1
Isus a intrat din nou în sinagogă. Acolo se afla un om cu mâna uscată.
2
Ei pândeau pe Isus să vadă dacă-l va vindeca în ziua Sabatului, ca să -L poată învinui.
3
Şi Isus a zis omului, care avea mâna uscată: ,,Scoală-te, şi stai la mijloc!``
4
Apoi le-a zis: ,,Este îngăduit în ziua Sabatului să faci bine sau să faci rău? Să scapi viaţa cuiva sau s-o pierzi?`` Dar ei tăceau.
5
Atunci, rotindu-Şi privirile cu mânie peste ei, şi mâhnit de împietrirea inimii lor, a zis omului: ,,Întinde-ţi mâna!`` El a întins-o, şi mâna i s-a făcut sănătoasă.
6
Fariseii au ieşit afară, şi s-au sfătuit îndată cu Irodianii cum să -L piardă.
7
Isus S-a dus cu ucenicii Săi la mare. După El a mers o mare mulţime de oameni din Galileia; şi o mare mulţime de oameni din Iudea,
8
din Ierusalim, din Idumea, de dincolo de Iordan, şi dimprejurul Tirului şi Sidonului, când a auzit tot ce făcea, a venit la El.
9
Isus a poruncit ucenicilor să -I ţină la îndemână o corăbioară, ca să nu fie îmbulzit de norod.
10
Căci El vindeca pe mulţi şi de aceea toţi cei ce aveau boli, se înghesuiau spre El ca să se atingă de El.
11
Duhurile necurate, când Îl vedeau, cădeau la pământ înaintea Lui, şi strigau: ,,Tu eşti Fiul lui Dumnezeu.``
12
Dar El le poruncea îndată cu totdinadinsul să nu -L facă cunoscut.
13
În urmă, Isus S-a suit pe munte; a chemat la El pe cine a vrut, şi ei au venit la El.
14
A rânduit dintre ei doisprezece, ca să-i aibă cu Sine, şi să-i trimeată să propovăduiască.
15
Le-a dat şi putere să vindece boalele şi să scoată dracii.
16
Iată cei doisprezece, pe cari i-a rânduit: Simon, căruia i-a pus numele Petru;
17
Iacov, fiul lui Zebedei, şi Ioan, fratele lui Iacov, cărora le-a pus numele Boanerghes, care, tâlmăcit, înseamnă: ,,Fiii tunetului;``
18
Andrei; Filip; Bartolomeu; Matei; Toma; Iacov, fiul lui Alfeu; Tadeu; Simon Cananitul,
19
şi Iuda Iscarioteanul, care L-a şi vândut.
20
Au venit în casă, şi s-a adunat din nou norodul, aşa că nu puteau nici măcar să prânzească.
21
Rudele lui Isus, când au auzit cele ce se petreceau, au venit să pună mâna pe El. Căci ziceau: ,,Şi-a ieşit din minţi.``
22
Şi cărturarii, cari se pogorâseră din Ierusalim, ziceau: ,,Este stăpânit de Beelzebul; scoate dracii cu ajutorul domnului dracilor.``
23
Isus i-a chemat la El, şi le-a zis, în pilde: ,,Cum poate Satana să scoată afară pe Satana?
24
Dacă o împărăţie este desbinată împotriva ei însăş, împărăţia aceea nu poate dăinui.
25
Şi dacă o casă este desbinată împotriva ei însăş, casa aceea nu poate dăinui.
26
Tot astfel, dacă Satana se răscoală împotriva lui însuş, este desbinat, şi nu poate dăinui, ci s-a isprăvit cu el.
27
Nimeni nu poate să intre în casa unui om tare şi să-i jăfuiască gospodăria, decât dacă a legat mai întâi pe omul acela tare; numai atunci îi va jăfui casa.
28
Adevărat vă spun că toate păcatele şi toate hulele, pe cari le vor rosti oamenii, li se vor ierta;
29
dar oricine va huli împotriva Duhului Sfânt, nu va căpăta iertare în veac: ci este vinovat de un păcat vecinic.``
30
Aceasta, pentrucă ei ziceau: ,,Are un duh necurat.``
31
Atunci au venit mama şi fraţii Lui, şi, stând afară, au trimes să -L cheme.
32
Mulţimea şedea în jurul Lui, când I-au spus: ,,Iată că mama Ta şi fraţii Tăi sânt afară şi Te caută.``
33
El a răspuns: ,,Cine este mama Mea, şi fraţii Mei?``
34
Apoi, aruncându-Şi privirile peste cei ce şedeau împrejurul Lui: ,,Iată,`` a zis El, ,,mama Mea şi fraţii Mei!
35
Căci oricine face voia lui Dumnezeu, acela Îmi este frate, soră şi mamă.``
{"verseMap":{"1":[{"id":42051,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"The Pharisees","title_en":"The Pharisees","content_ro":"<h3>The Pharisees<\/h3>\n<p>The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the <em>hasidim<\/em> (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obedient Jews. They taught strict adherence to the law, not only the written law of Moses (<em>torah<\/em>), but also the oral traditions which they claimed Moses had passed down to them. Their goal was to defend the written law against any possible infringement. They were God-fearing and law-abiding people. They were known for passing their interpretations from generation to generation by word of mouth, establishing an oral tradition concerning legal matters. They made the law applicable by extracting from it specific guidelines for many possible situations. They argued that if the law were obeyed by all, the nation would be purged of sin and God would establish his Kingdom over all the nations. This gave their concern for obedience a goal in the future. The traditions of the Pharisees developed into the rabbinic writings known as the <em>Mishnah<\/em> and the <em>Talmud<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Although the Pharisees were small in number, their influence on Israel was widespread (see Matt 15:12-14; see also Josephus, <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.5). The primary influence of the Pharisees was in the local synagogue communities, while the Sadducees were more influential in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem and in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees had a strong belief in the resurrection of the dead (see Acts 23:6-8). After the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Pharisees provided leadership and direction for the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus often came into conflict with the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of elevating human rules over God’s righteous standards. Jesus opposed the Pharisees because they were leading people away from God’s plan for redemption. They were the theological shepherds of Israel, but Jesus castigated them as hypocrites for their perversions of doctrine and practice (see Matt 23). And the Pharisees were antagonistic toward Jesus, rejecting both him and his work, largely because of his shocking disregard of their traditions (see e.g., Matt 15:1-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 5:20; 9:10-14, 34; 12:1-14, 22-24, 38-40; 15:1-14; 16:1-12; 19:3; 21:45; 22:15, 34; 23:1-7, 13-31; 27:62-64; Mark 2:23-25; 3:1-6; 7:1-13; 8:11-12; 12:13-17; Luke 5:17-21, 29-32; 6:6-11; 7:28-30, 36-49; 11:37-54; 12:1-3; 13:31; 14:1-6; 15:1-2; 16:13-15; 17:20-21; 18:9-14; 19:38-40; John 1:24-25; 3:1; 7:31-32, 45-52; 8:3-10, 13; 9:13-34, 40; 11:46-57; 12:17-19, 42; 18:3; Acts 5:27-40; 15:5; 23:6-10; 26:4-5; Phil 3:5-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Pharisees<\/h3>\n<p>The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the <em>hasidim<\/em> (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obedient Jews. They taught strict adherence to the law, not only the written law of Moses (<em>torah<\/em>), but also the oral traditions which they claimed Moses had passed down to them. Their goal was to defend the written law against any possible infringement. They were God-fearing and law-abiding people. They were known for passing their interpretations from generation to generation by word of mouth, establishing an oral tradition concerning legal matters. They made the law applicable by extracting from it specific guidelines for many possible situations. They argued that if the law were obeyed by all, the nation would be purged of sin and God would establish his Kingdom over all the nations. This gave their concern for obedience a goal in the future. The traditions of the Pharisees developed into the rabbinic writings known as the <em>Mishnah<\/em> and the <em>Talmud<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Although the Pharisees were small in number, their influence on Israel was widespread (see Matt 15:12-14; see also Josephus, <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.5). The primary influence of the Pharisees was in the local synagogue communities, while the Sadducees were more influential in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem and in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees had a strong belief in the resurrection of the dead (see Acts 23:6-8). After the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Pharisees provided leadership and direction for the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus often came into conflict with the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of elevating human rules over God’s righteous standards. Jesus opposed the Pharisees because they were leading people away from God’s plan for redemption. They were the theological shepherds of Israel, but Jesus castigated them as hypocrites for their perversions of doctrine and practice (see Matt 23). And the Pharisees were antagonistic toward Jesus, rejecting both him and his work, largely because of his shocking disregard of their traditions (see e.g., Matt 15:1-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 5:20; 9:10-14, 34; 12:1-14, 22-24, 38-40; 15:1-14; 16:1-12; 19:3; 21:45; 22:15, 34; 23:1-7, 13-31; 27:62-64; Mark 2:23-25; 3:1-6; 7:1-13; 8:11-12; 12:13-17; Luke 5:17-21, 29-32; 6:6-11; 7:28-30, 36-49; 11:37-54; 12:1-3; 13:31; 14:1-6; 15:1-2; 16:13-15; 17:20-21; 18:9-14; 19:38-40; John 1:24-25; 3:1; 7:31-32, 45-52; 8:3-10, 13; 9:13-34, 40; 11:46-57; 12:17-19, 42; 18:3; Acts 5:27-40; 15:5; 23:6-10; 26:4-5; Phil 3:5-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Pharisees The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the hasidim (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century BC. The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obed...","summary_en":"The Pharisees The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the hasidim (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century BC. The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obed...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":69677,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"The Pharisees","title_en":"The Pharisees","content_ro":"<h3>The Pharisees<\/h3>\n<p>The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the <em>hasidim<\/em> (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obedient Jews. They taught strict adherence to the law, not only the written law of Moses (<em>torah<\/em>), but also the oral traditions which they claimed Moses had passed down to them. Their goal was to defend the written law against any possible infringement. They were God-fearing and law-abiding people. They were known for passing their interpretations from generation to generation by word of mouth, establishing an oral tradition concerning legal matters. They made the law applicable by extracting from it specific guidelines for many possible situations. They argued that if the law were obeyed by all, the nation would be purged of sin and God would establish his Kingdom over all the nations. This gave their concern for obedience a goal in the future. The traditions of the Pharisees developed into the rabbinic writings known as the <em>Mishnah<\/em> and the <em>Talmud<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Although the Pharisees were small in number, their influence on Israel was widespread (see Matt 15:12-14; see also Josephus, <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.5). The primary influence of the Pharisees was in the local synagogue communities, while the Sadducees were more influential in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem and in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees had a strong belief in the resurrection of the dead (see Acts 23:6-8). After the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Pharisees provided leadership and direction for the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus often came into conflict with the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of elevating human rules over God’s righteous standards. Jesus opposed the Pharisees because they were leading people away from God’s plan for redemption. They were the theological shepherds of Israel, but Jesus castigated them as hypocrites for their perversions of doctrine and practice (see Matt 23). And the Pharisees were antagonistic toward Jesus, rejecting both him and his work, largely because of his shocking disregard of their traditions (see e.g., Matt 15:1-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 5:20; 9:10-14, 34; 12:1-14, 22-24, 38-40; 15:1-14; 16:1-12; 19:3; 21:45; 22:15, 34; 23:1-7, 13-31; 27:62-64; Mark 2:23-25; 3:1-6; 7:1-13; 8:11-12; 12:13-17; Luke 5:17-21, 29-32; 6:6-11; 7:28-30, 36-49; 11:37-54; 12:1-3; 13:31; 14:1-6; 15:1-2; 16:13-15; 17:20-21; 18:9-14; 19:38-40; John 1:24-25; 3:1; 7:31-32, 45-52; 8:3-10, 13; 9:13-34, 40; 11:46-57; 12:17-19, 42; 18:3; Acts 5:27-40; 15:5; 23:6-10; 26:4-5; Phil 3:5-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Pharisees<\/h3>\n<p>The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the <em>hasidim<\/em> (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obedient Jews. They taught strict adherence to the law, not only the written law of Moses (<em>torah<\/em>), but also the oral traditions which they claimed Moses had passed down to them. Their goal was to defend the written law against any possible infringement. They were God-fearing and law-abiding people. They were known for passing their interpretations from generation to generation by word of mouth, establishing an oral tradition concerning legal matters. They made the law applicable by extracting from it specific guidelines for many possible situations. They argued that if the law were obeyed by all, the nation would be purged of sin and God would establish his Kingdom over all the nations. This gave their concern for obedience a goal in the future. The traditions of the Pharisees developed into the rabbinic writings known as the <em>Mishnah<\/em> and the <em>Talmud<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Although the Pharisees were small in number, their influence on Israel was widespread (see Matt 15:12-14; see also Josephus, <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.5). The primary influence of the Pharisees was in the local synagogue communities, while the Sadducees were more influential in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem and in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees had a strong belief in the resurrection of the dead (see Acts 23:6-8). After the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Pharisees provided leadership and direction for the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus often came into conflict with the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of elevating human rules over God’s righteous standards. Jesus opposed the Pharisees because they were leading people away from God’s plan for redemption. They were the theological shepherds of Israel, but Jesus castigated them as hypocrites for their perversions of doctrine and practice (see Matt 23). And the Pharisees were antagonistic toward Jesus, rejecting both him and his work, largely because of his shocking disregard of their traditions (see e.g., Matt 15:1-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 5:20; 9:10-14, 34; 12:1-14, 22-24, 38-40; 15:1-14; 16:1-12; 19:3; 21:45; 22:15, 34; 23:1-7, 13-31; 27:62-64; Mark 2:23-25; 3:1-6; 7:1-13; 8:11-12; 12:13-17; Luke 5:17-21, 29-32; 6:6-11; 7:28-30, 36-49; 11:37-54; 12:1-3; 13:31; 14:1-6; 15:1-2; 16:13-15; 17:20-21; 18:9-14; 19:38-40; John 1:24-25; 3:1; 7:31-32, 45-52; 8:3-10, 13; 9:13-34, 40; 11:46-57; 12:17-19, 42; 18:3; Acts 5:27-40; 15:5; 23:6-10; 26:4-5; Phil 3:5-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Pharisees The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the hasidim (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century BC. The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obed...","summary_en":"The Pharisees The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the hasidim (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century BC. The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obed...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":97303,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"The Pharisees","title_en":"The Pharisees","content_ro":"<h3>The Pharisees<\/h3>\n<p>The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the <em>hasidim<\/em> (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obedient Jews. They taught strict adherence to the law, not only the written law of Moses (<em>torah<\/em>), but also the oral traditions which they claimed Moses had passed down to them. Their goal was to defend the written law against any possible infringement. They were God-fearing and law-abiding people. They were known for passing their interpretations from generation to generation by word of mouth, establishing an oral tradition concerning legal matters. They made the law applicable by extracting from it specific guidelines for many possible situations. They argued that if the law were obeyed by all, the nation would be purged of sin and God would establish his Kingdom over all the nations. This gave their concern for obedience a goal in the future. The traditions of the Pharisees developed into the rabbinic writings known as the <em>Mishnah<\/em> and the <em>Talmud<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Although the Pharisees were small in number, their influence on Israel was widespread (see Matt 15:12-14; see also Josephus, <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.5). The primary influence of the Pharisees was in the local synagogue communities, while the Sadducees were more influential in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem and in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees had a strong belief in the resurrection of the dead (see Acts 23:6-8). After the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Pharisees provided leadership and direction for the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus often came into conflict with the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of elevating human rules over God’s righteous standards. Jesus opposed the Pharisees because they were leading people away from God’s plan for redemption. They were the theological shepherds of Israel, but Jesus castigated them as hypocrites for their perversions of doctrine and practice (see Matt 23). And the Pharisees were antagonistic toward Jesus, rejecting both him and his work, largely because of his shocking disregard of their traditions (see e.g., Matt 15:1-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 5:20; 9:10-14, 34; 12:1-14, 22-24, 38-40; 15:1-14; 16:1-12; 19:3; 21:45; 22:15, 34; 23:1-7, 13-31; 27:62-64; Mark 2:23-25; 3:1-6; 7:1-13; 8:11-12; 12:13-17; Luke 5:17-21, 29-32; 6:6-11; 7:28-30, 36-49; 11:37-54; 12:1-3; 13:31; 14:1-6; 15:1-2; 16:13-15; 17:20-21; 18:9-14; 19:38-40; John 1:24-25; 3:1; 7:31-32, 45-52; 8:3-10, 13; 9:13-34, 40; 11:46-57; 12:17-19, 42; 18:3; Acts 5:27-40; 15:5; 23:6-10; 26:4-5; Phil 3:5-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Pharisees<\/h3>\n<p>The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the <em>hasidim<\/em> (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obedient Jews. They taught strict adherence to the law, not only the written law of Moses (<em>torah<\/em>), but also the oral traditions which they claimed Moses had passed down to them. Their goal was to defend the written law against any possible infringement. They were God-fearing and law-abiding people. They were known for passing their interpretations from generation to generation by word of mouth, establishing an oral tradition concerning legal matters. They made the law applicable by extracting from it specific guidelines for many possible situations. They argued that if the law were obeyed by all, the nation would be purged of sin and God would establish his Kingdom over all the nations. This gave their concern for obedience a goal in the future. The traditions of the Pharisees developed into the rabbinic writings known as the <em>Mishnah<\/em> and the <em>Talmud<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Although the Pharisees were small in number, their influence on Israel was widespread (see Matt 15:12-14; see also Josephus, <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.5). The primary influence of the Pharisees was in the local synagogue communities, while the Sadducees were more influential in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem and in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees had a strong belief in the resurrection of the dead (see Acts 23:6-8). After the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Pharisees provided leadership and direction for the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus often came into conflict with the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of elevating human rules over God’s righteous standards. Jesus opposed the Pharisees because they were leading people away from God’s plan for redemption. They were the theological shepherds of Israel, but Jesus castigated them as hypocrites for their perversions of doctrine and practice (see Matt 23). And the Pharisees were antagonistic toward Jesus, rejecting both him and his work, largely because of his shocking disregard of their traditions (see e.g., Matt 15:1-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 5:20; 9:10-14, 34; 12:1-14, 22-24, 38-40; 15:1-14; 16:1-12; 19:3; 21:45; 22:15, 34; 23:1-7, 13-31; 27:62-64; Mark 2:23-25; 3:1-6; 7:1-13; 8:11-12; 12:13-17; Luke 5:17-21, 29-32; 6:6-11; 7:28-30, 36-49; 11:37-54; 12:1-3; 13:31; 14:1-6; 15:1-2; 16:13-15; 17:20-21; 18:9-14; 19:38-40; John 1:24-25; 3:1; 7:31-32, 45-52; 8:3-10, 13; 9:13-34, 40; 11:46-57; 12:17-19, 42; 18:3; Acts 5:27-40; 15:5; 23:6-10; 26:4-5; Phil 3:5-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Pharisees The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the hasidim (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century BC. The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obed...","summary_en":"The Pharisees The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the hasidim (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century BC. The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obed...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":124929,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"The Pharisees","title_en":"The Pharisees","content_ro":"<h3>The Pharisees<\/h3>\n<p>The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the <em>hasidim<\/em> (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obedient Jews. They taught strict adherence to the law, not only the written law of Moses (<em>torah<\/em>), but also the oral traditions which they claimed Moses had passed down to them. Their goal was to defend the written law against any possible infringement. They were God-fearing and law-abiding people. They were known for passing their interpretations from generation to generation by word of mouth, establishing an oral tradition concerning legal matters. They made the law applicable by extracting from it specific guidelines for many possible situations. They argued that if the law were obeyed by all, the nation would be purged of sin and God would establish his Kingdom over all the nations. This gave their concern for obedience a goal in the future. The traditions of the Pharisees developed into the rabbinic writings known as the <em>Mishnah<\/em> and the <em>Talmud<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Although the Pharisees were small in number, their influence on Israel was widespread (see Matt 15:12-14; see also Josephus, <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.5). The primary influence of the Pharisees was in the local synagogue communities, while the Sadducees were more influential in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem and in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees had a strong belief in the resurrection of the dead (see Acts 23:6-8). After the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Pharisees provided leadership and direction for the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus often came into conflict with the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of elevating human rules over God’s righteous standards. Jesus opposed the Pharisees because they were leading people away from God’s plan for redemption. They were the theological shepherds of Israel, but Jesus castigated them as hypocrites for their perversions of doctrine and practice (see Matt 23). And the Pharisees were antagonistic toward Jesus, rejecting both him and his work, largely because of his shocking disregard of their traditions (see e.g., Matt 15:1-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 5:20; 9:10-14, 34; 12:1-14, 22-24, 38-40; 15:1-14; 16:1-12; 19:3; 21:45; 22:15, 34; 23:1-7, 13-31; 27:62-64; Mark 2:23-25; 3:1-6; 7:1-13; 8:11-12; 12:13-17; Luke 5:17-21, 29-32; 6:6-11; 7:28-30, 36-49; 11:37-54; 12:1-3; 13:31; 14:1-6; 15:1-2; 16:13-15; 17:20-21; 18:9-14; 19:38-40; John 1:24-25; 3:1; 7:31-32, 45-52; 8:3-10, 13; 9:13-34, 40; 11:46-57; 12:17-19, 42; 18:3; Acts 5:27-40; 15:5; 23:6-10; 26:4-5; Phil 3:5-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Pharisees<\/h3>\n<p>The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the <em>hasidim<\/em> (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obedient Jews. They taught strict adherence to the law, not only the written law of Moses (<em>torah<\/em>), but also the oral traditions which they claimed Moses had passed down to them. Their goal was to defend the written law against any possible infringement. They were God-fearing and law-abiding people. They were known for passing their interpretations from generation to generation by word of mouth, establishing an oral tradition concerning legal matters. They made the law applicable by extracting from it specific guidelines for many possible situations. They argued that if the law were obeyed by all, the nation would be purged of sin and God would establish his Kingdom over all the nations. This gave their concern for obedience a goal in the future. The traditions of the Pharisees developed into the rabbinic writings known as the <em>Mishnah<\/em> and the <em>Talmud<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Although the Pharisees were small in number, their influence on Israel was widespread (see Matt 15:12-14; see also Josephus, <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.5). The primary influence of the Pharisees was in the local synagogue communities, while the Sadducees were more influential in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem and in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees had a strong belief in the resurrection of the dead (see Acts 23:6-8). After the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Pharisees provided leadership and direction for the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus often came into conflict with the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of elevating human rules over God’s righteous standards. Jesus opposed the Pharisees because they were leading people away from God’s plan for redemption. They were the theological shepherds of Israel, but Jesus castigated them as hypocrites for their perversions of doctrine and practice (see Matt 23). And the Pharisees were antagonistic toward Jesus, rejecting both him and his work, largely because of his shocking disregard of their traditions (see e.g., Matt 15:1-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 5:20; 9:10-14, 34; 12:1-14, 22-24, 38-40; 15:1-14; 16:1-12; 19:3; 21:45; 22:15, 34; 23:1-7, 13-31; 27:62-64; Mark 2:23-25; 3:1-6; 7:1-13; 8:11-12; 12:13-17; Luke 5:17-21, 29-32; 6:6-11; 7:28-30, 36-49; 11:37-54; 12:1-3; 13:31; 14:1-6; 15:1-2; 16:13-15; 17:20-21; 18:9-14; 19:38-40; John 1:24-25; 3:1; 7:31-32, 45-52; 8:3-10, 13; 9:13-34, 40; 11:46-57; 12:17-19, 42; 18:3; Acts 5:27-40; 15:5; 23:6-10; 26:4-5; Phil 3:5-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Pharisees The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the hasidim (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century BC. The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obed...","summary_en":"The Pharisees The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the hasidim (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century BC. The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obed...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":9213,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Deformity","title_en":"Deformity","content_ro":"<h3>DEFORMITY<\/h3>\n<p>Any obvious physical abnormality. In the OT sacrificial system both the animal to be sacrificed (Lv 1:3; 4:3) and the priest who performed the sacrifice (ch 21) had to be perfect physical specimens, without defect or blemish. By being perfect, they are both OT types of Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Of the 11 defects that would exclude a man from becoming a priest (Lv 21:17-20), seven are in the musculoskeletal system, two are in the eye, one is of the skin, and one is in the reproductive system. The deformity of the “flat nose” (<span>kjv<\/span>) or “disfigurement” (<span>niv<\/span>) in Leviticus 21:18 does not refer to a normal variant, but to a severely diseased nose. There are a large number of genetic syndromes and inherited diseases that feature very deformed noses. Likewise, the acquired infectious diseases of syphilis, tuberculosis, and leprosy can cause destruction of the bone and cartilage support of the nose. With the support gone, the skin of the nose sinks inward. This is referred to today as a “saddle-shaped” deformity of the nose.<\/p>\n<p>Both the OT and the NT describe an instance where a man has a “withered” (<span>kjv<\/span>) or “shriveled” (<span>niv<\/span>) arm or hand. Such a defect occurs when the nerves supplying an extremity are damaged and the muscles atrophy. An injury from a sword striking an arm can cause this (Zec 11:17). From the NT we learn that Jesus had the power to instantly heal a man with a chronically paralyzed hand (Mt 12:10; Mk 3:1; Lk 6:6).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Disease; Medicine and Medical Practice.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DEFORMITY<\/h3>\n<p>Any obvious physical abnormality. In the OT sacrificial system both the animal to be sacrificed (Lv 1:3; 4:3) and the priest who performed the sacrifice (ch 21) had to be perfect physical specimens, without defect or blemish. By being perfect, they are both OT types of Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Of the 11 defects that would exclude a man from becoming a priest (Lv 21:17-20), seven are in the musculoskeletal system, two are in the eye, one is of the skin, and one is in the reproductive system. The deformity of the “flat nose” (<span>kjv<\/span>) or “disfigurement” (<span>niv<\/span>) in Leviticus 21:18 does not refer to a normal variant, but to a severely diseased nose. There are a large number of genetic syndromes and inherited diseases that feature very deformed noses. Likewise, the acquired infectious diseases of syphilis, tuberculosis, and leprosy can cause destruction of the bone and cartilage support of the nose. With the support gone, the skin of the nose sinks inward. This is referred to today as a “saddle-shaped” deformity of the nose.<\/p>\n<p>Both the OT and the NT describe an instance where a man has a “withered” (<span>kjv<\/span>) or “shriveled” (<span>niv<\/span>) arm or hand. Such a defect occurs when the nerves supplying an extremity are damaged and the muscles atrophy. An injury from a sword striking an arm can cause this (Zec 11:17). From the NT we learn that Jesus had the power to instantly heal a man with a chronically paralyzed hand (Mt 12:10; Mk 3:1; Lk 6:6).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Disease; Medicine and Medical Practice.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DEFORMITY Any obvious physical abnormality. In the OT sacrificial system both the animal to be sacrificed (Lv 1:3; 4:3) and the priest who performed the sacrifice (ch 21) had to be perfect physical specimens, without defect or blemish. By being perfect, they are both OT types of Christ. Of the 11 defects that would exclude a man from becoming a priest (Lv 21:17-20), seven are in the musculoskeletal system, two are in the eye, one is of the skin, and one is in the reproductive system. The defo...","summary_en":"DEFORMITY Any obvious physical abnormality. In the OT sacrificial system both the animal to be sacrificed (Lv 1:3; 4:3) and the priest who performed the sacrifice (ch 21) had to be perfect physical specimens, without defect or blemish. By being perfect, they are both OT types of Christ. Of the 11 defects that would exclude a man from becoming a priest (Lv 21:17-20), seven are in the musculoskeletal system, two are in the eye, one is of the skin, and one is in the reproductive system. The defo...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":12202,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Feasts and Festivals of Israel","title_en":"Feasts and Festivals of Israel","content_ro":"<h3>FEASTS AND FESTIVALS OF ISRAEL<\/h3>\n<p>Occasions of public or private rejoicing to commemorate some significant event or personage. The element of celebration has a special meaning in the cycle of religious occasions and the rites and ceremonies associated with these particular days. While the idea of a feast commonly implies a banquet with plenteous food and drink, this element is not indispensable. Sometimes there is only a token amount, as in the celebration of Holy Communion.<\/p>\n\n<p>In contemporary usage “festival” usually refers to activities extending over a period of time, while “feast” indicates one part of the celebration, often a meal. However, in religious usage, both ancient and modern, the two words are used interchangeably. The ancient Hebrews employed the words <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mo’ed<\/span> (“seasons”) and <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">hag<\/span> for their great public celebrations, while feasts of a more private nature were commonly described by the term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mishteh<\/span><em>.<\/em> The majority of English translations of Scripture do not differentiate between these words.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FeastsandTheirFunctions\">Feasts and Their Functions<\/p>\n<p>Each festival places great emphasis on community participation and on the continuity of social or religious tradition, especially where the celebrations are elements of a regular civil or religious calendar. Without community backing, even in a family celebration, no festival can be successful. When there is communal participation, a festival can reinforce the individual and community memory of specific occasions, and can perpetuate that store of recollection over years and generations. Such shared memory has a cohesive effect upon a cooperating community, large or small, and serves to establish the traditions by which the group lives. If the festival commemorates a particular event or celebrates some lofty ideal, that theme becomes more firmly embedded in the minds of the participants by being associated repeatedly with the rites and ceremonies performed. The feasts of the ancient Hebrews had this positive function. The great festivals of their religious calendar commemorated specific occasions when God had reached out in power to intervene for his people or had provided for them in their distress. By celebrating these feasts on a regular basis, the Hebrews continually affirmed that their God had directed their destiny. Their repeated rehearsal of God’s help and love for them reminded them that he was still able to sustain them. Especially in times of hardship, it pointed to the reality of God’s presence and activity among them. Faith sustained by this means furnished an invaluable spiritual dimension to the life of the nation and provided a sense of continuity under divine provision and guidance. Only when corrupt or pagan elements were introduced into festive occasions did this important ingredient of national life begin to lose its vitality.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentFestivals\">Old Testament Festivals<\/p>\n<h5>General Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>These occasions were surprisingly numerous in Israel, considering the rather austere mode of life reflected in much of the OT. No doubt such celebrations offset or compensated for the hardships and insecurities of existence in the ancient Near East, and the Israelites made the most of every opportunity. A wedding was one of the most obvious occasions for celebration, and it is not surprising that a feast was prepared for the marriage of Rachel and Jacob (Gn 29:22) in which the whole neighborhood participated. Just how long this particular feast lasted is unknown, but some marriage festivals continued for a week, as in the case of the marriage between Samson and the woman of Timnah (Jgs 14:17). Wine that makes glad man’s heart (Ps 104:15) was consumed freely on such occasions.<\/p>\n<p>Birthdays were often observed in a festive spirit, especially where a royal person was concerned (Gn 40:20). Solomon’s dream was commemorated with a feast provided for his servants (1 Kgs 3:15), and when the temple was dedicated, the occasion was celebrated for a full week (8:65). Kings and queens held feasts periodically to mark certain occasions or to express goodwill (cf. Est 1:3; 2:18; 5:4, 14; 7:2, 7; Dn 5:1). Herdsmen traditionally made a feast for the shearing of the first sheep (Dt 18:4).<\/p>\n<h5>Preexilic Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>In addition to the general festivals, which were frequently of a secular nature, communal feasts were prescribed for the Israelites that had a specifically spiritual significance. They were meant to emphasize the activity of God on behalf of his people and to remind them that continued divine blessing depended upon their obedience to his will. The catalog of festivals in Leviticus 23:2 began with an injunction to observe the Sabbath. The seventh day, in which God ceased from creating (Gn 2:3), was holy, though it is difficult to determine the extent to which it was kept until the time of Moses (Ex 20:8-11). From that time on, Sabbath observance stressed refraining from all work so as to commemorate properly God’s own rest from creative activity (31:17) and his deliverance of his people from bondage in Egypt (Dt 5:12-15). Sabbath celebration was the sign of a special relationship between God and the Israelites. During this 24-hour period, even trivial tasks like making a fire (Ex 35:3) or gathering wood (Nm 15:32-33) were prohibited on pain of death. Journeys of any distance also came under the Sabbath ban (Ex 16:29). Special offerings were part of the observance (Nm 28:9-10), and the bread of the Presence was replaced in the tabernacle (Lv 24:5-8). Despite the restrictions on activity, the Sabbath was meant to symbolize a time of happiness and security in the presence of God (cf. Is 58:13-14), since its observance would bring blessing to the individual and to the whole land.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of the New Moon<\/h6>\n<p>The new moon was a monthly celebration based on the lunar calendar. It was especially appropriate for an agricultural people, since everyone could tell when the moon was new. Special offerings were prescribed for this festival, consisting of a burnt sacrifice, a grain offering, and a drink offering (Nm 28:11-15). In addition, a male goat was sacrificed to God as a sin offering, and trumpet blasts were sounded over the sacrificial offerings as a memorial before God (10:10). The sacrifices prescribed for the new moon festival were significantly greater than those required in Numbers 28:9-10 for the weekly Sabbath.<\/p>\n<p>This lunar feast was popular throughout Israelite history. During the monarchy, the Levites were required to assist the Aaronic priests at the new moon festival, as well as on the Sabbath (1 Chr 23:29-31). The preexilic prophets may well have taken advantage of the large gatherings to give guidance to the people or proclaim prophetic oracles (cf. 2 Kgs 4:23), though to what extent this was done is uncertain. Not everyone found the period of rest and celebration valuable, however, and Amos (Am 8:5) complained about those avaricious Israelites who felt that such observances interfered with the business of making a living. The feast could not be observed when the Judeans were in exile in Babylonia (cf. Hos 2:11), but under Ezra and Nehemiah, its observance was restored (Neh 10:33). In Isaiah 66:22-23 it was related to Israel’s final destiny and was an accepted part of the ordinances for Ezekiel’s ideal temple (Ez 45:17).<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the festival was to enhance the unity of national life by reminding the Israelites that God’s covenant with their ancestors was permanent and still binding upon the nation. It also stressed the loving nature and providence of a God who could begin such a relationship and carry out his promises with complete faithfulness (cf. Ps 104:19).<\/p>\n<h6>The Festival of Trumpets<\/h6>\n<p>The Festival of Trumpets was celebrated on the first day of the seventh new moon. This month, subsequently named Tishri, was especially holy, and for this reason was governed by certain regulations different from those of ordinary new moon festivals. The trumpets were blown on the first day (Lv 23:24) as the animal and cereal sacrifices were offered. From Numbers 29:2-6 it appears that the offerings required for this particular feast exceeded those prescribed for normal Sabbath sacrifice, but were somewhat less than those required for the regular new moon festival (cf. Nm 28:11). This feast was to be observed as a day of solemn rest and as a holy convocation, and the trumpets were sounded as a triumphant memorial to God’s great provision for his people through the Sinai covenant.<\/p>\n<p>The seventh month was particularly sacred, partly because of its place in the hallowed cycle of sevens, but also because the Day of Atonement (or Yom Kippur) and the Feast of Tabernacles, or Booths (Shelters), occurred during this period. The latter feast followed the Day of Atonement by some five days (Lv 23:33), and its joyful character served to offset somewhat the solemnity of the annual penitential occasion when the nation confessed its collective sins and saw them banished symbolically into the wilderness as the scapegoat was driven from the congregation.<\/p>\n<h6>The Sabbatical Year<\/h6>\n<p>Another festival closely connected with the institution of the Sabbath was the sabbatical year. At the end of each cycle of six years, the following 12 months were observed as a “sabbath of rest for the land.” During this interval, the ground was to lie fallow (Ex 23:11) without any form of cultivation, and whatever sprouted and grew from it naturally was assigned to the poor and needy (Lv 25:6). This provision for the land itself constituted one of the most important ecological principles of Scripture. Like God’s people, the land was holy, and just as they needed to have regular intervals of rest from daily work in order to regain their energy and spiritual vitality through worship, so the ground needed to rest and recuperate from the strain of constant cultivation. The festival reminded the Israelites that the land on which they lived had been given to them by God in fulfillment of his covenant undertaking to provide richly for their physical needs (cf. Dt 8:7-10). To keep the Israelites from experiencing any shortages or other hardships during the Year of Sabbath, God promised that in the year immediately preceding the sabbatical period, the land would bear fruit to suffice for the next three years (Lv 25:21). This assurance was based upon the experience of the wilderness wanderings, when on the sixth day of the week sufficient manna appeared to last through the Sabbath (Ex 16:5).<\/p>\n<p>In this festival period, God’s absolute claim over the land was reaffirmed (cf. Lv 25:23), and the faith of the nation in God’s ability to provide for future needs was reinforced. The provisions that freed the land for a year from agricultural bondage were paralleled in the seventh year of rest by those requiring liberation of slaves and debtors. These underprivileged members of society were to be released from their obligations of servitude. As a result, men and women who had become slaves for one reason or another were given personal liberty (Ex 21:2-6), and under proclamation of the Lord’s release, the provisions applying to debt were rescinded (Dt 15:1-6). The sabbatical year seems to have been a regular part of preexilic Israelite life, although some abuses were noted in Jeremiah 34:8-22. There the prophet took advantage of the opportunity presented to instruct the people in the nature and purpose of the sabbatical year ordinance. He also warned the wayward Judeans that because they had disobeyed the commands of God in denying proper liberty to their slaves, they would have their own freedom taken away in a far more serious manner by being carried captive to Babylonia after seeing their land destroyed. The lesson was not lost upon those who returned from exile, for under the administration of Nehemiah, the Jews bound themselves by a covenant to observe the principle of the sabbatical year (Neh 10:31). This undertaking evidently took its impetus from the reading of the law of Moses at the Feast of Booths (Shelters), which coincidentally occurred at the beginning of the sabbatical year (Neh 8:13-18).<\/p>\n<h6>Jubilee<\/h6>\n<p>Still another feast based on the principle of the sabbath was the Year of Jubilee, or Pentecostal year (Lv 25:8-55; 27:17-24). As the sabbatical year was related to the concept of the seventh day, so the Pentecostal (50th) year marked the completion of a cycle of seven sabbatical years. The commencement of a jubilee year was proclaimed on the Day of Atonement throughout the land by means of trumpet blasts (Lv 25:9). The activities that took place during the Pentecostal year were similar to those prescribed for the sabbatical year. A special feature was that land that had been sold during the preceding 49 years was returned to its original owners, a procedure that sometimes involved financial adjustments. To prevent abuse of the process through opportunism or speculation, the Hebrews were instructed to deal fairly and honestly with one another in the fear of God, who was the real owner of the land (Lv 25:14-17). As with the sabbatical year, God promised to make provision before the jubilee year so that no one would suffer hardship. It was during the Year of Jubilee that those who were slaves in Hebrew households were given their liberty, so that everyone in the land would commence a new cycle of sabbatical years on the same footing, as free persons under God.<\/p>\n<h5>Seasonal Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>Three annual festivals that followed the seasons of the year rather than phases of the moon furnished important occasions for commemorating God’s power and provision in national life. These festivals were designated by the term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">hag<\/span><em>,<\/em> indicating a festival usually observed by some sort of pilgrimage. These three festivals were prescribed in Exodus 23:14-17 and Deuteronomy 16:16, and consisted of the Feast of Passover and Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost), and the Festival of Booths (Tabernacles). On these occasions, all the males of Israel were commanded to make pilgrimage to the sanctuary and celebrate these festivals (Ex 12:14). The Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were originally separate ordinances, but since the latter always followed immediately upon the Passover rite, they naturally blended into a single festival.<\/p>\n<h6>Passover<\/h6>\n<p>The Passover was of supreme theological significance for the Israelites, since it marked one of the most momentous acts of divine intervention in their history, the beginning of their deliverance from bondage in Egypt when, in the final plague, God destroyed the firstborn of the Egyptians but spared those Israelites whose homes had blood smeared on the doorposts (Ex 12:11-30). God commanded that the day was to be observed as a memorial feast (v 14), and the next Passover celebration occurred in the Sinai Desert (Nm 9:1-5). In the Hebrew calendar the Passover festival came in the first month, called Abib in Deuteronomy 16:1, but known after the exile as Nisan (cf. Neh 2:1). The Passover rite took place the 14th evening (Lv 23:5), and this was followed by a seven-day period during which nothing leavened was to be eaten. The principle for removing all leaven from bread was similar to that underlying the draining of blood from animal flesh. Both leaven and blood had quickening power and were to be kept separate as an offering to God. The first and seventh days of this period were marked by a holy assembly, during which the only work permitted was the preparation of food (Ex 12:16). This period when unleavened bread was eaten was described as a festival because it opened the seven-week period of grain harvest (Dt 16:9). During this feast, special burnt sacrifices were offered, followed with a sheaf of newly harvested barley at the Feast of Firstfruits. By NT times the festivals of Passover and Unleavened Bread were well-attended celebrations and were known as the “days of unleavened bread” (Lk 22:1; Acts 12:3). The theme of Israel’s deliverance from the power of Egypt by divine intervention assured the Israelites that God was always ready to act on behalf of a faithful and obedient covenant people. It also reminded them that they had once been slaves (Dt 16:12). In Israelite life the early Passover and Unleavened Bread observances were comparatively simple in character, but during the monarchy more elaborate Passover rituals came into use (cf. 2 Kgs 23:21-23; 2 Chr 35:1-19).<\/p>\n<h6>Pentecost<\/h6>\n<p>The second great festival, Pentecost (or Weeks) lasted one day only and was observed on the 50th day after the newly harvested barley sheaf had been waved before the Lord at the end of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Dt 16:9-12). The festival marked the end of the barley harvest and the beginning of the wheat harvest, the beginning of the period when firstfruits could be offered (cf. Ex 23:16; 34:22; Nm 28:26). The feast day was marked by the presentation of two wheat-flour loaves along with sacrifices of seven lambs, two rams, and a bull (Lv 23:15-20). Freewill gifts to God were presented to reflect gratitude for his blessings, and the entire occasion was one of communal rejoicing (Dt 16:10-11). Since Pentecost was essentially a harvest festival (Ex 23:16), the Israelites were called on to recognize that they depended entirely upon God for their material prosperity. In Deuteronomy 26, specific instructions were given for the ritual of presenting firstfruits from the harvest. It comprised a great confession of faith set within the framework of Israel’s history, and it recounted God’s deliverance of the nation from Egyptian oppression and his provision of a land that could amply supply the needs of his people.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of Tabernacles<\/h6>\n<p>This festival, known variously as the Feast of Booths, Tabernacles, Shelters (Lv 23:34; Dt 16:13), or Ingathering (Ex 34:22), was the third great occasion that all Hebrew males were required to observe annually. It began on the 15th day of the seventh month (Tishri), shortly after the observance of the Day of Atonement, which fell on the 10th day. The Feast of Booths lasted for one week and involved pilgrimage. It was associated initially with the end of the year (Ex 34:22), when the agricultural work had been completed. The first day was marked by a symbolic cessation from all activity, after which burnt offerings were presented to the Lord. The eighth day was also one on which the congregation of Israel abstained from manual work and again offered burnt sacrifices. Leviticus 23:39-43 furnished details for the rituals that gave the festival its special name of booths or shelters or tabernacles. The fruit of “goodly trees” was to be gathered on the first day of the feast, along with palm fronds, willow branches, and boughs from trees in full leaf. From these, rough shelters or booths were to be constructed in which the people lived for the week of the feast. Every seventh year the observances were marked by a public recital of the covenant provisions to which the Israelites under Moses had committed themselves, a procedure designed to keep fresh in their minds the obligations as well as the blessings of the covenant relationship. A particularly significant observance of the Feast of Tabernacles took place in the time of Ezra, when the Judean community returned from Babylon—a celebration of a kind unknown for centuries (Neh 8:13-18). From the context it appears that observance of the feast had lapsed during the monarchy. The feast at Shiloh where Hannah was mistaken for a drunken woman and the feast referred to in Judges 21:19 were evidently the Feast of Booths. In a prophetic vision in which he saw all nations coming to Jerusalem to observe the Festival of Booths, Zechariah warned that those who did not continue this tradition could expect hardship and shortages of food (Zec 14:16-19).<\/p>\n<h5>Postexilic Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>There are a few minor festivals that were created in the period after the Jews returned from exile; some of these festivals had their origin in specific historical occasions.<\/p>\n<h6>The Festival of Purim<\/h6>\n<p>The Festival of Purim, also known as the Festival of Lots, was a joyful occasion occurring on the 14th day of the 12th month (Adar). It celebrated the way in which Esther and Mordecai were used by God to deliver his people in the Persian Empire from extermination by Haman (Est 9:21, 24-28). The feast was observed on the 14th day of Adar by those living in villages, and on the 15th by the inhabitants of walled towns and cities. The explanation of the name of the festival is given in Esther 9:24-26, and its observance reminded the Hebrews of God’s ability to save them during a time of anti-Semitic activity in Persia. The deliverance memorialized in this festival has consoled the Jews on other occasions when they have suffered persecution. Traditionally the scroll of Esther was read aloud in the synagogue on the evening before the feast, and there was a great outcry, especially among the children present, whenever the names of the hated Haman and his sons were mentioned.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of the Dedication of the Temple<\/h6>\n<p>Another joyous festival that lasted for eight days was the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple (1 Macc 4:52-59; 2 Macc 10:6-8), familiar to modern readers as Hanukkah, or the Festival of Lights. The specific dedication that prompted the feast occurred in 164 <span>BC<\/span>, when Judas Maccabeus reconsecrated the temple in Jerusalem after it had been defiled by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The celebrations commenced on the 25th day of the ninth month (Kislev) and were marked at night by blazing lights and lanterns. The stories of brave opposition by the Maccabees to the crushing forces of paganism were recounted, and the feast was one of praise to God for his marvelous deliverance of the Jews during the Maccabean period.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NewTestamentFestivals\">New Testament Festivals<\/p>\n<p>In Christ’s time the Sabbath was observed rigorously and was the occasion for synagogue worship (cf. Lk 4:16; Acts 13:14; 18:4). Pharisaic law prohibited all work, and Jesus came into conflict with the authorities periodically for breaches of the Sabbath regulations (cf. Mt 12:1-4; Mk 3:1-5; Lk 13:10-17). In the primitive church, worship occurred on “the first day of the week” (i.e., Sunday) to commemorate Christ’s resurrection. The early Christians initially participated in Jewish ceremonies (cf. Acts 20:16; 1 Cor 16:8). It was during the Feast of Pentecost, after Christ’s resurrection and ascension, that the Spirit was poured out (Acts 2:1-4), fulfilling Joel 2:28-32 and commencing the history of the Christian church as such.<\/p>\n<p>The Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread were of great significance in the life of Christ (cf. Jn 4:45; 5:1; 6:4; 12:1-26), for the occasion was a very popular one in NT times (cf. 12:20). On the Passover, Pilate had instituted the custom of clemency to a prisoner nominated by the populace (Mt 27:15; Mk 15:6). Jesus participated actively in the Passover rituals (cf. Lk 2:42; Jn 2:13; 6:4). The Last Supper with his disciples occurred just prior to the Passover (Jn 13:1), when Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus to the Pharisees (Lk 22:4-6). The breaking of bread and the drinking of wine at that Passover celebration (Mk 14:22-25) were related directly to Christ’s forthcoming death on the cross in a sacramental manner. Christ’s disciples were instructed to observe this rite as a memorial of his suffering and death for human sin (1 Cor 11:24-26) and as a proclamation of the power of the cross until the Lord returns in glory. Some scholars have suggested that Christ was actually hanging on the cross when the Passover lamb was being slaughtered, and if that chronology is correct, it would represent Jesus graphically as the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29, <span>rsv<\/span>). Jesus was also present once when the Feast of Tabernacles was celebrated (7:10). In his day water was carried in procession from the pool of Siloam as an offering to God, and the ceremony most probably prompted Christ’s discourse on living water and eternal life (vv 37-39). On at least one occasion Jesus was in Jerusalem when the Festival of Lights occurred (Jn 10:22) and narrowly missed death by stoning.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus was entertained occasionally at private feasts (cf. Lk 5:29), and once remedied an emergency situation when the wine ran out at a wedding ceremony (Jn 2:8-10). He was critical of the Pharisees for securing the chief seats at feasts (Mt 23:6; Mk 12:39; Lk 20:46) and taught that festivals ought to benefit the poor (Lk 14:13).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SymbolismofFeasts\">Symbolism of Feasts<\/p>\n<p>Many aspects of the ancient Hebrew feasts were interpreted symbolically in the early church. Paul regarded the earliest Hebrew Christians as the firstfruits of the Israel of God (Rom 11:16). In Romans 8:23, the Holy Spirit as possessed by Christians was regarded as only a token of what was to come, and as such was the firstfruit of the Spirit. Christians themselves were described in James 1:18 as the firstfruits of God’s creatures who were brought forth by the Word of Truth. The resurrection of Jesus was considered by Paul to be the firstfruits of those who slept (1 Cor 15:20, 23). In an allusion to OT festivals, Paul spoke of the Sabbaths, new moons, and feasts as merely being a shadow of good things to come (Col 2:16-17). The Passover was used figuratively to emphasize that Christ our Passover Lamb had been sacrificed for us. Believers were urged to keep the feast with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, and not with the old leaven of malice and evil (1 Cor 5:7-8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Calendars, Ancient and Modern; Offerings and Sacrifices; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>FEASTS AND FESTIVALS OF ISRAEL<\/h3>\n<p>Occasions of public or private rejoicing to commemorate some significant event or personage. The element of celebration has a special meaning in the cycle of religious occasions and the rites and ceremonies associated with these particular days. While the idea of a feast commonly implies a banquet with plenteous food and drink, this element is not indispensable. Sometimes there is only a token amount, as in the celebration of Holy Communion.<\/p>\n\n<p>In contemporary usage “festival” usually refers to activities extending over a period of time, while “feast” indicates one part of the celebration, often a meal. However, in religious usage, both ancient and modern, the two words are used interchangeably. The ancient Hebrews employed the words <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mo’ed<\/span> (“seasons”) and <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">hag<\/span> for their great public celebrations, while feasts of a more private nature were commonly described by the term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mishteh<\/span><em>.<\/em> The majority of English translations of Scripture do not differentiate between these words.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FeastsandTheirFunctions\">Feasts and Their Functions<\/p>\n<p>Each festival places great emphasis on community participation and on the continuity of social or religious tradition, especially where the celebrations are elements of a regular civil or religious calendar. Without community backing, even in a family celebration, no festival can be successful. When there is communal participation, a festival can reinforce the individual and community memory of specific occasions, and can perpetuate that store of recollection over years and generations. Such shared memory has a cohesive effect upon a cooperating community, large or small, and serves to establish the traditions by which the group lives. If the festival commemorates a particular event or celebrates some lofty ideal, that theme becomes more firmly embedded in the minds of the participants by being associated repeatedly with the rites and ceremonies performed. The feasts of the ancient Hebrews had this positive function. The great festivals of their religious calendar commemorated specific occasions when God had reached out in power to intervene for his people or had provided for them in their distress. By celebrating these feasts on a regular basis, the Hebrews continually affirmed that their God had directed their destiny. Their repeated rehearsal of God’s help and love for them reminded them that he was still able to sustain them. Especially in times of hardship, it pointed to the reality of God’s presence and activity among them. Faith sustained by this means furnished an invaluable spiritual dimension to the life of the nation and provided a sense of continuity under divine provision and guidance. Only when corrupt or pagan elements were introduced into festive occasions did this important ingredient of national life begin to lose its vitality.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentFestivals\">Old Testament Festivals<\/p>\n<h5>General Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>These occasions were surprisingly numerous in Israel, considering the rather austere mode of life reflected in much of the OT. No doubt such celebrations offset or compensated for the hardships and insecurities of existence in the ancient Near East, and the Israelites made the most of every opportunity. A wedding was one of the most obvious occasions for celebration, and it is not surprising that a feast was prepared for the marriage of Rachel and Jacob (Gn 29:22) in which the whole neighborhood participated. Just how long this particular feast lasted is unknown, but some marriage festivals continued for a week, as in the case of the marriage between Samson and the woman of Timnah (Jgs 14:17). Wine that makes glad man’s heart (Ps 104:15) was consumed freely on such occasions.<\/p>\n<p>Birthdays were often observed in a festive spirit, especially where a royal person was concerned (Gn 40:20). Solomon’s dream was commemorated with a feast provided for his servants (1 Kgs 3:15), and when the temple was dedicated, the occasion was celebrated for a full week (8:65). Kings and queens held feasts periodically to mark certain occasions or to express goodwill (cf. Est 1:3; 2:18; 5:4, 14; 7:2, 7; Dn 5:1). Herdsmen traditionally made a feast for the shearing of the first sheep (Dt 18:4).<\/p>\n<h5>Preexilic Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>In addition to the general festivals, which were frequently of a secular nature, communal feasts were prescribed for the Israelites that had a specifically spiritual significance. They were meant to emphasize the activity of God on behalf of his people and to remind them that continued divine blessing depended upon their obedience to his will. The catalog of festivals in Leviticus 23:2 began with an injunction to observe the Sabbath. The seventh day, in which God ceased from creating (Gn 2:3), was holy, though it is difficult to determine the extent to which it was kept until the time of Moses (Ex 20:8-11). From that time on, Sabbath observance stressed refraining from all work so as to commemorate properly God’s own rest from creative activity (31:17) and his deliverance of his people from bondage in Egypt (Dt 5:12-15). Sabbath celebration was the sign of a special relationship between God and the Israelites. During this 24-hour period, even trivial tasks like making a fire (Ex 35:3) or gathering wood (Nm 15:32-33) were prohibited on pain of death. Journeys of any distance also came under the Sabbath ban (Ex 16:29). Special offerings were part of the observance (Nm 28:9-10), and the bread of the Presence was replaced in the tabernacle (Lv 24:5-8). Despite the restrictions on activity, the Sabbath was meant to symbolize a time of happiness and security in the presence of God (cf. Is 58:13-14), since its observance would bring blessing to the individual and to the whole land.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of the New Moon<\/h6>\n<p>The new moon was a monthly celebration based on the lunar calendar. It was especially appropriate for an agricultural people, since everyone could tell when the moon was new. Special offerings were prescribed for this festival, consisting of a burnt sacrifice, a grain offering, and a drink offering (Nm 28:11-15). In addition, a male goat was sacrificed to God as a sin offering, and trumpet blasts were sounded over the sacrificial offerings as a memorial before God (10:10). The sacrifices prescribed for the new moon festival were significantly greater than those required in Numbers 28:9-10 for the weekly Sabbath.<\/p>\n<p>This lunar feast was popular throughout Israelite history. During the monarchy, the Levites were required to assist the Aaronic priests at the new moon festival, as well as on the Sabbath (1 Chr 23:29-31). The preexilic prophets may well have taken advantage of the large gatherings to give guidance to the people or proclaim prophetic oracles (cf. 2 Kgs 4:23), though to what extent this was done is uncertain. Not everyone found the period of rest and celebration valuable, however, and Amos (Am 8:5) complained about those avaricious Israelites who felt that such observances interfered with the business of making a living. The feast could not be observed when the Judeans were in exile in Babylonia (cf. Hos 2:11), but under Ezra and Nehemiah, its observance was restored (Neh 10:33). In Isaiah 66:22-23 it was related to Israel’s final destiny and was an accepted part of the ordinances for Ezekiel’s ideal temple (Ez 45:17).<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the festival was to enhance the unity of national life by reminding the Israelites that God’s covenant with their ancestors was permanent and still binding upon the nation. It also stressed the loving nature and providence of a God who could begin such a relationship and carry out his promises with complete faithfulness (cf. Ps 104:19).<\/p>\n<h6>The Festival of Trumpets<\/h6>\n<p>The Festival of Trumpets was celebrated on the first day of the seventh new moon. This month, subsequently named Tishri, was especially holy, and for this reason was governed by certain regulations different from those of ordinary new moon festivals. The trumpets were blown on the first day (Lv 23:24) as the animal and cereal sacrifices were offered. From Numbers 29:2-6 it appears that the offerings required for this particular feast exceeded those prescribed for normal Sabbath sacrifice, but were somewhat less than those required for the regular new moon festival (cf. Nm 28:11). This feast was to be observed as a day of solemn rest and as a holy convocation, and the trumpets were sounded as a triumphant memorial to God’s great provision for his people through the Sinai covenant.<\/p>\n<p>The seventh month was particularly sacred, partly because of its place in the hallowed cycle of sevens, but also because the Day of Atonement (or Yom Kippur) and the Feast of Tabernacles, or Booths (Shelters), occurred during this period. The latter feast followed the Day of Atonement by some five days (Lv 23:33), and its joyful character served to offset somewhat the solemnity of the annual penitential occasion when the nation confessed its collective sins and saw them banished symbolically into the wilderness as the scapegoat was driven from the congregation.<\/p>\n<h6>The Sabbatical Year<\/h6>\n<p>Another festival closely connected with the institution of the Sabbath was the sabbatical year. At the end of each cycle of six years, the following 12 months were observed as a “sabbath of rest for the land.” During this interval, the ground was to lie fallow (Ex 23:11) without any form of cultivation, and whatever sprouted and grew from it naturally was assigned to the poor and needy (Lv 25:6). This provision for the land itself constituted one of the most important ecological principles of Scripture. Like God’s people, the land was holy, and just as they needed to have regular intervals of rest from daily work in order to regain their energy and spiritual vitality through worship, so the ground needed to rest and recuperate from the strain of constant cultivation. The festival reminded the Israelites that the land on which they lived had been given to them by God in fulfillment of his covenant undertaking to provide richly for their physical needs (cf. Dt 8:7-10). To keep the Israelites from experiencing any shortages or other hardships during the Year of Sabbath, God promised that in the year immediately preceding the sabbatical period, the land would bear fruit to suffice for the next three years (Lv 25:21). This assurance was based upon the experience of the wilderness wanderings, when on the sixth day of the week sufficient manna appeared to last through the Sabbath (Ex 16:5).<\/p>\n<p>In this festival period, God’s absolute claim over the land was reaffirmed (cf. Lv 25:23), and the faith of the nation in God’s ability to provide for future needs was reinforced. The provisions that freed the land for a year from agricultural bondage were paralleled in the seventh year of rest by those requiring liberation of slaves and debtors. These underprivileged members of society were to be released from their obligations of servitude. As a result, men and women who had become slaves for one reason or another were given personal liberty (Ex 21:2-6), and under proclamation of the Lord’s release, the provisions applying to debt were rescinded (Dt 15:1-6). The sabbatical year seems to have been a regular part of preexilic Israelite life, although some abuses were noted in Jeremiah 34:8-22. There the prophet took advantage of the opportunity presented to instruct the people in the nature and purpose of the sabbatical year ordinance. He also warned the wayward Judeans that because they had disobeyed the commands of God in denying proper liberty to their slaves, they would have their own freedom taken away in a far more serious manner by being carried captive to Babylonia after seeing their land destroyed. The lesson was not lost upon those who returned from exile, for under the administration of Nehemiah, the Jews bound themselves by a covenant to observe the principle of the sabbatical year (Neh 10:31). This undertaking evidently took its impetus from the reading of the law of Moses at the Feast of Booths (Shelters), which coincidentally occurred at the beginning of the sabbatical year (Neh 8:13-18).<\/p>\n<h6>Jubilee<\/h6>\n<p>Still another feast based on the principle of the sabbath was the Year of Jubilee, or Pentecostal year (Lv 25:8-55; 27:17-24). As the sabbatical year was related to the concept of the seventh day, so the Pentecostal (50th) year marked the completion of a cycle of seven sabbatical years. The commencement of a jubilee year was proclaimed on the Day of Atonement throughout the land by means of trumpet blasts (Lv 25:9). The activities that took place during the Pentecostal year were similar to those prescribed for the sabbatical year. A special feature was that land that had been sold during the preceding 49 years was returned to its original owners, a procedure that sometimes involved financial adjustments. To prevent abuse of the process through opportunism or speculation, the Hebrews were instructed to deal fairly and honestly with one another in the fear of God, who was the real owner of the land (Lv 25:14-17). As with the sabbatical year, God promised to make provision before the jubilee year so that no one would suffer hardship. It was during the Year of Jubilee that those who were slaves in Hebrew households were given their liberty, so that everyone in the land would commence a new cycle of sabbatical years on the same footing, as free persons under God.<\/p>\n<h5>Seasonal Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>Three annual festivals that followed the seasons of the year rather than phases of the moon furnished important occasions for commemorating God’s power and provision in national life. These festivals were designated by the term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">hag<\/span><em>,<\/em> indicating a festival usually observed by some sort of pilgrimage. These three festivals were prescribed in Exodus 23:14-17 and Deuteronomy 16:16, and consisted of the Feast of Passover and Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost), and the Festival of Booths (Tabernacles). On these occasions, all the males of Israel were commanded to make pilgrimage to the sanctuary and celebrate these festivals (Ex 12:14). The Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were originally separate ordinances, but since the latter always followed immediately upon the Passover rite, they naturally blended into a single festival.<\/p>\n<h6>Passover<\/h6>\n<p>The Passover was of supreme theological significance for the Israelites, since it marked one of the most momentous acts of divine intervention in their history, the beginning of their deliverance from bondage in Egypt when, in the final plague, God destroyed the firstborn of the Egyptians but spared those Israelites whose homes had blood smeared on the doorposts (Ex 12:11-30). God commanded that the day was to be observed as a memorial feast (v 14), and the next Passover celebration occurred in the Sinai Desert (Nm 9:1-5). In the Hebrew calendar the Passover festival came in the first month, called Abib in Deuteronomy 16:1, but known after the exile as Nisan (cf. Neh 2:1). The Passover rite took place the 14th evening (Lv 23:5), and this was followed by a seven-day period during which nothing leavened was to be eaten. The principle for removing all leaven from bread was similar to that underlying the draining of blood from animal flesh. Both leaven and blood had quickening power and were to be kept separate as an offering to God. The first and seventh days of this period were marked by a holy assembly, during which the only work permitted was the preparation of food (Ex 12:16). This period when unleavened bread was eaten was described as a festival because it opened the seven-week period of grain harvest (Dt 16:9). During this feast, special burnt sacrifices were offered, followed with a sheaf of newly harvested barley at the Feast of Firstfruits. By NT times the festivals of Passover and Unleavened Bread were well-attended celebrations and were known as the “days of unleavened bread” (Lk 22:1; Acts 12:3). The theme of Israel’s deliverance from the power of Egypt by divine intervention assured the Israelites that God was always ready to act on behalf of a faithful and obedient covenant people. It also reminded them that they had once been slaves (Dt 16:12). In Israelite life the early Passover and Unleavened Bread observances were comparatively simple in character, but during the monarchy more elaborate Passover rituals came into use (cf. 2 Kgs 23:21-23; 2 Chr 35:1-19).<\/p>\n<h6>Pentecost<\/h6>\n<p>The second great festival, Pentecost (or Weeks) lasted one day only and was observed on the 50th day after the newly harvested barley sheaf had been waved before the Lord at the end of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Dt 16:9-12). The festival marked the end of the barley harvest and the beginning of the wheat harvest, the beginning of the period when firstfruits could be offered (cf. Ex 23:16; 34:22; Nm 28:26). The feast day was marked by the presentation of two wheat-flour loaves along with sacrifices of seven lambs, two rams, and a bull (Lv 23:15-20). Freewill gifts to God were presented to reflect gratitude for his blessings, and the entire occasion was one of communal rejoicing (Dt 16:10-11). Since Pentecost was essentially a harvest festival (Ex 23:16), the Israelites were called on to recognize that they depended entirely upon God for their material prosperity. In Deuteronomy 26, specific instructions were given for the ritual of presenting firstfruits from the harvest. It comprised a great confession of faith set within the framework of Israel’s history, and it recounted God’s deliverance of the nation from Egyptian oppression and his provision of a land that could amply supply the needs of his people.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of Tabernacles<\/h6>\n<p>This festival, known variously as the Feast of Booths, Tabernacles, Shelters (Lv 23:34; Dt 16:13), or Ingathering (Ex 34:22), was the third great occasion that all Hebrew males were required to observe annually. It began on the 15th day of the seventh month (Tishri), shortly after the observance of the Day of Atonement, which fell on the 10th day. The Feast of Booths lasted for one week and involved pilgrimage. It was associated initially with the end of the year (Ex 34:22), when the agricultural work had been completed. The first day was marked by a symbolic cessation from all activity, after which burnt offerings were presented to the Lord. The eighth day was also one on which the congregation of Israel abstained from manual work and again offered burnt sacrifices. Leviticus 23:39-43 furnished details for the rituals that gave the festival its special name of booths or shelters or tabernacles. The fruit of “goodly trees” was to be gathered on the first day of the feast, along with palm fronds, willow branches, and boughs from trees in full leaf. From these, rough shelters or booths were to be constructed in which the people lived for the week of the feast. Every seventh year the observances were marked by a public recital of the covenant provisions to which the Israelites under Moses had committed themselves, a procedure designed to keep fresh in their minds the obligations as well as the blessings of the covenant relationship. A particularly significant observance of the Feast of Tabernacles took place in the time of Ezra, when the Judean community returned from Babylon—a celebration of a kind unknown for centuries (Neh 8:13-18). From the context it appears that observance of the feast had lapsed during the monarchy. The feast at Shiloh where Hannah was mistaken for a drunken woman and the feast referred to in Judges 21:19 were evidently the Feast of Booths. In a prophetic vision in which he saw all nations coming to Jerusalem to observe the Festival of Booths, Zechariah warned that those who did not continue this tradition could expect hardship and shortages of food (Zec 14:16-19).<\/p>\n<h5>Postexilic Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>There are a few minor festivals that were created in the period after the Jews returned from exile; some of these festivals had their origin in specific historical occasions.<\/p>\n<h6>The Festival of Purim<\/h6>\n<p>The Festival of Purim, also known as the Festival of Lots, was a joyful occasion occurring on the 14th day of the 12th month (Adar). It celebrated the way in which Esther and Mordecai were used by God to deliver his people in the Persian Empire from extermination by Haman (Est 9:21, 24-28). The feast was observed on the 14th day of Adar by those living in villages, and on the 15th by the inhabitants of walled towns and cities. The explanation of the name of the festival is given in Esther 9:24-26, and its observance reminded the Hebrews of God’s ability to save them during a time of anti-Semitic activity in Persia. The deliverance memorialized in this festival has consoled the Jews on other occasions when they have suffered persecution. Traditionally the scroll of Esther was read aloud in the synagogue on the evening before the feast, and there was a great outcry, especially among the children present, whenever the names of the hated Haman and his sons were mentioned.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of the Dedication of the Temple<\/h6>\n<p>Another joyous festival that lasted for eight days was the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple (1 Macc 4:52-59; 2 Macc 10:6-8), familiar to modern readers as Hanukkah, or the Festival of Lights. The specific dedication that prompted the feast occurred in 164 <span>BC<\/span>, when Judas Maccabeus reconsecrated the temple in Jerusalem after it had been defiled by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The celebrations commenced on the 25th day of the ninth month (Kislev) and were marked at night by blazing lights and lanterns. The stories of brave opposition by the Maccabees to the crushing forces of paganism were recounted, and the feast was one of praise to God for his marvelous deliverance of the Jews during the Maccabean period.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NewTestamentFestivals\">New Testament Festivals<\/p>\n<p>In Christ’s time the Sabbath was observed rigorously and was the occasion for synagogue worship (cf. Lk 4:16; Acts 13:14; 18:4). Pharisaic law prohibited all work, and Jesus came into conflict with the authorities periodically for breaches of the Sabbath regulations (cf. Mt 12:1-4; Mk 3:1-5; Lk 13:10-17). In the primitive church, worship occurred on “the first day of the week” (i.e., Sunday) to commemorate Christ’s resurrection. The early Christians initially participated in Jewish ceremonies (cf. Acts 20:16; 1 Cor 16:8). It was during the Feast of Pentecost, after Christ’s resurrection and ascension, that the Spirit was poured out (Acts 2:1-4), fulfilling Joel 2:28-32 and commencing the history of the Christian church as such.<\/p>\n<p>The Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread were of great significance in the life of Christ (cf. Jn 4:45; 5:1; 6:4; 12:1-26), for the occasion was a very popular one in NT times (cf. 12:20). On the Passover, Pilate had instituted the custom of clemency to a prisoner nominated by the populace (Mt 27:15; Mk 15:6). Jesus participated actively in the Passover rituals (cf. Lk 2:42; Jn 2:13; 6:4). The Last Supper with his disciples occurred just prior to the Passover (Jn 13:1), when Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus to the Pharisees (Lk 22:4-6). The breaking of bread and the drinking of wine at that Passover celebration (Mk 14:22-25) were related directly to Christ’s forthcoming death on the cross in a sacramental manner. Christ’s disciples were instructed to observe this rite as a memorial of his suffering and death for human sin (1 Cor 11:24-26) and as a proclamation of the power of the cross until the Lord returns in glory. Some scholars have suggested that Christ was actually hanging on the cross when the Passover lamb was being slaughtered, and if that chronology is correct, it would represent Jesus graphically as the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29, <span>rsv<\/span>). Jesus was also present once when the Feast of Tabernacles was celebrated (7:10). In his day water was carried in procession from the pool of Siloam as an offering to God, and the ceremony most probably prompted Christ’s discourse on living water and eternal life (vv 37-39). On at least one occasion Jesus was in Jerusalem when the Festival of Lights occurred (Jn 10:22) and narrowly missed death by stoning.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus was entertained occasionally at private feasts (cf. Lk 5:29), and once remedied an emergency situation when the wine ran out at a wedding ceremony (Jn 2:8-10). He was critical of the Pharisees for securing the chief seats at feasts (Mt 23:6; Mk 12:39; Lk 20:46) and taught that festivals ought to benefit the poor (Lk 14:13).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SymbolismofFeasts\">Symbolism of Feasts<\/p>\n<p>Many aspects of the ancient Hebrew feasts were interpreted symbolically in the early church. Paul regarded the earliest Hebrew Christians as the firstfruits of the Israel of God (Rom 11:16). In Romans 8:23, the Holy Spirit as possessed by Christians was regarded as only a token of what was to come, and as such was the firstfruit of the Spirit. Christians themselves were described in James 1:18 as the firstfruits of God’s creatures who were brought forth by the Word of Truth. The resurrection of Jesus was considered by Paul to be the firstfruits of those who slept (1 Cor 15:20, 23). In an allusion to OT festivals, Paul spoke of the Sabbaths, new moons, and feasts as merely being a shadow of good things to come (Col 2:16-17). The Passover was used figuratively to emphasize that Christ our Passover Lamb had been sacrificed for us. Believers were urged to keep the feast with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, and not with the old leaven of malice and evil (1 Cor 5:7-8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Calendars, Ancient and Modern; Offerings and Sacrifices; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"FEASTS AND FESTIVALS OF ISRAEL Occasions of public or private rejoicing to commemorate some significant event or personage. The element of celebration has a special meaning in the cycle of religious occasions and the rites and ceremonies associated with these particular days. While the idea of a feast commonly implies a banquet with plenteous food and drink, this element is not indispensable. Sometimes there is only a token amount, as in the celebration of Holy Communion. In contemporary usag...","summary_en":"FEASTS AND FESTIVALS OF ISRAEL Occasions of public or private rejoicing to commemorate some significant event or personage. The element of celebration has a special meaning in the cycle of religious occasions and the rites and ceremonies associated with these particular days. While the idea of a feast commonly implies a banquet with plenteous food and drink, this element is not indispensable. Sometimes there is only a token amount, as in the celebration of Holy Communion. In contemporary usag...","source":"Articles\/F.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":15613,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Healing Heal","title_en":"Healing Heal","content_ro":"<h3>HEAL, HEALING<\/h3>\n<p>To make well. The OT provides the proper background for a Christian understanding of the concept of healing. In the OT the basic point is made that God is the healer of his people. In Exodus 15:22-26, after God has delivered his people from Egypt, led them through the sea, and sweetened the water at Marah, he speaks of himself as their “healer.” This refers primarily to physical sustenance, but it points to the more encompassing concept of God sustaining his people in an eternal relationship with himself. In a similar manner, Deuteronomy 32:39 speaks of God as the one who heals. The context in Deuteronomy implies that this healing power derives from the fact that God is God. This concept of God as the healer is echoed throughout the OT by the psalmists (Pss 6:2; 41:4; 103:3) and prophets (Is 19:22; Jer 17:14; Hos 7:1; Zec 11:16).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesustheHealerAccountsintheGospels\">Jesus the Healer: Accounts in the Gospels<\/p>\n<p>The NT significantly emphasizes Jesus as the healer. Mark portrays him as a teacher and healer in his opening account of Jesus’ ministry in Capernaum with the healing of the demoniac, Peter’s mother-in-law, the sick brought to him in the evening, and the leper (Mk 1:21-45). Indeed, healing sickness and casting out demons characterize Jesus’ ministry. Mark presents in rapid succession Jesus’ healing of the paralytic (2:1-12), the man with the withered hand (3:1-6), the multitudes by the sea (vv 7-12), the Gerasene demoniac (5:1-20), the woman with a hemorrhage, and Jairus’s daughter (vv 21-43). Jesus then commissioned the Twelve to proclaim repentance, to cast out demons, and to heal the sick (6:7-13). He himself continued with healings at Gennesaret (vv 53-56), casting out the unclean spirit from the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman (7:24-30), healing the deaf and mute man (vv 31-37), the blind man of Bethsaida (8:22-26), the boy possessed with an evil spirit (9:14-20), and blind Bartimaeus (10:46-52).<\/p>\n<p>Certainly healing is an important aspect of Jesus’ ministry. The healings expressed not only his compassion for those suffering but also constituted a revelation of his person. This is brought out by the climactic statement of Jesus in healing the paralytic: “that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Mk 2:10, <span>rsv<\/span>). It also seems that Mark intended his readers to understand that the healing of the deaf and mute man (7:31-37) and the blind man of Bethsaida (8:22-26) symbolize the awakening of spiritual understanding in the disciples of who Jesus is. It is also significant that Mark has placed the healing of Bartimaeus (10:46-52) immediately after Jesus’ third announcement of his own coming death (vv 32-34) and the disciples’ third failure to understand that his being the Messiah entailed the necessity of suffering (vv 35-45).<\/p>\n<p>Matthew also portrays Jesus as teaching, preaching, and healing (Mt 4:23-25), and parallels the accounts in Mark, except for the healing of the demoniac in the synagogue (Mk 1:23-28) and the blind man of Bethsaida (8:22-26). However, according to his special purpose and structure, Matthew has placed many of Jesus’ healings together in a “mighty works” section (Mt 8–9), complementing the “great words” (“sermon”) section (chs 5–7). Matthew views Jesus’ healings as directly fulfilling the OT, as he states in 8:17. The unique way in which the healings of 8:16 are spoken of as fulfilling Isaiah 53:4 seems to indicate that Jesus’ power over sickness derives in some way from his death for sin, which was to be accomplished at the end of his ministry.<\/p>\n<p>It is also interesting that Matthew, in relating Jesus’ healing of the multitudes by the sea (Mt 12:15-21; cf. Mk 3:7-12), cites Isaiah 42:1-4. This OT passage speaks of God’s servant anointed with the Spirit to proclaim justice to the nations. As used by Matthew, the quotation explains why Jesus commanded those healed not to make him known. Jesus did not want too much publicity about himself to thwart God’s plan for him as the Suffering Servant who was to bring salvation to the nations. This action demonstrates that Jesus’ healings are revelations of his person. Again another quotation from Isaiah (6:9-10) in Matthew 13:14-15 brings out the fact that healing is understood primarily in the spiritual sense of hearing Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n<p>Luke, like Matthew and Mark, portrays Jesus preaching and healing. After the account of the birth of John and Jesus and the ministry of John the Baptist, Luke presents Jesus preaching in Nazareth (Lk 4:16-30). Here, in the synagogue of his hometown, Jesus himself, using a quotation from Isaiah 61:1-2, affirms that the Spirit has anointed him to proclaim good news and to announce release for the captives and a recovery of sight for the blind (Lk 4:18). The healing aspect of Jesus’ ministry occupies an important place in the rest of the book of Luke. Indeed, Luke has all the healing incidents noted by Mark, except for those in Mark 6:45–8:26. However, Luke’s opening scene in Nazareth seems to underscore that Jesus’ healing is to be understood, not as merely expressing Jesus’ compassion for the needy, but primarily as a sign of the arrival of the kingdom of God as promised in the Scriptures.<\/p>\n<p>This emphasis may be seen in the distinctively Lukan account of the commissioning of the 72 disciples (Lk 10:1-12), where Jesus instructs them to heal the sick in any city they enter and announce to the people there that the kingdom of God has come near to them (vv 8-9).<\/p>\n<p>The first three Gospels take up the OT understanding of God as the healer of his people and see this as fulfilled in Jesus. This fulfillment signifies the presence of God’s reign in the ministry of Jesus and points to him as the one through whom God is at work in the midst of his people.<\/p>\n<p>John’s Gospel has only four healing incidents: the official’s son (Jn 4:46-54), the man ill for 38 years (5:1-18), the man born blind (ch 9), and the climactic raising of Lazarus (11:1-44). The special purpose and structure of this Gospel indicate that these incidents are carefully related to the accompanying discourses and are clearly intended as signs revealing the person of Jesus. The heightened emphasis on healings as revelatory signs in this Gospel confirms the similar intention in the first three Gospels.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HealingsDonebytheApostles\">Healings Done by the Apostles<\/p>\n<p>The Acts of the Apostles tells of the continuation of Jesus’ ministry through the Spirit at work in his disciples. The primary focus in Acts is on proclamation, as 1:8 indicates. However, the healing of the lame beggar in Jerusalem indicates that the disciples were able to exercise the power of healing in the name of Jesus (3:1-16; 4:8-16). The healing is clearly intended to point to and glorify the person of Jesus and lead to faith in him (3:12-26). The balanced, twofold ministry of the disciples may be seen in the prayer of 4:29-30: “O Lord, hear their threats, and give your servants great boldness in their preaching. Send your healing power; may miraculous signs and wonders be done through the name of your holy servant Jesus” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The ministry of Philip in Samaria was devoted to proclaiming Christ (Acts 8:5) and healing the sick and those with unclean spirits (v 7). Peter heals Aeneas and raises Tabitha (9:34, 40), and in each case the effects are that many believe in the Lord (vv 35, 42). Paul is also described as preaching the gospel (17:2-3), healing (14:8-11; 28:8), casting out spirits (16:18), and raising a dead man (20:9-10).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HealingsintheChurchAge\">Healings in the Church Age<\/p>\n<p>The letters of the NT say little about healing. First Corinthians speaks of the gifts of healing (1 Cor 12:9, 28). The implication is that such gifts are intended to be part of the ministry of the church, but the context indicates that not all are given such gifts (v 30) and that it is God who sovereignly distributes gifts for the good of the body. James indicates that a believer who is ill should request the church to pray for his healing (Jas 5:14-16; cf. Heb 12:13). The clear implication is that God is willing and able to minister to his people for healing today.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HEAL, HEALING<\/h3>\n<p>To make well. The OT provides the proper background for a Christian understanding of the concept of healing. In the OT the basic point is made that God is the healer of his people. In Exodus 15:22-26, after God has delivered his people from Egypt, led them through the sea, and sweetened the water at Marah, he speaks of himself as their “healer.” This refers primarily to physical sustenance, but it points to the more encompassing concept of God sustaining his people in an eternal relationship with himself. In a similar manner, Deuteronomy 32:39 speaks of God as the one who heals. The context in Deuteronomy implies that this healing power derives from the fact that God is God. This concept of God as the healer is echoed throughout the OT by the psalmists (Pss 6:2; 41:4; 103:3) and prophets (Is 19:22; Jer 17:14; Hos 7:1; Zec 11:16).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesustheHealerAccountsintheGospels\">Jesus the Healer: Accounts in the Gospels<\/p>\n<p>The NT significantly emphasizes Jesus as the healer. Mark portrays him as a teacher and healer in his opening account of Jesus’ ministry in Capernaum with the healing of the demoniac, Peter’s mother-in-law, the sick brought to him in the evening, and the leper (Mk 1:21-45). Indeed, healing sickness and casting out demons characterize Jesus’ ministry. Mark presents in rapid succession Jesus’ healing of the paralytic (2:1-12), the man with the withered hand (3:1-6), the multitudes by the sea (vv 7-12), the Gerasene demoniac (5:1-20), the woman with a hemorrhage, and Jairus’s daughter (vv 21-43). Jesus then commissioned the Twelve to proclaim repentance, to cast out demons, and to heal the sick (6:7-13). He himself continued with healings at Gennesaret (vv 53-56), casting out the unclean spirit from the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman (7:24-30), healing the deaf and mute man (vv 31-37), the blind man of Bethsaida (8:22-26), the boy possessed with an evil spirit (9:14-20), and blind Bartimaeus (10:46-52).<\/p>\n<p>Certainly healing is an important aspect of Jesus’ ministry. The healings expressed not only his compassion for those suffering but also constituted a revelation of his person. This is brought out by the climactic statement of Jesus in healing the paralytic: “that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Mk 2:10, <span>rsv<\/span>). It also seems that Mark intended his readers to understand that the healing of the deaf and mute man (7:31-37) and the blind man of Bethsaida (8:22-26) symbolize the awakening of spiritual understanding in the disciples of who Jesus is. It is also significant that Mark has placed the healing of Bartimaeus (10:46-52) immediately after Jesus’ third announcement of his own coming death (vv 32-34) and the disciples’ third failure to understand that his being the Messiah entailed the necessity of suffering (vv 35-45).<\/p>\n<p>Matthew also portrays Jesus as teaching, preaching, and healing (Mt 4:23-25), and parallels the accounts in Mark, except for the healing of the demoniac in the synagogue (Mk 1:23-28) and the blind man of Bethsaida (8:22-26). However, according to his special purpose and structure, Matthew has placed many of Jesus’ healings together in a “mighty works” section (Mt 8–9), complementing the “great words” (“sermon”) section (chs 5–7). Matthew views Jesus’ healings as directly fulfilling the OT, as he states in 8:17. The unique way in which the healings of 8:16 are spoken of as fulfilling Isaiah 53:4 seems to indicate that Jesus’ power over sickness derives in some way from his death for sin, which was to be accomplished at the end of his ministry.<\/p>\n<p>It is also interesting that Matthew, in relating Jesus’ healing of the multitudes by the sea (Mt 12:15-21; cf. Mk 3:7-12), cites Isaiah 42:1-4. This OT passage speaks of God’s servant anointed with the Spirit to proclaim justice to the nations. As used by Matthew, the quotation explains why Jesus commanded those healed not to make him known. Jesus did not want too much publicity about himself to thwart God’s plan for him as the Suffering Servant who was to bring salvation to the nations. This action demonstrates that Jesus’ healings are revelations of his person. Again another quotation from Isaiah (6:9-10) in Matthew 13:14-15 brings out the fact that healing is understood primarily in the spiritual sense of hearing Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n<p>Luke, like Matthew and Mark, portrays Jesus preaching and healing. After the account of the birth of John and Jesus and the ministry of John the Baptist, Luke presents Jesus preaching in Nazareth (Lk 4:16-30). Here, in the synagogue of his hometown, Jesus himself, using a quotation from Isaiah 61:1-2, affirms that the Spirit has anointed him to proclaim good news and to announce release for the captives and a recovery of sight for the blind (Lk 4:18). The healing aspect of Jesus’ ministry occupies an important place in the rest of the book of Luke. Indeed, Luke has all the healing incidents noted by Mark, except for those in Mark 6:45–8:26. However, Luke’s opening scene in Nazareth seems to underscore that Jesus’ healing is to be understood, not as merely expressing Jesus’ compassion for the needy, but primarily as a sign of the arrival of the kingdom of God as promised in the Scriptures.<\/p>\n<p>This emphasis may be seen in the distinctively Lukan account of the commissioning of the 72 disciples (Lk 10:1-12), where Jesus instructs them to heal the sick in any city they enter and announce to the people there that the kingdom of God has come near to them (vv 8-9).<\/p>\n<p>The first three Gospels take up the OT understanding of God as the healer of his people and see this as fulfilled in Jesus. This fulfillment signifies the presence of God’s reign in the ministry of Jesus and points to him as the one through whom God is at work in the midst of his people.<\/p>\n<p>John’s Gospel has only four healing incidents: the official’s son (Jn 4:46-54), the man ill for 38 years (5:1-18), the man born blind (ch 9), and the climactic raising of Lazarus (11:1-44). The special purpose and structure of this Gospel indicate that these incidents are carefully related to the accompanying discourses and are clearly intended as signs revealing the person of Jesus. The heightened emphasis on healings as revelatory signs in this Gospel confirms the similar intention in the first three Gospels.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HealingsDonebytheApostles\">Healings Done by the Apostles<\/p>\n<p>The Acts of the Apostles tells of the continuation of Jesus’ ministry through the Spirit at work in his disciples. The primary focus in Acts is on proclamation, as 1:8 indicates. However, the healing of the lame beggar in Jerusalem indicates that the disciples were able to exercise the power of healing in the name of Jesus (3:1-16; 4:8-16). The healing is clearly intended to point to and glorify the person of Jesus and lead to faith in him (3:12-26). The balanced, twofold ministry of the disciples may be seen in the prayer of 4:29-30: “O Lord, hear their threats, and give your servants great boldness in their preaching. Send your healing power; may miraculous signs and wonders be done through the name of your holy servant Jesus” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The ministry of Philip in Samaria was devoted to proclaiming Christ (Acts 8:5) and healing the sick and those with unclean spirits (v 7). Peter heals Aeneas and raises Tabitha (9:34, 40), and in each case the effects are that many believe in the Lord (vv 35, 42). Paul is also described as preaching the gospel (17:2-3), healing (14:8-11; 28:8), casting out spirits (16:18), and raising a dead man (20:9-10).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HealingsintheChurchAge\">Healings in the Church Age<\/p>\n<p>The letters of the NT say little about healing. First Corinthians speaks of the gifts of healing (1 Cor 12:9, 28). The implication is that such gifts are intended to be part of the ministry of the church, but the context indicates that not all are given such gifts (v 30) and that it is God who sovereignly distributes gifts for the good of the body. James indicates that a believer who is ill should request the church to pray for his healing (Jas 5:14-16; cf. Heb 12:13). The clear implication is that God is willing and able to minister to his people for healing today.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HEAL, HEALING To make well. The OT provides the proper background for a Christian understanding of the concept of healing. In the OT the basic point is made that God is the healer of his people. In Exodus 15:22-26, after God has delivered his people from Egypt, led them through the sea, and sweetened the water at Marah, he speaks of himself as their “healer.” This refers primarily to physical sustenance, but it points to the more encompassing concept of God sustaining his people in an eternal...","summary_en":"HEAL, HEALING To make well. The OT provides the proper background for a Christian understanding of the concept of healing. In the OT the basic point is made that God is the healer of his people. In Exodus 15:22-26, after God has delivered his people from Egypt, led them through the sea, and sweetened the water at Marah, he speaks of himself as their “healer.” This refers primarily to physical sustenance, but it points to the more encompassing concept of God sustaining his people in an eternal...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":33407,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Sabbath","title_en":"Sabbath","content_ro":"<h3>SABBATH<\/h3>\n<p>Derivation of a Hebrew word that means “cease” or “desist.” The Sabbath was a day (from Friday evening until Saturday evening in Jesus’ time) when all ordinary work stopped. The Scriptures relate that God gave his people the Sabbath as an opportunity to serve him and as a reminder of two great truths in the Bible—Creation and redemption.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The relationship between Creation and the Sabbath is first expressed in Genesis 2:2-3. God “ceased” his work in Creation after six days and then “blessed” the seventh day and “declared it holy.” In the fourth commandment (Ex 20:8-11), God’s “blessing” and “setting aside” of the seventh day after Creation (the words used are the same as those in Genesis) form the basis of his demand that people should observe the seventh day as a day of Sabbath rest.<\/p>\n<p>The idea of God resting from his work is a startling one. It comes across even more vividly in Exodus 31:17, where the Lord tells Moses how he was refreshed by his day of rest. This picture of the Creator as a manual laborer is one the Bible often paints. No doubt it is presented in vividly human terms in Exodus to reinforce the fundamental Sabbath lesson that people must follow the pattern their Creator has set for them. One day’s rest in seven is a necessity for individuals, families, households, and even animals (Ex 20:10).<\/p>\n<p>The Sabbath’s setting in the biblical account of Creation implies that it is one of those OT standards that are meant for all people and not just for Israel. The inclusion of the Sabbath law in the Ten Commandments underlines this important truth. The Decalogue occupied a special place in OT law. Alone of all God’s instructions, it was spoken by his audible voice (Ex 20:1), written by his finger (31:18), and placed in the tabernacle ark at the heart of Israel’s worship (25:16). The NT, too, confirms the strong impression that the Decalogue as a whole embodies principles that are permanently valid for all people in all places at all times. Whether or not Sunday is recognized as the Christian Sabbath, one is obliged to accept the central principle of this biblical teaching as far as the Sabbath is concerned. God’s instructions require people to observe a regular weekly break from work.<\/p>\n<p>Significantly, the second main strand of the Bible’s Sabbath teaching—that of redemption—also features in a list of the Ten Commandments. The Sabbath law (already noted in Ex 20:8-11) reappears in Deuteronomy 5:12-15, but here a different reason is attached to its observance: “Remember that you were once slaves in Egypt and that the <span>Lord<\/span> your God brought you out with amazing power and mighty deeds. That is why the <span>Lord<\/span> your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day” (v 15, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The differences between these two accounts of the fourth commandment are important. The first (Ex 20) is addressed, <em>through<\/em> Israel, to all people as created beings. The second (Dt 5) is directed <em>to<\/em> Israel as God’s redeemed people. So the Sabbath is God’s signpost, pointing not only to his goodness toward all people as their Creator but also to his mercy toward his chosen people as their Redeemer.<\/p>\n<p>There is one other significant point in Deuteronomy’s version of the Sabbath commandment that must not be missed. The prohibition of all work on the Sabbath day is followed by an explanatory note—“On that day no one in your household may do any kind of work. This includes you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, your oxen and donkeys and other livestock, and any foreigners living among you. All your male and female servants must rest as you do” (Dt 5:14, <span>nlt<\/span>). Practical concern for others is a feature of all the OT’s covenant teaching. So God’s loving concern for Israel in her Egyptian slavery must be matched by the Israelite family’s loving concern for those who served them. The Sabbath offered an ideal outlet for the practical expression of that concern. Jesus was especially keen to rescue this humanitarian side of Sabbath observance from the mass of callous regulations that threatened to suffocate it in his day (see, e.g., Mk 3:1-5).<\/p>\n<p>The OT’s provision for a “sabbatical year” develops this humanitarian theme further (see Ex 23:10-12; Lv 25:1-7; Dt 15:1-11; also the regulations for the “year of jubilee” in Lv 25:8-55). Every seventh year the land was to lie fallow and be uncultivated (Lv 25:4). It needed a regular rest just as much as the people it sustained. The primary purpose of this law was benevolent: “But you, your male and female slaves, your hired servants, and any foreigners who live with you may eat the produce that grows naturally during the Sabbath year. And your livestock and the wild animals will also be allowed to eat of the land’s bounty” (vv 6-7, <span>nlt<\/span>). Deuteronomy 15:1-11 extends the same humanitarian principle into the world of commerce. The sabbatical year must see the canceling of all debts within God’s redeemed community. For the tight-fisted who might be tempted to refuse a loan if the sabbatical year was imminent, the law added a warning and a promise: “Do not be mean-spirited and refuse someone a loan because the year of release is close at hand. If you refuse to make the loan and the needy person cries out to the <span>Lord<\/span>, you will be considered guilty of sin. Give freely without begrudging it, and the <span>Lord<\/span> your God will bless you in everything you do” (Dt 15:9-10, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Observing the sabbatical year was obviously a great test of the people’s obedience to God and of their willingness to depend on him for their livelihood. Sometimes the temptation to turn a blind eye was too strong. But history testifies to Israel’s courage in observing the letter of this law on many occasions, despite threats of invasion and famine. Both Alexander the Great and the Romans excused Jews from paying taxes every seventh year in recognition of the depth of their religious convictions.<\/p>\n<p>Returning from the seventh year to the seventh day, the OT law codes go to considerable lengths to buttress the Sabbath ban on work by defining what may and may not be done by God’s people on the Sabbath day. The prohibitions were not meant to rule out activity of any kind. Their aim was to stop regular, everyday work, because if God had set aside the Sabbath (Ex 20:11), the most obvious way of profaning it was to treat it just like any other day. Rules were spelled out in specific terms that the farmer (34:21), the salesman (Jer 17:27), and even the housewife (Ex 35:2-3) would understand.<\/p>\n<p>The details may seem trivial, but obedience to the Sabbath law was seen as the main test of the people’s allegiance to the Lord. It was made quite clear that willful disobedience was a capital offense (Ex 35:2), and the fate of the person found gathering wood in defiance of Sabbath regulations showed that this was no idle threat (Nm 15:32-36).<\/p>\n<p>Hemmed in by so many rules and regulations (and with the death penalty overhanging all), the Sabbath easily could have become a day of fear—a day when the people were more afraid of committing an offense than worshiping the Lord and enjoying a weekly rest. But the Sabbath was intended to be a blessing, not a burden. Above everything else, it was a weekly sign that the Lord loved his people and wanted to draw them into an ever-closer relationship with himself. Those who valued that relationship enjoyed the Sabbath, calling it a delight (Is 58:13-14). Nowhere does the OT express its sheer joy in Sabbath worship more exuberantly than in Psalm 92, which has the title “A Song for the Sabbath.”<\/p>\n<p>The later prophets, were, however, far from blind to the darker side of human nature. They knew that a great deal of Sabbath observance was a sham. Many people treated the Sabbath day more as holiday than holy day, an opportunity for self-indulgence rather than delighting in the Lord (Is 58:13). Some greedy tradesmen found its restrictions an annoying irritant (Am 8:5).<\/p>\n<p>As God’s spokesman, the prophets did not shrink from exposing such neglect and abuse (Ez 22:26). Those who go through the motions of Sabbath worship with unrepentant hearts nauseate the Lord, Isaiah said (Is 1:10-15). As a symptom of rebellion against God, Jerusalem’s Sabbath breaking will bring destruction on the city, thunders Jeremiah (Jer 17:27). The Lord has been very forbearing with his people, warned Ezekiel, but prolonged neglect of his Sabbath makes judgment a certainty (Ez 20:12-24).<\/p>\n<p>When the ax of judgment fell (in the exile to Babylon, 586 <span>BC<\/span>), the surviving remnant of the nation took the lesson to heart. Sabbath keeping was one of the few distinctive marks faithful Jews could retain in a foreign land, so it assumed extra significance. At the prompting of prophets like Ezekiel, who set out rules for Sabbath worship in the rebuilt temple at Jerusalem (Ez 44:24; 45:17; 46:3), and under the leadership of men like Nehemiah, the returning exiles were more careful than their predecessors in observing the Sabbath day (Neh 10:31; 13:15-22).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>Prior to the first century, some Jews in Palestine developed several rules for promoting the observance of the Sabbath. Two tractates of the Mishnah are devoted exclusively to these Sabbath rules and regulations. Their main purpose is to define work (one tractate does so under 39 headings) in an attempt to show every Israelite what is and is not permitted on the Sabbath. Unfortunately, this led to such hairsplitting complexities and evasions that ecclesiastical lawyers often differed among themselves in their interpretations, with the inevitable result that the main purpose of the Sabbath became lost beneath a mass of legalistic detail. The rabbis themselves were aware of how much they were adding to the straightforward teaching of the OT. As one of them put it, “The rules about the sabbath . . . are as mountains hanging by a hair, for Scripture is scanty and the rules many.”<\/p>\n<p>Jesus had many confrontations with the Jewish religious leaders over Sabbath observances. From their perspective, Jesus was a Sabbath breaker and therefore a lawbreaker. Jesus, however, never saw himself as a Sabbath breaker. He went to synagogue regularly on the Sabbath day (Lk 4:16). He read the lesson, preached, and taught (Mk 1:21; Lk 13:10). He clearly accepted the principle that the Sabbath was an appropriate day for worship.<\/p>\n<p>His point of collision with the Pharisees was the point at which their tradition departed from biblical teaching. He made this clear when he defended his disciples by appealing to Scripture, after they had been accused of breaking Sabbath tradition by walking through grainfields and breaking off heads of wheat (which fell into the category of “harvesting,” according to the Pharisees; Mk 2:23-26). He followed this up with a remark that took his hearers straight back to God’s Creation purpose for the Sabbath: “The Sabbath was made to benefit people, and not people to benefit the Sabbath” (Mk 2:27, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Rabbinic tradition had exalted the institution above the people it was meant to serve. By making it an end in itself, the Pharisees had effectively robbed the Sabbath of one of its main purposes. Jesus’ words must have sounded uncomfortably familiar in his opponents’ ears. A famous rabbi had once said, “The Sabbath is given over to you, but you are not given over to the Sabbath.”<\/p>\n<p>More than anything else, Jesus’ Sabbath healings put him on a collision course with rabbinic restrictions. The OT does not forbid cures on the Sabbath day, but the rabbis labeled all healing as work, which must always be avoided on the Sabbath unless life was at risk. Jesus fearlessly exposed the callousness and absurd inconsistencies to which this attitude led. How, he asked, could it be right to circumcise a baby or lead an animal to water on the Sabbath day (which tradition allowed) but wrong to heal a chronically handicapped woman and a crippled man, even if their lives were not in immediate danger (Lk 13:10-17; Jn 7:21-24)? The Sabbath, he taught, was a particularly appropriate day for acts of mercy (Mk 3:4-5).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus, the man from heaven, claimed that he was Lord of the Sabbath (Mk 2:28; cf. Mt 12:5-8). Just as God kept working, despite his Creation rest, to sustain the world in his mercy, so Jesus would continue to teach and to heal on the Sabbath day (Jn 5:2-17). But one day his redemptive work would be complete, and then the Sabbath’s purpose as a sign of redemption would be accomplished.<\/p>\n<p>Living on the other side of Jesus’ death and resurrection, Paul was quick to grasp the significance of both for Sabbath observance. He did not go so far as to ban all observance of the Jewish Sabbath. Indeed, he attended many Sabbath synagogue services himself in his evangelistic travels (see, e.g., Acts 13:14-16). Jewish Christians who insisted on keeping up their Sabbath practices were free to do so, provided they respected the opinions of those who differed (Rom 14:5-6, 13). But any suggestion that observing the Jewish calendar was necessary for salvation must be resisted (Gal 4:8-11). For Paul considered the Sabbath to be a shadow, while Christ himself is the reality of that shadow (Col 2:17).<\/p>\n<p>Finally, it is the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews who explains how the twin biblical “sabbath themes” of creation and redemption find their joint fulfillment in Christ. He did so by linking together the ideas of God’s rest after Creation and his redemptive act in bringing Israel to her “rest” in Canaan, and by showing how both relate to the present and future rest that Christians can and do enjoy in Jesus (Heb 4:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>God intends all his people to share his rest—that is, his promise (Heb 4:1). He showed this intention clearly when he brought Israel to the Promised Land, but that did not mark the complete fulfillment of his promise. The full, complete rest still waiting for the people of God is in heaven. Christ has already entered there. He is resting from his work, just as God did after the Creation. And because of his redeeming work, he invites all those who believe in him to share that same “sabbath rest” now (v 9).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Lord’s Day, The; Sabbath Day’s Journey; Commandments, The Ten.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SABBATH<\/h3>\n<p>Derivation of a Hebrew word that means “cease” or “desist.” The Sabbath was a day (from Friday evening until Saturday evening in Jesus’ time) when all ordinary work stopped. The Scriptures relate that God gave his people the Sabbath as an opportunity to serve him and as a reminder of two great truths in the Bible—Creation and redemption.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The relationship between Creation and the Sabbath is first expressed in Genesis 2:2-3. God “ceased” his work in Creation after six days and then “blessed” the seventh day and “declared it holy.” In the fourth commandment (Ex 20:8-11), God’s “blessing” and “setting aside” of the seventh day after Creation (the words used are the same as those in Genesis) form the basis of his demand that people should observe the seventh day as a day of Sabbath rest.<\/p>\n<p>The idea of God resting from his work is a startling one. It comes across even more vividly in Exodus 31:17, where the Lord tells Moses how he was refreshed by his day of rest. This picture of the Creator as a manual laborer is one the Bible often paints. No doubt it is presented in vividly human terms in Exodus to reinforce the fundamental Sabbath lesson that people must follow the pattern their Creator has set for them. One day’s rest in seven is a necessity for individuals, families, households, and even animals (Ex 20:10).<\/p>\n<p>The Sabbath’s setting in the biblical account of Creation implies that it is one of those OT standards that are meant for all people and not just for Israel. The inclusion of the Sabbath law in the Ten Commandments underlines this important truth. The Decalogue occupied a special place in OT law. Alone of all God’s instructions, it was spoken by his audible voice (Ex 20:1), written by his finger (31:18), and placed in the tabernacle ark at the heart of Israel’s worship (25:16). The NT, too, confirms the strong impression that the Decalogue as a whole embodies principles that are permanently valid for all people in all places at all times. Whether or not Sunday is recognized as the Christian Sabbath, one is obliged to accept the central principle of this biblical teaching as far as the Sabbath is concerned. God’s instructions require people to observe a regular weekly break from work.<\/p>\n<p>Significantly, the second main strand of the Bible’s Sabbath teaching—that of redemption—also features in a list of the Ten Commandments. The Sabbath law (already noted in Ex 20:8-11) reappears in Deuteronomy 5:12-15, but here a different reason is attached to its observance: “Remember that you were once slaves in Egypt and that the <span>Lord<\/span> your God brought you out with amazing power and mighty deeds. That is why the <span>Lord<\/span> your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day” (v 15, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The differences between these two accounts of the fourth commandment are important. The first (Ex 20) is addressed, <em>through<\/em> Israel, to all people as created beings. The second (Dt 5) is directed <em>to<\/em> Israel as God’s redeemed people. So the Sabbath is God’s signpost, pointing not only to his goodness toward all people as their Creator but also to his mercy toward his chosen people as their Redeemer.<\/p>\n<p>There is one other significant point in Deuteronomy’s version of the Sabbath commandment that must not be missed. The prohibition of all work on the Sabbath day is followed by an explanatory note—“On that day no one in your household may do any kind of work. This includes you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, your oxen and donkeys and other livestock, and any foreigners living among you. All your male and female servants must rest as you do” (Dt 5:14, <span>nlt<\/span>). Practical concern for others is a feature of all the OT’s covenant teaching. So God’s loving concern for Israel in her Egyptian slavery must be matched by the Israelite family’s loving concern for those who served them. The Sabbath offered an ideal outlet for the practical expression of that concern. Jesus was especially keen to rescue this humanitarian side of Sabbath observance from the mass of callous regulations that threatened to suffocate it in his day (see, e.g., Mk 3:1-5).<\/p>\n<p>The OT’s provision for a “sabbatical year” develops this humanitarian theme further (see Ex 23:10-12; Lv 25:1-7; Dt 15:1-11; also the regulations for the “year of jubilee” in Lv 25:8-55). Every seventh year the land was to lie fallow and be uncultivated (Lv 25:4). It needed a regular rest just as much as the people it sustained. The primary purpose of this law was benevolent: “But you, your male and female slaves, your hired servants, and any foreigners who live with you may eat the produce that grows naturally during the Sabbath year. And your livestock and the wild animals will also be allowed to eat of the land’s bounty” (vv 6-7, <span>nlt<\/span>). Deuteronomy 15:1-11 extends the same humanitarian principle into the world of commerce. The sabbatical year must see the canceling of all debts within God’s redeemed community. For the tight-fisted who might be tempted to refuse a loan if the sabbatical year was imminent, the law added a warning and a promise: “Do not be mean-spirited and refuse someone a loan because the year of release is close at hand. If you refuse to make the loan and the needy person cries out to the <span>Lord<\/span>, you will be considered guilty of sin. Give freely without begrudging it, and the <span>Lord<\/span> your God will bless you in everything you do” (Dt 15:9-10, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Observing the sabbatical year was obviously a great test of the people’s obedience to God and of their willingness to depend on him for their livelihood. Sometimes the temptation to turn a blind eye was too strong. But history testifies to Israel’s courage in observing the letter of this law on many occasions, despite threats of invasion and famine. Both Alexander the Great and the Romans excused Jews from paying taxes every seventh year in recognition of the depth of their religious convictions.<\/p>\n<p>Returning from the seventh year to the seventh day, the OT law codes go to considerable lengths to buttress the Sabbath ban on work by defining what may and may not be done by God’s people on the Sabbath day. The prohibitions were not meant to rule out activity of any kind. Their aim was to stop regular, everyday work, because if God had set aside the Sabbath (Ex 20:11), the most obvious way of profaning it was to treat it just like any other day. Rules were spelled out in specific terms that the farmer (34:21), the salesman (Jer 17:27), and even the housewife (Ex 35:2-3) would understand.<\/p>\n<p>The details may seem trivial, but obedience to the Sabbath law was seen as the main test of the people’s allegiance to the Lord. It was made quite clear that willful disobedience was a capital offense (Ex 35:2), and the fate of the person found gathering wood in defiance of Sabbath regulations showed that this was no idle threat (Nm 15:32-36).<\/p>\n<p>Hemmed in by so many rules and regulations (and with the death penalty overhanging all), the Sabbath easily could have become a day of fear—a day when the people were more afraid of committing an offense than worshiping the Lord and enjoying a weekly rest. But the Sabbath was intended to be a blessing, not a burden. Above everything else, it was a weekly sign that the Lord loved his people and wanted to draw them into an ever-closer relationship with himself. Those who valued that relationship enjoyed the Sabbath, calling it a delight (Is 58:13-14). Nowhere does the OT express its sheer joy in Sabbath worship more exuberantly than in Psalm 92, which has the title “A Song for the Sabbath.”<\/p>\n<p>The later prophets, were, however, far from blind to the darker side of human nature. They knew that a great deal of Sabbath observance was a sham. Many people treated the Sabbath day more as holiday than holy day, an opportunity for self-indulgence rather than delighting in the Lord (Is 58:13). Some greedy tradesmen found its restrictions an annoying irritant (Am 8:5).<\/p>\n<p>As God’s spokesman, the prophets did not shrink from exposing such neglect and abuse (Ez 22:26). Those who go through the motions of Sabbath worship with unrepentant hearts nauseate the Lord, Isaiah said (Is 1:10-15). As a symptom of rebellion against God, Jerusalem’s Sabbath breaking will bring destruction on the city, thunders Jeremiah (Jer 17:27). The Lord has been very forbearing with his people, warned Ezekiel, but prolonged neglect of his Sabbath makes judgment a certainty (Ez 20:12-24).<\/p>\n<p>When the ax of judgment fell (in the exile to Babylon, 586 <span>BC<\/span>), the surviving remnant of the nation took the lesson to heart. Sabbath keeping was one of the few distinctive marks faithful Jews could retain in a foreign land, so it assumed extra significance. At the prompting of prophets like Ezekiel, who set out rules for Sabbath worship in the rebuilt temple at Jerusalem (Ez 44:24; 45:17; 46:3), and under the leadership of men like Nehemiah, the returning exiles were more careful than their predecessors in observing the Sabbath day (Neh 10:31; 13:15-22).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>Prior to the first century, some Jews in Palestine developed several rules for promoting the observance of the Sabbath. Two tractates of the Mishnah are devoted exclusively to these Sabbath rules and regulations. Their main purpose is to define work (one tractate does so under 39 headings) in an attempt to show every Israelite what is and is not permitted on the Sabbath. Unfortunately, this led to such hairsplitting complexities and evasions that ecclesiastical lawyers often differed among themselves in their interpretations, with the inevitable result that the main purpose of the Sabbath became lost beneath a mass of legalistic detail. The rabbis themselves were aware of how much they were adding to the straightforward teaching of the OT. As one of them put it, “The rules about the sabbath . . . are as mountains hanging by a hair, for Scripture is scanty and the rules many.”<\/p>\n<p>Jesus had many confrontations with the Jewish religious leaders over Sabbath observances. From their perspective, Jesus was a Sabbath breaker and therefore a lawbreaker. Jesus, however, never saw himself as a Sabbath breaker. He went to synagogue regularly on the Sabbath day (Lk 4:16). He read the lesson, preached, and taught (Mk 1:21; Lk 13:10). He clearly accepted the principle that the Sabbath was an appropriate day for worship.<\/p>\n<p>His point of collision with the Pharisees was the point at which their tradition departed from biblical teaching. He made this clear when he defended his disciples by appealing to Scripture, after they had been accused of breaking Sabbath tradition by walking through grainfields and breaking off heads of wheat (which fell into the category of “harvesting,” according to the Pharisees; Mk 2:23-26). He followed this up with a remark that took his hearers straight back to God’s Creation purpose for the Sabbath: “The Sabbath was made to benefit people, and not people to benefit the Sabbath” (Mk 2:27, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Rabbinic tradition had exalted the institution above the people it was meant to serve. By making it an end in itself, the Pharisees had effectively robbed the Sabbath of one of its main purposes. Jesus’ words must have sounded uncomfortably familiar in his opponents’ ears. A famous rabbi had once said, “The Sabbath is given over to you, but you are not given over to the Sabbath.”<\/p>\n<p>More than anything else, Jesus’ Sabbath healings put him on a collision course with rabbinic restrictions. The OT does not forbid cures on the Sabbath day, but the rabbis labeled all healing as work, which must always be avoided on the Sabbath unless life was at risk. Jesus fearlessly exposed the callousness and absurd inconsistencies to which this attitude led. How, he asked, could it be right to circumcise a baby or lead an animal to water on the Sabbath day (which tradition allowed) but wrong to heal a chronically handicapped woman and a crippled man, even if their lives were not in immediate danger (Lk 13:10-17; Jn 7:21-24)? The Sabbath, he taught, was a particularly appropriate day for acts of mercy (Mk 3:4-5).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus, the man from heaven, claimed that he was Lord of the Sabbath (Mk 2:28; cf. Mt 12:5-8). Just as God kept working, despite his Creation rest, to sustain the world in his mercy, so Jesus would continue to teach and to heal on the Sabbath day (Jn 5:2-17). But one day his redemptive work would be complete, and then the Sabbath’s purpose as a sign of redemption would be accomplished.<\/p>\n<p>Living on the other side of Jesus’ death and resurrection, Paul was quick to grasp the significance of both for Sabbath observance. He did not go so far as to ban all observance of the Jewish Sabbath. Indeed, he attended many Sabbath synagogue services himself in his evangelistic travels (see, e.g., Acts 13:14-16). Jewish Christians who insisted on keeping up their Sabbath practices were free to do so, provided they respected the opinions of those who differed (Rom 14:5-6, 13). But any suggestion that observing the Jewish calendar was necessary for salvation must be resisted (Gal 4:8-11). For Paul considered the Sabbath to be a shadow, while Christ himself is the reality of that shadow (Col 2:17).<\/p>\n<p>Finally, it is the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews who explains how the twin biblical “sabbath themes” of creation and redemption find their joint fulfillment in Christ. He did so by linking together the ideas of God’s rest after Creation and his redemptive act in bringing Israel to her “rest” in Canaan, and by showing how both relate to the present and future rest that Christians can and do enjoy in Jesus (Heb 4:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>God intends all his people to share his rest—that is, his promise (Heb 4:1). He showed this intention clearly when he brought Israel to the Promised Land, but that did not mark the complete fulfillment of his promise. The full, complete rest still waiting for the people of God is in heaven. Christ has already entered there. He is resting from his work, just as God did after the Creation. And because of his redeeming work, he invites all those who believe in him to share that same “sabbath rest” now (v 9).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Lord’s Day, The; Sabbath Day’s Journey; Commandments, The Ten.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SABBATH Derivation of a Hebrew word that means “cease” or “desist.” The Sabbath was a day (from Friday evening until Saturday evening in Jesus’ time) when all ordinary work stopped. The Scriptures relate that God gave his people the Sabbath as an opportunity to serve him and as a reminder of two great truths in the Bible—Creation and redemption. In the Old Testament The relationship between Creation and the Sabbath is first expressed in Genesis 2:2-3. God “ceased” his work in Creation after s...","summary_en":"SABBATH Derivation of a Hebrew word that means “cease” or “desist.” The Sabbath was a day (from Friday evening until Saturday evening in Jesus’ time) when all ordinary work stopped. The Scriptures relate that God gave his people the Sabbath as an opportunity to serve him and as a reminder of two great truths in the Bible—Creation and redemption. In the Old Testament The relationship between Creation and the Sabbath is first expressed in Genesis 2:2-3. God “ceased” his work in Creation after s...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55183,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:1","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:1-6<\/strong> This account concludes the collection of controversy stories (2:1–3:6). As in the preceding story, Jesus is in conflict with the Pharisees over the Sabbath; as with the first story, the controversy involves a healing (2:1-12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:1-6<\/strong> This account concludes the collection of controversy stories (2:1–3:6). As in the preceding story, Jesus is in conflict with the Pharisees over the Sabbath; as with the first story, the controversy involves a healing (2:1-12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:1-6 This account concludes the collection of controversy stories (2:1–3:6). As in the preceding story, Jesus is in conflict with the Pharisees over the Sabbath; as with the first story, the controversy involves a healing (2:1-12).","summary_en":"3:1-6 This account concludes the collection of controversy stories (2:1–3:6). As in the preceding story, Jesus is in conflict with the Pharisees over the Sabbath; as with the first story, the controversy involves a healing (2:1-12).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55184,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:1","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:1-2<\/strong> The scene <em>again<\/em> involves a <em>synagogue<\/em><em>,<\/em> probably in Capernaum (1:21, 29). The presence of a crippled man on the Sabbath (3:1-2) created a situation that <em>Jesus’ enemies<\/em> wished to exploit <em>if he healed the man’s hand<\/em><em>,<\/em> so they <em>watched him closely<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:1-2<\/strong> The scene <em>again<\/em> involves a <em>synagogue<\/em><em>,<\/em> probably in Capernaum (1:21, 29). The presence of a crippled man on the Sabbath (3:1-2) created a situation that <em>Jesus’ enemies<\/em> wished to exploit <em>if he healed the man’s hand<\/em><em>,<\/em> so they <em>watched him closely<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:1-2 The scene again involves a synagogue, probably in Capernaum (1:21, 29). The presence of a crippled man on the Sabbath (3:1-2) created a situation that Jesus’ enemies wished to exploit if he healed the man’s hand, so they watched him closely.","summary_en":"3:1-2 The scene again involves a synagogue, probably in Capernaum (1:21, 29). The presence of a crippled man on the Sabbath (3:1-2) created a situation that Jesus’ enemies wished to exploit if he healed the man’s hand, so they watched him closely.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82809,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:1","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:1-6<\/strong> This account concludes the collection of controversy stories (2:1–3:6). As in the preceding story, Jesus is in conflict with the Pharisees over the Sabbath; as with the first story, the controversy involves a healing (2:1-12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:1-6<\/strong> This account concludes the collection of controversy stories (2:1–3:6). As in the preceding story, Jesus is in conflict with the Pharisees over the Sabbath; as with the first story, the controversy involves a healing (2:1-12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:1-6 This account concludes the collection of controversy stories (2:1–3:6). As in the preceding story, Jesus is in conflict with the Pharisees over the Sabbath; as with the first story, the controversy involves a healing (2:1-12).","summary_en":"3:1-6 This account concludes the collection of controversy stories (2:1–3:6). As in the preceding story, Jesus is in conflict with the Pharisees over the Sabbath; as with the first story, the controversy involves a healing (2:1-12).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82810,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:1","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:1-2<\/strong> The scene <em>again<\/em> involves a <em>synagogue<\/em><em>,<\/em> probably in Capernaum (1:21, 29). The presence of a crippled man on the Sabbath (3:1-2) created a situation that <em>Jesus’ enemies<\/em> wished to exploit <em>if he healed the man’s hand<\/em><em>,<\/em> so they <em>watched him closely<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:1-2<\/strong> The scene <em>again<\/em> involves a <em>synagogue<\/em><em>,<\/em> probably in Capernaum (1:21, 29). The presence of a crippled man on the Sabbath (3:1-2) created a situation that <em>Jesus’ enemies<\/em> wished to exploit <em>if he healed the man’s hand<\/em><em>,<\/em> so they <em>watched him closely<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:1-2 The scene again involves a synagogue, probably in Capernaum (1:21, 29). The presence of a crippled man on the Sabbath (3:1-2) created a situation that Jesus’ enemies wished to exploit if he healed the man’s hand, so they watched him closely.","summary_en":"3:1-2 The scene again involves a synagogue, probably in Capernaum (1:21, 29). The presence of a crippled man on the Sabbath (3:1-2) created a situation that Jesus’ enemies wished to exploit if he healed the man’s hand, so they watched him closely.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110435,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:1","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:1-6<\/strong> This account concludes the collection of controversy stories (2:1–3:6). As in the preceding story, Jesus is in conflict with the Pharisees over the Sabbath; as with the first story, the controversy involves a healing (2:1-12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:1-6<\/strong> This account concludes the collection of controversy stories (2:1–3:6). As in the preceding story, Jesus is in conflict with the Pharisees over the Sabbath; as with the first story, the controversy involves a healing (2:1-12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:1-6 This account concludes the collection of controversy stories (2:1–3:6). As in the preceding story, Jesus is in conflict with the Pharisees over the Sabbath; as with the first story, the controversy involves a healing (2:1-12).","summary_en":"3:1-6 This account concludes the collection of controversy stories (2:1–3:6). As in the preceding story, Jesus is in conflict with the Pharisees over the Sabbath; as with the first story, the controversy involves a healing (2:1-12).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110436,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:1","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:1-2<\/strong> The scene <em>again<\/em> involves a <em>synagogue<\/em><em>,<\/em> probably in Capernaum (1:21, 29). The presence of a crippled man on the Sabbath (3:1-2) created a situation that <em>Jesus’ enemies<\/em> wished to exploit <em>if he healed the man’s hand<\/em><em>,<\/em> so they <em>watched him closely<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:1-2<\/strong> The scene <em>again<\/em> involves a <em>synagogue<\/em><em>,<\/em> probably in Capernaum (1:21, 29). The presence of a crippled man on the Sabbath (3:1-2) created a situation that <em>Jesus’ enemies<\/em> wished to exploit <em>if he healed the man’s hand<\/em><em>,<\/em> so they <em>watched him closely<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:1-2 The scene again involves a synagogue, probably in Capernaum (1:21, 29). The presence of a crippled man on the Sabbath (3:1-2) created a situation that Jesus’ enemies wished to exploit if he healed the man’s hand, so they watched him closely.","summary_en":"3:1-2 The scene again involves a synagogue, probably in Capernaum (1:21, 29). The presence of a crippled man on the Sabbath (3:1-2) created a situation that Jesus’ enemies wished to exploit if he healed the man’s hand, so they watched him closely.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138061,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:1","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:1-6<\/strong> This account concludes the collection of controversy stories (2:1–3:6). As in the preceding story, Jesus is in conflict with the Pharisees over the Sabbath; as with the first story, the controversy involves a healing (2:1-12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:1-6<\/strong> This account concludes the collection of controversy stories (2:1–3:6). As in the preceding story, Jesus is in conflict with the Pharisees over the Sabbath; as with the first story, the controversy involves a healing (2:1-12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:1-6 This account concludes the collection of controversy stories (2:1–3:6). As in the preceding story, Jesus is in conflict with the Pharisees over the Sabbath; as with the first story, the controversy involves a healing (2:1-12).","summary_en":"3:1-6 This account concludes the collection of controversy stories (2:1–3:6). As in the preceding story, Jesus is in conflict with the Pharisees over the Sabbath; as with the first story, the controversy involves a healing (2:1-12).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138062,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:1","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:1-2<\/strong> The scene <em>again<\/em> involves a <em>synagogue<\/em><em>,<\/em> probably in Capernaum (1:21, 29). The presence of a crippled man on the Sabbath (3:1-2) created a situation that <em>Jesus’ enemies<\/em> wished to exploit <em>if he healed the man’s hand<\/em><em>,<\/em> so they <em>watched him closely<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:1-2<\/strong> The scene <em>again<\/em> involves a <em>synagogue<\/em><em>,<\/em> probably in Capernaum (1:21, 29). The presence of a crippled man on the Sabbath (3:1-2) created a situation that <em>Jesus’ enemies<\/em> wished to exploit <em>if he healed the man’s hand<\/em><em>,<\/em> so they <em>watched him closely<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:1-2 The scene again involves a synagogue, probably in Capernaum (1:21, 29). The presence of a crippled man on the Sabbath (3:1-2) created a situation that Jesus’ enemies wished to exploit if he healed the man’s hand, so they watched him closely.","summary_en":"3:1-2 The scene again involves a synagogue, probably in Capernaum (1:21, 29). The presence of a crippled man on the Sabbath (3:1-2) created a situation that Jesus’ enemies wished to exploit if he healed the man’s hand, so they watched him closely.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"3":[{"id":55185,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:3","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:3-4<\/strong> Jesus challenged his enemies’ view that doing <em>good deeds<\/em> was forbidden on the Sabbath (cp. Luke 13:10-17). • <em>To destroy<\/em> . . . <em>life<\/em> may refer to an incident in which the Maccabees decided to fight if attacked on the Sabbath (<em>1 Maccabees<\/em> 2:32-41). These great Jewish heroes were willing to kill on the Sabbath, yet the Pharisees would not allow <em>good deeds on the Sabbath<\/em>. Jesus’ question shamed them into silence but did not change their hearts (Mark 3:5).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:3-4<\/strong> Jesus challenged his enemies’ view that doing <em>good deeds<\/em> was forbidden on the Sabbath (cp. Luke 13:10-17). • <em>To destroy<\/em> . . . <em>life<\/em> may refer to an incident in which the Maccabees decided to fight if attacked on the Sabbath (<em>1 Maccabees<\/em> 2:32-41). These great Jewish heroes were willing to kill on the Sabbath, yet the Pharisees would not allow <em>good deeds on the Sabbath<\/em>. Jesus’ question shamed them into silence but did not change their hearts (Mark 3:5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:3-4 Jesus challenged his enemies’ view that doing good deeds was forbidden on the Sabbath (cp. Luke 13:10-17). • To destroy . . . life may refer to an incident in which the Maccabees decided to fight if attacked on the Sabbath (1 Maccabees 2:32-41). These great Jewish heroes were willing to kill on the Sabbath, yet the Pharisees would not allow good deeds on the Sabbath. Jesus’ question shamed them into silence but did not change their hearts (Mark 3:5).","summary_en":"3:3-4 Jesus challenged his enemies’ view that doing good deeds was forbidden on the Sabbath (cp. Luke 13:10-17). • To destroy . . . life may refer to an incident in which the Maccabees decided to fight if attacked on the Sabbath (1 Maccabees 2:32-41). These great Jewish heroes were willing to kill on the Sabbath, yet the Pharisees would not allow good deeds on the Sabbath. Jesus’ question shamed them into silence but did not change their hearts (Mark 3:5).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82811,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:3","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:3-4<\/strong> Jesus challenged his enemies’ view that doing <em>good deeds<\/em> was forbidden on the Sabbath (cp. Luke 13:10-17). • <em>To destroy<\/em> . . . <em>life<\/em> may refer to an incident in which the Maccabees decided to fight if attacked on the Sabbath (<em>1 Maccabees<\/em> 2:32-41). These great Jewish heroes were willing to kill on the Sabbath, yet the Pharisees would not allow <em>good deeds on the Sabbath<\/em>. Jesus’ question shamed them into silence but did not change their hearts (Mark 3:5).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:3-4<\/strong> Jesus challenged his enemies’ view that doing <em>good deeds<\/em> was forbidden on the Sabbath (cp. Luke 13:10-17). • <em>To destroy<\/em> . . . <em>life<\/em> may refer to an incident in which the Maccabees decided to fight if attacked on the Sabbath (<em>1 Maccabees<\/em> 2:32-41). These great Jewish heroes were willing to kill on the Sabbath, yet the Pharisees would not allow <em>good deeds on the Sabbath<\/em>. Jesus’ question shamed them into silence but did not change their hearts (Mark 3:5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:3-4 Jesus challenged his enemies’ view that doing good deeds was forbidden on the Sabbath (cp. Luke 13:10-17). • To destroy . . . life may refer to an incident in which the Maccabees decided to fight if attacked on the Sabbath (1 Maccabees 2:32-41). These great Jewish heroes were willing to kill on the Sabbath, yet the Pharisees would not allow good deeds on the Sabbath. Jesus’ question shamed them into silence but did not change their hearts (Mark 3:5).","summary_en":"3:3-4 Jesus challenged his enemies’ view that doing good deeds was forbidden on the Sabbath (cp. Luke 13:10-17). • To destroy . . . life may refer to an incident in which the Maccabees decided to fight if attacked on the Sabbath (1 Maccabees 2:32-41). These great Jewish heroes were willing to kill on the Sabbath, yet the Pharisees would not allow good deeds on the Sabbath. Jesus’ question shamed them into silence but did not change their hearts (Mark 3:5).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110437,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:3","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:3-4<\/strong> Jesus challenged his enemies’ view that doing <em>good deeds<\/em> was forbidden on the Sabbath (cp. Luke 13:10-17). • <em>To destroy<\/em> . . . <em>life<\/em> may refer to an incident in which the Maccabees decided to fight if attacked on the Sabbath (<em>1 Maccabees<\/em> 2:32-41). These great Jewish heroes were willing to kill on the Sabbath, yet the Pharisees would not allow <em>good deeds on the Sabbath<\/em>. Jesus’ question shamed them into silence but did not change their hearts (Mark 3:5).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:3-4<\/strong> Jesus challenged his enemies’ view that doing <em>good deeds<\/em> was forbidden on the Sabbath (cp. Luke 13:10-17). • <em>To destroy<\/em> . . . <em>life<\/em> may refer to an incident in which the Maccabees decided to fight if attacked on the Sabbath (<em>1 Maccabees<\/em> 2:32-41). These great Jewish heroes were willing to kill on the Sabbath, yet the Pharisees would not allow <em>good deeds on the Sabbath<\/em>. Jesus’ question shamed them into silence but did not change their hearts (Mark 3:5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:3-4 Jesus challenged his enemies’ view that doing good deeds was forbidden on the Sabbath (cp. Luke 13:10-17). • To destroy . . . life may refer to an incident in which the Maccabees decided to fight if attacked on the Sabbath (1 Maccabees 2:32-41). These great Jewish heroes were willing to kill on the Sabbath, yet the Pharisees would not allow good deeds on the Sabbath. Jesus’ question shamed them into silence but did not change their hearts (Mark 3:5).","summary_en":"3:3-4 Jesus challenged his enemies’ view that doing good deeds was forbidden on the Sabbath (cp. Luke 13:10-17). • To destroy . . . life may refer to an incident in which the Maccabees decided to fight if attacked on the Sabbath (1 Maccabees 2:32-41). These great Jewish heroes were willing to kill on the Sabbath, yet the Pharisees would not allow good deeds on the Sabbath. Jesus’ question shamed them into silence but did not change their hearts (Mark 3:5).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138063,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:3","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:3-4<\/strong> Jesus challenged his enemies’ view that doing <em>good deeds<\/em> was forbidden on the Sabbath (cp. Luke 13:10-17). • <em>To destroy<\/em> . . . <em>life<\/em> may refer to an incident in which the Maccabees decided to fight if attacked on the Sabbath (<em>1 Maccabees<\/em> 2:32-41). These great Jewish heroes were willing to kill on the Sabbath, yet the Pharisees would not allow <em>good deeds on the Sabbath<\/em>. Jesus’ question shamed them into silence but did not change their hearts (Mark 3:5).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:3-4<\/strong> Jesus challenged his enemies’ view that doing <em>good deeds<\/em> was forbidden on the Sabbath (cp. Luke 13:10-17). • <em>To destroy<\/em> . . . <em>life<\/em> may refer to an incident in which the Maccabees decided to fight if attacked on the Sabbath (<em>1 Maccabees<\/em> 2:32-41). These great Jewish heroes were willing to kill on the Sabbath, yet the Pharisees would not allow <em>good deeds on the Sabbath<\/em>. Jesus’ question shamed them into silence but did not change their hearts (Mark 3:5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:3-4 Jesus challenged his enemies’ view that doing good deeds was forbidden on the Sabbath (cp. Luke 13:10-17). • To destroy . . . life may refer to an incident in which the Maccabees decided to fight if attacked on the Sabbath (1 Maccabees 2:32-41). These great Jewish heroes were willing to kill on the Sabbath, yet the Pharisees would not allow good deeds on the Sabbath. Jesus’ question shamed them into silence but did not change their hearts (Mark 3:5).","summary_en":"3:3-4 Jesus challenged his enemies’ view that doing good deeds was forbidden on the Sabbath (cp. Luke 13:10-17). • To destroy . . . life may refer to an incident in which the Maccabees decided to fight if attacked on the Sabbath (1 Maccabees 2:32-41). These great Jewish heroes were willing to kill on the Sabbath, yet the Pharisees would not allow good deeds on the Sabbath. Jesus’ question shamed them into silence but did not change their hearts (Mark 3:5).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"4":[{"id":33437,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Sabbath","title_en":"Sabbath","content_ro":"<h3>SABBATH<\/h3>\n<p>Derivation of a Hebrew word that means “cease” or “desist.” The Sabbath was a day (from Friday evening until Saturday evening in Jesus’ time) when all ordinary work stopped. The Scriptures relate that God gave his people the Sabbath as an opportunity to serve him and as a reminder of two great truths in the Bible—Creation and redemption.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The relationship between Creation and the Sabbath is first expressed in Genesis 2:2-3. God “ceased” his work in Creation after six days and then “blessed” the seventh day and “declared it holy.” In the fourth commandment (Ex 20:8-11), God’s “blessing” and “setting aside” of the seventh day after Creation (the words used are the same as those in Genesis) form the basis of his demand that people should observe the seventh day as a day of Sabbath rest.<\/p>\n<p>The idea of God resting from his work is a startling one. It comes across even more vividly in Exodus 31:17, where the Lord tells Moses how he was refreshed by his day of rest. This picture of the Creator as a manual laborer is one the Bible often paints. No doubt it is presented in vividly human terms in Exodus to reinforce the fundamental Sabbath lesson that people must follow the pattern their Creator has set for them. One day’s rest in seven is a necessity for individuals, families, households, and even animals (Ex 20:10).<\/p>\n<p>The Sabbath’s setting in the biblical account of Creation implies that it is one of those OT standards that are meant for all people and not just for Israel. The inclusion of the Sabbath law in the Ten Commandments underlines this important truth. The Decalogue occupied a special place in OT law. Alone of all God’s instructions, it was spoken by his audible voice (Ex 20:1), written by his finger (31:18), and placed in the tabernacle ark at the heart of Israel’s worship (25:16). The NT, too, confirms the strong impression that the Decalogue as a whole embodies principles that are permanently valid for all people in all places at all times. Whether or not Sunday is recognized as the Christian Sabbath, one is obliged to accept the central principle of this biblical teaching as far as the Sabbath is concerned. God’s instructions require people to observe a regular weekly break from work.<\/p>\n<p>Significantly, the second main strand of the Bible’s Sabbath teaching—that of redemption—also features in a list of the Ten Commandments. The Sabbath law (already noted in Ex 20:8-11) reappears in Deuteronomy 5:12-15, but here a different reason is attached to its observance: “Remember that you were once slaves in Egypt and that the <span>Lord<\/span> your God brought you out with amazing power and mighty deeds. That is why the <span>Lord<\/span> your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day” (v 15, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The differences between these two accounts of the fourth commandment are important. The first (Ex 20) is addressed, <em>through<\/em> Israel, to all people as created beings. The second (Dt 5) is directed <em>to<\/em> Israel as God’s redeemed people. So the Sabbath is God’s signpost, pointing not only to his goodness toward all people as their Creator but also to his mercy toward his chosen people as their Redeemer.<\/p>\n<p>There is one other significant point in Deuteronomy’s version of the Sabbath commandment that must not be missed. The prohibition of all work on the Sabbath day is followed by an explanatory note—“On that day no one in your household may do any kind of work. This includes you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, your oxen and donkeys and other livestock, and any foreigners living among you. All your male and female servants must rest as you do” (Dt 5:14, <span>nlt<\/span>). Practical concern for others is a feature of all the OT’s covenant teaching. So God’s loving concern for Israel in her Egyptian slavery must be matched by the Israelite family’s loving concern for those who served them. The Sabbath offered an ideal outlet for the practical expression of that concern. Jesus was especially keen to rescue this humanitarian side of Sabbath observance from the mass of callous regulations that threatened to suffocate it in his day (see, e.g., Mk 3:1-5).<\/p>\n<p>The OT’s provision for a “sabbatical year” develops this humanitarian theme further (see Ex 23:10-12; Lv 25:1-7; Dt 15:1-11; also the regulations for the “year of jubilee” in Lv 25:8-55). Every seventh year the land was to lie fallow and be uncultivated (Lv 25:4). It needed a regular rest just as much as the people it sustained. The primary purpose of this law was benevolent: “But you, your male and female slaves, your hired servants, and any foreigners who live with you may eat the produce that grows naturally during the Sabbath year. And your livestock and the wild animals will also be allowed to eat of the land’s bounty” (vv 6-7, <span>nlt<\/span>). Deuteronomy 15:1-11 extends the same humanitarian principle into the world of commerce. The sabbatical year must see the canceling of all debts within God’s redeemed community. For the tight-fisted who might be tempted to refuse a loan if the sabbatical year was imminent, the law added a warning and a promise: “Do not be mean-spirited and refuse someone a loan because the year of release is close at hand. If you refuse to make the loan and the needy person cries out to the <span>Lord<\/span>, you will be considered guilty of sin. Give freely without begrudging it, and the <span>Lord<\/span> your God will bless you in everything you do” (Dt 15:9-10, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Observing the sabbatical year was obviously a great test of the people’s obedience to God and of their willingness to depend on him for their livelihood. Sometimes the temptation to turn a blind eye was too strong. But history testifies to Israel’s courage in observing the letter of this law on many occasions, despite threats of invasion and famine. Both Alexander the Great and the Romans excused Jews from paying taxes every seventh year in recognition of the depth of their religious convictions.<\/p>\n<p>Returning from the seventh year to the seventh day, the OT law codes go to considerable lengths to buttress the Sabbath ban on work by defining what may and may not be done by God’s people on the Sabbath day. The prohibitions were not meant to rule out activity of any kind. Their aim was to stop regular, everyday work, because if God had set aside the Sabbath (Ex 20:11), the most obvious way of profaning it was to treat it just like any other day. Rules were spelled out in specific terms that the farmer (34:21), the salesman (Jer 17:27), and even the housewife (Ex 35:2-3) would understand.<\/p>\n<p>The details may seem trivial, but obedience to the Sabbath law was seen as the main test of the people’s allegiance to the Lord. It was made quite clear that willful disobedience was a capital offense (Ex 35:2), and the fate of the person found gathering wood in defiance of Sabbath regulations showed that this was no idle threat (Nm 15:32-36).<\/p>\n<p>Hemmed in by so many rules and regulations (and with the death penalty overhanging all), the Sabbath easily could have become a day of fear—a day when the people were more afraid of committing an offense than worshiping the Lord and enjoying a weekly rest. But the Sabbath was intended to be a blessing, not a burden. Above everything else, it was a weekly sign that the Lord loved his people and wanted to draw them into an ever-closer relationship with himself. Those who valued that relationship enjoyed the Sabbath, calling it a delight (Is 58:13-14). Nowhere does the OT express its sheer joy in Sabbath worship more exuberantly than in Psalm 92, which has the title “A Song for the Sabbath.”<\/p>\n<p>The later prophets, were, however, far from blind to the darker side of human nature. They knew that a great deal of Sabbath observance was a sham. Many people treated the Sabbath day more as holiday than holy day, an opportunity for self-indulgence rather than delighting in the Lord (Is 58:13). Some greedy tradesmen found its restrictions an annoying irritant (Am 8:5).<\/p>\n<p>As God’s spokesman, the prophets did not shrink from exposing such neglect and abuse (Ez 22:26). Those who go through the motions of Sabbath worship with unrepentant hearts nauseate the Lord, Isaiah said (Is 1:10-15). As a symptom of rebellion against God, Jerusalem’s Sabbath breaking will bring destruction on the city, thunders Jeremiah (Jer 17:27). The Lord has been very forbearing with his people, warned Ezekiel, but prolonged neglect of his Sabbath makes judgment a certainty (Ez 20:12-24).<\/p>\n<p>When the ax of judgment fell (in the exile to Babylon, 586 <span>BC<\/span>), the surviving remnant of the nation took the lesson to heart. Sabbath keeping was one of the few distinctive marks faithful Jews could retain in a foreign land, so it assumed extra significance. At the prompting of prophets like Ezekiel, who set out rules for Sabbath worship in the rebuilt temple at Jerusalem (Ez 44:24; 45:17; 46:3), and under the leadership of men like Nehemiah, the returning exiles were more careful than their predecessors in observing the Sabbath day (Neh 10:31; 13:15-22).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>Prior to the first century, some Jews in Palestine developed several rules for promoting the observance of the Sabbath. Two tractates of the Mishnah are devoted exclusively to these Sabbath rules and regulations. Their main purpose is to define work (one tractate does so under 39 headings) in an attempt to show every Israelite what is and is not permitted on the Sabbath. Unfortunately, this led to such hairsplitting complexities and evasions that ecclesiastical lawyers often differed among themselves in their interpretations, with the inevitable result that the main purpose of the Sabbath became lost beneath a mass of legalistic detail. The rabbis themselves were aware of how much they were adding to the straightforward teaching of the OT. As one of them put it, “The rules about the sabbath . . . are as mountains hanging by a hair, for Scripture is scanty and the rules many.”<\/p>\n<p>Jesus had many confrontations with the Jewish religious leaders over Sabbath observances. From their perspective, Jesus was a Sabbath breaker and therefore a lawbreaker. Jesus, however, never saw himself as a Sabbath breaker. He went to synagogue regularly on the Sabbath day (Lk 4:16). He read the lesson, preached, and taught (Mk 1:21; Lk 13:10). He clearly accepted the principle that the Sabbath was an appropriate day for worship.<\/p>\n<p>His point of collision with the Pharisees was the point at which their tradition departed from biblical teaching. He made this clear when he defended his disciples by appealing to Scripture, after they had been accused of breaking Sabbath tradition by walking through grainfields and breaking off heads of wheat (which fell into the category of “harvesting,” according to the Pharisees; Mk 2:23-26). He followed this up with a remark that took his hearers straight back to God’s Creation purpose for the Sabbath: “The Sabbath was made to benefit people, and not people to benefit the Sabbath” (Mk 2:27, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Rabbinic tradition had exalted the institution above the people it was meant to serve. By making it an end in itself, the Pharisees had effectively robbed the Sabbath of one of its main purposes. Jesus’ words must have sounded uncomfortably familiar in his opponents’ ears. A famous rabbi had once said, “The Sabbath is given over to you, but you are not given over to the Sabbath.”<\/p>\n<p>More than anything else, Jesus’ Sabbath healings put him on a collision course with rabbinic restrictions. The OT does not forbid cures on the Sabbath day, but the rabbis labeled all healing as work, which must always be avoided on the Sabbath unless life was at risk. Jesus fearlessly exposed the callousness and absurd inconsistencies to which this attitude led. How, he asked, could it be right to circumcise a baby or lead an animal to water on the Sabbath day (which tradition allowed) but wrong to heal a chronically handicapped woman and a crippled man, even if their lives were not in immediate danger (Lk 13:10-17; Jn 7:21-24)? The Sabbath, he taught, was a particularly appropriate day for acts of mercy (Mk 3:4-5).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus, the man from heaven, claimed that he was Lord of the Sabbath (Mk 2:28; cf. Mt 12:5-8). Just as God kept working, despite his Creation rest, to sustain the world in his mercy, so Jesus would continue to teach and to heal on the Sabbath day (Jn 5:2-17). But one day his redemptive work would be complete, and then the Sabbath’s purpose as a sign of redemption would be accomplished.<\/p>\n<p>Living on the other side of Jesus’ death and resurrection, Paul was quick to grasp the significance of both for Sabbath observance. He did not go so far as to ban all observance of the Jewish Sabbath. Indeed, he attended many Sabbath synagogue services himself in his evangelistic travels (see, e.g., Acts 13:14-16). Jewish Christians who insisted on keeping up their Sabbath practices were free to do so, provided they respected the opinions of those who differed (Rom 14:5-6, 13). But any suggestion that observing the Jewish calendar was necessary for salvation must be resisted (Gal 4:8-11). For Paul considered the Sabbath to be a shadow, while Christ himself is the reality of that shadow (Col 2:17).<\/p>\n<p>Finally, it is the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews who explains how the twin biblical “sabbath themes” of creation and redemption find their joint fulfillment in Christ. He did so by linking together the ideas of God’s rest after Creation and his redemptive act in bringing Israel to her “rest” in Canaan, and by showing how both relate to the present and future rest that Christians can and do enjoy in Jesus (Heb 4:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>God intends all his people to share his rest—that is, his promise (Heb 4:1). He showed this intention clearly when he brought Israel to the Promised Land, but that did not mark the complete fulfillment of his promise. The full, complete rest still waiting for the people of God is in heaven. Christ has already entered there. He is resting from his work, just as God did after the Creation. And because of his redeeming work, he invites all those who believe in him to share that same “sabbath rest” now (v 9).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Lord’s Day, The; Sabbath Day’s Journey; Commandments, The Ten.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SABBATH<\/h3>\n<p>Derivation of a Hebrew word that means “cease” or “desist.” The Sabbath was a day (from Friday evening until Saturday evening in Jesus’ time) when all ordinary work stopped. The Scriptures relate that God gave his people the Sabbath as an opportunity to serve him and as a reminder of two great truths in the Bible—Creation and redemption.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The relationship between Creation and the Sabbath is first expressed in Genesis 2:2-3. God “ceased” his work in Creation after six days and then “blessed” the seventh day and “declared it holy.” In the fourth commandment (Ex 20:8-11), God’s “blessing” and “setting aside” of the seventh day after Creation (the words used are the same as those in Genesis) form the basis of his demand that people should observe the seventh day as a day of Sabbath rest.<\/p>\n<p>The idea of God resting from his work is a startling one. It comes across even more vividly in Exodus 31:17, where the Lord tells Moses how he was refreshed by his day of rest. This picture of the Creator as a manual laborer is one the Bible often paints. No doubt it is presented in vividly human terms in Exodus to reinforce the fundamental Sabbath lesson that people must follow the pattern their Creator has set for them. One day’s rest in seven is a necessity for individuals, families, households, and even animals (Ex 20:10).<\/p>\n<p>The Sabbath’s setting in the biblical account of Creation implies that it is one of those OT standards that are meant for all people and not just for Israel. The inclusion of the Sabbath law in the Ten Commandments underlines this important truth. The Decalogue occupied a special place in OT law. Alone of all God’s instructions, it was spoken by his audible voice (Ex 20:1), written by his finger (31:18), and placed in the tabernacle ark at the heart of Israel’s worship (25:16). The NT, too, confirms the strong impression that the Decalogue as a whole embodies principles that are permanently valid for all people in all places at all times. Whether or not Sunday is recognized as the Christian Sabbath, one is obliged to accept the central principle of this biblical teaching as far as the Sabbath is concerned. God’s instructions require people to observe a regular weekly break from work.<\/p>\n<p>Significantly, the second main strand of the Bible’s Sabbath teaching—that of redemption—also features in a list of the Ten Commandments. The Sabbath law (already noted in Ex 20:8-11) reappears in Deuteronomy 5:12-15, but here a different reason is attached to its observance: “Remember that you were once slaves in Egypt and that the <span>Lord<\/span> your God brought you out with amazing power and mighty deeds. That is why the <span>Lord<\/span> your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day” (v 15, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The differences between these two accounts of the fourth commandment are important. The first (Ex 20) is addressed, <em>through<\/em> Israel, to all people as created beings. The second (Dt 5) is directed <em>to<\/em> Israel as God’s redeemed people. So the Sabbath is God’s signpost, pointing not only to his goodness toward all people as their Creator but also to his mercy toward his chosen people as their Redeemer.<\/p>\n<p>There is one other significant point in Deuteronomy’s version of the Sabbath commandment that must not be missed. The prohibition of all work on the Sabbath day is followed by an explanatory note—“On that day no one in your household may do any kind of work. This includes you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, your oxen and donkeys and other livestock, and any foreigners living among you. All your male and female servants must rest as you do” (Dt 5:14, <span>nlt<\/span>). Practical concern for others is a feature of all the OT’s covenant teaching. So God’s loving concern for Israel in her Egyptian slavery must be matched by the Israelite family’s loving concern for those who served them. The Sabbath offered an ideal outlet for the practical expression of that concern. Jesus was especially keen to rescue this humanitarian side of Sabbath observance from the mass of callous regulations that threatened to suffocate it in his day (see, e.g., Mk 3:1-5).<\/p>\n<p>The OT’s provision for a “sabbatical year” develops this humanitarian theme further (see Ex 23:10-12; Lv 25:1-7; Dt 15:1-11; also the regulations for the “year of jubilee” in Lv 25:8-55). Every seventh year the land was to lie fallow and be uncultivated (Lv 25:4). It needed a regular rest just as much as the people it sustained. The primary purpose of this law was benevolent: “But you, your male and female slaves, your hired servants, and any foreigners who live with you may eat the produce that grows naturally during the Sabbath year. And your livestock and the wild animals will also be allowed to eat of the land’s bounty” (vv 6-7, <span>nlt<\/span>). Deuteronomy 15:1-11 extends the same humanitarian principle into the world of commerce. The sabbatical year must see the canceling of all debts within God’s redeemed community. For the tight-fisted who might be tempted to refuse a loan if the sabbatical year was imminent, the law added a warning and a promise: “Do not be mean-spirited and refuse someone a loan because the year of release is close at hand. If you refuse to make the loan and the needy person cries out to the <span>Lord<\/span>, you will be considered guilty of sin. Give freely without begrudging it, and the <span>Lord<\/span> your God will bless you in everything you do” (Dt 15:9-10, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Observing the sabbatical year was obviously a great test of the people’s obedience to God and of their willingness to depend on him for their livelihood. Sometimes the temptation to turn a blind eye was too strong. But history testifies to Israel’s courage in observing the letter of this law on many occasions, despite threats of invasion and famine. Both Alexander the Great and the Romans excused Jews from paying taxes every seventh year in recognition of the depth of their religious convictions.<\/p>\n<p>Returning from the seventh year to the seventh day, the OT law codes go to considerable lengths to buttress the Sabbath ban on work by defining what may and may not be done by God’s people on the Sabbath day. The prohibitions were not meant to rule out activity of any kind. Their aim was to stop regular, everyday work, because if God had set aside the Sabbath (Ex 20:11), the most obvious way of profaning it was to treat it just like any other day. Rules were spelled out in specific terms that the farmer (34:21), the salesman (Jer 17:27), and even the housewife (Ex 35:2-3) would understand.<\/p>\n<p>The details may seem trivial, but obedience to the Sabbath law was seen as the main test of the people’s allegiance to the Lord. It was made quite clear that willful disobedience was a capital offense (Ex 35:2), and the fate of the person found gathering wood in defiance of Sabbath regulations showed that this was no idle threat (Nm 15:32-36).<\/p>\n<p>Hemmed in by so many rules and regulations (and with the death penalty overhanging all), the Sabbath easily could have become a day of fear—a day when the people were more afraid of committing an offense than worshiping the Lord and enjoying a weekly rest. But the Sabbath was intended to be a blessing, not a burden. Above everything else, it was a weekly sign that the Lord loved his people and wanted to draw them into an ever-closer relationship with himself. Those who valued that relationship enjoyed the Sabbath, calling it a delight (Is 58:13-14). Nowhere does the OT express its sheer joy in Sabbath worship more exuberantly than in Psalm 92, which has the title “A Song for the Sabbath.”<\/p>\n<p>The later prophets, were, however, far from blind to the darker side of human nature. They knew that a great deal of Sabbath observance was a sham. Many people treated the Sabbath day more as holiday than holy day, an opportunity for self-indulgence rather than delighting in the Lord (Is 58:13). Some greedy tradesmen found its restrictions an annoying irritant (Am 8:5).<\/p>\n<p>As God’s spokesman, the prophets did not shrink from exposing such neglect and abuse (Ez 22:26). Those who go through the motions of Sabbath worship with unrepentant hearts nauseate the Lord, Isaiah said (Is 1:10-15). As a symptom of rebellion against God, Jerusalem’s Sabbath breaking will bring destruction on the city, thunders Jeremiah (Jer 17:27). The Lord has been very forbearing with his people, warned Ezekiel, but prolonged neglect of his Sabbath makes judgment a certainty (Ez 20:12-24).<\/p>\n<p>When the ax of judgment fell (in the exile to Babylon, 586 <span>BC<\/span>), the surviving remnant of the nation took the lesson to heart. Sabbath keeping was one of the few distinctive marks faithful Jews could retain in a foreign land, so it assumed extra significance. At the prompting of prophets like Ezekiel, who set out rules for Sabbath worship in the rebuilt temple at Jerusalem (Ez 44:24; 45:17; 46:3), and under the leadership of men like Nehemiah, the returning exiles were more careful than their predecessors in observing the Sabbath day (Neh 10:31; 13:15-22).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>Prior to the first century, some Jews in Palestine developed several rules for promoting the observance of the Sabbath. Two tractates of the Mishnah are devoted exclusively to these Sabbath rules and regulations. Their main purpose is to define work (one tractate does so under 39 headings) in an attempt to show every Israelite what is and is not permitted on the Sabbath. Unfortunately, this led to such hairsplitting complexities and evasions that ecclesiastical lawyers often differed among themselves in their interpretations, with the inevitable result that the main purpose of the Sabbath became lost beneath a mass of legalistic detail. The rabbis themselves were aware of how much they were adding to the straightforward teaching of the OT. As one of them put it, “The rules about the sabbath . . . are as mountains hanging by a hair, for Scripture is scanty and the rules many.”<\/p>\n<p>Jesus had many confrontations with the Jewish religious leaders over Sabbath observances. From their perspective, Jesus was a Sabbath breaker and therefore a lawbreaker. Jesus, however, never saw himself as a Sabbath breaker. He went to synagogue regularly on the Sabbath day (Lk 4:16). He read the lesson, preached, and taught (Mk 1:21; Lk 13:10). He clearly accepted the principle that the Sabbath was an appropriate day for worship.<\/p>\n<p>His point of collision with the Pharisees was the point at which their tradition departed from biblical teaching. He made this clear when he defended his disciples by appealing to Scripture, after they had been accused of breaking Sabbath tradition by walking through grainfields and breaking off heads of wheat (which fell into the category of “harvesting,” according to the Pharisees; Mk 2:23-26). He followed this up with a remark that took his hearers straight back to God’s Creation purpose for the Sabbath: “The Sabbath was made to benefit people, and not people to benefit the Sabbath” (Mk 2:27, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Rabbinic tradition had exalted the institution above the people it was meant to serve. By making it an end in itself, the Pharisees had effectively robbed the Sabbath of one of its main purposes. Jesus’ words must have sounded uncomfortably familiar in his opponents’ ears. A famous rabbi had once said, “The Sabbath is given over to you, but you are not given over to the Sabbath.”<\/p>\n<p>More than anything else, Jesus’ Sabbath healings put him on a collision course with rabbinic restrictions. The OT does not forbid cures on the Sabbath day, but the rabbis labeled all healing as work, which must always be avoided on the Sabbath unless life was at risk. Jesus fearlessly exposed the callousness and absurd inconsistencies to which this attitude led. How, he asked, could it be right to circumcise a baby or lead an animal to water on the Sabbath day (which tradition allowed) but wrong to heal a chronically handicapped woman and a crippled man, even if their lives were not in immediate danger (Lk 13:10-17; Jn 7:21-24)? The Sabbath, he taught, was a particularly appropriate day for acts of mercy (Mk 3:4-5).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus, the man from heaven, claimed that he was Lord of the Sabbath (Mk 2:28; cf. Mt 12:5-8). Just as God kept working, despite his Creation rest, to sustain the world in his mercy, so Jesus would continue to teach and to heal on the Sabbath day (Jn 5:2-17). But one day his redemptive work would be complete, and then the Sabbath’s purpose as a sign of redemption would be accomplished.<\/p>\n<p>Living on the other side of Jesus’ death and resurrection, Paul was quick to grasp the significance of both for Sabbath observance. He did not go so far as to ban all observance of the Jewish Sabbath. Indeed, he attended many Sabbath synagogue services himself in his evangelistic travels (see, e.g., Acts 13:14-16). Jewish Christians who insisted on keeping up their Sabbath practices were free to do so, provided they respected the opinions of those who differed (Rom 14:5-6, 13). But any suggestion that observing the Jewish calendar was necessary for salvation must be resisted (Gal 4:8-11). For Paul considered the Sabbath to be a shadow, while Christ himself is the reality of that shadow (Col 2:17).<\/p>\n<p>Finally, it is the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews who explains how the twin biblical “sabbath themes” of creation and redemption find their joint fulfillment in Christ. He did so by linking together the ideas of God’s rest after Creation and his redemptive act in bringing Israel to her “rest” in Canaan, and by showing how both relate to the present and future rest that Christians can and do enjoy in Jesus (Heb 4:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>God intends all his people to share his rest—that is, his promise (Heb 4:1). He showed this intention clearly when he brought Israel to the Promised Land, but that did not mark the complete fulfillment of his promise. The full, complete rest still waiting for the people of God is in heaven. Christ has already entered there. He is resting from his work, just as God did after the Creation. And because of his redeeming work, he invites all those who believe in him to share that same “sabbath rest” now (v 9).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Lord’s Day, The; Sabbath Day’s Journey; Commandments, The Ten.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SABBATH Derivation of a Hebrew word that means “cease” or “desist.” The Sabbath was a day (from Friday evening until Saturday evening in Jesus’ time) when all ordinary work stopped. The Scriptures relate that God gave his people the Sabbath as an opportunity to serve him and as a reminder of two great truths in the Bible—Creation and redemption. In the Old Testament The relationship between Creation and the Sabbath is first expressed in Genesis 2:2-3. God “ceased” his work in Creation after s...","summary_en":"SABBATH Derivation of a Hebrew word that means “cease” or “desist.” The Sabbath was a day (from Friday evening until Saturday evening in Jesus’ time) when all ordinary work stopped. The Scriptures relate that God gave his people the Sabbath as an opportunity to serve him and as a reminder of two great truths in the Bible—Creation and redemption. In the Old Testament The relationship between Creation and the Sabbath is first expressed in Genesis 2:2-3. God “ceased” his work in Creation after s...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"5":[{"id":1672,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Anger","title_en":"Anger","content_ro":"<h3>ANGER<\/h3>\n<p>The word normally used in the Bible to refer to rage, fury, and indignation. In most instances, anger is considered to be wrong. Psalm 37:8 (<span>nlt<\/span>), for example, commands: “Stop your anger! Turn from your rage!” Jesus paralleled anger with murder when he said, “If you are angry with someone, you are subject to judgment!” (Mt 5:22, <span>nlt<\/span>)—just as if the person had actually committed the murder he felt in his angry heart. Ephesians 4:31 and Colossians 3:8 both list anger, along with bitterness, wrath, malice, and slander, as attitudes that Christians must rid themselves of once and for all. In his list of attributes for a bishop or pastor of a church, the apostle Paul said that a Christian leader should not be prone to anger, that is, easily provoked (Ti 1:7).<\/p>\n<p>The Bible recognizes that humans get angry; it does not condemn the anger in and of itself but what often happens as the result. Humans have a habit of letting their anger get the best of them, causing them to sin. That is why the apostle Paul said, “Don’t sin by letting anger gain control over you” (Eph 4:26, <span>nlt<\/span>). The longer a person allows anger to continue, the greater the danger that it will develop sinful qualities, giving Satan a foothold (see Eph 4:27).<\/p>\n<p>Anger of a good sort is also spoken of in the Bible. “Righteous indignation” refers to the extreme displeasure of a holy heart unable to tolerate sin of any kind. The anger of God contains this element: man should be good, yet he sins—and God is angry “because they forsook the covenant of the Lord, the God of their fathers, which he made with them when he brought them out of the land of Egypt, and went and served other gods and worshiped them, gods whom they had not known and whom he had not allotted to them” (Dt 29:25-26, <span>rsv<\/span>). It was in that sense also that Moses’ anger burned on Mt Sinai and caused him to smash the tablets of the covenant on the ground when he saw the golden calf and Israel’s idolatry (Ex 32:19).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, Mark says that Jesus looked with anger at the Pharisees, who were hoping to catch him breaking their law (Mk 3:5). Jesus’ anger was also shown in his cleansing of the temple (Jn 2:13-22); it should have been a place of prayer but was being used as a place of business. So Jesus “entered the Temple and began to drive out the merchants and their customers. He knocked over the tables of the money changers and the stalls of those selling doves” (Mt 21:12, <span>nlt<\/span>). His holy indignation was neither a weakness nor a sin. Such anger is an appropriate response to iniquity and injustice, especially when they are apparently unpunished.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ANGER<\/h3>\n<p>The word normally used in the Bible to refer to rage, fury, and indignation. In most instances, anger is considered to be wrong. Psalm 37:8 (<span>nlt<\/span>), for example, commands: “Stop your anger! Turn from your rage!” Jesus paralleled anger with murder when he said, “If you are angry with someone, you are subject to judgment!” (Mt 5:22, <span>nlt<\/span>)—just as if the person had actually committed the murder he felt in his angry heart. Ephesians 4:31 and Colossians 3:8 both list anger, along with bitterness, wrath, malice, and slander, as attitudes that Christians must rid themselves of once and for all. In his list of attributes for a bishop or pastor of a church, the apostle Paul said that a Christian leader should not be prone to anger, that is, easily provoked (Ti 1:7).<\/p>\n<p>The Bible recognizes that humans get angry; it does not condemn the anger in and of itself but what often happens as the result. Humans have a habit of letting their anger get the best of them, causing them to sin. That is why the apostle Paul said, “Don’t sin by letting anger gain control over you” (Eph 4:26, <span>nlt<\/span>). The longer a person allows anger to continue, the greater the danger that it will develop sinful qualities, giving Satan a foothold (see Eph 4:27).<\/p>\n<p>Anger of a good sort is also spoken of in the Bible. “Righteous indignation” refers to the extreme displeasure of a holy heart unable to tolerate sin of any kind. The anger of God contains this element: man should be good, yet he sins—and God is angry “because they forsook the covenant of the Lord, the God of their fathers, which he made with them when he brought them out of the land of Egypt, and went and served other gods and worshiped them, gods whom they had not known and whom he had not allotted to them” (Dt 29:25-26, <span>rsv<\/span>). It was in that sense also that Moses’ anger burned on Mt Sinai and caused him to smash the tablets of the covenant on the ground when he saw the golden calf and Israel’s idolatry (Ex 32:19).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, Mark says that Jesus looked with anger at the Pharisees, who were hoping to catch him breaking their law (Mk 3:5). Jesus’ anger was also shown in his cleansing of the temple (Jn 2:13-22); it should have been a place of prayer but was being used as a place of business. So Jesus “entered the Temple and began to drive out the merchants and their customers. He knocked over the tables of the money changers and the stalls of those selling doves” (Mt 21:12, <span>nlt<\/span>). His holy indignation was neither a weakness nor a sin. Such anger is an appropriate response to iniquity and injustice, especially when they are apparently unpunished.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ANGER The word normally used in the Bible to refer to rage, fury, and indignation. In most instances, anger is considered to be wrong. Psalm 37:8 (nlt), for example, commands: “Stop your anger! Turn from your rage!” Jesus paralleled anger with murder when he said, “If you are angry with someone, you are subject to judgment!” (Mt 5:22, nlt)—just as if the person had actually committed the murder he felt in his angry heart. Ephesians 4:31 and Colossians 3:8 both list anger, along with bitternes...","summary_en":"ANGER The word normally used in the Bible to refer to rage, fury, and indignation. In most instances, anger is considered to be wrong. Psalm 37:8 (nlt), for example, commands: “Stop your anger! Turn from your rage!” Jesus paralleled anger with murder when he said, “If you are angry with someone, you are subject to judgment!” (Mt 5:22, nlt)—just as if the person had actually committed the murder he felt in his angry heart. Ephesians 4:31 and Colossians 3:8 both list anger, along with bitternes...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":14844,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Grief","title_en":"Grief","content_ro":"<h3>GRIEF<\/h3>\n<p>Emotional suffering brought on by bereavement, mishap, or disaster. To grieve is either to cause or feel sorrow or distress. The concept is found in the Scriptures under a variety of circumstances. Isaac and Rebekah experienced grief when their son Esau married a Hittite woman (Gn 26:35). God mourned the misery of Israel brought upon them by disobedience (Jgs 10:16). Because she had no son, Hannah was sad—so much so that she appeared to be drunk while praying (1 Sm 1:16). Similarly, Samuel, distraught at King Saul’s disobedience, prayed all night. Job was exceedingly sorrowful over his personal loss (Jb 2:13; cf. 6:2; 16:6), and the psalmist poetically demonstrated distress and sorrow (Pss 6:7; 31:9-10; 69:26; 73:21; 95:10; 112:10). The book of Lamentations is devoted to the expression of grief, and the prophets in general speak of judgment because Israel had grieved a holy God.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus experienced sorrow and distress (Mk 3:5; Jn 11:33), including crying over the death of a friend (Jn 11:35). The Jews are said to have been grieved as the apostles taught about Christ (Acts 4:2). The apostle Paul instructed believers not to grieve one another (Rom 14:15) and did not want to cause any sorrow himself (2 Cor 2:1-5). Most of all, the believer is not to grieve the Holy Spirit (Eph 4:30). A believer may, of course, experience grief and suffering in an alien world (1 Pt 2:19). In Bible times grief was given particular expression at a time of death by means of shrieks, wails, and laments (Jer 9:17-18; Am 5:16; Mk 5:38).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Mourning.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GRIEF<\/h3>\n<p>Emotional suffering brought on by bereavement, mishap, or disaster. To grieve is either to cause or feel sorrow or distress. The concept is found in the Scriptures under a variety of circumstances. Isaac and Rebekah experienced grief when their son Esau married a Hittite woman (Gn 26:35). God mourned the misery of Israel brought upon them by disobedience (Jgs 10:16). Because she had no son, Hannah was sad—so much so that she appeared to be drunk while praying (1 Sm 1:16). Similarly, Samuel, distraught at King Saul’s disobedience, prayed all night. Job was exceedingly sorrowful over his personal loss (Jb 2:13; cf. 6:2; 16:6), and the psalmist poetically demonstrated distress and sorrow (Pss 6:7; 31:9-10; 69:26; 73:21; 95:10; 112:10). The book of Lamentations is devoted to the expression of grief, and the prophets in general speak of judgment because Israel had grieved a holy God.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus experienced sorrow and distress (Mk 3:5; Jn 11:33), including crying over the death of a friend (Jn 11:35). The Jews are said to have been grieved as the apostles taught about Christ (Acts 4:2). The apostle Paul instructed believers not to grieve one another (Rom 14:15) and did not want to cause any sorrow himself (2 Cor 2:1-5). Most of all, the believer is not to grieve the Holy Spirit (Eph 4:30). A believer may, of course, experience grief and suffering in an alien world (1 Pt 2:19). In Bible times grief was given particular expression at a time of death by means of shrieks, wails, and laments (Jer 9:17-18; Am 5:16; Mk 5:38).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Mourning.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GRIEF Emotional suffering brought on by bereavement, mishap, or disaster. To grieve is either to cause or feel sorrow or distress. The concept is found in the Scriptures under a variety of circumstances. Isaac and Rebekah experienced grief when their son Esau married a Hittite woman (Gn 26:35). God mourned the misery of Israel brought upon them by disobedience (Jgs 10:16). Because she had no son, Hannah was sad—so much so that she appeared to be drunk while praying (1 Sm 1:16). Similarly, Sam...","summary_en":"GRIEF Emotional suffering brought on by bereavement, mishap, or disaster. To grieve is either to cause or feel sorrow or distress. The concept is found in the Scriptures under a variety of circumstances. Isaac and Rebekah experienced grief when their son Esau married a Hittite woman (Gn 26:35). God mourned the misery of Israel brought upon them by disobedience (Jgs 10:16). Because she had no son, Hannah was sad—so much so that she appeared to be drunk while praying (1 Sm 1:16). Similarly, Sam...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":15350,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of Heart*, Hardness","title_en":"of Heart*, Hardness","content_ro":"<h3>HARDNESS OF HEART*<\/h3>\n<p>A phrase signifying spiritual obstinacy.<\/p>\n<p>The first references to the hardening of the heart exemplify the fundamental features of this doctrine in Scripture. The number of times it is referred to is surprising; there are at least 20 references to the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in the OT alone, as well as Paul’s exposition of its significance in Romans 9:17-24.<\/p>\n<p>The first reference is Exodus 4:21, where God promises Moses that he will harden Pharaoh’s heart that he might not allow the Israelites to go. This promise is repeated (see Ex 7:3; 14:4, 17) and rapidly comes to pass (7:13-14), as revelation and miracle follow one another before the eyes of Pharaoh, followed by the actual occurrence of the events God warned about, including all the judgments of the 10 plagues.<\/p>\n<p>No doubt is left in the mind of the reader, either in the exodus account itself or later, that Pharaoh’s obstinacy was an act of divine judgment on God’s part for his own external ends and purposes (Ex 9:16; Jos 11:20; cf. Rom 9:17-18). Nevertheless, it is also stated that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Ex 8:15, 32; 9:34; 13:15), showing that the hardening process is a deliberate product of personal rebellion against revealed truth. This is a crucial aspect of the scriptural presentation of the matter; judicial hardening of the heart is not only an act of God upon the sinner’s nature but also a willful turning from the truth. The sinner is therefore responsible to God for his hardness of heart.<\/p>\n<p>The process of judicial hardening is described by Paul in Romans 1:18-32. All humans have an innate God-consciousness from which they deliberately turn away. They change the truth into a lie and suppress what truth they have. As a result, hardness of heart takes over. Paul’s expression for this is that “their foolish heart was darkened” because “God gave them up” to the results of their own sin. The results are both intellectual (“God gave them over to a reprobate mind”) and moral, as well as social or cultural. Paul uses the term “hardness of heart” in Romans 2:5 to describe the general result. It is important to note that it is not against God’s wrath or against the results of sin that the wicked are in revolt but against “truth” and against their own conscience (2:14-16).<\/p>\n<p>God often warns his people not to harden their hearts, for Scripture associates hardening with unbelief (Dt 15:7; Heb 3:8, 15; 4:7). Jesus was grieved at the callousness of his hearers’ hearts (Mk 3:5; 16:14). He referred to allowances God had made to the Jews concerning divorce because of the hardness of their hearts (Mt 19:8).<\/p>\n<p>On at least two occasions in the Gospels, judicial blindness is ascribed directly to God, and its purpose stated (Mt 13:13-15; Jn 12:39-41). Hardness of heart is therefore an aspect of the development of the fallen character, manifesting the root of rebellion (Ps 95:8; Jn 12:40; Heb 3:8, 15; 4:7). Throughout Scripture, Jewish apostasy is so described (2 Kgs 17:14; Neh 9:16-17; Heb 3:8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Blindness; Judgment; Regeneration.