).","summary_en":"MAHALALEEL*, MAHALALEL 1. Kenan’s son and the father of Jared in Seth’s line (Gn 5:12-17; 1 Chr 1:2), also mentioned in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:37). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ. 2. Perez’s son and a postexilic Judahite (Neh 11:4).","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24116,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Maleleel*","title_en":"Maleleel*","content_ro":"<h3>MALELEEL*<\/h3>\nKJV form of Mahalaleel, an ancestor of Jesus, in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:37). See<\/em> Mahalaleel, Mahalalel #1.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MALELEEL*<\/h3>\nKJV form of Mahalaleel, an ancestor of Jesus, in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:37). See<\/em> Mahalaleel, Mahalalel #1.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MALELEEL* KJV form of Mahalaleel, an ancestor of Jesus, in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:37). See Mahalaleel, Mahalalel #1.","summary_en":"MALELEEL* KJV form of Mahalaleel, an ancestor of Jesus, in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:37). See Mahalaleel, Mahalalel #1.","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24634,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Mathusala*","title_en":"Mathusala*","content_ro":"<h3>MATHUSALA*<\/h3>\nKJV rendering of Methuselah, Enoch’s son, in Luke 3:37. See<\/em> Methuselah.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MATHUSALA*<\/h3>\nKJV rendering of Methuselah, Enoch’s son, in Luke 3:37. See<\/em> Methuselah.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MATHUSALA* KJV rendering of Methuselah, Enoch’s son, in Luke 3:37. See Methuselah.","summary_en":"MATHUSALA* KJV rendering of Methuselah, Enoch’s son, in Luke 3:37. See Methuselah.","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":25500,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Methuselah","title_en":"Methuselah","content_ro":"<h3>METHUSELAH<\/h3>\nSon of Enoch, Lamech’s father, and the grandfather of Noah through Seth’s line (Gn 5:21-27; 1 Chr 1:3). Living 969 years, Methuselah is the oldest recorded person in the Bible. His lineage is included in Luke’s genealogy of Christ (Lk 3:37).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>METHUSELAH<\/h3>\nSon of Enoch, Lamech’s father, and the grandfather of Noah through Seth’s line (Gn 5:21-27; 1 Chr 1:3). Living 969 years, Methuselah is the oldest recorded person in the Bible. His lineage is included in Luke’s genealogy of Christ (Lk 3:37).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"METHUSELAH Son of Enoch, Lamech’s father, and the grandfather of Noah through Seth’s line (Gn 5:21-27; 1 Chr 1:3). Living 969 years, Methuselah is the oldest recorded person in the Bible. His lineage is included in Luke’s genealogy of Christ (Lk 3:37). See also Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"METHUSELAH Son of Enoch, Lamech’s father, and the grandfather of Noah through Seth’s line (Gn 5:21-27; 1 Chr 1:3). Living 969 years, Methuselah is the oldest recorded person in the Bible. His lineage is included in Luke’s genealogy of Christ (Lk 3:37). See also Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"38":[{"id":40472,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Adam and Eve","title_en":"Adam and Eve","content_ro":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","summary_en":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":68098,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Adam and Eve","title_en":"Adam and Eve","content_ro":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","summary_en":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":95724,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Adam and Eve","title_en":"Adam and Eve","content_ro":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","summary_en":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":123350,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Adam and Eve","title_en":"Adam and Eve","content_ro":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","summary_en":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":492,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Adam (Person)","title_en":"Adam (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>ADAM (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\nFirst man and father of the human race. Adam’s role in biblical history is important not only in OT considerations but also in understanding the meaning of salvation and the person and work of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\nThe creation of Adam and the first woman, Eve, is recited in two accounts in the book of Genesis. The intent of the first account (1:26-31) is to present the first pair in their relationship to God and to the rest of the created order. It teaches that with regard to God the first humans were created male and female in God’s image with his specific mandate to populate and rule over the earth. With regard to the rest of creation the first humans were, on one hand, part of it, being created on the same day as other land animals; on the other hand, they were distinctly above it, being the culmination of the creation process and sole bearers of God’s image.<\/p>\nThe intent of the second account is much more specific (2:4–3:24); it seeks to explain the origin of the present human condition of sin and death and to set the stage for the drama of redemption. The story treats in detail aspects of Adam’s creation omitted from the first story. For example, it tells of the formation of Adam from the dust of the ground and of his receiving the breath of life from God (2:7). It recounts the planting of the Garden and the responsibility given to Adam to cultivate it (2:8-15). God’s instruction to Adam that the fruit of every tree in the Garden was his for food, except one, is carefully recorded, as well as the solemn warning that the fruit of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” was never to be eaten, under the pain of death (2:16-17). Adam’s loneliness after naming the animals and not finding a suitable companion is also described, thus introducing the creation of the first woman (2:18-22). The creation of Eve from Adam’s rib poignantly portrays the essential unity of spirit and purpose of the sexes intended by God.<\/p>\nThe story does not end on such a positive note, however. It moves on to record the great deception Satan played upon Eve through the serpent. By clever insinuations and distortion of God’s original commandment (cf. 3:1 with 2:16-17), the serpent tricked Eve into eating the forbidden fruit and sharing it with Adam. Eve seems to have eaten because she was deceived (1 Tm 2:14), Adam out of a willful and conscious rebellion. Ironically, the two beings originally created in God’s image and likeness believed that they could become “like” God by disobeying him (Gn 3:5).<\/p>\nThe effects of their disobedience were immediate, though not at all what Adam had expected. For the first time a barrier of shame disrupted the unity of man and woman (3:7). More important, a barrier of real moral guilt was erected between the first couple and God. The story relates that when God came looking for Adam after his rebellion, he was hiding among the trees, already aware of his separation from God (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam threw the blame on Eve and, by implication, back on God: “It was the woman you gave me who brought me the fruit” (3:12, nlt<\/span>). Eve in turn blamed the serpent (3:13).<\/p>\nAccording to the story in Genesis, God held all three responsible and informed each one of the calamitous consequences of their rebellion (3:14-19). The two great mandates, originally signs of pure blessing, became mixed with curse and pain—the earth could now be populated only through the woman’s birth pangs and could be subdued only by the man’s labor and perspiration (3:16-18). Further, the unity of man and woman would be strained by man’s subjugation of her, or possibly by the beginning of a struggle for dominance between them (3:16b can be taken both ways). Finally, God pronounced the ultimate consequence: as he had originally warned, Adam and Eve were to die. Someday the breath of life would be taken from them, and their bodies would return to the dust from which they were made (3:19). That very day they also experienced a “spiritual” death; they were separated from God, the giver of life, and from the tree of life, the symbol of eternal life (3:22). God sent them out of Eden, and there was no way back. The entrance to paradise was blocked by the cherubim and flaming sword (3:23-24). Only God could restore what they had lost.<\/p>\nThe story is not devoid of hope. God was merciful even then. He made them garments of skin to cover their bodies and promised that someday the power of Satan behind the serpent would be crushed by the woman’s “seed” (Gn 3:15; cf. Rom 16:20). Many scholars consider that promise to be the first biblical mention of redemption.<\/p>\nThe Significance of Adam<\/p>\nAdam’s significance is based upon several assumptions, the first being that he was a historical individual. That assumption was made by many OT writers (Gn 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7). The NT writers agreed (Lk 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tm 2:13-14; Jude 1:14). Equally essential to Adam’s significance is a second assumption, that he was more than an individual. To begin with, the Hebrew word adam<\/span> (more correctly ’a–dha–m<\/span>) is not merely a proper name. Even in the Genesis story it is not used as a name until Genesis 4:25. The word is one of several Hebrew words meaning “man” and is the generic term for “human race.” In the vast majority of cases it refers either to a male individual (Lv 1:2; Jos 14:15; Neh 9:29; Is 56:2) or to humanity in general (Ex 4:11; Nm 12:3; 16:29; Dt 4:28; 1 Kgs 4:31; Jb 7:20; 14:1). The generic, collective sense of the word adam<\/span> is also behind the phrase “children (or sons) of men” (2 Sm 7:14; Pss 11:4; 12:1; 14:2; 53:2; 90:3; Eccl 1:13; 2:3). That phrase, literally “sons of adam<\/span>,”<\/em> simply means “men” or “human beings,” and when it is used the entire human race is in view. Indeed, the universalistic human connotation of the word adam<\/span> indicates a concern in the OT going far beyond Israel’s nationalistic hopes and its God—to all the earth’s people and the Lord of all nations (Gn 9:5-7; Dt 5:24; 8:3; 1 Kgs 8:38-39; Pss 8:4; 89:48; 107:8-31; Prv 12:14; Mi 6:8).