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HARDNESS OF HEART*<\/h3>\n<p>A phrase signifying spiritual obstinacy.<\/p>\n<p>The first references to the hardening of the heart exemplify the fundamental features of this doctrine in Scripture. The number of times it is referred to is surprising; there are at least 20 references to the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in the OT alone, as well as Paul’s exposition of its significance in Romans 9:17-24.<\/p>\n<p>The first reference is Exodus 4:21, where God promises Moses that he will harden Pharaoh’s heart that he might not allow the Israelites to go. This promise is repeated (see Ex 7:3; 14:4, 17) and rapidly comes to pass (7:13-14), as revelation and miracle follow one another before the eyes of Pharaoh, followed by the actual occurrence of the events God warned about, including all the judgments of the 10 plagues.<\/p>\n<p>No doubt is left in the mind of the reader, either in the exodus account itself or later, that Pharaoh’s obstinacy was an act of divine judgment on God’s part for his own external ends and purposes (Ex 9:16; Jos 11:20; cf. Rom 9:17-18). Nevertheless, it is also stated that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Ex 8:15, 32; 9:34; 13:15), showing that the hardening process is a deliberate product of personal rebellion against revealed truth. This is a crucial aspect of the scriptural presentation of the matter; judicial hardening of the heart is not only an act of God upon the sinner’s nature but also a willful turning from the truth. The sinner is therefore responsible to God for his hardness of heart.<\/p>\n<p>The process of judicial hardening is described by Paul in Romans 1:18-32. All humans have an innate God-consciousness from which they deliberately turn away. They change the truth into a lie and suppress what truth they have. As a result, hardness of heart takes over. Paul’s expression for this is that “their foolish heart was darkened” because “God gave them up” to the results of their own sin. The results are both intellectual (“God gave them over to a reprobate mind”) and moral, as well as social or cultural. Paul uses the term “hardness of heart” in Romans 2:5 to describe the general result. It is important to note that it is not against God’s wrath or against the results of sin that the wicked are in revolt but against “truth” and against their own conscience (2:14-16).<\/p>\n<p>God often warns his people not to harden their hearts, for Scripture associates hardening with unbelief (Dt 15:7; Heb 3:8, 15; 4:7). Jesus was grieved at the callousness of his hearers’ hearts (Mk 3:5; 16:14). He referred to allowances God had made to the Jews concerning divorce because of the hardness of their hearts (Mt 19:8).<\/p>\n<p>On at least two occasions in the Gospels, judicial blindness is ascribed directly to God, and its purpose stated (Mt 13:13-15; Jn 12:39-41). Hardness of heart is therefore an aspect of the development of the fallen character, manifesting the root of rebellion (Ps 95:8; Jn 12:40; Heb 3:8, 15; 4:7). Throughout Scripture, Jewish apostasy is so described (2 Kgs 17:14; Neh 9:16-17; Heb 3:8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Blindness; Judgment; Regeneration.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HARDNESS OF HEART* A phrase signifying spiritual obstinacy. The first references to the hardening of the heart exemplify the fundamental features of this doctrine in Scripture. The number of times it is referred to is surprising; there are at least 20 references to the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in the OT alone, as well as Paul’s exposition of its significance in Romans 9:17-24. The first reference is Exodus 4:21, where God promises Moses that he will harden Pharaoh’s heart that he might no...","summary_en":"HARDNESS OF HEART* A phrase signifying spiritual obstinacy. The first references to the hardening of the heart exemplify the fundamental features of this doctrine in Scripture. The number of times it is referred to is surprising; there are at least 20 references to the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in the OT alone, as well as Paul’s exposition of its significance in Romans 9:17-24. The first reference is Exodus 4:21, where God promises Moses that he will harden Pharaoh’s heart that he might no...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":15693,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Heart","title_en":"Heart","content_ro":"<h3>HEART<\/h3>\n<p>Vital bodily organ; emotional center of one’s being.<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew and Greek, as in modern English, “heart” is used to designate a physical organ as well as the emotional center of one’s being. “Heart” (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">leb<\/span><em>;<\/em> Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kardia<\/span>) occurs approximately 1,000 times in the Bible, though it is often disguised in translation. The range of meaning is great.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PhysicalHeart\">Physical Heart<\/p>\n<p>That the beating heart indicates life seems implied in 1 Samuel 25:37-39 (see <span>nlt<\/span> mg), despite the delay in Nabal’s death. Physical food and wine affect the heart (Jgs 19:5; Ps 104:15; Acts 14:17), and the heart can “faint” and “tremble.” The heart’s position in the body yields an obvious metaphor for “the center” (Mt 12:40).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PyschologicalHeart\">Pyschological Heart<\/p>\n<p>The heart attends intellectually (e.g., Jer 12:11); it also perceives (Jn 12:40), understands (1 Kgs 3:9), debates (Mk 2:6), reflects (Lk 2:19), remembers (Lk 2:51), thinks (Dt 8:17), imagines (Lk 1:51), is wise (Eccl 1:17, <span>kjv<\/span>), has technical skill (Ex 28:3, <span>kjv<\/span>), and much more.<\/p>\n<p>Emotionally, the heart experiences intoxicated merriment (1 Sm 25:36), gladness (Is 30:29), joy (Jn 16:22), sorrow (Neh 2:2), anguish (Rom 9:2), bitterness (Prv 14:10), anxiety (1 Sm 4:13), despair (Eccl 2:20), love (2 Sm 14:1), trust (Ps 112:7), affection (2 Cor 7:3), lust (Mt 5:28), callousness (Mk 3:5), hatred (Lv 19:17), fear (Gn 42:28), jealousy (Jas 3:14), desire (Rom 10:1), discouragement (Nm 32:9), sympathy (Ex 23:9), anger (Dt 19:6, <span>kjv<\/span>), irresolution (2 Chr 13:7, <span>kjv<\/span>), and much more.<\/p>\n<p>Volitionally, the heart can purpose (1 Cor 4:5), incline to (1 Sm 14:7), prompt (2 Kgs 12:4; cf. Prv 4:23), be steadfast (Acts 11:23), be willing (Ex 35:22), contrive evil (Acts 5:4), or follow its “treasure” (Mt 6:21).<\/p>\n<p>Morally, the heart can be gentle, lowly (Mt 11:29), holy (1 Thes 3:13), faithful (Neh 9:8), upright (Ps 97:11), pure, single-minded (Jas 4:8), clean (Acts 15:8), loving toward God (Mk 12:30) and others (1 Pt 1:22), hardened, or sensitive (Ez 11:19). Scripture’s emphasis falls upon the heart’s evil (Gn 6:5 and throughout), as self-deceiving (Jas 1:26), deceitful (Jer 17:9), avaricious (Mt 6:19-21), lustful (Mt 5:28), arrogant (Is 9:9), impious (Acts 7:51), perverse (Ps 101:4), and impenitent (Rom 2:5). Nothing defiles a man worse than his own heart (Mk 7:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Yet out of the heart can come good (Lk 6:45; 8:15). Even when frustrated by circumstances or by fear, the heart’s good intention remains good; its evil intent, bad (1 Kgs 8:18; Mt 5:28).<\/p>\n<p>Being so complex, a person’s heart is sadly divided, and Scripture often extols a perfect, whole, true (i.e., united) heart (Gn 20:5; Ps 86:11; Acts 8:37). The “heart” signifies the total inner self, a person’s hidden core of being (1 Pt 3:4), with which one communes, which one “pours out” in prayer, words, and deeds (Ps 62:8; Mt 15:18-19). It is the genuine self, distinguished from appearance, public position, and physical presence (1 Sm 16:7; 2 Cor 5:12; 1 Thes 2:17). And this “heart-self” has its own nature, character, and disposition (Dn 4:16; 7:4, <span>kjv<\/span>; cf. Mt 12:33-37).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheSpiritualHeart\">The Spiritual Heart<\/p>\n<p>The heart is especially important in biblical religion. The mystery of the hidden self is fully known to God and to Christ (Jer 17:10; Lk 9:47; Rom 8:27), and the heart is the seat of our knowledge of God (2 Cor 4:6). The state of heart governs the vision of God (Mt 5:8); from the heart one speaks to God (Ps 27:8); the heart is the locus of divine indwelling (2 Cor 1:22; Gal 4:6; Eph 3:17).<\/p>\n<p>On the other hand, moral evil in the heart is seen in biblical perspective as sin against God. Senseless hearts are darkened, often secretly idolatrous, far from God, “not right” before God (Dt 29:18-19; Mt 15:8; Acts 8:21; Rom 1:21). Yet the Lord will not despise a broken, contrite heart (Ps 51:17). When one’s heart is turned toward God, he promises to make it sensitive to divine things, renewed and purified (Dt 4:29; 2 Kgs 23:25; Ps 51:10; Jl 2:13; Ez 36:25-27). God’s law shall then be written on the heart as the inward guide and incentive (Jer 31:33; Heb 8:10; cf. 2 Cor 3:2-3).<\/p>\n<p>In Christian terms, such transformation involves believing the gospel from the “honest and good heart” that provides fruitful soil for the Word of God (Lk 8:15; Rom 10:9). The true heart draws near to God, loves him with all its intellect, feeling, and will (Lk 10:27; Heb 10:22). Then God gives strength, reward, renewal, grace, peace, and joy to the heart (Ps 73:26; Is 57:15; Acts 2:46; Phil 4:7; Heb 13:9). So the ancient ideal becomes possible again, that of being “a man after God’s own heart” (1 Sm 13:14; Acts 13:22).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HEART<\/h3>\n<p>Vital bodily organ; emotional center of one’s being.<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew and Greek, as in modern English, “heart” is used to designate a physical organ as well as the emotional center of one’s being. “Heart” (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">leb<\/span><em>;<\/em> Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kardia<\/span>) occurs approximately 1,000 times in the Bible, though it is often disguised in translation. The range of meaning is great.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PhysicalHeart\">Physical Heart<\/p>\n<p>That the beating heart indicates life seems implied in 1 Samuel 25:37-39 (see <span>nlt<\/span> mg), despite the delay in Nabal’s death. Physical food and wine affect the heart (Jgs 19:5; Ps 104:15; Acts 14:17), and the heart can “faint” and “tremble.” The heart’s position in the body yields an obvious metaphor for “the center” (Mt 12:40).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PyschologicalHeart\">Pyschological Heart<\/p>\n<p>The heart attends intellectually (e.g., Jer 12:11); it also perceives (Jn 12:40), understands (1 Kgs 3:9), debates (Mk 2:6), reflects (Lk 2:19), remembers (Lk 2:51), thinks (Dt 8:17), imagines (Lk 1:51), is wise (Eccl 1:17, <span>kjv<\/span>), has technical skill (Ex 28:3, <span>kjv<\/span>), and much more.<\/p>\n<p>Emotionally, the heart experiences intoxicated merriment (1 Sm 25:36), gladness (Is 30:29), joy (Jn 16:22), sorrow (Neh 2:2), anguish (Rom 9:2), bitterness (Prv 14:10), anxiety (1 Sm 4:13), despair (Eccl 2:20), love (2 Sm 14:1), trust (Ps 112:7), affection (2 Cor 7:3), lust (Mt 5:28), callousness (Mk 3:5), hatred (Lv 19:17), fear (Gn 42:28), jealousy (Jas 3:14), desire (Rom 10:1), discouragement (Nm 32:9), sympathy (Ex 23:9), anger (Dt 19:6, <span>kjv<\/span>), irresolution (2 Chr 13:7, <span>kjv<\/span>), and much more.<\/p>\n<p>Volitionally, the heart can purpose (1 Cor 4:5), incline to (1 Sm 14:7), prompt (2 Kgs 12:4; cf. Prv 4:23), be steadfast (Acts 11:23), be willing (Ex 35:22), contrive evil (Acts 5:4), or follow its “treasure” (Mt 6:21).<\/p>\n<p>Morally, the heart can be gentle, lowly (Mt 11:29), holy (1 Thes 3:13), faithful (Neh 9:8), upright (Ps 97:11), pure, single-minded (Jas 4:8), clean (Acts 15:8), loving toward God (Mk 12:30) and others (1 Pt 1:22), hardened, or sensitive (Ez 11:19). Scripture’s emphasis falls upon the heart’s evil (Gn 6:5 and throughout), as self-deceiving (Jas 1:26), deceitful (Jer 17:9), avaricious (Mt 6:19-21), lustful (Mt 5:28), arrogant (Is 9:9), impious (Acts 7:51), perverse (Ps 101:4), and impenitent (Rom 2:5). Nothing defiles a man worse than his own heart (Mk 7:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Yet out of the heart can come good (Lk 6:45; 8:15). Even when frustrated by circumstances or by fear, the heart’s good intention remains good; its evil intent, bad (1 Kgs 8:18; Mt 5:28).<\/p>\n<p>Being so complex, a person’s heart is sadly divided, and Scripture often extols a perfect, whole, true (i.e., united) heart (Gn 20:5; Ps 86:11; Acts 8:37). The “heart” signifies the total inner self, a person’s hidden core of being (1 Pt 3:4), with which one communes, which one “pours out” in prayer, words, and deeds (Ps 62:8; Mt 15:18-19). It is the genuine self, distinguished from appearance, public position, and physical presence (1 Sm 16:7; 2 Cor 5:12; 1 Thes 2:17). And this “heart-self” has its own nature, character, and disposition (Dn 4:16; 7:4, <span>kjv<\/span>; cf. Mt 12:33-37).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheSpiritualHeart\">The Spiritual Heart<\/p>\n<p>The heart is especially important in biblical religion. The mystery of the hidden self is fully known to God and to Christ (Jer 17:10; Lk 9:47; Rom 8:27), and the heart is the seat of our knowledge of God (2 Cor 4:6). The state of heart governs the vision of God (Mt 5:8); from the heart one speaks to God (Ps 27:8); the heart is the locus of divine indwelling (2 Cor 1:22; Gal 4:6; Eph 3:17).<\/p>\n<p>On the other hand, moral evil in the heart is seen in biblical perspective as sin against God. Senseless hearts are darkened, often secretly idolatrous, far from God, “not right” before God (Dt 29:18-19; Mt 15:8; Acts 8:21; Rom 1:21). Yet the Lord will not despise a broken, contrite heart (Ps 51:17). When one’s heart is turned toward God, he promises to make it sensitive to divine things, renewed and purified (Dt 4:29; 2 Kgs 23:25; Ps 51:10; Jl 2:13; Ez 36:25-27). God’s law shall then be written on the heart as the inward guide and incentive (Jer 31:33; Heb 8:10; cf. 2 Cor 3:2-3).<\/p>\n<p>In Christian terms, such transformation involves believing the gospel from the “honest and good heart” that provides fruitful soil for the Word of God (Lk 8:15; Rom 10:9). The true heart draws near to God, loves him with all its intellect, feeling, and will (Lk 10:27; Heb 10:22). Then God gives strength, reward, renewal, grace, peace, and joy to the heart (Ps 73:26; Is 57:15; Acts 2:46; Phil 4:7; Heb 13:9). So the ancient ideal becomes possible again, that of being “a man after God’s own heart” (1 Sm 13:14; Acts 13:22).<\/p>","summary_ro":"HEART Vital bodily organ; emotional center of one’s being. In Hebrew and Greek, as in modern English, “heart” is used to designate a physical organ as well as the emotional center of one’s being. “Heart” (Hebrew leb; Greek kardia) occurs approximately 1,000 times in the Bible, though it is often disguised in translation. The range of meaning is great. Physical Heart That the beating heart indicates life seems implied in 1 Samuel 25:37-39 (see nlt mg), despite the delay in Nabal’s death. Physi...","summary_en":"HEART Vital bodily organ; emotional center of one’s being. In Hebrew and Greek, as in modern English, “heart” is used to designate a physical organ as well as the emotional center of one’s being. “Heart” (Hebrew leb; Greek kardia) occurs approximately 1,000 times in the Bible, though it is often disguised in translation. The range of meaning is great. Physical Heart That the beating heart indicates life seems implied in 1 Samuel 25:37-39 (see nlt mg), despite the delay in Nabal’s death. Physi...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24333,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gospel of Mark","title_en":"Gospel of Mark","content_ro":"<h3>MARK, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between <span>AD<\/span> 60 and 68.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorDateProvenance\">Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, although this is by no means certain). At one point Papias states, “The Elder used to say this also: Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that [Peter] remembered concerning the things both said and done by the Lord.” (This quotation was preserved by the fourth-century writer Eusebius of Caesarea in his <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 3.39.15.) One need not doubt the basic reliability of this statement. Mark—almost surely to be identified with the John Mark of Acts 12:12 (see also 1 Pt 5:13)—was a disciple of Peter, and the second Gospel owes its existence, at least in part, to the apostle’s reminiscences. It does not follow, however, that one has adequately characterized Mark’s work if that is all one says. For instance, Papias’s qualification, “though not in order,” indicates that Mark did not intend to write a chronological biography. Furthermore, Papias goes on to comment (according to one interpretation of his ambiguous words) that Mark (or Peter?) adapted the material to the teaching situation and that therefore Mark is absolved from any (implied) charges of inaccuracy. It appears that from the earliest times Christians appealed to the purposes and circumstances of Mark’s writing in order to account for difficulties in harmonizing the material found in the various Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Other statements from Christian writers in the second, third, and fourth centuries seem dependent on Papias’s testimony, but some additional data they provide may possess independent value. For example, a fairly early document (date uncertain) known as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel somewhere in Italy after Peter’s death (in the mid-60s), and this testimony is considered reliable by many scholars. Still, the possibility that Mark composed his work before Peter’s martyrdom cannot be ruled out completely.<\/p>\n<p>Papias says nothing specific about <em>when<\/em> the Gospel was written. A small minority of scholars date Mark shortly after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Another minority suggest a date in the 40s or 50s on the basis of a papyrus fragment discovered in Qumran called 7Q5. (According to José O’Callaghan, the fragment, which has been dated about <span>AD<\/span> 50–68, should be identified as Mark 6:52-53.) This fragment contains only 20 letters on one side, making the Markan reconstruction very uncertain. Few scholars are convinced that the text is Mark; some think it is part of 1 Enoch or Zechariah. An impressive majority of scholars date Mark in the 60s, with conservatives usually preferring the early years of the decade. Why this preference? If the theory of Markan priority is accepted, then clearly Mark was written before Luke; and since Luke is normally dated by conservatives about <span>AD<\/span> 62, Mark can be no later than <span>AD<\/span> 60 or 61. This line of argument, though strong, is not decisive. In the first place, Luke cannot be dated with complete certainty. Second, the view that Matthew and Luke used Mark (the working assumption of most scholars) is only a hypothesis, and one that is vigorously opposed by some writers. Third, a tradition going back to the second century (see above) asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel <em>after<\/em> Peter’s death, no earlier than <span>AD<\/span> 64. Fourth, one persuasive view regarding the occasion of this Gospel assumes that the Neronian persecution (<span>AD<\/span> 64) had begun. (According to a different view of the occasion, Mark was written after the beginning of the Jewish revolt in <span>AD<\/span> 66.) Therefore, while a date in the early 60s remains possible, it does not require committal.<\/p>\n<p>With regard to the authorship of the second Gospel, there seems to be no compelling reason to deny Papias’s report that Mark (no doubt the John Mark of Acts 12:12) took down Peter’s reminiscences and that these became the basis of his work. Some scholars argue that the Gospel contains geographical inaccuracies (e.g., we have no evidence of a region called Dalmanutha, Mk 8:10) and that a native of Jerusalem such as Mark would have been more reliable in his information. However, the topographical problems in Mark, though real, need not be interpreted as inaccuracies (present ignorance of a place named Dalmanutha is hardly conclusive proof that it did not exist). Furthermore, in other respects (e.g., 14:54, 66) the Gospel reveals an impressive knowledge of local details. Many writers also point out bits of information that support a Petrine background, such as the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (1:30-31). In short, the internal evidence, while falling short of proof, does not at all undermine the tradition preserved by Papias. A generation ago, the trustworthiness of Papias’s testimony was almost universally accepted. This situation has changed somewhat, but even those scholars who adopt a skeptical attitude toward this tradition concede that it <em>may<\/em> be true.<\/p>\n<p>As attention turns to the provenance of the Gospel, the task becomes more difficult. Tradition going back to the second century asserts what may be already implied by Papias—namely, that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome. Although some scholars have suggested other possibilities, such as Galilee and Antioch, these have not proved satisfactory. Mark did spend some time in Rome, and some characteristics in the Gospel (such as Latinisms in the Greek and the explanation of Jewish customs, as in 7:3-4), while proving nothing, are certainly consonant with a Roman origin. Furthermore, one persuasive view of the occasion that gave rise to the Gospel assumes a background of persecution in Rome.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Distinctives\">Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>A number of characteristics of Mark set it apart from the other Gospels. For example, a word usually translated “immediately” occurs more than 40 times in Mark and only a dozen times in the rest of the NT. While this feature could be interpreted as a simple “mannerism,” consonant with Mark’s unpretentious, colloquial style, it certainly adds to the rapid flow of his narrative, which, dwelling more on Jesus’ activity than on his discourses (in contrast to Matthew and Luke), shifts from scene to scene with hardly a pause. Since the Gospel is also quite brief (Luke is nearly twice as long), one may wonder whether the author intended for it to be read at a sitting; even if read aloud, this would take only about one and a half hours. At any rate, there can be little doubt that the work conveys a sense of urgency.<\/p>\n<p>Other characteristics, however, prove more significant. Someone unfamiliar with the story of Jesus who happened to read Mark for the first time would no doubt be taken aback by its rather abrupt beginning. After a brief clause that stands as a sort of title (1:1), Mark moves on to describe in brief the ministry of John the Baptist. Then he introduces Jesus as coming from Nazareth without telling us anything whatever of his earlier life. Furthermore, over one-third of the book (including the so-called Passion narrative) is devoted to Jesus’ last week. These and other factors lend to the work a note of mystery, accentuated by the fact that at various points Mark calls attention to the fear or amazement gripping those who came in contact with Jesus (2:12; 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6; and several other passages, especially the strange words of 10:32). In addition, if one assumes that the Gospel originally ended with 16:8, Mark wished to leave his readers with the same sense of awe that the disciples experienced at Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>But how does one account for this fear and amazement? Mark’s clear answer is that Jesus, though truly a man, is also divine. While Mark’s Gospel exhibits the humanity of Jesus Christ (1:41; 3:5; 8:12; 10:14), his chief emphasis is on the Lord’s deity. Indeed, Mark introduces his book by referring to Jesus as “the Son of God” (a phrase omitted in some manuscripts, however), a position that is recognized both by the demons (3:11; 5:7) and by God himself (9:7). What may well be the true climax of the Gospel occurs at 15:39, where Mark writes that a Gentile, a Roman centurion, upon hearing Jesus’ death cry, exclaimed, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The author organized his Gospel according to a simple plan. The first eight chapters summarize the nature of Christ’s public ministry by alternating stories that show his growing popularity with stories that stress the disapproval of the Jewish leaders. This first half of the book, while indicating some of the tensions created by Jesus’ coming, gives the basic impression of success and general optimism. A significant shift then strikes the reader toward the end of chapter 8, particularly beginning with verse 31. At Caesarea Philippi, Peter has just confessed that Jesus is the Messiah, and now for the first time Jesus reveals that as Messiah he must die. The disciples become perplexed and discouraged and their pessimism mounts as this thought is brought home to them repeatedly (9:9, 31; 10:32-34; 14:17-25). In the end they desert their master (14:50).<\/p>\n<p>Interestingly, this pessimistic note is anticipated in the earlier part of the Gospel at three points: 3:6 (Jesus’ enemies plot his death); 6:6 (faithlessness in Nazareth); and 8:21 (lack of understanding in the disciples). Some scholars suggest that Mark used these three verses to indicate the first three divisions of his book. In addition, other scholars note that two healings of blind men (8:22-26; 10:46-52) seem to provide the opening and the conclusion of a section that emphasizes the spiritual blindness of the disciples. One more structural clue is 14:1, which clearly marks out the final section of the Gospel.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OccasionPurposeTheology\">Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>A few scholars think that Mark may have been combating a heretical sect that stressed the miracles of Jesus and viewed him purely as a divine wonder-worker. Although this view has not gained acceptance as originally formulated, a number of writers do see the Gospel as a theological corrective. Ralph Martin, who links Mark very closely with Paul, suggests that the evangelist is opposing some heretical groups who have distorted Paul’s message by placing exclusive stress on Christ as a <em>heavenly<\/em> figure (cf. the views that Paul himself opposes in Colossians). Mark responds to these aberrations by emphasizing, in Martin’s words, “the paradox of Jesus’ earthly life in which suffering and vindication form a two-beat rhythm.” Even if one decides that this reconstruction, too, is rather speculative, one may nevertheless retain certain elements in it as valid.<\/p>\n<p>Other scholars, such as H. Kee, place emphasis on the apocalyptic background of Mark. Kee and others tie this element to the Jewish revolt of <span>AD<\/span> 66, but commitment to this particular historical connection is unnecessary to appreciate the great significance of Mark 13 (Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse) for those original readers of the Gospel who may have been undergoing persecution.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the most satisfactory reconstruction links this Gospel to the Neronian persecution in the mid-60s. Mark, for example, is the only Gospel that records that Jesus, after being driven to the wilderness, found himself in the company of wild animals (1:13). This detail, according to William Lane, “was filled with special significance for those called to enter the arena where they stood helpless in the presence of wild beasts.” This interpretation, while not without difficulties, has the advantage of accounting for most of the available data. First, it is compatible with the strong tradition that assigns the origin of Mark’s work to Rome. Second, Mark speaks distinctly to those suffering persecution by introducing them quickly to John’s imprisonment and several other details. Third, related to this is Mark’s emphasis on discipleship. Christians facing persecution must have been tempted to relax the standards (4:17-19). Fourth, given this general situation, one can hardly doubt the significance of our Lord’s apocalyptic message in chapter 13, intended to encourage the disciples in the midst of their trials by reminding them of the glory to follow. Finally, Mark’s clear concern for the Gentile mission fits in with the needs of pagan Rome. The suffering Christians cannot afford to forget the unbelieving society in which they live. In the light of this particular responsibility, Mark assures his readers of what even the Roman centurion began to recognize—surely Jesus <em>is<\/em> the Son of God (15:39).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The development of Mark’s narrative can be presented in six major divisions within a twofold structure:<\/p>\n<li>Introduction (1:1-13)<\/li>\n<li>Part I: Popularity and Opposition (1:14–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>1. Jesus’ authority and the Pharisees’ enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/li>\n<li>2. The people’s response (3:7–6:6a)<\/li>\n<li>3. The disciples’ misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>Part II: Darkness and Death (8:22–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>4. The Messiah’s mission and the disciples’ blind-ness (8:22–10:52)<\/li>\n<li>5. Final ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/li>\n<li>6. The Passion narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>Conclusion (16:1-8)<\/li>\n<p>Although one can hardly claim that this outline corresponds exactly to the author’s original plan (Mark may not have consciously worked out a detailed outline), the sixfold division provides a useful starting point for an interpretive summary of the contents.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Authority and the Pharisees’ Enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>Immediately after the introductory portion (1:1-13), which describes John the Baptist’s ministry as well as Jesus’ baptism and temptation, Mark opens the body of the work with a summary statement (vv 14-15). In these two verses he seems to suggest that Jesus’ public ministry, characterized by the proclamation that God’s kingdom is about to be inaugurated, was occasioned by John’s imprisonment. This is followed by the call of the first disciples (vv 16-20) and then by a complex of stories (vv 21-38), all of which report incidents that took place in Capernaum, apparently within a 24-hour period: synagogue instruction followed by the healing of a demoniac; the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law; numerous other healings in the evening; prayer in a lonely place. The statement that Jesus proceeded to expand his ministry throughout the province of Galilee (v 39) is followed by the story of a leper’s cure (vv 40-45). Next are found a very important group of incidents (2:1–3:6), all of them focusing on Jesus’ conflicts with Jewish leaders: the healing and forgiveness of a paralytic; the call of Levi, whose dinner (attended by Jesus as well as by the hated tax gatherers) occasioned some disputes, particularly on the issue of fasting; and two significant stories regarding proper behavior on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<h5>The People’s Response (3:7–6:6a)<\/h5>\n<p>Mark opens this second section as he opened the first: a summary statement (Jesus’ healings by the lake—3:7-12) followed by the official appointment of 12 apostles (vv 13-19). Then follows a section that focuses on the kinds of charges brought against Jesus by his own family and by the scribes (vv 20-22), leading to a response touching on Satan, on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and on what constitutes true membership in his family (vv 23-35). Most of chapter 4 is devoted to Jesus’ parables of the kingdom—the sower, the seed growing secretly, the mustard seed—and includes statements on the nature and purpose of his teachings (4:10-12, 21-25, 33-34). In the evening Jesus and his disciples set out to cross the Sea of Galilee, leading to the stilling of the storm (vv 35-41), the healing of the Gerasene demoniac on the other side of the lake (5:1-20), and, on their return to Capernaum, the healing of a hemorrhaging woman and the raising of Jairus’s daughter (vv 21-43). The section concludes with Jesus’ visit to his hometown, Nazareth, and the rejection he suffered there (6:1-6a).<\/p>\n<h5>The Disciples’ Misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/h5>\n<p>The third section begins with two introductory passages: the sending out of the 12 (6:6b-13) and the story of John the Baptist’s death (vv 14-29). When the disciples return, Jesus determines to seek some rest, but the crowds follow them; Jesus then teaches and feeds the 5,000 (vv 30-44) and, after crossing the lake (vv 45-52, which includes Jesus’ walk over the water), he performs numerous cures in and around Gennesaret (vv 53-56). Then follows a controversy with the Pharisees regarding the hand-washing ritual (7:1-8), and this incident leads to Christ’s assertion of the authority of God’s word over human tradition (vv 9-13) and to some general instructions on true purity (vv 14-23). The next several stories describe Jesus’ withdrawal from Galilee, first to Tyre, where a gentile woman’s daughter is healed (vv 24-30), then to the Decapolis, where he cures a deaf-mute (vv 31-37) and feeds a crowd of four thousand (8:1-10). The demand of the Pharisees for a sign (vv 11-12) leads to Jesus’ warning against the “leaven” of the Pharisees, a statement misunderstood by the disciples (vv 13-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Messiah’s Mission and the Disciples’ Blindness (8:22–10:52)<\/h5>\n<p>Still away from Galilee, but now in the nearby town of Bethsaida, Jesus heals a blind man (8:22-26). He then leads his disciples north toward Caesarea Philippi, which sets the stage for Peter’s confession (vv 27-30). This recognition on the part of the disciples (of whom Peter is in effect a representative) leads Jesus to prophesy his death, but Peter’s refusal to accept the prophecy calls forth a rebuke and instruction on discipleship (vv 31-38). The failure of the disciples to understand the necessity of Christ’s death provides the background for the Transfiguration (9:1-8), which assures Peter, John, and James that God’s kingdom will indeed come (note v 1); further, the Father himself enjoins them to believe Jesus’ prophecy (v 7). After some words about the resurrection and about the coming of Elijah (vv 9-13), Mark relates the healing of a demoniac boy (vv 14-29). Back in Galilee, a second prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 30-32) is followed, sadly, by a trivial discussion among the disciples as to who is the greatest (vv 33-37). Appropriately, one finds some further instructions concerning discipleship (vv 38-50). Mark next writes that Jesus left Galilee for the last time and began his journey toward the south. During this journey, Jesus delivered teachings on divorce and on the spiritual privileges of children (10:1-16), then met the rich young ruler (vv 17-22), an incident that leads to further words on discipleship (vv 23-31). A third prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 32-34) is again followed by selfish behavior on the part of the disciples, in this case an ambitious request from James and John (vv 35-40). The incident produces indignation among the rest of the disciples, thus necessitating another rebuke from their master, who himself came to serve and to die (vv 41-45). The section ends as it began—by reporting the cure of a blind man, Bartimaeus of Jericho in this story (vv 46-52).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/h5>\n<p>This section seems naturally to divide into three balanced subsections. The first one (11:1-26) includes three events: the Triumphal Entry, the withering of the fig tree, and the cleansing of the temple. The second subsection (11:27–12:44) is particularly important, for here is found Jesus’ final series of controversies with the Jewish leaders. The topics covered are the source of Jesus’ authority (11:27-33), the parable of the wicked husbandmen (12:1-12), the legitimacy of Caesar’s tax (vv 13-17), the Sadducees’ denial of resurrection (vv 18-27), the chief commandment (vv 28-34), and the question regarding David’s son (vv 35-37). This subsection ends with a warning against the scribes and with the story of the widow’s mite (vv 38-44). The third subsection (ch 13) is devoted completely to the Olivet discourse, with its prophecies of destruction, calamities, persecutions, deceivers, and final vindication. The discourse ends with various admonitions to keep alert.<\/p>\n<h5>The Passion Narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/h5>\n<p>This final section, which is introduced by a report of the priests’ plot (14:1-2), may be divided into two subsections. The first one relates the events leading up to Jesus’ trial (vv 3-52). They include the anointing of Jesus (vv 3-9), Judas’s betrayal (vv 10-11), the incidents connected with the Last Supper (vv 12-31), the scene at Gethsemane (vv 32-42), and the arrest (vv 43-52). The second subsection relates Jesus’ trial before the Jews (vv 53-65), Peter’s denials (vv 66-72), the trial before Pilate (15:1-15), the crucifixion (vv 16-41), and the burial (vv 42-47).<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel concludes somewhat mysteriously, but no less triumphantly, with the news that Jesus has risen from the dead (16:1-8). The earliest surviving Greek manuscripts, usually regarded as the most reliable, end at verse 8; the majority of manuscripts, however, include an additional 12 verses that report Jesus’ appearances to his disciples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Mark, John; Matthew, Gospel of; Luke, Gospel of; Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MARK, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between <span>AD<\/span> 60 and 68.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorDateProvenance\">Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, although this is by no means certain). At one point Papias states, “The Elder used to say this also: Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that [Peter] remembered concerning the things both said and done by the Lord.” (This quotation was preserved by the fourth-century writer Eusebius of Caesarea in his <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 3.39.15.) One need not doubt the basic reliability of this statement. Mark—almost surely to be identified with the John Mark of Acts 12:12 (see also 1 Pt 5:13)—was a disciple of Peter, and the second Gospel owes its existence, at least in part, to the apostle’s reminiscences. It does not follow, however, that one has adequately characterized Mark’s work if that is all one says. For instance, Papias’s qualification, “though not in order,” indicates that Mark did not intend to write a chronological biography. Furthermore, Papias goes on to comment (according to one interpretation of his ambiguous words) that Mark (or Peter?) adapted the material to the teaching situation and that therefore Mark is absolved from any (implied) charges of inaccuracy. It appears that from the earliest times Christians appealed to the purposes and circumstances of Mark’s writing in order to account for difficulties in harmonizing the material found in the various Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Other statements from Christian writers in the second, third, and fourth centuries seem dependent on Papias’s testimony, but some additional data they provide may possess independent value. For example, a fairly early document (date uncertain) known as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel somewhere in Italy after Peter’s death (in the mid-60s), and this testimony is considered reliable by many scholars. Still, the possibility that Mark composed his work before Peter’s martyrdom cannot be ruled out completely.<\/p>\n<p>Papias says nothing specific about <em>when<\/em> the Gospel was written. A small minority of scholars date Mark shortly after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Another minority suggest a date in the 40s or 50s on the basis of a papyrus fragment discovered in Qumran called 7Q5. (According to José O’Callaghan, the fragment, which has been dated about <span>AD<\/span> 50–68, should be identified as Mark 6:52-53.) This fragment contains only 20 letters on one side, making the Markan reconstruction very uncertain. Few scholars are convinced that the text is Mark; some think it is part of 1 Enoch or Zechariah. An impressive majority of scholars date Mark in the 60s, with conservatives usually preferring the early years of the decade. Why this preference? If the theory of Markan priority is accepted, then clearly Mark was written before Luke; and since Luke is normally dated by conservatives about <span>AD<\/span> 62, Mark can be no later than <span>AD<\/span> 60 or 61. This line of argument, though strong, is not decisive. In the first place, Luke cannot be dated with complete certainty. Second, the view that Matthew and Luke used Mark (the working assumption of most scholars) is only a hypothesis, and one that is vigorously opposed by some writers. Third, a tradition going back to the second century (see above) asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel <em>after<\/em> Peter’s death, no earlier than <span>AD<\/span> 64. Fourth, one persuasive view regarding the occasion of this Gospel assumes that the Neronian persecution (<span>AD<\/span> 64) had begun. (According to a different view of the occasion, Mark was written after the beginning of the Jewish revolt in <span>AD<\/span> 66.) Therefore, while a date in the early 60s remains possible, it does not require committal.<\/p>\n<p>With regard to the authorship of the second Gospel, there seems to be no compelling reason to deny Papias’s report that Mark (no doubt the John Mark of Acts 12:12) took down Peter’s reminiscences and that these became the basis of his work. Some scholars argue that the Gospel contains geographical inaccuracies (e.g., we have no evidence of a region called Dalmanutha, Mk 8:10) and that a native of Jerusalem such as Mark would have been more reliable in his information. However, the topographical problems in Mark, though real, need not be interpreted as inaccuracies (present ignorance of a place named Dalmanutha is hardly conclusive proof that it did not exist). Furthermore, in other respects (e.g., 14:54, 66) the Gospel reveals an impressive knowledge of local details. Many writers also point out bits of information that support a Petrine background, such as the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (1:30-31). In short, the internal evidence, while falling short of proof, does not at all undermine the tradition preserved by Papias. A generation ago, the trustworthiness of Papias’s testimony was almost universally accepted. This situation has changed somewhat, but even those scholars who adopt a skeptical attitude toward this tradition concede that it <em>may<\/em> be true.<\/p>\n<p>As attention turns to the provenance of the Gospel, the task becomes more difficult. Tradition going back to the second century asserts what may be already implied by Papias—namely, that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome. Although some scholars have suggested other possibilities, such as Galilee and Antioch, these have not proved satisfactory. Mark did spend some time in Rome, and some characteristics in the Gospel (such as Latinisms in the Greek and the explanation of Jewish customs, as in 7:3-4), while proving nothing, are certainly consonant with a Roman origin. Furthermore, one persuasive view of the occasion that gave rise to the Gospel assumes a background of persecution in Rome.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Distinctives\">Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>A number of characteristics of Mark set it apart from the other Gospels. For example, a word usually translated “immediately” occurs more than 40 times in Mark and only a dozen times in the rest of the NT. While this feature could be interpreted as a simple “mannerism,” consonant with Mark’s unpretentious, colloquial style, it certainly adds to the rapid flow of his narrative, which, dwelling more on Jesus’ activity than on his discourses (in contrast to Matthew and Luke), shifts from scene to scene with hardly a pause. Since the Gospel is also quite brief (Luke is nearly twice as long), one may wonder whether the author intended for it to be read at a sitting; even if read aloud, this would take only about one and a half hours. At any rate, there can be little doubt that the work conveys a sense of urgency.<\/p>\n<p>Other characteristics, however, prove more significant. Someone unfamiliar with the story of Jesus who happened to read Mark for the first time would no doubt be taken aback by its rather abrupt beginning. After a brief clause that stands as a sort of title (1:1), Mark moves on to describe in brief the ministry of John the Baptist. Then he introduces Jesus as coming from Nazareth without telling us anything whatever of his earlier life. Furthermore, over one-third of the book (including the so-called Passion narrative) is devoted to Jesus’ last week. These and other factors lend to the work a note of mystery, accentuated by the fact that at various points Mark calls attention to the fear or amazement gripping those who came in contact with Jesus (2:12; 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6; and several other passages, especially the strange words of 10:32). In addition, if one assumes that the Gospel originally ended with 16:8, Mark wished to leave his readers with the same sense of awe that the disciples experienced at Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>But how does one account for this fear and amazement? Mark’s clear answer is that Jesus, though truly a man, is also divine. While Mark’s Gospel exhibits the humanity of Jesus Christ (1:41; 3:5; 8:12; 10:14), his chief emphasis is on the Lord’s deity. Indeed, Mark introduces his book by referring to Jesus as “the Son of God” (a phrase omitted in some manuscripts, however), a position that is recognized both by the demons (3:11; 5:7) and by God himself (9:7). What may well be the true climax of the Gospel occurs at 15:39, where Mark writes that a Gentile, a Roman centurion, upon hearing Jesus’ death cry, exclaimed, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The author organized his Gospel according to a simple plan. The first eight chapters summarize the nature of Christ’s public ministry by alternating stories that show his growing popularity with stories that stress the disapproval of the Jewish leaders. This first half of the book, while indicating some of the tensions created by Jesus’ coming, gives the basic impression of success and general optimism. A significant shift then strikes the reader toward the end of chapter 8, particularly beginning with verse 31. At Caesarea Philippi, Peter has just confessed that Jesus is the Messiah, and now for the first time Jesus reveals that as Messiah he must die. The disciples become perplexed and discouraged and their pessimism mounts as this thought is brought home to them repeatedly (9:9, 31; 10:32-34; 14:17-25). In the end they desert their master (14:50).<\/p>\n<p>Interestingly, this pessimistic note is anticipated in the earlier part of the Gospel at three points: 3:6 (Jesus’ enemies plot his death); 6:6 (faithlessness in Nazareth); and 8:21 (lack of understanding in the disciples). Some scholars suggest that Mark used these three verses to indicate the first three divisions of his book. In addition, other scholars note that two healings of blind men (8:22-26; 10:46-52) seem to provide the opening and the conclusion of a section that emphasizes the spiritual blindness of the disciples. One more structural clue is 14:1, which clearly marks out the final section of the Gospel.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OccasionPurposeTheology\">Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>A few scholars think that Mark may have been combating a heretical sect that stressed the miracles of Jesus and viewed him purely as a divine wonder-worker. Although this view has not gained acceptance as originally formulated, a number of writers do see the Gospel as a theological corrective. Ralph Martin, who links Mark very closely with Paul, suggests that the evangelist is opposing some heretical groups who have distorted Paul’s message by placing exclusive stress on Christ as a <em>heavenly<\/em> figure (cf. the views that Paul himself opposes in Colossians). Mark responds to these aberrations by emphasizing, in Martin’s words, “the paradox of Jesus’ earthly life in which suffering and vindication form a two-beat rhythm.” Even if one decides that this reconstruction, too, is rather speculative, one may nevertheless retain certain elements in it as valid.<\/p>\n<p>Other scholars, such as H. Kee, place emphasis on the apocalyptic background of Mark. Kee and others tie this element to the Jewish revolt of <span>AD<\/span> 66, but commitment to this particular historical connection is unnecessary to appreciate the great significance of Mark 13 (Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse) for those original readers of the Gospel who may have been undergoing persecution.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the most satisfactory reconstruction links this Gospel to the Neronian persecution in the mid-60s. Mark, for example, is the only Gospel that records that Jesus, after being driven to the wilderness, found himself in the company of wild animals (1:13). This detail, according to William Lane, “was filled with special significance for those called to enter the arena where they stood helpless in the presence of wild beasts.” This interpretation, while not without difficulties, has the advantage of accounting for most of the available data. First, it is compatible with the strong tradition that assigns the origin of Mark’s work to Rome. Second, Mark speaks distinctly to those suffering persecution by introducing them quickly to John’s imprisonment and several other details. Third, related to this is Mark’s emphasis on discipleship. Christians facing persecution must have been tempted to relax the standards (4:17-19). Fourth, given this general situation, one can hardly doubt the significance of our Lord’s apocalyptic message in chapter 13, intended to encourage the disciples in the midst of their trials by reminding them of the glory to follow. Finally, Mark’s clear concern for the Gentile mission fits in with the needs of pagan Rome. The suffering Christians cannot afford to forget the unbelieving society in which they live. In the light of this particular responsibility, Mark assures his readers of what even the Roman centurion began to recognize—surely Jesus <em>is<\/em> the Son of God (15:39).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The development of Mark’s narrative can be presented in six major divisions within a twofold structure:<\/p>\n<li>Introduction (1:1-13)<\/li>\n<li>Part I: Popularity and Opposition (1:14–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>1. Jesus’ authority and the Pharisees’ enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/li>\n<li>2. The people’s response (3:7–6:6a)<\/li>\n<li>3. The disciples’ misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>Part II: Darkness and Death (8:22–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>4. The Messiah’s mission and the disciples’ blind-ness (8:22–10:52)<\/li>\n<li>5. Final ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/li>\n<li>6. The Passion narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>Conclusion (16:1-8)<\/li>\n<p>Although one can hardly claim that this outline corresponds exactly to the author’s original plan (Mark may not have consciously worked out a detailed outline), the sixfold division provides a useful starting point for an interpretive summary of the contents.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Authority and the Pharisees’ Enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>Immediately after the introductory portion (1:1-13), which describes John the Baptist’s ministry as well as Jesus’ baptism and temptation, Mark opens the body of the work with a summary statement (vv 14-15). In these two verses he seems to suggest that Jesus’ public ministry, characterized by the proclamation that God’s kingdom is about to be inaugurated, was occasioned by John’s imprisonment. This is followed by the call of the first disciples (vv 16-20) and then by a complex of stories (vv 21-38), all of which report incidents that took place in Capernaum, apparently within a 24-hour period: synagogue instruction followed by the healing of a demoniac; the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law; numerous other healings in the evening; prayer in a lonely place. The statement that Jesus proceeded to expand his ministry throughout the province of Galilee (v 39) is followed by the story of a leper’s cure (vv 40-45). Next are found a very important group of incidents (2:1–3:6), all of them focusing on Jesus’ conflicts with Jewish leaders: the healing and forgiveness of a paralytic; the call of Levi, whose dinner (attended by Jesus as well as by the hated tax gatherers) occasioned some disputes, particularly on the issue of fasting; and two significant stories regarding proper behavior on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<h5>The People’s Response (3:7–6:6a)<\/h5>\n<p>Mark opens this second section as he opened the first: a summary statement (Jesus’ healings by the lake—3:7-12) followed by the official appointment of 12 apostles (vv 13-19). Then follows a section that focuses on the kinds of charges brought against Jesus by his own family and by the scribes (vv 20-22), leading to a response touching on Satan, on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and on what constitutes true membership in his family (vv 23-35). Most of chapter 4 is devoted to Jesus’ parables of the kingdom—the sower, the seed growing secretly, the mustard seed—and includes statements on the nature and purpose of his teachings (4:10-12, 21-25, 33-34). In the evening Jesus and his disciples set out to cross the Sea of Galilee, leading to the stilling of the storm (vv 35-41), the healing of the Gerasene demoniac on the other side of the lake (5:1-20), and, on their return to Capernaum, the healing of a hemorrhaging woman and the raising of Jairus’s daughter (vv 21-43). The section concludes with Jesus’ visit to his hometown, Nazareth, and the rejection he suffered there (6:1-6a).<\/p>\n<h5>The Disciples’ Misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/h5>\n<p>The third section begins with two introductory passages: the sending out of the 12 (6:6b-13) and the story of John the Baptist’s death (vv 14-29). When the disciples return, Jesus determines to seek some rest, but the crowds follow them; Jesus then teaches and feeds the 5,000 (vv 30-44) and, after crossing the lake (vv 45-52, which includes Jesus’ walk over the water), he performs numerous cures in and around Gennesaret (vv 53-56). Then follows a controversy with the Pharisees regarding the hand-washing ritual (7:1-8), and this incident leads to Christ’s assertion of the authority of God’s word over human tradition (vv 9-13) and to some general instructions on true purity (vv 14-23). The next several stories describe Jesus’ withdrawal from Galilee, first to Tyre, where a gentile woman’s daughter is healed (vv 24-30), then to the Decapolis, where he cures a deaf-mute (vv 31-37) and feeds a crowd of four thousand (8:1-10). The demand of the Pharisees for a sign (vv 11-12) leads to Jesus’ warning against the “leaven” of the Pharisees, a statement misunderstood by the disciples (vv 13-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Messiah’s Mission and the Disciples’ Blindness (8:22–10:52)<\/h5>\n<p>Still away from Galilee, but now in the nearby town of Bethsaida, Jesus heals a blind man (8:22-26). He then leads his disciples north toward Caesarea Philippi, which sets the stage for Peter’s confession (vv 27-30). This recognition on the part of the disciples (of whom Peter is in effect a representative) leads Jesus to prophesy his death, but Peter’s refusal to accept the prophecy calls forth a rebuke and instruction on discipleship (vv 31-38). The failure of the disciples to understand the necessity of Christ’s death provides the background for the Transfiguration (9:1-8), which assures Peter, John, and James that God’s kingdom will indeed come (note v 1); further, the Father himself enjoins them to believe Jesus’ prophecy (v 7). After some words about the resurrection and about the coming of Elijah (vv 9-13), Mark relates the healing of a demoniac boy (vv 14-29). Back in Galilee, a second prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 30-32) is followed, sadly, by a trivial discussion among the disciples as to who is the greatest (vv 33-37). Appropriately, one finds some further instructions concerning discipleship (vv 38-50). Mark next writes that Jesus left Galilee for the last time and began his journey toward the south. During this journey, Jesus delivered teachings on divorce and on the spiritual privileges of children (10:1-16), then met the rich young ruler (vv 17-22), an incident that leads to further words on discipleship (vv 23-31). A third prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 32-34) is again followed by selfish behavior on the part of the disciples, in this case an ambitious request from James and John (vv 35-40). The incident produces indignation among the rest of the disciples, thus necessitating another rebuke from their master, who himself came to serve and to die (vv 41-45). The section ends as it began—by reporting the cure of a blind man, Bartimaeus of Jericho in this story (vv 46-52).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/h5>\n<p>This section seems naturally to divide into three balanced subsections. The first one (11:1-26) includes three events: the Triumphal Entry, the withering of the fig tree, and the cleansing of the temple. The second subsection (11:27–12:44) is particularly important, for here is found Jesus’ final series of controversies with the Jewish leaders. The topics covered are the source of Jesus’ authority (11:27-33), the parable of the wicked husbandmen (12:1-12), the legitimacy of Caesar’s tax (vv 13-17), the Sadducees’ denial of resurrection (vv 18-27), the chief commandment (vv 28-34), and the question regarding David’s son (vv 35-37). This subsection ends with a warning against the scribes and with the story of the widow’s mite (vv 38-44). The third subsection (ch 13) is devoted completely to the Olivet discourse, with its prophecies of destruction, calamities, persecutions, deceivers, and final vindication. The discourse ends with various admonitions to keep alert.<\/p>\n<h5>The Passion Narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/h5>\n<p>This final section, which is introduced by a report of the priests’ plot (14:1-2), may be divided into two subsections. The first one relates the events leading up to Jesus’ trial (vv 3-52). They include the anointing of Jesus (vv 3-9), Judas’s betrayal (vv 10-11), the incidents connected with the Last Supper (vv 12-31), the scene at Gethsemane (vv 32-42), and the arrest (vv 43-52). The second subsection relates Jesus’ trial before the Jews (vv 53-65), Peter’s denials (vv 66-72), the trial before Pilate (15:1-15), the crucifixion (vv 16-41), and the burial (vv 42-47).<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel concludes somewhat mysteriously, but no less triumphantly, with the news that Jesus has risen from the dead (16:1-8). The earliest surviving Greek manuscripts, usually regarded as the most reliable, end at verse 8; the majority of manuscripts, however, include an additional 12 verses that report Jesus’ appearances to his disciples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Mark, John; Matthew, Gospel of; Luke, Gospel of; Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MARK, Gospel of Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between AD 60 and 68. Preview • Author, Date, Provenance • Distinctives • Structure • Occasion, Purpose, Theology • Content Author, Date, Provenance Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, alt...","summary_en":"MARK, Gospel of Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between AD 60 and 68. Preview • Author, Date, Provenance • Distinctives • Structure • Occasion, Purpose, Theology • Content Author, Date, Provenance Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, alt...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55186,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:5","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:5-6<\/strong> Jesus’ opponents’ <em>hard hearts<\/em> would not listen to sound reason, so instead of having changed attitudes, they began <em>to plot how to kill<\/em> him (see also 11:18; 12:12; 14:1-2, 10-11).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:5-6<\/strong> Jesus’ opponents’ <em>hard hearts<\/em> would not listen to sound reason, so instead of having changed attitudes, they began <em>to plot how to kill<\/em> him (see also 11:18; 12:12; 14:1-2, 10-11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:5-6 Jesus’ opponents’ hard hearts would not listen to sound reason, so instead of having changed attitudes, they began to plot how to kill him (see also 11:18; 12:12; 14:1-2, 10-11).","summary_en":"3:5-6 Jesus’ opponents’ hard hearts would not listen to sound reason, so instead of having changed attitudes, they began to plot how to kill him (see also 11:18; 12:12; 14:1-2, 10-11).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82812,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:5","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:5-6<\/strong> Jesus’ opponents’ <em>hard hearts<\/em> would not listen to sound reason, so instead of having changed attitudes, they began <em>to plot how to kill<\/em> him (see also 11:18; 12:12; 14:1-2, 10-11).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:5-6<\/strong> Jesus’ opponents’ <em>hard hearts<\/em> would not listen to sound reason, so instead of having changed attitudes, they began <em>to plot how to kill<\/em> him (see also 11:18; 12:12; 14:1-2, 10-11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:5-6 Jesus’ opponents’ hard hearts would not listen to sound reason, so instead of having changed attitudes, they began to plot how to kill him (see also 11:18; 12:12; 14:1-2, 10-11).","summary_en":"3:5-6 Jesus’ opponents’ hard hearts would not listen to sound reason, so instead of having changed attitudes, they began to plot how to kill him (see also 11:18; 12:12; 14:1-2, 10-11).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110438,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:5","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:5-6<\/strong> Jesus’ opponents’ <em>hard hearts<\/em> would not listen to sound reason, so instead of having changed attitudes, they began <em>to plot how to kill<\/em> him (see also 11:18; 12:12; 14:1-2, 10-11).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:5-6<\/strong> Jesus’ opponents’ <em>hard hearts<\/em> would not listen to sound reason, so instead of having changed attitudes, they began <em>to plot how to kill<\/em> him (see also 11:18; 12:12; 14:1-2, 10-11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:5-6 Jesus’ opponents’ hard hearts would not listen to sound reason, so instead of having changed attitudes, they began to plot how to kill him (see also 11:18; 12:12; 14:1-2, 10-11).","summary_en":"3:5-6 Jesus’ opponents’ hard hearts would not listen to sound reason, so instead of having changed attitudes, they began to plot how to kill him (see also 11:18; 12:12; 14:1-2, 10-11).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138064,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:5","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:5-6<\/strong> Jesus’ opponents’ <em>hard hearts<\/em> would not listen to sound reason, so instead of having changed attitudes, they began <em>to plot how to kill<\/em> him (see also 11:18; 12:12; 14:1-2, 10-11).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:5-6<\/strong> Jesus’ opponents’ <em>hard hearts<\/em> would not listen to sound reason, so instead of having changed attitudes, they began <em>to plot how to kill<\/em> him (see also 11:18; 12:12; 14:1-2, 10-11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:5-6 Jesus’ opponents’ hard hearts would not listen to sound reason, so instead of having changed attitudes, they began to plot how to kill him (see also 11:18; 12:12; 14:1-2, 10-11).","summary_en":"3:5-6 Jesus’ opponents’ hard hearts would not listen to sound reason, so instead of having changed attitudes, they began to plot how to kill him (see also 11:18; 12:12; 14:1-2, 10-11).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"6":[{"id":16292,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Herodians*","title_en":"Herodians*","content_ro":"<h3>HERODIANS*<\/h3>\n<p>Jewish party mentioned three times in the Gospels in connection with two incidents (one in Galilee and one in Jerusalem) and associated with the Pharisees in their opposition to Christ. In Mark 3:6, after the healing of the man with the withered hand, the Pharisees went out and took counsel with the Herodians, plotting to destroy Jesus. In Matthew 22:16 and Mark 12:13, the Pharisees and Herodians allied against Christ to entrap him with their question as to the lawfulness of paying taxes to Caesar. The Herodians are never mentioned in either Luke or John.<\/p>\n<p>The real problem comes in Mark 8:15, where it speaks of the “leaven of Herod.” Another reading is the “leaven of the Herodians.” However, the parallel passage in Matthew 16:6 speaks of the “leaven of the Sadducees.” Are the Sadducees and the Herodians the same?<\/p>\n<p>Matthew tends to label the religious leaders as Jesus’ opponents, whereas Mark emphasizes that Jesus’ opponents were both religious and political. What then is the significance of Matthew’s use of “the leaven of the Sadducees” in place of Mark’s “leaven of Herod” or “leaven of the Herodians”? Some have speculated that the Herodians were a political party composed principally of Sadducees. Some have identified them with the Sadducees, and others with the Boethusians, whose name more often than not was used interchangeably with that of the Sadducees. The Boethusians and the Sadducees were indistinguishable theologically, but the Sadducees were loyal to the Hasmonean dynasty, whereas the Boethusians were attached to the Herodian house and consequently were called the Herodians. Thus the Herodians had political affiliations with the Herodian house and religious affiliations with the Sadducees. Along with the Sadducees, the Herodians were men of influence—the aristocrats of Palestine.<\/p>\n<p>Nevertheless, during Jesus’ time the political differences between the Herodians and the Sadducees were not as distinct because of the marriage of the Herodian Herod Antipas to the Hasmonean Herodias. The Herodians and the Sadducees would have been on the same side politically against the Pharisees, the former being pro-government, while the Pharisees were both anti-Hasmonean and anti-Herodian. Congruent with this, Matthew 16:12 and Mark 8:15 represent the Pharisees and the Sadducees\/Herodians as contrary parties opposing Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>In summary, the Herodians were also known as the Boethusians. Theologically they were in agreement with the Sadducees, but politically they were more pro-Herodian than the Sadducees. While the Pharisees looked for a cataclysmic messianic kingdom to remove the present Herodian rule, the Herodians worked to keep Herod’s dynasty in power.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Herod, Herodian Family.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HERODIANS*<\/h3>\n<p>Jewish party mentioned three times in the Gospels in connection with two incidents (one in Galilee and one in Jerusalem) and associated with the Pharisees in their opposition to Christ. In Mark 3:6, after the healing of the man with the withered hand, the Pharisees went out and took counsel with the Herodians, plotting to destroy Jesus. In Matthew 22:16 and Mark 12:13, the Pharisees and Herodians allied against Christ to entrap him with their question as to the lawfulness of paying taxes to Caesar. The Herodians are never mentioned in either Luke or John.<\/p>\n<p>The real problem comes in Mark 8:15, where it speaks of the “leaven of Herod.” Another reading is the “leaven of the Herodians.” However, the parallel passage in Matthew 16:6 speaks of the “leaven of the Sadducees.” Are the Sadducees and the Herodians the same?<\/p>\n<p>Matthew tends to label the religious leaders as Jesus’ opponents, whereas Mark emphasizes that Jesus’ opponents were both religious and political. What then is the significance of Matthew’s use of “the leaven of the Sadducees” in place of Mark’s “leaven of Herod” or “leaven of the Herodians”? Some have speculated that the Herodians were a political party composed principally of Sadducees. Some have identified them with the Sadducees, and others with the Boethusians, whose name more often than not was used interchangeably with that of the Sadducees. The Boethusians and the Sadducees were indistinguishable theologically, but the Sadducees were loyal to the Hasmonean dynasty, whereas the Boethusians were attached to the Herodian house and consequently were called the Herodians. Thus the Herodians had political affiliations with the Herodian house and religious affiliations with the Sadducees. Along with the Sadducees, the Herodians were men of influence—the aristocrats of Palestine.<\/p>\n<p>Nevertheless, during Jesus’ time the political differences between the Herodians and the Sadducees were not as distinct because of the marriage of the Herodian Herod Antipas to the Hasmonean Herodias. The Herodians and the Sadducees would have been on the same side politically against the Pharisees, the former being pro-government, while the Pharisees were both anti-Hasmonean and anti-Herodian. Congruent with this, Matthew 16:12 and Mark 8:15 represent the Pharisees and the Sadducees\/Herodians as contrary parties opposing Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>In summary, the Herodians were also known as the Boethusians. Theologically they were in agreement with the Sadducees, but politically they were more pro-Herodian than the Sadducees. While the Pharisees looked for a cataclysmic messianic kingdom to remove the present Herodian rule, the Herodians worked to keep Herod’s dynasty in power.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Herod, Herodian Family.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HERODIANS* Jewish party mentioned three times in the Gospels in connection with two incidents (one in Galilee and one in Jerusalem) and associated with the Pharisees in their opposition to Christ. In Mark 3:6, after the healing of the man with the withered hand, the Pharisees went out and took counsel with the Herodians, plotting to destroy Jesus. In Matthew 22:16 and Mark 12:13, the Pharisees and Herodians allied against Christ to entrap him with their question as to the lawfulness of paying...","summary_en":"HERODIANS* Jewish party mentioned three times in the Gospels in connection with two incidents (one in Galilee and one in Jerusalem) and associated with the Pharisees in their opposition to Christ. In Mark 3:6, after the healing of the man with the withered hand, the Pharisees went out and took counsel with the Herodians, plotting to destroy Jesus. In Matthew 22:16 and Mark 12:13, the Pharisees and Herodians allied against Christ to entrap him with their question as to the lawfulness of paying...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":19467,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jesus Christ","title_en":"Jesus Christ","content_ro":"<h3>JESUS CHRIST<\/h3>\n<p>Messiah, Savior, and founder of the Christian church.<\/p>\n<p>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 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Incarnation<\/p>\n<p>• The Birth of Jesus<\/p>\n<p>• Life in Nazareth<\/p>\n<p>• Preparatory Events<\/p>\n<p>• The Early Ministry of Jesus in Judea and Samaria<\/p>\n<p>• The Period of the Galilean Ministry<\/p>\n<p>• On the Way to Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>• The Final Days in Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>• The Betrayal and Arrest<\/p>\n<p>• The Trial<\/p>\n<p>• The Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p>• The Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheIncarnation\">The Incarnation<\/p>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>It 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBirthofJesus\">The Birth of Jesus<\/p>\n<p>John 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>\n<p>One 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>\n<p>Luke 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LifeinNazareth\">Life in Nazareth<\/p>\n<p>The 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PreparatoryEvents\">Preparatory Events<\/p>\n<p>All 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>\n<p>John 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>\n<p>John’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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Jesus’ 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheEarlyMinistryofJesusinJudeaandSamaria\">The Early Ministry of Jesus in Judea and Samaria<\/p>\n<p>Only 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>\n<p>Soon 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>\n<p>John 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>John’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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePeriodoftheGalileanMinistry\">The Period of the Galilean Ministry<\/p>\n\n<p>Almost 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>Another 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Throughout 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>Jesus 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>For 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>\n<p>Jesus 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>\n<p>A 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Another 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>\n<p>John 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>\n<p>Matthew’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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>At 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>\n<p>Jesus 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>\n<p>This 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>\n<p>After 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>\n<p>After 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>\n<p>Luke 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OntheWaytoJerusalem\">On the Way to Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>On 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\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheFinalDaysinJerusalem\">The Final Days in Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>All 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>It 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>\n<p>Nearing 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>\n<p>When 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>\n<p>John’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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBetrayalandArrest\">The Betrayal and Arrest<\/p>\n<p>There 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTrial\">The Trial<\/p>\n<p>Jesus 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>\n<p>The 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\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheCrucifixion\">The Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p>The 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBurialResurrectionandAscension\">The Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ 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>\n<p>We 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>\n<p>Messiah, Savior, and founder of the Christian church.<\/p>\n<p>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 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Incarnation<\/p>\n<p>• The Birth of Jesus<\/p>\n<p>• Life in Nazareth<\/p>\n<p>• Preparatory Events<\/p>\n<p>• The Early Ministry of Jesus in Judea and Samaria<\/p>\n<p>• The Period of the Galilean Ministry<\/p>\n<p>• On the Way to Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>• The Final Days in Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>• The Betrayal and Arrest<\/p>\n<p>• The Trial<\/p>\n<p>• The Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p>• The Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheIncarnation\">The Incarnation<\/p>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>It 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBirthofJesus\">The Birth of Jesus<\/p>\n<p>John 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>\n<p>One 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>\n<p>Luke 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LifeinNazareth\">Life in Nazareth<\/p>\n<p>The 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PreparatoryEvents\">Preparatory Events<\/p>\n<p>All 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>\n<p>John 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>\n<p>John’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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Jesus’ 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheEarlyMinistryofJesusinJudeaandSamaria\">The Early Ministry of Jesus in Judea and Samaria<\/p>\n<p>Only 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>\n<p>Soon 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>\n<p>John 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>John’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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePeriodoftheGalileanMinistry\">The Period of the Galilean Ministry<\/p>\n\n<p>Almost 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>Another 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Throughout 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>Jesus 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>For 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>\n<p>Jesus 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>\n<p>A 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Another 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>\n<p>John 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>\n<p>Matthew’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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>At 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>\n<p>Jesus 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>\n<p>This 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>\n<p>After 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>\n<p>After 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>\n<p>Luke 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OntheWaytoJerusalem\">On the Way to Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>On 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\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheFinalDaysinJerusalem\">The Final Days in Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>All 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>It 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>\n<p>Nearing 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>\n<p>When 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>\n<p>John’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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBetrayalandArrest\">The Betrayal and Arrest<\/p>\n<p>There 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTrial\">The Trial<\/p>\n<p>Jesus 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>\n<p>The 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\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheCrucifixion\">The Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p>The 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBurialResurrectionandAscension\">The Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ 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>\n<p>We 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":24345,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gospel of Mark","title_en":"Gospel of Mark","content_ro":"<h3>MARK, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between <span>AD<\/span> 60 and 68.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorDateProvenance\">Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, although this is by no means certain). At one point Papias states, “The Elder used to say this also: Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that [Peter] remembered concerning the things both said and done by the Lord.” (This quotation was preserved by the fourth-century writer Eusebius of Caesarea in his <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 3.39.15.) One need not doubt the basic reliability of this statement. Mark—almost surely to be identified with the John Mark of Acts 12:12 (see also 1 Pt 5:13)—was a disciple of Peter, and the second Gospel owes its existence, at least in part, to the apostle’s reminiscences. It does not follow, however, that one has adequately characterized Mark’s work if that is all one says. For instance, Papias’s qualification, “though not in order,” indicates that Mark did not intend to write a chronological biography. Furthermore, Papias goes on to comment (according to one interpretation of his ambiguous words) that Mark (or Peter?) adapted the material to the teaching situation and that therefore Mark is absolved from any (implied) charges of inaccuracy. It appears that from the earliest times Christians appealed to the purposes and circumstances of Mark’s writing in order to account for difficulties in harmonizing the material found in the various Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Other statements from Christian writers in the second, third, and fourth centuries seem dependent on Papias’s testimony, but some additional data they provide may possess independent value. For example, a fairly early document (date uncertain) known as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel somewhere in Italy after Peter’s death (in the mid-60s), and this testimony is considered reliable by many scholars. Still, the possibility that Mark composed his work before Peter’s martyrdom cannot be ruled out completely.<\/p>\n<p>Papias says nothing specific about <em>when<\/em> the Gospel was written. A small minority of scholars date Mark shortly after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Another minority suggest a date in the 40s or 50s on the basis of a papyrus fragment discovered in Qumran called 7Q5. (According to José O’Callaghan, the fragment, which has been dated about <span>AD<\/span> 50–68, should be identified as Mark 6:52-53.) This fragment contains only 20 letters on one side, making the Markan reconstruction very uncertain. Few scholars are convinced that the text is Mark; some think it is part of 1 Enoch or Zechariah. An impressive majority of scholars date Mark in the 60s, with conservatives usually preferring the early years of the decade. Why this preference? If the theory of Markan priority is accepted, then clearly Mark was written before Luke; and since Luke is normally dated by conservatives about <span>AD<\/span> 62, Mark can be no later than <span>AD<\/span> 60 or 61. This line of argument, though strong, is not decisive. In the first place, Luke cannot be dated with complete certainty. Second, the view that Matthew and Luke used Mark (the working assumption of most scholars) is only a hypothesis, and one that is vigorously opposed by some writers. Third, a tradition going back to the second century (see above) asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel <em>after<\/em> Peter’s death, no earlier than <span>AD<\/span> 64. Fourth, one persuasive view regarding the occasion of this Gospel assumes that the Neronian persecution (<span>AD<\/span> 64) had begun. (According to a different view of the occasion, Mark was written after the beginning of the Jewish revolt in <span>AD<\/span> 66.) Therefore, while a date in the early 60s remains possible, it does not require committal.<\/p>\n<p>With regard to the authorship of the second Gospel, there seems to be no compelling reason to deny Papias’s report that Mark (no doubt the John Mark of Acts 12:12) took down Peter’s reminiscences and that these became the basis of his work. Some scholars argue that the Gospel contains geographical inaccuracies (e.g., we have no evidence of a region called Dalmanutha, Mk 8:10) and that a native of Jerusalem such as Mark would have been more reliable in his information. However, the topographical problems in Mark, though real, need not be interpreted as inaccuracies (present ignorance of a place named Dalmanutha is hardly conclusive proof that it did not exist). Furthermore, in other respects (e.g., 14:54, 66) the Gospel reveals an impressive knowledge of local details. Many writers also point out bits of information that support a Petrine background, such as the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (1:30-31). In short, the internal evidence, while falling short of proof, does not at all undermine the tradition preserved by Papias. A generation ago, the trustworthiness of Papias’s testimony was almost universally accepted. This situation has changed somewhat, but even those scholars who adopt a skeptical attitude toward this tradition concede that it <em>may<\/em> be true.<\/p>\n<p>As attention turns to the provenance of the Gospel, the task becomes more difficult. Tradition going back to the second century asserts what may be already implied by Papias—namely, that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome. Although some scholars have suggested other possibilities, such as Galilee and Antioch, these have not proved satisfactory. Mark did spend some time in Rome, and some characteristics in the Gospel (such as Latinisms in the Greek and the explanation of Jewish customs, as in 7:3-4), while proving nothing, are certainly consonant with a Roman origin. Furthermore, one persuasive view of the occasion that gave rise to the Gospel assumes a background of persecution in Rome.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Distinctives\">Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>A number of characteristics of Mark set it apart from the other Gospels. For example, a word usually translated “immediately” occurs more than 40 times in Mark and only a dozen times in the rest of the NT. While this feature could be interpreted as a simple “mannerism,” consonant with Mark’s unpretentious, colloquial style, it certainly adds to the rapid flow of his narrative, which, dwelling more on Jesus’ activity than on his discourses (in contrast to Matthew and Luke), shifts from scene to scene with hardly a pause. Since the Gospel is also quite brief (Luke is nearly twice as long), one may wonder whether the author intended for it to be read at a sitting; even if read aloud, this would take only about one and a half hours. At any rate, there can be little doubt that the work conveys a sense of urgency.<\/p>\n<p>Other characteristics, however, prove more significant. Someone unfamiliar with the story of Jesus who happened to read Mark for the first time would no doubt be taken aback by its rather abrupt beginning. After a brief clause that stands as a sort of title (1:1), Mark moves on to describe in brief the ministry of John the Baptist. Then he introduces Jesus as coming from Nazareth without telling us anything whatever of his earlier life. Furthermore, over one-third of the book (including the so-called Passion narrative) is devoted to Jesus’ last week. These and other factors lend to the work a note of mystery, accentuated by the fact that at various points Mark calls attention to the fear or amazement gripping those who came in contact with Jesus (2:12; 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6; and several other passages, especially the strange words of 10:32). In addition, if one assumes that the Gospel originally ended with 16:8, Mark wished to leave his readers with the same sense of awe that the disciples experienced at Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>But how does one account for this fear and amazement? Mark’s clear answer is that Jesus, though truly a man, is also divine. While Mark’s Gospel exhibits the humanity of Jesus Christ (1:41; 3:5; 8:12; 10:14), his chief emphasis is on the Lord’s deity. Indeed, Mark introduces his book by referring to Jesus as “the Son of God” (a phrase omitted in some manuscripts, however), a position that is recognized both by the demons (3:11; 5:7) and by God himself (9:7). What may well be the true climax of the Gospel occurs at 15:39, where Mark writes that a Gentile, a Roman centurion, upon hearing Jesus’ death cry, exclaimed, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The author organized his Gospel according to a simple plan. The first eight chapters summarize the nature of Christ’s public ministry by alternating stories that show his growing popularity with stories that stress the disapproval of the Jewish leaders. This first half of the book, while indicating some of the tensions created by Jesus’ coming, gives the basic impression of success and general optimism. A significant shift then strikes the reader toward the end of chapter 8, particularly beginning with verse 31. At Caesarea Philippi, Peter has just confessed that Jesus is the Messiah, and now for the first time Jesus reveals that as Messiah he must die. The disciples become perplexed and discouraged and their pessimism mounts as this thought is brought home to them repeatedly (9:9, 31; 10:32-34; 14:17-25). In the end they desert their master (14:50).<\/p>\n<p>Interestingly, this pessimistic note is anticipated in the earlier part of the Gospel at three points: 3:6 (Jesus’ enemies plot his death); 6:6 (faithlessness in Nazareth); and 8:21 (lack of understanding in the disciples). Some scholars suggest that Mark used these three verses to indicate the first three divisions of his book. In addition, other scholars note that two healings of blind men (8:22-26; 10:46-52) seem to provide the opening and the conclusion of a section that emphasizes the spiritual blindness of the disciples. One more structural clue is 14:1, which clearly marks out the final section of the Gospel.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OccasionPurposeTheology\">Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>A few scholars think that Mark may have been combating a heretical sect that stressed the miracles of Jesus and viewed him purely as a divine wonder-worker. Although this view has not gained acceptance as originally formulated, a number of writers do see the Gospel as a theological corrective. Ralph Martin, who links Mark very closely with Paul, suggests that the evangelist is opposing some heretical groups who have distorted Paul’s message by placing exclusive stress on Christ as a <em>heavenly<\/em> figure (cf. the views that Paul himself opposes in Colossians). Mark responds to these aberrations by emphasizing, in Martin’s words, “the paradox of Jesus’ earthly life in which suffering and vindication form a two-beat rhythm.” Even if one decides that this reconstruction, too, is rather speculative, one may nevertheless retain certain elements in it as valid.<\/p>\n<p>Other scholars, such as H. Kee, place emphasis on the apocalyptic background of Mark. Kee and others tie this element to the Jewish revolt of <span>AD<\/span> 66, but commitment to this particular historical connection is unnecessary to appreciate the great significance of Mark 13 (Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse) for those original readers of the Gospel who may have been undergoing persecution.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the most satisfactory reconstruction links this Gospel to the Neronian persecution in the mid-60s. Mark, for example, is the only Gospel that records that Jesus, after being driven to the wilderness, found himself in the company of wild animals (1:13). This detail, according to William Lane, “was filled with special significance for those called to enter the arena where they stood helpless in the presence of wild beasts.” This interpretation, while not without difficulties, has the advantage of accounting for most of the available data. First, it is compatible with the strong tradition that assigns the origin of Mark’s work to Rome. Second, Mark speaks distinctly to those suffering persecution by introducing them quickly to John’s imprisonment and several other details. Third, related to this is Mark’s emphasis on discipleship. Christians facing persecution must have been tempted to relax the standards (4:17-19). Fourth, given this general situation, one can hardly doubt the significance of our Lord’s apocalyptic message in chapter 13, intended to encourage the disciples in the midst of their trials by reminding them of the glory to follow. Finally, Mark’s clear concern for the Gentile mission fits in with the needs of pagan Rome. The suffering Christians cannot afford to forget the unbelieving society in which they live. In the light of this particular responsibility, Mark assures his readers of what even the Roman centurion began to recognize—surely Jesus <em>is<\/em> the Son of God (15:39).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The development of Mark’s narrative can be presented in six major divisions within a twofold structure:<\/p>\n<li>Introduction (1:1-13)<\/li>\n<li>Part I: Popularity and Opposition (1:14–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>1. Jesus’ authority and the Pharisees’ enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/li>\n<li>2. The people’s response (3:7–6:6a)<\/li>\n<li>3. The disciples’ misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>Part II: Darkness and Death (8:22–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>4. The Messiah’s mission and the disciples’ blind-ness (8:22–10:52)<\/li>\n<li>5. Final ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/li>\n<li>6. The Passion narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>Conclusion (16:1-8)<\/li>\n<p>Although one can hardly claim that this outline corresponds exactly to the author’s original plan (Mark may not have consciously worked out a detailed outline), the sixfold division provides a useful starting point for an interpretive summary of the contents.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Authority and the Pharisees’ Enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>Immediately after the introductory portion (1:1-13), which describes John the Baptist’s ministry as well as Jesus’ baptism and temptation, Mark opens the body of the work with a summary statement (vv 14-15). In these two verses he seems to suggest that Jesus’ public ministry, characterized by the proclamation that God’s kingdom is about to be inaugurated, was occasioned by John’s imprisonment. This is followed by the call of the first disciples (vv 16-20) and then by a complex of stories (vv 21-38), all of which report incidents that took place in Capernaum, apparently within a 24-hour period: synagogue instruction followed by the healing of a demoniac; the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law; numerous other healings in the evening; prayer in a lonely place. The statement that Jesus proceeded to expand his ministry throughout the province of Galilee (v 39) is followed by the story of a leper’s cure (vv 40-45). Next are found a very important group of incidents (2:1–3:6), all of them focusing on Jesus’ conflicts with Jewish leaders: the healing and forgiveness of a paralytic; the call of Levi, whose dinner (attended by Jesus as well as by the hated tax gatherers) occasioned some disputes, particularly on the issue of fasting; and two significant stories regarding proper behavior on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<h5>The People’s Response (3:7–6:6a)<\/h5>\n<p>Mark opens this second section as he opened the first: a summary statement (Jesus’ healings by the lake—3:7-12) followed by the official appointment of 12 apostles (vv 13-19). Then follows a section that focuses on the kinds of charges brought against Jesus by his own family and by the scribes (vv 20-22), leading to a response touching on Satan, on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and on what constitutes true membership in his family (vv 23-35). Most of chapter 4 is devoted to Jesus’ parables of the kingdom—the sower, the seed growing secretly, the mustard seed—and includes statements on the nature and purpose of his teachings (4:10-12, 21-25, 33-34). In the evening Jesus and his disciples set out to cross the Sea of Galilee, leading to the stilling of the storm (vv 35-41), the healing of the Gerasene demoniac on the other side of the lake (5:1-20), and, on their return to Capernaum, the healing of a hemorrhaging woman and the raising of Jairus’s daughter (vv 21-43). The section concludes with Jesus’ visit to his hometown, Nazareth, and the rejection he suffered there (6:1-6a).<\/p>\n<h5>The Disciples’ Misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/h5>\n<p>The third section begins with two introductory passages: the sending out of the 12 (6:6b-13) and the story of John the Baptist’s death (vv 14-29). When the disciples return, Jesus determines to seek some rest, but the crowds follow them; Jesus then teaches and feeds the 5,000 (vv 30-44) and, after crossing the lake (vv 45-52, which includes Jesus’ walk over the water), he performs numerous cures in and around Gennesaret (vv 53-56). Then follows a controversy with the Pharisees regarding the hand-washing ritual (7:1-8), and this incident leads to Christ’s assertion of the authority of God’s word over human tradition (vv 9-13) and to some general instructions on true purity (vv 14-23). The next several stories describe Jesus’ withdrawal from Galilee, first to Tyre, where a gentile woman’s daughter is healed (vv 24-30), then to the Decapolis, where he cures a deaf-mute (vv 31-37) and feeds a crowd of four thousand (8:1-10). The demand of the Pharisees for a sign (vv 11-12) leads to Jesus’ warning against the “leaven” of the Pharisees, a statement misunderstood by the disciples (vv 13-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Messiah’s Mission and the Disciples’ Blindness (8:22–10:52)<\/h5>\n<p>Still away from Galilee, but now in the nearby town of Bethsaida, Jesus heals a blind man (8:22-26). He then leads his disciples north toward Caesarea Philippi, which sets the stage for Peter’s confession (vv 27-30). This recognition on the part of the disciples (of whom Peter is in effect a representative) leads Jesus to prophesy his death, but Peter’s refusal to accept the prophecy calls forth a rebuke and instruction on discipleship (vv 31-38). The failure of the disciples to understand the necessity of Christ’s death provides the background for the Transfiguration (9:1-8), which assures Peter, John, and James that God’s kingdom will indeed come (note v 1); further, the Father himself enjoins them to believe Jesus’ prophecy (v 7). After some words about the resurrection and about the coming of Elijah (vv 9-13), Mark relates the healing of a demoniac boy (vv 14-29). Back in Galilee, a second prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 30-32) is followed, sadly, by a trivial discussion among the disciples as to who is the greatest (vv 33-37). Appropriately, one finds some further instructions concerning discipleship (vv 38-50). Mark next writes that Jesus left Galilee for the last time and began his journey toward the south. During this journey, Jesus delivered teachings on divorce and on the spiritual privileges of children (10:1-16), then met the rich young ruler (vv 17-22), an incident that leads to further words on discipleship (vv 23-31). A third prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 32-34) is again followed by selfish behavior on the part of the disciples, in this case an ambitious request from James and John (vv 35-40). The incident produces indignation among the rest of the disciples, thus necessitating another rebuke from their master, who himself came to serve and to die (vv 41-45). The section ends as it began—by reporting the cure of a blind man, Bartimaeus of Jericho in this story (vv 46-52).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/h5>\n<p>This section seems naturally to divide into three balanced subsections. The first one (11:1-26) includes three events: the Triumphal Entry, the withering of the fig tree, and the cleansing of the temple. The second subsection (11:27–12:44) is particularly important, for here is found Jesus’ final series of controversies with the Jewish leaders. The topics covered are the source of Jesus’ authority (11:27-33), the parable of the wicked husbandmen (12:1-12), the legitimacy of Caesar’s tax (vv 13-17), the Sadducees’ denial of resurrection (vv 18-27), the chief commandment (vv 28-34), and the question regarding David’s son (vv 35-37). This subsection ends with a warning against the scribes and with the story of the widow’s mite (vv 38-44). The third subsection (ch 13) is devoted completely to the Olivet discourse, with its prophecies of destruction, calamities, persecutions, deceivers, and final vindication. The discourse ends with various admonitions to keep alert.<\/p>\n<h5>The Passion Narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/h5>\n<p>This final section, which is introduced by a report of the priests’ plot (14:1-2), may be divided into two subsections. The first one relates the events leading up to Jesus’ trial (vv 3-52). They include the anointing of Jesus (vv 3-9), Judas’s betrayal (vv 10-11), the incidents connected with the Last Supper (vv 12-31), the scene at Gethsemane (vv 32-42), and the arrest (vv 43-52). The second subsection relates Jesus’ trial before the Jews (vv 53-65), Peter’s denials (vv 66-72), the trial before Pilate (15:1-15), the crucifixion (vv 16-41), and the burial (vv 42-47).<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel concludes somewhat mysteriously, but no less triumphantly, with the news that Jesus has risen from the dead (16:1-8). The earliest surviving Greek manuscripts, usually regarded as the most reliable, end at verse 8; the majority of manuscripts, however, include an additional 12 verses that report Jesus’ appearances to his disciples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Mark, John; Matthew, Gospel of; Luke, Gospel of; Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MARK, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between <span>AD<\/span> 60 and 68.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorDateProvenance\">Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, although this is by no means certain). At one point Papias states, “The Elder used to say this also: Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that [Peter] remembered concerning the things both said and done by the Lord.” (This quotation was preserved by the fourth-century writer Eusebius of Caesarea in his <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 3.39.15.) One need not doubt the basic reliability of this statement. Mark—almost surely to be identified with the John Mark of Acts 12:12 (see also 1 Pt 5:13)—was a disciple of Peter, and the second Gospel owes its existence, at least in part, to the apostle’s reminiscences. It does not follow, however, that one has adequately characterized Mark’s work if that is all one says. For instance, Papias’s qualification, “though not in order,” indicates that Mark did not intend to write a chronological biography. Furthermore, Papias goes on to comment (according to one interpretation of his ambiguous words) that Mark (or Peter?) adapted the material to the teaching situation and that therefore Mark is absolved from any (implied) charges of inaccuracy. It appears that from the earliest times Christians appealed to the purposes and circumstances of Mark’s writing in order to account for difficulties in harmonizing the material found in the various Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Other statements from Christian writers in the second, third, and fourth centuries seem dependent on Papias’s testimony, but some additional data they provide may possess independent value. For example, a fairly early document (date uncertain) known as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel somewhere in Italy after Peter’s death (in the mid-60s), and this testimony is considered reliable by many scholars. Still, the possibility that Mark composed his work before Peter’s martyrdom cannot be ruled out completely.<\/p>\n<p>Papias says nothing specific about <em>when<\/em> the Gospel was written. A small minority of scholars date Mark shortly after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Another minority suggest a date in the 40s or 50s on the basis of a papyrus fragment discovered in Qumran called 7Q5. (According to José O’Callaghan, the fragment, which has been dated about <span>AD<\/span> 50–68, should be identified as Mark 6:52-53.) This fragment contains only 20 letters on one side, making the Markan reconstruction very uncertain. Few scholars are convinced that the text is Mark; some think it is part of 1 Enoch or Zechariah. An impressive majority of scholars date Mark in the 60s, with conservatives usually preferring the early years of the decade. Why this preference? If the theory of Markan priority is accepted, then clearly Mark was written before Luke; and since Luke is normally dated by conservatives about <span>AD<\/span> 62, Mark can be no later than <span>AD<\/span> 60 or 61. This line of argument, though strong, is not decisive. In the first place, Luke cannot be dated with complete certainty. Second, the view that Matthew and Luke used Mark (the working assumption of most scholars) is only a hypothesis, and one that is vigorously opposed by some writers. Third, a tradition going back to the second century (see above) asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel <em>after<\/em> Peter’s death, no earlier than <span>AD<\/span> 64. Fourth, one persuasive view regarding the occasion of this Gospel assumes that the Neronian persecution (<span>AD<\/span> 64) had begun. (According to a different view of the occasion, Mark was written after the beginning of the Jewish revolt in <span>AD<\/span> 66.) Therefore, while a date in the early 60s remains possible, it does not require committal.<\/p>\n<p>With regard to the authorship of the second Gospel, there seems to be no compelling reason to deny Papias’s report that Mark (no doubt the John Mark of Acts 12:12) took down Peter’s reminiscences and that these became the basis of his work. Some scholars argue that the Gospel contains geographical inaccuracies (e.g., we have no evidence of a region called Dalmanutha, Mk 8:10) and that a native of Jerusalem such as Mark would have been more reliable in his information. However, the topographical problems in Mark, though real, need not be interpreted as inaccuracies (present ignorance of a place named Dalmanutha is hardly conclusive proof that it did not exist). Furthermore, in other respects (e.g., 14:54, 66) the Gospel reveals an impressive knowledge of local details. Many writers also point out bits of information that support a Petrine background, such as the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (1:30-31). In short, the internal evidence, while falling short of proof, does not at all undermine the tradition preserved by Papias. A generation ago, the trustworthiness of Papias’s testimony was almost universally accepted. This situation has changed somewhat, but even those scholars who adopt a skeptical attitude toward this tradition concede that it <em>may<\/em> be true.<\/p>\n<p>As attention turns to the provenance of the Gospel, the task becomes more difficult. Tradition going back to the second century asserts what may be already implied by Papias—namely, that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome. Although some scholars have suggested other possibilities, such as Galilee and Antioch, these have not proved satisfactory. Mark did spend some time in Rome, and some characteristics in the Gospel (such as Latinisms in the Greek and the explanation of Jewish customs, as in 7:3-4), while proving nothing, are certainly consonant with a Roman origin. Furthermore, one persuasive view of the occasion that gave rise to the Gospel assumes a background of persecution in Rome.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Distinctives\">Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>A number of characteristics of Mark set it apart from the other Gospels. For example, a word usually translated “immediately” occurs more than 40 times in Mark and only a dozen times in the rest of the NT. While this feature could be interpreted as a simple “mannerism,” consonant with Mark’s unpretentious, colloquial style, it certainly adds to the rapid flow of his narrative, which, dwelling more on Jesus’ activity than on his discourses (in contrast to Matthew and Luke), shifts from scene to scene with hardly a pause. Since the Gospel is also quite brief (Luke is nearly twice as long), one may wonder whether the author intended for it to be read at a sitting; even if read aloud, this would take only about one and a half hours. At any rate, there can be little doubt that the work conveys a sense of urgency.<\/p>\n<p>Other characteristics, however, prove more significant. Someone unfamiliar with the story of Jesus who happened to read Mark for the first time would no doubt be taken aback by its rather abrupt beginning. After a brief clause that stands as a sort of title (1:1), Mark moves on to describe in brief the ministry of John the Baptist. Then he introduces Jesus as coming from Nazareth without telling us anything whatever of his earlier life. Furthermore, over one-third of the book (including the so-called Passion narrative) is devoted to Jesus’ last week. These and other factors lend to the work a note of mystery, accentuated by the fact that at various points Mark calls attention to the fear or amazement gripping those who came in contact with Jesus (2:12; 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6; and several other passages, especially the strange words of 10:32). In addition, if one assumes that the Gospel originally ended with 16:8, Mark wished to leave his readers with the same sense of awe that the disciples experienced at Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>But how does one account for this fear and amazement? Mark’s clear answer is that Jesus, though truly a man, is also divine. While Mark’s Gospel exhibits the humanity of Jesus Christ (1:41; 3:5; 8:12; 10:14), his chief emphasis is on the Lord’s deity. Indeed, Mark introduces his book by referring to Jesus as “the Son of God” (a phrase omitted in some manuscripts, however), a position that is recognized both by the demons (3:11; 5:7) and by God himself (9:7). What may well be the true climax of the Gospel occurs at 15:39, where Mark writes that a Gentile, a Roman centurion, upon hearing Jesus’ death cry, exclaimed, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The author organized his Gospel according to a simple plan. The first eight chapters summarize the nature of Christ’s public ministry by alternating stories that show his growing popularity with stories that stress the disapproval of the Jewish leaders. This first half of the book, while indicating some of the tensions created by Jesus’ coming, gives the basic impression of success and general optimism. A significant shift then strikes the reader toward the end of chapter 8, particularly beginning with verse 31. At Caesarea Philippi, Peter has just confessed that Jesus is the Messiah, and now for the first time Jesus reveals that as Messiah he must die. The disciples become perplexed and discouraged and their pessimism mounts as this thought is brought home to them repeatedly (9:9, 31; 10:32-34; 14:17-25). In the end they desert their master (14:50).<\/p>\n<p>Interestingly, this pessimistic note is anticipated in the earlier part of the Gospel at three points: 3:6 (Jesus’ enemies plot his death); 6:6 (faithlessness in Nazareth); and 8:21 (lack of understanding in the disciples). Some scholars suggest that Mark used these three verses to indicate the first three divisions of his book. In addition, other scholars note that two healings of blind men (8:22-26; 10:46-52) seem to provide the opening and the conclusion of a section that emphasizes the spiritual blindness of the disciples. One more structural clue is 14:1, which clearly marks out the final section of the Gospel.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OccasionPurposeTheology\">Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>A few scholars think that Mark may have been combating a heretical sect that stressed the miracles of Jesus and viewed him purely as a divine wonder-worker. Although this view has not gained acceptance as originally formulated, a number of writers do see the Gospel as a theological corrective. Ralph Martin, who links Mark very closely with Paul, suggests that the evangelist is opposing some heretical groups who have distorted Paul’s message by placing exclusive stress on Christ as a <em>heavenly<\/em> figure (cf. the views that Paul himself opposes in Colossians). Mark responds to these aberrations by emphasizing, in Martin’s words, “the paradox of Jesus’ earthly life in which suffering and vindication form a two-beat rhythm.” Even if one decides that this reconstruction, too, is rather speculative, one may nevertheless retain certain elements in it as valid.<\/p>\n<p>Other scholars, such as H. Kee, place emphasis on the apocalyptic background of Mark. Kee and others tie this element to the Jewish revolt of <span>AD<\/span> 66, but commitment to this particular historical connection is unnecessary to appreciate the great significance of Mark 13 (Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse) for those original readers of the Gospel who may have been undergoing persecution.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the most satisfactory reconstruction links this Gospel to the Neronian persecution in the mid-60s. Mark, for example, is the only Gospel that records that Jesus, after being driven to the wilderness, found himself in the company of wild animals (1:13). This detail, according to William Lane, “was filled with special significance for those called to enter the arena where they stood helpless in the presence of wild beasts.” This interpretation, while not without difficulties, has the advantage of accounting for most of the available data. First, it is compatible with the strong tradition that assigns the origin of Mark’s work to Rome. Second, Mark speaks distinctly to those suffering persecution by introducing them quickly to John’s imprisonment and several other details. Third, related to this is Mark’s emphasis on discipleship. Christians facing persecution must have been tempted to relax the standards (4:17-19). Fourth, given this general situation, one can hardly doubt the significance of our Lord’s apocalyptic message in chapter 13, intended to encourage the disciples in the midst of their trials by reminding them of the glory to follow. Finally, Mark’s clear concern for the Gentile mission fits in with the needs of pagan Rome. The suffering Christians cannot afford to forget the unbelieving society in which they live. In the light of this particular responsibility, Mark assures his readers of what even the Roman centurion began to recognize—surely Jesus <em>is<\/em> the Son of God (15:39).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The development of Mark’s narrative can be presented in six major divisions within a twofold structure:<\/p>\n<li>Introduction (1:1-13)<\/li>\n<li>Part I: Popularity and Opposition (1:14–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>1. Jesus’ authority and the Pharisees’ enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/li>\n<li>2. The people’s response (3:7–6:6a)<\/li>\n<li>3. The disciples’ misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>Part II: Darkness and Death (8:22–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>4. The Messiah’s mission and the disciples’ blind-ness (8:22–10:52)<\/li>\n<li>5. Final ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/li>\n<li>6. The Passion narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>Conclusion (16:1-8)<\/li>\n<p>Although one can hardly claim that this outline corresponds exactly to the author’s original plan (Mark may not have consciously worked out a detailed outline), the sixfold division provides a useful starting point for an interpretive summary of the contents.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Authority and the Pharisees’ Enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>Immediately after the introductory portion (1:1-13), which describes John the Baptist’s ministry as well as Jesus’ baptism and temptation, Mark opens the body of the work with a summary statement (vv 14-15). In these two verses he seems to suggest that Jesus’ public ministry, characterized by the proclamation that God’s kingdom is about to be inaugurated, was occasioned by John’s imprisonment. This is followed by the call of the first disciples (vv 16-20) and then by a complex of stories (vv 21-38), all of which report incidents that took place in Capernaum, apparently within a 24-hour period: synagogue instruction followed by the healing of a demoniac; the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law; numerous other healings in the evening; prayer in a lonely place. The statement that Jesus proceeded to expand his ministry throughout the province of Galilee (v 39) is followed by the story of a leper’s cure (vv 40-45). Next are found a very important group of incidents (2:1–3:6), all of them focusing on Jesus’ conflicts with Jewish leaders: the healing and forgiveness of a paralytic; the call of Levi, whose dinner (attended by Jesus as well as by the hated tax gatherers) occasioned some disputes, particularly on the issue of fasting; and two significant stories regarding proper behavior on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<h5>The People’s Response (3:7–6:6a)<\/h5>\n<p>Mark opens this second section as he opened the first: a summary statement (Jesus’ healings by the lake—3:7-12) followed by the official appointment of 12 apostles (vv 13-19). Then follows a section that focuses on the kinds of charges brought against Jesus by his own family and by the scribes (vv 20-22), leading to a response touching on Satan, on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and on what constitutes true membership in his family (vv 23-35). Most of chapter 4 is devoted to Jesus’ parables of the kingdom—the sower, the seed growing secretly, the mustard seed—and includes statements on the nature and purpose of his teachings (4:10-12, 21-25, 33-34). In the evening Jesus and his disciples set out to cross the Sea of Galilee, leading to the stilling of the storm (vv 35-41), the healing of the Gerasene demoniac on the other side of the lake (5:1-20), and, on their return to Capernaum, the healing of a hemorrhaging woman and the raising of Jairus’s daughter (vv 21-43). The section concludes with Jesus’ visit to his hometown, Nazareth, and the rejection he suffered there (6:1-6a).<\/p>\n<h5>The Disciples’ Misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/h5>\n<p>The third section begins with two introductory passages: the sending out of the 12 (6:6b-13) and the story of John the Baptist’s death (vv 14-29). When the disciples return, Jesus determines to seek some rest, but the crowds follow them; Jesus then teaches and feeds the 5,000 (vv 30-44) and, after crossing the lake (vv 45-52, which includes Jesus’ walk over the water), he performs numerous cures in and around Gennesaret (vv 53-56). Then follows a controversy with the Pharisees regarding the hand-washing ritual (7:1-8), and this incident leads to Christ’s assertion of the authority of God’s word over human tradition (vv 9-13) and to some general instructions on true purity (vv 14-23). The next several stories describe Jesus’ withdrawal from Galilee, first to Tyre, where a gentile woman’s daughter is healed (vv 24-30), then to the Decapolis, where he cures a deaf-mute (vv 31-37) and feeds a crowd of four thousand (8:1-10). The demand of the Pharisees for a sign (vv 11-12) leads to Jesus’ warning against the “leaven” of the Pharisees, a statement misunderstood by the disciples (vv 13-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Messiah’s Mission and the Disciples’ Blindness (8:22–10:52)<\/h5>\n<p>Still away from Galilee, but now in the nearby town of Bethsaida, Jesus heals a blind man (8:22-26). He then leads his disciples north toward Caesarea Philippi, which sets the stage for Peter’s confession (vv 27-30). This recognition on the part of the disciples (of whom Peter is in effect a representative) leads Jesus to prophesy his death, but Peter’s refusal to accept the prophecy calls forth a rebuke and instruction on discipleship (vv 31-38). The failure of the disciples to understand the necessity of Christ’s death provides the background for the Transfiguration (9:1-8), which assures Peter, John, and James that God’s kingdom will indeed come (note v 1); further, the Father himself enjoins them to believe Jesus’ prophecy (v 7). After some words about the resurrection and about the coming of Elijah (vv 9-13), Mark relates the healing of a demoniac boy (vv 14-29). Back in Galilee, a second prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 30-32) is followed, sadly, by a trivial discussion among the disciples as to who is the greatest (vv 33-37). Appropriately, one finds some further instructions concerning discipleship (vv 38-50). Mark next writes that Jesus left Galilee for the last time and began his journey toward the south. During this journey, Jesus delivered teachings on divorce and on the spiritual privileges of children (10:1-16), then met the rich young ruler (vv 17-22), an incident that leads to further words on discipleship (vv 23-31). A third prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 32-34) is again followed by selfish behavior on the part of the disciples, in this case an ambitious request from James and John (vv 35-40). The incident produces indignation among the rest of the disciples, thus necessitating another rebuke from their master, who himself came to serve and to die (vv 41-45). The section ends as it began—by reporting the cure of a blind man, Bartimaeus of Jericho in this story (vv 46-52).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/h5>\n<p>This section seems naturally to divide into three balanced subsections. The first one (11:1-26) includes three events: the Triumphal Entry, the withering of the fig tree, and the cleansing of the temple. The second subsection (11:27–12:44) is particularly important, for here is found Jesus’ final series of controversies with the Jewish leaders. The topics covered are the source of Jesus’ authority (11:27-33), the parable of the wicked husbandmen (12:1-12), the legitimacy of Caesar’s tax (vv 13-17), the Sadducees’ denial of resurrection (vv 18-27), the chief commandment (vv 28-34), and the question regarding David’s son (vv 35-37). This subsection ends with a warning against the scribes and with the story of the widow’s mite (vv 38-44). The third subsection (ch 13) is devoted completely to the Olivet discourse, with its prophecies of destruction, calamities, persecutions, deceivers, and final vindication. The discourse ends with various admonitions to keep alert.<\/p>\n<h5>The Passion Narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/h5>\n<p>This final section, which is introduced by a report of the priests’ plot (14:1-2), may be divided into two subsections. The first one relates the events leading up to Jesus’ trial (vv 3-52). They include the anointing of Jesus (vv 3-9), Judas’s betrayal (vv 10-11), the incidents connected with the Last Supper (vv 12-31), the scene at Gethsemane (vv 32-42), and the arrest (vv 43-52). The second subsection relates Jesus’ trial before the Jews (vv 53-65), Peter’s denials (vv 66-72), the trial before Pilate (15:1-15), the crucifixion (vv 16-41), and the burial (vv 42-47).<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel concludes somewhat mysteriously, but no less triumphantly, with the news that Jesus has risen from the dead (16:1-8). The earliest surviving Greek manuscripts, usually regarded as the most reliable, end at verse 8; the majority of manuscripts, however, include an additional 12 verses that report Jesus’ appearances to his disciples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Mark, John; Matthew, Gospel of; Luke, Gospel of; Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MARK, Gospel of Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between AD 60 and 68. Preview • Author, Date, Provenance • Distinctives • Structure • Occasion, Purpose, Theology • Content Author, Date, Provenance Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, alt...","summary_en":"MARK, Gospel of Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between AD 60 and 68. Preview • Author, Date, Provenance • Distinctives • Structure • Occasion, Purpose, Theology • Content Author, Date, Provenance Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, alt...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"7":[{"id":15614,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Healing Heal","title_en":"Healing Heal","content_ro":"<h3>HEAL, HEALING<\/h3>\n<p>To make well. The OT provides the proper background for a Christian understanding of the concept of healing. In the OT the basic point is made that God is the healer of his people. In Exodus 15:22-26, after God has delivered his people from Egypt, led them through the sea, and sweetened the water at Marah, he speaks of himself as their “healer.” This refers primarily to physical sustenance, but it points to the more encompassing concept of God sustaining his people in an eternal relationship with himself. In a similar manner, Deuteronomy 32:39 speaks of God as the one who heals. The context in Deuteronomy implies that this healing power derives from the fact that God is God. This concept of God as the healer is echoed throughout the OT by the psalmists (Pss 6:2; 41:4; 103:3) and prophets (Is 19:22; Jer 17:14; Hos 7:1; Zec 11:16).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesustheHealerAccountsintheGospels\">Jesus the Healer: Accounts in the Gospels<\/p>\n<p>The NT significantly emphasizes Jesus as the healer. Mark portrays him as a teacher and healer in his opening account of Jesus’ ministry in Capernaum with the healing of the demoniac, Peter’s mother-in-law, the sick brought to him in the evening, and the leper (Mk 1:21-45). Indeed, healing sickness and casting out demons characterize Jesus’ ministry. Mark presents in rapid succession Jesus’ healing of the paralytic (2:1-12), the man with the withered hand (3:1-6), the multitudes by the sea (vv 7-12), the Gerasene demoniac (5:1-20), the woman with a hemorrhage, and Jairus’s daughter (vv 21-43). Jesus then commissioned the Twelve to proclaim repentance, to cast out demons, and to heal the sick (6:7-13). He himself continued with healings at Gennesaret (vv 53-56), casting out the unclean spirit from the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman (7:24-30), healing the deaf and mute man (vv 31-37), the blind man of Bethsaida (8:22-26), the boy possessed with an evil spirit (9:14-20), and blind Bartimaeus (10:46-52).<\/p>\n<p>Certainly healing is an important aspect of Jesus’ ministry. The healings expressed not only his compassion for those suffering but also constituted a revelation of his person. This is brought out by the climactic statement of Jesus in healing the paralytic: “that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Mk 2:10, <span>rsv<\/span>). It also seems that Mark intended his readers to understand that the healing of the deaf and mute man (7:31-37) and the blind man of Bethsaida (8:22-26) symbolize the awakening of spiritual understanding in the disciples of who Jesus is. It is also significant that Mark has placed the healing of Bartimaeus (10:46-52) immediately after Jesus’ third announcement of his own coming death (vv 32-34) and the disciples’ third failure to understand that his being the Messiah entailed the necessity of suffering (vv 35-45).<\/p>\n<p>Matthew also portrays Jesus as teaching, preaching, and healing (Mt 4:23-25), and parallels the accounts in Mark, except for the healing of the demoniac in the synagogue (Mk 1:23-28) and the blind man of Bethsaida (8:22-26). However, according to his special purpose and structure, Matthew has placed many of Jesus’ healings together in a “mighty works” section (Mt 8–9), complementing the “great words” (“sermon”) section (chs 5–7). Matthew views Jesus’ healings as directly fulfilling the OT, as he states in 8:17. The unique way in which the healings of 8:16 are spoken of as fulfilling Isaiah 53:4 seems to indicate that Jesus’ power over sickness derives in some way from his death for sin, which was to be accomplished at the end of his ministry.<\/p>\n<p>It is also interesting that Matthew, in relating Jesus’ healing of the multitudes by the sea (Mt 12:15-21; cf. Mk 3:7-12), cites Isaiah 42:1-4. This OT passage speaks of God’s servant anointed with the Spirit to proclaim justice to the nations. As used by Matthew, the quotation explains why Jesus commanded those healed not to make him known. Jesus did not want too much publicity about himself to thwart God’s plan for him as the Suffering Servant who was to bring salvation to the nations. This action demonstrates that Jesus’ healings are revelations of his person. Again another quotation from Isaiah (6:9-10) in Matthew 13:14-15 brings out the fact that healing is understood primarily in the spiritual sense of hearing Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n<p>Luke, like Matthew and Mark, portrays Jesus preaching and healing. After the account of the birth of John and Jesus and the ministry of John the Baptist, Luke presents Jesus preaching in Nazareth (Lk 4:16-30). Here, in the synagogue of his hometown, Jesus himself, using a quotation from Isaiah 61:1-2, affirms that the Spirit has anointed him to proclaim good news and to announce release for the captives and a recovery of sight for the blind (Lk 4:18). The healing aspect of Jesus’ ministry occupies an important place in the rest of the book of Luke. Indeed, Luke has all the healing incidents noted by Mark, except for those in Mark 6:45–8:26. However, Luke’s opening scene in Nazareth seems to underscore that Jesus’ healing is to be understood, not as merely expressing Jesus’ compassion for the needy, but primarily as a sign of the arrival of the kingdom of God as promised in the Scriptures.<\/p>\n<p>This emphasis may be seen in the distinctively Lukan account of the commissioning of the 72 disciples (Lk 10:1-12), where Jesus instructs them to heal the sick in any city they enter and announce to the people there that the kingdom of God has come near to them (vv 8-9).<\/p>\n<p>The first three Gospels take up the OT understanding of God as the healer of his people and see this as fulfilled in Jesus. This fulfillment signifies the presence of God’s reign in the ministry of Jesus and points to him as the one through whom God is at work in the midst of his people.<\/p>\n<p>John’s Gospel has only four healing incidents: the official’s son (Jn 4:46-54), the man ill for 38 years (5:1-18), the man born blind (ch 9), and the climactic raising of Lazarus (11:1-44). The special purpose and structure of this Gospel indicate that these incidents are carefully related to the accompanying discourses and are clearly intended as signs revealing the person of Jesus. The heightened emphasis on healings as revelatory signs in this Gospel confirms the similar intention in the first three Gospels.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HealingsDonebytheApostles\">Healings Done by the Apostles<\/p>\n<p>The Acts of the Apostles tells of the continuation of Jesus’ ministry through the Spirit at work in his disciples. The primary focus in Acts is on proclamation, as 1:8 indicates. However, the healing of the lame beggar in Jerusalem indicates that the disciples were able to exercise the power of healing in the name of Jesus (3:1-16; 4:8-16). The healing is clearly intended to point to and glorify the person of Jesus and lead to faith in him (3:12-26). The balanced, twofold ministry of the disciples may be seen in the prayer of 4:29-30: “O Lord, hear their threats, and give your servants great boldness in their preaching. Send your healing power; may miraculous signs and wonders be done through the name of your holy servant Jesus” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The ministry of Philip in Samaria was devoted to proclaiming Christ (Acts 8:5) and healing the sick and those with unclean spirits (v 7). Peter heals Aeneas and raises Tabitha (9:34, 40), and in each case the effects are that many believe in the Lord (vv 35, 42). Paul is also described as preaching the gospel (17:2-3), healing (14:8-11; 28:8), casting out spirits (16:18), and raising a dead man (20:9-10).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HealingsintheChurchAge\">Healings in the Church Age<\/p>\n<p>The letters of the NT say little about healing. First Corinthians speaks of the gifts of healing (1 Cor 12:9, 28). The implication is that such gifts are intended to be part of the ministry of the church, but the context indicates that not all are given such gifts (v 30) and that it is God who sovereignly distributes gifts for the good of the body. James indicates that a believer who is ill should request the church to pray for his healing (Jas 5:14-16; cf. Heb 12:13). The clear implication is that God is willing and able to minister to his people for healing today.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HEAL, HEALING<\/h3>\n<p>To make well. The OT provides the proper background for a Christian understanding of the concept of healing. In the OT the basic point is made that God is the healer of his people. In Exodus 15:22-26, after God has delivered his people from Egypt, led them through the sea, and sweetened the water at Marah, he speaks of himself as their “healer.” This refers primarily to physical sustenance, but it points to the more encompassing concept of God sustaining his people in an eternal relationship with himself. In a similar manner, Deuteronomy 32:39 speaks of God as the one who heals. The context in Deuteronomy implies that this healing power derives from the fact that God is God. This concept of God as the healer is echoed throughout the OT by the psalmists (Pss 6:2; 41:4; 103:3) and prophets (Is 19:22; Jer 17:14; Hos 7:1; Zec 11:16).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesustheHealerAccountsintheGospels\">Jesus the Healer: Accounts in the Gospels<\/p>\n<p>The NT significantly emphasizes Jesus as the healer. Mark portrays him as a teacher and healer in his opening account of Jesus’ ministry in Capernaum with the healing of the demoniac, Peter’s mother-in-law, the sick brought to him in the evening, and the leper (Mk 1:21-45). Indeed, healing sickness and casting out demons characterize Jesus’ ministry. Mark presents in rapid succession Jesus’ healing of the paralytic (2:1-12), the man with the withered hand (3:1-6), the multitudes by the sea (vv 7-12), the Gerasene demoniac (5:1-20), the woman with a hemorrhage, and Jairus’s daughter (vv 21-43). Jesus then commissioned the Twelve to proclaim repentance, to cast out demons, and to heal the sick (6:7-13). He himself continued with healings at Gennesaret (vv 53-56), casting out the unclean spirit from the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman (7:24-30), healing the deaf and mute man (vv 31-37), the blind man of Bethsaida (8:22-26), the boy possessed with an evil spirit (9:14-20), and blind Bartimaeus (10:46-52).<\/p>\n<p>Certainly healing is an important aspect of Jesus’ ministry. The healings expressed not only his compassion for those suffering but also constituted a revelation of his person. This is brought out by the climactic statement of Jesus in healing the paralytic: “that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Mk 2:10, <span>rsv<\/span>). It also seems that Mark intended his readers to understand that the healing of the deaf and mute man (7:31-37) and the blind man of Bethsaida (8:22-26) symbolize the awakening of spiritual understanding in the disciples of who Jesus is. It is also significant that Mark has placed the healing of Bartimaeus (10:46-52) immediately after Jesus’ third announcement of his own coming death (vv 32-34) and the disciples’ third failure to understand that his being the Messiah entailed the necessity of suffering (vv 35-45).<\/p>\n<p>Matthew also portrays Jesus as teaching, preaching, and healing (Mt 4:23-25), and parallels the accounts in Mark, except for the healing of the demoniac in the synagogue (Mk 1:23-28) and the blind man of Bethsaida (8:22-26). However, according to his special purpose and structure, Matthew has placed many of Jesus’ healings together in a “mighty works” section (Mt 8–9), complementing the “great words” (“sermon”) section (chs 5–7). Matthew views Jesus’ healings as directly fulfilling the OT, as he states in 8:17. The unique way in which the healings of 8:16 are spoken of as fulfilling Isaiah 53:4 seems to indicate that Jesus’ power over sickness derives in some way from his death for sin, which was to be accomplished at the end of his ministry.<\/p>\n<p>It is also interesting that Matthew, in relating Jesus’ healing of the multitudes by the sea (Mt 12:15-21; cf. Mk 3:7-12), cites Isaiah 42:1-4. This OT passage speaks of God’s servant anointed with the Spirit to proclaim justice to the nations. As used by Matthew, the quotation explains why Jesus commanded those healed not to make him known. Jesus did not want too much publicity about himself to thwart God’s plan for him as the Suffering Servant who was to bring salvation to the nations. This action demonstrates that Jesus’ healings are revelations of his person. Again another quotation from Isaiah (6:9-10) in Matthew 13:14-15 brings out the fact that healing is understood primarily in the spiritual sense of hearing Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n<p>Luke, like Matthew and Mark, portrays Jesus preaching and healing. After the account of the birth of John and Jesus and the ministry of John the Baptist, Luke presents Jesus preaching in Nazareth (Lk 4:16-30). Here, in the synagogue of his hometown, Jesus himself, using a quotation from Isaiah 61:1-2, affirms that the Spirit has anointed him to proclaim good news and to announce release for the captives and a recovery of sight for the blind (Lk 4:18). The healing aspect of Jesus’ ministry occupies an important place in the rest of the book of Luke. Indeed, Luke has all the healing incidents noted by Mark, except for those in Mark 6:45–8:26. However, Luke’s opening scene in Nazareth seems to underscore that Jesus’ healing is to be understood, not as merely expressing Jesus’ compassion for the needy, but primarily as a sign of the arrival of the kingdom of God as promised in the Scriptures.<\/p>\n<p>This emphasis may be seen in the distinctively Lukan account of the commissioning of the 72 disciples (Lk 10:1-12), where Jesus instructs them to heal the sick in any city they enter and announce to the people there that the kingdom of God has come near to them (vv 8-9).<\/p>\n<p>The first three Gospels take up the OT understanding of God as the healer of his people and see this as fulfilled in Jesus. This fulfillment signifies the presence of God’s reign in the ministry of Jesus and points to him as the one through whom God is at work in the midst of his people.<\/p>\n<p>John’s Gospel has only four healing incidents: the official’s son (Jn 4:46-54), the man ill for 38 years (5:1-18), the man born blind (ch 9), and the climactic raising of Lazarus (11:1-44). The special purpose and structure of this Gospel indicate that these incidents are carefully related to the accompanying discourses and are clearly intended as signs revealing the person of Jesus. The heightened emphasis on healings as revelatory signs in this Gospel confirms the similar intention in the first three Gospels.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HealingsDonebytheApostles\">Healings Done by the Apostles<\/p>\n<p>The Acts of the Apostles tells of the continuation of Jesus’ ministry through the Spirit at work in his disciples. The primary focus in Acts is on proclamation, as 1:8 indicates. However, the healing of the lame beggar in Jerusalem indicates that the disciples were able to exercise the power of healing in the name of Jesus (3:1-16; 4:8-16). The healing is clearly intended to point to and glorify the person of Jesus and lead to faith in him (3:12-26). The balanced, twofold ministry of the disciples may be seen in the prayer of 4:29-30: “O Lord, hear their threats, and give your servants great boldness in their preaching. Send your healing power; may miraculous signs and wonders be done through the name of your holy servant Jesus” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The ministry of Philip in Samaria was devoted to proclaiming Christ (Acts 8:5) and healing the sick and those with unclean spirits (v 7). Peter heals Aeneas and raises Tabitha (9:34, 40), and in each case the effects are that many believe in the Lord (vv 35, 42). Paul is also described as preaching the gospel (17:2-3), healing (14:8-11; 28:8), casting out spirits (16:18), and raising a dead man (20:9-10).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HealingsintheChurchAge\">Healings in the Church Age<\/p>\n<p>The letters of the NT say little about healing. First Corinthians speaks of the gifts of healing (1 Cor 12:9, 28). The implication is that such gifts are intended to be part of the ministry of the church, but the context indicates that not all are given such gifts (v 30) and that it is God who sovereignly distributes gifts for the good of the body. James indicates that a believer who is ill should request the church to pray for his healing (Jas 5:14-16; cf. Heb 12:13). The clear implication is that God is willing and able to minister to his people for healing today.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HEAL, HEALING To make well. The OT provides the proper background for a Christian understanding of the concept of healing. In the OT the basic point is made that God is the healer of his people. In Exodus 15:22-26, after God has delivered his people from Egypt, led them through the sea, and sweetened the water at Marah, he speaks of himself as their “healer.” This refers primarily to physical sustenance, but it points to the more encompassing concept of God sustaining his people in an eternal...","summary_en":"HEAL, HEALING To make well. The OT provides the proper background for a Christian understanding of the concept of healing. In the OT the basic point is made that God is the healer of his people. In Exodus 15:22-26, after God has delivered his people from Egypt, led them through the sea, and sweetened the water at Marah, he speaks of himself as their “healer.” This refers primarily to physical sustenance, but it points to the more encompassing concept of God sustaining his people in an eternal...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":19465,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jesus Christ","title_en":"Jesus Christ","content_ro":"<h3>JESUS CHRIST<\/h3>\n<p>Messiah, Savior, and founder of the Christian church.<\/p>\n<p>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 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Incarnation<\/p>\n<p>• The Birth of Jesus<\/p>\n<p>• Life in Nazareth<\/p>\n<p>• Preparatory Events<\/p>\n<p>• The Early Ministry of Jesus in Judea and Samaria<\/p>\n<p>• The Period of the Galilean Ministry<\/p>\n<p>• On the Way to Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>• The Final Days in Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>• The Betrayal and Arrest<\/p>\n<p>• The Trial<\/p>\n<p>• The Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p>• The Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheIncarnation\">The Incarnation<\/p>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>It 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBirthofJesus\">The Birth of Jesus<\/p>\n<p>John 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>\n<p>One 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>\n<p>Luke 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LifeinNazareth\">Life in Nazareth<\/p>\n<p>The 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PreparatoryEvents\">Preparatory Events<\/p>\n<p>All 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>\n<p>John 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>\n<p>John’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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Jesus’ 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheEarlyMinistryofJesusinJudeaandSamaria\">The Early Ministry of Jesus in Judea and Samaria<\/p>\n<p>Only 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>\n<p>Soon 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>\n<p>John 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>John’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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePeriodoftheGalileanMinistry\">The Period of the Galilean Ministry<\/p>\n\n<p>Almost 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>Another 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Throughout 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>Jesus 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>For 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>\n<p>Jesus 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>\n<p>A 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Another 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>\n<p>John 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>\n<p>Matthew’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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>At 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>\n<p>Jesus 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>\n<p>This 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>\n<p>After 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>\n<p>After 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>\n<p>Luke 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OntheWaytoJerusalem\">On the Way to Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>On 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\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheFinalDaysinJerusalem\">The Final Days in Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>All 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>It 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>\n<p>Nearing 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>\n<p>When 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>\n<p>John’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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBetrayalandArrest\">The Betrayal and Arrest<\/p>\n<p>There 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTrial\">The Trial<\/p>\n<p>Jesus 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>\n<p>The 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\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheCrucifixion\">The Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p>The 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBurialResurrectionandAscension\">The Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ 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>\n<p>We 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>\n<p>Messiah, Savior, and founder of the Christian church.<\/p>\n<p>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 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Incarnation<\/p>\n<p>• The Birth of Jesus<\/p>\n<p>• Life in Nazareth<\/p>\n<p>• Preparatory Events<\/p>\n<p>• The Early Ministry of Jesus in Judea and Samaria<\/p>\n<p>• The Period of the Galilean Ministry<\/p>\n<p>• On the Way to Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>• The Final Days in Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>• The Betrayal and Arrest<\/p>\n<p>• The Trial<\/p>\n<p>• The Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p>• The Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheIncarnation\">The Incarnation<\/p>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>It 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBirthofJesus\">The Birth of Jesus<\/p>\n<p>John 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>\n<p>One 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>\n<p>Luke 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LifeinNazareth\">Life in Nazareth<\/p>\n<p>The 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PreparatoryEvents\">Preparatory Events<\/p>\n<p>All 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>\n<p>John 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>\n<p>John’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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Jesus’ 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheEarlyMinistryofJesusinJudeaandSamaria\">The Early Ministry of Jesus in Judea and Samaria<\/p>\n<p>Only 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>\n<p>Soon 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>\n<p>John 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>John’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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePeriodoftheGalileanMinistry\">The Period of the Galilean Ministry<\/p>\n\n<p>Almost 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>Another 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Throughout 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>Jesus 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>For 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>\n<p>Jesus 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>\n<p>A 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Another 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>\n<p>John 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>\n<p>Matthew’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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>At 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>\n<p>Jesus 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>\n<p>This 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>\n<p>After 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>\n<p>After 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>\n<p>Luke 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OntheWaytoJerusalem\">On the Way to Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>On 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\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheFinalDaysinJerusalem\">The Final Days in Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>All 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>It 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>\n<p>Nearing 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>\n<p>When 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>\n<p>John’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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBetrayalandArrest\">The Betrayal and Arrest<\/p>\n<p>There 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTrial\">The Trial<\/p>\n<p>Jesus 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>\n<p>The 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\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheCrucifixion\">The Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p>The 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBurialResurrectionandAscension\">The Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ 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>\n<p>We 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":24355,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gospel of Mark","title_en":"Gospel of Mark","content_ro":"<h3>MARK, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between <span>AD<\/span> 60 and 68.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorDateProvenance\">Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, although this is by no means certain). At one point Papias states, “The Elder used to say this also: Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that [Peter] remembered concerning the things both said and done by the Lord.” (This quotation was preserved by the fourth-century writer Eusebius of Caesarea in his <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 3.39.15.) One need not doubt the basic reliability of this statement. Mark—almost surely to be identified with the John Mark of Acts 12:12 (see also 1 Pt 5:13)—was a disciple of Peter, and the second Gospel owes its existence, at least in part, to the apostle’s reminiscences. It does not follow, however, that one has adequately characterized Mark’s work if that is all one says. For instance, Papias’s qualification, “though not in order,” indicates that Mark did not intend to write a chronological biography. Furthermore, Papias goes on to comment (according to one interpretation of his ambiguous words) that Mark (or Peter?) adapted the material to the teaching situation and that therefore Mark is absolved from any (implied) charges of inaccuracy. It appears that from the earliest times Christians appealed to the purposes and circumstances of Mark’s writing in order to account for difficulties in harmonizing the material found in the various Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Other statements from Christian writers in the second, third, and fourth centuries seem dependent on Papias’s testimony, but some additional data they provide may possess independent value. For example, a fairly early document (date uncertain) known as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel somewhere in Italy after Peter’s death (in the mid-60s), and this testimony is considered reliable by many scholars. Still, the possibility that Mark composed his work before Peter’s martyrdom cannot be ruled out completely.<\/p>\n<p>Papias says nothing specific about <em>when<\/em> the Gospel was written. A small minority of scholars date Mark shortly after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Another minority suggest a date in the 40s or 50s on the basis of a papyrus fragment discovered in Qumran called 7Q5. (According to José O’Callaghan, the fragment, which has been dated about <span>AD<\/span> 50–68, should be identified as Mark 6:52-53.) This fragment contains only 20 letters on one side, making the Markan reconstruction very uncertain. Few scholars are convinced that the text is Mark; some think it is part of 1 Enoch or Zechariah. An impressive majority of scholars date Mark in the 60s, with conservatives usually preferring the early years of the decade. Why this preference? If the theory of Markan priority is accepted, then clearly Mark was written before Luke; and since Luke is normally dated by conservatives about <span>AD<\/span> 62, Mark can be no later than <span>AD<\/span> 60 or 61. This line of argument, though strong, is not decisive. In the first place, Luke cannot be dated with complete certainty. Second, the view that Matthew and Luke used Mark (the working assumption of most scholars) is only a hypothesis, and one that is vigorously opposed by some writers. Third, a tradition going back to the second century (see above) asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel <em>after<\/em> Peter’s death, no earlier than <span>AD<\/span> 64. Fourth, one persuasive view regarding the occasion of this Gospel assumes that the Neronian persecution (<span>AD<\/span> 64) had begun. (According to a different view of the occasion, Mark was written after the beginning of the Jewish revolt in <span>AD<\/span> 66.) Therefore, while a date in the early 60s remains possible, it does not require committal.<\/p>\n<p>With regard to the authorship of the second Gospel, there seems to be no compelling reason to deny Papias’s report that Mark (no doubt the John Mark of Acts 12:12) took down Peter’s reminiscences and that these became the basis of his work. Some scholars argue that the Gospel contains geographical inaccuracies (e.g., we have no evidence of a region called Dalmanutha, Mk 8:10) and that a native of Jerusalem such as Mark would have been more reliable in his information. However, the topographical problems in Mark, though real, need not be interpreted as inaccuracies (present ignorance of a place named Dalmanutha is hardly conclusive proof that it did not exist). Furthermore, in other respects (e.g., 14:54, 66) the Gospel reveals an impressive knowledge of local details. Many writers also point out bits of information that support a Petrine background, such as the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (1:30-31). In short, the internal evidence, while falling short of proof, does not at all undermine the tradition preserved by Papias. A generation ago, the trustworthiness of Papias’s testimony was almost universally accepted. This situation has changed somewhat, but even those scholars who adopt a skeptical attitude toward this tradition concede that it <em>may<\/em> be true.<\/p>\n<p>As attention turns to the provenance of the Gospel, the task becomes more difficult. Tradition going back to the second century asserts what may be already implied by Papias—namely, that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome. Although some scholars have suggested other possibilities, such as Galilee and Antioch, these have not proved satisfactory. Mark did spend some time in Rome, and some characteristics in the Gospel (such as Latinisms in the Greek and the explanation of Jewish customs, as in 7:3-4), while proving nothing, are certainly consonant with a Roman origin. Furthermore, one persuasive view of the occasion that gave rise to the Gospel assumes a background of persecution in Rome.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Distinctives\">Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>A number of characteristics of Mark set it apart from the other Gospels. For example, a word usually translated “immediately” occurs more than 40 times in Mark and only a dozen times in the rest of the NT. While this feature could be interpreted as a simple “mannerism,” consonant with Mark’s unpretentious, colloquial style, it certainly adds to the rapid flow of his narrative, which, dwelling more on Jesus’ activity than on his discourses (in contrast to Matthew and Luke), shifts from scene to scene with hardly a pause. Since the Gospel is also quite brief (Luke is nearly twice as long), one may wonder whether the author intended for it to be read at a sitting; even if read aloud, this would take only about one and a half hours. At any rate, there can be little doubt that the work conveys a sense of urgency.<\/p>\n<p>Other characteristics, however, prove more significant. Someone unfamiliar with the story of Jesus who happened to read Mark for the first time would no doubt be taken aback by its rather abrupt beginning. After a brief clause that stands as a sort of title (1:1), Mark moves on to describe in brief the ministry of John the Baptist. Then he introduces Jesus as coming from Nazareth without telling us anything whatever of his earlier life. Furthermore, over one-third of the book (including the so-called Passion narrative) is devoted to Jesus’ last week. These and other factors lend to the work a note of mystery, accentuated by the fact that at various points Mark calls attention to the fear or amazement gripping those who came in contact with Jesus (2:12; 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6; and several other passages, especially the strange words of 10:32). In addition, if one assumes that the Gospel originally ended with 16:8, Mark wished to leave his readers with the same sense of awe that the disciples experienced at Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>But how does one account for this fear and amazement? Mark’s clear answer is that Jesus, though truly a man, is also divine. While Mark’s Gospel exhibits the humanity of Jesus Christ (1:41; 3:5; 8:12; 10:14), his chief emphasis is on the Lord’s deity. Indeed, Mark introduces his book by referring to Jesus as “the Son of God” (a phrase omitted in some manuscripts, however), a position that is recognized both by the demons (3:11; 5:7) and by God himself (9:7). What may well be the true climax of the Gospel occurs at 15:39, where Mark writes that a Gentile, a Roman centurion, upon hearing Jesus’ death cry, exclaimed, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The author organized his Gospel according to a simple plan. The first eight chapters summarize the nature of Christ’s public ministry by alternating stories that show his growing popularity with stories that stress the disapproval of the Jewish leaders. This first half of the book, while indicating some of the tensions created by Jesus’ coming, gives the basic impression of success and general optimism. A significant shift then strikes the reader toward the end of chapter 8, particularly beginning with verse 31. At Caesarea Philippi, Peter has just confessed that Jesus is the Messiah, and now for the first time Jesus reveals that as Messiah he must die. The disciples become perplexed and discouraged and their pessimism mounts as this thought is brought home to them repeatedly (9:9, 31; 10:32-34; 14:17-25). In the end they desert their master (14:50).<\/p>\n<p>Interestingly, this pessimistic note is anticipated in the earlier part of the Gospel at three points: 3:6 (Jesus’ enemies plot his death); 6:6 (faithlessness in Nazareth); and 8:21 (lack of understanding in the disciples). Some scholars suggest that Mark used these three verses to indicate the first three divisions of his book. In addition, other scholars note that two healings of blind men (8:22-26; 10:46-52) seem to provide the opening and the conclusion of a section that emphasizes the spiritual blindness of the disciples. One more structural clue is 14:1, which clearly marks out the final section of the Gospel.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OccasionPurposeTheology\">Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>A few scholars think that Mark may have been combating a heretical sect that stressed the miracles of Jesus and viewed him purely as a divine wonder-worker. Although this view has not gained acceptance as originally formulated, a number of writers do see the Gospel as a theological corrective. Ralph Martin, who links Mark very closely with Paul, suggests that the evangelist is opposing some heretical groups who have distorted Paul’s message by placing exclusive stress on Christ as a <em>heavenly<\/em> figure (cf. the views that Paul himself opposes in Colossians). Mark responds to these aberrations by emphasizing, in Martin’s words, “the paradox of Jesus’ earthly life in which suffering and vindication form a two-beat rhythm.” Even if one decides that this reconstruction, too, is rather speculative, one may nevertheless retain certain elements in it as valid.<\/p>\n<p>Other scholars, such as H. Kee, place emphasis on the apocalyptic background of Mark. Kee and others tie this element to the Jewish revolt of <span>AD<\/span> 66, but commitment to this particular historical connection is unnecessary to appreciate the great significance of Mark 13 (Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse) for those original readers of the Gospel who may have been undergoing persecution.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the most satisfactory reconstruction links this Gospel to the Neronian persecution in the mid-60s. Mark, for example, is the only Gospel that records that Jesus, after being driven to the wilderness, found himself in the company of wild animals (1:13). This detail, according to William Lane, “was filled with special significance for those called to enter the arena where they stood helpless in the presence of wild beasts.” This interpretation, while not without difficulties, has the advantage of accounting for most of the available data. First, it is compatible with the strong tradition that assigns the origin of Mark’s work to Rome. Second, Mark speaks distinctly to those suffering persecution by introducing them quickly to John’s imprisonment and several other details. Third, related to this is Mark’s emphasis on discipleship. Christians facing persecution must have been tempted to relax the standards (4:17-19). Fourth, given this general situation, one can hardly doubt the significance of our Lord’s apocalyptic message in chapter 13, intended to encourage the disciples in the midst of their trials by reminding them of the glory to follow. Finally, Mark’s clear concern for the Gentile mission fits in with the needs of pagan Rome. The suffering Christians cannot afford to forget the unbelieving society in which they live. In the light of this particular responsibility, Mark assures his readers of what even the Roman centurion began to recognize—surely Jesus <em>is<\/em> the Son of God (15:39).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The development of Mark’s narrative can be presented in six major divisions within a twofold structure:<\/p>\n<li>Introduction (1:1-13)<\/li>\n<li>Part I: Popularity and Opposition (1:14–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>1. Jesus’ authority and the Pharisees’ enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/li>\n<li>2. The people’s response (3:7–6:6a)<\/li>\n<li>3. The disciples’ misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>Part II: Darkness and Death (8:22–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>4. The Messiah’s mission and the disciples’ blind-ness (8:22–10:52)<\/li>\n<li>5. Final ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/li>\n<li>6. The Passion narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>Conclusion (16:1-8)<\/li>\n<p>Although one can hardly claim that this outline corresponds exactly to the author’s original plan (Mark may not have consciously worked out a detailed outline), the sixfold division provides a useful starting point for an interpretive summary of the contents.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Authority and the Pharisees’ Enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>Immediately after the introductory portion (1:1-13), which describes John the Baptist’s ministry as well as Jesus’ baptism and temptation, Mark opens the body of the work with a summary statement (vv 14-15). In these two verses he seems to suggest that Jesus’ public ministry, characterized by the proclamation that God’s kingdom is about to be inaugurated, was occasioned by John’s imprisonment. This is followed by the call of the first disciples (vv 16-20) and then by a complex of stories (vv 21-38), all of which report incidents that took place in Capernaum, apparently within a 24-hour period: synagogue instruction followed by the healing of a demoniac; the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law; numerous other healings in the evening; prayer in a lonely place. The statement that Jesus proceeded to expand his ministry throughout the province of Galilee (v 39) is followed by the story of a leper’s cure (vv 40-45). Next are found a very important group of incidents (2:1–3:6), all of them focusing on Jesus’ conflicts with Jewish leaders: the healing and forgiveness of a paralytic; the call of Levi, whose dinner (attended by Jesus as well as by the hated tax gatherers) occasioned some disputes, particularly on the issue of fasting; and two significant stories regarding proper behavior on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<h5>The People’s Response (3:7–6:6a)<\/h5>\n<p>Mark opens this second section as he opened the first: a summary statement (Jesus’ healings by the lake—3:7-12) followed by the official appointment of 12 apostles (vv 13-19). Then follows a section that focuses on the kinds of charges brought against Jesus by his own family and by the scribes (vv 20-22), leading to a response touching on Satan, on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and on what constitutes true membership in his family (vv 23-35). Most of chapter 4 is devoted to Jesus’ parables of the kingdom—the sower, the seed growing secretly, the mustard seed—and includes statements on the nature and purpose of his teachings (4:10-12, 21-25, 33-34). In the evening Jesus and his disciples set out to cross the Sea of Galilee, leading to the stilling of the storm (vv 35-41), the healing of the Gerasene demoniac on the other side of the lake (5:1-20), and, on their return to Capernaum, the healing of a hemorrhaging woman and the raising of Jairus’s daughter (vv 21-43). The section concludes with Jesus’ visit to his hometown, Nazareth, and the rejection he suffered there (6:1-6a).<\/p>\n<h5>The Disciples’ Misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/h5>\n<p>The third section begins with two introductory passages: the sending out of the 12 (6:6b-13) and the story of John the Baptist’s death (vv 14-29). When the disciples return, Jesus determines to seek some rest, but the crowds follow them; Jesus then teaches and feeds the 5,000 (vv 30-44) and, after crossing the lake (vv 45-52, which includes Jesus’ walk over the water), he performs numerous cures in and around Gennesaret (vv 53-56). Then follows a controversy with the Pharisees regarding the hand-washing ritual (7:1-8), and this incident leads to Christ’s assertion of the authority of God’s word over human tradition (vv 9-13) and to some general instructions on true purity (vv 14-23). The next several stories describe Jesus’ withdrawal from Galilee, first to Tyre, where a gentile woman’s daughter is healed (vv 24-30), then to the Decapolis, where he cures a deaf-mute (vv 31-37) and feeds a crowd of four thousand (8:1-10). The demand of the Pharisees for a sign (vv 11-12) leads to Jesus’ warning against the “leaven” of the Pharisees, a statement misunderstood by the disciples (vv 13-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Messiah’s Mission and the Disciples’ Blindness (8:22–10:52)<\/h5>\n<p>Still away from Galilee, but now in the nearby town of Bethsaida, Jesus heals a blind man (8:22-26). He then leads his disciples north toward Caesarea Philippi, which sets the stage for Peter’s confession (vv 27-30). This recognition on the part of the disciples (of whom Peter is in effect a representative) leads Jesus to prophesy his death, but Peter’s refusal to accept the prophecy calls forth a rebuke and instruction on discipleship (vv 31-38). The failure of the disciples to understand the necessity of Christ’s death provides the background for the Transfiguration (9:1-8), which assures Peter, John, and James that God’s kingdom will indeed come (note v 1); further, the Father himself enjoins them to believe Jesus’ prophecy (v 7). After some words about the resurrection and about the coming of Elijah (vv 9-13), Mark relates the healing of a demoniac boy (vv 14-29). Back in Galilee, a second prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 30-32) is followed, sadly, by a trivial discussion among the disciples as to who is the greatest (vv 33-37). Appropriately, one finds some further instructions concerning discipleship (vv 38-50). Mark next writes that Jesus left Galilee for the last time and began his journey toward the south. During this journey, Jesus delivered teachings on divorce and on the spiritual privileges of children (10:1-16), then met the rich young ruler (vv 17-22), an incident that leads to further words on discipleship (vv 23-31). A third prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 32-34) is again followed by selfish behavior on the part of the disciples, in this case an ambitious request from James and John (vv 35-40). The incident produces indignation among the rest of the disciples, thus necessitating another rebuke from their master, who himself came to serve and to die (vv 41-45). The section ends as it began—by reporting the cure of a blind man, Bartimaeus of Jericho in this story (vv 46-52).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/h5>\n<p>This section seems naturally to divide into three balanced subsections. The first one (11:1-26) includes three events: the Triumphal Entry, the withering of the fig tree, and the cleansing of the temple. The second subsection (11:27–12:44) is particularly important, for here is found Jesus’ final series of controversies with the Jewish leaders. The topics covered are the source of Jesus’ authority (11:27-33), the parable of the wicked husbandmen (12:1-12), the legitimacy of Caesar’s tax (vv 13-17), the Sadducees’ denial of resurrection (vv 18-27), the chief commandment (vv 28-34), and the question regarding David’s son (vv 35-37). This subsection ends with a warning against the scribes and with the story of the widow’s mite (vv 38-44). The third subsection (ch 13) is devoted completely to the Olivet discourse, with its prophecies of destruction, calamities, persecutions, deceivers, and final vindication. The discourse ends with various admonitions to keep alert.<\/p>\n<h5>The Passion Narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/h5>\n<p>This final section, which is introduced by a report of the priests’ plot (14:1-2), may be divided into two subsections. The first one relates the events leading up to Jesus’ trial (vv 3-52). They include the anointing of Jesus (vv 3-9), Judas’s betrayal (vv 10-11), the incidents connected with the Last Supper (vv 12-31), the scene at Gethsemane (vv 32-42), and the arrest (vv 43-52). The second subsection relates Jesus’ trial before the Jews (vv 53-65), Peter’s denials (vv 66-72), the trial before Pilate (15:1-15), the crucifixion (vv 16-41), and the burial (vv 42-47).<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel concludes somewhat mysteriously, but no less triumphantly, with the news that Jesus has risen from the dead (16:1-8). The earliest surviving Greek manuscripts, usually regarded as the most reliable, end at verse 8; the majority of manuscripts, however, include an additional 12 verses that report Jesus’ appearances to his disciples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Mark, John; Matthew, Gospel of; Luke, Gospel of; Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MARK, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between <span>AD<\/span> 60 and 68.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorDateProvenance\">Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, although this is by no means certain). At one point Papias states, “The Elder used to say this also: Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that [Peter] remembered concerning the things both said and done by the Lord.” (This quotation was preserved by the fourth-century writer Eusebius of Caesarea in his <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 3.39.15.) One need not doubt the basic reliability of this statement. Mark—almost surely to be identified with the John Mark of Acts 12:12 (see also 1 Pt 5:13)—was a disciple of Peter, and the second Gospel owes its existence, at least in part, to the apostle’s reminiscences. It does not follow, however, that one has adequately characterized Mark’s work if that is all one says. For instance, Papias’s qualification, “though not in order,” indicates that Mark did not intend to write a chronological biography. Furthermore, Papias goes on to comment (according to one interpretation of his ambiguous words) that Mark (or Peter?) adapted the material to the teaching situation and that therefore Mark is absolved from any (implied) charges of inaccuracy. It appears that from the earliest times Christians appealed to the purposes and circumstances of Mark’s writing in order to account for difficulties in harmonizing the material found in the various Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Other statements from Christian writers in the second, third, and fourth centuries seem dependent on Papias’s testimony, but some additional data they provide may possess independent value. For example, a fairly early document (date uncertain) known as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel somewhere in Italy after Peter’s death (in the mid-60s), and this testimony is considered reliable by many scholars. Still, the possibility that Mark composed his work before Peter’s martyrdom cannot be ruled out completely.<\/p>\n<p>Papias says nothing specific about <em>when<\/em> the Gospel was written. A small minority of scholars date Mark shortly after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Another minority suggest a date in the 40s or 50s on the basis of a papyrus fragment discovered in Qumran called 7Q5. (According to José O’Callaghan, the fragment, which has been dated about <span>AD<\/span> 50–68, should be identified as Mark 6:52-53.) This fragment contains only 20 letters on one side, making the Markan reconstruction very uncertain. Few scholars are convinced that the text is Mark; some think it is part of 1 Enoch or Zechariah. An impressive majority of scholars date Mark in the 60s, with conservatives usually preferring the early years of the decade. Why this preference? If the theory of Markan priority is accepted, then clearly Mark was written before Luke; and since Luke is normally dated by conservatives about <span>AD<\/span> 62, Mark can be no later than <span>AD<\/span> 60 or 61. This line of argument, though strong, is not decisive. In the first place, Luke cannot be dated with complete certainty. Second, the view that Matthew and Luke used Mark (the working assumption of most scholars) is only a hypothesis, and one that is vigorously opposed by some writers. Third, a tradition going back to the second century (see above) asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel <em>after<\/em> Peter’s death, no earlier than <span>AD<\/span> 64. Fourth, one persuasive view regarding the occasion of this Gospel assumes that the Neronian persecution (<span>AD<\/span> 64) had begun. (According to a different view of the occasion, Mark was written after the beginning of the Jewish revolt in <span>AD<\/span> 66.) Therefore, while a date in the early 60s remains possible, it does not require committal.<\/p>\n<p>With regard to the authorship of the second Gospel, there seems to be no compelling reason to deny Papias’s report that Mark (no doubt the John Mark of Acts 12:12) took down Peter’s reminiscences and that these became the basis of his work. Some scholars argue that the Gospel contains geographical inaccuracies (e.g., we have no evidence of a region called Dalmanutha, Mk 8:10) and that a native of Jerusalem such as Mark would have been more reliable in his information. However, the topographical problems in Mark, though real, need not be interpreted as inaccuracies (present ignorance of a place named Dalmanutha is hardly conclusive proof that it did not exist). Furthermore, in other respects (e.g., 14:54, 66) the Gospel reveals an impressive knowledge of local details. Many writers also point out bits of information that support a Petrine background, such as the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (1:30-31). In short, the internal evidence, while falling short of proof, does not at all undermine the tradition preserved by Papias. A generation ago, the trustworthiness of Papias’s testimony was almost universally accepted. This situation has changed somewhat, but even those scholars who adopt a skeptical attitude toward this tradition concede that it <em>may<\/em> be true.<\/p>\n<p>As attention turns to the provenance of the Gospel, the task becomes more difficult. Tradition going back to the second century asserts what may be already implied by Papias—namely, that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome. Although some scholars have suggested other possibilities, such as Galilee and Antioch, these have not proved satisfactory. Mark did spend some time in Rome, and some characteristics in the Gospel (such as Latinisms in the Greek and the explanation of Jewish customs, as in 7:3-4), while proving nothing, are certainly consonant with a Roman origin. Furthermore, one persuasive view of the occasion that gave rise to the Gospel assumes a background of persecution in Rome.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Distinctives\">Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>A number of characteristics of Mark set it apart from the other Gospels. For example, a word usually translated “immediately” occurs more than 40 times in Mark and only a dozen times in the rest of the NT. While this feature could be interpreted as a simple “mannerism,” consonant with Mark’s unpretentious, colloquial style, it certainly adds to the rapid flow of his narrative, which, dwelling more on Jesus’ activity than on his discourses (in contrast to Matthew and Luke), shifts from scene to scene with hardly a pause. Since the Gospel is also quite brief (Luke is nearly twice as long), one may wonder whether the author intended for it to be read at a sitting; even if read aloud, this would take only about one and a half hours. At any rate, there can be little doubt that the work conveys a sense of urgency.<\/p>\n<p>Other characteristics, however, prove more significant. Someone unfamiliar with the story of Jesus who happened to read Mark for the first time would no doubt be taken aback by its rather abrupt beginning. After a brief clause that stands as a sort of title (1:1), Mark moves on to describe in brief the ministry of John the Baptist. Then he introduces Jesus as coming from Nazareth without telling us anything whatever of his earlier life. Furthermore, over one-third of the book (including the so-called Passion narrative) is devoted to Jesus’ last week. These and other factors lend to the work a note of mystery, accentuated by the fact that at various points Mark calls attention to the fear or amazement gripping those who came in contact with Jesus (2:12; 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6; and several other passages, especially the strange words of 10:32). In addition, if one assumes that the Gospel originally ended with 16:8, Mark wished to leave his readers with the same sense of awe that the disciples experienced at Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>But how does one account for this fear and amazement? Mark’s clear answer is that Jesus, though truly a man, is also divine. While Mark’s Gospel exhibits the humanity of Jesus Christ (1:41; 3:5; 8:12; 10:14), his chief emphasis is on the Lord’s deity. Indeed, Mark introduces his book by referring to Jesus as “the Son of God” (a phrase omitted in some manuscripts, however), a position that is recognized both by the demons (3:11; 5:7) and by God himself (9:7). What may well be the true climax of the Gospel occurs at 15:39, where Mark writes that a Gentile, a Roman centurion, upon hearing Jesus’ death cry, exclaimed, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The author organized his Gospel according to a simple plan. The first eight chapters summarize the nature of Christ’s public ministry by alternating stories that show his growing popularity with stories that stress the disapproval of the Jewish leaders. This first half of the book, while indicating some of the tensions created by Jesus’ coming, gives the basic impression of success and general optimism. A significant shift then strikes the reader toward the end of chapter 8, particularly beginning with verse 31. At Caesarea Philippi, Peter has just confessed that Jesus is the Messiah, and now for the first time Jesus reveals that as Messiah he must die. The disciples become perplexed and discouraged and their pessimism mounts as this thought is brought home to them repeatedly (9:9, 31; 10:32-34; 14:17-25). In the end they desert their master (14:50).<\/p>\n<p>Interestingly, this pessimistic note is anticipated in the earlier part of the Gospel at three points: 3:6 (Jesus’ enemies plot his death); 6:6 (faithlessness in Nazareth); and 8:21 (lack of understanding in the disciples). Some scholars suggest that Mark used these three verses to indicate the first three divisions of his book. In addition, other scholars note that two healings of blind men (8:22-26; 10:46-52) seem to provide the opening and the conclusion of a section that emphasizes the spiritual blindness of the disciples. One more structural clue is 14:1, which clearly marks out the final section of the Gospel.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OccasionPurposeTheology\">Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>A few scholars think that Mark may have been combating a heretical sect that stressed the miracles of Jesus and viewed him purely as a divine wonder-worker. Although this view has not gained acceptance as originally formulated, a number of writers do see the Gospel as a theological corrective. Ralph Martin, who links Mark very closely with Paul, suggests that the evangelist is opposing some heretical groups who have distorted Paul’s message by placing exclusive stress on Christ as a <em>heavenly<\/em> figure (cf. the views that Paul himself opposes in Colossians). Mark responds to these aberrations by emphasizing, in Martin’s words, “the paradox of Jesus’ earthly life in which suffering and vindication form a two-beat rhythm.” Even if one decides that this reconstruction, too, is rather speculative, one may nevertheless retain certain elements in it as valid.<\/p>\n<p>Other scholars, such as H. Kee, place emphasis on the apocalyptic background of Mark. Kee and others tie this element to the Jewish revolt of <span>AD<\/span> 66, but commitment to this particular historical connection is unnecessary to appreciate the great significance of Mark 13 (Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse) for those original readers of the Gospel who may have been undergoing persecution.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the most satisfactory reconstruction links this Gospel to the Neronian persecution in the mid-60s. Mark, for example, is the only Gospel that records that Jesus, after being driven to the wilderness, found himself in the company of wild animals (1:13). This detail, according to William Lane, “was filled with special significance for those called to enter the arena where they stood helpless in the presence of wild beasts.” This interpretation, while not without difficulties, has the advantage of accounting for most of the available data. First, it is compatible with the strong tradition that assigns the origin of Mark’s work to Rome. Second, Mark speaks distinctly to those suffering persecution by introducing them quickly to John’s imprisonment and several other details. Third, related to this is Mark’s emphasis on discipleship. Christians facing persecution must have been tempted to relax the standards (4:17-19). Fourth, given this general situation, one can hardly doubt the significance of our Lord’s apocalyptic message in chapter 13, intended to encourage the disciples in the midst of their trials by reminding them of the glory to follow. Finally, Mark’s clear concern for the Gentile mission fits in with the needs of pagan Rome. The suffering Christians cannot afford to forget the unbelieving society in which they live. In the light of this particular responsibility, Mark assures his readers of what even the Roman centurion began to recognize—surely Jesus <em>is<\/em> the Son of God (15:39).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The development of Mark’s narrative can be presented in six major divisions within a twofold structure:<\/p>\n<li>Introduction (1:1-13)<\/li>\n<li>Part I: Popularity and Opposition (1:14–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>1. Jesus’ authority and the Pharisees’ enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/li>\n<li>2. The people’s response (3:7–6:6a)<\/li>\n<li>3. The disciples’ misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>Part II: Darkness and Death (8:22–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>4. The Messiah’s mission and the disciples’ blind-ness (8:22–10:52)<\/li>\n<li>5. Final ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/li>\n<li>6. The Passion narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>Conclusion (16:1-8)<\/li>\n<p>Although one can hardly claim that this outline corresponds exactly to the author’s original plan (Mark may not have consciously worked out a detailed outline), the sixfold division provides a useful starting point for an interpretive summary of the contents.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Authority and the Pharisees’ Enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>Immediately after the introductory portion (1:1-13), which describes John the Baptist’s ministry as well as Jesus’ baptism and temptation, Mark opens the body of the work with a summary statement (vv 14-15). In these two verses he seems to suggest that Jesus’ public ministry, characterized by the proclamation that God’s kingdom is about to be inaugurated, was occasioned by John’s imprisonment. This is followed by the call of the first disciples (vv 16-20) and then by a complex of stories (vv 21-38), all of which report incidents that took place in Capernaum, apparently within a 24-hour period: synagogue instruction followed by the healing of a demoniac; the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law; numerous other healings in the evening; prayer in a lonely place. The statement that Jesus proceeded to expand his ministry throughout the province of Galilee (v 39) is followed by the story of a leper’s cure (vv 40-45). Next are found a very important group of incidents (2:1–3:6), all of them focusing on Jesus’ conflicts with Jewish leaders: the healing and forgiveness of a paralytic; the call of Levi, whose dinner (attended by Jesus as well as by the hated tax gatherers) occasioned some disputes, particularly on the issue of fasting; and two significant stories regarding proper behavior on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<h5>The People’s Response (3:7–6:6a)<\/h5>\n<p>Mark opens this second section as he opened the first: a summary statement (Jesus’ healings by the lake—3:7-12) followed by the official appointment of 12 apostles (vv 13-19). Then follows a section that focuses on the kinds of charges brought against Jesus by his own family and by the scribes (vv 20-22), leading to a response touching on Satan, on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and on what constitutes true membership in his family (vv 23-35). Most of chapter 4 is devoted to Jesus’ parables of the kingdom—the sower, the seed growing secretly, the mustard seed—and includes statements on the nature and purpose of his teachings (4:10-12, 21-25, 33-34). In the evening Jesus and his disciples set out to cross the Sea of Galilee, leading to the stilling of the storm (vv 35-41), the healing of the Gerasene demoniac on the other side of the lake (5:1-20), and, on their return to Capernaum, the healing of a hemorrhaging woman and the raising of Jairus’s daughter (vv 21-43). The section concludes with Jesus’ visit to his hometown, Nazareth, and the rejection he suffered there (6:1-6a).<\/p>\n<h5>The Disciples’ Misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/h5>\n<p>The third section begins with two introductory passages: the sending out of the 12 (6:6b-13) and the story of John the Baptist’s death (vv 14-29). When the disciples return, Jesus determines to seek some rest, but the crowds follow them; Jesus then teaches and feeds the 5,000 (vv 30-44) and, after crossing the lake (vv 45-52, which includes Jesus’ walk over the water), he performs numerous cures in and around Gennesaret (vv 53-56). Then follows a controversy with the Pharisees regarding the hand-washing ritual (7:1-8), and this incident leads to Christ’s assertion of the authority of God’s word over human tradition (vv 9-13) and to some general instructions on true purity (vv 14-23). The next several stories describe Jesus’ withdrawal from Galilee, first to Tyre, where a gentile woman’s daughter is healed (vv 24-30), then to the Decapolis, where he cures a deaf-mute (vv 31-37) and feeds a crowd of four thousand (8:1-10). The demand of the Pharisees for a sign (vv 11-12) leads to Jesus’ warning against the “leaven” of the Pharisees, a statement misunderstood by the disciples (vv 13-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Messiah’s Mission and the Disciples’ Blindness (8:22–10:52)<\/h5>\n<p>Still away from Galilee, but now in the nearby town of Bethsaida, Jesus heals a blind man (8:22-26). He then leads his disciples north toward Caesarea Philippi, which sets the stage for Peter’s confession (vv 27-30). This recognition on the part of the disciples (of whom Peter is in effect a representative) leads Jesus to prophesy his death, but Peter’s refusal to accept the prophecy calls forth a rebuke and instruction on discipleship (vv 31-38). The failure of the disciples to understand the necessity of Christ’s death provides the background for the Transfiguration (9:1-8), which assures Peter, John, and James that God’s kingdom will indeed come (note v 1); further, the Father himself enjoins them to believe Jesus’ prophecy (v 7). After some words about the resurrection and about the coming of Elijah (vv 9-13), Mark relates the healing of a demoniac boy (vv 14-29). Back in Galilee, a second prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 30-32) is followed, sadly, by a trivial discussion among the disciples as to who is the greatest (vv 33-37). Appropriately, one finds some further instructions concerning discipleship (vv 38-50). Mark next writes that Jesus left Galilee for the last time and began his journey toward the south. During this journey, Jesus delivered teachings on divorce and on the spiritual privileges of children (10:1-16), then met the rich young ruler (vv 17-22), an incident that leads to further words on discipleship (vv 23-31). A third prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 32-34) is again followed by selfish behavior on the part of the disciples, in this case an ambitious request from James and John (vv 35-40). The incident produces indignation among the rest of the disciples, thus necessitating another rebuke from their master, who himself came to serve and to die (vv 41-45). The section ends as it began—by reporting the cure of a blind man, Bartimaeus of Jericho in this story (vv 46-52).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/h5>\n<p>This section seems naturally to divide into three balanced subsections. The first one (11:1-26) includes three events: the Triumphal Entry, the withering of the fig tree, and the cleansing of the temple. The second subsection (11:27–12:44) is particularly important, for here is found Jesus’ final series of controversies with the Jewish leaders. The topics covered are the source of Jesus’ authority (11:27-33), the parable of the wicked husbandmen (12:1-12), the legitimacy of Caesar’s tax (vv 13-17), the Sadducees’ denial of resurrection (vv 18-27), the chief commandment (vv 28-34), and the question regarding David’s son (vv 35-37). This subsection ends with a warning against the scribes and with the story of the widow’s mite (vv 38-44). The third subsection (ch 13) is devoted completely to the Olivet discourse, with its prophecies of destruction, calamities, persecutions, deceivers, and final vindication. The discourse ends with various admonitions to keep alert.<\/p>\n<h5>The Passion Narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/h5>\n<p>This final section, which is introduced by a report of the priests’ plot (14:1-2), may be divided into two subsections. The first one relates the events leading up to Jesus’ trial (vv 3-52). They include the anointing of Jesus (vv 3-9), Judas’s betrayal (vv 10-11), the incidents connected with the Last Supper (vv 12-31), the scene at Gethsemane (vv 32-42), and the arrest (vv 43-52). The second subsection relates Jesus’ trial before the Jews (vv 53-65), Peter’s denials (vv 66-72), the trial before Pilate (15:1-15), the crucifixion (vv 16-41), and the burial (vv 42-47).<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel concludes somewhat mysteriously, but no less triumphantly, with the news that Jesus has risen from the dead (16:1-8). The earliest surviving Greek manuscripts, usually regarded as the most reliable, end at verse 8; the majority of manuscripts, however, include an additional 12 verses that report Jesus’ appearances to his disciples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Mark, John; Matthew, Gospel of; Luke, Gospel of; Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MARK, Gospel of Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between AD 60 and 68. Preview • Author, Date, Provenance • Distinctives • Structure • Occasion, Purpose, Theology • Content Author, Date, Provenance Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, alt...","summary_en":"MARK, Gospel of Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between AD 60 and 68. Preview • Author, Date, Provenance • Distinctives • Structure • Occasion, Purpose, Theology • Content Author, Date, Provenance Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, alt...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":25985,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Miracle","title_en":"Miracle","content_ro":"<h3>MIRACLE<\/h3>\n<p>A divine act by which God reveals himself to people. The classical definition of miracle assumes that it is contrary to natural law, but this is a misnomer for two reasons. First, many of the miracles of the Bible used nature rather than bypassed it (e.g., the wind that parted the Red Sea, Ex 14:21). Second, there no longer is a concept of “absolute natural laws”; rather, a phenomenon that is not readily explainable may reflect laws that scientists do not yet fully understand. In Scripture the element of faith is crucial; a natural approach cannot prove or disprove the presence of “miracle.” The timing and content of the process can be miraculous, even though the event may seem natural. The revelatory significance is also important. In every case God performed the miracle not merely as a “wonder” to inspire awe but as a “sign” to draw people to himself.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheVocabularyofMiracles\">The Vocabulary of Miracles<\/p>\n<p>In the OT the two main terms are “sign” and “wonder,” which often occur together (e.g., nine times in Dt alone, 4:34; 13:1; etc.). More than one Hebrew term is used for “wonder”—one referring to it as an act of supernatural power and another as being beyond man’s understanding. On the whole, they are used synonymously for God’s providential acts within history. The “sign” refers to an act that occurs as a token or pledge of God’s control over events and as a revelation of God’s presence with his people.<\/p>\n<p>The NT uses the same basic idiom, “signs and wonders,” with the same general thrust (cf. Mt 24:24; Mk 13:22; Jn 4:48; Acts 2:43). A third term is that for “power” or miracle, and this becomes the predominant term in the synoptic Gospels. It signifies the mighty act itself by which God is revealed in Christ. A fourth term is “work,” which along with “sign” is preferred in the Gospel of John. This term is used in John to show that in Jesus the work of the Father is revealed. While the terms are often synonymous (the first three occur together in Rom 15:19-20; 2 Thes 2:9; Heb 2:4), they designate three different aspects of miracles. “Signs” point to the theological meaning of miracle as a revelation of God; “power,” to the force behind the act; “work,” to the person behind it; and “wonder,” to its awesome effect on the observer.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MiraclesintheOldTestament\">Miracles in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>To the Hebrew, a miracle was nothing more nor less than an act of God. Therefore, nature herself was a miracle (Jb 5:9-10; Pss 89:6; 106:2), and an act of kindness or victory over one’s enemies is so described (Gn 24:12-27; 1 Sm 14:23). The natural order is totally under Yahweh’s control, so a miracle was observable not because of its supernatural nature but because of its character as part of the divine revelation. This connection with salvation history is crucial, for Israel at all times tried to guard against a desire for the spectacular. Deuteronomy 13:1-4 warns against accepting a wonder as authenticating a prophet; rather, the authentication must come from the fact that he worships Yahweh.<\/p>\n<p>Miracles in the OT are restricted to critical periods of redemptive history. Many have discussed the act of Creation as the first miracle, but in actuality it is not presented as such in the Genesis account. A miracle is signified by its revelatory significance and\/or its connection with crucial points in the history of God’s people—the exodus, the conquest of Jordan, the battle against the insidious Baal worship of the prophetic period. Creation is characterized by one major theme: a chronicle of the beginnings. The miracles of Genesis—striking blind the inhabitants of Sodom, the Flood, Babel—all signify the wrath of God upon those who have turned against him. This is the other side of redemptive history, the judgment of God upon those who are not his people.<\/p>\n<p>The miracles of the exodus account have two foci: The plagues represent the absolute power of Yahweh over the gods of Egypt, and the miracles of the wilderness show God’s absolute care and protection of his people. The plagues are particularly interesting because each one is directed at one of the gods of Egypt and reveals Yahweh as the only potentate. The basic theme is found in Exodus 7:5 and is repeated throughout the account (cf. 7:17; 8:6, 18; 9:14-16, 29; 12:12): “When I show the Egyptians my power and force them to let the Israelites go, they will realize that I am the <span>Lord<\/span>” (<span>nlt<\/span>). In this regard they were directed not only at the Egyptians but also to the Israelites, who needed to know that their God would vindicate them against the Egyptians. This is borne out in the major miracle, the crossing of the Red Sea. The plagues themselves show a gradual increase in severity.<\/p>\n<p>The wilderness miracles are intimately connected to the basic theme of the wandering narratives, the trial of Israel in times of desperate need and God’s providential protection of his people when they turn to him. The basic organization of the stories concerns the need itself, which leads to Israel’s complaint; this is followed by Moses’ intercession and then by God’s sovereign intervention. The miracles are interspersed with other stories that tell of God’s punishment when the people’s murmuring tries him too far. The miracle is God’s self-revelation regarding his involvement in the needs of his own; Israel must then respond, and her response determines her blessing or punishment at the hands of Yahweh.<\/p>\n<p>Miracles are conspicuously absent in the period of the united monarchy. This was a time of self-sufficiency, when God worked through the monarchy and did not intervene directly in the life of the nation. The reason is that Israel’s eschatological hopes had been realized and made concrete in the presence of the Holy City and the temple.<\/p>\n<p>It was different during the prophetic period. In the lives of Elijah and Elisha, miracles were predominant. This was a time of apostasy, and under the reign of Ahab and Jezebel the nation turned to paganism and the worship of Baal. The very existence of the Hebraic religion seemed to be threatened, and so the times called for extraordinary measures. Here the wondrous nature of the miracles is more evident than anywhere else in the OT. There are conscious allusions to the exodus miracles, perhaps looking to Elijah as a new Moses reinstituting the true worship of Yahweh. Parallels are seen in the challenge to the priests of Baal (1 Kgs 18; cf. Ex 7); the revelation of God on Mt Horeb with the wind, earthquake, and fire (1 Kgs 19; cf. Ex 19); and the parting of the Jordan (2 Kgs 2:10-14; cf. Ex 14). Many of the miracles were intended to demonstrate the impotence of Baal, such as the drought, the contest on Mt Carmel, and the miraculous sustenance supplied by God. Again, God’s actions within history were part of his self-revelation, the vindication of his messengers, and the punishment of his enemies.<\/p>\n<p>Miracles are infrequent in the writing prophets, perhaps due to the proclamation form of the writings (i.e., they dealt with message rather than deeds). The two major exceptions (apart from the recovery of Hezekiah chronicled in Is 38) are Jonah and Daniel. In Jonah, the miracle is addressed not to the Ninevites but to the Israelites, who are called back to their covenant obligations as the spokesmen for Yahweh. In Daniel the direction is reversed, and the situation is the same as that in Exodus or Kings. The miracles are directed to the Babylonians and Persians and have the same foci as the earlier events of the exodus and Elijah-Elisha chronicles, that is, the supremacy of Yahweh over the foreign gods and the vindication of his messengers. This is the third and final time of crisis and illustrates the major theological use of miracles in the OT.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MiraclesintheNewTestament\">Miracles in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The presence of the miraculous has a similar purpose in the NT; it occurred at a crisis point in salvation history to authenticate the presence of God in historical acts. It differs, however, in that it is transcended by the presence of the very Son of God, who himself is the greatest miracle of all. God now has not only acted in history; he has entered history and has turned it to himself. The parallels with the exodus events are obvious and show that the miracles of Jesus paved the way for the entrance of the new covenant in the same way that the exodus miracles prepared for the old.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Jesus’ Understanding<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus stressed the connection between his miraculous ministry, especially the casting out of demons (exorcism), and the coming of the kingdom of God. As in the OT, the miracles signify the presence of God, but here it is more direct and also signals the inauguration of his kingdom (Mt 12:28). As such, then, the exorcism miracles mean the binding of Satan and the institution of the reign of God (Mk 3:23-27). At the same time all the miracles signify the dawning of the age of salvation, as expressed in Jesus’ inaugural address at Nazareth (Lk 4:18-21, from Is 61:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>Yet these miracles are not automatic signposts to the act of God; they must be interpreted by faith. Jesus was well aware of the presence of other miracles in his day (Mt 12:27) and so stressed the presence of faith in the healing miracles (Mk 5:32; 10:52). This faith must be directed to the presence of God in the event and in Jesus himself. The necessity of faith also helps to understand Jesus’ refusal to provide his contemporaries with a “sign” (Mk 8:11-12); miracles could never “prove” the presence of God. For a better understanding of the connection between faith and miracles, it is best to note each Evangelist’s individual portrait of the theological use of miracles.<\/p>\n<h5>Miracles in Mark<\/h5>\n<p>Mark, the first of the four Gospels to be written, has often been called the “action Gospel” because of its emphasis on Jesus’ deeds rather than his teaching. This is also true regarding Jesus’ miracles, for Mark contains more proportionately than any of the others. There are five groups or five kinds of miracles in Mark. The first group centers on Jesus’ authority over demons (Mk 1:21-39). The second concerns Jesus’ authority over the law and conflict with his opponents (1:40–3:6). They result in fame but occasion his refusal to allow his true identity as Son of God to be known. The third group (3:7-30) contains exorcisms and the Beelzebub controversy, centering on his power over Satan. The fourth group (4:35–6:43) contains especially powerful miracles (stilling the storm, the Gaderene demoniac, the raising of Jairus’s daughter) and probably centers on the disciples, as Jesus thereby reveals to them the meaning of the kingdom and seeks to overcome their own spiritual dullness. The fifth and final group (6:30–8:26) continues the theme of the disciples’ misunderstanding and prepares the way for the Passion, with the message regarding the bread, blindness, and the judgment of God.<\/p>\n<p>The miracles in Mark center on conflict, first with Jesus’ opponents and then with his own disciples. While the miracles are harbingers of God’s kingdom, their purpose is to force an encounter with Jesus’ true significance. They do not show Jesus as a Hellenistic wonder worker; in fact, they lead only to amazement and then disbelief in those who do not have faith. Jesus’ personhood has been hidden and can only be understood in light of the cross. The miracles are not proofs but powers; God does not authenticate himself through them but shows himself to those with eyes to see.<\/p>\n<h5>Miracles in Matthew<\/h5>\n<p>Matthew’s is the teaching Gospel, where dialogue takes precedence over action. Matthew compresses Mark’s narrative in order to make room for didactic material. Therefore, his stress is on the theological implications of faith rather than on the results they contain. Matthew’s groups of miracles are isometric to teaching passages, in keeping with his general practice of combining narrative portions and organizing them around didactic sections. The first group (chs 8–9) combines miracles from Mark’s first, second, and fourth groups and stresses Jesus’ significance as the servant of Yahweh who exercises sovereign power and forgives sins. The secondary theme teaches discipleship and shows the awakening faith of the disciples and their involvement in Jesus’ ministry. The second group (ch 12) centers on his authority over the law (the man with the withered hand) and over Satan (the Beelzebub controversy). The third group (chs 14–15) parallels Mark’s fifth group but has a different purpose. Rather than arousing conflict, the disciples are seen in positive guise, actively involved in the Master’s work. So the disciples become the means by which Jesus’ ministry is continued. Therefore, the disciples are involved as “learners” (the meaning of “disciple”) in his miraculous ministry.<\/p>\n<h5>Miracles in Luke<\/h5>\n<p>Luke-Acts is remarkable and extremely important because it establishes beyond dispute the early church’s belief that it was in absolute continuity with Jesus and was continuing the work of God in the world. Luke’s major stress is on salvation history, and so one of his major stylistic methods for showing this direct connection is miraculous deeds. Especially enlightening here is Acts 9:32-42, where in two healing miracles Peter duplicated the Lord’s miracles (the paralytic Aeneas, Lk 5:18-26; the raising of Dorcas, Lk 8:49-56).<\/p>\n<p>From this respect also Luke returns to Mark’s interest in the deed more than the teaching. However, Luke goes even further than Mark, for the miracles validate Jesus more directly. The first group follows the inaugural address (4:18-22), which itself presents the miraculous deeds as authenticating signposts to Jesus’ personhood. They center on Jesus’ power and authority (vv 31-41) and validate God’s power in Jesus (5:17; 8:39) as well as faith in Jesus (seen in the “praise” motif, 5:25; 7:16; etc., but especially in Acts 9:35; 13:12; 19:17). The presence of “fear” at the miracles is a human response to having witnessed God’s power (Lk 5:26; 7:16; 8:35-37; 24:5). The call to the disciples occurs in the presence of miracles (5:1-11, at the miraculous catch of fish; vv 27-28, after the healing of the bedridden paralytic).<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, Luke views miracles as having redemptive significance. However, this is not contrary to Mark’s picture. Luke still avoids picturing Jesus as a mere wonder worker; Jesus still refuses to satisfy people’s curiosity for an external sign (Lk 11:29-32; cf. also 9:9), and in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (16:19-31) he teaches that the unbelieving heart can never be convinced by such events. Nevertheless, they can lead to repentance (10:13-16).<\/p>\n<h5>Miracles in John<\/h5>\n<p>John is the most directly theological of the Evangelists, and miracles are characteristically given a distinctive Johannine coloring. In the Synoptics, miracles are “acts of power” signifying the entrance of God’s reign into this world via Jesus; thereby, Jesus establishes Satan’s defeat and God’s sovereign control of history. John, however, contains no exorcisms, and the miracles are seen as “signs.” At the same time miracles are part of the larger category of “works” (the other term for miracles used in John), by which Jesus shows the Father’s presence in himself (Jn 10:32, 37-39; 14:10) and they give witness to Jesus as the sent one (5:36; 10:25, 38).<\/p>\n<p>John selects only seven “sign miracles” from many others (20:30) and uses them as part of the thematic development in the respective section of each. For instance, changing the water into wine is a messianic act, signifying the outpouring of the kingdom blessing in the ministry of Jesus, the Messiah (ch 2); the multiplication of the loaves builds upon the “bread of life” and points to the messianic banquet as spiritually present in Jesus (ch 6).<\/p>\n<p>The paradoxical nature of miracles in the Synoptics is even greater in John. He gives more stress to the wondrous nature of the events by providing such details as the stupendous amount of water changed into wine (2:6, approximately 120 gallons, or 454.2 liters); the distance over which Jesus’ healing power works (4:46, almost 20 miles, or 32.2 kilometers); the length of time the man of Bethesda had been lame (5:5, 38 years; cf. 9:1, where the man had been born blind); the amount of bread needed to feed the 5,000 (6:7, where Philip said 200 denarii, or days’ wages, would not have bought enough); and the proof of Lazarus’s death (11:39; he had already begun to decay). John has a great interest in the miraculous. Yet at the same time there is even greater stress on the inadequacy of miracles for faith. The miracles as “signs” have saving value and point to the true significance of Jesus but are related to an awakening faith and in themselves are insufficient (2:11; 4:50). They have christological force, looking to Jesus’ sonship and the Father’s authentication of him but are based on the soteriological decision of the individual. As “signs,” they contain the very presence of God in Jesus, the spiritual reality of the “sight” and “life” he brings (9:35-38; 11:24-26). Yet their purpose is to divide the audience and confront it with the necessity of decision. Two camps result—those seeking understanding and those considering only the outward aspects. Some refuse to consider the signs, and thus they reject them (3:18-21; 11:47-50), while others see them shallowly as mere wonders and fail to see in them the true significance of Jesus (2:23-25; 4:45). On the other hand, some view them with the eye of faith and go on to a realization of his personhood (2:11; 5:36-46; 11:42). In John the highest faith of all is that which does not need external stimulation (20:29).<\/p>\n<h5>Miracles in the Rest of the New Testament<\/h5>\n<p>Apart from Acts, several passages in the NT speak of the value of miracles. Paul in 2 Corinthians 12:12 and Romans 15:18-19 considered them as “sign-gifts,” which authenticated the divine authority of the “true apostle.” He listed healing and miracles as specific “gifts of the Spirit” in 1 Corinthians 12:9-10. In Galatians 3:5 he considered them evidence for the presence of the Spirit. The author of the letter to the Hebrews in 2:4 said “God bore witness” to the true message of salvation via miracles. Therefore, in the apostolic age the miracles of God’s servants were seen more directly as authenticating signs of God’s action in his messengers.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Sign; Spiritual Gifts.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MIRACLE<\/h3>\n<p>A divine act by which God reveals himself to people. The classical definition of miracle assumes that it is contrary to natural law, but this is a misnomer for two reasons. First, many of the miracles of the Bible used nature rather than bypassed it (e.g., the wind that parted the Red Sea, Ex 14:21). Second, there no longer is a concept of “absolute natural laws”; rather, a phenomenon that is not readily explainable may reflect laws that scientists do not yet fully understand. In Scripture the element of faith is crucial; a natural approach cannot prove or disprove the presence of “miracle.” The timing and content of the process can be miraculous, even though the event may seem natural. The revelatory significance is also important. In every case God performed the miracle not merely as a “wonder” to inspire awe but as a “sign” to draw people to himself.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheVocabularyofMiracles\">The Vocabulary of Miracles<\/p>\n<p>In the OT the two main terms are “sign” and “wonder,” which often occur together (e.g., nine times in Dt alone, 4:34; 13:1; etc.). More than one Hebrew term is used for “wonder”—one referring to it as an act of supernatural power and another as being beyond man’s understanding. On the whole, they are used synonymously for God’s providential acts within history. The “sign” refers to an act that occurs as a token or pledge of God’s control over events and as a revelation of God’s presence with his people.<\/p>\n<p>The NT uses the same basic idiom, “signs and wonders,” with the same general thrust (cf. Mt 24:24; Mk 13:22; Jn 4:48; Acts 2:43). A third term is that for “power” or miracle, and this becomes the predominant term in the synoptic Gospels. It signifies the mighty act itself by which God is revealed in Christ. A fourth term is “work,” which along with “sign” is preferred in the Gospel of John. This term is used in John to show that in Jesus the work of the Father is revealed. While the terms are often synonymous (the first three occur together in Rom 15:19-20; 2 Thes 2:9; Heb 2:4), they designate three different aspects of miracles. “Signs” point to the theological meaning of miracle as a revelation of God; “power,” to the force behind the act; “work,” to the person behind it; and “wonder,” to its awesome effect on the observer.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MiraclesintheOldTestament\">Miracles in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>To the Hebrew, a miracle was nothing more nor less than an act of God. Therefore, nature herself was a miracle (Jb 5:9-10; Pss 89:6; 106:2), and an act of kindness or victory over one’s enemies is so described (Gn 24:12-27; 1 Sm 14:23). The natural order is totally under Yahweh’s control, so a miracle was observable not because of its supernatural nature but because of its character as part of the divine revelation. This connection with salvation history is crucial, for Israel at all times tried to guard against a desire for the spectacular. Deuteronomy 13:1-4 warns against accepting a wonder as authenticating a prophet; rather, the authentication must come from the fact that he worships Yahweh.<\/p>\n<p>Miracles in the OT are restricted to critical periods of redemptive history. Many have discussed the act of Creation as the first miracle, but in actuality it is not presented as such in the Genesis account. A miracle is signified by its revelatory significance and\/or its connection with crucial points in the history of God’s people—the exodus, the conquest of Jordan, the battle against the insidious Baal worship of the prophetic period. Creation is characterized by one major theme: a chronicle of the beginnings. The miracles of Genesis—striking blind the inhabitants of Sodom, the Flood, Babel—all signify the wrath of God upon those who have turned against him. This is the other side of redemptive history, the judgment of God upon those who are not his people.<\/p>\n<p>The miracles of the exodus account have two foci: The plagues represent the absolute power of Yahweh over the gods of Egypt, and the miracles of the wilderness show God’s absolute care and protection of his people. The plagues are particularly interesting because each one is directed at one of the gods of Egypt and reveals Yahweh as the only potentate. The basic theme is found in Exodus 7:5 and is repeated throughout the account (cf. 7:17; 8:6, 18; 9:14-16, 29; 12:12): “When I show the Egyptians my power and force them to let the Israelites go, they will realize that I am the <span>Lord<\/span>” (<span>nlt<\/span>). In this regard they were directed not only at the Egyptians but also to the Israelites, who needed to know that their God would vindicate them against the Egyptians. This is borne out in the major miracle, the crossing of the Red Sea. The plagues themselves show a gradual increase in severity.<\/p>\n<p>The wilderness miracles are intimately connected to the basic theme of the wandering narratives, the trial of Israel in times of desperate need and God’s providential protection of his people when they turn to him. The basic organization of the stories concerns the need itself, which leads to Israel’s complaint; this is followed by Moses’ intercession and then by God’s sovereign intervention. The miracles are interspersed with other stories that tell of God’s punishment when the people’s murmuring tries him too far. The miracle is God’s self-revelation regarding his involvement in the needs of his own; Israel must then respond, and her response determines her blessing or punishment at the hands of Yahweh.<\/p>\n<p>Miracles are conspicuously absent in the period of the united monarchy. This was a time of self-sufficiency, when God worked through the monarchy and did not intervene directly in the life of the nation. The reason is that Israel’s eschatological hopes had been realized and made concrete in the presence of the Holy City and the temple.<\/p>\n<p>It was different during the prophetic period. In the lives of Elijah and Elisha, miracles were predominant. This was a time of apostasy, and under the reign of Ahab and Jezebel the nation turned to paganism and the worship of Baal. The very existence of the Hebraic religion seemed to be threatened, and so the times called for extraordinary measures. Here the wondrous nature of the miracles is more evident than anywhere else in the OT. There are conscious allusions to the exodus miracles, perhaps looking to Elijah as a new Moses reinstituting the true worship of Yahweh. Parallels are seen in the challenge to the priests of Baal (1 Kgs 18; cf. Ex 7); the revelation of God on Mt Horeb with the wind, earthquake, and fire (1 Kgs 19; cf. Ex 19); and the parting of the Jordan (2 Kgs 2:10-14; cf. Ex 14). Many of the miracles were intended to demonstrate the impotence of Baal, such as the drought, the contest on Mt Carmel, and the miraculous sustenance supplied by God. Again, God’s actions within history were part of his self-revelation, the vindication of his messengers, and the punishment of his enemies.<\/p>\n<p>Miracles are infrequent in the writing prophets, perhaps due to the proclamation form of the writings (i.e., they dealt with message rather than deeds). The two major exceptions (apart from the recovery of Hezekiah chronicled in Is 38) are Jonah and Daniel. In Jonah, the miracle is addressed not to the Ninevites but to the Israelites, who are called back to their covenant obligations as the spokesmen for Yahweh. In Daniel the direction is reversed, and the situation is the same as that in Exodus or Kings. The miracles are directed to the Babylonians and Persians and have the same foci as the earlier events of the exodus and Elijah-Elisha chronicles, that is, the supremacy of Yahweh over the foreign gods and the vindication of his messengers. This is the third and final time of crisis and illustrates the major theological use of miracles in the OT.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MiraclesintheNewTestament\">Miracles in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The presence of the miraculous has a similar purpose in the NT; it occurred at a crisis point in salvation history to authenticate the presence of God in historical acts. It differs, however, in that it is transcended by the presence of the very Son of God, who himself is the greatest miracle of all. God now has not only acted in history; he has entered history and has turned it to himself. The parallels with the exodus events are obvious and show that the miracles of Jesus paved the way for the entrance of the new covenant in the same way that the exodus miracles prepared for the old.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Jesus’ Understanding<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus stressed the connection between his miraculous ministry, especially the casting out of demons (exorcism), and the coming of the kingdom of God. As in the OT, the miracles signify the presence of God, but here it is more direct and also signals the inauguration of his kingdom (Mt 12:28). As such, then, the exorcism miracles mean the binding of Satan and the institution of the reign of God (Mk 3:23-27). At the same time all the miracles signify the dawning of the age of salvation, as expressed in Jesus’ inaugural address at Nazareth (Lk 4:18-21, from Is 61:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>Yet these miracles are not automatic signposts to the act of God; they must be interpreted by faith. Jesus was well aware of the presence of other miracles in his day (Mt 12:27) and so stressed the presence of faith in the healing miracles (Mk 5:32; 10:52). This faith must be directed to the presence of God in the event and in Jesus himself. The necessity of faith also helps to understand Jesus’ refusal to provide his contemporaries with a “sign” (Mk 8:11-12); miracles could never “prove” the presence of God. For a better understanding of the connection between faith and miracles, it is best to note each Evangelist’s individual portrait of the theological use of miracles.<\/p>\n<h5>Miracles in Mark<\/h5>\n<p>Mark, the first of the four Gospels to be written, has often been called the “action Gospel” because of its emphasis on Jesus’ deeds rather than his teaching. This is also true regarding Jesus’ miracles, for Mark contains more proportionately than any of the others. There are five groups or five kinds of miracles in Mark. The first group centers on Jesus’ authority over demons (Mk 1:21-39). The second concerns Jesus’ authority over the law and conflict with his opponents (1:40–3:6). They result in fame but occasion his refusal to allow his true identity as Son of God to be known. The third group (3:7-30) contains exorcisms and the Beelzebub controversy, centering on his power over Satan. The fourth group (4:35–6:43) contains especially powerful miracles (stilling the storm, the Gaderene demoniac, the raising of Jairus’s daughter) and probably centers on the disciples, as Jesus thereby reveals to them the meaning of the kingdom and seeks to overcome their own spiritual dullness. The fifth and final group (6:30–8:26) continues the theme of the disciples’ misunderstanding and prepares the way for the Passion, with the message regarding the bread, blindness, and the judgment of God.<\/p>\n<p>The miracles in Mark center on conflict, first with Jesus’ opponents and then with his own disciples. While the miracles are harbingers of God’s kingdom, their purpose is to force an encounter with Jesus’ true significance. They do not show Jesus as a Hellenistic wonder worker; in fact, they lead only to amazement and then disbelief in those who do not have faith. Jesus’ personhood has been hidden and can only be understood in light of the cross. The miracles are not proofs but powers; God does not authenticate himself through them but shows himself to those with eyes to see.<\/p>\n<h5>Miracles in Matthew<\/h5>\n<p>Matthew’s is the teaching Gospel, where dialogue takes precedence over action. Matthew compresses Mark’s narrative in order to make room for didactic material. Therefore, his stress is on the theological implications of faith rather than on the results they contain. Matthew’s groups of miracles are isometric to teaching passages, in keeping with his general practice of combining narrative portions and organizing them around didactic sections. The first group (chs 8–9) combines miracles from Mark’s first, second, and fourth groups and stresses Jesus’ significance as the servant of Yahweh who exercises sovereign power and forgives sins. The secondary theme teaches discipleship and shows the awakening faith of the disciples and their involvement in Jesus’ ministry. The second group (ch 12) centers on his authority over the law (the man with the withered hand) and over Satan (the Beelzebub controversy). The third group (chs 14–15) parallels Mark’s fifth group but has a different purpose. Rather than arousing conflict, the disciples are seen in positive guise, actively involved in the Master’s work. So the disciples become the means by which Jesus’ ministry is continued. Therefore, the disciples are involved as “learners” (the meaning of “disciple”) in his miraculous ministry.<\/p>\n<h5>Miracles in Luke<\/h5>\n<p>Luke-Acts is remarkable and extremely important because it establishes beyond dispute the early church’s belief that it was in absolute continuity with Jesus and was continuing the work of God in the world. Luke’s major stress is on salvation history, and so one of his major stylistic methods for showing this direct connection is miraculous deeds. Especially enlightening here is Acts 9:32-42, where in two healing miracles Peter duplicated the Lord’s miracles (the paralytic Aeneas, Lk 5:18-26; the raising of Dorcas, Lk 8:49-56).<\/p>\n<p>From this respect also Luke returns to Mark’s interest in the deed more than the teaching. However, Luke goes even further than Mark, for the miracles validate Jesus more directly. The first group follows the inaugural address (4:18-22), which itself presents the miraculous deeds as authenticating signposts to Jesus’ personhood. They center on Jesus’ power and authority (vv 31-41) and validate God’s power in Jesus (5:17; 8:39) as well as faith in Jesus (seen in the “praise” motif, 5:25; 7:16; etc., but especially in Acts 9:35; 13:12; 19:17). The presence of “fear” at the miracles is a human response to having witnessed God’s power (Lk 5:26; 7:16; 8:35-37; 24:5). The call to the disciples occurs in the presence of miracles (5:1-11, at the miraculous catch of fish; vv 27-28, after the healing of the bedridden paralytic).<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, Luke views miracles as having redemptive significance. However, this is not contrary to Mark’s picture. Luke still avoids picturing Jesus as a mere wonder worker; Jesus still refuses to satisfy people’s curiosity for an external sign (Lk 11:29-32; cf. also 9:9), and in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (16:19-31) he teaches that the unbelieving heart can never be convinced by such events. Nevertheless, they can lead to repentance (10:13-16).<\/p>\n<h5>Miracles in John<\/h5>\n<p>John is the most directly theological of the Evangelists, and miracles are characteristically given a distinctive Johannine coloring. In the Synoptics, miracles are “acts of power” signifying the entrance of God’s reign into this world via Jesus; thereby, Jesus establishes Satan’s defeat and God’s sovereign control of history. John, however, contains no exorcisms, and the miracles are seen as “signs.” At the same time miracles are part of the larger category of “works” (the other term for miracles used in John), by which Jesus shows the Father’s presence in himself (Jn 10:32, 37-39; 14:10) and they give witness to Jesus as the sent one (5:36; 10:25, 38).<\/p>\n<p>John selects only seven “sign miracles” from many others (20:30) and uses them as part of the thematic development in the respective section of each. For instance, changing the water into wine is a messianic act, signifying the outpouring of the kingdom blessing in the ministry of Jesus, the Messiah (ch 2); the multiplication of the loaves builds upon the “bread of life” and points to the messianic banquet as spiritually present in Jesus (ch 6).<\/p>\n<p>The paradoxical nature of miracles in the Synoptics is even greater in John. He gives more stress to the wondrous nature of the events by providing such details as the stupendous amount of water changed into wine (2:6, approximately 120 gallons, or 454.2 liters); the distance over which Jesus’ healing power works (4:46, almost 20 miles, or 32.2 kilometers); the length of time the man of Bethesda had been lame (5:5, 38 years; cf. 9:1, where the man had been born blind); the amount of bread needed to feed the 5,000 (6:7, where Philip said 200 denarii, or days’ wages, would not have bought enough); and the proof of Lazarus’s death (11:39; he had already begun to decay). John has a great interest in the miraculous. Yet at the same time there is even greater stress on the inadequacy of miracles for faith. The miracles as “signs” have saving value and point to the true significance of Jesus but are related to an awakening faith and in themselves are insufficient (2:11; 4:50). They have christological force, looking to Jesus’ sonship and the Father’s authentication of him but are based on the soteriological decision of the individual. As “signs,” they contain the very presence of God in Jesus, the spiritual reality of the “sight” and “life” he brings (9:35-38; 11:24-26). Yet their purpose is to divide the audience and confront it with the necessity of decision. Two camps result—those seeking understanding and those considering only the outward aspects. Some refuse to consider the signs, and thus they reject them (3:18-21; 11:47-50), while others see them shallowly as mere wonders and fail to see in them the true significance of Jesus (2:23-25; 4:45). On the other hand, some view them with the eye of faith and go on to a realization of his personhood (2:11; 5:36-46; 11:42). In John the highest faith of all is that which does not need external stimulation (20:29).<\/p>\n<h5>Miracles in the Rest of the New Testament<\/h5>\n<p>Apart from Acts, several passages in the NT speak of the value of miracles. Paul in 2 Corinthians 12:12 and Romans 15:18-19 considered them as “sign-gifts,” which authenticated the divine authority of the “true apostle.” He listed healing and miracles as specific “gifts of the Spirit” in 1 Corinthians 12:9-10. In Galatians 3:5 he considered them evidence for the presence of the Spirit. The author of the letter to the Hebrews in 2:4 said “God bore witness” to the true message of salvation via miracles. Therefore, in the apostolic age the miracles of God’s servants were seen more directly as authenticating signs of God’s action in his messengers.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Sign; Spiritual Gifts.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MIRACLE A divine act by which God reveals himself to people. The classical definition of miracle assumes that it is contrary to natural law, but this is a misnomer for two reasons. First, many of the miracles of the Bible used nature rather than bypassed it (e.g., the wind that parted the Red Sea, Ex 14:21). Second, there no longer is a concept of “absolute natural laws”; rather, a phenomenon that is not readily explainable may reflect laws that scientists do not yet fully understand. In Scri...","summary_en":"MIRACLE A divine act by which God reveals himself to people. The classical definition of miracle assumes that it is contrary to natural law, but this is a misnomer for two reasons. First, many of the miracles of the Bible used nature rather than bypassed it (e.g., the wind that parted the Red Sea, Ex 14:21). Second, there no longer is a concept of “absolute natural laws”; rather, a phenomenon that is not readily explainable may reflect laws that scientists do not yet fully understand. In Scri...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55187,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:7","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:7-12<\/strong> Jesus’ departure to <em>the lake<\/em> (the Sea of Galilee) sets the scene for 4:1–5:43. The multitude that came to see John the Baptist (1:7) was surpassed by the multitude that came to see Jesus. • <em>Idumea<\/em> was a region in southern Judea that had been occupied by the Edomites after the Exile. • <em>Tyre and Sidon<\/em> were Phoenician cities on the Mediterranean coast that Jesus later visited (7:24, 31).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:7-12<\/strong> Jesus’ departure to <em>the lake<\/em> (the Sea of Galilee) sets the scene for 4:1–5:43. The multitude that came to see John the Baptist (1:7) was surpassed by the multitude that came to see Jesus. • <em>Idumea<\/em> was a region in southern Judea that had been occupied by the Edomites after the Exile. • <em>Tyre and Sidon<\/em> were Phoenician cities on the Mediterranean coast that Jesus later visited (7:24, 31).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:7-12 Jesus’ departure to the lake (the Sea of Galilee) sets the scene for 4:1–5:43. The multitude that came to see John the Baptist (1:7) was surpassed by the multitude that came to see Jesus. • Idumea was a region in southern Judea that had been occupied by the Edomites after the Exile. • Tyre and Sidon were Phoenician cities on the Mediterranean coast that Jesus later visited (7:24, 31).","summary_en":"3:7-12 Jesus’ departure to the lake (the Sea of Galilee) sets the scene for 4:1–5:43. The multitude that came to see John the Baptist (1:7) was surpassed by the multitude that came to see Jesus. • Idumea was a region in southern Judea that had been occupied by the Edomites after the Exile. • Tyre and Sidon were Phoenician cities on the Mediterranean coast that Jesus later visited (7:24, 31).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82813,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:7","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:7-12<\/strong> Jesus’ departure to <em>the lake<\/em> (the Sea of Galilee) sets the scene for 4:1–5:43. The multitude that came to see John the Baptist (1:7) was surpassed by the multitude that came to see Jesus. • <em>Idumea<\/em> was a region in southern Judea that had been occupied by the Edomites after the Exile. • <em>Tyre and Sidon<\/em> were Phoenician cities on the Mediterranean coast that Jesus later visited (7:24, 31).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:7-12<\/strong> Jesus’ departure to <em>the lake<\/em> (the Sea of Galilee) sets the scene for 4:1–5:43. The multitude that came to see John the Baptist (1:7) was surpassed by the multitude that came to see Jesus. • <em>Idumea<\/em> was a region in southern Judea that had been occupied by the Edomites after the Exile. • <em>Tyre and Sidon<\/em> were Phoenician cities on the Mediterranean coast that Jesus later visited (7:24, 31).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:7-12 Jesus’ departure to the lake (the Sea of Galilee) sets the scene for 4:1–5:43. The multitude that came to see John the Baptist (1:7) was surpassed by the multitude that came to see Jesus. • Idumea was a region in southern Judea that had been occupied by the Edomites after the Exile. • Tyre and Sidon were Phoenician cities on the Mediterranean coast that Jesus later visited (7:24, 31).","summary_en":"3:7-12 Jesus’ departure to the lake (the Sea of Galilee) sets the scene for 4:1–5:43. The multitude that came to see John the Baptist (1:7) was surpassed by the multitude that came to see Jesus. • Idumea was a region in southern Judea that had been occupied by the Edomites after the Exile. • Tyre and Sidon were Phoenician cities on the Mediterranean coast that Jesus later visited (7:24, 31).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110439,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:7","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:7-12<\/strong> Jesus’ departure to <em>the lake<\/em> (the Sea of Galilee) sets the scene for 4:1–5:43. The multitude that came to see John the Baptist (1:7) was surpassed by the multitude that came to see Jesus. • <em>Idumea<\/em> was a region in southern Judea that had been occupied by the Edomites after the Exile. • <em>Tyre and Sidon<\/em> were Phoenician cities on the Mediterranean coast that Jesus later visited (7:24, 31).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:7-12<\/strong> Jesus’ departure to <em>the lake<\/em> (the Sea of Galilee) sets the scene for 4:1–5:43. The multitude that came to see John the Baptist (1:7) was surpassed by the multitude that came to see Jesus. • <em>Idumea<\/em> was a region in southern Judea that had been occupied by the Edomites after the Exile. • <em>Tyre and Sidon<\/em> were Phoenician cities on the Mediterranean coast that Jesus later visited (7:24, 31).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:7-12 Jesus’ departure to the lake (the Sea of Galilee) sets the scene for 4:1–5:43. The multitude that came to see John the Baptist (1:7) was surpassed by the multitude that came to see Jesus. • Idumea was a region in southern Judea that had been occupied by the Edomites after the Exile. • Tyre and Sidon were Phoenician cities on the Mediterranean coast that Jesus later visited (7:24, 31).","summary_en":"3:7-12 Jesus’ departure to the lake (the Sea of Galilee) sets the scene for 4:1–5:43. The multitude that came to see John the Baptist (1:7) was surpassed by the multitude that came to see Jesus. • Idumea was a region in southern Judea that had been occupied by the Edomites after the Exile. • Tyre and Sidon were Phoenician cities on the Mediterranean coast that Jesus later visited (7:24, 31).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138065,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:7","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:7-12<\/strong> Jesus’ departure to <em>the lake<\/em> (the Sea of Galilee) sets the scene for 4:1–5:43. The multitude that came to see John the Baptist (1:7) was surpassed by the multitude that came to see Jesus. • <em>Idumea<\/em> was a region in southern Judea that had been occupied by the Edomites after the Exile. • <em>Tyre and Sidon<\/em> were Phoenician cities on the Mediterranean coast that Jesus later visited (7:24, 31).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:7-12<\/strong> Jesus’ departure to <em>the lake<\/em> (the Sea of Galilee) sets the scene for 4:1–5:43. The multitude that came to see John the Baptist (1:7) was surpassed by the multitude that came to see Jesus. • <em>Idumea<\/em> was a region in southern Judea that had been occupied by the Edomites after the Exile. • <em>Tyre and Sidon<\/em> were Phoenician cities on the Mediterranean coast that Jesus later visited (7:24, 31).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:7-12 Jesus’ departure to the lake (the Sea of Galilee) sets the scene for 4:1–5:43. The multitude that came to see John the Baptist (1:7) was surpassed by the multitude that came to see Jesus. • Idumea was a region in southern Judea that had been occupied by the Edomites after the Exile. • Tyre and Sidon were Phoenician cities on the Mediterranean coast that Jesus later visited (7:24, 31).","summary_en":"3:7-12 Jesus’ departure to the lake (the Sea of Galilee) sets the scene for 4:1–5:43. The multitude that came to see John the Baptist (1:7) was surpassed by the multitude that came to see Jesus. • Idumea was a region in southern Judea that had been occupied by the Edomites after the Exile. • Tyre and Sidon were Phoenician cities on the Mediterranean coast that Jesus later visited (7:24, 31).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"8":[{"id":22915,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Lebanon","title_en":"Lebanon","content_ro":"<h3>LEBANON<\/h3>\n<p>Region mentioned only in the OT, although its towns, including Tyre and Sidon, are named in the NT. The name Lebanon generally refers to the double range of mountains that commences near Tyre and runs northeast following the Mediterranean coast. The two Lebanon ranges are parallel to one another, Lebanon to the west and Anti-Lebanon to the east. The name Lebanon is derived from the Hebrew root <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">l-b-n<\/span><em>,<\/em> meaning “white,” which may reflect either the white limestone of the mountains or the snow that lay on the mountains for six months of the year (Jer 18:14).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Geography\">Geography<\/p>\n<p>At the southern end the Lebanon ranges are a direct continuation of the hills of northern Galilee, with Mt Hermon (Sirion, Senir) very prominent in the Anti-Lebanon range, rising to 9,230 feet (2,813.3 meters). The two ranges are divided by a broad valley, the valley of Lebanon (Jos 11:17) or “the entrance of Hamath” (Nm 34:8), the modern Beqa’a.<\/p>\n<p>In the south the Lebanon range is separated from the Galilee hills by a deep east-west gorge through which the Litani River flows, entering the Mediterranean just north of Tyre. In its upper courses it follows the Beqa’a Valley in a northeasterly direction almost to Baalbek. The Lebanon ridge, about 100 miles (160.9 kilometers) long, stretches north to the east-west valley of the Nahr el-Kebir and is marked by a series of peaks. In the south are Gebel Rihan, Tomat, and Gebel Niha (ranging from 5,350 feet to nearly 6,230 feet, or 1,636.7 to 1,898.9 meters, high) east of Sidon. In the center lie Gebel Baruk, Gebel Kuneiyiseh, and Gebel Sunnin (7,220 feet, 6,890 feet, and 8,530 feet high, or 2,200.7 meters, 2,100.1 meters, and 2,599.9 meters high, respectively) east of Beirut. Further north, to the east of Tripoli, lies Qurnet es-Sauda, which reaches 9,840 feet (2,999.2 meters), and Qurnet Aruba, about 7,320 feet (2,231.1 meters) high.<\/p>\n<p>These high mountains trap the rain coming from the Mediterranean, providing both the mountain areas and the coastal strip below with good rainfall; beyond the mountains, the rainfall drops. It is along the coastal strip between the mountains and the sea that the Phoenicians flourished and towns like Tyre, Zarephath, Sidon, Berytus (Beirut), Byblos (Gebal), and Tripoli were established. The coastal area has a number of headlands that are extensions of the mountain range. The coastal road had to be cut around or through these spurs. A good example is the headland of Nahr el-Kelb, a little to the north of Beirut.<\/p>\n<p>On the east side of the Lebanon range is the Beqa’a Valley. The Orontes River rises in the north of this valley and flows north to enter the Mediterranean north of ancient Ugarit. This whole valley region was known in classical literature as Coele-syria (Hollow Syria). It was the “breadbasket” of the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>To the east of the Beqa’a Valley is the Anti-Lebanon range, in which the Barada River rises and flows east toward the fertile oasis of Damascus. Mt Hermon, in the southern part of the range, was known as Sirion by the Phoenicians and Senir by the Amorites (Dt 3:9).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Resources\">Resources<\/p>\n<p>Lebanon was famous in antiquity for its rich forests of fir and cedar. The coastal areas, the Beqa’a Valley, and the lower slopes of the mountains were suitable for olive trees, fruit trees, and vineyards, as well as some grain crops. One important product came from the sea: a mollusk of the gastropoda class from which a red or purple dye was obtained. The name “Phoenician” derived from the Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">phoinos<\/span><em>,<\/em> red-purple. Wool dyed purple was available in Ugarit about 1500 <span>BC<\/span>. The Phoenicians had a monopoly on this industry for centuries. The people of Israel, who used a great deal of purple dye in their tabernacle furnishings (Ex 26) and the garments of their priests (Ex 28:4-6; 39:1, 28-29), probably obtained the dye from the Phoenicians.<\/p>\n<p>King Solomon had significant trading relations with Phoenicia. To build the temple in Jerusalem, cedar and fir were obtained from Hiram I of Tyre (1 Kgs 5:6, 9, 14; 7:2; 10:17, 21; 2 Chr 2:8, 16). Solomon paid for this timber in wheat and olive oil (1 Kgs 5:11). The trees were floated down by sea to a point in Solomon’s domain and transported from there to Jerusalem. Cedar and fir trees from Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon provided ships for Tyre (Ez 27:5), sacred barges and furniture for Egypt, and timber for building the second temple in Jerusalem (Ezr 3:7).<\/p>\n<p>From the ports of Lebanon, the Phoenicians traded with many lands. They mastered the art of shipbuilding, and their ships were used in peace and in war. A vivid picture of the trading activities of traders from Tyre, Sidon, Gebal, and Arvad is given in Ezekiel 27, where the extent and nature of their trade is given in considerable detail.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"History\">History<\/p>\n<p>The area became of interest to the Egyptians during the fourth dynasty (c. 2600 <span>BC<\/span>) when Pharaoh Snofru acquired 40 shiploads of cedar from Lebanon. Byblos fell under Egyptian influence during the 12th dynasty (c. 1980–1800 <span>BC<\/span>) and Egyptians gave golden ornaments in exchange for cedar. During the 18th dynasty (c. 1552–1306 <span>BC<\/span>), Egypt conquered Syria, and the records speak regularly of cedar being taken as tribute. Later an envoy of Ramses XI named Wenamon paid dearly for the cedar (c. 1100 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>When Egyptian power waned, the Assyrians controlled the area and took vast quantities of cedar as tribute from the days of Tiglath-pileser I (c. 1100 <span>BC<\/span>) onward. Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian nation likewise controlled Lebanon and took away large quantities of cedar to build temples and palaces. The spoiling of Lebanon’s forests was spoken of by Isaiah (Is 14:8) and Habakkuk (Hb 2:17). In later centuries Lebanon passed successively under the domination of Persians, Greeks, and Romans.<\/p>\n<p>In NT times the towns of Tyre and Sidon are generally coupled together (Mt 15:21; Mk 3:8; 7:24, 31; Lk 6:17; 10:13-14; Acts 12:20), though sometimes they are referred to alone (Acts 21:3, 7). A Greek woman who was a Syro-Phoenician is referred to in Mark 7:26. Jesus preached in these areas during his ministry. In biblical poetry the tall cedars of Lebanon were a symbol of majesty and strength (Jgs 9:15; 2 Kgs 14:9; Pss 92:12; 104:16; Is 35:2; 60:13). They were also a symbol of earthly pride that would be broken before the wrath of God one day (Ps 29:5; Is 2:13; 10:34; Jer 22:6; Ez 31:3).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LEBANON<\/h3>\n<p>Region mentioned only in the OT, although its towns, including Tyre and Sidon, are named in the NT. The name Lebanon generally refers to the double range of mountains that commences near Tyre and runs northeast following the Mediterranean coast. The two Lebanon ranges are parallel to one another, Lebanon to the west and Anti-Lebanon to the east. The name Lebanon is derived from the Hebrew root <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">l-b-n<\/span><em>,<\/em> meaning “white,” which may reflect either the white limestone of the mountains or the snow that lay on the mountains for six months of the year (Jer 18:14).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Geography\">Geography<\/p>\n<p>At the southern end the Lebanon ranges are a direct continuation of the hills of northern Galilee, with Mt Hermon (Sirion, Senir) very prominent in the Anti-Lebanon range, rising to 9,230 feet (2,813.3 meters). The two ranges are divided by a broad valley, the valley of Lebanon (Jos 11:17) or “the entrance of Hamath” (Nm 34:8), the modern Beqa’a.<\/p>\n<p>In the south the Lebanon range is separated from the Galilee hills by a deep east-west gorge through which the Litani River flows, entering the Mediterranean just north of Tyre. In its upper courses it follows the Beqa’a Valley in a northeasterly direction almost to Baalbek. The Lebanon ridge, about 100 miles (160.9 kilometers) long, stretches north to the east-west valley of the Nahr el-Kebir and is marked by a series of peaks. In the south are Gebel Rihan, Tomat, and Gebel Niha (ranging from 5,350 feet to nearly 6,230 feet, or 1,636.7 to 1,898.9 meters, high) east of Sidon. In the center lie Gebel Baruk, Gebel Kuneiyiseh, and Gebel Sunnin (7,220 feet, 6,890 feet, and 8,530 feet high, or 2,200.7 meters, 2,100.1 meters, and 2,599.9 meters high, respectively) east of Beirut. Further north, to the east of Tripoli, lies Qurnet es-Sauda, which reaches 9,840 feet (2,999.2 meters), and Qurnet Aruba, about 7,320 feet (2,231.1 meters) high.<\/p>\n<p>These high mountains trap the rain coming from the Mediterranean, providing both the mountain areas and the coastal strip below with good rainfall; beyond the mountains, the rainfall drops. It is along the coastal strip between the mountains and the sea that the Phoenicians flourished and towns like Tyre, Zarephath, Sidon, Berytus (Beirut), Byblos (Gebal), and Tripoli were established. The coastal area has a number of headlands that are extensions of the mountain range. The coastal road had to be cut around or through these spurs. A good example is the headland of Nahr el-Kelb, a little to the north of Beirut.<\/p>\n<p>On the east side of the Lebanon range is the Beqa’a Valley. The Orontes River rises in the north of this valley and flows north to enter the Mediterranean north of ancient Ugarit. This whole valley region was known in classical literature as Coele-syria (Hollow Syria). It was the “breadbasket” of the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>To the east of the Beqa’a Valley is the Anti-Lebanon range, in which the Barada River rises and flows east toward the fertile oasis of Damascus. Mt Hermon, in the southern part of the range, was known as Sirion by the Phoenicians and Senir by the Amorites (Dt 3:9).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Resources\">Resources<\/p>\n<p>Lebanon was famous in antiquity for its rich forests of fir and cedar. The coastal areas, the Beqa’a Valley, and the lower slopes of the mountains were suitable for olive trees, fruit trees, and vineyards, as well as some grain crops. One important product came from the sea: a mollusk of the gastropoda class from which a red or purple dye was obtained. The name “Phoenician” derived from the Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">phoinos<\/span><em>,<\/em> red-purple. Wool dyed purple was available in Ugarit about 1500 <span>BC<\/span>. The Phoenicians had a monopoly on this industry for centuries. The people of Israel, who used a great deal of purple dye in their tabernacle furnishings (Ex 26) and the garments of their priests (Ex 28:4-6; 39:1, 28-29), probably obtained the dye from the Phoenicians.<\/p>\n<p>King Solomon had significant trading relations with Phoenicia. To build the temple in Jerusalem, cedar and fir were obtained from Hiram I of Tyre (1 Kgs 5:6, 9, 14; 7:2; 10:17, 21; 2 Chr 2:8, 16). Solomon paid for this timber in wheat and olive oil (1 Kgs 5:11). The trees were floated down by sea to a point in Solomon’s domain and transported from there to Jerusalem. Cedar and fir trees from Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon provided ships for Tyre (Ez 27:5), sacred barges and furniture for Egypt, and timber for building the second temple in Jerusalem (Ezr 3:7).<\/p>\n<p>From the ports of Lebanon, the Phoenicians traded with many lands. They mastered the art of shipbuilding, and their ships were used in peace and in war. A vivid picture of the trading activities of traders from Tyre, Sidon, Gebal, and Arvad is given in Ezekiel 27, where the extent and nature of their trade is given in considerable detail.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"History\">History<\/p>\n<p>The area became of interest to the Egyptians during the fourth dynasty (c. 2600 <span>BC<\/span>) when Pharaoh Snofru acquired 40 shiploads of cedar from Lebanon. Byblos fell under Egyptian influence during the 12th dynasty (c. 1980–1800 <span>BC<\/span>) and Egyptians gave golden ornaments in exchange for cedar. During the 18th dynasty (c. 1552–1306 <span>BC<\/span>), Egypt conquered Syria, and the records speak regularly of cedar being taken as tribute. Later an envoy of Ramses XI named Wenamon paid dearly for the cedar (c. 1100 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>When Egyptian power waned, the Assyrians controlled the area and took vast quantities of cedar as tribute from the days of Tiglath-pileser I (c. 1100 <span>BC<\/span>) onward. Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian nation likewise controlled Lebanon and took away large quantities of cedar to build temples and palaces. The spoiling of Lebanon’s forests was spoken of by Isaiah (Is 14:8) and Habakkuk (Hb 2:17). In later centuries Lebanon passed successively under the domination of Persians, Greeks, and Romans.<\/p>\n<p>In NT times the towns of Tyre and Sidon are generally coupled together (Mt 15:21; Mk 3:8; 7:24, 31; Lk 6:17; 10:13-14; Acts 12:20), though sometimes they are referred to alone (Acts 21:3, 7). A Greek woman who was a Syro-Phoenician is referred to in Mark 7:26. Jesus preached in these areas during his ministry. In biblical poetry the tall cedars of Lebanon were a symbol of majesty and strength (Jgs 9:15; 2 Kgs 14:9; Pss 92:12; 104:16; Is 35:2; 60:13). They were also a symbol of earthly pride that would be broken before the wrath of God one day (Ps 29:5; Is 2:13; 10:34; Jer 22:6; Ez 31:3).<\/p>","summary_ro":"LEBANON Region mentioned only in the OT, although its towns, including Tyre and Sidon, are named in the NT. The name Lebanon generally refers to the double range of mountains that commences near Tyre and runs northeast following the Mediterranean coast. The two Lebanon ranges are parallel to one another, Lebanon to the west and Anti-Lebanon to the east. The name Lebanon is derived from the Hebrew root l-b-n, meaning “white,” which may reflect either the white limestone of the mountains or the...","summary_en":"LEBANON Region mentioned only in the OT, although its towns, including Tyre and Sidon, are named in the NT. The name Lebanon generally refers to the double range of mountains that commences near Tyre and runs northeast following the Mediterranean coast. The two Lebanon ranges are parallel to one another, Lebanon to the west and Anti-Lebanon to the east. The name Lebanon is derived from the Hebrew root l-b-n, meaning “white,” which may reflect either the white limestone of the mountains or the...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":27065,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Nations","title_en":"Nations","content_ro":"<h3>NATIONS<\/h3>\n<p>Groups formed on the basis of political or social interests or on kinship. Generally, the word “nations” implies peoples of the world other than the Hebrews, although it can also include the Jews.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Origins\">Origins<\/p>\n<p>The book of Genesis attributes to the three sons of Noah the origin of the various “families” or ethnic groups (about 70 in all) who inhabited the eastern Mediterranean regions (Gn 10). The narrative presupposes that each group has its own individual geographical location and language (vv 5, 20, 31). The story of the tower (ziggurat) of Babel, whose peak was to reach to heaven (ch 11), explains that ethnic groups were separated by language barriers and scattered geographically so that they might not collaborate on presumptuous ventures.<\/p>\n<p>Paul, in his sermon in Athens, assumes that the various nations had a common origin, just as the writer of Genesis did, and accepts as part of the design of God the fact that nations should be separated by geographical boundaries (Acts 17:26). The prophet Zephaniah looked forward to the day when God would reverse this state of affairs and cause all the nations to speak one language (Zep 3:9). The writer of Revelation, in his vision of the new heaven and the new earth, saw these natural boundaries abolished. The nations freely intermingle in the new Jerusalem (Rv 21:22-26).<\/p>\n<p>The distinction between “Israel” and “the nations” is not clear-cut. “Israel” evolved from various ethnic groups, and several of “the nations” traced their origins to prominent figures in the Israelite community. Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation, lived in Ur of the Chaldees in the delta region of the Tigris-Euphrates valley. With his father he migrated north to Haran, and finally southwest to the land of Canaan (Gn 11:31–12:9). Deuteronomy 26:5 (“a wandering Aramean was my father”) suggests Abraham’s residence was in the district of Mesopotamia known as Aram-naharaim. When Abraham entered into covenant with God, God gave him the token of the covenant relationship: circumcision. Foreigners purchased as slaves were circumcised, thus including them in the covenant community. When Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt into the wilderness, a mixed multitude also went up with them (Ex 12:38), which suggests again that people not biologically related nevertheless identified themselves with the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The nation of Israel did not include all of those physically descended from Abraham. The first son of Abraham, Ishmael, had an Egyptian mother and is the ancestor of the Ishmaelites, bedouins who roamed the southern wilderness region (Gn 16). Of the twin sons born to Isaac and Rebekah, Esau, the firstborn, is the father of the Edomites living in the southeast, traditional enemies of Israel (Gn 25:23; Nm 20:21).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"GodandtheNations\">God and the Nations<\/p>\n<p>Scripture presents negative and positive attitudes toward the nations. The nations inhabiting the territory between the Tigris-Euphrates valley and the Nile River were wicked nations. Therefore, God took away their land and gave it to the descendants of Abraham (Gn 15:16-20). Incestuous relationships, adultery, homosexuality, and sexual relationships between men and animals characterized the nations and incurred God’s displeasure (Lv 18). The nations indulged in the practice of spiritism, augury, witchcraft, and necromancy, so the Hebrews were instructed to avoid such activities (19:26; 20:6). The nations worshiped many gods and included in their worship the practice of human sacrifice, often the sacrifice of children—a ritual that God abhors (Lv 20:1-5; 2 Kgs 17:29-34). The prophet Isaiah spoke scathingly of the craftsman who, taking a branch of a tree, used part of it to kindle a fire and fashioned from the remainder a graven image that he then worshiped (Is 44:12-20). The Baalim and Ashteroth, fertility gods of the Canaanites, were a constant source of temptation to the people of Israel. The message repeated throughout Scripture is that for these reasons God would drive out the nations and give their territory to Israel (Ex 34:24; Dt 12:29-31). The prophetic oracles against the nations reinforced this negative attitude (Jer 46–51; Am 1:3–2:3).<\/p>\n<p>However, the Scripture also reflects a more positive attitude toward the nations. As revealed in the book of Psalms, God is not only concerned about Israel; his eyes keep watch over the nations, and all the earth praises and worships him (Ps 66:1-8). The psalmist prays that God’s saving power may be known among all the nations. He affirms that God righteously judges the peoples and guides the nations. All the ends of the earth should fear him (67:7). The prophet Isaiah declares that the Jerusalem temple is to be a house of prayer for all peoples and that God welcomes the foreigner who comes with sacrifices and offering worship (Is 56:6-8). Isaiah’s vision of hope for the latter days pictures people of all nations pouring into Jerusalem to worship the Lord and learn his ways. Instead of nation warring against nation, all will live in peace, ruled by God (2:2-4).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheNationsintheNewTestament\">The Nations in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>According to the Gospels, Jesus ministered not only to the Jews but also to the Gentile nations in accordance with ancient prophecy (Mt 4:15-16). Jesus taught in Galilee, a predominantly non-Jewish area, traveled to Tyre and Sidon (Mk 7:24) and through the Decapolis (v 31). He ministered to a Roman centurion (Lk 7:1-10), the widow of Nain (vv 11-17), and a Syrophoenician woman (Mk 7:26). People from Idumea came to observe his miracles (3:8).<\/p>\n<p>The teaching of Jesus was also wide in scope. The narrative of the great judgment (Mt 25:31-46) depicts all nations gathered before the Son of Man, and Jesus commissions the apostles to “make disciples of all nations” (Mt 28:19).<\/p>\n<p>Although the book of Acts does not overlook the nations’ role in the death of Jesus (Acts 4:27) and their role in opposing the ministry of Paul (26:17), it nevertheless clearly indicates that the church fulfilled its commission to present the gospel to non-Jewish peoples. Peter proclaims the message about Jesus to the household of Cornelius, a Roman soldier of the Italian Cohort (ch 10). Although the early church resisted the fact that non-Jewish peoples might freely receive the gift of the Spirit, they eventually welcomed this conclusion (11:1-8; 15:1-29). Paul traveled through Cyprus, Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy, founding or visiting churches that were predominantly Gentile. The book of Acts ends dramatically with Paul preaching the gospel in the city of Rome, the heart of the Roman Empire.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>NATIONS<\/h3>\n<p>Groups formed on the basis of political or social interests or on kinship. Generally, the word “nations” implies peoples of the world other than the Hebrews, although it can also include the Jews.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Origins\">Origins<\/p>\n<p>The book of Genesis attributes to the three sons of Noah the origin of the various “families” or ethnic groups (about 70 in all) who inhabited the eastern Mediterranean regions (Gn 10). The narrative presupposes that each group has its own individual geographical location and language (vv 5, 20, 31). The story of the tower (ziggurat) of Babel, whose peak was to reach to heaven (ch 11), explains that ethnic groups were separated by language barriers and scattered geographically so that they might not collaborate on presumptuous ventures.<\/p>\n<p>Paul, in his sermon in Athens, assumes that the various nations had a common origin, just as the writer of Genesis did, and accepts as part of the design of God the fact that nations should be separated by geographical boundaries (Acts 17:26). The prophet Zephaniah looked forward to the day when God would reverse this state of affairs and cause all the nations to speak one language (Zep 3:9). The writer of Revelation, in his vision of the new heaven and the new earth, saw these natural boundaries abolished. The nations freely intermingle in the new Jerusalem (Rv 21:22-26).<\/p>\n<p>The distinction between “Israel” and “the nations” is not clear-cut. “Israel” evolved from various ethnic groups, and several of “the nations” traced their origins to prominent figures in the Israelite community. Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation, lived in Ur of the Chaldees in the delta region of the Tigris-Euphrates valley. With his father he migrated north to Haran, and finally southwest to the land of Canaan (Gn 11:31–12:9). Deuteronomy 26:5 (“a wandering Aramean was my father”) suggests Abraham’s residence was in the district of Mesopotamia known as Aram-naharaim. When Abraham entered into covenant with God, God gave him the token of the covenant relationship: circumcision. Foreigners purchased as slaves were circumcised, thus including them in the covenant community. When Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt into the wilderness, a mixed multitude also went up with them (Ex 12:38), which suggests again that people not biologically related nevertheless identified themselves with the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The nation of Israel did not include all of those physically descended from Abraham. The first son of Abraham, Ishmael, had an Egyptian mother and is the ancestor of the Ishmaelites, bedouins who roamed the southern wilderness region (Gn 16). Of the twin sons born to Isaac and Rebekah, Esau, the firstborn, is the father of the Edomites living in the southeast, traditional enemies of Israel (Gn 25:23; Nm 20:21).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"GodandtheNations\">God and the Nations<\/p>\n<p>Scripture presents negative and positive attitudes toward the nations. The nations inhabiting the territory between the Tigris-Euphrates valley and the Nile River were wicked nations. Therefore, God took away their land and gave it to the descendants of Abraham (Gn 15:16-20). Incestuous relationships, adultery, homosexuality, and sexual relationships between men and animals characterized the nations and incurred God’s displeasure (Lv 18). The nations indulged in the practice of spiritism, augury, witchcraft, and necromancy, so the Hebrews were instructed to avoid such activities (19:26; 20:6). The nations worshiped many gods and included in their worship the practice of human sacrifice, often the sacrifice of children—a ritual that God abhors (Lv 20:1-5; 2 Kgs 17:29-34). The prophet Isaiah spoke scathingly of the craftsman who, taking a branch of a tree, used part of it to kindle a fire and fashioned from the remainder a graven image that he then worshiped (Is 44:12-20). The Baalim and Ashteroth, fertility gods of the Canaanites, were a constant source of temptation to the people of Israel. The message repeated throughout Scripture is that for these reasons God would drive out the nations and give their territory to Israel (Ex 34:24; Dt 12:29-31). The prophetic oracles against the nations reinforced this negative attitude (Jer 46–51; Am 1:3–2:3).<\/p>\n<p>However, the Scripture also reflects a more positive attitude toward the nations. As revealed in the book of Psalms, God is not only concerned about Israel; his eyes keep watch over the nations, and all the earth praises and worships him (Ps 66:1-8). The psalmist prays that God’s saving power may be known among all the nations. He affirms that God righteously judges the peoples and guides the nations. All the ends of the earth should fear him (67:7). The prophet Isaiah declares that the Jerusalem temple is to be a house of prayer for all peoples and that God welcomes the foreigner who comes with sacrifices and offering worship (Is 56:6-8). Isaiah’s vision of hope for the latter days pictures people of all nations pouring into Jerusalem to worship the Lord and learn his ways. Instead of nation warring against nation, all will live in peace, ruled by God (2:2-4).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheNationsintheNewTestament\">The Nations in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>According to the Gospels, Jesus ministered not only to the Jews but also to the Gentile nations in accordance with ancient prophecy (Mt 4:15-16). Jesus taught in Galilee, a predominantly non-Jewish area, traveled to Tyre and Sidon (Mk 7:24) and through the Decapolis (v 31). He ministered to a Roman centurion (Lk 7:1-10), the widow of Nain (vv 11-17), and a Syrophoenician woman (Mk 7:26). People from Idumea came to observe his miracles (3:8).<\/p>\n<p>The teaching of Jesus was also wide in scope. The narrative of the great judgment (Mt 25:31-46) depicts all nations gathered before the Son of Man, and Jesus commissions the apostles to “make disciples of all nations” (Mt 28:19).<\/p>\n<p>Although the book of Acts does not overlook the nations’ role in the death of Jesus (Acts 4:27) and their role in opposing the ministry of Paul (26:17), it nevertheless clearly indicates that the church fulfilled its commission to present the gospel to non-Jewish peoples. Peter proclaims the message about Jesus to the household of Cornelius, a Roman soldier of the Italian Cohort (ch 10). Although the early church resisted the fact that non-Jewish peoples might freely receive the gift of the Spirit, they eventually welcomed this conclusion (11:1-8; 15:1-29). Paul traveled through Cyprus, Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy, founding or visiting churches that were predominantly Gentile. The book of Acts ends dramatically with Paul preaching the gospel in the city of Rome, the heart of the Roman Empire.<\/p>","summary_ro":"NATIONS Groups formed on the basis of political or social interests or on kinship. Generally, the word “nations” implies peoples of the world other than the Hebrews, although it can also include the Jews. Origins The book of Genesis attributes to the three sons of Noah the origin of the various “families” or ethnic groups (about 70 in all) who inhabited the eastern Mediterranean regions (Gn 10). The narrative presupposes that each group has its own individual geographical location and languag...","summary_en":"NATIONS Groups formed on the basis of political or social interests or on kinship. Generally, the word “nations” implies peoples of the world other than the Hebrews, although it can also include the Jews. Origins The book of Genesis attributes to the three sons of Noah the origin of the various “families” or ethnic groups (about 70 in all) who inhabited the eastern Mediterranean regions (Gn 10). The narrative presupposes that each group has its own individual geographical location and languag...","source":"Articles\/N.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":29572,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Perea*","title_en":"Perea*","content_ro":"<h3>PEREA*<\/h3>\n<p>Term not occurring in the NT except in the fourth-century manuscript Codex Sinaiticus and the fifth-century manuscript Codex Washingtonianus, where it appears in Luke 6:17 and is treated as a variant reading by most editors of the Greek NT. It was used in the first century <span>AD<\/span> by Josephus to refer to the region “beyond the Jordan” (he derived the word Perea from the Greek for “beyond”). The geographical location of the area is therefore best understood from Josephus’s <em>War of the Jews<\/em> (3.3.3): “Now the length of Perea is from Machaerus to Pella, and its breadth from Philadelphia to Jordan; its northern parts are bounded by Pella, as we have already said, as well as its western with Jordan; the land of Moab is its southern border, and its eastern limits reach to Arabia, and Silbonitis, and besides to Philadelphene and Gerasa.” Gadara is called “the metropolis of Perea” by Josephus because it was a “place of strength” and because “many of the citizens of Gadara were rich men” (<em>War<\/em> 4.7.3). This Gadara is not to be confused with the Gadara of the Decapolis, modern Um Qeis, but is to be identified with Tell Gadura, about 15 miles (24.1 kilometers) northwest of modern Amman, Jordan.<\/p>\n<p>The Decapolis is separated from Perea in Matthew 4:25, where it is listed among the various sections of Palestine from which people came to hear Jesus. Perea is here called the region “beyond the Jordan,” and is so designated also in Mark 3:8. In one place Matthew referred to Perea as “the region of Judea beyond the Jordan” (Mt 19:1). This is perplexing because politically Perea was never a part of Judea, belonging to the jurisdiction not of Archelaus but of Herod Antipas, who also controlled Galilee. The parallel passage in Mark 10:1 reads, “the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan.” Perhaps Matthew was using the phrase to refer to that part of Perea that, though politically not a part of Judea, was Jewish in population. In his <em>Natural History<\/em> (<span>AD<\/span> 77) Pliny spoke of Perea as a place “separated from the <em>other parts<\/em> of Judea by the River Jordan” (5.70), and the <em>“rest<\/em> of Judea by the River Jordan” (5.70), and the <em>“rest<\/em> of Judea” as being divided into 10 local government areas, as though he considered Perea to be a part of Judea. However, this may be a mistaken assumption, since Pliny’s knowledge of the immediate area is somewhat questionable—in the same context he erroneously asserts that the Dead Sea is “more than 100 miles long and fully as wide at its widest part” (<em>Natural History<\/em> 5.72), whereas in reality it is less than 50 miles (80.5 kilometers) long and only 11 miles (17.7 kilometers) wide.<\/p>\n<p>The area was well known and often mentioned in the OT by the phrase “beyond the Jordan” (Nm 22:1; Dt 1:1, 5), and was occupied in its southern portion by the two Israelite tribes Gad and Reuben (Jos 1:12-14). Stretching from the brook Kerith in the north almost to the Arnon River in the south, Perea was virtually synonymous with OT Gilead (Jos 22:9; Jgs 5:17).<\/p>\n<p>It seems to have been an important district in the decades before the birth of Christ (Hellenistic period) when Jewish (Maccabean) leaders controlled it after 124 <span>BC<\/span>. Under Roman rule, it was given to Herod the Great until his death in 4 <span>BC<\/span>, when it passed (according to his will) into the hands of his son Herod Antipas, along with Galilee. Because the area was beautiful and productive and had trees noted for their medicinal balm (Jer 8:22; 46:11), it was always well populated and supported numerous well-known cities, such as Pella, Jabesh-gilead, Succoth, Penuel, and Gerasa (modern Jerash). Herod Antipas even had a fort named Machaerus in the southern extremities of Perea, where he imprisoned John the Baptist and had him put to death (see Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2).<\/p>\n<p>It was customary for Jews traveling back and forth from Galilee to Judea to cross the Jordan into Perea in order to avoid contact with the Samaritans. Before his death, John the Baptist had been baptizing in Bethany beyond the Jordan when he announced Jesus as the Lamb of God (Jn 1:28-29), and Jesus returned here during his ministry once when he was being severely persecuted (10:40).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PEREA*<\/h3>\n<p>Term not occurring in the NT except in the fourth-century manuscript Codex Sinaiticus and the fifth-century manuscript Codex Washingtonianus, where it appears in Luke 6:17 and is treated as a variant reading by most editors of the Greek NT. It was used in the first century <span>AD<\/span> by Josephus to refer to the region “beyond the Jordan” (he derived the word Perea from the Greek for “beyond”). The geographical location of the area is therefore best understood from Josephus’s <em>War of the Jews<\/em> (3.3.3): “Now the length of Perea is from Machaerus to Pella, and its breadth from Philadelphia to Jordan; its northern parts are bounded by Pella, as we have already said, as well as its western with Jordan; the land of Moab is its southern border, and its eastern limits reach to Arabia, and Silbonitis, and besides to Philadelphene and Gerasa.” Gadara is called “the metropolis of Perea” by Josephus because it was a “place of strength” and because “many of the citizens of Gadara were rich men” (<em>War<\/em> 4.7.3). This Gadara is not to be confused with the Gadara of the Decapolis, modern Um Qeis, but is to be identified with Tell Gadura, about 15 miles (24.1 kilometers) northwest of modern Amman, Jordan.<\/p>\n<p>The Decapolis is separated from Perea in Matthew 4:25, where it is listed among the various sections of Palestine from which people came to hear Jesus. Perea is here called the region “beyond the Jordan,” and is so designated also in Mark 3:8. In one place Matthew referred to Perea as “the region of Judea beyond the Jordan” (Mt 19:1). This is perplexing because politically Perea was never a part of Judea, belonging to the jurisdiction not of Archelaus but of Herod Antipas, who also controlled Galilee. The parallel passage in Mark 10:1 reads, “the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan.” Perhaps Matthew was using the phrase to refer to that part of Perea that, though politically not a part of Judea, was Jewish in population. In his <em>Natural History<\/em> (<span>AD<\/span> 77) Pliny spoke of Perea as a place “separated from the <em>other parts<\/em> of Judea by the River Jordan” (5.70), and the <em>“rest<\/em> of Judea by the River Jordan” (5.70), and the <em>“rest<\/em> of Judea” as being divided into 10 local government areas, as though he considered Perea to be a part of Judea. However, this may be a mistaken assumption, since Pliny’s knowledge of the immediate area is somewhat questionable—in the same context he erroneously asserts that the Dead Sea is “more than 100 miles long and fully as wide at its widest part” (<em>Natural History<\/em> 5.72), whereas in reality it is less than 50 miles (80.5 kilometers) long and only 11 miles (17.7 kilometers) wide.<\/p>\n<p>The area was well known and often mentioned in the OT by the phrase “beyond the Jordan” (Nm 22:1; Dt 1:1, 5), and was occupied in its southern portion by the two Israelite tribes Gad and Reuben (Jos 1:12-14). Stretching from the brook Kerith in the north almost to the Arnon River in the south, Perea was virtually synonymous with OT Gilead (Jos 22:9; Jgs 5:17).<\/p>\n<p>It seems to have been an important district in the decades before the birth of Christ (Hellenistic period) when Jewish (Maccabean) leaders controlled it after 124 <span>BC<\/span>. Under Roman rule, it was given to Herod the Great until his death in 4 <span>BC<\/span>, when it passed (according to his will) into the hands of his son Herod Antipas, along with Galilee. Because the area was beautiful and productive and had trees noted for their medicinal balm (Jer 8:22; 46:11), it was always well populated and supported numerous well-known cities, such as Pella, Jabesh-gilead, Succoth, Penuel, and Gerasa (modern Jerash). Herod Antipas even had a fort named Machaerus in the southern extremities of Perea, where he imprisoned John the Baptist and had him put to death (see Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2).<\/p>\n<p>It was customary for Jews traveling back and forth from Galilee to Judea to cross the Jordan into Perea in order to avoid contact with the Samaritans. Before his death, John the Baptist had been baptizing in Bethany beyond the Jordan when he announced Jesus as the Lamb of God (Jn 1:28-29), and Jesus returned here during his ministry once when he was being severely persecuted (10:40).<\/p>","summary_ro":"PEREA* Term not occurring in the NT except in the fourth-century manuscript Codex Sinaiticus and the fifth-century manuscript Codex Washingtonianus, where it appears in Luke 6:17 and is treated as a variant reading by most editors of the Greek NT. It was used in the first century AD by Josephus to refer to the region “beyond the Jordan” (he derived the word Perea from the Greek for “beyond”). The geographical location of the area is therefore best understood from Josephus’s War of the Jews (3...","summary_en":"PEREA* Term not occurring in the NT except in the fourth-century manuscript Codex Sinaiticus and the fifth-century manuscript Codex Washingtonianus, where it appears in Luke 6:17 and is treated as a variant reading by most editors of the Greek NT. It was used in the first century AD by Josephus to refer to the region “beyond the Jordan” (he derived the word Perea from the Greek for “beyond”). The geographical location of the area is therefore best understood from Josephus’s War of the Jews (3...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"9":[{"id":29751,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Perseverance","title_en":"Perseverance","content_ro":"<h3>PERSEVERANCE<\/h3>\n<p>Action or condition of steadfastness. OT Israel waited generations for fulfillment of promises that many believers never lived to see (Heb 11:1, 13, 21-22, 39). The promise to Abraham sustained hope for centuries before Canaan was possessed. The lesson of the wilderness journey, when the waning of initial zeal prevented the people from entering the Promised Land, was never forgotten (3:16-19). Prophets looked constantly beyond failure and tragedy to distant horizons, and they nourished a patient faith (Jer 32:1-15; Hos 3:4-5; Jl 2:28-29; Hb 2:1-3; Dn 12:11-13).<\/p>\n<p>The NT everywhere urges similar perseverance. Among several Greek expressions, the usual word, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">proskartereo<\/span><em>,<\/em> has the root meaning “to attend continually, adhere steadfastly” (Mk 3:9; Acts 8:13; 10:7; Rom 13:6), and is variously translated “devoted,” “continued,” “constant,” “[be] steadfast.”<\/p>\n<p>This persistent patience is called for in prayer (Lk 18:1-8; Col 4:2); in well doing (Rom 2:7; Gal 6:9); in Christian teaching (Acts 2:42; 2 Tm 3:14); in affliction (2 Thes 1:4); in grace (Acts 13:43; 2 Cor 6:1); in faith (Acts 14:22; Col 1:23); in divine love (Jn 15:9; Jude 1:21); in standing firm (1 Cor 16:13; 2 Thes 2:15); in abiding in Christ (Jn 15:4-10; 1 Jn 2:28); in running with patience (Heb 6:12; 12:1); in not falling away (Heb 3:12; 4:1-10); and in being zealous to confirm our call and election (2 Pt 1:10).<\/p>\n<p>The failure in perseverance of Judas (Jn 6:71), Demas (2 Tm 4:10), and Hymenaeus (2 Tm 2:17) must be kept in mind, as well as the dread possibility of neglecting so great a salvation (Heb 2:3), being disqualified (1 Cor 9:27), falling while we think we stand (1 Cor 10:12), and committing apostasy (Heb 6:1-8). For, as Jesus said, “He who endures to the end will be saved” (Mt 10:22; 24:13). Such extraordinary emphasis cannot be accidental. The pressures of pagan society, the danger of persecution, emotional reaction after a wonderful initial experience, and the apparent implication of “instant salvation,” made it imperative for Christians to understand that by their endurance they would inherit eternal salvation (Lk 21:19; Rom 5:3; Col 1:11).<\/p>\n<p>Yet Scripture never implies that perseverance depends entirely upon human effort. In the OT, the redeeming purpose of God is unswerving; God’s covenant stands, though it needs to be renewed (Jer 31:31-34). Divine love (Hebrew, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">hesed<\/span>) connotes changeless loyalty; God “will never fail nor forsake” for “his own name’s sake.” The NT assurance is that Christ will raise his own at the last day—none shall pluck them from his hand or the Father’s. Christ will keep us from falling. God is faithful; he works in us to will and work for his good pleasure, and will not allow us to be tempted beyond our strength. Nothing, in heaven or earth, present or future, shall separate us from divine love. We are already sealed by the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of eternal salvation, and we are kept by the power of God unto a salvation yet to be revealed.<\/p>\n<p>The scriptural tension between exhortation to perseverance and assurance of salvation has given rise to much debate. The intellectual paradox is resolved only in spiritual experience.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Assurance; Backsliding.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PERSEVERANCE<\/h3>\n<p>Action or condition of steadfastness. OT Israel waited generations for fulfillment of promises that many believers never lived to see (Heb 11:1, 13, 21-22, 39). The promise to Abraham sustained hope for centuries before Canaan was possessed. The lesson of the wilderness journey, when the waning of initial zeal prevented the people from entering the Promised Land, was never forgotten (3:16-19). Prophets looked constantly beyond failure and tragedy to distant horizons, and they nourished a patient faith (Jer 32:1-15; Hos 3:4-5; Jl 2:28-29; Hb 2:1-3; Dn 12:11-13).<\/p>\n<p>The NT everywhere urges similar perseverance. Among several Greek expressions, the usual word, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">proskartereo<\/span><em>,<\/em> has the root meaning “to attend continually, adhere steadfastly” (Mk 3:9; Acts 8:13; 10:7; Rom 13:6), and is variously translated “devoted,” “continued,” “constant,” “[be] steadfast.”<\/p>\n<p>This persistent patience is called for in prayer (Lk 18:1-8; Col 4:2); in well doing (Rom 2:7; Gal 6:9); in Christian teaching (Acts 2:42; 2 Tm 3:14); in affliction (2 Thes 1:4); in grace (Acts 13:43; 2 Cor 6:1); in faith (Acts 14:22; Col 1:23); in divine love (Jn 15:9; Jude 1:21); in standing firm (1 Cor 16:13; 2 Thes 2:15); in abiding in Christ (Jn 15:4-10; 1 Jn 2:28); in running with patience (Heb 6:12; 12:1); in not falling away (Heb 3:12; 4:1-10); and in being zealous to confirm our call and election (2 Pt 1:10).<\/p>\n<p>The failure in perseverance of Judas (Jn 6:71), Demas (2 Tm 4:10), and Hymenaeus (2 Tm 2:17) must be kept in mind, as well as the dread possibility of neglecting so great a salvation (Heb 2:3), being disqualified (1 Cor 9:27), falling while we think we stand (1 Cor 10:12), and committing apostasy (Heb 6:1-8). For, as Jesus said, “He who endures to the end will be saved” (Mt 10:22; 24:13). Such extraordinary emphasis cannot be accidental. The pressures of pagan society, the danger of persecution, emotional reaction after a wonderful initial experience, and the apparent implication of “instant salvation,” made it imperative for Christians to understand that by their endurance they would inherit eternal salvation (Lk 21:19; Rom 5:3; Col 1:11).<\/p>\n<p>Yet Scripture never implies that perseverance depends entirely upon human effort. In the OT, the redeeming purpose of God is unswerving; God’s covenant stands, though it needs to be renewed (Jer 31:31-34). Divine love (Hebrew, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">hesed<\/span>) connotes changeless loyalty; God “will never fail nor forsake” for “his own name’s sake.” The NT assurance is that Christ will raise his own at the last day—none shall pluck them from his hand or the Father’s. Christ will keep us from falling. God is faithful; he works in us to will and work for his good pleasure, and will not allow us to be tempted beyond our strength. Nothing, in heaven or earth, present or future, shall separate us from divine love. We are already sealed by the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of eternal salvation, and we are kept by the power of God unto a salvation yet to be revealed.<\/p>\n<p>The scriptural tension between exhortation to perseverance and assurance of salvation has given rise to much debate. The intellectual paradox is resolved only in spiritual experience.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Assurance; Backsliding.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PERSEVERANCE Action or condition of steadfastness. OT Israel waited generations for fulfillment of promises that many believers never lived to see (Heb 11:1, 13, 21-22, 39). The promise to Abraham sustained hope for centuries before Canaan was possessed. The lesson of the wilderness journey, when the waning of initial zeal prevented the people from entering the Promised Land, was never forgotten (3:16-19). Prophets looked constantly beyond failure and tragedy to distant horizons, and they nou...","summary_en":"PERSEVERANCE Action or condition of steadfastness. OT Israel waited generations for fulfillment of promises that many believers never lived to see (Heb 11:1, 13, 21-22, 39). The promise to Abraham sustained hope for centuries before Canaan was possessed. The lesson of the wilderness journey, when the waning of initial zeal prevented the people from entering the Promised Land, was never forgotten (3:16-19). Prophets looked constantly beyond failure and tragedy to distant horizons, and they nou...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":33515,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Sailors","title_en":"Sailors","content_ro":"<h3>SAILORS<\/h3>\n<p>Men trained in sailing ships at sea. The people of Israel were not generally seafaring and confined their activities on the water to the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan River. Occasionally, they may have had contact with large ships (Gn 49:13; Jgs 5:17). Solomon had a fleet of ships at Ezion-geber on the Gulf of Aqaba (1 Kgs 9:26-28; 2 Chr 8:17-18; 9:21). Jehoshaphat, too, had a fleet at Ezion-geber (1 Kgs 22:48; 2 Chr 20:35-37).<\/p>\n<p>The NT frequently mentions ships and sailors—the numerous fishing boats on Galilee (Mt 14:22; Mk 1:19; 3:9; Lk 5:2; Jn 6:19, 22-24; 21:8) and the large ships such as the one in which Paul traveled to Rome (Acts 27:6-44). Shipmen or sailors are mentioned in Acts 27:27, 30. The term “mariner” (<span>kjv<\/span>) refers to a sailor (Ez 27:9, 27-29; Jon 1:5).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Travel.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SAILORS<\/h3>\n<p>Men trained in sailing ships at sea. The people of Israel were not generally seafaring and confined their activities on the water to the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan River. Occasionally, they may have had contact with large ships (Gn 49:13; Jgs 5:17). Solomon had a fleet of ships at Ezion-geber on the Gulf of Aqaba (1 Kgs 9:26-28; 2 Chr 8:17-18; 9:21). Jehoshaphat, too, had a fleet at Ezion-geber (1 Kgs 22:48; 2 Chr 20:35-37).<\/p>\n<p>The NT frequently mentions ships and sailors—the numerous fishing boats on Galilee (Mt 14:22; Mk 1:19; 3:9; Lk 5:2; Jn 6:19, 22-24; 21:8) and the large ships such as the one in which Paul traveled to Rome (Acts 27:6-44). Shipmen or sailors are mentioned in Acts 27:27, 30. The term “mariner” (<span>kjv<\/span>) refers to a sailor (Ez 27:9, 27-29; Jon 1:5).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Travel.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SAILORS Men trained in sailing ships at sea. The people of Israel were not generally seafaring and confined their activities on the water to the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan River. Occasionally, they may have had contact with large ships (Gn 49:13; Jgs 5:17). Solomon had a fleet of ships at Ezion-geber on the Gulf of Aqaba (1 Kgs 9:26-28; 2 Chr 8:17-18; 9:21). Jehoshaphat, too, had a fleet at Ezion-geber (1 Kgs 22:48; 2 Chr 20:35-37). The NT frequently mentions ships and sailors—the numerous...","summary_en":"SAILORS Men trained in sailing ships at sea. The people of Israel were not generally seafaring and confined their activities on the water to the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan River. Occasionally, they may have had contact with large ships (Gn 49:13; Jgs 5:17). Solomon had a fleet of ships at Ezion-geber on the Gulf of Aqaba (1 Kgs 9:26-28; 2 Chr 8:17-18; 9:21). Jehoshaphat, too, had a fleet at Ezion-geber (1 Kgs 22:48; 2 Chr 20:35-37). The NT frequently mentions ships and sailors—the numerous...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55188,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:9","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:9<\/strong> The <em>boat<\/em> probably belonged to Peter and Andrew or to James and John. The crowd’s desire to see Jesus was so great that he needed to escape the <em>crush<\/em> of people (4:1; 5:24, 31).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:9<\/strong> The <em>boat<\/em> probably belonged to Peter and Andrew or to James and John. The crowd’s desire to see Jesus was so great that he needed to escape the <em>crush<\/em> of people (4:1; 5:24, 31).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:9 The boat probably belonged to Peter and Andrew or to James and John. The crowd’s desire to see Jesus was so great that he needed to escape the crush of people (4:1; 5:24, 31).","summary_en":"3:9 The boat probably belonged to Peter and Andrew or to James and John. The crowd’s desire to see Jesus was so great that he needed to escape the crush of people (4:1; 5:24, 31).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82814,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:9","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:9<\/strong> The <em>boat<\/em> probably belonged to Peter and Andrew or to James and John. The crowd’s desire to see Jesus was so great that he needed to escape the <em>crush<\/em> of people (4:1; 5:24, 31).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:9<\/strong> The <em>boat<\/em> probably belonged to Peter and Andrew or to James and John. The crowd’s desire to see Jesus was so great that he needed to escape the <em>crush<\/em> of people (4:1; 5:24, 31).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:9 The boat probably belonged to Peter and Andrew or to James and John. The crowd’s desire to see Jesus was so great that he needed to escape the crush of people (4:1; 5:24, 31).","summary_en":"3:9 The boat probably belonged to Peter and Andrew or to James and John. The crowd’s desire to see Jesus was so great that he needed to escape the crush of people (4:1; 5:24, 31).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110440,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:9","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:9<\/strong> The <em>boat<\/em> probably belonged to Peter and Andrew or to James and John. The crowd’s desire to see Jesus was so great that he needed to escape the <em>crush<\/em> of people (4:1; 5:24, 31).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:9<\/strong> The <em>boat<\/em> probably belonged to Peter and Andrew or to James and John. The crowd’s desire to see Jesus was so great that he needed to escape the <em>crush<\/em> of people (4:1; 5:24, 31).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:9 The boat probably belonged to Peter and Andrew or to James and John. The crowd’s desire to see Jesus was so great that he needed to escape the crush of people (4:1; 5:24, 31).","summary_en":"3:9 The boat probably belonged to Peter and Andrew or to James and John. The crowd’s desire to see Jesus was so great that he needed to escape the crush of people (4:1; 5:24, 31).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138066,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:9","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:9<\/strong> The <em>boat<\/em> probably belonged to Peter and Andrew or to James and John. The crowd’s desire to see Jesus was so great that he needed to escape the <em>crush<\/em> of people (4:1; 5:24, 31).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:9<\/strong> The <em>boat<\/em> probably belonged to Peter and Andrew or to James and John. The crowd’s desire to see Jesus was so great that he needed to escape the <em>crush<\/em> of people (4:1; 5:24, 31).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:9 The boat probably belonged to Peter and Andrew or to James and John. The crowd’s desire to see Jesus was so great that he needed to escape the crush of people (4:1; 5:24, 31).","summary_en":"3:9 The boat probably belonged to Peter and Andrew or to James and John. The crowd’s desire to see Jesus was so great that he needed to escape the crush of people (4:1; 5:24, 31).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"10":[{"id":55189,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:10","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:10<\/strong> Jesus <em>healed many people that day<\/em><em>;<\/em> perhaps he healed <em>all the sick<\/em> (cp. Matt 12:15).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:10<\/strong> Jesus <em>healed many people that day<\/em><em>;<\/em> perhaps he healed <em>all the sick<\/em> (cp. Matt 12:15).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:10 Jesus healed many people that day; perhaps he healed all the sick (cp. Matt 12:15).","summary_en":"3:10 Jesus healed many people that day; perhaps he healed all the sick (cp. Matt 12:15).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82815,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:10","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:10<\/strong> Jesus <em>healed many people that day<\/em><em>;<\/em> perhaps he healed <em>all the sick<\/em> (cp. Matt 12:15).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:10<\/strong> Jesus <em>healed many people that day<\/em><em>;<\/em> perhaps he healed <em>all the sick<\/em> (cp. Matt 12:15).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:10 Jesus healed many people that day; perhaps he healed all the sick (cp. Matt 12:15).","summary_en":"3:10 Jesus healed many people that day; perhaps he healed all the sick (cp. Matt 12:15).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110441,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:10","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:10<\/strong> Jesus <em>healed many people that day<\/em><em>;<\/em> perhaps he healed <em>all the sick<\/em> (cp. Matt 12:15).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:10<\/strong> Jesus <em>healed many people that day<\/em><em>;<\/em> perhaps he healed <em>all the sick<\/em> (cp. Matt 12:15).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:10 Jesus healed many people that day; perhaps he healed all the sick (cp. Matt 12:15).","summary_en":"3:10 Jesus healed many people that day; perhaps he healed all the sick (cp. Matt 12:15).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138067,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:10","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:10<\/strong> Jesus <em>healed many people that day<\/em><em>;<\/em> perhaps he healed <em>all the sick<\/em> (cp. Matt 12:15).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:10<\/strong> Jesus <em>healed many people that day<\/em><em>;<\/em> perhaps he healed <em>all the sick<\/em> (cp. Matt 12:15).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:10 Jesus healed many people that day; perhaps he healed all the sick (cp. Matt 12:15).","summary_en":"3:10 Jesus healed many people that day; perhaps he healed all the sick (cp. Matt 12:15).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"11":[{"id":17332,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Incarnation*","title_en":"Incarnation*","content_ro":"<h3>INCARNATION*<\/h3>\n<p>Literally, “in flesh”; theologically, the doctrine that in Jesus of Nazareth God took on human flesh and became the God-man. Historically, the doctrine of incarnation was central in the christological debates of patristic times and has recently come to the fore again in academic circles. Biblically, it expresses the mystery of Jesus’ identity.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NewTestamentTestimony\">New Testament Testimony<\/p>\n<h5>The Synoptic Gospels<\/h5>\n<p>The Gospel of Mark has no account of the Incarnation and stresses Jesus’ messiahship more than his deity. As a result, some believe that it represents an earlier stage in the development of the church’s theology, before the doctrine of incarnation had evolved. That is doubtful for two reasons: Incarnation passages like the Philippians hymn (Phil 2:6-11) probably antedate Mark’s Gospel, and Mark has a well-developed theology of the two natures of Christ. Although he stresses Jesus’ humanity, Mark accents it with an emphasis on divinity. Jesus was called the “beloved Son” by a heavenly voice at his baptism and transfiguration (Mk 1:11; 9:7); demons called him divine (3:11; 5:7), as did a Roman centurion (15:39). Jesus’ “Abba” prayers (14:36; cf. Mt 26:39; Lk 22:42) indicate his sense of divine identity, and at his trial he was charged with claiming the title “Son of the Blessed” (14:61-62). Thus, though the Incarnation is nowhere explicitly stated in Mark, it is implicitly affirmed.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew and Luke express the Incarnation. The birth narratives, of course, stress the event itself, with Matthew emphasizing Jesus’ royal messiahship, and Luke, the divine witness of the Holy Spirit. Matthew’s Gospel is Christ-centered; Luke concentrates on Christ as Savior, or more precisely, on salvation-history. Although Matthew presents Jesus’ humanity, he emphasizes his lordship (Mt 23:6-10) and divine sonship. The Incarnation thus becomes the means whereby the divine becomes human in a universal sense (1:23; 18:20; 24:14; 28:18-20). Luke shows the greatest interest of the three in Jesus’ earthly life. Nevertheless, his Gospel does not stress the human side of Jesus as much as Mark’s. Luke portrays Jesus primarily as the divine Savior within history (Lk 2:11; 4:16-30). He combines Jesus’ messianic office and divine nature, showing that the incarnate Son of God suffered and was exalted in order to bring people to God.<\/p>\n<h5>John’s Writings<\/h5>\n<p>The apostle John’s doctrine of incarnation is more explicit than any of the others, teaching not only Jesus’ God-man status but also his preexistent “glory” (Jn 1:1-18). Central in this presentation is the oneness between Jesus and God the Father (10:29-30; 14:8-11; 1 Jn 2:23). The “I am” (the expressed Christ, taken from the OT title for the one true God and probably signifying God’s personal name, Yahweh) came to reveal God to his people (Jn 1:4-5, 14, 18). Yet John also has the most balanced presentation of the Incarnation. The divine Logos or Word (1:1-18) is the exemplar of perfect humanity; he “became flesh” (v 14) to enlighten people (vv 5, 9) and generate in them “eternal life” (3:14-18; 1 Jn 1:1-3; 4:9).<\/p>\n<h5>Paul’s Epistles<\/h5>\n<p>The apostle Paul presented the Incarnation as Jesus’ path to suffering and redemption. In Galatians 4:4-5 the Incarnation (“born of woman”) came “in the fullness of time” or at the apex of salvation-history, to “redeem those who were under the law.” In the Philippians hymn (Phil 2:6-11, quotes from <span>nasb<\/span>), the Incarnation is seen in terms of preexistence (“though he was in the form of God”), humiliation (“emptied . . . humbled”), and obedience (“becoming obedient to the point of death”). The goal of the Incarnation was the cross (“even death on a cross”), and its result was Christ’s exaltation. The hymn is perhaps the supreme theological statement on the Incarnation in the NT. Jesus’ human life was an “emptying,” a refusal to seize the prerogatives of his deity (“did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped”).<\/p>\n<p>Paul described Christ as a second Adam (Rom 5:12-19; 1 Cor 15:45-47), who brought humanity a new possibility to attain what Adam had forsaken. Through assuming the form of a man, Christ became the Redeemer who reconciles people to God (Rom 3:25; 2 Cor 5:19; 1 Tm 1:15). Paul stressed even more, however, that the exalted Christ provides newness of life (Rom 6:4-6; 2 Cor 3:17-18; Col 3:1-4). A hymn in the Letter to the Colossians (1:15-20) employs ideas from Jewish wisdom speculation, and possibly Greek themes, to show Christ as the “firstborn” and the “fullness of God.” The one who always existed as God, through his sacrificial death, became the exalted Lord and brought humankind to God (see also the “flesh-spirit” theme in Rom 1:3-4; 1 Tm 3:16).<\/p>\n<h5>Hebrews<\/h5>\n<p>The Letter to the Hebrews strongly speaks of the Incarnation. The opening hymn (Heb 1:1-3) accents Christ’s exalted status as “the very stamp” of God’s image and the radiance of his glory. Christ is superior to the angels (1:4-9), yet he became a man in order to suffer for human salvation (2:9; 5:7-9). The Incarnation is aligned with sinful humankind’s need for a Savior. The purpose of Hebrews is to show Christ’s incomparable superiority to the OT sacrifices, and at the same time to stress his work of salvation. His real temptation (2:18; 4:15) combined with his sinlessness (4:15; 5:9; 7:26) is the human remedy for human sin. The Incarnation was Christ’s path to final, once-for-all atonement and victory over sin (7:28; 9:26).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoricalDevelopment\">Historical Development<\/p>\n<p>The first group to challenge the traditional doctrine of incarnation was the Gnostics, who in the late first century denied that Jesus was truly human. Their Greek belief that the physical creation was evil led them to deny the Incarnation. They believed Christ to be a quasi-spiritual being who merely appeared human. The theologian Marcion (d. c. 160), trained by Gnostic teachers, also accepted a docetic interpretation of Christ (his humanity was only apparent). Marcion taught his doctrine as an antidote to the OT or Jewish-oriented Christianity in his day. After his excommunication in <span>AD<\/span> 144, Marcion founded his own church, and his views were widely disseminated in the next two centuries. Partly in reaction to Marcion’s christological heresy, the orthodox churches unified their doctrine.<\/p>\n<p>The next challenge to the orthodox view came through the Arian, Apollinarian, and Nestorian controversies in the third and fourth centuries. Arianism held that the Incarnation was total, so that Christ the Logos was no longer fully God. At the same time, he was not fully human, so Christ was someone between two natures. The Council of Nicaea (<span>AD<\/span> 325) affirmed that Jesus was indeed both God and man. A further question soon arose, however, as to the relation between his two natures. Apollinarius (310?–390?) taught that only the body of Jesus was human; his soul was absorbed completely into the divine Logos. Nestorius (c. 381–451) taught that the two natures must always remain distinct in the person of Christ; they functioned together but were separate in his being. The Council of Chalcedon (<span>AD<\/span> 451) affirmed the unity of the two natures in Jesus. Many opponents of Chalcedon arose, called Monophysites, who believed in one divine nature in Jesus, who was only in a sense human. That movement caused serious political and religious divisions, and the Council of Constantinople (680–81) reaffirmed Chalcedon and established the orthodox incarnation theology.<\/p>\n<p>In the eighth century, Spain and France were centers of the “adoptionist” controversy. Adoptionism taught that at birth Jesus was human, but at his baptism he underwent a “second birth” and was “adopted” as Son of God. It was condemned in a series of synods and never gained many adherents until modern times. During the scholastic age, Peter Lombard (1095?–1160) advocated what became known as “nihilism.” The Incarnation supposedly caused no fundamental change in Jesus’ deity, but his human nature was both insubstantial and unessential. That view likewise was condemned by Pope Alexander III (1159–81). Another debate at that time centered on the relationship between the fall and the Incarnation. Thomas Aquinas (1224–74) concluded that there was a cause-effect connection; the Incarnation was necessitated by sin rather than predestined apart from the fall.<\/p>\n<p>The Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Reformers follow basically the same orthodox teaching about the Incarnation. The conflict in the Reformation centered more on soteriology (the doctrine of salvation). Several aberrant antitrinitarian movements took advantage of the breakdown in ecclesiastical authority, however. Michael Servetus (1511–53) taught a pantheistic view of the Incarnation, focused on the divine Spirit becoming manifest in the human form of Jesus. Thus the Logos is not a distinct person in the Godhead, nor is it fundamentally different from a “divine spark” in every person. At the same time Laelius Socinus (1525–62) and his nephew, Faustus Socinus (1539–1604), taught a unitarian system. The Incarnation was not a transferral of the divine essence but a communication of divine authority and revelation. Christ thus did not die as an atonement but as a moral example. Both Servetus and Socinianism were condemned by Catholics and Protestants alike.<\/p>\n<p>In the 17th and 18th centuries “kenoticism” (from Greek for “empty”) taught that in the Incarnation the Logos totally “emptied himself” (Phil 2:7) of the divine attributes. That doctrine represented the final phase of a dialogue from the scholastic period about the exact communication between Jesus’ two natures. Was his human nature omnipotent? If not, how did the man Jesus exercise the divine attributes? The kenotic school believed that Jesus was fully human and that his divine nature was quiescent until after the Ascension. His miraculous powers were external, given by the Spirit. Against that view, the majority of theologians argued that Jesus was at all times both God and man, and that in Philippians 2:6-8 Jesus did not lay aside the attributes of deity (he still exhibited the “form of God”) but rather the majesty associated with deity.<\/p>\n<p>The 19th and 20th centuries have given rise to a view that the Incarnation was a “myth,” a pictorial way of describing how God spoke through Jesus. The virgin birth was not historical, nor did any of the supernatural events of the Gospels ever take place. Rather, the stories in the Gospels were concoctions of the later church, efforts to portray Jesus’ impact on the movement. The Gospels, however, have too strong a flavor of accurate history for such a view to prevail (see Lk 1:1-5; Jn 19:35; 21:24).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>The NT teaching on the Incarnation balances the humanity and divinity of Christ. Those two facts must harmonize in any theological system, for both are absolutely necessary parts of God’s redemptive plan. In the Incarnation, Jesus became a perfect human being. As God in human flesh, he suffered the divine penalty for sin as an innocent substitute. Being both God and man, Jesus simultaneously revealed God’s will for human life and reconciled sinful people to God through his own perfect life and death. Because of the Incarnation, therefore, those who believe in Christ have peace with God and new life from God.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Christology; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Virgin Birth of Jesus.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>INCARNATION*<\/h3>\n<p>Literally, “in flesh”; theologically, the doctrine that in Jesus of Nazareth God took on human flesh and became the God-man. Historically, the doctrine of incarnation was central in the christological debates of patristic times and has recently come to the fore again in academic circles. Biblically, it expresses the mystery of Jesus’ identity.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NewTestamentTestimony\">New Testament Testimony<\/p>\n<h5>The Synoptic Gospels<\/h5>\n<p>The Gospel of Mark has no account of the Incarnation and stresses Jesus’ messiahship more than his deity. As a result, some believe that it represents an earlier stage in the development of the church’s theology, before the doctrine of incarnation had evolved. That is doubtful for two reasons: Incarnation passages like the Philippians hymn (Phil 2:6-11) probably antedate Mark’s Gospel, and Mark has a well-developed theology of the two natures of Christ. Although he stresses Jesus’ humanity, Mark accents it with an emphasis on divinity. Jesus was called the “beloved Son” by a heavenly voice at his baptism and transfiguration (Mk 1:11; 9:7); demons called him divine (3:11; 5:7), as did a Roman centurion (15:39). Jesus’ “Abba” prayers (14:36; cf. Mt 26:39; Lk 22:42) indicate his sense of divine identity, and at his trial he was charged with claiming the title “Son of the Blessed” (14:61-62). Thus, though the Incarnation is nowhere explicitly stated in Mark, it is implicitly affirmed.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew and Luke express the Incarnation. The birth narratives, of course, stress the event itself, with Matthew emphasizing Jesus’ royal messiahship, and Luke, the divine witness of the Holy Spirit. Matthew’s Gospel is Christ-centered; Luke concentrates on Christ as Savior, or more precisely, on salvation-history. Although Matthew presents Jesus’ humanity, he emphasizes his lordship (Mt 23:6-10) and divine sonship. The Incarnation thus becomes the means whereby the divine becomes human in a universal sense (1:23; 18:20; 24:14; 28:18-20). Luke shows the greatest interest of the three in Jesus’ earthly life. Nevertheless, his Gospel does not stress the human side of Jesus as much as Mark’s. Luke portrays Jesus primarily as the divine Savior within history (Lk 2:11; 4:16-30). He combines Jesus’ messianic office and divine nature, showing that the incarnate Son of God suffered and was exalted in order to bring people to God.<\/p>\n<h5>John’s Writings<\/h5>\n<p>The apostle John’s doctrine of incarnation is more explicit than any of the others, teaching not only Jesus’ God-man status but also his preexistent “glory” (Jn 1:1-18). Central in this presentation is the oneness between Jesus and God the Father (10:29-30; 14:8-11; 1 Jn 2:23). The “I am” (the expressed Christ, taken from the OT title for the one true God and probably signifying God’s personal name, Yahweh) came to reveal God to his people (Jn 1:4-5, 14, 18). Yet John also has the most balanced presentation of the Incarnation. The divine Logos or Word (1:1-18) is the exemplar of perfect humanity; he “became flesh” (v 14) to enlighten people (vv 5, 9) and generate in them “eternal life” (3:14-18; 1 Jn 1:1-3; 4:9).<\/p>\n<h5>Paul’s Epistles<\/h5>\n<p>The apostle Paul presented the Incarnation as Jesus’ path to suffering and redemption. In Galatians 4:4-5 the Incarnation (“born of woman”) came “in the fullness of time” or at the apex of salvation-history, to “redeem those who were under the law.” In the Philippians hymn (Phil 2:6-11, quotes from <span>nasb<\/span>), the Incarnation is seen in terms of preexistence (“though he was in the form of God”), humiliation (“emptied . . . humbled”), and obedience (“becoming obedient to the point of death”). The goal of the Incarnation was the cross (“even death on a cross”), and its result was Christ’s exaltation. The hymn is perhaps the supreme theological statement on the Incarnation in the NT. Jesus’ human life was an “emptying,” a refusal to seize the prerogatives of his deity (“did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped”).<\/p>\n<p>Paul described Christ as a second Adam (Rom 5:12-19; 1 Cor 15:45-47), who brought humanity a new possibility to attain what Adam had forsaken. Through assuming the form of a man, Christ became the Redeemer who reconciles people to God (Rom 3:25; 2 Cor 5:19; 1 Tm 1:15). Paul stressed even more, however, that the exalted Christ provides newness of life (Rom 6:4-6; 2 Cor 3:17-18; Col 3:1-4). A hymn in the Letter to the Colossians (1:15-20) employs ideas from Jewish wisdom speculation, and possibly Greek themes, to show Christ as the “firstborn” and the “fullness of God.” The one who always existed as God, through his sacrificial death, became the exalted Lord and brought humankind to God (see also the “flesh-spirit” theme in Rom 1:3-4; 1 Tm 3:16).<\/p>\n<h5>Hebrews<\/h5>\n<p>The Letter to the Hebrews strongly speaks of the Incarnation. The opening hymn (Heb 1:1-3) accents Christ’s exalted status as “the very stamp” of God’s image and the radiance of his glory. Christ is superior to the angels (1:4-9), yet he became a man in order to suffer for human salvation (2:9; 5:7-9). The Incarnation is aligned with sinful humankind’s need for a Savior. The purpose of Hebrews is to show Christ’s incomparable superiority to the OT sacrifices, and at the same time to stress his work of salvation. His real temptation (2:18; 4:15) combined with his sinlessness (4:15; 5:9; 7:26) is the human remedy for human sin. The Incarnation was Christ’s path to final, once-for-all atonement and victory over sin (7:28; 9:26).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoricalDevelopment\">Historical Development<\/p>\n<p>The first group to challenge the traditional doctrine of incarnation was the Gnostics, who in the late first century denied that Jesus was truly human. Their Greek belief that the physical creation was evil led them to deny the Incarnation. They believed Christ to be a quasi-spiritual being who merely appeared human. The theologian Marcion (d. c. 160), trained by Gnostic teachers, also accepted a docetic interpretation of Christ (his humanity was only apparent). Marcion taught his doctrine as an antidote to the OT or Jewish-oriented Christianity in his day. After his excommunication in <span>AD<\/span> 144, Marcion founded his own church, and his views were widely disseminated in the next two centuries. Partly in reaction to Marcion’s christological heresy, the orthodox churches unified their doctrine.<\/p>\n<p>The next challenge to the orthodox view came through the Arian, Apollinarian, and Nestorian controversies in the third and fourth centuries. Arianism held that the Incarnation was total, so that Christ the Logos was no longer fully God. At the same time, he was not fully human, so Christ was someone between two natures. The Council of Nicaea (<span>AD<\/span> 325) affirmed that Jesus was indeed both God and man. A further question soon arose, however, as to the relation between his two natures. Apollinarius (310?–390?) taught that only the body of Jesus was human; his soul was absorbed completely into the divine Logos. Nestorius (c. 381–451) taught that the two natures must always remain distinct in the person of Christ; they functioned together but were separate in his being. The Council of Chalcedon (<span>AD<\/span> 451) affirmed the unity of the two natures in Jesus. Many opponents of Chalcedon arose, called Monophysites, who believed in one divine nature in Jesus, who was only in a sense human. That movement caused serious political and religious divisions, and the Council of Constantinople (680–81) reaffirmed Chalcedon and established the orthodox incarnation theology.<\/p>\n<p>In the eighth century, Spain and France were centers of the “adoptionist” controversy. Adoptionism taught that at birth Jesus was human, but at his baptism he underwent a “second birth” and was “adopted” as Son of God. It was condemned in a series of synods and never gained many adherents until modern times. During the scholastic age, Peter Lombard (1095?–1160) advocated what became known as “nihilism.” The Incarnation supposedly caused no fundamental change in Jesus’ deity, but his human nature was both insubstantial and unessential. That view likewise was condemned by Pope Alexander III (1159–81). Another debate at that time centered on the relationship between the fall and the Incarnation. Thomas Aquinas (1224–74) concluded that there was a cause-effect connection; the Incarnation was necessitated by sin rather than predestined apart from the fall.<\/p>\n<p>The Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Reformers follow basically the same orthodox teaching about the Incarnation. The conflict in the Reformation centered more on soteriology (the doctrine of salvation). Several aberrant antitrinitarian movements took advantage of the breakdown in ecclesiastical authority, however. Michael Servetus (1511–53) taught a pantheistic view of the Incarnation, focused on the divine Spirit becoming manifest in the human form of Jesus. Thus the Logos is not a distinct person in the Godhead, nor is it fundamentally different from a “divine spark” in every person. At the same time Laelius Socinus (1525–62) and his nephew, Faustus Socinus (1539–1604), taught a unitarian system. The Incarnation was not a transferral of the divine essence but a communication of divine authority and revelation. Christ thus did not die as an atonement but as a moral example. Both Servetus and Socinianism were condemned by Catholics and Protestants alike.<\/p>\n<p>In the 17th and 18th centuries “kenoticism” (from Greek for “empty”) taught that in the Incarnation the Logos totally “emptied himself” (Phil 2:7) of the divine attributes. That doctrine represented the final phase of a dialogue from the scholastic period about the exact communication between Jesus’ two natures. Was his human nature omnipotent? If not, how did the man Jesus exercise the divine attributes? The kenotic school believed that Jesus was fully human and that his divine nature was quiescent until after the Ascension. His miraculous powers were external, given by the Spirit. Against that view, the majority of theologians argued that Jesus was at all times both God and man, and that in Philippians 2:6-8 Jesus did not lay aside the attributes of deity (he still exhibited the “form of God”) but rather the majesty associated with deity.<\/p>\n<p>The 19th and 20th centuries have given rise to a view that the Incarnation was a “myth,” a pictorial way of describing how God spoke through Jesus. The virgin birth was not historical, nor did any of the supernatural events of the Gospels ever take place. Rather, the stories in the Gospels were concoctions of the later church, efforts to portray Jesus’ impact on the movement. The Gospels, however, have too strong a flavor of accurate history for such a view to prevail (see Lk 1:1-5; Jn 19:35; 21:24).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>The NT teaching on the Incarnation balances the humanity and divinity of Christ. Those two facts must harmonize in any theological system, for both are absolutely necessary parts of God’s redemptive plan. In the Incarnation, Jesus became a perfect human being. As God in human flesh, he suffered the divine penalty for sin as an innocent substitute. Being both God and man, Jesus simultaneously revealed God’s will for human life and reconciled sinful people to God through his own perfect life and death. Because of the Incarnation, therefore, those who believe in Christ have peace with God and new life from God.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Christology; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Virgin Birth of Jesus.<\/p>","summary_ro":"INCARNATION* Literally, “in flesh”; theologically, the doctrine that in Jesus of Nazareth God took on human flesh and became the God-man. Historically, the doctrine of incarnation was central in the christological debates of patristic times and has recently come to the fore again in academic circles. Biblically, it expresses the mystery of Jesus’ identity. New Testament Testimony The Synoptic Gospels The Gospel of Mark has no account of the Incarnation and stresses Jesus’ messiahship more tha...","summary_en":"INCARNATION* Literally, “in flesh”; theologically, the doctrine that in Jesus of Nazareth God took on human flesh and became the God-man. Historically, the doctrine of incarnation was central in the christological debates of patristic times and has recently come to the fore again in academic circles. Biblically, it expresses the mystery of Jesus’ identity. New Testament Testimony The Synoptic Gospels The Gospel of Mark has no account of the Incarnation and stresses Jesus’ messiahship more tha...","source":"Articles\/I.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24336,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gospel of Mark","title_en":"Gospel of Mark","content_ro":"<h3>MARK, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between <span>AD<\/span> 60 and 68.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorDateProvenance\">Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, although this is by no means certain). At one point Papias states, “The Elder used to say this also: Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that [Peter] remembered concerning the things both said and done by the Lord.” (This quotation was preserved by the fourth-century writer Eusebius of Caesarea in his <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 3.39.15.) One need not doubt the basic reliability of this statement. Mark—almost surely to be identified with the John Mark of Acts 12:12 (see also 1 Pt 5:13)—was a disciple of Peter, and the second Gospel owes its existence, at least in part, to the apostle’s reminiscences. It does not follow, however, that one has adequately characterized Mark’s work if that is all one says. For instance, Papias’s qualification, “though not in order,” indicates that Mark did not intend to write a chronological biography. Furthermore, Papias goes on to comment (according to one interpretation of his ambiguous words) that Mark (or Peter?) adapted the material to the teaching situation and that therefore Mark is absolved from any (implied) charges of inaccuracy. It appears that from the earliest times Christians appealed to the purposes and circumstances of Mark’s writing in order to account for difficulties in harmonizing the material found in the various Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Other statements from Christian writers in the second, third, and fourth centuries seem dependent on Papias’s testimony, but some additional data they provide may possess independent value. For example, a fairly early document (date uncertain) known as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel somewhere in Italy after Peter’s death (in the mid-60s), and this testimony is considered reliable by many scholars. Still, the possibility that Mark composed his work before Peter’s martyrdom cannot be ruled out completely.<\/p>\n<p>Papias says nothing specific about <em>when<\/em> the Gospel was written. A small minority of scholars date Mark shortly after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Another minority suggest a date in the 40s or 50s on the basis of a papyrus fragment discovered in Qumran called 7Q5. (According to José O’Callaghan, the fragment, which has been dated about <span>AD<\/span> 50–68, should be identified as Mark 6:52-53.) This fragment contains only 20 letters on one side, making the Markan reconstruction very uncertain. Few scholars are convinced that the text is Mark; some think it is part of 1 Enoch or Zechariah. An impressive majority of scholars date Mark in the 60s, with conservatives usually preferring the early years of the decade. Why this preference? If the theory of Markan priority is accepted, then clearly Mark was written before Luke; and since Luke is normally dated by conservatives about <span>AD<\/span> 62, Mark can be no later than <span>AD<\/span> 60 or 61. This line of argument, though strong, is not decisive. In the first place, Luke cannot be dated with complete certainty. Second, the view that Matthew and Luke used Mark (the working assumption of most scholars) is only a hypothesis, and one that is vigorously opposed by some writers. Third, a tradition going back to the second century (see above) asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel <em>after<\/em> Peter’s death, no earlier than <span>AD<\/span> 64. Fourth, one persuasive view regarding the occasion of this Gospel assumes that the Neronian persecution (<span>AD<\/span> 64) had begun. (According to a different view of the occasion, Mark was written after the beginning of the Jewish revolt in <span>AD<\/span> 66.) Therefore, while a date in the early 60s remains possible, it does not require committal.<\/p>\n<p>With regard to the authorship of the second Gospel, there seems to be no compelling reason to deny Papias’s report that Mark (no doubt the John Mark of Acts 12:12) took down Peter’s reminiscences and that these became the basis of his work. Some scholars argue that the Gospel contains geographical inaccuracies (e.g., we have no evidence of a region called Dalmanutha, Mk 8:10) and that a native of Jerusalem such as Mark would have been more reliable in his information. However, the topographical problems in Mark, though real, need not be interpreted as inaccuracies (present ignorance of a place named Dalmanutha is hardly conclusive proof that it did not exist). Furthermore, in other respects (e.g., 14:54, 66) the Gospel reveals an impressive knowledge of local details. Many writers also point out bits of information that support a Petrine background, such as the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (1:30-31). In short, the internal evidence, while falling short of proof, does not at all undermine the tradition preserved by Papias. A generation ago, the trustworthiness of Papias’s testimony was almost universally accepted. This situation has changed somewhat, but even those scholars who adopt a skeptical attitude toward this tradition concede that it <em>may<\/em> be true.<\/p>\n<p>As attention turns to the provenance of the Gospel, the task becomes more difficult. Tradition going back to the second century asserts what may be already implied by Papias—namely, that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome. Although some scholars have suggested other possibilities, such as Galilee and Antioch, these have not proved satisfactory. Mark did spend some time in Rome, and some characteristics in the Gospel (such as Latinisms in the Greek and the explanation of Jewish customs, as in 7:3-4), while proving nothing, are certainly consonant with a Roman origin. Furthermore, one persuasive view of the occasion that gave rise to the Gospel assumes a background of persecution in Rome.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Distinctives\">Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>A number of characteristics of Mark set it apart from the other Gospels. For example, a word usually translated “immediately” occurs more than 40 times in Mark and only a dozen times in the rest of the NT. While this feature could be interpreted as a simple “mannerism,” consonant with Mark’s unpretentious, colloquial style, it certainly adds to the rapid flow of his narrative, which, dwelling more on Jesus’ activity than on his discourses (in contrast to Matthew and Luke), shifts from scene to scene with hardly a pause. Since the Gospel is also quite brief (Luke is nearly twice as long), one may wonder whether the author intended for it to be read at a sitting; even if read aloud, this would take only about one and a half hours. At any rate, there can be little doubt that the work conveys a sense of urgency.<\/p>\n<p>Other characteristics, however, prove more significant. Someone unfamiliar with the story of Jesus who happened to read Mark for the first time would no doubt be taken aback by its rather abrupt beginning. After a brief clause that stands as a sort of title (1:1), Mark moves on to describe in brief the ministry of John the Baptist. Then he introduces Jesus as coming from Nazareth without telling us anything whatever of his earlier life. Furthermore, over one-third of the book (including the so-called Passion narrative) is devoted to Jesus’ last week. These and other factors lend to the work a note of mystery, accentuated by the fact that at various points Mark calls attention to the fear or amazement gripping those who came in contact with Jesus (2:12; 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6; and several other passages, especially the strange words of 10:32). In addition, if one assumes that the Gospel originally ended with 16:8, Mark wished to leave his readers with the same sense of awe that the disciples experienced at Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>But how does one account for this fear and amazement? Mark’s clear answer is that Jesus, though truly a man, is also divine. While Mark’s Gospel exhibits the humanity of Jesus Christ (1:41; 3:5; 8:12; 10:14), his chief emphasis is on the Lord’s deity. Indeed, Mark introduces his book by referring to Jesus as “the Son of God” (a phrase omitted in some manuscripts, however), a position that is recognized both by the demons (3:11; 5:7) and by God himself (9:7). What may well be the true climax of the Gospel occurs at 15:39, where Mark writes that a Gentile, a Roman centurion, upon hearing Jesus’ death cry, exclaimed, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The author organized his Gospel according to a simple plan. The first eight chapters summarize the nature of Christ’s public ministry by alternating stories that show his growing popularity with stories that stress the disapproval of the Jewish leaders. This first half of the book, while indicating some of the tensions created by Jesus’ coming, gives the basic impression of success and general optimism. A significant shift then strikes the reader toward the end of chapter 8, particularly beginning with verse 31. At Caesarea Philippi, Peter has just confessed that Jesus is the Messiah, and now for the first time Jesus reveals that as Messiah he must die. The disciples become perplexed and discouraged and their pessimism mounts as this thought is brought home to them repeatedly (9:9, 31; 10:32-34; 14:17-25). In the end they desert their master (14:50).<\/p>\n<p>Interestingly, this pessimistic note is anticipated in the earlier part of the Gospel at three points: 3:6 (Jesus’ enemies plot his death); 6:6 (faithlessness in Nazareth); and 8:21 (lack of understanding in the disciples). Some scholars suggest that Mark used these three verses to indicate the first three divisions of his book. In addition, other scholars note that two healings of blind men (8:22-26; 10:46-52) seem to provide the opening and the conclusion of a section that emphasizes the spiritual blindness of the disciples. One more structural clue is 14:1, which clearly marks out the final section of the Gospel.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OccasionPurposeTheology\">Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>A few scholars think that Mark may have been combating a heretical sect that stressed the miracles of Jesus and viewed him purely as a divine wonder-worker. Although this view has not gained acceptance as originally formulated, a number of writers do see the Gospel as a theological corrective. Ralph Martin, who links Mark very closely with Paul, suggests that the evangelist is opposing some heretical groups who have distorted Paul’s message by placing exclusive stress on Christ as a <em>heavenly<\/em> figure (cf. the views that Paul himself opposes in Colossians). Mark responds to these aberrations by emphasizing, in Martin’s words, “the paradox of Jesus’ earthly life in which suffering and vindication form a two-beat rhythm.” Even if one decides that this reconstruction, too, is rather speculative, one may nevertheless retain certain elements in it as valid.<\/p>\n<p>Other scholars, such as H. Kee, place emphasis on the apocalyptic background of Mark. Kee and others tie this element to the Jewish revolt of <span>AD<\/span> 66, but commitment to this particular historical connection is unnecessary to appreciate the great significance of Mark 13 (Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse) for those original readers of the Gospel who may have been undergoing persecution.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the most satisfactory reconstruction links this Gospel to the Neronian persecution in the mid-60s. Mark, for example, is the only Gospel that records that Jesus, after being driven to the wilderness, found himself in the company of wild animals (1:13). This detail, according to William Lane, “was filled with special significance for those called to enter the arena where they stood helpless in the presence of wild beasts.” This interpretation, while not without difficulties, has the advantage of accounting for most of the available data. First, it is compatible with the strong tradition that assigns the origin of Mark’s work to Rome. Second, Mark speaks distinctly to those suffering persecution by introducing them quickly to John’s imprisonment and several other details. Third, related to this is Mark’s emphasis on discipleship. Christians facing persecution must have been tempted to relax the standards (4:17-19). Fourth, given this general situation, one can hardly doubt the significance of our Lord’s apocalyptic message in chapter 13, intended to encourage the disciples in the midst of their trials by reminding them of the glory to follow. Finally, Mark’s clear concern for the Gentile mission fits in with the needs of pagan Rome. The suffering Christians cannot afford to forget the unbelieving society in which they live. In the light of this particular responsibility, Mark assures his readers of what even the Roman centurion began to recognize—surely Jesus <em>is<\/em> the Son of God (15:39).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The development of Mark’s narrative can be presented in six major divisions within a twofold structure:<\/p>\n<li>Introduction (1:1-13)<\/li>\n<li>Part I: Popularity and Opposition (1:14–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>1. Jesus’ authority and the Pharisees’ enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/li>\n<li>2. The people’s response (3:7–6:6a)<\/li>\n<li>3. The disciples’ misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>Part II: Darkness and Death (8:22–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>4. The Messiah’s mission and the disciples’ blind-ness (8:22–10:52)<\/li>\n<li>5. Final ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/li>\n<li>6. The Passion narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>Conclusion (16:1-8)<\/li>\n<p>Although one can hardly claim that this outline corresponds exactly to the author’s original plan (Mark may not have consciously worked out a detailed outline), the sixfold division provides a useful starting point for an interpretive summary of the contents.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Authority and the Pharisees’ Enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>Immediately after the introductory portion (1:1-13), which describes John the Baptist’s ministry as well as Jesus’ baptism and temptation, Mark opens the body of the work with a summary statement (vv 14-15). In these two verses he seems to suggest that Jesus’ public ministry, characterized by the proclamation that God’s kingdom is about to be inaugurated, was occasioned by John’s imprisonment. This is followed by the call of the first disciples (vv 16-20) and then by a complex of stories (vv 21-38), all of which report incidents that took place in Capernaum, apparently within a 24-hour period: synagogue instruction followed by the healing of a demoniac; the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law; numerous other healings in the evening; prayer in a lonely place. The statement that Jesus proceeded to expand his ministry throughout the province of Galilee (v 39) is followed by the story of a leper’s cure (vv 40-45). Next are found a very important group of incidents (2:1–3:6), all of them focusing on Jesus’ conflicts with Jewish leaders: the healing and forgiveness of a paralytic; the call of Levi, whose dinner (attended by Jesus as well as by the hated tax gatherers) occasioned some disputes, particularly on the issue of fasting; and two significant stories regarding proper behavior on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<h5>The People’s Response (3:7–6:6a)<\/h5>\n<p>Mark opens this second section as he opened the first: a summary statement (Jesus’ healings by the lake—3:7-12) followed by the official appointment of 12 apostles (vv 13-19). Then follows a section that focuses on the kinds of charges brought against Jesus by his own family and by the scribes (vv 20-22), leading to a response touching on Satan, on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and on what constitutes true membership in his family (vv 23-35). Most of chapter 4 is devoted to Jesus’ parables of the kingdom—the sower, the seed growing secretly, the mustard seed—and includes statements on the nature and purpose of his teachings (4:10-12, 21-25, 33-34). In the evening Jesus and his disciples set out to cross the Sea of Galilee, leading to the stilling of the storm (vv 35-41), the healing of the Gerasene demoniac on the other side of the lake (5:1-20), and, on their return to Capernaum, the healing of a hemorrhaging woman and the raising of Jairus’s daughter (vv 21-43). The section concludes with Jesus’ visit to his hometown, Nazareth, and the rejection he suffered there (6:1-6a).<\/p>\n<h5>The Disciples’ Misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/h5>\n<p>The third section begins with two introductory passages: the sending out of the 12 (6:6b-13) and the story of John the Baptist’s death (vv 14-29). When the disciples return, Jesus determines to seek some rest, but the crowds follow them; Jesus then teaches and feeds the 5,000 (vv 30-44) and, after crossing the lake (vv 45-52, which includes Jesus’ walk over the water), he performs numerous cures in and around Gennesaret (vv 53-56). Then follows a controversy with the Pharisees regarding the hand-washing ritual (7:1-8), and this incident leads to Christ’s assertion of the authority of God’s word over human tradition (vv 9-13) and to some general instructions on true purity (vv 14-23). The next several stories describe Jesus’ withdrawal from Galilee, first to Tyre, where a gentile woman’s daughter is healed (vv 24-30), then to the Decapolis, where he cures a deaf-mute (vv 31-37) and feeds a crowd of four thousand (8:1-10). The demand of the Pharisees for a sign (vv 11-12) leads to Jesus’ warning against the “leaven” of the Pharisees, a statement misunderstood by the disciples (vv 13-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Messiah’s Mission and the Disciples’ Blindness (8:22–10:52)<\/h5>\n<p>Still away from Galilee, but now in the nearby town of Bethsaida, Jesus heals a blind man (8:22-26). He then leads his disciples north toward Caesarea Philippi, which sets the stage for Peter’s confession (vv 27-30). This recognition on the part of the disciples (of whom Peter is in effect a representative) leads Jesus to prophesy his death, but Peter’s refusal to accept the prophecy calls forth a rebuke and instruction on discipleship (vv 31-38). The failure of the disciples to understand the necessity of Christ’s death provides the background for the Transfiguration (9:1-8), which assures Peter, John, and James that God’s kingdom will indeed come (note v 1); further, the Father himself enjoins them to believe Jesus’ prophecy (v 7). After some words about the resurrection and about the coming of Elijah (vv 9-13), Mark relates the healing of a demoniac boy (vv 14-29). Back in Galilee, a second prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 30-32) is followed, sadly, by a trivial discussion among the disciples as to who is the greatest (vv 33-37). Appropriately, one finds some further instructions concerning discipleship (vv 38-50). Mark next writes that Jesus left Galilee for the last time and began his journey toward the south. During this journey, Jesus delivered teachings on divorce and on the spiritual privileges of children (10:1-16), then met the rich young ruler (vv 17-22), an incident that leads to further words on discipleship (vv 23-31). A third prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 32-34) is again followed by selfish behavior on the part of the disciples, in this case an ambitious request from James and John (vv 35-40). The incident produces indignation among the rest of the disciples, thus necessitating another rebuke from their master, who himself came to serve and to die (vv 41-45). The section ends as it began—by reporting the cure of a blind man, Bartimaeus of Jericho in this story (vv 46-52).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/h5>\n<p>This section seems naturally to divide into three balanced subsections. The first one (11:1-26) includes three events: the Triumphal Entry, the withering of the fig tree, and the cleansing of the temple. The second subsection (11:27–12:44) is particularly important, for here is found Jesus’ final series of controversies with the Jewish leaders. The topics covered are the source of Jesus’ authority (11:27-33), the parable of the wicked husbandmen (12:1-12), the legitimacy of Caesar’s tax (vv 13-17), the Sadducees’ denial of resurrection (vv 18-27), the chief commandment (vv 28-34), and the question regarding David’s son (vv 35-37). This subsection ends with a warning against the scribes and with the story of the widow’s mite (vv 38-44). The third subsection (ch 13) is devoted completely to the Olivet discourse, with its prophecies of destruction, calamities, persecutions, deceivers, and final vindication. The discourse ends with various admonitions to keep alert.<\/p>\n<h5>The Passion Narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/h5>\n<p>This final section, which is introduced by a report of the priests’ plot (14:1-2), may be divided into two subsections. The first one relates the events leading up to Jesus’ trial (vv 3-52). They include the anointing of Jesus (vv 3-9), Judas’s betrayal (vv 10-11), the incidents connected with the Last Supper (vv 12-31), the scene at Gethsemane (vv 32-42), and the arrest (vv 43-52). The second subsection relates Jesus’ trial before the Jews (vv 53-65), Peter’s denials (vv 66-72), the trial before Pilate (15:1-15), the crucifixion (vv 16-41), and the burial (vv 42-47).<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel concludes somewhat mysteriously, but no less triumphantly, with the news that Jesus has risen from the dead (16:1-8). The earliest surviving Greek manuscripts, usually regarded as the most reliable, end at verse 8; the majority of manuscripts, however, include an additional 12 verses that report Jesus’ appearances to his disciples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Mark, John; Matthew, Gospel of; Luke, Gospel of; Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MARK, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between <span>AD<\/span> 60 and 68.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorDateProvenance\">Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, although this is by no means certain). At one point Papias states, “The Elder used to say this also: Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that [Peter] remembered concerning the things both said and done by the Lord.” (This quotation was preserved by the fourth-century writer Eusebius of Caesarea in his <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 3.39.15.) One need not doubt the basic reliability of this statement. Mark—almost surely to be identified with the John Mark of Acts 12:12 (see also 1 Pt 5:13)—was a disciple of Peter, and the second Gospel owes its existence, at least in part, to the apostle’s reminiscences. It does not follow, however, that one has adequately characterized Mark’s work if that is all one says. For instance, Papias’s qualification, “though not in order,” indicates that Mark did not intend to write a chronological biography. Furthermore, Papias goes on to comment (according to one interpretation of his ambiguous words) that Mark (or Peter?) adapted the material to the teaching situation and that therefore Mark is absolved from any (implied) charges of inaccuracy. It appears that from the earliest times Christians appealed to the purposes and circumstances of Mark’s writing in order to account for difficulties in harmonizing the material found in the various Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Other statements from Christian writers in the second, third, and fourth centuries seem dependent on Papias’s testimony, but some additional data they provide may possess independent value. For example, a fairly early document (date uncertain) known as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel somewhere in Italy after Peter’s death (in the mid-60s), and this testimony is considered reliable by many scholars. Still, the possibility that Mark composed his work before Peter’s martyrdom cannot be ruled out completely.<\/p>\n<p>Papias says nothing specific about <em>when<\/em> the Gospel was written. A small minority of scholars date Mark shortly after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Another minority suggest a date in the 40s or 50s on the basis of a papyrus fragment discovered in Qumran called 7Q5. (According to José O’Callaghan, the fragment, which has been dated about <span>AD<\/span> 50–68, should be identified as Mark 6:52-53.) This fragment contains only 20 letters on one side, making the Markan reconstruction very uncertain. Few scholars are convinced that the text is Mark; some think it is part of 1 Enoch or Zechariah. An impressive majority of scholars date Mark in the 60s, with conservatives usually preferring the early years of the decade. Why this preference? If the theory of Markan priority is accepted, then clearly Mark was written before Luke; and since Luke is normally dated by conservatives about <span>AD<\/span> 62, Mark can be no later than <span>AD<\/span> 60 or 61. This line of argument, though strong, is not decisive. In the first place, Luke cannot be dated with complete certainty. Second, the view that Matthew and Luke used Mark (the working assumption of most scholars) is only a hypothesis, and one that is vigorously opposed by some writers. Third, a tradition going back to the second century (see above) asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel <em>after<\/em> Peter’s death, no earlier than <span>AD<\/span> 64. Fourth, one persuasive view regarding the occasion of this Gospel assumes that the Neronian persecution (<span>AD<\/span> 64) had begun. (According to a different view of the occasion, Mark was written after the beginning of the Jewish revolt in <span>AD<\/span> 66.) Therefore, while a date in the early 60s remains possible, it does not require committal.<\/p>\n<p>With regard to the authorship of the second Gospel, there seems to be no compelling reason to deny Papias’s report that Mark (no doubt the John Mark of Acts 12:12) took down Peter’s reminiscences and that these became the basis of his work. Some scholars argue that the Gospel contains geographical inaccuracies (e.g., we have no evidence of a region called Dalmanutha, Mk 8:10) and that a native of Jerusalem such as Mark would have been more reliable in his information. However, the topographical problems in Mark, though real, need not be interpreted as inaccuracies (present ignorance of a place named Dalmanutha is hardly conclusive proof that it did not exist). Furthermore, in other respects (e.g., 14:54, 66) the Gospel reveals an impressive knowledge of local details. Many writers also point out bits of information that support a Petrine background, such as the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (1:30-31). In short, the internal evidence, while falling short of proof, does not at all undermine the tradition preserved by Papias. A generation ago, the trustworthiness of Papias’s testimony was almost universally accepted. This situation has changed somewhat, but even those scholars who adopt a skeptical attitude toward this tradition concede that it <em>may<\/em> be true.<\/p>\n<p>As attention turns to the provenance of the Gospel, the task becomes more difficult. Tradition going back to the second century asserts what may be already implied by Papias—namely, that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome. Although some scholars have suggested other possibilities, such as Galilee and Antioch, these have not proved satisfactory. Mark did spend some time in Rome, and some characteristics in the Gospel (such as Latinisms in the Greek and the explanation of Jewish customs, as in 7:3-4), while proving nothing, are certainly consonant with a Roman origin. Furthermore, one persuasive view of the occasion that gave rise to the Gospel assumes a background of persecution in Rome.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Distinctives\">Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>A number of characteristics of Mark set it apart from the other Gospels. For example, a word usually translated “immediately” occurs more than 40 times in Mark and only a dozen times in the rest of the NT. While this feature could be interpreted as a simple “mannerism,” consonant with Mark’s unpretentious, colloquial style, it certainly adds to the rapid flow of his narrative, which, dwelling more on Jesus’ activity than on his discourses (in contrast to Matthew and Luke), shifts from scene to scene with hardly a pause. Since the Gospel is also quite brief (Luke is nearly twice as long), one may wonder whether the author intended for it to be read at a sitting; even if read aloud, this would take only about one and a half hours. At any rate, there can be little doubt that the work conveys a sense of urgency.<\/p>\n<p>Other characteristics, however, prove more significant. Someone unfamiliar with the story of Jesus who happened to read Mark for the first time would no doubt be taken aback by its rather abrupt beginning. After a brief clause that stands as a sort of title (1:1), Mark moves on to describe in brief the ministry of John the Baptist. Then he introduces Jesus as coming from Nazareth without telling us anything whatever of his earlier life. Furthermore, over one-third of the book (including the so-called Passion narrative) is devoted to Jesus’ last week. These and other factors lend to the work a note of mystery, accentuated by the fact that at various points Mark calls attention to the fear or amazement gripping those who came in contact with Jesus (2:12; 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6; and several other passages, especially the strange words of 10:32). In addition, if one assumes that the Gospel originally ended with 16:8, Mark wished to leave his readers with the same sense of awe that the disciples experienced at Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>But how does one account for this fear and amazement? Mark’s clear answer is that Jesus, though truly a man, is also divine. While Mark’s Gospel exhibits the humanity of Jesus Christ (1:41; 3:5; 8:12; 10:14), his chief emphasis is on the Lord’s deity. Indeed, Mark introduces his book by referring to Jesus as “the Son of God” (a phrase omitted in some manuscripts, however), a position that is recognized both by the demons (3:11; 5:7) and by God himself (9:7). What may well be the true climax of the Gospel occurs at 15:39, where Mark writes that a Gentile, a Roman centurion, upon hearing Jesus’ death cry, exclaimed, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The author organized his Gospel according to a simple plan. The first eight chapters summarize the nature of Christ’s public ministry by alternating stories that show his growing popularity with stories that stress the disapproval of the Jewish leaders. This first half of the book, while indicating some of the tensions created by Jesus’ coming, gives the basic impression of success and general optimism. A significant shift then strikes the reader toward the end of chapter 8, particularly beginning with verse 31. At Caesarea Philippi, Peter has just confessed that Jesus is the Messiah, and now for the first time Jesus reveals that as Messiah he must die. The disciples become perplexed and discouraged and their pessimism mounts as this thought is brought home to them repeatedly (9:9, 31; 10:32-34; 14:17-25). In the end they desert their master (14:50).<\/p>\n<p>Interestingly, this pessimistic note is anticipated in the earlier part of the Gospel at three points: 3:6 (Jesus’ enemies plot his death); 6:6 (faithlessness in Nazareth); and 8:21 (lack of understanding in the disciples). Some scholars suggest that Mark used these three verses to indicate the first three divisions of his book. In addition, other scholars note that two healings of blind men (8:22-26; 10:46-52) seem to provide the opening and the conclusion of a section that emphasizes the spiritual blindness of the disciples. One more structural clue is 14:1, which clearly marks out the final section of the Gospel.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OccasionPurposeTheology\">Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>A few scholars think that Mark may have been combating a heretical sect that stressed the miracles of Jesus and viewed him purely as a divine wonder-worker. Although this view has not gained acceptance as originally formulated, a number of writers do see the Gospel as a theological corrective. Ralph Martin, who links Mark very closely with Paul, suggests that the evangelist is opposing some heretical groups who have distorted Paul’s message by placing exclusive stress on Christ as a <em>heavenly<\/em> figure (cf. the views that Paul himself opposes in Colossians). Mark responds to these aberrations by emphasizing, in Martin’s words, “the paradox of Jesus’ earthly life in which suffering and vindication form a two-beat rhythm.” Even if one decides that this reconstruction, too, is rather speculative, one may nevertheless retain certain elements in it as valid.<\/p>\n<p>Other scholars, such as H. Kee, place emphasis on the apocalyptic background of Mark. Kee and others tie this element to the Jewish revolt of <span>AD<\/span> 66, but commitment to this particular historical connection is unnecessary to appreciate the great significance of Mark 13 (Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse) for those original readers of the Gospel who may have been undergoing persecution.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the most satisfactory reconstruction links this Gospel to the Neronian persecution in the mid-60s. Mark, for example, is the only Gospel that records that Jesus, after being driven to the wilderness, found himself in the company of wild animals (1:13). This detail, according to William Lane, “was filled with special significance for those called to enter the arena where they stood helpless in the presence of wild beasts.” This interpretation, while not without difficulties, has the advantage of accounting for most of the available data. First, it is compatible with the strong tradition that assigns the origin of Mark’s work to Rome. Second, Mark speaks distinctly to those suffering persecution by introducing them quickly to John’s imprisonment and several other details. Third, related to this is Mark’s emphasis on discipleship. Christians facing persecution must have been tempted to relax the standards (4:17-19). Fourth, given this general situation, one can hardly doubt the significance of our Lord’s apocalyptic message in chapter 13, intended to encourage the disciples in the midst of their trials by reminding them of the glory to follow. Finally, Mark’s clear concern for the Gentile mission fits in with the needs of pagan Rome. The suffering Christians cannot afford to forget the unbelieving society in which they live. In the light of this particular responsibility, Mark assures his readers of what even the Roman centurion began to recognize—surely Jesus <em>is<\/em> the Son of God (15:39).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The development of Mark’s narrative can be presented in six major divisions within a twofold structure:<\/p>\n<li>Introduction (1:1-13)<\/li>\n<li>Part I: Popularity and Opposition (1:14–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>1. Jesus’ authority and the Pharisees’ enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/li>\n<li>2. The people’s response (3:7–6:6a)<\/li>\n<li>3. The disciples’ misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>Part II: Darkness and Death (8:22–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>4. The Messiah’s mission and the disciples’ blind-ness (8:22–10:52)<\/li>\n<li>5. Final ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/li>\n<li>6. The Passion narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>Conclusion (16:1-8)<\/li>\n<p>Although one can hardly claim that this outline corresponds exactly to the author’s original plan (Mark may not have consciously worked out a detailed outline), the sixfold division provides a useful starting point for an interpretive summary of the contents.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Authority and the Pharisees’ Enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>Immediately after the introductory portion (1:1-13), which describes John the Baptist’s ministry as well as Jesus’ baptism and temptation, Mark opens the body of the work with a summary statement (vv 14-15). In these two verses he seems to suggest that Jesus’ public ministry, characterized by the proclamation that God’s kingdom is about to be inaugurated, was occasioned by John’s imprisonment. This is followed by the call of the first disciples (vv 16-20) and then by a complex of stories (vv 21-38), all of which report incidents that took place in Capernaum, apparently within a 24-hour period: synagogue instruction followed by the healing of a demoniac; the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law; numerous other healings in the evening; prayer in a lonely place. The statement that Jesus proceeded to expand his ministry throughout the province of Galilee (v 39) is followed by the story of a leper’s cure (vv 40-45). Next are found a very important group of incidents (2:1–3:6), all of them focusing on Jesus’ conflicts with Jewish leaders: the healing and forgiveness of a paralytic; the call of Levi, whose dinner (attended by Jesus as well as by the hated tax gatherers) occasioned some disputes, particularly on the issue of fasting; and two significant stories regarding proper behavior on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<h5>The People’s Response (3:7–6:6a)<\/h5>\n<p>Mark opens this second section as he opened the first: a summary statement (Jesus’ healings by the lake—3:7-12) followed by the official appointment of 12 apostles (vv 13-19). Then follows a section that focuses on the kinds of charges brought against Jesus by his own family and by the scribes (vv 20-22), leading to a response touching on Satan, on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and on what constitutes true membership in his family (vv 23-35). Most of chapter 4 is devoted to Jesus’ parables of the kingdom—the sower, the seed growing secretly, the mustard seed—and includes statements on the nature and purpose of his teachings (4:10-12, 21-25, 33-34). In the evening Jesus and his disciples set out to cross the Sea of Galilee, leading to the stilling of the storm (vv 35-41), the healing of the Gerasene demoniac on the other side of the lake (5:1-20), and, on their return to Capernaum, the healing of a hemorrhaging woman and the raising of Jairus’s daughter (vv 21-43). The section concludes with Jesus’ visit to his hometown, Nazareth, and the rejection he suffered there (6:1-6a).<\/p>\n<h5>The Disciples’ Misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/h5>\n<p>The third section begins with two introductory passages: the sending out of the 12 (6:6b-13) and the story of John the Baptist’s death (vv 14-29). When the disciples return, Jesus determines to seek some rest, but the crowds follow them; Jesus then teaches and feeds the 5,000 (vv 30-44) and, after crossing the lake (vv 45-52, which includes Jesus’ walk over the water), he performs numerous cures in and around Gennesaret (vv 53-56). Then follows a controversy with the Pharisees regarding the hand-washing ritual (7:1-8), and this incident leads to Christ’s assertion of the authority of God’s word over human tradition (vv 9-13) and to some general instructions on true purity (vv 14-23). The next several stories describe Jesus’ withdrawal from Galilee, first to Tyre, where a gentile woman’s daughter is healed (vv 24-30), then to the Decapolis, where he cures a deaf-mute (vv 31-37) and feeds a crowd of four thousand (8:1-10). The demand of the Pharisees for a sign (vv 11-12) leads to Jesus’ warning against the “leaven” of the Pharisees, a statement misunderstood by the disciples (vv 13-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Messiah’s Mission and the Disciples’ Blindness (8:22–10:52)<\/h5>\n<p>Still away from Galilee, but now in the nearby town of Bethsaida, Jesus heals a blind man (8:22-26). He then leads his disciples north toward Caesarea Philippi, which sets the stage for Peter’s confession (vv 27-30). This recognition on the part of the disciples (of whom Peter is in effect a representative) leads Jesus to prophesy his death, but Peter’s refusal to accept the prophecy calls forth a rebuke and instruction on discipleship (vv 31-38). The failure of the disciples to understand the necessity of Christ’s death provides the background for the Transfiguration (9:1-8), which assures Peter, John, and James that God’s kingdom will indeed come (note v 1); further, the Father himself enjoins them to believe Jesus’ prophecy (v 7). After some words about the resurrection and about the coming of Elijah (vv 9-13), Mark relates the healing of a demoniac boy (vv 14-29). Back in Galilee, a second prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 30-32) is followed, sadly, by a trivial discussion among the disciples as to who is the greatest (vv 33-37). Appropriately, one finds some further instructions concerning discipleship (vv 38-50). Mark next writes that Jesus left Galilee for the last time and began his journey toward the south. During this journey, Jesus delivered teachings on divorce and on the spiritual privileges of children (10:1-16), then met the rich young ruler (vv 17-22), an incident that leads to further words on discipleship (vv 23-31). A third prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 32-34) is again followed by selfish behavior on the part of the disciples, in this case an ambitious request from James and John (vv 35-40). The incident produces indignation among the rest of the disciples, thus necessitating another rebuke from their master, who himself came to serve and to die (vv 41-45). The section ends as it began—by reporting the cure of a blind man, Bartimaeus of Jericho in this story (vv 46-52).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/h5>\n<p>This section seems naturally to divide into three balanced subsections. The first one (11:1-26) includes three events: the Triumphal Entry, the withering of the fig tree, and the cleansing of the temple. The second subsection (11:27–12:44) is particularly important, for here is found Jesus’ final series of controversies with the Jewish leaders. The topics covered are the source of Jesus’ authority (11:27-33), the parable of the wicked husbandmen (12:1-12), the legitimacy of Caesar’s tax (vv 13-17), the Sadducees’ denial of resurrection (vv 18-27), the chief commandment (vv 28-34), and the question regarding David’s son (vv 35-37). This subsection ends with a warning against the scribes and with the story of the widow’s mite (vv 38-44). The third subsection (ch 13) is devoted completely to the Olivet discourse, with its prophecies of destruction, calamities, persecutions, deceivers, and final vindication. The discourse ends with various admonitions to keep alert.<\/p>\n<h5>The Passion Narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/h5>\n<p>This final section, which is introduced by a report of the priests’ plot (14:1-2), may be divided into two subsections. The first one relates the events leading up to Jesus’ trial (vv 3-52). They include the anointing of Jesus (vv 3-9), Judas’s betrayal (vv 10-11), the incidents connected with the Last Supper (vv 12-31), the scene at Gethsemane (vv 32-42), and the arrest (vv 43-52). The second subsection relates Jesus’ trial before the Jews (vv 53-65), Peter’s denials (vv 66-72), the trial before Pilate (15:1-15), the crucifixion (vv 16-41), and the burial (vv 42-47).<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel concludes somewhat mysteriously, but no less triumphantly, with the news that Jesus has risen from the dead (16:1-8). The earliest surviving Greek manuscripts, usually regarded as the most reliable, end at verse 8; the majority of manuscripts, however, include an additional 12 verses that report Jesus’ appearances to his disciples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Mark, John; Matthew, Gospel of; Luke, Gospel of; Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MARK, Gospel of Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between AD 60 and 68. Preview • Author, Date, Provenance • Distinctives • Structure • Occasion, Purpose, Theology • Content Author, Date, Provenance Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, alt...","summary_en":"MARK, Gospel of Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between AD 60 and 68. Preview • Author, Date, Provenance • Distinctives • Structure • Occasion, Purpose, Theology • Content Author, Date, Provenance Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, alt...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55190,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:11","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:11-12<\/strong> The <em>evil spirits<\/em> knew who Jesus was (1:34; see also 1:22; 5:7), but Jesus did not want his identity revealed.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:11-12<\/strong> The <em>evil spirits<\/em> knew who Jesus was (1:34; see also 1:22; 5:7), but Jesus did not want his identity revealed.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:11-12 The evil spirits knew who Jesus was (1:34; see also 1:22; 5:7), but Jesus did not want his identity revealed.","summary_en":"3:11-12 The evil spirits knew who Jesus was (1:34; see also 1:22; 5:7), but Jesus did not want his identity revealed.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82816,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:11","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:11-12<\/strong> The <em>evil spirits<\/em> knew who Jesus was (1:34; see also 1:22; 5:7), but Jesus did not want his identity revealed.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:11-12<\/strong> The <em>evil spirits<\/em> knew who Jesus was (1:34; see also 1:22; 5:7), but Jesus did not want his identity revealed.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:11-12 The evil spirits knew who Jesus was (1:34; see also 1:22; 5:7), but Jesus did not want his identity revealed.","summary_en":"3:11-12 The evil spirits knew who Jesus was (1:34; see also 1:22; 5:7), but Jesus did not want his identity revealed.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110442,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:11","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:11-12<\/strong> The <em>evil spirits<\/em> knew who Jesus was (1:34; see also 1:22; 5:7), but Jesus did not want his identity revealed.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:11-12<\/strong> The <em>evil spirits<\/em> knew who Jesus was (1:34; see also 1:22; 5:7), but Jesus did not want his identity revealed.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:11-12 The evil spirits knew who Jesus was (1:34; see also 1:22; 5:7), but Jesus did not want his identity revealed.","summary_en":"3:11-12 The evil spirits knew who Jesus was (1:34; see also 1:22; 5:7), but Jesus did not want his identity revealed.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138068,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:11","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:11-12<\/strong> The <em>evil spirits<\/em> knew who Jesus was (1:34; see also 1:22; 5:7), but Jesus did not want his identity revealed.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:11-12<\/strong> The <em>evil spirits<\/em> knew who Jesus was (1:34; see also 1:22; 5:7), but Jesus did not want his identity revealed.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:11-12 The evil spirits knew who Jesus was (1:34; see also 1:22; 5:7), but Jesus did not want his identity revealed.","summary_en":"3:11-12 The evil spirits knew who Jesus was (1:34; see also 1:22; 5:7), but Jesus did not want his identity revealed.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":65358,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Secret of the Messiah","title_en":"The Secret of the Messiah","content_ro":"<h3>The Secret of the Messiah<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout the Gospel of Mark, Jesus tells others—those he healed or raised from the dead, the disciples who recognized him as the Christ, and the demons who had a correct understanding of his true identity—not to reveal his identity (e.g., Mark 1:34, 44; 3:11-12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:29-30; 9:9; this theme occurs far less frequently in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke—see Matt 8:4; 16:20; Luke 9:21). Why did Jesus command those he healed and those who knew his true identity to keep his healings and identity secret?<\/p>\n<p>One possibility relates to how the Roman authorities would have responded to an extremely popular preacher who proclaimed the arrival of God’s Kingdom, performed marvelous healings, and openly allowed his followers to call him Israel’s long-awaited Messiah and King. Roman authorities would not tolerate it—they would immediately seek to suppress such a movement. In the Roman Empire, there was no room for another kingdom or for a messianic rescuer from Roman occupation. Thus, though Jesus acknowledged to his disciples that he was the Messiah (Mark 8:27-30), he did not intend to overthrow Rome.<\/p>\n<p>Another possible reason for this secrecy has to do with the prolific misunderstanding of Jesus’ identity that we see throughout the Gospel of Mark, even among his closest followers. Jesus makes clear that his identity as Messiah and Son of God is directly tied to his suffering and death, a reality which did not match up with Jewish expectations regarding the Messiah. Thus, immediately after Peter declares that Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus announces that he would suffer and die (Mark 8:27-31), which generates a response from Peter that demonstrates his lack of understanding (8:32-33). It was not his miracles or his profound teaching that served as the primary attribute of his messiahship, but rather his sacrificial death.<\/p>\n<p>For these reasons, it was expedient for Jesus to teach about God’s Kingdom in parables (see Mark 4:1-34, especially 4:10-12), to minimize the excitement created by his miracles (1:44; 5:43; 7:36; 8:26), to conceal his presence at times from the people (7:24; 9:30-31), to conceal his teaching from outsiders (4:10-12, 33-34; 7:17), and to command those who knew his true identity not to reveal it (1:23-26, 34; 3:11-12; 8:29-30; 9:9). Jesus came “to give his life as a ransom for many” (10:45), not to lead the nation of Israel in rebellion against Rome.<\/p>\n<p>Nonetheless, Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Mark 1:1), could not be hidden. The secret was not and cannot be kept (7:36), for Jesus is too great. Those who experienced and witnessed his healing touch could not help but proclaim what he had done. Jesus’ identity broke through, and it became clear that he is indeed the Messiah, the Son of God, the Lord over nature, disease, and death. And for the readers of the Gospel of Mark, who are made aware of his identity in the very first verse, Jesus was demonstrated to be the Messiah precisely because of—not in spite of—his suffering, death, and resurrection.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 8:4; 16:20; Mark 1:34, 44; 3:11-12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:29-30; 9:9, 30-31; Luke 9:21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Secret of the Messiah<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout the Gospel of Mark, Jesus tells others—those he healed or raised from the dead, the disciples who recognized him as the Christ, and the demons who had a correct understanding of his true identity—not to reveal his identity (e.g., Mark 1:34, 44; 3:11-12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:29-30; 9:9; this theme occurs far less frequently in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke—see Matt 8:4; 16:20; Luke 9:21). Why did Jesus command those he healed and those who knew his true identity to keep his healings and identity secret?<\/p>\n<p>One possibility relates to how the Roman authorities would have responded to an extremely popular preacher who proclaimed the arrival of God’s Kingdom, performed marvelous healings, and openly allowed his followers to call him Israel’s long-awaited Messiah and King. Roman authorities would not tolerate it—they would immediately seek to suppress such a movement. In the Roman Empire, there was no room for another kingdom or for a messianic rescuer from Roman occupation. Thus, though Jesus acknowledged to his disciples that he was the Messiah (Mark 8:27-30), he did not intend to overthrow Rome.<\/p>\n<p>Another possible reason for this secrecy has to do with the prolific misunderstanding of Jesus’ identity that we see throughout the Gospel of Mark, even among his closest followers. Jesus makes clear that his identity as Messiah and Son of God is directly tied to his suffering and death, a reality which did not match up with Jewish expectations regarding the Messiah. Thus, immediately after Peter declares that Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus announces that he would suffer and die (Mark 8:27-31), which generates a response from Peter that demonstrates his lack of understanding (8:32-33). It was not his miracles or his profound teaching that served as the primary attribute of his messiahship, but rather his sacrificial death.<\/p>\n<p>For these reasons, it was expedient for Jesus to teach about God’s Kingdom in parables (see Mark 4:1-34, especially 4:10-12), to minimize the excitement created by his miracles (1:44; 5:43; 7:36; 8:26), to conceal his presence at times from the people (7:24; 9:30-31), to conceal his teaching from outsiders (4:10-12, 33-34; 7:17), and to command those who knew his true identity not to reveal it (1:23-26, 34; 3:11-12; 8:29-30; 9:9). Jesus came “to give his life as a ransom for many” (10:45), not to lead the nation of Israel in rebellion against Rome.<\/p>\n<p>Nonetheless, Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Mark 1:1), could not be hidden. The secret was not and cannot be kept (7:36), for Jesus is too great. Those who experienced and witnessed his healing touch could not help but proclaim what he had done. Jesus’ identity broke through, and it became clear that he is indeed the Messiah, the Son of God, the Lord over nature, disease, and death. And for the readers of the Gospel of Mark, who are made aware of his identity in the very first verse, Jesus was demonstrated to be the Messiah precisely because of—not in spite of—his suffering, death, and resurrection.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 8:4; 16:20; Mark 1:34, 44; 3:11-12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:29-30; 9:9, 30-31; Luke 9:21<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Secret of the Messiah Throughout the Gospel of Mark, Jesus tells others—those he healed or raised from the dead, the disciples who recognized him as the Christ, and the demons who had a correct understanding of his true identity—not to reveal his identity (e.g., Mark 1:34, 44; 3:11-12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:29-30; 9:9; this theme occurs far less frequently in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke—see Matt 8:4; 16:20; Luke 9:21). Why did Jesus command those he healed and those who knew his true identity...","summary_en":"The Secret of the Messiah Throughout the Gospel of Mark, Jesus tells others—those he healed or raised from the dead, the disciples who recognized him as the Christ, and the demons who had a correct understanding of his true identity—not to reveal his identity (e.g., Mark 1:34, 44; 3:11-12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:29-30; 9:9; this theme occurs far less frequently in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke—see Matt 8:4; 16:20; Luke 9:21). Why did Jesus command those he healed and those who knew his true identity...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":65419,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Son of God","title_en":"The Son of God","content_ro":"<h3>The Son of God<\/h3>\n<p>Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the title “Son of God” is applied to the people of Israel (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6, 18-19; Ps 82:6; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) and to angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1). It is also applied in a special way to Israel’s king—the anointed king was seen as God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27). The title also appears in intertestamental Jewish literature (including the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls), possibly in reference to the coming Messiah. Jews in the first century would have likely considered the coming Messiah as a “Son of God.”<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ identity as “the Son of God” was affirmed by God at his baptism (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22) and by demons he encountered during his ministry (Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24; 1:34; 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28). Later, the disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20) and Jesus immediately began to teach them of his forthcoming death (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). Then, at Jesus’ transfiguration, God affirmed the disciples’ confession (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). As Jesus approached his death, he affirmed his unique identity as God’s Son, both through his teaching (Mark 12:1-12; 13:32) and at his trial (Mark 14:61-62).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels, the climactic confession of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman centurion became the first human in the narrative to recognize that Jesus is truly the Son of God (Mark 15:39). While Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is demonstrated in his exorcisms and by his Father’s declarations, his sacrificial death and the way he died (Mark 15:33-39) provide the supreme evidence that he is the Son of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Matt 26:63-68; Mark 1:1, 11, 24; 4:35-41; 8:31; 9:7; 12:1-12; 14:61-62; 15:32-39; Luke 1:32-35; 4:41; John 1:18; 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-26; 17:5, 24; 20:31; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:4; 5:10; 8:3, 32; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 4:13; 1 Thes 1:10; Heb 1:2-14; 3:6; 5:5; 1 Jn 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:9-10, 14; 5:20; 2 Jn 1:3, 9; Rev 2:18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Son of God<\/h3>\n<p>Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the title “Son of God” is applied to the people of Israel (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6, 18-19; Ps 82:6; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) and to angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1). It is also applied in a special way to Israel’s king—the anointed king was seen as God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27). The title also appears in intertestamental Jewish literature (including the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls), possibly in reference to the coming Messiah. Jews in the first century would have likely considered the coming Messiah as a “Son of God.”<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ identity as “the Son of God” was affirmed by God at his baptism (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22) and by demons he encountered during his ministry (Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24; 1:34; 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28). Later, the disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20) and Jesus immediately began to teach them of his forthcoming death (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). Then, at Jesus’ transfiguration, God affirmed the disciples’ confession (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). As Jesus approached his death, he affirmed his unique identity as God’s Son, both through his teaching (Mark 12:1-12; 13:32) and at his trial (Mark 14:61-62).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels, the climactic confession of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman centurion became the first human in the narrative to recognize that Jesus is truly the Son of God (Mark 15:39). While Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is demonstrated in his exorcisms and by his Father’s declarations, his sacrificial death and the way he died (Mark 15:33-39) provide the supreme evidence that he is the Son of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Matt 26:63-68; Mark 1:1, 11, 24; 4:35-41; 8:31; 9:7; 12:1-12; 14:61-62; 15:32-39; Luke 1:32-35; 4:41; John 1:18; 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-26; 17:5, 24; 20:31; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:4; 5:10; 8:3, 32; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 4:13; 1 Thes 1:10; Heb 1:2-14; 3:6; 5:5; 1 Jn 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:9-10, 14; 5:20; 2 Jn 1:3, 9; Rev 2:18<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Son of God Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: ...","summary_en":"The Son of God Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":92984,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Secret of the Messiah","title_en":"The Secret of the Messiah","content_ro":"<h3>The Secret of the Messiah<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout the Gospel of Mark, Jesus tells others—those he healed or raised from the dead, the disciples who recognized him as the Christ, and the demons who had a correct understanding of his true identity—not to reveal his identity (e.g., Mark 1:34, 44; 3:11-12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:29-30; 9:9; this theme occurs far less frequently in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke—see Matt 8:4; 16:20; Luke 9:21). Why did Jesus command those he healed and those who knew his true identity to keep his healings and identity secret?<\/p>\n<p>One possibility relates to how the Roman authorities would have responded to an extremely popular preacher who proclaimed the arrival of God’s Kingdom, performed marvelous healings, and openly allowed his followers to call him Israel’s long-awaited Messiah and King. Roman authorities would not tolerate it—they would immediately seek to suppress such a movement. In the Roman Empire, there was no room for another kingdom or for a messianic rescuer from Roman occupation. Thus, though Jesus acknowledged to his disciples that he was the Messiah (Mark 8:27-30), he did not intend to overthrow Rome.<\/p>\n<p>Another possible reason for this secrecy has to do with the prolific misunderstanding of Jesus’ identity that we see throughout the Gospel of Mark, even among his closest followers. Jesus makes clear that his identity as Messiah and Son of God is directly tied to his suffering and death, a reality which did not match up with Jewish expectations regarding the Messiah. Thus, immediately after Peter declares that Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus announces that he would suffer and die (Mark 8:27-31), which generates a response from Peter that demonstrates his lack of understanding (8:32-33). It was not his miracles or his profound teaching that served as the primary attribute of his messiahship, but rather his sacrificial death.<\/p>\n<p>For these reasons, it was expedient for Jesus to teach about God’s Kingdom in parables (see Mark 4:1-34, especially 4:10-12), to minimize the excitement created by his miracles (1:44; 5:43; 7:36; 8:26), to conceal his presence at times from the people (7:24; 9:30-31), to conceal his teaching from outsiders (4:10-12, 33-34; 7:17), and to command those who knew his true identity not to reveal it (1:23-26, 34; 3:11-12; 8:29-30; 9:9). Jesus came “to give his life as a ransom for many” (10:45), not to lead the nation of Israel in rebellion against Rome.<\/p>\n<p>Nonetheless, Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Mark 1:1), could not be hidden. The secret was not and cannot be kept (7:36), for Jesus is too great. Those who experienced and witnessed his healing touch could not help but proclaim what he had done. Jesus’ identity broke through, and it became clear that he is indeed the Messiah, the Son of God, the Lord over nature, disease, and death. And for the readers of the Gospel of Mark, who are made aware of his identity in the very first verse, Jesus was demonstrated to be the Messiah precisely because of—not in spite of—his suffering, death, and resurrection.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 8:4; 16:20; Mark 1:34, 44; 3:11-12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:29-30; 9:9, 30-31; Luke 9:21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Secret of the Messiah<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout the Gospel of Mark, Jesus tells others—those he healed or raised from the dead, the disciples who recognized him as the Christ, and the demons who had a correct understanding of his true identity—not to reveal his identity (e.g., Mark 1:34, 44; 3:11-12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:29-30; 9:9; this theme occurs far less frequently in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke—see Matt 8:4; 16:20; Luke 9:21). Why did Jesus command those he healed and those who knew his true identity to keep his healings and identity secret?<\/p>\n<p>One possibility relates to how the Roman authorities would have responded to an extremely popular preacher who proclaimed the arrival of God’s Kingdom, performed marvelous healings, and openly allowed his followers to call him Israel’s long-awaited Messiah and King. Roman authorities would not tolerate it—they would immediately seek to suppress such a movement. In the Roman Empire, there was no room for another kingdom or for a messianic rescuer from Roman occupation. Thus, though Jesus acknowledged to his disciples that he was the Messiah (Mark 8:27-30), he did not intend to overthrow Rome.<\/p>\n<p>Another possible reason for this secrecy has to do with the prolific misunderstanding of Jesus’ identity that we see throughout the Gospel of Mark, even among his closest followers. Jesus makes clear that his identity as Messiah and Son of God is directly tied to his suffering and death, a reality which did not match up with Jewish expectations regarding the Messiah. Thus, immediately after Peter declares that Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus announces that he would suffer and die (Mark 8:27-31), which generates a response from Peter that demonstrates his lack of understanding (8:32-33). It was not his miracles or his profound teaching that served as the primary attribute of his messiahship, but rather his sacrificial death.<\/p>\n<p>For these reasons, it was expedient for Jesus to teach about God’s Kingdom in parables (see Mark 4:1-34, especially 4:10-12), to minimize the excitement created by his miracles (1:44; 5:43; 7:36; 8:26), to conceal his presence at times from the people (7:24; 9:30-31), to conceal his teaching from outsiders (4:10-12, 33-34; 7:17), and to command those who knew his true identity not to reveal it (1:23-26, 34; 3:11-12; 8:29-30; 9:9). Jesus came “to give his life as a ransom for many” (10:45), not to lead the nation of Israel in rebellion against Rome.<\/p>\n<p>Nonetheless, Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Mark 1:1), could not be hidden. The secret was not and cannot be kept (7:36), for Jesus is too great. Those who experienced and witnessed his healing touch could not help but proclaim what he had done. Jesus’ identity broke through, and it became clear that he is indeed the Messiah, the Son of God, the Lord over nature, disease, and death. And for the readers of the Gospel of Mark, who are made aware of his identity in the very first verse, Jesus was demonstrated to be the Messiah precisely because of—not in spite of—his suffering, death, and resurrection.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 8:4; 16:20; Mark 1:34, 44; 3:11-12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:29-30; 9:9, 30-31; Luke 9:21<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Secret of the Messiah Throughout the Gospel of Mark, Jesus tells others—those he healed or raised from the dead, the disciples who recognized him as the Christ, and the demons who had a correct understanding of his true identity—not to reveal his identity (e.g., Mark 1:34, 44; 3:11-12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:29-30; 9:9; this theme occurs far less frequently in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke—see Matt 8:4; 16:20; Luke 9:21). Why did Jesus command those he healed and those who knew his true identity...","summary_en":"The Secret of the Messiah Throughout the Gospel of Mark, Jesus tells others—those he healed or raised from the dead, the disciples who recognized him as the Christ, and the demons who had a correct understanding of his true identity—not to reveal his identity (e.g., Mark 1:34, 44; 3:11-12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:29-30; 9:9; this theme occurs far less frequently in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke—see Matt 8:4; 16:20; Luke 9:21). Why did Jesus command those he healed and those who knew his true identity...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":93045,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Son of God","title_en":"The Son of God","content_ro":"<h3>The Son of God<\/h3>\n<p>Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the title “Son of God” is applied to the people of Israel (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6, 18-19; Ps 82:6; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) and to angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1). It is also applied in a special way to Israel’s king—the anointed king was seen as God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27). The title also appears in intertestamental Jewish literature (including the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls), possibly in reference to the coming Messiah. Jews in the first century would have likely considered the coming Messiah as a “Son of God.”<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ identity as “the Son of God” was affirmed by God at his baptism (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22) and by demons he encountered during his ministry (Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24; 1:34; 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28). Later, the disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20) and Jesus immediately began to teach them of his forthcoming death (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). Then, at Jesus’ transfiguration, God affirmed the disciples’ confession (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). As Jesus approached his death, he affirmed his unique identity as God’s Son, both through his teaching (Mark 12:1-12; 13:32) and at his trial (Mark 14:61-62).