<\/p>\nIt is no accident, then, that the first man was named “Adam” or “Man.” The name intimates that to speak about Adam is somehow also to speak about the entire human race. Such usage can perhaps best be understood through the ancient concept of corporate personality and representation familiar to the Hebrews and other Near Eastern peoples. Modern thinking emphasizes the individual; existence of the social group and all social relationships has been seen as secondary to, and dependent upon, the existence and desire of the individual. The Hebrew understanding was quite different. Though the separate personality of the individual was appreciated (Jer 31:29-30; Ez 18:4), there was a strong tendency to see the social group (family, tribe, nation) as a single organism with a corporate identity of its own. Likewise the group representative was seen as the embodiment or personification of the corporate personality of the group. Within the representative the essential qualities and characteristics of the social group resided in such a way that the actions and decisions of the representative were binding on the entire group. If the group was a family, the father was usually considered the corporate representative; for good or for ill his family, and sometimes his descendants, received the results of his actions (Gn 17:1-8; cf. Gn 20:1-9, 18; Ex 20:5-6; Jos 7:24-25; Rom 11:28; Heb 7:1-10).<\/p>\nAs the original man and father of humankind, in whose image all succeeding generations would be born (Gn 5:3), Adam was the corporate representative of humanity. The creation accounts themselves give the impression that the mandates of Genesis 1:26-30 (cf. Gn 9:1, 7; Pss 8:5-7; 104:14) as well as the curses of Genesis 3:16-19 (cf. Ps 90:3; Eccl 12:7; Is 13:8; 21:3) were meant not only for Adam (and Eve) but, through him, for the entire race.<\/p>\nIn Romans 5:12-21 the apostle Paul contrasted the death and condemnation brought upon humanity by Adam’s disobedience with the life and justification given to humanity through Christ’s obedience. More explicitly, in 1 Corinthians 15:45-50 (rsv<\/span>), Paul called Christ the “last Adam,” “second man,” and the “man of heaven” in juxtaposition to the “first Adam,” the “first man,” and the “man of dust.”<\/p>\nFor Paul, the human race was divided into two groups in the persons of Adam and Christ. Those who remain “incorporated” in Adam are the “old” humanity, bearing the image of the “man of dust” and partaking of his sin and alienation from God and Creation (Rom 5:12-19; 8:20-22). But those who are incorporated into Christ by faith become Christ’s “body” (Rom 12:4-5; 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Eph 1:22-23; Col 1:18); they are recreated in Christ’s image (Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 3:18); they become one “new man” (Eph 2:15; 4:24; Col 3:9-10, kjv<\/span>); and they partake of the new creation (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The old barriers raised by Adam are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16). For Paul, the functional similarity of Adam and Christ as representatives meant that Christ had restored what Adam had lost.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Eve; Man, Old and New; New Creation, New Creature.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ADAM (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\nFirst man and father of the human race. Adam’s role in biblical history is important not only in OT considerations but also in understanding the meaning of salvation and the person and work of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\nThe creation of Adam and the first woman, Eve, is recited in two accounts in the book of Genesis. The intent of the first account (1:26-31) is to present the first pair in their relationship to God and to the rest of the created order. It teaches that with regard to God the first humans were created male and female in God’s image with his specific mandate to populate and rule over the earth. With regard to the rest of creation the first humans were, on one hand, part of it, being created on the same day as other land animals; on the other hand, they were distinctly above it, being the culmination of the creation process and sole bearers of God’s image.<\/p>\nThe intent of the second account is much more specific (2:4–3:24); it seeks to explain the origin of the present human condition of sin and death and to set the stage for the drama of redemption. The story treats in detail aspects of Adam’s creation omitted from the first story. For example, it tells of the formation of Adam from the dust of the ground and of his receiving the breath of life from God (2:7). It recounts the planting of the Garden and the responsibility given to Adam to cultivate it (2:8-15). God’s instruction to Adam that the fruit of every tree in the Garden was his for food, except one, is carefully recorded, as well as the solemn warning that the fruit of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” was never to be eaten, under the pain of death (2:16-17). Adam’s loneliness after naming the animals and not finding a suitable companion is also described, thus introducing the creation of the first woman (2:18-22). The creation of Eve from Adam’s rib poignantly portrays the essential unity of spirit and purpose of the sexes intended by God.<\/p>\nThe story does not end on such a positive note, however. It moves on to record the great deception Satan played upon Eve through the serpent. By clever insinuations and distortion of God’s original commandment (cf. 3:1 with 2:16-17), the serpent tricked Eve into eating the forbidden fruit and sharing it with Adam. Eve seems to have eaten because she was deceived (1 Tm 2:14), Adam out of a willful and conscious rebellion. Ironically, the two beings originally created in God’s image and likeness believed that they could become “like” God by disobeying him (Gn 3:5).<\/p>\nThe effects of their disobedience were immediate, though not at all what Adam had expected. For the first time a barrier of shame disrupted the unity of man and woman (3:7). More important, a barrier of real moral guilt was erected between the first couple and God. The story relates that when God came looking for Adam after his rebellion, he was hiding among the trees, already aware of his separation from God (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam threw the blame on Eve and, by implication, back on God: “It was the woman you gave me who brought me the fruit” (3:12, nlt<\/span>). Eve in turn blamed the serpent (3:13).<\/p>\nAccording to the story in Genesis, God held all three responsible and informed each one of the calamitous consequences of their rebellion (3:14-19). The two great mandates, originally signs of pure blessing, became mixed with curse and pain—the earth could now be populated only through the woman’s birth pangs and could be subdued only by the man’s labor and perspiration (3:16-18). Further, the unity of man and woman would be strained by man’s subjugation of her, or possibly by the beginning of a struggle for dominance between them (3:16b can be taken both ways). Finally, God pronounced the ultimate consequence: as he had originally warned, Adam and Eve were to die. Someday the breath of life would be taken from them, and their bodies would return to the dust from which they were made (3:19). That very day they also experienced a “spiritual” death; they were separated from God, the giver of life, and from the tree of life, the symbol of eternal life (3:22). God sent them out of Eden, and there was no way back. The entrance to paradise was blocked by the cherubim and flaming sword (3:23-24). Only God could restore what they had lost.<\/p>\nThe story is not devoid of hope. God was merciful even then. He made them garments of skin to cover their bodies and promised that someday the power of Satan behind the serpent would be crushed by the woman’s “seed” (Gn 3:15; cf. Rom 16:20). Many scholars consider that promise to be the first biblical mention of redemption.<\/p>\nThe Significance of Adam<\/p>\nAdam’s significance is based upon several assumptions, the first being that he was a historical individual. That assumption was made by many OT writers (Gn 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7). The NT writers agreed (Lk 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tm 2:13-14; Jude 1:14). Equally essential to Adam’s significance is a second assumption, that he was more than an individual. To begin with, the Hebrew word adam<\/span> (more correctly ’a–dha–m<\/span>) is not merely a proper name. Even in the Genesis story it is not used as a name until Genesis 4:25. The word is one of several Hebrew words meaning “man” and is the generic term for “human race.” In the vast majority of cases it refers either to a male individual (Lv 1:2; Jos 14:15; Neh 9:29; Is 56:2) or to humanity in general (Ex 4:11; Nm 12:3; 16:29; Dt 4:28; 1 Kgs 4:31; Jb 7:20; 14:1). The generic, collective sense of the word adam<\/span> is also behind the phrase “children (or sons) of men” (2 Sm 7:14; Pss 11:4; 12:1; 14:2; 53:2; 90:3; Eccl 1:13; 2:3). That phrase, literally “sons of adam<\/span>,”<\/em> simply means “men” or “human beings,” and when it is used the entire human race is in view. Indeed, the universalistic human connotation of the word adam<\/span> indicates a concern in the OT going far beyond Israel’s nationalistic hopes and its God—to all the earth’s people and the Lord of all nations (Gn 9:5-7; Dt 5:24; 8:3; 1 Kgs 8:38-39; Pss 8:4; 89:48; 107:8-31; Prv 12:14; Mi 6:8).