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels, the climactic confession of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman centurion became the first human in the narrative to recognize that Jesus is truly the Son of God (Mark 15:39). While Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is demonstrated in his exorcisms and by his Father’s declarations, his sacrificial death and the way he died (Mark 15:33-39) provide the supreme evidence that he is the Son of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Matt 26:63-68; Mark 1:1, 11, 24; 4:35-41; 8:31; 9:7; 12:1-12; 14:61-62; 15:32-39; Luke 1:32-35; 4:41; John 1:18; 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-26; 17:5, 24; 20:31; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:4; 5:10; 8:3, 32; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 4:13; 1 Thes 1:10; Heb 1:2-14; 3:6; 5:5; 1 Jn 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:9-10, 14; 5:20; 2 Jn 1:3, 9; Rev 2:18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Son of God<\/h3>\n<p>Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the title “Son of God” is applied to the people of Israel (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6, 18-19; Ps 82:6; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) and to angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1). It is also applied in a special way to Israel’s king—the anointed king was seen as God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27). The title also appears in intertestamental Jewish literature (including the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls), possibly in reference to the coming Messiah. Jews in the first century would have likely considered the coming Messiah as a “Son of God.”<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ identity as “the Son of God” was affirmed by God at his baptism (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22) and by demons he encountered during his ministry (Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24; 1:34; 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28). Later, the disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20) and Jesus immediately began to teach them of his forthcoming death (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). Then, at Jesus’ transfiguration, God affirmed the disciples’ confession (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). As Jesus approached his death, he affirmed his unique identity as God’s Son, both through his teaching (Mark 12:1-12; 13:32) and at his trial (Mark 14:61-62).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels, the climactic confession of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman centurion became the first human in the narrative to recognize that Jesus is truly the Son of God (Mark 15:39). While Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is demonstrated in his exorcisms and by his Father’s declarations, his sacrificial death and the way he died (Mark 15:33-39) provide the supreme evidence that he is the Son of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Matt 26:63-68; Mark 1:1, 11, 24; 4:35-41; 8:31; 9:7; 12:1-12; 14:61-62; 15:32-39; Luke 1:32-35; 4:41; John 1:18; 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-26; 17:5, 24; 20:31; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:4; 5:10; 8:3, 32; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 4:13; 1 Thes 1:10; Heb 1:2-14; 3:6; 5:5; 1 Jn 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:9-10, 14; 5:20; 2 Jn 1:3, 9; Rev 2:18<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Son of God Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: ...","summary_en":"The Son of God Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":120610,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Secret of the Messiah","title_en":"The Secret of the Messiah","content_ro":"<h3>The Secret of the Messiah<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout the Gospel of Mark, Jesus tells others—those he healed or raised from the dead, the disciples who recognized him as the Christ, and the demons who had a correct understanding of his true identity—not to reveal his identity (e.g., Mark 1:34, 44; 3:11-12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:29-30; 9:9; this theme occurs far less frequently in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke—see Matt 8:4; 16:20; Luke 9:21). Why did Jesus command those he healed and those who knew his true identity to keep his healings and identity secret?<\/p>\n<p>One possibility relates to how the Roman authorities would have responded to an extremely popular preacher who proclaimed the arrival of God’s Kingdom, performed marvelous healings, and openly allowed his followers to call him Israel’s long-awaited Messiah and King. Roman authorities would not tolerate it—they would immediately seek to suppress such a movement. In the Roman Empire, there was no room for another kingdom or for a messianic rescuer from Roman occupation. Thus, though Jesus acknowledged to his disciples that he was the Messiah (Mark 8:27-30), he did not intend to overthrow Rome.<\/p>\n<p>Another possible reason for this secrecy has to do with the prolific misunderstanding of Jesus’ identity that we see throughout the Gospel of Mark, even among his closest followers. Jesus makes clear that his identity as Messiah and Son of God is directly tied to his suffering and death, a reality which did not match up with Jewish expectations regarding the Messiah. Thus, immediately after Peter declares that Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus announces that he would suffer and die (Mark 8:27-31), which generates a response from Peter that demonstrates his lack of understanding (8:32-33). It was not his miracles or his profound teaching that served as the primary attribute of his messiahship, but rather his sacrificial death.<\/p>\n<p>For these reasons, it was expedient for Jesus to teach about God’s Kingdom in parables (see Mark 4:1-34, especially 4:10-12), to minimize the excitement created by his miracles (1:44; 5:43; 7:36; 8:26), to conceal his presence at times from the people (7:24; 9:30-31), to conceal his teaching from outsiders (4:10-12, 33-34; 7:17), and to command those who knew his true identity not to reveal it (1:23-26, 34; 3:11-12; 8:29-30; 9:9). Jesus came “to give his life as a ransom for many” (10:45), not to lead the nation of Israel in rebellion against Rome.<\/p>\n<p>Nonetheless, Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Mark 1:1), could not be hidden. The secret was not and cannot be kept (7:36), for Jesus is too great. Those who experienced and witnessed his healing touch could not help but proclaim what he had done. Jesus’ identity broke through, and it became clear that he is indeed the Messiah, the Son of God, the Lord over nature, disease, and death. And for the readers of the Gospel of Mark, who are made aware of his identity in the very first verse, Jesus was demonstrated to be the Messiah precisely because of—not in spite of—his suffering, death, and resurrection.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 8:4; 16:20; Mark 1:34, 44; 3:11-12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:29-30; 9:9, 30-31; Luke 9:21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Secret of the Messiah<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout the Gospel of Mark, Jesus tells others—those he healed or raised from the dead, the disciples who recognized him as the Christ, and the demons who had a correct understanding of his true identity—not to reveal his identity (e.g., Mark 1:34, 44; 3:11-12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:29-30; 9:9; this theme occurs far less frequently in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke—see Matt 8:4; 16:20; Luke 9:21). Why did Jesus command those he healed and those who knew his true identity to keep his healings and identity secret?<\/p>\n<p>One possibility relates to how the Roman authorities would have responded to an extremely popular preacher who proclaimed the arrival of God’s Kingdom, performed marvelous healings, and openly allowed his followers to call him Israel’s long-awaited Messiah and King. Roman authorities would not tolerate it—they would immediately seek to suppress such a movement. In the Roman Empire, there was no room for another kingdom or for a messianic rescuer from Roman occupation. Thus, though Jesus acknowledged to his disciples that he was the Messiah (Mark 8:27-30), he did not intend to overthrow Rome.<\/p>\n<p>Another possible reason for this secrecy has to do with the prolific misunderstanding of Jesus’ identity that we see throughout the Gospel of Mark, even among his closest followers. Jesus makes clear that his identity as Messiah and Son of God is directly tied to his suffering and death, a reality which did not match up with Jewish expectations regarding the Messiah. Thus, immediately after Peter declares that Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus announces that he would suffer and die (Mark 8:27-31), which generates a response from Peter that demonstrates his lack of understanding (8:32-33). It was not his miracles or his profound teaching that served as the primary attribute of his messiahship, but rather his sacrificial death.<\/p>\n<p>For these reasons, it was expedient for Jesus to teach about God’s Kingdom in parables (see Mark 4:1-34, especially 4:10-12), to minimize the excitement created by his miracles (1:44; 5:43; 7:36; 8:26), to conceal his presence at times from the people (7:24; 9:30-31), to conceal his teaching from outsiders (4:10-12, 33-34; 7:17), and to command those who knew his true identity not to reveal it (1:23-26, 34; 3:11-12; 8:29-30; 9:9). Jesus came “to give his life as a ransom for many” (10:45), not to lead the nation of Israel in rebellion against Rome.<\/p>\n<p>Nonetheless, Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Mark 1:1), could not be hidden. The secret was not and cannot be kept (7:36), for Jesus is too great. Those who experienced and witnessed his healing touch could not help but proclaim what he had done. Jesus’ identity broke through, and it became clear that he is indeed the Messiah, the Son of God, the Lord over nature, disease, and death. And for the readers of the Gospel of Mark, who are made aware of his identity in the very first verse, Jesus was demonstrated to be the Messiah precisely because of—not in spite of—his suffering, death, and resurrection.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 8:4; 16:20; Mark 1:34, 44; 3:11-12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:29-30; 9:9, 30-31; Luke 9:21<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Secret of the Messiah Throughout the Gospel of Mark, Jesus tells others—those he healed or raised from the dead, the disciples who recognized him as the Christ, and the demons who had a correct understanding of his true identity—not to reveal his identity (e.g., Mark 1:34, 44; 3:11-12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:29-30; 9:9; this theme occurs far less frequently in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke—see Matt 8:4; 16:20; Luke 9:21). Why did Jesus command those he healed and those who knew his true identity...","summary_en":"The Secret of the Messiah Throughout the Gospel of Mark, Jesus tells others—those he healed or raised from the dead, the disciples who recognized him as the Christ, and the demons who had a correct understanding of his true identity—not to reveal his identity (e.g., Mark 1:34, 44; 3:11-12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:29-30; 9:9; this theme occurs far less frequently in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke—see Matt 8:4; 16:20; Luke 9:21). Why did Jesus command those he healed and those who knew his true identity...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":120671,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Son of God","title_en":"The Son of God","content_ro":"<h3>The Son of God<\/h3>\n<p>Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the title “Son of God” is applied to the people of Israel (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6, 18-19; Ps 82:6; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) and to angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1). It is also applied in a special way to Israel’s king—the anointed king was seen as God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27). The title also appears in intertestamental Jewish literature (including the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls), possibly in reference to the coming Messiah. Jews in the first century would have likely considered the coming Messiah as a “Son of God.”<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ identity as “the Son of God” was affirmed by God at his baptism (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22) and by demons he encountered during his ministry (Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24; 1:34; 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28). Later, the disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20) and Jesus immediately began to teach them of his forthcoming death (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). Then, at Jesus’ transfiguration, God affirmed the disciples’ confession (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). As Jesus approached his death, he affirmed his unique identity as God’s Son, both through his teaching (Mark 12:1-12; 13:32) and at his trial (Mark 14:61-62).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels, the climactic confession of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman centurion became the first human in the narrative to recognize that Jesus is truly the Son of God (Mark 15:39). While Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is demonstrated in his exorcisms and by his Father’s declarations, his sacrificial death and the way he died (Mark 15:33-39) provide the supreme evidence that he is the Son of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Matt 26:63-68; Mark 1:1, 11, 24; 4:35-41; 8:31; 9:7; 12:1-12; 14:61-62; 15:32-39; Luke 1:32-35; 4:41; John 1:18; 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-26; 17:5, 24; 20:31; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:4; 5:10; 8:3, 32; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 4:13; 1 Thes 1:10; Heb 1:2-14; 3:6; 5:5; 1 Jn 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:9-10, 14; 5:20; 2 Jn 1:3, 9; Rev 2:18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Son of God<\/h3>\n<p>Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the title “Son of God” is applied to the people of Israel (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6, 18-19; Ps 82:6; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) and to angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1). It is also applied in a special way to Israel’s king—the anointed king was seen as God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27). The title also appears in intertestamental Jewish literature (including the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls), possibly in reference to the coming Messiah. Jews in the first century would have likely considered the coming Messiah as a “Son of God.”<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ identity as “the Son of God” was affirmed by God at his baptism (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22) and by demons he encountered during his ministry (Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24; 1:34; 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28). Later, the disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20) and Jesus immediately began to teach them of his forthcoming death (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). Then, at Jesus’ transfiguration, God affirmed the disciples’ confession (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). As Jesus approached his death, he affirmed his unique identity as God’s Son, both through his teaching (Mark 12:1-12; 13:32) and at his trial (Mark 14:61-62).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels, the climactic confession of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman centurion became the first human in the narrative to recognize that Jesus is truly the Son of God (Mark 15:39). While Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is demonstrated in his exorcisms and by his Father’s declarations, his sacrificial death and the way he died (Mark 15:33-39) provide the supreme evidence that he is the Son of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Matt 26:63-68; Mark 1:1, 11, 24; 4:35-41; 8:31; 9:7; 12:1-12; 14:61-62; 15:32-39; Luke 1:32-35; 4:41; John 1:18; 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-26; 17:5, 24; 20:31; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:4; 5:10; 8:3, 32; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 4:13; 1 Thes 1:10; Heb 1:2-14; 3:6; 5:5; 1 Jn 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:9-10, 14; 5:20; 2 Jn 1:3, 9; Rev 2:18<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Son of God Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: ...","summary_en":"The Son of God Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":148236,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Secret of the Messiah","title_en":"The Secret of the Messiah","content_ro":"<h3>The Secret of the Messiah<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout the Gospel of Mark, Jesus tells others—those he healed or raised from the dead, the disciples who recognized him as the Christ, and the demons who had a correct understanding of his true identity—not to reveal his identity (e.g., Mark 1:34, 44; 3:11-12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:29-30; 9:9; this theme occurs far less frequently in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke—see Matt 8:4; 16:20; Luke 9:21). Why did Jesus command those he healed and those who knew his true identity to keep his healings and identity secret?<\/p>\n<p>One possibility relates to how the Roman authorities would have responded to an extremely popular preacher who proclaimed the arrival of God’s Kingdom, performed marvelous healings, and openly allowed his followers to call him Israel’s long-awaited Messiah and King. Roman authorities would not tolerate it—they would immediately seek to suppress such a movement. In the Roman Empire, there was no room for another kingdom or for a messianic rescuer from Roman occupation. Thus, though Jesus acknowledged to his disciples that he was the Messiah (Mark 8:27-30), he did not intend to overthrow Rome.<\/p>\n<p>Another possible reason for this secrecy has to do with the prolific misunderstanding of Jesus’ identity that we see throughout the Gospel of Mark, even among his closest followers. Jesus makes clear that his identity as Messiah and Son of God is directly tied to his suffering and death, a reality which did not match up with Jewish expectations regarding the Messiah. Thus, immediately after Peter declares that Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus announces that he would suffer and die (Mark 8:27-31), which generates a response from Peter that demonstrates his lack of understanding (8:32-33). It was not his miracles or his profound teaching that served as the primary attribute of his messiahship, but rather his sacrificial death.<\/p>\n<p>For these reasons, it was expedient for Jesus to teach about God’s Kingdom in parables (see Mark 4:1-34, especially 4:10-12), to minimize the excitement created by his miracles (1:44; 5:43; 7:36; 8:26), to conceal his presence at times from the people (7:24; 9:30-31), to conceal his teaching from outsiders (4:10-12, 33-34; 7:17), and to command those who knew his true identity not to reveal it (1:23-26, 34; 3:11-12; 8:29-30; 9:9). Jesus came “to give his life as a ransom for many” (10:45), not to lead the nation of Israel in rebellion against Rome.<\/p>\n<p>Nonetheless, Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Mark 1:1), could not be hidden. The secret was not and cannot be kept (7:36), for Jesus is too great. Those who experienced and witnessed his healing touch could not help but proclaim what he had done. Jesus’ identity broke through, and it became clear that he is indeed the Messiah, the Son of God, the Lord over nature, disease, and death. And for the readers of the Gospel of Mark, who are made aware of his identity in the very first verse, Jesus was demonstrated to be the Messiah precisely because of—not in spite of—his suffering, death, and resurrection.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 8:4; 16:20; Mark 1:34, 44; 3:11-12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:29-30; 9:9, 30-31; Luke 9:21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Secret of the Messiah<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout the Gospel of Mark, Jesus tells others—those he healed or raised from the dead, the disciples who recognized him as the Christ, and the demons who had a correct understanding of his true identity—not to reveal his identity (e.g., Mark 1:34, 44; 3:11-12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:29-30; 9:9; this theme occurs far less frequently in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke—see Matt 8:4; 16:20; Luke 9:21). Why did Jesus command those he healed and those who knew his true identity to keep his healings and identity secret?<\/p>\n<p>One possibility relates to how the Roman authorities would have responded to an extremely popular preacher who proclaimed the arrival of God’s Kingdom, performed marvelous healings, and openly allowed his followers to call him Israel’s long-awaited Messiah and King. Roman authorities would not tolerate it—they would immediately seek to suppress such a movement. In the Roman Empire, there was no room for another kingdom or for a messianic rescuer from Roman occupation. Thus, though Jesus acknowledged to his disciples that he was the Messiah (Mark 8:27-30), he did not intend to overthrow Rome.<\/p>\n<p>Another possible reason for this secrecy has to do with the prolific misunderstanding of Jesus’ identity that we see throughout the Gospel of Mark, even among his closest followers. Jesus makes clear that his identity as Messiah and Son of God is directly tied to his suffering and death, a reality which did not match up with Jewish expectations regarding the Messiah. Thus, immediately after Peter declares that Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus announces that he would suffer and die (Mark 8:27-31), which generates a response from Peter that demonstrates his lack of understanding (8:32-33). It was not his miracles or his profound teaching that served as the primary attribute of his messiahship, but rather his sacrificial death.<\/p>\n<p>For these reasons, it was expedient for Jesus to teach about God’s Kingdom in parables (see Mark 4:1-34, especially 4:10-12), to minimize the excitement created by his miracles (1:44; 5:43; 7:36; 8:26), to conceal his presence at times from the people (7:24; 9:30-31), to conceal his teaching from outsiders (4:10-12, 33-34; 7:17), and to command those who knew his true identity not to reveal it (1:23-26, 34; 3:11-12; 8:29-30; 9:9). Jesus came “to give his life as a ransom for many” (10:45), not to lead the nation of Israel in rebellion against Rome.<\/p>\n<p>Nonetheless, Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Mark 1:1), could not be hidden. The secret was not and cannot be kept (7:36), for Jesus is too great. Those who experienced and witnessed his healing touch could not help but proclaim what he had done. Jesus’ identity broke through, and it became clear that he is indeed the Messiah, the Son of God, the Lord over nature, disease, and death. And for the readers of the Gospel of Mark, who are made aware of his identity in the very first verse, Jesus was demonstrated to be the Messiah precisely because of—not in spite of—his suffering, death, and resurrection.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 8:4; 16:20; Mark 1:34, 44; 3:11-12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:29-30; 9:9, 30-31; Luke 9:21<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Secret of the Messiah Throughout the Gospel of Mark, Jesus tells others—those he healed or raised from the dead, the disciples who recognized him as the Christ, and the demons who had a correct understanding of his true identity—not to reveal his identity (e.g., Mark 1:34, 44; 3:11-12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:29-30; 9:9; this theme occurs far less frequently in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke—see Matt 8:4; 16:20; Luke 9:21). Why did Jesus command those he healed and those who knew his true identity...","summary_en":"The Secret of the Messiah Throughout the Gospel of Mark, Jesus tells others—those he healed or raised from the dead, the disciples who recognized him as the Christ, and the demons who had a correct understanding of his true identity—not to reveal his identity (e.g., Mark 1:34, 44; 3:11-12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:29-30; 9:9; this theme occurs far less frequently in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke—see Matt 8:4; 16:20; Luke 9:21). Why did Jesus command those he healed and those who knew his true identity...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":148297,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Son of God","title_en":"The Son of God","content_ro":"<h3>The Son of God<\/h3>\n<p>Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the title “Son of God” is applied to the people of Israel (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6, 18-19; Ps 82:6; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) and to angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1). It is also applied in a special way to Israel’s king—the anointed king was seen as God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27). The title also appears in intertestamental Jewish literature (including the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls), possibly in reference to the coming Messiah. Jews in the first century would have likely considered the coming Messiah as a “Son of God.”<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ identity as “the Son of God” was affirmed by God at his baptism (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22) and by demons he encountered during his ministry (Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24; 1:34; 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28). Later, the disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20) and Jesus immediately began to teach them of his forthcoming death (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). Then, at Jesus’ transfiguration, God affirmed the disciples’ confession (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). As Jesus approached his death, he affirmed his unique identity as God’s Son, both through his teaching (Mark 12:1-12; 13:32) and at his trial (Mark 14:61-62).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels, the climactic confession of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman centurion became the first human in the narrative to recognize that Jesus is truly the Son of God (Mark 15:39). While Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is demonstrated in his exorcisms and by his Father’s declarations, his sacrificial death and the way he died (Mark 15:33-39) provide the supreme evidence that he is the Son of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Matt 26:63-68; Mark 1:1, 11, 24; 4:35-41; 8:31; 9:7; 12:1-12; 14:61-62; 15:32-39; Luke 1:32-35; 4:41; John 1:18; 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-26; 17:5, 24; 20:31; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:4; 5:10; 8:3, 32; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 4:13; 1 Thes 1:10; Heb 1:2-14; 3:6; 5:5; 1 Jn 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:9-10, 14; 5:20; 2 Jn 1:3, 9; Rev 2:18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Son of God<\/h3>\n<p>Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the title “Son of God” is applied to the people of Israel (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6, 18-19; Ps 82:6; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) and to angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1). It is also applied in a special way to Israel’s king—the anointed king was seen as God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27). The title also appears in intertestamental Jewish literature (including the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls), possibly in reference to the coming Messiah. Jews in the first century would have likely considered the coming Messiah as a “Son of God.”<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ identity as “the Son of God” was affirmed by God at his baptism (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22) and by demons he encountered during his ministry (Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24; 1:34; 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28). Later, the disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20) and Jesus immediately began to teach them of his forthcoming death (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). Then, at Jesus’ transfiguration, God affirmed the disciples’ confession (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). As Jesus approached his death, he affirmed his unique identity as God’s Son, both through his teaching (Mark 12:1-12; 13:32) and at his trial (Mark 14:61-62).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels, the climactic confession of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman centurion became the first human in the narrative to recognize that Jesus is truly the Son of God (Mark 15:39). While Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is demonstrated in his exorcisms and by his Father’s declarations, his sacrificial death and the way he died (Mark 15:33-39) provide the supreme evidence that he is the Son of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Matt 26:63-68; Mark 1:1, 11, 24; 4:35-41; 8:31; 9:7; 12:1-12; 14:61-62; 15:32-39; Luke 1:32-35; 4:41; John 1:18; 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-26; 17:5, 24; 20:31; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:4; 5:10; 8:3, 32; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 4:13; 1 Thes 1:10; Heb 1:2-14; 3:6; 5:5; 1 Jn 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:9-10, 14; 5:20; 2 Jn 1:3, 9; Rev 2:18<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Son of God Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: ...","summary_en":"The Son of God Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"13":[{"id":2375,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Apostleship Apostle","title_en":"Apostleship Apostle","content_ro":"<h3>APOSTLE, APOSTLESHIP<\/h3>\n<p>Official designation given to certain leading individuals in the NT churches. Apostleship is the more comprehensive term, denoting the functions of the one who serves in such a capacity. Questions concerning origin, function, and history of the NT apostolate are much debated; one cannot speak of anything like consensus of opinion uniting the various church traditions. Some light is shed on our understanding of the terms by an examination of the possible linguistic and conceptual backgrounds.<\/p>\n<p>The Greek word for “apostle” is not used outside the NT in the same sense as it is in the NT. It is derived from the verb “to send” and is at home in the language of the sea meaning a particular “ship” or “group of ships,” a “marine expedition” or “the leader” of such. Its usage is almost always impersonal and thoroughly passive. There is no hint of personal initiative or authorization, merely the connotation of something being sent. Later papyri use the word to mean “bill” or “invoice” or even a “passport,” continuing to reflect the vocabulary of maritime affairs.<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, the word was used to designate those who had been sent by Jesus with the proclamation of the gospel. From among the wider group of those who followed him, Jesus selected 12 men (Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:13-19; Lk 6:12-16) who maintained with him a particularly close relationship, receiving private instruction and witnessing his miracles and controversy with the Jewish authorities. On one occasion, Jesus sent these men out to preach the message of repentance, to cast out demons, and to heal the sick; that is, to minister in ways that were characteristic of his own work (Mt 10:1-15; Mk 6:7-13, 30; Lk 9:1-6). The same relationship is expressed in the saying “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Lk 10:16, <span>rsv<\/span>; cf. Mt 10:40). It is clear that the Twelve are not merely to pass Jesus’ teaching on but to represent his very person. After the resurrection, Jesus commissioned the Twelve (Mt 28; Lk 24; Jn 20–21) to proclaim God’s act in Christ on behalf of all men. Only those who had been with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry to his resurrection were qualified to be his apostolic witnesses (Acts 1:21-22). Paul qualified because he had seen the risen Christ (1 Cor 15:4-10).<\/p>\n<p>The Pauline writings demonstrate two characteristic usages of the word “apostle.” On occasion, it refers to persons authorized by local congregations and entrusted with the safe delivery of specific gifts for other members of the Christian community (2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25). More important are those passages where “apostle” takes on a more technical sense through the qualifying phrase “of Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1; 11:13; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; 1 Thes 2:6). The “sent one” is the “sent one of Jesus Christ” (Rom 16:7; 1 Cor 9:1, 5; 12:28; Gal 1:17-19). In the statements where Paul claims his own right to this title, he argues along lines assuming the same basic apostolic concept that Jesus had. He consistently links this claim to a specific event in the past in which the risen Lord had appeared to him (1 Cor 9:1; Gal 1:12, 16). This appearance he ranked alongside those of the resurrection appearances (1 Cor 15:3-8). Paul understood his experience outside Damascus (cf. Acts 9:1-19a; 22:6-16; 26:12-18; Gal 1:17) as a lifelong commission to preach the now-resurrected One (1 Cor 1:17; 2:1-2) chiefly among the Gentiles (Acts 9:15; 22:15; 26:17, 23; Gal 1:15-16). It was through his preaching ministry that Christ continued to work, creating the new people of God (1 Cor 9:1-2; Gal 2:8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Acts of the Apostles, Book of the; Paul, The Apostle.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>APOSTLE, APOSTLESHIP<\/h3>\n<p>Official designation given to certain leading individuals in the NT churches. Apostleship is the more comprehensive term, denoting the functions of the one who serves in such a capacity. Questions concerning origin, function, and history of the NT apostolate are much debated; one cannot speak of anything like consensus of opinion uniting the various church traditions. Some light is shed on our understanding of the terms by an examination of the possible linguistic and conceptual backgrounds.<\/p>\n<p>The Greek word for “apostle” is not used outside the NT in the same sense as it is in the NT. It is derived from the verb “to send” and is at home in the language of the sea meaning a particular “ship” or “group of ships,” a “marine expedition” or “the leader” of such. Its usage is almost always impersonal and thoroughly passive. There is no hint of personal initiative or authorization, merely the connotation of something being sent. Later papyri use the word to mean “bill” or “invoice” or even a “passport,” continuing to reflect the vocabulary of maritime affairs.<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, the word was used to designate those who had been sent by Jesus with the proclamation of the gospel. From among the wider group of those who followed him, Jesus selected 12 men (Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:13-19; Lk 6:12-16) who maintained with him a particularly close relationship, receiving private instruction and witnessing his miracles and controversy with the Jewish authorities. On one occasion, Jesus sent these men out to preach the message of repentance, to cast out demons, and to heal the sick; that is, to minister in ways that were characteristic of his own work (Mt 10:1-15; Mk 6:7-13, 30; Lk 9:1-6). The same relationship is expressed in the saying “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Lk 10:16, <span>rsv<\/span>; cf. Mt 10:40). It is clear that the Twelve are not merely to pass Jesus’ teaching on but to represent his very person. After the resurrection, Jesus commissioned the Twelve (Mt 28; Lk 24; Jn 20–21) to proclaim God’s act in Christ on behalf of all men. Only those who had been with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry to his resurrection were qualified to be his apostolic witnesses (Acts 1:21-22). Paul qualified because he had seen the risen Christ (1 Cor 15:4-10).<\/p>\n<p>The Pauline writings demonstrate two characteristic usages of the word “apostle.” On occasion, it refers to persons authorized by local congregations and entrusted with the safe delivery of specific gifts for other members of the Christian community (2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25). More important are those passages where “apostle” takes on a more technical sense through the qualifying phrase “of Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1; 11:13; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; 1 Thes 2:6). The “sent one” is the “sent one of Jesus Christ” (Rom 16:7; 1 Cor 9:1, 5; 12:28; Gal 1:17-19). In the statements where Paul claims his own right to this title, he argues along lines assuming the same basic apostolic concept that Jesus had. He consistently links this claim to a specific event in the past in which the risen Lord had appeared to him (1 Cor 9:1; Gal 1:12, 16). This appearance he ranked alongside those of the resurrection appearances (1 Cor 15:3-8). Paul understood his experience outside Damascus (cf. Acts 9:1-19a; 22:6-16; 26:12-18; Gal 1:17) as a lifelong commission to preach the now-resurrected One (1 Cor 1:17; 2:1-2) chiefly among the Gentiles (Acts 9:15; 22:15; 26:17, 23; Gal 1:15-16). It was through his preaching ministry that Christ continued to work, creating the new people of God (1 Cor 9:1-2; Gal 2:8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Acts of the Apostles, Book of the; Paul, The Apostle.<\/p>","summary_ro":"APOSTLE, APOSTLESHIP Official designation given to certain leading individuals in the NT churches. Apostleship is the more comprehensive term, denoting the functions of the one who serves in such a capacity. Questions concerning origin, function, and history of the NT apostolate are much debated; one cannot speak of anything like consensus of opinion uniting the various church traditions. Some light is shed on our understanding of the terms by an examination of the possible linguistic and con...","summary_en":"APOSTLE, APOSTLESHIP Official designation given to certain leading individuals in the NT churches. Apostleship is the more comprehensive term, denoting the functions of the one who serves in such a capacity. Questions concerning origin, function, and history of the NT apostolate are much debated; one cannot speak of anything like consensus of opinion uniting the various church traditions. Some light is shed on our understanding of the terms by an examination of the possible linguistic and con...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24363,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gospel of Mark","title_en":"Gospel of Mark","content_ro":"<h3>MARK, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between <span>AD<\/span> 60 and 68.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorDateProvenance\">Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, although this is by no means certain). At one point Papias states, “The Elder used to say this also: Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that [Peter] remembered concerning the things both said and done by the Lord.” (This quotation was preserved by the fourth-century writer Eusebius of Caesarea in his <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 3.39.15.) One need not doubt the basic reliability of this statement. Mark—almost surely to be identified with the John Mark of Acts 12:12 (see also 1 Pt 5:13)—was a disciple of Peter, and the second Gospel owes its existence, at least in part, to the apostle’s reminiscences. It does not follow, however, that one has adequately characterized Mark’s work if that is all one says. For instance, Papias’s qualification, “though not in order,” indicates that Mark did not intend to write a chronological biography. Furthermore, Papias goes on to comment (according to one interpretation of his ambiguous words) that Mark (or Peter?) adapted the material to the teaching situation and that therefore Mark is absolved from any (implied) charges of inaccuracy. It appears that from the earliest times Christians appealed to the purposes and circumstances of Mark’s writing in order to account for difficulties in harmonizing the material found in the various Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Other statements from Christian writers in the second, third, and fourth centuries seem dependent on Papias’s testimony, but some additional data they provide may possess independent value. For example, a fairly early document (date uncertain) known as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel somewhere in Italy after Peter’s death (in the mid-60s), and this testimony is considered reliable by many scholars. Still, the possibility that Mark composed his work before Peter’s martyrdom cannot be ruled out completely.<\/p>\n<p>Papias says nothing specific about <em>when<\/em> the Gospel was written. A small minority of scholars date Mark shortly after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Another minority suggest a date in the 40s or 50s on the basis of a papyrus fragment discovered in Qumran called 7Q5. (According to José O’Callaghan, the fragment, which has been dated about <span>AD<\/span> 50–68, should be identified as Mark 6:52-53.) This fragment contains only 20 letters on one side, making the Markan reconstruction very uncertain. Few scholars are convinced that the text is Mark; some think it is part of 1 Enoch or Zechariah. An impressive majority of scholars date Mark in the 60s, with conservatives usually preferring the early years of the decade. Why this preference? If the theory of Markan priority is accepted, then clearly Mark was written before Luke; and since Luke is normally dated by conservatives about <span>AD<\/span> 62, Mark can be no later than <span>AD<\/span> 60 or 61. This line of argument, though strong, is not decisive. In the first place, Luke cannot be dated with complete certainty. Second, the view that Matthew and Luke used Mark (the working assumption of most scholars) is only a hypothesis, and one that is vigorously opposed by some writers. Third, a tradition going back to the second century (see above) asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel <em>after<\/em> Peter’s death, no earlier than <span>AD<\/span> 64. Fourth, one persuasive view regarding the occasion of this Gospel assumes that the Neronian persecution (<span>AD<\/span> 64) had begun. (According to a different view of the occasion, Mark was written after the beginning of the Jewish revolt in <span>AD<\/span> 66.) Therefore, while a date in the early 60s remains possible, it does not require committal.<\/p>\n<p>With regard to the authorship of the second Gospel, there seems to be no compelling reason to deny Papias’s report that Mark (no doubt the John Mark of Acts 12:12) took down Peter’s reminiscences and that these became the basis of his work. Some scholars argue that the Gospel contains geographical inaccuracies (e.g., we have no evidence of a region called Dalmanutha, Mk 8:10) and that a native of Jerusalem such as Mark would have been more reliable in his information. However, the topographical problems in Mark, though real, need not be interpreted as inaccuracies (present ignorance of a place named Dalmanutha is hardly conclusive proof that it did not exist). Furthermore, in other respects (e.g., 14:54, 66) the Gospel reveals an impressive knowledge of local details. Many writers also point out bits of information that support a Petrine background, such as the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (1:30-31). In short, the internal evidence, while falling short of proof, does not at all undermine the tradition preserved by Papias. A generation ago, the trustworthiness of Papias’s testimony was almost universally accepted. This situation has changed somewhat, but even those scholars who adopt a skeptical attitude toward this tradition concede that it <em>may<\/em> be true.<\/p>\n<p>As attention turns to the provenance of the Gospel, the task becomes more difficult. Tradition going back to the second century asserts what may be already implied by Papias—namely, that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome. Although some scholars have suggested other possibilities, such as Galilee and Antioch, these have not proved satisfactory. Mark did spend some time in Rome, and some characteristics in the Gospel (such as Latinisms in the Greek and the explanation of Jewish customs, as in 7:3-4), while proving nothing, are certainly consonant with a Roman origin. Furthermore, one persuasive view of the occasion that gave rise to the Gospel assumes a background of persecution in Rome.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Distinctives\">Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>A number of characteristics of Mark set it apart from the other Gospels. For example, a word usually translated “immediately” occurs more than 40 times in Mark and only a dozen times in the rest of the NT. While this feature could be interpreted as a simple “mannerism,” consonant with Mark’s unpretentious, colloquial style, it certainly adds to the rapid flow of his narrative, which, dwelling more on Jesus’ activity than on his discourses (in contrast to Matthew and Luke), shifts from scene to scene with hardly a pause. Since the Gospel is also quite brief (Luke is nearly twice as long), one may wonder whether the author intended for it to be read at a sitting; even if read aloud, this would take only about one and a half hours. At any rate, there can be little doubt that the work conveys a sense of urgency.<\/p>\n<p>Other characteristics, however, prove more significant. Someone unfamiliar with the story of Jesus who happened to read Mark for the first time would no doubt be taken aback by its rather abrupt beginning. After a brief clause that stands as a sort of title (1:1), Mark moves on to describe in brief the ministry of John the Baptist. Then he introduces Jesus as coming from Nazareth without telling us anything whatever of his earlier life. Furthermore, over one-third of the book (including the so-called Passion narrative) is devoted to Jesus’ last week. These and other factors lend to the work a note of mystery, accentuated by the fact that at various points Mark calls attention to the fear or amazement gripping those who came in contact with Jesus (2:12; 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6; and several other passages, especially the strange words of 10:32). In addition, if one assumes that the Gospel originally ended with 16:8, Mark wished to leave his readers with the same sense of awe that the disciples experienced at Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>But how does one account for this fear and amazement? Mark’s clear answer is that Jesus, though truly a man, is also divine. While Mark’s Gospel exhibits the humanity of Jesus Christ (1:41; 3:5; 8:12; 10:14), his chief emphasis is on the Lord’s deity. Indeed, Mark introduces his book by referring to Jesus as “the Son of God” (a phrase omitted in some manuscripts, however), a position that is recognized both by the demons (3:11; 5:7) and by God himself (9:7). What may well be the true climax of the Gospel occurs at 15:39, where Mark writes that a Gentile, a Roman centurion, upon hearing Jesus’ death cry, exclaimed, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The author organized his Gospel according to a simple plan. The first eight chapters summarize the nature of Christ’s public ministry by alternating stories that show his growing popularity with stories that stress the disapproval of the Jewish leaders. This first half of the book, while indicating some of the tensions created by Jesus’ coming, gives the basic impression of success and general optimism. A significant shift then strikes the reader toward the end of chapter 8, particularly beginning with verse 31. At Caesarea Philippi, Peter has just confessed that Jesus is the Messiah, and now for the first time Jesus reveals that as Messiah he must die. The disciples become perplexed and discouraged and their pessimism mounts as this thought is brought home to them repeatedly (9:9, 31; 10:32-34; 14:17-25). In the end they desert their master (14:50).<\/p>\n<p>Interestingly, this pessimistic note is anticipated in the earlier part of the Gospel at three points: 3:6 (Jesus’ enemies plot his death); 6:6 (faithlessness in Nazareth); and 8:21 (lack of understanding in the disciples). Some scholars suggest that Mark used these three verses to indicate the first three divisions of his book. In addition, other scholars note that two healings of blind men (8:22-26; 10:46-52) seem to provide the opening and the conclusion of a section that emphasizes the spiritual blindness of the disciples. One more structural clue is 14:1, which clearly marks out the final section of the Gospel.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OccasionPurposeTheology\">Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>A few scholars think that Mark may have been combating a heretical sect that stressed the miracles of Jesus and viewed him purely as a divine wonder-worker. Although this view has not gained acceptance as originally formulated, a number of writers do see the Gospel as a theological corrective. Ralph Martin, who links Mark very closely with Paul, suggests that the evangelist is opposing some heretical groups who have distorted Paul’s message by placing exclusive stress on Christ as a <em>heavenly<\/em> figure (cf. the views that Paul himself opposes in Colossians). Mark responds to these aberrations by emphasizing, in Martin’s words, “the paradox of Jesus’ earthly life in which suffering and vindication form a two-beat rhythm.” Even if one decides that this reconstruction, too, is rather speculative, one may nevertheless retain certain elements in it as valid.<\/p>\n<p>Other scholars, such as H. Kee, place emphasis on the apocalyptic background of Mark. Kee and others tie this element to the Jewish revolt of <span>AD<\/span> 66, but commitment to this particular historical connection is unnecessary to appreciate the great significance of Mark 13 (Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse) for those original readers of the Gospel who may have been undergoing persecution.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the most satisfactory reconstruction links this Gospel to the Neronian persecution in the mid-60s. Mark, for example, is the only Gospel that records that Jesus, after being driven to the wilderness, found himself in the company of wild animals (1:13). This detail, according to William Lane, “was filled with special significance for those called to enter the arena where they stood helpless in the presence of wild beasts.” This interpretation, while not without difficulties, has the advantage of accounting for most of the available data. First, it is compatible with the strong tradition that assigns the origin of Mark’s work to Rome. Second, Mark speaks distinctly to those suffering persecution by introducing them quickly to John’s imprisonment and several other details. Third, related to this is Mark’s emphasis on discipleship. Christians facing persecution must have been tempted to relax the standards (4:17-19). Fourth, given this general situation, one can hardly doubt the significance of our Lord’s apocalyptic message in chapter 13, intended to encourage the disciples in the midst of their trials by reminding them of the glory to follow. Finally, Mark’s clear concern for the Gentile mission fits in with the needs of pagan Rome. The suffering Christians cannot afford to forget the unbelieving society in which they live. In the light of this particular responsibility, Mark assures his readers of what even the Roman centurion began to recognize—surely Jesus <em>is<\/em> the Son of God (15:39).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The development of Mark’s narrative can be presented in six major divisions within a twofold structure:<\/p>\n<li>Introduction (1:1-13)<\/li>\n<li>Part I: Popularity and Opposition (1:14–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>1. Jesus’ authority and the Pharisees’ enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/li>\n<li>2. The people’s response (3:7–6:6a)<\/li>\n<li>3. The disciples’ misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>Part II: Darkness and Death (8:22–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>4. The Messiah’s mission and the disciples’ blind-ness (8:22–10:52)<\/li>\n<li>5. Final ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/li>\n<li>6. The Passion narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>Conclusion (16:1-8)<\/li>\n<p>Although one can hardly claim that this outline corresponds exactly to the author’s original plan (Mark may not have consciously worked out a detailed outline), the sixfold division provides a useful starting point for an interpretive summary of the contents.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Authority and the Pharisees’ Enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>Immediately after the introductory portion (1:1-13), which describes John the Baptist’s ministry as well as Jesus’ baptism and temptation, Mark opens the body of the work with a summary statement (vv 14-15). In these two verses he seems to suggest that Jesus’ public ministry, characterized by the proclamation that God’s kingdom is about to be inaugurated, was occasioned by John’s imprisonment. This is followed by the call of the first disciples (vv 16-20) and then by a complex of stories (vv 21-38), all of which report incidents that took place in Capernaum, apparently within a 24-hour period: synagogue instruction followed by the healing of a demoniac; the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law; numerous other healings in the evening; prayer in a lonely place. The statement that Jesus proceeded to expand his ministry throughout the province of Galilee (v 39) is followed by the story of a leper’s cure (vv 40-45). Next are found a very important group of incidents (2:1–3:6), all of them focusing on Jesus’ conflicts with Jewish leaders: the healing and forgiveness of a paralytic; the call of Levi, whose dinner (attended by Jesus as well as by the hated tax gatherers) occasioned some disputes, particularly on the issue of fasting; and two significant stories regarding proper behavior on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<h5>The People’s Response (3:7–6:6a)<\/h5>\n<p>Mark opens this second section as he opened the first: a summary statement (Jesus’ healings by the lake—3:7-12) followed by the official appointment of 12 apostles (vv 13-19). Then follows a section that focuses on the kinds of charges brought against Jesus by his own family and by the scribes (vv 20-22), leading to a response touching on Satan, on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and on what constitutes true membership in his family (vv 23-35). Most of chapter 4 is devoted to Jesus’ parables of the kingdom—the sower, the seed growing secretly, the mustard seed—and includes statements on the nature and purpose of his teachings (4:10-12, 21-25, 33-34). In the evening Jesus and his disciples set out to cross the Sea of Galilee, leading to the stilling of the storm (vv 35-41), the healing of the Gerasene demoniac on the other side of the lake (5:1-20), and, on their return to Capernaum, the healing of a hemorrhaging woman and the raising of Jairus’s daughter (vv 21-43). The section concludes with Jesus’ visit to his hometown, Nazareth, and the rejection he suffered there (6:1-6a).<\/p>\n<h5>The Disciples’ Misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/h5>\n<p>The third section begins with two introductory passages: the sending out of the 12 (6:6b-13) and the story of John the Baptist’s death (vv 14-29). When the disciples return, Jesus determines to seek some rest, but the crowds follow them; Jesus then teaches and feeds the 5,000 (vv 30-44) and, after crossing the lake (vv 45-52, which includes Jesus’ walk over the water), he performs numerous cures in and around Gennesaret (vv 53-56). Then follows a controversy with the Pharisees regarding the hand-washing ritual (7:1-8), and this incident leads to Christ’s assertion of the authority of God’s word over human tradition (vv 9-13) and to some general instructions on true purity (vv 14-23). The next several stories describe Jesus’ withdrawal from Galilee, first to Tyre, where a gentile woman’s daughter is healed (vv 24-30), then to the Decapolis, where he cures a deaf-mute (vv 31-37) and feeds a crowd of four thousand (8:1-10). The demand of the Pharisees for a sign (vv 11-12) leads to Jesus’ warning against the “leaven” of the Pharisees, a statement misunderstood by the disciples (vv 13-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Messiah’s Mission and the Disciples’ Blindness (8:22–10:52)<\/h5>\n<p>Still away from Galilee, but now in the nearby town of Bethsaida, Jesus heals a blind man (8:22-26). He then leads his disciples north toward Caesarea Philippi, which sets the stage for Peter’s confession (vv 27-30). This recognition on the part of the disciples (of whom Peter is in effect a representative) leads Jesus to prophesy his death, but Peter’s refusal to accept the prophecy calls forth a rebuke and instruction on discipleship (vv 31-38). The failure of the disciples to understand the necessity of Christ’s death provides the background for the Transfiguration (9:1-8), which assures Peter, John, and James that God’s kingdom will indeed come (note v 1); further, the Father himself enjoins them to believe Jesus’ prophecy (v 7). After some words about the resurrection and about the coming of Elijah (vv 9-13), Mark relates the healing of a demoniac boy (vv 14-29). Back in Galilee, a second prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 30-32) is followed, sadly, by a trivial discussion among the disciples as to who is the greatest (vv 33-37). Appropriately, one finds some further instructions concerning discipleship (vv 38-50). Mark next writes that Jesus left Galilee for the last time and began his journey toward the south. During this journey, Jesus delivered teachings on divorce and on the spiritual privileges of children (10:1-16), then met the rich young ruler (vv 17-22), an incident that leads to further words on discipleship (vv 23-31). A third prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 32-34) is again followed by selfish behavior on the part of the disciples, in this case an ambitious request from James and John (vv 35-40). The incident produces indignation among the rest of the disciples, thus necessitating another rebuke from their master, who himself came to serve and to die (vv 41-45). The section ends as it began—by reporting the cure of a blind man, Bartimaeus of Jericho in this story (vv 46-52).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/h5>\n<p>This section seems naturally to divide into three balanced subsections. The first one (11:1-26) includes three events: the Triumphal Entry, the withering of the fig tree, and the cleansing of the temple. The second subsection (11:27–12:44) is particularly important, for here is found Jesus’ final series of controversies with the Jewish leaders. The topics covered are the source of Jesus’ authority (11:27-33), the parable of the wicked husbandmen (12:1-12), the legitimacy of Caesar’s tax (vv 13-17), the Sadducees’ denial of resurrection (vv 18-27), the chief commandment (vv 28-34), and the question regarding David’s son (vv 35-37). This subsection ends with a warning against the scribes and with the story of the widow’s mite (vv 38-44). The third subsection (ch 13) is devoted completely to the Olivet discourse, with its prophecies of destruction, calamities, persecutions, deceivers, and final vindication. The discourse ends with various admonitions to keep alert.<\/p>\n<h5>The Passion Narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/h5>\n<p>This final section, which is introduced by a report of the priests’ plot (14:1-2), may be divided into two subsections. The first one relates the events leading up to Jesus’ trial (vv 3-52). They include the anointing of Jesus (vv 3-9), Judas’s betrayal (vv 10-11), the incidents connected with the Last Supper (vv 12-31), the scene at Gethsemane (vv 32-42), and the arrest (vv 43-52). The second subsection relates Jesus’ trial before the Jews (vv 53-65), Peter’s denials (vv 66-72), the trial before Pilate (15:1-15), the crucifixion (vv 16-41), and the burial (vv 42-47).<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel concludes somewhat mysteriously, but no less triumphantly, with the news that Jesus has risen from the dead (16:1-8). The earliest surviving Greek manuscripts, usually regarded as the most reliable, end at verse 8; the majority of manuscripts, however, include an additional 12 verses that report Jesus’ appearances to his disciples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Mark, John; Matthew, Gospel of; Luke, Gospel of; Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MARK, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between <span>AD<\/span> 60 and 68.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorDateProvenance\">Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, although this is by no means certain). At one point Papias states, “The Elder used to say this also: Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that [Peter] remembered concerning the things both said and done by the Lord.” (This quotation was preserved by the fourth-century writer Eusebius of Caesarea in his <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 3.39.15.) One need not doubt the basic reliability of this statement. Mark—almost surely to be identified with the John Mark of Acts 12:12 (see also 1 Pt 5:13)—was a disciple of Peter, and the second Gospel owes its existence, at least in part, to the apostle’s reminiscences. It does not follow, however, that one has adequately characterized Mark’s work if that is all one says. For instance, Papias’s qualification, “though not in order,” indicates that Mark did not intend to write a chronological biography. Furthermore, Papias goes on to comment (according to one interpretation of his ambiguous words) that Mark (or Peter?) adapted the material to the teaching situation and that therefore Mark is absolved from any (implied) charges of inaccuracy. It appears that from the earliest times Christians appealed to the purposes and circumstances of Mark’s writing in order to account for difficulties in harmonizing the material found in the various Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Other statements from Christian writers in the second, third, and fourth centuries seem dependent on Papias’s testimony, but some additional data they provide may possess independent value. For example, a fairly early document (date uncertain) known as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel somewhere in Italy after Peter’s death (in the mid-60s), and this testimony is considered reliable by many scholars. Still, the possibility that Mark composed his work before Peter’s martyrdom cannot be ruled out completely.<\/p>\n<p>Papias says nothing specific about <em>when<\/em> the Gospel was written. A small minority of scholars date Mark shortly after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Another minority suggest a date in the 40s or 50s on the basis of a papyrus fragment discovered in Qumran called 7Q5. (According to José O’Callaghan, the fragment, which has been dated about <span>AD<\/span> 50–68, should be identified as Mark 6:52-53.) This fragment contains only 20 letters on one side, making the Markan reconstruction very uncertain. Few scholars are convinced that the text is Mark; some think it is part of 1 Enoch or Zechariah. An impressive majority of scholars date Mark in the 60s, with conservatives usually preferring the early years of the decade. Why this preference? If the theory of Markan priority is accepted, then clearly Mark was written before Luke; and since Luke is normally dated by conservatives about <span>AD<\/span> 62, Mark can be no later than <span>AD<\/span> 60 or 61. This line of argument, though strong, is not decisive. In the first place, Luke cannot be dated with complete certainty. Second, the view that Matthew and Luke used Mark (the working assumption of most scholars) is only a hypothesis, and one that is vigorously opposed by some writers. Third, a tradition going back to the second century (see above) asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel <em>after<\/em> Peter’s death, no earlier than <span>AD<\/span> 64. Fourth, one persuasive view regarding the occasion of this Gospel assumes that the Neronian persecution (<span>AD<\/span> 64) had begun. (According to a different view of the occasion, Mark was written after the beginning of the Jewish revolt in <span>AD<\/span> 66.) Therefore, while a date in the early 60s remains possible, it does not require committal.<\/p>\n<p>With regard to the authorship of the second Gospel, there seems to be no compelling reason to deny Papias’s report that Mark (no doubt the John Mark of Acts 12:12) took down Peter’s reminiscences and that these became the basis of his work. Some scholars argue that the Gospel contains geographical inaccuracies (e.g., we have no evidence of a region called Dalmanutha, Mk 8:10) and that a native of Jerusalem such as Mark would have been more reliable in his information. However, the topographical problems in Mark, though real, need not be interpreted as inaccuracies (present ignorance of a place named Dalmanutha is hardly conclusive proof that it did not exist). Furthermore, in other respects (e.g., 14:54, 66) the Gospel reveals an impressive knowledge of local details. Many writers also point out bits of information that support a Petrine background, such as the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (1:30-31). In short, the internal evidence, while falling short of proof, does not at all undermine the tradition preserved by Papias. A generation ago, the trustworthiness of Papias’s testimony was almost universally accepted. This situation has changed somewhat, but even those scholars who adopt a skeptical attitude toward this tradition concede that it <em>may<\/em> be true.<\/p>\n<p>As attention turns to the provenance of the Gospel, the task becomes more difficult. Tradition going back to the second century asserts what may be already implied by Papias—namely, that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome. Although some scholars have suggested other possibilities, such as Galilee and Antioch, these have not proved satisfactory. Mark did spend some time in Rome, and some characteristics in the Gospel (such as Latinisms in the Greek and the explanation of Jewish customs, as in 7:3-4), while proving nothing, are certainly consonant with a Roman origin. Furthermore, one persuasive view of the occasion that gave rise to the Gospel assumes a background of persecution in Rome.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Distinctives\">Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>A number of characteristics of Mark set it apart from the other Gospels. For example, a word usually translated “immediately” occurs more than 40 times in Mark and only a dozen times in the rest of the NT. While this feature could be interpreted as a simple “mannerism,” consonant with Mark’s unpretentious, colloquial style, it certainly adds to the rapid flow of his narrative, which, dwelling more on Jesus’ activity than on his discourses (in contrast to Matthew and Luke), shifts from scene to scene with hardly a pause. Since the Gospel is also quite brief (Luke is nearly twice as long), one may wonder whether the author intended for it to be read at a sitting; even if read aloud, this would take only about one and a half hours. At any rate, there can be little doubt that the work conveys a sense of urgency.<\/p>\n<p>Other characteristics, however, prove more significant. Someone unfamiliar with the story of Jesus who happened to read Mark for the first time would no doubt be taken aback by its rather abrupt beginning. After a brief clause that stands as a sort of title (1:1), Mark moves on to describe in brief the ministry of John the Baptist. Then he introduces Jesus as coming from Nazareth without telling us anything whatever of his earlier life. Furthermore, over one-third of the book (including the so-called Passion narrative) is devoted to Jesus’ last week. These and other factors lend to the work a note of mystery, accentuated by the fact that at various points Mark calls attention to the fear or amazement gripping those who came in contact with Jesus (2:12; 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6; and several other passages, especially the strange words of 10:32). In addition, if one assumes that the Gospel originally ended with 16:8, Mark wished to leave his readers with the same sense of awe that the disciples experienced at Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>But how does one account for this fear and amazement? Mark’s clear answer is that Jesus, though truly a man, is also divine. While Mark’s Gospel exhibits the humanity of Jesus Christ (1:41; 3:5; 8:12; 10:14), his chief emphasis is on the Lord’s deity. Indeed, Mark introduces his book by referring to Jesus as “the Son of God” (a phrase omitted in some manuscripts, however), a position that is recognized both by the demons (3:11; 5:7) and by God himself (9:7). What may well be the true climax of the Gospel occurs at 15:39, where Mark writes that a Gentile, a Roman centurion, upon hearing Jesus’ death cry, exclaimed, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The author organized his Gospel according to a simple plan. The first eight chapters summarize the nature of Christ’s public ministry by alternating stories that show his growing popularity with stories that stress the disapproval of the Jewish leaders. This first half of the book, while indicating some of the tensions created by Jesus’ coming, gives the basic impression of success and general optimism. A significant shift then strikes the reader toward the end of chapter 8, particularly beginning with verse 31. At Caesarea Philippi, Peter has just confessed that Jesus is the Messiah, and now for the first time Jesus reveals that as Messiah he must die. The disciples become perplexed and discouraged and their pessimism mounts as this thought is brought home to them repeatedly (9:9, 31; 10:32-34; 14:17-25). In the end they desert their master (14:50).<\/p>\n<p>Interestingly, this pessimistic note is anticipated in the earlier part of the Gospel at three points: 3:6 (Jesus’ enemies plot his death); 6:6 (faithlessness in Nazareth); and 8:21 (lack of understanding in the disciples). Some scholars suggest that Mark used these three verses to indicate the first three divisions of his book. In addition, other scholars note that two healings of blind men (8:22-26; 10:46-52) seem to provide the opening and the conclusion of a section that emphasizes the spiritual blindness of the disciples. One more structural clue is 14:1, which clearly marks out the final section of the Gospel.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OccasionPurposeTheology\">Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>A few scholars think that Mark may have been combating a heretical sect that stressed the miracles of Jesus and viewed him purely as a divine wonder-worker. Although this view has not gained acceptance as originally formulated, a number of writers do see the Gospel as a theological corrective. Ralph Martin, who links Mark very closely with Paul, suggests that the evangelist is opposing some heretical groups who have distorted Paul’s message by placing exclusive stress on Christ as a <em>heavenly<\/em> figure (cf. the views that Paul himself opposes in Colossians). Mark responds to these aberrations by emphasizing, in Martin’s words, “the paradox of Jesus’ earthly life in which suffering and vindication form a two-beat rhythm.” Even if one decides that this reconstruction, too, is rather speculative, one may nevertheless retain certain elements in it as valid.<\/p>\n<p>Other scholars, such as H. Kee, place emphasis on the apocalyptic background of Mark. Kee and others tie this element to the Jewish revolt of <span>AD<\/span> 66, but commitment to this particular historical connection is unnecessary to appreciate the great significance of Mark 13 (Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse) for those original readers of the Gospel who may have been undergoing persecution.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the most satisfactory reconstruction links this Gospel to the Neronian persecution in the mid-60s. Mark, for example, is the only Gospel that records that Jesus, after being driven to the wilderness, found himself in the company of wild animals (1:13). This detail, according to William Lane, “was filled with special significance for those called to enter the arena where they stood helpless in the presence of wild beasts.” This interpretation, while not without difficulties, has the advantage of accounting for most of the available data. First, it is compatible with the strong tradition that assigns the origin of Mark’s work to Rome. Second, Mark speaks distinctly to those suffering persecution by introducing them quickly to John’s imprisonment and several other details. Third, related to this is Mark’s emphasis on discipleship. Christians facing persecution must have been tempted to relax the standards (4:17-19). Fourth, given this general situation, one can hardly doubt the significance of our Lord’s apocalyptic message in chapter 13, intended to encourage the disciples in the midst of their trials by reminding them of the glory to follow. Finally, Mark’s clear concern for the Gentile mission fits in with the needs of pagan Rome. The suffering Christians cannot afford to forget the unbelieving society in which they live. In the light of this particular responsibility, Mark assures his readers of what even the Roman centurion began to recognize—surely Jesus <em>is<\/em> the Son of God (15:39).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The development of Mark’s narrative can be presented in six major divisions within a twofold structure:<\/p>\n<li>Introduction (1:1-13)<\/li>\n<li>Part I: Popularity and Opposition (1:14–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>1. Jesus’ authority and the Pharisees’ enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/li>\n<li>2. The people’s response (3:7–6:6a)<\/li>\n<li>3. The disciples’ misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>Part II: Darkness and Death (8:22–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>4. The Messiah’s mission and the disciples’ blind-ness (8:22–10:52)<\/li>\n<li>5. Final ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/li>\n<li>6. The Passion narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>Conclusion (16:1-8)<\/li>\n<p>Although one can hardly claim that this outline corresponds exactly to the author’s original plan (Mark may not have consciously worked out a detailed outline), the sixfold division provides a useful starting point for an interpretive summary of the contents.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Authority and the Pharisees’ Enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>Immediately after the introductory portion (1:1-13), which describes John the Baptist’s ministry as well as Jesus’ baptism and temptation, Mark opens the body of the work with a summary statement (vv 14-15). In these two verses he seems to suggest that Jesus’ public ministry, characterized by the proclamation that God’s kingdom is about to be inaugurated, was occasioned by John’s imprisonment. This is followed by the call of the first disciples (vv 16-20) and then by a complex of stories (vv 21-38), all of which report incidents that took place in Capernaum, apparently within a 24-hour period: synagogue instruction followed by the healing of a demoniac; the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law; numerous other healings in the evening; prayer in a lonely place. The statement that Jesus proceeded to expand his ministry throughout the province of Galilee (v 39) is followed by the story of a leper’s cure (vv 40-45). Next are found a very important group of incidents (2:1–3:6), all of them focusing on Jesus’ conflicts with Jewish leaders: the healing and forgiveness of a paralytic; the call of Levi, whose dinner (attended by Jesus as well as by the hated tax gatherers) occasioned some disputes, particularly on the issue of fasting; and two significant stories regarding proper behavior on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<h5>The People’s Response (3:7–6:6a)<\/h5>\n<p>Mark opens this second section as he opened the first: a summary statement (Jesus’ healings by the lake—3:7-12) followed by the official appointment of 12 apostles (vv 13-19). Then follows a section that focuses on the kinds of charges brought against Jesus by his own family and by the scribes (vv 20-22), leading to a response touching on Satan, on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and on what constitutes true membership in his family (vv 23-35). Most of chapter 4 is devoted to Jesus’ parables of the kingdom—the sower, the seed growing secretly, the mustard seed—and includes statements on the nature and purpose of his teachings (4:10-12, 21-25, 33-34). In the evening Jesus and his disciples set out to cross the Sea of Galilee, leading to the stilling of the storm (vv 35-41), the healing of the Gerasene demoniac on the other side of the lake (5:1-20), and, on their return to Capernaum, the healing of a hemorrhaging woman and the raising of Jairus’s daughter (vv 21-43). The section concludes with Jesus’ visit to his hometown, Nazareth, and the rejection he suffered there (6:1-6a).<\/p>\n<h5>The Disciples’ Misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/h5>\n<p>The third section begins with two introductory passages: the sending out of the 12 (6:6b-13) and the story of John the Baptist’s death (vv 14-29). When the disciples return, Jesus determines to seek some rest, but the crowds follow them; Jesus then teaches and feeds the 5,000 (vv 30-44) and, after crossing the lake (vv 45-52, which includes Jesus’ walk over the water), he performs numerous cures in and around Gennesaret (vv 53-56). Then follows a controversy with the Pharisees regarding the hand-washing ritual (7:1-8), and this incident leads to Christ’s assertion of the authority of God’s word over human tradition (vv 9-13) and to some general instructions on true purity (vv 14-23). The next several stories describe Jesus’ withdrawal from Galilee, first to Tyre, where a gentile woman’s daughter is healed (vv 24-30), then to the Decapolis, where he cures a deaf-mute (vv 31-37) and feeds a crowd of four thousand (8:1-10). The demand of the Pharisees for a sign (vv 11-12) leads to Jesus’ warning against the “leaven” of the Pharisees, a statement misunderstood by the disciples (vv 13-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Messiah’s Mission and the Disciples’ Blindness (8:22–10:52)<\/h5>\n<p>Still away from Galilee, but now in the nearby town of Bethsaida, Jesus heals a blind man (8:22-26). He then leads his disciples north toward Caesarea Philippi, which sets the stage for Peter’s confession (vv 27-30). This recognition on the part of the disciples (of whom Peter is in effect a representative) leads Jesus to prophesy his death, but Peter’s refusal to accept the prophecy calls forth a rebuke and instruction on discipleship (vv 31-38). The failure of the disciples to understand the necessity of Christ’s death provides the background for the Transfiguration (9:1-8), which assures Peter, John, and James that God’s kingdom will indeed come (note v 1); further, the Father himself enjoins them to believe Jesus’ prophecy (v 7). After some words about the resurrection and about the coming of Elijah (vv 9-13), Mark relates the healing of a demoniac boy (vv 14-29). Back in Galilee, a second prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 30-32) is followed, sadly, by a trivial discussion among the disciples as to who is the greatest (vv 33-37). Appropriately, one finds some further instructions concerning discipleship (vv 38-50). Mark next writes that Jesus left Galilee for the last time and began his journey toward the south. During this journey, Jesus delivered teachings on divorce and on the spiritual privileges of children (10:1-16), then met the rich young ruler (vv 17-22), an incident that leads to further words on discipleship (vv 23-31). A third prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 32-34) is again followed by selfish behavior on the part of the disciples, in this case an ambitious request from James and John (vv 35-40). The incident produces indignation among the rest of the disciples, thus necessitating another rebuke from their master, who himself came to serve and to die (vv 41-45). The section ends as it began—by reporting the cure of a blind man, Bartimaeus of Jericho in this story (vv 46-52).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/h5>\n<p>This section seems naturally to divide into three balanced subsections. The first one (11:1-26) includes three events: the Triumphal Entry, the withering of the fig tree, and the cleansing of the temple. The second subsection (11:27–12:44) is particularly important, for here is found Jesus’ final series of controversies with the Jewish leaders. The topics covered are the source of Jesus’ authority (11:27-33), the parable of the wicked husbandmen (12:1-12), the legitimacy of Caesar’s tax (vv 13-17), the Sadducees’ denial of resurrection (vv 18-27), the chief commandment (vv 28-34), and the question regarding David’s son (vv 35-37). This subsection ends with a warning against the scribes and with the story of the widow’s mite (vv 38-44). The third subsection (ch 13) is devoted completely to the Olivet discourse, with its prophecies of destruction, calamities, persecutions, deceivers, and final vindication. The discourse ends with various admonitions to keep alert.<\/p>\n<h5>The Passion Narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/h5>\n<p>This final section, which is introduced by a report of the priests’ plot (14:1-2), may be divided into two subsections. The first one relates the events leading up to Jesus’ trial (vv 3-52). They include the anointing of Jesus (vv 3-9), Judas’s betrayal (vv 10-11), the incidents connected with the Last Supper (vv 12-31), the scene at Gethsemane (vv 32-42), and the arrest (vv 43-52). The second subsection relates Jesus’ trial before the Jews (vv 53-65), Peter’s denials (vv 66-72), the trial before Pilate (15:1-15), the crucifixion (vv 16-41), and the burial (vv 42-47).<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel concludes somewhat mysteriously, but no less triumphantly, with the news that Jesus has risen from the dead (16:1-8). The earliest surviving Greek manuscripts, usually regarded as the most reliable, end at verse 8; the majority of manuscripts, however, include an additional 12 verses that report Jesus’ appearances to his disciples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Mark, John; Matthew, Gospel of; Luke, Gospel of; Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MARK, Gospel of Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between AD 60 and 68. Preview • Author, Date, Provenance • Distinctives • Structure • Occasion, Purpose, Theology • Content Author, Date, Provenance Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, alt...","summary_en":"MARK, Gospel of Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between AD 60 and 68. Preview • Author, Date, Provenance • Distinctives • Structure • Occasion, Purpose, Theology • Content Author, Date, Provenance Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, alt...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":30020,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Peter, the Apostle","title_en":"Peter, the Apostle","content_ro":"<h3>PETER, <span>The Apostle<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>One of the 12 disciples; rose to prominence both among the disciples during Jesus’ ministry and among the apostles afterwards.<\/p>\n<p>There are actually four forms of Peter’s name in the New Testament: the Hebrew translated into Greek, “Simeon” to “Simon,” and the Aramaic translated into Greek, “Cephas” to “Petros” (meaning “rock”). His given name was Simeon bar-Jonah (Mt 16:17; cf. Jn 1:42), “Simon the son of John,” which was common Semitic nomenclature. It is most likely that “Simon” was not merely the Greek equivalent of “Simeon” but that, having his home in bilingual Galilee, “Simon” was the alternate form he used in dealings with Gentiles. In fact, it was quite common for a cosmopolitan Jew to employ three forms of his name depending on the occasion: Aramaic, Latin, and Greek. The double name “Simon Peter” (or “Simon called Peter”) demonstrates that the second name was a later addition, similar to “Jesus, the Christ.” The number of times that the Aramaic equivalent “Cephas” is used (once in John, four times each in Galatians and 1 Corinthians), as well as its translation into the Greek (not common with proper names), indicates the importance of the secondary name. Both Aramaic and Greek forms mean “the rock,” an obvious indication of Peter’s stature in the early church (see below on Mt 16:18). It is obvious that he was called “Simon” throughout Jesus’ ministry but came to be known as “Peter” more and more in the apostolic age.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Peter’s Background<\/p>\n<p>• Peter’s Conversion and Call<\/p>\n<p>• Peter’s Place among the Twelve<\/p>\n<p>• Peter the Rock<\/p>\n<p>• Peter the Apostle<\/p>\n<p>• Peter’s Future Ministry<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetersBackground\">Peter’s Background<\/p>\n<p>Peter was raised in bilingual Galilee. John 1:44 says that the home of Andrew (his brother) and Peter was Bethsaida, the whereabouts of which is difficult to place archaeologically. The only site about which we know is east of the Jordan in the district called Gaulanitis. Yet John 12:21 places Bethsaida in Galilee; however, it is possible that John is reflecting the popular use of the term “Galilee” rather than the legally correct one. Peter and Andrew had a fishing business centered in Capernaum (Mk 1:21, 29) and perhaps were partners with James and John (Lk 5:10). It is also likely that they intermittently continued in their business while disciples, as indicated in the fishing scene in John 21:1-8.<\/p>\n<p>One difficulty with this is the series of statements saying, “We have left all and followed You” (Mt 19:27; Mk 10:28; Lk 18:28, <span>nkjv<\/span>). The majority of interpreters have given this an absolute sense of “sold” or “left” their business. However, Luke 18:28 occurs in the context of leaving their homes but obviously is not meant in an absolute sense. It seems most likely that the disciples did leave the practice of their fishing businesses to follow Christ, but kept the tools of their trade and returned to their trades when necessary.<\/p>\n<p>They certainly did not abandon their families, as evidenced by Peter, who returned to his home at the end of each tour. The New Testament tells us that Peter was married. In Mark 1:29-31 Jesus heals his mother-in-law, who perhaps was living with Peter. In fact, it is possible that his home became Jesus’ headquarters in Galilee. (Matthew 8:14 may indicate that Jesus dwelt there.) First Corinthians 9:5 says that Peter, along with the other married apostles, often took his wife with him on his missionary journeys. Later tradition speaks of his children (Clement of Alexandria’s <em>Stromateis<\/em> 2.6.52) and says that Peter was present at the martyrdom of his wife (Eusebius’s <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 3.30.2).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetersConversionandCall\">Peter’s Conversion and Call<\/p>\n<p>Peter’s brother, Andrew, was a disciple of John the Baptist, according to John 1:35-40. This follows the witness of John in 1:29-34 and is the second stage of John’s discipleship drama in chapter one—i.e., after bearing witness he now sends his own followers to Jesus. Andrew and the unnamed disciple (perhaps Philip as in Jn 1:43 or the “beloved disciple,” whom many identify with John himself) then “follow” Jesus (a term used often in John for discipleship). The next day Andrew follows the Baptist’s example and finds his brother Simon, saying, “We have found the Messiah” (Jn 1:41, <span>nkjv<\/span>). Peter’s conversion is presupposed in John 1:42, where Simon is brought to Jesus by Andrew and there given a new name.<\/p>\n<p>There are three separate episodes in the Gospels in which Simon is called, and these overlap with three episodes in which he is given the name “Cephas” (“Peter,” which means “rock”) by Jesus. John locates the event in Judea where John the Baptist was baptizing. The synoptic Gospels have two different scenes. The first call takes place at the Sea of Galilee (Mk 1:16-20; Mt 4:18-22). Jesus is walking along the shore and sees Peter and Andrew along with James and John casting their nets into the sea. At this time he calls them to become “fishers of men.” Luke then expands this into a fishing scene (Lk 5:1-11), in which the disciples have fished all night and caught nothing but at the command of Jesus lower their nets and catch an amount of fish so great that the boat starts to sink. The episode concludes exactly like the Markan abbreviated form: Jesus says that from now on they will “catch men,” and as a result they leave everything and follow him.<\/p>\n<p>The second synoptic episode involving Peter’s call (and his new name) is the official choice of the Twelve upon the mountain (Mk 3:13-19 and parallels); in the list of the names we have “Simon he surnamed Peter.” The final occurrence dealing with Peter’s new name is found in Matthew 16:17-19, in connection with Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi.<\/p>\n<p>It is somewhat difficult to harmonize these episodes properly. Were there three different episodes in which Simon was called (Jn 1:42; Mk 1:20; 3:16) and three separate incidents in which he was given the name Cephas\/Peter (Jn 1:42; Mk 3:16; Mt 16:18)? It is attractive to a broad spectrum of academia to assume that one single event, which happened at some indeterminate time toward the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, was later expanded into these diverse traditions. However, a closer examination of the Gospel data does not necessitate such a conclusion. John 1:35-42 is not an institutional scene that connotes an official call. Rather, it describes the first encounter with Jesus and realization regarding his significance. The “renaming” is in the future tense and looks to a later event. Moreover, John deliberately omits most of the crisis events in Jesus’ life (the baptism, the choice of the Twelve, the Transfiguration, the words of institution at the Last Supper, Gethsemane) and replaces them with highly theological scenes that teach the spiritual significance of the events. This is what he has done here.<\/p>\n<p>The same is true of the first synoptic call, i.e., the fishing scene. Again, there is no hint of official ordination to office here but rather a proleptic or prophetic hint of future ministry. This is especially true of the highly theological scene in Luke, which promises abundant results. Again in all three accounts the future tense is employed: “I will make you fishers of men” (Matthew and Mark), “You will catch men” (Luke, <span>nkjv<\/span>). The call in Mark 1:20 and Matthew 4:21 and their reaction (leaving all behind and following Jesus) is the opening gambit that is finalized in the actual institutional scene in Mark 3:13-19 and parallels. The wording does not indicate that these two episodes are doublets, for the actual appointment of the disciples occurs in the second passage. We must differentiate between the original call to one segment (who became the so-called “inner circle” of the Twelve) and the final choice of all the disciples.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetersPlaceamongtheTwelve\">Peter’s Place among the Twelve<\/p>\n<p>The prominence of Simon Peter in the Gospels and Acts cannot be disputed. While some have attempted to attribute this to his leadership role in the later church, there is no basis for that in the text of the NT. From the very beginning Simon attained preeminence above the others. In the lists of the Twelve just mentioned, Simon’s name always appears first, and in Matthew 10:2 it introduces his name as “the first.” Moreover, the Twelve are often designated “Peter and those with him” (Mk 1:36; Lk 9:32; 8:45, <span>nkjv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Throughout the accounts Peter acted and spoke on behalf of the other disciples. At the Transfiguration it is Peter who wanted to erect tents (Mk 9:5), and he alone had sufficient faith to attempt walking on the water (Mt 14:28-31). It is Peter who asks the Lord to explain his teaching on forgiveness (Mt 18:21) and parables (Mt 15:15; Lk 12:41) and who speaks the disciples’ minds in Matthew 19:27, “Behold, we have left everything and followed you; what’s in it for us?” (paraphrased). The collectors of the temple tax come to Peter as leader of the group (Mt 17:24). As a member of the inner circle (with James and John, possibly Andrew in Mk 13:3) he was often alone with Jesus (at the raising of Jairus’s daughter, Mk 5:37 and parallels; at the Transfiguration, Mk 9:2 and parallels; at Gethsemane, Mk 14:33 and Mt 26:37). Jesus asks Peter and John to prepare the Passover meal in Luke 22:8, and in Mark 14:37 (and Mt 26:40) he directs his rebuke to Peter as representing the others (“Could ye not watch with me one hour?”). Finally, the message of the angel at the tomb as recorded in Mark 16:7 said, “Go your way, tell his disciples and Peter.” Certainly Peter held a very special place among the Twelve.<\/p>\n<p>This was especially evident in the Caesarea Philippi episode (Mk 8:27-33 and parallels). It was Peter whose confession became the high point of the Gospel accounts, “Thou art the Christ” (Luke adds “of God”; Matthew, “the Son of the living God”). After Jesus then spoke of the suffering of the Son of Man, Peter rebuked him, and in Mark’s description Jesus then turned, gazed at all the disciples, and said to Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men” (v 33, <span>kjv<\/span>). This was obviously directed at them all through Peter.<\/p>\n<p>The portrait of Peter that comes through all four accounts pictures him as impulsive, often rash; he is the first to act and speak his mind and was typified by his enthusiasm for everything in which he had a part. At the sight of Jesus walking on the water, Peter asked that the Lord command him to do the same and then immediately leaped out of the boat and began doing just that. At the Transfiguration, while the others were awed into silence by the appearance of Moses and Elijah, Peter the man of action said, “If thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles” (Mt 17:4, <span>kjv<\/span>). Mark and Luke both add here that Peter did not know what he was saying. Peter’s unguarded and unthinking tendency to protest Jesus’ statements is seen not only at Caesarea Philippi but also at the foot-washing scene in John 13:4-11 when he said first, “You shall never ever wash my feet”; and then after Jesus’ strong retort, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me,” he reversed himself completely, stating, “Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and head” (13:8-9, <span>nkjv<\/span>). Finally, in the account of the race to the tomb (Jn 20:2-10), the beloved disciple, reaching the tomb first, paused while Peter immediately and impulsively entered it. Peter was certainly one who “rushed in where angels fear to tread.” However, this very trait aligns him with all of us and may be one of the major reasons why he becomes the representative disciple throughout the Gospels.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetertheRock\">Peter the Rock<\/p>\n<p>The key to the significance of Simon Peter is obviously the controversial addendum to the Caesarea Philippi episode, found only in Matthew 16:17-19, Jesus’ testimonial to Peter. There are several crucial aspects of this saying. The most important for this study is verse 18, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” (<span>kjv<\/span>). There have been many interpretations of this down through history: (1) It refers to Peter as the “rock” or first bishop of the church. This was the Roman Catholic interpretation from the third century on and was employed as a prooftext for apostolic succession, but it is not hinted at anywhere in the context or even in the epistles: it was not a first-century concept. (2) The majority of Protestants since the Reformation have taken this to be a reference to Peter’s statement of faith rather than to Peter himself; but this neglects the wordplay, which is even more pronounced in Aramaic, which has only one form for “Cephas” (rock). (3) An alternative has been to take “this rock” as a reference to Jesus himself, but that is fanciful and is hardly in the context. In conclusion, “this rock” is almost certainly a reference to Peter, but it must be understood in two ways. First, Peter was to become the foundation upon which Christ would build his church, a position clearly attested to in Acts. This does not mean that Peter had an authority above the other apostles. Paul’s rebuke of Peter in Galatians 2:11-14 demonstrates that he was not above them, and at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 it is James who has the position of leadership. Second, Peter is seen here not merely as an individual but as the representative of the disciples. This view is coming to increasing prominence today. It recognized the Jewish concept of “corporate identity” in which the leader was identified with the corporate body (e.g., the king or high priest representing the nation before God). This concept is also in keeping with Matthew 18:18-20, which passes on the same authority to the church as is here given to Peter. In this view Peter as the rock becomes the first of the building blocks upon which Christ, the chief cornerstone (to continue the metaphor), will build his church (see Eph 2:19-20).<\/p>\n<p>Two other aspects are worthy of note here. First, verse 18 says, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The “gates of hell” is a common Jewish euphemism for death’s inevitable and irrevocable power. Jesus is saying that Satan will not be triumphant over the church, and his sphere of operations, death, will be defeated (cf. 1 Cor 15:26, 54-55). The church would undergo persecution and martyrdom, but the church would be triumphant.<\/p>\n<p>Second, verse 19 promises, “I will give unto thee [singular] the keys of the kingdom,” another statement used of apostolic succession by the medieval church. Again, this must be understood in light of corporate identity; Peter, as the preeminent figure in the early church, here embodies the community in his leadership. The “keys of the kingdom” are in direct contrast to the “gates of hell” (cf. Rv 1:18, “the keys of hell and death” and Rv 3:7, the “key of David”), and this follows the imagery of the building seen in the rock upon which Christ will build his church. Here Peter is given the keys that will unlock the power of the kingdom in building God’s community, the church. The future tense (“will give”) undoubtedly points to the postresurrection period, when that power was unleashed and the church erected.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetertheApostle\">Peter the Apostle<\/p>\n<p>Two events led to the new Peter who fills the pages of Acts: his reinstatement described in John 21:15-17 and the resurrection appearance of the Lord, which is never described but alluded to in Luke 24:34 and 1 Corinthians 15:5. His denial was certainly proof that he was not yet able to assume his predicted position as the rock of the church. Both Luke and Paul seem to state that the risen Lord appeared to Simon Peter before the others, which would be fitting in light of his preeminence in the early church. During the Palestinian era, the fifteen-year period prior to the Gentile mission, Peter was the leading figure. The others mentioned in Acts 1–12 are all secondary to Peter, the dominant director of church policy. These include John, who is with Peter in the temple (3:1), the prison (4:13), and Samaria (8:14); Stephen, who was one of the Seven and whose revolutionary preaching led to his martyrdom (chs 6–7); Philip, another of the Seven who proclaimed the gospel in Samaria and to the Ethiopian eunuch (ch 8); Barnabas, who set an example of communal sharing (4:36-37) and was an official delegate to Antioch (11:20-30); Paul, a miraculous convert and witness (9:1-30; 11:25-30; 12:25); and James, who became the first apostolic martyr (12:2). It is Peter who proposes the choice of the 12th disciple (1:15-17), who proclaims the gospel at Pentecost (2:14-40), who utters the healing word (3:6), and who defends the gospel before the Sanhedrin (4:8-12, 19-20; 5:29-32). The episode regarding Ananias and Sapphira is particularly poignant, for here Peter functions as the avenging messenger of God; nowhere is his authority more evident. We would also note his authority in the scene at Samaria concerning the attempt of Simon the Sorcerer to buy the charismatic power (8:18-24). Again, it is Peter whose influence commands the situation. In these two incidents we certainly see the “binding and loosing” jurisdiction (cf. Mt 16:19) exhibited in Peter.<\/p>\n<p>Yet Peter and the church still came under the strictures of their Jewish heritage. The evidence points to a Jewish proselyte self-consciousness on the part of the early church. They viewed themselves as the righteous remnant, living in the age of Messianic fulfillment, but still interpreted themselves in a Jewish sense and conducted their evangelism in the proselyte form of Jewish particularism (i.e., Gentiles could only be converted through Judaism). Two events altered this. First, the Hellenistic Jewish branch of the church rebelled against the Hebrew Christians, which resulted in the appointment of the seven deacons and a change in the orthodox policy of the Palestinian church. Second, this then led to a new preaching ministry, first by Stephen, whose insights ended in his martyrdom and the dispersal of the Hellenistic branch in chapter 8; then by Philip and others, who extended the gospel even further, to the Samaritans and God-fearers. As a further result, Peter and John came to Samaria (8:14), the next significant step toward the Gentile mission. Thus ended the centrality of Jerusalem in the unfolding story.<\/p>\n<p>The two miracles of Peter, at Lydda (the paralytic) and Joppa (raising the dead woman) in Acts 9:32-42, are probably intended to parallel similar miracles of Jesus in Luke’s first work (Lk 5:18-26; 8:49-56). This is part of a major theme in Acts whereby Jesus’ life and ministry are paralleled and continued in the work of the Spirit through the church. Again Peter is seen in a representative role.<\/p>\n<p>The new relationships are extended in two further scenes. First, Peter stays with “Simon, a tanner,” in Joppa, an unclean trade; no pious Jew would knowingly have social contact with such a one. Even more important, God teaches Peter through a dream (10:10-16) that the old dichotomy between clean and unclean has been broken. This then leads Peter to the home of an uncircumcised Gentile, the most serious social taboo for the Jew, and subsequent events force Peter to admit Gentiles into the church without the necessity of Jewish proselyte requirements. The serious consequences of this are seen in the debate that ensued in Jerusalem (Acts 11:2-3) and later at the council (Acts 15:1-21). The centrality of this event is demonstrated in the extent to which Luke reproduces Peter’s speech, which seems to be a repetition of chapter 10 but is meant to highlight this crucial episode. Often forgotten in the significance of this for the early church is the fact that for Luke the Gentile mission begins with Peter, not Paul. He is the one upon whom the salvific act of God descends; and as the leader of the church, he was the first important witness to it.<\/p>\n<p>The persecution of Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:1-4) was likely due to the furor caused by this free intercourse with Gentiles; and it ended the period of Peter’s leadership in Jerusalem. The Jewish people were greatly offended by the new Christian push; and according to Luke in Acts, the idyllic period of popularity, in which the common people supported the church, effectively ceased at this time. Peter’s miraculous release and the dramatic scene at Mary’s house typified the special place of Peter, but the momentum shifts. Peter is forced to flee Jerusalem, and in the interim James arises to leadership (Acts 12:17); at the Jerusalem council it is the latter who has the chair and presents the council’s decision (Acts 15:6-29).<\/p>\n<p>The exact relationship between Peter and the other disciples, especially with the so-called pillars—James and John—and the apostle Paul, cannot be ascertained. The evidence is too vague. Many have thought that indeed there were no truly universal leaders, for the early church was too diverse. However, that is unlikely, and Luke’s portrayal in Acts parallels Paul’s statement in Galatians 2:8 that Peter was the apostle par excellence to the “circumcised” and Paul to the “Gentiles.” They were the universal leaders, while James became the local leader of the Jerusalem eldership. However, neither Peter nor Paul had dominical status similar to that of later popes (i.e., neither was the absolute spokesman of the church and above criticism). So-called emissaries from James could have such an influence on Peter that he would hypocritically change his behavior before Gentiles (Gal 2:12), and Paul could rebuke Peter publicly for doing so (Gal 2:11-14). Paul never claimed authority over the other disciples and even sought their approval and “the right hands of fellowship” for his ministry to the Gentiles (Gal 2:1-10).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetersFutureMinistry\">Peter’s Future Ministry<\/p>\n<p>We have very little hard evidence for Peter’s other movements. It seems as though Peter gradually turned from leadership to missionary work. However, this is an oversimplification. It is most likely that, following the similar pattern of Paul, he combined the two. The presence of a “Cephas party” at Corinth (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22) may indicate that Peter had spent some time there. This is made even more likely when Paul uses Peter as the main example for taking one’s wife on missionary expeditions (1 Cor 9:5). The “Cephas party” probably consisted of those who were converted under his ministry; it is probable that they were Jewish Christians and opposed the “Paul party” on Jewish-Gentile debates reflected elsewhere in 1 Corinthians.<\/p>\n<p>The First Epistle of Peter was sent to churches in northern Asia Minor—the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. The problem here is that there is no hint that Peter had been there and no personal notations in the epistle to demonstrate his acquaintance with these churches. However, it does show that he was very interested in them. In fact, some believe that the reason why Paul was not allowed into this district according to Acts 16:7-8 was that Peter was already ministering there. In short, the question of Peter’s involvement in Asia Minor must remain an open one.<\/p>\n<p>There is no final NT evidence that Peter went to Rome. First Peter 5:13 says that the epistle was sent from “Babylon,” and it is doubtful that this was the literal Babylon, because there is no tradition that Peter ever went there, and Babylon was sparsely populated back then. It is probably a cryptic symbol for Rome, the “Babylon of the West.” It is most likely that the “Babylon” of Revelation 14:8 and 16:19 is also a symbol of Rome. This would fit the strong tradition in the early church that indeed Peter did minister there.<\/p>\n<p>There are four early external witnesses concerning Peter’s death. John 21:18 mentions only the martyrdom of Peter but does not give any hint as to the place. First Clement was written at the end of the first century and reports the martyrdom of Peter and Paul among others. While 1 Clement 5:4 testifies only to the fact and not the place of Peter’s martyrdom, a study of two aspects favors Rome—the reference to a “great multitude” of martyrdoms, which best fits the Neronian persecution, and the phrase “glorious example among us,” which shows that the people of Clement’s own church (Rome) were involved. Ignatius’s letter to the Romans (4:3) also testifies generally to the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, and again the context favors Rome as the place. He says, “I did not command you as did Peter and Paul,” which shows that they had ministries in Rome. The Ascension of Isaiah 4:2-3, a Jewish Christian work of the same period, speaks of Beliar (probably Nero) who martyrs “one of the Twelve,” almost certainly Peter. Therefore the earliest evidence does not explicitly point to Rome as the place of Peter’s death, but that is the most likely hypothesis.<\/p>\n<p>Definite statements to that effect appear toward the end of the second century. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, in a letter dated c. 170 (preserved in Eusebius’s <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 2.25.8) says that Peter and Paul taught together in Italy. At the end of that century Irenaeus says (in <em>Against Heresies<\/em> 2.1-3) that Peter and Paul preached in Rome, and Tertullian in the same general period adds that Peter was martyred “like . . . the Lord” (<em>Scorpiace<\/em> 15). Clement of Alexandria and Origen both allude to Peter’s presence in Rome, and the latter adds the belief that he was “crucified head-downwards” (Eusebius’s <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 2.15.2; 3.1.2). The tradition that Peter was crucified may be supported in John 21:18: “when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall . . . carry thee wither thou wouldest not” (<span>kjv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The fact that Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (c. 55–57) does not mention Peter tells us that he could not have gone there earlier than that. If 1 Peter was written during the Neronian persecution, as those who hold to Petrine authorship believe, he must have gone there sometime in the late 50s or early 60s. Of course, the extent of his ministry in Rome also cannot be known. Some indeed have posited that he had little or no extensive stay in Rome. The facts, as they can be recovered, point to certain tentative conclusions. Peter did have some type of ministry in Rome, though the extent of it cannot be known. However, it is doubtful, in light of the early testimony to his preaching ministry there, that he was merely passing through Rome when caught in Nero’s pogrom. Therefore he most likely spent the last years of his ministry in Rome and there suffered martyrdom under Nero, perhaps by crucifixion.<\/p>\n<p>Simon Peter, along with Paul, was the leading figure in the early church. His impact has been tragically dimmed by the acrimonious debates of Roman Catholic– Protestant circles, but the biblical evidence is clear. He was the leading disciple of Jesus and indeed the “rock” who provided the foundation for the church. As the representative disciple, his enthusiasm and even his weaknesses have made him the supreme example of the developing disciple, one who, through the power of the risen Lord, rose above his faults to become a towering figure on the church scene.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PETER, <span>The Apostle<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>One of the 12 disciples; rose to prominence both among the disciples during Jesus’ ministry and among the apostles afterwards.<\/p>\n<p>There are actually four forms of Peter’s name in the New Testament: the Hebrew translated into Greek, “Simeon” to “Simon,” and the Aramaic translated into Greek, “Cephas” to “Petros” (meaning “rock”). His given name was Simeon bar-Jonah (Mt 16:17; cf. Jn 1:42), “Simon the son of John,” which was common Semitic nomenclature. It is most likely that “Simon” was not merely the Greek equivalent of “Simeon” but that, having his home in bilingual Galilee, “Simon” was the alternate form he used in dealings with Gentiles. In fact, it was quite common for a cosmopolitan Jew to employ three forms of his name depending on the occasion: Aramaic, Latin, and Greek. The double name “Simon Peter” (or “Simon called Peter”) demonstrates that the second name was a later addition, similar to “Jesus, the Christ.” The number of times that the Aramaic equivalent “Cephas” is used (once in John, four times each in Galatians and 1 Corinthians), as well as its translation into the Greek (not common with proper names), indicates the importance of the secondary name. Both Aramaic and Greek forms mean “the rock,” an obvious indication of Peter’s stature in the early church (see below on Mt 16:18). It is obvious that he was called “Simon” throughout Jesus’ ministry but came to be known as “Peter” more and more in the apostolic age.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Peter’s Background<\/p>\n<p>• Peter’s Conversion and Call<\/p>\n<p>• Peter’s Place among the Twelve<\/p>\n<p>• Peter the Rock<\/p>\n<p>• Peter the Apostle<\/p>\n<p>• Peter’s Future Ministry<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetersBackground\">Peter’s Background<\/p>\n<p>Peter was raised in bilingual Galilee. John 1:44 says that the home of Andrew (his brother) and Peter was Bethsaida, the whereabouts of which is difficult to place archaeologically. The only site about which we know is east of the Jordan in the district called Gaulanitis. Yet John 12:21 places Bethsaida in Galilee; however, it is possible that John is reflecting the popular use of the term “Galilee” rather than the legally correct one. Peter and Andrew had a fishing business centered in Capernaum (Mk 1:21, 29) and perhaps were partners with James and John (Lk 5:10). It is also likely that they intermittently continued in their business while disciples, as indicated in the fishing scene in John 21:1-8.<\/p>\n<p>One difficulty with this is the series of statements saying, “We have left all and followed You” (Mt 19:27; Mk 10:28; Lk 18:28, <span>nkjv<\/span>). The majority of interpreters have given this an absolute sense of “sold” or “left” their business. However, Luke 18:28 occurs in the context of leaving their homes but obviously is not meant in an absolute sense. It seems most likely that the disciples did leave the practice of their fishing businesses to follow Christ, but kept the tools of their trade and returned to their trades when necessary.<\/p>\n<p>They certainly did not abandon their families, as evidenced by Peter, who returned to his home at the end of each tour. The New Testament tells us that Peter was married. In Mark 1:29-31 Jesus heals his mother-in-law, who perhaps was living with Peter. In fact, it is possible that his home became Jesus’ headquarters in Galilee. (Matthew 8:14 may indicate that Jesus dwelt there.) First Corinthians 9:5 says that Peter, along with the other married apostles, often took his wife with him on his missionary journeys. Later tradition speaks of his children (Clement of Alexandria’s <em>Stromateis<\/em> 2.6.52) and says that Peter was present at the martyrdom of his wife (Eusebius’s <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 3.30.2).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetersConversionandCall\">Peter’s Conversion and Call<\/p>\n<p>Peter’s brother, Andrew, was a disciple of John the Baptist, according to John 1:35-40. This follows the witness of John in 1:29-34 and is the second stage of John’s discipleship drama in chapter one—i.e., after bearing witness he now sends his own followers to Jesus. Andrew and the unnamed disciple (perhaps Philip as in Jn 1:43 or the “beloved disciple,” whom many identify with John himself) then “follow” Jesus (a term used often in John for discipleship). The next day Andrew follows the Baptist’s example and finds his brother Simon, saying, “We have found the Messiah” (Jn 1:41, <span>nkjv<\/span>). Peter’s conversion is presupposed in John 1:42, where Simon is brought to Jesus by Andrew and there given a new name.<\/p>\n<p>There are three separate episodes in the Gospels in which Simon is called, and these overlap with three episodes in which he is given the name “Cephas” (“Peter,” which means “rock”) by Jesus. John locates the event in Judea where John the Baptist was baptizing. The synoptic Gospels have two different scenes. The first call takes place at the Sea of Galilee (Mk 1:16-20; Mt 4:18-22). Jesus is walking along the shore and sees Peter and Andrew along with James and John casting their nets into the sea. At this time he calls them to become “fishers of men.” Luke then expands this into a fishing scene (Lk 5:1-11), in which the disciples have fished all night and caught nothing but at the command of Jesus lower their nets and catch an amount of fish so great that the boat starts to sink. The episode concludes exactly like the Markan abbreviated form: Jesus says that from now on they will “catch men,” and as a result they leave everything and follow him.<\/p>\n<p>The second synoptic episode involving Peter’s call (and his new name) is the official choice of the Twelve upon the mountain (Mk 3:13-19 and parallels); in the list of the names we have “Simon he surnamed Peter.” The final occurrence dealing with Peter’s new name is found in Matthew 16:17-19, in connection with Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi.<\/p>\n<p>It is somewhat difficult to harmonize these episodes properly. Were there three different episodes in which Simon was called (Jn 1:42; Mk 1:20; 3:16) and three separate incidents in which he was given the name Cephas\/Peter (Jn 1:42; Mk 3:16; Mt 16:18)? It is attractive to a broad spectrum of academia to assume that one single event, which happened at some indeterminate time toward the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, was later expanded into these diverse traditions. However, a closer examination of the Gospel data does not necessitate such a conclusion. John 1:35-42 is not an institutional scene that connotes an official call. Rather, it describes the first encounter with Jesus and realization regarding his significance. The “renaming” is in the future tense and looks to a later event. Moreover, John deliberately omits most of the crisis events in Jesus’ life (the baptism, the choice of the Twelve, the Transfiguration, the words of institution at the Last Supper, Gethsemane) and replaces them with highly theological scenes that teach the spiritual significance of the events. This is what he has done here.<\/p>\n<p>The same is true of the first synoptic call, i.e., the fishing scene. Again, there is no hint of official ordination to office here but rather a proleptic or prophetic hint of future ministry. This is especially true of the highly theological scene in Luke, which promises abundant results. Again in all three accounts the future tense is employed: “I will make you fishers of men” (Matthew and Mark), “You will catch men” (Luke, <span>nkjv<\/span>). The call in Mark 1:20 and Matthew 4:21 and their reaction (leaving all behind and following Jesus) is the opening gambit that is finalized in the actual institutional scene in Mark 3:13-19 and parallels. The wording does not indicate that these two episodes are doublets, for the actual appointment of the disciples occurs in the second passage. We must differentiate between the original call to one segment (who became the so-called “inner circle” of the Twelve) and the final choice of all the disciples.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetersPlaceamongtheTwelve\">Peter’s Place among the Twelve<\/p>\n<p>The prominence of Simon Peter in the Gospels and Acts cannot be disputed. While some have attempted to attribute this to his leadership role in the later church, there is no basis for that in the text of the NT. From the very beginning Simon attained preeminence above the others. In the lists of the Twelve just mentioned, Simon’s name always appears first, and in Matthew 10:2 it introduces his name as “the first.” Moreover, the Twelve are often designated “Peter and those with him” (Mk 1:36; Lk 9:32; 8:45, <span>nkjv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Throughout the accounts Peter acted and spoke on behalf of the other disciples. At the Transfiguration it is Peter who wanted to erect tents (Mk 9:5), and he alone had sufficient faith to attempt walking on the water (Mt 14:28-31). It is Peter who asks the Lord to explain his teaching on forgiveness (Mt 18:21) and parables (Mt 15:15; Lk 12:41) and who speaks the disciples’ minds in Matthew 19:27, “Behold, we have left everything and followed you; what’s in it for us?” (paraphrased). The collectors of the temple tax come to Peter as leader of the group (Mt 17:24). As a member of the inner circle (with James and John, possibly Andrew in Mk 13:3) he was often alone with Jesus (at the raising of Jairus’s daughter, Mk 5:37 and parallels; at the Transfiguration, Mk 9:2 and parallels; at Gethsemane, Mk 14:33 and Mt 26:37). Jesus asks Peter and John to prepare the Passover meal in Luke 22:8, and in Mark 14:37 (and Mt 26:40) he directs his rebuke to Peter as representing the others (“Could ye not watch with me one hour?”). Finally, the message of the angel at the tomb as recorded in Mark 16:7 said, “Go your way, tell his disciples and Peter.” Certainly Peter held a very special place among the Twelve.<\/p>\n<p>This was especially evident in the Caesarea Philippi episode (Mk 8:27-33 and parallels). It was Peter whose confession became the high point of the Gospel accounts, “Thou art the Christ” (Luke adds “of God”; Matthew, “the Son of the living God”). After Jesus then spoke of the suffering of the Son of Man, Peter rebuked him, and in Mark’s description Jesus then turned, gazed at all the disciples, and said to Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men” (v 33, <span>kjv<\/span>). This was obviously directed at them all through Peter.<\/p>\n<p>The portrait of Peter that comes through all four accounts pictures him as impulsive, often rash; he is the first to act and speak his mind and was typified by his enthusiasm for everything in which he had a part. At the sight of Jesus walking on the water, Peter asked that the Lord command him to do the same and then immediately leaped out of the boat and began doing just that. At the Transfiguration, while the others were awed into silence by the appearance of Moses and Elijah, Peter the man of action said, “If thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles” (Mt 17:4, <span>kjv<\/span>). Mark and Luke both add here that Peter did not know what he was saying. Peter’s unguarded and unthinking tendency to protest Jesus’ statements is seen not only at Caesarea Philippi but also at the foot-washing scene in John 13:4-11 when he said first, “You shall never ever wash my feet”; and then after Jesus’ strong retort, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me,” he reversed himself completely, stating, “Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and head” (13:8-9, <span>nkjv<\/span>). Finally, in the account of the race to the tomb (Jn 20:2-10), the beloved disciple, reaching the tomb first, paused while Peter immediately and impulsively entered it. Peter was certainly one who “rushed in where angels fear to tread.” However, this very trait aligns him with all of us and may be one of the major reasons why he becomes the representative disciple throughout the Gospels.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetertheRock\">Peter the Rock<\/p>\n<p>The key to the significance of Simon Peter is obviously the controversial addendum to the Caesarea Philippi episode, found only in Matthew 16:17-19, Jesus’ testimonial to Peter. There are several crucial aspects of this saying. The most important for this study is verse 18, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” (<span>kjv<\/span>). There have been many interpretations of this down through history: (1) It refers to Peter as the “rock” or first bishop of the church. This was the Roman Catholic interpretation from the third century on and was employed as a prooftext for apostolic succession, but it is not hinted at anywhere in the context or even in the epistles: it was not a first-century concept. (2) The majority of Protestants since the Reformation have taken this to be a reference to Peter’s statement of faith rather than to Peter himself; but this neglects the wordplay, which is even more pronounced in Aramaic, which has only one form for “Cephas” (rock). (3) An alternative has been to take “this rock” as a reference to Jesus himself, but that is fanciful and is hardly in the context. In conclusion, “this rock” is almost certainly a reference to Peter, but it must be understood in two ways. First, Peter was to become the foundation upon which Christ would build his church, a position clearly attested to in Acts. This does not mean that Peter had an authority above the other apostles. Paul’s rebuke of Peter in Galatians 2:11-14 demonstrates that he was not above them, and at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 it is James who has the position of leadership. Second, Peter is seen here not merely as an individual but as the representative of the disciples. This view is coming to increasing prominence today. It recognized the Jewish concept of “corporate identity” in which the leader was identified with the corporate body (e.g., the king or high priest representing the nation before God). This concept is also in keeping with Matthew 18:18-20, which passes on the same authority to the church as is here given to Peter. In this view Peter as the rock becomes the first of the building blocks upon which Christ, the chief cornerstone (to continue the metaphor), will build his church (see Eph 2:19-20).<\/p>\n<p>Two other aspects are worthy of note here. First, verse 18 says, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The “gates of hell” is a common Jewish euphemism for death’s inevitable and irrevocable power. Jesus is saying that Satan will not be triumphant over the church, and his sphere of operations, death, will be defeated (cf. 1 Cor 15:26, 54-55). The church would undergo persecution and martyrdom, but the church would be triumphant.<\/p>\n<p>Second, verse 19 promises, “I will give unto thee [singular] the keys of the kingdom,” another statement used of apostolic succession by the medieval church. Again, this must be understood in light of corporate identity; Peter, as the preeminent figure in the early church, here embodies the community in his leadership. The “keys of the kingdom” are in direct contrast to the “gates of hell” (cf. Rv 1:18, “the keys of hell and death” and Rv 3:7, the “key of David”), and this follows the imagery of the building seen in the rock upon which Christ will build his church. Here Peter is given the keys that will unlock the power of the kingdom in building God’s community, the church. The future tense (“will give”) undoubtedly points to the postresurrection period, when that power was unleashed and the church erected.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetertheApostle\">Peter the Apostle<\/p>\n<p>Two events led to the new Peter who fills the pages of Acts: his reinstatement described in John 21:15-17 and the resurrection appearance of the Lord, which is never described but alluded to in Luke 24:34 and 1 Corinthians 15:5. His denial was certainly proof that he was not yet able to assume his predicted position as the rock of the church. Both Luke and Paul seem to state that the risen Lord appeared to Simon Peter before the others, which would be fitting in light of his preeminence in the early church. During the Palestinian era, the fifteen-year period prior to the Gentile mission, Peter was the leading figure. The others mentioned in Acts 1–12 are all secondary to Peter, the dominant director of church policy. These include John, who is with Peter in the temple (3:1), the prison (4:13), and Samaria (8:14); Stephen, who was one of the Seven and whose revolutionary preaching led to his martyrdom (chs 6–7); Philip, another of the Seven who proclaimed the gospel in Samaria and to the Ethiopian eunuch (ch 8); Barnabas, who set an example of communal sharing (4:36-37) and was an official delegate to Antioch (11:20-30); Paul, a miraculous convert and witness (9:1-30; 11:25-30; 12:25); and James, who became the first apostolic martyr (12:2). It is Peter who proposes the choice of the 12th disciple (1:15-17), who proclaims the gospel at Pentecost (2:14-40), who utters the healing word (3:6), and who defends the gospel before the Sanhedrin (4:8-12, 19-20; 5:29-32). The episode regarding Ananias and Sapphira is particularly poignant, for here Peter functions as the avenging messenger of God; nowhere is his authority more evident. We would also note his authority in the scene at Samaria concerning the attempt of Simon the Sorcerer to buy the charismatic power (8:18-24). Again, it is Peter whose influence commands the situation. In these two incidents we certainly see the “binding and loosing” jurisdiction (cf. Mt 16:19) exhibited in Peter.<\/p>\n<p>Yet Peter and the church still came under the strictures of their Jewish heritage. The evidence points to a Jewish proselyte self-consciousness on the part of the early church. They viewed themselves as the righteous remnant, living in the age of Messianic fulfillment, but still interpreted themselves in a Jewish sense and conducted their evangelism in the proselyte form of Jewish particularism (i.e., Gentiles could only be converted through Judaism). Two events altered this. First, the Hellenistic Jewish branch of the church rebelled against the Hebrew Christians, which resulted in the appointment of the seven deacons and a change in the orthodox policy of the Palestinian church. Second, this then led to a new preaching ministry, first by Stephen, whose insights ended in his martyrdom and the dispersal of the Hellenistic branch in chapter 8; then by Philip and others, who extended the gospel even further, to the Samaritans and God-fearers. As a further result, Peter and John came to Samaria (8:14), the next significant step toward the Gentile mission. Thus ended the centrality of Jerusalem in the unfolding story.<\/p>\n<p>The two miracles of Peter, at Lydda (the paralytic) and Joppa (raising the dead woman) in Acts 9:32-42, are probably intended to parallel similar miracles of Jesus in Luke’s first work (Lk 5:18-26; 8:49-56). This is part of a major theme in Acts whereby Jesus’ life and ministry are paralleled and continued in the work of the Spirit through the church. Again Peter is seen in a representative role.<\/p>\n<p>The new relationships are extended in two further scenes. First, Peter stays with “Simon, a tanner,” in Joppa, an unclean trade; no pious Jew would knowingly have social contact with such a one. Even more important, God teaches Peter through a dream (10:10-16) that the old dichotomy between clean and unclean has been broken. This then leads Peter to the home of an uncircumcised Gentile, the most serious social taboo for the Jew, and subsequent events force Peter to admit Gentiles into the church without the necessity of Jewish proselyte requirements. The serious consequences of this are seen in the debate that ensued in Jerusalem (Acts 11:2-3) and later at the council (Acts 15:1-21). The centrality of this event is demonstrated in the extent to which Luke reproduces Peter’s speech, which seems to be a repetition of chapter 10 but is meant to highlight this crucial episode. Often forgotten in the significance of this for the early church is the fact that for Luke the Gentile mission begins with Peter, not Paul. He is the one upon whom the salvific act of God descends; and as the leader of the church, he was the first important witness to it.<\/p>\n<p>The persecution of Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:1-4) was likely due to the furor caused by this free intercourse with Gentiles; and it ended the period of Peter’s leadership in Jerusalem. The Jewish people were greatly offended by the new Christian push; and according to Luke in Acts, the idyllic period of popularity, in which the common people supported the church, effectively ceased at this time. Peter’s miraculous release and the dramatic scene at Mary’s house typified the special place of Peter, but the momentum shifts. Peter is forced to flee Jerusalem, and in the interim James arises to leadership (Acts 12:17); at the Jerusalem council it is the latter who has the chair and presents the council’s decision (Acts 15:6-29).<\/p>\n<p>The exact relationship between Peter and the other disciples, especially with the so-called pillars—James and John—and the apostle Paul, cannot be ascertained. The evidence is too vague. Many have thought that indeed there were no truly universal leaders, for the early church was too diverse. However, that is unlikely, and Luke’s portrayal in Acts parallels Paul’s statement in Galatians 2:8 that Peter was the apostle par excellence to the “circumcised” and Paul to the “Gentiles.” They were the universal leaders, while James became the local leader of the Jerusalem eldership. However, neither Peter nor Paul had dominical status similar to that of later popes (i.e., neither was the absolute spokesman of the church and above criticism). So-called emissaries from James could have such an influence on Peter that he would hypocritically change his behavior before Gentiles (Gal 2:12), and Paul could rebuke Peter publicly for doing so (Gal 2:11-14). Paul never claimed authority over the other disciples and even sought their approval and “the right hands of fellowship” for his ministry to the Gentiles (Gal 2:1-10).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetersFutureMinistry\">Peter’s Future Ministry<\/p>\n<p>We have very little hard evidence for Peter’s other movements. It seems as though Peter gradually turned from leadership to missionary work. However, this is an oversimplification. It is most likely that, following the similar pattern of Paul, he combined the two. The presence of a “Cephas party” at Corinth (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22) may indicate that Peter had spent some time there. This is made even more likely when Paul uses Peter as the main example for taking one’s wife on missionary expeditions (1 Cor 9:5). The “Cephas party” probably consisted of those who were converted under his ministry; it is probable that they were Jewish Christians and opposed the “Paul party” on Jewish-Gentile debates reflected elsewhere in 1 Corinthians.<\/p>\n<p>The First Epistle of Peter was sent to churches in northern Asia Minor—the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. The problem here is that there is no hint that Peter had been there and no personal notations in the epistle to demonstrate his acquaintance with these churches. However, it does show that he was very interested in them. In fact, some believe that the reason why Paul was not allowed into this district according to Acts 16:7-8 was that Peter was already ministering there. In short, the question of Peter’s involvement in Asia Minor must remain an open one.<\/p>\n<p>There is no final NT evidence that Peter went to Rome. First Peter 5:13 says that the epistle was sent from “Babylon,” and it is doubtful that this was the literal Babylon, because there is no tradition that Peter ever went there, and Babylon was sparsely populated back then. It is probably a cryptic symbol for Rome, the “Babylon of the West.” It is most likely that the “Babylon” of Revelation 14:8 and 16:19 is also a symbol of Rome. This would fit the strong tradition in the early church that indeed Peter did minister there.<\/p>\n<p>There are four early external witnesses concerning Peter’s death. John 21:18 mentions only the martyrdom of Peter but does not give any hint as to the place. First Clement was written at the end of the first century and reports the martyrdom of Peter and Paul among others. While 1 Clement 5:4 testifies only to the fact and not the place of Peter’s martyrdom, a study of two aspects favors Rome—the reference to a “great multitude” of martyrdoms, which best fits the Neronian persecution, and the phrase “glorious example among us,” which shows that the people of Clement’s own church (Rome) were involved. Ignatius’s letter to the Romans (4:3) also testifies generally to the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, and again the context favors Rome as the place. He says, “I did not command you as did Peter and Paul,” which shows that they had ministries in Rome. The Ascension of Isaiah 4:2-3, a Jewish Christian work of the same period, speaks of Beliar (probably Nero) who martyrs “one of the Twelve,” almost certainly Peter. Therefore the earliest evidence does not explicitly point to Rome as the place of Peter’s death, but that is the most likely hypothesis.<\/p>\n<p>Definite statements to that effect appear toward the end of the second century. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, in a letter dated c. 170 (preserved in Eusebius’s <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 2.25.8) says that Peter and Paul taught together in Italy. At the end of that century Irenaeus says (in <em>Against Heresies<\/em> 2.1-3) that Peter and Paul preached in Rome, and Tertullian in the same general period adds that Peter was martyred “like . . . the Lord” (<em>Scorpiace<\/em> 15). Clement of Alexandria and Origen both allude to Peter’s presence in Rome, and the latter adds the belief that he was “crucified head-downwards” (Eusebius’s <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 2.15.2; 3.1.2). The tradition that Peter was crucified may be supported in John 21:18: “when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall . . . carry thee wither thou wouldest not” (<span>kjv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The fact that Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (c. 55–57) does not mention Peter tells us that he could not have gone there earlier than that. If 1 Peter was written during the Neronian persecution, as those who hold to Petrine authorship believe, he must have gone there sometime in the late 50s or early 60s. Of course, the extent of his ministry in Rome also cannot be known. Some indeed have posited that he had little or no extensive stay in Rome. The facts, as they can be recovered, point to certain tentative conclusions. Peter did have some type of ministry in Rome, though the extent of it cannot be known. However, it is doubtful, in light of the early testimony to his preaching ministry there, that he was merely passing through Rome when caught in Nero’s pogrom. Therefore he most likely spent the last years of his ministry in Rome and there suffered martyrdom under Nero, perhaps by crucifixion.<\/p>\n<p>Simon Peter, along with Paul, was the leading figure in the early church. His impact has been tragically dimmed by the acrimonious debates of Roman Catholic– Protestant circles, but the biblical evidence is clear. He was the leading disciple of Jesus and indeed the “rock” who provided the foundation for the church. As the representative disciple, his enthusiasm and even his weaknesses have made him the supreme example of the developing disciple, one who, through the power of the risen Lord, rose above his faults to become a towering figure on the church scene.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PETER, The Apostle One of the 12 disciples; rose to prominence both among the disciples during Jesus’ ministry and among the apostles afterwards. There are actually four forms of Peter’s name in the New Testament: the Hebrew translated into Greek, “Simeon” to “Simon,” and the Aramaic translated into Greek, “Cephas” to “Petros” (meaning “rock”). His given name was Simeon bar-Jonah (Mt 16:17; cf. Jn 1:42), “Simon the son of John,” which was common Semitic nomenclature. It is most likely that “S...","summary_en":"PETER, The Apostle One of the 12 disciples; rose to prominence both among the disciples during Jesus’ ministry and among the apostles afterwards. There are actually four forms of Peter’s name in the New Testament: the Hebrew translated into Greek, “Simeon” to “Simon,” and the Aramaic translated into Greek, “Cephas” to “Petros” (meaning “rock”). His given name was Simeon bar-Jonah (Mt 16:17; cf. Jn 1:42), “Simon the son of John,” which was common Semitic nomenclature. It is most likely that “S...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55191,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:13","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:13-19<\/strong> The scene now changes to a <em>mountain<\/em>, and Mark tells how Jesus called his disciples, which is reminiscent of God’s call of Old Testament prophets (Exod 3:14-22; 1 Sam 3:4-14; Jer 1:5-19).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:13-19<\/strong> The scene now changes to a <em>mountain<\/em>, and Mark tells how Jesus called his disciples, which is reminiscent of God’s call of Old Testament prophets (Exod 3:14-22; 1 Sam 3:4-14; Jer 1:5-19).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:13-19 The scene now changes to a mountain, and Mark tells how Jesus called his disciples, which is reminiscent of God’s call of Old Testament prophets (Exod 3:14-22; 1 Sam 3:4-14; Jer 1:5-19).","summary_en":"3:13-19 The scene now changes to a mountain, and Mark tells how Jesus called his disciples, which is reminiscent of God’s call of Old Testament prophets (Exod 3:14-22; 1 Sam 3:4-14; Jer 1:5-19).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82817,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:13","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:13-19<\/strong> The scene now changes to a <em>mountain<\/em>, and Mark tells how Jesus called his disciples, which is reminiscent of God’s call of Old Testament prophets (Exod 3:14-22; 1 Sam 3:4-14; Jer 1:5-19).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:13-19<\/strong> The scene now changes to a <em>mountain<\/em>, and Mark tells how Jesus called his disciples, which is reminiscent of God’s call of Old Testament prophets (Exod 3:14-22; 1 Sam 3:4-14; Jer 1:5-19).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:13-19 The scene now changes to a mountain, and Mark tells how Jesus called his disciples, which is reminiscent of God’s call of Old Testament prophets (Exod 3:14-22; 1 Sam 3:4-14; Jer 1:5-19).","summary_en":"3:13-19 The scene now changes to a mountain, and Mark tells how Jesus called his disciples, which is reminiscent of God’s call of Old Testament prophets (Exod 3:14-22; 1 Sam 3:4-14; Jer 1:5-19).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110443,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:13","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:13-19<\/strong> The scene now changes to a <em>mountain<\/em>, and Mark tells how Jesus called his disciples, which is reminiscent of God’s call of Old Testament prophets (Exod 3:14-22; 1 Sam 3:4-14; Jer 1:5-19).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:13-19<\/strong> The scene now changes to a <em>mountain<\/em>, and Mark tells how Jesus called his disciples, which is reminiscent of God’s call of Old Testament prophets (Exod 3:14-22; 1 Sam 3:4-14; Jer 1:5-19).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:13-19 The scene now changes to a mountain, and Mark tells how Jesus called his disciples, which is reminiscent of God’s call of Old Testament prophets (Exod 3:14-22; 1 Sam 3:4-14; Jer 1:5-19).","summary_en":"3:13-19 The scene now changes to a mountain, and Mark tells how Jesus called his disciples, which is reminiscent of God’s call of Old Testament prophets (Exod 3:14-22; 1 Sam 3:4-14; Jer 1:5-19).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138069,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:13","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:13-19<\/strong> The scene now changes to a <em>mountain<\/em>, and Mark tells how Jesus called his disciples, which is reminiscent of God’s call of Old Testament prophets (Exod 3:14-22; 1 Sam 3:4-14; Jer 1:5-19).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:13-19<\/strong> The scene now changes to a <em>mountain<\/em>, and Mark tells how Jesus called his disciples, which is reminiscent of God’s call of Old Testament prophets (Exod 3:14-22; 1 Sam 3:4-14; Jer 1:5-19).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:13-19 The scene now changes to a mountain, and Mark tells how Jesus called his disciples, which is reminiscent of God’s call of Old Testament prophets (Exod 3:14-22; 1 Sam 3:4-14; Jer 1:5-19).","summary_en":"3:13-19 The scene now changes to a mountain, and Mark tells how Jesus called his disciples, which is reminiscent of God’s call of Old Testament prophets (Exod 3:14-22; 1 Sam 3:4-14; Jer 1:5-19).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":65469,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Following Jesus","title_en":"Following Jesus","content_ro":"<h3>Following Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>One of the core purposes of the Gospels is to help readers understand and accept the call to take up their cross and follow Jesus. This call is addressed not only to those who would be Jesus’ apostles (Mark 3:13-19; cp. 1:16-20; 2:14) but to all who desired to follow him (Mark 8:34; cp. 2:15; 10:21, 52). For some, the call to discipleship is very hard (Mark 10:17-25), but God provides grace (10:27). Others find it easy to respond to Jesus’ call (Mark 2:14; cp. Luke 7:36-50).<\/p>\n<p>For everyone, following Jesus requires a total commitment to turn from selfish ways (Mark 8:34-35). Taking up one’s cross is a metaphor for giving up one’s life to follow Jesus—even to death. For example, Peter, Andrew, James, and John left their homes and their source of income to follow Jesus (Mark 1:16-20). For one rich man, turning from his selfish ways required selling all he had and giving the proceeds to the poor (Mark 10:21). Following Jesus also means being identified with him without being ashamed and being faithful to him and his teachings (Mark 8:38; cp. Rom 10:9). It requires removing anything that would interfere with following Jesus, regardless of how painful doing so might be (Mark 9:43-48). It requires entrusting one’s life entirely to Jesus and repenting of sin (Mark 1:15; 6:12). It even requires putting loyalty to Jesus above loyalty to one’s own father and mother (Matt 10:37; Luke 14:26).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus explicitly commanded his disciples to proclaim his message (Matt 28:18-20; Luke 24:47-49; Acts 1:8). And we see throughout the rest of the New Testament that Jesus’ followers did indeed proclaim the Good News wherever they went, leading to more and more followers (see Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26; 4:1-2, 20; 8:4; 9:20; 11:19-26; 13:1-3; Rom 1:1-16; 10:14-15; 15:18-21; 1 Cor 9:16; Col 1:23; 1 Thes 2:9; 2 Tim 4:2).<\/p>\n<p>Alongside Jesus’ demands for discipleship are the rewards of following Jesus. Those who follow Jesus are promised entrance into the Kingdom of God (Mark 9:43-48; 10:23-31). They receive his forgiveness for their sins (Mark 2:10-11; see also 3:28; 11:25), and they become members of the family of God (John 1:12). They are saved from judgment (Mark 8:35; 13:13) and obtain eternal life (Mark 9:43; 10:29-30; 1 Jn 5:11-12).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Hos 6:3; Matt 10:37-39; 28:18-20; Mark 1:15-20; 2:14-15; 3:13-15; 5:18-20; 6:6-13, 30-32; 8:34-38; 9:38-50; 10:17-31; 11:22-25; 13:9-13; Luke 14:25-35; 24:47-49; John 8:12; 10:27; 12:26; Acts 1:8; 2:42-47; 4:16-20; 8:4; 9:19-30; 11:19-24; 13:1-3; Rom 1:1-16; 10:7-15; 1 Cor 9:16; Eph 5:1; Col 1:23; 2 Tim 4:2; 1 Pet 2:21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Following Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>One of the core purposes of the Gospels is to help readers understand and accept the call to take up their cross and follow Jesus. This call is addressed not only to those who would be Jesus’ apostles (Mark 3:13-19; cp. 1:16-20; 2:14) but to all who desired to follow him (Mark 8:34; cp. 2:15; 10:21, 52). For some, the call to discipleship is very hard (Mark 10:17-25), but God provides grace (10:27). Others find it easy to respond to Jesus’ call (Mark 2:14; cp. Luke 7:36-50).<\/p>\n<p>For everyone, following Jesus requires a total commitment to turn from selfish ways (Mark 8:34-35). Taking up one’s cross is a metaphor for giving up one’s life to follow Jesus—even to death. For example, Peter, Andrew, James, and John left their homes and their source of income to follow Jesus (Mark 1:16-20). For one rich man, turning from his selfish ways required selling all he had and giving the proceeds to the poor (Mark 10:21). Following Jesus also means being identified with him without being ashamed and being faithful to him and his teachings (Mark 8:38; cp. Rom 10:9). It requires removing anything that would interfere with following Jesus, regardless of how painful doing so might be (Mark 9:43-48). It requires entrusting one’s life entirely to Jesus and repenting of sin (Mark 1:15; 6:12). It even requires putting loyalty to Jesus above loyalty to one’s own father and mother (Matt 10:37; Luke 14:26).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus explicitly commanded his disciples to proclaim his message (Matt 28:18-20; Luke 24:47-49; Acts 1:8). And we see throughout the rest of the New Testament that Jesus’ followers did indeed proclaim the Good News wherever they went, leading to more and more followers (see Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26; 4:1-2, 20; 8:4; 9:20; 11:19-26; 13:1-3; Rom 1:1-16; 10:14-15; 15:18-21; 1 Cor 9:16; Col 1:23; 1 Thes 2:9; 2 Tim 4:2).<\/p>\n<p>Alongside Jesus’ demands for discipleship are the rewards of following Jesus. Those who follow Jesus are promised entrance into the Kingdom of God (Mark 9:43-48; 10:23-31). They receive his forgiveness for their sins (Mark 2:10-11; see also 3:28; 11:25), and they become members of the family of God (John 1:12). They are saved from judgment (Mark 8:35; 13:13) and obtain eternal life (Mark 9:43; 10:29-30; 1 Jn 5:11-12).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Hos 6:3; Matt 10:37-39; 28:18-20; Mark 1:15-20; 2:14-15; 3:13-15; 5:18-20; 6:6-13, 30-32; 8:34-38; 9:38-50; 10:17-31; 11:22-25; 13:9-13; Luke 14:25-35; 24:47-49; John 8:12; 10:27; 12:26; Acts 1:8; 2:42-47; 4:16-20; 8:4; 9:19-30; 11:19-24; 13:1-3; Rom 1:1-16; 10:7-15; 1 Cor 9:16; Eph 5:1; Col 1:23; 2 Tim 4:2; 1 Pet 2:21<\/p>","summary_ro":"Following Jesus One of the core purposes of the Gospels is to help readers understand and accept the call to take up their cross and follow Jesus. This call is addressed not only to those who would be Jesus’ apostles (Mark 3:13-19; cp. 1:16-20; 2:14) but to all who desired to follow him (Mark 8:34; cp. 2:15; 10:21, 52). For some, the call to discipleship is very hard (Mark 10:17-25), but God provides grace (10:27). Others find it easy to respond to Jesus’ call (Mark 2:14; cp. Luke 7:36-50). F...","summary_en":"Following Jesus One of the core purposes of the Gospels is to help readers understand and accept the call to take up their cross and follow Jesus. This call is addressed not only to those who would be Jesus’ apostles (Mark 3:13-19; cp. 1:16-20; 2:14) but to all who desired to follow him (Mark 8:34; cp. 2:15; 10:21, 52). For some, the call to discipleship is very hard (Mark 10:17-25), but God provides grace (10:27). Others find it easy to respond to Jesus’ call (Mark 2:14; cp. Luke 7:36-50). F...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":93095,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Following Jesus","title_en":"Following Jesus","content_ro":"<h3>Following Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>One of the core purposes of the Gospels is to help readers understand and accept the call to take up their cross and follow Jesus. This call is addressed not only to those who would be Jesus’ apostles (Mark 3:13-19; cp. 1:16-20; 2:14) but to all who desired to follow him (Mark 8:34; cp. 2:15; 10:21, 52). For some, the call to discipleship is very hard (Mark 10:17-25), but God provides grace (10:27). Others find it easy to respond to Jesus’ call (Mark 2:14; cp. Luke 7:36-50).<\/p>\n<p>For everyone, following Jesus requires a total commitment to turn from selfish ways (Mark 8:34-35). Taking up one’s cross is a metaphor for giving up one’s life to follow Jesus—even to death. For example, Peter, Andrew, James, and John left their homes and their source of income to follow Jesus (Mark 1:16-20). For one rich man, turning from his selfish ways required selling all he had and giving the proceeds to the poor (Mark 10:21). Following Jesus also means being identified with him without being ashamed and being faithful to him and his teachings (Mark 8:38; cp. Rom 10:9). It requires removing anything that would interfere with following Jesus, regardless of how painful doing so might be (Mark 9:43-48). It requires entrusting one’s life entirely to Jesus and repenting of sin (Mark 1:15; 6:12). It even requires putting loyalty to Jesus above loyalty to one’s own father and mother (Matt 10:37; Luke 14:26).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus explicitly commanded his disciples to proclaim his message (Matt 28:18-20; Luke 24:47-49; Acts 1:8). And we see throughout the rest of the New Testament that Jesus’ followers did indeed proclaim the Good News wherever they went, leading to more and more followers (see Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26; 4:1-2, 20; 8:4; 9:20; 11:19-26; 13:1-3; Rom 1:1-16; 10:14-15; 15:18-21; 1 Cor 9:16; Col 1:23; 1 Thes 2:9; 2 Tim 4:2).<\/p>\n<p>Alongside Jesus’ demands for discipleship are the rewards of following Jesus. Those who follow Jesus are promised entrance into the Kingdom of God (Mark 9:43-48; 10:23-31). They receive his forgiveness for their sins (Mark 2:10-11; see also 3:28; 11:25), and they become members of the family of God (John 1:12). They are saved from judgment (Mark 8:35; 13:13) and obtain eternal life (Mark 9:43; 10:29-30; 1 Jn 5:11-12).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Hos 6:3; Matt 10:37-39; 28:18-20; Mark 1:15-20; 2:14-15; 3:13-15; 5:18-20; 6:6-13, 30-32; 8:34-38; 9:38-50; 10:17-31; 11:22-25; 13:9-13; Luke 14:25-35; 24:47-49; John 8:12; 10:27; 12:26; Acts 1:8; 2:42-47; 4:16-20; 8:4; 9:19-30; 11:19-24; 13:1-3; Rom 1:1-16; 10:7-15; 1 Cor 9:16; Eph 5:1; Col 1:23; 2 Tim 4:2; 1 Pet 2:21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Following Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>One of the core purposes of the Gospels is to help readers understand and accept the call to take up their cross and follow Jesus. This call is addressed not only to those who would be Jesus’ apostles (Mark 3:13-19; cp. 1:16-20; 2:14) but to all who desired to follow him (Mark 8:34; cp. 2:15; 10:21, 52). For some, the call to discipleship is very hard (Mark 10:17-25), but God provides grace (10:27). Others find it easy to respond to Jesus’ call (Mark 2:14; cp. Luke 7:36-50).<\/p>\n<p>For everyone, following Jesus requires a total commitment to turn from selfish ways (Mark 8:34-35). Taking up one’s cross is a metaphor for giving up one’s life to follow Jesus—even to death. For example, Peter, Andrew, James, and John left their homes and their source of income to follow Jesus (Mark 1:16-20). For one rich man, turning from his selfish ways required selling all he had and giving the proceeds to the poor (Mark 10:21). Following Jesus also means being identified with him without being ashamed and being faithful to him and his teachings (Mark 8:38; cp. Rom 10:9). It requires removing anything that would interfere with following Jesus, regardless of how painful doing so might be (Mark 9:43-48). It requires entrusting one’s life entirely to Jesus and repenting of sin (Mark 1:15; 6:12). It even requires putting loyalty to Jesus above loyalty to one’s own father and mother (Matt 10:37; Luke 14:26).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus explicitly commanded his disciples to proclaim his message (Matt 28:18-20; Luke 24:47-49; Acts 1:8). And we see throughout the rest of the New Testament that Jesus’ followers did indeed proclaim the Good News wherever they went, leading to more and more followers (see Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26; 4:1-2, 20; 8:4; 9:20; 11:19-26; 13:1-3; Rom 1:1-16; 10:14-15; 15:18-21; 1 Cor 9:16; Col 1:23; 1 Thes 2:9; 2 Tim 4:2).<\/p>\n<p>Alongside Jesus’ demands for discipleship are the rewards of following Jesus. Those who follow Jesus are promised entrance into the Kingdom of God (Mark 9:43-48; 10:23-31). They receive his forgiveness for their sins (Mark 2:10-11; see also 3:28; 11:25), and they become members of the family of God (John 1:12). They are saved from judgment (Mark 8:35; 13:13) and obtain eternal life (Mark 9:43; 10:29-30; 1 Jn 5:11-12).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Hos 6:3; Matt 10:37-39; 28:18-20; Mark 1:15-20; 2:14-15; 3:13-15; 5:18-20; 6:6-13, 30-32; 8:34-38; 9:38-50; 10:17-31; 11:22-25; 13:9-13; Luke 14:25-35; 24:47-49; John 8:12; 10:27; 12:26; Acts 1:8; 2:42-47; 4:16-20; 8:4; 9:19-30; 11:19-24; 13:1-3; Rom 1:1-16; 10:7-15; 1 Cor 9:16; Eph 5:1; Col 1:23; 2 Tim 4:2; 1 Pet 2:21<\/p>","summary_ro":"Following Jesus One of the core purposes of the Gospels is to help readers understand and accept the call to take up their cross and follow Jesus. This call is addressed not only to those who would be Jesus’ apostles (Mark 3:13-19; cp. 1:16-20; 2:14) but to all who desired to follow him (Mark 8:34; cp. 2:15; 10:21, 52). For some, the call to discipleship is very hard (Mark 10:17-25), but God provides grace (10:27). Others find it easy to respond to Jesus’ call (Mark 2:14; cp. Luke 7:36-50). F...","summary_en":"Following Jesus One of the core purposes of the Gospels is to help readers understand and accept the call to take up their cross and follow Jesus. This call is addressed not only to those who would be Jesus’ apostles (Mark 3:13-19; cp. 1:16-20; 2:14) but to all who desired to follow him (Mark 8:34; cp. 2:15; 10:21, 52). For some, the call to discipleship is very hard (Mark 10:17-25), but God provides grace (10:27). Others find it easy to respond to Jesus’ call (Mark 2:14; cp. Luke 7:36-50). F...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":120721,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Following Jesus","title_en":"Following Jesus","content_ro":"<h3>Following Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>One of the core purposes of the Gospels is to help readers understand and accept the call to take up their cross and follow Jesus. This call is addressed not only to those who would be Jesus’ apostles (Mark 3:13-19; cp. 1:16-20; 2:14) but to all who desired to follow him (Mark 8:34; cp. 2:15; 10:21, 52). For some, the call to discipleship is very hard (Mark 10:17-25), but God provides grace (10:27). Others find it easy to respond to Jesus’ call (Mark 2:14; cp. Luke 7:36-50).<\/p>\n<p>For everyone, following Jesus requires a total commitment to turn from selfish ways (Mark 8:34-35). Taking up one’s cross is a metaphor for giving up one’s life to follow Jesus—even to death. For example, Peter, Andrew, James, and John left their homes and their source of income to follow Jesus (Mark 1:16-20). For one rich man, turning from his selfish ways required selling all he had and giving the proceeds to the poor (Mark 10:21). Following Jesus also means being identified with him without being ashamed and being faithful to him and his teachings (Mark 8:38; cp. Rom 10:9). It requires removing anything that would interfere with following Jesus, regardless of how painful doing so might be (Mark 9:43-48). It requires entrusting one’s life entirely to Jesus and repenting of sin (Mark 1:15; 6:12). It even requires putting loyalty to Jesus above loyalty to one’s own father and mother (Matt 10:37; Luke 14:26).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus explicitly commanded his disciples to proclaim his message (Matt 28:18-20; Luke 24:47-49; Acts 1:8). And we see throughout the rest of the New Testament that Jesus’ followers did indeed proclaim the Good News wherever they went, leading to more and more followers (see Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26; 4:1-2, 20; 8:4; 9:20; 11:19-26; 13:1-3; Rom 1:1-16; 10:14-15; 15:18-21; 1 Cor 9:16; Col 1:23; 1 Thes 2:9; 2 Tim 4:2).<\/p>\n<p>Alongside Jesus’ demands for discipleship are the rewards of following Jesus. Those who follow Jesus are promised entrance into the Kingdom of God (Mark 9:43-48; 10:23-31). They receive his forgiveness for their sins (Mark 2:10-11; see also 3:28; 11:25), and they become members of the family of God (John 1:12). They are saved from judgment (Mark 8:35; 13:13) and obtain eternal life (Mark 9:43; 10:29-30; 1 Jn 5:11-12).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Hos 6:3; Matt 10:37-39; 28:18-20; Mark 1:15-20; 2:14-15; 3:13-15; 5:18-20; 6:6-13, 30-32; 8:34-38; 9:38-50; 10:17-31; 11:22-25; 13:9-13; Luke 14:25-35; 24:47-49; John 8:12; 10:27; 12:26; Acts 1:8; 2:42-47; 4:16-20; 8:4; 9:19-30; 11:19-24; 13:1-3; Rom 1:1-16; 10:7-15; 1 Cor 9:16; Eph 5:1; Col 1:23; 2 Tim 4:2; 1 Pet 2:21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Following Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>One of the core purposes of the Gospels is to help readers understand and accept the call to take up their cross and follow Jesus. This call is addressed not only to those who would be Jesus’ apostles (Mark 3:13-19; cp. 1:16-20; 2:14) but to all who desired to follow him (Mark 8:34; cp. 2:15; 10:21, 52). For some, the call to discipleship is very hard (Mark 10:17-25), but God provides grace (10:27). Others find it easy to respond to Jesus’ call (Mark 2:14; cp. Luke 7:36-50).<\/p>\n<p>For everyone, following Jesus requires a total commitment to turn from selfish ways (Mark 8:34-35). Taking up one’s cross is a metaphor for giving up one’s life to follow Jesus—even to death. For example, Peter, Andrew, James, and John left their homes and their source of income to follow Jesus (Mark 1:16-20). For one rich man, turning from his selfish ways required selling all he had and giving the proceeds to the poor (Mark 10:21). Following Jesus also means being identified with him without being ashamed and being faithful to him and his teachings (Mark 8:38; cp. Rom 10:9). It requires removing anything that would interfere with following Jesus, regardless of how painful doing so might be (Mark 9:43-48). It requires entrusting one’s life entirely to Jesus and repenting of sin (Mark 1:15; 6:12). It even requires putting loyalty to Jesus above loyalty to one’s own father and mother (Matt 10:37; Luke 14:26).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus explicitly commanded his disciples to proclaim his message (Matt 28:18-20; Luke 24:47-49; Acts 1:8). And we see throughout the rest of the New Testament that Jesus’ followers did indeed proclaim the Good News wherever they went, leading to more and more followers (see Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26; 4:1-2, 20; 8:4; 9:20; 11:19-26; 13:1-3; Rom 1:1-16; 10:14-15; 15:18-21; 1 Cor 9:16; Col 1:23; 1 Thes 2:9; 2 Tim 4:2).<\/p>\n<p>Alongside Jesus’ demands for discipleship are the rewards of following Jesus. Those who follow Jesus are promised entrance into the Kingdom of God (Mark 9:43-48; 10:23-31). They receive his forgiveness for their sins (Mark 2:10-11; see also 3:28; 11:25), and they become members of the family of God (John 1:12). They are saved from judgment (Mark 8:35; 13:13) and obtain eternal life (Mark 9:43; 10:29-30; 1 Jn 5:11-12).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Hos 6:3; Matt 10:37-39; 28:18-20; Mark 1:15-20; 2:14-15; 3:13-15; 5:18-20; 6:6-13, 30-32; 8:34-38; 9:38-50; 10:17-31; 11:22-25; 13:9-13; Luke 14:25-35; 24:47-49; John 8:12; 10:27; 12:26; Acts 1:8; 2:42-47; 4:16-20; 8:4; 9:19-30; 11:19-24; 13:1-3; Rom 1:1-16; 10:7-15; 1 Cor 9:16; Eph 5:1; Col 1:23; 2 Tim 4:2; 1 Pet 2:21<\/p>","summary_ro":"Following Jesus One of the core purposes of the Gospels is to help readers understand and accept the call to take up their cross and follow Jesus. This call is addressed not only to those who would be Jesus’ apostles (Mark 3:13-19; cp. 1:16-20; 2:14) but to all who desired to follow him (Mark 8:34; cp. 2:15; 10:21, 52). For some, the call to discipleship is very hard (Mark 10:17-25), but God provides grace (10:27). Others find it easy to respond to Jesus’ call (Mark 2:14; cp. Luke 7:36-50). F...","summary_en":"Following Jesus One of the core purposes of the Gospels is to help readers understand and accept the call to take up their cross and follow Jesus. This call is addressed not only to those who would be Jesus’ apostles (Mark 3:13-19; cp. 1:16-20; 2:14) but to all who desired to follow him (Mark 8:34; cp. 2:15; 10:21, 52). For some, the call to discipleship is very hard (Mark 10:17-25), but God provides grace (10:27). Others find it easy to respond to Jesus’ call (Mark 2:14; cp. Luke 7:36-50). F...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":148347,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Following Jesus","title_en":"Following Jesus","content_ro":"<h3>Following Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>One of the core purposes of the Gospels is to help readers understand and accept the call to take up their cross and follow Jesus. This call is addressed not only to those who would be Jesus’ apostles (Mark 3:13-19; cp. 1:16-20; 2:14) but to all who desired to follow him (Mark 8:34; cp. 2:15; 10:21, 52). For some, the call to discipleship is very hard (Mark 10:17-25), but God provides grace (10:27). Others find it easy to respond to Jesus’ call (Mark 2:14; cp. Luke 7:36-50).<\/p>\n<p>For everyone, following Jesus requires a total commitment to turn from selfish ways (Mark 8:34-35). Taking up one’s cross is a metaphor for giving up one’s life to follow Jesus—even to death. For example, Peter, Andrew, James, and John left their homes and their source of income to follow Jesus (Mark 1:16-20). For one rich man, turning from his selfish ways required selling all he had and giving the proceeds to the poor (Mark 10:21). Following Jesus also means being identified with him without being ashamed and being faithful to him and his teachings (Mark 8:38; cp. Rom 10:9). It requires removing anything that would interfere with following Jesus, regardless of how painful doing so might be (Mark 9:43-48). It requires entrusting one’s life entirely to Jesus and repenting of sin (Mark 1:15; 6:12). It even requires putting loyalty to Jesus above loyalty to one’s own father and mother (Matt 10:37; Luke 14:26).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus explicitly commanded his disciples to proclaim his message (Matt 28:18-20; Luke 24:47-49; Acts 1:8). And we see throughout the rest of the New Testament that Jesus’ followers did indeed proclaim the Good News wherever they went, leading to more and more followers (see Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26; 4:1-2, 20; 8:4; 9:20; 11:19-26; 13:1-3; Rom 1:1-16; 10:14-15; 15:18-21; 1 Cor 9:16; Col 1:23; 1 Thes 2:9; 2 Tim 4:2).<\/p>\n<p>Alongside Jesus’ demands for discipleship are the rewards of following Jesus. Those who follow Jesus are promised entrance into the Kingdom of God (Mark 9:43-48; 10:23-31). They receive his forgiveness for their sins (Mark 2:10-11; see also 3:28; 11:25), and they become members of the family of God (John 1:12). They are saved from judgment (Mark 8:35; 13:13) and obtain eternal life (Mark 9:43; 10:29-30; 1 Jn 5:11-12).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Hos 6:3; Matt 10:37-39; 28:18-20; Mark 1:15-20; 2:14-15; 3:13-15; 5:18-20; 6:6-13, 30-32; 8:34-38; 9:38-50; 10:17-31; 11:22-25; 13:9-13; Luke 14:25-35; 24:47-49; John 8:12; 10:27; 12:26; Acts 1:8; 2:42-47; 4:16-20; 8:4; 9:19-30; 11:19-24; 13:1-3; Rom 1:1-16; 10:7-15; 1 Cor 9:16; Eph 5:1; Col 1:23; 2 Tim 4:2; 1 Pet 2:21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Following Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>One of the core purposes of the Gospels is to help readers understand and accept the call to take up their cross and follow Jesus. This call is addressed not only to those who would be Jesus’ apostles (Mark 3:13-19; cp. 1:16-20; 2:14) but to all who desired to follow him (Mark 8:34; cp. 2:15; 10:21, 52). For some, the call to discipleship is very hard (Mark 10:17-25), but God provides grace (10:27). Others find it easy to respond to Jesus’ call (Mark 2:14; cp. Luke 7:36-50).<\/p>\n<p>For everyone, following Jesus requires a total commitment to turn from selfish ways (Mark 8:34-35). Taking up one’s cross is a metaphor for giving up one’s life to follow Jesus—even to death. For example, Peter, Andrew, James, and John left their homes and their source of income to follow Jesus (Mark 1:16-20). For one rich man, turning from his selfish ways required selling all he had and giving the proceeds to the poor (Mark 10:21). Following Jesus also means being identified with him without being ashamed and being faithful to him and his teachings (Mark 8:38; cp. Rom 10:9). It requires removing anything that would interfere with following Jesus, regardless of how painful doing so might be (Mark 9:43-48). It requires entrusting one’s life entirely to Jesus and repenting of sin (Mark 1:15; 6:12). It even requires putting loyalty to Jesus above loyalty to one’s own father and mother (Matt 10:37; Luke 14:26).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus explicitly commanded his disciples to proclaim his message (Matt 28:18-20; Luke 24:47-49; Acts 1:8). And we see throughout the rest of the New Testament that Jesus’ followers did indeed proclaim the Good News wherever they went, leading to more and more followers (see Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26; 4:1-2, 20; 8:4; 9:20; 11:19-26; 13:1-3; Rom 1:1-16; 10:14-15; 15:18-21; 1 Cor 9:16; Col 1:23; 1 Thes 2:9; 2 Tim 4:2).<\/p>\n<p>Alongside Jesus’ demands for discipleship are the rewards of following Jesus. Those who follow Jesus are promised entrance into the Kingdom of God (Mark 9:43-48; 10:23-31). They receive his forgiveness for their sins (Mark 2:10-11; see also 3:28; 11:25), and they become members of the family of God (John 1:12). They are saved from judgment (Mark 8:35; 13:13) and obtain eternal life (Mark 9:43; 10:29-30; 1 Jn 5:11-12).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Hos 6:3; Matt 10:37-39; 28:18-20; Mark 1:15-20; 2:14-15; 3:13-15; 5:18-20; 6:6-13, 30-32; 8:34-38; 9:38-50; 10:17-31; 11:22-25; 13:9-13; Luke 14:25-35; 24:47-49; John 8:12; 10:27; 12:26; Acts 1:8; 2:42-47; 4:16-20; 8:4; 9:19-30; 11:19-24; 13:1-3; Rom 1:1-16; 10:7-15; 1 Cor 9:16; Eph 5:1; Col 1:23; 2 Tim 4:2; 1 Pet 2:21<\/p>","summary_ro":"Following Jesus One of the core purposes of the Gospels is to help readers understand and accept the call to take up their cross and follow Jesus. This call is addressed not only to those who would be Jesus’ apostles (Mark 3:13-19; cp. 1:16-20; 2:14) but to all who desired to follow him (Mark 8:34; cp. 2:15; 10:21, 52). For some, the call to discipleship is very hard (Mark 10:17-25), but God provides grace (10:27). Others find it easy to respond to Jesus’ call (Mark 2:14; cp. Luke 7:36-50). F...","summary_en":"Following Jesus One of the core purposes of the Gospels is to help readers understand and accept the call to take up their cross and follow Jesus. This call is addressed not only to those who would be Jesus’ apostles (Mark 3:13-19; cp. 1:16-20; 2:14) but to all who desired to follow him (Mark 8:34; cp. 2:15; 10:21, 52). For some, the call to discipleship is very hard (Mark 10:17-25), but God provides grace (10:27). Others find it easy to respond to Jesus’ call (Mark 2:14; cp. Luke 7:36-50). F...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"14":[{"id":29823,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"First Letter of Peter","title_en":"First Letter of Peter","content_ro":"<h3>PETER, F<span>irst Letter of<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>First of two general epistles authored by Peter.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Destination, Origin, Date<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>The author says he is the apostle Peter (1 Pt 1:1), a witness of Christ’s sufferings (5:1)—thus one of the original apostles chosen by Jesus (Mk 3:14-19) as an authoritative spokesman. Also known as Simon and Cephas, Peter probably saw and felt Jesus’ last hours of suffering more keenly than any of the other apostles (14:54) because he had denied Jesus three times (vv 66-72). In 1 Peter the sufferings of Jesus are mentioned at least four times (1 Pt 1:11; 2:23; 4:1; 5:1).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was known as the apostle to the Jews, just as Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles (Gal 2:7). Since Peter was a traveling missionary (1 Cor 1:12; 9:5), he could have actually visited the Asia Minor churches to whom this letter was sent.<\/p>\n<p>That Peter had been with Jesus during his earthly ministry may help account for the strong influence of Jesus’ teaching in 1 Peter. Except for James, 1 Peter probably echoes more of Jesus’ words than any other NT letter. The chart below presents similarities between Peter’s words and Jesus’ words in the Gospels:<\/p>\n\n<p>Some scholars think the Greek of this letter is too good to have been written by a former fisherman whose native language was Aramaic; that the doctrine is too much like Paul’s to have been written by an apostle whose position was different from Paul’s; and that someone wrote the letter after Peter’s death and used his name to give apostolic weight to it.<\/p>\n<p>Other scholars answer that if the author wanted to give authority to a letter whose teaching resembles Paul’s, he would have used Paul’s name, not Peter’s; that most Galileans probably learned Greek as well as Aramaic early in life; and that there is no evidence that the teaching of Peter and Paul fundamentally differed. When Paul rebuked Peter (Gal 2:11-14), it was due to a temporary lapse in conduct, not a basic disagreement in teaching. Besides, some key doctrines of Paul are missing from 1 Peter (e.g., justification), and those similar to Paul’s were the common possession of all the early churches. We may reasonably conclude that the apostle Peter authored this letter. However, it seems quite clear that Silas (otherwise know as Silvanus) helped Peter write this epistle (1 Pt 5:12), which means (1) he functioned as an amanuensis (secretary) for Peter, (2) he translated Peter’s letter (from Aramaic to Greek) as Peter dictated it, or (3) he composed a letter based on Peter’s thoughts.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DestinationOriginDate\">Destination, Origin, Date<\/p>\n<p>The people to whom 1 Peter is addressed lived in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. These Roman provinces covered all but the southernmost part of Asia Minor, the bulk of modern Turkey.<\/p>\n<p>Christianity may have been brought back by pilgrim Jews converted in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost (cf. Acts 2:9). More likely, these churches included some founded by Paul on his first and second missionary journeys, and others by unknown missionaries. Peter does not explicitly include himself among “those who preached to you” (1 Pt 1:12).<\/p>\n<p>Whether the readers were Christian Jews or converted pagan Gentiles is not known. First Peter 1:1 reads: “to God’s chosen people who are living as foreigners in the lands of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, the province of Asia, and Bithynia” (<span>nlt<\/span>). That the readers are in some sense exiles is confirmed by 1:17 and 2:11. These verses could refer to a literal exile of Jews outside of Palestine or to a spiritual exile of all believers on earth because their true home is in heaven. No one denies that there was (and is) a literal Jewish dispersion (Diaspora). Peter, viewing the church as the true Israel (cf. Rom 2:29; Gal 6:16; Phil 3:3), may simply have transferred the language of exile from the nation Israel onto the church. The phrase used by Peter in 1 Peter 2:11 is almost identical to the one in Hebrews 11:13 (cf. Gn 23:4; Ps 39:12).<\/p>\n<p>Against the view that construes the dispersion of 1 Peter 1:1 as Christians (Jew and Gentile), rather than Jews only, one may argue that Peter was specifically the apostle to the Jews (Gal 2:7) and that the use of so much OT in 1 Peter demands a Jewish readership. But there is evidence that Peter did not restrict his ministry to Jews (1 Cor 1:12; Gal 2:12), and the use of the OT is not surprising even if the readers were not Jews, because so many Gentile God-fearers (like Cornelius, Acts 10:2) were familiar with the OT.<\/p>\n<p>Whether the readers were Jews or mainly Gentiles is decided by several texts that reflect the pagan background of the readers. Peter says in 1 Peter 2:10 that his readers were once “not a people,” a reference to Hosea 2:23 (cf. Rom 9:25). Then in 1 Peter 4:3 Peter describes their past “immorality and lust, their feasting and drunkenness and wild parties, and their terrible worship of idols” (<span>nlt<\/span>). This does not describe unbelieving Jews, whose problem was not gross immorality but hypocrisy and legalism. Thus the recipients of this letter must have included many Gentile Christians in Asia Minor, characterized as aliens and strangers in the world.<\/p>\n<p>Most scholars think 1 Peter was written from Rome. The clue is found in 5:13: “She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings” (<span>niv<\/span>). Babylon (which had come to symbolize a big, powerful, evil city) was substituted as a kind of code name for Rome in much early Christian literature (e.g., Rv 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21; cf. Sibyllene 5:143, 159).<\/p>\n<p>The date of 1 Peter is probably <span>AD<\/span> 64 or 65 (see next section).<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>While other NT writings refer now and then to Christian suffering, 1 Peter is preoccupied with it. How Christians should conduct themselves when abused is often discussed (1 Pt 1:3-7; 2:12, 20-23; 3:13-17; 4:12-19; 5:9-10). Official state persecution cannot be clearly affirmed; abuses seem to be the common lot of all Christians everywhere (5:9). Cruel masters may sometimes abuse their Christian servants (2:18-20); Christian wives may have to endure harsh, unbelieving husbands (3:1-6); and in general, people are on the lookout to revile Christians as wrongdoers (2:12; 3:9, 16; 4:15-16).<\/p>\n<p>Even though no official state persecution is in view, the letter apparently indicates that there is something worse on the horizon (4:12-19). Peter seems to sense that the present tension between believers and their society could flare into something much worse.<\/p>\n<p>Early church tradition says that Peter was crucified in Rome during Nero’s persecution, and there is no good reason to doubt it. Moreover, since 1 Peter was written from Rome, and since 4:12 and 17 imply an impending crisis like the one that struck the Christians in Rome in <span>AD<\/span> 65, we may suppose that this letter was written not long before Nero began to oppress the Christians in Rome. According to the historian Tacitus, Nero blamed the Christians for burning Rome, in order to squelch the rumor that he himself had done it (so that he could build a greater city). His relentless persecution of Christians had not yet broken out when 1 Peter was written (cf. 2:14; 3:13), but Peter may have seen it coming and may have wanted to prepare the churches outside Rome, should the holocaust reach them, too. Nero’s persecution apparently did not affect the Christians in the provinces outside Rome, but that does not diminish the value of Peter’s letter, because mostly it deals with how Christians should relate to their society and how they should respond when abuse and suffering come.<\/p>\n<p>If this is a correct picture of the background of 1 Peter, its date would be the early to mid 60s, since the fire of Rome broke out on July 19, <span>AD<\/span> 64, and the persecution occurred later that year or in the spring of 65.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The main purpose of 1 Peter is to exhort Christians to conduct themselves properly among the community of believers (3:8; 5:1-7), but especially in non-Christian society (2:12), testifying clearly to their hope in Christ (3:1, 15) for God’s glory. The letter aims to help Christians understand and endure the abuses that often come from relationships with non-Christians (1:6-7; 2:12, 18-25; 3:9, 14-17; 4:1-5, 12-19; 5:8-10).<\/p>\n<p>Peter’s exhortation is based on the good news of God’s salvation through the death, resurrection, and second coming of Christ. God is merciful (1:3; 2:10), “the God of all grace” (4:10; 5:12), and there is hope in grace’s ultimate display at Christ’s coming (1:13). God foreknew and determined (1:2, 20; 2:8) a plan of redemption by which to create a holy people for his own possession (2:9-10). Accordingly, Christ was sent into the world to accomplish this redemption for the sake of God’s elect (1:20). Although he was “chosen and precious” to God, he was “rejected by men” (2:4) who did not believe him (v 7). But his sufferings (1:11; 4:1, 13; 5:1) were not a meaningless tragedy; they were for the sake of his people (2:21, 24; 3:18), to redeem them with his precious blood from their empty way of life (1:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Put to death in the flesh, he was “made alive by the Spirit” (3:18), raised from the dead and glorified (1:21; 2:7), and holds the place of authority at God’s right hand (3:22). Further still, we must try to explain the link between the good news of God’s saving activity and our good conduct. The good news must be proclaimed if it is to change anybody’s life. This proclamation happens in the power of God’s Holy Spirit (1:12). It is not merely a “newscast” but is “the living and abiding word of God” (1:23; cf. 4:11), by which God calls his people into being and summons them “out of darkness and into his wonderful light” (2:9; cf. 1:15), “to his eternal glory in Christ” (5:10). This change is described in 1 Peter as a “new birth” (1:3, 23); what distinguishes a newborn person is the “living hope” that he has in Christ (1:3, 13).<\/p>\n<p>This hope, grounded in Christ’s resurrection and his sure return, transforms behavior (1:13-15). No longer will we have to seek satisfaction and fulfillment in harmful, unloving ways, but rather by entrusting our souls to a faithful Creator (4:19; 5:7), we can endure unjust suffering patiently (2:20), not return evil for evil (3:9), and seek to extend the mercy of God to others in doing good (2:12, 15; 3:11, 16; 4:19).<\/p>\n<p>Lively Christian hope does not lead us <em>out<\/em> of non-Christian society but rather changes our behavior <em>in<\/em> it. Christians are addressed as citizens of the state (2:13-17), as slaves of cruel masters (vv 18-25), and as wives of unbelieving husbands (3:1-6). By living as new and hopeful persons <em>in<\/em> the institutions of society, others see our good deeds and give glory to our Father in heaven (2:12; cf. Mt 5:16).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>1:1–2<\/h5>\n<p>This section describes God’s election of his people, which is often translated using three prepositional phrases.<\/p>\n<p>First, it is “according to the foreknowledge of God” (<span>niv<\/span>). This means more than God’s knowing ahead of time whom he would elect. As in 1:20, foreknowledge probably also includes God’s purpose (cf. Am 3:2; Acts 2:23; Rom 8:28-30; 11:2; 1 Cor 8:3; Gal 4:9).<\/p>\n<p>Second, the election is “by the sanctifying work of the Spirit” (<span>nasb<\/span>). Election involves the Spirit’s effectual work in making a person obedient to the gospel (see Rom 1:5). In Ephesians 1:4 election is described as “before the foundation of the world” (<span>kjv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Third, our election is “for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood” (<span>rsv<\/span>). The latter probably refers to the moral effect of Christ’s death in purifying our conscience and our behavior as we trust in him (see Heb 9:13-14).<\/p>\n<p>Thus, the elect people of God have their origin in the eternal, purposed foreknowledge of God; owe their call and conversion to the work of the Holy Spirit; and have as their goal in life obedience to God (cf. 1 Pt 1:14).<\/p>\n<h5>1:3-12<\/h5>\n<p>This section describes how tremendously valuable salvation is—a vast inheritance, absolutely perfect, never diminishing in beauty or worth (v 4), the goal of our faith (v 9), the basis of inexpressible joy (vv 6-8). Searched into and desired by the holy prophets of old, it is so amazing that even angels desire to peer into it (vv 10-12).<\/p>\n<p>It originates in the great mercy of God and was made available to people through the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (v 3). Even though a <em>future<\/em> inheritance is ready to be revealed in the last time (v 5), it offers many <em>present<\/em> spiritual benefits for those who trust in Christ. One of them is the promise of God’s present power to cause the believer to persevere in faith (v 5). This does not mean Christians escape hardship; it may be necessary that they suffer (v 6). If so, they should not grumble but see suffering as a refining fire for their good, because it burns away false dependencies and leaves only the pure gold of genuine faith (v 7). So suffering may be an important preparation for the full experience of salvation, since it is faith alone that will be blessed in the end.<\/p>\n<p>Faith is not the same as sight, for believers have never seen Jesus, yet they trust him and love him (v 8). There are good grounds for hope (3:15), founded mainly on the resurrection of Jesus (1:3)—a real historical event.<\/p>\n<h5>1:13-25<\/h5>\n<p>Peter now gives a command: hope fully in the grace coming to you at the revelation of Christ (v 13), and lead a new life of obedience to God (vv 14-15). Hope is an intense desire for something and a confidence that it will come. So Peter was commanding the churches to <em>desire<\/em> Christ strongly and be assured of his glory and his coming. Thus, believers must use their minds and keep clearheaded (sober) about what is truly valuable in life (v 13). Full hope in Christ always results in holiness of life. If we delight in being God’s children (v 14), we will surely imitate our Father (vv 15-16; cf. Lv 19:2).<\/p>\n<p>But there is another motivation for good conduct: fear of God, who judges each person according to his or her works (1 Pt 1:17). While Peter motivates with fear, he also assures us that we have been redeemed from our futile conduct with the precious blood of Christ (vv 18-19). We are saved by faith, not by good works. Probably Peter means us to fear God’s displeasure with unbelief. When the letter says he will judge our works, it probably means that he will look for evidences of obedient, loving conduct, which is the sure sign of hope and faith. If we are lacking in this, fear of his judgment should drive us back to God’s mercy, where we can have peace and joy, which in turn lead to love.<\/p>\n<p>This love is commanded toward believers in verse 22. Hope is not mentioned in verses 22-25, but it is implied when Peter says we are born anew through the <em>abiding<\/em> Word of God. Since “the word of the Lord abides forever” (v 25 = Is 40:6-8), those whose life depends on it will abide forever.<\/p>\n<h5>2:1-10<\/h5>\n<p>This passage is filled with OT quotations and imagery, as shown in the following chart:<\/p>\n\n<p>Verses 9 and 10 indicate that Peter considered the Christian church a new Israel. He probably saw the experience of the church in the world as that of an <em>exile<\/em> like the Jews in Babylonian exile (1:1, 17; 2:11), and considered conversion as a kind of <em>exodus<\/em> out of the darkness of an old futile life into God’s light, like the Jewish exodus out of Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>Verses 6-8 show that Jesus is a precious jewel for some but a stumbling stone for unbelievers. Behind that stands God’s inscrutable predestination (v 8). Those who trust him are chosen (v 9; cf. 1:1) as a royal priesthood (see below on 2:5), as a nation having God’s own holy character (cf. 1:14-15), and as a people cherished as God’s special possession. All of this is not due to our merit but to God’s mercy (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>Verses 1-3 are again a command—to desire the kindness of Christ that we have tasted through the milk of the Word and so to grow stronger in faith or to hope fully in the grace of Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Verses 4-5 portray a complex, mixed metaphor that pictures Christ as a living stone and the church both as a spiritual house of stones and as a priesthood. The church is, on the one hand, a dwelling place for God (cf. 1 Cor 3:16; Eph 2:21-22), and on the other, a group of ministers in that dwelling who offer God the sacrifices of obedience (cf. Rom 12:1-2).<\/p>\n<h5>2:11-12<\/h5>\n<p>This is the central concern of the letter. Since Christians are exiles in this world, they must not share the same desires as unbelievers. Such fleshly desires are ephemeral and destroy the soul that follows them. Instead, God’s new people should devote themselves to good deeds, even though people may slander them, for this will ultimately cause people to glorify God. The sequence, again, is changed desires, changed behavior, God glorified (cf. Mt 5:16).<\/p>\n<h5>2:13-17<\/h5>\n<p>Christians should show proper respect to everyone (vv 13-14). That Christ died for sinners is a very humbling truth that forbids Christians to be arrogant or to think that they do not owe others love (cf. Rom 13:8-10). Rather, they are adjured to count others better than themselves (Mk 10:44; Phil 2:3).<\/p>\n<p>Peter declares, then, that believers should be subject to the king and to the civil authorities under him. They should positively devote themselves to doing good so that those who say Christianity makes no difference in life will be silenced.<\/p>\n<p>However, subjection to the state is not absolute, for Christians are first and foremost slaves of God. It is out of freedom that they acknowledge the propriety of a God-ordained state to preserve orderly life. Because Christians serve God first, and the king is merely God’s creature, subjection to him is a subjection for the Lord’s sake, not the king’s sake.<\/p>\n<h5>2:18-25<\/h5>\n<p>Christian slaves have consciences oriented toward and shaped by God (v 19). They also have experienced his grace and are here told to rely on it by enduring unjust suffering patiently. They are not to strike back: they were called to live this way because Jesus suffered <em>for them<\/em> and because he suffered <em>as an example.<\/em> Verses 21-23 describe the example. Verses 24-25 describe Christ’s redemption and its effects. That is, Jesus not only modeled the life of nonretaliation but also enabled his followers to live this way by dying <em>for<\/em> them that they might live for righteousness (v 24). Only when Christians are secure and content in the hope Christ achieved <em>for them<\/em> can they have the freedom and inclination to follow his costly example. When believers are tempted to take vengeance into their own hands, they should recall that even Jesus entrusted himself to God, who judges justly (v 23; cf. Rom 12:19-20).<\/p>\n<h5>3:1-7<\/h5>\n<p>Here are six verses for wives and one for husbands. How shall a believing wife win her unbelieving husband (v 1)? Peter warns against preoccupation with making the body more attractive (v 3). Instead, he stresses the adornment of the heart with a meek and tranquil spirit (v 4), accompanied by pure, loving conduct (v 2), which may win the husband “without talk” (v 1). This is not a call to mindless subservience but to poise, to free and confident service in love. The wife is not to be afraid even of an abusive husband (v 6). But how? By following Sarah’s example of <em>hoping<\/em> in God (v 5). So it is again said that hope transforms life and enables believers to be subject to others. The wife is bound first to the Lord and only secondarily to her husband. Like the slave, the Christian wife will use her God-oriented conscience (2:16) to decide when, for Christ’s sake, she cannot follow the lead of her husband.<\/p>\n<p>Husbands are admonished in verse 7 to bring their relationships to their wives into conformity with natural and revealed truth. The <em>natural<\/em> truth is that women are physically weaker. This does not mean that they are inferior mentally or emotionally. It is a simple statement of observed fact: women’s bodies are not as strong as men’s. In a culture without all kinds of automatic devices, physical strength was much more crucial for survival and comfort than it is today. So the man is urged to use his superior strength for the sake of his wife. The <em>revealed<\/em> truth is that the wife is an “equal partner in God’s gift of new life,” to be honored and respected.<\/p>\n<h5>3:8-12<\/h5>\n<p>This concludes the section 2:13–3:12 and admonishes the whole church first to love the brotherhood (3:8) and then to love the hostile outsider (vv 9-12). Verse 9 recalls Jesus’ behavior and his commands (Lk 6:27-36). Not only are Christians to endure abuse patiently (1 Pt 2:19-20), they are also to react positively and “bless” those who revile them (3:9). To bless means to wish them well and turn the wish into a prayer. Believers’ real desire for their enemies is that they be converted and come to share in the blessing that the Christian will inherit (vv 1, 9). Psalm 34:12-16 is brought in to support the logic of verse 9. If Christians want to inherit the blessing of salvation (1:4-5; 3:9), they must bless those who revile them. This does not mean they <em>earn<\/em> their salvation but that salvation is the goal of faith (1:9), and true faith always makes a person loving.<\/p>\n<h5>3:13-17<\/h5>\n<p>Generally speaking, when Christians do good, they will not be harmed for it (v 13). Nevertheless, it may be God’s will that Christians suffer for doing good (v 17) and that is far better than suffering for doing evil. It is better not only because they ought never do evil but also because they are “blessed” when they suffer for righteousness’ sake (v 14; cf. 4:14; Mt 5:10-12). So instead of being afraid of people, believers should fear displeasing Christ and be at peace in his faithfulness (cf. 1 Pt 3:14-15 with Is 8:12-13). Thus, their consciences will be clear and believers will be freed so that when they explain the reason for their hope, even their demeanor will bear witness to its truth (cf. 1 Pt 3:15 with 1:3). The Christians’ abusers may be put to shame (v 16) and be won over (3:1) and give glory to God (2:12).<\/p>\n<h5>3:18-22<\/h5>\n<p>Similar to 2:21-25 and 1:18-21, this unit affirms Peter’s call for patient suffering. Since Christ died once for all for mankind’s sins and thus freed everyone from guilt and opened a way into the fellowship of the merciful God, believers should be able to bear unjust suffering meekly. Refusing to bear undeserved suffering would be a mark of unbelief in the all-faithful Creator (4:19) who cares for his children and wants to bear their anxieties for them (5:7).<\/p>\n<p>Just as in the days of Noah, only a few were saved (cf. 3:1, 20; 4:17), so now only a few were being saved in Peter’s hostile generation, through baptism (3:18-21). Peter defined very carefully in what sense he meant that baptism saves—not by the cleansing function of the water, but rather by the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the pledge of a good conscience toward God (v 21).<\/p>\n<h5>4:1-6<\/h5>\n<p>Christians should live according to the will of God (cf. 1:14; 2:1-2, 11-12, 15). This will mean a break with the behavior of their unbelieving friends and will probably result in being slandered (4:4). But this should not cause believers to avenge themselves, for God will take care of judgment (v 5).<\/p>\n<p>Believers have this command (v 1): “So then, since Christ suffered physical pain, you must arm yourselves with the same attitude he had, and be ready to suffer, too. For if you are willing to suffer for Christ, you have decided to stop sinning” (<span>nlt<\/span>). Some have taken this to mean that through a process of suffering we are increasingly sanctified; however, if suffering here refers to dying (as the parallel with 3:18 and the “therefore” of 4:1 suggest), then probably verse 1 is to be understood along the lines of Romans 6:6, 10-11.<\/p>\n<p>First Peter 4:6 is difficult. Some think it refers to the same preaching referred to in 3:19. Another, perhaps preferable, interpretation is that there is no preaching to the dead here but rather a preaching of the gospel to those who subsequently died. That is, those who heard the gospel, believed, and then died did not hear the gospel in vain. For the purpose of the preaching was that, while from a merely human standpoint these believers have been judged in the flesh (i.e., have died), from the divine standpoint they live in the Spirit. The purpose of verse 6 is thus a great encouragement to live by God’s will, even when former friends scorn the Christian hope by pointing out that even Christians die.<\/p>\n<h5>4:7-11<\/h5>\n<p>Activity among believers in the church is again the theme here. Peter saw contemporary events as the beginning of the end (vv 7, 17). This gave an earnestness to his exhortation that believers keep their minds clear and sober for prayer.<\/p>\n<p>By steadily drawing upon God in prayer, Christians find the help they need to love each other and to overlook many offensive things (cf. Eph 4:1-3). This love should manifest itself in joyful hospitality, especially important in times of persecution (1 Pt 4:9), and should move believers to use all their varied gifts and talents to build each other up in faith (v 10). Two examples are given: speaking and ministering (the work of the preacher and the work of the deacon). Most important in speaking and ministering is to recognize what the goal of these gifts is and how to reach that goal. The goal is “that in all things God may be praised” (v 11). This may be done by recognizing that he gives the strength for service and the words for edifying speech.