<\/p>\nIt is no accident, then, that the first man was named “Adam” or “Man.” The name intimates that to speak about Adam is somehow also to speak about the entire human race. Such usage can perhaps best be understood through the ancient concept of corporate personality and representation familiar to the Hebrews and other Near Eastern peoples. Modern thinking emphasizes the individual; existence of the social group and all social relationships has been seen as secondary to, and dependent upon, the existence and desire of the individual. The Hebrew understanding was quite different. Though the separate personality of the individual was appreciated (Jer 31:29-30; Ez 18:4), there was a strong tendency to see the social group (family, tribe, nation) as a single organism with a corporate identity of its own. Likewise the group representative was seen as the embodiment or personification of the corporate personality of the group. Within the representative the essential qualities and characteristics of the social group resided in such a way that the actions and decisions of the representative were binding on the entire group. If the group was a family, the father was usually considered the corporate representative; for good or for ill his family, and sometimes his descendants, received the results of his actions (Gn 17:1-8; cf. Gn 20:1-9, 18; Ex 20:5-6; Jos 7:24-25; Rom 11:28; Heb 7:1-10).<\/p>\nAs the original man and father of humankind, in whose image all succeeding generations would be born (Gn 5:3), Adam was the corporate representative of humanity. The creation accounts themselves give the impression that the mandates of Genesis 1:26-30 (cf. Gn 9:1, 7; Pss 8:5-7; 104:14) as well as the curses of Genesis 3:16-19 (cf. Ps 90:3; Eccl 12:7; Is 13:8; 21:3) were meant not only for Adam (and Eve) but, through him, for the entire race.<\/p>\nIn Romans 5:12-21 the apostle Paul contrasted the death and condemnation brought upon humanity by Adam’s disobedience with the life and justification given to humanity through Christ’s obedience. More explicitly, in 1 Corinthians 15:45-50 (rsv<\/span>), Paul called Christ the “last Adam,” “second man,” and the “man of heaven” in juxtaposition to the “first Adam,” the “first man,” and the “man of dust.”<\/p>\nFor Paul, the human race was divided into two groups in the persons of Adam and Christ. Those who remain “incorporated” in Adam are the “old” humanity, bearing the image of the “man of dust” and partaking of his sin and alienation from God and Creation (Rom 5:12-19; 8:20-22). But those who are incorporated into Christ by faith become Christ’s “body” (Rom 12:4-5; 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Eph 1:22-23; Col 1:18); they are recreated in Christ’s image (Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 3:18); they become one “new man” (Eph 2:15; 4:24; Col 3:9-10, kjv<\/span>); and they partake of the new creation (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The old barriers raised by Adam are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16). For Paul, the functional similarity of Adam and Christ as representatives meant that Christ had restored what Adam had lost.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Eve; Man, Old and New; New Creation, New Creature.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ADAM (Person) First man and father of the human race. Adam’s role in biblical history is important not only in OT considerations but also in understanding the meaning of salvation and the person and work of Jesus Christ. The creation of Adam and the first woman, Eve, is recited in two accounts in the book of Genesis. The intent of the first account (1:26-31) is to present the first pair in their relationship to God and to the rest of the created order. It teaches that with regard to God the f...","summary_en":"ADAM (Person) First man and father of the human race. Adam’s role in biblical history is important not only in OT considerations but also in understanding the meaning of salvation and the person and work of Jesus Christ. The creation of Adam and the first woman, Eve, is recited in two accounts in the book of Genesis. The intent of the first account (1:26-31) is to present the first pair in their relationship to God and to the rest of the created order. It teaches that with regard to God the f...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":3752,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of Jesus*, Baptism","title_en":"of Jesus*, Baptism","content_ro":"<h3>BAPTISM OF JESUS*<\/h3>\nMajor event in Jesus’ life, which marked the beginning of his ministry. The fact that John the Baptist baptized Jesus is disputed by very few scholars today, but the purpose and significance of Jesus’ baptism remain controversial.<\/p>\nThe Gospel accounts agree that John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance (Mt 3:6-10; Mk 1:4-5; Lk 3:3-14). He proclaimed that the kingdom of heaven was at hand and that God’s people should prepare for the Lord’s coming by a renewal of faith toward God. For John, that meant repentance, confession of sins, and practicing righteousness. That being so, why was Jesus baptized? If Jesus was sinless, as the NT proclaims (2 Cor 5:21; Heb 4:15; 1 Pt 2:22), why did he submit to a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins? The Gospels provide the answers.<\/p>\nThe Gospel of Mark<\/p>\nMark presents the baptism of Jesus as a necessary preparation for his period of temptation and ministry. At his baptism Jesus received the Father’s approval and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit (1:9-11). Mark’s focus on Jesus’ special relation to the Father, “You are my beloved Son, and I am fully pleased with you” (1:11, nlt<\/span>), brings together two important OT references. Jesus’ messiahship is presented in a radically new way, in which the ruling Messiah (Ps 2:7) is also the Suffering Servant of the Lord (Is 42:1). Popular Jewish belief expected a ruling Messiah who would establish the kingdom of God, not a Messiah who would suffer for the people. Mark intended to show that in Jesus alone had God’s appointed time for the fulfillment of his purpose come.<\/p>\nThe statement that the heavens opened at the baptism of Jesus (Mk 1:10) may proclaim the arrival of the “end times” (the time of fulfillment and the establishment of God’s kingdom). A then-current Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 64:1 held that in the last days God would open the heavens and come down to his people. In Jewish thought the rending of the heavens was also associated with hearing God’s voice and the bestowal of God’s Spirit.<\/p>\nThe Gospel of Matthew<\/p>\nMatthew’s account of Jesus’ baptism has more detail than Mark’s. It begins by noting John’s reluctance to baptize Jesus (3:14). John was persuaded only after Jesus explained to him that the act was “fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness” (3:15, rsv<\/span>). Although the full meaning of those words is uncertain, they at least suggest that Jesus’ baptism was necessary to accomplish God’s will. In both the Old and New Testaments (Ps 98:2-3; Rom 1:17) God’s righteousness is seen in his salvation for his people. That is why the Messiah can be called “The Lord<\/span> Is Our Righteousness” (Jer 23:6; cf. Is 11:1-5). Jesus told John that his baptism was necessary to do God’s will in bringing about salvation for his people. Thus the Father’s declaration at Jesus’ baptism is presented in the form of a public announcement, emphasizing that Jesus was God’s anointed Servant about to begin his ministry as the bringer of the Lord’s salvation.<\/p>\nThe Gospel of Luke<\/p>\nLuke passes over Jesus’ baptism quickly, placing it alongside the baptism of others who came to John (3:21-22). The context in Luke also sheds some light on the purpose of Jesus’ baptism. Luke, unlike Matthew, places the genealogy of Jesus after his baptism and just before his ministry begins. The parallel to Moses, whose genealogy occurs just before his primary work begins (Ex 6:14-25), seems more than coincidental. It is probably intended to illustrate Jesus’ role in bringing deliverance (salvation) to God’s people just as Moses did in the OT. At his baptism, by the descent of the Holy Spirit upon him, Jesus was equipped to do the mission God had called him to do. Following his temptation (Lk 4:1-13), Jesus entered the synagogue and declared to the people that he had been anointed by the Spirit to proclaim good news (4:16-21). That anointing came at Jesus’ baptism (cf. Acts 10:37-38).<\/p>\nIn his Gospel account, Luke tried to identify Jesus with the common people—for example, in the birth story (with Jesus born in a stable and visited by lowly shepherds, Lk 2:8-20) and through placing the genealogy (stressing Jesus’ relation to all of humanity, 3:38) right after the baptism. Thus, Luke saw the baptism as Jesus’ first step in identifying himself with those he had come to save.<\/p>\nIn the OT the Messiah was always inseparable from the people he represented (see especially Jer 30:21 and Ez 45–46). Although the “servant” in Isaiah is sometimes viewed corporately (Is 44:1) and sometimes individually (53:3), he is always viewed as the representative of the people<\/em> to the Lord (49:5-26), as well as the servant of the Lord.<\/em><\/p>\nEvidently Luke, along with Mark and Matthew, was trying to show that Jesus, as the divine representative of the people, had identified himself with them in his baptism.<\/p>\nThe Gospel of John<\/p>\nThe fourth Gospel does not say that Jesus was baptized but does say that John the Baptist saw the Spirit descend upon Jesus (Jn 1:32-34). The account emphasizes that Jesus went to John during John’s preaching and baptizing ministry; John recognized that Jesus was the Christ, that God’s Spirit was upon him, and that he was the Son of God. John also recognized that Jesus, unlike himself, baptized with the Holy Spirit (1:29-36).<\/p>\nJohn the Baptist described Jesus as the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (1:29, nlt<\/span>). The closest OT parallel to that statement comes from a “servant of the Lord” passage (Is 53:6-7). It is possible that “Lamb of God” could be an alternate translation of the Aramaic term “servant of God.”<\/p>\nThe sense of Jesus as the one who bears the sins of the people is obviously in view in the fourth Gospel. That Jesus was the promised representative and deliverer of the people was understood by John the Baptist and conveyed by the Gospel writer.<\/p>\nConclusion<\/p>\nIn the four Gospels it is clear that the Holy Spirit came upon Jesus at his baptism to enable him to do the work of God. All four Gospel writers saw that Jesus had been anointed by God to accomplish his mission of bringing salvation to the people. Those ideas provide a key to understanding why Jesus was baptized. On that occasion at the beginning of his ministry, God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit to do his mediating work between God and the people. At his baptism Jesus was identified as the one who would bear the people’s sins; Jesus was baptized to identify himself with sinful people.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BAPTISM OF JESUS*<\/h3>\nMajor event in Jesus’ life, which marked the beginning of his ministry. The fact that John the Baptist baptized Jesus is disputed by very few scholars today, but the purpose and significance of Jesus’ baptism remain controversial.<\/p>\nThe Gospel accounts agree that John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance (Mt 3:6-10; Mk 1:4-5; Lk 3:3-14). He proclaimed that the kingdom of heaven was at hand and that God’s people should prepare for the Lord’s coming by a renewal of faith toward God. For John, that meant repentance, confession of sins, and practicing righteousness. That being so, why was Jesus baptized? If Jesus was sinless, as the NT proclaims (2 Cor 5:21; Heb 4:15; 1 Pt 2:22), why did he submit to a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins? The Gospels provide the answers.<\/p>\nThe Gospel of Mark<\/p>\nMark presents the baptism of Jesus as a necessary preparation for his period of temptation and ministry. At his baptism Jesus received the Father’s approval and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit (1:9-11). Mark’s focus on Jesus’ special relation to the Father, “You are my beloved Son, and I am fully pleased with you” (1:11, nlt<\/span>), brings together two important OT references. Jesus’ messiahship is presented in a radically new way, in which the ruling Messiah (Ps 2:7) is also the Suffering Servant of the Lord (Is 42:1). Popular Jewish belief expected a ruling Messiah who would establish the kingdom of God, not a Messiah who would suffer for the people. Mark intended to show that in Jesus alone had God’s appointed time for the fulfillment of his purpose come.<\/p>\nThe statement that the heavens opened at the baptism of Jesus (Mk 1:10) may proclaim the arrival of the “end times” (the time of fulfillment and the establishment of God’s kingdom). A then-current Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 64:1 held that in the last days God would open the heavens and come down to his people. In Jewish thought the rending of the heavens was also associated with hearing God’s voice and the bestowal of God’s Spirit.<\/p>\nThe Gospel of Matthew<\/p>\nMatthew’s account of Jesus’ baptism has more detail than Mark’s. It begins by noting John’s reluctance to baptize Jesus (3:14). John was persuaded only after Jesus explained to him that the act was “fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness” (3:15, rsv<\/span>). Although the full meaning of those words is uncertain, they at least suggest that Jesus’ baptism was necessary to accomplish God’s will. In both the Old and New Testaments (Ps 98:2-3; Rom 1:17) God’s righteousness is seen in his salvation for his people. That is why the Messiah can be called “The Lord<\/span> Is Our Righteousness” (Jer 23:6; cf. Is 11:1-5). Jesus told John that his baptism was necessary to do God’s will in bringing about salvation for his people. Thus the Father’s declaration at Jesus’ baptism is presented in the form of a public announcement, emphasizing that Jesus was God’s anointed Servant about to begin his ministry as the bringer of the Lord’s salvation.<\/p>\nThe Gospel of Luke<\/p>\nLuke passes over Jesus’ baptism quickly, placing it alongside the baptism of others who came to John (3:21-22). The context in Luke also sheds some light on the purpose of Jesus’ baptism. Luke, unlike Matthew, places the genealogy of Jesus after his baptism and just before his ministry begins. The parallel to Moses, whose genealogy occurs just before his primary work begins (Ex 6:14-25), seems more than coincidental. It is probably intended to illustrate Jesus’ role in bringing deliverance (salvation) to God’s people just as Moses did in the OT. At his baptism, by the descent of the Holy Spirit upon him, Jesus was equipped to do the mission God had called him to do. Following his temptation (Lk 4:1-13), Jesus entered the synagogue and declared to the people that he had been anointed by the Spirit to proclaim good news (4:16-21). That anointing came at Jesus’ baptism (cf. Acts 10:37-38).<\/p>\nIn his Gospel account, Luke tried to identify Jesus with the common people—for example, in the birth story (with Jesus born in a stable and visited by lowly shepherds, Lk 2:8-20) and through placing the genealogy (stressing Jesus’ relation to all of humanity, 3:38) right after the baptism. Thus, Luke saw the baptism as Jesus’ first step in identifying himself with those he had come to save.<\/p>\nIn the OT the Messiah was always inseparable from the people he represented (see especially Jer 30:21 and Ez 45–46). Although the “servant” in Isaiah is sometimes viewed corporately (Is 44:1) and sometimes individually (53:3), he is always viewed as the representative of the people<\/em> to the Lord (49:5-26), as well as the servant of the Lord.<\/em><\/p>\nEvidently Luke, along with Mark and Matthew, was trying to show that Jesus, as the divine representative of the people, had identified himself with them in his baptism.<\/p>\nThe Gospel of John<\/p>\nThe fourth Gospel does not say that Jesus was baptized but does say that John the Baptist saw the Spirit descend upon Jesus (Jn 1:32-34). The account emphasizes that Jesus went to John during John’s preaching and baptizing ministry; John recognized that Jesus was the Christ, that God’s Spirit was upon him, and that he was the Son of God. John also recognized that Jesus, unlike himself, baptized with the Holy Spirit (1:29-36).<\/p>\nJohn the Baptist described Jesus as the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (1:29, nlt<\/span>). The closest OT parallel to that statement comes from a “servant of the Lord” passage (Is 53:6-7). It is possible that “Lamb of God” could be an alternate translation of the Aramaic term “servant of God.”<\/p>\nThe sense of Jesus as the one who bears the sins of the people is obviously in view in the fourth Gospel. That Jesus was the promised representative and deliverer of the people was understood by John the Baptist and conveyed by the Gospel writer.<\/p>\nConclusion<\/p>\nIn the four Gospels it is clear that the Holy Spirit came upon Jesus at his baptism to enable him to do the work of God. All four Gospel writers saw that Jesus had been anointed by God to accomplish his mission of bringing salvation to the people. Those ideas provide a key to understanding why Jesus was baptized. On that occasion at the beginning of his ministry, God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit to do his mediating work between God and the people. At his baptism Jesus was identified as the one who would bear the people’s sins; Jesus was baptized to identify himself with sinful people.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BAPTISM OF JESUS* Major event in Jesus’ life, which marked the beginning of his ministry. The fact that John the Baptist baptized Jesus is disputed by very few scholars today, but the purpose and significance of Jesus’ baptism remain controversial. The Gospel accounts agree that John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance (Mt 3:6-10; Mk 1:4-5; Lk 3:3-14). He proclaimed that the kingdom of heaven was at hand and that God’s people should prepare for the Lord’s coming by a renewal of faith toward...","summary_en":"BAPTISM OF JESUS* Major event in Jesus’ life, which marked the beginning of his ministry. The fact that John the Baptist baptized Jesus is disputed by very few scholars today, but the purpose and significance of Jesus’ baptism remain controversial. The Gospel accounts agree that John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance (Mt 3:6-10; Mk 1:4-5; Lk 3:3-14). He proclaimed that the kingdom of heaven was at hand and that God’s people should prepare for the Lord’s coming by a renewal of faith toward...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":10832,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Enosh","title_en":"Enosh","content_ro":"<h3>ENOSH<\/h3>\nSeth’s son and the grandson of Adam (Gn 4:26; 1 Chr 1:1). He became the father of Kenan at 90 years of age, after which he fathered other sons and daughters, dying at the age of 905 (Gn 5:6-11). He is mentioned as Jesus’ ancestor in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:38; kjv<\/span>, rsv<\/span> “Enos”). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ENOSH<\/h3>\nSeth’s son and the grandson of Adam (Gn 4:26; 1 Chr 1:1). He became the father of Kenan at 90 years of age, after which he fathered other sons and daughters, dying at the age of 905 (Gn 5:6-11). He is mentioned as Jesus’ ancestor in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:38; kjv<\/span>, rsv<\/span> “Enos”). See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ENOSH Seth’s son and the grandson of Adam (Gn 4:26; 1 Chr 1:1). He became the father of Kenan at 90 years of age, after which he fathered other sons and daughters, dying at the age of 905 (Gn 5:6-11). He is mentioned as Jesus’ ancestor in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:38; kjv, rsv “Enos”). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"ENOSH Seth’s son and the grandson of Adam (Gn 4:26; 1 Chr 1:1). He became the father of Kenan at 90 years of age, after which he fathered other sons and daughters, dying at the age of 905 (Gn 5:6-11). He is mentioned as Jesus’ ancestor in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:38; kjv, rsv “Enos”). See Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":13476,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Genealogy of Jesus Christ","title_en":"Genealogy of Jesus Christ","content_ro":"<h3>GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST<\/h3>\nAccount of Jesus’ human descent. The NT records Jesus’ genealogy twice in great detail: in Matthew 1:1-17 and in Luke 3:23-38.