<\/p>\n<h5>4:12-19<\/h5>\n<p>Here the situation of suffering and bearing reproach for being Christians is again in view. The prospect of a “painful trial” (v 12) is impending (cf. 1:6-7). Peter saw these sufferings (probably from hostile associates rather than official state persecution) as God’s judgment on the world, beginning with the church (vv 17-18; cf. Prv 11:31). But God’s judgment on the church is not punitive but purgative (1 Pt 4:14; cf. 1:6-7).<\/p>\n<p>Peter gives a reminder that suffering is a normal Christian experience (v 19; cf. 3:14; Acts 14:22; 1 Thes 3:3) and that Christ himself was so mistreated (1 Pt 2:21-25; Mt 10:25). Christians are encouraged to entrust their souls to a faithful Creator (1 Pt 4:19), to rejoice (v 13), and to persevere in doing good (v 19), thereby glorifying God (v 16). When believers respond to suffering in this way, they are blessed (v 14), for God manifests himself to them in an intimate and reassuring way.<\/p>\n<h5>5:1-7<\/h5>\n<p>Again (as in 3:8; 4:7-11) Peter treats relations within the church. He tells the elders how to be good shepherds of the flock (5:1-4), the younger people how to treat their elders (v 5), and everyone how to be humble toward each other.<\/p>\n<p>Peter reminds believers that God opposes the proud but gives grace to the lowly (v 5; cf. Mt 23:12; Jas 4:6), whom he will exalt in the age to come (1 Pt 5:6; cf. Lk 14:11; 18:14; Jas 4:10). Most important, God invites his people to throw all their anxieties on him because he cares for them (1 Pt 5:7; cf. Ps 55:22; Mt 6:25-30).<\/p>\n<p>The young people who are thus made humble will be subject to their elders and respect them (1 Pt 5:5). The elders who are thus made humble will not lord it over the flock (v 3) or be greedy or begrudging in their service (v 2), but will lead the flock by a humble example.<\/p>\n<h5>5:8-11<\/h5>\n<p>Peter returns to his concern with suffering. Suffering is the universal lot of believers (v 9; cf. 4:12). Although in one sense willed by God (1:6; 3:17; 4:19), it is used by Satan to try to destroy their faith. So Peter appeals to the church to be wakeful and sober (5:8; cf. 1:13; 4:7) so that they can resist the lion by faith.<\/p>\n<h5>5:12-14<\/h5>\n<p>In conclusion, Peter describes his “brief” writing as an exhortation and a testimony concerning the true grace of God. So the letter is not a call for hard labor for God; rather, it is a call to recognize, enjoy, and live by the hard labor that God graciously has exerted and will exert for his children. As was noted above, the letter was written by Silas (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Silvanus<\/span><em>,<\/em> probably the same person as in Acts 16:25; 1 Thes 1:1; 2 Thes 1:1). It was written from Rome, and greetings were sent from Mark (probably the Gospel writer and former missionary companion of Paul—Acts 13:13; 15:37; 2 Tm 4:11) and the whole church. Peter’s last word is to invoke peace upon the churches and to urge them to keep the affection warm among themselves.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Suffering; Peter, the Apostle; Spirits in Prison.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PETER, F<span>irst Letter of<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>First of two general epistles authored by Peter.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Destination, Origin, Date<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>The author says he is the apostle Peter (1 Pt 1:1), a witness of Christ’s sufferings (5:1)—thus one of the original apostles chosen by Jesus (Mk 3:14-19) as an authoritative spokesman. Also known as Simon and Cephas, Peter probably saw and felt Jesus’ last hours of suffering more keenly than any of the other apostles (14:54) because he had denied Jesus three times (vv 66-72). In 1 Peter the sufferings of Jesus are mentioned at least four times (1 Pt 1:11; 2:23; 4:1; 5:1).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was known as the apostle to the Jews, just as Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles (Gal 2:7). Since Peter was a traveling missionary (1 Cor 1:12; 9:5), he could have actually visited the Asia Minor churches to whom this letter was sent.<\/p>\n<p>That Peter had been with Jesus during his earthly ministry may help account for the strong influence of Jesus’ teaching in 1 Peter. Except for James, 1 Peter probably echoes more of Jesus’ words than any other NT letter. The chart below presents similarities between Peter’s words and Jesus’ words in the Gospels:<\/p>\n\n<p>Some scholars think the Greek of this letter is too good to have been written by a former fisherman whose native language was Aramaic; that the doctrine is too much like Paul’s to have been written by an apostle whose position was different from Paul’s; and that someone wrote the letter after Peter’s death and used his name to give apostolic weight to it.<\/p>\n<p>Other scholars answer that if the author wanted to give authority to a letter whose teaching resembles Paul’s, he would have used Paul’s name, not Peter’s; that most Galileans probably learned Greek as well as Aramaic early in life; and that there is no evidence that the teaching of Peter and Paul fundamentally differed. When Paul rebuked Peter (Gal 2:11-14), it was due to a temporary lapse in conduct, not a basic disagreement in teaching. Besides, some key doctrines of Paul are missing from 1 Peter (e.g., justification), and those similar to Paul’s were the common possession of all the early churches. We may reasonably conclude that the apostle Peter authored this letter. However, it seems quite clear that Silas (otherwise know as Silvanus) helped Peter write this epistle (1 Pt 5:12), which means (1) he functioned as an amanuensis (secretary) for Peter, (2) he translated Peter’s letter (from Aramaic to Greek) as Peter dictated it, or (3) he composed a letter based on Peter’s thoughts.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DestinationOriginDate\">Destination, Origin, Date<\/p>\n<p>The people to whom 1 Peter is addressed lived in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. These Roman provinces covered all but the southernmost part of Asia Minor, the bulk of modern Turkey.<\/p>\n<p>Christianity may have been brought back by pilgrim Jews converted in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost (cf. Acts 2:9). More likely, these churches included some founded by Paul on his first and second missionary journeys, and others by unknown missionaries. Peter does not explicitly include himself among “those who preached to you” (1 Pt 1:12).<\/p>\n<p>Whether the readers were Christian Jews or converted pagan Gentiles is not known. First Peter 1:1 reads: “to God’s chosen people who are living as foreigners in the lands of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, the province of Asia, and Bithynia” (<span>nlt<\/span>). That the readers are in some sense exiles is confirmed by 1:17 and 2:11. These verses could refer to a literal exile of Jews outside of Palestine or to a spiritual exile of all believers on earth because their true home is in heaven. No one denies that there was (and is) a literal Jewish dispersion (Diaspora). Peter, viewing the church as the true Israel (cf. Rom 2:29; Gal 6:16; Phil 3:3), may simply have transferred the language of exile from the nation Israel onto the church. The phrase used by Peter in 1 Peter 2:11 is almost identical to the one in Hebrews 11:13 (cf. Gn 23:4; Ps 39:12).<\/p>\n<p>Against the view that construes the dispersion of 1 Peter 1:1 as Christians (Jew and Gentile), rather than Jews only, one may argue that Peter was specifically the apostle to the Jews (Gal 2:7) and that the use of so much OT in 1 Peter demands a Jewish readership. But there is evidence that Peter did not restrict his ministry to Jews (1 Cor 1:12; Gal 2:12), and the use of the OT is not surprising even if the readers were not Jews, because so many Gentile God-fearers (like Cornelius, Acts 10:2) were familiar with the OT.<\/p>\n<p>Whether the readers were Jews or mainly Gentiles is decided by several texts that reflect the pagan background of the readers. Peter says in 1 Peter 2:10 that his readers were once “not a people,” a reference to Hosea 2:23 (cf. Rom 9:25). Then in 1 Peter 4:3 Peter describes their past “immorality and lust, their feasting and drunkenness and wild parties, and their terrible worship of idols” (<span>nlt<\/span>). This does not describe unbelieving Jews, whose problem was not gross immorality but hypocrisy and legalism. Thus the recipients of this letter must have included many Gentile Christians in Asia Minor, characterized as aliens and strangers in the world.<\/p>\n<p>Most scholars think 1 Peter was written from Rome. The clue is found in 5:13: “She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings” (<span>niv<\/span>). Babylon (which had come to symbolize a big, powerful, evil city) was substituted as a kind of code name for Rome in much early Christian literature (e.g., Rv 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21; cf. Sibyllene 5:143, 159).<\/p>\n<p>The date of 1 Peter is probably <span>AD<\/span> 64 or 65 (see next section).<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>While other NT writings refer now and then to Christian suffering, 1 Peter is preoccupied with it. How Christians should conduct themselves when abused is often discussed (1 Pt 1:3-7; 2:12, 20-23; 3:13-17; 4:12-19; 5:9-10). Official state persecution cannot be clearly affirmed; abuses seem to be the common lot of all Christians everywhere (5:9). Cruel masters may sometimes abuse their Christian servants (2:18-20); Christian wives may have to endure harsh, unbelieving husbands (3:1-6); and in general, people are on the lookout to revile Christians as wrongdoers (2:12; 3:9, 16; 4:15-16).<\/p>\n<p>Even though no official state persecution is in view, the letter apparently indicates that there is something worse on the horizon (4:12-19). Peter seems to sense that the present tension between believers and their society could flare into something much worse.<\/p>\n<p>Early church tradition says that Peter was crucified in Rome during Nero’s persecution, and there is no good reason to doubt it. Moreover, since 1 Peter was written from Rome, and since 4:12 and 17 imply an impending crisis like the one that struck the Christians in Rome in <span>AD<\/span> 65, we may suppose that this letter was written not long before Nero began to oppress the Christians in Rome. According to the historian Tacitus, Nero blamed the Christians for burning Rome, in order to squelch the rumor that he himself had done it (so that he could build a greater city). His relentless persecution of Christians had not yet broken out when 1 Peter was written (cf. 2:14; 3:13), but Peter may have seen it coming and may have wanted to prepare the churches outside Rome, should the holocaust reach them, too. Nero’s persecution apparently did not affect the Christians in the provinces outside Rome, but that does not diminish the value of Peter’s letter, because mostly it deals with how Christians should relate to their society and how they should respond when abuse and suffering come.<\/p>\n<p>If this is a correct picture of the background of 1 Peter, its date would be the early to mid 60s, since the fire of Rome broke out on July 19, <span>AD<\/span> 64, and the persecution occurred later that year or in the spring of 65.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The main purpose of 1 Peter is to exhort Christians to conduct themselves properly among the community of believers (3:8; 5:1-7), but especially in non-Christian society (2:12), testifying clearly to their hope in Christ (3:1, 15) for God’s glory. The letter aims to help Christians understand and endure the abuses that often come from relationships with non-Christians (1:6-7; 2:12, 18-25; 3:9, 14-17; 4:1-5, 12-19; 5:8-10).<\/p>\n<p>Peter’s exhortation is based on the good news of God’s salvation through the death, resurrection, and second coming of Christ. God is merciful (1:3; 2:10), “the God of all grace” (4:10; 5:12), and there is hope in grace’s ultimate display at Christ’s coming (1:13). God foreknew and determined (1:2, 20; 2:8) a plan of redemption by which to create a holy people for his own possession (2:9-10). Accordingly, Christ was sent into the world to accomplish this redemption for the sake of God’s elect (1:20). Although he was “chosen and precious” to God, he was “rejected by men” (2:4) who did not believe him (v 7). But his sufferings (1:11; 4:1, 13; 5:1) were not a meaningless tragedy; they were for the sake of his people (2:21, 24; 3:18), to redeem them with his precious blood from their empty way of life (1:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Put to death in the flesh, he was “made alive by the Spirit” (3:18), raised from the dead and glorified (1:21; 2:7), and holds the place of authority at God’s right hand (3:22). Further still, we must try to explain the link between the good news of God’s saving activity and our good conduct. The good news must be proclaimed if it is to change anybody’s life. This proclamation happens in the power of God’s Holy Spirit (1:12). It is not merely a “newscast” but is “the living and abiding word of God” (1:23; cf. 4:11), by which God calls his people into being and summons them “out of darkness and into his wonderful light” (2:9; cf. 1:15), “to his eternal glory in Christ” (5:10). This change is described in 1 Peter as a “new birth” (1:3, 23); what distinguishes a newborn person is the “living hope” that he has in Christ (1:3, 13).<\/p>\n<p>This hope, grounded in Christ’s resurrection and his sure return, transforms behavior (1:13-15). No longer will we have to seek satisfaction and fulfillment in harmful, unloving ways, but rather by entrusting our souls to a faithful Creator (4:19; 5:7), we can endure unjust suffering patiently (2:20), not return evil for evil (3:9), and seek to extend the mercy of God to others in doing good (2:12, 15; 3:11, 16; 4:19).<\/p>\n<p>Lively Christian hope does not lead us <em>out<\/em> of non-Christian society but rather changes our behavior <em>in<\/em> it. Christians are addressed as citizens of the state (2:13-17), as slaves of cruel masters (vv 18-25), and as wives of unbelieving husbands (3:1-6). By living as new and hopeful persons <em>in<\/em> the institutions of society, others see our good deeds and give glory to our Father in heaven (2:12; cf. Mt 5:16).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>1:1–2<\/h5>\n<p>This section describes God’s election of his people, which is often translated using three prepositional phrases.<\/p>\n<p>First, it is “according to the foreknowledge of God” (<span>niv<\/span>). This means more than God’s knowing ahead of time whom he would elect. As in 1:20, foreknowledge probably also includes God’s purpose (cf. Am 3:2; Acts 2:23; Rom 8:28-30; 11:2; 1 Cor 8:3; Gal 4:9).<\/p>\n<p>Second, the election is “by the sanctifying work of the Spirit” (<span>nasb<\/span>). Election involves the Spirit’s effectual work in making a person obedient to the gospel (see Rom 1:5). In Ephesians 1:4 election is described as “before the foundation of the world” (<span>kjv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Third, our election is “for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood” (<span>rsv<\/span>). The latter probably refers to the moral effect of Christ’s death in purifying our conscience and our behavior as we trust in him (see Heb 9:13-14).<\/p>\n<p>Thus, the elect people of God have their origin in the eternal, purposed foreknowledge of God; owe their call and conversion to the work of the Holy Spirit; and have as their goal in life obedience to God (cf. 1 Pt 1:14).<\/p>\n<h5>1:3-12<\/h5>\n<p>This section describes how tremendously valuable salvation is—a vast inheritance, absolutely perfect, never diminishing in beauty or worth (v 4), the goal of our faith (v 9), the basis of inexpressible joy (vv 6-8). Searched into and desired by the holy prophets of old, it is so amazing that even angels desire to peer into it (vv 10-12).<\/p>\n<p>It originates in the great mercy of God and was made available to people through the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (v 3). Even though a <em>future<\/em> inheritance is ready to be revealed in the last time (v 5), it offers many <em>present<\/em> spiritual benefits for those who trust in Christ. One of them is the promise of God’s present power to cause the believer to persevere in faith (v 5). This does not mean Christians escape hardship; it may be necessary that they suffer (v 6). If so, they should not grumble but see suffering as a refining fire for their good, because it burns away false dependencies and leaves only the pure gold of genuine faith (v 7). So suffering may be an important preparation for the full experience of salvation, since it is faith alone that will be blessed in the end.<\/p>\n<p>Faith is not the same as sight, for believers have never seen Jesus, yet they trust him and love him (v 8). There are good grounds for hope (3:15), founded mainly on the resurrection of Jesus (1:3)—a real historical event.<\/p>\n<h5>1:13-25<\/h5>\n<p>Peter now gives a command: hope fully in the grace coming to you at the revelation of Christ (v 13), and lead a new life of obedience to God (vv 14-15). Hope is an intense desire for something and a confidence that it will come. So Peter was commanding the churches to <em>desire<\/em> Christ strongly and be assured of his glory and his coming. Thus, believers must use their minds and keep clearheaded (sober) about what is truly valuable in life (v 13). Full hope in Christ always results in holiness of life. If we delight in being God’s children (v 14), we will surely imitate our Father (vv 15-16; cf. Lv 19:2).<\/p>\n<p>But there is another motivation for good conduct: fear of God, who judges each person according to his or her works (1 Pt 1:17). While Peter motivates with fear, he also assures us that we have been redeemed from our futile conduct with the precious blood of Christ (vv 18-19). We are saved by faith, not by good works. Probably Peter means us to fear God’s displeasure with unbelief. When the letter says he will judge our works, it probably means that he will look for evidences of obedient, loving conduct, which is the sure sign of hope and faith. If we are lacking in this, fear of his judgment should drive us back to God’s mercy, where we can have peace and joy, which in turn lead to love.<\/p>\n<p>This love is commanded toward believers in verse 22. Hope is not mentioned in verses 22-25, but it is implied when Peter says we are born anew through the <em>abiding<\/em> Word of God. Since “the word of the Lord abides forever” (v 25 = Is 40:6-8), those whose life depends on it will abide forever.<\/p>\n<h5>2:1-10<\/h5>\n<p>This passage is filled with OT quotations and imagery, as shown in the following chart:<\/p>\n\n<p>Verses 9 and 10 indicate that Peter considered the Christian church a new Israel. He probably saw the experience of the church in the world as that of an <em>exile<\/em> like the Jews in Babylonian exile (1:1, 17; 2:11), and considered conversion as a kind of <em>exodus<\/em> out of the darkness of an old futile life into God’s light, like the Jewish exodus out of Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>Verses 6-8 show that Jesus is a precious jewel for some but a stumbling stone for unbelievers. Behind that stands God’s inscrutable predestination (v 8). Those who trust him are chosen (v 9; cf. 1:1) as a royal priesthood (see below on 2:5), as a nation having God’s own holy character (cf. 1:14-15), and as a people cherished as God’s special possession. All of this is not due to our merit but to God’s mercy (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>Verses 1-3 are again a command—to desire the kindness of Christ that we have tasted through the milk of the Word and so to grow stronger in faith or to hope fully in the grace of Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Verses 4-5 portray a complex, mixed metaphor that pictures Christ as a living stone and the church both as a spiritual house of stones and as a priesthood. The church is, on the one hand, a dwelling place for God (cf. 1 Cor 3:16; Eph 2:21-22), and on the other, a group of ministers in that dwelling who offer God the sacrifices of obedience (cf. Rom 12:1-2).<\/p>\n<h5>2:11-12<\/h5>\n<p>This is the central concern of the letter. Since Christians are exiles in this world, they must not share the same desires as unbelievers. Such fleshly desires are ephemeral and destroy the soul that follows them. Instead, God’s new people should devote themselves to good deeds, even though people may slander them, for this will ultimately cause people to glorify God. The sequence, again, is changed desires, changed behavior, God glorified (cf. Mt 5:16).<\/p>\n<h5>2:13-17<\/h5>\n<p>Christians should show proper respect to everyone (vv 13-14). That Christ died for sinners is a very humbling truth that forbids Christians to be arrogant or to think that they do not owe others love (cf. Rom 13:8-10). Rather, they are adjured to count others better than themselves (Mk 10:44; Phil 2:3).<\/p>\n<p>Peter declares, then, that believers should be subject to the king and to the civil authorities under him. They should positively devote themselves to doing good so that those who say Christianity makes no difference in life will be silenced.<\/p>\n<p>However, subjection to the state is not absolute, for Christians are first and foremost slaves of God. It is out of freedom that they acknowledge the propriety of a God-ordained state to preserve orderly life. Because Christians serve God first, and the king is merely God’s creature, subjection to him is a subjection for the Lord’s sake, not the king’s sake.<\/p>\n<h5>2:18-25<\/h5>\n<p>Christian slaves have consciences oriented toward and shaped by God (v 19). They also have experienced his grace and are here told to rely on it by enduring unjust suffering patiently. They are not to strike back: they were called to live this way because Jesus suffered <em>for them<\/em> and because he suffered <em>as an example.<\/em> Verses 21-23 describe the example. Verses 24-25 describe Christ’s redemption and its effects. That is, Jesus not only modeled the life of nonretaliation but also enabled his followers to live this way by dying <em>for<\/em> them that they might live for righteousness (v 24). Only when Christians are secure and content in the hope Christ achieved <em>for them<\/em> can they have the freedom and inclination to follow his costly example. When believers are tempted to take vengeance into their own hands, they should recall that even Jesus entrusted himself to God, who judges justly (v 23; cf. Rom 12:19-20).<\/p>\n<h5>3:1-7<\/h5>\n<p>Here are six verses for wives and one for husbands. How shall a believing wife win her unbelieving husband (v 1)? Peter warns against preoccupation with making the body more attractive (v 3). Instead, he stresses the adornment of the heart with a meek and tranquil spirit (v 4), accompanied by pure, loving conduct (v 2), which may win the husband “without talk” (v 1). This is not a call to mindless subservience but to poise, to free and confident service in love. The wife is not to be afraid even of an abusive husband (v 6). But how? By following Sarah’s example of <em>hoping<\/em> in God (v 5). So it is again said that hope transforms life and enables believers to be subject to others. The wife is bound first to the Lord and only secondarily to her husband. Like the slave, the Christian wife will use her God-oriented conscience (2:16) to decide when, for Christ’s sake, she cannot follow the lead of her husband.<\/p>\n<p>Husbands are admonished in verse 7 to bring their relationships to their wives into conformity with natural and revealed truth. The <em>natural<\/em> truth is that women are physically weaker. This does not mean that they are inferior mentally or emotionally. It is a simple statement of observed fact: women’s bodies are not as strong as men’s. In a culture without all kinds of automatic devices, physical strength was much more crucial for survival and comfort than it is today. So the man is urged to use his superior strength for the sake of his wife. The <em>revealed<\/em> truth is that the wife is an “equal partner in God’s gift of new life,” to be honored and respected.<\/p>\n<h5>3:8-12<\/h5>\n<p>This concludes the section 2:13–3:12 and admonishes the whole church first to love the brotherhood (3:8) and then to love the hostile outsider (vv 9-12). Verse 9 recalls Jesus’ behavior and his commands (Lk 6:27-36). Not only are Christians to endure abuse patiently (1 Pt 2:19-20), they are also to react positively and “bless” those who revile them (3:9). To bless means to wish them well and turn the wish into a prayer. Believers’ real desire for their enemies is that they be converted and come to share in the blessing that the Christian will inherit (vv 1, 9). Psalm 34:12-16 is brought in to support the logic of verse 9. If Christians want to inherit the blessing of salvation (1:4-5; 3:9), they must bless those who revile them. This does not mean they <em>earn<\/em> their salvation but that salvation is the goal of faith (1:9), and true faith always makes a person loving.<\/p>\n<h5>3:13-17<\/h5>\n<p>Generally speaking, when Christians do good, they will not be harmed for it (v 13). Nevertheless, it may be God’s will that Christians suffer for doing good (v 17) and that is far better than suffering for doing evil. It is better not only because they ought never do evil but also because they are “blessed” when they suffer for righteousness’ sake (v 14; cf. 4:14; Mt 5:10-12). So instead of being afraid of people, believers should fear displeasing Christ and be at peace in his faithfulness (cf. 1 Pt 3:14-15 with Is 8:12-13). Thus, their consciences will be clear and believers will be freed so that when they explain the reason for their hope, even their demeanor will bear witness to its truth (cf. 1 Pt 3:15 with 1:3). The Christians’ abusers may be put to shame (v 16) and be won over (3:1) and give glory to God (2:12).<\/p>\n<h5>3:18-22<\/h5>\n<p>Similar to 2:21-25 and 1:18-21, this unit affirms Peter’s call for patient suffering. Since Christ died once for all for mankind’s sins and thus freed everyone from guilt and opened a way into the fellowship of the merciful God, believers should be able to bear unjust suffering meekly. Refusing to bear undeserved suffering would be a mark of unbelief in the all-faithful Creator (4:19) who cares for his children and wants to bear their anxieties for them (5:7).<\/p>\n<p>Just as in the days of Noah, only a few were saved (cf. 3:1, 20; 4:17), so now only a few were being saved in Peter’s hostile generation, through baptism (3:18-21). Peter defined very carefully in what sense he meant that baptism saves—not by the cleansing function of the water, but rather by the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the pledge of a good conscience toward God (v 21).<\/p>\n<h5>4:1-6<\/h5>\n<p>Christians should live according to the will of God (cf. 1:14; 2:1-2, 11-12, 15). This will mean a break with the behavior of their unbelieving friends and will probably result in being slandered (4:4). But this should not cause believers to avenge themselves, for God will take care of judgment (v 5).<\/p>\n<p>Believers have this command (v 1): “So then, since Christ suffered physical pain, you must arm yourselves with the same attitude he had, and be ready to suffer, too. For if you are willing to suffer for Christ, you have decided to stop sinning” (<span>nlt<\/span>). Some have taken this to mean that through a process of suffering we are increasingly sanctified; however, if suffering here refers to dying (as the parallel with 3:18 and the “therefore” of 4:1 suggest), then probably verse 1 is to be understood along the lines of Romans 6:6, 10-11.<\/p>\n<p>First Peter 4:6 is difficult. Some think it refers to the same preaching referred to in 3:19. Another, perhaps preferable, interpretation is that there is no preaching to the dead here but rather a preaching of the gospel to those who subsequently died. That is, those who heard the gospel, believed, and then died did not hear the gospel in vain. For the purpose of the preaching was that, while from a merely human standpoint these believers have been judged in the flesh (i.e., have died), from the divine standpoint they live in the Spirit. The purpose of verse 6 is thus a great encouragement to live by God’s will, even when former friends scorn the Christian hope by pointing out that even Christians die.<\/p>\n<h5>4:7-11<\/h5>\n<p>Activity among believers in the church is again the theme here. Peter saw contemporary events as the beginning of the end (vv 7, 17). This gave an earnestness to his exhortation that believers keep their minds clear and sober for prayer.<\/p>\n<p>By steadily drawing upon God in prayer, Christians find the help they need to love each other and to overlook many offensive things (cf. Eph 4:1-3). This love should manifest itself in joyful hospitality, especially important in times of persecution (1 Pt 4:9), and should move believers to use all their varied gifts and talents to build each other up in faith (v 10). Two examples are given: speaking and ministering (the work of the preacher and the work of the deacon). Most important in speaking and ministering is to recognize what the goal of these gifts is and how to reach that goal. The goal is “that in all things God may be praised” (v 11). This may be done by recognizing that he gives the strength for service and the words for edifying speech.<\/p>\n<h5>4:12-19<\/h5>\n<p>Here the situation of suffering and bearing reproach for being Christians is again in view. The prospect of a “painful trial” (v 12) is impending (cf. 1:6-7). Peter saw these sufferings (probably from hostile associates rather than official state persecution) as God’s judgment on the world, beginning with the church (vv 17-18; cf. Prv 11:31). But God’s judgment on the church is not punitive but purgative (1 Pt 4:14; cf. 1:6-7).<\/p>\n<p>Peter gives a reminder that suffering is a normal Christian experience (v 19; cf. 3:14; Acts 14:22; 1 Thes 3:3) and that Christ himself was so mistreated (1 Pt 2:21-25; Mt 10:25). Christians are encouraged to entrust their souls to a faithful Creator (1 Pt 4:19), to rejoice (v 13), and to persevere in doing good (v 19), thereby glorifying God (v 16). When believers respond to suffering in this way, they are blessed (v 14), for God manifests himself to them in an intimate and reassuring way.<\/p>\n<h5>5:1-7<\/h5>\n<p>Again (as in 3:8; 4:7-11) Peter treats relations within the church. He tells the elders how to be good shepherds of the flock (5:1-4), the younger people how to treat their elders (v 5), and everyone how to be humble toward each other.<\/p>\n<p>Peter reminds believers that God opposes the proud but gives grace to the lowly (v 5; cf. Mt 23:12; Jas 4:6), whom he will exalt in the age to come (1 Pt 5:6; cf. Lk 14:11; 18:14; Jas 4:10). Most important, God invites his people to throw all their anxieties on him because he cares for them (1 Pt 5:7; cf. Ps 55:22; Mt 6:25-30).<\/p>\n<p>The young people who are thus made humble will be subject to their elders and respect them (1 Pt 5:5). The elders who are thus made humble will not lord it over the flock (v 3) or be greedy or begrudging in their service (v 2), but will lead the flock by a humble example.<\/p>\n<h5>5:8-11<\/h5>\n<p>Peter returns to his concern with suffering. Suffering is the universal lot of believers (v 9; cf. 4:12). Although in one sense willed by God (1:6; 3:17; 4:19), it is used by Satan to try to destroy their faith. So Peter appeals to the church to be wakeful and sober (5:8; cf. 1:13; 4:7) so that they can resist the lion by faith.<\/p>\n<h5>5:12-14<\/h5>\n<p>In conclusion, Peter describes his “brief” writing as an exhortation and a testimony concerning the true grace of God. So the letter is not a call for hard labor for God; rather, it is a call to recognize, enjoy, and live by the hard labor that God graciously has exerted and will exert for his children. As was noted above, the letter was written by Silas (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Silvanus<\/span><em>,<\/em> probably the same person as in Acts 16:25; 1 Thes 1:1; 2 Thes 1:1). It was written from Rome, and greetings were sent from Mark (probably the Gospel writer and former missionary companion of Paul—Acts 13:13; 15:37; 2 Tm 4:11) and the whole church. Peter’s last word is to invoke peace upon the churches and to urge them to keep the affection warm among themselves.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Suffering; Peter, the Apostle; Spirits in Prison.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PETER, First Letter of First of two general epistles authored by Peter. Preview • Author • Destination, Origin, Date • Background • Purpose and Theological Teaching • Content Author The author says he is the apostle Peter (1 Pt 1:1), a witness of Christ’s sufferings (5:1)—thus one of the original apostles chosen by Jesus (Mk 3:14-19) as an authoritative spokesman. Also known as Simon and Cephas, Peter probably saw and felt Jesus’ last hours of suffering more keenly than any of the other apost...","summary_en":"PETER, First Letter of First of two general epistles authored by Peter. Preview • Author • Destination, Origin, Date • Background • Purpose and Theological Teaching • Content Author The author says he is the apostle Peter (1 Pt 1:1), a witness of Christ’s sufferings (5:1)—thus one of the original apostles chosen by Jesus (Mk 3:14-19) as an authoritative spokesman. Also known as Simon and Cephas, Peter probably saw and felt Jesus’ last hours of suffering more keenly than any of the other apost...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55192,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:14","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:14","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:14-15<\/strong> Jesus <em>appointed twelve<\/em> to represent Israel’s twelve tribes and to proclaim that the Kingdom of God had arrived. He called them <em>apostles<\/em> (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">apostoloi,<\/span> “emissaries”). He chose them <em>to accompany him<\/em> and to be sent out (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">apostellō<\/span>) <em>to preach<\/em> and <em>to cast out demons<\/em>. They represented Jesus and were endowed with his <em>authority<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:14-15<\/strong> Jesus <em>appointed twelve<\/em> to represent Israel’s twelve tribes and to proclaim that the Kingdom of God had arrived. He called them <em>apostles<\/em> (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">apostoloi,<\/span> “emissaries”). He chose them <em>to accompany him<\/em> and to be sent out (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">apostellō<\/span>) <em>to preach<\/em> and <em>to cast out demons<\/em>. They represented Jesus and were endowed with his <em>authority<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:14-15 Jesus appointed twelve to represent Israel’s twelve tribes and to proclaim that the Kingdom of God had arrived. He called them apostles (Greek apostoloi, “emissaries”). He chose them to accompany him and to be sent out (Greek apostellō) to preach and to cast out demons. They represented Jesus and were endowed with his authority.","summary_en":"3:14-15 Jesus appointed twelve to represent Israel’s twelve tribes and to proclaim that the Kingdom of God had arrived. He called them apostles (Greek apostoloi, “emissaries”). He chose them to accompany him and to be sent out (Greek apostellō) to preach and to cast out demons. They represented Jesus and were endowed with his authority.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82818,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:14","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:14","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:14-15<\/strong> Jesus <em>appointed twelve<\/em> to represent Israel’s twelve tribes and to proclaim that the Kingdom of God had arrived. He called them <em>apostles<\/em> (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">apostoloi,<\/span> “emissaries”). He chose them <em>to accompany him<\/em> and to be sent out (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">apostellō<\/span>) <em>to preach<\/em> and <em>to cast out demons<\/em>. They represented Jesus and were endowed with his <em>authority<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:14-15<\/strong> Jesus <em>appointed twelve<\/em> to represent Israel’s twelve tribes and to proclaim that the Kingdom of God had arrived. He called them <em>apostles<\/em> (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">apostoloi,<\/span> “emissaries”). He chose them <em>to accompany him<\/em> and to be sent out (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">apostellō<\/span>) <em>to preach<\/em> and <em>to cast out demons<\/em>. They represented Jesus and were endowed with his <em>authority<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:14-15 Jesus appointed twelve to represent Israel’s twelve tribes and to proclaim that the Kingdom of God had arrived. He called them apostles (Greek apostoloi, “emissaries”). He chose them to accompany him and to be sent out (Greek apostellō) to preach and to cast out demons. They represented Jesus and were endowed with his authority.","summary_en":"3:14-15 Jesus appointed twelve to represent Israel’s twelve tribes and to proclaim that the Kingdom of God had arrived. He called them apostles (Greek apostoloi, “emissaries”). He chose them to accompany him and to be sent out (Greek apostellō) to preach and to cast out demons. They represented Jesus and were endowed with his authority.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110444,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:14","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:14","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:14-15<\/strong> Jesus <em>appointed twelve<\/em> to represent Israel’s twelve tribes and to proclaim that the Kingdom of God had arrived. He called them <em>apostles<\/em> (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">apostoloi,<\/span> “emissaries”). He chose them <em>to accompany him<\/em> and to be sent out (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">apostellō<\/span>) <em>to preach<\/em> and <em>to cast out demons<\/em>. They represented Jesus and were endowed with his <em>authority<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:14-15<\/strong> Jesus <em>appointed twelve<\/em> to represent Israel’s twelve tribes and to proclaim that the Kingdom of God had arrived. He called them <em>apostles<\/em> (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">apostoloi,<\/span> “emissaries”). He chose them <em>to accompany him<\/em> and to be sent out (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">apostellō<\/span>) <em>to preach<\/em> and <em>to cast out demons<\/em>. They represented Jesus and were endowed with his <em>authority<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:14-15 Jesus appointed twelve to represent Israel’s twelve tribes and to proclaim that the Kingdom of God had arrived. He called them apostles (Greek apostoloi, “emissaries”). He chose them to accompany him and to be sent out (Greek apostellō) to preach and to cast out demons. They represented Jesus and were endowed with his authority.","summary_en":"3:14-15 Jesus appointed twelve to represent Israel’s twelve tribes and to proclaim that the Kingdom of God had arrived. He called them apostles (Greek apostoloi, “emissaries”). He chose them to accompany him and to be sent out (Greek apostellō) to preach and to cast out demons. They represented Jesus and were endowed with his authority.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138070,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:14","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:14","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:14-15<\/strong> Jesus <em>appointed twelve<\/em> to represent Israel’s twelve tribes and to proclaim that the Kingdom of God had arrived. He called them <em>apostles<\/em> (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">apostoloi,<\/span> “emissaries”). He chose them <em>to accompany him<\/em> and to be sent out (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">apostellō<\/span>) <em>to preach<\/em> and <em>to cast out demons<\/em>. They represented Jesus and were endowed with his <em>authority<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:14-15<\/strong> Jesus <em>appointed twelve<\/em> to represent Israel’s twelve tribes and to proclaim that the Kingdom of God had arrived. He called them <em>apostles<\/em> (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">apostoloi,<\/span> “emissaries”). He chose them <em>to accompany him<\/em> and to be sent out (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">apostellō<\/span>) <em>to preach<\/em> and <em>to cast out demons<\/em>. They represented Jesus and were endowed with his <em>authority<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:14-15 Jesus appointed twelve to represent Israel’s twelve tribes and to proclaim that the Kingdom of God had arrived. He called them apostles (Greek apostoloi, “emissaries”). He chose them to accompany him and to be sent out (Greek apostellō) to preach and to cast out demons. They represented Jesus and were endowed with his authority.","summary_en":"3:14-15 Jesus appointed twelve to represent Israel’s twelve tribes and to proclaim that the Kingdom of God had arrived. He called them apostles (Greek apostoloi, “emissaries”). He chose them to accompany him and to be sent out (Greek apostellō) to preach and to cast out demons. They represented Jesus and were endowed with his authority.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":67288,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Paul’s Apostolic Service","title_en":"Paul’s Apostolic Service","content_ro":"<h3>Paul’s Apostolic Service<\/h3>\n<p>To understand Paul’s role as an apostle of Jesus Christ, there is perhaps no better place to look than Paul’s own description in 2 Corinthians. In this letter, Paul reveals the heart of his ministry. Paul was God’s special messenger for the establishment and nurture of churches in the Gentile world. His service was marked by seriousness and sincerity, and his message raised life and death issues (2 Cor 2:15-17). As a pioneer missionary, he took the Good News to places where Christ’s name was not yet known (see Rom 15:20-21).<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s message of Good News was clear and incisive (see, e.g., 2 Cor 5:1-21), and it was backed up and illustrated by his own life. He always sought to minister with truth and integrity (2:17; 4:2). And as Paul carried the message of Christ, the cross served as the pattern for his ministry to others (11:16-33).<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s authority was apparently disputed, so he needed to offer a personal account of how God had called him as an apostle and established his ministry at Corinth (10:12-18). For those who demanded proof of Paul’s credentials (13:3) and who criticized his weaknesses, he simply pointed to the cross of Jesus (13:4) and to the lessons he had learned from it (see 4:10). Paul was quite conscious of his own limitations and that he needed divine grace to accomplish his work. But true apostolic authority expresses itself precisely in human weakness reinforced by divine strength (12:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>Paul also performed miraculous works to verify his claim to apostleship (12:12). These works apparently were not enough to prevent doubts from arising in the young church at Corinth. Yet Paul exercised his ministry with great patience, not giving up when the Corinthians challenged him. This patience replicates that of Jesus, who endured much hositility from others (Heb 12:2-3).<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s example provides a few lessons for all those who are involved in Christian service: (1) Christian leaders should take criticism as a summons to self-examination, to see if any accusation is well-founded. (2) Christian leaders should be patient in the face of groundless opposition, staying focused on the task at hand. (3) There is a place for reasoned defense and explanation of one’s motives, while at the same time recognizing that the Lord is the ultimate Judge.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 10:5-42; 28:18-20; Mark 1:17; 2:14; 3:14-15; John 21:15-17; Acts 1:2-8, 20-26; 2:42-43; 4:33; 5:12; 6:2-4; 10:39-43; 14:3; Rom 1:5; 15:17-21; 1 Cor 4:8-13; 12:28-29; 2 Cor 2:17; 4:2; 6:3-12; 10:12-18; Eph 2:20; 3:4-5; 4:11-13; 1 Thes 2:7-12<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Paul’s Apostolic Service<\/h3>\n<p>To understand Paul’s role as an apostle of Jesus Christ, there is perhaps no better place to look than Paul’s own description in 2 Corinthians. In this letter, Paul reveals the heart of his ministry. Paul was God’s special messenger for the establishment and nurture of churches in the Gentile world. His service was marked by seriousness and sincerity, and his message raised life and death issues (2 Cor 2:15-17). As a pioneer missionary, he took the Good News to places where Christ’s name was not yet known (see Rom 15:20-21).<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s message of Good News was clear and incisive (see, e.g., 2 Cor 5:1-21), and it was backed up and illustrated by his own life. He always sought to minister with truth and integrity (2:17; 4:2). And as Paul carried the message of Christ, the cross served as the pattern for his ministry to others (11:16-33).<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s authority was apparently disputed, so he needed to offer a personal account of how God had called him as an apostle and established his ministry at Corinth (10:12-18). For those who demanded proof of Paul’s credentials (13:3) and who criticized his weaknesses, he simply pointed to the cross of Jesus (13:4) and to the lessons he had learned from it (see 4:10). Paul was quite conscious of his own limitations and that he needed divine grace to accomplish his work. But true apostolic authority expresses itself precisely in human weakness reinforced by divine strength (12:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>Paul also performed miraculous works to verify his claim to apostleship (12:12). These works apparently were not enough to prevent doubts from arising in the young church at Corinth. Yet Paul exercised his ministry with great patience, not giving up when the Corinthians challenged him. This patience replicates that of Jesus, who endured much hositility from others (Heb 12:2-3).<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s example provides a few lessons for all those who are involved in Christian service: (1) Christian leaders should take criticism as a summons to self-examination, to see if any accusation is well-founded. (2) Christian leaders should be patient in the face of groundless opposition, staying focused on the task at hand. (3) There is a place for reasoned defense and explanation of one’s motives, while at the same time recognizing that the Lord is the ultimate Judge.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 10:5-42; 28:18-20; Mark 1:17; 2:14; 3:14-15; John 21:15-17; Acts 1:2-8, 20-26; 2:42-43; 4:33; 5:12; 6:2-4; 10:39-43; 14:3; Rom 1:5; 15:17-21; 1 Cor 4:8-13; 12:28-29; 2 Cor 2:17; 4:2; 6:3-12; 10:12-18; Eph 2:20; 3:4-5; 4:11-13; 1 Thes 2:7-12<\/p>","summary_ro":"Paul’s Apostolic Service To understand Paul’s role as an apostle of Jesus Christ, there is perhaps no better place to look than Paul’s own description in 2 Corinthians. In this letter, Paul reveals the heart of his ministry. Paul was God’s special messenger for the establishment and nurture of churches in the Gentile world. His service was marked by seriousness and sincerity, and his message raised life and death issues (2 Cor 2:15-17). As a pioneer missionary, he took the Good News to places...","summary_en":"Paul’s Apostolic Service To understand Paul’s role as an apostle of Jesus Christ, there is perhaps no better place to look than Paul’s own description in 2 Corinthians. In this letter, Paul reveals the heart of his ministry. Paul was God’s special messenger for the establishment and nurture of churches in the Gentile world. His service was marked by seriousness and sincerity, and his message raised life and death issues (2 Cor 2:15-17). As a pioneer missionary, he took the Good News to places...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":94914,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Paul’s Apostolic Service","title_en":"Paul’s Apostolic Service","content_ro":"<h3>Paul’s Apostolic Service<\/h3>\n<p>To understand Paul’s role as an apostle of Jesus Christ, there is perhaps no better place to look than Paul’s own description in 2 Corinthians. In this letter, Paul reveals the heart of his ministry. Paul was God’s special messenger for the establishment and nurture of churches in the Gentile world. His service was marked by seriousness and sincerity, and his message raised life and death issues (2 Cor 2:15-17). As a pioneer missionary, he took the Good News to places where Christ’s name was not yet known (see Rom 15:20-21).<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s message of Good News was clear and incisive (see, e.g., 2 Cor 5:1-21), and it was backed up and illustrated by his own life. He always sought to minister with truth and integrity (2:17; 4:2). And as Paul carried the message of Christ, the cross served as the pattern for his ministry to others (11:16-33).<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s authority was apparently disputed, so he needed to offer a personal account of how God had called him as an apostle and established his ministry at Corinth (10:12-18). For those who demanded proof of Paul’s credentials (13:3) and who criticized his weaknesses, he simply pointed to the cross of Jesus (13:4) and to the lessons he had learned from it (see 4:10). Paul was quite conscious of his own limitations and that he needed divine grace to accomplish his work. But true apostolic authority expresses itself precisely in human weakness reinforced by divine strength (12:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>Paul also performed miraculous works to verify his claim to apostleship (12:12). These works apparently were not enough to prevent doubts from arising in the young church at Corinth. Yet Paul exercised his ministry with great patience, not giving up when the Corinthians challenged him. This patience replicates that of Jesus, who endured much hositility from others (Heb 12:2-3).<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s example provides a few lessons for all those who are involved in Christian service: (1) Christian leaders should take criticism as a summons to self-examination, to see if any accusation is well-founded. (2) Christian leaders should be patient in the face of groundless opposition, staying focused on the task at hand. (3) There is a place for reasoned defense and explanation of one’s motives, while at the same time recognizing that the Lord is the ultimate Judge.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 10:5-42; 28:18-20; Mark 1:17; 2:14; 3:14-15; John 21:15-17; Acts 1:2-8, 20-26; 2:42-43; 4:33; 5:12; 6:2-4; 10:39-43; 14:3; Rom 1:5; 15:17-21; 1 Cor 4:8-13; 12:28-29; 2 Cor 2:17; 4:2; 6:3-12; 10:12-18; Eph 2:20; 3:4-5; 4:11-13; 1 Thes 2:7-12<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Paul’s Apostolic Service<\/h3>\n<p>To understand Paul’s role as an apostle of Jesus Christ, there is perhaps no better place to look than Paul’s own description in 2 Corinthians. In this letter, Paul reveals the heart of his ministry. Paul was God’s special messenger for the establishment and nurture of churches in the Gentile world. His service was marked by seriousness and sincerity, and his message raised life and death issues (2 Cor 2:15-17). As a pioneer missionary, he took the Good News to places where Christ’s name was not yet known (see Rom 15:20-21).<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s message of Good News was clear and incisive (see, e.g., 2 Cor 5:1-21), and it was backed up and illustrated by his own life. He always sought to minister with truth and integrity (2:17; 4:2). And as Paul carried the message of Christ, the cross served as the pattern for his ministry to others (11:16-33).<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s authority was apparently disputed, so he needed to offer a personal account of how God had called him as an apostle and established his ministry at Corinth (10:12-18). For those who demanded proof of Paul’s credentials (13:3) and who criticized his weaknesses, he simply pointed to the cross of Jesus (13:4) and to the lessons he had learned from it (see 4:10). Paul was quite conscious of his own limitations and that he needed divine grace to accomplish his work. But true apostolic authority expresses itself precisely in human weakness reinforced by divine strength (12:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>Paul also performed miraculous works to verify his claim to apostleship (12:12). These works apparently were not enough to prevent doubts from arising in the young church at Corinth. Yet Paul exercised his ministry with great patience, not giving up when the Corinthians challenged him. This patience replicates that of Jesus, who endured much hositility from others (Heb 12:2-3).<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s example provides a few lessons for all those who are involved in Christian service: (1) Christian leaders should take criticism as a summons to self-examination, to see if any accusation is well-founded. (2) Christian leaders should be patient in the face of groundless opposition, staying focused on the task at hand. (3) There is a place for reasoned defense and explanation of one’s motives, while at the same time recognizing that the Lord is the ultimate Judge.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 10:5-42; 28:18-20; Mark 1:17; 2:14; 3:14-15; John 21:15-17; Acts 1:2-8, 20-26; 2:42-43; 4:33; 5:12; 6:2-4; 10:39-43; 14:3; Rom 1:5; 15:17-21; 1 Cor 4:8-13; 12:28-29; 2 Cor 2:17; 4:2; 6:3-12; 10:12-18; Eph 2:20; 3:4-5; 4:11-13; 1 Thes 2:7-12<\/p>","summary_ro":"Paul’s Apostolic Service To understand Paul’s role as an apostle of Jesus Christ, there is perhaps no better place to look than Paul’s own description in 2 Corinthians. In this letter, Paul reveals the heart of his ministry. Paul was God’s special messenger for the establishment and nurture of churches in the Gentile world. His service was marked by seriousness and sincerity, and his message raised life and death issues (2 Cor 2:15-17). As a pioneer missionary, he took the Good News to places...","summary_en":"Paul’s Apostolic Service To understand Paul’s role as an apostle of Jesus Christ, there is perhaps no better place to look than Paul’s own description in 2 Corinthians. In this letter, Paul reveals the heart of his ministry. Paul was God’s special messenger for the establishment and nurture of churches in the Gentile world. His service was marked by seriousness and sincerity, and his message raised life and death issues (2 Cor 2:15-17). As a pioneer missionary, he took the Good News to places...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":122540,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Paul’s Apostolic Service","title_en":"Paul’s Apostolic Service","content_ro":"<h3>Paul’s Apostolic Service<\/h3>\n<p>To understand Paul’s role as an apostle of Jesus Christ, there is perhaps no better place to look than Paul’s own description in 2 Corinthians. In this letter, Paul reveals the heart of his ministry. Paul was God’s special messenger for the establishment and nurture of churches in the Gentile world. His service was marked by seriousness and sincerity, and his message raised life and death issues (2 Cor 2:15-17). As a pioneer missionary, he took the Good News to places where Christ’s name was not yet known (see Rom 15:20-21).<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s message of Good News was clear and incisive (see, e.g., 2 Cor 5:1-21), and it was backed up and illustrated by his own life. He always sought to minister with truth and integrity (2:17; 4:2). And as Paul carried the message of Christ, the cross served as the pattern for his ministry to others (11:16-33).<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s authority was apparently disputed, so he needed to offer a personal account of how God had called him as an apostle and established his ministry at Corinth (10:12-18). For those who demanded proof of Paul’s credentials (13:3) and who criticized his weaknesses, he simply pointed to the cross of Jesus (13:4) and to the lessons he had learned from it (see 4:10). Paul was quite conscious of his own limitations and that he needed divine grace to accomplish his work. But true apostolic authority expresses itself precisely in human weakness reinforced by divine strength (12:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>Paul also performed miraculous works to verify his claim to apostleship (12:12). These works apparently were not enough to prevent doubts from arising in the young church at Corinth. Yet Paul exercised his ministry with great patience, not giving up when the Corinthians challenged him. This patience replicates that of Jesus, who endured much hositility from others (Heb 12:2-3).<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s example provides a few lessons for all those who are involved in Christian service: (1) Christian leaders should take criticism as a summons to self-examination, to see if any accusation is well-founded. (2) Christian leaders should be patient in the face of groundless opposition, staying focused on the task at hand. (3) There is a place for reasoned defense and explanation of one’s motives, while at the same time recognizing that the Lord is the ultimate Judge.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 10:5-42; 28:18-20; Mark 1:17; 2:14; 3:14-15; John 21:15-17; Acts 1:2-8, 20-26; 2:42-43; 4:33; 5:12; 6:2-4; 10:39-43; 14:3; Rom 1:5; 15:17-21; 1 Cor 4:8-13; 12:28-29; 2 Cor 2:17; 4:2; 6:3-12; 10:12-18; Eph 2:20; 3:4-5; 4:11-13; 1 Thes 2:7-12<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Paul’s Apostolic Service<\/h3>\n<p>To understand Paul’s role as an apostle of Jesus Christ, there is perhaps no better place to look than Paul’s own description in 2 Corinthians. In this letter, Paul reveals the heart of his ministry. Paul was God’s special messenger for the establishment and nurture of churches in the Gentile world. His service was marked by seriousness and sincerity, and his message raised life and death issues (2 Cor 2:15-17). As a pioneer missionary, he took the Good News to places where Christ’s name was not yet known (see Rom 15:20-21).<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s message of Good News was clear and incisive (see, e.g., 2 Cor 5:1-21), and it was backed up and illustrated by his own life. He always sought to minister with truth and integrity (2:17; 4:2). And as Paul carried the message of Christ, the cross served as the pattern for his ministry to others (11:16-33).<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s authority was apparently disputed, so he needed to offer a personal account of how God had called him as an apostle and established his ministry at Corinth (10:12-18). For those who demanded proof of Paul’s credentials (13:3) and who criticized his weaknesses, he simply pointed to the cross of Jesus (13:4) and to the lessons he had learned from it (see 4:10). Paul was quite conscious of his own limitations and that he needed divine grace to accomplish his work. But true apostolic authority expresses itself precisely in human weakness reinforced by divine strength (12:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>Paul also performed miraculous works to verify his claim to apostleship (12:12). These works apparently were not enough to prevent doubts from arising in the young church at Corinth. Yet Paul exercised his ministry with great patience, not giving up when the Corinthians challenged him. This patience replicates that of Jesus, who endured much hositility from others (Heb 12:2-3).<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s example provides a few lessons for all those who are involved in Christian service: (1) Christian leaders should take criticism as a summons to self-examination, to see if any accusation is well-founded. (2) Christian leaders should be patient in the face of groundless opposition, staying focused on the task at hand. (3) There is a place for reasoned defense and explanation of one’s motives, while at the same time recognizing that the Lord is the ultimate Judge.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 10:5-42; 28:18-20; Mark 1:17; 2:14; 3:14-15; John 21:15-17; Acts 1:2-8, 20-26; 2:42-43; 4:33; 5:12; 6:2-4; 10:39-43; 14:3; Rom 1:5; 15:17-21; 1 Cor 4:8-13; 12:28-29; 2 Cor 2:17; 4:2; 6:3-12; 10:12-18; Eph 2:20; 3:4-5; 4:11-13; 1 Thes 2:7-12<\/p>","summary_ro":"Paul’s Apostolic Service To understand Paul’s role as an apostle of Jesus Christ, there is perhaps no better place to look than Paul’s own description in 2 Corinthians. In this letter, Paul reveals the heart of his ministry. Paul was God’s special messenger for the establishment and nurture of churches in the Gentile world. His service was marked by seriousness and sincerity, and his message raised life and death issues (2 Cor 2:15-17). As a pioneer missionary, he took the Good News to places...","summary_en":"Paul’s Apostolic Service To understand Paul’s role as an apostle of Jesus Christ, there is perhaps no better place to look than Paul’s own description in 2 Corinthians. In this letter, Paul reveals the heart of his ministry. Paul was God’s special messenger for the establishment and nurture of churches in the Gentile world. His service was marked by seriousness and sincerity, and his message raised life and death issues (2 Cor 2:15-17). As a pioneer missionary, he took the Good News to places...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":150166,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Paul’s Apostolic Service","title_en":"Paul’s Apostolic Service","content_ro":"<h3>Paul’s Apostolic Service<\/h3>\n<p>To understand Paul’s role as an apostle of Jesus Christ, there is perhaps no better place to look than Paul’s own description in 2 Corinthians. In this letter, Paul reveals the heart of his ministry. Paul was God’s special messenger for the establishment and nurture of churches in the Gentile world. His service was marked by seriousness and sincerity, and his message raised life and death issues (2 Cor 2:15-17). As a pioneer missionary, he took the Good News to places where Christ’s name was not yet known (see Rom 15:20-21).<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s message of Good News was clear and incisive (see, e.g., 2 Cor 5:1-21), and it was backed up and illustrated by his own life. He always sought to minister with truth and integrity (2:17; 4:2). And as Paul carried the message of Christ, the cross served as the pattern for his ministry to others (11:16-33).<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s authority was apparently disputed, so he needed to offer a personal account of how God had called him as an apostle and established his ministry at Corinth (10:12-18). For those who demanded proof of Paul’s credentials (13:3) and who criticized his weaknesses, he simply pointed to the cross of Jesus (13:4) and to the lessons he had learned from it (see 4:10). Paul was quite conscious of his own limitations and that he needed divine grace to accomplish his work. But true apostolic authority expresses itself precisely in human weakness reinforced by divine strength (12:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>Paul also performed miraculous works to verify his claim to apostleship (12:12). These works apparently were not enough to prevent doubts from arising in the young church at Corinth. Yet Paul exercised his ministry with great patience, not giving up when the Corinthians challenged him. This patience replicates that of Jesus, who endured much hositility from others (Heb 12:2-3).<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s example provides a few lessons for all those who are involved in Christian service: (1) Christian leaders should take criticism as a summons to self-examination, to see if any accusation is well-founded. (2) Christian leaders should be patient in the face of groundless opposition, staying focused on the task at hand. (3) There is a place for reasoned defense and explanation of one’s motives, while at the same time recognizing that the Lord is the ultimate Judge.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 10:5-42; 28:18-20; Mark 1:17; 2:14; 3:14-15; John 21:15-17; Acts 1:2-8, 20-26; 2:42-43; 4:33; 5:12; 6:2-4; 10:39-43; 14:3; Rom 1:5; 15:17-21; 1 Cor 4:8-13; 12:28-29; 2 Cor 2:17; 4:2; 6:3-12; 10:12-18; Eph 2:20; 3:4-5; 4:11-13; 1 Thes 2:7-12<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Paul’s Apostolic Service<\/h3>\n<p>To understand Paul’s role as an apostle of Jesus Christ, there is perhaps no better place to look than Paul’s own description in 2 Corinthians. In this letter, Paul reveals the heart of his ministry. Paul was God’s special messenger for the establishment and nurture of churches in the Gentile world. His service was marked by seriousness and sincerity, and his message raised life and death issues (2 Cor 2:15-17). As a pioneer missionary, he took the Good News to places where Christ’s name was not yet known (see Rom 15:20-21).<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s message of Good News was clear and incisive (see, e.g., 2 Cor 5:1-21), and it was backed up and illustrated by his own life. He always sought to minister with truth and integrity (2:17; 4:2). And as Paul carried the message of Christ, the cross served as the pattern for his ministry to others (11:16-33).<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s authority was apparently disputed, so he needed to offer a personal account of how God had called him as an apostle and established his ministry at Corinth (10:12-18). For those who demanded proof of Paul’s credentials (13:3) and who criticized his weaknesses, he simply pointed to the cross of Jesus (13:4) and to the lessons he had learned from it (see 4:10). Paul was quite conscious of his own limitations and that he needed divine grace to accomplish his work. But true apostolic authority expresses itself precisely in human weakness reinforced by divine strength (12:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>Paul also performed miraculous works to verify his claim to apostleship (12:12). These works apparently were not enough to prevent doubts from arising in the young church at Corinth. Yet Paul exercised his ministry with great patience, not giving up when the Corinthians challenged him. This patience replicates that of Jesus, who endured much hositility from others (Heb 12:2-3).<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s example provides a few lessons for all those who are involved in Christian service: (1) Christian leaders should take criticism as a summons to self-examination, to see if any accusation is well-founded. (2) Christian leaders should be patient in the face of groundless opposition, staying focused on the task at hand. (3) There is a place for reasoned defense and explanation of one’s motives, while at the same time recognizing that the Lord is the ultimate Judge.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 10:5-42; 28:18-20; Mark 1:17; 2:14; 3:14-15; John 21:15-17; Acts 1:2-8, 20-26; 2:42-43; 4:33; 5:12; 6:2-4; 10:39-43; 14:3; Rom 1:5; 15:17-21; 1 Cor 4:8-13; 12:28-29; 2 Cor 2:17; 4:2; 6:3-12; 10:12-18; Eph 2:20; 3:4-5; 4:11-13; 1 Thes 2:7-12<\/p>","summary_ro":"Paul’s Apostolic Service To understand Paul’s role as an apostle of Jesus Christ, there is perhaps no better place to look than Paul’s own description in 2 Corinthians. In this letter, Paul reveals the heart of his ministry. Paul was God’s special messenger for the establishment and nurture of churches in the Gentile world. His service was marked by seriousness and sincerity, and his message raised life and death issues (2 Cor 2:15-17). As a pioneer missionary, he took the Good News to places...","summary_en":"Paul’s Apostolic Service To understand Paul’s role as an apostle of Jesus Christ, there is perhaps no better place to look than Paul’s own description in 2 Corinthians. In this letter, Paul reveals the heart of his ministry. Paul was God’s special messenger for the establishment and nurture of churches in the Gentile world. His service was marked by seriousness and sincerity, and his message raised life and death issues (2 Cor 2:15-17). As a pioneer missionary, he took the Good News to places...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"16":[{"id":42107,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Simon Peter","title_en":"Simon Peter","content_ro":"<h3>Simon Peter<\/h3>\n<p>Simon Peter was the most prominent of the twelve apostles. After Jesus’ death, he became the primary spokesman for the early Christians in Jerusalem and was the apostle primarily responsible for evangelizing the Jews (Gal 2:7-8).<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew name <em>Simeon<\/em> (transliterated in English as “Simon”) was probably his original name. <em>Cephas<\/em> is the transliteration of an Aramaic name given him by Jesus, meaning “rock”—translated in Greek as <em>Petros<\/em> (English “Peter”; see Matt 16:17-18; John 1:42).<\/p>\n<p>Though Bethsaida was Peter’s hometown (John 1:44), he later lived in Capernaum. He was married (1 Cor 9:5), and at one point, when visiting Peter’s home, Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law (Matt 8:14-15; Mark 1:29-31; Luke 4:38-39).<\/p>\n<p>Originally fishermen, Peter and his brother Andrew were among the first to be called by Jesus to be disciples, together with James and John, their fishing partners (Matt 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20; cp. Luke 5:1-11; John 1:35-51). They were ordinary, minimally educated working men (Acts 4:13).<\/p>\n<p>Peter’s name occurs first on every list of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13). Together with the brothers James and John, Peter was part of an “inner circle” of disciples who were with Jesus on certain special occasions—the healing of Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), Jesus’ transfiguration (Matt 17:1-2; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28-29), and Jesus’ prayer in the garden (Matt 26:37; Mark 14:33).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was bold and impulsive (Matt 26:33; Mark 14:29; Luke 5:8; 22:33; John 13:36-37; 21:7), and the first of the disciples to confess his belief in Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:15-16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20). He reproved Jesus when Jesus spoke of his coming death—a notion that did not fit Peter’s view of the Messiah—and was in turn rebuked by Jesus for it (Matt 16:21-23; Mark 8:31-33). However, Jesus spoke of Peter as a key person he would use to build the church (Matt 16:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Peter surreptitiously entered the courtyard of the high priest when Jesus was taken there for interrogation. But when challenged by people who recognized him (partly because of his Galilean accent), he vigorously denied all knowledge of Jesus (26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:54-62)—as Jesus had said he would, in spite of Peter’s insistence that he would never do so (Matt 26:33-35; Mark 14:29-31; Luke 22:31-34). Peter immediately felt deep remorse.<\/p>\n<p>After the news of Jesus’ resurrection, Peter was one of the first to run to the tomb to see if it was true (John 20:3-7), and he appears to have been the first of the Twelve to whom the risen Jesus showed himself (Luke 24:33-34; 1 Cor 15:5). Much of Jesus’ conversation recorded in John 21 was with Peter, whom Jesus encouraged to “feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17).<\/p>\n<p>Following the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-13), Peter quickly emerged as the primary spokesman for the early Christians. From that point on, as recorded in Acts 2:14–12:25, he played a crucial role in the spread of the gospel in Judea, boldly preaching to the crowds (Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26), healing people (Acts 3:1-11; 5:12-16; 9:32-43), and—even under arrest—speaking fearlessly to the authorities (Acts 4:1-20; 5:26-32). Twice he miraculously escaped from prison (Acts 5:18-25; 12:6-11). He also exercised leadership in the administrative affairs of the quickly growing community of disciples (Acts 5:3-11).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was the first to bring the Good News to Gentiles (Acts 10:1-48; see Matt 16:18). And he played a key role in the Jerusalem council concerning Gentile converts, arguing that Gentiles should not be compelled to observe the law of Moses but should be accepted on the basis of their faith in Christ alone (Acts 15:7-11). Later, however, when visiting Antioch, he was inconsistent on this point—resulting in a rebuke from Paul (Gal 2:11-16).<\/p>\n<p>Other than his taking his wife with him on at least some of his mission trips (1 Cor 9:5), few details are known about Peter’s later life and missionary work. (He may have spent time at Corinth; see 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22). Widespread early tradition says that Peter was crucified—like his Lord, just as Jesus had predicted (John 21:18-19)—in Rome during Nero’s persecution of Christians in <span>AD<\/span> 64–65. The reliability of the tradition that he was crucified upside-down is less certain.<\/p>\n<p>Peter was likely the source of the material recorded by Mark in his Gospel, which Mark probably learned while he was assisting Peter in his evangelistic work in Italy near the end of his life. Peter is also traditionally understood to be the author of 1 Peter (written from Rome—“Babylon,” 1 Pet 5:13) and 2 Peter.<\/p>\n<p>In the New Testament, Peter stands as a reassuring example of Christ’s forgiving grace for those who know they’ve failed him—and of the way Christ can graciously restore and use such people for his glory, in spite of their failings.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 4:18-20; 8:14; 10:2; 14:28-31; 15:15; 16:16-19, 22-23; 17:1-4, 24-27; 18:21; 19:27; 26:33-45, 58, 69-75; Mark 1:16-18, 29-30, 36-37; 3:16; 5:37; 8:29-33; 9:2-6; 10:28; 11:21; 13:3-4; 14:29-42, 54, 66-72; 16:7-8; Luke 4:38; 5:3-10; 6:14; 8:45, 51; 9:20, 28-33; 12:41; 18:28; 22:8, 31-34, 55-62; 24:12, 34; John 1:40-42, 44; 6:8, 68; 13:6-10, 24, 36-38; 18:10-11, 15-18, 25-27; 20:2-6; 21:2-21; Acts 1:1–12:25; 15:7-11; Gal 2:7-16; 1 Pet 1:1–5:14; 2 Pet 1:1–3:18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Simon Peter<\/h3>\n<p>Simon Peter was the most prominent of the twelve apostles. After Jesus’ death, he became the primary spokesman for the early Christians in Jerusalem and was the apostle primarily responsible for evangelizing the Jews (Gal 2:7-8).<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew name <em>Simeon<\/em> (transliterated in English as “Simon”) was probably his original name. <em>Cephas<\/em> is the transliteration of an Aramaic name given him by Jesus, meaning “rock”—translated in Greek as <em>Petros<\/em> (English “Peter”; see Matt 16:17-18; John 1:42).<\/p>\n<p>Though Bethsaida was Peter’s hometown (John 1:44), he later lived in Capernaum. He was married (1 Cor 9:5), and at one point, when visiting Peter’s home, Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law (Matt 8:14-15; Mark 1:29-31; Luke 4:38-39).<\/p>\n<p>Originally fishermen, Peter and his brother Andrew were among the first to be called by Jesus to be disciples, together with James and John, their fishing partners (Matt 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20; cp. Luke 5:1-11; John 1:35-51). They were ordinary, minimally educated working men (Acts 4:13).<\/p>\n<p>Peter’s name occurs first on every list of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13). Together with the brothers James and John, Peter was part of an “inner circle” of disciples who were with Jesus on certain special occasions—the healing of Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), Jesus’ transfiguration (Matt 17:1-2; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28-29), and Jesus’ prayer in the garden (Matt 26:37; Mark 14:33).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was bold and impulsive (Matt 26:33; Mark 14:29; Luke 5:8; 22:33; John 13:36-37; 21:7), and the first of the disciples to confess his belief in Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:15-16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20). He reproved Jesus when Jesus spoke of his coming death—a notion that did not fit Peter’s view of the Messiah—and was in turn rebuked by Jesus for it (Matt 16:21-23; Mark 8:31-33). However, Jesus spoke of Peter as a key person he would use to build the church (Matt 16:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Peter surreptitiously entered the courtyard of the high priest when Jesus was taken there for interrogation. But when challenged by people who recognized him (partly because of his Galilean accent), he vigorously denied all knowledge of Jesus (26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:54-62)—as Jesus had said he would, in spite of Peter’s insistence that he would never do so (Matt 26:33-35; Mark 14:29-31; Luke 22:31-34). Peter immediately felt deep remorse.<\/p>\n<p>After the news of Jesus’ resurrection, Peter was one of the first to run to the tomb to see if it was true (John 20:3-7), and he appears to have been the first of the Twelve to whom the risen Jesus showed himself (Luke 24:33-34; 1 Cor 15:5). Much of Jesus’ conversation recorded in John 21 was with Peter, whom Jesus encouraged to “feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17).<\/p>\n<p>Following the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-13), Peter quickly emerged as the primary spokesman for the early Christians. From that point on, as recorded in Acts 2:14–12:25, he played a crucial role in the spread of the gospel in Judea, boldly preaching to the crowds (Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26), healing people (Acts 3:1-11; 5:12-16; 9:32-43), and—even under arrest—speaking fearlessly to the authorities (Acts 4:1-20; 5:26-32). Twice he miraculously escaped from prison (Acts 5:18-25; 12:6-11). He also exercised leadership in the administrative affairs of the quickly growing community of disciples (Acts 5:3-11).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was the first to bring the Good News to Gentiles (Acts 10:1-48; see Matt 16:18). And he played a key role in the Jerusalem council concerning Gentile converts, arguing that Gentiles should not be compelled to observe the law of Moses but should be accepted on the basis of their faith in Christ alone (Acts 15:7-11). Later, however, when visiting Antioch, he was inconsistent on this point—resulting in a rebuke from Paul (Gal 2:11-16).<\/p>\n<p>Other than his taking his wife with him on at least some of his mission trips (1 Cor 9:5), few details are known about Peter’s later life and missionary work. (He may have spent time at Corinth; see 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22). Widespread early tradition says that Peter was crucified—like his Lord, just as Jesus had predicted (John 21:18-19)—in Rome during Nero’s persecution of Christians in <span>AD<\/span> 64–65. The reliability of the tradition that he was crucified upside-down is less certain.<\/p>\n<p>Peter was likely the source of the material recorded by Mark in his Gospel, which Mark probably learned while he was assisting Peter in his evangelistic work in Italy near the end of his life. Peter is also traditionally understood to be the author of 1 Peter (written from Rome—“Babylon,” 1 Pet 5:13) and 2 Peter.<\/p>\n<p>In the New Testament, Peter stands as a reassuring example of Christ’s forgiving grace for those who know they’ve failed him—and of the way Christ can graciously restore and use such people for his glory, in spite of their failings.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 4:18-20; 8:14; 10:2; 14:28-31; 15:15; 16:16-19, 22-23; 17:1-4, 24-27; 18:21; 19:27; 26:33-45, 58, 69-75; Mark 1:16-18, 29-30, 36-37; 3:16; 5:37; 8:29-33; 9:2-6; 10:28; 11:21; 13:3-4; 14:29-42, 54, 66-72; 16:7-8; Luke 4:38; 5:3-10; 6:14; 8:45, 51; 9:20, 28-33; 12:41; 18:28; 22:8, 31-34, 55-62; 24:12, 34; John 1:40-42, 44; 6:8, 68; 13:6-10, 24, 36-38; 18:10-11, 15-18, 25-27; 20:2-6; 21:2-21; Acts 1:1–12:25; 15:7-11; Gal 2:7-16; 1 Pet 1:1–5:14; 2 Pet 1:1–3:18<\/p>","summary_ro":"Simon Peter Simon Peter was the most prominent of the twelve apostles. After Jesus’ death, he became the primary spokesman for the early Christians in Jerusalem and was the apostle primarily responsible for evangelizing the Jews (Gal 2:7-8). The Hebrew name Simeon (transliterated in English as “Simon”) was probably his original name. Cephas is the transliteration of an Aramaic name given him by Jesus, meaning “rock”—translated in Greek as Petros (English “Peter”; see Matt 16:17-18; John 1:42)...","summary_en":"Simon Peter Simon Peter was the most prominent of the twelve apostles. After Jesus’ death, he became the primary spokesman for the early Christians in Jerusalem and was the apostle primarily responsible for evangelizing the Jews (Gal 2:7-8). The Hebrew name Simeon (transliterated in English as “Simon”) was probably his original name. Cephas is the transliteration of an Aramaic name given him by Jesus, meaning “rock”—translated in Greek as Petros (English “Peter”; see Matt 16:17-18; John 1:42)...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":69733,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Simon Peter","title_en":"Simon Peter","content_ro":"<h3>Simon Peter<\/h3>\n<p>Simon Peter was the most prominent of the twelve apostles. After Jesus’ death, he became the primary spokesman for the early Christians in Jerusalem and was the apostle primarily responsible for evangelizing the Jews (Gal 2:7-8).<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew name <em>Simeon<\/em> (transliterated in English as “Simon”) was probably his original name. <em>Cephas<\/em> is the transliteration of an Aramaic name given him by Jesus, meaning “rock”—translated in Greek as <em>Petros<\/em> (English “Peter”; see Matt 16:17-18; John 1:42).<\/p>\n<p>Though Bethsaida was Peter’s hometown (John 1:44), he later lived in Capernaum. He was married (1 Cor 9:5), and at one point, when visiting Peter’s home, Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law (Matt 8:14-15; Mark 1:29-31; Luke 4:38-39).<\/p>\n<p>Originally fishermen, Peter and his brother Andrew were among the first to be called by Jesus to be disciples, together with James and John, their fishing partners (Matt 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20; cp. Luke 5:1-11; John 1:35-51). They were ordinary, minimally educated working men (Acts 4:13).<\/p>\n<p>Peter’s name occurs first on every list of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13). Together with the brothers James and John, Peter was part of an “inner circle” of disciples who were with Jesus on certain special occasions—the healing of Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), Jesus’ transfiguration (Matt 17:1-2; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28-29), and Jesus’ prayer in the garden (Matt 26:37; Mark 14:33).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was bold and impulsive (Matt 26:33; Mark 14:29; Luke 5:8; 22:33; John 13:36-37; 21:7), and the first of the disciples to confess his belief in Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:15-16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20). He reproved Jesus when Jesus spoke of his coming death—a notion that did not fit Peter’s view of the Messiah—and was in turn rebuked by Jesus for it (Matt 16:21-23; Mark 8:31-33). However, Jesus spoke of Peter as a key person he would use to build the church (Matt 16:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Peter surreptitiously entered the courtyard of the high priest when Jesus was taken there for interrogation. But when challenged by people who recognized him (partly because of his Galilean accent), he vigorously denied all knowledge of Jesus (26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:54-62)—as Jesus had said he would, in spite of Peter’s insistence that he would never do so (Matt 26:33-35; Mark 14:29-31; Luke 22:31-34). Peter immediately felt deep remorse.<\/p>\n<p>After the news of Jesus’ resurrection, Peter was one of the first to run to the tomb to see if it was true (John 20:3-7), and he appears to have been the first of the Twelve to whom the risen Jesus showed himself (Luke 24:33-34; 1 Cor 15:5). Much of Jesus’ conversation recorded in John 21 was with Peter, whom Jesus encouraged to “feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17).<\/p>\n<p>Following the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-13), Peter quickly emerged as the primary spokesman for the early Christians. From that point on, as recorded in Acts 2:14–12:25, he played a crucial role in the spread of the gospel in Judea, boldly preaching to the crowds (Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26), healing people (Acts 3:1-11; 5:12-16; 9:32-43), and—even under arrest—speaking fearlessly to the authorities (Acts 4:1-20; 5:26-32). Twice he miraculously escaped from prison (Acts 5:18-25; 12:6-11). He also exercised leadership in the administrative affairs of the quickly growing community of disciples (Acts 5:3-11).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was the first to bring the Good News to Gentiles (Acts 10:1-48; see Matt 16:18). And he played a key role in the Jerusalem council concerning Gentile converts, arguing that Gentiles should not be compelled to observe the law of Moses but should be accepted on the basis of their faith in Christ alone (Acts 15:7-11). Later, however, when visiting Antioch, he was inconsistent on this point—resulting in a rebuke from Paul (Gal 2:11-16).<\/p>\n<p>Other than his taking his wife with him on at least some of his mission trips (1 Cor 9:5), few details are known about Peter’s later life and missionary work. (He may have spent time at Corinth; see 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22). Widespread early tradition says that Peter was crucified—like his Lord, just as Jesus had predicted (John 21:18-19)—in Rome during Nero’s persecution of Christians in <span>AD<\/span> 64–65. The reliability of the tradition that he was crucified upside-down is less certain.<\/p>\n<p>Peter was likely the source of the material recorded by Mark in his Gospel, which Mark probably learned while he was assisting Peter in his evangelistic work in Italy near the end of his life. Peter is also traditionally understood to be the author of 1 Peter (written from Rome—“Babylon,” 1 Pet 5:13) and 2 Peter.<\/p>\n<p>In the New Testament, Peter stands as a reassuring example of Christ’s forgiving grace for those who know they’ve failed him—and of the way Christ can graciously restore and use such people for his glory, in spite of their failings.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 4:18-20; 8:14; 10:2; 14:28-31; 15:15; 16:16-19, 22-23; 17:1-4, 24-27; 18:21; 19:27; 26:33-45, 58, 69-75; Mark 1:16-18, 29-30, 36-37; 3:16; 5:37; 8:29-33; 9:2-6; 10:28; 11:21; 13:3-4; 14:29-42, 54, 66-72; 16:7-8; Luke 4:38; 5:3-10; 6:14; 8:45, 51; 9:20, 28-33; 12:41; 18:28; 22:8, 31-34, 55-62; 24:12, 34; John 1:40-42, 44; 6:8, 68; 13:6-10, 24, 36-38; 18:10-11, 15-18, 25-27; 20:2-6; 21:2-21; Acts 1:1–12:25; 15:7-11; Gal 2:7-16; 1 Pet 1:1–5:14; 2 Pet 1:1–3:18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Simon Peter<\/h3>\n<p>Simon Peter was the most prominent of the twelve apostles. After Jesus’ death, he became the primary spokesman for the early Christians in Jerusalem and was the apostle primarily responsible for evangelizing the Jews (Gal 2:7-8).<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew name <em>Simeon<\/em> (transliterated in English as “Simon”) was probably his original name. <em>Cephas<\/em> is the transliteration of an Aramaic name given him by Jesus, meaning “rock”—translated in Greek as <em>Petros<\/em> (English “Peter”; see Matt 16:17-18; John 1:42).<\/p>\n<p>Though Bethsaida was Peter’s hometown (John 1:44), he later lived in Capernaum. He was married (1 Cor 9:5), and at one point, when visiting Peter’s home, Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law (Matt 8:14-15; Mark 1:29-31; Luke 4:38-39).<\/p>\n<p>Originally fishermen, Peter and his brother Andrew were among the first to be called by Jesus to be disciples, together with James and John, their fishing partners (Matt 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20; cp. Luke 5:1-11; John 1:35-51). They were ordinary, minimally educated working men (Acts 4:13).<\/p>\n<p>Peter’s name occurs first on every list of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13). Together with the brothers James and John, Peter was part of an “inner circle” of disciples who were with Jesus on certain special occasions—the healing of Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), Jesus’ transfiguration (Matt 17:1-2; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28-29), and Jesus’ prayer in the garden (Matt 26:37; Mark 14:33).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was bold and impulsive (Matt 26:33; Mark 14:29; Luke 5:8; 22:33; John 13:36-37; 21:7), and the first of the disciples to confess his belief in Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:15-16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20). He reproved Jesus when Jesus spoke of his coming death—a notion that did not fit Peter’s view of the Messiah—and was in turn rebuked by Jesus for it (Matt 16:21-23; Mark 8:31-33). However, Jesus spoke of Peter as a key person he would use to build the church (Matt 16:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Peter surreptitiously entered the courtyard of the high priest when Jesus was taken there for interrogation. But when challenged by people who recognized him (partly because of his Galilean accent), he vigorously denied all knowledge of Jesus (26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:54-62)—as Jesus had said he would, in spite of Peter’s insistence that he would never do so (Matt 26:33-35; Mark 14:29-31; Luke 22:31-34). Peter immediately felt deep remorse.<\/p>\n<p>After the news of Jesus’ resurrection, Peter was one of the first to run to the tomb to see if it was true (John 20:3-7), and he appears to have been the first of the Twelve to whom the risen Jesus showed himself (Luke 24:33-34; 1 Cor 15:5). Much of Jesus’ conversation recorded in John 21 was with Peter, whom Jesus encouraged to “feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17).<\/p>\n<p>Following the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-13), Peter quickly emerged as the primary spokesman for the early Christians. From that point on, as recorded in Acts 2:14–12:25, he played a crucial role in the spread of the gospel in Judea, boldly preaching to the crowds (Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26), healing people (Acts 3:1-11; 5:12-16; 9:32-43), and—even under arrest—speaking fearlessly to the authorities (Acts 4:1-20; 5:26-32). Twice he miraculously escaped from prison (Acts 5:18-25; 12:6-11). He also exercised leadership in the administrative affairs of the quickly growing community of disciples (Acts 5:3-11).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was the first to bring the Good News to Gentiles (Acts 10:1-48; see Matt 16:18). And he played a key role in the Jerusalem council concerning Gentile converts, arguing that Gentiles should not be compelled to observe the law of Moses but should be accepted on the basis of their faith in Christ alone (Acts 15:7-11). Later, however, when visiting Antioch, he was inconsistent on this point—resulting in a rebuke from Paul (Gal 2:11-16).<\/p>\n<p>Other than his taking his wife with him on at least some of his mission trips (1 Cor 9:5), few details are known about Peter’s later life and missionary work. (He may have spent time at Corinth; see 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22). Widespread early tradition says that Peter was crucified—like his Lord, just as Jesus had predicted (John 21:18-19)—in Rome during Nero’s persecution of Christians in <span>AD<\/span> 64–65. The reliability of the tradition that he was crucified upside-down is less certain.<\/p>\n<p>Peter was likely the source of the material recorded by Mark in his Gospel, which Mark probably learned while he was assisting Peter in his evangelistic work in Italy near the end of his life. Peter is also traditionally understood to be the author of 1 Peter (written from Rome—“Babylon,” 1 Pet 5:13) and 2 Peter.<\/p>\n<p>In the New Testament, Peter stands as a reassuring example of Christ’s forgiving grace for those who know they’ve failed him—and of the way Christ can graciously restore and use such people for his glory, in spite of their failings.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 4:18-20; 8:14; 10:2; 14:28-31; 15:15; 16:16-19, 22-23; 17:1-4, 24-27; 18:21; 19:27; 26:33-45, 58, 69-75; Mark 1:16-18, 29-30, 36-37; 3:16; 5:37; 8:29-33; 9:2-6; 10:28; 11:21; 13:3-4; 14:29-42, 54, 66-72; 16:7-8; Luke 4:38; 5:3-10; 6:14; 8:45, 51; 9:20, 28-33; 12:41; 18:28; 22:8, 31-34, 55-62; 24:12, 34; John 1:40-42, 44; 6:8, 68; 13:6-10, 24, 36-38; 18:10-11, 15-18, 25-27; 20:2-6; 21:2-21; Acts 1:1–12:25; 15:7-11; Gal 2:7-16; 1 Pet 1:1–5:14; 2 Pet 1:1–3:18<\/p>","summary_ro":"Simon Peter Simon Peter was the most prominent of the twelve apostles. After Jesus’ death, he became the primary spokesman for the early Christians in Jerusalem and was the apostle primarily responsible for evangelizing the Jews (Gal 2:7-8). The Hebrew name Simeon (transliterated in English as “Simon”) was probably his original name. Cephas is the transliteration of an Aramaic name given him by Jesus, meaning “rock”—translated in Greek as Petros (English “Peter”; see Matt 16:17-18; John 1:42)...","summary_en":"Simon Peter Simon Peter was the most prominent of the twelve apostles. After Jesus’ death, he became the primary spokesman for the early Christians in Jerusalem and was the apostle primarily responsible for evangelizing the Jews (Gal 2:7-8). The Hebrew name Simeon (transliterated in English as “Simon”) was probably his original name. Cephas is the transliteration of an Aramaic name given him by Jesus, meaning “rock”—translated in Greek as Petros (English “Peter”; see Matt 16:17-18; John 1:42)...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":97359,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Simon Peter","title_en":"Simon Peter","content_ro":"<h3>Simon Peter<\/h3>\n<p>Simon Peter was the most prominent of the twelve apostles. After Jesus’ death, he became the primary spokesman for the early Christians in Jerusalem and was the apostle primarily responsible for evangelizing the Jews (Gal 2:7-8).<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew name <em>Simeon<\/em> (transliterated in English as “Simon”) was probably his original name. <em>Cephas<\/em> is the transliteration of an Aramaic name given him by Jesus, meaning “rock”—translated in Greek as <em>Petros<\/em> (English “Peter”; see Matt 16:17-18; John 1:42).<\/p>\n<p>Though Bethsaida was Peter’s hometown (John 1:44), he later lived in Capernaum. He was married (1 Cor 9:5), and at one point, when visiting Peter’s home, Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law (Matt 8:14-15; Mark 1:29-31; Luke 4:38-39).<\/p>\n<p>Originally fishermen, Peter and his brother Andrew were among the first to be called by Jesus to be disciples, together with James and John, their fishing partners (Matt 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20; cp. Luke 5:1-11; John 1:35-51). They were ordinary, minimally educated working men (Acts 4:13).<\/p>\n<p>Peter’s name occurs first on every list of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13). Together with the brothers James and John, Peter was part of an “inner circle” of disciples who were with Jesus on certain special occasions—the healing of Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), Jesus’ transfiguration (Matt 17:1-2; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28-29), and Jesus’ prayer in the garden (Matt 26:37; Mark 14:33).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was bold and impulsive (Matt 26:33; Mark 14:29; Luke 5:8; 22:33; John 13:36-37; 21:7), and the first of the disciples to confess his belief in Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:15-16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20). He reproved Jesus when Jesus spoke of his coming death—a notion that did not fit Peter’s view of the Messiah—and was in turn rebuked by Jesus for it (Matt 16:21-23; Mark 8:31-33). However, Jesus spoke of Peter as a key person he would use to build the church (Matt 16:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Peter surreptitiously entered the courtyard of the high priest when Jesus was taken there for interrogation. But when challenged by people who recognized him (partly because of his Galilean accent), he vigorously denied all knowledge of Jesus (26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:54-62)—as Jesus had said he would, in spite of Peter’s insistence that he would never do so (Matt 26:33-35; Mark 14:29-31; Luke 22:31-34). Peter immediately felt deep remorse.<\/p>\n<p>After the news of Jesus’ resurrection, Peter was one of the first to run to the tomb to see if it was true (John 20:3-7), and he appears to have been the first of the Twelve to whom the risen Jesus showed himself (Luke 24:33-34; 1 Cor 15:5). Much of Jesus’ conversation recorded in John 21 was with Peter, whom Jesus encouraged to “feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17).<\/p>\n<p>Following the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-13), Peter quickly emerged as the primary spokesman for the early Christians. From that point on, as recorded in Acts 2:14–12:25, he played a crucial role in the spread of the gospel in Judea, boldly preaching to the crowds (Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26), healing people (Acts 3:1-11; 5:12-16; 9:32-43), and—even under arrest—speaking fearlessly to the authorities (Acts 4:1-20; 5:26-32). Twice he miraculously escaped from prison (Acts 5:18-25; 12:6-11). He also exercised leadership in the administrative affairs of the quickly growing community of disciples (Acts 5:3-11).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was the first to bring the Good News to Gentiles (Acts 10:1-48; see Matt 16:18). And he played a key role in the Jerusalem council concerning Gentile converts, arguing that Gentiles should not be compelled to observe the law of Moses but should be accepted on the basis of their faith in Christ alone (Acts 15:7-11). Later, however, when visiting Antioch, he was inconsistent on this point—resulting in a rebuke from Paul (Gal 2:11-16).<\/p>\n<p>Other than his taking his wife with him on at least some of his mission trips (1 Cor 9:5), few details are known about Peter’s later life and missionary work. (He may have spent time at Corinth; see 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22). Widespread early tradition says that Peter was crucified—like his Lord, just as Jesus had predicted (John 21:18-19)—in Rome during Nero’s persecution of Christians in <span>AD<\/span> 64–65. The reliability of the tradition that he was crucified upside-down is less certain.<\/p>\n<p>Peter was likely the source of the material recorded by Mark in his Gospel, which Mark probably learned while he was assisting Peter in his evangelistic work in Italy near the end of his life. Peter is also traditionally understood to be the author of 1 Peter (written from Rome—“Babylon,” 1 Pet 5:13) and 2 Peter.<\/p>\n<p>In the New Testament, Peter stands as a reassuring example of Christ’s forgiving grace for those who know they’ve failed him—and of the way Christ can graciously restore and use such people for his glory, in spite of their failings.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 4:18-20; 8:14; 10:2; 14:28-31; 15:15; 16:16-19, 22-23; 17:1-4, 24-27; 18:21; 19:27; 26:33-45, 58, 69-75; Mark 1:16-18, 29-30, 36-37; 3:16; 5:37; 8:29-33; 9:2-6; 10:28; 11:21; 13:3-4; 14:29-42, 54, 66-72; 16:7-8; Luke 4:38; 5:3-10; 6:14; 8:45, 51; 9:20, 28-33; 12:41; 18:28; 22:8, 31-34, 55-62; 24:12, 34; John 1:40-42, 44; 6:8, 68; 13:6-10, 24, 36-38; 18:10-11, 15-18, 25-27; 20:2-6; 21:2-21; Acts 1:1–12:25; 15:7-11; Gal 2:7-16; 1 Pet 1:1–5:14; 2 Pet 1:1–3:18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Simon Peter<\/h3>\n<p>Simon Peter was the most prominent of the twelve apostles. After Jesus’ death, he became the primary spokesman for the early Christians in Jerusalem and was the apostle primarily responsible for evangelizing the Jews (Gal 2:7-8).<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew name <em>Simeon<\/em> (transliterated in English as “Simon”) was probably his original name. <em>Cephas<\/em> is the transliteration of an Aramaic name given him by Jesus, meaning “rock”—translated in Greek as <em>Petros<\/em> (English “Peter”; see Matt 16:17-18; John 1:42).<\/p>\n<p>Though Bethsaida was Peter’s hometown (John 1:44), he later lived in Capernaum. He was married (1 Cor 9:5), and at one point, when visiting Peter’s home, Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law (Matt 8:14-15; Mark 1:29-31; Luke 4:38-39).<\/p>\n<p>Originally fishermen, Peter and his brother Andrew were among the first to be called by Jesus to be disciples, together with James and John, their fishing partners (Matt 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20; cp. Luke 5:1-11; John 1:35-51). They were ordinary, minimally educated working men (Acts 4:13).<\/p>\n<p>Peter’s name occurs first on every list of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13). Together with the brothers James and John, Peter was part of an “inner circle” of disciples who were with Jesus on certain special occasions—the healing of Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), Jesus’ transfiguration (Matt 17:1-2; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28-29), and Jesus’ prayer in the garden (Matt 26:37; Mark 14:33).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was bold and impulsive (Matt 26:33; Mark 14:29; Luke 5:8; 22:33; John 13:36-37; 21:7), and the first of the disciples to confess his belief in Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:15-16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20). He reproved Jesus when Jesus spoke of his coming death—a notion that did not fit Peter’s view of the Messiah—and was in turn rebuked by Jesus for it (Matt 16:21-23; Mark 8:31-33). However, Jesus spoke of Peter as a key person he would use to build the church (Matt 16:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Peter surreptitiously entered the courtyard of the high priest when Jesus was taken there for interrogation. But when challenged by people who recognized him (partly because of his Galilean accent), he vigorously denied all knowledge of Jesus (26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:54-62)—as Jesus had said he would, in spite of Peter’s insistence that he would never do so (Matt 26:33-35; Mark 14:29-31; Luke 22:31-34). Peter immediately felt deep remorse.<\/p>\n<p>After the news of Jesus’ resurrection, Peter was one of the first to run to the tomb to see if it was true (John 20:3-7), and he appears to have been the first of the Twelve to whom the risen Jesus showed himself (Luke 24:33-34; 1 Cor 15:5). Much of Jesus’ conversation recorded in John 21 was with Peter, whom Jesus encouraged to “feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17).<\/p>\n<p>Following the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-13), Peter quickly emerged as the primary spokesman for the early Christians. From that point on, as recorded in Acts 2:14–12:25, he played a crucial role in the spread of the gospel in Judea, boldly preaching to the crowds (Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26), healing people (Acts 3:1-11; 5:12-16; 9:32-43), and—even under arrest—speaking fearlessly to the authorities (Acts 4:1-20; 5:26-32). Twice he miraculously escaped from prison (Acts 5:18-25; 12:6-11). He also exercised leadership in the administrative affairs of the quickly growing community of disciples (Acts 5:3-11).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was the first to bring the Good News to Gentiles (Acts 10:1-48; see Matt 16:18). And he played a key role in the Jerusalem council concerning Gentile converts, arguing that Gentiles should not be compelled to observe the law of Moses but should be accepted on the basis of their faith in Christ alone (Acts 15:7-11). Later, however, when visiting Antioch, he was inconsistent on this point—resulting in a rebuke from Paul (Gal 2:11-16).<\/p>\n<p>Other than his taking his wife with him on at least some of his mission trips (1 Cor 9:5), few details are known about Peter’s later life and missionary work. (He may have spent time at Corinth; see 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22). Widespread early tradition says that Peter was crucified—like his Lord, just as Jesus had predicted (John 21:18-19)—in Rome during Nero’s persecution of Christians in <span>AD<\/span> 64–65. The reliability of the tradition that he was crucified upside-down is less certain.<\/p>\n<p>Peter was likely the source of the material recorded by Mark in his Gospel, which Mark probably learned while he was assisting Peter in his evangelistic work in Italy near the end of his life. Peter is also traditionally understood to be the author of 1 Peter (written from Rome—“Babylon,” 1 Pet 5:13) and 2 Peter.<\/p>\n<p>In the New Testament, Peter stands as a reassuring example of Christ’s forgiving grace for those who know they’ve failed him—and of the way Christ can graciously restore and use such people for his glory, in spite of their failings.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 4:18-20; 8:14; 10:2; 14:28-31; 15:15; 16:16-19, 22-23; 17:1-4, 24-27; 18:21; 19:27; 26:33-45, 58, 69-75; Mark 1:16-18, 29-30, 36-37; 3:16; 5:37; 8:29-33; 9:2-6; 10:28; 11:21; 13:3-4; 14:29-42, 54, 66-72; 16:7-8; Luke 4:38; 5:3-10; 6:14; 8:45, 51; 9:20, 28-33; 12:41; 18:28; 22:8, 31-34, 55-62; 24:12, 34; John 1:40-42, 44; 6:8, 68; 13:6-10, 24, 36-38; 18:10-11, 15-18, 25-27; 20:2-6; 21:2-21; Acts 1:1–12:25; 15:7-11; Gal 2:7-16; 1 Pet 1:1–5:14; 2 Pet 1:1–3:18<\/p>","summary_ro":"Simon Peter Simon Peter was the most prominent of the twelve apostles. After Jesus’ death, he became the primary spokesman for the early Christians in Jerusalem and was the apostle primarily responsible for evangelizing the Jews (Gal 2:7-8). The Hebrew name Simeon (transliterated in English as “Simon”) was probably his original name. Cephas is the transliteration of an Aramaic name given him by Jesus, meaning “rock”—translated in Greek as Petros (English “Peter”; see Matt 16:17-18; John 1:42)...","summary_en":"Simon Peter Simon Peter was the most prominent of the twelve apostles. After Jesus’ death, he became the primary spokesman for the early Christians in Jerusalem and was the apostle primarily responsible for evangelizing the Jews (Gal 2:7-8). The Hebrew name Simeon (transliterated in English as “Simon”) was probably his original name. Cephas is the transliteration of an Aramaic name given him by Jesus, meaning “rock”—translated in Greek as Petros (English “Peter”; see Matt 16:17-18; John 1:42)...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":124985,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Simon Peter","title_en":"Simon Peter","content_ro":"<h3>Simon Peter<\/h3>\n<p>Simon Peter was the most prominent of the twelve apostles. After Jesus’ death, he became the primary spokesman for the early Christians in Jerusalem and was the apostle primarily responsible for evangelizing the Jews (Gal 2:7-8).<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew name <em>Simeon<\/em> (transliterated in English as “Simon”) was probably his original name. <em>Cephas<\/em> is the transliteration of an Aramaic name given him by Jesus, meaning “rock”—translated in Greek as <em>Petros<\/em> (English “Peter”; see Matt 16:17-18; John 1:42).<\/p>\n<p>Though Bethsaida was Peter’s hometown (John 1:44), he later lived in Capernaum. He was married (1 Cor 9:5), and at one point, when visiting Peter’s home, Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law (Matt 8:14-15; Mark 1:29-31; Luke 4:38-39).<\/p>\n<p>Originally fishermen, Peter and his brother Andrew were among the first to be called by Jesus to be disciples, together with James and John, their fishing partners (Matt 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20; cp. Luke 5:1-11; John 1:35-51). They were ordinary, minimally educated working men (Acts 4:13).<\/p>\n<p>Peter’s name occurs first on every list of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13). Together with the brothers James and John, Peter was part of an “inner circle” of disciples who were with Jesus on certain special occasions—the healing of Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), Jesus’ transfiguration (Matt 17:1-2; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28-29), and Jesus’ prayer in the garden (Matt 26:37; Mark 14:33).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was bold and impulsive (Matt 26:33; Mark 14:29; Luke 5:8; 22:33; John 13:36-37; 21:7), and the first of the disciples to confess his belief in Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:15-16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20). He reproved Jesus when Jesus spoke of his coming death—a notion that did not fit Peter’s view of the Messiah—and was in turn rebuked by Jesus for it (Matt 16:21-23; Mark 8:31-33). However, Jesus spoke of Peter as a key person he would use to build the church (Matt 16:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Peter surreptitiously entered the courtyard of the high priest when Jesus was taken there for interrogation. But when challenged by people who recognized him (partly because of his Galilean accent), he vigorously denied all knowledge of Jesus (26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:54-62)—as Jesus had said he would, in spite of Peter’s insistence that he would never do so (Matt 26:33-35; Mark 14:29-31; Luke 22:31-34). Peter immediately felt deep remorse.<\/p>\n<p>After the news of Jesus’ resurrection, Peter was one of the first to run to the tomb to see if it was true (John 20:3-7), and he appears to have been the first of the Twelve to whom the risen Jesus showed himself (Luke 24:33-34; 1 Cor 15:5). Much of Jesus’ conversation recorded in John 21 was with Peter, whom Jesus encouraged to “feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17).<\/p>\n<p>Following the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-13), Peter quickly emerged as the primary spokesman for the early Christians. From that point on, as recorded in Acts 2:14–12:25, he played a crucial role in the spread of the gospel in Judea, boldly preaching to the crowds (Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26), healing people (Acts 3:1-11; 5:12-16; 9:32-43), and—even under arrest—speaking fearlessly to the authorities (Acts 4:1-20; 5:26-32). Twice he miraculously escaped from prison (Acts 5:18-25; 12:6-11). He also exercised leadership in the administrative affairs of the quickly growing community of disciples (Acts 5:3-11).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was the first to bring the Good News to Gentiles (Acts 10:1-48; see Matt 16:18). And he played a key role in the Jerusalem council concerning Gentile converts, arguing that Gentiles should not be compelled to observe the law of Moses but should be accepted on the basis of their faith in Christ alone (Acts 15:7-11). Later, however, when visiting Antioch, he was inconsistent on this point—resulting in a rebuke from Paul (Gal 2:11-16).<\/p>\n<p>Other than his taking his wife with him on at least some of his mission trips (1 Cor 9:5), few details are known about Peter’s later life and missionary work. (He may have spent time at Corinth; see 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22). Widespread early tradition says that Peter was crucified—like his Lord, just as Jesus had predicted (John 21:18-19)—in Rome during Nero’s persecution of Christians in <span>AD<\/span> 64–65. The reliability of the tradition that he was crucified upside-down is less certain.<\/p>\n<p>Peter was likely the source of the material recorded by Mark in his Gospel, which Mark probably learned while he was assisting Peter in his evangelistic work in Italy near the end of his life. Peter is also traditionally understood to be the author of 1 Peter (written from Rome—“Babylon,” 1 Pet 5:13) and 2 Peter.<\/p>\n<p>In the New Testament, Peter stands as a reassuring example of Christ’s forgiving grace for those who know they’ve failed him—and of the way Christ can graciously restore and use such people for his glory, in spite of their failings.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 4:18-20; 8:14; 10:2; 14:28-31; 15:15; 16:16-19, 22-23; 17:1-4, 24-27; 18:21; 19:27; 26:33-45, 58, 69-75; Mark 1:16-18, 29-30, 36-37; 3:16; 5:37; 8:29-33; 9:2-6; 10:28; 11:21; 13:3-4; 14:29-42, 54, 66-72; 16:7-8; Luke 4:38; 5:3-10; 6:14; 8:45, 51; 9:20, 28-33; 12:41; 18:28; 22:8, 31-34, 55-62; 24:12, 34; John 1:40-42, 44; 6:8, 68; 13:6-10, 24, 36-38; 18:10-11, 15-18, 25-27; 20:2-6; 21:2-21; Acts 1:1–12:25; 15:7-11; Gal 2:7-16; 1 Pet 1:1–5:14; 2 Pet 1:1–3:18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Simon Peter<\/h3>\n<p>Simon Peter was the most prominent of the twelve apostles. After Jesus’ death, he became the primary spokesman for the early Christians in Jerusalem and was the apostle primarily responsible for evangelizing the Jews (Gal 2:7-8).<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew name <em>Simeon<\/em> (transliterated in English as “Simon”) was probably his original name. <em>Cephas<\/em> is the transliteration of an Aramaic name given him by Jesus, meaning “rock”—translated in Greek as <em>Petros<\/em> (English “Peter”; see Matt 16:17-18; John 1:42).<\/p>\n<p>Though Bethsaida was Peter’s hometown (John 1:44), he later lived in Capernaum. He was married (1 Cor 9:5), and at one point, when visiting Peter’s home, Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law (Matt 8:14-15; Mark 1:29-31; Luke 4:38-39).<\/p>\n<p>Originally fishermen, Peter and his brother Andrew were among the first to be called by Jesus to be disciples, together with James and John, their fishing partners (Matt 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20; cp. Luke 5:1-11; John 1:35-51). They were ordinary, minimally educated working men (Acts 4:13).<\/p>\n<p>Peter’s name occurs first on every list of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13). Together with the brothers James and John, Peter was part of an “inner circle” of disciples who were with Jesus on certain special occasions—the healing of Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), Jesus’ transfiguration (Matt 17:1-2; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28-29), and Jesus’ prayer in the garden (Matt 26:37; Mark 14:33).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was bold and impulsive (Matt 26:33; Mark 14:29; Luke 5:8; 22:33; John 13:36-37; 21:7), and the first of the disciples to confess his belief in Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:15-16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20). He reproved Jesus when Jesus spoke of his coming death—a notion that did not fit Peter’s view of the Messiah—and was in turn rebuked by Jesus for it (Matt 16:21-23; Mark 8:31-33). However, Jesus spoke of Peter as a key person he would use to build the church (Matt 16:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Peter surreptitiously entered the courtyard of the high priest when Jesus was taken there for interrogation. But when challenged by people who recognized him (partly because of his Galilean accent), he vigorously denied all knowledge of Jesus (26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:54-62)—as Jesus had said he would, in spite of Peter’s insistence that he would never do so (Matt 26:33-35; Mark 14:29-31; Luke 22:31-34). Peter immediately felt deep remorse.<\/p>\n<p>After the news of Jesus’ resurrection, Peter was one of the first to run to the tomb to see if it was true (John 20:3-7), and he appears to have been the first of the Twelve to whom the risen Jesus showed himself (Luke 24:33-34; 1 Cor 15:5). Much of Jesus’ conversation recorded in John 21 was with Peter, whom Jesus encouraged to “feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17).<\/p>\n<p>Following the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-13), Peter quickly emerged as the primary spokesman for the early Christians. From that point on, as recorded in Acts 2:14–12:25, he played a crucial role in the spread of the gospel in Judea, boldly preaching to the crowds (Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26), healing people (Acts 3:1-11; 5:12-16; 9:32-43), and—even under arrest—speaking fearlessly to the authorities (Acts 4:1-20; 5:26-32). Twice he miraculously escaped from prison (Acts 5:18-25; 12:6-11). He also exercised leadership in the administrative affairs of the quickly growing community of disciples (Acts 5:3-11).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was the first to bring the Good News to Gentiles (Acts 10:1-48; see Matt 16:18). And he played a key role in the Jerusalem council concerning Gentile converts, arguing that Gentiles should not be compelled to observe the law of Moses but should be accepted on the basis of their faith in Christ alone (Acts 15:7-11). Later, however, when visiting Antioch, he was inconsistent on this point—resulting in a rebuke from Paul (Gal 2:11-16).<\/p>\n<p>Other than his taking his wife with him on at least some of his mission trips (1 Cor 9:5), few details are known about Peter’s later life and missionary work. (He may have spent time at Corinth; see 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22). Widespread early tradition says that Peter was crucified—like his Lord, just as Jesus had predicted (John 21:18-19)—in Rome during Nero’s persecution of Christians in <span>AD<\/span> 64–65. The reliability of the tradition that he was crucified upside-down is less certain.<\/p>\n<p>Peter was likely the source of the material recorded by Mark in his Gospel, which Mark probably learned while he was assisting Peter in his evangelistic work in Italy near the end of his life. Peter is also traditionally understood to be the author of 1 Peter (written from Rome—“Babylon,” 1 Pet 5:13) and 2 Peter.<\/p>\n<p>In the New Testament, Peter stands as a reassuring example of Christ’s forgiving grace for those who know they’ve failed him—and of the way Christ can graciously restore and use such people for his glory, in spite of their failings.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 4:18-20; 8:14; 10:2; 14:28-31; 15:15; 16:16-19, 22-23; 17:1-4, 24-27; 18:21; 19:27; 26:33-45, 58, 69-75; Mark 1:16-18, 29-30, 36-37; 3:16; 5:37; 8:29-33; 9:2-6; 10:28; 11:21; 13:3-4; 14:29-42, 54, 66-72; 16:7-8; Luke 4:38; 5:3-10; 6:14; 8:45, 51; 9:20, 28-33; 12:41; 18:28; 22:8, 31-34, 55-62; 24:12, 34; John 1:40-42, 44; 6:8, 68; 13:6-10, 24, 36-38; 18:10-11, 15-18, 25-27; 20:2-6; 21:2-21; Acts 1:1–12:25; 15:7-11; Gal 2:7-16; 1 Pet 1:1–5:14; 2 Pet 1:1–3:18<\/p>","summary_ro":"Simon Peter Simon Peter was the most prominent of the twelve apostles. After Jesus’ death, he became the primary spokesman for the early Christians in Jerusalem and was the apostle primarily responsible for evangelizing the Jews (Gal 2:7-8). The Hebrew name Simeon (transliterated in English as “Simon”) was probably his original name. Cephas is the transliteration of an Aramaic name given him by Jesus, meaning “rock”—translated in Greek as Petros (English “Peter”; see Matt 16:17-18; John 1:42)...","summary_en":"Simon Peter Simon Peter was the most prominent of the twelve apostles. After Jesus’ death, he became the primary spokesman for the early Christians in Jerusalem and was the apostle primarily responsible for evangelizing the Jews (Gal 2:7-8). The Hebrew name Simeon (transliterated in English as “Simon”) was probably his original name. Cephas is the transliteration of an Aramaic name given him by Jesus, meaning “rock”—translated in Greek as Petros (English “Peter”; see Matt 16:17-18; John 1:42)...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":3855,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Bartholomew, the Apostle","title_en":"Bartholomew, the Apostle","content_ro":"<h3>BARTHOLOMEW, T<span>he<\/span> A<span>postle<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Disciple of Jesus included in all four lists of the 12 apostles (Mt 10:2-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13), though not otherwise mentioned in the NT. Nothing is told about him in any of the lists. Because the name means “son of Tolmai,” it has been speculated that he was known by another name in addition to his “patronymic” name. In the lists in Matthew, Mark, and Luke (the synoptic Gospels), Bartholomew is named immediately after Philip, suggesting the possibility that the Nathanael brought by Philip to Jesus (Jn 1:45-50)—who seems to be linked with some of the disciples (Jn 21:2)—was Bartholomew. It thus seems possible that the apostle Bartholomew is referred to in the fourth Gospel by another name; it is not certain, however, that John’s references to Nathanael were intended to identify him as one of the Twelve.<\/p>\n<p>Eusebius, an early church historian, recorded an early tradition that Pantaenus, the first head of the catechetical school in Alexandria (<span>AD<\/span> 180), went to India and there found Christians who knew of the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew letters. According to Eusebius, Bartholomew had preached to them and had left the Gospel of Matthew with them. In other traditions, Bartholomew was an evangelistic partner of Philip and Thomas and suffered martyrdom in Armenia.<\/p>\n<p>A number of spurious and apocryphal writings have been ascribed to Bartholomew; none of them is genuine. In the fourth century Jerome mentioned a Gospel of Bartholomew, which is also noted by a few other writers. There are also references to the so-called Questions of Bartholomew (extant in Greek, Latin, and Slavonic fragments) and to a Book of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ by Bartholomew (extant in Coptic). Other references were made to Acts of Bartholomew and Apocalypse of Bartholomew, both otherwise unknown.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Apostle, Apostleship; Apocrypha (several titles attributed to Bartholomew).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BARTHOLOMEW, T<span>he<\/span> A<span>postle<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Disciple of Jesus included in all four lists of the 12 apostles (Mt 10:2-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13), though not otherwise mentioned in the NT. Nothing is told about him in any of the lists. Because the name means “son of Tolmai,” it has been speculated that he was known by another name in addition to his “patronymic” name. In the lists in Matthew, Mark, and Luke (the synoptic Gospels), Bartholomew is named immediately after Philip, suggesting the possibility that the Nathanael brought by Philip to Jesus (Jn 1:45-50)—who seems to be linked with some of the disciples (Jn 21:2)—was Bartholomew. It thus seems possible that the apostle Bartholomew is referred to in the fourth Gospel by another name; it is not certain, however, that John’s references to Nathanael were intended to identify him as one of the Twelve.<\/p>\n<p>Eusebius, an early church historian, recorded an early tradition that Pantaenus, the first head of the catechetical school in Alexandria (<span>AD<\/span> 180), went to India and there found Christians who knew of the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew letters. According to Eusebius, Bartholomew had preached to them and had left the Gospel of Matthew with them. In other traditions, Bartholomew was an evangelistic partner of Philip and Thomas and suffered martyrdom in Armenia.<\/p>\n<p>A number of spurious and apocryphal writings have been ascribed to Bartholomew; none of them is genuine. In the fourth century Jerome mentioned a Gospel of Bartholomew, which is also noted by a few other writers. There are also references to the so-called Questions of Bartholomew (extant in Greek, Latin, and Slavonic fragments) and to a Book of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ by Bartholomew (extant in Coptic). Other references were made to Acts of Bartholomew and Apocalypse of Bartholomew, both otherwise unknown.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Apostle, Apostleship; Apocrypha (several titles attributed to Bartholomew).<\/p>","summary_ro":"BARTHOLOMEW, The Apostle Disciple of Jesus included in all four lists of the 12 apostles (Mt 10:2-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13), though not otherwise mentioned in the NT. Nothing is told about him in any of the lists. Because the name means “son of Tolmai,” it has been speculated that he was known by another name in addition to his “patronymic” name. In the lists in Matthew, Mark, and Luke (the synoptic Gospels), Bartholomew is named immediately after Philip, suggesting the possibilit...","summary_en":"BARTHOLOMEW, The Apostle Disciple of Jesus included in all four lists of the 12 apostles (Mt 10:2-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13), though not otherwise mentioned in the NT. Nothing is told about him in any of the lists. Because the name means “son of Tolmai,” it has been speculated that he was known by another name in addition to his “patronymic” name. In the lists in Matthew, Mark, and Luke (the synoptic Gospels), Bartholomew is named immediately after Philip, suggesting the possibilit...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":19474,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jesus Christ","title_en":"Jesus Christ","content_ro":"<h3>JESUS CHRIST<\/h3>\n<p>Messiah, Savior, and founder of the Christian church.<\/p>\n<p>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 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Incarnation<\/p>\n<p>• The Birth of Jesus<\/p>\n<p>• Life in Nazareth<\/p>\n<p>• Preparatory Events<\/p>\n<p>• The Early Ministry of Jesus in Judea and Samaria<\/p>\n<p>• The Period of the Galilean Ministry<\/p>\n<p>• On the Way to Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>• The Final Days in Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>• The Betrayal and Arrest<\/p>\n<p>• The Trial<\/p>\n<p>• The Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p>• The Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheIncarnation\">The Incarnation<\/p>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>It 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBirthofJesus\">The Birth of Jesus<\/p>\n<p>John 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>\n<p>One 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>\n<p>Luke 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LifeinNazareth\">Life in Nazareth<\/p>\n<p>The 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PreparatoryEvents\">Preparatory Events<\/p>\n<p>All 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>\n<p>John 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>\n<p>John’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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Jesus’ 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheEarlyMinistryofJesusinJudeaandSamaria\">The Early Ministry of Jesus in Judea and Samaria<\/p>\n<p>Only 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>\n<p>Soon 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>\n<p>John 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>John’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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePeriodoftheGalileanMinistry\">The Period of the Galilean Ministry<\/p>\n\n<p>Almost 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>Another 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Throughout 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>Jesus 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>For 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>\n<p>Jesus 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>\n<p>A 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Another 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>\n<p>John 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>\n<p>Matthew’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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>At 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>\n<p>Jesus 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>\n<p>This 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>\n<p>After 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>\n<p>After 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>\n<p>Luke 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OntheWaytoJerusalem\">On the Way to Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>On 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\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheFinalDaysinJerusalem\">The Final Days in Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>All 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>It 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>\n<p>Nearing 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>\n<p>When 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>\n<p>John’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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBetrayalandArrest\">The Betrayal and Arrest<\/p>\n<p>There 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTrial\">The Trial<\/p>\n<p>Jesus 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>\n<p>The 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\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheCrucifixion\">The Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p>The 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBurialResurrectionandAscension\">The Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ 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>\n<p>We 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>\n<p>Messiah, Savior, and founder of the Christian church.<\/p>\n<p>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 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Incarnation<\/p>\n<p>• The Birth of Jesus<\/p>\n<p>• Life in Nazareth<\/p>\n<p>• Preparatory Events<\/p>\n<p>• The Early Ministry of Jesus in Judea and Samaria<\/p>\n<p>• The Period of the Galilean Ministry<\/p>\n<p>• On the Way to Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>• The Final Days in Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>• The Betrayal and Arrest<\/p>\n<p>• The Trial<\/p>\n<p>• The Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p>• The Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheIncarnation\">The Incarnation<\/p>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>It 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBirthofJesus\">The Birth of Jesus<\/p>\n<p>John 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>\n<p>One 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>\n<p>Luke 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LifeinNazareth\">Life in Nazareth<\/p>\n<p>The 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PreparatoryEvents\">Preparatory Events<\/p>\n<p>All 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>\n<p>John 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>\n<p>John’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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Jesus’ 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheEarlyMinistryofJesusinJudeaandSamaria\">The Early Ministry of Jesus in Judea and Samaria<\/p>\n<p>Only 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>\n<p>Soon 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>\n<p>John 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>John’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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePeriodoftheGalileanMinistry\">The Period of the Galilean Ministry<\/p>\n\n<p>Almost 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>Another 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Throughout 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>Jesus 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>For 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>\n<p>Jesus 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>\n<p>A 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Another 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>\n<p>John 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>\n<p>Matthew’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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>At 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>\n<p>Jesus 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>\n<p>This 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>\n<p>After 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>\n<p>After 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>\n<p>Luke 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OntheWaytoJerusalem\">On the Way to Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>On 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\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheFinalDaysinJerusalem\">The Final Days in Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>All 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>It 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>\n<p>Nearing 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>\n<p>When 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>\n<p>John’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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBetrayalandArrest\">The Betrayal and Arrest<\/p>\n<p>There 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTrial\">The Trial<\/p>\n<p>Jesus 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>\n<p>The 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\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheCrucifixion\">The Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p>The 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBurialResurrectionandAscension\">The Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ 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>\n<p>We 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":27022,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Nathanael","title_en":"Nathanael","content_ro":"<h3>NATHANAEL<\/h3>\n<p>Jew from Cana of Galilee whom Jesus called to be a disciple (Jn 1:45-50; 21:2). Initially skeptical when Philip described Jesus as the fulfillment of the whole OT (1:45-46), Nathanael proclaimed Jesus to be the Son of God and the King of Israel (v 49) after an astonishing personal encounter.<\/p>\n<p>The fact that the only NT references to Nathanael occur in the Gospel of John has led some scholars to identify him with several personalities appearing in the synoptic Gospels. Because his call appears with those of Andrew, Peter, and Philip, some have speculated that he was one of the 12, possibly Bartholomew. Three pieces of evidence are cited in support of this position: (1) the name Bartholomew is patronymic (literally “son of Tolmai”) and would be accompanied by another name; (2) each of the Synoptic lists of the 12 apostles place Bartholomew after Philip (Mt 10:2-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16), paralleling the call of Nathanael after Philip in John’s account; and (3) Bartholomew’s name does not appear in the fourth Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>A second position identifies Nathanael as James, the son of Alphaeus. According to this view, Jesus’ comment in John 1:47 should read “Behold, Israel [not “an Israelite”] indeed, in whom is no guile!” Israel is the name God gave to Jacob, and the NT form of Jacob is James. John addressed James, the son of Alphaeus, as Nathanael in order to distinguish him from others who had become prominent in the early church.<\/p>\n<p>Two less plausible identifications equate Nathanael with either Matthew or Simon the Cananaean. The first is precariously founded on the similar etymologies of the names Matthew (“gift of Yahweh”) and Nathanael (“Yahweh has given”). The second identifies the two on the basis of the common hometown of Cana.<\/p>\n<p>In the final analysis, Nathanael was most likely a disciple who was not a member of the 12 and was known only to John. This suggestion conforms to early patristic evidence. In the fourth Gospel, Nathanael serves as a symbol for the true Jew who overcomes initial skepticism to believe in Christ. This is confirmed by three observations: (1) his initial reaction to Jesus parallels that of others who believed in the Law and the Prophets (Jn 7:15, 27, 41; 9:41); (2) Jesus’ perception of Nathanael under a fig tree (1:48) identifies the latter’s devotion to the Torah (in rabbinic literature the proper place to study the Torah is under a fig tree); and (3) Jesus identifies Nathanael with Jacob, the father of the Israelite nation. In Genesis 25–32, Jacob is certainly sly and cunning in his dealings with Esau and Laban. John 1:51 strengthens the ties between Nathanael and Jacob by presenting the imagery of angels ascending and descending, reminiscent of Jacob’s dream, and by locating the event in Galilee close to Bethel and Jabbok, the sites of Jacob’s experiences. Nathanael is thus a symbol of the pious Israelite for whom Christ came. His response typifies what the fourth Evangelist understands as the appropriate response of the true Israelite to Jesus—from initial skepticism to faith (cf. Rom 9:6).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Apostle, Apostleship.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>NATHANAEL<\/h3>\n<p>Jew from Cana of Galilee whom Jesus called to be a disciple (Jn 1:45-50; 21:2). Initially skeptical when Philip described Jesus as the fulfillment of the whole OT (1:45-46), Nathanael proclaimed Jesus to be the Son of God and the King of Israel (v 49) after an astonishing personal encounter.<\/p>\n<p>The fact that the only NT references to Nathanael occur in the Gospel of John has led some scholars to identify him with several personalities appearing in the synoptic Gospels. Because his call appears with those of Andrew, Peter, and Philip, some have speculated that he was one of the 12, possibly Bartholomew. Three pieces of evidence are cited in support of this position: (1) the name Bartholomew is patronymic (literally “son of Tolmai”) and would be accompanied by another name; (2) each of the Synoptic lists of the 12 apostles place Bartholomew after Philip (Mt 10:2-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16), paralleling the call of Nathanael after Philip in John’s account; and (3) Bartholomew’s name does not appear in the fourth Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>A second position identifies Nathanael as James, the son of Alphaeus. According to this view, Jesus’ comment in John 1:47 should read “Behold, Israel [not “an Israelite”] indeed, in whom is no guile!” Israel is the name God gave to Jacob, and the NT form of Jacob is James. John addressed James, the son of Alphaeus, as Nathanael in order to distinguish him from others who had become prominent in the early church.<\/p>\n<p>Two less plausible identifications equate Nathanael with either Matthew or Simon the Cananaean. The first is precariously founded on the similar etymologies of the names Matthew (“gift of Yahweh”) and Nathanael (“Yahweh has given”). The second identifies the two on the basis of the common hometown of Cana.<\/p>\n<p>In the final analysis, Nathanael was most likely a disciple who was not a member of the 12 and was known only to John. This suggestion conforms to early patristic evidence. In the fourth Gospel, Nathanael serves as a symbol for the true Jew who overcomes initial skepticism to believe in Christ. This is confirmed by three observations: (1) his initial reaction to Jesus parallels that of others who believed in the Law and the Prophets (Jn 7:15, 27, 41; 9:41); (2) Jesus’ perception of Nathanael under a fig tree (1:48) identifies the latter’s devotion to the Torah (in rabbinic literature the proper place to study the Torah is under a fig tree); and (3) Jesus identifies Nathanael with Jacob, the father of the Israelite nation. In Genesis 25–32, Jacob is certainly sly and cunning in his dealings with Esau and Laban. John 1:51 strengthens the ties between Nathanael and Jacob by presenting the imagery of angels ascending and descending, reminiscent of Jacob’s dream, and by locating the event in Galilee close to Bethel and Jabbok, the sites of Jacob’s experiences. Nathanael is thus a symbol of the pious Israelite for whom Christ came. His response typifies what the fourth Evangelist understands as the appropriate response of the true Israelite to Jesus—from initial skepticism to faith (cf. Rom 9:6).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Apostle, Apostleship.<\/p>","summary_ro":"NATHANAEL Jew from Cana of Galilee whom Jesus called to be a disciple (Jn 1:45-50; 21:2). Initially skeptical when Philip described Jesus as the fulfillment of the whole OT (1:45-46), Nathanael proclaimed Jesus to be the Son of God and the King of Israel (v 49) after an astonishing personal encounter. The fact that the only NT references to Nathanael occur in the Gospel of John has led some scholars to identify him with several personalities appearing in the synoptic Gospels. Because his call...","summary_en":"NATHANAEL Jew from Cana of Galilee whom Jesus called to be a disciple (Jn 1:45-50; 21:2). Initially skeptical when Philip described Jesus as the fulfillment of the whole OT (1:45-46), Nathanael proclaimed Jesus to be the Son of God and the King of Israel (v 49) after an astonishing personal encounter. The fact that the only NT references to Nathanael occur in the Gospel of John has led some scholars to identify him with several personalities appearing in the synoptic Gospels. Because his call...","source":"Articles\/N.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":30022,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Peter, the Apostle","title_en":"Peter, the Apostle","content_ro":"<h3>PETER, <span>The Apostle<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>One of the 12 disciples; rose to prominence both among the disciples during Jesus’ ministry and among the apostles afterwards.<\/p>\n<p>There are actually four forms of Peter’s name in the New Testament: the Hebrew translated into Greek, “Simeon” to “Simon,” and the Aramaic translated into Greek, “Cephas” to “Petros” (meaning “rock”). His given name was Simeon bar-Jonah (Mt 16:17; cf. Jn 1:42), “Simon the son of John,” which was common Semitic nomenclature. It is most likely that “Simon” was not merely the Greek equivalent of “Simeon” but that, having his home in bilingual Galilee, “Simon” was the alternate form he used in dealings with Gentiles. In fact, it was quite common for a cosmopolitan Jew to employ three forms of his name depending on the occasion: Aramaic, Latin, and Greek. The double name “Simon Peter” (or “Simon called Peter”) demonstrates that the second name was a later addition, similar to “Jesus, the Christ.” The number of times that the Aramaic equivalent “Cephas” is used (once in John, four times each in Galatians and 1 Corinthians), as well as its translation into the Greek (not common with proper names), indicates the importance of the secondary name. Both Aramaic and Greek forms mean “the rock,” an obvious indication of Peter’s stature in the early church (see below on Mt 16:18). It is obvious that he was called “Simon” throughout Jesus’ ministry but came to be known as “Peter” more and more in the apostolic age.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Peter’s Background<\/p>\n<p>• Peter’s Conversion and Call<\/p>\n<p>• Peter’s Place among the Twelve<\/p>\n<p>• Peter the Rock<\/p>\n<p>• Peter the Apostle<\/p>\n<p>• Peter’s Future Ministry<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetersBackground\">Peter’s Background<\/p>\n<p>Peter was raised in bilingual Galilee. John 1:44 says that the home of Andrew (his brother) and Peter was Bethsaida, the whereabouts of which is difficult to place archaeologically. The only site about which we know is east of the Jordan in the district called Gaulanitis. Yet John 12:21 places Bethsaida in Galilee; however, it is possible that John is reflecting the popular use of the term “Galilee” rather than the legally correct one. Peter and Andrew had a fishing business centered in Capernaum (Mk 1:21, 29) and perhaps were partners with James and John (Lk 5:10). It is also likely that they intermittently continued in their business while disciples, as indicated in the fishing scene in John 21:1-8.<\/p>\n<p>One difficulty with this is the series of statements saying, “We have left all and followed You” (Mt 19:27; Mk 10:28; Lk 18:28, <span>nkjv<\/span>). The majority of interpreters have given this an absolute sense of “sold” or “left” their business. However, Luke 18:28 occurs in the context of leaving their homes but obviously is not meant in an absolute sense. It seems most likely that the disciples did leave the practice of their fishing businesses to follow Christ, but kept the tools of their trade and returned to their trades when necessary.<\/p>\n<p>They certainly did not abandon their families, as evidenced by Peter, who returned to his home at the end of each tour. The New Testament tells us that Peter was married. In Mark 1:29-31 Jesus heals his mother-in-law, who perhaps was living with Peter. In fact, it is possible that his home became Jesus’ headquarters in Galilee. (Matthew 8:14 may indicate that Jesus dwelt there.) First Corinthians 9:5 says that Peter, along with the other married apostles, often took his wife with him on his missionary journeys. Later tradition speaks of his children (Clement of Alexandria’s <em>Stromateis<\/em> 2.6.52) and says that Peter was present at the martyrdom of his wife (Eusebius’s <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 3.30.2).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetersConversionandCall\">Peter’s Conversion and Call<\/p>\n<p>Peter’s brother, Andrew, was a disciple of John the Baptist, according to John 1:35-40. This follows the witness of John in 1:29-34 and is the second stage of John’s discipleship drama in chapter one—i.e., after bearing witness he now sends his own followers to Jesus. Andrew and the unnamed disciple (perhaps Philip as in Jn 1:43 or the “beloved disciple,” whom many identify with John himself) then “follow” Jesus (a term used often in John for discipleship). The next day Andrew follows the Baptist’s example and finds his brother Simon, saying, “We have found the Messiah” (Jn 1:41, <span>nkjv<\/span>). Peter’s conversion is presupposed in John 1:42, where Simon is brought to Jesus by Andrew and there given a new name.<\/p>\n<p>There are three separate episodes in the Gospels in which Simon is called, and these overlap with three episodes in which he is given the name “Cephas” (“Peter,” which means “rock”) by Jesus. John locates the event in Judea where John the Baptist was baptizing. The synoptic Gospels have two different scenes. The first call takes place at the Sea of Galilee (Mk 1:16-20; Mt 4:18-22). Jesus is walking along the shore and sees Peter and Andrew along with James and John casting their nets into the sea. At this time he calls them to become “fishers of men.” Luke then expands this into a fishing scene (Lk 5:1-11), in which the disciples have fished all night and caught nothing but at the command of Jesus lower their nets and catch an amount of fish so great that the boat starts to sink. The episode concludes exactly like the Markan abbreviated form: Jesus says that from now on they will “catch men,” and as a result they leave everything and follow him.<\/p>\n<p>The second synoptic episode involving Peter’s call (and his new name) is the official choice of the Twelve upon the mountain (Mk 3:13-19 and parallels); in the list of the names we have “Simon he surnamed Peter.” The final occurrence dealing with Peter’s new name is found in Matthew 16:17-19, in connection with Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi.<\/p>\n<p>It is somewhat difficult to harmonize these episodes properly. Were there three different episodes in which Simon was called (Jn 1:42; Mk 1:20; 3:16) and three separate incidents in which he was given the name Cephas\/Peter (Jn 1:42; Mk 3:16; Mt 16:18)? It is attractive to a broad spectrum of academia to assume that one single event, which happened at some indeterminate time toward the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, was later expanded into these diverse traditions. However, a closer examination of the Gospel data does not necessitate such a conclusion. John 1:35-42 is not an institutional scene that connotes an official call. Rather, it describes the first encounter with Jesus and realization regarding his significance. The “renaming” is in the future tense and looks to a later event. Moreover, John deliberately omits most of the crisis events in Jesus’ life (the baptism, the choice of the Twelve, the Transfiguration, the words of institution at the Last Supper, Gethsemane) and replaces them with highly theological scenes that teach the spiritual significance of the events. This is what he has done here.<\/p>\n<p>The same is true of the first synoptic call, i.e., the fishing scene. Again, there is no hint of official ordination to office here but rather a proleptic or prophetic hint of future ministry. This is especially true of the highly theological scene in Luke, which promises abundant results. Again in all three accounts the future tense is employed: “I will make you fishers of men” (Matthew and Mark), “You will catch men” (Luke, <span>nkjv<\/span>). The call in Mark 1:20 and Matthew 4:21 and their reaction (leaving all behind and following Jesus) is the opening gambit that is finalized in the actual institutional scene in Mark 3:13-19 and parallels. The wording does not indicate that these two episodes are doublets, for the actual appointment of the disciples occurs in the second passage. We must differentiate between the original call to one segment (who became the so-called “inner circle” of the Twelve) and the final choice of all the disciples.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetersPlaceamongtheTwelve\">Peter’s Place among the Twelve<\/p>\n<p>The prominence of Simon Peter in the Gospels and Acts cannot be disputed. While some have attempted to attribute this to his leadership role in the later church, there is no basis for that in the text of the NT. From the very beginning Simon attained preeminence above the others. In the lists of the Twelve just mentioned, Simon’s name always appears first, and in Matthew 10:2 it introduces his name as “the first.” Moreover, the Twelve are often designated “Peter and those with him” (Mk 1:36; Lk 9:32; 8:45, <span>nkjv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Throughout the accounts Peter acted and spoke on behalf of the other disciples. At the Transfiguration it is Peter who wanted to erect tents (Mk 9:5), and he alone had sufficient faith to attempt walking on the water (Mt 14:28-31). It is Peter who asks the Lord to explain his teaching on forgiveness (Mt 18:21) and parables (Mt 15:15; Lk 12:41) and who speaks the disciples’ minds in Matthew 19:27, “Behold, we have left everything and followed you; what’s in it for us?” (paraphrased). The collectors of the temple tax come to Peter as leader of the group (Mt 17:24). As a member of the inner circle (with James and John, possibly Andrew in Mk 13:3) he was often alone with Jesus (at the raising of Jairus’s daughter, Mk 5:37 and parallels; at the Transfiguration, Mk 9:2 and parallels; at Gethsemane, Mk 14:33 and Mt 26:37). Jesus asks Peter and John to prepare the Passover meal in Luke 22:8, and in Mark 14:37 (and Mt 26:40) he directs his rebuke to Peter as representing the others (“Could ye not watch with me one hour?”). Finally, the message of the angel at the tomb as recorded in Mark 16:7 said, “Go your way, tell his disciples and Peter.” Certainly Peter held a very special place among the Twelve.<\/p>\n<p>This was especially evident in the Caesarea Philippi episode (Mk 8:27-33 and parallels). It was Peter whose confession became the high point of the Gospel accounts, “Thou art the Christ” (Luke adds “of God”; Matthew, “the Son of the living God”). After Jesus then spoke of the suffering of the Son of Man, Peter rebuked him, and in Mark’s description Jesus then turned, gazed at all the disciples, and said to Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men” (v 33, <span>kjv<\/span>). This was obviously directed at them all through Peter.<\/p>\n<p>The portrait of Peter that comes through all four accounts pictures him as impulsive, often rash; he is the first to act and speak his mind and was typified by his enthusiasm for everything in which he had a part. At the sight of Jesus walking on the water, Peter asked that the Lord command him to do the same and then immediately leaped out of the boat and began doing just that. At the Transfiguration, while the others were awed into silence by the appearance of Moses and Elijah, Peter the man of action said, “If thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles” (Mt 17:4, <span>kjv<\/span>). Mark and Luke both add here that Peter did not know what he was saying. Peter’s unguarded and unthinking tendency to protest Jesus’ statements is seen not only at Caesarea Philippi but also at the foot-washing scene in John 13:4-11 when he said first, “You shall never ever wash my feet”; and then after Jesus’ strong retort, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me,” he reversed himself completely, stating, “Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and head” (13:8-9, <span>nkjv<\/span>). Finally, in the account of the race to the tomb (Jn 20:2-10), the beloved disciple, reaching the tomb first, paused while Peter immediately and impulsively entered it. Peter was certainly one who “rushed in where angels fear to tread.” However, this very trait aligns him with all of us and may be one of the major reasons why he becomes the representative disciple throughout the Gospels.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetertheRock\">Peter the Rock<\/p>\n<p>The key to the significance of Simon Peter is obviously the controversial addendum to the Caesarea Philippi episode, found only in Matthew 16:17-19, Jesus’ testimonial to Peter. There are several crucial aspects of this saying. The most important for this study is verse 18, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” (<span>kjv<\/span>). There have been many interpretations of this down through history: (1) It refers to Peter as the “rock” or first bishop of the church. This was the Roman Catholic interpretation from the third century on and was employed as a prooftext for apostolic succession, but it is not hinted at anywhere in the context or even in the epistles: it was not a first-century concept. (2) The majority of Protestants since the Reformation have taken this to be a reference to Peter’s statement of faith rather than to Peter himself; but this neglects the wordplay, which is even more pronounced in Aramaic, which has only one form for “Cephas” (rock). (3) An alternative has been to take “this rock” as a reference to Jesus himself, but that is fanciful and is hardly in the context. In conclusion, “this rock” is almost certainly a reference to Peter, but it must be understood in two ways. First, Peter was to become the foundation upon which Christ would build his church, a position clearly attested to in Acts. This does not mean that Peter had an authority above the other apostles. Paul’s rebuke of Peter in Galatians 2:11-14 demonstrates that he was not above them, and at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 it is James who has the position of leadership. Second, Peter is seen here not merely as an individual but as the representative of the disciples. This view is coming to increasing prominence today. It recognized the Jewish concept of “corporate identity” in which the leader was identified with the corporate body (e.g., the king or high priest representing the nation before God). This concept is also in keeping with Matthew 18:18-20, which passes on the same authority to the church as is here given to Peter. In this view Peter as the rock becomes the first of the building blocks upon which Christ, the chief cornerstone (to continue the metaphor), will build his church (see Eph 2:19-20).<\/p>\n<p>Two other aspects are worthy of note here. First, verse 18 says, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The “gates of hell” is a common Jewish euphemism for death’s inevitable and irrevocable power. Jesus is saying that Satan will not be triumphant over the church, and his sphere of operations, death, will be defeated (cf. 1 Cor 15:26, 54-55). The church would undergo persecution and martyrdom, but the church would be triumphant.<\/p>\n<p>Second, verse 19 promises, “I will give unto thee [singular] the keys of the kingdom,” another statement used of apostolic succession by the medieval church. Again, this must be understood in light of corporate identity; Peter, as the preeminent figure in the early church, here embodies the community in his leadership. The “keys of the kingdom” are in direct contrast to the “gates of hell” (cf. Rv 1:18, “the keys of hell and death” and Rv 3:7, the “key of David”), and this follows the imagery of the building seen in the rock upon which Christ will build his church. Here Peter is given the keys that will unlock the power of the kingdom in building God’s community, the church. The future tense (“will give”) undoubtedly points to the postresurrection period, when that power was unleashed and the church erected.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetertheApostle\">Peter the Apostle<\/p>\n<p>Two events led to the new Peter who fills the pages of Acts: his reinstatement described in John 21:15-17 and the resurrection appearance of the Lord, which is never described but alluded to in Luke 24:34 and 1 Corinthians 15:5. His denial was certainly proof that he was not yet able to assume his predicted position as the rock of the church. Both Luke and Paul seem to state that the risen Lord appeared to Simon Peter before the others, which would be fitting in light of his preeminence in the early church. During the Palestinian era, the fifteen-year period prior to the Gentile mission, Peter was the leading figure. The others mentioned in Acts 1–12 are all secondary to Peter, the dominant director of church policy. These include John, who is with Peter in the temple (3:1), the prison (4:13), and Samaria (8:14); Stephen, who was one of the Seven and whose revolutionary preaching led to his martyrdom (chs 6–7); Philip, another of the Seven who proclaimed the gospel in Samaria and to the Ethiopian eunuch (ch 8); Barnabas, who set an example of communal sharing (4:36-37) and was an official delegate to Antioch (11:20-30); Paul, a miraculous convert and witness (9:1-30; 11:25-30; 12:25); and James, who became the first apostolic martyr (12:2). It is Peter who proposes the choice of the 12th disciple (1:15-17), who proclaims the gospel at Pentecost (2:14-40), who utters the healing word (3:6), and who defends the gospel before the Sanhedrin (4:8-12, 19-20; 5:29-32). The episode regarding Ananias and Sapphira is particularly poignant, for here Peter functions as the avenging messenger of God; nowhere is his authority more evident. We would also note his authority in the scene at Samaria concerning the attempt of Simon the Sorcerer to buy the charismatic power (8:18-24). Again, it is Peter whose influence commands the situation. In these two incidents we certainly see the “binding and loosing” jurisdiction (cf. Mt 16:19) exhibited in Peter.<\/p>\n<p>Yet Peter and the church still came under the strictures of their Jewish heritage. The evidence points to a Jewish proselyte self-consciousness on the part of the early church. They viewed themselves as the righteous remnant, living in the age of Messianic fulfillment, but still interpreted themselves in a Jewish sense and conducted their evangelism in the proselyte form of Jewish particularism (i.e., Gentiles could only be converted through Judaism). Two events altered this. First, the Hellenistic Jewish branch of the church rebelled against the Hebrew Christians, which resulted in the appointment of the seven deacons and a change in the orthodox policy of the Palestinian church. Second, this then led to a new preaching ministry, first by Stephen, whose insights ended in his martyrdom and the dispersal of the Hellenistic branch in chapter 8; then by Philip and others, who extended the gospel even further, to the Samaritans and God-fearers. As a further result, Peter and John came to Samaria (8:14), the next significant step toward the Gentile mission. Thus ended the centrality of Jerusalem in the unfolding story.<\/p>\n<p>The two miracles of Peter, at Lydda (the paralytic) and Joppa (raising the dead woman) in Acts 9:32-42, are probably intended to parallel similar miracles of Jesus in Luke’s first work (Lk 5:18-26; 8:49-56). This is part of a major theme in Acts whereby Jesus’ life and ministry are paralleled and continued in the work of the Spirit through the church. Again Peter is seen in a representative role.<\/p>\n<p>The new relationships are extended in two further scenes. First, Peter stays with “Simon, a tanner,” in Joppa, an unclean trade; no pious Jew would knowingly have social contact with such a one. Even more important, God teaches Peter through a dream (10:10-16) that the old dichotomy between clean and unclean has been broken. This then leads Peter to the home of an uncircumcised Gentile, the most serious social taboo for the Jew, and subsequent events force Peter to admit Gentiles into the church without the necessity of Jewish proselyte requirements. The serious consequences of this are seen in the debate that ensued in Jerusalem (Acts 11:2-3) and later at the council (Acts 15:1-21). The centrality of this event is demonstrated in the extent to which Luke reproduces Peter’s speech, which seems to be a repetition of chapter 10 but is meant to highlight this crucial episode. Often forgotten in the significance of this for the early church is the fact that for Luke the Gentile mission begins with Peter, not Paul. He is the one upon whom the salvific act of God descends; and as the leader of the church, he was the first important witness to it.<\/p>\n<p>The persecution of Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:1-4) was likely due to the furor caused by this free intercourse with Gentiles; and it ended the period of Peter’s leadership in Jerusalem. The Jewish people were greatly offended by the new Christian push; and according to Luke in Acts, the idyllic period of popularity, in which the common people supported the church, effectively ceased at this time. Peter’s miraculous release and the dramatic scene at Mary’s house typified the special place of Peter, but the momentum shifts. Peter is forced to flee Jerusalem, and in the interim James arises to leadership (Acts 12:17); at the Jerusalem council it is the latter who has the chair and presents the council’s decision (Acts 15:6-29).<\/p>\n<p>The exact relationship between Peter and the other disciples, especially with the so-called pillars—James and John—and the apostle Paul, cannot be ascertained. The evidence is too vague. Many have thought that indeed there were no truly universal leaders, for the early church was too diverse. However, that is unlikely, and Luke’s portrayal in Acts parallels Paul’s statement in Galatians 2:8 that Peter was the apostle par excellence to the “circumcised” and Paul to the “Gentiles.” They were the universal leaders, while James became the local leader of the Jerusalem eldership. However, neither Peter nor Paul had dominical status similar to that of later popes (i.e., neither was the absolute spokesman of the church and above criticism). So-called emissaries from James could have such an influence on Peter that he would hypocritically change his behavior before Gentiles (Gal 2:12), and Paul could rebuke Peter publicly for doing so (Gal 2:11-14). Paul never claimed authority over the other disciples and even sought their approval and “the right hands of fellowship” for his ministry to the Gentiles (Gal 2:1-10).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetersFutureMinistry\">Peter’s Future Ministry<\/p>\n<p>We have very little hard evidence for Peter’s other movements. It seems as though Peter gradually turned from leadership to missionary work. However, this is an oversimplification. It is most likely that, following the similar pattern of Paul, he combined the two. The presence of a “Cephas party” at Corinth (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22) may indicate that Peter had spent some time there. This is made even more likely when Paul uses Peter as the main example for taking one’s wife on missionary expeditions (1 Cor 9:5). The “Cephas party” probably consisted of those who were converted under his ministry; it is probable that they were Jewish Christians and opposed the “Paul party” on Jewish-Gentile debates reflected elsewhere in 1 Corinthians.<\/p>\n<p>The First Epistle of Peter was sent to churches in northern Asia Minor—the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. The problem here is that there is no hint that Peter had been there and no personal notations in the epistle to demonstrate his acquaintance with these churches. However, it does show that he was very interested in them. In fact, some believe that the reason why Paul was not allowed into this district according to Acts 16:7-8 was that Peter was already ministering there. In short, the question of Peter’s involvement in Asia Minor must remain an open one.<\/p>\n<p>There is no final NT evidence that Peter went to Rome. First Peter 5:13 says that the epistle was sent from “Babylon,” and it is doubtful that this was the literal Babylon, because there is no tradition that Peter ever went there, and Babylon was sparsely populated back then. It is probably a cryptic symbol for Rome, the “Babylon of the West.” It is most likely that the “Babylon” of Revelation 14:8 and 16:19 is also a symbol of Rome. This would fit the strong tradition in the early church that indeed Peter did minister there.<\/p>\n<p>There are four early external witnesses concerning Peter’s death. John 21:18 mentions only the martyrdom of Peter but does not give any hint as to the place. First Clement was written at the end of the first century and reports the martyrdom of Peter and Paul among others. While 1 Clement 5:4 testifies only to the fact and not the place of Peter’s martyrdom, a study of two aspects favors Rome—the reference to a “great multitude” of martyrdoms, which best fits the Neronian persecution, and the phrase “glorious example among us,” which shows that the people of Clement’s own church (Rome) were involved. Ignatius’s letter to the Romans (4:3) also testifies generally to the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, and again the context favors Rome as the place. He says, “I did not command you as did Peter and Paul,” which shows that they had ministries in Rome. The Ascension of Isaiah 4:2-3, a Jewish Christian work of the same period, speaks of Beliar (probably Nero) who martyrs “one of the Twelve,” almost certainly Peter. Therefore the earliest evidence does not explicitly point to Rome as the place of Peter’s death, but that is the most likely hypothesis.<\/p>\n<p>Definite statements to that effect appear toward the end of the second century. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, in a letter dated c. 170 (preserved in Eusebius’s <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 2.25.8) says that Peter and Paul taught together in Italy. At the end of that century Irenaeus says (in <em>Against Heresies<\/em> 2.1-3) that Peter and Paul preached in Rome, and Tertullian in the same general period adds that Peter was martyred “like . . . the Lord” (<em>Scorpiace<\/em> 15). Clement of Alexandria and Origen both allude to Peter’s presence in Rome, and the latter adds the belief that he was “crucified head-downwards” (Eusebius’s <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 2.15.2; 3.1.2). The tradition that Peter was crucified may be supported in John 21:18: “when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall . . . carry thee wither thou wouldest not” (<span>kjv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The fact that Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (c. 55–57) does not mention Peter tells us that he could not have gone there earlier than that. If 1 Peter was written during the Neronian persecution, as those who hold to Petrine authorship believe, he must have gone there sometime in the late 50s or early 60s. Of course, the extent of his ministry in Rome also cannot be known. Some indeed have posited that he had little or no extensive stay in Rome. The facts, as they can be recovered, point to certain tentative conclusions. Peter did have some type of ministry in Rome, though the extent of it cannot be known. However, it is doubtful, in light of the early testimony to his preaching ministry there, that he was merely passing through Rome when caught in Nero’s pogrom. Therefore he most likely spent the last years of his ministry in Rome and there suffered martyrdom under Nero, perhaps by crucifixion.<\/p>\n<p>Simon Peter, along with Paul, was the leading figure in the early church. His impact has been tragically dimmed by the acrimonious debates of Roman Catholic– Protestant circles, but the biblical evidence is clear. He was the leading disciple of Jesus and indeed the “rock” who provided the foundation for the church. As the representative disciple, his enthusiasm and even his weaknesses have made him the supreme example of the developing disciple, one who, through the power of the risen Lord, rose above his faults to become a towering figure on the church scene.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PETER, <span>The Apostle<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>One of the 12 disciples; rose to prominence both among the disciples during Jesus’ ministry and among the apostles afterwards.<\/p>\n<p>There are actually four forms of Peter’s name in the New Testament: the Hebrew translated into Greek, “Simeon” to “Simon,” and the Aramaic translated into Greek, “Cephas” to “Petros” (meaning “rock”). His given name was Simeon bar-Jonah (Mt 16:17; cf. Jn 1:42), “Simon the son of John,” which was common Semitic nomenclature. It is most likely that “Simon” was not merely the Greek equivalent of “Simeon” but that, having his home in bilingual Galilee, “Simon” was the alternate form he used in dealings with Gentiles. In fact, it was quite common for a cosmopolitan Jew to employ three forms of his name depending on the occasion: Aramaic, Latin, and Greek. The double name “Simon Peter” (or “Simon called Peter”) demonstrates that the second name was a later addition, similar to “Jesus, the Christ.” The number of times that the Aramaic equivalent “Cephas” is used (once in John, four times each in Galatians and 1 Corinthians), as well as its translation into the Greek (not common with proper names), indicates the importance of the secondary name. Both Aramaic and Greek forms mean “the rock,” an obvious indication of Peter’s stature in the early church (see below on Mt 16:18). It is obvious that he was called “Simon” throughout Jesus’ ministry but came to be known as “Peter” more and more in the apostolic age.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Peter’s Background<\/p>\n<p>• Peter’s Conversion and Call<\/p>\n<p>• Peter’s Place among the Twelve<\/p>\n<p>• Peter the Rock<\/p>\n<p>• Peter the Apostle<\/p>\n<p>• Peter’s Future Ministry<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetersBackground\">Peter’s Background<\/p>\n<p>Peter was raised in bilingual Galilee. John 1:44 says that the home of Andrew (his brother) and Peter was Bethsaida, the whereabouts of which is difficult to place archaeologically. The only site about which we know is east of the Jordan in the district called Gaulanitis. Yet John 12:21 places Bethsaida in Galilee; however, it is possible that John is reflecting the popular use of the term “Galilee” rather than the legally correct one. Peter and Andrew had a fishing business centered in Capernaum (Mk 1:21, 29) and perhaps were partners with James and John (Lk 5:10). It is also likely that they intermittently continued in their business while disciples, as indicated in the fishing scene in John 21:1-8.<\/p>\n<p>One difficulty with this is the series of statements saying, “We have left all and followed You” (Mt 19:27; Mk 10:28; Lk 18:28, <span>nkjv<\/span>). The majority of interpreters have given this an absolute sense of “sold” or “left” their business. However, Luke 18:28 occurs in the context of leaving their homes but obviously is not meant in an absolute sense. It seems most likely that the disciples did leave the practice of their fishing businesses to follow Christ, but kept the tools of their trade and returned to their trades when necessary.<\/p>\n<p>They certainly did not abandon their families, as evidenced by Peter, who returned to his home at the end of each tour. The New Testament tells us that Peter was married. In Mark 1:29-31 Jesus heals his mother-in-law, who perhaps was living with Peter. In fact, it is possible that his home became Jesus’ headquarters in Galilee. (Matthew 8:14 may indicate that Jesus dwelt there.) First Corinthians 9:5 says that Peter, along with the other married apostles, often took his wife with him on his missionary journeys. Later tradition speaks of his children (Clement of Alexandria’s <em>Stromateis<\/em> 2.6.52) and says that Peter was present at the martyrdom of his wife (Eusebius’s <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 3.30.2).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetersConversionandCall\">Peter’s Conversion and Call<\/p>\n<p>Peter’s brother, Andrew, was a disciple of John the Baptist, according to John 1:35-40. This follows the witness of John in 1:29-34 and is the second stage of John’s discipleship drama in chapter one—i.e., after bearing witness he now sends his own followers to Jesus. Andrew and the unnamed disciple (perhaps Philip as in Jn 1:43 or the “beloved disciple,” whom many identify with John himself) then “follow” Jesus (a term used often in John for discipleship). The next day Andrew follows the Baptist’s example and finds his brother Simon, saying, “We have found the Messiah” (Jn 1:41, <span>nkjv<\/span>). Peter’s conversion is presupposed in John 1:42, where Simon is brought to Jesus by Andrew and there given a new name.<\/p>\n<p>There are three separate episodes in the Gospels in which Simon is called, and these overlap with three episodes in which he is given the name “Cephas” (“Peter,” which means “rock”) by Jesus. John locates the event in Judea where John the Baptist was baptizing. The synoptic Gospels have two different scenes. The first call takes place at the Sea of Galilee (Mk 1:16-20; Mt 4:18-22). Jesus is walking along the shore and sees Peter and Andrew along with James and John casting their nets into the sea. At this time he calls them to become “fishers of men.” Luke then expands this into a fishing scene (Lk 5:1-11), in which the disciples have fished all night and caught nothing but at the command of Jesus lower their nets and catch an amount of fish so great that the boat starts to sink. The episode concludes exactly like the Markan abbreviated form: Jesus says that from now on they will “catch men,” and as a result they leave everything and follow him.<\/p>\n<p>The second synoptic episode involving Peter’s call (and his new name) is the official choice of the Twelve upon the mountain (Mk 3:13-19 and parallels); in the list of the names we have “Simon he surnamed Peter.” The final occurrence dealing with Peter’s new name is found in Matthew 16:17-19, in connection with Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi.<\/p>\n<p>It is somewhat difficult to harmonize these episodes properly. Were there three different episodes in which Simon was called (Jn 1:42; Mk 1:20; 3:16) and three separate incidents in which he was given the name Cephas\/Peter (Jn 1:42; Mk 3:16; Mt 16:18)? It is attractive to a broad spectrum of academia to assume that one single event, which happened at some indeterminate time toward the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, was later expanded into these diverse traditions. However, a closer examination of the Gospel data does not necessitate such a conclusion. John 1:35-42 is not an institutional scene that connotes an official call. Rather, it describes the first encounter with Jesus and realization regarding his significance. The “renaming” is in the future tense and looks to a later event. Moreover, John deliberately omits most of the crisis events in Jesus’ life (the baptism, the choice of the Twelve, the Transfiguration, the words of institution at the Last Supper, Gethsemane) and replaces them with highly theological scenes that teach the spiritual significance of the events. This is what he has done here.<\/p>\n<p>The same is true of the first synoptic call, i.e., the fishing scene. Again, there is no hint of official ordination to office here but rather a proleptic or prophetic hint of future ministry. This is especially true of the highly theological scene in Luke, which promises abundant results. Again in all three accounts the future tense is employed: “I will make you fishers of men” (Matthew and Mark), “You will catch men” (Luke, <span>nkjv<\/span>). The call in Mark 1:20 and Matthew 4:21 and their reaction (leaving all behind and following Jesus) is the opening gambit that is finalized in the actual institutional scene in Mark 3:13-19 and parallels. The wording does not indicate that these two episodes are doublets, for the actual appointment of the disciples occurs in the second passage. We must differentiate between the original call to one segment (who became the so-called “inner circle” of the Twelve) and the final choice of all the disciples.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetersPlaceamongtheTwelve\">Peter’s Place among the Twelve<\/p>\n<p>The prominence of Simon Peter in the Gospels and Acts cannot be disputed. While some have attempted to attribute this to his leadership role in the later church, there is no basis for that in the text of the NT. From the very beginning Simon attained preeminence above the others. In the lists of the Twelve just mentioned, Simon’s name always appears first, and in Matthew 10:2 it introduces his name as “the first.” Moreover, the Twelve are often designated “Peter and those with him” (Mk 1:36; Lk 9:32; 8:45, <span>nkjv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Throughout the accounts Peter acted and spoke on behalf of the other disciples. At the Transfiguration it is Peter who wanted to erect tents (Mk 9:5), and he alone had sufficient faith to attempt walking on the water (Mt 14:28-31). It is Peter who asks the Lord to explain his teaching on forgiveness (Mt 18:21) and parables (Mt 15:15; Lk 12:41) and who speaks the disciples’ minds in Matthew 19:27, “Behold, we have left everything and followed you; what’s in it for us?” (paraphrased). The collectors of the temple tax come to Peter as leader of the group (Mt 17:24). As a member of the inner circle (with James and John, possibly Andrew in Mk 13:3) he was often alone with Jesus (at the raising of Jairus’s daughter, Mk 5:37 and parallels; at the Transfiguration, Mk 9:2 and parallels; at Gethsemane, Mk 14:33 and Mt 26:37). Jesus asks Peter and John to prepare the Passover meal in Luke 22:8, and in Mark 14:37 (and Mt 26:40) he directs his rebuke to Peter as representing the others (“Could ye not watch with me one hour?”). Finally, the message of the angel at the tomb as recorded in Mark 16:7 said, “Go your way, tell his disciples and Peter.” Certainly Peter held a very special place among the Twelve.<\/p>\n<p>This was especially evident in the Caesarea Philippi episode (Mk 8:27-33 and parallels). It was Peter whose confession became the high point of the Gospel accounts, “Thou art the Christ” (Luke adds “of God”; Matthew, “the Son of the living God”). After Jesus then spoke of the suffering of the Son of Man, Peter rebuked him, and in Mark’s description Jesus then turned, gazed at all the disciples, and said to Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men” (v 33, <span>kjv<\/span>). This was obviously directed at them all through Peter.<\/p>\n<p>The portrait of Peter that comes through all four accounts pictures him as impulsive, often rash; he is the first to act and speak his mind and was typified by his enthusiasm for everything in which he had a part. At the sight of Jesus walking on the water, Peter asked that the Lord command him to do the same and then immediately leaped out of the boat and began doing just that. At the Transfiguration, while the others were awed into silence by the appearance of Moses and Elijah, Peter the man of action said, “If thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles” (Mt 17:4, <span>kjv<\/span>). Mark and Luke both add here that Peter did not know what he was saying. Peter’s unguarded and unthinking tendency to protest Jesus’ statements is seen not only at Caesarea Philippi but also at the foot-washing scene in John 13:4-11 when he said first, “You shall never ever wash my feet”; and then after Jesus’ strong retort, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me,” he reversed himself completely, stating, “Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and head” (13:8-9, <span>nkjv<\/span>). Finally, in the account of the race to the tomb (Jn 20:2-10), the beloved disciple, reaching the tomb first, paused while Peter immediately and impulsively entered it. Peter was certainly one who “rushed in where angels fear to tread.” However, this very trait aligns him with all of us and may be one of the major reasons why he becomes the representative disciple throughout the Gospels.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetertheRock\">Peter the Rock<\/p>\n<p>The key to the significance of Simon Peter is obviously the controversial addendum to the Caesarea Philippi episode, found only in Matthew 16:17-19, Jesus’ testimonial to Peter. There are several crucial aspects of this saying. The most important for this study is verse 18, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” (<span>kjv<\/span>). There have been many interpretations of this down through history: (1) It refers to Peter as the “rock” or first bishop of the church. This was the Roman Catholic interpretation from the third century on and was employed as a prooftext for apostolic succession, but it is not hinted at anywhere in the context or even in the epistles: it was not a first-century concept. (2) The majority of Protestants since the Reformation have taken this to be a reference to Peter’s statement of faith rather than to Peter himself; but this neglects the wordplay, which is even more pronounced in Aramaic, which has only one form for “Cephas” (rock). (3) An alternative has been to take “this rock” as a reference to Jesus himself, but that is fanciful and is hardly in the context. In conclusion, “this rock” is almost certainly a reference to Peter, but it must be understood in two ways. First, Peter was to become the foundation upon which Christ would build his church, a position clearly attested to in Acts. This does not mean that Peter had an authority above the other apostles. Paul’s rebuke of Peter in Galatians 2:11-14 demonstrates that he was not above them, and at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 it is James who has the position of leadership. Second, Peter is seen here not merely as an individual but as the representative of the disciples. This view is coming to increasing prominence today. It recognized the Jewish concept of “corporate identity” in which the leader was identified with the corporate body (e.g., the king or high priest representing the nation before God). This concept is also in keeping with Matthew 18:18-20, which passes on the same authority to the church as is here given to Peter. In this view Peter as the rock becomes the first of the building blocks upon which Christ, the chief cornerstone (to continue the metaphor), will build his church (see Eph 2:19-20).<\/p>\n<p>Two other aspects are worthy of note here. First, verse 18 says, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The “gates of hell” is a common Jewish euphemism for death’s inevitable and irrevocable power. Jesus is saying that Satan will not be triumphant over the church, and his sphere of operations, death, will be defeated (cf. 1 Cor 15:26, 54-55). The church would undergo persecution and martyrdom, but the church would be triumphant.<\/p>\n<p>Second, verse 19 promises, “I will give unto thee [singular] the keys of the kingdom,” another statement used of apostolic succession by the medieval church. Again, this must be understood in light of corporate identity; Peter, as the preeminent figure in the early church, here embodies the community in his leadership. The “keys of the kingdom” are in direct contrast to the “gates of hell” (cf. Rv 1:18, “the keys of hell and death” and Rv 3:7, the “key of David”), and this follows the imagery of the building seen in the rock upon which Christ will build his church. Here Peter is given the keys that will unlock the power of the kingdom in building God’s community, the church. The future tense (“will give”) undoubtedly points to the postresurrection period, when that power was unleashed and the church erected.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetertheApostle\">Peter the Apostle<\/p>\n<p>Two events led to the new Peter who fills the pages of Acts: his reinstatement described in John 21:15-17 and the resurrection appearance of the Lord, which is never described but alluded to in Luke 24:34 and 1 Corinthians 15:5. His denial was certainly proof that he was not yet able to assume his predicted position as the rock of the church. Both Luke and Paul seem to state that the risen Lord appeared to Simon Peter before the others, which would be fitting in light of his preeminence in the early church. During the Palestinian era, the fifteen-year period prior to the Gentile mission, Peter was the leading figure. The others mentioned in Acts 1–12 are all secondary to Peter, the dominant director of church policy. These include John, who is with Peter in the temple (3:1), the prison (4:13), and Samaria (8:14); Stephen, who was one of the Seven and whose revolutionary preaching led to his martyrdom (chs 6–7); Philip, another of the Seven who proclaimed the gospel in Samaria and to the Ethiopian eunuch (ch 8); Barnabas, who set an example of communal sharing (4:36-37) and was an official delegate to Antioch (11:20-30); Paul, a miraculous convert and witness (9:1-30; 11:25-30; 12:25); and James, who became the first apostolic martyr (12:2). It is Peter who proposes the choice of the 12th disciple (1:15-17), who proclaims the gospel at Pentecost (2:14-40), who utters the healing word (3:6), and who defends the gospel before the Sanhedrin (4:8-12, 19-20; 5:29-32). The episode regarding Ananias and Sapphira is particularly poignant, for here Peter functions as the avenging messenger of God; nowhere is his authority more evident. We would also note his authority in the scene at Samaria concerning the attempt of Simon the Sorcerer to buy the charismatic power (8:18-24). Again, it is Peter whose influence commands the situation. In these two incidents we certainly see the “binding and loosing” jurisdiction (cf. Mt 16:19) exhibited in Peter.<\/p>\n<p>Yet Peter and the church still came under the strictures of their Jewish heritage. The evidence points to a Jewish proselyte self-consciousness on the part of the early church. They viewed themselves as the righteous remnant, living in the age of Messianic fulfillment, but still interpreted themselves in a Jewish sense and conducted their evangelism in the proselyte form of Jewish particularism (i.e., Gentiles could only be converted through Judaism). Two events altered this. First, the Hellenistic Jewish branch of the church rebelled against the Hebrew Christians, which resulted in the appointment of the seven deacons and a change in the orthodox policy of the Palestinian church. Second, this then led to a new preaching ministry, first by Stephen, whose insights ended in his martyrdom and the dispersal of the Hellenistic branch in chapter 8; then by Philip and others, who extended the gospel even further, to the Samaritans and God-fearers. As a further result, Peter and John came to Samaria (8:14), the next significant step toward the Gentile mission. Thus ended the centrality of Jerusalem in the unfolding story.<\/p>\n<p>The two miracles of Peter, at Lydda (the paralytic) and Joppa (raising the dead woman) in Acts 9:32-42, are probably intended to parallel similar miracles of Jesus in Luke’s first work (Lk 5:18-26; 8:49-56). This is part of a major theme in Acts whereby Jesus’ life and ministry are paralleled and continued in the work of the Spirit through the church. Again Peter is seen in a representative role.<\/p>\n<p>The new relationships are extended in two further scenes. First, Peter stays with “Simon, a tanner,” in Joppa, an unclean trade; no pious Jew would knowingly have social contact with such a one. Even more important, God teaches Peter through a dream (10:10-16) that the old dichotomy between clean and unclean has been broken. This then leads Peter to the home of an uncircumcised Gentile, the most serious social taboo for the Jew, and subsequent events force Peter to admit Gentiles into the church without the necessity of Jewish proselyte requirements. The serious consequences of this are seen in the debate that ensued in Jerusalem (Acts 11:2-3) and later at the council (Acts 15:1-21). The centrality of this event is demonstrated in the extent to which Luke reproduces Peter’s speech, which seems to be a repetition of chapter 10 but is meant to highlight this crucial episode. Often forgotten in the significance of this for the early church is the fact that for Luke the Gentile mission begins with Peter, not Paul. He is the one upon whom the salvific act of God descends; and as the leader of the church, he was the first important witness to it.<\/p>\n<p>The persecution of Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:1-4) was likely due to the furor caused by this free intercourse with Gentiles; and it ended the period of Peter’s leadership in Jerusalem. The Jewish people were greatly offended by the new Christian push; and according to Luke in Acts, the idyllic period of popularity, in which the common people supported the church, effectively ceased at this time. Peter’s miraculous release and the dramatic scene at Mary’s house typified the special place of Peter, but the momentum shifts. Peter is forced to flee Jerusalem, and in the interim James arises to leadership (Acts 12:17); at the Jerusalem council it is the latter who has the chair and presents the council’s decision (Acts 15:6-29).<\/p>\n<p>The exact relationship between Peter and the other disciples, especially with the so-called pillars—James and John—and the apostle Paul, cannot be ascertained. The evidence is too vague. Many have thought that indeed there were no truly universal leaders, for the early church was too diverse. However, that is unlikely, and Luke’s portrayal in Acts parallels Paul’s statement in Galatians 2:8 that Peter was the apostle par excellence to the “circumcised” and Paul to the “Gentiles.” They were the universal leaders, while James became the local leader of the Jerusalem eldership. However, neither Peter nor Paul had dominical status similar to that of later popes (i.e., neither was the absolute spokesman of the church and above criticism). So-called emissaries from James could have such an influence on Peter that he would hypocritically change his behavior before Gentiles (Gal 2:12), and Paul could rebuke Peter publicly for doing so (Gal 2:11-14). Paul never claimed authority over the other disciples and even sought their approval and “the right hands of fellowship” for his ministry to the Gentiles (Gal 2:1-10).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetersFutureMinistry\">Peter’s Future Ministry<\/p>\n<p>We have very little hard evidence for Peter’s other movements. It seems as though Peter gradually turned from leadership to missionary work. However, this is an oversimplification. It is most likely that, following the similar pattern of Paul, he combined the two. The presence of a “Cephas party” at Corinth (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22) may indicate that Peter had spent some time there. This is made even more likely when Paul uses Peter as the main example for taking one’s wife on missionary expeditions (1 Cor 9:5). The “Cephas party” probably consisted of those who were converted under his ministry; it is probable that they were Jewish Christians and opposed the “Paul party” on Jewish-Gentile debates reflected elsewhere in 1 Corinthians.<\/p>\n<p>The First Epistle of Peter was sent to churches in northern Asia Minor—the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. The problem here is that there is no hint that Peter had been there and no personal notations in the epistle to demonstrate his acquaintance with these churches. However, it does show that he was very interested in them. In fact, some believe that the reason why Paul was not allowed into this district according to Acts 16:7-8 was that Peter was already ministering there. In short, the question of Peter’s involvement in Asia Minor must remain an open one.<\/p>\n<p>There is no final NT evidence that Peter went to Rome. First Peter 5:13 says that the epistle was sent from “Babylon,” and it is doubtful that this was the literal Babylon, because there is no tradition that Peter ever went there, and Babylon was sparsely populated back then. It is probably a cryptic symbol for Rome, the “Babylon of the West.” It is most likely that the “Babylon” of Revelation 14:8 and 16:19 is also a symbol of Rome. This would fit the strong tradition in the early church that indeed Peter did minister there.<\/p>\n<p>There are four early external witnesses concerning Peter’s death. John 21:18 mentions only the martyrdom of Peter but does not give any hint as to the place. First Clement was written at the end of the first century and reports the martyrdom of Peter and Paul among others. While 1 Clement 5:4 testifies only to the fact and not the place of Peter’s martyrdom, a study of two aspects favors Rome—the reference to a “great multitude” of martyrdoms, which best fits the Neronian persecution, and the phrase “glorious example among us,” which shows that the people of Clement’s own church (Rome) were involved. Ignatius’s letter to the Romans (4:3) also testifies generally to the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, and again the context favors Rome as the place. He says, “I did not command you as did Peter and Paul,” which shows that they had ministries in Rome. The Ascension of Isaiah 4:2-3, a Jewish Christian work of the same period, speaks of Beliar (probably Nero) who martyrs “one of the Twelve,” almost certainly Peter. Therefore the earliest evidence does not explicitly point to Rome as the place of Peter’s death, but that is the most likely hypothesis.<\/p>\n<p>Definite statements to that effect appear toward the end of the second century. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, in a letter dated c. 170 (preserved in Eusebius’s <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 2.25.8) says that Peter and Paul taught together in Italy. At the end of that century Irenaeus says (in <em>Against Heresies<\/em> 2.1-3) that Peter and Paul preached in Rome, and Tertullian in the same general period adds that Peter was martyred “like . . . the Lord” (<em>Scorpiace<\/em> 15). Clement of Alexandria and Origen both allude to Peter’s presence in Rome, and the latter adds the belief that he was “crucified head-downwards” (Eusebius’s <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 2.15.2; 3.1.2). The tradition that Peter was crucified may be supported in John 21:18: “when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall . . . carry thee wither thou wouldest not” (<span>kjv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The fact that Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (c. 55–57) does not mention Peter tells us that he could not have gone there earlier than that. If 1 Peter was written during the Neronian persecution, as those who hold to Petrine authorship believe, he must have gone there sometime in the late 50s or early 60s. Of course, the extent of his ministry in Rome also cannot be known. Some indeed have posited that he had little or no extensive stay in Rome. The facts, as they can be recovered, point to certain tentative conclusions. Peter did have some type of ministry in Rome, though the extent of it cannot be known. However, it is doubtful, in light of the early testimony to his preaching ministry there, that he was merely passing through Rome when caught in Nero’s pogrom. Therefore he most likely spent the last years of his ministry in Rome and there suffered martyrdom under Nero, perhaps by crucifixion.<\/p>\n<p>Simon Peter, along with Paul, was the leading figure in the early church. His impact has been tragically dimmed by the acrimonious debates of Roman Catholic– Protestant circles, but the biblical evidence is clear. He was the leading disciple of Jesus and indeed the “rock” who provided the foundation for the church. As the representative disciple, his enthusiasm and even his weaknesses have made him the supreme example of the developing disciple, one who, through the power of the risen Lord, rose above his faults to become a towering figure on the church scene.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PETER, The Apostle One of the 12 disciples; rose to prominence both among the disciples during Jesus’ ministry and among the apostles afterwards. There are actually four forms of Peter’s name in the New Testament: the Hebrew translated into Greek, “Simeon” to “Simon,” and the Aramaic translated into Greek, “Cephas” to “Petros” (meaning “rock”). His given name was Simeon bar-Jonah (Mt 16:17; cf. Jn 1:42), “Simon the son of John,” which was common Semitic nomenclature. It is most likely that “S...","summary_en":"PETER, The Apostle One of the 12 disciples; rose to prominence both among the disciples during Jesus’ ministry and among the apostles afterwards. There are actually four forms of Peter’s name in the New Testament: the Hebrew translated into Greek, “Simeon” to “Simon,” and the Aramaic translated into Greek, “Cephas” to “Petros” (meaning “rock”). His given name was Simeon bar-Jonah (Mt 16:17; cf. Jn 1:42), “Simon the son of John,” which was common Semitic nomenclature. It is most likely that “S...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55193,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:16","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:16","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:16-18<\/strong> <em>Simon<\/em> and <em>Andrew<\/em> were brothers, as were <em>James and John<\/em> (1:16-20). • <em>Peter<\/em> is the Greek equivalent of the Aramaic <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">kepa’<\/span>, meaning “rock.”<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:16-18<\/strong> <em>Simon<\/em> and <em>Andrew<\/em> were brothers, as were <em>James and John<\/em> (1:16-20). • <em>Peter<\/em> is the Greek equivalent of the Aramaic <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">kepa’<\/span>, meaning “rock.”<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:16-18 Simon and Andrew were brothers, as were James and John (1:16-20). • Peter is the Greek equivalent of the Aramaic kepa’, meaning “rock.”","summary_en":"3:16-18 Simon and Andrew were brothers, as were James and John (1:16-20). • Peter is the Greek equivalent of the Aramaic kepa’, meaning “rock.”","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82819,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:16","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:16","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:16-18<\/strong> <em>Simon<\/em> and <em>Andrew<\/em> were brothers, as were <em>James and John<\/em> (1:16-20). • <em>Peter<\/em> is the Greek equivalent of the Aramaic <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">kepa’<\/span>, meaning “rock.”<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:16-18<\/strong> <em>Simon<\/em> and <em>Andrew<\/em> were brothers, as were <em>James and John<\/em> (1:16-20). • <em>Peter<\/em> is the Greek equivalent of the Aramaic <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">kepa’<\/span>, meaning “rock.”<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:16-18 Simon and Andrew were brothers, as were James and John (1:16-20). • Peter is the Greek equivalent of the Aramaic kepa’, meaning “rock.”","summary_en":"3:16-18 Simon and Andrew were brothers, as were James and John (1:16-20). • Peter is the Greek equivalent of the Aramaic kepa’, meaning “rock.”","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110445,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:16","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:16","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:16-18<\/strong> <em>Simon<\/em> and <em>Andrew<\/em> were brothers, as were <em>James and John<\/em> (1:16-20). • <em>Peter<\/em> is the Greek equivalent of the Aramaic <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">kepa’<\/span>, meaning “rock.”<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:16-18<\/strong> <em>Simon<\/em> and <em>Andrew<\/em> were brothers, as were <em>James and John<\/em> (1:16-20). • <em>Peter<\/em> is the Greek equivalent of the Aramaic <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">kepa’<\/span>, meaning “rock.”<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:16-18 Simon and Andrew were brothers, as were James and John (1:16-20). • Peter is the Greek equivalent of the Aramaic kepa’, meaning “rock.”","summary_en":"3:16-18 Simon and Andrew were brothers, as were James and John (1:16-20). • Peter is the Greek equivalent of the Aramaic kepa’, meaning “rock.”","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138071,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:16","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:16","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:16-18<\/strong> <em>Simon<\/em> and <em>Andrew<\/em> were brothers, as were <em>James and John<\/em> (1:16-20). • <em>Peter<\/em> is the Greek equivalent of the Aramaic <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">kepa’<\/span>, meaning “rock.”<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:16-18<\/strong> <em>Simon<\/em> and <em>Andrew<\/em> were brothers, as were <em>James and John<\/em> (1:16-20). • <em>Peter<\/em> is the Greek equivalent of the Aramaic <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">kepa’<\/span>, meaning “rock.”<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:16-18 Simon and Andrew were brothers, as were James and John (1:16-20). • Peter is the Greek equivalent of the Aramaic kepa’, meaning “rock.”","summary_en":"3:16-18 Simon and Andrew were brothers, as were James and John (1:16-20). • Peter is the Greek equivalent of the Aramaic kepa’, meaning “rock.”","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"17":[{"id":42353,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"James, Son of Zebedee","title_en":"James, Son of Zebedee","content_ro":"<h3>James, Son of Zebedee<\/h3>\n<p>James, son of Zebedee and brother of John, was one of the twelve apostles, and he was among the first to be killed as a follower of Jesus. His mother was possibly the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus, which would make him Jesus’ cousin (cp. Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25). His name usually occurs before that of John, which may suggest that James was the older of the two. He should not be confused with James, son of Alphaeus (see Luke 6:15) or James, brother of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>James and John were fishermen like their father (Matt 4:21; Mark 1:19); they fished with Peter and Andrew, another pair of brothers who became disciples (Luke 5:10). They were among the first that Jesus called to be his disciples, and they left everything, including their father, to follow him (Matt 4:22; Mark 1:20; Luke 5:11). Jesus called them “Sons of Thunder” (Mark 3:17), which might imply that they had vehement personalities (see Luke 9:54), though the exact connotation is unclear.<\/p>\n<p>James and his brother John were among those closest to Jesus. With Peter, they formed an inner circle of trusted disciples who accompanied Jesus on special occasions, as when he healed Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), conversed with Elijah and Moses on a mountain (Matt 17:1-3; Mark 9:2-4; Luke 9:28-30), and agonized in prayer in the garden (Matt 26:37; Mark 14:33). At one point, the two brothers provoked the indignation of the other disciples by asking for special positions of privilege in the coming Kingdom (Matt 20:20-28; Mark 10:35-45; cp. Luke 22:24-27).<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps because of James’s prominence among the disciples, Herod Agrippa had him killed soon after Jesus’ death, which pleased the Jewish leaders (Acts 12:1-3) and fulfilled Jesus’ prediction about his drinking the bitter cup that Jesus drank (Matt 20:23; Mark 10:38-39).<\/p>\n<p>James was an ordinary working person whom Jesus called to be his disciple. His willingness to leave everything he knew—work, family, and home—to follow Jesus in simple trust, and eventually to die for him, makes him a model of committed discipleship.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 4:21-22; 10:2; 17:1; 20:20-24; 26:37-46; Mark 1:19-20, 29; 3:17; 5:37; 9:2; 10:35-41; 13:3-4; 14:33-42; Luke 5:10; 6:14; 8:51; 9:28, 54-55; John 21:2; Acts 1:13; 12:2<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>James, Son of Zebedee<\/h3>\n<p>James, son of Zebedee and brother of John, was one of the twelve apostles, and he was among the first to be killed as a follower of Jesus. His mother was possibly the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus, which would make him Jesus’ cousin (cp. Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25). His name usually occurs before that of John, which may suggest that James was the older of the two. He should not be confused with James, son of Alphaeus (see Luke 6:15) or James, brother of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>James and John were fishermen like their father (Matt 4:21; Mark 1:19); they fished with Peter and Andrew, another pair of brothers who became disciples (Luke 5:10). They were among the first that Jesus called to be his disciples, and they left everything, including their father, to follow him (Matt 4:22; Mark 1:20; Luke 5:11). Jesus called them “Sons of Thunder” (Mark 3:17), which might imply that they had vehement personalities (see Luke 9:54), though the exact connotation is unclear.<\/p>\n<p>James and his brother John were among those closest to Jesus. With Peter, they formed an inner circle of trusted disciples who accompanied Jesus on special occasions, as when he healed Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), conversed with Elijah and Moses on a mountain (Matt 17:1-3; Mark 9:2-4; Luke 9:28-30), and agonized in prayer in the garden (Matt 26:37; Mark 14:33). At one point, the two brothers provoked the indignation of the other disciples by asking for special positions of privilege in the coming Kingdom (Matt 20:20-28; Mark 10:35-45; cp. Luke 22:24-27).<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps because of James’s prominence among the disciples, Herod Agrippa had him killed soon after Jesus’ death, which pleased the Jewish leaders (Acts 12:1-3) and fulfilled Jesus’ prediction about his drinking the bitter cup that Jesus drank (Matt 20:23; Mark 10:38-39).<\/p>\n<p>James was an ordinary working person whom Jesus called to be his disciple. His willingness to leave everything he knew—work, family, and home—to follow Jesus in simple trust, and eventually to die for him, makes him a model of committed discipleship.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 4:21-22; 10:2; 17:1; 20:20-24; 26:37-46; Mark 1:19-20, 29; 3:17; 5:37; 9:2; 10:35-41; 13:3-4; 14:33-42; Luke 5:10; 6:14; 8:51; 9:28, 54-55; John 21:2; Acts 1:13; 12:2<\/p>","summary_ro":"James, Son of Zebedee James, son of Zebedee and brother of John, was one of the twelve apostles, and he was among the first to be killed as a follower of Jesus. His mother was possibly the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus, which would make him Jesus’ cousin (cp. Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25). His name usually occurs before that of John, which may suggest that James was the older of the two. He should not be confused with James, son of Alphaeus (see Luke 6:15) or James, brother ...","summary_en":"James, Son of Zebedee James, son of Zebedee and brother of John, was one of the twelve apostles, and he was among the first to be killed as a follower of Jesus. His mother was possibly the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus, which would make him Jesus’ cousin (cp. Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25). His name usually occurs before that of John, which may suggest that James was the older of the two. He should not be confused with James, son of Alphaeus (see Luke 6:15) or James, brother ...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":42495,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"John, Son of Zebedee","title_en":"John, Son of Zebedee","content_ro":"<h3>John, Son of Zebedee<\/h3>\n<p>John, brother of James and son of Zebedee, was one of the twelve apostles. Early tradition identifies him as the author of the Gospel of John, the Letters of John, and the book of Revelation.<\/p>\n<p>John and his brother James were among those closest to Jesus (Mark 5:37; 9:2; 13:3; 14:33). His mother, Salome, might have been a sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus (cp. Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25). John’s name usually occurs after James’s, which suggests that John was younger. James and John were fishermen like their father (Matt 4:21; Mark 1:19). They fished with Peter and Andrew, another pair of brothers who became disciples (Luke 5:8-10). They were among the first whom Jesus called as disciples, and they left everything to follow him (Matt 4:22; Mark 1:20; Luke 5:11; cp. John 1:35-40). Jesus named them “Sons of Thunder” (Mark 3:17), which might imply that they were loud or short-tempered (see Luke 9:54). At one point, the two brothers evoked the indignation of the other disciples when they asked for special positions of privilege in the coming kingdom (Matt 20:20-28; Mark 10:35-45; cp. Luke 22:24-27).<\/p>\n<p>John is understood to be the unnamed “disciple Jesus loved” and “another disciple” mentioned in the Gospel of John (John 13:23-25; 18:15-16; 19:26-27; 20:2-10; 21:20-24). He may have been the unnamed disciple of John the Baptist, who, together with Andrew, became an early follower of Jesus (John 1:35-40).<\/p>\n<p class=\"profile-body\" ts=\"profile-body 10\">John’s name occurs three times in Acts; each time he was working with Peter (Acts 3:1-11; 4:1-23; 8:14-25). Paul referred to him as one of the “pillars” of the church in Jerusalem (Gal 2:9).<\/p>\n<p>The most widespread tradition about John’s later life is that he moved to Ephesus, where he eventually became the bishop of Asia Minor, lived to an old age, and died peacefully in the company of friends. His Gospel provides a profound portrait of Jesus, and his letters provide a moving depiction of the Christian life (1–3 John).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 4:21-22; 10:2; 17:1; 20:20-24; 26:37-46; Mark 1:19-20, 29; 3:17; 5:37; 9:2, 38; 10:35-41; 13:3-4; 14:33-42; Luke 5:10; 6:14; 8:51; 9:28, 49, 54; John 13:23-25; 18:15-16; 19:26-27; 20:2-10; 21:2, 7, 20-24; Acts 1:13; 3:1-11; 4:1-22; 5:17-42; 8:14-25; Gal 2:9<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>John, Son of Zebedee<\/h3>\n<p>John, brother of James and son of Zebedee, was one of the twelve apostles. Early tradition identifies him as the author of the Gospel of John, the Letters of John, and the book of Revelation.<\/p>\n<p>John and his brother James were among those closest to Jesus (Mark 5:37; 9:2; 13:3; 14:33). His mother, Salome, might have been a sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus (cp. Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25). John’s name usually occurs after James’s, which suggests that John was younger. James and John were fishermen like their father (Matt 4:21; Mark 1:19). They fished with Peter and Andrew, another pair of brothers who became disciples (Luke 5:8-10). They were among the first whom Jesus called as disciples, and they left everything to follow him (Matt 4:22; Mark 1:20; Luke 5:11; cp. John 1:35-40). Jesus named them “Sons of Thunder” (Mark 3:17), which might imply that they were loud or short-tempered (see Luke 9:54). At one point, the two brothers evoked the indignation of the other disciples when they asked for special positions of privilege in the coming kingdom (Matt 20:20-28; Mark 10:35-45; cp. Luke 22:24-27).<\/p>\n<p>John is understood to be the unnamed “disciple Jesus loved” and “another disciple” mentioned in the Gospel of John (John 13:23-25; 18:15-16; 19:26-27; 20:2-10; 21:20-24). He may have been the unnamed disciple of John the Baptist, who, together with Andrew, became an early follower of Jesus (John 1:35-40).<\/p>\n<p class=\"profile-body\" ts=\"profile-body 10\">John’s name occurs three times in Acts; each time he was working with Peter (Acts 3:1-11; 4:1-23; 8:14-25). Paul referred to him as one of the “pillars” of the church in Jerusalem (Gal 2:9).<\/p>\n<p>The most widespread tradition about John’s later life is that he moved to Ephesus, where he eventually became the bishop of Asia Minor, lived to an old age, and died peacefully in the company of friends. His Gospel provides a profound portrait of Jesus, and his letters provide a moving depiction of the Christian life (1–3 John).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 4:21-22; 10:2; 17:1; 20:20-24; 26:37-46; Mark 1:19-20, 29; 3:17; 5:37; 9:2, 38; 10:35-41; 13:3-4; 14:33-42; Luke 5:10; 6:14; 8:51; 9:28, 49, 54; John 13:23-25; 18:15-16; 19:26-27; 20:2-10; 21:2, 7, 20-24; Acts 1:13; 3:1-11; 4:1-22; 5:17-42; 8:14-25; Gal 2:9<\/p>","summary_ro":"John, Son of Zebedee John, brother of James and son of Zebedee, was one of the twelve apostles. Early tradition identifies him as the author of the Gospel of John, the Letters of John, and the book of Revelation. John and his brother James were among those closest to Jesus (Mark 5:37; 9:2; 13:3; 14:33). His mother, Salome, might have been a sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus (cp. Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25). John’s name usually occurs after James’s, which suggests that John was...","summary_en":"John, Son of Zebedee John, brother of James and son of Zebedee, was one of the twelve apostles. Early tradition identifies him as the author of the Gospel of John, the Letters of John, and the book of Revelation. John and his brother James were among those closest to Jesus (Mark 5:37; 9:2; 13:3; 14:33). His mother, Salome, might have been a sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus (cp. Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25). John’s name usually occurs after James’s, which suggests that John was...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":69979,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"James, Son of Zebedee","title_en":"James, Son of Zebedee","content_ro":"<h3>James, Son of Zebedee<\/h3>\n<p>James, son of Zebedee and brother of John, was one of the twelve apostles, and he was among the first to be killed as a follower of Jesus. His mother was possibly the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus, which would make him Jesus’ cousin (cp. Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25). His name usually occurs before that of John, which may suggest that James was the older of the two. He should not be confused with James, son of Alphaeus (see Luke 6:15) or James, brother of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>James and John were fishermen like their father (Matt 4:21; Mark 1:19); they fished with Peter and Andrew, another pair of brothers who became disciples (Luke 5:10). They were among the first that Jesus called to be his disciples, and they left everything, including their father, to follow him (Matt 4:22; Mark 1:20; Luke 5:11). Jesus called them “Sons of Thunder” (Mark 3:17), which might imply that they had vehement personalities (see Luke 9:54), though the exact connotation is unclear.<\/p>\n<p>James and his brother John were among those closest to Jesus. With Peter, they formed an inner circle of trusted disciples who accompanied Jesus on special occasions, as when he healed Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), conversed with Elijah and Moses on a mountain (Matt 17:1-3; Mark 9:2-4; Luke 9:28-30), and agonized in prayer in the garden (Matt 26:37; Mark 14:33). At one point, the two brothers provoked the indignation of the other disciples by asking for special positions of privilege in the coming Kingdom (Matt 20:20-28; Mark 10:35-45; cp. Luke 22:24-27).<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps because of James’s prominence among the disciples, Herod Agrippa had him killed soon after Jesus’ death, which pleased the Jewish leaders (Acts 12:1-3) and fulfilled Jesus’ prediction about his drinking the bitter cup that Jesus drank (Matt 20:23; Mark 10:38-39).<\/p>\n<p>James was an ordinary working person whom Jesus called to be his disciple. His willingness to leave everything he knew—work, family, and home—to follow Jesus in simple trust, and eventually to die for him, makes him a model of committed discipleship.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 4:21-22; 10:2; 17:1; 20:20-24; 26:37-46; Mark 1:19-20, 29; 3:17; 5:37; 9:2; 10:35-41; 13:3-4; 14:33-42; Luke 5:10; 6:14; 8:51; 9:28, 54-55; John 21:2; Acts 1:13; 12:2<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>James, Son of Zebedee<\/h3>\n<p>James, son of Zebedee and brother of John, was one of the twelve apostles, and he was among the first to be killed as a follower of Jesus. His mother was possibly the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus, which would make him Jesus’ cousin (cp. Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25). His name usually occurs before that of John, which may suggest that James was the older of the two. He should not be confused with James, son of Alphaeus (see Luke 6:15) or James, brother of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>James and John were fishermen like their father (Matt 4:21; Mark 1:19); they fished with Peter and Andrew, another pair of brothers who became disciples (Luke 5:10). They were among the first that Jesus called to be his disciples, and they left everything, including their father, to follow him (Matt 4:22; Mark 1:20; Luke 5:11). Jesus called them “Sons of Thunder” (Mark 3:17), which might imply that they had vehement personalities (see Luke 9:54), though the exact connotation is unclear.<\/p>\n<p>James and his brother John were among those closest to Jesus. With Peter, they formed an inner circle of trusted disciples who accompanied Jesus on special occasions, as when he healed Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), conversed with Elijah and Moses on a mountain (Matt 17:1-3; Mark 9:2-4; Luke 9:28-30), and agonized in prayer in the garden (Matt 26:37; Mark 14:33). At one point, the two brothers provoked the indignation of the other disciples by asking for special positions of privilege in the coming Kingdom (Matt 20:20-28; Mark 10:35-45; cp. Luke 22:24-27).<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps because of James’s prominence among the disciples, Herod Agrippa had him killed soon after Jesus’ death, which pleased the Jewish leaders (Acts 12:1-3) and fulfilled Jesus’ prediction about his drinking the bitter cup that Jesus drank (Matt 20:23; Mark 10:38-39).<\/p>\n<p>James was an ordinary working person whom Jesus called to be his disciple. His willingness to leave everything he knew—work, family, and home—to follow Jesus in simple trust, and eventually to die for him, makes him a model of committed discipleship.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 4:21-22; 10:2; 17:1; 20:20-24; 26:37-46; Mark 1:19-20, 29; 3:17; 5:37; 9:2; 10:35-41; 13:3-4; 14:33-42; Luke 5:10; 6:14; 8:51; 9:28, 54-55; John 21:2; Acts 1:13; 12:2<\/p>","summary_ro":"James, Son of Zebedee James, son of Zebedee and brother of John, was one of the twelve apostles, and he was among the first to be killed as a follower of Jesus. His mother was possibly the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus, which would make him Jesus’ cousin (cp. Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25). His name usually occurs before that of John, which may suggest that James was the older of the two. He should not be confused with James, son of Alphaeus (see Luke 6:15) or James, brother ...","summary_en":"James, Son of Zebedee James, son of Zebedee and brother of John, was one of the twelve apostles, and he was among the first to be killed as a follower of Jesus. His mother was possibly the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus, which would make him Jesus’ cousin (cp. Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25). His name usually occurs before that of John, which may suggest that James was the older of the two. He should not be confused with James, son of Alphaeus (see Luke 6:15) or James, brother ...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70121,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"John, Son of Zebedee","title_en":"John, Son of Zebedee","content_ro":"<h3>John, Son of Zebedee<\/h3>\n<p>John, brother of James and son of Zebedee, was one of the twelve apostles. Early tradition identifies him as the author of the Gospel of John, the Letters of John, and the book of Revelation.<\/p>\n<p>John and his brother James were among those closest to Jesus (Mark 5:37; 9:2; 13:3; 14:33). His mother, Salome, might have been a sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus (cp. Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25). John’s name usually occurs after James’s, which suggests that John was younger. James and John were fishermen like their father (Matt 4:21; Mark 1:19). They fished with Peter and Andrew, another pair of brothers who became disciples (Luke 5:8-10). They were among the first whom Jesus called as disciples, and they left everything to follow him (Matt 4:22; Mark 1:20; Luke 5:11; cp. John 1:35-40). Jesus named them “Sons of Thunder” (Mark 3:17), which might imply that they were loud or short-tempered (see Luke 9:54). At one point, the two brothers evoked the indignation of the other disciples when they asked for special positions of privilege in the coming kingdom (Matt 20:20-28; Mark 10:35-45; cp. Luke 22:24-27).<\/p>\n<p>John is understood to be the unnamed “disciple Jesus loved” and “another disciple” mentioned in the Gospel of John (John 13:23-25; 18:15-16; 19:26-27; 20:2-10; 21:20-24). He may have been the unnamed disciple of John the Baptist, who, together with Andrew, became an early follower of Jesus (John 1:35-40).<\/p>\n<p class=\"profile-body\" ts=\"profile-body 10\">John’s name occurs three times in Acts; each time he was working with Peter (Acts 3:1-11; 4:1-23; 8:14-25). Paul referred to him as one of the “pillars” of the church in Jerusalem (Gal 2:9).<\/p>\n<p>The most widespread tradition about John’s later life is that he moved to Ephesus, where he eventually became the bishop of Asia Minor, lived to an old age, and died peacefully in the company of friends. His Gospel provides a profound portrait of Jesus, and his letters provide a moving depiction of the Christian life (1–3 John).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 4:21-22; 10:2; 17:1; 20:20-24; 26:37-46; Mark 1:19-20, 29; 3:17; 5:37; 9:2, 38; 10:35-41; 13:3-4; 14:33-42; Luke 5:10; 6:14; 8:51; 9:28, 49, 54; John 13:23-25; 18:15-16; 19:26-27; 20:2-10; 21:2, 7, 20-24; Acts 1:13; 3:1-11; 4:1-22; 5:17-42; 8:14-25; Gal 2:9<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>John, Son of Zebedee<\/h3>\n<p>John, brother of James and son of Zebedee, was one of the twelve apostles. Early tradition identifies him as the author of the Gospel of John, the Letters of John, and the book of Revelation.<\/p>\n<p>John and his brother James were among those closest to Jesus (Mark 5:37; 9:2; 13:3; 14:33). His mother, Salome, might have been a sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus (cp. Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25). John’s name usually occurs after James’s, which suggests that John was younger. James and John were fishermen like their father (Matt 4:21; Mark 1:19). They fished with Peter and Andrew, another pair of brothers who became disciples (Luke 5:8-10). They were among the first whom Jesus called as disciples, and they left everything to follow him (Matt 4:22; Mark 1:20; Luke 5:11; cp. John 1:35-40). Jesus named them “Sons of Thunder” (Mark 3:17), which might imply that they were loud or short-tempered (see Luke 9:54). At one point, the two brothers evoked the indignation of the other disciples when they asked for special positions of privilege in the coming kingdom (Matt 20:20-28; Mark 10:35-45; cp. Luke 22:24-27).<\/p>\n<p>John is understood to be the unnamed “disciple Jesus loved” and “another disciple” mentioned in the Gospel of John (John 13:23-25; 18:15-16; 19:26-27; 20:2-10; 21:20-24). He may have been the unnamed disciple of John the Baptist, who, together with Andrew, became an early follower of Jesus (John 1:35-40).<\/p>\n<p class=\"profile-body\" ts=\"profile-body 10\">John’s name occurs three times in Acts; each time he was working with Peter (Acts 3:1-11; 4:1-23; 8:14-25). Paul referred to him as one of the “pillars” of the church in Jerusalem (Gal 2:9).<\/p>\n<p>The most widespread tradition about John’s later life is that he moved to Ephesus, where he eventually became the bishop of Asia Minor, lived to an old age, and died peacefully in the company of friends. His Gospel provides a profound portrait of Jesus, and his letters provide a moving depiction of the Christian life (1–3 John).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 4:21-22; 10:2; 17:1; 20:20-24; 26:37-46; Mark 1:19-20, 29; 3:17; 5:37; 9:2, 38; 10:35-41; 13:3-4; 14:33-42; Luke 5:10; 6:14; 8:51; 9:28, 49, 54; John 13:23-25; 18:15-16; 19:26-27; 20:2-10; 21:2, 7, 20-24; Acts 1:13; 3:1-11; 4:1-22; 5:17-42; 8:14-25; Gal 2:9<\/p>","summary_ro":"John, Son of Zebedee John, brother of James and son of Zebedee, was one of the twelve apostles. Early tradition identifies him as the author of the Gospel of John, the Letters of John, and the book of Revelation. John and his brother James were among those closest to Jesus (Mark 5:37; 9:2; 13:3; 14:33). His mother, Salome, might have been a sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus (cp. Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25). John’s name usually occurs after James’s, which suggests that John was...","summary_en":"John, Son of Zebedee John, brother of James and son of Zebedee, was one of the twelve apostles. Early tradition identifies him as the author of the Gospel of John, the Letters of John, and the book of Revelation. John and his brother James were among those closest to Jesus (Mark 5:37; 9:2; 13:3; 14:33). His mother, Salome, might have been a sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus (cp. Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25). John’s name usually occurs after James’s, which suggests that John was...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":97605,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"James, Son of Zebedee","title_en":"James, Son of Zebedee","content_ro":"<h3>James, Son of Zebedee<\/h3>\n<p>James, son of Zebedee and brother of John, was one of the twelve apostles, and he was among the first to be killed as a follower of Jesus. His mother was possibly the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus, which would make him Jesus’ cousin (cp. Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25). His name usually occurs before that of John, which may suggest that James was the older of the two. He should not be confused with James, son of Alphaeus (see Luke 6:15) or James, brother of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>James and John were fishermen like their father (Matt 4:21; Mark 1:19); they fished with Peter and Andrew, another pair of brothers who became disciples (Luke 5:10). They were among the first that Jesus called to be his disciples, and they left everything, including their father, to follow him (Matt 4:22; Mark 1:20; Luke 5:11). Jesus called them “Sons of Thunder” (Mark 3:17), which might imply that they had vehement personalities (see Luke 9:54), though the exact connotation is unclear.<\/p>\n<p>James and his brother John were among those closest to Jesus. With Peter, they formed an inner circle of trusted disciples who accompanied Jesus on special occasions, as when he healed Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), conversed with Elijah and Moses on a mountain (Matt 17:1-3; Mark 9:2-4; Luke 9:28-30), and agonized in prayer in the garden (Matt 26:37; Mark 14:33). At one point, the two brothers provoked the indignation of the other disciples by asking for special positions of privilege in the coming Kingdom (Matt 20:20-28; Mark 10:35-45; cp. Luke 22:24-27).<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps because of James’s prominence among the disciples, Herod Agrippa had him killed soon after Jesus’ death, which pleased the Jewish leaders (Acts 12:1-3) and fulfilled Jesus’ prediction about his drinking the bitter cup that Jesus drank (Matt 20:23; Mark 10:38-39).<\/p>\n<p>James was an ordinary working person whom Jesus called to be his disciple. His willingness to leave everything he knew—work, family, and home—to follow Jesus in simple trust, and eventually to die for him, makes him a model of committed discipleship.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 4:21-22; 10:2; 17:1; 20:20-24; 26:37-46; Mark 1:19-20, 29; 3:17; 5:37; 9:2; 10:35-41; 13:3-4; 14:33-42; Luke 5:10; 6:14; 8:51; 9:28, 54-55; John 21:2; Acts 1:13; 12:2<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>James, Son of Zebedee<\/h3>\n<p>James, son of Zebedee and brother of John, was one of the twelve apostles, and he was among the first to be killed as a follower of Jesus. His mother was possibly the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus, which would make him Jesus’ cousin (cp. Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25). His name usually occurs before that of John, which may suggest that James was the older of the two. He should not be confused with James, son of Alphaeus (see Luke 6:15) or James, brother of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>James and John were fishermen like their father (Matt 4:21; Mark 1:19); they fished with Peter and Andrew, another pair of brothers who became disciples (Luke 5:10). They were among the first that Jesus called to be his disciples, and they left everything, including their father, to follow him (Matt 4:22; Mark 1:20; Luke 5:11). Jesus called them “Sons of Thunder” (Mark 3:17), which might imply that they had vehement personalities (see Luke 9:54), though the exact connotation is unclear.<\/p>\n<p>James and his brother John were among those closest to Jesus. With Peter, they formed an inner circle of trusted disciples who accompanied Jesus on special occasions, as when he healed Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), conversed with Elijah and Moses on a mountain (Matt 17:1-3; Mark 9:2-4; Luke 9:28-30), and agonized in prayer in the garden (Matt 26:37; Mark 14:33). At one point, the two brothers provoked the indignation of the other disciples by asking for special positions of privilege in the coming Kingdom (Matt 20:20-28; Mark 10:35-45; cp. Luke 22:24-27).<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps because of James’s prominence among the disciples, Herod Agrippa had him killed soon after Jesus’ death, which pleased the Jewish leaders (Acts 12:1-3) and fulfilled Jesus’ prediction about his drinking the bitter cup that Jesus drank (Matt 20:23; Mark 10:38-39).<\/p>\n<p>James was an ordinary working person whom Jesus called to be his disciple. His willingness to leave everything he knew—work, family, and home—to follow Jesus in simple trust, and eventually to die for him, makes him a model of committed discipleship.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 4:21-22; 10:2; 17:1; 20:20-24; 26:37-46; Mark 1:19-20, 29; 3:17; 5:37; 9:2; 10:35-41; 13:3-4; 14:33-42; Luke 5:10; 6:14; 8:51; 9:28, 54-55; John 21:2; Acts 1:13; 12:2<\/p>","summary_ro":"James, Son of Zebedee James, son of Zebedee and brother of John, was one of the twelve apostles, and he was among the first to be killed as a follower of Jesus. His mother was possibly the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus, which would make him Jesus’ cousin (cp. Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25). His name usually occurs before that of John, which may suggest that James was the older of the two. He should not be confused with James, son of Alphaeus (see Luke 6:15) or James, brother ...","summary_en":"James, Son of Zebedee James, son of Zebedee and brother of John, was one of the twelve apostles, and he was among the first to be killed as a follower of Jesus. His mother was possibly the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus, which would make him Jesus’ cousin (cp. Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25). His name usually occurs before that of John, which may suggest that James was the older of the two. He should not be confused with James, son of Alphaeus (see Luke 6:15) or James, brother ...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":97747,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"John, Son of Zebedee","title_en":"John, Son of Zebedee","content_ro":"<h3>John, Son of Zebedee<\/h3>\n<p>John, brother of James and son of Zebedee, was one of the twelve apostles. Early tradition identifies him as the author of the Gospel of John, the Letters of John, and the book of Revelation.<\/p>\n<p>John and his brother James were among those closest to Jesus (Mark 5:37; 9:2; 13:3; 14:33). His mother, Salome, might have been a sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus (cp. Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25). John’s name usually occurs after James’s, which suggests that John was younger. James and John were fishermen like their father (Matt 4:21; Mark 1:19). They fished with Peter and Andrew, another pair of brothers who became disciples (Luke 5:8-10). They were among the first whom Jesus called as disciples, and they left everything to follow him (Matt 4:22; Mark 1:20; Luke 5:11; cp. John 1:35-40). Jesus named them “Sons of Thunder” (Mark 3:17), which might imply that they were loud or short-tempered (see Luke 9:54). At one point, the two brothers evoked the indignation of the other disciples when they asked for special positions of privilege in the coming kingdom (Matt 20:20-28; Mark 10:35-45; cp. Luke 22:24-27).<\/p>\n<p>John is understood to be the unnamed “disciple Jesus loved” and “another disciple” mentioned in the Gospel of John (John 13:23-25; 18:15-16; 19:26-27; 20:2-10; 21:20-24). He may have been the unnamed disciple of John the Baptist, who, together with Andrew, became an early follower of Jesus (John 1:35-40).<\/p>\n<p class=\"profile-body\" ts=\"profile-body 10\">John’s name occurs three times in Acts; each time he was working with Peter (Acts 3:1-11; 4:1-23; 8:14-25). Paul referred to him as one of the “pillars” of the church in Jerusalem (Gal 2:9).<\/p>\n<p>The most widespread tradition about John’s later life is that he moved to Ephesus, where he eventually became the bishop of Asia Minor, lived to an old age, and died peacefully in the company of friends. His Gospel provides a profound portrait of Jesus, and his letters provide a moving depiction of the Christian life (1–3 John).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 4:21-22; 10:2; 17:1; 20:20-24; 26:37-46; Mark 1:19-20, 29; 3:17; 5:37; 9:2, 38; 10:35-41; 13:3-4; 14:33-42; Luke 5:10; 6:14; 8:51; 9:28, 49, 54; John 13:23-25; 18:15-16; 19:26-27; 20:2-10; 21:2, 7, 20-24; Acts 1:13; 3:1-11; 4:1-22; 5:17-42; 8:14-25; Gal 2:9<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>John, Son of Zebedee<\/h3>\n<p>John, brother of James and son of Zebedee, was one of the twelve apostles. Early tradition identifies him as the author of the Gospel of John, the Letters of John, and the book of Revelation.<\/p>\n<p>John and his brother James were among those closest to Jesus (Mark 5:37; 9:2; 13:3; 14:33). His mother, Salome, might have been a sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus (cp. Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25). John’s name usually occurs after James’s, which suggests that John was younger. James and John were fishermen like their father (Matt 4:21; Mark 1:19). They fished with Peter and Andrew, another pair of brothers who became disciples (Luke 5:8-10). They were among the first whom Jesus called as disciples, and they left everything to follow him (Matt 4:22; Mark 1:20; Luke 5:11; cp. John 1:35-40). Jesus named them “Sons of Thunder” (Mark 3:17), which might imply that they were loud or short-tempered (see Luke 9:54). At one point, the two brothers evoked the indignation of the other disciples when they asked for special positions of privilege in the coming kingdom (Matt 20:20-28; Mark 10:35-45; cp. Luke 22:24-27).<\/p>\n<p>John is understood to be the unnamed “disciple Jesus loved” and “another disciple” mentioned in the Gospel of John (John 13:23-25; 18:15-16; 19:26-27; 20:2-10; 21:20-24). He may have been the unnamed disciple of John the Baptist, who, together with Andrew, became an early follower of Jesus (John 1:35-40).<\/p>\n<p class=\"profile-body\" ts=\"profile-body 10\">John’s name occurs three times in Acts; each time he was working with Peter (Acts 3:1-11; 4:1-23; 8:14-25). Paul referred to him as one of the “pillars” of the church in Jerusalem (Gal 2:9).<\/p>\n<p>The most widespread tradition about John’s later life is that he moved to Ephesus, where he eventually became the bishop of Asia Minor, lived to an old age, and died peacefully in the company of friends. His Gospel provides a profound portrait of Jesus, and his letters provide a moving depiction of the Christian life (1–3 John).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 4:21-22; 10:2; 17:1; 20:20-24; 26:37-46; Mark 1:19-20, 29; 3:17; 5:37; 9:2, 38; 10:35-41; 13:3-4; 14:33-42; Luke 5:10; 6:14; 8:51; 9:28, 49, 54; John 13:23-25; 18:15-16; 19:26-27; 20:2-10; 21:2, 7, 20-24; Acts 1:13; 3:1-11; 4:1-22; 5:17-42; 8:14-25; Gal 2:9<\/p>","summary_ro":"John, Son of Zebedee John, brother of James and son of Zebedee, was one of the twelve apostles. Early tradition identifies him as the author of the Gospel of John, the Letters of John, and the book of Revelation. John and his brother James were among those closest to Jesus (Mark 5:37; 9:2; 13:3; 14:33). His mother, Salome, might have been a sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus (cp. Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25). John’s name usually occurs after James’s, which suggests that John was...","summary_en":"John, Son of Zebedee John, brother of James and son of Zebedee, was one of the twelve apostles. Early tradition identifies him as the author of the Gospel of John, the Letters of John, and the book of Revelation. John and his brother James were among those closest to Jesus (Mark 5:37; 9:2; 13:3; 14:33). His mother, Salome, might have been a sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus (cp. Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25). John’s name usually occurs after James’s, which suggests that John was...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125231,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"James, Son of Zebedee","title_en":"James, Son of Zebedee","content_ro":"<h3>James, Son of Zebedee<\/h3>\n<p>James, son of Zebedee and brother of John, was one of the twelve apostles, and he was among the first to be killed as a follower of Jesus. His mother was possibly the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus, which would make him Jesus’ cousin (cp. Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25). His name usually occurs before that of John, which may suggest that James was the older of the two. He should not be confused with James, son of Alphaeus (see Luke 6:15) or James, brother of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>James and John were fishermen like their father (Matt 4:21; Mark 1:19); they fished with Peter and Andrew, another pair of brothers who became disciples (Luke 5:10). They were among the first that Jesus called to be his disciples, and they left everything, including their father, to follow him (Matt 4:22; Mark 1:20; Luke 5:11). Jesus called them “Sons of Thunder” (Mark 3:17), which might imply that they had vehement personalities (see Luke 9:54), though the exact connotation is unclear.<\/p>\n<p>James and his brother John were among those closest to Jesus. With Peter, they formed an inner circle of trusted disciples who accompanied Jesus on special occasions, as when he healed Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), conversed with Elijah and Moses on a mountain (Matt 17:1-3; Mark 9:2-4; Luke 9:28-30), and agonized in prayer in the garden (Matt 26:37; Mark 14:33). At one point, the two brothers provoked the indignation of the other disciples by asking for special positions of privilege in the coming Kingdom (Matt 20:20-28; Mark 10:35-45; cp. Luke 22:24-27).<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps because of James’s prominence among the disciples, Herod Agrippa had him killed soon after Jesus’ death, which pleased the Jewish leaders (Acts 12:1-3) and fulfilled Jesus’ prediction about his drinking the bitter cup that Jesus drank (Matt 20:23; Mark 10:38-39).<\/p>\n<p>James was an ordinary working person whom Jesus called to be his disciple. His willingness to leave everything he knew—work, family, and home—to follow Jesus in simple trust, and eventually to die for him, makes him a model of committed discipleship.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 4:21-22; 10:2; 17:1; 20:20-24; 26:37-46; Mark 1:19-20, 29; 3:17; 5:37; 9:2; 10:35-41; 13:3-4; 14:33-42; Luke 5:10; 6:14; 8:51; 9:28, 54-55; John 21:2; Acts 1:13; 12:2<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>James, Son of Zebedee<\/h3>\n<p>James, son of Zebedee and brother of John, was one of the twelve apostles, and he was among the first to be killed as a follower of Jesus. His mother was possibly the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus, which would make him Jesus’ cousin (cp. Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25). His name usually occurs before that of John, which may suggest that James was the older of the two. He should not be confused with James, son of Alphaeus (see Luke 6:15) or James, brother of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>James and John were fishermen like their father (Matt 4:21; Mark 1:19); they fished with Peter and Andrew, another pair of brothers who became disciples (Luke 5:10). They were among the first that Jesus called to be his disciples, and they left everything, including their father, to follow him (Matt 4:22; Mark 1:20; Luke 5:11). Jesus called them “Sons of Thunder” (Mark 3:17), which might imply that they had vehement personalities (see Luke 9:54), though the exact connotation is unclear.<\/p>\n<p>James and his brother John were among those closest to Jesus. With Peter, they formed an inner circle of trusted disciples who accompanied Jesus on special occasions, as when he healed Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), conversed with Elijah and Moses on a mountain (Matt 17:1-3; Mark 9:2-4; Luke 9:28-30), and agonized in prayer in the garden (Matt 26:37; Mark 14:33). At one point, the two brothers provoked the indignation of the other disciples by asking for special positions of privilege in the coming Kingdom (Matt 20:20-28; Mark 10:35-45; cp. Luke 22:24-27).<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps because of James’s prominence among the disciples, Herod Agrippa had him killed soon after Jesus’ death, which pleased the Jewish leaders (Acts 12:1-3) and fulfilled Jesus’ prediction about his drinking the bitter cup that Jesus drank (Matt 20:23; Mark 10:38-39).<\/p>\n<p>James was an ordinary working person whom Jesus called to be his disciple. His willingness to leave everything he knew—work, family, and home—to follow Jesus in simple trust, and eventually to die for him, makes him a model of committed discipleship.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 4:21-22; 10:2; 17:1; 20:20-24; 26:37-46; Mark 1:19-20, 29; 3:17; 5:37; 9:2; 10:35-41; 13:3-4; 14:33-42; Luke 5:10; 6:14; 8:51; 9:28, 54-55; John 21:2; Acts 1:13; 12:2<\/p>","summary_ro":"James, Son of Zebedee James, son of Zebedee and brother of John, was one of the twelve apostles, and he was among the first to be killed as a follower of Jesus. His mother was possibly the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus, which would make him Jesus’ cousin (cp. Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25). His name usually occurs before that of John, which may suggest that James was the older of the two. He should not be confused with James, son of Alphaeus (see Luke 6:15) or James, brother ...","summary_en":"James, Son of Zebedee James, son of Zebedee and brother of John, was one of the twelve apostles, and he was among the first to be killed as a follower of Jesus. His mother was possibly the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus, which would make him Jesus’ cousin (cp. Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25). His name usually occurs before that of John, which may suggest that James was the older of the two. He should not be confused with James, son of Alphaeus (see Luke 6:15) or James, brother ...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125373,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"John, Son of Zebedee","title_en":"John, Son of Zebedee","content_ro":"<h3>John, Son of Zebedee<\/h3>\n<p>John, brother of James and son of Zebedee, was one of the twelve apostles. Early tradition identifies him as the author of the Gospel of John, the Letters of John, and the book of Revelation.<\/p>\n<p>John and his brother James were among those closest to Jesus (Mark 5:37; 9:2; 13:3; 14:33). His mother, Salome, might have been a sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus (cp. Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25). John’s name usually occurs after James’s, which suggests that John was younger. James and John were fishermen like their father (Matt 4:21; Mark 1:19). They fished with Peter and Andrew, another pair of brothers who became disciples (Luke 5:8-10). They were among the first whom Jesus called as disciples, and they left everything to follow him (Matt 4:22; Mark 1:20; Luke 5:11; cp. John 1:35-40). Jesus named them “Sons of Thunder” (Mark 3:17), which might imply that they were loud or short-tempered (see Luke 9:54). At one point, the two brothers evoked the indignation of the other disciples when they asked for special positions of privilege in the coming kingdom (Matt 20:20-28; Mark 10:35-45; cp. Luke 22:24-27).<\/p>\n<p>John is understood to be the unnamed “disciple Jesus loved” and “another disciple” mentioned in the Gospel of John (John 13:23-25; 18:15-16; 19:26-27; 20:2-10; 21:20-24). He may have been the unnamed disciple of John the Baptist, who, together with Andrew, became an early follower of Jesus (John 1:35-40).<\/p>\n<p class=\"profile-body\" ts=\"profile-body 10\">John’s name occurs three times in Acts; each time he was working with Peter (Acts 3:1-11; 4:1-23; 8:14-25). Paul referred to him as one of the “pillars” of the church in Jerusalem (Gal 2:9).<\/p>\n<p>The most widespread tradition about John’s later life is that he moved to Ephesus, where he eventually became the bishop of Asia Minor, lived to an old age, and died peacefully in the company of friends. His Gospel provides a profound portrait of Jesus, and his letters provide a moving depiction of the Christian life (1–3 John).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 4:21-22; 10:2; 17:1; 20:20-24; 26:37-46; Mark 1:19-20, 29; 3:17; 5:37; 9:2, 38; 10:35-41; 13:3-4; 14:33-42; Luke 5:10; 6:14; 8:51; 9:28, 49, 54; John 13:23-25; 18:15-16; 19:26-27; 20:2-10; 21:2, 7, 20-24; Acts 1:13; 3:1-11; 4:1-22; 5:17-42; 8:14-25; Gal 2:9<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>John, Son of Zebedee<\/h3>\n<p>John, brother of James and son of Zebedee, was one of the twelve apostles. Early tradition identifies him as the author of the Gospel of John, the Letters of John, and the book of Revelation.<\/p>\n<p>John and his brother James were among those closest to Jesus (Mark 5:37; 9:2; 13:3; 14:33). His mother, Salome, might have been a sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus (cp. Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25). John’s name usually occurs after James’s, which suggests that John was younger. James and John were fishermen like their father (Matt 4:21; Mark 1:19). They fished with Peter and Andrew, another pair of brothers who became disciples (Luke 5:8-10). They were among the first whom Jesus called as disciples, and they left everything to follow him (Matt 4:22; Mark 1:20; Luke 5:11; cp. John 1:35-40). Jesus named them “Sons of Thunder” (Mark 3:17), which might imply that they were loud or short-tempered (see Luke 9:54). At one point, the two brothers evoked the indignation of the other disciples when they asked for special positions of privilege in the coming kingdom (Matt 20:20-28; Mark 10:35-45; cp. Luke 22:24-27).<\/p>\n<p>John is understood to be the unnamed “disciple Jesus loved” and “another disciple” mentioned in the Gospel of John (John 13:23-25; 18:15-16; 19:26-27; 20:2-10; 21:20-24). He may have been the unnamed disciple of John the Baptist, who, together with Andrew, became an early follower of Jesus (John 1:35-40).<\/p>\n<p class=\"profile-body\" ts=\"profile-body 10\">John’s name occurs three times in Acts; each time he was working with Peter (Acts 3:1-11; 4:1-23; 8:14-25). Paul referred to him as one of the “pillars” of the church in Jerusalem (Gal 2:9).<\/p>\n<p>The most widespread tradition about John’s later life is that he moved to Ephesus, where he eventually became the bishop of Asia Minor, lived to an old age, and died peacefully in the company of friends. His Gospel provides a profound portrait of Jesus, and his letters provide a moving depiction of the Christian life (1–3 John).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 4:21-22; 10:2; 17:1; 20:20-24; 26:37-46; Mark 1:19-20, 29; 3:17; 5:37; 9:2, 38; 10:35-41; 13:3-4; 14:33-42; Luke 5:10; 6:14; 8:51; 9:28, 49, 54; John 13:23-25; 18:15-16; 19:26-27; 20:2-10; 21:2, 7, 20-24; Acts 1:13; 3:1-11; 4:1-22; 5:17-42; 8:14-25; Gal 2:9<\/p>","summary_ro":"John, Son of Zebedee John, brother of James and son of Zebedee, was one of the twelve apostles. Early tradition identifies him as the author of the Gospel of John, the Letters of John, and the book of Revelation. John and his brother James were among those closest to Jesus (Mark 5:37; 9:2; 13:3; 14:33). His mother, Salome, might have been a sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus (cp. Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25). John’s name usually occurs after James’s, which suggests that John was...","summary_en":"John, Son of Zebedee John, brother of James and son of Zebedee, was one of the twelve apostles. Early tradition identifies him as the author of the Gospel of John, the Letters of John, and the book of Revelation. John and his brother James were among those closest to Jesus (Mark 5:37; 9:2; 13:3; 14:33). His mother, Salome, might have been a sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus (cp. Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25). John’s name usually occurs after James’s, which suggests that John was...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":5315,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Boanerges*","title_en":"Boanerges*","content_ro":"<h3>BOANERGES*<\/h3>\n<p>Name meaning “sons of thunder” given by Jesus to James and John, Zebedee’s sons (Mk 3:17). Its derivation is uncertain. The name may have referred to the volatile personalities of the two brothers (Lk 9:54), to their possible revolutionary past as Zealots, or even to a “thundering” style of speech.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> James (Person); John, The Apostle.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BOANERGES*<\/h3>\n<p>Name meaning “sons of thunder” given by Jesus to James and John, Zebedee’s sons (Mk 3:17). Its derivation is uncertain. The name may have referred to the volatile personalities of the two brothers (Lk 9:54), to their possible revolutionary past as Zealots, or even to a “thundering” style of speech.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> James (Person); John, The Apostle.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BOANERGES* Name meaning “sons of thunder” given by Jesus to James and John, Zebedee’s sons (Mk 3:17). Its derivation is uncertain. The name may have referred to the volatile personalities of the two brothers (Lk 9:54), to their possible revolutionary past as Zealots, or even to a “thundering” style of speech. See also James (Person); John, The Apostle.","summary_en":"BOANERGES* Name meaning “sons of thunder” given by Jesus to James and John, Zebedee’s sons (Mk 3:17). Its derivation is uncertain. The name may have referred to the volatile personalities of the two brothers (Lk 9:54), to their possible revolutionary past as Zealots, or even to a “thundering” style of speech. See also James (Person); John, The Apostle.","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":18383,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"James (Person)","title_en":"James (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>JAMES (P<span>erson<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. James, brother of Jesus; leading elder in the church at Jerusalem; author of the epistle bearing his name.<\/li>\n<p>The only two references to James in the Gospels mention him with his brothers Joseph (Greek Joses), Simon, and Judas (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). This James may have been, after Jesus, the oldest of the brothers. The question has been raised about whether these were indeed full brothers of Jesus by Mary, for such a situation has created difficulty for those who cannot square it with their views on the perpetual virginity of Mary. But there seems to be no good reason to challenge the fact from Scripture. As with the other brothers, James apparently did not accept Jesus’ authority during his earthly life (Jn 7:5).<\/p>\n<p>There is no specific mention of James’s conversion; it may have dated from Jesus’ appearance to him and the others after Jesus’ resurrection (1 Cor 15:7). He became head of the church at Jerusalem (Acts 12:17; 21:18; Gal 2:9). Although Jesus had always taught the relative subordination of family ties (Mt 12:48-50; Mk 3:33-35; Lk 8:21), it is hard to believe that James’s authority was not somehow enhanced because of his relationship to the Master.<\/p>\n<p>James was regarded as an apostle (Gal 1:19), although he was not one of the Twelve. Some suggest he was a replacement for the martyred son of Zebedee; others infer his apostleship by widening the scope of that term to embrace both “the Twelve” and “all the apostles” (see the two separate categories cited in 1 Cor 15:5, 7).<\/p>\n<p>Tradition stated that James was appointed the first bishop of Jerusalem by the Lord himself as well as the apostles. What is certain is that he presided over the first Council of Jerusalem, called to consider the terms for admission of Gentiles into the Christian church, and he may have formulated the decree that met with the approval of all his colleagues and was sent to the churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (Acts 15:19-20). James evidently regarded his own special ministry as being to the Jews, and his was a mediating role in the controversy that arose in the young church around the place of the law for those who had become Christians, from both Gentile and Jewish origins.<\/p>\n<p>That he continued to have strong Jewish-Christian sympathies is apparent from the request made to Paul when the latter visited Jerusalem for the last time (Acts 21:18-25). This was also the last mention in Acts of James’s career. His name also occurs in the NT as the traditional author of the Epistle of James, where he describes himself as “a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Jas 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>According to Hegesippus (c. 180), James’s faithful adherence to the Jewish law and his austere lifestyle led to the designation “the Just.” It seems clear that James suffered martyrdom. Josephus places it in the year 61, when there was a Jewish uprising after the death of Festus the procurator and before his successor had been appointed.<\/p>\n<li>2. James, son of Alphaeus; one of the 12 apostles.<\/li>\n<p>James, son of Alphaeus, is always listed as one of the 12 apostles (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13), but nothing is known for certain about him. Levi (also known as Matthew) is also described as the son of Alphaeus (Mk 2:14), but it is improbable that he and James were brothers. Many scholars have identified him with the one called “James the less” or “James the smaller.” The description “the less” seems to have been given to distinguish him from the son of Zebedee, and it may signify that he was either smaller or younger than Zebedee’s son (the Greek word can cover both interpretations).<\/p>\n<li>3. James, son of Zebedee. One of the 12 apostles; the first of them to be martyred (<span>AD<\/span> 44).<\/li>\n<p>James was a Galilean fisherman whose circumstances we can suppose to have been comfortable (Mk 1:19-20) and who was called to be one of the disciples at the same time as his brother John (Mt 4:21; Mk 1:19-20). It is reasonable to assume that he was older than John, both because he is nearly always mentioned first and because John is sometimes identified as “the brother of James” (Mt 10:2; 17:1; Mk 3:17; 5:37).<\/p>\n<p>James, John, and Simon Peter, who were part of a fishing partnership that included Andrew, Simon’s brother (Lk 5:10), were a trio who attained in some sense a place of primacy among the disciples. They are found at the center of things—for example, when Jairus’s daughter was raised (Mk 5:37; Lk 8:51), at the Transfiguration (Mt 17:1; Mk 9:2; Lk 9:28), on the Mount of Olives (Mk 13:3), and in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:37; Mk 14:33). It was James and John, moreover, who had earlier accompanied Jesus to the home of Simon and Andrew (Mk 1:29).<\/p>\n<p>James and John were given by Jesus the nickname Boanerges, or “sons of thunder” (Mk 3:17), when they were rebuked by the Lord for impetuous speech and for having totally misconceived the purpose of his coming. This may have been the consequence of the suggestion made by them that they should pray for the destruction of the Samaritan village, the inhabitants of which had rejected the Lord’s messengers (Lk 9:54; cf. Mk 9:38; Lk 9:49).<\/p>\n<p>The presumptuous and ill-considered thinking of the two brothers was obvious also when, after asking with his brother for a place of honor in the kingdom, James was corecipient of the prophecy that they would drink the cup their Master was to drink (Mk 10:35-40; cf. Mt 20:20-23). The two sons of Zebedee are also assumed to have been present with the other disciples when the risen Christ appeared by the Sea of Galilee (Jn 21:1), though curiously James’s name is nowhere mentioned in the fourth Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>We know nothing about James’s career subsequently until about the year 44, when Jesus’ prophecy was fulfilled: James was killed “by the sword” by Herod Agrippa I, and thus became the first of the Twelve whose martyrdom was referred to in the NT (Acts 12:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>The wife of Zebedee was Salome (Mt 27:56; Mk 15:40), who may have been a sister of the Lord’s mother (Jn 19:25). If this were so, it would mean that James and John were first cousins of Jesus and that they may have considered themselves to have been in a privileged position.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JAMES (P<span>erson<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. James, brother of Jesus; leading elder in the church at Jerusalem; author of the epistle bearing his name.<\/li>\n<p>The only two references to James in the Gospels mention him with his brothers Joseph (Greek Joses), Simon, and Judas (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). This James may have been, after Jesus, the oldest of the brothers. The question has been raised about whether these were indeed full brothers of Jesus by Mary, for such a situation has created difficulty for those who cannot square it with their views on the perpetual virginity of Mary. But there seems to be no good reason to challenge the fact from Scripture. As with the other brothers, James apparently did not accept Jesus’ authority during his earthly life (Jn 7:5).<\/p>\n<p>There is no specific mention of James’s conversion; it may have dated from Jesus’ appearance to him and the others after Jesus’ resurrection (1 Cor 15:7). He became head of the church at Jerusalem (Acts 12:17; 21:18; Gal 2:9). Although Jesus had always taught the relative subordination of family ties (Mt 12:48-50; Mk 3:33-35; Lk 8:21), it is hard to believe that James’s authority was not somehow enhanced because of his relationship to the Master.<\/p>\n<p>James was regarded as an apostle (Gal 1:19), although he was not one of the Twelve. Some suggest he was a replacement for the martyred son of Zebedee; others infer his apostleship by widening the scope of that term to embrace both “the Twelve” and “all the apostles” (see the two separate categories cited in 1 Cor 15:5, 7).<\/p>\n<p>Tradition stated that James was appointed the first bishop of Jerusalem by the Lord himself as well as the apostles. What is certain is that he presided over the first Council of Jerusalem, called to consider the terms for admission of Gentiles into the Christian church, and he may have formulated the decree that met with the approval of all his colleagues and was sent to the churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (Acts 15:19-20). James evidently regarded his own special ministry as being to the Jews, and his was a mediating role in the controversy that arose in the young church around the place of the law for those who had become Christians, from both Gentile and Jewish origins.<\/p>\n<p>That he continued to have strong Jewish-Christian sympathies is apparent from the request made to Paul when the latter visited Jerusalem for the last time (Acts 21:18-25). This was also the last mention in Acts of James’s career. His name also occurs in the NT as the traditional author of the Epistle of James, where he describes himself as “a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Jas 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>According to Hegesippus (c. 180), James’s faithful adherence to the Jewish law and his austere lifestyle led to the designation “the Just.” It seems clear that James suffered martyrdom. Josephus places it in the year 61, when there was a Jewish uprising after the death of Festus the procurator and before his successor had been appointed.<\/p>\n<li>2. James, son of Alphaeus; one of the 12 apostles.<\/li>\n<p>James, son of Alphaeus, is always listed as one of the 12 apostles (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13), but nothing is known for certain about him. Levi (also known as Matthew) is also described as the son of Alphaeus (Mk 2:14), but it is improbable that he and James were brothers. Many scholars have identified him with the one called “James the less” or “James the smaller.” The description “the less” seems to have been given to distinguish him from the son of Zebedee, and it may signify that he was either smaller or younger than Zebedee’s son (the Greek word can cover both interpretations).<\/p>\n<li>3. James, son of Zebedee. One of the 12 apostles; the first of them to be martyred (<span>AD<\/span> 44).<\/li>\n<p>James was a Galilean fisherman whose circumstances we can suppose to have been comfortable (Mk 1:19-20) and who was called to be one of the disciples at the same time as his brother John (Mt 4:21; Mk 1:19-20). It is reasonable to assume that he was older than John, both because he is nearly always mentioned first and because John is sometimes identified as “the brother of James” (Mt 10:2; 17:1; Mk 3:17; 5:37).<\/p>\n<p>James, John, and Simon Peter, who were part of a fishing partnership that included Andrew, Simon’s brother (Lk 5:10), were a trio who attained in some sense a place of primacy among the disciples. They are found at the center of things—for example, when Jairus’s daughter was raised (Mk 5:37; Lk 8:51), at the Transfiguration (Mt 17:1; Mk 9:2; Lk 9:28), on the Mount of Olives (Mk 13:3), and in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:37; Mk 14:33). It was James and John, moreover, who had earlier accompanied Jesus to the home of Simon and Andrew (Mk 1:29).<\/p>\n<p>James and John were given by Jesus the nickname Boanerges, or “sons of thunder” (Mk 3:17), when they were rebuked by the Lord for impetuous speech and for having totally misconceived the purpose of his coming. This may have been the consequence of the suggestion made by them that they should pray for the destruction of the Samaritan village, the inhabitants of which had rejected the Lord’s messengers (Lk 9:54; cf. Mk 9:38; Lk 9:49).<\/p>\n<p>The presumptuous and ill-considered thinking of the two brothers was obvious also when, after asking with his brother for a place of honor in the kingdom, James was corecipient of the prophecy that they would drink the cup their Master was to drink (Mk 10:35-40; cf. Mt 20:20-23). The two sons of Zebedee are also assumed to have been present with the other disciples when the risen Christ appeared by the Sea of Galilee (Jn 21:1), though curiously James’s name is nowhere mentioned in the fourth Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>We know nothing about James’s career subsequently until about the year 44, when Jesus’ prophecy was fulfilled: James was killed “by the sword” by Herod Agrippa I, and thus became the first of the Twelve whose martyrdom was referred to in the NT (Acts 12:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>The wife of Zebedee was Salome (Mt 27:56; Mk 15:40), who may have been a sister of the Lord’s mother (Jn 19:25). If this were so, it would mean that James and John were first cousins of Jesus and that they may have considered themselves to have been in a privileged position.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JAMES (Person) 1. James, brother of Jesus; leading elder in the church at Jerusalem; author of the epistle bearing his name. The only two references to James in the Gospels mention him with his brothers Joseph (Greek Joses), Simon, and Judas (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). This James may have been, after Jesus, the oldest of the brothers. The question has been raised about whether these were indeed full brothers of Jesus by Mary, for such a situation has created difficulty for those who cannot square it ...","summary_en":"JAMES (Person) 1. James, brother of Jesus; leading elder in the church at Jerusalem; author of the epistle bearing his name. The only two references to James in the Gospels mention him with his brothers Joseph (Greek Joses), Simon, and Judas (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). This James may have been, after Jesus, the oldest of the brothers. The question has been raised about whether these were indeed full brothers of Jesus by Mary, for such a situation has created difficulty for those who cannot square it ...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20137,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"John, the Apostle","title_en":"John, the Apostle","content_ro":"<h3>JOHN, The Apostle<\/h3>\n<p>The apostle known as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”; author of the fourth Gospel, three epistles, and probably Revelation.<\/p>\n<p>The apostle John has a high reputation among Christian people, and his influence has been felt throughout the centuries. Despite this, he is a surprisingly shadowy figure. When he appears in the pages of the NT, it is almost always in company with Peter or James, and if there is speaking to be done, it is usually his companion Peter who does it; thus, there is not a great deal on which to base a biography.<\/p>\n<p>John’s father’s name was Zebedee, and John had a brother called James (Mt 4:21). Among the women at the cross, Matthew names Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and “the mother of Zebedee’s children” (27:56). Mark names the two Marys and adds Salome (Mk 15:40). This indicates that Salome may be the name of John’s mother. If Matthew and Mark are naming the same women as does John, then Salome was Jesus’ “mother’s sister” (Jn 19:25). This would make John a cousin of Jesus. We cannot be certain of this, for there were many women there (Mt 27:55) and there is no way of being sure that Matthew, Mark, and John all name the same three. Many accept the identification, but we can scarcely say more.<\/p>\n<p>John was among those whom Jesus called by the Sea of Galilee (Mt 4:21-22; Mk 1:19-20). This makes him one of the first disciples. It is also possible that he was the unnamed companion of Andrew when that apostle first followed Jesus (Jn 1:35-37). John was important in the little group around Jesus since he was one of three who were especially close to the Master. These disciples were selected to be with Jesus on many great occasions. John, along with his brother James and Peter, was present at the Transfiguration (Mt 17:1-2; Mk 9:2; Lk 9:28-29). Jesus also took just these three into the house of Jairus when he brought that man’s daughter back to life (Mk 5:37; Lk 8:51). Before Jesus’ arrest, it was this trio that he took to pray with him in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:37; Mk 14:33). Though the three were admonished for sleeping instead of watching in prayer, we must not overlook the fact that in that time of great difficulty, when Jesus faced the prospect of death on a cross, it was to these three that he looked for support.<\/p>\n<p>There are other occasions when John is mentioned in the Gospels. Luke tells us of John’s surprise when the miraculous catch of fish took place (Lk 5:9-10). This is especially noteworthy since John was a fisherman. Toward the close of Jesus’ ministry, we find John coming to Jesus with Peter, James, and Andrew to ask when the end would come and what would be the sign when all things come to their climax (Mk 13:3-4). And on the last evening, Jesus sent Peter and John to prepare the Passover meal (Lk 22:8).<\/p>\n<p>Passages like these show that John was highly esteemed among the apostles and that he stood especially close to Jesus. But there are indications that at first John was far from appreciating what Jesus stood for. When Mark gives his list of the Twelve, he tells us that Jesus gave to James and John the name “Boanerges,” which means “sons of thunder” (Mk 3:17). Some in the early church understood this name as a compliment, thinking it meant that James’s and John’s witness to Jesus would be as strong as thunder. But most see it as pointing to their tempestuousness of character. We see this, for example, when John encounters a man who was casting out demons in Jesus’ name. John instructs him not to, “for he isn’t one of our group” (Mk 9:38; Lk 9:49).<\/p>\n<p>Mark also tells us of an occasion when the sons of Zebedee asked Jesus for the two chief places in his kingdom, one to be on his right and the other on his left (Mk 10:35-40). Matthew adds the point that the words were spoken by the men’s mother, but he leaves us no doubt that James and John were in on it (Mt 20:20-22). Jesus proceeded to ask them whether they could drink the cup he would drink and be baptized with the baptism he would receive. (Clearly, these are metaphors for the suffering Jesus would in due course undergo.) James and John affirmed that they could, and Jesus assured them that they would indeed do this. However, he gave them no assurance about their places in the Father’s kingdom. (But it is plain that James and John would suffer for Christ.) At that time they also failed to understand the loving spirit that moved their Master and was required of them as well.<\/p>\n<p>Another incident that shows the same tempestuous spirit is one involving Samaritan villagers who refused to receive the little band as they traveled. When James and John heard of it, they asked Jesus whether he wanted them to call down fire from heaven to consume the villagers (Lk 9:54). They were clearly at variance with Jesus, and indeed he rebuked them. But we should not miss the zeal they displayed for their Lord, nor their conviction that if they did call down fire it would come. They were sure that God would not fail to answer the prayer of those who asked for vengeance on the opponents of Jesus. There is zeal here and faith, though also a spirit of lovelessness.<\/p>\n<p>The synoptic Gospels thus show us John as a zealous and loyal follower of Jesus. He is not depicted as gentle and considerate. At this time, he knew little of the love that should characterize a follower of Jesus, but he did have faith and a passionate conviction that God would prosper Jesus and those who served him.<\/p>\n<p>John is not mentioned by name in the fourth Gospel, but there are passages that speak about “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20). We are not told who this was, but the evidence seems to indicate that it was the apostle John. For example, there is an account of a fishing trip in chapter 21, with a listing of those who went fishing. It includes Peter, who must be ruled out as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” because he is often mentioned along with the beloved disciple. Thomas and Nathanael were there, but there seems to be no reason for seeing either as a likely candidate. Two unnamed men and the sons of Zebedee make up the remainder of the party. James is excluded as being the author because of his early death—around <span>AD<\/span> 44 (Acts 12:2). This leaves us with John or one of the unnamed men. John is favored by the fact that the beloved disciple is linked with Peter on a number of occasions (Jn 13:23-24; 20:2; 21:7). We know from the other Gospels that Peter and John (together with James) were especially close (see also Acts 3; 8:14; Gal 2:9). Of course, one of the unnamed disciples may have been the beloved disciple, but we have no reason to assume this. Further, such a supposition faces the problem of the omission of the name of John the apostle throughout the entire fourth Gospel. If John wrote this book, we can understand his not mentioning himself. But if it was written by someone else, why would that person omit all mention of a man as prominent in the apostolic band as the other Gospels show John to have been? In addition, if John is the author, it would explain why John the Baptist is called simply “John.”<\/p>\n<p>It is argued that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is not the kind of title a man would naturally use of himself, but it must be said also that it is not the kind of title a man would naturally use of someone else, either. And it may be that John uses it in a modest fashion—partly because he did not want to draw attention to himself by using his name, and partly because he wanted to emphasize the truth that it was the fact that Jesus loved him that made him what he was.<\/p>\n<p>If this identification may be accepted, we learn more about the apostle. We should not, of course, read the words “the disciple whom Jesus loved” as though they meant that Jesus did not love the other disciples. He loved them all. But as applied to John, they mean that he was indeed beloved, probably also that he recognized that he owed all he had and all he was to that love. That he was specially close to Jesus is indicated by the fact that he leaned on Jesus’ breast at the Last Supper (Jn 13:23). It also tells us something of his relationship to the Master that he was at the cross when Christ was crucified and that it was to him that Jesus gave the charge to look after his mother (19:26-27). One would have expected that Jesus would have selected one of his family for this responsibility. But his brothers did not believe in him, whereas both John and Mary did. This event certainly shows that a close relationship existed between Jesus and the disciple he loved.<\/p>\n<p>On the first Easter morning, John raced with Peter to the tomb when Mary Magdalene told them it was empty. He won the race but stood outside the tomb until Peter came. Peter, the leader of men, went right in, and John followed. We read that he “saw and believed” (Jn 20:8). Then in chapter 21 we read of the beloved disciple fishing with the others. Significantly, it was he who recognized that it was Jesus who stood on the shore and told them where to cast the net (21:7).<\/p>\n<p>There is not much to add to this picture when we turn to Acts. At the beginning, John’s name occurs in a list of the Twelve (Acts 1:13); and later, when we are told of James’s death, it is noted that he was John’s brother (12:2). In every other reference to John, he is in the company of Peter. These two were the instruments God used in bringing healing to a lame man (ch 3). At that time, they were going to the temple at the hour of prayer. This says something about their habits of devotion. Prayer at the ninth hour apparently refers to the Jewish service of prayer that was held at the same time as the evening offering (i.e., at about three o’clock in the afternoon). Evidently, Peter and John were continuing the devotional habits of pious Jews with an interest in the temple and all its doings. On another occasion, these two were arrested and jailed on account of their preaching about Jesus’ resurrection (4:1-3). They were brought before the council, where Peter spoke for them. The council saw that these two men were “uneducated, common men” (v 13). This means that they had never had the normal rabbinic education. By the standards of the council, they were uneducated. The council forbade them to speak about Jesus, but the apostles’ reply displays John’s typical boldness: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge; for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard” (vv 19-20, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>John was associated with Peter again when the gospel was first preached in Samaria. Philip was the evangelist to the Samaritans, but the apostles in Jerusalem decided to send Peter and John to Samaria when they heard how the people had accepted the gospel message. “As soon as they arrived, they began praying for these new Christians to receive the Holy Spirit” (Acts 8:15, <span>tlb<\/span>), a revealing illustration of apostolic priorities. In due course, they laid their hands on the new believers and they received the Holy Spirit (8:17). John is not specifically mentioned, but he no doubt was included in “the apostles” who were arrested and jailed because of the jealousy of prominent Jews (5:17-18). But that imprisonment did not last long, for an angel released them at night, so that they resumed their preaching in the early morning (v 21). John is mentioned by name in Galatians 2:9, where he is joined with Peter and James and the three are called “the pillars of the church.”<\/p>\n<p>This appears to be the extent of the NT’s record of the apostle John. Clearly he was an important figure in the little band of early Christians. On almost every occasion when he comes before us in the record, he is in the company of someone else and normally the speaking is done by his companion, not by John. But we may justly conclude that he stood very close to Jesus. Perhaps he had entered into the mind of Jesus more than any of the others. The best evidence of this is the Gospel of John. Clearly the man who wrote this had great spiritual insight. John may have been more the thinker than a man of action and leader of men.<\/p>\n<p>We have seen that there is good reason to think that the fourth Gospel was written by the apostle John. The epistles of John probably came from him also (though, as they stand, they are anonymous). All the Johannine writings probably emanated from the province of Asia. The heretics alluded to in 1 John resemble the Cerinthians (followers of the heretic Cerinthus), who were in Asia Minor at the end of the first century, and tradition connects the author of 1 John with Ephesus. It is certain that the same person wrote all three letters, and reasonably certain that this author also wrote the Gospel of John; the Gospel and the letters certainly represent the same mind at work in different situations.<\/p>\n<p>An author named John wrote the book of Revelation (Rv 1:1), though it is not clear whether this is the apostle or another John. Tradition has identified the John of Revelation (see Rv 1:1, 9; 22:8) with John the apostle, the author of the Gospel of John and the three letters of John. This view was held by Justin Martyr as early as 140. The main objection to this view is that the original Greek is unlike that of the other Johannine writings, showing scant respect for the rules of the language. Some have suggested that a different John wrote Revelation, others that John’s disciples wrote the Gospel and letters and that John himself wrote Revelation. But it is still plausible that the apostle John (or one of his close disciples) wrote the Gospel and the letters.<\/p>\n<p>Assuming John the apostle wrote Revelation, he was exiled to Patmos (Rv 1:9). But the date of this is uncertain. Some probably unreliable evidence from the late fifth century suggests that John was martyred at about the same time as his brother James (c. 44; see also Acts 12:2). Jesus’ prophecy in Mk 10:39 need not imply that both met with a simultaneous and violent end. Much stronger is the tradition reflected by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus (c. 190), that John died a natural death in Ephesus, and by Irenaeus (c. 175–195) that John lingered on in Ephesus until the time of the emperor Trajan (ruled c. 97–117).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JOHN, The Apostle<\/h3>\n<p>The apostle known as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”; author of the fourth Gospel, three epistles, and probably Revelation.<\/p>\n<p>The apostle John has a high reputation among Christian people, and his influence has been felt throughout the centuries. Despite this, he is a surprisingly shadowy figure. When he appears in the pages of the NT, it is almost always in company with Peter or James, and if there is speaking to be done, it is usually his companion Peter who does it; thus, there is not a great deal on which to base a biography.<\/p>\n<p>John’s father’s name was Zebedee, and John had a brother called James (Mt 4:21). Among the women at the cross, Matthew names Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and “the mother of Zebedee’s children” (27:56). Mark names the two Marys and adds Salome (Mk 15:40). This indicates that Salome may be the name of John’s mother. If Matthew and Mark are naming the same women as does John, then Salome was Jesus’ “mother’s sister” (Jn 19:25). This would make John a cousin of Jesus. We cannot be certain of this, for there were many women there (Mt 27:55) and there is no way of being sure that Matthew, Mark, and John all name the same three. Many accept the identification, but we can scarcely say more.<\/p>\n<p>John was among those whom Jesus called by the Sea of Galilee (Mt 4:21-22; Mk 1:19-20). This makes him one of the first disciples. It is also possible that he was the unnamed companion of Andrew when that apostle first followed Jesus (Jn 1:35-37). John was important in the little group around Jesus since he was one of three who were especially close to the Master. These disciples were selected to be with Jesus on many great occasions. John, along with his brother James and Peter, was present at the Transfiguration (Mt 17:1-2; Mk 9:2; Lk 9:28-29). Jesus also took just these three into the house of Jairus when he brought that man’s daughter back to life (Mk 5:37; Lk 8:51). Before Jesus’ arrest, it was this trio that he took to pray with him in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:37; Mk 14:33). Though the three were admonished for sleeping instead of watching in prayer, we must not overlook the fact that in that time of great difficulty, when Jesus faced the prospect of death on a cross, it was to these three that he looked for support.<\/p>\n<p>There are other occasions when John is mentioned in the Gospels. Luke tells us of John’s surprise when the miraculous catch of fish took place (Lk 5:9-10). This is especially noteworthy since John was a fisherman. Toward the close of Jesus’ ministry, we find John coming to Jesus with Peter, James, and Andrew to ask when the end would come and what would be the sign when all things come to their climax (Mk 13:3-4). And on the last evening, Jesus sent Peter and John to prepare the Passover meal (Lk 22:8).<\/p>\n<p>Passages like these show that John was highly esteemed among the apostles and that he stood especially close to Jesus. But there are indications that at first John was far from appreciating what Jesus stood for. When Mark gives his list of the Twelve, he tells us that Jesus gave to James and John the name “Boanerges,” which means “sons of thunder” (Mk 3:17). Some in the early church understood this name as a compliment, thinking it meant that James’s and John’s witness to Jesus would be as strong as thunder. But most see it as pointing to their tempestuousness of character. We see this, for example, when John encounters a man who was casting out demons in Jesus’ name. John instructs him not to, “for he isn’t one of our group” (Mk 9:38; Lk 9:49).<\/p>\n<p>Mark also tells us of an occasion when the sons of Zebedee asked Jesus for the two chief places in his kingdom, one to be on his right and the other on his left (Mk 10:35-40). Matthew adds the point that the words were spoken by the men’s mother, but he leaves us no doubt that James and John were in on it (Mt 20:20-22). Jesus proceeded to ask them whether they could drink the cup he would drink and be baptized with the baptism he would receive. (Clearly, these are metaphors for the suffering Jesus would in due course undergo.) James and John affirmed that they could, and Jesus assured them that they would indeed do this. However, he gave them no assurance about their places in the Father’s kingdom. (But it is plain that James and John would suffer for Christ.) At that time they also failed to understand the loving spirit that moved their Master and was required of them as well.<\/p>\n<p>Another incident that shows the same tempestuous spirit is one involving Samaritan villagers who refused to receive the little band as they traveled. When James and John heard of it, they asked Jesus whether he wanted them to call down fire from heaven to consume the villagers (Lk 9:54). They were clearly at variance with Jesus, and indeed he rebuked them. But we should not miss the zeal they displayed for their Lord, nor their conviction that if they did call down fire it would come. They were sure that God would not fail to answer the prayer of those who asked for vengeance on the opponents of Jesus. There is zeal here and faith, though also a spirit of lovelessness.<\/p>\n<p>The synoptic Gospels thus show us John as a zealous and loyal follower of Jesus. He is not depicted as gentle and considerate. At this time, he knew little of the love that should characterize a follower of Jesus, but he did have faith and a passionate conviction that God would prosper Jesus and those who served him.<\/p>\n<p>John is not mentioned by name in the fourth Gospel, but there are passages that speak about “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20). We are not told who this was, but the evidence seems to indicate that it was the apostle John. For example, there is an account of a fishing trip in chapter 21, with a listing of those who went fishing. It includes Peter, who must be ruled out as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” because he is often mentioned along with the beloved disciple. Thomas and Nathanael were there, but there seems to be no reason for seeing either as a likely candidate. Two unnamed men and the sons of Zebedee make up the remainder of the party. James is excluded as being the author because of his early death—around <span>AD<\/span> 44 (Acts 12:2). This leaves us with John or one of the unnamed men. John is favored by the fact that the beloved disciple is linked with Peter on a number of occasions (Jn 13:23-24; 20:2; 21:7). We know from the other Gospels that Peter and John (together with James) were especially close (see also Acts 3; 8:14; Gal 2:9). Of course, one of the unnamed disciples may have been the beloved disciple, but we have no reason to assume this. Further, such a supposition faces the problem of the omission of the name of John the apostle throughout the entire fourth Gospel. If John wrote this book, we can understand his not mentioning himself. But if it was written by someone else, why would that person omit all mention of a man as prominent in the apostolic band as the other Gospels show John to have been? In addition, if John is the author, it would explain why John the Baptist is called simply “John.”<\/p>\n<p>It is argued that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is not the kind of title a man would naturally use of himself, but it must be said also that it is not the kind of title a man would naturally use of someone else, either. And it may be that John uses it in a modest fashion—partly because he did not want to draw attention to himself by using his name, and partly because he wanted to emphasize the truth that it was the fact that Jesus loved him that made him what he was.<\/p>\n<p>If this identification may be accepted, we learn more about the apostle. We should not, of course, read the words “the disciple whom Jesus loved” as though they meant that Jesus did not love the other disciples. He loved them all. But as applied to John, they mean that he was indeed beloved, probably also that he recognized that he owed all he had and all he was to that love. That he was specially close to Jesus is indicated by the fact that he leaned on Jesus’ breast at the Last Supper (Jn 13:23). It also tells us something of his relationship to the Master that he was at the cross when Christ was crucified and that it was to him that Jesus gave the charge to look after his mother (19:26-27). One would have expected that Jesus would have selected one of his family for this responsibility. But his brothers did not believe in him, whereas both John and Mary did. This event certainly shows that a close relationship existed between Jesus and the disciple he loved.<\/p>\n<p>On the first Easter morning, John raced with Peter to the tomb when Mary Magdalene told them it was empty. He won the race but stood outside the tomb until Peter came. Peter, the leader of men, went right in, and John followed. We read that he “saw and believed” (Jn 20:8). Then in chapter 21 we read of the beloved disciple fishing with the others. Significantly, it was he who recognized that it was Jesus who stood on the shore and told them where to cast the net (21:7).<\/p>\n<p>There is not much to add to this picture when we turn to Acts. At the beginning, John’s name occurs in a list of the Twelve (Acts 1:13); and later, when we are told of James’s death, it is noted that he was John’s brother (12:2). In every other reference to John, he is in the company of Peter. These two were the instruments God used in bringing healing to a lame man (ch 3). At that time, they were going to the temple at the hour of prayer. This says something about their habits of devotion. Prayer at the ninth hour apparently refers to the Jewish service of prayer that was held at the same time as the evening offering (i.e., at about three o’clock in the afternoon). Evidently, Peter and John were continuing the devotional habits of pious Jews with an interest in the temple and all its doings. On another occasion, these two were arrested and jailed on account of their preaching about Jesus’ resurrection (4:1-3). They were brought before the council, where Peter spoke for them. The council saw that these two men were “uneducated, common men” (v 13). This means that they had never had the normal rabbinic education. By the standards of the council, they were uneducated. The council forbade them to speak about Jesus, but the apostles’ reply displays John’s typical boldness: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge; for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard” (vv 19-20, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>John was associated with Peter again when the gospel was first preached in Samaria. Philip was the evangelist to the Samaritans, but the apostles in Jerusalem decided to send Peter and John to Samaria when they heard how the people had accepted the gospel message. “As soon as they arrived, they began praying for these new Christians to receive the Holy Spirit” (Acts 8:15, <span>tlb<\/span>), a revealing illustration of apostolic priorities. In due course, they laid their hands on the new believers and they received the Holy Spirit (8:17). John is not specifically mentioned, but he no doubt was included in “the apostles” who were arrested and jailed because of the jealousy of prominent Jews (5:17-18). But that imprisonment did not last long, for an angel released them at night, so that they resumed their preaching in the early morning (v 21). John is mentioned by name in Galatians 2:9, where he is joined with Peter and James and the three are called “the pillars of the church.”<\/p>\n<p>This appears to be the extent of the NT’s record of the apostle John. Clearly he was an important figure in the little band of early Christians. On almost every occasion when he comes before us in the record, he is in the company of someone else and normally the speaking is done by his companion, not by John. But we may justly conclude that he stood very close to Jesus. Perhaps he had entered into the mind of Jesus more than any of the others. The best evidence of this is the Gospel of John. Clearly the man who wrote this had great spiritual insight. John may have been more the thinker than a man of action and leader of men.<\/p>\n<p>We have seen that there is good reason to think that the fourth Gospel was written by the apostle John. The epistles of John probably came from him also (though, as they stand, they are anonymous). All the Johannine writings probably emanated from the province of Asia. The heretics alluded to in 1 John resemble the Cerinthians (followers of the heretic Cerinthus), who were in Asia Minor at the end of the first century, and tradition connects the author of 1 John with Ephesus. It is certain that the same person wrote all three letters, and reasonably certain that this author also wrote the Gospel of John; the Gospel and the letters certainly represent the same mind at work in different situations.<\/p>\n<p>An author named John wrote the book of Revelation (Rv 1:1), though it is not clear whether this is the apostle or another John. Tradition has identified the John of Revelation (see Rv 1:1, 9; 22:8) with John the apostle, the author of the Gospel of John and the three letters of John. This view was held by Justin Martyr as early as 140. The main objection to this view is that the original Greek is unlike that of the other Johannine writings, showing scant respect for the rules of the language. Some have suggested that a different John wrote Revelation, others that John’s disciples wrote the Gospel and letters and that John himself wrote Revelation. But it is still plausible that the apostle John (or one of his close disciples) wrote the Gospel and the letters.<\/p>\n<p>Assuming John the apostle wrote Revelation, he was exiled to Patmos (Rv 1:9). But the date of this is uncertain. Some probably unreliable evidence from the late fifth century suggests that John was martyred at about the same time as his brother James (c. 44; see also Acts 12:2). Jesus’ prophecy in Mk 10:39 need not imply that both met with a simultaneous and violent end. Much stronger is the tradition reflected by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus (c. 190), that John died a natural death in Ephesus, and by Irenaeus (c. 175–195) that John lingered on in Ephesus until the time of the emperor Trajan (ruled c. 97–117).<\/p>","summary_ro":"JOHN, The Apostle The apostle known as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”; author of the fourth Gospel, three epistles, and probably Revelation. The apostle John has a high reputation among Christian people, and his influence has been felt throughout the centuries. Despite this, he is a surprisingly shadowy figure. When he appears in the pages of the NT, it is almost always in company with Peter or James, and if there is speaking to be done, it is usually his companion Peter who does it; thus, t...","summary_en":"JOHN, The Apostle The apostle known as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”; author of the fourth Gospel, three epistles, and probably Revelation. The apostle John has a high reputation among Christian people, and his influence has been felt throughout the centuries. Despite this, he is a surprisingly shadowy figure. When he appears in the pages of the NT, it is almost always in company with Peter or James, and if there is speaking to be done, it is usually his companion Peter who does it; thus, t...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":35914,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Sons of Thunder","title_en":"Sons of Thunder","content_ro":"<h3>SONS OF THUNDER<\/h3>\n<p>Translation of the word “Boanerges,” the surname given by Jesus to James and John (Mk 3:17). <em>See<\/em> Boanerges.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SONS OF THUNDER<\/h3>\n<p>Translation of the word “Boanerges,” the surname given by Jesus to James and John (Mk 3:17). <em>See<\/em> Boanerges.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SONS OF THUNDER Translation of the word “Boanerges,” the surname given by Jesus to James and John (Mk 3:17). See Boanerges.","summary_en":"SONS OF THUNDER Translation of the word “Boanerges,” the surname given by Jesus to James and John (Mk 3:17). See Boanerges.","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36713,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Cumi*, Talitha","title_en":"Cumi*, Talitha","content_ro":"<h3>TALITHA CUMI*<\/h3>\n<p>Aramaic words spoken by Jesus and retained by Mark in his Gospel (Mk 5:41). Jairus, a synagogue official in the Galilean region, called on Jesus to heal his sick daughter; however, she died before Jesus arrived. Coming to the girl, Jesus took her hand and said, <em>“Talitha cumi,”<\/em> meaning “Little girl, arise.” <em>“Talitha”<\/em> is a term of affection meaning “lamb” or “youth.” <em>“Cumi”<\/em> is a command to rise up, translated by Mark as “I say to you, arise!”<\/p>\n<p>In his Gospel, Mark includes other Aramaic phrases attributed to Jesus (Mk 3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 11:9-10; 14:36; 15:22, 34). Matthew retains only two Aramaic phrases (Mt 27:33, 46), and Luke keeps none.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TALITHA CUMI*<\/h3>\n<p>Aramaic words spoken by Jesus and retained by Mark in his Gospel (Mk 5:41). Jairus, a synagogue official in the Galilean region, called on Jesus to heal his sick daughter; however, she died before Jesus arrived. Coming to the girl, Jesus took her hand and said, <em>“Talitha cumi,”<\/em> meaning “Little girl, arise.” <em>“Talitha”<\/em> is a term of affection meaning “lamb” or “youth.” <em>“Cumi”<\/em> is a command to rise up, translated by Mark as “I say to you, arise!”<\/p>\n<p>In his Gospel, Mark includes other Aramaic phrases attributed to Jesus (Mk 3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 11:9-10; 14:36; 15:22, 34). Matthew retains only two Aramaic phrases (Mt 27:33, 46), and Luke keeps none.<\/p>","summary_ro":"TALITHA CUMI* Aramaic words spoken by Jesus and retained by Mark in his Gospel (Mk 5:41). Jairus, a synagogue official in the Galilean region, called on Jesus to heal his sick daughter; however, she died before Jesus arrived. Coming to the girl, Jesus took her hand and said, “Talitha cumi,” meaning “Little girl, arise.” “Talitha” is a term of affection meaning “lamb” or “youth.” “Cumi” is a command to rise up, translated by Mark as “I say to you, arise!” In his Gospel, Mark includes other Ara...","summary_en":"TALITHA CUMI* Aramaic words spoken by Jesus and retained by Mark in his Gospel (Mk 5:41). Jairus, a synagogue official in the Galilean region, called on Jesus to heal his sick daughter; however, she died before Jesus arrived. Coming to the girl, Jesus took her hand and said, “Talitha cumi,” meaning “Little girl, arise.” “Talitha” is a term of affection meaning “lamb” or “youth.” “Cumi” is a command to rise up, translated by Mark as “I say to you, arise!” In his Gospel, Mark includes other Ara...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":37277,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Sons of Thunder","title_en":"Sons of Thunder","content_ro":"<h3>THUNDER, Sons of<\/h3>\n<p>Translation of the word “Boanerges,” the surname given by Jesus to James and John (Mk 3:17). <em>See<\/em> Boanerges.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>THUNDER, Sons of<\/h3>\n<p>Translation of the word “Boanerges,” the surname given by Jesus to James and John (Mk 3:17). <em>See<\/em> Boanerges.<\/p>","summary_ro":"THUNDER, Sons of Translation of the word “Boanerges,” the surname given by Jesus to James and John (Mk 3:17). See Boanerges.","summary_en":"THUNDER, Sons of Translation of the word “Boanerges,” the surname given by Jesus to James and John (Mk 3:17). See Boanerges.","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38948,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Zealot","title_en":"Zealot","content_ro":"<h3>ZEALOT<\/h3>\n<p>Term used for the second Simon among the Twelve to distinguish him from Simon Peter (Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13). Matthew (Mt 10:4) and Mark (Mk 3:18) use “Cananaean”—Greek and Aramaic equivalents for “zealous defender, enthusiast, one eager to acquire, fanatic” (from root words meaning “burn with zeal, or jealousy; desire eagerly”; Ex 34:14; 2 Macc 4:2). In this general sense, Christ showed zeal for God’s house. Some were “zealots” for spiritual gifts, good works, goodness, and the law, as Paul was for the tradition of the fathers and for God (Jn 2:17; Acts 21:20; 22:3; 1 Cor 14:12; Gal 1:14; Ti 2:14). So, Simon was distinguished from Peter and the others by his religious zeal.<\/p>\n<p>By the time Luke wrote, the title “Zealot” had become attached especially to a militant, anti-Roman, revolutionary faction, equally religious and political in motivation. This party may have been founded in <span>AD<\/span> 6, following the death of Herod the Great, by Judas the Galilean and Zadduk the Pharisee. The movement was rooted in Maccabean resistance to foreign rule and infiltration (1 Macc 2:15-28). Zealot opposition to Roman rule was rooted in zeal for the Torah and for God the only King. The Zealot regarded himself as an agent of divine judgment and redemption, resolutely and fearlessly contending against idolatry, apostasy, and collaboration. The Zealots thought that the Messiah would become their leader.<\/p>\n<p>As hostility between Rome and Judea sharpened, the religious motivation was channeled by nationalist feeling into a “holy war.” Whereas the Maccabees had been forced to take arms in self-defense, the Zealots became increasingly militaristic. Josephus (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 18.1.1-6; <em>War<\/em> 4.3.9), with some prejudice, calls them brigands and robbers. Their Latin name was <em>sicarii,<\/em> assassins, but supporters would call them patriotic guerrillas. They reached preeminence in the revolt against Rome (<span>AD<\/span> 66–70). Their last refuge and stronghold, at Masada, was overcome in <span>AD<\/span> 73, when the surviving 960 committed suicide.<\/p>\n<p>Simon probably was, or had been, a member of this movement’s earlier phase, around <span>AD<\/span> 30. It is less probable that Judas Iscariot (possibly Sicarius) and the “sons of thunder” (Mk 3:17) were. Judas the Galilean (Acts 5:37-38), and even Paul (21:38), were considered Zealots.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> First Jewish Revolt; Judaism.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ZEALOT<\/h3>\n<p>Term used for the second Simon among the Twelve to distinguish him from Simon Peter (Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13). Matthew (Mt 10:4) and Mark (Mk 3:18) use “Cananaean”—Greek and Aramaic equivalents for “zealous defender, enthusiast, one eager to acquire, fanatic” (from root words meaning “burn with zeal, or jealousy; desire eagerly”; Ex 34:14; 2 Macc 4:2). In this general sense, Christ showed zeal for God’s house. Some were “zealots” for spiritual gifts, good works, goodness, and the law, as Paul was for the tradition of the fathers and for God (Jn 2:17; Acts 21:20; 22:3; 1 Cor 14:12; Gal 1:14; Ti 2:14). So, Simon was distinguished from Peter and the others by his religious zeal.<\/p>\n<p>By the time Luke wrote, the title “Zealot” had become attached especially to a militant, anti-Roman, revolutionary faction, equally religious and political in motivation. This party may have been founded in <span>AD<\/span> 6, following the death of Herod the Great, by Judas the Galilean and Zadduk the Pharisee. The movement was rooted in Maccabean resistance to foreign rule and infiltration (1 Macc 2:15-28). Zealot opposition to Roman rule was rooted in zeal for the Torah and for God the only King. The Zealot regarded himself as an agent of divine judgment and redemption, resolutely and fearlessly contending against idolatry, apostasy, and collaboration. The Zealots thought that the Messiah would become their leader.<\/p>\n<p>As hostility between Rome and Judea sharpened, the religious motivation was channeled by nationalist feeling into a “holy war.” Whereas the Maccabees had been forced to take arms in self-defense, the Zealots became increasingly militaristic. Josephus (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 18.1.1-6; <em>War<\/em> 4.3.9), with some prejudice, calls them brigands and robbers. Their Latin name was <em>sicarii,<\/em> assassins, but supporters would call them patriotic guerrillas. They reached preeminence in the revolt against Rome (<span>AD<\/span> 66–70). Their last refuge and stronghold, at Masada, was overcome in <span>AD<\/span> 73, when the surviving 960 committed suicide.<\/p>\n<p>Simon probably was, or had been, a member of this movement’s earlier phase, around <span>AD<\/span> 30. It is less probable that Judas Iscariot (possibly Sicarius) and the “sons of thunder” (Mk 3:17) were. Judas the Galilean (Acts 5:37-38), and even Paul (21:38), were considered Zealots.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> First Jewish Revolt; Judaism.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ZEALOT Term used for the second Simon among the Twelve to distinguish him from Simon Peter (Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13). Matthew (Mt 10:4) and Mark (Mk 3:18) use “Cananaean”—Greek and Aramaic equivalents for “zealous defender, enthusiast, one eager to acquire, fanatic” (from root words meaning “burn with zeal, or jealousy; desire eagerly”; Ex 34:14; 2 Macc 4:2). In this general sense, Christ showed zeal for God’s house. Some were “zealots” for spiritual gifts, good works, goodness, and the law, as Pa...","summary_en":"ZEALOT Term used for the second Simon among the Twelve to distinguish him from Simon Peter (Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13). Matthew (Mt 10:4) and Mark (Mk 3:18) use “Cananaean”—Greek and Aramaic equivalents for “zealous defender, enthusiast, one eager to acquire, fanatic” (from root words meaning “burn with zeal, or jealousy; desire eagerly”; Ex 34:14; 2 Macc 4:2). In this general sense, Christ showed zeal for God’s house. Some were “zealots” for spiritual gifts, good works, goodness, and the law, as Pa...","source":"Articles\/Z.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38971,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Zebedee","title_en":"Zebedee","content_ro":"<h3>ZEBEDEE<\/h3>\n<p>Father of the disciples James and John (Mt 26:37; Mk 3:17; 10:35). Zebedee was in the fishing business and may have been wealthy, considering that he had servants and apparent connections with the high priest (Jn 18:15). Although he personally appears only once in the narrative (Mt 4:21; Mk 1:19-20), his wife, Salome, appears frequently as one of the pious women who followed Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ZEBEDEE<\/h3>\n<p>Father of the disciples James and John (Mt 26:37; Mk 3:17; 10:35). Zebedee was in the fishing business and may have been wealthy, considering that he had servants and apparent connections with the high priest (Jn 18:15). Although he personally appears only once in the narrative (Mt 4:21; Mk 1:19-20), his wife, Salome, appears frequently as one of the pious women who followed Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ZEBEDEE Father of the disciples James and John (Mt 26:37; Mk 3:17; 10:35). Zebedee was in the fishing business and may have been wealthy, considering that he had servants and apparent connections with the high priest (Jn 18:15). Although he personally appears only once in the narrative (Mt 4:21; Mk 1:19-20), his wife, Salome, appears frequently as one of the pious women who followed Christ.","summary_en":"ZEBEDEE Father of the disciples James and John (Mt 26:37; Mk 3:17; 10:35). Zebedee was in the fishing business and may have been wealthy, considering that he had servants and apparent connections with the high priest (Jn 18:15). Although he personally appears only once in the narrative (Mt 4:21; Mk 1:19-20), his wife, Salome, appears frequently as one of the pious women who followed Christ.","source":"Articles\/Z.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55194,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:17","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:17<\/strong> <em>but Jesus nicknamed them “Sons of Thunder”:<\/em> This nickname probably speaks of their character (cp. Luke 9:53-54).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:17<\/strong> <em>but Jesus nicknamed them “Sons of Thunder”:<\/em> This nickname probably speaks of their character (cp. Luke 9:53-54).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:17 but Jesus nicknamed them “Sons of Thunder”: This nickname probably speaks of their character (cp. Luke 9:53-54).","summary_en":"3:17 but Jesus nicknamed them “Sons of Thunder”: This nickname probably speaks of their character (cp. Luke 9:53-54).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82820,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:17","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:17<\/strong> <em>but Jesus nicknamed them “Sons of Thunder”:<\/em> This nickname probably speaks of their character (cp. Luke 9:53-54).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:17<\/strong> <em>but Jesus nicknamed them “Sons of Thunder”:<\/em> This nickname probably speaks of their character (cp. Luke 9:53-54).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:17 but Jesus nicknamed them “Sons of Thunder”: This nickname probably speaks of their character (cp. Luke 9:53-54).","summary_en":"3:17 but Jesus nicknamed them “Sons of Thunder”: This nickname probably speaks of their character (cp. Luke 9:53-54).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110446,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:17","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:17<\/strong> <em>but Jesus nicknamed them “Sons of Thunder”:<\/em> This nickname probably speaks of their character (cp. Luke 9:53-54).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:17<\/strong> <em>but Jesus nicknamed them “Sons of Thunder”:<\/em> This nickname probably speaks of their character (cp. Luke 9:53-54).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:17 but Jesus nicknamed them “Sons of Thunder”: This nickname probably speaks of their character (cp. Luke 9:53-54).","summary_en":"3:17 but Jesus nicknamed them “Sons of Thunder”: This nickname probably speaks of their character (cp. Luke 9:53-54).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138072,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:17","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:17<\/strong> <em>but Jesus nicknamed them “Sons of Thunder”:<\/em> This nickname probably speaks of their character (cp. Luke 9:53-54).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:17<\/strong> <em>but Jesus nicknamed them “Sons of Thunder”:<\/em> This nickname probably speaks of their character (cp. Luke 9:53-54).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:17 but Jesus nicknamed them “Sons of Thunder”: This nickname probably speaks of their character (cp. Luke 9:53-54).","summary_en":"3:17 but Jesus nicknamed them “Sons of Thunder”: This nickname probably speaks of their character (cp. Luke 9:53-54).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"18":[{"id":42086,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Matthew (Levi)","title_en":"Matthew (Levi)","content_ro":"<h3>Matthew (Levi)<\/h3>\n<p>Matthew was a tax collector for the Romans and became one of Jesus’ twelve apostles. According to early tradition, he was the author of the Gospel of Matthew.<\/p>\n<p>Though he is called Matthew in all the lists of the apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), he is referred to as Levi—his other name—in two of the accounts of his calling (Mark 2:14-15; Luke 5:27-29; cp. Matt 9:9-10). His father was named Alphaeus (Mark 2:14), but there is no certainty that he is the brother of James the son of Alphaeus (the two are not linked in the lists of the apostles, as the other pairs of brothers are).<\/p>\n<p>Jews who collected taxes for the Romans were generally considered despicable sinners by their fellow Jews. They profited from working for the occupying forces and engaged in legalized extortion. Thus it is significant that Jesus called a tax collector to become one of his followers. When Jesus was criticized by the Pharisees for accepting Matthew’s invitation to his home for dinner, and for eating with tax collectors and other disreputable sinners, Jesus used the occasion to teach the importance of compassion. He emphasized that it was precisely for such sinners—not those who considered themselves righteous—that he had come (Matt 9:9-13; Mark 2:14-17; Luke 5:27-32). Matthew responded immediately to Jesus’ call, leaving everything behind to follow Jesus (Luke 5:28). The implication is that he never turned back to tax collecting or his former way of life.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew’s Gospel, written for his fellow Jews, gives us a Jewish perspective on the life and teachings of Jesus, and it includes topics of special interest for those from a Jewish background. His Gospel was the most popular Gospel in the early church, which is probably why it occurs first in the canonical sequence.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 9:9-10; 10:3; Mark 2:14-15; 3:18; Luke 5:27-29; 6:15; Acts 1:13<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Matthew (Levi)<\/h3>\n<p>Matthew was a tax collector for the Romans and became one of Jesus’ twelve apostles. According to early tradition, he was the author of the Gospel of Matthew.<\/p>\n<p>Though he is called Matthew in all the lists of the apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), he is referred to as Levi—his other name—in two of the accounts of his calling (Mark 2:14-15; Luke 5:27-29; cp. Matt 9:9-10). His father was named Alphaeus (Mark 2:14), but there is no certainty that he is the brother of James the son of Alphaeus (the two are not linked in the lists of the apostles, as the other pairs of brothers are).<\/p>\n<p>Jews who collected taxes for the Romans were generally considered despicable sinners by their fellow Jews. They profited from working for the occupying forces and engaged in legalized extortion. Thus it is significant that Jesus called a tax collector to become one of his followers. When Jesus was criticized by the Pharisees for accepting Matthew’s invitation to his home for dinner, and for eating with tax collectors and other disreputable sinners, Jesus used the occasion to teach the importance of compassion. He emphasized that it was precisely for such sinners—not those who considered themselves righteous—that he had come (Matt 9:9-13; Mark 2:14-17; Luke 5:27-32). Matthew responded immediately to Jesus’ call, leaving everything behind to follow Jesus (Luke 5:28). The implication is that he never turned back to tax collecting or his former way of life.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew’s Gospel, written for his fellow Jews, gives us a Jewish perspective on the life and teachings of Jesus, and it includes topics of special interest for those from a Jewish background. His Gospel was the most popular Gospel in the early church, which is probably why it occurs first in the canonical sequence.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 9:9-10; 10:3; Mark 2:14-15; 3:18; Luke 5:27-29; 6:15; Acts 1:13<\/p>","summary_ro":"Matthew (Levi) Matthew was a tax collector for the Romans and became one of Jesus’ twelve apostles. According to early tradition, he was the author of the Gospel of Matthew. Though he is called Matthew in all the lists of the apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), he is referred to as Levi—his other name—in two of the accounts of his calling (Mark 2:14-15; Luke 5:27-29; cp. Matt 9:9-10). His father was named Alphaeus (Mark 2:14), but there is no certainty that he is the brothe...","summary_en":"Matthew (Levi) Matthew was a tax collector for the Romans and became one of Jesus’ twelve apostles. According to early tradition, he was the author of the Gospel of Matthew. Though he is called Matthew in all the lists of the apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), he is referred to as Levi—his other name—in two of the accounts of his calling (Mark 2:14-15; Luke 5:27-29; cp. Matt 9:9-10). His father was named Alphaeus (Mark 2:14), but there is no certainty that he is the brothe...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":42533,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Thomas","title_en":"Thomas","content_ro":"<h3>Thomas<\/h3>\n<p>Thomas, also known as “the Twin,” was one of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). He is remembered most for his unbelieving response to Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>Nothing is known of how Jesus first met and called Thomas to be his disciple. The only personal accounts of Thomas are found in the Gospel of John. Thomas voiced his willingness to follow Jesus, even if it meant death (John 11:16); he openly told Jesus that he didn’t understand what he was saying (John 14:5); and he was one of the seven disciples who returned to fishing after the resurrection, when Jesus appeared to them (John 21:2).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus first appeared to his disciples after his death, Thomas was not present. When Thomas heard the report from the others, he did not believe it, insisting he would have to see the evidence of the crucifixion on Jesus’ body with his own eyes and feel it with his own hands (John 20:19-25). A week later, when Jesus once again appeared to the disciples, he specifically addressed Thomas, telling him to examine the marks of the nails and the spear on his body and challenging him to believe and not be skeptical (John 20:26-27). Thomas’s response represents one of the strongest statements of Jesus’ deity in the New Testament and serves as the culmination of the Gospel of John’s portrayal of Jesus: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28).<\/p>\n<p>Later tradition speaks of Thomas working as a missionary in the East: in Parthia (Eusebius), Persia (Jerome), and India (<em>Acts of Thomas<\/em>). The Mar Thoma church on the west coast of India traces its roots back to the early missionary work of Thomas. The historical reliability of these accounts is uncertain.<\/p>\n<p>Thomas’s name is also unreliably linked to several later apocryphal writings: the <em>Acts of Thomas<\/em>, the <em>Infancy Gospel of Thomas<\/em>, the <em>Epistle to the Apostles<\/em>, the <em>Apocalypse of Thomas<\/em>, the <em>Book of Thomas the Athlete<\/em>, and especially the <em>Gospel of Thomas<\/em>, a Gnostic collection of Jesus’ sayings.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; John 11:16; 14:5; John 20:24-29; 21:2Acts 1:13<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Thomas<\/h3>\n<p>Thomas, also known as “the Twin,” was one of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). He is remembered most for his unbelieving response to Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>Nothing is known of how Jesus first met and called Thomas to be his disciple. The only personal accounts of Thomas are found in the Gospel of John. Thomas voiced his willingness to follow Jesus, even if it meant death (John 11:16); he openly told Jesus that he didn’t understand what he was saying (John 14:5); and he was one of the seven disciples who returned to fishing after the resurrection, when Jesus appeared to them (John 21:2).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus first appeared to his disciples after his death, Thomas was not present. When Thomas heard the report from the others, he did not believe it, insisting he would have to see the evidence of the crucifixion on Jesus’ body with his own eyes and feel it with his own hands (John 20:19-25). A week later, when Jesus once again appeared to the disciples, he specifically addressed Thomas, telling him to examine the marks of the nails and the spear on his body and challenging him to believe and not be skeptical (John 20:26-27). Thomas’s response represents one of the strongest statements of Jesus’ deity in the New Testament and serves as the culmination of the Gospel of John’s portrayal of Jesus: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28).<\/p>\n<p>Later tradition speaks of Thomas working as a missionary in the East: in Parthia (Eusebius), Persia (Jerome), and India (<em>Acts of Thomas<\/em>). The Mar Thoma church on the west coast of India traces its roots back to the early missionary work of Thomas. The historical reliability of these accounts is uncertain.<\/p>\n<p>Thomas’s name is also unreliably linked to several later apocryphal writings: the <em>Acts of Thomas<\/em>, the <em>Infancy Gospel of Thomas<\/em>, the <em>Epistle to the Apostles<\/em>, the <em>Apocalypse of Thomas<\/em>, the <em>Book of Thomas the Athlete<\/em>, and especially the <em>Gospel of Thomas<\/em>, a Gnostic collection of Jesus’ sayings.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; John 11:16; 14:5; John 20:24-29; 21:2Acts 1:13<\/p>","summary_ro":"Thomas Thomas, also known as “the Twin,” was one of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). He is remembered most for his unbelieving response to Jesus’ resurrection. Nothing is known of how Jesus first met and called Thomas to be his disciple. The only personal accounts of Thomas are found in the Gospel of John. Thomas voiced his willingness to follow Jesus, even if it meant death (John 11:16); he openly told Jesus that he didn’t understand what he was saying (John ...","summary_en":"Thomas Thomas, also known as “the Twin,” was one of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). He is remembered most for his unbelieving response to Jesus’ resurrection. Nothing is known of how Jesus first met and called Thomas to be his disciple. The only personal accounts of Thomas are found in the Gospel of John. Thomas voiced his willingness to follow Jesus, even if it meant death (John 11:16); he openly told Jesus that he didn’t understand what he was saying (John ...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":69712,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Matthew (Levi)","title_en":"Matthew (Levi)","content_ro":"<h3>Matthew (Levi)<\/h3>\n<p>Matthew was a tax collector for the Romans and became one of Jesus’ twelve apostles. According to early tradition, he was the author of the Gospel of Matthew.<\/p>\n<p>Though he is called Matthew in all the lists of the apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), he is referred to as Levi—his other name—in two of the accounts of his calling (Mark 2:14-15; Luke 5:27-29; cp. Matt 9:9-10). His father was named Alphaeus (Mark 2:14), but there is no certainty that he is the brother of James the son of Alphaeus (the two are not linked in the lists of the apostles, as the other pairs of brothers are).<\/p>\n<p>Jews who collected taxes for the Romans were generally considered despicable sinners by their fellow Jews. They profited from working for the occupying forces and engaged in legalized extortion. Thus it is significant that Jesus called a tax collector to become one of his followers. When Jesus was criticized by the Pharisees for accepting Matthew’s invitation to his home for dinner, and for eating with tax collectors and other disreputable sinners, Jesus used the occasion to teach the importance of compassion. He emphasized that it was precisely for such sinners—not those who considered themselves righteous—that he had come (Matt 9:9-13; Mark 2:14-17; Luke 5:27-32). Matthew responded immediately to Jesus’ call, leaving everything behind to follow Jesus (Luke 5:28). The implication is that he never turned back to tax collecting or his former way of life.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew’s Gospel, written for his fellow Jews, gives us a Jewish perspective on the life and teachings of Jesus, and it includes topics of special interest for those from a Jewish background. His Gospel was the most popular Gospel in the early church, which is probably why it occurs first in the canonical sequence.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 9:9-10; 10:3; Mark 2:14-15; 3:18; Luke 5:27-29; 6:15; Acts 1:13<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Matthew (Levi)<\/h3>\n<p>Matthew was a tax collector for the Romans and became one of Jesus’ twelve apostles. According to early tradition, he was the author of the Gospel of Matthew.<\/p>\n<p>Though he is called Matthew in all the lists of the apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), he is referred to as Levi—his other name—in two of the accounts of his calling (Mark 2:14-15; Luke 5:27-29; cp. Matt 9:9-10). His father was named Alphaeus (Mark 2:14), but there is no certainty that he is the brother of James the son of Alphaeus (the two are not linked in the lists of the apostles, as the other pairs of brothers are).<\/p>\n<p>Jews who collected taxes for the Romans were generally considered despicable sinners by their fellow Jews. They profited from working for the occupying forces and engaged in legalized extortion. Thus it is significant that Jesus called a tax collector to become one of his followers. When Jesus was criticized by the Pharisees for accepting Matthew’s invitation to his home for dinner, and for eating with tax collectors and other disreputable sinners, Jesus used the occasion to teach the importance of compassion. He emphasized that it was precisely for such sinners—not those who considered themselves righteous—that he had come (Matt 9:9-13; Mark 2:14-17; Luke 5:27-32). Matthew responded immediately to Jesus’ call, leaving everything behind to follow Jesus (Luke 5:28). The implication is that he never turned back to tax collecting or his former way of life.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew’s Gospel, written for his fellow Jews, gives us a Jewish perspective on the life and teachings of Jesus, and it includes topics of special interest for those from a Jewish background. His Gospel was the most popular Gospel in the early church, which is probably why it occurs first in the canonical sequence.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 9:9-10; 10:3; Mark 2:14-15; 3:18; Luke 5:27-29; 6:15; Acts 1:13<\/p>","summary_ro":"Matthew (Levi) Matthew was a tax collector for the Romans and became one of Jesus’ twelve apostles. According to early tradition, he was the author of the Gospel of Matthew. Though he is called Matthew in all the lists of the apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), he is referred to as Levi—his other name—in two of the accounts of his calling (Mark 2:14-15; Luke 5:27-29; cp. Matt 9:9-10). His father was named Alphaeus (Mark 2:14), but there is no certainty that he is the brothe...","summary_en":"Matthew (Levi) Matthew was a tax collector for the Romans and became one of Jesus’ twelve apostles. According to early tradition, he was the author of the Gospel of Matthew. Though he is called Matthew in all the lists of the apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), he is referred to as Levi—his other name—in two of the accounts of his calling (Mark 2:14-15; Luke 5:27-29; cp. Matt 9:9-10). His father was named Alphaeus (Mark 2:14), but there is no certainty that he is the brothe...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70159,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Thomas","title_en":"Thomas","content_ro":"<h3>Thomas<\/h3>\n<p>Thomas, also known as “the Twin,” was one of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). He is remembered most for his unbelieving response to Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>Nothing is known of how Jesus first met and called Thomas to be his disciple. The only personal accounts of Thomas are found in the Gospel of John. Thomas voiced his willingness to follow Jesus, even if it meant death (John 11:16); he openly told Jesus that he didn’t understand what he was saying (John 14:5); and he was one of the seven disciples who returned to fishing after the resurrection, when Jesus appeared to them (John 21:2).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus first appeared to his disciples after his death, Thomas was not present. When Thomas heard the report from the others, he did not believe it, insisting he would have to see the evidence of the crucifixion on Jesus’ body with his own eyes and feel it with his own hands (John 20:19-25). A week later, when Jesus once again appeared to the disciples, he specifically addressed Thomas, telling him to examine the marks of the nails and the spear on his body and challenging him to believe and not be skeptical (John 20:26-27). Thomas’s response represents one of the strongest statements of Jesus’ deity in the New Testament and serves as the culmination of the Gospel of John’s portrayal of Jesus: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28).<\/p>\n<p>Later tradition speaks of Thomas working as a missionary in the East: in Parthia (Eusebius), Persia (Jerome), and India (<em>Acts of Thomas<\/em>). The Mar Thoma church on the west coast of India traces its roots back to the early missionary work of Thomas. The historical reliability of these accounts is uncertain.<\/p>\n<p>Thomas’s name is also unreliably linked to several later apocryphal writings: the <em>Acts of Thomas<\/em>, the <em>Infancy Gospel of Thomas<\/em>, the <em>Epistle to the Apostles<\/em>, the <em>Apocalypse of Thomas<\/em>, the <em>Book of Thomas the Athlete<\/em>, and especially the <em>Gospel of Thomas<\/em>, a Gnostic collection of Jesus’ sayings.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; John 11:16; 14:5; John 20:24-29; 21:2Acts 1:13<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Thomas<\/h3>\n<p>Thomas, also known as “the Twin,” was one of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). He is remembered most for his unbelieving response to Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>Nothing is known of how Jesus first met and called Thomas to be his disciple. The only personal accounts of Thomas are found in the Gospel of John. Thomas voiced his willingness to follow Jesus, even if it meant death (John 11:16); he openly told Jesus that he didn’t understand what he was saying (John 14:5); and he was one of the seven disciples who returned to fishing after the resurrection, when Jesus appeared to them (John 21:2).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus first appeared to his disciples after his death, Thomas was not present. When Thomas heard the report from the others, he did not believe it, insisting he would have to see the evidence of the crucifixion on Jesus’ body with his own eyes and feel it with his own hands (John 20:19-25). A week later, when Jesus once again appeared to the disciples, he specifically addressed Thomas, telling him to examine the marks of the nails and the spear on his body and challenging him to believe and not be skeptical (John 20:26-27). Thomas’s response represents one of the strongest statements of Jesus’ deity in the New Testament and serves as the culmination of the Gospel of John’s portrayal of Jesus: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28).<\/p>\n<p>Later tradition speaks of Thomas working as a missionary in the East: in Parthia (Eusebius), Persia (Jerome), and India (<em>Acts of Thomas<\/em>). The Mar Thoma church on the west coast of India traces its roots back to the early missionary work of Thomas. The historical reliability of these accounts is uncertain.<\/p>\n<p>Thomas’s name is also unreliably linked to several later apocryphal writings: the <em>Acts of Thomas<\/em>, the <em>Infancy Gospel of Thomas<\/em>, the <em>Epistle to the Apostles<\/em>, the <em>Apocalypse of Thomas<\/em>, the <em>Book of Thomas the Athlete<\/em>, and especially the <em>Gospel of Thomas<\/em>, a Gnostic collection of Jesus’ sayings.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; John 11:16; 14:5; John 20:24-29; 21:2Acts 1:13<\/p>","summary_ro":"Thomas Thomas, also known as “the Twin,” was one of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). He is remembered most for his unbelieving response to Jesus’ resurrection. Nothing is known of how Jesus first met and called Thomas to be his disciple. The only personal accounts of Thomas are found in the Gospel of John. Thomas voiced his willingness to follow Jesus, even if it meant death (John 11:16); he openly told Jesus that he didn’t understand what he was saying (John ...","summary_en":"Thomas Thomas, also known as “the Twin,” was one of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). He is remembered most for his unbelieving response to Jesus’ resurrection. Nothing is known of how Jesus first met and called Thomas to be his disciple. The only personal accounts of Thomas are found in the Gospel of John. Thomas voiced his willingness to follow Jesus, even if it meant death (John 11:16); he openly told Jesus that he didn’t understand what he was saying (John ...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":97338,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Matthew (Levi)","title_en":"Matthew (Levi)","content_ro":"<h3>Matthew (Levi)<\/h3>\n<p>Matthew was a tax collector for the Romans and became one of Jesus’ twelve apostles. According to early tradition, he was the author of the Gospel of Matthew.<\/p>\n<p>Though he is called Matthew in all the lists of the apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), he is referred to as Levi—his other name—in two of the accounts of his calling (Mark 2:14-15; Luke 5:27-29; cp. Matt 9:9-10). His father was named Alphaeus (Mark 2:14), but there is no certainty that he is the brother of James the son of Alphaeus (the two are not linked in the lists of the apostles, as the other pairs of brothers are).<\/p>\n<p>Jews who collected taxes for the Romans were generally considered despicable sinners by their fellow Jews. They profited from working for the occupying forces and engaged in legalized extortion. Thus it is significant that Jesus called a tax collector to become one of his followers. When Jesus was criticized by the Pharisees for accepting Matthew’s invitation to his home for dinner, and for eating with tax collectors and other disreputable sinners, Jesus used the occasion to teach the importance of compassion. He emphasized that it was precisely for such sinners—not those who considered themselves righteous—that he had come (Matt 9:9-13; Mark 2:14-17; Luke 5:27-32). Matthew responded immediately to Jesus’ call, leaving everything behind to follow Jesus (Luke 5:28). The implication is that he never turned back to tax collecting or his former way of life.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew’s Gospel, written for his fellow Jews, gives us a Jewish perspective on the life and teachings of Jesus, and it includes topics of special interest for those from a Jewish background. His Gospel was the most popular Gospel in the early church, which is probably why it occurs first in the canonical sequence.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 9:9-10; 10:3; Mark 2:14-15; 3:18; Luke 5:27-29; 6:15; Acts 1:13<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Matthew (Levi)<\/h3>\n<p>Matthew was a tax collector for the Romans and became one of Jesus’ twelve apostles. According to early tradition, he was the author of the Gospel of Matthew.<\/p>\n<p>Though he is called Matthew in all the lists of the apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), he is referred to as Levi—his other name—in two of the accounts of his calling (Mark 2:14-15; Luke 5:27-29; cp. Matt 9:9-10). His father was named Alphaeus (Mark 2:14), but there is no certainty that he is the brother of James the son of Alphaeus (the two are not linked in the lists of the apostles, as the other pairs of brothers are).<\/p>\n<p>Jews who collected taxes for the Romans were generally considered despicable sinners by their fellow Jews. They profited from working for the occupying forces and engaged in legalized extortion. Thus it is significant that Jesus called a tax collector to become one of his followers. When Jesus was criticized by the Pharisees for accepting Matthew’s invitation to his home for dinner, and for eating with tax collectors and other disreputable sinners, Jesus used the occasion to teach the importance of compassion. He emphasized that it was precisely for such sinners—not those who considered themselves righteous—that he had come (Matt 9:9-13; Mark 2:14-17; Luke 5:27-32). Matthew responded immediately to Jesus’ call, leaving everything behind to follow Jesus (Luke 5:28). The implication is that he never turned back to tax collecting or his former way of life.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew’s Gospel, written for his fellow Jews, gives us a Jewish perspective on the life and teachings of Jesus, and it includes topics of special interest for those from a Jewish background. His Gospel was the most popular Gospel in the early church, which is probably why it occurs first in the canonical sequence.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 9:9-10; 10:3; Mark 2:14-15; 3:18; Luke 5:27-29; 6:15; Acts 1:13<\/p>","summary_ro":"Matthew (Levi) Matthew was a tax collector for the Romans and became one of Jesus’ twelve apostles. According to early tradition, he was the author of the Gospel of Matthew. Though he is called Matthew in all the lists of the apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), he is referred to as Levi—his other name—in two of the accounts of his calling (Mark 2:14-15; Luke 5:27-29; cp. Matt 9:9-10). His father was named Alphaeus (Mark 2:14), but there is no certainty that he is the brothe...","summary_en":"Matthew (Levi) Matthew was a tax collector for the Romans and became one of Jesus’ twelve apostles. According to early tradition, he was the author of the Gospel of Matthew. Though he is called Matthew in all the lists of the apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), he is referred to as Levi—his other name—in two of the accounts of his calling (Mark 2:14-15; Luke 5:27-29; cp. Matt 9:9-10). His father was named Alphaeus (Mark 2:14), but there is no certainty that he is the brothe...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":97785,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Thomas","title_en":"Thomas","content_ro":"<h3>Thomas<\/h3>\n<p>Thomas, also known as “the Twin,” was one of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). He is remembered most for his unbelieving response to Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>Nothing is known of how Jesus first met and called Thomas to be his disciple. The only personal accounts of Thomas are found in the Gospel of John. Thomas voiced his willingness to follow Jesus, even if it meant death (John 11:16); he openly told Jesus that he didn’t understand what he was saying (John 14:5); and he was one of the seven disciples who returned to fishing after the resurrection, when Jesus appeared to them (John 21:2).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus first appeared to his disciples after his death, Thomas was not present. When Thomas heard the report from the others, he did not believe it, insisting he would have to see the evidence of the crucifixion on Jesus’ body with his own eyes and feel it with his own hands (John 20:19-25). A week later, when Jesus once again appeared to the disciples, he specifically addressed Thomas, telling him to examine the marks of the nails and the spear on his body and challenging him to believe and not be skeptical (John 20:26-27). Thomas’s response represents one of the strongest statements of Jesus’ deity in the New Testament and serves as the culmination of the Gospel of John’s portrayal of Jesus: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28).<\/p>\n<p>Later tradition speaks of Thomas working as a missionary in the East: in Parthia (Eusebius), Persia (Jerome), and India (<em>Acts of Thomas<\/em>). The Mar Thoma church on the west coast of India traces its roots back to the early missionary work of Thomas. The historical reliability of these accounts is uncertain.<\/p>\n<p>Thomas’s name is also unreliably linked to several later apocryphal writings: the <em>Acts of Thomas<\/em>, the <em>Infancy Gospel of Thomas<\/em>, the <em>Epistle to the Apostles<\/em>, the <em>Apocalypse of Thomas<\/em>, the <em>Book of Thomas the Athlete<\/em>, and especially the <em>Gospel of Thomas<\/em>, a Gnostic collection of Jesus’ sayings.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; John 11:16; 14:5; John 20:24-29; 21:2Acts 1:13<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Thomas<\/h3>\n<p>Thomas, also known as “the Twin,” was one of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). He is remembered most for his unbelieving response to Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>Nothing is known of how Jesus first met and called Thomas to be his disciple. The only personal accounts of Thomas are found in the Gospel of John. Thomas voiced his willingness to follow Jesus, even if it meant death (John 11:16); he openly told Jesus that he didn’t understand what he was saying (John 14:5); and he was one of the seven disciples who returned to fishing after the resurrection, when Jesus appeared to them (John 21:2).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus first appeared to his disciples after his death, Thomas was not present. When Thomas heard the report from the others, he did not believe it, insisting he would have to see the evidence of the crucifixion on Jesus’ body with his own eyes and feel it with his own hands (John 20:19-25). A week later, when Jesus once again appeared to the disciples, he specifically addressed Thomas, telling him to examine the marks of the nails and the spear on his body and challenging him to believe and not be skeptical (John 20:26-27). Thomas’s response represents one of the strongest statements of Jesus’ deity in the New Testament and serves as the culmination of the Gospel of John’s portrayal of Jesus: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28).<\/p>\n<p>Later tradition speaks of Thomas working as a missionary in the East: in Parthia (Eusebius), Persia (Jerome), and India (<em>Acts of Thomas<\/em>). The Mar Thoma church on the west coast of India traces its roots back to the early missionary work of Thomas. The historical reliability of these accounts is uncertain.<\/p>\n<p>Thomas’s name is also unreliably linked to several later apocryphal writings: the <em>Acts of Thomas<\/em>, the <em>Infancy Gospel of Thomas<\/em>, the <em>Epistle to the Apostles<\/em>, the <em>Apocalypse of Thomas<\/em>, the <em>Book of Thomas the Athlete<\/em>, and especially the <em>Gospel of Thomas<\/em>, a Gnostic collection of Jesus’ sayings.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; John 11:16; 14:5; John 20:24-29; 21:2Acts 1:13<\/p>","summary_ro":"Thomas Thomas, also known as “the Twin,” was one of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). He is remembered most for his unbelieving response to Jesus’ resurrection. Nothing is known of how Jesus first met and called Thomas to be his disciple. The only personal accounts of Thomas are found in the Gospel of John. Thomas voiced his willingness to follow Jesus, even if it meant death (John 11:16); he openly told Jesus that he didn’t understand what he was saying (John ...","summary_en":"Thomas Thomas, also known as “the Twin,” was one of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). He is remembered most for his unbelieving response to Jesus’ resurrection. Nothing is known of how Jesus first met and called Thomas to be his disciple. The only personal accounts of Thomas are found in the Gospel of John. Thomas voiced his willingness to follow Jesus, even if it meant death (John 11:16); he openly told Jesus that he didn’t understand what he was saying (John ...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":124964,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Matthew (Levi)","title_en":"Matthew (Levi)","content_ro":"<h3>Matthew (Levi)<\/h3>\n<p>Matthew was a tax collector for the Romans and became one of Jesus’ twelve apostles. According to early tradition, he was the author of the Gospel of Matthew.<\/p>\n<p>Though he is called Matthew in all the lists of the apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), he is referred to as Levi—his other name—in two of the accounts of his calling (Mark 2:14-15; Luke 5:27-29; cp. Matt 9:9-10). His father was named Alphaeus (Mark 2:14), but there is no certainty that he is the brother of James the son of Alphaeus (the two are not linked in the lists of the apostles, as the other pairs of brothers are).<\/p>\n<p>Jews who collected taxes for the Romans were generally considered despicable sinners by their fellow Jews. They profited from working for the occupying forces and engaged in legalized extortion. Thus it is significant that Jesus called a tax collector to become one of his followers. When Jesus was criticized by the Pharisees for accepting Matthew’s invitation to his home for dinner, and for eating with tax collectors and other disreputable sinners, Jesus used the occasion to teach the importance of compassion. He emphasized that it was precisely for such sinners—not those who considered themselves righteous—that he had come (Matt 9:9-13; Mark 2:14-17; Luke 5:27-32). Matthew responded immediately to Jesus’ call, leaving everything behind to follow Jesus (Luke 5:28). The implication is that he never turned back to tax collecting or his former way of life.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew’s Gospel, written for his fellow Jews, gives us a Jewish perspective on the life and teachings of Jesus, and it includes topics of special interest for those from a Jewish background. His Gospel was the most popular Gospel in the early church, which is probably why it occurs first in the canonical sequence.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 9:9-10; 10:3; Mark 2:14-15; 3:18; Luke 5:27-29; 6:15; Acts 1:13<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Matthew (Levi)<\/h3>\n<p>Matthew was a tax collector for the Romans and became one of Jesus’ twelve apostles. According to early tradition, he was the author of the Gospel of Matthew.<\/p>\n<p>Though he is called Matthew in all the lists of the apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), he is referred to as Levi—his other name—in two of the accounts of his calling (Mark 2:14-15; Luke 5:27-29; cp. Matt 9:9-10). His father was named Alphaeus (Mark 2:14), but there is no certainty that he is the brother of James the son of Alphaeus (the two are not linked in the lists of the apostles, as the other pairs of brothers are).<\/p>\n<p>Jews who collected taxes for the Romans were generally considered despicable sinners by their fellow Jews. They profited from working for the occupying forces and engaged in legalized extortion. Thus it is significant that Jesus called a tax collector to become one of his followers. When Jesus was criticized by the Pharisees for accepting Matthew’s invitation to his home for dinner, and for eating with tax collectors and other disreputable sinners, Jesus used the occasion to teach the importance of compassion. He emphasized that it was precisely for such sinners—not those who considered themselves righteous—that he had come (Matt 9:9-13; Mark 2:14-17; Luke 5:27-32). Matthew responded immediately to Jesus’ call, leaving everything behind to follow Jesus (Luke 5:28). The implication is that he never turned back to tax collecting or his former way of life.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew’s Gospel, written for his fellow Jews, gives us a Jewish perspective on the life and teachings of Jesus, and it includes topics of special interest for those from a Jewish background. His Gospel was the most popular Gospel in the early church, which is probably why it occurs first in the canonical sequence.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 9:9-10; 10:3; Mark 2:14-15; 3:18; Luke 5:27-29; 6:15; Acts 1:13<\/p>","summary_ro":"Matthew (Levi) Matthew was a tax collector for the Romans and became one of Jesus’ twelve apostles. According to early tradition, he was the author of the Gospel of Matthew. Though he is called Matthew in all the lists of the apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), he is referred to as Levi—his other name—in two of the accounts of his calling (Mark 2:14-15; Luke 5:27-29; cp. Matt 9:9-10). His father was named Alphaeus (Mark 2:14), but there is no certainty that he is the brothe...","summary_en":"Matthew (Levi) Matthew was a tax collector for the Romans and became one of Jesus’ twelve apostles. According to early tradition, he was the author of the Gospel of Matthew. Though he is called Matthew in all the lists of the apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), he is referred to as Levi—his other name—in two of the accounts of his calling (Mark 2:14-15; Luke 5:27-29; cp. Matt 9:9-10). His father was named Alphaeus (Mark 2:14), but there is no certainty that he is the brothe...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125411,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Thomas","title_en":"Thomas","content_ro":"<h3>Thomas<\/h3>\n<p>Thomas, also known as “the Twin,” was one of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). He is remembered most for his unbelieving response to Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>Nothing is known of how Jesus first met and called Thomas to be his disciple. The only personal accounts of Thomas are found in the Gospel of John. Thomas voiced his willingness to follow Jesus, even if it meant death (John 11:16); he openly told Jesus that he didn’t understand what he was saying (John 14:5); and he was one of the seven disciples who returned to fishing after the resurrection, when Jesus appeared to them (John 21:2).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus first appeared to his disciples after his death, Thomas was not present. When Thomas heard the report from the others, he did not believe it, insisting he would have to see the evidence of the crucifixion on Jesus’ body with his own eyes and feel it with his own hands (John 20:19-25). A week later, when Jesus once again appeared to the disciples, he specifically addressed Thomas, telling him to examine the marks of the nails and the spear on his body and challenging him to believe and not be skeptical (John 20:26-27). Thomas’s response represents one of the strongest statements of Jesus’ deity in the New Testament and serves as the culmination of the Gospel of John’s portrayal of Jesus: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28).<\/p>\n<p>Later tradition speaks of Thomas working as a missionary in the East: in Parthia (Eusebius), Persia (Jerome), and India (<em>Acts of Thomas<\/em>). The Mar Thoma church on the west coast of India traces its roots back to the early missionary work of Thomas. The historical reliability of these accounts is uncertain.<\/p>\n<p>Thomas’s name is also unreliably linked to several later apocryphal writings: the <em>Acts of Thomas<\/em>, the <em>Infancy Gospel of Thomas<\/em>, the <em>Epistle to the Apostles<\/em>, the <em>Apocalypse of Thomas<\/em>, the <em>Book of Thomas the Athlete<\/em>, and especially the <em>Gospel of Thomas<\/em>, a Gnostic collection of Jesus’ sayings.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; John 11:16; 14:5; John 20:24-29; 21:2Acts 1:13<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Thomas<\/h3>\n<p>Thomas, also known as “the Twin,” was one of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). He is remembered most for his unbelieving response to Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>Nothing is known of how Jesus first met and called Thomas to be his disciple. The only personal accounts of Thomas are found in the Gospel of John. Thomas voiced his willingness to follow Jesus, even if it meant death (John 11:16); he openly told Jesus that he didn’t understand what he was saying (John 14:5); and he was one of the seven disciples who returned to fishing after the resurrection, when Jesus appeared to them (John 21:2).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus first appeared to his disciples after his death, Thomas was not present. When Thomas heard the report from the others, he did not believe it, insisting he would have to see the evidence of the crucifixion on Jesus’ body with his own eyes and feel it with his own hands (John 20:19-25). A week later, when Jesus once again appeared to the disciples, he specifically addressed Thomas, telling him to examine the marks of the nails and the spear on his body and challenging him to believe and not be skeptical (John 20:26-27). Thomas’s response represents one of the strongest statements of Jesus’ deity in the New Testament and serves as the culmination of the Gospel of John’s portrayal of Jesus: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28).<\/p>\n<p>Later tradition speaks of Thomas working as a missionary in the East: in Parthia (Eusebius), Persia (Jerome), and India (<em>Acts of Thomas<\/em>). The Mar Thoma church on the west coast of India traces its roots back to the early missionary work of Thomas. The historical reliability of these accounts is uncertain.<\/p>\n<p>Thomas’s name is also unreliably linked to several later apocryphal writings: the <em>Acts of Thomas<\/em>, the <em>Infancy Gospel of Thomas<\/em>, the <em>Epistle to the Apostles<\/em>, the <em>Apocalypse of Thomas<\/em>, the <em>Book of Thomas the Athlete<\/em>, and especially the <em>Gospel of Thomas<\/em>, a Gnostic collection of Jesus’ sayings.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; John 11:16; 14:5; John 20:24-29; 21:2Acts 1:13<\/p>","summary_ro":"Thomas Thomas, also known as “the Twin,” was one of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). He is remembered most for his unbelieving response to Jesus’ resurrection. Nothing is known of how Jesus first met and called Thomas to be his disciple. The only personal accounts of Thomas are found in the Gospel of John. Thomas voiced his willingness to follow Jesus, even if it meant death (John 11:16); he openly told Jesus that he didn’t understand what he was saying (John ...","summary_en":"Thomas Thomas, also known as “the Twin,” was one of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). He is remembered most for his unbelieving response to Jesus’ resurrection. Nothing is known of how Jesus first met and called Thomas to be his disciple. The only personal accounts of Thomas are found in the Gospel of John. Thomas voiced his willingness to follow Jesus, even if it meant death (John 11:16); he openly told Jesus that he didn’t understand what he was saying (John ...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":1139,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Alphaeus","title_en":"Alphaeus","content_ro":"<h3>ALPHAEUS<\/h3>\n<li>1. Father of James, one of the 12 apostles (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13), thought by some to be the same as Clopas of John 19:25.<\/li>\n<li>2. Father of Levi, the tax collector (Mk 2:14) who is also known in the Gospels as Matthew (Mt 9:9).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>ALPHAEUS<\/h3>\n<li>1. Father of James, one of the 12 apostles (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13), thought by some to be the same as Clopas of John 19:25.<\/li>\n<li>2. Father of Levi, the tax collector (Mk 2:14) who is also known in the Gospels as Matthew (Mt 9:9).<\/li>","summary_ro":"ALPHAEUS 1. Father of James, one of the 12 apostles (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13), thought by some to be the same as Clopas of John 19:25. 2. Father of Levi, the tax collector (Mk 2:14) who is also known in the Gospels as Matthew (Mt 9:9).","summary_en":"ALPHAEUS 1. Father of James, one of the 12 apostles (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13), thought by some to be the same as Clopas of John 19:25. 2. Father of Levi, the tax collector (Mk 2:14) who is also known in the Gospels as Matthew (Mt 9:9).","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":1588,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Andrew, the Apostle","title_en":"Andrew, the Apostle","content_ro":"<h3>ANDREW, T<span>he<\/span> A<span>postle<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>One of Christ’s 12 apostles. Andrew first appears in the NT as a disciple of John the Baptist (Jn 1:35, 40). After hearing John say, “Look, there is the Lamb of God!” (Jn 1:36), referring to Jesus, Andrew and another unnamed disciple followed Jesus and stayed with him for a day (Jn 1:36-39). Andrew then told his brother, Simon Peter, that he had found the Messiah and brought Peter to Jesus (Jn 1:40-42). From then on Andrew faded into the background, and his brother came into prominence. Whenever the relationship of the two is mentioned, Andrew is always described as the brother of Simon Peter and never the other way around (Mt 4:18; Mk 1:16; Jn 1:40; 6:8), although Andrew is also mentioned without reference to his relationship to Peter (Mk 1:29; 3:18; 13:3; Jn 12:22). Andrew’s father was John (Mt 16:17; Jn 1:42; 21:15-17), and his hometown was Bethsaida (Jn 1:44), a village on the north shore of the Sea of Galilee.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel of John mentions disciples being with Jesus (2:2; 4:2), and it is likely that Andrew was one of that early group. Evidently, however, he returned to his activity as a fisherman on the Sea of Galilee, where he shared a house with Peter and his family in Capernaum (Mt 4:18-20; Mk 1:16-18, 29-33). While they were fishing, Andrew and Peter received a definite call to follow Jesus and become those who fish for people. From among the disciples of Jesus a group of 12 were later specially chosen as apostles. Andrew is always listed among the first four named, along with Peter and two other brothers, John and James (Mt 10:2-4; Lk 6:13-16; Acts 1:13).<\/p>\n<p>Andrew is named in only three other contexts in the Gospels. At the feeding of the 5,000 he called attention to the boy who had five barley loaves and two fish (Jn 6:8-9). When certain Greeks came to Philip, asking to see Jesus, Philip told Andrew and then the two of them told Jesus (Jn 12:20-22). Finally, Andrew is listed among those who were questioning Jesus privately on the Mt of Olives (Mk 13:3-4). The last NT mention of Andrew is in the list of apostles waiting in the upper room in Jerusalem for the promised outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:12-14).<\/p>\n<p>Various documents associated with Andrew, such as the Acts of Andrew mentioned by the early church historian Eusebius, are of doubtful value. Some traditions indicate that Andrew ministered in Scythia. According to the Muratorian Canon, Andrew received a revelation at night that the apostle John should write the fourth Gospel. Tradition is rather uniform that Andrew died at Patrae in Achaia. A story developed that he was martyred on an X-shaped cross (a “decussate” or “saltire” cross), which has become known as St Andrew’s Cross. Another tradition is that an arm of the dead Andrew was taken into Scotland as a relic by Regulus, and thus Andrew became known as a patron saint of Scotland. On the calendar of saints of the Roman and Greek churches, Andrew’s date is set as November 30. <em>See<\/em> Apocrypha (Specific Titles of Apocryphal Writings): Andrew, Acts of; Andrew, Story of; Andrew and Matthias, Acts of; Andrew and Paul, Acts of.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Apostle, Apostleship.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ANDREW, T<span>he<\/span> A<span>postle<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>One of Christ’s 12 apostles. Andrew first appears in the NT as a disciple of John the Baptist (Jn 1:35, 40). After hearing John say, “Look, there is the Lamb of God!” (Jn 1:36), referring to Jesus, Andrew and another unnamed disciple followed Jesus and stayed with him for a day (Jn 1:36-39). Andrew then told his brother, Simon Peter, that he had found the Messiah and brought Peter to Jesus (Jn 1:40-42). From then on Andrew faded into the background, and his brother came into prominence. Whenever the relationship of the two is mentioned, Andrew is always described as the brother of Simon Peter and never the other way around (Mt 4:18; Mk 1:16; Jn 1:40; 6:8), although Andrew is also mentioned without reference to his relationship to Peter (Mk 1:29; 3:18; 13:3; Jn 12:22). Andrew’s father was John (Mt 16:17; Jn 1:42; 21:15-17), and his hometown was Bethsaida (Jn 1:44), a village on the north shore of the Sea of Galilee.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel of John mentions disciples being with Jesus (2:2; 4:2), and it is likely that Andrew was one of that early group. Evidently, however, he returned to his activity as a fisherman on the Sea of Galilee, where he shared a house with Peter and his family in Capernaum (Mt 4:18-20; Mk 1:16-18, 29-33). While they were fishing, Andrew and Peter received a definite call to follow Jesus and become those who fish for people. From among the disciples of Jesus a group of 12 were later specially chosen as apostles. Andrew is always listed among the first four named, along with Peter and two other brothers, John and James (Mt 10:2-4; Lk 6:13-16; Acts 1:13).<\/p>\n<p>Andrew is named in only three other contexts in the Gospels. At the feeding of the 5,000 he called attention to the boy who had five barley loaves and two fish (Jn 6:8-9). When certain Greeks came to Philip, asking to see Jesus, Philip told Andrew and then the two of them told Jesus (Jn 12:20-22). Finally, Andrew is listed among those who were questioning Jesus privately on the Mt of Olives (Mk 13:3-4). The last NT mention of Andrew is in the list of apostles waiting in the upper room in Jerusalem for the promised outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:12-14).<\/p>\n<p>Various documents associated with Andrew, such as the Acts of Andrew mentioned by the early church historian Eusebius, are of doubtful value. Some traditions indicate that Andrew ministered in Scythia. According to the Muratorian Canon, Andrew received a revelation at night that the apostle John should write the fourth Gospel. Tradition is rather uniform that Andrew died at Patrae in Achaia. A story developed that he was martyred on an X-shaped cross (a “decussate” or “saltire” cross), which has become known as St Andrew’s Cross. Another tradition is that an arm of the dead Andrew was taken into Scotland as a relic by Regulus, and thus Andrew became known as a patron saint of Scotland. On the calendar of saints of the Roman and Greek churches, Andrew’s date is set as November 30. <em>See<\/em> Apocrypha (Specific Titles of Apocryphal Writings): Andrew, Acts of; Andrew, Story of; Andrew and Matthias, Acts of; Andrew and Paul, Acts of.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Apostle, Apostleship.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ANDREW, The Apostle One of Christ’s 12 apostles. Andrew first appears in the NT as a disciple of John the Baptist (Jn 1:35, 40). After hearing John say, “Look, there is the Lamb of God!” (Jn 1:36), referring to Jesus, Andrew and another unnamed disciple followed Jesus and stayed with him for a day (Jn 1:36-39). Andrew then told his brother, Simon Peter, that he had found the Messiah and brought Peter to Jesus (Jn 1:40-42). From then on Andrew faded into the background, and his brother came in...","summary_en":"ANDREW, The Apostle One of Christ’s 12 apostles. Andrew first appears in the NT as a disciple of John the Baptist (Jn 1:35, 40). After hearing John say, “Look, there is the Lamb of God!” (Jn 1:36), referring to Jesus, Andrew and another unnamed disciple followed Jesus and stayed with him for a day (Jn 1:36-39). Andrew then told his brother, Simon Peter, that he had found the Messiah and brought Peter to Jesus (Jn 1:40-42). From then on Andrew faded into the background, and his brother came in...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":18375,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"James (Person)","title_en":"James (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>JAMES (P<span>erson<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. James, brother of Jesus; leading elder in the church at Jerusalem; author of the epistle bearing his name.<\/li>\n<p>The only two references to James in the Gospels mention him with his brothers Joseph (Greek Joses), Simon, and Judas (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). This James may have been, after Jesus, the oldest of the brothers. The question has been raised about whether these were indeed full brothers of Jesus by Mary, for such a situation has created difficulty for those who cannot square it with their views on the perpetual virginity of Mary. But there seems to be no good reason to challenge the fact from Scripture. As with the other brothers, James apparently did not accept Jesus’ authority during his earthly life (Jn 7:5).<\/p>\n<p>There is no specific mention of James’s conversion; it may have dated from Jesus’ appearance to him and the others after Jesus’ resurrection (1 Cor 15:7). He became head of the church at Jerusalem (Acts 12:17; 21:18; Gal 2:9). Although Jesus had always taught the relative subordination of family ties (Mt 12:48-50; Mk 3:33-35; Lk 8:21), it is hard to believe that James’s authority was not somehow enhanced because of his relationship to the Master.<\/p>\n<p>James was regarded as an apostle (Gal 1:19), although he was not one of the Twelve. Some suggest he was a replacement for the martyred son of Zebedee; others infer his apostleship by widening the scope of that term to embrace both “the Twelve” and “all the apostles” (see the two separate categories cited in 1 Cor 15:5, 7).<\/p>\n<p>Tradition stated that James was appointed the first bishop of Jerusalem by the Lord himself as well as the apostles. What is certain is that he presided over the first Council of Jerusalem, called to consider the terms for admission of Gentiles into the Christian church, and he may have formulated the decree that met with the approval of all his colleagues and was sent to the churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (Acts 15:19-20). James evidently regarded his own special ministry as being to the Jews, and his was a mediating role in the controversy that arose in the young church around the place of the law for those who had become Christians, from both Gentile and Jewish origins.<\/p>\n<p>That he continued to have strong Jewish-Christian sympathies is apparent from the request made to Paul when the latter visited Jerusalem for the last time (Acts 21:18-25). This was also the last mention in Acts of James’s career. His name also occurs in the NT as the traditional author of the Epistle of James, where he describes himself as “a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Jas 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>According to Hegesippus (c. 180), James’s faithful adherence to the Jewish law and his austere lifestyle led to the designation “the Just.” It seems clear that James suffered martyrdom. Josephus places it in the year 61, when there was a Jewish uprising after the death of Festus the procurator and before his successor had been appointed.<\/p>\n<li>2. James, son of Alphaeus; one of the 12 apostles.<\/li>\n<p>James, son of Alphaeus, is always listed as one of the 12 apostles (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13), but nothing is known for certain about him. Levi (also known as Matthew) is also described as the son of Alphaeus (Mk 2:14), but it is improbable that he and James were brothers. Many scholars have identified him with the one called “James the less” or “James the smaller.” The description “the less” seems to have been given to distinguish him from the son of Zebedee, and it may signify that he was either smaller or younger than Zebedee’s son (the Greek word can cover both interpretations).<\/p>\n<li>3. James, son of Zebedee. One of the 12 apostles; the first of them to be martyred (<span>AD<\/span> 44).<\/li>\n<p>James was a Galilean fisherman whose circumstances we can suppose to have been comfortable (Mk 1:19-20) and who was called to be one of the disciples at the same time as his brother John (Mt 4:21; Mk 1:19-20). It is reasonable to assume that he was older than John, both because he is nearly always mentioned first and because John is sometimes identified as “the brother of James” (Mt 10:2; 17:1; Mk 3:17; 5:37).<\/p>\n<p>James, John, and Simon Peter, who were part of a fishing partnership that included Andrew, Simon’s brother (Lk 5:10), were a trio who attained in some sense a place of primacy among the disciples. They are found at the center of things—for example, when Jairus’s daughter was raised (Mk 5:37; Lk 8:51), at the Transfiguration (Mt 17:1; Mk 9:2; Lk 9:28), on the Mount of Olives (Mk 13:3), and in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:37; Mk 14:33). It was James and John, moreover, who had earlier accompanied Jesus to the home of Simon and Andrew (Mk 1:29).<\/p>\n<p>James and John were given by Jesus the nickname Boanerges, or “sons of thunder” (Mk 3:17), when they were rebuked by the Lord for impetuous speech and for having totally misconceived the purpose of his coming. This may have been the consequence of the suggestion made by them that they should pray for the destruction of the Samaritan village, the inhabitants of which had rejected the Lord’s messengers (Lk 9:54; cf. Mk 9:38; Lk 9:49).<\/p>\n<p>The presumptuous and ill-considered thinking of the two brothers was obvious also when, after asking with his brother for a place of honor in the kingdom, James was corecipient of the prophecy that they would drink the cup their Master was to drink (Mk 10:35-40; cf. Mt 20:20-23). The two sons of Zebedee are also assumed to have been present with the other disciples when the risen Christ appeared by the Sea of Galilee (Jn 21:1), though curiously James’s name is nowhere mentioned in the fourth Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>We know nothing about James’s career subsequently until about the year 44, when Jesus’ prophecy was fulfilled: James was killed “by the sword” by Herod Agrippa I, and thus became the first of the Twelve whose martyrdom was referred to in the NT (Acts 12:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>The wife of Zebedee was Salome (Mt 27:56; Mk 15:40), who may have been a sister of the Lord’s mother (Jn 19:25). If this were so, it would mean that James and John were first cousins of Jesus and that they may have considered themselves to have been in a privileged position.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JAMES (P<span>erson<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. James, brother of Jesus; leading elder in the church at Jerusalem; author of the epistle bearing his name.<\/li>\n<p>The only two references to James in the Gospels mention him with his brothers Joseph (Greek Joses), Simon, and Judas (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). This James may have been, after Jesus, the oldest of the brothers. The question has been raised about whether these were indeed full brothers of Jesus by Mary, for such a situation has created difficulty for those who cannot square it with their views on the perpetual virginity of Mary. But there seems to be no good reason to challenge the fact from Scripture. As with the other brothers, James apparently did not accept Jesus’ authority during his earthly life (Jn 7:5).<\/p>\n<p>There is no specific mention of James’s conversion; it may have dated from Jesus’ appearance to him and the others after Jesus’ resurrection (1 Cor 15:7). He became head of the church at Jerusalem (Acts 12:17; 21:18; Gal 2:9). Although Jesus had always taught the relative subordination of family ties (Mt 12:48-50; Mk 3:33-35; Lk 8:21), it is hard to believe that James’s authority was not somehow enhanced because of his relationship to the Master.<\/p>\n<p>James was regarded as an apostle (Gal 1:19), although he was not one of the Twelve. Some suggest he was a replacement for the martyred son of Zebedee; others infer his apostleship by widening the scope of that term to embrace both “the Twelve” and “all the apostles” (see the two separate categories cited in 1 Cor 15:5, 7).<\/p>\n<p>Tradition stated that James was appointed the first bishop of Jerusalem by the Lord himself as well as the apostles. What is certain is that he presided over the first Council of Jerusalem, called to consider the terms for admission of Gentiles into the Christian church, and he may have formulated the decree that met with the approval of all his colleagues and was sent to the churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (Acts 15:19-20). James evidently regarded his own special ministry as being to the Jews, and his was a mediating role in the controversy that arose in the young church around the place of the law for those who had become Christians, from both Gentile and Jewish origins.<\/p>\n<p>That he continued to have strong Jewish-Christian sympathies is apparent from the request made to Paul when the latter visited Jerusalem for the last time (Acts 21:18-25). This was also the last mention in Acts of James’s career. His name also occurs in the NT as the traditional author of the Epistle of James, where he describes himself as “a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Jas 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>According to Hegesippus (c. 180), James’s faithful adherence to the Jewish law and his austere lifestyle led to the designation “the Just.” It seems clear that James suffered martyrdom. Josephus places it in the year 61, when there was a Jewish uprising after the death of Festus the procurator and before his successor had been appointed.<\/p>\n<li>2. James, son of Alphaeus; one of the 12 apostles.<\/li>\n<p>James, son of Alphaeus, is always listed as one of the 12 apostles (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13), but nothing is known for certain about him. Levi (also known as Matthew) is also described as the son of Alphaeus (Mk 2:14), but it is improbable that he and James were brothers. Many scholars have identified him with the one called “James the less” or “James the smaller.” The description “the less” seems to have been given to distinguish him from the son of Zebedee, and it may signify that he was either smaller or younger than Zebedee’s son (the Greek word can cover both interpretations).<\/p>\n<li>3. James, son of Zebedee. One of the 12 apostles; the first of them to be martyred (<span>AD<\/span> 44).<\/li>\n<p>James was a Galilean fisherman whose circumstances we can suppose to have been comfortable (Mk 1:19-20) and who was called to be one of the disciples at the same time as his brother John (Mt 4:21; Mk 1:19-20). It is reasonable to assume that he was older than John, both because he is nearly always mentioned first and because John is sometimes identified as “the brother of James” (Mt 10:2; 17:1; Mk 3:17; 5:37).<\/p>\n<p>James, John, and Simon Peter, who were part of a fishing partnership that included Andrew, Simon’s brother (Lk 5:10), were a trio who attained in some sense a place of primacy among the disciples. They are found at the center of things—for example, when Jairus’s daughter was raised (Mk 5:37; Lk 8:51), at the Transfiguration (Mt 17:1; Mk 9:2; Lk 9:28), on the Mount of Olives (Mk 13:3), and in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:37; Mk 14:33). It was James and John, moreover, who had earlier accompanied Jesus to the home of Simon and Andrew (Mk 1:29).<\/p>\n<p>James and John were given by Jesus the nickname Boanerges, or “sons of thunder” (Mk 3:17), when they were rebuked by the Lord for impetuous speech and for having totally misconceived the purpose of his coming. This may have been the consequence of the suggestion made by them that they should pray for the destruction of the Samaritan village, the inhabitants of which had rejected the Lord’s messengers (Lk 9:54; cf. Mk 9:38; Lk 9:49).<\/p>\n<p>The presumptuous and ill-considered thinking of the two brothers was obvious also when, after asking with his brother for a place of honor in the kingdom, James was corecipient of the prophecy that they would drink the cup their Master was to drink (Mk 10:35-40; cf. Mt 20:20-23). The two sons of Zebedee are also assumed to have been present with the other disciples when the risen Christ appeared by the Sea of Galilee (Jn 21:1), though curiously James’s name is nowhere mentioned in the fourth Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>We know nothing about James’s career subsequently until about the year 44, when Jesus’ prophecy was fulfilled: James was killed “by the sword” by Herod Agrippa I, and thus became the first of the Twelve whose martyrdom was referred to in the NT (Acts 12:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>The wife of Zebedee was Salome (Mt 27:56; Mk 15:40), who may have been a sister of the Lord’s mother (Jn 19:25). If this were so, it would mean that James and John were first cousins of Jesus and that they may have considered themselves to have been in a privileged position.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JAMES (Person) 1. James, brother of Jesus; leading elder in the church at Jerusalem; author of the epistle bearing his name. The only two references to James in the Gospels mention him with his brothers Joseph (Greek Joses), Simon, and Judas (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). This James may have been, after Jesus, the oldest of the brothers. The question has been raised about whether these were indeed full brothers of Jesus by Mary, for such a situation has created difficulty for those who cannot square it ...","summary_en":"JAMES (Person) 1. James, brother of Jesus; leading elder in the church at Jerusalem; author of the epistle bearing his name. The only two references to James in the Gospels mention him with his brothers Joseph (Greek Joses), Simon, and Judas (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). This James may have been, after Jesus, the oldest of the brothers. The question has been raised about whether these were indeed full brothers of Jesus by Mary, for such a situation has created difficulty for those who cannot square it ...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":21135,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Judas","title_en":"Judas","content_ro":"<h3>JUDAS<\/h3>\n<li>1. Simon’s son, surnamed Iscariot; one of the 12 disciples of Jesus. The derivation of Iscariot is uncertain. In all probability it designated the place of his birth, the town of Kerioth. His childhood home was perhaps Kerioth of Moab, east of the Jordan (Jer 48:24; Am 2:2), or Kerioth-hezron of southern Judah, also known as Hazor (Jos 15:25). A less feasible suggestion identifies Iscariot with an Aramaic word meaning “assassin,” a word eventually attached to Judas’s name because of his betrayal of Jesus.<\/li>\n<p>Judas Iscariot’s name appears last in the list of disciples (Mt 10:4; Mk 3:19; Lk 6:16), perhaps indicating his ignominy in the minds of later believers rather than his original importance among the Twelve. During Jesus’ public ministry, he managed the treasury of the group (Jn 13:29), from which he was known to pilfer money (12:6). As a betrayer, Judas contracted to turn Jesus over to the chief priests for 30 pieces of silver. He accomplished this act of treachery by singling out Jesus with a kiss in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:14-47; Mk 14:10-46; Lk 22:3-48; Jn 18:2-5).<\/p>\n<p>Various suggestions have been offered to explain Judas’s traitorous deed. (1) In keeping with his patriotic zeal, Judas turned Jesus over to the authorities after realizing that his Master did not intend to overthrow the Roman order and establish a Jewish state. (2) Judas believed Jesus to be the Messiah and planned his arrest in hope of urging Jesus to usher in his kingdom. (3) He was a scoundrel who had plotted wickedness since the start of Jesus’ public ministry. (4) Prompted by a satanic impulse, Judas betrayed Jesus; however, after recognizing that he was deceived, out of remorse he took his own life. (5) With damaged pride and humiliated ego from Jesus’ caustic rebukes, Judas, originally a loyal disciple, turned against him. (6) Judas, moved by his own greed, yielded to his selfish instincts, not realizing that Jesus would consequently be tried and killed; upon learning the outcome of his betrayal, he repented in despair and committed suicide.<\/p>\n<p>Judas, despondent over his act of betrayal, went out and hung himself in a field bought with his 30 pieces of silver (Mt 27:3-10). Acts 1:18 gruesomely adds that his body burst open, spilling out his intestines; for this reason the field was called the “Field of Blood” (Acts 1:19). Matthias later took Judas Iscariot’s place among the Twelve (v 26).<\/p>\n<li>2. Son of Joseph and Mary, and the brother of Jesus, James, Joseph, and Simon (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). Evidently Judas and his brothers rejected Jesus as Messiah (Jn 7:5) until after his resurrection (Acts 1:14). Later, it is thought, Judas (English “Jude”) authored the epistle named Jude.<\/li>\n<li>3. Son of James and one of the 12 disciples (Lk 6:16; Jn 14:22; Acts 1:13). He is identifiable with Thaddeus in Matthew 10:3 and Mark 3:18. <em>See<\/em> Thaddaeus, The Apostle.<\/li>\n<li>4. Galilean who led a Jewish revolt against the Romans because of the census taken by Quirinius in <span>AD<\/span> 6. In Acts 5:37 the Pharisee Gamaliel mentioned Judas as an example of one who unsuccessfully tried to gain the support of the Jewish people. Josephus credited him with founding the Jewish Zealot party, an extreme revolutionary movement that attempted to throw off Roman rule and to reestablish Jewish autonomy (<em>War<\/em> 2.8.1).<\/li>\n<li>5. Owner of a house along the street called Straight in Damascus. Here, following his conversion, Saul (Paul) found lodging and had his vision restored by Ananias (Acts 9:11).<\/li>\n<li>6. Prophet and leader in the early Jerusalem church. Judas, surnamed Barsabbas, was selected with Silas to accompany Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, where they confirmed the Jerusalem Council’s decision regarding the gentile church and subsequently encouraged its believers (Acts 15:22-32). <em>See<\/em> Joseph #12.<\/li>\n<li>7. KJV spelling of Judah, Jacob’s son (Mt 1:2-3). <em>See<\/em> Judah (Person) #1.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>JUDAS<\/h3>\n<li>1. Simon’s son, surnamed Iscariot; one of the 12 disciples of Jesus. The derivation of Iscariot is uncertain. In all probability it designated the place of his birth, the town of Kerioth. His childhood home was perhaps Kerioth of Moab, east of the Jordan (Jer 48:24; Am 2:2), or Kerioth-hezron of southern Judah, also known as Hazor (Jos 15:25). A less feasible suggestion identifies Iscariot with an Aramaic word meaning “assassin,” a word eventually attached to Judas’s name because of his betrayal of Jesus.<\/li>\n<p>Judas Iscariot’s name appears last in the list of disciples (Mt 10:4; Mk 3:19; Lk 6:16), perhaps indicating his ignominy in the minds of later believers rather than his original importance among the Twelve. During Jesus’ public ministry, he managed the treasury of the group (Jn 13:29), from which he was known to pilfer money (12:6). As a betrayer, Judas contracted to turn Jesus over to the chief priests for 30 pieces of silver. He accomplished this act of treachery by singling out Jesus with a kiss in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:14-47; Mk 14:10-46; Lk 22:3-48; Jn 18:2-5).<\/p>\n<p>Various suggestions have been offered to explain Judas’s traitorous deed. (1) In keeping with his patriotic zeal, Judas turned Jesus over to the authorities after realizing that his Master did not intend to overthrow the Roman order and establish a Jewish state. (2) Judas believed Jesus to be the Messiah and planned his arrest in hope of urging Jesus to usher in his kingdom. (3) He was a scoundrel who had plotted wickedness since the start of Jesus’ public ministry. (4) Prompted by a satanic impulse, Judas betrayed Jesus; however, after recognizing that he was deceived, out of remorse he took his own life. (5) With damaged pride and humiliated ego from Jesus’ caustic rebukes, Judas, originally a loyal disciple, turned against him. (6) Judas, moved by his own greed, yielded to his selfish instincts, not realizing that Jesus would consequently be tried and killed; upon learning the outcome of his betrayal, he repented in despair and committed suicide.<\/p>\n<p>Judas, despondent over his act of betrayal, went out and hung himself in a field bought with his 30 pieces of silver (Mt 27:3-10). Acts 1:18 gruesomely adds that his body burst open, spilling out his intestines; for this reason the field was called the “Field of Blood” (Acts 1:19). Matthias later took Judas Iscariot’s place among the Twelve (v 26).<\/p>\n<li>2. Son of Joseph and Mary, and the brother of Jesus, James, Joseph, and Simon (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). Evidently Judas and his brothers rejected Jesus as Messiah (Jn 7:5) until after his resurrection (Acts 1:14). Later, it is thought, Judas (English “Jude”) authored the epistle named Jude.<\/li>\n<li>3. Son of James and one of the 12 disciples (Lk 6:16; Jn 14:22; Acts 1:13). He is identifiable with Thaddeus in Matthew 10:3 and Mark 3:18. <em>See<\/em> Thaddaeus, The Apostle.<\/li>\n<li>4. Galilean who led a Jewish revolt against the Romans because of the census taken by Quirinius in <span>AD<\/span> 6. In Acts 5:37 the Pharisee Gamaliel mentioned Judas as an example of one who unsuccessfully tried to gain the support of the Jewish people. Josephus credited him with founding the Jewish Zealot party, an extreme revolutionary movement that attempted to throw off Roman rule and to reestablish Jewish autonomy (<em>War<\/em> 2.8.1).<\/li>\n<li>5. Owner of a house along the street called Straight in Damascus. Here, following his conversion, Saul (Paul) found lodging and had his vision restored by Ananias (Acts 9:11).<\/li>\n<li>6. Prophet and leader in the early Jerusalem church. Judas, surnamed Barsabbas, was selected with Silas to accompany Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, where they confirmed the Jerusalem Council’s decision regarding the gentile church and subsequently encouraged its believers (Acts 15:22-32). <em>See<\/em> Joseph #12.<\/li>\n<li>7. KJV spelling of Judah, Jacob’s son (Mt 1:2-3). <em>See<\/em> Judah (Person) #1.<\/li>","summary_ro":"JUDAS 1. Simon’s son, surnamed Iscariot; one of the 12 disciples of Jesus. The derivation of Iscariot is uncertain. In all probability it designated the place of his birth, the town of Kerioth. His childhood home was perhaps Kerioth of Moab, east of the Jordan (Jer 48:24; Am 2:2), or Kerioth-hezron of southern Judah, also known as Hazor (Jos 15:25). A less feasible suggestion identifies Iscariot with an Aramaic word meaning “assassin,” a word eventually attached to Judas’s name because of his...","summary_en":"JUDAS 1. Simon’s son, surnamed Iscariot; one of the 12 disciples of Jesus. The derivation of Iscariot is uncertain. In all probability it designated the place of his birth, the town of Kerioth. His childhood home was perhaps Kerioth of Moab, east of the Jordan (Jer 48:24; Am 2:2), or Kerioth-hezron of southern Judah, also known as Hazor (Jos 15:25). A less feasible suggestion identifies Iscariot with an Aramaic word meaning “assassin,” a word eventually attached to Judas’s name because of his...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24667,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Matthew (Person)","title_en":"Matthew (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>MATTHEW (P<span>erson<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<p>Son of Alphaeus; a tax collector by occupation; chosen by Jesus to be one of the 12 apostles; credited with the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew is listed in each of the four rosters of the 12 (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13). Aside from these lists, Matthew is mentioned only in the account of his calling (Mt 9:9; Mk 2:13-14; Lk 5:27). Before his apostolic call, the Gospels refer to Matthew as Levi (Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27; compare Mt 9:9). The identity of Levi as Matthew is beyond all doubt. It is improbable that Matthew was the brother of James the Less whose father was also named Alphaeus (Mt 10:3), since this fact would have been mentioned in the record of Scripture, as it is in the cases of Peter and Andrew and the sons of Zebedee.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew served King Herod Antipas in Capernaum of Galilee, collecting tariffs on goods passing on the road from Damascus to the Mediterranean Sea. To function in this capacity Matthew would have been an educated man, acquainted with the Greek language as well as the native Aramaic, thus qualifying him to write the Gospel of Matthew. As a tax collector, Matthew may have been a man of wealth, but this occupation also caused him to be despised by the Jews and to be considered among the lowest of people. The Pharisees consistently spoke of tax collectors in the same breath with sinners (Mt 11:19; Mk 2:16; Lk 7:34; 15:1).<\/p>\n<p>Matthew was called while he was working at his tax booth. Jesus passed by on the road and said to him, “Follow me” (Mk 2:14). Matthew left everything and did so (Lk 5:28). Immediately he gave Jesus a great banquet at his house, and a large crowd of his fellow tax collectors and others were there to enjoy it. It was at this feast that the Pharisees and their scribes made the well-known complaint “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” (Lk 5:30, <span>nlt<\/span> mg).<\/p>\n<p>It is not certain when Matthew was called, but it is probable that the first six disciples were present on that day, since the Pharisees complained to Christ’s disciples during Matthew’s feast. Unlike the first men Jesus called, Matthew was not originally a follower of John the Baptist.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MATTHEW (P<span>erson<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<p>Son of Alphaeus; a tax collector by occupation; chosen by Jesus to be one of the 12 apostles; credited with the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew is listed in each of the four rosters of the 12 (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13). Aside from these lists, Matthew is mentioned only in the account of his calling (Mt 9:9; Mk 2:13-14; Lk 5:27). Before his apostolic call, the Gospels refer to Matthew as Levi (Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27; compare Mt 9:9). The identity of Levi as Matthew is beyond all doubt. It is improbable that Matthew was the brother of James the Less whose father was also named Alphaeus (Mt 10:3), since this fact would have been mentioned in the record of Scripture, as it is in the cases of Peter and Andrew and the sons of Zebedee.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew served King Herod Antipas in Capernaum of Galilee, collecting tariffs on goods passing on the road from Damascus to the Mediterranean Sea. To function in this capacity Matthew would have been an educated man, acquainted with the Greek language as well as the native Aramaic, thus qualifying him to write the Gospel of Matthew. As a tax collector, Matthew may have been a man of wealth, but this occupation also caused him to be despised by the Jews and to be considered among the lowest of people. The Pharisees consistently spoke of tax collectors in the same breath with sinners (Mt 11:19; Mk 2:16; Lk 7:34; 15:1).<\/p>\n<p>Matthew was called while he was working at his tax booth. Jesus passed by on the road and said to him, “Follow me” (Mk 2:14). Matthew left everything and did so (Lk 5:28). Immediately he gave Jesus a great banquet at his house, and a large crowd of his fellow tax collectors and others were there to enjoy it. It was at this feast that the Pharisees and their scribes made the well-known complaint “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” (Lk 5:30, <span>nlt<\/span> mg).<\/p>\n<p>It is not certain when Matthew was called, but it is probable that the first six disciples were present on that day, since the Pharisees complained to Christ’s disciples during Matthew’s feast. Unlike the first men Jesus called, Matthew was not originally a follower of John the Baptist.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MATTHEW (Person) Son of Alphaeus; a tax collector by occupation; chosen by Jesus to be one of the 12 apostles; credited with the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew is listed in each of the four rosters of the 12 (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13). Aside from these lists, Matthew is mentioned only in the account of his calling (Mt 9:9; Mk 2:13-14; Lk 5:27). Before his apostolic call, the Gospels refer to Matthew as Levi (Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27; compare Mt 9:9). The identity of Levi as ...","summary_en":"MATTHEW (Person) Son of Alphaeus; a tax collector by occupation; chosen by Jesus to be one of the 12 apostles; credited with the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew is listed in each of the four rosters of the 12 (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13). Aside from these lists, Matthew is mentioned only in the account of his calling (Mt 9:9; Mk 2:13-14; Lk 5:27). Before his apostolic call, the Gospels refer to Matthew as Levi (Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27; compare Mt 9:9). The identity of Levi as ...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":30175,"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, <span>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>\n<p>Like 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>\n<p>There 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>\n<p><em>See 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>\n<p>That 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>\n<p>The 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 <span>BC<\/span> to <span>AD<\/span> 39; Philip was tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis (plus certain other territories) to the northeast of Galilee for 37 years (4 <span>BC<\/span> to <span>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>\n<p><em>See 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, <span>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>\n<p>Like 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>\n<p>There 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>\n<p><em>See 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>\n<p>That 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>\n<p>The 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 <span>BC<\/span> to <span>AD<\/span> 39; Philip was tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis (plus certain other territories) to the northeast of Galilee for 37 years (4 <span>BC<\/span> to <span>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>\n<p><em>See 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":35450,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Simon","title_en":"Simon","content_ro":"<h3>SIMON<\/h3>\n<p>Greek form of a Hebrew\/Aramaic name meaning “God has heard.” Nine men in the NT had this name:<\/p>\n<p>1. Son of Jona (Mt 16:17) or John (Jn 1:42), Andrew’s brother (v 40), and surnamed Cephas and Peter (respectively Aramaic and Greek, for “rock,” v 42) by Jesus. A fisherman of Bethsaida (Mk 1:16; Jn 1:44), he became an apostle of Jesus and author of two NT letters bearing his name. <em>See<\/em> Peter, The Apostle.