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Matthew’s Genealogy<\/p>\n• Luke’s Genealogy<\/p>\n• The Relationship between the Two Records<\/p>\nMatthew’s Genealogy (1:1-17)<\/p>\nMatthew 1:1 presents Jesus Christ as “the son of David, the son of Abraham.” By those two names, Matthew highlights Jesus’ earthly relationship to the Abrahamic (Gn 17:1-8) and Davidic (2 Sm 7:12-16) covenants of promise. Then beginning with the patriarch Abraham, Matthew traces Jesus’ human ancestry through King David to Joseph, “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ” (Mt 1:16). Matthew summarizes his account: “So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations” (v 17, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nAn examination of Matthew’s handling of this genealogical material discloses several interesting peculiarities:<\/p>\n\n1. The arrangement of the names into three groups of 14 seems to be an artificial device.<\/p>\n<li>2. To have 14 names in the second group, Matthew omits three kings—Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah—between Joram and Uzziah (v 8), and one, Jehoiakim, between Josiah and Jeconiah (v 11).<\/li>\n<li>3. In the first group Matthew mentions three women—Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth; and in the second group, he alludes to Bathsheba. This is an uncommon practice in genealogies, and all the more strange when it is noted that these four represent what could be regarded as moral blemishes in the history of the Davidic dynasty— Tamar, a victim of incest; Rahab, a prostitute; Ruth, a Moabitess; and Bathsheba, an adulteress.<\/li>\n<li>4. In the first group Matthew mentions Judah’s brothers and Zerah, Perez’s brother. In the second group he refers to Jeconiah’s brothers.<\/li>\n<li>5. In verse 6 David is called “the king.”<\/li>\nFrom these data, it is obvious that Matthew does not intend to present a strict genealogy; the arrangement is contrived, and extraneous material is included, probably for some other purpose than merely to present Jesus’ forebears. Matthew’s arrangement of the names into groups of 14, probably guided by an interest in portraying Jesus to Jews as the promised king of Israel and rightful heir to the Davidic throne, gives a definite historical movement to the genealogy by dividing it into three periods of time. These respectively highlight the origin, rise to power, and decay of the Davidic house, the last point represented by the lowly birth of the promised heir to a carpenter of Nazareth.<\/p>\nThe 14 names in each group may be an effort to call attention to the thrice-royal character of Mary’s son by focusing on the numerical value 14 of the Hebrew letters in David’s name (d=4, v=6, d=4). This number also happens to be twice the sacred number seven, so that the whole list is composed of three sets of two sevens each. It may be, however, that the contrived groupings were merely intended to aid in memorization.<\/p>\nWith respect to the second peculiarity—the “missing name” in the third group—one must conclude that either David or Jeconiah is to be counted twice, these being the pivotal names separating the three groups, or that a name was mistakenly dropped out in a copy of Matthew’s original Gospel.<\/p>\nThe third peculiarity presents no difficulty at all. Numerous genealogies in Scripture omit some names. Ancient Near Eastern writers often used the phrase “the son of,” or the word “begat,” quite flexibly, relating grandsons or great-grandsons, for instance, to earlier forebears without indicating every intervening ancestor. The modern mind should not require a precision in ancient records that ancient writers themselves did not insist on.<\/p>\nThe women listed in the genealogy—the fourth peculiarity—may have been intended to disarm Jewish criticism about Jesus’ birth (1:18-25) by showing that irregular unions were not disqualifications for the Messiah’s legal ancestry.<\/p>\nThe reason for including several brothers in the genealogy at three points—the fifth peculiarity—is not readily discernible. The mention of “Judah and his brothers” (1:2) may simply be following an established practice of speaking of the 12 patriarchs together.<\/p>\nFinally, David’s description as “the king” (1:6) underscores the Davidic or royal character of the list.<\/p>\nThe sources employed in compiling the first group in the genealogy drew upon records preserved in 1 Chronicles 1:27–2:15 and in Ruth 4:18-22. The second group followed the records found in 1—2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. The third group relied mainly on public or private records from the intertestamental period; the nine names from Abiud to Jacob are not mentioned elsewhere in Scripture.<\/p>\nOn the basis of this genealogy, if there had been a Davidic throne in Joseph’s day, the lowly carpenter would have been the legal heir to it, and Jesus stood after him as the next in line to inherit the royal seat.<\/p>\nIt has been argued against this understanding of Matthew’s genealogy that the presence of Jeconiah in the list (Mt 1:11) jeopardizes, if not completely negates, the legal claim to the Davidic throne of everyone descending directly from him. That is because the Lord declared of him: “Write this man down as childless, . . . for none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David, and ruling again in Judah” (Jer 22:30, rsv<\/span>). Therefore, it is said, it could not have been Matthew’s intention to represent the men from Shealtiel to Joseph as legal heirs to the throne.<\/p>\nThis is a point that admittedly could dispose of the view that the list presents David’s descendants if it were not for the fact that Shealtiel, who in Matthew’s record is represented as the son of Jeconiah, appears also in Luke’s genealogy as the son of Neri (Lk 3:27). Neri’s name is unique to Luke’s Gospel, so it is impossible to check its use elsewhere to discover the actual parentage of Shealtiel. But it is not surprising in the light of Jeremiah 22:30 to find him listed in both accounts with different parents. Neri most likely was Shealtiel’s real father, and while it is impossible to determine Neri’s precise relationship to Jeconiah, it may be that those responsible for determining and keeping the record of the legal heirs to the Davidic throne looked to the collateral line of Neri and selected Shealtiel as the man to be legally adopted into the line and the one through whom the line would continue. Shealtiel may well have died without a male descendant, which made it necessary to look to Zerubbabel, the son of Pedaiah, Shealtiel’s brother by adoption, as the legal heir to the Davidic throne. By this pair of adoptions, the curse upon Jeconiah was fulfilled while an actual grandson of Jeconiah continued the line, inasmuch as the grandson was legally the son of Shealtiel, who in turn was the actual son of Neri. Jeconiah’s presence in the genealogy is a strength, rather than a weakness, for the interpretation that Matthew’s Gospel intended to present the legal heirs of the Davidic throne, since only a writer conscious of the problems surrounding Jeconiah’s lineage, but also aware of an explanation, would present such an ancestry to a Jewish audience he was seeking to convince that Jesus was indeed the royal Messiah.<\/p>\nLuke’s Genealogy (3:23-38)<\/p>\nLuke’s genealogy also has peculiarities.<\/p>\n1. Some expositors have thought it significant that Luke’s genealogy appears not at the beginning of the Gospel but at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry.<\/p>\n<li>2. Luke’s account, in contrast to Matthew’s, begins with Jesus and traces his lineage back through OT history. This seems irregular, for most genealogies follow the order of succession.<\/li>\n<li>3. Luke’s account, furthermore, does not end with Abraham but goes all the way back to “Adam, the son of God” (Lk 3:38).<\/li>\nSome have seen the first peculiarity as a result of Luke’s desire to bring a period of sacred history to its close, and to signal the beginning of another with the person and especially the ministry of Jesus. The genealogy, located as it is, sets off the work of Christ from the accounts of his birth and preparation.<\/p>\nMany have suggested that the regressive order in the genealogy is probably Luke’s instrument to focus attention on Jesus. The fact that Luke traced Jesus’ ancestry back to Adam, “the son of God,” was probably due to the fact that he wrote for Romans and Greeks. By tracing Jesus’ ancestry back to Adam, he shows Jesus to be related to the whole human race. In Luke’s genealogy Jesus and Adam are both “sons of God”; Jesus, of course, is the son of God by nature; Adam, the son of God by having been created in God’s image.<\/p>\nAs to his sources, it is rather certain that Luke used the Septuagint version (ancient Greek version of the OT) of Genesis 11:12, which inserts the name Cainan between Shelah and Arphaxad (Lk 3:36), and the records of 1 Chronicles 1–3 for the history down to David. For the period from David to Jesus, most expositors agree that Luke relied upon information probably received directly from Mary or from persons close to her. It was a common practice among the Jewish people for genealogical records to be maintained both publicly and privately. There was special concern in families of Davidic descent to preserve their ancestral records because of OT prophecies that Messiah would be born in the house of David.<\/p>\nLuke no doubt intended to accomplish more by his list than merely a presentation of a number of Jesus’ ancestors. Since Luke did not highlight David in his list, it may be assumed that he was not zealous to present a list of legal heirs to the Davidic throne—not that the issue is of no concern to him (cf. Lk 1:27, 32, 69; 2:4, 11). Rather, a concern throughout Luke’s Gospel is this emphasis—that of portraying the Christ as the Savior of Romans and Greeks—indeed, of the world. Therefore, though Luke traced Jesus’ ancestry through Joseph’s ancestral line to David, he continued beyond David to Adam. Jesus is a member of the race to which all people belong.<\/p>\nThe Relationship between the Two Records<\/p>\nEven a cursory examination of the two genealogies of Jesus will show several differences. For example, Matthew’s genealogy comprises 41 generations, while Luke lists 76. Luke includes the period between Adam and Abraham; Matthew does not. While the two lists are practically identical from Abraham to David, they diverge for the period from David to Jesus, Matthew tracing Jesus’ lineage from David through Solomon in 27 generations, whereas Luke traces Jesus’ lineage from David through Nathan, another son, in 42 generations. Furthermore, at only one point do the lines converge during this period: at the names of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, who are doubtless the same men in both lists. Finally, Matthew represents Joseph as the son of Jacob (Mt 1:16), whereas in Luke’s account he is the son of Heli (Lk 3:23).<\/p>\nHow are these differences to be explained? The differences between these lists stem from the purposes for which they were compiled and the meanings they were intended to convey.<\/p>\nA widely held explanation is that Matthew gives Jesus’ ancestry through Joseph and that Luke gives his ancestry through Mary. On this interpretation Jacob was Joseph’s real father, and Heli (probably Mary’s father) became Joseph’s foster father, that is, Joseph was Heli’s “son,” or heir, by his marriage to Mary, assuming that Heli had no sons (cf. Nm 27:1-11; 36:1-12). This view is certainly a possibility and should not be rejected out of hand. If Mary was a direct descendant of David, it could be literally said of any son of hers, “He is the seed of David.”<\/p>\nOn the other hand, many scholars prefer to regard Luke’s genealogy as that of Joseph rather than Mary, since it is to Joseph’s ancestry that Luke calls the reader’s attention (Lk 1:27; 2:4). Furthermore, nowhere in Scripture is Mary said to be of Davidic descent. If the fact that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus nullifies any value that Joseph’s lineage might otherwise possess for a real son, why does Luke point to Joseph’s lineage twice, and to Mary’s not at all?<\/p>\nA major difficulty for the view that regards both genealogies as Joseph’s is related to Joseph’s two fathers. One solution is that Matthew gives the legal descendants of David but Luke gives the actual descendants of David in the line to which Joseph belonged. This would mean that Heli was Joseph’s real father and that Jacob was his legal foster father. How this could be is readily explainable. Assuming that Jacob’s father, Matthan (Mt 1:15), and Heli’s father, Matthat (Lk 3:24), are the same person, then Jacob (the elder) may have died without a male descendant so that his nephew, the son of his brother Heli, would have become his heir.<\/p>\nIf Matthan and Matthat are not the same person, one might postulate that Jacob, the legal heir to the throne, died without a descendant and that Joseph, son of Heli, became the legal heir immediately upon the death of Heli and was counted as Jacob’s son in a list of legal heirs to the throne. Possibly Heli, a relative, married Jacob’s widow, thereby making Joseph, the son of that union, Heli’s son and Jacob’s son by levirate marriage. In other words, there are a number of possible explanations of this divergence.<\/p>\nOne other major objection to the view that regards both genealogies as Joseph’s is that, because of the virgin birth of Jesus, one may in no sense speak of Jesus as being literally the seed of David—a proposition that Scripture seems to insist upon. This objection has been adequately countered: (1) because of the realistic manner in which the Jews looked upon adoptive fatherhood; and (2) because the relationship in which Jesus stood to Joseph was much closer than a case of ordinary adoption, there being no earthly father to dispute Joseph’s paternal relation to Jesus. Jesus could and would have been regarded as Joseph’s son and heir with complete propriety, satisfying every scriptural demand that he be the “seed of David.” The question, therefore, whether Mary as well as Joseph was a descendant of David does not need to be answered one way or the other by one who desires to defend Jesus’ Davidic descent.<\/p>\nIt is beyond human reach to discover for certain the full solution to the divergences between the two genealogies of Jesus, or the actual relationship of Jesus to them. Enough has been said to demonstrate that they are reconcilable, and the purposes of each, suggested here, indicate that either of the ways outlined above does full justice to the Davidic descent of Jesus, as rightful heir to his ancestor’s covenanted throne, and also to his virgin birth by Mary.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy; Incarnation; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Virgin Birth of Jesus.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST<\/h3>\nAccount of Jesus’ human descent. The NT records Jesus’ genealogy twice in great detail: in Matthew 1:1-17 and in Luke 3:23-38.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Matthew’s Genealogy<\/p>\n• Luke’s Genealogy<\/p>\n• The Relationship between the Two Records<\/p>\nMatthew’s Genealogy (1:1-17)<\/p>\nMatthew 1:1 presents Jesus Christ as “the son of David, the son of Abraham.” By those two names, Matthew highlights Jesus’ earthly relationship to the Abrahamic (Gn 17:1-8) and Davidic (2 Sm 7:12-16) covenants of promise. Then beginning with the patriarch Abraham, Matthew traces Jesus’ human ancestry through King David to Joseph, “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ” (Mt 1:16). Matthew summarizes his account: “So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations” (v 17, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nAn examination of Matthew’s handling of this genealogical material discloses several interesting peculiarities:<\/p>\n\n1. The arrangement of the names into three groups of 14 seems to be an artificial device.<\/p>\n<li>2. To have 14 names in the second group, Matthew omits three kings—Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah—between Joram and Uzziah (v 8), and one, Jehoiakim, between Josiah and Jeconiah (v 11).<\/li>\n<li>3. In the first group Matthew mentions three women—Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth; and in the second group, he alludes to Bathsheba. This is an uncommon practice in genealogies, and all the more strange when it is noted that these four represent what could be regarded as moral blemishes in the history of the Davidic dynasty— Tamar, a victim of incest; Rahab, a prostitute; Ruth, a Moabitess; and Bathsheba, an adulteress.<\/li>\n<li>4. In the first group Matthew mentions Judah’s brothers and Zerah, Perez’s brother. In the second group he refers to Jeconiah’s brothers.<\/li>\n<li>5. In verse 6 David is called “the king.”<\/li>\nFrom these data, it is obvious that Matthew does not intend to present a strict genealogy; the arrangement is contrived, and extraneous material is included, probably for some other purpose than merely to present Jesus’ forebears. Matthew’s arrangement of the names into groups of 14, probably guided by an interest in portraying Jesus to Jews as the promised king of Israel and rightful heir to the Davidic throne, gives a definite historical movement to the genealogy by dividing it into three periods of time. These respectively highlight the origin, rise to power, and decay of the Davidic house, the last point represented by the lowly birth of the promised heir to a carpenter of Nazareth.<\/p>\nThe 14 names in each group may be an effort to call attention to the thrice-royal character of Mary’s son by focusing on the numerical value 14 of the Hebrew letters in David’s name (d=4, v=6, d=4). This number also happens to be twice the sacred number seven, so that the whole list is composed of three sets of two sevens each. It may be, however, that the contrived groupings were merely intended to aid in memorization.<\/p>\nWith respect to the second peculiarity—the “missing name” in the third group—one must conclude that either David or Jeconiah is to be counted twice, these being the pivotal names separating the three groups, or that a name was mistakenly dropped out in a copy of Matthew’s original Gospel.<\/p>\nThe third peculiarity presents no difficulty at all. Numerous genealogies in Scripture omit some names. Ancient Near Eastern writers often used the phrase “the son of,” or the word “begat,” quite flexibly, relating grandsons or great-grandsons, for instance, to earlier forebears without indicating every intervening ancestor. The modern mind should not require a precision in ancient records that ancient writers themselves did not insist on.<\/p>\nThe women listed in the genealogy—the fourth peculiarity—may have been intended to disarm Jewish criticism about Jesus’ birth (1:18-25) by showing that irregular unions were not disqualifications for the Messiah’s legal ancestry.<\/p>\nThe reason for including several brothers in the genealogy at three points—the fifth peculiarity—is not readily discernible. The mention of “Judah and his brothers” (1:2) may simply be following an established practice of speaking of the 12 patriarchs together.<\/p>\nFinally, David’s description as “the king” (1:6) underscores the Davidic or royal character of the list.<\/p>\nThe sources employed in compiling the first group in the genealogy drew upon records preserved in 1 Chronicles 1:27–2:15 and in Ruth 4:18-22. The second group followed the records found in 1—2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. The third group relied mainly on public or private records from the intertestamental period; the nine names from Abiud to Jacob are not mentioned elsewhere in Scripture.<\/p>\nOn the basis of this genealogy, if there had been a Davidic throne in Joseph’s day, the lowly carpenter would have been the legal heir to it, and Jesus stood after him as the next in line to inherit the royal seat.