<\/p>\n<li>2. Brother of Jesus, named with other brothers, James, Joses or Joseph, and Judas (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3).<\/li>\n<li>3. Leper, perhaps cured by Jesus, in whose house at Bethany Jesus and his disciples were eating when a woman poured an alabaster flask of costly ointment on the Lord’s head. Over the disciples’ objections against the waste of what could have been sold to support the poor, Jesus commended the act as a wonderful thing (Mt 26:6-13; Mk 14:3-9). From John 12:1-8 it appears that Simon’s house was also the house of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus, but their relationship to Simon is uncertain.<\/li>\n<li>4. Man of Cyrene, a district of North Africa, whom the Romans forced to carry Jesus’ cross (Mt 27:32; Mk 15:21; Lk 23:26). He was the father of Alexander and Rufus (Mk 15:21; cf. Rom 16:13).<\/li>\n<li>5. Apostle of Jesus called a Zealot (Lk 6:15), presumably because of prior association either with the party of political extremists by that name, who adopted terrorism to oppose the Roman occupation of Palestine, or with one of a number of Jewish groups noted for their zeal for the law. In Matthew 10:4 and Mark 3:18 he is designated the “Cananaean” (<span>rsv<\/span>)—from the Aramaic word for “zealot.” He is mentioned again in Acts 1:13 as one of the 11 apostles in Jerusalem after Jesus’ ascension. Otherwise, the NT is silent about him.<\/li>\n<li>6. Pharisee whose treatment of Jesus evoked the parable of the two debtors (Lk 7:36-50). He invited Jesus to eat at his house but withheld courtesies customary for guests and disapproved of Jesus’ acceptance of a “sinner” woman who wet the Lord’s feet with her tears, dried them with her hair, and anointed them with ointment from an alabaster flask. Jesus’ parable contrasted the woman’s act of loving and repentant faith with Simon’s unloving and self-righteous skepticism.<\/li>\n<li>7. Father of Judas Iscariot, the disciple who betrayed Jesus in Gethsemane (Jn 6:71; 13:2, 26).<\/li>\n<li>8. Magician (often called Simon Magus) of great repute in Samaria. Impressed by the signs and miracles performed by Philip the deacon-become-evangelist, he joined the crowd of baptized believers. He offered Peter and John money in exchange for the gift of the Holy Spirit, provoking Peter’s emphatic rebuke (Acts 8:9-24). From the association of this incident with his name, the English word “simony” is derived; it denotes the sale or purchase of church positions, or any profiteering from sacred things.<\/li>\n<li>9. Tanner of Joppa. Peter lodged at his house for many days (Acts 9:43; 10:6, 17, 32). On Simon’s housetop, Peter experienced the vision of a great sheet let down from heaven, containing animals and birds prohibited as food in Jewish law (10:15). Peter later recognized this vision as his preparation for consenting to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (vv 28-29).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>SIMON<\/h3>\n<p>Greek form of a Hebrew\/Aramaic name meaning “God has heard.” Nine men in the NT had this name:<\/p>\n<p>1. Son of Jona (Mt 16:17) or John (Jn 1:42), Andrew’s brother (v 40), and surnamed Cephas and Peter (respectively Aramaic and Greek, for “rock,” v 42) by Jesus. A fisherman of Bethsaida (Mk 1:16; Jn 1:44), he became an apostle of Jesus and author of two NT letters bearing his name. <em>See<\/em> Peter, The Apostle.<\/p>\n<li>2. Brother of Jesus, named with other brothers, James, Joses or Joseph, and Judas (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3).<\/li>\n<li>3. Leper, perhaps cured by Jesus, in whose house at Bethany Jesus and his disciples were eating when a woman poured an alabaster flask of costly ointment on the Lord’s head. Over the disciples’ objections against the waste of what could have been sold to support the poor, Jesus commended the act as a wonderful thing (Mt 26:6-13; Mk 14:3-9). From John 12:1-8 it appears that Simon’s house was also the house of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus, but their relationship to Simon is uncertain.<\/li>\n<li>4. Man of Cyrene, a district of North Africa, whom the Romans forced to carry Jesus’ cross (Mt 27:32; Mk 15:21; Lk 23:26). He was the father of Alexander and Rufus (Mk 15:21; cf. Rom 16:13).<\/li>\n<li>5. Apostle of Jesus called a Zealot (Lk 6:15), presumably because of prior association either with the party of political extremists by that name, who adopted terrorism to oppose the Roman occupation of Palestine, or with one of a number of Jewish groups noted for their zeal for the law. In Matthew 10:4 and Mark 3:18 he is designated the “Cananaean” (<span>rsv<\/span>)—from the Aramaic word for “zealot.” He is mentioned again in Acts 1:13 as one of the 11 apostles in Jerusalem after Jesus’ ascension. Otherwise, the NT is silent about him.<\/li>\n<li>6. Pharisee whose treatment of Jesus evoked the parable of the two debtors (Lk 7:36-50). He invited Jesus to eat at his house but withheld courtesies customary for guests and disapproved of Jesus’ acceptance of a “sinner” woman who wet the Lord’s feet with her tears, dried them with her hair, and anointed them with ointment from an alabaster flask. Jesus’ parable contrasted the woman’s act of loving and repentant faith with Simon’s unloving and self-righteous skepticism.<\/li>\n<li>7. Father of Judas Iscariot, the disciple who betrayed Jesus in Gethsemane (Jn 6:71; 13:2, 26).<\/li>\n<li>8. Magician (often called Simon Magus) of great repute in Samaria. Impressed by the signs and miracles performed by Philip the deacon-become-evangelist, he joined the crowd of baptized believers. He offered Peter and John money in exchange for the gift of the Holy Spirit, provoking Peter’s emphatic rebuke (Acts 8:9-24). From the association of this incident with his name, the English word “simony” is derived; it denotes the sale or purchase of church positions, or any profiteering from sacred things.<\/li>\n<li>9. Tanner of Joppa. Peter lodged at his house for many days (Acts 9:43; 10:6, 17, 32). On Simon’s housetop, Peter experienced the vision of a great sheet let down from heaven, containing animals and birds prohibited as food in Jewish law (10:15). Peter later recognized this vision as his preparation for consenting to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (vv 28-29).<\/li>","summary_ro":"SIMON Greek form of a Hebrew\/Aramaic name meaning “God has heard.” Nine men in the NT had this name: 1. Son of Jona (Mt 16:17) or John (Jn 1:42), Andrew’s brother (v 40), and surnamed Cephas and Peter (respectively Aramaic and Greek, for “rock,” v 42) by Jesus. A fisherman of Bethsaida (Mk 1:16; Jn 1:44), he became an apostle of Jesus and author of two NT letters bearing his name. See Peter, The Apostle. 2. Brother of Jesus, named with other brothers, James, Joses or Joseph, and Judas (Mt 13:...","summary_en":"SIMON Greek form of a Hebrew\/Aramaic name meaning “God has heard.” Nine men in the NT had this name: 1. Son of Jona (Mt 16:17) or John (Jn 1:42), Andrew’s brother (v 40), and surnamed Cephas and Peter (respectively Aramaic and Greek, for “rock,” v 42) by Jesus. A fisherman of Bethsaida (Mk 1:16; Jn 1:44), he became an apostle of Jesus and author of two NT letters bearing his name. See Peter, The Apostle. 2. Brother of Jesus, named with other brothers, James, Joses or Joseph, and Judas (Mt 13:...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":35465,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"the Canaanite*, Simon","title_en":"the Canaanite*, Simon","content_ro":"<h3>SIMON THE CANAANITE*<\/h3>\n<p>KJV rendering for Simon the Zealot in Matthew 10:4; Mark 3:18. <em>See<\/em> Simon #5.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SIMON THE CANAANITE*<\/h3>\n<p>KJV rendering for Simon the Zealot in Matthew 10:4; Mark 3:18. <em>See<\/em> Simon #5.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SIMON THE CANAANITE* KJV rendering for Simon the Zealot in Matthew 10:4; Mark 3:18. See Simon #5.","summary_en":"SIMON THE CANAANITE* KJV rendering for Simon the Zealot in Matthew 10:4; Mark 3:18. See Simon #5.","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":35467,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"the Cananaean*, Simon","title_en":"the Cananaean*, Simon","content_ro":"<h3>SIMON THE CANANAEAN*<\/h3>\n<p>RSV rendering for Simon the Zealot in Matthew 10:4; Mark 3:18. <em>See<\/em> Simon #5.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SIMON THE CANANAEAN*<\/h3>\n<p>RSV rendering for Simon the Zealot in Matthew 10:4; Mark 3:18. <em>See<\/em> Simon #5.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SIMON THE CANANAEAN* RSV rendering for Simon the Zealot in Matthew 10:4; Mark 3:18. See Simon #5.","summary_en":"SIMON THE CANANAEAN* RSV rendering for Simon the Zealot in Matthew 10:4; Mark 3:18. See Simon #5.","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":35469,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Simon the Zealot","title_en":"Simon the Zealot","content_ro":"<h3>SIMON THE ZEALOT<\/h3>\n<p>One of Jesus’ disciples (Mt 10:4; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13). <em>See<\/em> Simon #5.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SIMON THE ZEALOT<\/h3>\n<p>One of Jesus’ disciples (Mt 10:4; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13). <em>See<\/em> Simon #5.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SIMON THE ZEALOT One of Jesus’ disciples (Mt 10:4; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13). See Simon #5.","summary_en":"SIMON THE ZEALOT One of Jesus’ disciples (Mt 10:4; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13). See Simon #5.","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":37141,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Thaddaeus, the Apostle","title_en":"Thaddaeus, the Apostle","content_ro":"<h3>THADDAEUS, The Apostle<\/h3>\n<p>One of the 12 original apostles according to the lists in Mark 3:18 and Matthew 10:3 (<span>kjv<\/span> “Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus”). It is quite likely that this is the same person as Judas son of James (not Iscariot) in Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13. <em>See<\/em> Apostle, Apostleship.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>THADDAEUS, The Apostle<\/h3>\n<p>One of the 12 original apostles according to the lists in Mark 3:18 and Matthew 10:3 (<span>kjv<\/span> “Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus”). It is quite likely that this is the same person as Judas son of James (not Iscariot) in Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13. <em>See<\/em> Apostle, Apostleship.<\/p>","summary_ro":"THADDAEUS, The Apostle One of the 12 original apostles according to the lists in Mark 3:18 and Matthew 10:3 (kjv “Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus”). It is quite likely that this is the same person as Judas son of James (not Iscariot) in Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13. See Apostle, Apostleship.","summary_en":"THADDAEUS, The Apostle One of the 12 original apostles according to the lists in Mark 3:18 and Matthew 10:3 (kjv “Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus”). It is quite likely that this is the same person as Judas son of James (not Iscariot) in Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13. See Apostle, Apostleship.","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":37244,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Thomas, the Apostle","title_en":"Thomas, the Apostle","content_ro":"<h3>THOMAS, The Apostle<\/h3>\n<p>One of the 12 apostles whose name appears in all four Gospels. The name is a transliteration of an Aramaic word meaning “twin” and appears in the NT as Thomas. Among Greek Christians, there was a tendency to use his Hellenistic name, Didymus (<span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">didumos<\/span><em>,<\/em> “twin”); this name appears three times in John (Jn 11:16; 20:24; 21:2). There is ample evidence from koine papyri that the name Didymus was well known in the NT era.<\/p>\n<p>Thomas appears in each synoptic list of apostles (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15; cf. Acts 1:13) but plays no further role. His celebrated appearance in the fourth Gospel is interesting. Here Thomas expresses the despair of the final approach to Jerusalem (Jn 11:16) and presses Jesus to explain his words of departure in the upper room (14:5). In the Gospel’s closing scenes is the familiar episode in which Thomas doubts the Lord’s resurrection (20:24) and then is given compelling proof (vv 26-28), after which Thomas called Jesus “my Lord and my God.” Thomas is also named in John’s epilogue (21:2).<\/p>\n<p>Two apocryphal, pseudepigraphical works bear Thomas’s name: the Gospel of Thomas (from Nag Hammadi), which records 114 “secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke” and which Thomas is said to have preserved; and the Acts of Thomas (extant in both Greek and Syriac), which says that Jesus and Thomas were twins (sharing similar appearances and destinies) and that the apostle obtained secret teachings. This apocryphal account even explains Thomas’s fate. Against his wishes, Thomas traveled to India under the command of the Lord. There he was martyred with spears by the hand of an Indian king. He was raised up and his empty tomb took on magical properties. Today in St. Thomas, India, Christians assert that they are the spiritual descendants of the apostle.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Apocrypha: Thomas, Acts of, Thomas, Gospel of; Apostle, Apostleship.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>THOMAS, The Apostle<\/h3>\n<p>One of the 12 apostles whose name appears in all four Gospels. The name is a transliteration of an Aramaic word meaning “twin” and appears in the NT as Thomas. Among Greek Christians, there was a tendency to use his Hellenistic name, Didymus (<span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">didumos<\/span><em>,<\/em> “twin”); this name appears three times in John (Jn 11:16; 20:24; 21:2). There is ample evidence from koine papyri that the name Didymus was well known in the NT era.<\/p>\n<p>Thomas appears in each synoptic list of apostles (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15; cf. Acts 1:13) but plays no further role. His celebrated appearance in the fourth Gospel is interesting. Here Thomas expresses the despair of the final approach to Jerusalem (Jn 11:16) and presses Jesus to explain his words of departure in the upper room (14:5). In the Gospel’s closing scenes is the familiar episode in which Thomas doubts the Lord’s resurrection (20:24) and then is given compelling proof (vv 26-28), after which Thomas called Jesus “my Lord and my God.” Thomas is also named in John’s epilogue (21:2).<\/p>\n<p>Two apocryphal, pseudepigraphical works bear Thomas’s name: the Gospel of Thomas (from Nag Hammadi), which records 114 “secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke” and which Thomas is said to have preserved; and the Acts of Thomas (extant in both Greek and Syriac), which says that Jesus and Thomas were twins (sharing similar appearances and destinies) and that the apostle obtained secret teachings. This apocryphal account even explains Thomas’s fate. Against his wishes, Thomas traveled to India under the command of the Lord. There he was martyred with spears by the hand of an Indian king. He was raised up and his empty tomb took on magical properties. Today in St. Thomas, India, Christians assert that they are the spiritual descendants of the apostle.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Apocrypha: Thomas, Acts of, Thomas, Gospel of; Apostle, Apostleship.<\/p>","summary_ro":"THOMAS, The Apostle One of the 12 apostles whose name appears in all four Gospels. The name is a transliteration of an Aramaic word meaning “twin” and appears in the NT as Thomas. Among Greek Christians, there was a tendency to use his Hellenistic name, Didymus (didumos, “twin”); this name appears three times in John (Jn 11:16; 20:24; 21:2). There is ample evidence from koine papyri that the name Didymus was well known in the NT era. Thomas appears in each synoptic list of apostles (Mt 10:3; ...","summary_en":"THOMAS, The Apostle One of the 12 apostles whose name appears in all four Gospels. The name is a transliteration of an Aramaic word meaning “twin” and appears in the NT as Thomas. Among Greek Christians, there was a tendency to use his Hellenistic name, Didymus (didumos, “twin”); this name appears three times in John (Jn 11:16; 20:24; 21:2). There is ample evidence from koine papyri that the name Didymus was well known in the NT era. Thomas appears in each synoptic list of apostles (Mt 10:3; ...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38938,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Zealot","title_en":"Zealot","content_ro":"<h3>ZEALOT<\/h3>\n<p>Term used for the second Simon among the Twelve to distinguish him from Simon Peter (Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13). Matthew (Mt 10:4) and Mark (Mk 3:18) use “Cananaean”—Greek and Aramaic equivalents for “zealous defender, enthusiast, one eager to acquire, fanatic” (from root words meaning “burn with zeal, or jealousy; desire eagerly”; Ex 34:14; 2 Macc 4:2). In this general sense, Christ showed zeal for God’s house. Some were “zealots” for spiritual gifts, good works, goodness, and the law, as Paul was for the tradition of the fathers and for God (Jn 2:17; Acts 21:20; 22:3; 1 Cor 14:12; Gal 1:14; Ti 2:14). So, Simon was distinguished from Peter and the others by his religious zeal.<\/p>\n<p>By the time Luke wrote, the title “Zealot” had become attached especially to a militant, anti-Roman, revolutionary faction, equally religious and political in motivation. This party may have been founded in <span>AD<\/span> 6, following the death of Herod the Great, by Judas the Galilean and Zadduk the Pharisee. The movement was rooted in Maccabean resistance to foreign rule and infiltration (1 Macc 2:15-28). Zealot opposition to Roman rule was rooted in zeal for the Torah and for God the only King. The Zealot regarded himself as an agent of divine judgment and redemption, resolutely and fearlessly contending against idolatry, apostasy, and collaboration. The Zealots thought that the Messiah would become their leader.<\/p>\n<p>As hostility between Rome and Judea sharpened, the religious motivation was channeled by nationalist feeling into a “holy war.” Whereas the Maccabees had been forced to take arms in self-defense, the Zealots became increasingly militaristic. Josephus (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 18.1.1-6; <em>War<\/em> 4.3.9), with some prejudice, calls them brigands and robbers. Their Latin name was <em>sicarii,<\/em> assassins, but supporters would call them patriotic guerrillas. They reached preeminence in the revolt against Rome (<span>AD<\/span> 66–70). Their last refuge and stronghold, at Masada, was overcome in <span>AD<\/span> 73, when the surviving 960 committed suicide.<\/p>\n<p>Simon probably was, or had been, a member of this movement’s earlier phase, around <span>AD<\/span> 30. It is less probable that Judas Iscariot (possibly Sicarius) and the “sons of thunder” (Mk 3:17) were. Judas the Galilean (Acts 5:37-38), and even Paul (21:38), were considered Zealots.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> First Jewish Revolt; Judaism.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ZEALOT<\/h3>\n<p>Term used for the second Simon among the Twelve to distinguish him from Simon Peter (Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13). Matthew (Mt 10:4) and Mark (Mk 3:18) use “Cananaean”—Greek and Aramaic equivalents for “zealous defender, enthusiast, one eager to acquire, fanatic” (from root words meaning “burn with zeal, or jealousy; desire eagerly”; Ex 34:14; 2 Macc 4:2). In this general sense, Christ showed zeal for God’s house. Some were “zealots” for spiritual gifts, good works, goodness, and the law, as Paul was for the tradition of the fathers and for God (Jn 2:17; Acts 21:20; 22:3; 1 Cor 14:12; Gal 1:14; Ti 2:14). So, Simon was distinguished from Peter and the others by his religious zeal.<\/p>\n<p>By the time Luke wrote, the title “Zealot” had become attached especially to a militant, anti-Roman, revolutionary faction, equally religious and political in motivation. This party may have been founded in <span>AD<\/span> 6, following the death of Herod the Great, by Judas the Galilean and Zadduk the Pharisee. The movement was rooted in Maccabean resistance to foreign rule and infiltration (1 Macc 2:15-28). Zealot opposition to Roman rule was rooted in zeal for the Torah and for God the only King. The Zealot regarded himself as an agent of divine judgment and redemption, resolutely and fearlessly contending against idolatry, apostasy, and collaboration. The Zealots thought that the Messiah would become their leader.<\/p>\n<p>As hostility between Rome and Judea sharpened, the religious motivation was channeled by nationalist feeling into a “holy war.” Whereas the Maccabees had been forced to take arms in self-defense, the Zealots became increasingly militaristic. Josephus (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 18.1.1-6; <em>War<\/em> 4.3.9), with some prejudice, calls them brigands and robbers. Their Latin name was <em>sicarii,<\/em> assassins, but supporters would call them patriotic guerrillas. They reached preeminence in the revolt against Rome (<span>AD<\/span> 66–70). Their last refuge and stronghold, at Masada, was overcome in <span>AD<\/span> 73, when the surviving 960 committed suicide.<\/p>\n<p>Simon probably was, or had been, a member of this movement’s earlier phase, around <span>AD<\/span> 30. It is less probable that Judas Iscariot (possibly Sicarius) and the “sons of thunder” (Mk 3:17) were. Judas the Galilean (Acts 5:37-38), and even Paul (21:38), were considered Zealots.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> First Jewish Revolt; Judaism.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ZEALOT Term used for the second Simon among the Twelve to distinguish him from Simon Peter (Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13). Matthew (Mt 10:4) and Mark (Mk 3:18) use “Cananaean”—Greek and Aramaic equivalents for “zealous defender, enthusiast, one eager to acquire, fanatic” (from root words meaning “burn with zeal, or jealousy; desire eagerly”; Ex 34:14; 2 Macc 4:2). In this general sense, Christ showed zeal for God’s house. Some were “zealots” for spiritual gifts, good works, goodness, and the law, as Pa...","summary_en":"ZEALOT Term used for the second Simon among the Twelve to distinguish him from Simon Peter (Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13). Matthew (Mt 10:4) and Mark (Mk 3:18) use “Cananaean”—Greek and Aramaic equivalents for “zealous defender, enthusiast, one eager to acquire, fanatic” (from root words meaning “burn with zeal, or jealousy; desire eagerly”; Ex 34:14; 2 Macc 4:2). In this general sense, Christ showed zeal for God’s house. Some were “zealots” for spiritual gifts, good works, goodness, and the law, as Pa...","source":"Articles\/Z.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55195,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:18","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:18","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:18<\/strong> <em>Philip<\/em> is fifth on all four lists of the twelve disciples (Matt 10:1-4; Luke 6:12-16; Acts 1:13); <em>James<\/em> the <em>son of Alphaeus<\/em> (not the son of Zebedee and brother of John) is always ninth. <em>Bartholomew<\/em> might be Nathanael (John 1:43-51), and <em>Matthew<\/em> is probably Levi, the tax collector (Mark 2:14; Matt 9:9). Although <em>Thomas<\/em> is referred to as “the twin” (John 11:16; 20:24; 21:2), nothing else is said in the New Testament about this. <em>Thaddaeus<\/em> (Matt 10:3) is missing from Luke’s list; he might be Judas, the son of James (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). That a government official (Matthew) and an anti-government activist (<em>Simon . . . the zealot<\/em>) were among the twelve apostles testifies to Jesus’ ability to change people’s hearts and overcome natural antagonism.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:18<\/strong> <em>Philip<\/em> is fifth on all four lists of the twelve disciples (Matt 10:1-4; Luke 6:12-16; Acts 1:13); <em>James<\/em> the <em>son of Alphaeus<\/em> (not the son of Zebedee and brother of John) is always ninth. <em>Bartholomew<\/em> might be Nathanael (John 1:43-51), and <em>Matthew<\/em> is probably Levi, the tax collector (Mark 2:14; Matt 9:9). Although <em>Thomas<\/em> is referred to as “the twin” (John 11:16; 20:24; 21:2), nothing else is said in the New Testament about this. <em>Thaddaeus<\/em> (Matt 10:3) is missing from Luke’s list; he might be Judas, the son of James (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). That a government official (Matthew) and an anti-government activist (<em>Simon . . . the zealot<\/em>) were among the twelve apostles testifies to Jesus’ ability to change people’s hearts and overcome natural antagonism.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:18 Philip is fifth on all four lists of the twelve disciples (Matt 10:1-4; Luke 6:12-16; Acts 1:13); James the son of Alphaeus (not the son of Zebedee and brother of John) is always ninth. Bartholomew might be Nathanael (John 1:43-51), and Matthew is probably Levi, the tax collector (Mark 2:14; Matt 9:9). Although Thomas is referred to as “the twin” (John 11:16; 20:24; 21:2), nothing else is said in the New Testament about this. Thaddaeus (Matt 10:3) is missing from Luke’s list; he might be...","summary_en":"3:18 Philip is fifth on all four lists of the twelve disciples (Matt 10:1-4; Luke 6:12-16; Acts 1:13); James the son of Alphaeus (not the son of Zebedee and brother of John) is always ninth. Bartholomew might be Nathanael (John 1:43-51), and Matthew is probably Levi, the tax collector (Mark 2:14; Matt 9:9). Although Thomas is referred to as “the twin” (John 11:16; 20:24; 21:2), nothing else is said in the New Testament about this. Thaddaeus (Matt 10:3) is missing from Luke’s list; he might be...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82821,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:18","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:18","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:18<\/strong> <em>Philip<\/em> is fifth on all four lists of the twelve disciples (Matt 10:1-4; Luke 6:12-16; Acts 1:13); <em>James<\/em> the <em>son of Alphaeus<\/em> (not the son of Zebedee and brother of John) is always ninth. <em>Bartholomew<\/em> might be Nathanael (John 1:43-51), and <em>Matthew<\/em> is probably Levi, the tax collector (Mark 2:14; Matt 9:9). Although <em>Thomas<\/em> is referred to as “the twin” (John 11:16; 20:24; 21:2), nothing else is said in the New Testament about this. <em>Thaddaeus<\/em> (Matt 10:3) is missing from Luke’s list; he might be Judas, the son of James (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). That a government official (Matthew) and an anti-government activist (<em>Simon . . . the zealot<\/em>) were among the twelve apostles testifies to Jesus’ ability to change people’s hearts and overcome natural antagonism.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:18<\/strong> <em>Philip<\/em> is fifth on all four lists of the twelve disciples (Matt 10:1-4; Luke 6:12-16; Acts 1:13); <em>James<\/em> the <em>son of Alphaeus<\/em> (not the son of Zebedee and brother of John) is always ninth. <em>Bartholomew<\/em> might be Nathanael (John 1:43-51), and <em>Matthew<\/em> is probably Levi, the tax collector (Mark 2:14; Matt 9:9). Although <em>Thomas<\/em> is referred to as “the twin” (John 11:16; 20:24; 21:2), nothing else is said in the New Testament about this. <em>Thaddaeus<\/em> (Matt 10:3) is missing from Luke’s list; he might be Judas, the son of James (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). That a government official (Matthew) and an anti-government activist (<em>Simon . . . the zealot<\/em>) were among the twelve apostles testifies to Jesus’ ability to change people’s hearts and overcome natural antagonism.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:18 Philip is fifth on all four lists of the twelve disciples (Matt 10:1-4; Luke 6:12-16; Acts 1:13); James the son of Alphaeus (not the son of Zebedee and brother of John) is always ninth. Bartholomew might be Nathanael (John 1:43-51), and Matthew is probably Levi, the tax collector (Mark 2:14; Matt 9:9). Although Thomas is referred to as “the twin” (John 11:16; 20:24; 21:2), nothing else is said in the New Testament about this. Thaddaeus (Matt 10:3) is missing from Luke’s list; he might be...","summary_en":"3:18 Philip is fifth on all four lists of the twelve disciples (Matt 10:1-4; Luke 6:12-16; Acts 1:13); James the son of Alphaeus (not the son of Zebedee and brother of John) is always ninth. Bartholomew might be Nathanael (John 1:43-51), and Matthew is probably Levi, the tax collector (Mark 2:14; Matt 9:9). Although Thomas is referred to as “the twin” (John 11:16; 20:24; 21:2), nothing else is said in the New Testament about this. Thaddaeus (Matt 10:3) is missing from Luke’s list; he might be...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110447,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:18","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:18","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:18<\/strong> <em>Philip<\/em> is fifth on all four lists of the twelve disciples (Matt 10:1-4; Luke 6:12-16; Acts 1:13); <em>James<\/em> the <em>son of Alphaeus<\/em> (not the son of Zebedee and brother of John) is always ninth. <em>Bartholomew<\/em> might be Nathanael (John 1:43-51), and <em>Matthew<\/em> is probably Levi, the tax collector (Mark 2:14; Matt 9:9). Although <em>Thomas<\/em> is referred to as “the twin” (John 11:16; 20:24; 21:2), nothing else is said in the New Testament about this. <em>Thaddaeus<\/em> (Matt 10:3) is missing from Luke’s list; he might be Judas, the son of James (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). That a government official (Matthew) and an anti-government activist (<em>Simon . . . the zealot<\/em>) were among the twelve apostles testifies to Jesus’ ability to change people’s hearts and overcome natural antagonism.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:18<\/strong> <em>Philip<\/em> is fifth on all four lists of the twelve disciples (Matt 10:1-4; Luke 6:12-16; Acts 1:13); <em>James<\/em> the <em>son of Alphaeus<\/em> (not the son of Zebedee and brother of John) is always ninth. <em>Bartholomew<\/em> might be Nathanael (John 1:43-51), and <em>Matthew<\/em> is probably Levi, the tax collector (Mark 2:14; Matt 9:9). Although <em>Thomas<\/em> is referred to as “the twin” (John 11:16; 20:24; 21:2), nothing else is said in the New Testament about this. <em>Thaddaeus<\/em> (Matt 10:3) is missing from Luke’s list; he might be Judas, the son of James (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). That a government official (Matthew) and an anti-government activist (<em>Simon . . . the zealot<\/em>) were among the twelve apostles testifies to Jesus’ ability to change people’s hearts and overcome natural antagonism.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:18 Philip is fifth on all four lists of the twelve disciples (Matt 10:1-4; Luke 6:12-16; Acts 1:13); James the son of Alphaeus (not the son of Zebedee and brother of John) is always ninth. Bartholomew might be Nathanael (John 1:43-51), and Matthew is probably Levi, the tax collector (Mark 2:14; Matt 9:9). Although Thomas is referred to as “the twin” (John 11:16; 20:24; 21:2), nothing else is said in the New Testament about this. Thaddaeus (Matt 10:3) is missing from Luke’s list; he might be...","summary_en":"3:18 Philip is fifth on all four lists of the twelve disciples (Matt 10:1-4; Luke 6:12-16; Acts 1:13); James the son of Alphaeus (not the son of Zebedee and brother of John) is always ninth. Bartholomew might be Nathanael (John 1:43-51), and Matthew is probably Levi, the tax collector (Mark 2:14; Matt 9:9). Although Thomas is referred to as “the twin” (John 11:16; 20:24; 21:2), nothing else is said in the New Testament about this. Thaddaeus (Matt 10:3) is missing from Luke’s list; he might be...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138073,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:18","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:18","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:18<\/strong> <em>Philip<\/em> is fifth on all four lists of the twelve disciples (Matt 10:1-4; Luke 6:12-16; Acts 1:13); <em>James<\/em> the <em>son of Alphaeus<\/em> (not the son of Zebedee and brother of John) is always ninth. <em>Bartholomew<\/em> might be Nathanael (John 1:43-51), and <em>Matthew<\/em> is probably Levi, the tax collector (Mark 2:14; Matt 9:9). Although <em>Thomas<\/em> is referred to as “the twin” (John 11:16; 20:24; 21:2), nothing else is said in the New Testament about this. <em>Thaddaeus<\/em> (Matt 10:3) is missing from Luke’s list; he might be Judas, the son of James (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). That a government official (Matthew) and an anti-government activist (<em>Simon . . . the zealot<\/em>) were among the twelve apostles testifies to Jesus’ ability to change people’s hearts and overcome natural antagonism.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:18<\/strong> <em>Philip<\/em> is fifth on all four lists of the twelve disciples (Matt 10:1-4; Luke 6:12-16; Acts 1:13); <em>James<\/em> the <em>son of Alphaeus<\/em> (not the son of Zebedee and brother of John) is always ninth. <em>Bartholomew<\/em> might be Nathanael (John 1:43-51), and <em>Matthew<\/em> is probably Levi, the tax collector (Mark 2:14; Matt 9:9). Although <em>Thomas<\/em> is referred to as “the twin” (John 11:16; 20:24; 21:2), nothing else is said in the New Testament about this. <em>Thaddaeus<\/em> (Matt 10:3) is missing from Luke’s list; he might be Judas, the son of James (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). That a government official (Matthew) and an anti-government activist (<em>Simon . . . the zealot<\/em>) were among the twelve apostles testifies to Jesus’ ability to change people’s hearts and overcome natural antagonism.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:18 Philip is fifth on all four lists of the twelve disciples (Matt 10:1-4; Luke 6:12-16; Acts 1:13); James the son of Alphaeus (not the son of Zebedee and brother of John) is always ninth. Bartholomew might be Nathanael (John 1:43-51), and Matthew is probably Levi, the tax collector (Mark 2:14; Matt 9:9). Although Thomas is referred to as “the twin” (John 11:16; 20:24; 21:2), nothing else is said in the New Testament about this. Thaddaeus (Matt 10:3) is missing from Luke’s list; he might be...","summary_en":"3:18 Philip is fifth on all four lists of the twelve disciples (Matt 10:1-4; Luke 6:12-16; Acts 1:13); James the son of Alphaeus (not the son of Zebedee and brother of John) is always ninth. Bartholomew might be Nathanael (John 1:43-51), and Matthew is probably Levi, the tax collector (Mark 2:14; Matt 9:9). Although Thomas is referred to as “the twin” (John 11:16; 20:24; 21:2), nothing else is said in the New Testament about this. Thaddaeus (Matt 10:3) is missing from Luke’s list; he might be...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"19":[{"id":42263,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Judas Iscariot","title_en":"Judas Iscariot","content_ro":"<h3>Judas Iscariot<\/h3>\n<p>Judas Iscariot is infamous for betraying Jesus to the authorities (Matt 10:4; Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16).<\/p>\n<p>The meaning of the name “Iscariot” is uncertain; it might refer to a village named Kerioth. He is not the same person as Judas son of James (Luke 6:16; John 14:22).<\/p>\n<p>Among the apostles, Judas Iscariot came to be known as greedy; he carried the money bag and had the reputation of stealing from it (John 12:4-6). The money offered him as a bribe by the leading priests later convinced him to betray Jesus (Matt 26:14-16; Mark 14:10-11; Luke 22:3-6).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus called Judas himself a devil (John 6:70-71) and predicted the betrayal (Mark 14:18-21). The devil put the idea of betrayal into Judas’s mind, and Satan “entered” him at the time of the betrayal (Luke 22:3-4; John 13:2, 27). Judas led a group of soldiers and officers to the garden of Gethsemane in the middle of the night, where he found Jesus and betrayed him with a prearranged signal, a kiss of greeting (Mark 14:43-46). Later, Judas was apparently overcome by remorse for betraying an innocent man, and he hanged himself (Matt 27:3-10; Acts 1:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus clearly understood Judas’s betrayal as part of God’s plan for redemption: It brought about the death of the Messiah as the ultimate sacrifice for sin (Matt 26:24, 53-54; Mark 14:21; Luke 22:22; John 17:12). Even though Judas served God’s plan, his tragic end was clearly deserved (Acts 1:24-25). It would have been better for Judas if he had never been born (Matt 26:24; Mark 14:21). Judas’s fate soberly warns those who are apparently followers of Jesus but have never committed themselves to him personally (cp. Heb 6:4-6).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 10:4; 26:14-16, 23-25, 46-50; 27:3-10; Mark 3:19; 14:10-11, 18-21, 43-45; Luke 6:16; 22:3-6, 22, 47-48; John 6:70-71; 12:4-6; 13:2, 18, 21-30; 17:12; 18:2-5; Acts 1:16-26<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Judas Iscariot<\/h3>\n<p>Judas Iscariot is infamous for betraying Jesus to the authorities (Matt 10:4; Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16).<\/p>\n<p>The meaning of the name “Iscariot” is uncertain; it might refer to a village named Kerioth. He is not the same person as Judas son of James (Luke 6:16; John 14:22).<\/p>\n<p>Among the apostles, Judas Iscariot came to be known as greedy; he carried the money bag and had the reputation of stealing from it (John 12:4-6). The money offered him as a bribe by the leading priests later convinced him to betray Jesus (Matt 26:14-16; Mark 14:10-11; Luke 22:3-6).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus called Judas himself a devil (John 6:70-71) and predicted the betrayal (Mark 14:18-21). The devil put the idea of betrayal into Judas’s mind, and Satan “entered” him at the time of the betrayal (Luke 22:3-4; John 13:2, 27). Judas led a group of soldiers and officers to the garden of Gethsemane in the middle of the night, where he found Jesus and betrayed him with a prearranged signal, a kiss of greeting (Mark 14:43-46). Later, Judas was apparently overcome by remorse for betraying an innocent man, and he hanged himself (Matt 27:3-10; Acts 1:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus clearly understood Judas’s betrayal as part of God’s plan for redemption: It brought about the death of the Messiah as the ultimate sacrifice for sin (Matt 26:24, 53-54; Mark 14:21; Luke 22:22; John 17:12). Even though Judas served God’s plan, his tragic end was clearly deserved (Acts 1:24-25). It would have been better for Judas if he had never been born (Matt 26:24; Mark 14:21). Judas’s fate soberly warns those who are apparently followers of Jesus but have never committed themselves to him personally (cp. Heb 6:4-6).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 10:4; 26:14-16, 23-25, 46-50; 27:3-10; Mark 3:19; 14:10-11, 18-21, 43-45; Luke 6:16; 22:3-6, 22, 47-48; John 6:70-71; 12:4-6; 13:2, 18, 21-30; 17:12; 18:2-5; Acts 1:16-26<\/p>","summary_ro":"Judas Iscariot Judas Iscariot is infamous for betraying Jesus to the authorities (Matt 10:4; Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16). The meaning of the name “Iscariot” is uncertain; it might refer to a village named Kerioth. He is not the same person as Judas son of James (Luke 6:16; John 14:22). Among the apostles, Judas Iscariot came to be known as greedy; he carried the money bag and had the reputation of stealing from it (John 12:4-6). The money offered him as a bribe by the leading priests later convince...","summary_en":"Judas Iscariot Judas Iscariot is infamous for betraying Jesus to the authorities (Matt 10:4; Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16). The meaning of the name “Iscariot” is uncertain; it might refer to a village named Kerioth. He is not the same person as Judas son of James (Luke 6:16; John 14:22). Among the apostles, Judas Iscariot came to be known as greedy; he carried the money bag and had the reputation of stealing from it (John 12:4-6). The money offered him as a bribe by the leading priests later convince...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":69889,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Judas Iscariot","title_en":"Judas Iscariot","content_ro":"<h3>Judas Iscariot<\/h3>\n<p>Judas Iscariot is infamous for betraying Jesus to the authorities (Matt 10:4; Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16).<\/p>\n<p>The meaning of the name “Iscariot” is uncertain; it might refer to a village named Kerioth. He is not the same person as Judas son of James (Luke 6:16; John 14:22).<\/p>\n<p>Among the apostles, Judas Iscariot came to be known as greedy; he carried the money bag and had the reputation of stealing from it (John 12:4-6). The money offered him as a bribe by the leading priests later convinced him to betray Jesus (Matt 26:14-16; Mark 14:10-11; Luke 22:3-6).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus called Judas himself a devil (John 6:70-71) and predicted the betrayal (Mark 14:18-21). The devil put the idea of betrayal into Judas’s mind, and Satan “entered” him at the time of the betrayal (Luke 22:3-4; John 13:2, 27). Judas led a group of soldiers and officers to the garden of Gethsemane in the middle of the night, where he found Jesus and betrayed him with a prearranged signal, a kiss of greeting (Mark 14:43-46). Later, Judas was apparently overcome by remorse for betraying an innocent man, and he hanged himself (Matt 27:3-10; Acts 1:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus clearly understood Judas’s betrayal as part of God’s plan for redemption: It brought about the death of the Messiah as the ultimate sacrifice for sin (Matt 26:24, 53-54; Mark 14:21; Luke 22:22; John 17:12). Even though Judas served God’s plan, his tragic end was clearly deserved (Acts 1:24-25). It would have been better for Judas if he had never been born (Matt 26:24; Mark 14:21). Judas’s fate soberly warns those who are apparently followers of Jesus but have never committed themselves to him personally (cp. Heb 6:4-6).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 10:4; 26:14-16, 23-25, 46-50; 27:3-10; Mark 3:19; 14:10-11, 18-21, 43-45; Luke 6:16; 22:3-6, 22, 47-48; John 6:70-71; 12:4-6; 13:2, 18, 21-30; 17:12; 18:2-5; Acts 1:16-26<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Judas Iscariot<\/h3>\n<p>Judas Iscariot is infamous for betraying Jesus to the authorities (Matt 10:4; Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16).<\/p>\n<p>The meaning of the name “Iscariot” is uncertain; it might refer to a village named Kerioth. He is not the same person as Judas son of James (Luke 6:16; John 14:22).<\/p>\n<p>Among the apostles, Judas Iscariot came to be known as greedy; he carried the money bag and had the reputation of stealing from it (John 12:4-6). The money offered him as a bribe by the leading priests later convinced him to betray Jesus (Matt 26:14-16; Mark 14:10-11; Luke 22:3-6).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus called Judas himself a devil (John 6:70-71) and predicted the betrayal (Mark 14:18-21). The devil put the idea of betrayal into Judas’s mind, and Satan “entered” him at the time of the betrayal (Luke 22:3-4; John 13:2, 27). Judas led a group of soldiers and officers to the garden of Gethsemane in the middle of the night, where he found Jesus and betrayed him with a prearranged signal, a kiss of greeting (Mark 14:43-46). Later, Judas was apparently overcome by remorse for betraying an innocent man, and he hanged himself (Matt 27:3-10; Acts 1:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus clearly understood Judas’s betrayal as part of God’s plan for redemption: It brought about the death of the Messiah as the ultimate sacrifice for sin (Matt 26:24, 53-54; Mark 14:21; Luke 22:22; John 17:12). Even though Judas served God’s plan, his tragic end was clearly deserved (Acts 1:24-25). It would have been better for Judas if he had never been born (Matt 26:24; Mark 14:21). Judas’s fate soberly warns those who are apparently followers of Jesus but have never committed themselves to him personally (cp. Heb 6:4-6).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 10:4; 26:14-16, 23-25, 46-50; 27:3-10; Mark 3:19; 14:10-11, 18-21, 43-45; Luke 6:16; 22:3-6, 22, 47-48; John 6:70-71; 12:4-6; 13:2, 18, 21-30; 17:12; 18:2-5; Acts 1:16-26<\/p>","summary_ro":"Judas Iscariot Judas Iscariot is infamous for betraying Jesus to the authorities (Matt 10:4; Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16). The meaning of the name “Iscariot” is uncertain; it might refer to a village named Kerioth. He is not the same person as Judas son of James (Luke 6:16; John 14:22). Among the apostles, Judas Iscariot came to be known as greedy; he carried the money bag and had the reputation of stealing from it (John 12:4-6). The money offered him as a bribe by the leading priests later convince...","summary_en":"Judas Iscariot Judas Iscariot is infamous for betraying Jesus to the authorities (Matt 10:4; Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16). The meaning of the name “Iscariot” is uncertain; it might refer to a village named Kerioth. He is not the same person as Judas son of James (Luke 6:16; John 14:22). Among the apostles, Judas Iscariot came to be known as greedy; he carried the money bag and had the reputation of stealing from it (John 12:4-6). The money offered him as a bribe by the leading priests later convince...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":97515,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Judas Iscariot","title_en":"Judas Iscariot","content_ro":"<h3>Judas Iscariot<\/h3>\n<p>Judas Iscariot is infamous for betraying Jesus to the authorities (Matt 10:4; Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16).<\/p>\n<p>The meaning of the name “Iscariot” is uncertain; it might refer to a village named Kerioth. He is not the same person as Judas son of James (Luke 6:16; John 14:22).<\/p>\n<p>Among the apostles, Judas Iscariot came to be known as greedy; he carried the money bag and had the reputation of stealing from it (John 12:4-6). The money offered him as a bribe by the leading priests later convinced him to betray Jesus (Matt 26:14-16; Mark 14:10-11; Luke 22:3-6).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus called Judas himself a devil (John 6:70-71) and predicted the betrayal (Mark 14:18-21). The devil put the idea of betrayal into Judas’s mind, and Satan “entered” him at the time of the betrayal (Luke 22:3-4; John 13:2, 27). Judas led a group of soldiers and officers to the garden of Gethsemane in the middle of the night, where he found Jesus and betrayed him with a prearranged signal, a kiss of greeting (Mark 14:43-46). Later, Judas was apparently overcome by remorse for betraying an innocent man, and he hanged himself (Matt 27:3-10; Acts 1:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus clearly understood Judas’s betrayal as part of God’s plan for redemption: It brought about the death of the Messiah as the ultimate sacrifice for sin (Matt 26:24, 53-54; Mark 14:21; Luke 22:22; John 17:12). Even though Judas served God’s plan, his tragic end was clearly deserved (Acts 1:24-25). It would have been better for Judas if he had never been born (Matt 26:24; Mark 14:21). Judas’s fate soberly warns those who are apparently followers of Jesus but have never committed themselves to him personally (cp. Heb 6:4-6).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 10:4; 26:14-16, 23-25, 46-50; 27:3-10; Mark 3:19; 14:10-11, 18-21, 43-45; Luke 6:16; 22:3-6, 22, 47-48; John 6:70-71; 12:4-6; 13:2, 18, 21-30; 17:12; 18:2-5; Acts 1:16-26<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Judas Iscariot<\/h3>\n<p>Judas Iscariot is infamous for betraying Jesus to the authorities (Matt 10:4; Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16).<\/p>\n<p>The meaning of the name “Iscariot” is uncertain; it might refer to a village named Kerioth. He is not the same person as Judas son of James (Luke 6:16; John 14:22).<\/p>\n<p>Among the apostles, Judas Iscariot came to be known as greedy; he carried the money bag and had the reputation of stealing from it (John 12:4-6). The money offered him as a bribe by the leading priests later convinced him to betray Jesus (Matt 26:14-16; Mark 14:10-11; Luke 22:3-6).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus called Judas himself a devil (John 6:70-71) and predicted the betrayal (Mark 14:18-21). The devil put the idea of betrayal into Judas’s mind, and Satan “entered” him at the time of the betrayal (Luke 22:3-4; John 13:2, 27). Judas led a group of soldiers and officers to the garden of Gethsemane in the middle of the night, where he found Jesus and betrayed him with a prearranged signal, a kiss of greeting (Mark 14:43-46). Later, Judas was apparently overcome by remorse for betraying an innocent man, and he hanged himself (Matt 27:3-10; Acts 1:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus clearly understood Judas’s betrayal as part of God’s plan for redemption: It brought about the death of the Messiah as the ultimate sacrifice for sin (Matt 26:24, 53-54; Mark 14:21; Luke 22:22; John 17:12). Even though Judas served God’s plan, his tragic end was clearly deserved (Acts 1:24-25). It would have been better for Judas if he had never been born (Matt 26:24; Mark 14:21). Judas’s fate soberly warns those who are apparently followers of Jesus but have never committed themselves to him personally (cp. Heb 6:4-6).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 10:4; 26:14-16, 23-25, 46-50; 27:3-10; Mark 3:19; 14:10-11, 18-21, 43-45; Luke 6:16; 22:3-6, 22, 47-48; John 6:70-71; 12:4-6; 13:2, 18, 21-30; 17:12; 18:2-5; Acts 1:16-26<\/p>","summary_ro":"Judas Iscariot Judas Iscariot is infamous for betraying Jesus to the authorities (Matt 10:4; Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16). The meaning of the name “Iscariot” is uncertain; it might refer to a village named Kerioth. He is not the same person as Judas son of James (Luke 6:16; John 14:22). Among the apostles, Judas Iscariot came to be known as greedy; he carried the money bag and had the reputation of stealing from it (John 12:4-6). The money offered him as a bribe by the leading priests later convince...","summary_en":"Judas Iscariot Judas Iscariot is infamous for betraying Jesus to the authorities (Matt 10:4; Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16). The meaning of the name “Iscariot” is uncertain; it might refer to a village named Kerioth. He is not the same person as Judas son of James (Luke 6:16; John 14:22). Among the apostles, Judas Iscariot came to be known as greedy; he carried the money bag and had the reputation of stealing from it (John 12:4-6). The money offered him as a bribe by the leading priests later convince...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125141,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Judas Iscariot","title_en":"Judas Iscariot","content_ro":"<h3>Judas Iscariot<\/h3>\n<p>Judas Iscariot is infamous for betraying Jesus to the authorities (Matt 10:4; Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16).<\/p>\n<p>The meaning of the name “Iscariot” is uncertain; it might refer to a village named Kerioth. He is not the same person as Judas son of James (Luke 6:16; John 14:22).<\/p>\n<p>Among the apostles, Judas Iscariot came to be known as greedy; he carried the money bag and had the reputation of stealing from it (John 12:4-6). The money offered him as a bribe by the leading priests later convinced him to betray Jesus (Matt 26:14-16; Mark 14:10-11; Luke 22:3-6).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus called Judas himself a devil (John 6:70-71) and predicted the betrayal (Mark 14:18-21). The devil put the idea of betrayal into Judas’s mind, and Satan “entered” him at the time of the betrayal (Luke 22:3-4; John 13:2, 27). Judas led a group of soldiers and officers to the garden of Gethsemane in the middle of the night, where he found Jesus and betrayed him with a prearranged signal, a kiss of greeting (Mark 14:43-46). Later, Judas was apparently overcome by remorse for betraying an innocent man, and he hanged himself (Matt 27:3-10; Acts 1:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus clearly understood Judas’s betrayal as part of God’s plan for redemption: It brought about the death of the Messiah as the ultimate sacrifice for sin (Matt 26:24, 53-54; Mark 14:21; Luke 22:22; John 17:12). Even though Judas served God’s plan, his tragic end was clearly deserved (Acts 1:24-25). It would have been better for Judas if he had never been born (Matt 26:24; Mark 14:21). Judas’s fate soberly warns those who are apparently followers of Jesus but have never committed themselves to him personally (cp. Heb 6:4-6).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 10:4; 26:14-16, 23-25, 46-50; 27:3-10; Mark 3:19; 14:10-11, 18-21, 43-45; Luke 6:16; 22:3-6, 22, 47-48; John 6:70-71; 12:4-6; 13:2, 18, 21-30; 17:12; 18:2-5; Acts 1:16-26<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Judas Iscariot<\/h3>\n<p>Judas Iscariot is infamous for betraying Jesus to the authorities (Matt 10:4; Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16).<\/p>\n<p>The meaning of the name “Iscariot” is uncertain; it might refer to a village named Kerioth. He is not the same person as Judas son of James (Luke 6:16; John 14:22).<\/p>\n<p>Among the apostles, Judas Iscariot came to be known as greedy; he carried the money bag and had the reputation of stealing from it (John 12:4-6). The money offered him as a bribe by the leading priests later convinced him to betray Jesus (Matt 26:14-16; Mark 14:10-11; Luke 22:3-6).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus called Judas himself a devil (John 6:70-71) and predicted the betrayal (Mark 14:18-21). The devil put the idea of betrayal into Judas’s mind, and Satan “entered” him at the time of the betrayal (Luke 22:3-4; John 13:2, 27). Judas led a group of soldiers and officers to the garden of Gethsemane in the middle of the night, where he found Jesus and betrayed him with a prearranged signal, a kiss of greeting (Mark 14:43-46). Later, Judas was apparently overcome by remorse for betraying an innocent man, and he hanged himself (Matt 27:3-10; Acts 1:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus clearly understood Judas’s betrayal as part of God’s plan for redemption: It brought about the death of the Messiah as the ultimate sacrifice for sin (Matt 26:24, 53-54; Mark 14:21; Luke 22:22; John 17:12). Even though Judas served God’s plan, his tragic end was clearly deserved (Acts 1:24-25). It would have been better for Judas if he had never been born (Matt 26:24; Mark 14:21). Judas’s fate soberly warns those who are apparently followers of Jesus but have never committed themselves to him personally (cp. Heb 6:4-6).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 10:4; 26:14-16, 23-25, 46-50; 27:3-10; Mark 3:19; 14:10-11, 18-21, 43-45; Luke 6:16; 22:3-6, 22, 47-48; John 6:70-71; 12:4-6; 13:2, 18, 21-30; 17:12; 18:2-5; Acts 1:16-26<\/p>","summary_ro":"Judas Iscariot Judas Iscariot is infamous for betraying Jesus to the authorities (Matt 10:4; Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16). The meaning of the name “Iscariot” is uncertain; it might refer to a village named Kerioth. He is not the same person as Judas son of James (Luke 6:16; John 14:22). Among the apostles, Judas Iscariot came to be known as greedy; he carried the money bag and had the reputation of stealing from it (John 12:4-6). The money offered him as a bribe by the leading priests later convince...","summary_en":"Judas Iscariot Judas Iscariot is infamous for betraying Jesus to the authorities (Matt 10:4; Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16). The meaning of the name “Iscariot” is uncertain; it might refer to a village named Kerioth. He is not the same person as Judas son of James (Luke 6:16; John 14:22). Among the apostles, Judas Iscariot came to be known as greedy; he carried the money bag and had the reputation of stealing from it (John 12:4-6). The money offered him as a bribe by the leading priests later convince...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":21116,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Judas","title_en":"Judas","content_ro":"<h3>JUDAS<\/h3>\n<li>1. Simon’s son, surnamed Iscariot; one of the 12 disciples of Jesus. The derivation of Iscariot is uncertain. In all probability it designated the place of his birth, the town of Kerioth. His childhood home was perhaps Kerioth of Moab, east of the Jordan (Jer 48:24; Am 2:2), or Kerioth-hezron of southern Judah, also known as Hazor (Jos 15:25). A less feasible suggestion identifies Iscariot with an Aramaic word meaning “assassin,” a word eventually attached to Judas’s name because of his betrayal of Jesus.<\/li>\n<p>Judas Iscariot’s name appears last in the list of disciples (Mt 10:4; Mk 3:19; Lk 6:16), perhaps indicating his ignominy in the minds of later believers rather than his original importance among the Twelve. During Jesus’ public ministry, he managed the treasury of the group (Jn 13:29), from which he was known to pilfer money (12:6). As a betrayer, Judas contracted to turn Jesus over to the chief priests for 30 pieces of silver. He accomplished this act of treachery by singling out Jesus with a kiss in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:14-47; Mk 14:10-46; Lk 22:3-48; Jn 18:2-5).<\/p>\n<p>Various suggestions have been offered to explain Judas’s traitorous deed. (1) In keeping with his patriotic zeal, Judas turned Jesus over to the authorities after realizing that his Master did not intend to overthrow the Roman order and establish a Jewish state. (2) Judas believed Jesus to be the Messiah and planned his arrest in hope of urging Jesus to usher in his kingdom. (3) He was a scoundrel who had plotted wickedness since the start of Jesus’ public ministry. (4) Prompted by a satanic impulse, Judas betrayed Jesus; however, after recognizing that he was deceived, out of remorse he took his own life. (5) With damaged pride and humiliated ego from Jesus’ caustic rebukes, Judas, originally a loyal disciple, turned against him. (6) Judas, moved by his own greed, yielded to his selfish instincts, not realizing that Jesus would consequently be tried and killed; upon learning the outcome of his betrayal, he repented in despair and committed suicide.<\/p>\n<p>Judas, despondent over his act of betrayal, went out and hung himself in a field bought with his 30 pieces of silver (Mt 27:3-10). Acts 1:18 gruesomely adds that his body burst open, spilling out his intestines; for this reason the field was called the “Field of Blood” (Acts 1:19). Matthias later took Judas Iscariot’s place among the Twelve (v 26).<\/p>\n<li>2. Son of Joseph and Mary, and the brother of Jesus, James, Joseph, and Simon (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). Evidently Judas and his brothers rejected Jesus as Messiah (Jn 7:5) until after his resurrection (Acts 1:14). Later, it is thought, Judas (English “Jude”) authored the epistle named Jude.<\/li>\n<li>3. Son of James and one of the 12 disciples (Lk 6:16; Jn 14:22; Acts 1:13). He is identifiable with Thaddeus in Matthew 10:3 and Mark 3:18. <em>See<\/em> Thaddaeus, The Apostle.<\/li>\n<li>4. Galilean who led a Jewish revolt against the Romans because of the census taken by Quirinius in <span>AD<\/span> 6. In Acts 5:37 the Pharisee Gamaliel mentioned Judas as an example of one who unsuccessfully tried to gain the support of the Jewish people. Josephus credited him with founding the Jewish Zealot party, an extreme revolutionary movement that attempted to throw off Roman rule and to reestablish Jewish autonomy (<em>War<\/em> 2.8.1).<\/li>\n<li>5. Owner of a house along the street called Straight in Damascus. Here, following his conversion, Saul (Paul) found lodging and had his vision restored by Ananias (Acts 9:11).<\/li>\n<li>6. Prophet and leader in the early Jerusalem church. Judas, surnamed Barsabbas, was selected with Silas to accompany Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, where they confirmed the Jerusalem Council’s decision regarding the gentile church and subsequently encouraged its believers (Acts 15:22-32). <em>See<\/em> Joseph #12.<\/li>\n<li>7. KJV spelling of Judah, Jacob’s son (Mt 1:2-3). <em>See<\/em> Judah (Person) #1.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>JUDAS<\/h3>\n<li>1. Simon’s son, surnamed Iscariot; one of the 12 disciples of Jesus. The derivation of Iscariot is uncertain. In all probability it designated the place of his birth, the town of Kerioth. His childhood home was perhaps Kerioth of Moab, east of the Jordan (Jer 48:24; Am 2:2), or Kerioth-hezron of southern Judah, also known as Hazor (Jos 15:25). A less feasible suggestion identifies Iscariot with an Aramaic word meaning “assassin,” a word eventually attached to Judas’s name because of his betrayal of Jesus.<\/li>\n<p>Judas Iscariot’s name appears last in the list of disciples (Mt 10:4; Mk 3:19; Lk 6:16), perhaps indicating his ignominy in the minds of later believers rather than his original importance among the Twelve. During Jesus’ public ministry, he managed the treasury of the group (Jn 13:29), from which he was known to pilfer money (12:6). As a betrayer, Judas contracted to turn Jesus over to the chief priests for 30 pieces of silver. He accomplished this act of treachery by singling out Jesus with a kiss in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:14-47; Mk 14:10-46; Lk 22:3-48; Jn 18:2-5).<\/p>\n<p>Various suggestions have been offered to explain Judas’s traitorous deed. (1) In keeping with his patriotic zeal, Judas turned Jesus over to the authorities after realizing that his Master did not intend to overthrow the Roman order and establish a Jewish state. (2) Judas believed Jesus to be the Messiah and planned his arrest in hope of urging Jesus to usher in his kingdom. (3) He was a scoundrel who had plotted wickedness since the start of Jesus’ public ministry. (4) Prompted by a satanic impulse, Judas betrayed Jesus; however, after recognizing that he was deceived, out of remorse he took his own life. (5) With damaged pride and humiliated ego from Jesus’ caustic rebukes, Judas, originally a loyal disciple, turned against him. (6) Judas, moved by his own greed, yielded to his selfish instincts, not realizing that Jesus would consequently be tried and killed; upon learning the outcome of his betrayal, he repented in despair and committed suicide.<\/p>\n<p>Judas, despondent over his act of betrayal, went out and hung himself in a field bought with his 30 pieces of silver (Mt 27:3-10). Acts 1:18 gruesomely adds that his body burst open, spilling out his intestines; for this reason the field was called the “Field of Blood” (Acts 1:19). Matthias later took Judas Iscariot’s place among the Twelve (v 26).<\/p>\n<li>2. Son of Joseph and Mary, and the brother of Jesus, James, Joseph, and Simon (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). Evidently Judas and his brothers rejected Jesus as Messiah (Jn 7:5) until after his resurrection (Acts 1:14). Later, it is thought, Judas (English “Jude”) authored the epistle named Jude.<\/li>\n<li>3. Son of James and one of the 12 disciples (Lk 6:16; Jn 14:22; Acts 1:13). He is identifiable with Thaddeus in Matthew 10:3 and Mark 3:18. <em>See<\/em> Thaddaeus, The Apostle.<\/li>\n<li>4. Galilean who led a Jewish revolt against the Romans because of the census taken by Quirinius in <span>AD<\/span> 6. In Acts 5:37 the Pharisee Gamaliel mentioned Judas as an example of one who unsuccessfully tried to gain the support of the Jewish people. Josephus credited him with founding the Jewish Zealot party, an extreme revolutionary movement that attempted to throw off Roman rule and to reestablish Jewish autonomy (<em>War<\/em> 2.8.1).<\/li>\n<li>5. Owner of a house along the street called Straight in Damascus. Here, following his conversion, Saul (Paul) found lodging and had his vision restored by Ananias (Acts 9:11).<\/li>\n<li>6. Prophet and leader in the early Jerusalem church. Judas, surnamed Barsabbas, was selected with Silas to accompany Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, where they confirmed the Jerusalem Council’s decision regarding the gentile church and subsequently encouraged its believers (Acts 15:22-32). <em>See<\/em> Joseph #12.<\/li>\n<li>7. KJV spelling of Judah, Jacob’s son (Mt 1:2-3). <em>See<\/em> Judah (Person) #1.<\/li>","summary_ro":"JUDAS 1. Simon’s son, surnamed Iscariot; one of the 12 disciples of Jesus. The derivation of Iscariot is uncertain. In all probability it designated the place of his birth, the town of Kerioth. His childhood home was perhaps Kerioth of Moab, east of the Jordan (Jer 48:24; Am 2:2), or Kerioth-hezron of southern Judah, also known as Hazor (Jos 15:25). A less feasible suggestion identifies Iscariot with an Aramaic word meaning “assassin,” a word eventually attached to Judas’s name because of his...","summary_en":"JUDAS 1. Simon’s son, surnamed Iscariot; one of the 12 disciples of Jesus. The derivation of Iscariot is uncertain. In all probability it designated the place of his birth, the town of Kerioth. His childhood home was perhaps Kerioth of Moab, east of the Jordan (Jer 48:24; Am 2:2), or Kerioth-hezron of southern Judah, also known as Hazor (Jos 15:25). A less feasible suggestion identifies Iscariot with an Aramaic word meaning “assassin,” a word eventually attached to Judas’s name because of his...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55196,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:19","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:19","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:19<\/strong> Identifying <em>Judas<\/em> as <em>Iscariot<\/em> suggests that Mark wanted to avoid confusing him with another Judas (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). <em>Iscariot<\/em> probably comes from <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">’ish<\/span> (“man of”) <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">qeriyoth<\/span> (“Kerioth,” a town in Judea). • <em>who later betrayed him:<\/em> See Mark 14:10-11, 43-46.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:19<\/strong> Identifying <em>Judas<\/em> as <em>Iscariot<\/em> suggests that Mark wanted to avoid confusing him with another Judas (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). <em>Iscariot<\/em> probably comes from <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">’ish<\/span> (“man of”) <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">qeriyoth<\/span> (“Kerioth,” a town in Judea). • <em>who later betrayed him:<\/em> See Mark 14:10-11, 43-46.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:19 Identifying Judas as Iscariot suggests that Mark wanted to avoid confusing him with another Judas (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). Iscariot probably comes from ’ish (“man of”) qeriyoth (“Kerioth,” a town in Judea). • who later betrayed him: See Mark 14:10-11, 43-46.","summary_en":"3:19 Identifying Judas as Iscariot suggests that Mark wanted to avoid confusing him with another Judas (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). Iscariot probably comes from ’ish (“man of”) qeriyoth (“Kerioth,” a town in Judea). • who later betrayed him: See Mark 14:10-11, 43-46.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82822,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:19","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:19","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:19<\/strong> Identifying <em>Judas<\/em> as <em>Iscariot<\/em> suggests that Mark wanted to avoid confusing him with another Judas (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). <em>Iscariot<\/em> probably comes from <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">’ish<\/span> (“man of”) <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">qeriyoth<\/span> (“Kerioth,” a town in Judea). • <em>who later betrayed him:<\/em> See Mark 14:10-11, 43-46.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:19<\/strong> Identifying <em>Judas<\/em> as <em>Iscariot<\/em> suggests that Mark wanted to avoid confusing him with another Judas (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). <em>Iscariot<\/em> probably comes from <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">’ish<\/span> (“man of”) <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">qeriyoth<\/span> (“Kerioth,” a town in Judea). • <em>who later betrayed him:<\/em> See Mark 14:10-11, 43-46.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:19 Identifying Judas as Iscariot suggests that Mark wanted to avoid confusing him with another Judas (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). Iscariot probably comes from ’ish (“man of”) qeriyoth (“Kerioth,” a town in Judea). • who later betrayed him: See Mark 14:10-11, 43-46.","summary_en":"3:19 Identifying Judas as Iscariot suggests that Mark wanted to avoid confusing him with another Judas (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). Iscariot probably comes from ’ish (“man of”) qeriyoth (“Kerioth,” a town in Judea). • who later betrayed him: See Mark 14:10-11, 43-46.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110448,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:19","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:19","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:19<\/strong> Identifying <em>Judas<\/em> as <em>Iscariot<\/em> suggests that Mark wanted to avoid confusing him with another Judas (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). <em>Iscariot<\/em> probably comes from <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">’ish<\/span> (“man of”) <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">qeriyoth<\/span> (“Kerioth,” a town in Judea). • <em>who later betrayed him:<\/em> See Mark 14:10-11, 43-46.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:19<\/strong> Identifying <em>Judas<\/em> as <em>Iscariot<\/em> suggests that Mark wanted to avoid confusing him with another Judas (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). <em>Iscariot<\/em> probably comes from <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">’ish<\/span> (“man of”) <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">qeriyoth<\/span> (“Kerioth,” a town in Judea). • <em>who later betrayed him:<\/em> See Mark 14:10-11, 43-46.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:19 Identifying Judas as Iscariot suggests that Mark wanted to avoid confusing him with another Judas (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). Iscariot probably comes from ’ish (“man of”) qeriyoth (“Kerioth,” a town in Judea). • who later betrayed him: See Mark 14:10-11, 43-46.","summary_en":"3:19 Identifying Judas as Iscariot suggests that Mark wanted to avoid confusing him with another Judas (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). Iscariot probably comes from ’ish (“man of”) qeriyoth (“Kerioth,” a town in Judea). • who later betrayed him: See Mark 14:10-11, 43-46.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138074,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:19","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:19","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:19<\/strong> Identifying <em>Judas<\/em> as <em>Iscariot<\/em> suggests that Mark wanted to avoid confusing him with another Judas (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). <em>Iscariot<\/em> probably comes from <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">’ish<\/span> (“man of”) <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">qeriyoth<\/span> (“Kerioth,” a town in Judea). • <em>who later betrayed him:<\/em> See Mark 14:10-11, 43-46.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:19<\/strong> Identifying <em>Judas<\/em> as <em>Iscariot<\/em> suggests that Mark wanted to avoid confusing him with another Judas (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). <em>Iscariot<\/em> probably comes from <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">’ish<\/span> (“man of”) <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">qeriyoth<\/span> (“Kerioth,” a town in Judea). • <em>who later betrayed him:<\/em> See Mark 14:10-11, 43-46.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:19 Identifying Judas as Iscariot suggests that Mark wanted to avoid confusing him with another Judas (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). Iscariot probably comes from ’ish (“man of”) qeriyoth (“Kerioth,” a town in Judea). • who later betrayed him: See Mark 14:10-11, 43-46.","summary_en":"3:19 Identifying Judas as Iscariot suggests that Mark wanted to avoid confusing him with another Judas (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). Iscariot probably comes from ’ish (“man of”) qeriyoth (“Kerioth,” a town in Judea). • who later betrayed him: See Mark 14:10-11, 43-46.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"20":[{"id":24364,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gospel of Mark","title_en":"Gospel of Mark","content_ro":"<h3>MARK, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between <span>AD<\/span> 60 and 68.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorDateProvenance\">Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, although this is by no means certain). At one point Papias states, “The Elder used to say this also: Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that [Peter] remembered concerning the things both said and done by the Lord.” (This quotation was preserved by the fourth-century writer Eusebius of Caesarea in his <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 3.39.15.) One need not doubt the basic reliability of this statement. Mark—almost surely to be identified with the John Mark of Acts 12:12 (see also 1 Pt 5:13)—was a disciple of Peter, and the second Gospel owes its existence, at least in part, to the apostle’s reminiscences. It does not follow, however, that one has adequately characterized Mark’s work if that is all one says. For instance, Papias’s qualification, “though not in order,” indicates that Mark did not intend to write a chronological biography. Furthermore, Papias goes on to comment (according to one interpretation of his ambiguous words) that Mark (or Peter?) adapted the material to the teaching situation and that therefore Mark is absolved from any (implied) charges of inaccuracy. It appears that from the earliest times Christians appealed to the purposes and circumstances of Mark’s writing in order to account for difficulties in harmonizing the material found in the various Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Other statements from Christian writers in the second, third, and fourth centuries seem dependent on Papias’s testimony, but some additional data they provide may possess independent value. For example, a fairly early document (date uncertain) known as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel somewhere in Italy after Peter’s death (in the mid-60s), and this testimony is considered reliable by many scholars. Still, the possibility that Mark composed his work before Peter’s martyrdom cannot be ruled out completely.<\/p>\n<p>Papias says nothing specific about <em>when<\/em> the Gospel was written. A small minority of scholars date Mark shortly after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Another minority suggest a date in the 40s or 50s on the basis of a papyrus fragment discovered in Qumran called 7Q5. (According to José O’Callaghan, the fragment, which has been dated about <span>AD<\/span> 50–68, should be identified as Mark 6:52-53.) This fragment contains only 20 letters on one side, making the Markan reconstruction very uncertain. Few scholars are convinced that the text is Mark; some think it is part of 1 Enoch or Zechariah. An impressive majority of scholars date Mark in the 60s, with conservatives usually preferring the early years of the decade. Why this preference? If the theory of Markan priority is accepted, then clearly Mark was written before Luke; and since Luke is normally dated by conservatives about <span>AD<\/span> 62, Mark can be no later than <span>AD<\/span> 60 or 61. This line of argument, though strong, is not decisive. In the first place, Luke cannot be dated with complete certainty. Second, the view that Matthew and Luke used Mark (the working assumption of most scholars) is only a hypothesis, and one that is vigorously opposed by some writers. Third, a tradition going back to the second century (see above) asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel <em>after<\/em> Peter’s death, no earlier than <span>AD<\/span> 64. Fourth, one persuasive view regarding the occasion of this Gospel assumes that the Neronian persecution (<span>AD<\/span> 64) had begun. (According to a different view of the occasion, Mark was written after the beginning of the Jewish revolt in <span>AD<\/span> 66.) Therefore, while a date in the early 60s remains possible, it does not require committal.<\/p>\n<p>With regard to the authorship of the second Gospel, there seems to be no compelling reason to deny Papias’s report that Mark (no doubt the John Mark of Acts 12:12) took down Peter’s reminiscences and that these became the basis of his work. Some scholars argue that the Gospel contains geographical inaccuracies (e.g., we have no evidence of a region called Dalmanutha, Mk 8:10) and that a native of Jerusalem such as Mark would have been more reliable in his information. However, the topographical problems in Mark, though real, need not be interpreted as inaccuracies (present ignorance of a place named Dalmanutha is hardly conclusive proof that it did not exist). Furthermore, in other respects (e.g., 14:54, 66) the Gospel reveals an impressive knowledge of local details. Many writers also point out bits of information that support a Petrine background, such as the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (1:30-31). In short, the internal evidence, while falling short of proof, does not at all undermine the tradition preserved by Papias. A generation ago, the trustworthiness of Papias’s testimony was almost universally accepted. This situation has changed somewhat, but even those scholars who adopt a skeptical attitude toward this tradition concede that it <em>may<\/em> be true.<\/p>\n<p>As attention turns to the provenance of the Gospel, the task becomes more difficult. Tradition going back to the second century asserts what may be already implied by Papias—namely, that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome. Although some scholars have suggested other possibilities, such as Galilee and Antioch, these have not proved satisfactory. Mark did spend some time in Rome, and some characteristics in the Gospel (such as Latinisms in the Greek and the explanation of Jewish customs, as in 7:3-4), while proving nothing, are certainly consonant with a Roman origin. Furthermore, one persuasive view of the occasion that gave rise to the Gospel assumes a background of persecution in Rome.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Distinctives\">Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>A number of characteristics of Mark set it apart from the other Gospels. For example, a word usually translated “immediately” occurs more than 40 times in Mark and only a dozen times in the rest of the NT. While this feature could be interpreted as a simple “mannerism,” consonant with Mark’s unpretentious, colloquial style, it certainly adds to the rapid flow of his narrative, which, dwelling more on Jesus’ activity than on his discourses (in contrast to Matthew and Luke), shifts from scene to scene with hardly a pause. Since the Gospel is also quite brief (Luke is nearly twice as long), one may wonder whether the author intended for it to be read at a sitting; even if read aloud, this would take only about one and a half hours. At any rate, there can be little doubt that the work conveys a sense of urgency.<\/p>\n<p>Other characteristics, however, prove more significant. Someone unfamiliar with the story of Jesus who happened to read Mark for the first time would no doubt be taken aback by its rather abrupt beginning. After a brief clause that stands as a sort of title (1:1), Mark moves on to describe in brief the ministry of John the Baptist. Then he introduces Jesus as coming from Nazareth without telling us anything whatever of his earlier life. Furthermore, over one-third of the book (including the so-called Passion narrative) is devoted to Jesus’ last week. These and other factors lend to the work a note of mystery, accentuated by the fact that at various points Mark calls attention to the fear or amazement gripping those who came in contact with Jesus (2:12; 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6; and several other passages, especially the strange words of 10:32). In addition, if one assumes that the Gospel originally ended with 16:8, Mark wished to leave his readers with the same sense of awe that the disciples experienced at Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>But how does one account for this fear and amazement? Mark’s clear answer is that Jesus, though truly a man, is also divine. While Mark’s Gospel exhibits the humanity of Jesus Christ (1:41; 3:5; 8:12; 10:14), his chief emphasis is on the Lord’s deity. Indeed, Mark introduces his book by referring to Jesus as “the Son of God” (a phrase omitted in some manuscripts, however), a position that is recognized both by the demons (3:11; 5:7) and by God himself (9:7). What may well be the true climax of the Gospel occurs at 15:39, where Mark writes that a Gentile, a Roman centurion, upon hearing Jesus’ death cry, exclaimed, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The author organized his Gospel according to a simple plan. The first eight chapters summarize the nature of Christ’s public ministry by alternating stories that show his growing popularity with stories that stress the disapproval of the Jewish leaders. This first half of the book, while indicating some of the tensions created by Jesus’ coming, gives the basic impression of success and general optimism. A significant shift then strikes the reader toward the end of chapter 8, particularly beginning with verse 31. At Caesarea Philippi, Peter has just confessed that Jesus is the Messiah, and now for the first time Jesus reveals that as Messiah he must die. The disciples become perplexed and discouraged and their pessimism mounts as this thought is brought home to them repeatedly (9:9, 31; 10:32-34; 14:17-25). In the end they desert their master (14:50).<\/p>\n<p>Interestingly, this pessimistic note is anticipated in the earlier part of the Gospel at three points: 3:6 (Jesus’ enemies plot his death); 6:6 (faithlessness in Nazareth); and 8:21 (lack of understanding in the disciples). Some scholars suggest that Mark used these three verses to indicate the first three divisions of his book. In addition, other scholars note that two healings of blind men (8:22-26; 10:46-52) seem to provide the opening and the conclusion of a section that emphasizes the spiritual blindness of the disciples. One more structural clue is 14:1, which clearly marks out the final section of the Gospel.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OccasionPurposeTheology\">Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>A few scholars think that Mark may have been combating a heretical sect that stressed the miracles of Jesus and viewed him purely as a divine wonder-worker. Although this view has not gained acceptance as originally formulated, a number of writers do see the Gospel as a theological corrective. Ralph Martin, who links Mark very closely with Paul, suggests that the evangelist is opposing some heretical groups who have distorted Paul’s message by placing exclusive stress on Christ as a <em>heavenly<\/em> figure (cf. the views that Paul himself opposes in Colossians). Mark responds to these aberrations by emphasizing, in Martin’s words, “the paradox of Jesus’ earthly life in which suffering and vindication form a two-beat rhythm.” Even if one decides that this reconstruction, too, is rather speculative, one may nevertheless retain certain elements in it as valid.<\/p>\n<p>Other scholars, such as H. Kee, place emphasis on the apocalyptic background of Mark. Kee and others tie this element to the Jewish revolt of <span>AD<\/span> 66, but commitment to this particular historical connection is unnecessary to appreciate the great significance of Mark 13 (Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse) for those original readers of the Gospel who may have been undergoing persecution.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the most satisfactory reconstruction links this Gospel to the Neronian persecution in the mid-60s. Mark, for example, is the only Gospel that records that Jesus, after being driven to the wilderness, found himself in the company of wild animals (1:13). This detail, according to William Lane, “was filled with special significance for those called to enter the arena where they stood helpless in the presence of wild beasts.” This interpretation, while not without difficulties, has the advantage of accounting for most of the available data. First, it is compatible with the strong tradition that assigns the origin of Mark’s work to Rome. Second, Mark speaks distinctly to those suffering persecution by introducing them quickly to John’s imprisonment and several other details. Third, related to this is Mark’s emphasis on discipleship. Christians facing persecution must have been tempted to relax the standards (4:17-19). Fourth, given this general situation, one can hardly doubt the significance of our Lord’s apocalyptic message in chapter 13, intended to encourage the disciples in the midst of their trials by reminding them of the glory to follow. Finally, Mark’s clear concern for the Gentile mission fits in with the needs of pagan Rome. The suffering Christians cannot afford to forget the unbelieving society in which they live. In the light of this particular responsibility, Mark assures his readers of what even the Roman centurion began to recognize—surely Jesus <em>is<\/em> the Son of God (15:39).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The development of Mark’s narrative can be presented in six major divisions within a twofold structure:<\/p>\n<li>Introduction (1:1-13)<\/li>\n<li>Part I: Popularity and Opposition (1:14–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>1. Jesus’ authority and the Pharisees’ enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/li>\n<li>2. The people’s response (3:7–6:6a)<\/li>\n<li>3. The disciples’ misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>Part II: Darkness and Death (8:22–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>4. The Messiah’s mission and the disciples’ blind-ness (8:22–10:52)<\/li>\n<li>5. Final ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/li>\n<li>6. The Passion narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>Conclusion (16:1-8)<\/li>\n<p>Although one can hardly claim that this outline corresponds exactly to the author’s original plan (Mark may not have consciously worked out a detailed outline), the sixfold division provides a useful starting point for an interpretive summary of the contents.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Authority and the Pharisees’ Enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>Immediately after the introductory portion (1:1-13), which describes John the Baptist’s ministry as well as Jesus’ baptism and temptation, Mark opens the body of the work with a summary statement (vv 14-15). In these two verses he seems to suggest that Jesus’ public ministry, characterized by the proclamation that God’s kingdom is about to be inaugurated, was occasioned by John’s imprisonment. This is followed by the call of the first disciples (vv 16-20) and then by a complex of stories (vv 21-38), all of which report incidents that took place in Capernaum, apparently within a 24-hour period: synagogue instruction followed by the healing of a demoniac; the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law; numerous other healings in the evening; prayer in a lonely place. The statement that Jesus proceeded to expand his ministry throughout the province of Galilee (v 39) is followed by the story of a leper’s cure (vv 40-45). Next are found a very important group of incidents (2:1–3:6), all of them focusing on Jesus’ conflicts with Jewish leaders: the healing and forgiveness of a paralytic; the call of Levi, whose dinner (attended by Jesus as well as by the hated tax gatherers) occasioned some disputes, particularly on the issue of fasting; and two significant stories regarding proper behavior on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<h5>The People’s Response (3:7–6:6a)<\/h5>\n<p>Mark opens this second section as he opened the first: a summary statement (Jesus’ healings by the lake—3:7-12) followed by the official appointment of 12 apostles (vv 13-19). Then follows a section that focuses on the kinds of charges brought against Jesus by his own family and by the scribes (vv 20-22), leading to a response touching on Satan, on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and on what constitutes true membership in his family (vv 23-35). Most of chapter 4 is devoted to Jesus’ parables of the kingdom—the sower, the seed growing secretly, the mustard seed—and includes statements on the nature and purpose of his teachings (4:10-12, 21-25, 33-34). In the evening Jesus and his disciples set out to cross the Sea of Galilee, leading to the stilling of the storm (vv 35-41), the healing of the Gerasene demoniac on the other side of the lake (5:1-20), and, on their return to Capernaum, the healing of a hemorrhaging woman and the raising of Jairus’s daughter (vv 21-43). The section concludes with Jesus’ visit to his hometown, Nazareth, and the rejection he suffered there (6:1-6a).<\/p>\n<h5>The Disciples’ Misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/h5>\n<p>The third section begins with two introductory passages: the sending out of the 12 (6:6b-13) and the story of John the Baptist’s death (vv 14-29). When the disciples return, Jesus determines to seek some rest, but the crowds follow them; Jesus then teaches and feeds the 5,000 (vv 30-44) and, after crossing the lake (vv 45-52, which includes Jesus’ walk over the water), he performs numerous cures in and around Gennesaret (vv 53-56). Then follows a controversy with the Pharisees regarding the hand-washing ritual (7:1-8), and this incident leads to Christ’s assertion of the authority of God’s word over human tradition (vv 9-13) and to some general instructions on true purity (vv 14-23). The next several stories describe Jesus’ withdrawal from Galilee, first to Tyre, where a gentile woman’s daughter is healed (vv 24-30), then to the Decapolis, where he cures a deaf-mute (vv 31-37) and feeds a crowd of four thousand (8:1-10). The demand of the Pharisees for a sign (vv 11-12) leads to Jesus’ warning against the “leaven” of the Pharisees, a statement misunderstood by the disciples (vv 13-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Messiah’s Mission and the Disciples’ Blindness (8:22–10:52)<\/h5>\n<p>Still away from Galilee, but now in the nearby town of Bethsaida, Jesus heals a blind man (8:22-26). He then leads his disciples north toward Caesarea Philippi, which sets the stage for Peter’s confession (vv 27-30). This recognition on the part of the disciples (of whom Peter is in effect a representative) leads Jesus to prophesy his death, but Peter’s refusal to accept the prophecy calls forth a rebuke and instruction on discipleship (vv 31-38). The failure of the disciples to understand the necessity of Christ’s death provides the background for the Transfiguration (9:1-8), which assures Peter, John, and James that God’s kingdom will indeed come (note v 1); further, the Father himself enjoins them to believe Jesus’ prophecy (v 7). After some words about the resurrection and about the coming of Elijah (vv 9-13), Mark relates the healing of a demoniac boy (vv 14-29). Back in Galilee, a second prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 30-32) is followed, sadly, by a trivial discussion among the disciples as to who is the greatest (vv 33-37). Appropriately, one finds some further instructions concerning discipleship (vv 38-50). Mark next writes that Jesus left Galilee for the last time and began his journey toward the south. During this journey, Jesus delivered teachings on divorce and on the spiritual privileges of children (10:1-16), then met the rich young ruler (vv 17-22), an incident that leads to further words on discipleship (vv 23-31). A third prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 32-34) is again followed by selfish behavior on the part of the disciples, in this case an ambitious request from James and John (vv 35-40). The incident produces indignation among the rest of the disciples, thus necessitating another rebuke from their master, who himself came to serve and to die (vv 41-45). The section ends as it began—by reporting the cure of a blind man, Bartimaeus of Jericho in this story (vv 46-52).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/h5>\n<p>This section seems naturally to divide into three balanced subsections. The first one (11:1-26) includes three events: the Triumphal Entry, the withering of the fig tree, and the cleansing of the temple. The second subsection (11:27–12:44) is particularly important, for here is found Jesus’ final series of controversies with the Jewish leaders. The topics covered are the source of Jesus’ authority (11:27-33), the parable of the wicked husbandmen (12:1-12), the legitimacy of Caesar’s tax (vv 13-17), the Sadducees’ denial of resurrection (vv 18-27), the chief commandment (vv 28-34), and the question regarding David’s son (vv 35-37). This subsection ends with a warning against the scribes and with the story of the widow’s mite (vv 38-44). The third subsection (ch 13) is devoted completely to the Olivet discourse, with its prophecies of destruction, calamities, persecutions, deceivers, and final vindication. The discourse ends with various admonitions to keep alert.<\/p>\n<h5>The Passion Narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/h5>\n<p>This final section, which is introduced by a report of the priests’ plot (14:1-2), may be divided into two subsections. The first one relates the events leading up to Jesus’ trial (vv 3-52). They include the anointing of Jesus (vv 3-9), Judas’s betrayal (vv 10-11), the incidents connected with the Last Supper (vv 12-31), the scene at Gethsemane (vv 32-42), and the arrest (vv 43-52). The second subsection relates Jesus’ trial before the Jews (vv 53-65), Peter’s denials (vv 66-72), the trial before Pilate (15:1-15), the crucifixion (vv 16-41), and the burial (vv 42-47).<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel concludes somewhat mysteriously, but no less triumphantly, with the news that Jesus has risen from the dead (16:1-8). The earliest surviving Greek manuscripts, usually regarded as the most reliable, end at verse 8; the majority of manuscripts, however, include an additional 12 verses that report Jesus’ appearances to his disciples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Mark, John; Matthew, Gospel of; Luke, Gospel of; Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MARK, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between <span>AD<\/span> 60 and 68.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorDateProvenance\">Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, although this is by no means certain). At one point Papias states, “The Elder used to say this also: Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that [Peter] remembered concerning the things both said and done by the Lord.” (This quotation was preserved by the fourth-century writer Eusebius of Caesarea in his <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 3.39.15.) One need not doubt the basic reliability of this statement. Mark—almost surely to be identified with the John Mark of Acts 12:12 (see also 1 Pt 5:13)—was a disciple of Peter, and the second Gospel owes its existence, at least in part, to the apostle’s reminiscences. It does not follow, however, that one has adequately characterized Mark’s work if that is all one says. For instance, Papias’s qualification, “though not in order,” indicates that Mark did not intend to write a chronological biography. Furthermore, Papias goes on to comment (according to one interpretation of his ambiguous words) that Mark (or Peter?) adapted the material to the teaching situation and that therefore Mark is absolved from any (implied) charges of inaccuracy. It appears that from the earliest times Christians appealed to the purposes and circumstances of Mark’s writing in order to account for difficulties in harmonizing the material found in the various Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Other statements from Christian writers in the second, third, and fourth centuries seem dependent on Papias’s testimony, but some additional data they provide may possess independent value. For example, a fairly early document (date uncertain) known as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel somewhere in Italy after Peter’s death (in the mid-60s), and this testimony is considered reliable by many scholars. Still, the possibility that Mark composed his work before Peter’s martyrdom cannot be ruled out completely.<\/p>\n<p>Papias says nothing specific about <em>when<\/em> the Gospel was written. A small minority of scholars date Mark shortly after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Another minority suggest a date in the 40s or 50s on the basis of a papyrus fragment discovered in Qumran called 7Q5. (According to José O’Callaghan, the fragment, which has been dated about <span>AD<\/span> 50–68, should be identified as Mark 6:52-53.) This fragment contains only 20 letters on one side, making the Markan reconstruction very uncertain. Few scholars are convinced that the text is Mark; some think it is part of 1 Enoch or Zechariah. An impressive majority of scholars date Mark in the 60s, with conservatives usually preferring the early years of the decade. Why this preference? If the theory of Markan priority is accepted, then clearly Mark was written before Luke; and since Luke is normally dated by conservatives about <span>AD<\/span> 62, Mark can be no later than <span>AD<\/span> 60 or 61. This line of argument, though strong, is not decisive. In the first place, Luke cannot be dated with complete certainty. Second, the view that Matthew and Luke used Mark (the working assumption of most scholars) is only a hypothesis, and one that is vigorously opposed by some writers. Third, a tradition going back to the second century (see above) asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel <em>after<\/em> Peter’s death, no earlier than <span>AD<\/span> 64. Fourth, one persuasive view regarding the occasion of this Gospel assumes that the Neronian persecution (<span>AD<\/span> 64) had begun. (According to a different view of the occasion, Mark was written after the beginning of the Jewish revolt in <span>AD<\/span> 66.) Therefore, while a date in the early 60s remains possible, it does not require committal.<\/p>\n<p>With regard to the authorship of the second Gospel, there seems to be no compelling reason to deny Papias’s report that Mark (no doubt the John Mark of Acts 12:12) took down Peter’s reminiscences and that these became the basis of his work. Some scholars argue that the Gospel contains geographical inaccuracies (e.g., we have no evidence of a region called Dalmanutha, Mk 8:10) and that a native of Jerusalem such as Mark would have been more reliable in his information. However, the topographical problems in Mark, though real, need not be interpreted as inaccuracies (present ignorance of a place named Dalmanutha is hardly conclusive proof that it did not exist). Furthermore, in other respects (e.g., 14:54, 66) the Gospel reveals an impressive knowledge of local details. Many writers also point out bits of information that support a Petrine background, such as the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (1:30-31). In short, the internal evidence, while falling short of proof, does not at all undermine the tradition preserved by Papias. A generation ago, the trustworthiness of Papias’s testimony was almost universally accepted. This situation has changed somewhat, but even those scholars who adopt a skeptical attitude toward this tradition concede that it <em>may<\/em> be true.<\/p>\n<p>As attention turns to the provenance of the Gospel, the task becomes more difficult. Tradition going back to the second century asserts what may be already implied by Papias—namely, that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome. Although some scholars have suggested other possibilities, such as Galilee and Antioch, these have not proved satisfactory. Mark did spend some time in Rome, and some characteristics in the Gospel (such as Latinisms in the Greek and the explanation of Jewish customs, as in 7:3-4), while proving nothing, are certainly consonant with a Roman origin. Furthermore, one persuasive view of the occasion that gave rise to the Gospel assumes a background of persecution in Rome.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Distinctives\">Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>A number of characteristics of Mark set it apart from the other Gospels. For example, a word usually translated “immediately” occurs more than 40 times in Mark and only a dozen times in the rest of the NT. While this feature could be interpreted as a simple “mannerism,” consonant with Mark’s unpretentious, colloquial style, it certainly adds to the rapid flow of his narrative, which, dwelling more on Jesus’ activity than on his discourses (in contrast to Matthew and Luke), shifts from scene to scene with hardly a pause. Since the Gospel is also quite brief (Luke is nearly twice as long), one may wonder whether the author intended for it to be read at a sitting; even if read aloud, this would take only about one and a half hours. At any rate, there can be little doubt that the work conveys a sense of urgency.<\/p>\n<p>Other characteristics, however, prove more significant. Someone unfamiliar with the story of Jesus who happened to read Mark for the first time would no doubt be taken aback by its rather abrupt beginning. After a brief clause that stands as a sort of title (1:1), Mark moves on to describe in brief the ministry of John the Baptist. Then he introduces Jesus as coming from Nazareth without telling us anything whatever of his earlier life. Furthermore, over one-third of the book (including the so-called Passion narrative) is devoted to Jesus’ last week. These and other factors lend to the work a note of mystery, accentuated by the fact that at various points Mark calls attention to the fear or amazement gripping those who came in contact with Jesus (2:12; 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6; and several other passages, especially the strange words of 10:32). In addition, if one assumes that the Gospel originally ended with 16:8, Mark wished to leave his readers with the same sense of awe that the disciples experienced at Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>But how does one account for this fear and amazement? Mark’s clear answer is that Jesus, though truly a man, is also divine. While Mark’s Gospel exhibits the humanity of Jesus Christ (1:41; 3:5; 8:12; 10:14), his chief emphasis is on the Lord’s deity. Indeed, Mark introduces his book by referring to Jesus as “the Son of God” (a phrase omitted in some manuscripts, however), a position that is recognized both by the demons (3:11; 5:7) and by God himself (9:7). What may well be the true climax of the Gospel occurs at 15:39, where Mark writes that a Gentile, a Roman centurion, upon hearing Jesus’ death cry, exclaimed, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The author organized his Gospel according to a simple plan. The first eight chapters summarize the nature of Christ’s public ministry by alternating stories that show his growing popularity with stories that stress the disapproval of the Jewish leaders. This first half of the book, while indicating some of the tensions created by Jesus’ coming, gives the basic impression of success and general optimism. A significant shift then strikes the reader toward the end of chapter 8, particularly beginning with verse 31. At Caesarea Philippi, Peter has just confessed that Jesus is the Messiah, and now for the first time Jesus reveals that as Messiah he must die. The disciples become perplexed and discouraged and their pessimism mounts as this thought is brought home to them repeatedly (9:9, 31; 10:32-34; 14:17-25). In the end they desert their master (14:50).<\/p>\n<p>Interestingly, this pessimistic note is anticipated in the earlier part of the Gospel at three points: 3:6 (Jesus’ enemies plot his death); 6:6 (faithlessness in Nazareth); and 8:21 (lack of understanding in the disciples). Some scholars suggest that Mark used these three verses to indicate the first three divisions of his book. In addition, other scholars note that two healings of blind men (8:22-26; 10:46-52) seem to provide the opening and the conclusion of a section that emphasizes the spiritual blindness of the disciples. One more structural clue is 14:1, which clearly marks out the final section of the Gospel.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OccasionPurposeTheology\">Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>A few scholars think that Mark may have been combating a heretical sect that stressed the miracles of Jesus and viewed him purely as a divine wonder-worker. Although this view has not gained acceptance as originally formulated, a number of writers do see the Gospel as a theological corrective. Ralph Martin, who links Mark very closely with Paul, suggests that the evangelist is opposing some heretical groups who have distorted Paul’s message by placing exclusive stress on Christ as a <em>heavenly<\/em> figure (cf. the views that Paul himself opposes in Colossians). Mark responds to these aberrations by emphasizing, in Martin’s words, “the paradox of Jesus’ earthly life in which suffering and vindication form a two-beat rhythm.” Even if one decides that this reconstruction, too, is rather speculative, one may nevertheless retain certain elements in it as valid.<\/p>\n<p>Other scholars, such as H. Kee, place emphasis on the apocalyptic background of Mark. Kee and others tie this element to the Jewish revolt of <span>AD<\/span> 66, but commitment to this particular historical connection is unnecessary to appreciate the great significance of Mark 13 (Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse) for those original readers of the Gospel who may have been undergoing persecution.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the most satisfactory reconstruction links this Gospel to the Neronian persecution in the mid-60s. Mark, for example, is the only Gospel that records that Jesus, after being driven to the wilderness, found himself in the company of wild animals (1:13). This detail, according to William Lane, “was filled with special significance for those called to enter the arena where they stood helpless in the presence of wild beasts.” This interpretation, while not without difficulties, has the advantage of accounting for most of the available data. First, it is compatible with the strong tradition that assigns the origin of Mark’s work to Rome. Second, Mark speaks distinctly to those suffering persecution by introducing them quickly to John’s imprisonment and several other details. Third, related to this is Mark’s emphasis on discipleship. Christians facing persecution must have been tempted to relax the standards (4:17-19). Fourth, given this general situation, one can hardly doubt the significance of our Lord’s apocalyptic message in chapter 13, intended to encourage the disciples in the midst of their trials by reminding them of the glory to follow. Finally, Mark’s clear concern for the Gentile mission fits in with the needs of pagan Rome. The suffering Christians cannot afford to forget the unbelieving society in which they live. In the light of this particular responsibility, Mark assures his readers of what even the Roman centurion began to recognize—surely Jesus <em>is<\/em> the Son of God (15:39).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The development of Mark’s narrative can be presented in six major divisions within a twofold structure:<\/p>\n<li>Introduction (1:1-13)<\/li>\n<li>Part I: Popularity and Opposition (1:14–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>1. Jesus’ authority and the Pharisees’ enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/li>\n<li>2. The people’s response (3:7–6:6a)<\/li>\n<li>3. The disciples’ misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>Part II: Darkness and Death (8:22–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>4. The Messiah’s mission and the disciples’ blind-ness (8:22–10:52)<\/li>\n<li>5. Final ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/li>\n<li>6. The Passion narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>Conclusion (16:1-8)<\/li>\n<p>Although one can hardly claim that this outline corresponds exactly to the author’s original plan (Mark may not have consciously worked out a detailed outline), the sixfold division provides a useful starting point for an interpretive summary of the contents.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Authority and the Pharisees’ Enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>Immediately after the introductory portion (1:1-13), which describes John the Baptist’s ministry as well as Jesus’ baptism and temptation, Mark opens the body of the work with a summary statement (vv 14-15). In these two verses he seems to suggest that Jesus’ public ministry, characterized by the proclamation that God’s kingdom is about to be inaugurated, was occasioned by John’s imprisonment. This is followed by the call of the first disciples (vv 16-20) and then by a complex of stories (vv 21-38), all of which report incidents that took place in Capernaum, apparently within a 24-hour period: synagogue instruction followed by the healing of a demoniac; the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law; numerous other healings in the evening; prayer in a lonely place. The statement that Jesus proceeded to expand his ministry throughout the province of Galilee (v 39) is followed by the story of a leper’s cure (vv 40-45). Next are found a very important group of incidents (2:1–3:6), all of them focusing on Jesus’ conflicts with Jewish leaders: the healing and forgiveness of a paralytic; the call of Levi, whose dinner (attended by Jesus as well as by the hated tax gatherers) occasioned some disputes, particularly on the issue of fasting; and two significant stories regarding proper behavior on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<h5>The People’s Response (3:7–6:6a)<\/h5>\n<p>Mark opens this second section as he opened the first: a summary statement (Jesus’ healings by the lake—3:7-12) followed by the official appointment of 12 apostles (vv 13-19). Then follows a section that focuses on the kinds of charges brought against Jesus by his own family and by the scribes (vv 20-22), leading to a response touching on Satan, on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and on what constitutes true membership in his family (vv 23-35). Most of chapter 4 is devoted to Jesus’ parables of the kingdom—the sower, the seed growing secretly, the mustard seed—and includes statements on the nature and purpose of his teachings (4:10-12, 21-25, 33-34). In the evening Jesus and his disciples set out to cross the Sea of Galilee, leading to the stilling of the storm (vv 35-41), the healing of the Gerasene demoniac on the other side of the lake (5:1-20), and, on their return to Capernaum, the healing of a hemorrhaging woman and the raising of Jairus’s daughter (vv 21-43). The section concludes with Jesus’ visit to his hometown, Nazareth, and the rejection he suffered there (6:1-6a).<\/p>\n<h5>The Disciples’ Misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/h5>\n<p>The third section begins with two introductory passages: the sending out of the 12 (6:6b-13) and the story of John the Baptist’s death (vv 14-29). When the disciples return, Jesus determines to seek some rest, but the crowds follow them; Jesus then teaches and feeds the 5,000 (vv 30-44) and, after crossing the lake (vv 45-52, which includes Jesus’ walk over the water), he performs numerous cures in and around Gennesaret (vv 53-56). Then follows a controversy with the Pharisees regarding the hand-washing ritual (7:1-8), and this incident leads to Christ’s assertion of the authority of God’s word over human tradition (vv 9-13) and to some general instructions on true purity (vv 14-23). The next several stories describe Jesus’ withdrawal from Galilee, first to Tyre, where a gentile woman’s daughter is healed (vv 24-30), then to the Decapolis, where he cures a deaf-mute (vv 31-37) and feeds a crowd of four thousand (8:1-10). The demand of the Pharisees for a sign (vv 11-12) leads to Jesus’ warning against the “leaven” of the Pharisees, a statement misunderstood by the disciples (vv 13-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Messiah’s Mission and the Disciples’ Blindness (8:22–10:52)<\/h5>\n<p>Still away from Galilee, but now in the nearby town of Bethsaida, Jesus heals a blind man (8:22-26). He then leads his disciples north toward Caesarea Philippi, which sets the stage for Peter’s confession (vv 27-30). This recognition on the part of the disciples (of whom Peter is in effect a representative) leads Jesus to prophesy his death, but Peter’s refusal to accept the prophecy calls forth a rebuke and instruction on discipleship (vv 31-38). The failure of the disciples to understand the necessity of Christ’s death provides the background for the Transfiguration (9:1-8), which assures Peter, John, and James that God’s kingdom will indeed come (note v 1); further, the Father himself enjoins them to believe Jesus’ prophecy (v 7). After some words about the resurrection and about the coming of Elijah (vv 9-13), Mark relates the healing of a demoniac boy (vv 14-29). Back in Galilee, a second prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 30-32) is followed, sadly, by a trivial discussion among the disciples as to who is the greatest (vv 33-37). Appropriately, one finds some further instructions concerning discipleship (vv 38-50). Mark next writes that Jesus left Galilee for the last time and began his journey toward the south. During this journey, Jesus delivered teachings on divorce and on the spiritual privileges of children (10:1-16), then met the rich young ruler (vv 17-22), an incident that leads to further words on discipleship (vv 23-31). A third prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 32-34) is again followed by selfish behavior on the part of the disciples, in this case an ambitious request from James and John (vv 35-40). The incident produces indignation among the rest of the disciples, thus necessitating another rebuke from their master, who himself came to serve and to die (vv 41-45). The section ends as it began—by reporting the cure of a blind man, Bartimaeus of Jericho in this story (vv 46-52).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/h5>\n<p>This section seems naturally to divide into three balanced subsections. The first one (11:1-26) includes three events: the Triumphal Entry, the withering of the fig tree, and the cleansing of the temple. The second subsection (11:27–12:44) is particularly important, for here is found Jesus’ final series of controversies with the Jewish leaders. The topics covered are the source of Jesus’ authority (11:27-33), the parable of the wicked husbandmen (12:1-12), the legitimacy of Caesar’s tax (vv 13-17), the Sadducees’ denial of resurrection (vv 18-27), the chief commandment (vv 28-34), and the question regarding David’s son (vv 35-37). This subsection ends with a warning against the scribes and with the story of the widow’s mite (vv 38-44). The third subsection (ch 13) is devoted completely to the Olivet discourse, with its prophecies of destruction, calamities, persecutions, deceivers, and final vindication. The discourse ends with various admonitions to keep alert.<\/p>\n<h5>The Passion Narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/h5>\n<p>This final section, which is introduced by a report of the priests’ plot (14:1-2), may be divided into two subsections. The first one relates the events leading up to Jesus’ trial (vv 3-52). They include the anointing of Jesus (vv 3-9), Judas’s betrayal (vv 10-11), the incidents connected with the Last Supper (vv 12-31), the scene at Gethsemane (vv 32-42), and the arrest (vv 43-52). The second subsection relates Jesus’ trial before the Jews (vv 53-65), Peter’s denials (vv 66-72), the trial before Pilate (15:1-15), the crucifixion (vv 16-41), and the burial (vv 42-47).<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel concludes somewhat mysteriously, but no less triumphantly, with the news that Jesus has risen from the dead (16:1-8). The earliest surviving Greek manuscripts, usually regarded as the most reliable, end at verse 8; the majority of manuscripts, however, include an additional 12 verses that report Jesus’ appearances to his disciples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Mark, John; Matthew, Gospel of; Luke, Gospel of; Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MARK, Gospel of Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between AD 60 and 68. Preview • Author, Date, Provenance • Distinctives • Structure • Occasion, Purpose, Theology • Content Author, Date, Provenance Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, alt...","summary_en":"MARK, Gospel of Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between AD 60 and 68. Preview • Author, Date, Provenance • Distinctives • Structure • Occasion, Purpose, Theology • Content Author, Date, Provenance Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, alt...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55197,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:20","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:20","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:20-35<\/strong> This story about Jesus and his family (3:20-21 and 31-35) brackets a controversy story about Jesus’ exorcisms (3:22-30); this arrangement identifies Jesus’ family with the religious leaders in opposing him.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:20-35<\/strong> This story about Jesus and his family (3:20-21 and 31-35) brackets a controversy story about Jesus’ exorcisms (3:22-30); this arrangement identifies Jesus’ family with the religious leaders in opposing him.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:20-35 This story about Jesus and his family (3:20-21 and 31-35) brackets a controversy story about Jesus’ exorcisms (3:22-30); this arrangement identifies Jesus’ family with the religious leaders in opposing him.","summary_en":"3:20-35 This story about Jesus and his family (3:20-21 and 31-35) brackets a controversy story about Jesus’ exorcisms (3:22-30); this arrangement identifies Jesus’ family with the religious leaders in opposing him.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55198,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:20","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:20","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:20<\/strong> That Jesus and the disciples can’t <em>find time to eat<\/em> emphasizes Jesus’ great popularity with <em>the crowds<\/em> (3:7-9).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:20<\/strong> That Jesus and the disciples can’t <em>find time to eat<\/em> emphasizes Jesus’ great popularity with <em>the crowds<\/em> (3:7-9).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:20 That Jesus and the disciples can’t find time to eat emphasizes Jesus’ great popularity with the crowds (3:7-9).","summary_en":"3:20 That Jesus and the disciples can’t find time to eat emphasizes Jesus’ great popularity with the crowds (3:7-9).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82823,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:20","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:20","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:20-35<\/strong> This story about Jesus and his family (3:20-21 and 31-35) brackets a controversy story about Jesus’ exorcisms (3:22-30); this arrangement identifies Jesus’ family with the religious leaders in opposing him.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:20-35<\/strong> This story about Jesus and his family (3:20-21 and 31-35) brackets a controversy story about Jesus’ exorcisms (3:22-30); this arrangement identifies Jesus’ family with the religious leaders in opposing him.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:20-35 This story about Jesus and his family (3:20-21 and 31-35) brackets a controversy story about Jesus’ exorcisms (3:22-30); this arrangement identifies Jesus’ family with the religious leaders in opposing him.","summary_en":"3:20-35 This story about Jesus and his family (3:20-21 and 31-35) brackets a controversy story about Jesus’ exorcisms (3:22-30); this arrangement identifies Jesus’ family with the religious leaders in opposing him.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82824,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:20","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:20","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:20<\/strong> That Jesus and the disciples can’t <em>find time to eat<\/em> emphasizes Jesus’ great popularity with <em>the crowds<\/em> (3:7-9).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:20<\/strong> That Jesus and the disciples can’t <em>find time to eat<\/em> emphasizes Jesus’ great popularity with <em>the crowds<\/em> (3:7-9).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:20 That Jesus and the disciples can’t find time to eat emphasizes Jesus’ great popularity with the crowds (3:7-9).","summary_en":"3:20 That Jesus and the disciples can’t find time to eat emphasizes Jesus’ great popularity with the crowds (3:7-9).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110449,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:20","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:20","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:20-35<\/strong> This story about Jesus and his family (3:20-21 and 31-35) brackets a controversy story about Jesus’ exorcisms (3:22-30); this arrangement identifies Jesus’ family with the religious leaders in opposing him.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:20-35<\/strong> This story about Jesus and his family (3:20-21 and 31-35) brackets a controversy story about Jesus’ exorcisms (3:22-30); this arrangement identifies Jesus’ family with the religious leaders in opposing him.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:20-35 This story about Jesus and his family (3:20-21 and 31-35) brackets a controversy story about Jesus’ exorcisms (3:22-30); this arrangement identifies Jesus’ family with the religious leaders in opposing him.","summary_en":"3:20-35 This story about Jesus and his family (3:20-21 and 31-35) brackets a controversy story about Jesus’ exorcisms (3:22-30); this arrangement identifies Jesus’ family with the religious leaders in opposing him.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110450,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:20","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:20","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:20<\/strong> That Jesus and the disciples can’t <em>find time to eat<\/em> emphasizes Jesus’ great popularity with <em>the crowds<\/em> (3:7-9).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:20<\/strong> That Jesus and the disciples can’t <em>find time to eat<\/em> emphasizes Jesus’ great popularity with <em>the crowds<\/em> (3:7-9).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:20 That Jesus and the disciples can’t find time to eat emphasizes Jesus’ great popularity with the crowds (3:7-9).","summary_en":"3:20 That Jesus and the disciples can’t find time to eat emphasizes Jesus’ great popularity with the crowds (3:7-9).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138075,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:20","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:20","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:20-35<\/strong> This story about Jesus and his family (3:20-21 and 31-35) brackets a controversy story about Jesus’ exorcisms (3:22-30); this arrangement identifies Jesus’ family with the religious leaders in opposing him.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:20-35<\/strong> This story about Jesus and his family (3:20-21 and 31-35) brackets a controversy story about Jesus’ exorcisms (3:22-30); this arrangement identifies Jesus’ family with the religious leaders in opposing him.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:20-35 This story about Jesus and his family (3:20-21 and 31-35) brackets a controversy story about Jesus’ exorcisms (3:22-30); this arrangement identifies Jesus’ family with the religious leaders in opposing him.","summary_en":"3:20-35 This story about Jesus and his family (3:20-21 and 31-35) brackets a controversy story about Jesus’ exorcisms (3:22-30); this arrangement identifies Jesus’ family with the religious leaders in opposing him.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138076,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:20","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:20","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:20<\/strong> That Jesus and the disciples can’t <em>find time to eat<\/em> emphasizes Jesus’ great popularity with <em>the crowds<\/em> (3:7-9).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:20<\/strong> That Jesus and the disciples can’t <em>find time to eat<\/em> emphasizes Jesus’ great popularity with <em>the crowds<\/em> (3:7-9).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:20 That Jesus and the disciples can’t find time to eat emphasizes Jesus’ great popularity with the crowds (3:7-9).","summary_en":"3:20 That Jesus and the disciples can’t find time to eat emphasizes Jesus’ great popularity with the crowds (3:7-9).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"21":[{"id":5803,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of Jesus*, Brothers","title_en":"of Jesus*, Brothers","content_ro":"<h3>BROTHERS OF JESUS*<\/h3>\n<p>James, Joses (or Joseph), Simon, and Judas, identified in the NT as members of Jesus’ own family (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). They are described as visiting Jesus with Mary, his mother (Mt 12:47-50; Mk 3:34-35; Lk 8:19-21), and hearing Jesus’ statement that all who did the will of God were brother, sister, and mother to him.<\/p>\n<p>They were well enough known in Nazareth that when Jesus returned to preach there, the people said, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” (Mk 6:3, <span>rsv<\/span>). In Matthew’s Gospel the order of the names of the last two brothers is reversed (Mt 13:55). When Jesus and his disciples went to Capernaum, they were accompanied by Mary and his brothers (Jn 2:12). Just before the Feast of Tabernacles the brothers visited Jesus to persuade him to go to Jerusalem for the festival. Although they were skeptical about his miracles, they said he should perform his feats in public to gain recognition (Jn 7:4). Jesus acknowledged opposition from within his family when he said, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his own family” (Mt 13:57, <span>nlt<\/span>). His brothers or other friends from home thought him to be losing touch with reality when crowds were first attracted to him (Mk 3:21).<\/p>\n<p>In spite of their earlier skepticism, however, the brothers became active members of the Jerusalem church during its earliest days. They are mentioned as being frequently at prayer in an upper room with Mary, showing a sharp reversal from their earlier lack of faith (Acts 1:14). One of the resurrection appearances was made to James (1 Cor 15:7). On Paul’s return to Jerusalem after his conversion, he met Peter and James, “the Lord’s brother,” but not the other apostles (Gal 1:19). When the apostle Peter was released from prison, he went to the home of Mary the mother of John Mark, and despite the excitement of the occasion, he immediately asked the group to “tell this to James and to the brethren” (Acts 12:17, <span>rsv<\/span>). A number of references in Acts show James as a strong, respected leader of the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:13-21; 21:18). In the council at Jerusalem, he expressed a strong opinion on the acceptance of Gentiles into the church; he was later visited by Paul, who told him about his ministry and the many conversions among the Gentiles. Although James is mentioned more often by name, all the brothers seem to have been well respected at that time. Thus, their actions were used as an example by Paul when he argued that it would be appropriate for him also to have a wife accompany him on his journeys, as Jesus’ brothers did (1 Cor 9:5).<\/p>\n<p>The author of the Epistle of James is generally assumed to be the Lord’s brother, although he does not identify himself specifically that way (1:1). It seems clear, though, that the author wrote as a recognized leader in the church; hence, to identify him as the Lord’s brother seems logical. The author of the Epistle of Jude identifies himself as the brother of James. The reference would most logically be to James, the leader mentioned in Acts and probably the author of the other epistle. The author thus seems to be the Judas named as the brother of the Lord in the Gospels (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3).<\/p>\n<p>Throughout the NT the group of the 12 apostles is consistently distinguished from the brothers of the Lord. Luke named the apostles and then said, “All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers” (Acts 1:13-14). The apostle Paul pointed to the brothers of the Lord as a group separate from the apostles (1 Cor 9:5); each mention of them in the Gospels describes them as family members and distinct from the disciples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> James (Person) #1; Joseph #7; Jude (Person); Mary #1.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BROTHERS OF JESUS*<\/h3>\n<p>James, Joses (or Joseph), Simon, and Judas, identified in the NT as members of Jesus’ own family (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). They are described as visiting Jesus with Mary, his mother (Mt 12:47-50; Mk 3:34-35; Lk 8:19-21), and hearing Jesus’ statement that all who did the will of God were brother, sister, and mother to him.<\/p>\n<p>They were well enough known in Nazareth that when Jesus returned to preach there, the people said, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” (Mk 6:3, <span>rsv<\/span>). In Matthew’s Gospel the order of the names of the last two brothers is reversed (Mt 13:55). When Jesus and his disciples went to Capernaum, they were accompanied by Mary and his brothers (Jn 2:12). Just before the Feast of Tabernacles the brothers visited Jesus to persuade him to go to Jerusalem for the festival. Although they were skeptical about his miracles, they said he should perform his feats in public to gain recognition (Jn 7:4). Jesus acknowledged opposition from within his family when he said, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his own family” (Mt 13:57, <span>nlt<\/span>). His brothers or other friends from home thought him to be losing touch with reality when crowds were first attracted to him (Mk 3:21).<\/p>\n<p>In spite of their earlier skepticism, however, the brothers became active members of the Jerusalem church during its earliest days. They are mentioned as being frequently at prayer in an upper room with Mary, showing a sharp reversal from their earlier lack of faith (Acts 1:14). One of the resurrection appearances was made to James (1 Cor 15:7). On Paul’s return to Jerusalem after his conversion, he met Peter and James, “the Lord’s brother,” but not the other apostles (Gal 1:19). When the apostle Peter was released from prison, he went to the home of Mary the mother of John Mark, and despite the excitement of the occasion, he immediately asked the group to “tell this to James and to the brethren” (Acts 12:17, <span>rsv<\/span>). A number of references in Acts show James as a strong, respected leader of the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:13-21; 21:18). In the council at Jerusalem, he expressed a strong opinion on the acceptance of Gentiles into the church; he was later visited by Paul, who told him about his ministry and the many conversions among the Gentiles. Although James is mentioned more often by name, all the brothers seem to have been well respected at that time. Thus, their actions were used as an example by Paul when he argued that it would be appropriate for him also to have a wife accompany him on his journeys, as Jesus’ brothers did (1 Cor 9:5).<\/p>\n<p>The author of the Epistle of James is generally assumed to be the Lord’s brother, although he does not identify himself specifically that way (1:1). It seems clear, though, that the author wrote as a recognized leader in the church; hence, to identify him as the Lord’s brother seems logical. The author of the Epistle of Jude identifies himself as the brother of James. The reference would most logically be to James, the leader mentioned in Acts and probably the author of the other epistle. The author thus seems to be the Judas named as the brother of the Lord in the Gospels (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3).<\/p>\n<p>Throughout the NT the group of the 12 apostles is consistently distinguished from the brothers of the Lord. Luke named the apostles and then said, “All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers” (Acts 1:13-14). The apostle Paul pointed to the brothers of the Lord as a group separate from the apostles (1 Cor 9:5); each mention of them in the Gospels describes them as family members and distinct from the disciples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> James (Person) #1; Joseph #7; Jude (Person); Mary #1.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BROTHERS OF JESUS* James, Joses (or Joseph), Simon, and Judas, identified in the NT as members of Jesus’ own family (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). They are described as visiting Jesus with Mary, his mother (Mt 12:47-50; Mk 3:34-35; Lk 8:19-21), and hearing Jesus’ statement that all who did the will of God were brother, sister, and mother to him. They were well enough known in Nazareth that when Jesus returned to preach there, the people said, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of Ja...","summary_en":"BROTHERS OF JESUS* James, Joses (or Joseph), Simon, and Judas, identified in the NT as members of Jesus’ own family (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). They are described as visiting Jesus with Mary, his mother (Mt 12:47-50; Mk 3:34-35; Lk 8:19-21), and hearing Jesus’ statement that all who did the will of God were brother, sister, and mother to him. They were well enough known in Nazareth that when Jesus returned to preach there, the people said, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of Ja...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55199,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:21","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:21","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:21<\/strong> <em>He’s out of his mind:<\/em> Mark does not explain whether the attempt by Jesus’ <em>family<\/em> to seize him was motivated by sincere but misguided concern, or by hostility. Jesus’ brothers and sisters were not among his followers until after his resurrection (3:31-35; John 7:3-5; 1 Cor 15:7 mentions James, the brother of Jesus, who became a leader of the Jerusalem church, Acts 15:13-21).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:21<\/strong> <em>He’s out of his mind:<\/em> Mark does not explain whether the attempt by Jesus’ <em>family<\/em> to seize him was motivated by sincere but misguided concern, or by hostility. Jesus’ brothers and sisters were not among his followers until after his resurrection (3:31-35; John 7:3-5; 1 Cor 15:7 mentions James, the brother of Jesus, who became a leader of the Jerusalem church, Acts 15:13-21).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:21 He’s out of his mind: Mark does not explain whether the attempt by Jesus’ family to seize him was motivated by sincere but misguided concern, or by hostility. Jesus’ brothers and sisters were not among his followers until after his resurrection (3:31-35; John 7:3-5; 1 Cor 15:7 mentions James, the brother of Jesus, who became a leader of the Jerusalem church, Acts 15:13-21).","summary_en":"3:21 He’s out of his mind: Mark does not explain whether the attempt by Jesus’ family to seize him was motivated by sincere but misguided concern, or by hostility. Jesus’ brothers and sisters were not among his followers until after his resurrection (3:31-35; John 7:3-5; 1 Cor 15:7 mentions James, the brother of Jesus, who became a leader of the Jerusalem church, Acts 15:13-21).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82825,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:21","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:21","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:21<\/strong> <em>He’s out of his mind:<\/em> Mark does not explain whether the attempt by Jesus’ <em>family<\/em> to seize him was motivated by sincere but misguided concern, or by hostility. Jesus’ brothers and sisters were not among his followers until after his resurrection (3:31-35; John 7:3-5; 1 Cor 15:7 mentions James, the brother of Jesus, who became a leader of the Jerusalem church, Acts 15:13-21).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:21<\/strong> <em>He’s out of his mind:<\/em> Mark does not explain whether the attempt by Jesus’ <em>family<\/em> to seize him was motivated by sincere but misguided concern, or by hostility. Jesus’ brothers and sisters were not among his followers until after his resurrection (3:31-35; John 7:3-5; 1 Cor 15:7 mentions James, the brother of Jesus, who became a leader of the Jerusalem church, Acts 15:13-21).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:21 He’s out of his mind: Mark does not explain whether the attempt by Jesus’ family to seize him was motivated by sincere but misguided concern, or by hostility. Jesus’ brothers and sisters were not among his followers until after his resurrection (3:31-35; John 7:3-5; 1 Cor 15:7 mentions James, the brother of Jesus, who became a leader of the Jerusalem church, Acts 15:13-21).","summary_en":"3:21 He’s out of his mind: Mark does not explain whether the attempt by Jesus’ family to seize him was motivated by sincere but misguided concern, or by hostility. Jesus’ brothers and sisters were not among his followers until after his resurrection (3:31-35; John 7:3-5; 1 Cor 15:7 mentions James, the brother of Jesus, who became a leader of the Jerusalem church, Acts 15:13-21).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110451,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:21","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:21","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:21<\/strong> <em>He’s out of his mind:<\/em> Mark does not explain whether the attempt by Jesus’ <em>family<\/em> to seize him was motivated by sincere but misguided concern, or by hostility. Jesus’ brothers and sisters were not among his followers until after his resurrection (3:31-35; John 7:3-5; 1 Cor 15:7 mentions James, the brother of Jesus, who became a leader of the Jerusalem church, Acts 15:13-21).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:21<\/strong> <em>He’s out of his mind:<\/em> Mark does not explain whether the attempt by Jesus’ <em>family<\/em> to seize him was motivated by sincere but misguided concern, or by hostility. Jesus’ brothers and sisters were not among his followers until after his resurrection (3:31-35; John 7:3-5; 1 Cor 15:7 mentions James, the brother of Jesus, who became a leader of the Jerusalem church, Acts 15:13-21).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:21 He’s out of his mind: Mark does not explain whether the attempt by Jesus’ family to seize him was motivated by sincere but misguided concern, or by hostility. Jesus’ brothers and sisters were not among his followers until after his resurrection (3:31-35; John 7:3-5; 1 Cor 15:7 mentions James, the brother of Jesus, who became a leader of the Jerusalem church, Acts 15:13-21).","summary_en":"3:21 He’s out of his mind: Mark does not explain whether the attempt by Jesus’ family to seize him was motivated by sincere but misguided concern, or by hostility. Jesus’ brothers and sisters were not among his followers until after his resurrection (3:31-35; John 7:3-5; 1 Cor 15:7 mentions James, the brother of Jesus, who became a leader of the Jerusalem church, Acts 15:13-21).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138077,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:21","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:21","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:21<\/strong> <em>He’s out of his mind:<\/em> Mark does not explain whether the attempt by Jesus’ <em>family<\/em> to seize him was motivated by sincere but misguided concern, or by hostility. Jesus’ brothers and sisters were not among his followers until after his resurrection (3:31-35; John 7:3-5; 1 Cor 15:7 mentions James, the brother of Jesus, who became a leader of the Jerusalem church, Acts 15:13-21).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:21<\/strong> <em>He’s out of his mind:<\/em> Mark does not explain whether the attempt by Jesus’ <em>family<\/em> to seize him was motivated by sincere but misguided concern, or by hostility. Jesus’ brothers and sisters were not among his followers until after his resurrection (3:31-35; John 7:3-5; 1 Cor 15:7 mentions James, the brother of Jesus, who became a leader of the Jerusalem church, Acts 15:13-21).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:21 He’s out of his mind: Mark does not explain whether the attempt by Jesus’ family to seize him was motivated by sincere but misguided concern, or by hostility. Jesus’ brothers and sisters were not among his followers until after his resurrection (3:31-35; John 7:3-5; 1 Cor 15:7 mentions James, the brother of Jesus, who became a leader of the Jerusalem church, Acts 15:13-21).","summary_en":"3:21 He’s out of his mind: Mark does not explain whether the attempt by Jesus’ family to seize him was motivated by sincere but misguided concern, or by hostility. Jesus’ brothers and sisters were not among his followers until after his resurrection (3:31-35; John 7:3-5; 1 Cor 15:7 mentions James, the brother of Jesus, who became a leader of the Jerusalem church, Acts 15:13-21).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"22":[{"id":34138,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Scribe","title_en":"Scribe","content_ro":"<h3>SCRIBE<\/h3>\n<p>Reference in early OT times to those employed for their ability to transcribe information. After the exile, scribes were a class of scholars who taught, copied, and interpreted the Jewish law for the people. They appear in the Gospels primarily as opponents of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ScribesinPreexilicTimes\">Scribes in Preexilic Times<\/p>\n<p>The ability to read and write was not widespread in ancient Israel, and professional secretaries were needed in the various aspects of public life. This appears to be the earliest biblical notion of the term “scribe” and has no particular religious connotation. Scribes were employed to keep accounts or transcribe legal information (Jer 32:12), military data (2 Chr 26:11), other public documents (Jgs 8:14; Is 50:1), or personal correspondence (Jer 36:18). These secretaries were essential to royal administrations, and there is frequent mention of a chief scribe who functioned as a court recorder (1 Kgs 4:3; 2 Chr 24:11), adviser (2 Sm 8:16-17; 2 Kgs 18:18; 22:12; 1 Chr 27:32; Is 36:3), and financial overseer (2 Kgs 22:3-4). Secretaries or scribes were associated with the priesthood as well, serving as recorders for temple affairs (1 Chr 24:6; 2 Chr 34:13-15).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ScribesinPostexilicTimes\">Scribes in Postexilic Times<\/p>\n<p>With the restoration of Judaism under Ezra and Nehemiah, the term “scribe” begins to be associated more narrowly with those who gathered together, studied, and interpreted the Torah (Jewish law). They became, in essence, a separate profession of teachers (although unpaid), able to preserve accurately the law of Moses and interpret it to meet conditions in postexilic times. In this initial period, Ezra himself appears as the ideal “scribe who studied and taught the commands and laws of the <span>Lord<\/span> to Israel” (Ezr 7:11, <span>nlt<\/span>). In Ecclesiasticus, the scribe is portrayed as one who, because of his diligent study of the Law, the Prophets, and Writings (Ecclus 38:24ff; 39:1), is able to penetrate the hidden meanings of texts (39:2-3) and thus is able to serve as judge and counsel for the affairs of the people and state (38:33; 39:4-8). Because of his invaluable place in a society governed by the Torah, the scribe is worthy of praise and veneration throughout succeeding generations (39:9). By the second century <span>BC<\/span>, the scribes were a fairly distinct class in Jewish society. They appear as such during the Maccabean wars, acting as a negotiating body with the rival Syrians (1 Macc 7:12). It is also significant that, from this time forward, the history of the scribe in Jewish life is closely linked with the rise of the Pharisees. Although there were apparently some scribes affiliated with the rival Sadducean party, the party of the Pharisees, with its absolute devotion to the law (including the oral law), became the primary religiopolitical affiliation for the scribes (see the close connection in the NT: Mt 5:20; 12:38; 15:1; Mk 7:5; Lk 6:7).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TrainingandStatus\">Training and Status<\/p>\n<p>The training of scribes initially occurred within priestly family-based guilds that guaranteed the regulation and perpetuation of this position (1 Chr 2:55). Later, scribal training in the law became open to members of all classes, with the eventual result, by Jesus’ time, of scribes from nonpriestly families being far more numerous and influential. Training in the law began at an early age under the personal supervision of a teacher (rabbi), who gave instructions in all matters pertaining to the law and its interpretation for present needs. Because the written law of Moses could not possibly speak directly to conditions in postexilic times, the oral interpretation and application of the written law to meet such current needs was a significant contribution by the scribes. Such oral law promulgated by them was regarded as equal to the written law and equally binding for those desiring to please God (see Mk 7:6-13). This important function, lying at the heart of Jewish life, accounts for the participation of the scribes in the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin, in order to make legal decisions in keeping with the law, obviously needed the presence of those most knowledgeable about the minutest details of the Torah and the principles governing its application to new circumstances. The scribes, consequently, were the only members outside the aristocratic high priests and elders to be represented in this Jewish supreme court (Mt 26:57; Mk 14:43, 53; Lk 22:66; Acts 23:9). Being the authoritative instructors of the law both within the temple (Lk 2:46) and within the various synagogues of Judea and Galilee (5:17), as well as prominent members of the Sanhedrin, the scribes were greatly respected within the Jewish community. They wore special robes (Mk 12:38) with memorial fringes at the bottom and phylacteries, or “prayer boxes,” hanging from the arms (Mt 23:5). Such attire made their presence obvious and occasioned the rising or bowing of the common people when they passed (Mk 12:38). They were addressed with respect as “rabbi” or “master” (Mt 23:7) and were given the place of honor at worship as well as at social affairs (Mt 23:2; Mk 12:39; Lk 20:46). Indeed, the high regard the Jews held for their scribes is testified by the fact that such teachers of the law were buried alongside the tombs of the patriarchs and prophets.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheScribesinJesusDay\">The Scribes in Jesus’ Day<\/p>\n<p>The scribes appear predominantly in the ministry of Jesus as those concerned with the circumspectness of legal observance. Luke refers to the scribes as “lawyers,” thereby describing their chief function as interpreters of the Jewish law in a way that communicated to his gentile audience. It is often found, therefore, that the scribes were critical members of Jesus’ audience, accusing him of violating the law on numerous occasions: in forgiving sins (Mt 9:1-3; Lk 5:17-26), in breaking their notion of Sabbath observance through work (Lk 6:1-2) and healing (vv 6-11), in not following their accepted ceremonial washings (Mk 7:2-5), and in ignoring their practice of fasting (Lk 5:33-39). Not surprisingly, they especially disapproved of Jesus’ practice of mingling with the unclean and outcasts of Jewish society (Mk 2:16-17; Lk 15:1-2). In a similar light, they are not unfrequently found presenting questions concerning the law for the purpose of tricking Jesus (Mk 7:5; 12:28, 35; Lk 11:53; Jn 8:3-4). In a similar fashion, they demanded that Jesus make his identity clear (Mt 12:38) and reveal the source of his authority to perform miracles (Mk 3:22; Lk 20:1-4). Although there is evidence that a minority of the scribes accepted Jesus (Mt 8:19; 13:52; Mk 12:32; Jn 3:1-2), their primary attitude toward Jesus was one of hostility. As previously suggested, this was partly due to Jesus’ differing expression of fidelity to the Mosaic law and his openness toward the outcasts. It was also partly due to the rising popularity of Jesus among the people, which posed a threat to their own authority (Mt 7:29) and to the safety of the city (Mt 21:15; Mk 11:18). Certainly, another major contributing factor of their opposition to Jesus was his exposure of their hypocrisy and corruption. In his rebukes of the scribes and the Pharisees, Jesus openly accused them of catering to public approval (Mt 23:5-7; Mk 12:38-39; Lk 11:43). While appearing to be outwardly correct and holy, they were inwardly corrupt (Mt 23:25-28; Lk 11:39-41). Jesus also attacked the principle of oral law taught by the scribes, which they demanded that the people follow. Jesus charged that the oral law was a “heavy burden” that the scribes themselves did not even bother to follow (Mt 23:2-4, 13-22; Lk 11:46). While emphasizing the minor points of the law, the scribes were also guilty of ignoring the weightier concerns of justice, mercy, and faith (Mt 23:23-24; Mk 12:40; Lk 11:42). Contrary to being the descendants of the prophets, as the scribes held themselves to be, the scribes (Jesus claimed) would have killed the prophets if they had lived in their day (Mt 23:29-36; Lk 20:9-19).<\/p>\n<p>It is not surprising to find, therefore, the scribes anxious to get rid of Jesus (Mk 14:1; Lk 11:53). His more flexible interpretation of the law posed a clear threat to their position and authority within the community. The scribes joined forces with their normal opponents (the high priesthood) to engineer Jesus’ arrest (Mk 14:43). When Jesus appeared before them and the rest of the Sanhedrin, they worked with the other leaders to construct a case against him worthy of death (Mt 26:57-66). When taking Jesus before Herod, they stood by and shouted their accusations with the others (Lk 23:10). Finally, they participated with other members of the Sanhedrin in mocking Jesus on the cross, demanding that Jesus save himself by coming down from the cross (Mt 27:41-43). Prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the scribes continued with the other elements of the Sanhedrin to oppose the early Christian church, and they brought about Stephen’s martyrdom (Acts 6:12-14).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Judaism; Pharisees; Writer.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SCRIBE<\/h3>\n<p>Reference in early OT times to those employed for their ability to transcribe information. After the exile, scribes were a class of scholars who taught, copied, and interpreted the Jewish law for the people. They appear in the Gospels primarily as opponents of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ScribesinPreexilicTimes\">Scribes in Preexilic Times<\/p>\n<p>The ability to read and write was not widespread in ancient Israel, and professional secretaries were needed in the various aspects of public life. This appears to be the earliest biblical notion of the term “scribe” and has no particular religious connotation. Scribes were employed to keep accounts or transcribe legal information (Jer 32:12), military data (2 Chr 26:11), other public documents (Jgs 8:14; Is 50:1), or personal correspondence (Jer 36:18). These secretaries were essential to royal administrations, and there is frequent mention of a chief scribe who functioned as a court recorder (1 Kgs 4:3; 2 Chr 24:11), adviser (2 Sm 8:16-17; 2 Kgs 18:18; 22:12; 1 Chr 27:32; Is 36:3), and financial overseer (2 Kgs 22:3-4). Secretaries or scribes were associated with the priesthood as well, serving as recorders for temple affairs (1 Chr 24:6; 2 Chr 34:13-15).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ScribesinPostexilicTimes\">Scribes in Postexilic Times<\/p>\n<p>With the restoration of Judaism under Ezra and Nehemiah, the term “scribe” begins to be associated more narrowly with those who gathered together, studied, and interpreted the Torah (Jewish law). They became, in essence, a separate profession of teachers (although unpaid), able to preserve accurately the law of Moses and interpret it to meet conditions in postexilic times. In this initial period, Ezra himself appears as the ideal “scribe who studied and taught the commands and laws of the <span>Lord<\/span> to Israel” (Ezr 7:11, <span>nlt<\/span>). In Ecclesiasticus, the scribe is portrayed as one who, because of his diligent study of the Law, the Prophets, and Writings (Ecclus 38:24ff; 39:1), is able to penetrate the hidden meanings of texts (39:2-3) and thus is able to serve as judge and counsel for the affairs of the people and state (38:33; 39:4-8). Because of his invaluable place in a society governed by the Torah, the scribe is worthy of praise and veneration throughout succeeding generations (39:9). By the second century <span>BC<\/span>, the scribes were a fairly distinct class in Jewish society. They appear as such during the Maccabean wars, acting as a negotiating body with the rival Syrians (1 Macc 7:12). It is also significant that, from this time forward, the history of the scribe in Jewish life is closely linked with the rise of the Pharisees. Although there were apparently some scribes affiliated with the rival Sadducean party, the party of the Pharisees, with its absolute devotion to the law (including the oral law), became the primary religiopolitical affiliation for the scribes (see the close connection in the NT: Mt 5:20; 12:38; 15:1; Mk 7:5; Lk 6:7).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TrainingandStatus\">Training and Status<\/p>\n<p>The training of scribes initially occurred within priestly family-based guilds that guaranteed the regulation and perpetuation of this position (1 Chr 2:55). Later, scribal training in the law became open to members of all classes, with the eventual result, by Jesus’ time, of scribes from nonpriestly families being far more numerous and influential. Training in the law began at an early age under the personal supervision of a teacher (rabbi), who gave instructions in all matters pertaining to the law and its interpretation for present needs. Because the written law of Moses could not possibly speak directly to conditions in postexilic times, the oral interpretation and application of the written law to meet such current needs was a significant contribution by the scribes. Such oral law promulgated by them was regarded as equal to the written law and equally binding for those desiring to please God (see Mk 7:6-13). This important function, lying at the heart of Jewish life, accounts for the participation of the scribes in the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin, in order to make legal decisions in keeping with the law, obviously needed the presence of those most knowledgeable about the minutest details of the Torah and the principles governing its application to new circumstances. The scribes, consequently, were the only members outside the aristocratic high priests and elders to be represented in this Jewish supreme court (Mt 26:57; Mk 14:43, 53; Lk 22:66; Acts 23:9). Being the authoritative instructors of the law both within the temple (Lk 2:46) and within the various synagogues of Judea and Galilee (5:17), as well as prominent members of the Sanhedrin, the scribes were greatly respected within the Jewish community. They wore special robes (Mk 12:38) with memorial fringes at the bottom and phylacteries, or “prayer boxes,” hanging from the arms (Mt 23:5). Such attire made their presence obvious and occasioned the rising or bowing of the common people when they passed (Mk 12:38). They were addressed with respect as “rabbi” or “master” (Mt 23:7) and were given the place of honor at worship as well as at social affairs (Mt 23:2; Mk 12:39; Lk 20:46). Indeed, the high regard the Jews held for their scribes is testified by the fact that such teachers of the law were buried alongside the tombs of the patriarchs and prophets.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheScribesinJesusDay\">The Scribes in Jesus’ Day<\/p>\n<p>The scribes appear predominantly in the ministry of Jesus as those concerned with the circumspectness of legal observance. Luke refers to the scribes as “lawyers,” thereby describing their chief function as interpreters of the Jewish law in a way that communicated to his gentile audience. It is often found, therefore, that the scribes were critical members of Jesus’ audience, accusing him of violating the law on numerous occasions: in forgiving sins (Mt 9:1-3; Lk 5:17-26), in breaking their notion of Sabbath observance through work (Lk 6:1-2) and healing (vv 6-11), in not following their accepted ceremonial washings (Mk 7:2-5), and in ignoring their practice of fasting (Lk 5:33-39). Not surprisingly, they especially disapproved of Jesus’ practice of mingling with the unclean and outcasts of Jewish society (Mk 2:16-17; Lk 15:1-2). In a similar light, they are not unfrequently found presenting questions concerning the law for the purpose of tricking Jesus (Mk 7:5; 12:28, 35; Lk 11:53; Jn 8:3-4). In a similar fashion, they demanded that Jesus make his identity clear (Mt 12:38) and reveal the source of his authority to perform miracles (Mk 3:22; Lk 20:1-4). Although there is evidence that a minority of the scribes accepted Jesus (Mt 8:19; 13:52; Mk 12:32; Jn 3:1-2), their primary attitude toward Jesus was one of hostility. As previously suggested, this was partly due to Jesus’ differing expression of fidelity to the Mosaic law and his openness toward the outcasts. It was also partly due to the rising popularity of Jesus among the people, which posed a threat to their own authority (Mt 7:29) and to the safety of the city (Mt 21:15; Mk 11:18). Certainly, another major contributing factor of their opposition to Jesus was his exposure of their hypocrisy and corruption. In his rebukes of the scribes and the Pharisees, Jesus openly accused them of catering to public approval (Mt 23:5-7; Mk 12:38-39; Lk 11:43). While appearing to be outwardly correct and holy, they were inwardly corrupt (Mt 23:25-28; Lk 11:39-41). Jesus also attacked the principle of oral law taught by the scribes, which they demanded that the people follow. Jesus charged that the oral law was a “heavy burden” that the scribes themselves did not even bother to follow (Mt 23:2-4, 13-22; Lk 11:46). While emphasizing the minor points of the law, the scribes were also guilty of ignoring the weightier concerns of justice, mercy, and faith (Mt 23:23-24; Mk 12:40; Lk 11:42). Contrary to being the descendants of the prophets, as the scribes held themselves to be, the scribes (Jesus claimed) would have killed the prophets if they had lived in their day (Mt 23:29-36; Lk 20:9-19).<\/p>\n<p>It is not surprising to find, therefore, the scribes anxious to get rid of Jesus (Mk 14:1; Lk 11:53). His more flexible interpretation of the law posed a clear threat to their position and authority within the community. The scribes joined forces with their normal opponents (the high priesthood) to engineer Jesus’ arrest (Mk 14:43). When Jesus appeared before them and the rest of the Sanhedrin, they worked with the other leaders to construct a case against him worthy of death (Mt 26:57-66). When taking Jesus before Herod, they stood by and shouted their accusations with the others (Lk 23:10). Finally, they participated with other members of the Sanhedrin in mocking Jesus on the cross, demanding that Jesus save himself by coming down from the cross (Mt 27:41-43). Prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the scribes continued with the other elements of the Sanhedrin to oppose the early Christian church, and they brought about Stephen’s martyrdom (Acts 6:12-14).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Judaism; Pharisees; Writer.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SCRIBE Reference in early OT times to those employed for their ability to transcribe information. After the exile, scribes were a class of scholars who taught, copied, and interpreted the Jewish law for the people. They appear in the Gospels primarily as opponents of Jesus. Scribes in Preexilic Times The ability to read and write was not widespread in ancient Israel, and professional secretaries were needed in the various aspects of public life. This appears to be the earliest biblical notion...","summary_en":"SCRIBE Reference in early OT times to those employed for their ability to transcribe information. After the exile, scribes were a class of scholars who taught, copied, and interpreted the Jewish law for the people. They appear in the Gospels primarily as opponents of Jesus. Scribes in Preexilic Times The ability to read and write was not widespread in ancient Israel, and professional secretaries were needed in the various aspects of public life. This appears to be the earliest biblical notion...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":35495,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Sin","title_en":"Sin","content_ro":"<h3>SIN<\/h3>\n<p>Evildoing that is not only against humanity, society, others, or oneself, but against God. The concept of God, therefore, gives to the idea of sin its many-sided meaning. Other gods, conceived of as capricious and characterless, exercised unlimited power in unbridled behavior; they engendered no such sense of sin as did Israel’s one God, holy, righteous, and utterly good. This religious conception of wrongdoing with the terminology it created persists into the NT.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Terminology\">Terminology<\/p>\n<p>Israel’s God sets the ideal, the standard for human behavior. The most frequent biblical words for sin speak of violating that standard in some fashion. The Hebrew word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">hata’<\/span> and Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hamartia<\/span> meant originally “to miss the mark, fail in duty” (Rom 3:23). As Lawgiver, God sets limits to man’s freedom; another frequent term (Hebrew, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">‘abar<\/span><em>;<\/em> Greek, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">parabasis<\/span>) describes sin as “transgression,” “overstepping set limits.” Similar terms are <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">pesha‘<\/span> (Hebrew), meaning “rebellion,” “transgression”; <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">’asham<\/span> (Hebrew) denotes “trespassing God’s kingly prerogative,” “incurring guilt”; <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraptoma<\/span> (Greek) denotes “a false step out of the appointed way,” “trespass on forbidden ground.” “Iniquity” often translates <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">‘aon<\/span> (Hebrew, meaning “perverseness,” “wrongness”), for which the nearest NT equivalent is <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">anomia<\/span> (Greek, “lawlessness”) or <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paranomia<\/span> (Greek, “lawbreaking”).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Genesis traces sin to deliberate misuse of God-given freedom in disobedience of a single limiting prohibition. Ezekiel insists eloquently upon individual responsibility against traditional theories of corporate guilt (Ez 18). Following Jeremiah, he urges the need for a cleansed, renewed inner life if outward behavior is to be reformed; the divine law must become a motivating force within a person if sin is to be overcome (Jer 31:29-34; Ez 36:24-29).<\/p>\n<p>Psalm 51 offers a keen analysis of the inner meaning of sin. By affirming “in sin did my mother conceive me,” the psalmist confessed that his life had been sinful from the first. His whole personality needed “purging”; he was defiled. Ritual sacrifices offer no solution. Only a broken, contrite heart can prepare a sinner for God’s cleansing. The only hope, the sole ground of appeal, lies in God’s steadfast love and abundant mercy. In spite of its rigorous view of sin, the OT also contains gracious assurance of forgiveness (Ps 103:8-14 Is 1:18; 55:6-7).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"InJesusTeachings\">In Jesus’ Teachings<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ teachings on the subject of sin took up the gracious offer of divine forgiveness and renewal, not only proclaiming with authority, “Your sins are forgiven,” but showing many acts of compassion and social recognition that he came to be the friend of sinners, calling them to repentance, restoring their hope and dignity (Mt 9:1-13; 11:19; Lk 15; 19:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus said little about the origin of sin, except to trace it to the human heart and will (Mt 6:22-23; 7:17-19; 18:7; Mk 7:20-23), but he significantly redefined sin’s scope. Where the law could assess only people’s actions, Jesus showed that anger, contempt, lust, hardness of heart, and deceitfulness are also sinful. He also spoke of sins of neglect, good left undone, the barren tree, the unused talent, the priest ignoring the injured, and the love never shown (Mt 25:41-46). He especially condemns sins against love—unbrotherliness, implacable hostility, selfishness, insensitivity (Lk 12:16-21; 16:19-31). And he condemned self-righteousness and spiritual blindness (Mt 23:16-26; Mk 3:22-30). Jesus spoke of sin as sickness (Mk 2:17) and sometimes as folly (Lk 12:20). Nevertheless, Jesus declared that fallen humans can be cured with God’s help (7:36-50).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"InJohnsWritings\">In John’s Writings<\/p>\n<p>John’s Gospel assumes sinful humanity’s need, the sacrifice of Christ the Lamb to bear away the sin of the world, and the offer of light and life in Christ. The new note is an emphasis on sin that refuses to accept the salvation provided in Christ, by the love of God for the world—the refusal to believe. It is for loving darkness, rejecting light, and refusing to accept Christ the Savior that humans are judged already (Jn 3:16-21).<\/p>\n<p>Against Gnosticism’s claim that for advanced Christians sin does not matter, 1 John affirms 15 reasons why sin cannot be tolerated in the Christian life and emphasizes again that sin is both ignorance of the truth and lack of love (1 Jn 3:3-10). Yet God forgives those who confess their sins, while Christ atones for their sins and intercedes for them (1:7–2:2).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"InPaulsWritings\">In Paul’s Writings<\/p>\n<p>Paul argued strongly, from observation and from Scripture, that all have sinned (Rom 1–3). To him, sin is a force, a power, a “law” ruling within people (Rom 5:21; 7:23; 8:2; 1 Cor 15:56), producing all kinds of evil behavior—the hardening of the conscience (Rom 7:21-24), alienation from God, and subjection to death (Rom 5:10; 6:23; Eph 2:1-5, 12; Col 1:21). Humans are helpless to reform themselves (Rom 7:24). Paul’s explanation of this desperate, universal condition is variously interpreted. Some readers think that Romans 5:12-21 says that Adam’s sin is the source of all sin; others, that it is the “similitude” (<span>kjv<\/span>) of all sin. In any event, Paul essentially said that “every man is his own Adam,” which means that each person is fully responsible for his or her sinful condition, even if the sinful nature was inherited from Adam.<\/p>\n<p>The solution to sin, for Paul, lies in the believer’s death with Christ—death to sin, self, the world. Concurrently, the new life of the invasive, effusive Spirit transforms one’s life from within, making each person a new creation by sanctifying the personality into the likeness of Christ (Rom 3:21-26; 5:6-9; 6; 8:1-4, 28-29; 2 Cor 5:14-21).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Flesh; Justification, Justified; Sanctification; Sin unto Death; Unpardonable Sin, The.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SIN<\/h3>\n<p>Evildoing that is not only against humanity, society, others, or oneself, but against God. The concept of God, therefore, gives to the idea of sin its many-sided meaning. Other gods, conceived of as capricious and characterless, exercised unlimited power in unbridled behavior; they engendered no such sense of sin as did Israel’s one God, holy, righteous, and utterly good. This religious conception of wrongdoing with the terminology it created persists into the NT.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Terminology\">Terminology<\/p>\n<p>Israel’s God sets the ideal, the standard for human behavior. The most frequent biblical words for sin speak of violating that standard in some fashion. The Hebrew word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">hata’<\/span> and Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hamartia<\/span> meant originally “to miss the mark, fail in duty” (Rom 3:23). As Lawgiver, God sets limits to man’s freedom; another frequent term (Hebrew, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">‘abar<\/span><em>;<\/em> Greek, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">parabasis<\/span>) describes sin as “transgression,” “overstepping set limits.” Similar terms are <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">pesha‘<\/span> (Hebrew), meaning “rebellion,” “transgression”; <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">’asham<\/span> (Hebrew) denotes “trespassing God’s kingly prerogative,” “incurring guilt”; <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraptoma<\/span> (Greek) denotes “a false step out of the appointed way,” “trespass on forbidden ground.” “Iniquity” often translates <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">‘aon<\/span> (Hebrew, meaning “perverseness,” “wrongness”), for which the nearest NT equivalent is <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">anomia<\/span> (Greek, “lawlessness”) or <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paranomia<\/span> (Greek, “lawbreaking”).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Genesis traces sin to deliberate misuse of God-given freedom in disobedience of a single limiting prohibition. Ezekiel insists eloquently upon individual responsibility against traditional theories of corporate guilt (Ez 18). Following Jeremiah, he urges the need for a cleansed, renewed inner life if outward behavior is to be reformed; the divine law must become a motivating force within a person if sin is to be overcome (Jer 31:29-34; Ez 36:24-29).<\/p>\n<p>Psalm 51 offers a keen analysis of the inner meaning of sin. By affirming “in sin did my mother conceive me,” the psalmist confessed that his life had been sinful from the first. His whole personality needed “purging”; he was defiled. Ritual sacrifices offer no solution. Only a broken, contrite heart can prepare a sinner for God’s cleansing. The only hope, the sole ground of appeal, lies in God’s steadfast love and abundant mercy. In spite of its rigorous view of sin, the OT also contains gracious assurance of forgiveness (Ps 103:8-14 Is 1:18; 55:6-7).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"InJesusTeachings\">In Jesus’ Teachings<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ teachings on the subject of sin took up the gracious offer of divine forgiveness and renewal, not only proclaiming with authority, “Your sins are forgiven,” but showing many acts of compassion and social recognition that he came to be the friend of sinners, calling them to repentance, restoring their hope and dignity (Mt 9:1-13; 11:19; Lk 15; 19:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus said little about the origin of sin, except to trace it to the human heart and will (Mt 6:22-23; 7:17-19; 18:7; Mk 7:20-23), but he significantly redefined sin’s scope. Where the law could assess only people’s actions, Jesus showed that anger, contempt, lust, hardness of heart, and deceitfulness are also sinful. He also spoke of sins of neglect, good left undone, the barren tree, the unused talent, the priest ignoring the injured, and the love never shown (Mt 25:41-46). He especially condemns sins against love—unbrotherliness, implacable hostility, selfishness, insensitivity (Lk 12:16-21; 16:19-31). And he condemned self-righteousness and spiritual blindness (Mt 23:16-26; Mk 3:22-30). Jesus spoke of sin as sickness (Mk 2:17) and sometimes as folly (Lk 12:20). Nevertheless, Jesus declared that fallen humans can be cured with God’s help (7:36-50).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"InJohnsWritings\">In John’s Writings<\/p>\n<p>John’s Gospel assumes sinful humanity’s need, the sacrifice of Christ the Lamb to bear away the sin of the world, and the offer of light and life in Christ. The new note is an emphasis on sin that refuses to accept the salvation provided in Christ, by the love of God for the world—the refusal to believe. It is for loving darkness, rejecting light, and refusing to accept Christ the Savior that humans are judged already (Jn 3:16-21).<\/p>\n<p>Against Gnosticism’s claim that for advanced Christians sin does not matter, 1 John affirms 15 reasons why sin cannot be tolerated in the Christian life and emphasizes again that sin is both ignorance of the truth and lack of love (1 Jn 3:3-10). Yet God forgives those who confess their sins, while Christ atones for their sins and intercedes for them (1:7–2:2).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"InPaulsWritings\">In Paul’s Writings<\/p>\n<p>Paul argued strongly, from observation and from Scripture, that all have sinned (Rom 1–3). To him, sin is a force, a power, a “law” ruling within people (Rom 5:21; 7:23; 8:2; 1 Cor 15:56), producing all kinds of evil behavior—the hardening of the conscience (Rom 7:21-24), alienation from God, and subjection to death (Rom 5:10; 6:23; Eph 2:1-5, 12; Col 1:21). Humans are helpless to reform themselves (Rom 7:24). Paul’s explanation of this desperate, universal condition is variously interpreted. Some readers think that Romans 5:12-21 says that Adam’s sin is the source of all sin; others, that it is the “similitude” (<span>kjv<\/span>) of all sin. In any event, Paul essentially said that “every man is his own Adam,” which means that each person is fully responsible for his or her sinful condition, even if the sinful nature was inherited from Adam.<\/p>\n<p>The solution to sin, for Paul, lies in the believer’s death with Christ—death to sin, self, the world. Concurrently, the new life of the invasive, effusive Spirit transforms one’s life from within, making each person a new creation by sanctifying the personality into the likeness of Christ (Rom 3:21-26; 5:6-9; 6; 8:1-4, 28-29; 2 Cor 5:14-21).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Flesh; Justification, Justified; Sanctification; Sin unto Death; Unpardonable Sin, The.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SIN Evildoing that is not only against humanity, society, others, or oneself, but against God. The concept of God, therefore, gives to the idea of sin its many-sided meaning. Other gods, conceived of as capricious and characterless, exercised unlimited power in unbridled behavior; they engendered no such sense of sin as did Israel’s one God, holy, righteous, and utterly good. This religious conception of wrongdoing with the terminology it created persists into the NT. Terminology Israel’s God...","summary_en":"SIN Evildoing that is not only against humanity, society, others, or oneself, but against God. The concept of God, therefore, gives to the idea of sin its many-sided meaning. Other gods, conceived of as capricious and characterless, exercised unlimited power in unbridled behavior; they engendered no such sense of sin as did Israel’s one God, holy, righteous, and utterly good. This religious conception of wrongdoing with the terminology it created persists into the NT. Terminology Israel’s God...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36104,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Spirit of God","title_en":"Spirit of God","content_ro":"<h3>SPIRIT OF GOD<\/h3>\n<p>Description of God in action, God in motion. The word “spirit” (Hebrew, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">ruach<\/span><em>;<\/em> Greek, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">pneuma<\/span>) is the word used from ancient times to describe and explain the experience of divine power working in, upon, and around people.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>There are three basic meanings evident in the use of “spirit” from the earliest Hebrew writings: It was a wind from God, it was the breath of life, and it was a spirit of ecstasy.<\/p>\n<p>First, it was a wind from God (the same Hebrew word translated “Spirit” in Gn 1:2) that caused the waters of the Flood to subside (8:1). A wind from God blew locusts over Egypt (Ex 10:13) and quail over the camp of Israel. The blast of his nostrils separated the waters of the Red Sea at the exodus (14:21).<\/p>\n<p>Second, it was the breath of God that made man a living being (Gn 2:7). It is one of the earliest perceptions of Hebrew faith that humans live only because of the stirring of the divine breath or spirit within them (Gn 6:3; Jb 33:4; 34:14-15; Ps 104:29-30). Later, a clearer distinction was drawn between divine Spirit and human spirit, and between spirit and soul, but at the earliest stage these were all more or less perceived to be synonymous manifestations of the same divine power, the source of all life—animal as well as human (Gn 7:15, 22; see Eccl 3:19-21).<\/p>\n<p>Third, there were occasions when this divine power seemed to overtake and possess an individual fully, so that his or her words or actions far transcended those of normal behavior. Such a person was clearly marked as an agent of God’s purpose and given respect. This was apparently how leaders were recognized in the premonarchy period—Othniel (Jgs 3:10), Gideon (6:34), Jephthah (11:29), and the first king, Saul (1 Sm 11:6), as well. So, too, the earliest prophets were those whose inspiration came in ecstasy (1 Sm 19:20-24).<\/p>\n<p>In the earlier stages of Hebrew thought, ecstatic experience was seen as the direct effect of divine power. This was true even when the ecstasy was recognized as evil in character, as in the case of Saul’s seizure by the Spirit (1 Sm 16:14-16). A spirit from God could be for evil as well as for good (see Jgs 9:23; 1 Kgs 22:19-23).<\/p>\n<h5>In the Writings of the Prophets<\/h5>\n<p>For Isaiah, the spirit was that which characterized God and distinguished him and his actions from human affairs (Is 31:3). Later, the adjective “holy” appeared as that which distinguished the Spirit of God from any other spirit, human or divine (Ps 51:11; Is 63:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>The problem of false prophecy emphasized the danger of assuming that every message delivered in ecstasy was the word of the Lord. Thus, tests of prophecy evaluated the content of the message delivered or the character of the prophet’s life, not the degree or quality of inspiration (see Dt 13:1-5; 18:22; Jer 23:14; Mi 3:5). This sense of a need to discriminate between true and false inspiration and to distinguish the word of God from the merely ecstatic oracle may help to explain the otherwise puzzling reluctance of the major eighth- and seventh-century <span>BC<\/span> prophets to attribute their inspiration to the Spirit.<\/p>\n<h5>In the Exilic and Postexilic Writings<\/h5>\n<p>In exilic and postexilic literature, the role of the Spirit is narrowed to two major functions: that of the prophetic Spirit and that of the Spirit of the age to come.<\/p>\n<p>The later prophets again spoke of the Spirit in explicit terms as the inspirer of prophecy (see Ez 3:1-4, 22-24; Hg 2:5; Zec 4:6). As they looked back to the preexilic period, these prophets freely attributed the inspiration of “the former prophets” to the Spirit as well (Zec 7:12).<\/p>\n<p>This tendency to exalt the Spirit’s role as the inspirer of prophecy became steadily stronger in the period between the OT and NT, until in rabbinic Judaism the Spirit was almost exclusively the inspirer of the prophetic writings now regarded as Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>The other understanding of the Spirit’s role during exilic and postexilic times was that the Spirit would be the manifestation of the power of God in the age to come. That eschatological hope of divine power effecting a final cleansing and a renewed creation is rooted principally in Isaiah’s prophecies (Is 4:4; 32:15; 44:3-4). Isaiah speaks of one anointed by the Spirit to accomplish complete and final salvation (11:2; 42:1; 61:1). Elsewhere, the same longing is expressed in terms of the Spirit being freely dispensed to all Israel (Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28-29; Zec 12:10) in the new covenant (Jer 31:31-34; Ez 36:26-27).<\/p>\n<p>In the period prior to Jesus, the understanding of the Spirit as the Spirit of prophecy and as the Spirit of the age to come had developed into the widespread dogma that the Spirit was no longer to be experienced in the present. The Spirit had been known in the past as the inspirer of prophetic writings, but after Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Spirit had withdrawn (1 Macc 4:44-46; 9:27; 2 Bar 85:1-3; see also Ps 74:9; Zec 13:2-6). The Spirit would be known again in the age of the Messiah, but in the interim the Spirit was absent from Israel. Even the great Hillel (learned Jewish leader and teacher, 60? <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 20?), a near contemporary of Jesus, had not received the Spirit—though if anyone was worthy of the Spirit, it was he. There is a tradition that at a meeting of Hillel and other wise men, a voice from heaven said, “Among those here present is one who would have deserved the Holy Spirit to rest upon him, if his time had been worthy of it.” The wise men all looked at Hillel.<\/p>\n<p>The consequence of this accepted dearth of the Spirit was that the Spirit in effect became subordinated to the law. The Spirit was the inspirer of the law, but since the Spirit could no longer be experienced directly, the law became the sole voice of the Spirit. It was this increasing dominance of the law and its authoritative interpreters that provided the background for the mission of Jesus and the initial spread of Christianity.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>If we are to understand the NT’s teaching on the Spirit, we must recognize both its continuity and discontinuity with the OT. At many points NT usage cannot be fully understood except against the background of OT concepts or passages. For example, the ambiguity of John 3:8 (“wind,” “Spirit”), 2 Thessalonians 2:8 (“breath”), and Revelation 11:11 (“breath of life”) takes us back to the basic Hebrew meanings of “spirit.” Acts 8:39 and Revelation 17:3 and 21:10 reflect the same conception of the Spirit that we find in 1 Kings 18:12, 2 Kings 2:16, and Ezekiel 3:14. The NT writers generally share the rabbinic view that Scripture has the authority of the Spirit behind it (see Mk 12:36; Acts 28:25; Heb 3:7; 2 Pt 1:21). The principal continuity is that the NT brings the fulfillment of what the OT writers looked forward to. At the same time, Christianity is not simply fulfilled Judaism. Jesus’ coming and his giving of his Spirit to live within his believers marks off the new faith as something new and distinct.<\/p>\n<h5>The Spirit of the New Age<\/h5>\n<p>The most striking feature of Jesus’ ministry and of the message of the earliest Christians was their conviction and proclamation that the blessings of the new age were already present, that the eschatological Spirit had already been poured out. With the exception of the Essenes at Qumran, no other group or individual within the Jewish religion of that time had dared to make such a bold claim. The prophets and the rabbis looked for a messianic age yet to come, and the apocalyptic writers warned of its imminent arrival, but none thought of it as already present. Even John the Baptist spoke only of one about to come and of the Spirit’s operation in the imminent future (Mk 1:8). But for Jesus and first-century Christians, the longed for hope was a living reality, and the claim carried with it the exciting sense of being in “the last days.” Without some recognition of that eschatological dimension of the Christians’ faith and life, we cannot understand this teaching on, and experience of, the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus clearly thought of his teachings and healings as fulfillment of the prophetic hope (Mt 12:41-42; 13:16-17; Lk 17:20-21). In particular, he saw himself as the one anointed by the Spirit to provide salvation (Mt 5:3-6; 11:5; Lk 4:17-19). So, too, Jesus understood his exorcisms as the effect of the power of God and as manifestations of the end-time rule of God (Mt 12:27-28; Mk 3:22-26). The Gospel writers, especially Luke, emphasize the eschatological character of Jesus’ life and ministry by stressing the role of the Spirit in his birth (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:35, 41, 67; 2:25-27), his baptism (Mk 1:9-10; Acts 10:38), and his ministry (Mt 4:1; 12:18; Mk 1:12; Lk 4:1, 14; 10:21; Jn 3:34).<\/p>\n<p>The Christian church began with the in-breathing of the Holy Spirit on the day of Christ’s resurrection (Jn 20:22), followed by the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost “in the last days.” The overwhelming experience of vision and inspired utterance was taken as proof positive that the new age prophesied by Joel had now arrived (Acts 2:2-5, 17-18). Similarly, in Hebrews the gift of the Spirit is spoken of as “the powers of the age to come” (Heb 6:4-5). More striking still is Paul’s understanding of the Spirit as the guarantee of God’s complete salvation (2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:13-14), and as the first installment of the believer’s inheritance of God’s kingdom (Rom 8:15-17; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 15:42-50; Gal 4:6-7; 5:16-18, 21-23; Eph 1:13-14). The Spirit is here again thought of as the power of the age to come, as that power (which will characterize God’s rule at the end of time) already shaping and transforming the lives of believers.<\/p>\n<p>For Paul, this means also that the gift of the Spirit is but the beginning of a lifelong process that will not end until the believer’s whole person is brought under the Spirit’s power (Rom 8:11, 23; 1 Cor 15:44-49; 2 Cor 3:18; 5:1-5). It also means that the present experience of faith is one of lifelong tension between what God has already begun to bring about in the believer’s life and what has not yet been brought under God’s grace (Phil 1:6). It is this tension between life “in the Spirit” and life “in the flesh” (see Gal 2:20) that comes to poignant expression in Romans 7:24 and 2 Corinthians 5:2-4.<\/p>\n<h5>The Spirit of New Life<\/h5>\n<p>Since the Spirit is the mark of the new age, it is not surprising that the NT writers understood the gift of the Spirit to be that which brings an individual into the new age. John the Baptist described the way the coming one would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Mt 3:11). According to Acts 1:5 and 11:16, this imagery was taken up by Jesus, and the promise is seen as fulfilled at Pentecost—the outpouring of the Spirit here being understood as the risen Christ’s action in drawing his disciples into the new age (Acts 2:17, 33).<\/p>\n<p>It seems to be one of Luke’s aims in the book of Acts to highlight the central importance of the gift of the Spirit in conversion-initiation—it is that decisive “gift of the Holy Spirit” that makes one a Christian (Acts 2:38-39). People could have been followers of Jesus on earth, but it was only when they received the gift of the Spirit that they could be said to have “believed in the Lord Jesus Christ” (11:16-17). When the Spirit’s presence was manifested in and upon a person’s life, that was recognized by Peter as proof enough that God had accepted that person, even though he or she had not yet made any formal profession of faith or been baptized (10:44-48; 11:15-18; 15:7-9). So too Apollos, already aglow with the Spirit (18:25), even though his knowledge of “the way of God” was slightly defective (vv 24-26), apparently was not required to supplement his “baptism of John” with Christian baptism. However, the 12 so-called disciples at Ephesus proved by their very ignorance of the Spirit that they were not yet disciples of the Lord Jesus (19:1-6). Paul asked these 12 men, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” (19:2).<\/p>\n<p>This accords with Paul’s emphasis in his letters. Belief and reception of the Spirit go together: to receive the Spirit is to begin the Christian life (Gal 3:2-3); to be baptized in the Spirit is to become a member of the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13); to “have the Spirit of Christ” is to belong to Christ (Rom 8:9-11); to receive the Spirit is tantamount to becoming a child of God (Rom 8:14-17; Gal 4:6-7). The Spirit so characterizes the new age and the life of the new age that only the gift of the Spirit can bring a person into the new age to experience the life of the new age. For the Spirit is distinctively and peculiarly the life-giver; the Spirit indeed <em>is<\/em> the life of the new age (Rom 8:2, 6, 10; 1 Cor 15:45; 2 Cor 3:6; Gal 5:25).<\/p>\n<p>In just the same way in John’s writings, the Spirit is characteristically the life-giving Spirit (Jn 6:63), the power from above, the seed of divine life that brings about the new birth (Jn 3:3-8; 1 Jn 3:9), and a river of living water that brings life when one believes in Christ (Jn 7:37-39; so also 4:10, 14). Or again, reception of the Spirit in John 20:22 is depicted as a new creation analogous to Genesis 2:7. Consequently, in 1 John 3:24 and 4:13, possession and experience of the Spirit count as one of the “tests of life” listed in that letter.<\/p>\n<h5>Manifestations of the Spirit<\/h5>\n<p>It will be clear from what has already been said that when the first Christians, like the ancient Hebrews, spoke of the Spirit, they were thinking of experiences of divine power. In the NT, as in the OT, “Spirit” is the word used to explain the experience of new life and vitality (see above), of liberation from legalism (e.g., Rom 8:2; 2 Cor 3:17), of spiritual refreshing and renewal (cf. e.g., Is 32:15; Ez 39:29 with Jn 7:37-39; Rom 5:5; 1 Cor 12:13; 1 Tm 3:5-6). It is important to realize how wide a range of experiences were attributed to the Spirit: ecstatic experiences (Acts 2:24; 10:43-47; 19:6; cf. 10:10; 22:17—“in ecstasy”; 2 Cor 12:1-4; Rv 1:10), emotional experiences (e.g., love—Rom 5:5; joy—Acts 13:52; 1 Thes 1:6; see also Gal 5:22; Phil 2:1-2), experiences of illumination (2 Cor 3:14-17; Eph 1:17-18; Heb 6:4-5; 1 Jn 2:20-21), and experiences issuing in moral transformation (1 Cor 6:9-11). Likewise, when Paul speaks of spiritual gifts, called <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">charismata<\/span> (acts or words that bring divine grace to concrete expression), he evidently has a wide range of actual events in mind: inspired speech (1 Cor 12:8-10; 1 Thes 1:5), miracles and healings (1 Cor 12:9; Gal 3:5; cf. Heb 2:4), and various acts of service and help, of counsel and administration, and of aid and mercy (Rom 12:7-8; 1 Cor 12:28).<\/p>\n<p>In talking thus of the Spirit in terms of experience, we should not overemphasize particular experiences or manifestations, as though earliest Christianity consisted of a sequence of mountaintop experiences or spiritual highs. There clearly were such experiences, indeed a wide range of experiences, but no one experience is singled out to be sought by all (except prophecy). There is no distinctively second (or third) experience of the Spirit in the NT, and Paul warned against overvaluing particular manifestations of the Spirit (1 Cor 14:6-19; 2 Cor 12:1-10; cf. Mk 8:11-13). Where particular experiences are valued, it is as manifestations of a more sustained experience, particular expressions of an underlying relationship (cf. Acts 6:3-5; 11:24—“full of the Spirit”; Eph 5:18). What we are in touch with here is the vigor of the experiential dimension of earliest Christianity. If the Spirit is the breath of the new life in Christ (cf. Ez 37:9-10, 14; Jn 20:22; 1 Cor 15:45), then presumably the analogy extends further, and the experience of the Spirit is like the experience of breathing: one is not conscious of it all the time, but if one is not conscious of it, at least sometimes, something is wrong.<\/p>\n<h5>The Fellowship of the Spirit<\/h5>\n<p>It was out of this shared experience of the Spirit that the earliest Christian community grew and developed, for this is what “the fellowship [<span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">koinonia<\/span>] of the Spirit” properly means: common participation in the same Spirit (Phil 2:1; cf. Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 1:4-9). It was the gift of the Spirit that brought those in Samaria, Caesarea, and elsewhere effectively into the community of the Spirit (Act 8, 10). So also, it was the experience of the one Spirit that provided the unifying bond in the churches of Paul’s mission (1 Cor 12:13; Eph 4:3-4; Phil 2:1-2). Here we see the real importance of the divine manifestations of the Spirit for Paul: it is out of the diversity of these particular manifestations that the body of Christ grows in unity (Rom 12:4-8; 1 Cor 12:12-17; Eph 4:4-16).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SPIRIT OF GOD<\/h3>\n<p>Description of God in action, God in motion. The word “spirit” (Hebrew, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">ruach<\/span><em>;<\/em> Greek, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">pneuma<\/span>) is the word used from ancient times to describe and explain the experience of divine power working in, upon, and around people.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>There are three basic meanings evident in the use of “spirit” from the earliest Hebrew writings: It was a wind from God, it was the breath of life, and it was a spirit of ecstasy.<\/p>\n<p>First, it was a wind from God (the same Hebrew word translated “Spirit” in Gn 1:2) that caused the waters of the Flood to subside (8:1). A wind from God blew locusts over Egypt (Ex 10:13) and quail over the camp of Israel. The blast of his nostrils separated the waters of the Red Sea at the exodus (14:21).<\/p>\n<p>Second, it was the breath of God that made man a living being (Gn 2:7). It is one of the earliest perceptions of Hebrew faith that humans live only because of the stirring of the divine breath or spirit within them (Gn 6:3; Jb 33:4; 34:14-15; Ps 104:29-30). Later, a clearer distinction was drawn between divine Spirit and human spirit, and between spirit and soul, but at the earliest stage these were all more or less perceived to be synonymous manifestations of the same divine power, the source of all life—animal as well as human (Gn 7:15, 22; see Eccl 3:19-21).<\/p>\n<p>Third, there were occasions when this divine power seemed to overtake and possess an individual fully, so that his or her words or actions far transcended those of normal behavior. Such a person was clearly marked as an agent of God’s purpose and given respect. This was apparently how leaders were recognized in the premonarchy period—Othniel (Jgs 3:10), Gideon (6:34), Jephthah (11:29), and the first king, Saul (1 Sm 11:6), as well. So, too, the earliest prophets were those whose inspiration came in ecstasy (1 Sm 19:20-24).<\/p>\n<p>In the earlier stages of Hebrew thought, ecstatic experience was seen as the direct effect of divine power. This was true even when the ecstasy was recognized as evil in character, as in the case of Saul’s seizure by the Spirit (1 Sm 16:14-16). A spirit from God could be for evil as well as for good (see Jgs 9:23; 1 Kgs 22:19-23).<\/p>\n<h5>In the Writings of the Prophets<\/h5>\n<p>For Isaiah, the spirit was that which characterized God and distinguished him and his actions from human affairs (Is 31:3). Later, the adjective “holy” appeared as that which distinguished the Spirit of God from any other spirit, human or divine (Ps 51:11; Is 63:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>The problem of false prophecy emphasized the danger of assuming that every message delivered in ecstasy was the word of the Lord. Thus, tests of prophecy evaluated the content of the message delivered or the character of the prophet’s life, not the degree or quality of inspiration (see Dt 13:1-5; 18:22; Jer 23:14; Mi 3:5). This sense of a need to discriminate between true and false inspiration and to distinguish the word of God from the merely ecstatic oracle may help to explain the otherwise puzzling reluctance of the major eighth- and seventh-century <span>BC<\/span> prophets to attribute their inspiration to the Spirit.