<\/p>\nIt has been argued against this understanding of Matthew’s genealogy that the presence of Jeconiah in the list (Mt 1:11) jeopardizes, if not completely negates, the legal claim to the Davidic throne of everyone descending directly from him. That is because the Lord declared of him: “Write this man down as childless, . . . for none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David, and ruling again in Judah” (Jer 22:30, rsv<\/span>). Therefore, it is said, it could not have been Matthew’s intention to represent the men from Shealtiel to Joseph as legal heirs to the throne.<\/p>\nThis is a point that admittedly could dispose of the view that the list presents David’s descendants if it were not for the fact that Shealtiel, who in Matthew’s record is represented as the son of Jeconiah, appears also in Luke’s genealogy as the son of Neri (Lk 3:27). Neri’s name is unique to Luke’s Gospel, so it is impossible to check its use elsewhere to discover the actual parentage of Shealtiel. But it is not surprising in the light of Jeremiah 22:30 to find him listed in both accounts with different parents. Neri most likely was Shealtiel’s real father, and while it is impossible to determine Neri’s precise relationship to Jeconiah, it may be that those responsible for determining and keeping the record of the legal heirs to the Davidic throne looked to the collateral line of Neri and selected Shealtiel as the man to be legally adopted into the line and the one through whom the line would continue. Shealtiel may well have died without a male descendant, which made it necessary to look to Zerubbabel, the son of Pedaiah, Shealtiel’s brother by adoption, as the legal heir to the Davidic throne. By this pair of adoptions, the curse upon Jeconiah was fulfilled while an actual grandson of Jeconiah continued the line, inasmuch as the grandson was legally the son of Shealtiel, who in turn was the actual son of Neri. Jeconiah’s presence in the genealogy is a strength, rather than a weakness, for the interpretation that Matthew’s Gospel intended to present the legal heirs of the Davidic throne, since only a writer conscious of the problems surrounding Jeconiah’s lineage, but also aware of an explanation, would present such an ancestry to a Jewish audience he was seeking to convince that Jesus was indeed the royal Messiah.<\/p>\nLuke’s Genealogy (3:23-38)<\/p>\nLuke’s genealogy also has peculiarities.<\/p>\n1. Some expositors have thought it significant that Luke’s genealogy appears not at the beginning of the Gospel but at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry.<\/p>\n<li>2. Luke’s account, in contrast to Matthew’s, begins with Jesus and traces his lineage back through OT history. This seems irregular, for most genealogies follow the order of succession.<\/li>\n<li>3. Luke’s account, furthermore, does not end with Abraham but goes all the way back to “Adam, the son of God” (Lk 3:38).<\/li>\nSome have seen the first peculiarity as a result of Luke’s desire to bring a period of sacred history to its close, and to signal the beginning of another with the person and especially the ministry of Jesus. The genealogy, located as it is, sets off the work of Christ from the accounts of his birth and preparation.<\/p>\nMany have suggested that the regressive order in the genealogy is probably Luke’s instrument to focus attention on Jesus. The fact that Luke traced Jesus’ ancestry back to Adam, “the son of God,” was probably due to the fact that he wrote for Romans and Greeks. By tracing Jesus’ ancestry back to Adam, he shows Jesus to be related to the whole human race. In Luke’s genealogy Jesus and Adam are both “sons of God”; Jesus, of course, is the son of God by nature; Adam, the son of God by having been created in God’s image.<\/p>\nAs to his sources, it is rather certain that Luke used the Septuagint version (ancient Greek version of the OT) of Genesis 11:12, which inserts the name Cainan between Shelah and Arphaxad (Lk 3:36), and the records of 1 Chronicles 1–3 for the history down to David. For the period from David to Jesus, most expositors agree that Luke relied upon information probably received directly from Mary or from persons close to her. It was a common practice among the Jewish people for genealogical records to be maintained both publicly and privately. There was special concern in families of Davidic descent to preserve their ancestral records because of OT prophecies that Messiah would be born in the house of David.<\/p>\nLuke no doubt intended to accomplish more by his list than merely a presentation of a number of Jesus’ ancestors. Since Luke did not highlight David in his list, it may be assumed that he was not zealous to present a list of legal heirs to the Davidic throne—not that the issue is of no concern to him (cf. Lk 1:27, 32, 69; 2:4, 11). Rather, a concern throughout Luke’s Gospel is this emphasis—that of portraying the Christ as the Savior of Romans and Greeks—indeed, of the world. Therefore, though Luke traced Jesus’ ancestry through Joseph’s ancestral line to David, he continued beyond David to Adam. Jesus is a member of the race to which all people belong.<\/p>\nThe Relationship between the Two Records<\/p>\nEven a cursory examination of the two genealogies of Jesus will show several differences. For example, Matthew’s genealogy comprises 41 generations, while Luke lists 76. Luke includes the period between Adam and Abraham; Matthew does not. While the two lists are practically identical from Abraham to David, they diverge for the period from David to Jesus, Matthew tracing Jesus’ lineage from David through Solomon in 27 generations, whereas Luke traces Jesus’ lineage from David through Nathan, another son, in 42 generations. Furthermore, at only one point do the lines converge during this period: at the names of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, who are doubtless the same men in both lists. Finally, Matthew represents Joseph as the son of Jacob (Mt 1:16), whereas in Luke’s account he is the son of Heli (Lk 3:23).<\/p>\nHow are these differences to be explained? The differences between these lists stem from the purposes for which they were compiled and the meanings they were intended to convey.<\/p>\nA widely held explanation is that Matthew gives Jesus’ ancestry through Joseph and that Luke gives his ancestry through Mary. On this interpretation Jacob was Joseph’s real father, and Heli (probably Mary’s father) became Joseph’s foster father, that is, Joseph was Heli’s “son,” or heir, by his marriage to Mary, assuming that Heli had no sons (cf. Nm 27:1-11; 36:1-12). This view is certainly a possibility and should not be rejected out of hand. If Mary was a direct descendant of David, it could be literally said of any son of hers, “He is the seed of David.”<\/p>\nOn the other hand, many scholars prefer to regard Luke’s genealogy as that of Joseph rather than Mary, since it is to Joseph’s ancestry that Luke calls the reader’s attention (Lk 1:27; 2:4). Furthermore, nowhere in Scripture is Mary said to be of Davidic descent. If the fact that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus nullifies any value that Joseph’s lineage might otherwise possess for a real son, why does Luke point to Joseph’s lineage twice, and to Mary’s not at all?<\/p>\nA major difficulty for the view that regards both genealogies as Joseph’s is related to Joseph’s two fathers. One solution is that Matthew gives the legal descendants of David but Luke gives the actual descendants of David in the line to which Joseph belonged. This would mean that Heli was Joseph’s real father and that Jacob was his legal foster father. How this could be is readily explainable. Assuming that Jacob’s father, Matthan (Mt 1:15), and Heli’s father, Matthat (Lk 3:24), are the same person, then Jacob (the elder) may have died without a male descendant so that his nephew, the son of his brother Heli, would have become his heir.<\/p>\nIf Matthan and Matthat are not the same person, one might postulate that Jacob, the legal heir to the throne, died without a descendant and that Joseph, son of Heli, became the legal heir immediately upon the death of Heli and was counted as Jacob’s son in a list of legal heirs to the throne. Possibly Heli, a relative, married Jacob’s widow, thereby making Joseph, the son of that union, Heli’s son and Jacob’s son by levirate marriage. In other words, there are a number of possible explanations of this divergence.<\/p>\nOne other major objection to the view that regards both genealogies as Joseph’s is that, because of the virgin birth of Jesus, one may in no sense speak of Jesus as being literally the seed of David—a proposition that Scripture seems to insist upon. This objection has been adequately countered: (1) because of the realistic manner in which the Jews looked upon adoptive fatherhood; and (2) because the relationship in which Jesus stood to Joseph was much closer than a case of ordinary adoption, there being no earthly father to dispute Joseph’s paternal relation to Jesus. Jesus could and would have been regarded as Joseph’s son and heir with complete propriety, satisfying every scriptural demand that he be the “seed of David.” The question, therefore, whether Mary as well as Joseph was a descendant of David does not need to be answered one way or the other by one who desires to defend Jesus’ Davidic descent.<\/p>\nIt is beyond human reach to discover for certain the full solution to the divergences between the two genealogies of Jesus, or the actual relationship of Jesus to them. Enough has been said to demonstrate that they are reconcilable, and the purposes of each, suggested here, indicate that either of the ways outlined above does full justice to the Davidic descent of Jesus, as rightful heir to his ancestor’s covenanted throne, and also to his virgin birth by Mary.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy; Incarnation; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Virgin Birth of Jesus.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST Account of Jesus’ human descent. The NT records Jesus’ genealogy twice in great detail: in Matthew 1:1-17 and in Luke 3:23-38. Preview • Matthew’s Genealogy • Luke’s Genealogy • The Relationship between the Two Records Matthew’s Genealogy (1:1-17) Matthew 1:1 presents Jesus Christ as “the son of David, the son of Abraham.” By those two names, Matthew highlights Jesus’ earthly relationship to the Abrahamic (Gn 17:1-8) and Davidic (2 Sm 7:12-16) covenants of promise. T...","summary_en":"GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST Account of Jesus’ human descent. The NT records Jesus’ genealogy twice in great detail: in Matthew 1:1-17 and in Luke 3:23-38. Preview • Matthew’s Genealogy • Luke’s Genealogy • The Relationship between the Two Records Matthew’s Genealogy (1:1-17) Matthew 1:1 presents Jesus Christ as “the son of David, the son of Abraham.” By those two names, Matthew highlights Jesus’ earthly relationship to the Abrahamic (Gn 17:1-8) and Davidic (2 Sm 7:12-16) covenants of promise. T...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":34492,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Seth","title_en":"Seth","content_ro":"<h3>SETH<\/h3>\nThird son of Adam and Eve, replacing Abel, whom Cain murdered (Gn 4:25). He appears as the firstborn son of Adam in the genealogies of Genesis 5:3-8, 1 Chronicles 1:1 (kjv<\/span> “Sheth”), and Luke 3:38. It was through Seth’s line that Jesus was born. Seth was the father of Enosh and lived 912 years.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SETH<\/h3>\nThird son of Adam and Eve, replacing Abel, whom Cain murdered (Gn 4:25). He appears as the firstborn son of Adam in the genealogies of Genesis 5:3-8, 1 Chronicles 1:1 (kjv<\/span> “Sheth”), and Luke 3:38. It was through Seth’s line that Jesus was born. Seth was the father of Enosh and lived 912 years.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SETH Third son of Adam and Eve, replacing Abel, whom Cain murdered (Gn 4:25). He appears as the firstborn son of Adam in the genealogies of Genesis 5:3-8, 1 Chronicles 1:1 (kjv “Sheth”), and Luke 3:38. It was through Seth’s line that Jesus was born. Seth was the father of Enosh and lived 912 years. See also Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","summary_en":"SETH Third son of Adam and Eve, replacing Abel, whom Cain murdered (Gn 4:25). He appears as the firstborn son of Adam in the genealogies of Genesis 5:3-8, 1 Chronicles 1:1 (kjv “Sheth”), and Luke 3:38. It was through Seth’s line that Jesus was born. Seth was the father of Enosh and lived 912 years. See also Genealogy of Jesus Christ.","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55677,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:38","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:38","content_ro":"3:38<\/strong> Seth<\/em> was the third son of Adam and Eve, born after Cain murdered Abel and God banished him (Gen 4:25-26). • Adam was the son of God:<\/em> Adam had no earthly father since God created him. In the temptation that follows, Satan repeatedly says to Jesus, “If you are the Son of God. . . .” Adam, the first son of God, failed when tested, but Jesus, the Son of God in the fullest sense, successfully resisted temptation.<\/p>","content_en":"3:38<\/strong> Seth<\/em> was the third son of Adam and Eve, born after Cain murdered Abel and God banished him (Gen 4:25-26). • Adam was the son of God:<\/em> Adam had no earthly father since God created him. In the temptation that follows, Satan repeatedly says to Jesus, “If you are the Son of God. . . .” Adam, the first son of God, failed when tested, but Jesus, the Son of God in the fullest sense, successfully resisted temptation.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:38 Seth was the third son of Adam and Eve, born after Cain murdered Abel and God banished him (Gen 4:25-26). • Adam was the son of God: Adam had no earthly father since God created him. In the temptation that follows, Satan repeatedly says to Jesus, “If you are the Son of God. . . .” Adam, the first son of God, failed when tested, but Jesus, the Son of God in the fullest sense, successfully resisted temptation.","summary_en":"3:38 Seth was the third son of Adam and Eve, born after Cain murdered Abel and God banished him (Gen 4:25-26). • Adam was the son of God: Adam had no earthly father since God created him. In the temptation that follows, Satan repeatedly says to Jesus, “If you are the Son of God. . . .” Adam, the first son of God, failed when tested, but Jesus, the Son of God in the fullest sense, successfully resisted temptation.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83303,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:38","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:38","content_ro":"3:38<\/strong> Seth<\/em> was the third son of Adam and Eve, born after Cain murdered Abel and God banished him (Gen 4:25-26). • Adam was the son of God:<\/em> Adam had no earthly father since God created him. In the temptation that follows, Satan repeatedly says to Jesus, “If you are the Son of God. . . .” Adam, the first son of God, failed when tested, but Jesus, the Son of God in the fullest sense, successfully resisted temptation.<\/p>","content_en":"3:38<\/strong> Seth<\/em> was the third son of Adam and Eve, born after Cain murdered Abel and God banished him (Gen 4:25-26). • Adam was the son of God:<\/em> Adam had no earthly father since God created him. In the temptation that follows, Satan repeatedly says to Jesus, “If you are the Son of God. . . .” Adam, the first son of God, failed when tested, but Jesus, the Son of God in the fullest sense, successfully resisted temptation.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:38 Seth was the third son of Adam and Eve, born after Cain murdered Abel and God banished him (Gen 4:25-26). • Adam was the son of God: Adam had no earthly father since God created him. In the temptation that follows, Satan repeatedly says to Jesus, “If you are the Son of God. . . .” Adam, the first son of God, failed when tested, but Jesus, the Son of God in the fullest sense, successfully resisted temptation.","summary_en":"3:38 Seth was the third son of Adam and Eve, born after Cain murdered Abel and God banished him (Gen 4:25-26). • Adam was the son of God: Adam had no earthly father since God created him. In the temptation that follows, Satan repeatedly says to Jesus, “If you are the Son of God. . . .” Adam, the first son of God, failed when tested, but Jesus, the Son of God in the fullest sense, successfully resisted temptation.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110929,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:38","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:38","content_ro":"3:38<\/strong> Seth<\/em> was the third son of Adam and Eve, born after Cain murdered Abel and God banished him (Gen 4:25-26). • Adam was the son of God:<\/em> Adam had no earthly father since God created him. In the temptation that follows, Satan repeatedly says to Jesus, “If you are the Son of God. . . .” Adam, the first son of God, failed when tested, but Jesus, the Son of God in the fullest sense, successfully resisted temptation.<\/p>","content_en":"3:38<\/strong> Seth<\/em> was the third son of Adam and Eve, born after Cain murdered Abel and God banished him (Gen 4:25-26). • Adam was the son of God:<\/em> Adam had no earthly father since God created him. In the temptation that follows, Satan repeatedly says to Jesus, “If you are the Son of God. . . .” Adam, the first son of God, failed when tested, but Jesus, the Son of God in the fullest sense, successfully resisted temptation.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:38 Seth was the third son of Adam and Eve, born after Cain murdered Abel and God banished him (Gen 4:25-26). • Adam was the son of God: Adam had no earthly father since God created him. In the temptation that follows, Satan repeatedly says to Jesus, “If you are the Son of God. . . .” Adam, the first son of God, failed when tested, but Jesus, the Son of God in the fullest sense, successfully resisted temptation.","summary_en":"3:38 Seth was the third son of Adam and Eve, born after Cain murdered Abel and God banished him (Gen 4:25-26). • Adam was the son of God: Adam had no earthly father since God created him. In the temptation that follows, Satan repeatedly says to Jesus, “If you are the Son of God. . . .” Adam, the first son of God, failed when tested, but Jesus, the Son of God in the fullest sense, successfully resisted temptation.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138555,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Luca 3:38","title_en":"Study Note: Luca 3:38","content_ro":"3:38<\/strong> Seth<\/em> was the third son of Adam and Eve, born after Cain murdered Abel and God banished him (Gen 4:25-26). • Adam was the son of God:<\/em> Adam had no earthly father since God created him. In the temptation that follows, Satan repeatedly says to Jesus, “If you are the Son of God. . . .” Adam, the first son of God, failed when tested, but Jesus, the Son of God in the fullest sense, successfully resisted temptation.<\/p>","content_en":"3:38<\/strong> Seth<\/em> was the third son of Adam and Eve, born after Cain murdered Abel and God banished him (Gen 4:25-26). • Adam was the son of God:<\/em> Adam had no earthly father since God created him. In the temptation that follows, Satan repeatedly says to Jesus, “If you are the Son of God. . . .” Adam, the first son of God, failed when tested, but Jesus, the Son of God in the fullest sense, successfully resisted temptation.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:38 Seth was the third son of Adam and Eve, born after Cain murdered Abel and God banished him (Gen 4:25-26). • Adam was the son of God: Adam had no earthly father since God created him. In the temptation that follows, Satan repeatedly says to Jesus, “If you are the Son of God. . . .” Adam, the first son of God, failed when tested, but Jesus, the Son of God in the fullest sense, successfully resisted temptation.","summary_en":"3:38 Seth was the third son of Adam and Eve, born after Cain murdered Abel and God banished him (Gen 4:25-26). • Adam was the son of God: Adam had no earthly father since God created him. In the temptation that follows, Satan repeatedly says to Jesus, “If you are the Son of God. . . .” Adam, the first son of God, failed when tested, but Jesus, the Son of God in the fullest sense, successfully resisted temptation.","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"}}

Luca 3

Citește Biblia

Luca 3

Niciun rezultat

Redare audio

Bine ai venit! 👋