<\/p>\n<h5>In the Exilic and Postexilic Writings<\/h5>\n<p>In exilic and postexilic literature, the role of the Spirit is narrowed to two major functions: that of the prophetic Spirit and that of the Spirit of the age to come.<\/p>\n<p>The later prophets again spoke of the Spirit in explicit terms as the inspirer of prophecy (see Ez 3:1-4, 22-24; Hg 2:5; Zec 4:6). As they looked back to the preexilic period, these prophets freely attributed the inspiration of “the former prophets” to the Spirit as well (Zec 7:12).<\/p>\n<p>This tendency to exalt the Spirit’s role as the inspirer of prophecy became steadily stronger in the period between the OT and NT, until in rabbinic Judaism the Spirit was almost exclusively the inspirer of the prophetic writings now regarded as Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>The other understanding of the Spirit’s role during exilic and postexilic times was that the Spirit would be the manifestation of the power of God in the age to come. That eschatological hope of divine power effecting a final cleansing and a renewed creation is rooted principally in Isaiah’s prophecies (Is 4:4; 32:15; 44:3-4). Isaiah speaks of one anointed by the Spirit to accomplish complete and final salvation (11:2; 42:1; 61:1). Elsewhere, the same longing is expressed in terms of the Spirit being freely dispensed to all Israel (Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28-29; Zec 12:10) in the new covenant (Jer 31:31-34; Ez 36:26-27).<\/p>\n<p>In the period prior to Jesus, the understanding of the Spirit as the Spirit of prophecy and as the Spirit of the age to come had developed into the widespread dogma that the Spirit was no longer to be experienced in the present. The Spirit had been known in the past as the inspirer of prophetic writings, but after Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Spirit had withdrawn (1 Macc 4:44-46; 9:27; 2 Bar 85:1-3; see also Ps 74:9; Zec 13:2-6). The Spirit would be known again in the age of the Messiah, but in the interim the Spirit was absent from Israel. Even the great Hillel (learned Jewish leader and teacher, 60? <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 20?), a near contemporary of Jesus, had not received the Spirit—though if anyone was worthy of the Spirit, it was he. There is a tradition that at a meeting of Hillel and other wise men, a voice from heaven said, “Among those here present is one who would have deserved the Holy Spirit to rest upon him, if his time had been worthy of it.” The wise men all looked at Hillel.<\/p>\n<p>The consequence of this accepted dearth of the Spirit was that the Spirit in effect became subordinated to the law. The Spirit was the inspirer of the law, but since the Spirit could no longer be experienced directly, the law became the sole voice of the Spirit. It was this increasing dominance of the law and its authoritative interpreters that provided the background for the mission of Jesus and the initial spread of Christianity.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>If we are to understand the NT’s teaching on the Spirit, we must recognize both its continuity and discontinuity with the OT. At many points NT usage cannot be fully understood except against the background of OT concepts or passages. For example, the ambiguity of John 3:8 (“wind,” “Spirit”), 2 Thessalonians 2:8 (“breath”), and Revelation 11:11 (“breath of life”) takes us back to the basic Hebrew meanings of “spirit.” Acts 8:39 and Revelation 17:3 and 21:10 reflect the same conception of the Spirit that we find in 1 Kings 18:12, 2 Kings 2:16, and Ezekiel 3:14. The NT writers generally share the rabbinic view that Scripture has the authority of the Spirit behind it (see Mk 12:36; Acts 28:25; Heb 3:7; 2 Pt 1:21). The principal continuity is that the NT brings the fulfillment of what the OT writers looked forward to. At the same time, Christianity is not simply fulfilled Judaism. Jesus’ coming and his giving of his Spirit to live within his believers marks off the new faith as something new and distinct.<\/p>\n<h5>The Spirit of the New Age<\/h5>\n<p>The most striking feature of Jesus’ ministry and of the message of the earliest Christians was their conviction and proclamation that the blessings of the new age were already present, that the eschatological Spirit had already been poured out. With the exception of the Essenes at Qumran, no other group or individual within the Jewish religion of that time had dared to make such a bold claim. The prophets and the rabbis looked for a messianic age yet to come, and the apocalyptic writers warned of its imminent arrival, but none thought of it as already present. Even John the Baptist spoke only of one about to come and of the Spirit’s operation in the imminent future (Mk 1:8). But for Jesus and first-century Christians, the longed for hope was a living reality, and the claim carried with it the exciting sense of being in “the last days.” Without some recognition of that eschatological dimension of the Christians’ faith and life, we cannot understand this teaching on, and experience of, the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus clearly thought of his teachings and healings as fulfillment of the prophetic hope (Mt 12:41-42; 13:16-17; Lk 17:20-21). In particular, he saw himself as the one anointed by the Spirit to provide salvation (Mt 5:3-6; 11:5; Lk 4:17-19). So, too, Jesus understood his exorcisms as the effect of the power of God and as manifestations of the end-time rule of God (Mt 12:27-28; Mk 3:22-26). The Gospel writers, especially Luke, emphasize the eschatological character of Jesus’ life and ministry by stressing the role of the Spirit in his birth (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:35, 41, 67; 2:25-27), his baptism (Mk 1:9-10; Acts 10:38), and his ministry (Mt 4:1; 12:18; Mk 1:12; Lk 4:1, 14; 10:21; Jn 3:34).<\/p>\n<p>The Christian church began with the in-breathing of the Holy Spirit on the day of Christ’s resurrection (Jn 20:22), followed by the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost “in the last days.” The overwhelming experience of vision and inspired utterance was taken as proof positive that the new age prophesied by Joel had now arrived (Acts 2:2-5, 17-18). Similarly, in Hebrews the gift of the Spirit is spoken of as “the powers of the age to come” (Heb 6:4-5). More striking still is Paul’s understanding of the Spirit as the guarantee of God’s complete salvation (2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:13-14), and as the first installment of the believer’s inheritance of God’s kingdom (Rom 8:15-17; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 15:42-50; Gal 4:6-7; 5:16-18, 21-23; Eph 1:13-14). The Spirit is here again thought of as the power of the age to come, as that power (which will characterize God’s rule at the end of time) already shaping and transforming the lives of believers.<\/p>\n<p>For Paul, this means also that the gift of the Spirit is but the beginning of a lifelong process that will not end until the believer’s whole person is brought under the Spirit’s power (Rom 8:11, 23; 1 Cor 15:44-49; 2 Cor 3:18; 5:1-5). It also means that the present experience of faith is one of lifelong tension between what God has already begun to bring about in the believer’s life and what has not yet been brought under God’s grace (Phil 1:6). It is this tension between life “in the Spirit” and life “in the flesh” (see Gal 2:20) that comes to poignant expression in Romans 7:24 and 2 Corinthians 5:2-4.<\/p>\n<h5>The Spirit of New Life<\/h5>\n<p>Since the Spirit is the mark of the new age, it is not surprising that the NT writers understood the gift of the Spirit to be that which brings an individual into the new age. John the Baptist described the way the coming one would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Mt 3:11). According to Acts 1:5 and 11:16, this imagery was taken up by Jesus, and the promise is seen as fulfilled at Pentecost—the outpouring of the Spirit here being understood as the risen Christ’s action in drawing his disciples into the new age (Acts 2:17, 33).<\/p>\n<p>It seems to be one of Luke’s aims in the book of Acts to highlight the central importance of the gift of the Spirit in conversion-initiation—it is that decisive “gift of the Holy Spirit” that makes one a Christian (Acts 2:38-39). People could have been followers of Jesus on earth, but it was only when they received the gift of the Spirit that they could be said to have “believed in the Lord Jesus Christ” (11:16-17). When the Spirit’s presence was manifested in and upon a person’s life, that was recognized by Peter as proof enough that God had accepted that person, even though he or she had not yet made any formal profession of faith or been baptized (10:44-48; 11:15-18; 15:7-9). So too Apollos, already aglow with the Spirit (18:25), even though his knowledge of “the way of God” was slightly defective (vv 24-26), apparently was not required to supplement his “baptism of John” with Christian baptism. However, the 12 so-called disciples at Ephesus proved by their very ignorance of the Spirit that they were not yet disciples of the Lord Jesus (19:1-6). Paul asked these 12 men, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” (19:2).<\/p>\n<p>This accords with Paul’s emphasis in his letters. Belief and reception of the Spirit go together: to receive the Spirit is to begin the Christian life (Gal 3:2-3); to be baptized in the Spirit is to become a member of the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13); to “have the Spirit of Christ” is to belong to Christ (Rom 8:9-11); to receive the Spirit is tantamount to becoming a child of God (Rom 8:14-17; Gal 4:6-7). The Spirit so characterizes the new age and the life of the new age that only the gift of the Spirit can bring a person into the new age to experience the life of the new age. For the Spirit is distinctively and peculiarly the life-giver; the Spirit indeed <em>is<\/em> the life of the new age (Rom 8:2, 6, 10; 1 Cor 15:45; 2 Cor 3:6; Gal 5:25).<\/p>\n<p>In just the same way in John’s writings, the Spirit is characteristically the life-giving Spirit (Jn 6:63), the power from above, the seed of divine life that brings about the new birth (Jn 3:3-8; 1 Jn 3:9), and a river of living water that brings life when one believes in Christ (Jn 7:37-39; so also 4:10, 14). Or again, reception of the Spirit in John 20:22 is depicted as a new creation analogous to Genesis 2:7. Consequently, in 1 John 3:24 and 4:13, possession and experience of the Spirit count as one of the “tests of life” listed in that letter.<\/p>\n<h5>Manifestations of the Spirit<\/h5>\n<p>It will be clear from what has already been said that when the first Christians, like the ancient Hebrews, spoke of the Spirit, they were thinking of experiences of divine power. In the NT, as in the OT, “Spirit” is the word used to explain the experience of new life and vitality (see above), of liberation from legalism (e.g., Rom 8:2; 2 Cor 3:17), of spiritual refreshing and renewal (cf. e.g., Is 32:15; Ez 39:29 with Jn 7:37-39; Rom 5:5; 1 Cor 12:13; 1 Tm 3:5-6). It is important to realize how wide a range of experiences were attributed to the Spirit: ecstatic experiences (Acts 2:24; 10:43-47; 19:6; cf. 10:10; 22:17—“in ecstasy”; 2 Cor 12:1-4; Rv 1:10), emotional experiences (e.g., love—Rom 5:5; joy—Acts 13:52; 1 Thes 1:6; see also Gal 5:22; Phil 2:1-2), experiences of illumination (2 Cor 3:14-17; Eph 1:17-18; Heb 6:4-5; 1 Jn 2:20-21), and experiences issuing in moral transformation (1 Cor 6:9-11). Likewise, when Paul speaks of spiritual gifts, called <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">charismata<\/span> (acts or words that bring divine grace to concrete expression), he evidently has a wide range of actual events in mind: inspired speech (1 Cor 12:8-10; 1 Thes 1:5), miracles and healings (1 Cor 12:9; Gal 3:5; cf. Heb 2:4), and various acts of service and help, of counsel and administration, and of aid and mercy (Rom 12:7-8; 1 Cor 12:28).<\/p>\n<p>In talking thus of the Spirit in terms of experience, we should not overemphasize particular experiences or manifestations, as though earliest Christianity consisted of a sequence of mountaintop experiences or spiritual highs. There clearly were such experiences, indeed a wide range of experiences, but no one experience is singled out to be sought by all (except prophecy). There is no distinctively second (or third) experience of the Spirit in the NT, and Paul warned against overvaluing particular manifestations of the Spirit (1 Cor 14:6-19; 2 Cor 12:1-10; cf. Mk 8:11-13). Where particular experiences are valued, it is as manifestations of a more sustained experience, particular expressions of an underlying relationship (cf. Acts 6:3-5; 11:24—“full of the Spirit”; Eph 5:18). What we are in touch with here is the vigor of the experiential dimension of earliest Christianity. If the Spirit is the breath of the new life in Christ (cf. Ez 37:9-10, 14; Jn 20:22; 1 Cor 15:45), then presumably the analogy extends further, and the experience of the Spirit is like the experience of breathing: one is not conscious of it all the time, but if one is not conscious of it, at least sometimes, something is wrong.<\/p>\n<h5>The Fellowship of the Spirit<\/h5>\n<p>It was out of this shared experience of the Spirit that the earliest Christian community grew and developed, for this is what “the fellowship [<span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">koinonia<\/span>] of the Spirit” properly means: common participation in the same Spirit (Phil 2:1; cf. Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 1:4-9). It was the gift of the Spirit that brought those in Samaria, Caesarea, and elsewhere effectively into the community of the Spirit (Act 8, 10). So also, it was the experience of the one Spirit that provided the unifying bond in the churches of Paul’s mission (1 Cor 12:13; Eph 4:3-4; Phil 2:1-2). Here we see the real importance of the divine manifestations of the Spirit for Paul: it is out of the diversity of these particular manifestations that the body of Christ grows in unity (Rom 12:4-8; 1 Cor 12:12-17; Eph 4:4-16).<\/p>","summary_ro":"SPIRIT OF GOD Description of God in action, God in motion. The word “spirit” (Hebrew, ruach; Greek, pneuma) is the word used from ancient times to describe and explain the experience of divine power working in, upon, and around people. In the Old Testament There are three basic meanings evident in the use of “spirit” from the earliest Hebrew writings: It was a wind from God, it was the breath of life, and it was a spirit of ecstasy. First, it was a wind from God (the same Hebrew word translat...","summary_en":"SPIRIT OF GOD Description of God in action, God in motion. The word “spirit” (Hebrew, ruach; Greek, pneuma) is the word used from ancient times to describe and explain the experience of divine power working in, upon, and around people. In the Old Testament There are three basic meanings evident in the use of “spirit” from the earliest Hebrew writings: It was a wind from God, it was the breath of life, and it was a spirit of ecstasy. First, it was a wind from God (the same Hebrew word translat...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":39980,"type":"textbox","type_label":"Notă explicativă","type_icon":"💡","type_color":"#8b5cf6","title_ro":"Calling Jesus “Beelzebul”","title_en":"Calling Jesus “Beelzebul”","content_ro":"<h3>Calling Jesus “Beelzebul”<\/h3>\n<blockquote><p>By NT times, the name had changed to Beelzebul (<span>kjv<\/span> Beelzebub), from the Syriac language meaning “lord of dung.” It was a common practice to apply the names of the gods of enemy nations to the devils of one’s own religion. Thus, the title was applied by the Jews to the devil, or Satan, the prince of demons (Mt 12:24, 27). In their blasphemous criticism, the Pharisees called Jesus by this title to explain his ability to cast out demons (Mk 3:22; Lk 11:15). In Matthew 10:25 Jesus tells the disciples, “If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household” (<span>rsv<\/span>). Here Jesus seems to make his point by relying on another possible meaning of the words from rabbinic usage, “lord of the house”—“house” having reference to the temple, the house of the Lord. Thus, in response to the Jewish leaders, a play on words involving contrast may have been employed. They call Jesus “Beelzebul, lord of the dung heap,” and Jesus calls himself “Beelzebul, lord of the house.” By this, Jesus claims lordship over the house of God.<\/p><\/blockquote>","content_en":"<h3>Calling Jesus “Beelzebul”<\/h3>\n<blockquote><p>By NT times, the name had changed to Beelzebul (<span>kjv<\/span> Beelzebub), from the Syriac language meaning “lord of dung.” It was a common practice to apply the names of the gods of enemy nations to the devils of one’s own religion. Thus, the title was applied by the Jews to the devil, or Satan, the prince of demons (Mt 12:24, 27). In their blasphemous criticism, the Pharisees called Jesus by this title to explain his ability to cast out demons (Mk 3:22; Lk 11:15). In Matthew 10:25 Jesus tells the disciples, “If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household” (<span>rsv<\/span>). Here Jesus seems to make his point by relying on another possible meaning of the words from rabbinic usage, “lord of the house”—“house” having reference to the temple, the house of the Lord. Thus, in response to the Jewish leaders, a play on words involving contrast may have been employed. They call Jesus “Beelzebul, lord of the dung heap,” and Jesus calls himself “Beelzebul, lord of the house.” By this, Jesus claims lordship over the house of God.<\/p><\/blockquote>","summary_ro":"Calling Jesus “Beelzebul” By NT times, the name had changed to Beelzebul (kjv Beelzebub), from the Syriac language meaning “lord of dung.” It was a common practice to apply the names of the gods of enemy nations to the devils of one’s own religion. Thus, the title was applied by the Jews to the devil, or Satan, the prince of demons (Mt 12:24, 27). In their blasphemous criticism, the Pharisees called Jesus by this title to explain his ability to cast out demons (Mk 3:22; Lk 11:15). In Matthew ...","summary_en":"Calling Jesus “Beelzebul” By NT times, the name had changed to Beelzebul (kjv Beelzebub), from the Syriac language meaning “lord of dung.” It was a common practice to apply the names of the gods of enemy nations to the devils of one’s own religion. Thus, the title was applied by the Jews to the devil, or Satan, the prince of demons (Mt 12:24, 27). In their blasphemous criticism, the Pharisees called Jesus by this title to explain his ability to cast out demons (Mk 3:22; Lk 11:15). In Matthew ...","source":"Textboxes\/Textboxes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":40078,"type":"textbox","type_label":"Notă explicativă","type_icon":"💡","type_color":"#8b5cf6","title_ro":"How Do We Know about the Philistines?","title_en":"How Do We Know about the Philistines?","content_ro":"<h3>How Do We Know about the Philistines?<\/h3>\n<blockquote><p>Most of the knowledge of the Philistines comes from the Bible, the monuments and records of Egypt, and the archaeological excavations of Philistine cities. The biblical information centers in the historical books, but there are references to the Philistines in the Prophets and Psalms as well.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The historical records of Egyptian kings tell of their contacts with the Philistines. Other Egyptian written sources include the Amarna letters, “The Story of the Capture of Joppa,” “The Tale of a Mohar,” the Harris Papyrus I, and “The Adventures of Wenamon.” Paintings and reliefs of Philistines are found in the Theban necropolis and particularly in the temple of Ramses III at Medinet Habu.<\/p>\n<p>Most of the information concerning the material culture of the Philistines comes from excavated pottery, which was distinctive and homogeneous. The earliest Philistine pottery at Ashdod had fish designs and other decorative motifs that resemble Cypriot ware. Decorations included several bands of designs, with carvings of geometric pattern. Paintings of birds were common, particularly the preening bird, with one wing raised and the head turned back. Interesting pottery forms included kraters (large, wide-mouthed bowls with two handles) and single-handled beer jugs with strainer spouts.<\/p>\n<p>The excavation of the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania at Tell el-Husn (Beth-shan, Beth-shean) unearthed two temples from the 11th century. Possibly the southern temple is that of Dagon (1 Chr 10:10) and the northern temple the House of Ashtaroth (1 Sm 31:10). Ashtaroth was not a Philistine deity but one borrowed from the Canaanites. Ekron had a god named Baal-zebub (2 Kgs 1:2-3; Mt 12:24; Mk 3:22), who is equated with Beelzebul.<\/p>\n<p>At Tell Qasile there was a Philistine temple with two pillars in the holy place, suggestive of the Gaza temple. This temple contained many objects associated with the cult, including a bird-shaped vessel and an incense altar. In houses and small shrines in Ashdod there were numerous clay figurines, both male and female, regarded as a pair of deities. There was also a strange ritual object of clay called an “Ashdoda,” best described as a four-legged chair, whose back becomes the stylized upper part of a nude goddess. Another pottery form of religious use was the kernos, which is a hollow ring vase with attached miniature vessels and figurines of heads of animals and birds.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>How Do We Know about the Philistines?<\/h3>\n<blockquote><p>Most of the knowledge of the Philistines comes from the Bible, the monuments and records of Egypt, and the archaeological excavations of Philistine cities. The biblical information centers in the historical books, but there are references to the Philistines in the Prophets and Psalms as well.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The historical records of Egyptian kings tell of their contacts with the Philistines. Other Egyptian written sources include the Amarna letters, “The Story of the Capture of Joppa,” “The Tale of a Mohar,” the Harris Papyrus I, and “The Adventures of Wenamon.” Paintings and reliefs of Philistines are found in the Theban necropolis and particularly in the temple of Ramses III at Medinet Habu.<\/p>\n<p>Most of the information concerning the material culture of the Philistines comes from excavated pottery, which was distinctive and homogeneous. The earliest Philistine pottery at Ashdod had fish designs and other decorative motifs that resemble Cypriot ware. Decorations included several bands of designs, with carvings of geometric pattern. Paintings of birds were common, particularly the preening bird, with one wing raised and the head turned back. Interesting pottery forms included kraters (large, wide-mouthed bowls with two handles) and single-handled beer jugs with strainer spouts.<\/p>\n<p>The excavation of the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania at Tell el-Husn (Beth-shan, Beth-shean) unearthed two temples from the 11th century. Possibly the southern temple is that of Dagon (1 Chr 10:10) and the northern temple the House of Ashtaroth (1 Sm 31:10). Ashtaroth was not a Philistine deity but one borrowed from the Canaanites. Ekron had a god named Baal-zebub (2 Kgs 1:2-3; Mt 12:24; Mk 3:22), who is equated with Beelzebul.<\/p>\n<p>At Tell Qasile there was a Philistine temple with two pillars in the holy place, suggestive of the Gaza temple. This temple contained many objects associated with the cult, including a bird-shaped vessel and an incense altar. In houses and small shrines in Ashdod there were numerous clay figurines, both male and female, regarded as a pair of deities. There was also a strange ritual object of clay called an “Ashdoda,” best described as a four-legged chair, whose back becomes the stylized upper part of a nude goddess. Another pottery form of religious use was the kernos, which is a hollow ring vase with attached miniature vessels and figurines of heads of animals and birds.<\/p>","summary_ro":"How Do We Know about the Philistines? Most of the knowledge of the Philistines comes from the Bible, the monuments and records of Egypt, and the archaeological excavations of Philistine cities. The biblical information centers in the historical books, but there are references to the Philistines in the Prophets and Psalms as well. The historical records of Egyptian kings tell of their contacts with the Philistines. Other Egyptian written sources include the Amarna letters, “The Story of the Ca...","summary_en":"How Do We Know about the Philistines? Most of the knowledge of the Philistines comes from the Bible, the monuments and records of Egypt, and the archaeological excavations of Philistine cities. The biblical information centers in the historical books, but there are references to the Philistines in the Prophets and Psalms as well. The historical records of Egyptian kings tell of their contacts with the Philistines. Other Egyptian written sources include the Amarna letters, “The Story of the Ca...","source":"Textboxes\/Textboxes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55200,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:22","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:22<\/strong> <em>The teachers of religious law<\/em> (see study note on 1:22) <em>from Jerusalem<\/em> attributed Jesus’ apparent madness to his being <em>possessed by Satan<\/em> (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Beelzeboul<\/span><em>;<\/em> see study note on Matt 10:25). Jesus’ opponents credited his miracle-working ability to Satan (as in the rabbinic work, <em>Sanhedrin<\/em> 3:43a, where miracle-working is ascribed to sorcery).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:22<\/strong> <em>The teachers of religious law<\/em> (see study note on 1:22) <em>from Jerusalem<\/em> attributed Jesus’ apparent madness to his being <em>possessed by Satan<\/em> (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Beelzeboul<\/span><em>;<\/em> see study note on Matt 10:25). Jesus’ opponents credited his miracle-working ability to Satan (as in the rabbinic work, <em>Sanhedrin<\/em> 3:43a, where miracle-working is ascribed to sorcery).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:22 The teachers of religious law (see study note on 1:22) from Jerusalem attributed Jesus’ apparent madness to his being possessed by Satan (Greek Beelzeboul; see study note on Matt 10:25). Jesus’ opponents credited his miracle-working ability to Satan (as in the rabbinic work, Sanhedrin 3:43a, where miracle-working is ascribed to sorcery).","summary_en":"3:22 The teachers of religious law (see study note on 1:22) from Jerusalem attributed Jesus’ apparent madness to his being possessed by Satan (Greek Beelzeboul; see study note on Matt 10:25). Jesus’ opponents credited his miracle-working ability to Satan (as in the rabbinic work, Sanhedrin 3:43a, where miracle-working is ascribed to sorcery).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82826,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:22","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:22<\/strong> <em>The teachers of religious law<\/em> (see study note on 1:22) <em>from Jerusalem<\/em> attributed Jesus’ apparent madness to his being <em>possessed by Satan<\/em> (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Beelzeboul<\/span><em>;<\/em> see study note on Matt 10:25). Jesus’ opponents credited his miracle-working ability to Satan (as in the rabbinic work, <em>Sanhedrin<\/em> 3:43a, where miracle-working is ascribed to sorcery).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:22<\/strong> <em>The teachers of religious law<\/em> (see study note on 1:22) <em>from Jerusalem<\/em> attributed Jesus’ apparent madness to his being <em>possessed by Satan<\/em> (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Beelzeboul<\/span><em>;<\/em> see study note on Matt 10:25). Jesus’ opponents credited his miracle-working ability to Satan (as in the rabbinic work, <em>Sanhedrin<\/em> 3:43a, where miracle-working is ascribed to sorcery).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:22 The teachers of religious law (see study note on 1:22) from Jerusalem attributed Jesus’ apparent madness to his being possessed by Satan (Greek Beelzeboul; see study note on Matt 10:25). Jesus’ opponents credited his miracle-working ability to Satan (as in the rabbinic work, Sanhedrin 3:43a, where miracle-working is ascribed to sorcery).","summary_en":"3:22 The teachers of religious law (see study note on 1:22) from Jerusalem attributed Jesus’ apparent madness to his being possessed by Satan (Greek Beelzeboul; see study note on Matt 10:25). Jesus’ opponents credited his miracle-working ability to Satan (as in the rabbinic work, Sanhedrin 3:43a, where miracle-working is ascribed to sorcery).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110452,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:22","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:22<\/strong> <em>The teachers of religious law<\/em> (see study note on 1:22) <em>from Jerusalem<\/em> attributed Jesus’ apparent madness to his being <em>possessed by Satan<\/em> (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Beelzeboul<\/span><em>;<\/em> see study note on Matt 10:25). Jesus’ opponents credited his miracle-working ability to Satan (as in the rabbinic work, <em>Sanhedrin<\/em> 3:43a, where miracle-working is ascribed to sorcery).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:22<\/strong> <em>The teachers of religious law<\/em> (see study note on 1:22) <em>from Jerusalem<\/em> attributed Jesus’ apparent madness to his being <em>possessed by Satan<\/em> (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Beelzeboul<\/span><em>;<\/em> see study note on Matt 10:25). Jesus’ opponents credited his miracle-working ability to Satan (as in the rabbinic work, <em>Sanhedrin<\/em> 3:43a, where miracle-working is ascribed to sorcery).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:22 The teachers of religious law (see study note on 1:22) from Jerusalem attributed Jesus’ apparent madness to his being possessed by Satan (Greek Beelzeboul; see study note on Matt 10:25). Jesus’ opponents credited his miracle-working ability to Satan (as in the rabbinic work, Sanhedrin 3:43a, where miracle-working is ascribed to sorcery).","summary_en":"3:22 The teachers of religious law (see study note on 1:22) from Jerusalem attributed Jesus’ apparent madness to his being possessed by Satan (Greek Beelzeboul; see study note on Matt 10:25). Jesus’ opponents credited his miracle-working ability to Satan (as in the rabbinic work, Sanhedrin 3:43a, where miracle-working is ascribed to sorcery).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138078,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:22","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:22<\/strong> <em>The teachers of religious law<\/em> (see study note on 1:22) <em>from Jerusalem<\/em> attributed Jesus’ apparent madness to his being <em>possessed by Satan<\/em> (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Beelzeboul<\/span><em>;<\/em> see study note on Matt 10:25). Jesus’ opponents credited his miracle-working ability to Satan (as in the rabbinic work, <em>Sanhedrin<\/em> 3:43a, where miracle-working is ascribed to sorcery).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:22<\/strong> <em>The teachers of religious law<\/em> (see study note on 1:22) <em>from Jerusalem<\/em> attributed Jesus’ apparent madness to his being <em>possessed by Satan<\/em> (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Beelzeboul<\/span><em>;<\/em> see study note on Matt 10:25). Jesus’ opponents credited his miracle-working ability to Satan (as in the rabbinic work, <em>Sanhedrin<\/em> 3:43a, where miracle-working is ascribed to sorcery).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:22 The teachers of religious law (see study note on 1:22) from Jerusalem attributed Jesus’ apparent madness to his being possessed by Satan (Greek Beelzeboul; see study note on Matt 10:25). Jesus’ opponents credited his miracle-working ability to Satan (as in the rabbinic work, Sanhedrin 3:43a, where miracle-working is ascribed to sorcery).","summary_en":"3:22 The teachers of religious law (see study note on 1:22) from Jerusalem attributed Jesus’ apparent madness to his being possessed by Satan (Greek Beelzeboul; see study note on Matt 10:25). Jesus’ opponents credited his miracle-working ability to Satan (as in the rabbinic work, Sanhedrin 3:43a, where miracle-working is ascribed to sorcery).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"23":[{"id":24365,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gospel of Mark","title_en":"Gospel of Mark","content_ro":"<h3>MARK, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between <span>AD<\/span> 60 and 68.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorDateProvenance\">Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, although this is by no means certain). At one point Papias states, “The Elder used to say this also: Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that [Peter] remembered concerning the things both said and done by the Lord.” (This quotation was preserved by the fourth-century writer Eusebius of Caesarea in his <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 3.39.15.) One need not doubt the basic reliability of this statement. Mark—almost surely to be identified with the John Mark of Acts 12:12 (see also 1 Pt 5:13)—was a disciple of Peter, and the second Gospel owes its existence, at least in part, to the apostle’s reminiscences. It does not follow, however, that one has adequately characterized Mark’s work if that is all one says. For instance, Papias’s qualification, “though not in order,” indicates that Mark did not intend to write a chronological biography. Furthermore, Papias goes on to comment (according to one interpretation of his ambiguous words) that Mark (or Peter?) adapted the material to the teaching situation and that therefore Mark is absolved from any (implied) charges of inaccuracy. It appears that from the earliest times Christians appealed to the purposes and circumstances of Mark’s writing in order to account for difficulties in harmonizing the material found in the various Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Other statements from Christian writers in the second, third, and fourth centuries seem dependent on Papias’s testimony, but some additional data they provide may possess independent value. For example, a fairly early document (date uncertain) known as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel somewhere in Italy after Peter’s death (in the mid-60s), and this testimony is considered reliable by many scholars. Still, the possibility that Mark composed his work before Peter’s martyrdom cannot be ruled out completely.<\/p>\n<p>Papias says nothing specific about <em>when<\/em> the Gospel was written. A small minority of scholars date Mark shortly after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Another minority suggest a date in the 40s or 50s on the basis of a papyrus fragment discovered in Qumran called 7Q5. (According to José O’Callaghan, the fragment, which has been dated about <span>AD<\/span> 50–68, should be identified as Mark 6:52-53.) This fragment contains only 20 letters on one side, making the Markan reconstruction very uncertain. Few scholars are convinced that the text is Mark; some think it is part of 1 Enoch or Zechariah. An impressive majority of scholars date Mark in the 60s, with conservatives usually preferring the early years of the decade. Why this preference? If the theory of Markan priority is accepted, then clearly Mark was written before Luke; and since Luke is normally dated by conservatives about <span>AD<\/span> 62, Mark can be no later than <span>AD<\/span> 60 or 61. This line of argument, though strong, is not decisive. In the first place, Luke cannot be dated with complete certainty. Second, the view that Matthew and Luke used Mark (the working assumption of most scholars) is only a hypothesis, and one that is vigorously opposed by some writers. Third, a tradition going back to the second century (see above) asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel <em>after<\/em> Peter’s death, no earlier than <span>AD<\/span> 64. Fourth, one persuasive view regarding the occasion of this Gospel assumes that the Neronian persecution (<span>AD<\/span> 64) had begun. (According to a different view of the occasion, Mark was written after the beginning of the Jewish revolt in <span>AD<\/span> 66.) Therefore, while a date in the early 60s remains possible, it does not require committal.<\/p>\n<p>With regard to the authorship of the second Gospel, there seems to be no compelling reason to deny Papias’s report that Mark (no doubt the John Mark of Acts 12:12) took down Peter’s reminiscences and that these became the basis of his work. Some scholars argue that the Gospel contains geographical inaccuracies (e.g., we have no evidence of a region called Dalmanutha, Mk 8:10) and that a native of Jerusalem such as Mark would have been more reliable in his information. However, the topographical problems in Mark, though real, need not be interpreted as inaccuracies (present ignorance of a place named Dalmanutha is hardly conclusive proof that it did not exist). Furthermore, in other respects (e.g., 14:54, 66) the Gospel reveals an impressive knowledge of local details. Many writers also point out bits of information that support a Petrine background, such as the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (1:30-31). In short, the internal evidence, while falling short of proof, does not at all undermine the tradition preserved by Papias. A generation ago, the trustworthiness of Papias’s testimony was almost universally accepted. This situation has changed somewhat, but even those scholars who adopt a skeptical attitude toward this tradition concede that it <em>may<\/em> be true.<\/p>\n<p>As attention turns to the provenance of the Gospel, the task becomes more difficult. Tradition going back to the second century asserts what may be already implied by Papias—namely, that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome. Although some scholars have suggested other possibilities, such as Galilee and Antioch, these have not proved satisfactory. Mark did spend some time in Rome, and some characteristics in the Gospel (such as Latinisms in the Greek and the explanation of Jewish customs, as in 7:3-4), while proving nothing, are certainly consonant with a Roman origin. Furthermore, one persuasive view of the occasion that gave rise to the Gospel assumes a background of persecution in Rome.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Distinctives\">Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>A number of characteristics of Mark set it apart from the other Gospels. For example, a word usually translated “immediately” occurs more than 40 times in Mark and only a dozen times in the rest of the NT. While this feature could be interpreted as a simple “mannerism,” consonant with Mark’s unpretentious, colloquial style, it certainly adds to the rapid flow of his narrative, which, dwelling more on Jesus’ activity than on his discourses (in contrast to Matthew and Luke), shifts from scene to scene with hardly a pause. Since the Gospel is also quite brief (Luke is nearly twice as long), one may wonder whether the author intended for it to be read at a sitting; even if read aloud, this would take only about one and a half hours. At any rate, there can be little doubt that the work conveys a sense of urgency.<\/p>\n<p>Other characteristics, however, prove more significant. Someone unfamiliar with the story of Jesus who happened to read Mark for the first time would no doubt be taken aback by its rather abrupt beginning. After a brief clause that stands as a sort of title (1:1), Mark moves on to describe in brief the ministry of John the Baptist. Then he introduces Jesus as coming from Nazareth without telling us anything whatever of his earlier life. Furthermore, over one-third of the book (including the so-called Passion narrative) is devoted to Jesus’ last week. These and other factors lend to the work a note of mystery, accentuated by the fact that at various points Mark calls attention to the fear or amazement gripping those who came in contact with Jesus (2:12; 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6; and several other passages, especially the strange words of 10:32). In addition, if one assumes that the Gospel originally ended with 16:8, Mark wished to leave his readers with the same sense of awe that the disciples experienced at Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>But how does one account for this fear and amazement? Mark’s clear answer is that Jesus, though truly a man, is also divine. While Mark’s Gospel exhibits the humanity of Jesus Christ (1:41; 3:5; 8:12; 10:14), his chief emphasis is on the Lord’s deity. Indeed, Mark introduces his book by referring to Jesus as “the Son of God” (a phrase omitted in some manuscripts, however), a position that is recognized both by the demons (3:11; 5:7) and by God himself (9:7). What may well be the true climax of the Gospel occurs at 15:39, where Mark writes that a Gentile, a Roman centurion, upon hearing Jesus’ death cry, exclaimed, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The author organized his Gospel according to a simple plan. The first eight chapters summarize the nature of Christ’s public ministry by alternating stories that show his growing popularity with stories that stress the disapproval of the Jewish leaders. This first half of the book, while indicating some of the tensions created by Jesus’ coming, gives the basic impression of success and general optimism. A significant shift then strikes the reader toward the end of chapter 8, particularly beginning with verse 31. At Caesarea Philippi, Peter has just confessed that Jesus is the Messiah, and now for the first time Jesus reveals that as Messiah he must die. The disciples become perplexed and discouraged and their pessimism mounts as this thought is brought home to them repeatedly (9:9, 31; 10:32-34; 14:17-25). In the end they desert their master (14:50).<\/p>\n<p>Interestingly, this pessimistic note is anticipated in the earlier part of the Gospel at three points: 3:6 (Jesus’ enemies plot his death); 6:6 (faithlessness in Nazareth); and 8:21 (lack of understanding in the disciples). Some scholars suggest that Mark used these three verses to indicate the first three divisions of his book. In addition, other scholars note that two healings of blind men (8:22-26; 10:46-52) seem to provide the opening and the conclusion of a section that emphasizes the spiritual blindness of the disciples. One more structural clue is 14:1, which clearly marks out the final section of the Gospel.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OccasionPurposeTheology\">Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>A few scholars think that Mark may have been combating a heretical sect that stressed the miracles of Jesus and viewed him purely as a divine wonder-worker. Although this view has not gained acceptance as originally formulated, a number of writers do see the Gospel as a theological corrective. Ralph Martin, who links Mark very closely with Paul, suggests that the evangelist is opposing some heretical groups who have distorted Paul’s message by placing exclusive stress on Christ as a <em>heavenly<\/em> figure (cf. the views that Paul himself opposes in Colossians). Mark responds to these aberrations by emphasizing, in Martin’s words, “the paradox of Jesus’ earthly life in which suffering and vindication form a two-beat rhythm.” Even if one decides that this reconstruction, too, is rather speculative, one may nevertheless retain certain elements in it as valid.<\/p>\n<p>Other scholars, such as H. Kee, place emphasis on the apocalyptic background of Mark. Kee and others tie this element to the Jewish revolt of <span>AD<\/span> 66, but commitment to this particular historical connection is unnecessary to appreciate the great significance of Mark 13 (Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse) for those original readers of the Gospel who may have been undergoing persecution.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the most satisfactory reconstruction links this Gospel to the Neronian persecution in the mid-60s. Mark, for example, is the only Gospel that records that Jesus, after being driven to the wilderness, found himself in the company of wild animals (1:13). This detail, according to William Lane, “was filled with special significance for those called to enter the arena where they stood helpless in the presence of wild beasts.” This interpretation, while not without difficulties, has the advantage of accounting for most of the available data. First, it is compatible with the strong tradition that assigns the origin of Mark’s work to Rome. Second, Mark speaks distinctly to those suffering persecution by introducing them quickly to John’s imprisonment and several other details. Third, related to this is Mark’s emphasis on discipleship. Christians facing persecution must have been tempted to relax the standards (4:17-19). Fourth, given this general situation, one can hardly doubt the significance of our Lord’s apocalyptic message in chapter 13, intended to encourage the disciples in the midst of their trials by reminding them of the glory to follow. Finally, Mark’s clear concern for the Gentile mission fits in with the needs of pagan Rome. The suffering Christians cannot afford to forget the unbelieving society in which they live. In the light of this particular responsibility, Mark assures his readers of what even the Roman centurion began to recognize—surely Jesus <em>is<\/em> the Son of God (15:39).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The development of Mark’s narrative can be presented in six major divisions within a twofold structure:<\/p>\n<li>Introduction (1:1-13)<\/li>\n<li>Part I: Popularity and Opposition (1:14–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>1. Jesus’ authority and the Pharisees’ enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/li>\n<li>2. The people’s response (3:7–6:6a)<\/li>\n<li>3. The disciples’ misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>Part II: Darkness and Death (8:22–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>4. The Messiah’s mission and the disciples’ blind-ness (8:22–10:52)<\/li>\n<li>5. Final ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/li>\n<li>6. The Passion narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>Conclusion (16:1-8)<\/li>\n<p>Although one can hardly claim that this outline corresponds exactly to the author’s original plan (Mark may not have consciously worked out a detailed outline), the sixfold division provides a useful starting point for an interpretive summary of the contents.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Authority and the Pharisees’ Enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>Immediately after the introductory portion (1:1-13), which describes John the Baptist’s ministry as well as Jesus’ baptism and temptation, Mark opens the body of the work with a summary statement (vv 14-15). In these two verses he seems to suggest that Jesus’ public ministry, characterized by the proclamation that God’s kingdom is about to be inaugurated, was occasioned by John’s imprisonment. This is followed by the call of the first disciples (vv 16-20) and then by a complex of stories (vv 21-38), all of which report incidents that took place in Capernaum, apparently within a 24-hour period: synagogue instruction followed by the healing of a demoniac; the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law; numerous other healings in the evening; prayer in a lonely place. The statement that Jesus proceeded to expand his ministry throughout the province of Galilee (v 39) is followed by the story of a leper’s cure (vv 40-45). Next are found a very important group of incidents (2:1–3:6), all of them focusing on Jesus’ conflicts with Jewish leaders: the healing and forgiveness of a paralytic; the call of Levi, whose dinner (attended by Jesus as well as by the hated tax gatherers) occasioned some disputes, particularly on the issue of fasting; and two significant stories regarding proper behavior on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<h5>The People’s Response (3:7–6:6a)<\/h5>\n<p>Mark opens this second section as he opened the first: a summary statement (Jesus’ healings by the lake—3:7-12) followed by the official appointment of 12 apostles (vv 13-19). Then follows a section that focuses on the kinds of charges brought against Jesus by his own family and by the scribes (vv 20-22), leading to a response touching on Satan, on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and on what constitutes true membership in his family (vv 23-35). Most of chapter 4 is devoted to Jesus’ parables of the kingdom—the sower, the seed growing secretly, the mustard seed—and includes statements on the nature and purpose of his teachings (4:10-12, 21-25, 33-34). In the evening Jesus and his disciples set out to cross the Sea of Galilee, leading to the stilling of the storm (vv 35-41), the healing of the Gerasene demoniac on the other side of the lake (5:1-20), and, on their return to Capernaum, the healing of a hemorrhaging woman and the raising of Jairus’s daughter (vv 21-43). The section concludes with Jesus’ visit to his hometown, Nazareth, and the rejection he suffered there (6:1-6a).<\/p>\n<h5>The Disciples’ Misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/h5>\n<p>The third section begins with two introductory passages: the sending out of the 12 (6:6b-13) and the story of John the Baptist’s death (vv 14-29). When the disciples return, Jesus determines to seek some rest, but the crowds follow them; Jesus then teaches and feeds the 5,000 (vv 30-44) and, after crossing the lake (vv 45-52, which includes Jesus’ walk over the water), he performs numerous cures in and around Gennesaret (vv 53-56). Then follows a controversy with the Pharisees regarding the hand-washing ritual (7:1-8), and this incident leads to Christ’s assertion of the authority of God’s word over human tradition (vv 9-13) and to some general instructions on true purity (vv 14-23). The next several stories describe Jesus’ withdrawal from Galilee, first to Tyre, where a gentile woman’s daughter is healed (vv 24-30), then to the Decapolis, where he cures a deaf-mute (vv 31-37) and feeds a crowd of four thousand (8:1-10). The demand of the Pharisees for a sign (vv 11-12) leads to Jesus’ warning against the “leaven” of the Pharisees, a statement misunderstood by the disciples (vv 13-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Messiah’s Mission and the Disciples’ Blindness (8:22–10:52)<\/h5>\n<p>Still away from Galilee, but now in the nearby town of Bethsaida, Jesus heals a blind man (8:22-26). He then leads his disciples north toward Caesarea Philippi, which sets the stage for Peter’s confession (vv 27-30). This recognition on the part of the disciples (of whom Peter is in effect a representative) leads Jesus to prophesy his death, but Peter’s refusal to accept the prophecy calls forth a rebuke and instruction on discipleship (vv 31-38). The failure of the disciples to understand the necessity of Christ’s death provides the background for the Transfiguration (9:1-8), which assures Peter, John, and James that God’s kingdom will indeed come (note v 1); further, the Father himself enjoins them to believe Jesus’ prophecy (v 7). After some words about the resurrection and about the coming of Elijah (vv 9-13), Mark relates the healing of a demoniac boy (vv 14-29). Back in Galilee, a second prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 30-32) is followed, sadly, by a trivial discussion among the disciples as to who is the greatest (vv 33-37). Appropriately, one finds some further instructions concerning discipleship (vv 38-50). Mark next writes that Jesus left Galilee for the last time and began his journey toward the south. During this journey, Jesus delivered teachings on divorce and on the spiritual privileges of children (10:1-16), then met the rich young ruler (vv 17-22), an incident that leads to further words on discipleship (vv 23-31). A third prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 32-34) is again followed by selfish behavior on the part of the disciples, in this case an ambitious request from James and John (vv 35-40). The incident produces indignation among the rest of the disciples, thus necessitating another rebuke from their master, who himself came to serve and to die (vv 41-45). The section ends as it began—by reporting the cure of a blind man, Bartimaeus of Jericho in this story (vv 46-52).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/h5>\n<p>This section seems naturally to divide into three balanced subsections. The first one (11:1-26) includes three events: the Triumphal Entry, the withering of the fig tree, and the cleansing of the temple. The second subsection (11:27–12:44) is particularly important, for here is found Jesus’ final series of controversies with the Jewish leaders. The topics covered are the source of Jesus’ authority (11:27-33), the parable of the wicked husbandmen (12:1-12), the legitimacy of Caesar’s tax (vv 13-17), the Sadducees’ denial of resurrection (vv 18-27), the chief commandment (vv 28-34), and the question regarding David’s son (vv 35-37). This subsection ends with a warning against the scribes and with the story of the widow’s mite (vv 38-44). The third subsection (ch 13) is devoted completely to the Olivet discourse, with its prophecies of destruction, calamities, persecutions, deceivers, and final vindication. The discourse ends with various admonitions to keep alert.<\/p>\n<h5>The Passion Narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/h5>\n<p>This final section, which is introduced by a report of the priests’ plot (14:1-2), may be divided into two subsections. The first one relates the events leading up to Jesus’ trial (vv 3-52). They include the anointing of Jesus (vv 3-9), Judas’s betrayal (vv 10-11), the incidents connected with the Last Supper (vv 12-31), the scene at Gethsemane (vv 32-42), and the arrest (vv 43-52). The second subsection relates Jesus’ trial before the Jews (vv 53-65), Peter’s denials (vv 66-72), the trial before Pilate (15:1-15), the crucifixion (vv 16-41), and the burial (vv 42-47).<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel concludes somewhat mysteriously, but no less triumphantly, with the news that Jesus has risen from the dead (16:1-8). The earliest surviving Greek manuscripts, usually regarded as the most reliable, end at verse 8; the majority of manuscripts, however, include an additional 12 verses that report Jesus’ appearances to his disciples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Mark, John; Matthew, Gospel of; Luke, Gospel of; Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MARK, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between <span>AD<\/span> 60 and 68.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorDateProvenance\">Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, although this is by no means certain). At one point Papias states, “The Elder used to say this also: Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that [Peter] remembered concerning the things both said and done by the Lord.” (This quotation was preserved by the fourth-century writer Eusebius of Caesarea in his <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 3.39.15.) One need not doubt the basic reliability of this statement. Mark—almost surely to be identified with the John Mark of Acts 12:12 (see also 1 Pt 5:13)—was a disciple of Peter, and the second Gospel owes its existence, at least in part, to the apostle’s reminiscences. It does not follow, however, that one has adequately characterized Mark’s work if that is all one says. For instance, Papias’s qualification, “though not in order,” indicates that Mark did not intend to write a chronological biography. Furthermore, Papias goes on to comment (according to one interpretation of his ambiguous words) that Mark (or Peter?) adapted the material to the teaching situation and that therefore Mark is absolved from any (implied) charges of inaccuracy. It appears that from the earliest times Christians appealed to the purposes and circumstances of Mark’s writing in order to account for difficulties in harmonizing the material found in the various Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Other statements from Christian writers in the second, third, and fourth centuries seem dependent on Papias’s testimony, but some additional data they provide may possess independent value. For example, a fairly early document (date uncertain) known as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel somewhere in Italy after Peter’s death (in the mid-60s), and this testimony is considered reliable by many scholars. Still, the possibility that Mark composed his work before Peter’s martyrdom cannot be ruled out completely.<\/p>\n<p>Papias says nothing specific about <em>when<\/em> the Gospel was written. A small minority of scholars date Mark shortly after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Another minority suggest a date in the 40s or 50s on the basis of a papyrus fragment discovered in Qumran called 7Q5. (According to José O’Callaghan, the fragment, which has been dated about <span>AD<\/span> 50–68, should be identified as Mark 6:52-53.) This fragment contains only 20 letters on one side, making the Markan reconstruction very uncertain. Few scholars are convinced that the text is Mark; some think it is part of 1 Enoch or Zechariah. An impressive majority of scholars date Mark in the 60s, with conservatives usually preferring the early years of the decade. Why this preference? If the theory of Markan priority is accepted, then clearly Mark was written before Luke; and since Luke is normally dated by conservatives about <span>AD<\/span> 62, Mark can be no later than <span>AD<\/span> 60 or 61. This line of argument, though strong, is not decisive. In the first place, Luke cannot be dated with complete certainty. Second, the view that Matthew and Luke used Mark (the working assumption of most scholars) is only a hypothesis, and one that is vigorously opposed by some writers. Third, a tradition going back to the second century (see above) asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel <em>after<\/em> Peter’s death, no earlier than <span>AD<\/span> 64. Fourth, one persuasive view regarding the occasion of this Gospel assumes that the Neronian persecution (<span>AD<\/span> 64) had begun. (According to a different view of the occasion, Mark was written after the beginning of the Jewish revolt in <span>AD<\/span> 66.) Therefore, while a date in the early 60s remains possible, it does not require committal.<\/p>\n<p>With regard to the authorship of the second Gospel, there seems to be no compelling reason to deny Papias’s report that Mark (no doubt the John Mark of Acts 12:12) took down Peter’s reminiscences and that these became the basis of his work. Some scholars argue that the Gospel contains geographical inaccuracies (e.g., we have no evidence of a region called Dalmanutha, Mk 8:10) and that a native of Jerusalem such as Mark would have been more reliable in his information. However, the topographical problems in Mark, though real, need not be interpreted as inaccuracies (present ignorance of a place named Dalmanutha is hardly conclusive proof that it did not exist). Furthermore, in other respects (e.g., 14:54, 66) the Gospel reveals an impressive knowledge of local details. Many writers also point out bits of information that support a Petrine background, such as the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (1:30-31). In short, the internal evidence, while falling short of proof, does not at all undermine the tradition preserved by Papias. A generation ago, the trustworthiness of Papias’s testimony was almost universally accepted. This situation has changed somewhat, but even those scholars who adopt a skeptical attitude toward this tradition concede that it <em>may<\/em> be true.<\/p>\n<p>As attention turns to the provenance of the Gospel, the task becomes more difficult. Tradition going back to the second century asserts what may be already implied by Papias—namely, that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome. Although some scholars have suggested other possibilities, such as Galilee and Antioch, these have not proved satisfactory. Mark did spend some time in Rome, and some characteristics in the Gospel (such as Latinisms in the Greek and the explanation of Jewish customs, as in 7:3-4), while proving nothing, are certainly consonant with a Roman origin. Furthermore, one persuasive view of the occasion that gave rise to the Gospel assumes a background of persecution in Rome.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Distinctives\">Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>A number of characteristics of Mark set it apart from the other Gospels. For example, a word usually translated “immediately” occurs more than 40 times in Mark and only a dozen times in the rest of the NT. While this feature could be interpreted as a simple “mannerism,” consonant with Mark’s unpretentious, colloquial style, it certainly adds to the rapid flow of his narrative, which, dwelling more on Jesus’ activity than on his discourses (in contrast to Matthew and Luke), shifts from scene to scene with hardly a pause. Since the Gospel is also quite brief (Luke is nearly twice as long), one may wonder whether the author intended for it to be read at a sitting; even if read aloud, this would take only about one and a half hours. At any rate, there can be little doubt that the work conveys a sense of urgency.<\/p>\n<p>Other characteristics, however, prove more significant. Someone unfamiliar with the story of Jesus who happened to read Mark for the first time would no doubt be taken aback by its rather abrupt beginning. After a brief clause that stands as a sort of title (1:1), Mark moves on to describe in brief the ministry of John the Baptist. Then he introduces Jesus as coming from Nazareth without telling us anything whatever of his earlier life. Furthermore, over one-third of the book (including the so-called Passion narrative) is devoted to Jesus’ last week. These and other factors lend to the work a note of mystery, accentuated by the fact that at various points Mark calls attention to the fear or amazement gripping those who came in contact with Jesus (2:12; 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6; and several other passages, especially the strange words of 10:32). In addition, if one assumes that the Gospel originally ended with 16:8, Mark wished to leave his readers with the same sense of awe that the disciples experienced at Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>But how does one account for this fear and amazement? Mark’s clear answer is that Jesus, though truly a man, is also divine. While Mark’s Gospel exhibits the humanity of Jesus Christ (1:41; 3:5; 8:12; 10:14), his chief emphasis is on the Lord’s deity. Indeed, Mark introduces his book by referring to Jesus as “the Son of God” (a phrase omitted in some manuscripts, however), a position that is recognized both by the demons (3:11; 5:7) and by God himself (9:7). What may well be the true climax of the Gospel occurs at 15:39, where Mark writes that a Gentile, a Roman centurion, upon hearing Jesus’ death cry, exclaimed, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The author organized his Gospel according to a simple plan. The first eight chapters summarize the nature of Christ’s public ministry by alternating stories that show his growing popularity with stories that stress the disapproval of the Jewish leaders. This first half of the book, while indicating some of the tensions created by Jesus’ coming, gives the basic impression of success and general optimism. A significant shift then strikes the reader toward the end of chapter 8, particularly beginning with verse 31. At Caesarea Philippi, Peter has just confessed that Jesus is the Messiah, and now for the first time Jesus reveals that as Messiah he must die. The disciples become perplexed and discouraged and their pessimism mounts as this thought is brought home to them repeatedly (9:9, 31; 10:32-34; 14:17-25). In the end they desert their master (14:50).<\/p>\n<p>Interestingly, this pessimistic note is anticipated in the earlier part of the Gospel at three points: 3:6 (Jesus’ enemies plot his death); 6:6 (faithlessness in Nazareth); and 8:21 (lack of understanding in the disciples). Some scholars suggest that Mark used these three verses to indicate the first three divisions of his book. In addition, other scholars note that two healings of blind men (8:22-26; 10:46-52) seem to provide the opening and the conclusion of a section that emphasizes the spiritual blindness of the disciples. One more structural clue is 14:1, which clearly marks out the final section of the Gospel.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OccasionPurposeTheology\">Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>A few scholars think that Mark may have been combating a heretical sect that stressed the miracles of Jesus and viewed him purely as a divine wonder-worker. Although this view has not gained acceptance as originally formulated, a number of writers do see the Gospel as a theological corrective. Ralph Martin, who links Mark very closely with Paul, suggests that the evangelist is opposing some heretical groups who have distorted Paul’s message by placing exclusive stress on Christ as a <em>heavenly<\/em> figure (cf. the views that Paul himself opposes in Colossians). Mark responds to these aberrations by emphasizing, in Martin’s words, “the paradox of Jesus’ earthly life in which suffering and vindication form a two-beat rhythm.” Even if one decides that this reconstruction, too, is rather speculative, one may nevertheless retain certain elements in it as valid.<\/p>\n<p>Other scholars, such as H. Kee, place emphasis on the apocalyptic background of Mark. Kee and others tie this element to the Jewish revolt of <span>AD<\/span> 66, but commitment to this particular historical connection is unnecessary to appreciate the great significance of Mark 13 (Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse) for those original readers of the Gospel who may have been undergoing persecution.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the most satisfactory reconstruction links this Gospel to the Neronian persecution in the mid-60s. Mark, for example, is the only Gospel that records that Jesus, after being driven to the wilderness, found himself in the company of wild animals (1:13). This detail, according to William Lane, “was filled with special significance for those called to enter the arena where they stood helpless in the presence of wild beasts.” This interpretation, while not without difficulties, has the advantage of accounting for most of the available data. First, it is compatible with the strong tradition that assigns the origin of Mark’s work to Rome. Second, Mark speaks distinctly to those suffering persecution by introducing them quickly to John’s imprisonment and several other details. Third, related to this is Mark’s emphasis on discipleship. Christians facing persecution must have been tempted to relax the standards (4:17-19). Fourth, given this general situation, one can hardly doubt the significance of our Lord’s apocalyptic message in chapter 13, intended to encourage the disciples in the midst of their trials by reminding them of the glory to follow. Finally, Mark’s clear concern for the Gentile mission fits in with the needs of pagan Rome. The suffering Christians cannot afford to forget the unbelieving society in which they live. In the light of this particular responsibility, Mark assures his readers of what even the Roman centurion began to recognize—surely Jesus <em>is<\/em> the Son of God (15:39).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The development of Mark’s narrative can be presented in six major divisions within a twofold structure:<\/p>\n<li>Introduction (1:1-13)<\/li>\n<li>Part I: Popularity and Opposition (1:14–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>1. Jesus’ authority and the Pharisees’ enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/li>\n<li>2. The people’s response (3:7–6:6a)<\/li>\n<li>3. The disciples’ misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>Part II: Darkness and Death (8:22–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>4. The Messiah’s mission and the disciples’ blind-ness (8:22–10:52)<\/li>\n<li>5. Final ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/li>\n<li>6. The Passion narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>Conclusion (16:1-8)<\/li>\n<p>Although one can hardly claim that this outline corresponds exactly to the author’s original plan (Mark may not have consciously worked out a detailed outline), the sixfold division provides a useful starting point for an interpretive summary of the contents.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Authority and the Pharisees’ Enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>Immediately after the introductory portion (1:1-13), which describes John the Baptist’s ministry as well as Jesus’ baptism and temptation, Mark opens the body of the work with a summary statement (vv 14-15). In these two verses he seems to suggest that Jesus’ public ministry, characterized by the proclamation that God’s kingdom is about to be inaugurated, was occasioned by John’s imprisonment. This is followed by the call of the first disciples (vv 16-20) and then by a complex of stories (vv 21-38), all of which report incidents that took place in Capernaum, apparently within a 24-hour period: synagogue instruction followed by the healing of a demoniac; the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law; numerous other healings in the evening; prayer in a lonely place. The statement that Jesus proceeded to expand his ministry throughout the province of Galilee (v 39) is followed by the story of a leper’s cure (vv 40-45). Next are found a very important group of incidents (2:1–3:6), all of them focusing on Jesus’ conflicts with Jewish leaders: the healing and forgiveness of a paralytic; the call of Levi, whose dinner (attended by Jesus as well as by the hated tax gatherers) occasioned some disputes, particularly on the issue of fasting; and two significant stories regarding proper behavior on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<h5>The People’s Response (3:7–6:6a)<\/h5>\n<p>Mark opens this second section as he opened the first: a summary statement (Jesus’ healings by the lake—3:7-12) followed by the official appointment of 12 apostles (vv 13-19). Then follows a section that focuses on the kinds of charges brought against Jesus by his own family and by the scribes (vv 20-22), leading to a response touching on Satan, on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and on what constitutes true membership in his family (vv 23-35). Most of chapter 4 is devoted to Jesus’ parables of the kingdom—the sower, the seed growing secretly, the mustard seed—and includes statements on the nature and purpose of his teachings (4:10-12, 21-25, 33-34). In the evening Jesus and his disciples set out to cross the Sea of Galilee, leading to the stilling of the storm (vv 35-41), the healing of the Gerasene demoniac on the other side of the lake (5:1-20), and, on their return to Capernaum, the healing of a hemorrhaging woman and the raising of Jairus’s daughter (vv 21-43). The section concludes with Jesus’ visit to his hometown, Nazareth, and the rejection he suffered there (6:1-6a).<\/p>\n<h5>The Disciples’ Misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/h5>\n<p>The third section begins with two introductory passages: the sending out of the 12 (6:6b-13) and the story of John the Baptist’s death (vv 14-29). When the disciples return, Jesus determines to seek some rest, but the crowds follow them; Jesus then teaches and feeds the 5,000 (vv 30-44) and, after crossing the lake (vv 45-52, which includes Jesus’ walk over the water), he performs numerous cures in and around Gennesaret (vv 53-56). Then follows a controversy with the Pharisees regarding the hand-washing ritual (7:1-8), and this incident leads to Christ’s assertion of the authority of God’s word over human tradition (vv 9-13) and to some general instructions on true purity (vv 14-23). The next several stories describe Jesus’ withdrawal from Galilee, first to Tyre, where a gentile woman’s daughter is healed (vv 24-30), then to the Decapolis, where he cures a deaf-mute (vv 31-37) and feeds a crowd of four thousand (8:1-10). The demand of the Pharisees for a sign (vv 11-12) leads to Jesus’ warning against the “leaven” of the Pharisees, a statement misunderstood by the disciples (vv 13-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Messiah’s Mission and the Disciples’ Blindness (8:22–10:52)<\/h5>\n<p>Still away from Galilee, but now in the nearby town of Bethsaida, Jesus heals a blind man (8:22-26). He then leads his disciples north toward Caesarea Philippi, which sets the stage for Peter’s confession (vv 27-30). This recognition on the part of the disciples (of whom Peter is in effect a representative) leads Jesus to prophesy his death, but Peter’s refusal to accept the prophecy calls forth a rebuke and instruction on discipleship (vv 31-38). The failure of the disciples to understand the necessity of Christ’s death provides the background for the Transfiguration (9:1-8), which assures Peter, John, and James that God’s kingdom will indeed come (note v 1); further, the Father himself enjoins them to believe Jesus’ prophecy (v 7). After some words about the resurrection and about the coming of Elijah (vv 9-13), Mark relates the healing of a demoniac boy (vv 14-29). Back in Galilee, a second prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 30-32) is followed, sadly, by a trivial discussion among the disciples as to who is the greatest (vv 33-37). Appropriately, one finds some further instructions concerning discipleship (vv 38-50). Mark next writes that Jesus left Galilee for the last time and began his journey toward the south. During this journey, Jesus delivered teachings on divorce and on the spiritual privileges of children (10:1-16), then met the rich young ruler (vv 17-22), an incident that leads to further words on discipleship (vv 23-31). A third prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 32-34) is again followed by selfish behavior on the part of the disciples, in this case an ambitious request from James and John (vv 35-40). The incident produces indignation among the rest of the disciples, thus necessitating another rebuke from their master, who himself came to serve and to die (vv 41-45). The section ends as it began—by reporting the cure of a blind man, Bartimaeus of Jericho in this story (vv 46-52).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/h5>\n<p>This section seems naturally to divide into three balanced subsections. The first one (11:1-26) includes three events: the Triumphal Entry, the withering of the fig tree, and the cleansing of the temple. The second subsection (11:27–12:44) is particularly important, for here is found Jesus’ final series of controversies with the Jewish leaders. The topics covered are the source of Jesus’ authority (11:27-33), the parable of the wicked husbandmen (12:1-12), the legitimacy of Caesar’s tax (vv 13-17), the Sadducees’ denial of resurrection (vv 18-27), the chief commandment (vv 28-34), and the question regarding David’s son (vv 35-37). This subsection ends with a warning against the scribes and with the story of the widow’s mite (vv 38-44). The third subsection (ch 13) is devoted completely to the Olivet discourse, with its prophecies of destruction, calamities, persecutions, deceivers, and final vindication. The discourse ends with various admonitions to keep alert.<\/p>\n<h5>The Passion Narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/h5>\n<p>This final section, which is introduced by a report of the priests’ plot (14:1-2), may be divided into two subsections. The first one relates the events leading up to Jesus’ trial (vv 3-52). They include the anointing of Jesus (vv 3-9), Judas’s betrayal (vv 10-11), the incidents connected with the Last Supper (vv 12-31), the scene at Gethsemane (vv 32-42), and the arrest (vv 43-52). The second subsection relates Jesus’ trial before the Jews (vv 53-65), Peter’s denials (vv 66-72), the trial before Pilate (15:1-15), the crucifixion (vv 16-41), and the burial (vv 42-47).<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel concludes somewhat mysteriously, but no less triumphantly, with the news that Jesus has risen from the dead (16:1-8). The earliest surviving Greek manuscripts, usually regarded as the most reliable, end at verse 8; the majority of manuscripts, however, include an additional 12 verses that report Jesus’ appearances to his disciples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Mark, John; Matthew, Gospel of; Luke, Gospel of; Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MARK, Gospel of Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between AD 60 and 68. Preview • Author, Date, Provenance • Distinctives • Structure • Occasion, Purpose, Theology • Content Author, Date, Provenance Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, alt...","summary_en":"MARK, Gospel of Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between AD 60 and 68. Preview • Author, Date, Provenance • Distinctives • Structure • Occasion, Purpose, Theology • Content Author, Date, Provenance Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, alt...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":25976,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Miracle","title_en":"Miracle","content_ro":"<h3>MIRACLE<\/h3>\n<p>A divine act by which God reveals himself to people. The classical definition of miracle assumes that it is contrary to natural law, but this is a misnomer for two reasons. First, many of the miracles of the Bible used nature rather than bypassed it (e.g., the wind that parted the Red Sea, Ex 14:21). Second, there no longer is a concept of “absolute natural laws”; rather, a phenomenon that is not readily explainable may reflect laws that scientists do not yet fully understand. In Scripture the element of faith is crucial; a natural approach cannot prove or disprove the presence of “miracle.” The timing and content of the process can be miraculous, even though the event may seem natural. The revelatory significance is also important. In every case God performed the miracle not merely as a “wonder” to inspire awe but as a “sign” to draw people to himself.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheVocabularyofMiracles\">The Vocabulary of Miracles<\/p>\n<p>In the OT the two main terms are “sign” and “wonder,” which often occur together (e.g., nine times in Dt alone, 4:34; 13:1; etc.). More than one Hebrew term is used for “wonder”—one referring to it as an act of supernatural power and another as being beyond man’s understanding. On the whole, they are used synonymously for God’s providential acts within history. The “sign” refers to an act that occurs as a token or pledge of God’s control over events and as a revelation of God’s presence with his people.<\/p>\n<p>The NT uses the same basic idiom, “signs and wonders,” with the same general thrust (cf. Mt 24:24; Mk 13:22; Jn 4:48; Acts 2:43). A third term is that for “power” or miracle, and this becomes the predominant term in the synoptic Gospels. It signifies the mighty act itself by which God is revealed in Christ. A fourth term is “work,” which along with “sign” is preferred in the Gospel of John. This term is used in John to show that in Jesus the work of the Father is revealed. While the terms are often synonymous (the first three occur together in Rom 15:19-20; 2 Thes 2:9; Heb 2:4), they designate three different aspects of miracles. “Signs” point to the theological meaning of miracle as a revelation of God; “power,” to the force behind the act; “work,” to the person behind it; and “wonder,” to its awesome effect on the observer.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MiraclesintheOldTestament\">Miracles in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>To the Hebrew, a miracle was nothing more nor less than an act of God. Therefore, nature herself was a miracle (Jb 5:9-10; Pss 89:6; 106:2), and an act of kindness or victory over one’s enemies is so described (Gn 24:12-27; 1 Sm 14:23). The natural order is totally under Yahweh’s control, so a miracle was observable not because of its supernatural nature but because of its character as part of the divine revelation. This connection with salvation history is crucial, for Israel at all times tried to guard against a desire for the spectacular. Deuteronomy 13:1-4 warns against accepting a wonder as authenticating a prophet; rather, the authentication must come from the fact that he worships Yahweh.<\/p>\n<p>Miracles in the OT are restricted to critical periods of redemptive history. Many have discussed the act of Creation as the first miracle, but in actuality it is not presented as such in the Genesis account. A miracle is signified by its revelatory significance and\/or its connection with crucial points in the history of God’s people—the exodus, the conquest of Jordan, the battle against the insidious Baal worship of the prophetic period. Creation is characterized by one major theme: a chronicle of the beginnings. The miracles of Genesis—striking blind the inhabitants of Sodom, the Flood, Babel—all signify the wrath of God upon those who have turned against him. This is the other side of redemptive history, the judgment of God upon those who are not his people.<\/p>\n<p>The miracles of the exodus account have two foci: The plagues represent the absolute power of Yahweh over the gods of Egypt, and the miracles of the wilderness show God’s absolute care and protection of his people. The plagues are particularly interesting because each one is directed at one of the gods of Egypt and reveals Yahweh as the only potentate. The basic theme is found in Exodus 7:5 and is repeated throughout the account (cf. 7:17; 8:6, 18; 9:14-16, 29; 12:12): “When I show the Egyptians my power and force them to let the Israelites go, they will realize that I am the <span>Lord<\/span>” (<span>nlt<\/span>). In this regard they were directed not only at the Egyptians but also to the Israelites, who needed to know that their God would vindicate them against the Egyptians. This is borne out in the major miracle, the crossing of the Red Sea. The plagues themselves show a gradual increase in severity.<\/p>\n<p>The wilderness miracles are intimately connected to the basic theme of the wandering narratives, the trial of Israel in times of desperate need and God’s providential protection of his people when they turn to him. The basic organization of the stories concerns the need itself, which leads to Israel’s complaint; this is followed by Moses’ intercession and then by God’s sovereign intervention. The miracles are interspersed with other stories that tell of God’s punishment when the people’s murmuring tries him too far. The miracle is God’s self-revelation regarding his involvement in the needs of his own; Israel must then respond, and her response determines her blessing or punishment at the hands of Yahweh.<\/p>\n<p>Miracles are conspicuously absent in the period of the united monarchy. This was a time of self-sufficiency, when God worked through the monarchy and did not intervene directly in the life of the nation. The reason is that Israel’s eschatological hopes had been realized and made concrete in the presence of the Holy City and the temple.<\/p>\n<p>It was different during the prophetic period. In the lives of Elijah and Elisha, miracles were predominant. This was a time of apostasy, and under the reign of Ahab and Jezebel the nation turned to paganism and the worship of Baal. The very existence of the Hebraic religion seemed to be threatened, and so the times called for extraordinary measures. Here the wondrous nature of the miracles is more evident than anywhere else in the OT. There are conscious allusions to the exodus miracles, perhaps looking to Elijah as a new Moses reinstituting the true worship of Yahweh. Parallels are seen in the challenge to the priests of Baal (1 Kgs 18; cf. Ex 7); the revelation of God on Mt Horeb with the wind, earthquake, and fire (1 Kgs 19; cf. Ex 19); and the parting of the Jordan (2 Kgs 2:10-14; cf. Ex 14). Many of the miracles were intended to demonstrate the impotence of Baal, such as the drought, the contest on Mt Carmel, and the miraculous sustenance supplied by God. Again, God’s actions within history were part of his self-revelation, the vindication of his messengers, and the punishment of his enemies.<\/p>\n<p>Miracles are infrequent in the writing prophets, perhaps due to the proclamation form of the writings (i.e., they dealt with message rather than deeds). The two major exceptions (apart from the recovery of Hezekiah chronicled in Is 38) are Jonah and Daniel. In Jonah, the miracle is addressed not to the Ninevites but to the Israelites, who are called back to their covenant obligations as the spokesmen for Yahweh. In Daniel the direction is reversed, and the situation is the same as that in Exodus or Kings. The miracles are directed to the Babylonians and Persians and have the same foci as the earlier events of the exodus and Elijah-Elisha chronicles, that is, the supremacy of Yahweh over the foreign gods and the vindication of his messengers. This is the third and final time of crisis and illustrates the major theological use of miracles in the OT.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MiraclesintheNewTestament\">Miracles in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The presence of the miraculous has a similar purpose in the NT; it occurred at a crisis point in salvation history to authenticate the presence of God in historical acts. It differs, however, in that it is transcended by the presence of the very Son of God, who himself is the greatest miracle of all. God now has not only acted in history; he has entered history and has turned it to himself. The parallels with the exodus events are obvious and show that the miracles of Jesus paved the way for the entrance of the new covenant in the same way that the exodus miracles prepared for the old.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Jesus’ Understanding<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus stressed the connection between his miraculous ministry, especially the casting out of demons (exorcism), and the coming of the kingdom of God. As in the OT, the miracles signify the presence of God, but here it is more direct and also signals the inauguration of his kingdom (Mt 12:28). As such, then, the exorcism miracles mean the binding of Satan and the institution of the reign of God (Mk 3:23-27). At the same time all the miracles signify the dawning of the age of salvation, as expressed in Jesus’ inaugural address at Nazareth (Lk 4:18-21, from Is 61:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>Yet these miracles are not automatic signposts to the act of God; they must be interpreted by faith. Jesus was well aware of the presence of other miracles in his day (Mt 12:27) and so stressed the presence of faith in the healing miracles (Mk 5:32; 10:52). This faith must be directed to the presence of God in the event and in Jesus himself. The necessity of faith also helps to understand Jesus’ refusal to provide his contemporaries with a “sign” (Mk 8:11-12); miracles could never “prove” the presence of God. For a better understanding of the connection between faith and miracles, it is best to note each Evangelist’s individual portrait of the theological use of miracles.<\/p>\n<h5>Miracles in Mark<\/h5>\n<p>Mark, the first of the four Gospels to be written, has often been called the “action Gospel” because of its emphasis on Jesus’ deeds rather than his teaching. This is also true regarding Jesus’ miracles, for Mark contains more proportionately than any of the others. There are five groups or five kinds of miracles in Mark. The first group centers on Jesus’ authority over demons (Mk 1:21-39). The second concerns Jesus’ authority over the law and conflict with his opponents (1:40–3:6). They result in fame but occasion his refusal to allow his true identity as Son of God to be known. The third group (3:7-30) contains exorcisms and the Beelzebub controversy, centering on his power over Satan. The fourth group (4:35–6:43) contains especially powerful miracles (stilling the storm, the Gaderene demoniac, the raising of Jairus’s daughter) and probably centers on the disciples, as Jesus thereby reveals to them the meaning of the kingdom and seeks to overcome their own spiritual dullness. The fifth and final group (6:30–8:26) continues the theme of the disciples’ misunderstanding and prepares the way for the Passion, with the message regarding the bread, blindness, and the judgment of God.<\/p>\n<p>The miracles in Mark center on conflict, first with Jesus’ opponents and then with his own disciples. While the miracles are harbingers of God’s kingdom, their purpose is to force an encounter with Jesus’ true significance. They do not show Jesus as a Hellenistic wonder worker; in fact, they lead only to amazement and then disbelief in those who do not have faith. Jesus’ personhood has been hidden and can only be understood in light of the cross. The miracles are not proofs but powers; God does not authenticate himself through them but shows himself to those with eyes to see.<\/p>\n<h5>Miracles in Matthew<\/h5>\n<p>Matthew’s is the teaching Gospel, where dialogue takes precedence over action. Matthew compresses Mark’s narrative in order to make room for didactic material. Therefore, his stress is on the theological implications of faith rather than on the results they contain. Matthew’s groups of miracles are isometric to teaching passages, in keeping with his general practice of combining narrative portions and organizing them around didactic sections. The first group (chs 8–9) combines miracles from Mark’s first, second, and fourth groups and stresses Jesus’ significance as the servant of Yahweh who exercises sovereign power and forgives sins. The secondary theme teaches discipleship and shows the awakening faith of the disciples and their involvement in Jesus’ ministry. The second group (ch 12) centers on his authority over the law (the man with the withered hand) and over Satan (the Beelzebub controversy). The third group (chs 14–15) parallels Mark’s fifth group but has a different purpose. Rather than arousing conflict, the disciples are seen in positive guise, actively involved in the Master’s work. So the disciples become the means by which Jesus’ ministry is continued. Therefore, the disciples are involved as “learners” (the meaning of “disciple”) in his miraculous ministry.<\/p>\n<h5>Miracles in Luke<\/h5>\n<p>Luke-Acts is remarkable and extremely important because it establishes beyond dispute the early church’s belief that it was in absolute continuity with Jesus and was continuing the work of God in the world. Luke’s major stress is on salvation history, and so one of his major stylistic methods for showing this direct connection is miraculous deeds. Especially enlightening here is Acts 9:32-42, where in two healing miracles Peter duplicated the Lord’s miracles (the paralytic Aeneas, Lk 5:18-26; the raising of Dorcas, Lk 8:49-56).<\/p>\n<p>From this respect also Luke returns to Mark’s interest in the deed more than the teaching. However, Luke goes even further than Mark, for the miracles validate Jesus more directly. The first group follows the inaugural address (4:18-22), which itself presents the miraculous deeds as authenticating signposts to Jesus’ personhood. They center on Jesus’ power and authority (vv 31-41) and validate God’s power in Jesus (5:17; 8:39) as well as faith in Jesus (seen in the “praise” motif, 5:25; 7:16; etc., but especially in Acts 9:35; 13:12; 19:17). The presence of “fear” at the miracles is a human response to having witnessed God’s power (Lk 5:26; 7:16; 8:35-37; 24:5). The call to the disciples occurs in the presence of miracles (5:1-11, at the miraculous catch of fish; vv 27-28, after the healing of the bedridden paralytic).<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, Luke views miracles as having redemptive significance. However, this is not contrary to Mark’s picture. Luke still avoids picturing Jesus as a mere wonder worker; Jesus still refuses to satisfy people’s curiosity for an external sign (Lk 11:29-32; cf. also 9:9), and in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (16:19-31) he teaches that the unbelieving heart can never be convinced by such events. Nevertheless, they can lead to repentance (10:13-16).<\/p>\n<h5>Miracles in John<\/h5>\n<p>John is the most directly theological of the Evangelists, and miracles are characteristically given a distinctive Johannine coloring. In the Synoptics, miracles are “acts of power” signifying the entrance of God’s reign into this world via Jesus; thereby, Jesus establishes Satan’s defeat and God’s sovereign control of history. John, however, contains no exorcisms, and the miracles are seen as “signs.” At the same time miracles are part of the larger category of “works” (the other term for miracles used in John), by which Jesus shows the Father’s presence in himself (Jn 10:32, 37-39; 14:10) and they give witness to Jesus as the sent one (5:36; 10:25, 38).<\/p>\n<p>John selects only seven “sign miracles” from many others (20:30) and uses them as part of the thematic development in the respective section of each. For instance, changing the water into wine is a messianic act, signifying the outpouring of the kingdom blessing in the ministry of Jesus, the Messiah (ch 2); the multiplication of the loaves builds upon the “bread of life” and points to the messianic banquet as spiritually present in Jesus (ch 6).<\/p>\n<p>The paradoxical nature of miracles in the Synoptics is even greater in John. He gives more stress to the wondrous nature of the events by providing such details as the stupendous amount of water changed into wine (2:6, approximately 120 gallons, or 454.2 liters); the distance over which Jesus’ healing power works (4:46, almost 20 miles, or 32.2 kilometers); the length of time the man of Bethesda had been lame (5:5, 38 years; cf. 9:1, where the man had been born blind); the amount of bread needed to feed the 5,000 (6:7, where Philip said 200 denarii, or days’ wages, would not have bought enough); and the proof of Lazarus’s death (11:39; he had already begun to decay). John has a great interest in the miraculous. Yet at the same time there is even greater stress on the inadequacy of miracles for faith. The miracles as “signs” have saving value and point to the true significance of Jesus but are related to an awakening faith and in themselves are insufficient (2:11; 4:50). They have christological force, looking to Jesus’ sonship and the Father’s authentication of him but are based on the soteriological decision of the individual. As “signs,” they contain the very presence of God in Jesus, the spiritual reality of the “sight” and “life” he brings (9:35-38; 11:24-26). Yet their purpose is to divide the audience and confront it with the necessity of decision. Two camps result—those seeking understanding and those considering only the outward aspects. Some refuse to consider the signs, and thus they reject them (3:18-21; 11:47-50), while others see them shallowly as mere wonders and fail to see in them the true significance of Jesus (2:23-25; 4:45). On the other hand, some view them with the eye of faith and go on to a realization of his personhood (2:11; 5:36-46; 11:42). In John the highest faith of all is that which does not need external stimulation (20:29).<\/p>\n<h5>Miracles in the Rest of the New Testament<\/h5>\n<p>Apart from Acts, several passages in the NT speak of the value of miracles. Paul in 2 Corinthians 12:12 and Romans 15:18-19 considered them as “sign-gifts,” which authenticated the divine authority of the “true apostle.” He listed healing and miracles as specific “gifts of the Spirit” in 1 Corinthians 12:9-10. In Galatians 3:5 he considered them evidence for the presence of the Spirit. The author of the letter to the Hebrews in 2:4 said “God bore witness” to the true message of salvation via miracles. Therefore, in the apostolic age the miracles of God’s servants were seen more directly as authenticating signs of God’s action in his messengers.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Sign; Spiritual Gifts.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MIRACLE<\/h3>\n<p>A divine act by which God reveals himself to people. The classical definition of miracle assumes that it is contrary to natural law, but this is a misnomer for two reasons. First, many of the miracles of the Bible used nature rather than bypassed it (e.g., the wind that parted the Red Sea, Ex 14:21). Second, there no longer is a concept of “absolute natural laws”; rather, a phenomenon that is not readily explainable may reflect laws that scientists do not yet fully understand. In Scripture the element of faith is crucial; a natural approach cannot prove or disprove the presence of “miracle.” The timing and content of the process can be miraculous, even though the event may seem natural. The revelatory significance is also important. In every case God performed the miracle not merely as a “wonder” to inspire awe but as a “sign” to draw people to himself.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheVocabularyofMiracles\">The Vocabulary of Miracles<\/p>\n<p>In the OT the two main terms are “sign” and “wonder,” which often occur together (e.g., nine times in Dt alone, 4:34; 13:1; etc.). More than one Hebrew term is used for “wonder”—one referring to it as an act of supernatural power and another as being beyond man’s understanding. On the whole, they are used synonymously for God’s providential acts within history. The “sign” refers to an act that occurs as a token or pledge of God’s control over events and as a revelation of God’s presence with his people.<\/p>\n<p>The NT uses the same basic idiom, “signs and wonders,” with the same general thrust (cf. Mt 24:24; Mk 13:22; Jn 4:48; Acts 2:43). A third term is that for “power” or miracle, and this becomes the predominant term in the synoptic Gospels. It signifies the mighty act itself by which God is revealed in Christ. A fourth term is “work,” which along with “sign” is preferred in the Gospel of John. This term is used in John to show that in Jesus the work of the Father is revealed. While the terms are often synonymous (the first three occur together in Rom 15:19-20; 2 Thes 2:9; Heb 2:4), they designate three different aspects of miracles. “Signs” point to the theological meaning of miracle as a revelation of God; “power,” to the force behind the act; “work,” to the person behind it; and “wonder,” to its awesome effect on the observer.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MiraclesintheOldTestament\">Miracles in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>To the Hebrew, a miracle was nothing more nor less than an act of God. Therefore, nature herself was a miracle (Jb 5:9-10; Pss 89:6; 106:2), and an act of kindness or victory over one’s enemies is so described (Gn 24:12-27; 1 Sm 14:23). The natural order is totally under Yahweh’s control, so a miracle was observable not because of its supernatural nature but because of its character as part of the divine revelation. This connection with salvation history is crucial, for Israel at all times tried to guard against a desire for the spectacular. Deuteronomy 13:1-4 warns against accepting a wonder as authenticating a prophet; rather, the authentication must come from the fact that he worships Yahweh.<\/p>\n<p>Miracles in the OT are restricted to critical periods of redemptive history. Many have discussed the act of Creation as the first miracle, but in actuality it is not presented as such in the Genesis account. A miracle is signified by its revelatory significance and\/or its connection with crucial points in the history of God’s people—the exodus, the conquest of Jordan, the battle against the insidious Baal worship of the prophetic period. Creation is characterized by one major theme: a chronicle of the beginnings. The miracles of Genesis—striking blind the inhabitants of Sodom, the Flood, Babel—all signify the wrath of God upon those who have turned against him. This is the other side of redemptive history, the judgment of God upon those who are not his people.<\/p>\n<p>The miracles of the exodus account have two foci: The plagues represent the absolute power of Yahweh over the gods of Egypt, and the miracles of the wilderness show God’s absolute care and protection of his people. The plagues are particularly interesting because each one is directed at one of the gods of Egypt and reveals Yahweh as the only potentate. The basic theme is found in Exodus 7:5 and is repeated throughout the account (cf. 7:17; 8:6, 18; 9:14-16, 29; 12:12): “When I show the Egyptians my power and force them to let the Israelites go, they will realize that I am the <span>Lord<\/span>” (<span>nlt<\/span>). In this regard they were directed not only at the Egyptians but also to the Israelites, who needed to know that their God would vindicate them against the Egyptians. This is borne out in the major miracle, the crossing of the Red Sea. The plagues themselves show a gradual increase in severity.<\/p>\n<p>The wilderness miracles are intimately connected to the basic theme of the wandering narratives, the trial of Israel in times of desperate need and God’s providential protection of his people when they turn to him. The basic organization of the stories concerns the need itself, which leads to Israel’s complaint; this is followed by Moses’ intercession and then by God’s sovereign intervention. The miracles are interspersed with other stories that tell of God’s punishment when the people’s murmuring tries him too far. The miracle is God’s self-revelation regarding his involvement in the needs of his own; Israel must then respond, and her response determines her blessing or punishment at the hands of Yahweh.<\/p>\n<p>Miracles are conspicuously absent in the period of the united monarchy. This was a time of self-sufficiency, when God worked through the monarchy and did not intervene directly in the life of the nation. The reason is that Israel’s eschatological hopes had been realized and made concrete in the presence of the Holy City and the temple.<\/p>\n<p>It was different during the prophetic period. In the lives of Elijah and Elisha, miracles were predominant. This was a time of apostasy, and under the reign of Ahab and Jezebel the nation turned to paganism and the worship of Baal. The very existence of the Hebraic religion seemed to be threatened, and so the times called for extraordinary measures. Here the wondrous nature of the miracles is more evident than anywhere else in the OT. There are conscious allusions to the exodus miracles, perhaps looking to Elijah as a new Moses reinstituting the true worship of Yahweh. Parallels are seen in the challenge to the priests of Baal (1 Kgs 18; cf. Ex 7); the revelation of God on Mt Horeb with the wind, earthquake, and fire (1 Kgs 19; cf. Ex 19); and the parting of the Jordan (2 Kgs 2:10-14; cf. Ex 14). Many of the miracles were intended to demonstrate the impotence of Baal, such as the drought, the contest on Mt Carmel, and the miraculous sustenance supplied by God. Again, God’s actions within history were part of his self-revelation, the vindication of his messengers, and the punishment of his enemies.<\/p>\n<p>Miracles are infrequent in the writing prophets, perhaps due to the proclamation form of the writings (i.e., they dealt with message rather than deeds). The two major exceptions (apart from the recovery of Hezekiah chronicled in Is 38) are Jonah and Daniel. In Jonah, the miracle is addressed not to the Ninevites but to the Israelites, who are called back to their covenant obligations as the spokesmen for Yahweh. In Daniel the direction is reversed, and the situation is the same as that in Exodus or Kings. The miracles are directed to the Babylonians and Persians and have the same foci as the earlier events of the exodus and Elijah-Elisha chronicles, that is, the supremacy of Yahweh over the foreign gods and the vindication of his messengers. This is the third and final time of crisis and illustrates the major theological use of miracles in the OT.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MiraclesintheNewTestament\">Miracles in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The presence of the miraculous has a similar purpose in the NT; it occurred at a crisis point in salvation history to authenticate the presence of God in historical acts. It differs, however, in that it is transcended by the presence of the very Son of God, who himself is the greatest miracle of all. God now has not only acted in history; he has entered history and has turned it to himself. The parallels with the exodus events are obvious and show that the miracles of Jesus paved the way for the entrance of the new covenant in the same way that the exodus miracles prepared for the old.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Jesus’ Understanding<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus stressed the connection between his miraculous ministry, especially the casting out of demons (exorcism), and the coming of the kingdom of God. As in the OT, the miracles signify the presence of God, but here it is more direct and also signals the inauguration of his kingdom (Mt 12:28). As such, then, the exorcism miracles mean the binding of Satan and the institution of the reign of God (Mk 3:23-27). At the same time all the miracles signify the dawning of the age of salvation, as expressed in Jesus’ inaugural address at Nazareth (Lk 4:18-21, from Is 61:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>Yet these miracles are not automatic signposts to the act of God; they must be interpreted by faith. Jesus was well aware of the presence of other miracles in his day (Mt 12:27) and so stressed the presence of faith in the healing miracles (Mk 5:32; 10:52). This faith must be directed to the presence of God in the event and in Jesus himself. The necessity of faith also helps to understand Jesus’ refusal to provide his contemporaries with a “sign” (Mk 8:11-12); miracles could never “prove” the presence of God. For a better understanding of the connection between faith and miracles, it is best to note each Evangelist’s individual portrait of the theological use of miracles.<\/p>\n<h5>Miracles in Mark<\/h5>\n<p>Mark, the first of the four Gospels to be written, has often been called the “action Gospel” because of its emphasis on Jesus’ deeds rather than his teaching. This is also true regarding Jesus’ miracles, for Mark contains more proportionately than any of the others. There are five groups or five kinds of miracles in Mark. The first group centers on Jesus’ authority over demons (Mk 1:21-39). The second concerns Jesus’ authority over the law and conflict with his opponents (1:40–3:6). They result in fame but occasion his refusal to allow his true identity as Son of God to be known. The third group (3:7-30) contains exorcisms and the Beelzebub controversy, centering on his power over Satan. The fourth group (4:35–6:43) contains especially powerful miracles (stilling the storm, the Gaderene demoniac, the raising of Jairus’s daughter) and probably centers on the disciples, as Jesus thereby reveals to them the meaning of the kingdom and seeks to overcome their own spiritual dullness. The fifth and final group (6:30–8:26) continues the theme of the disciples’ misunderstanding and prepares the way for the Passion, with the message regarding the bread, blindness, and the judgment of God.<\/p>\n<p>The miracles in Mark center on conflict, first with Jesus’ opponents and then with his own disciples. While the miracles are harbingers of God’s kingdom, their purpose is to force an encounter with Jesus’ true significance. They do not show Jesus as a Hellenistic wonder worker; in fact, they lead only to amazement and then disbelief in those who do not have faith. Jesus’ personhood has been hidden and can only be understood in light of the cross. The miracles are not proofs but powers; God does not authenticate himself through them but shows himself to those with eyes to see.<\/p>\n<h5>Miracles in Matthew<\/h5>\n<p>Matthew’s is the teaching Gospel, where dialogue takes precedence over action. Matthew compresses Mark’s narrative in order to make room for didactic material. Therefore, his stress is on the theological implications of faith rather than on the results they contain. Matthew’s groups of miracles are isometric to teaching passages, in keeping with his general practice of combining narrative portions and organizing them around didactic sections. The first group (chs 8–9) combines miracles from Mark’s first, second, and fourth groups and stresses Jesus’ significance as the servant of Yahweh who exercises sovereign power and forgives sins. The secondary theme teaches discipleship and shows the awakening faith of the disciples and their involvement in Jesus’ ministry. The second group (ch 12) centers on his authority over the law (the man with the withered hand) and over Satan (the Beelzebub controversy). The third group (chs 14–15) parallels Mark’s fifth group but has a different purpose. Rather than arousing conflict, the disciples are seen in positive guise, actively involved in the Master’s work. So the disciples become the means by which Jesus’ ministry is continued. Therefore, the disciples are involved as “learners” (the meaning of “disciple”) in his miraculous ministry.<\/p>\n<h5>Miracles in Luke<\/h5>\n<p>Luke-Acts is remarkable and extremely important because it establishes beyond dispute the early church’s belief that it was in absolute continuity with Jesus and was continuing the work of God in the world. Luke’s major stress is on salvation history, and so one of his major stylistic methods for showing this direct connection is miraculous deeds. Especially enlightening here is Acts 9:32-42, where in two healing miracles Peter duplicated the Lord’s miracles (the paralytic Aeneas, Lk 5:18-26; the raising of Dorcas, Lk 8:49-56).<\/p>\n<p>From this respect also Luke returns to Mark’s interest in the deed more than the teaching. However, Luke goes even further than Mark, for the miracles validate Jesus more directly. The first group follows the inaugural address (4:18-22), which itself presents the miraculous deeds as authenticating signposts to Jesus’ personhood. They center on Jesus’ power and authority (vv 31-41) and validate God’s power in Jesus (5:17; 8:39) as well as faith in Jesus (seen in the “praise” motif, 5:25; 7:16; etc., but especially in Acts 9:35; 13:12; 19:17). The presence of “fear” at the miracles is a human response to having witnessed God’s power (Lk 5:26; 7:16; 8:35-37; 24:5). The call to the disciples occurs in the presence of miracles (5:1-11, at the miraculous catch of fish; vv 27-28, after the healing of the bedridden paralytic).<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, Luke views miracles as having redemptive significance. However, this is not contrary to Mark’s picture. Luke still avoids picturing Jesus as a mere wonder worker; Jesus still refuses to satisfy people’s curiosity for an external sign (Lk 11:29-32; cf. also 9:9), and in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (16:19-31) he teaches that the unbelieving heart can never be convinced by such events. Nevertheless, they can lead to repentance (10:13-16).<\/p>\n<h5>Miracles in John<\/h5>\n<p>John is the most directly theological of the Evangelists, and miracles are characteristically given a distinctive Johannine coloring. In the Synoptics, miracles are “acts of power” signifying the entrance of God’s reign into this world via Jesus; thereby, Jesus establishes Satan’s defeat and God’s sovereign control of history. John, however, contains no exorcisms, and the miracles are seen as “signs.” At the same time miracles are part of the larger category of “works” (the other term for miracles used in John), by which Jesus shows the Father’s presence in himself (Jn 10:32, 37-39; 14:10) and they give witness to Jesus as the sent one (5:36; 10:25, 38).<\/p>\n<p>John selects only seven “sign miracles” from many others (20:30) and uses them as part of the thematic development in the respective section of each. For instance, changing the water into wine is a messianic act, signifying the outpouring of the kingdom blessing in the ministry of Jesus, the Messiah (ch 2); the multiplication of the loaves builds upon the “bread of life” and points to the messianic banquet as spiritually present in Jesus (ch 6).<\/p>\n<p>The paradoxical nature of miracles in the Synoptics is even greater in John. He gives more stress to the wondrous nature of the events by providing such details as the stupendous amount of water changed into wine (2:6, approximately 120 gallons, or 454.2 liters); the distance over which Jesus’ healing power works (4:46, almost 20 miles, or 32.2 kilometers); the length of time the man of Bethesda had been lame (5:5, 38 years; cf. 9:1, where the man had been born blind); the amount of bread needed to feed the 5,000 (6:7, where Philip said 200 denarii, or days’ wages, would not have bought enough); and the proof of Lazarus’s death (11:39; he had already begun to decay). John has a great interest in the miraculous. Yet at the same time there is even greater stress on the inadequacy of miracles for faith. The miracles as “signs” have saving value and point to the true significance of Jesus but are related to an awakening faith and in themselves are insufficient (2:11; 4:50). They have christological force, looking to Jesus’ sonship and the Father’s authentication of him but are based on the soteriological decision of the individual. As “signs,” they contain the very presence of God in Jesus, the spiritual reality of the “sight” and “life” he brings (9:35-38; 11:24-26). Yet their purpose is to divide the audience and confront it with the necessity of decision. Two camps result—those seeking understanding and those considering only the outward aspects. Some refuse to consider the signs, and thus they reject them (3:18-21; 11:47-50), while others see them shallowly as mere wonders and fail to see in them the true significance of Jesus (2:23-25; 4:45). On the other hand, some view them with the eye of faith and go on to a realization of his personhood (2:11; 5:36-46; 11:42). In John the highest faith of all is that which does not need external stimulation (20:29).<\/p>\n<h5>Miracles in the Rest of the New Testament<\/h5>\n<p>Apart from Acts, several passages in the NT speak of the value of miracles. Paul in 2 Corinthians 12:12 and Romans 15:18-19 considered them as “sign-gifts,” which authenticated the divine authority of the “true apostle.” He listed healing and miracles as specific “gifts of the Spirit” in 1 Corinthians 12:9-10. In Galatians 3:5 he considered them evidence for the presence of the Spirit. The author of the letter to the Hebrews in 2:4 said “God bore witness” to the true message of salvation via miracles. Therefore, in the apostolic age the miracles of God’s servants were seen more directly as authenticating signs of God’s action in his messengers.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Sign; Spiritual Gifts.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MIRACLE A divine act by which God reveals himself to people. The classical definition of miracle assumes that it is contrary to natural law, but this is a misnomer for two reasons. First, many of the miracles of the Bible used nature rather than bypassed it (e.g., the wind that parted the Red Sea, Ex 14:21). Second, there no longer is a concept of “absolute natural laws”; rather, a phenomenon that is not readily explainable may reflect laws that scientists do not yet fully understand. In Scri...","summary_en":"MIRACLE A divine act by which God reveals himself to people. The classical definition of miracle assumes that it is contrary to natural law, but this is a misnomer for two reasons. First, many of the miracles of the Bible used nature rather than bypassed it (e.g., the wind that parted the Red Sea, Ex 14:21). Second, there no longer is a concept of “absolute natural laws”; rather, a phenomenon that is not readily explainable may reflect laws that scientists do not yet fully understand. In Scri...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":28822,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Parable","title_en":"Parable","content_ro":"<h3>Parable<\/h3>\n<p>A particular form of Jesus’ teaching in the Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• History of Interpretation<\/p>\n<p>• The Meaning of “Parable”<\/p>\n<p>• The Purpose of Parables<\/p>\n<p>• The Reason Jesus Taught in Parables<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>An understanding of parables is essential if one is to understand the teaching of Jesus, since the parables make up approximately 35 percent of his recorded sayings. At no point are the vitality, relevance, and appropriateness of his teaching so clear as they are in his parables. While the parable form is not unique to Jesus, he was certainly a master at using parables as a way of teaching. The parables are not merely illustrations for Jesus’ preaching; they <em>are<\/em> the preaching, at least to a great extent. Nor are they simple stories; they have been truly described as both “works of art” and “weapons of warfare.” How one interprets the parables is not as easy a task as one might think. The way one understands the nature of a parable and the essence of Jesus’ message obviously will determine the method and content of interpretation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoryofInterpretation\">History of Interpretation<\/p>\n<p>A great deal of insight can be obtained by following the course of treatment the parables have received over the centuries. Not surprisingly, they have been subjected to radically different approaches. But the questions that underlie all interpretations are these: (1) How much of the parable is really significant—all the details or only one point? (2) What is the meaning of the parable in the teaching of Jesus? (3) Of what relevance is the parable to the interpreter?<\/p>\n<h5>The Allegorizing Approach<\/h5>\n<p>From the second century even to the present, many people have allegorized the parables. In effect, they have said that every detail in the account is significant and that the meaning and relevance of a parable are to be found in the way it portrays Christian theology. This method, often identified as the Alexandrian school of interpretation, is best illustrated by a classic example that comes from Augustine (<span>AD<\/span> 354–430), the scholar who, despite his allegorizing, was a great theologian. His interpretation of the parable of the good Samaritan views Christ as the good Samaritan, the oil as the comfort of good hope, the animal as the flesh of the Incarnation, the inn as the church, and the innkeeper as the apostle Paul (to say nothing of the other details). Obviously, this interpretation has nothing in common with Jesus’ intention but rather reads into the story preconceived ideas of the interpreter. Such an approach can sound good theologically, but it prohibits the hearing of the Word of God. Medieval interpreters went even further than the allegorizing approach by finding multiple meanings in the text. Usually four were listed: (1) the literal meaning; (2) an allegorical meaning relating to Christian theology; (3) a moral meaning giving direction for daily life; (4) a heavenly meaning indicating something about future life.<\/p>\n<p>Not all of the church was dominated by such allegorizing interpretations. The school of Antioch was known for its commonsense approach to hearing the text. However, its influence was limited when compared to the Alexandrian school and, apart from notable exceptions, most of the church’s efforts at understanding the parables over the centuries have involved allegorizing.<\/p>\n<h5>The Approach of Adolph Julicher (1867–1938)<\/h5>\n<p>Julicher was a German scholar who published two volumes on the parables toward the end of the 19th century. His major contribution was the wholesale rejection of allegorizing as a means of interpreting the parables. In his reaction against allegorizing, Julicher went to the opposite extreme to say that a parable of Jesus has only one point of contact between the story and the fact being portrayed. He believed that this one point alone is important in interpretation and that it will usually be a general religious statement. Julicher went so far as to say that not only was allegorizing wrong but that Jesus did not use allegories, since they tend to hide rather than reveal. He said that any allegory appearing in the NT comes from the writers of the Gospels rather than Jesus. Julicher was correct to reject allegorizing (i.e., making an allegory of what was not intended to be allegory), but the rejection of allegory itself as a legitimate means of communication for Jesus is unfounded.<\/p>\n<h5>The Historical Approach<\/h5>\n<p>Twentieth-century study of the parables, particularly the work of C. H. Dodd (1884–1973) and Joachim Jeremias, has rightly emphasized the historical context in which the parables were originally told. Focus is placed on cultural factors that help in understanding the details of the parables and on the context of Jesus’ original preaching about the kingdom of God. Usually this approach has assumed that the first-century church changed the original thrust of some of the parables to meet her own needs, and consequently various procedures have been proposed to recover the original intent. It is true that the parables have been shaped, edited, and collected in units by the Gospel writers (note, e.g., Matthew’s collection of eight parables in Mt 13:1-52). Also, the aim of an interpreter should be to hear the parables as they were originally intended by Jesus and as his original audience heard them. The attempt to go behind the Gospel accounts, however, is a delicate task, and some of the procedures proposed for doing so need to be questioned. Notice must be taken of the way each of the Gospel writers has used his material, but the extent to which one can go behind the Gospels is limited.<\/p>\n<h5>Modern Trends in Parable Research<\/h5>\n<p>In the past few decades a number of attempts to interpret the parables have suggested new avenues of approach. Basically these new approaches have been somewhat dissatisfied with (although appreciative of) both Julicher and the historical approach in that both limit the impact of the parables on today’s reader. Julicher reduced Jesus’ teaching to pious moralisms, and the historical approach tended to focus on 2,000 years ago while ignoring both the artistic and psychological features of the parables. Consequently, numerous attempts have been made to convey the same impact the parables had for the original hearers to today’s hearers. Increasingly, less focus is placed on the historical meaning of the parables and more emphasis is placed on their artistic, existential, and poetic effect. Jesus’ parables are regarded as works of art that can be regarded as open-ended as far as meaning is concerned. A parable, then, would have an original meaning and the potential for a series of further possible meanings. While the original meaning would provide some control for reinterpretation, these approaches are not bound by the author’s intention.<\/p>\n<p>A great deal can be learned from modern approaches, especially from their concern to make sure that the parables speak to our day with their original vitality. However, there is also the danger of abusing the parables in a way similar to earlier mistreatments. Those allegorizing the parables in the history of the church were not bound by the meaning of Jesus and found their own meaning. Modern interpreters, too, can find their own meaning, and even though the explanations may sound convincing (as no doubt Augustine’s did to his hearers), they will not be a communication of the Word of God. If God and his ways are revealed by Jesus, then we err if we do not hear his parables as they were intended in their original context. There is indeed a dynamic interaction between the text and the interpreter, but the interpreter is brought to a moment of truth most effectively when the Spirit confronts him or her with the parable as Jesus intended it for his hearers.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMeaningofParable\">The Meaning of “Parable”<\/p>\n<p>The usual definition of a parable as “an earthly story with a heavenly meaning” will not suffice for understanding Jesus’ parables. Nor are parables merely comparisons or illustrations of what Jesus wanted to say. The situation is much more complex with regard to the biblical meaning of the word “parable.” In fact, one must distinguish between three uses of the word “parable” in biblical studies.<\/p>\n<p>First, one should be aware that the Greek word for parable and its Hebrew counterpart are both broad terms and can be used for anything from a proverb to a full-blown allegory, including a riddle, a dark saying, an illustration, a contrast, or a story. For example, the Greek word for parable is used in Luke 4:23 with reference to the saying “physician, heal yourself” and most translations render it as “proverb.” In Mark 3:23 “parables” is used with reference to the riddles Jesus asks the scribes, such as “How can Satan cast out Satan?” Similarly, Mark 13:28 uses “parable” of a simple illustration. In Luke 18:2-5 the unjust judge is <em>contrasted<\/em> with God, who brings justice quickly. If one compares the Hebrew OT and the Septuagint (an ancient Greek translation of the OT), the word for parable is used most frequently with reference to a proverb or dark saying. The broad meaning of “parable,” then, can refer to any of these methods used to stimulate thought.<\/p>\n<p>Second, “parable” can be used of any story with two levels of meaning (literal and figurative) that functions as religious and ethical speech.<\/p>\n<p>Third, “parable” can be used technically in modern studies to distinguish it from other types of stories, such as similitudes, exemplary stories, and allegories. In this case a parable is a fictitious story that narrates a particular event and is usually told in the past tense (e.g., the parable of the lost son). A similitude, however, is a comparison that relates a typical or recurring event in real life and is usually told in the present tense (e.g., Mt 13:31-32). An exemplary story is not a comparison at all; rather, it presents character traits as either positive or negative examples to be imitated or avoided. Usually four exemplary stories are identified: the good Samaritan (Lk 10:30-35), the rich fool (12:16-20), the rich man and Lazarus (16:19-31), and the Pharisee and the tax collector (18:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>Allegory is the most difficult to define and has caused considerable debate. Usually allegory is defined as “a series of related metaphors.” A metaphor is an implied comparison that does not use “like” or “as.” This definition is used broadly, but it is not entirely satisfactory for two reasons: (1) It does not indicate whether obscurity is an essential element in allegory. Some view allegory as needing to be decoded and as being understandable only to a select few. If, however, the allegory uses customary metaphors that all could understand, it would not be obscure. (2) It does not specify how much of the story is important as related metaphors. If there were only two or three related metaphors, would the story be an allegory? At the other extreme, do minor details in the story (such as the three levels of harvest in the parable of the sower) have significance? An example of an allegory would be the parable of the sower.<\/p>\n<p>This raises the problem of the difference between a parable and an allegory—a frequently debated issue. On definitions one and two above, allegory is included in parable. But on definition three, a distinction is made between them because a parable is not a series of related metaphors. The details of the story of the lost son (the swine, the far country, etc.) do not stand for something else as they would if they were in an allegory but rather convey in dramatic terms the depths to which the son had sunk. However, a parable is <em>not<\/em> thereby limited to one point of comparison between the story and the fact being portrayed. There may be several items that need to be mentioned from a particular parable. The parable of the lost son emphasizes the rejoicing that takes place at repentance (note the repetition of this theme in Lk 15:24, 32), but the receptivity of the father obviously parallels the grace of God and the younger and elder sons reflect sinners and religious authorities, respectively. The distinction between parable and allegory is vague at best and will vary, depending on what definitions are assigned the terms. One should note that what can be said about parable usually can also be said about allegory.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePurposeofParables\">The Purpose of Parables<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of parables and a description of their characteristics will assist understanding. The parables focus on God and his kingdom and in doing so reveal what kind of God he is, by what principles he works, and what he expects of humanity. Because of the focus on the kingdom, some of the parables reveal many aspects of Jesus’ mission as well (note the parable of the wicked tenants in Mt 21:33-41).<\/p>\n<p>The following characteristics of parables should be observed: (1) Parables are usually concise and symmetrical. Items are presented in twos or threes with an economy of words. Unnecessary people, motives, and details are usually omitted. (2) The features in the story are taken from everyday life, and the metaphors used are frequently common enough that they set up a context for understanding. For example, the discussion of an owner and his vineyard would naturally make hearers think of God and his people because of the OT use of those images. (3) Even though the parables speak in terms of everyday life, often they contain elements of surprise or hyperbole (an exaggeration used as a figure of speech). The parable of the good Samaritan (Lk 10:30-35) introduces a Samaritan in the story where one would probably expect a layperson. The parable of the unforgiving servant (Mt 18:23-34) puts the debt of the first servant at $10 million, an unbelievable sum in that day. (4) Parables require their hearers to pass judgment on the events of the story and, having done so, to realize that they must make a similar judgment in their own lives. The classic example is the parable of Nathan to David (2 Sm 12:1-7), where David judges the man in the story as worthy of death and then is told that he is the man. Because they force one to decide, to come to a moment of truth, the parables force their hearers to live in the present without resting on the laurels of the past or waiting for the future. The parables are the result of a mind that sees truth in concrete pictures rather than abstractions, and they teach that truth in such a compelling manner that the hearer cannot escape it.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheReasonJesusTaughtinParables\">The Reason Jesus Taught in Parables<\/p>\n<p>There is little doubt that Jesus taught in parables because they are both interesting and compelling and therefore are one of the most effective means of communicating. When one reads Mark 4:10-12, however, it seems that Jesus taught in parables in order to <em>keep<\/em> people from understanding so that they would not turn and be forgiven. It seems as well that there is a mystery that is given to the <em>in<\/em> group and that the <em>out<\/em> group is prohibited from learning. Herein is the meaning of the term “mystery.” Rather than being that which is not known or understood, as the word is used today, the biblical use of this word is usually for that which has been revealed by God and would not have been known had God not revealed it. The content of the mystery is not explained here, but from Jesus’ teaching on the kingdom elsewhere, it probably refers to the fact that the kingdom is present in Jesus’ own words and actions.<\/p>\n<p>The other factor crucial for understanding this passage is that the word “parable” in biblical usage has a broad meaning referring to any striking speech or dark saying intended to stimulate thought. Jesus did not spoon-feed his hearers; rather, he taught in such a way as to bring about a response, and where there was a response, he gave additional teaching. Consequently, it is not merely that parables are interesting, poetic, and arresting (as important as those characteristics are). In addition, parables stimulate thought and bring about response—if hardness of heart does not prevent it. It is as if Jesus were saying, “If you cannot hear what I am saying, I will reveal my thought in parables.” Where there is response to this initial teaching, additional information is given.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Parable<\/h3>\n<p>A particular form of Jesus’ teaching in the Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• History of Interpretation<\/p>\n<p>• The Meaning of “Parable”<\/p>\n<p>• The Purpose of Parables<\/p>\n<p>• The Reason Jesus Taught in Parables<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>An understanding of parables is essential if one is to understand the teaching of Jesus, since the parables make up approximately 35 percent of his recorded sayings. At no point are the vitality, relevance, and appropriateness of his teaching so clear as they are in his parables. While the parable form is not unique to Jesus, he was certainly a master at using parables as a way of teaching. The parables are not merely illustrations for Jesus’ preaching; they <em>are<\/em> the preaching, at least to a great extent. Nor are they simple stories; they have been truly described as both “works of art” and “weapons of warfare.” How one interprets the parables is not as easy a task as one might think. The way one understands the nature of a parable and the essence of Jesus’ message obviously will determine the method and content of interpretation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoryofInterpretation\">History of Interpretation<\/p>\n<p>A great deal of insight can be obtained by following the course of treatment the parables have received over the centuries. Not surprisingly, they have been subjected to radically different approaches. But the questions that underlie all interpretations are these: (1) How much of the parable is really significant—all the details or only one point? (2) What is the meaning of the parable in the teaching of Jesus? (3) Of what relevance is the parable to the interpreter?<\/p>\n<h5>The Allegorizing Approach<\/h5>\n<p>From the second century even to the present, many people have allegorized the parables. In effect, they have said that every detail in the account is significant and that the meaning and relevance of a parable are to be found in the way it portrays Christian theology. This method, often identified as the Alexandrian school of interpretation, is best illustrated by a classic example that comes from Augustine (<span>AD<\/span> 354–430), the scholar who, despite his allegorizing, was a great theologian. His interpretation of the parable of the good Samaritan views Christ as the good Samaritan, the oil as the comfort of good hope, the animal as the flesh of the Incarnation, the inn as the church, and the innkeeper as the apostle Paul (to say nothing of the other details). Obviously, this interpretation has nothing in common with Jesus’ intention but rather reads into the story preconceived ideas of the interpreter. Such an approach can sound good theologically, but it prohibits the hearing of the Word of God. Medieval interpreters went even further than the allegorizing approach by finding multiple meanings in the text. Usually four were listed: (1) the literal meaning; (2) an allegorical meaning relating to Christian theology; (3) a moral meaning giving direction for daily life; (4) a heavenly meaning indicating something about future life.<\/p>\n<p>Not all of the church was dominated by such allegorizing interpretations. The school of Antioch was known for its commonsense approach to hearing the text. However, its influence was limited when compared to the Alexandrian school and, apart from notable exceptions, most of the church’s efforts at understanding the parables over the centuries have involved allegorizing.<\/p>\n<h5>The Approach of Adolph Julicher (1867–1938)<\/h5>\n<p>Julicher was a German scholar who published two volumes on the parables toward the end of the 19th century. His major contribution was the wholesale rejection of allegorizing as a means of interpreting the parables. In his reaction against allegorizing, Julicher went to the opposite extreme to say that a parable of Jesus has only one point of contact between the story and the fact being portrayed. He believed that this one point alone is important in interpretation and that it will usually be a general religious statement. Julicher went so far as to say that not only was allegorizing wrong but that Jesus did not use allegories, since they tend to hide rather than reveal. He said that any allegory appearing in the NT comes from the writers of the Gospels rather than Jesus. Julicher was correct to reject allegorizing (i.e., making an allegory of what was not intended to be allegory), but the rejection of allegory itself as a legitimate means of communication for Jesus is unfounded.<\/p>\n<h5>The Historical Approach<\/h5>\n<p>Twentieth-century study of the parables, particularly the work of C. H. Dodd (1884–1973) and Joachim Jeremias, has rightly emphasized the historical context in which the parables were originally told. Focus is placed on cultural factors that help in understanding the details of the parables and on the context of Jesus’ original preaching about the kingdom of God. Usually this approach has assumed that the first-century church changed the original thrust of some of the parables to meet her own needs, and consequently various procedures have been proposed to recover the original intent. It is true that the parables have been shaped, edited, and collected in units by the Gospel writers (note, e.g., Matthew’s collection of eight parables in Mt 13:1-52). Also, the aim of an interpreter should be to hear the parables as they were originally intended by Jesus and as his original audience heard them. The attempt to go behind the Gospel accounts, however, is a delicate task, and some of the procedures proposed for doing so need to be questioned. Notice must be taken of the way each of the Gospel writers has used his material, but the extent to which one can go behind the Gospels is limited.<\/p>\n<h5>Modern Trends in Parable Research<\/h5>\n<p>In the past few decades a number of attempts to interpret the parables have suggested new avenues of approach. Basically these new approaches have been somewhat dissatisfied with (although appreciative of) both Julicher and the historical approach in that both limit the impact of the parables on today’s reader. Julicher reduced Jesus’ teaching to pious moralisms, and the historical approach tended to focus on 2,000 years ago while ignoring both the artistic and psychological features of the parables. Consequently, numerous attempts have been made to convey the same impact the parables had for the original hearers to today’s hearers. Increasingly, less focus is placed on the historical meaning of the parables and more emphasis is placed on their artistic, existential, and poetic effect. Jesus’ parables are regarded as works of art that can be regarded as open-ended as far as meaning is concerned. A parable, then, would have an original meaning and the potential for a series of further possible meanings. While the original meaning would provide some control for reinterpretation, these approaches are not bound by the author’s intention.<\/p>\n<p>A great deal can be learned from modern approaches, especially from their concern to make sure that the parables speak to our day with their original vitality. However, there is also the danger of abusing the parables in a way similar to earlier mistreatments. Those allegorizing the parables in the history of the church were not bound by the meaning of Jesus and found their own meaning. Modern interpreters, too, can find their own meaning, and even though the explanations may sound convincing (as no doubt Augustine’s did to his hearers), they will not be a communication of the Word of God. If God and his ways are revealed by Jesus, then we err if we do not hear his parables as they were intended in their original context. There is indeed a dynamic interaction between the text and the interpreter, but the interpreter is brought to a moment of truth most effectively when the Spirit confronts him or her with the parable as Jesus intended it for his hearers.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMeaningofParable\">The Meaning of “Parable”<\/p>\n<p>The usual definition of a parable as “an earthly story with a heavenly meaning” will not suffice for understanding Jesus’ parables. Nor are parables merely comparisons or illustrations of what Jesus wanted to say. The situation is much more complex with regard to the biblical meaning of the word “parable.” In fact, one must distinguish between three uses of the word “parable” in biblical studies.<\/p>\n<p>First, one should be aware that the Greek word for parable and its Hebrew counterpart are both broad terms and can be used for anything from a proverb to a full-blown allegory, including a riddle, a dark saying, an illustration, a contrast, or a story. For example, the Greek word for parable is used in Luke 4:23 with reference to the saying “physician, heal yourself” and most translations render it as “proverb.” In Mark 3:23 “parables” is used with reference to the riddles Jesus asks the scribes, such as “How can Satan cast out Satan?” Similarly, Mark 13:28 uses “parable” of a simple illustration. In Luke 18:2-5 the unjust judge is <em>contrasted<\/em> with God, who brings justice quickly. If one compares the Hebrew OT and the Septuagint (an ancient Greek translation of the OT), the word for parable is used most frequently with reference to a proverb or dark saying. The broad meaning of “parable,” then, can refer to any of these methods used to stimulate thought.<\/p>\n<p>Second, “parable” can be used of any story with two levels of meaning (literal and figurative) that functions as religious and ethical speech.<\/p>\n<p>Third, “parable” can be used technically in modern studies to distinguish it from other types of stories, such as similitudes, exemplary stories, and allegories. In this case a parable is a fictitious story that narrates a particular event and is usually told in the past tense (e.g., the parable of the lost son). A similitude, however, is a comparison that relates a typical or recurring event in real life and is usually told in the present tense (e.g., Mt 13:31-32). An exemplary story is not a comparison at all; rather, it presents character traits as either positive or negative examples to be imitated or avoided. Usually four exemplary stories are identified: the good Samaritan (Lk 10:30-35), the rich fool (12:16-20), the rich man and Lazarus (16:19-31), and the Pharisee and the tax collector (18:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>Allegory is the most difficult to define and has caused considerable debate. Usually allegory is defined as “a series of related metaphors.” A metaphor is an implied comparison that does not use “like” or “as.” This definition is used broadly, but it is not entirely satisfactory for two reasons: (1) It does not indicate whether obscurity is an essential element in allegory. Some view allegory as needing to be decoded and as being understandable only to a select few. If, however, the allegory uses customary metaphors that all could understand, it would not be obscure. (2) It does not specify how much of the story is important as related metaphors. If there were only two or three related metaphors, would the story be an allegory? At the other extreme, do minor details in the story (such as the three levels of harvest in the parable of the sower) have significance? An example of an allegory would be the parable of the sower.<\/p>\n<p>This raises the problem of the difference between a parable and an allegory—a frequently debated issue. On definitions one and two above, allegory is included in parable. But on definition three, a distinction is made between them because a parable is not a series of related metaphors. The details of the story of the lost son (the swine, the far country, etc.) do not stand for something else as they would if they were in an allegory but rather convey in dramatic terms the depths to which the son had sunk. However, a parable is <em>not<\/em> thereby limited to one point of comparison between the story and the fact being portrayed. There may be several items that need to be mentioned from a particular parable. The parable of the lost son emphasizes the rejoicing that takes place at repentance (note the repetition of this theme in Lk 15:24, 32), but the receptivity of the father obviously parallels the grace of God and the younger and elder sons reflect sinners and religious authorities, respectively. The distinction between parable and allegory is vague at best and will vary, depending on what definitions are assigned the terms. One should note that what can be said about parable usually can also be said about allegory.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePurposeofParables\">The Purpose of Parables<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of parables and a description of their characteristics will assist understanding. The parables focus on God and his kingdom and in doing so reveal what kind of God he is, by what principles he works, and what he expects of humanity. Because of the focus on the kingdom, some of the parables reveal many aspects of Jesus’ mission as well (note the parable of the wicked tenants in Mt 21:33-41).<\/p>\n<p>The following characteristics of parables should be observed: (1) Parables are usually concise and symmetrical. Items are presented in twos or threes with an economy of words. Unnecessary people, motives, and details are usually omitted. (2) The features in the story are taken from everyday life, and the metaphors used are frequently common enough that they set up a context for understanding. For example, the discussion of an owner and his vineyard would naturally make hearers think of God and his people because of the OT use of those images. (3) Even though the parables speak in terms of everyday life, often they contain elements of surprise or hyperbole (an exaggeration used as a figure of speech). The parable of the good Samaritan (Lk 10:30-35) introduces a Samaritan in the story where one would probably expect a layperson. The parable of the unforgiving servant (Mt 18:23-34) puts the debt of the first servant at $10 million, an unbelievable sum in that day. (4) Parables require their hearers to pass judgment on the events of the story and, having done so, to realize that they must make a similar judgment in their own lives. The classic example is the parable of Nathan to David (2 Sm 12:1-7), where David judges the man in the story as worthy of death and then is told that he is the man. Because they force one to decide, to come to a moment of truth, the parables force their hearers to live in the present without resting on the laurels of the past or waiting for the future. The parables are the result of a mind that sees truth in concrete pictures rather than abstractions, and they teach that truth in such a compelling manner that the hearer cannot escape it.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheReasonJesusTaughtinParables\">The Reason Jesus Taught in Parables<\/p>\n<p>There is little doubt that Jesus taught in parables because they are both interesting and compelling and therefore are one of the most effective means of communicating. When one reads Mark 4:10-12, however, it seems that Jesus taught in parables in order to <em>keep<\/em> people from understanding so that they would not turn and be forgiven. It seems as well that there is a mystery that is given to the <em>in<\/em> group and that the <em>out<\/em> group is prohibited from learning. Herein is the meaning of the term “mystery.” Rather than being that which is not known or understood, as the word is used today, the biblical use of this word is usually for that which has been revealed by God and would not have been known had God not revealed it. The content of the mystery is not explained here, but from Jesus’ teaching on the kingdom elsewhere, it probably refers to the fact that the kingdom is present in Jesus’ own words and actions.<\/p>\n<p>The other factor crucial for understanding this passage is that the word “parable” in biblical usage has a broad meaning referring to any striking speech or dark saying intended to stimulate thought. Jesus did not spoon-feed his hearers; rather, he taught in such a way as to bring about a response, and where there was a response, he gave additional teaching. Consequently, it is not merely that parables are interesting, poetic, and arresting (as important as those characteristics are). In addition, parables stimulate thought and bring about response—if hardness of heart does not prevent it. It is as if Jesus were saying, “If you cannot hear what I am saying, I will reveal my thought in parables.” Where there is response to this initial teaching, additional information is given.<\/p>","summary_ro":"Parable A particular form of Jesus’ teaching in the Gospels. Preview • Introduction • History of Interpretation • The Meaning of “Parable” • The Purpose of Parables • The Reason Jesus Taught in Parables Introduction An understanding of parables is essential if one is to understand the teaching of Jesus, since the parables make up approximately 35 percent of his recorded sayings. At no point are the vitality, relevance, and appropriateness of his teaching so clear as they are in his parables. ...","summary_en":"Parable A particular form of Jesus’ teaching in the Gospels. Preview • Introduction • History of Interpretation • The Meaning of “Parable” • The Purpose of Parables • The Reason Jesus Taught in Parables Introduction An understanding of parables is essential if one is to understand the teaching of Jesus, since the parables make up approximately 35 percent of his recorded sayings. At no point are the vitality, relevance, and appropriateness of his teaching so clear as they are in his parables. ...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55201,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:23","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:23","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:23-27<\/strong> Jesus showed the absurdity of this charge by giving several analogies. <em>Satan<\/em> would not undo his own work.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:23-27<\/strong> Jesus showed the absurdity of this charge by giving several analogies. <em>Satan<\/em> would not undo his own work.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:23-27 Jesus showed the absurdity of this charge by giving several analogies. Satan would not undo his own work.","summary_en":"3:23-27 Jesus showed the absurdity of this charge by giving several analogies. Satan would not undo his own work.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82827,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:23","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:23","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:23-27<\/strong> Jesus showed the absurdity of this charge by giving several analogies. <em>Satan<\/em> would not undo his own work.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:23-27<\/strong> Jesus showed the absurdity of this charge by giving several analogies. <em>Satan<\/em> would not undo his own work.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:23-27 Jesus showed the absurdity of this charge by giving several analogies. Satan would not undo his own work.","summary_en":"3:23-27 Jesus showed the absurdity of this charge by giving several analogies. Satan would not undo his own work.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110453,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:23","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:23","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:23-27<\/strong> Jesus showed the absurdity of this charge by giving several analogies. <em>Satan<\/em> would not undo his own work.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:23-27<\/strong> Jesus showed the absurdity of this charge by giving several analogies. <em>Satan<\/em> would not undo his own work.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:23-27 Jesus showed the absurdity of this charge by giving several analogies. Satan would not undo his own work.","summary_en":"3:23-27 Jesus showed the absurdity of this charge by giving several analogies. Satan would not undo his own work.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138079,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:23","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:23","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:23-27<\/strong> Jesus showed the absurdity of this charge by giving several analogies. <em>Satan<\/em> would not undo his own work.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:23-27<\/strong> Jesus showed the absurdity of this charge by giving several analogies. <em>Satan<\/em> would not undo his own work.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:23-27 Jesus showed the absurdity of this charge by giving several analogies. Satan would not undo his own work.","summary_en":"3:23-27 Jesus showed the absurdity of this charge by giving several analogies. Satan would not undo his own work.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"27":[{"id":9317,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Demon-Possession","title_en":"Demon-Possession","content_ro":"<h3>DEMON-POSSESSION<\/h3>\n<p>Demonic occupation of a human being. The term “possession” is misleading and is not the best translation for the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">daimonizomai<\/span><em>,<\/em> which literally means to be “demonized” and can often best be translated as “to have a demon.” The noun form is “demoniac.”<\/p>\n<p>Demons can enter the body of a person (Lk 8:30; 22:3), in order to control the individual’s thoughts and actions. Sometimes a distinction is made between demonic oppression and demonic possession; this supposedly differentiates an attack from without and control from within. Although a non-Christian may be said to be “possessed” by a demon, the Christian cannot be so possessed, for he belongs to Christ and his human spirit has been sealed by the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13). Demonic spirits somehow know and acknowledge this seal.<\/p>\n<p>Demons can also enter the bodies of animals, as in the case of the swine in Mark 5:13. Demons are associated with books of magic (Acts 19:19), idols (1 Cor 10:19-21), and fetishes. Demons often cause illness or physical disability; Luke 13:11 tells of a woman who had “been crippled by an evil spirit” for 18 years but was delivered and healed by Jesus. Since evil spirits often attack the mind and the emotions, many symptoms of mental illness may be attributed to their activity. The boy whom Jesus delivered just after the Transfiguration exhibited symptoms of epilepsy. Paranoia may be the work of a spirit of fear. Some individuals suffering from schizophrenia (split or multiple personality) may in reality be demonized by a number of spirits. It is possible for a person to have many demons. Jesus cast seven of them out of Mary Magdalene (Lk 8:2). The spirit in the Gerasene demoniac gave his name as Legion, “for we are many” (Mk 5:9; Lk 8:30). In the time of Augustus a Roman legion consisted of 6,000 foot soldiers, usually accompanied by an equal number of auxiliary troops.<\/p>\n<p>Demonization occurs in various ways. Some people are demonized by a hereditary curse, which may continue to the third or fourth generation (Ex 20:5). The curse against illegitimacy was particularly strong, for the bastard could not enter the congregation of Israel until the tenth generation (Dt 23:2). Curses may also be placed upon someone by spells, incantations, or similar practices such as voodoo or other forms of witchcraft. Galatians 3:13 speaks of redemption from the curse of the law through Christ’s having “become a curse” for us. Usually believers are immune from curses made against them, unless they have given grounds to the devil (Eph 4:27). Such grounds may be provided through drugs, illicit sex, the occult, or any other avenue forbidden in the Bible. Involvement with tarot cards, horoscopes, or any other form of fortune-telling may give demons opportunity to enter. Such contacts may seem innocuous, but Satan utilizes the smallest foothold to gain advantage over people.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Manifestation\">Manifestation<\/p>\n<p>Often demons prefer to hide rather than to make their presence known, for then they can exercise control without hindrance. When they do manifest themselves, often when challenged, all sorts of strange and frightening things may occur. They possess supernatural powers (cf. Rv 16:14), which they exhibit outright or through their victims. The Gerasene demoniac had superhuman physical strength, so that he could not be bound with fetters or chains (Mk 5:4-5); he lived in tombs and went about night and day screaming and injuring himself with stones.<\/p>\n<p>The spirit in the demonized boy in Mark 9 rendered him dumb and deaf, threw him on the ground, and caused him to roll about and to foam at the mouth (9:18-20). The demon caused him to grind his teeth and become rigid; he had tried to kill the boy by throwing him into the fire and into the water on various occasions (vv 18-22). Before leaving at the command of Jesus, the demon cried out (cf. Mk 1:26), convulsed the boy terribly, and left him lying like a corpse. Jesus took him by the hand and raised him up (9:27). Similar manifestations take place today.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Exorcism\">Exorcism<\/p>\n<p>Casting out demons, or exorcism, was a regular and frequent part of the ministry of Jesus, and he taught and commanded his followers to do the same. This command has never been abrogated, and the ministry of deliverance should be even more important today, when the forces of evil are so rampant. The following principles are derived from the practice of Jesus, the Scriptures, and personal observation and involvement.<\/p>\n<p>1. Jesus spoke to demons and commanded them to come out (Mk 1:25; 9:25). He cast them out “with a word” (Mt 8:16). Jesus gave his followers authority to use his name in casting them out and used this as a sign of the believer (Mk 16:17). His name is not a magical formula, and its use depends on the relationship between the Lord and the person using his name, as the sons of Sceva found out to their dismay (Acts 19:11-18).<\/p>\n<li>2. Jesus cast out demons by the Spirit of God (Mt 12:28). God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power to heal all who were oppressed by the devil (Lk 4:18-19; Acts 10:38).<\/li>\n<li>3. The Lord gave clear teaching about “the binding of the strong man” in deliverance (Mt 12:29; Mk 3:27) and about binding and loosing (Mt 18:18).<\/li>\n<li>4. Prayer is an important weapon in spiritual warfare. When the disciples asked (Mk 9:28) why they could not cast out a demon, Jesus replied that this kind comes out only with prayer.<\/li>\n<li>5. Revelation 12:11 testifies to the power of “the blood of the Lamb” in overcoming Satan. Demons do not like to hear of the blood of Jesus and often become agitated at the mention of it.<\/li>\n<li>6. God has equipped the believer with armor for defense in spiritual battle (Eph 6:10-17).<\/li>\n<li>7. The Lord answered Satan with correctly applied texts from the Bible. We have been given the sword of the Spirit, the Word of God (Eph 6:17; Heb 4:12), as a means of defense and for attack against the enemy.<\/li>\n<li>8. We must come against the hosts of hell from our position in the heavenly places (Eph 2:6), not from our limited earthly station.<\/li>\n<li>9. We must recognize that the ultimate victory has already been won by Jesus, who came to destroy the works of the devil (1 Jn 3:8) and to destroy him who has the power of death (Heb 2:14-16). When Jesus cried out on the cross, “It is finished,” he meant that the redemptive work was done; when he arose from the dead, he demonstrated his power over death. We win only as we enter into his victory.<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Demon.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DEMON-POSSESSION<\/h3>\n<p>Demonic occupation of a human being. The term “possession” is misleading and is not the best translation for the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">daimonizomai<\/span><em>,<\/em> which literally means to be “demonized” and can often best be translated as “to have a demon.” The noun form is “demoniac.”<\/p>\n<p>Demons can enter the body of a person (Lk 8:30; 22:3), in order to control the individual’s thoughts and actions. Sometimes a distinction is made between demonic oppression and demonic possession; this supposedly differentiates an attack from without and control from within. Although a non-Christian may be said to be “possessed” by a demon, the Christian cannot be so possessed, for he belongs to Christ and his human spirit has been sealed by the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13). Demonic spirits somehow know and acknowledge this seal.<\/p>\n<p>Demons can also enter the bodies of animals, as in the case of the swine in Mark 5:13. Demons are associated with books of magic (Acts 19:19), idols (1 Cor 10:19-21), and fetishes. Demons often cause illness or physical disability; Luke 13:11 tells of a woman who had “been crippled by an evil spirit” for 18 years but was delivered and healed by Jesus. Since evil spirits often attack the mind and the emotions, many symptoms of mental illness may be attributed to their activity. The boy whom Jesus delivered just after the Transfiguration exhibited symptoms of epilepsy. Paranoia may be the work of a spirit of fear. Some individuals suffering from schizophrenia (split or multiple personality) may in reality be demonized by a number of spirits. It is possible for a person to have many demons. Jesus cast seven of them out of Mary Magdalene (Lk 8:2). The spirit in the Gerasene demoniac gave his name as Legion, “for we are many” (Mk 5:9; Lk 8:30). In the time of Augustus a Roman legion consisted of 6,000 foot soldiers, usually accompanied by an equal number of auxiliary troops.<\/p>\n<p>Demonization occurs in various ways. Some people are demonized by a hereditary curse, which may continue to the third or fourth generation (Ex 20:5). The curse against illegitimacy was particularly strong, for the bastard could not enter the congregation of Israel until the tenth generation (Dt 23:2). Curses may also be placed upon someone by spells, incantations, or similar practices such as voodoo or other forms of witchcraft. Galatians 3:13 speaks of redemption from the curse of the law through Christ’s having “become a curse” for us. Usually believers are immune from curses made against them, unless they have given grounds to the devil (Eph 4:27). Such grounds may be provided through drugs, illicit sex, the occult, or any other avenue forbidden in the Bible. Involvement with tarot cards, horoscopes, or any other form of fortune-telling may give demons opportunity to enter. Such contacts may seem innocuous, but Satan utilizes the smallest foothold to gain advantage over people.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Manifestation\">Manifestation<\/p>\n<p>Often demons prefer to hide rather than to make their presence known, for then they can exercise control without hindrance. When they do manifest themselves, often when challenged, all sorts of strange and frightening things may occur. They possess supernatural powers (cf. Rv 16:14), which they exhibit outright or through their victims. The Gerasene demoniac had superhuman physical strength, so that he could not be bound with fetters or chains (Mk 5:4-5); he lived in tombs and went about night and day screaming and injuring himself with stones.<\/p>\n<p>The spirit in the demonized boy in Mark 9 rendered him dumb and deaf, threw him on the ground, and caused him to roll about and to foam at the mouth (9:18-20). The demon caused him to grind his teeth and become rigid; he had tried to kill the boy by throwing him into the fire and into the water on various occasions (vv 18-22). Before leaving at the command of Jesus, the demon cried out (cf. Mk 1:26), convulsed the boy terribly, and left him lying like a corpse. Jesus took him by the hand and raised him up (9:27). Similar manifestations take place today.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Exorcism\">Exorcism<\/p>\n<p>Casting out demons, or exorcism, was a regular and frequent part of the ministry of Jesus, and he taught and commanded his followers to do the same. This command has never been abrogated, and the ministry of deliverance should be even more important today, when the forces of evil are so rampant. The following principles are derived from the practice of Jesus, the Scriptures, and personal observation and involvement.<\/p>\n<p>1. Jesus spoke to demons and commanded them to come out (Mk 1:25; 9:25). He cast them out “with a word” (Mt 8:16). Jesus gave his followers authority to use his name in casting them out and used this as a sign of the believer (Mk 16:17). His name is not a magical formula, and its use depends on the relationship between the Lord and the person using his name, as the sons of Sceva found out to their dismay (Acts 19:11-18).<\/p>\n<li>2. Jesus cast out demons by the Spirit of God (Mt 12:28). God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power to heal all who were oppressed by the devil (Lk 4:18-19; Acts 10:38).<\/li>\n<li>3. The Lord gave clear teaching about “the binding of the strong man” in deliverance (Mt 12:29; Mk 3:27) and about binding and loosing (Mt 18:18).<\/li>\n<li>4. Prayer is an important weapon in spiritual warfare. When the disciples asked (Mk 9:28) why they could not cast out a demon, Jesus replied that this kind comes out only with prayer.<\/li>\n<li>5. Revelation 12:11 testifies to the power of “the blood of the Lamb” in overcoming Satan. Demons do not like to hear of the blood of Jesus and often become agitated at the mention of it.<\/li>\n<li>6. God has equipped the believer with armor for defense in spiritual battle (Eph 6:10-17).<\/li>\n<li>7. The Lord answered Satan with correctly applied texts from the Bible. We have been given the sword of the Spirit, the Word of God (Eph 6:17; Heb 4:12), as a means of defense and for attack against the enemy.<\/li>\n<li>8. We must come against the hosts of hell from our position in the heavenly places (Eph 2:6), not from our limited earthly station.<\/li>\n<li>9. We must recognize that the ultimate victory has already been won by Jesus, who came to destroy the works of the devil (1 Jn 3:8) and to destroy him who has the power of death (Heb 2:14-16). When Jesus cried out on the cross, “It is finished,” he meant that the redemptive work was done; when he arose from the dead, he demonstrated his power over death. We win only as we enter into his victory.<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Demon.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DEMON-POSSESSION Demonic occupation of a human being. The term “possession” is misleading and is not the best translation for the Greek word daimonizomai, which literally means to be “demonized” and can often best be translated as “to have a demon.” The noun form is “demoniac.” Demons can enter the body of a person (Lk 8:30; 22:3), in order to control the individual’s thoughts and actions. Sometimes a distinction is made between demonic oppression and demonic possession; this supposedly diffe...","summary_en":"DEMON-POSSESSION Demonic occupation of a human being. The term “possession” is misleading and is not the best translation for the Greek word daimonizomai, which literally means to be “demonized” and can often best be translated as “to have a demon.” The noun form is “demoniac.” Demons can enter the body of a person (Lk 8:30; 22:3), in order to control the individual’s thoughts and actions. Sometimes a distinction is made between demonic oppression and demonic possession; this supposedly diffe...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55202,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:27","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:27","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:27<\/strong> Jesus provided a better explanation for his ability to cast out demons: Someone <em>stronger<\/em> than Satan had arrived (1:7) and was able to loot Satan’s house. Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God (1:1), was introducing God’s Kingdom and rescuing people from Satan’s power.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:27<\/strong> Jesus provided a better explanation for his ability to cast out demons: Someone <em>stronger<\/em> than Satan had arrived (1:7) and was able to loot Satan’s house. Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God (1:1), was introducing God’s Kingdom and rescuing people from Satan’s power.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:27 Jesus provided a better explanation for his ability to cast out demons: Someone stronger than Satan had arrived (1:7) and was able to loot Satan’s house. Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God (1:1), was introducing God’s Kingdom and rescuing people from Satan’s power.","summary_en":"3:27 Jesus provided a better explanation for his ability to cast out demons: Someone stronger than Satan had arrived (1:7) and was able to loot Satan’s house. Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God (1:1), was introducing God’s Kingdom and rescuing people from Satan’s power.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82828,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:27","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:27","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:27<\/strong> Jesus provided a better explanation for his ability to cast out demons: Someone <em>stronger<\/em> than Satan had arrived (1:7) and was able to loot Satan’s house. Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God (1:1), was introducing God’s Kingdom and rescuing people from Satan’s power.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:27<\/strong> Jesus provided a better explanation for his ability to cast out demons: Someone <em>stronger<\/em> than Satan had arrived (1:7) and was able to loot Satan’s house. Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God (1:1), was introducing God’s Kingdom and rescuing people from Satan’s power.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:27 Jesus provided a better explanation for his ability to cast out demons: Someone stronger than Satan had arrived (1:7) and was able to loot Satan’s house. Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God (1:1), was introducing God’s Kingdom and rescuing people from Satan’s power.","summary_en":"3:27 Jesus provided a better explanation for his ability to cast out demons: Someone stronger than Satan had arrived (1:7) and was able to loot Satan’s house. Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God (1:1), was introducing God’s Kingdom and rescuing people from Satan’s power.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110454,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:27","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:27","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:27<\/strong> Jesus provided a better explanation for his ability to cast out demons: Someone <em>stronger<\/em> than Satan had arrived (1:7) and was able to loot Satan’s house. Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God (1:1), was introducing God’s Kingdom and rescuing people from Satan’s power.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:27<\/strong> Jesus provided a better explanation for his ability to cast out demons: Someone <em>stronger<\/em> than Satan had arrived (1:7) and was able to loot Satan’s house. Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God (1:1), was introducing God’s Kingdom and rescuing people from Satan’s power.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:27 Jesus provided a better explanation for his ability to cast out demons: Someone stronger than Satan had arrived (1:7) and was able to loot Satan’s house. Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God (1:1), was introducing God’s Kingdom and rescuing people from Satan’s power.","summary_en":"3:27 Jesus provided a better explanation for his ability to cast out demons: Someone stronger than Satan had arrived (1:7) and was able to loot Satan’s house. Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God (1:1), was introducing God’s Kingdom and rescuing people from Satan’s power.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138080,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:27","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:27","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:27<\/strong> Jesus provided a better explanation for his ability to cast out demons: Someone <em>stronger<\/em> than Satan had arrived (1:7) and was able to loot Satan’s house. Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God (1:1), was introducing God’s Kingdom and rescuing people from Satan’s power.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:27<\/strong> Jesus provided a better explanation for his ability to cast out demons: Someone <em>stronger<\/em> than Satan had arrived (1:7) and was able to loot Satan’s house. Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God (1:1), was introducing God’s Kingdom and rescuing people from Satan’s power.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:27 Jesus provided a better explanation for his ability to cast out demons: Someone stronger than Satan had arrived (1:7) and was able to loot Satan’s house. Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God (1:1), was introducing God’s Kingdom and rescuing people from Satan’s power.","summary_en":"3:27 Jesus provided a better explanation for his ability to cast out demons: Someone stronger than Satan had arrived (1:7) and was able to loot Satan’s house. Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God (1:1), was introducing God’s Kingdom and rescuing people from Satan’s power.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":65309,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Coming of God’s Kingdom","title_en":"The Coming of God’s Kingdom","content_ro":"<h3>The Coming of God’s Kingdom<\/h3>\n<p>A central component of Jesus’ message was that God’s Kingdom had arrived. The arrival of God’s Kingdom was eagerly awaited by the people of Israel, for it would fulfill the many promises of God that had not yet been realized:<\/p>\n<li>The Spirit would not only come again, as he had in the past, but he would come upon each individual believer in fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 (cp. Acts 2:16-21).<\/li>\n<li>Satan would be defeated (Mark 3:27; Luke 10:17-18), as was already being demonstrated by Jesus’ exorcisms (Mark 1:21-28; 5:1-20; Luke 11:20).<\/li>\n<li>The new covenant promised in Jer 31:31-34 would be established (Mark 14:24).<\/li>\n<li>The resurrection from the dead would produce its firstfruits (Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:33-34; 16:6; 1 Cor 15:20, 23).<\/li>\n<li>God’s Anointed, the promised Son of David (Matt 2:1-12; Luke 2:25-38) would arrive.<\/li>\n<p>These dimensions of God’s Kingdom have already been fulfilled in the birth, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. People are to repent and believe the gospel because God’s Kingdom has arrived in the person of Jesus (Matt 4:23; 6:10; Mark 1:14-15; 4:26-32; Luke 4:42-43).<\/p>\n<p>With the coming of the Kingdom through Jesus, things radically changed in Israel. The Spirit was once again active in the land, working through the prophet John the Baptist and in the ministry of Jesus. For those with eyes to see, the promised Messiah, or Christ, had appeared. Because God’s Kingdom was with them in the person of Jesus, the disciples could not fast like the Pharisees and the disciples of John the Baptist (Mark 2:18-20). Fasting became inappropriate, for the Old Testament promises were being fulfilled. It was time to celebrate and feast (Mark 2:19-20), because God’s reign had begun. People were already entering into the Kingdom (Mark 10:23-31) and experiencing its manifestations (Mark 9:1).<\/p>\n<p>There is a future, not-yet-realized dimension of God’s Kingdom that awaits Christ’s return (Mark 14:25). The ultimate judgment of evil, the final establishment of justice, and the eradication of disease, poverty, and even death will find their fulfillment when Jesus, the Son of Man, returns in glory, gathers his elect (Mark 13:24-27; Titus 2:11-14), judges the world (Mark 8:38; 14:62; Matt 25:31-46; 2 Tim 4:1; Rev 14:14-20), and resurrects the dead (1 Cor 15:12-57; 1 Thes 4:13–5:11). Although the time of Christ’s return is unknown (Mark 13:32), his followers are to be alert and watch for his coming (13:33-37) in anticipation of their blessed hope (Titus 2:13).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Jer 31:31-34; Joel 2:28-32; Matt 4:23; 5:3; 6:10; 25:31-46; Mark 1:14-15; 4:11, 26-32; 8:31-38; 9:1, 47; 10:23-25, 29-31; 13:24-27, 32-37; 14:25, 62; Luke 2:25-38; 4:18-19, 42-43; 6:20; 10:18-20; 11:20; Acts 1:6-8; 2:16-21; 1 Cor 15:22-28; Titus 2:11-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Coming of God’s Kingdom<\/h3>\n<p>A central component of Jesus’ message was that God’s Kingdom had arrived. The arrival of God’s Kingdom was eagerly awaited by the people of Israel, for it would fulfill the many promises of God that had not yet been realized:<\/p>\n<li>The Spirit would not only come again, as he had in the past, but he would come upon each individual believer in fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 (cp. Acts 2:16-21).<\/li>\n<li>Satan would be defeated (Mark 3:27; Luke 10:17-18), as was already being demonstrated by Jesus’ exorcisms (Mark 1:21-28; 5:1-20; Luke 11:20).<\/li>\n<li>The new covenant promised in Jer 31:31-34 would be established (Mark 14:24).<\/li>\n<li>The resurrection from the dead would produce its firstfruits (Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:33-34; 16:6; 1 Cor 15:20, 23).<\/li>\n<li>God’s Anointed, the promised Son of David (Matt 2:1-12; Luke 2:25-38) would arrive.<\/li>\n<p>These dimensions of God’s Kingdom have already been fulfilled in the birth, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. People are to repent and believe the gospel because God’s Kingdom has arrived in the person of Jesus (Matt 4:23; 6:10; Mark 1:14-15; 4:26-32; Luke 4:42-43).<\/p>\n<p>With the coming of the Kingdom through Jesus, things radically changed in Israel. The Spirit was once again active in the land, working through the prophet John the Baptist and in the ministry of Jesus. For those with eyes to see, the promised Messiah, or Christ, had appeared. Because God’s Kingdom was with them in the person of Jesus, the disciples could not fast like the Pharisees and the disciples of John the Baptist (Mark 2:18-20). Fasting became inappropriate, for the Old Testament promises were being fulfilled. It was time to celebrate and feast (Mark 2:19-20), because God’s reign had begun. People were already entering into the Kingdom (Mark 10:23-31) and experiencing its manifestations (Mark 9:1).<\/p>\n<p>There is a future, not-yet-realized dimension of God’s Kingdom that awaits Christ’s return (Mark 14:25). The ultimate judgment of evil, the final establishment of justice, and the eradication of disease, poverty, and even death will find their fulfillment when Jesus, the Son of Man, returns in glory, gathers his elect (Mark 13:24-27; Titus 2:11-14), judges the world (Mark 8:38; 14:62; Matt 25:31-46; 2 Tim 4:1; Rev 14:14-20), and resurrects the dead (1 Cor 15:12-57; 1 Thes 4:13–5:11). Although the time of Christ’s return is unknown (Mark 13:32), his followers are to be alert and watch for his coming (13:33-37) in anticipation of their blessed hope (Titus 2:13).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Jer 31:31-34; Joel 2:28-32; Matt 4:23; 5:3; 6:10; 25:31-46; Mark 1:14-15; 4:11, 26-32; 8:31-38; 9:1, 47; 10:23-25, 29-31; 13:24-27, 32-37; 14:25, 62; Luke 2:25-38; 4:18-19, 42-43; 6:20; 10:18-20; 11:20; Acts 1:6-8; 2:16-21; 1 Cor 15:22-28; Titus 2:11-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Coming of God’s Kingdom A central component of Jesus’ message was that God’s Kingdom had arrived. The arrival of God’s Kingdom was eagerly awaited by the people of Israel, for it would fulfill the many promises of God that had not yet been realized: The Spirit would not only come again, as he had in the past, but he would come upon each individual believer in fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 (cp. Acts 2:16-21). Satan would be defeated (Mark 3:27; Luke 10:17-18), as was already being demonstrat...","summary_en":"The Coming of God’s Kingdom A central component of Jesus’ message was that God’s Kingdom had arrived. The arrival of God’s Kingdom was eagerly awaited by the people of Israel, for it would fulfill the many promises of God that had not yet been realized: The Spirit would not only come again, as he had in the past, but he would come upon each individual believer in fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 (cp. Acts 2:16-21). Satan would be defeated (Mark 3:27; Luke 10:17-18), as was already being demonstrat...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":92935,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Coming of God’s Kingdom","title_en":"The Coming of God’s Kingdom","content_ro":"<h3>The Coming of God’s Kingdom<\/h3>\n<p>A central component of Jesus’ message was that God’s Kingdom had arrived. The arrival of God’s Kingdom was eagerly awaited by the people of Israel, for it would fulfill the many promises of God that had not yet been realized:<\/p>\n<li>The Spirit would not only come again, as he had in the past, but he would come upon each individual believer in fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 (cp. Acts 2:16-21).<\/li>\n<li>Satan would be defeated (Mark 3:27; Luke 10:17-18), as was already being demonstrated by Jesus’ exorcisms (Mark 1:21-28; 5:1-20; Luke 11:20).<\/li>\n<li>The new covenant promised in Jer 31:31-34 would be established (Mark 14:24).<\/li>\n<li>The resurrection from the dead would produce its firstfruits (Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:33-34; 16:6; 1 Cor 15:20, 23).<\/li>\n<li>God’s Anointed, the promised Son of David (Matt 2:1-12; Luke 2:25-38) would arrive.<\/li>\n<p>These dimensions of God’s Kingdom have already been fulfilled in the birth, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. People are to repent and believe the gospel because God’s Kingdom has arrived in the person of Jesus (Matt 4:23; 6:10; Mark 1:14-15; 4:26-32; Luke 4:42-43).<\/p>\n<p>With the coming of the Kingdom through Jesus, things radically changed in Israel. The Spirit was once again active in the land, working through the prophet John the Baptist and in the ministry of Jesus. For those with eyes to see, the promised Messiah, or Christ, had appeared. Because God’s Kingdom was with them in the person of Jesus, the disciples could not fast like the Pharisees and the disciples of John the Baptist (Mark 2:18-20). Fasting became inappropriate, for the Old Testament promises were being fulfilled. It was time to celebrate and feast (Mark 2:19-20), because God’s reign had begun. People were already entering into the Kingdom (Mark 10:23-31) and experiencing its manifestations (Mark 9:1).<\/p>\n<p>There is a future, not-yet-realized dimension of God’s Kingdom that awaits Christ’s return (Mark 14:25). The ultimate judgment of evil, the final establishment of justice, and the eradication of disease, poverty, and even death will find their fulfillment when Jesus, the Son of Man, returns in glory, gathers his elect (Mark 13:24-27; Titus 2:11-14), judges the world (Mark 8:38; 14:62; Matt 25:31-46; 2 Tim 4:1; Rev 14:14-20), and resurrects the dead (1 Cor 15:12-57; 1 Thes 4:13–5:11). Although the time of Christ’s return is unknown (Mark 13:32), his followers are to be alert and watch for his coming (13:33-37) in anticipation of their blessed hope (Titus 2:13).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Jer 31:31-34; Joel 2:28-32; Matt 4:23; 5:3; 6:10; 25:31-46; Mark 1:14-15; 4:11, 26-32; 8:31-38; 9:1, 47; 10:23-25, 29-31; 13:24-27, 32-37; 14:25, 62; Luke 2:25-38; 4:18-19, 42-43; 6:20; 10:18-20; 11:20; Acts 1:6-8; 2:16-21; 1 Cor 15:22-28; Titus 2:11-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Coming of God’s Kingdom<\/h3>\n<p>A central component of Jesus’ message was that God’s Kingdom had arrived. The arrival of God’s Kingdom was eagerly awaited by the people of Israel, for it would fulfill the many promises of God that had not yet been realized:<\/p>\n<li>The Spirit would not only come again, as he had in the past, but he would come upon each individual believer in fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 (cp. Acts 2:16-21).<\/li>\n<li>Satan would be defeated (Mark 3:27; Luke 10:17-18), as was already being demonstrated by Jesus’ exorcisms (Mark 1:21-28; 5:1-20; Luke 11:20).<\/li>\n<li>The new covenant promised in Jer 31:31-34 would be established (Mark 14:24).<\/li>\n<li>The resurrection from the dead would produce its firstfruits (Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:33-34; 16:6; 1 Cor 15:20, 23).<\/li>\n<li>God’s Anointed, the promised Son of David (Matt 2:1-12; Luke 2:25-38) would arrive.<\/li>\n<p>These dimensions of God’s Kingdom have already been fulfilled in the birth, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. People are to repent and believe the gospel because God’s Kingdom has arrived in the person of Jesus (Matt 4:23; 6:10; Mark 1:14-15; 4:26-32; Luke 4:42-43).<\/p>\n<p>With the coming of the Kingdom through Jesus, things radically changed in Israel. The Spirit was once again active in the land, working through the prophet John the Baptist and in the ministry of Jesus. For those with eyes to see, the promised Messiah, or Christ, had appeared. Because God’s Kingdom was with them in the person of Jesus, the disciples could not fast like the Pharisees and the disciples of John the Baptist (Mark 2:18-20). Fasting became inappropriate, for the Old Testament promises were being fulfilled. It was time to celebrate and feast (Mark 2:19-20), because God’s reign had begun. People were already entering into the Kingdom (Mark 10:23-31) and experiencing its manifestations (Mark 9:1).<\/p>\n<p>There is a future, not-yet-realized dimension of God’s Kingdom that awaits Christ’s return (Mark 14:25). The ultimate judgment of evil, the final establishment of justice, and the eradication of disease, poverty, and even death will find their fulfillment when Jesus, the Son of Man, returns in glory, gathers his elect (Mark 13:24-27; Titus 2:11-14), judges the world (Mark 8:38; 14:62; Matt 25:31-46; 2 Tim 4:1; Rev 14:14-20), and resurrects the dead (1 Cor 15:12-57; 1 Thes 4:13–5:11). Although the time of Christ’s return is unknown (Mark 13:32), his followers are to be alert and watch for his coming (13:33-37) in anticipation of their blessed hope (Titus 2:13).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Jer 31:31-34; Joel 2:28-32; Matt 4:23; 5:3; 6:10; 25:31-46; Mark 1:14-15; 4:11, 26-32; 8:31-38; 9:1, 47; 10:23-25, 29-31; 13:24-27, 32-37; 14:25, 62; Luke 2:25-38; 4:18-19, 42-43; 6:20; 10:18-20; 11:20; Acts 1:6-8; 2:16-21; 1 Cor 15:22-28; Titus 2:11-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Coming of God’s Kingdom A central component of Jesus’ message was that God’s Kingdom had arrived. The arrival of God’s Kingdom was eagerly awaited by the people of Israel, for it would fulfill the many promises of God that had not yet been realized: The Spirit would not only come again, as he had in the past, but he would come upon each individual believer in fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 (cp. Acts 2:16-21). Satan would be defeated (Mark 3:27; Luke 10:17-18), as was already being demonstrat...","summary_en":"The Coming of God’s Kingdom A central component of Jesus’ message was that God’s Kingdom had arrived. The arrival of God’s Kingdom was eagerly awaited by the people of Israel, for it would fulfill the many promises of God that had not yet been realized: The Spirit would not only come again, as he had in the past, but he would come upon each individual believer in fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 (cp. Acts 2:16-21). Satan would be defeated (Mark 3:27; Luke 10:17-18), as was already being demonstrat...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":120561,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Coming of God’s Kingdom","title_en":"The Coming of God’s Kingdom","content_ro":"<h3>The Coming of God’s Kingdom<\/h3>\n<p>A central component of Jesus’ message was that God’s Kingdom had arrived. The arrival of God’s Kingdom was eagerly awaited by the people of Israel, for it would fulfill the many promises of God that had not yet been realized:<\/p>\n<li>The Spirit would not only come again, as he had in the past, but he would come upon each individual believer in fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 (cp. Acts 2:16-21).<\/li>\n<li>Satan would be defeated (Mark 3:27; Luke 10:17-18), as was already being demonstrated by Jesus’ exorcisms (Mark 1:21-28; 5:1-20; Luke 11:20).<\/li>\n<li>The new covenant promised in Jer 31:31-34 would be established (Mark 14:24).<\/li>\n<li>The resurrection from the dead would produce its firstfruits (Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:33-34; 16:6; 1 Cor 15:20, 23).<\/li>\n<li>God’s Anointed, the promised Son of David (Matt 2:1-12; Luke 2:25-38) would arrive.<\/li>\n<p>These dimensions of God’s Kingdom have already been fulfilled in the birth, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. People are to repent and believe the gospel because God’s Kingdom has arrived in the person of Jesus (Matt 4:23; 6:10; Mark 1:14-15; 4:26-32; Luke 4:42-43).<\/p>\n<p>With the coming of the Kingdom through Jesus, things radically changed in Israel. The Spirit was once again active in the land, working through the prophet John the Baptist and in the ministry of Jesus. For those with eyes to see, the promised Messiah, or Christ, had appeared. Because God’s Kingdom was with them in the person of Jesus, the disciples could not fast like the Pharisees and the disciples of John the Baptist (Mark 2:18-20). Fasting became inappropriate, for the Old Testament promises were being fulfilled. It was time to celebrate and feast (Mark 2:19-20), because God’s reign had begun. People were already entering into the Kingdom (Mark 10:23-31) and experiencing its manifestations (Mark 9:1).<\/p>\n<p>There is a future, not-yet-realized dimension of God’s Kingdom that awaits Christ’s return (Mark 14:25). The ultimate judgment of evil, the final establishment of justice, and the eradication of disease, poverty, and even death will find their fulfillment when Jesus, the Son of Man, returns in glory, gathers his elect (Mark 13:24-27; Titus 2:11-14), judges the world (Mark 8:38; 14:62; Matt 25:31-46; 2 Tim 4:1; Rev 14:14-20), and resurrects the dead (1 Cor 15:12-57; 1 Thes 4:13–5:11). Although the time of Christ’s return is unknown (Mark 13:32), his followers are to be alert and watch for his coming (13:33-37) in anticipation of their blessed hope (Titus 2:13).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Jer 31:31-34; Joel 2:28-32; Matt 4:23; 5:3; 6:10; 25:31-46; Mark 1:14-15; 4:11, 26-32; 8:31-38; 9:1, 47; 10:23-25, 29-31; 13:24-27, 32-37; 14:25, 62; Luke 2:25-38; 4:18-19, 42-43; 6:20; 10:18-20; 11:20; Acts 1:6-8; 2:16-21; 1 Cor 15:22-28; Titus 2:11-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Coming of God’s Kingdom<\/h3>\n<p>A central component of Jesus’ message was that God’s Kingdom had arrived. The arrival of God’s Kingdom was eagerly awaited by the people of Israel, for it would fulfill the many promises of God that had not yet been realized:<\/p>\n<li>The Spirit would not only come again, as he had in the past, but he would come upon each individual believer in fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 (cp. Acts 2:16-21).<\/li>\n<li>Satan would be defeated (Mark 3:27; Luke 10:17-18), as was already being demonstrated by Jesus’ exorcisms (Mark 1:21-28; 5:1-20; Luke 11:20).<\/li>\n<li>The new covenant promised in Jer 31:31-34 would be established (Mark 14:24).<\/li>\n<li>The resurrection from the dead would produce its firstfruits (Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:33-34; 16:6; 1 Cor 15:20, 23).<\/li>\n<li>God’s Anointed, the promised Son of David (Matt 2:1-12; Luke 2:25-38) would arrive.<\/li>\n<p>These dimensions of God’s Kingdom have already been fulfilled in the birth, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. People are to repent and believe the gospel because God’s Kingdom has arrived in the person of Jesus (Matt 4:23; 6:10; Mark 1:14-15; 4:26-32; Luke 4:42-43).<\/p>\n<p>With the coming of the Kingdom through Jesus, things radically changed in Israel. The Spirit was once again active in the land, working through the prophet John the Baptist and in the ministry of Jesus. For those with eyes to see, the promised Messiah, or Christ, had appeared. Because God’s Kingdom was with them in the person of Jesus, the disciples could not fast like the Pharisees and the disciples of John the Baptist (Mark 2:18-20). Fasting became inappropriate, for the Old Testament promises were being fulfilled. It was time to celebrate and feast (Mark 2:19-20), because God’s reign had begun. People were already entering into the Kingdom (Mark 10:23-31) and experiencing its manifestations (Mark 9:1).<\/p>\n<p>There is a future, not-yet-realized dimension of God’s Kingdom that awaits Christ’s return (Mark 14:25). The ultimate judgment of evil, the final establishment of justice, and the eradication of disease, poverty, and even death will find their fulfillment when Jesus, the Son of Man, returns in glory, gathers his elect (Mark 13:24-27; Titus 2:11-14), judges the world (Mark 8:38; 14:62; Matt 25:31-46; 2 Tim 4:1; Rev 14:14-20), and resurrects the dead (1 Cor 15:12-57; 1 Thes 4:13–5:11). Although the time of Christ’s return is unknown (Mark 13:32), his followers are to be alert and watch for his coming (13:33-37) in anticipation of their blessed hope (Titus 2:13).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Jer 31:31-34; Joel 2:28-32; Matt 4:23; 5:3; 6:10; 25:31-46; Mark 1:14-15; 4:11, 26-32; 8:31-38; 9:1, 47; 10:23-25, 29-31; 13:24-27, 32-37; 14:25, 62; Luke 2:25-38; 4:18-19, 42-43; 6:20; 10:18-20; 11:20; Acts 1:6-8; 2:16-21; 1 Cor 15:22-28; Titus 2:11-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Coming of God’s Kingdom A central component of Jesus’ message was that God’s Kingdom had arrived. The arrival of God’s Kingdom was eagerly awaited by the people of Israel, for it would fulfill the many promises of God that had not yet been realized: The Spirit would not only come again, as he had in the past, but he would come upon each individual believer in fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 (cp. Acts 2:16-21). Satan would be defeated (Mark 3:27; Luke 10:17-18), as was already being demonstrat...","summary_en":"The Coming of God’s Kingdom A central component of Jesus’ message was that God’s Kingdom had arrived. The arrival of God’s Kingdom was eagerly awaited by the people of Israel, for it would fulfill the many promises of God that had not yet been realized: The Spirit would not only come again, as he had in the past, but he would come upon each individual believer in fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 (cp. Acts 2:16-21). Satan would be defeated (Mark 3:27; Luke 10:17-18), as was already being demonstrat...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":148187,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Coming of God’s Kingdom","title_en":"The Coming of God’s Kingdom","content_ro":"<h3>The Coming of God’s Kingdom<\/h3>\n<p>A central component of Jesus’ message was that God’s Kingdom had arrived. The arrival of God’s Kingdom was eagerly awaited by the people of Israel, for it would fulfill the many promises of God that had not yet been realized:<\/p>\n<li>The Spirit would not only come again, as he had in the past, but he would come upon each individual believer in fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 (cp. Acts 2:16-21).<\/li>\n<li>Satan would be defeated (Mark 3:27; Luke 10:17-18), as was already being demonstrated by Jesus’ exorcisms (Mark 1:21-28; 5:1-20; Luke 11:20).<\/li>\n<li>The new covenant promised in Jer 31:31-34 would be established (Mark 14:24).<\/li>\n<li>The resurrection from the dead would produce its firstfruits (Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:33-34; 16:6; 1 Cor 15:20, 23).<\/li>\n<li>God’s Anointed, the promised Son of David (Matt 2:1-12; Luke 2:25-38) would arrive.<\/li>\n<p>These dimensions of God’s Kingdom have already been fulfilled in the birth, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. People are to repent and believe the gospel because God’s Kingdom has arrived in the person of Jesus (Matt 4:23; 6:10; Mark 1:14-15; 4:26-32; Luke 4:42-43).<\/p>\n<p>With the coming of the Kingdom through Jesus, things radically changed in Israel. The Spirit was once again active in the land, working through the prophet John the Baptist and in the ministry of Jesus. For those with eyes to see, the promised Messiah, or Christ, had appeared. Because God’s Kingdom was with them in the person of Jesus, the disciples could not fast like the Pharisees and the disciples of John the Baptist (Mark 2:18-20). Fasting became inappropriate, for the Old Testament promises were being fulfilled. It was time to celebrate and feast (Mark 2:19-20), because God’s reign had begun. People were already entering into the Kingdom (Mark 10:23-31) and experiencing its manifestations (Mark 9:1).<\/p>\n<p>There is a future, not-yet-realized dimension of God’s Kingdom that awaits Christ’s return (Mark 14:25). The ultimate judgment of evil, the final establishment of justice, and the eradication of disease, poverty, and even death will find their fulfillment when Jesus, the Son of Man, returns in glory, gathers his elect (Mark 13:24-27; Titus 2:11-14), judges the world (Mark 8:38; 14:62; Matt 25:31-46; 2 Tim 4:1; Rev 14:14-20), and resurrects the dead (1 Cor 15:12-57; 1 Thes 4:13–5:11). Although the time of Christ’s return is unknown (Mark 13:32), his followers are to be alert and watch for his coming (13:33-37) in anticipation of their blessed hope (Titus 2:13).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Jer 31:31-34; Joel 2:28-32; Matt 4:23; 5:3; 6:10; 25:31-46; Mark 1:14-15; 4:11, 26-32; 8:31-38; 9:1, 47; 10:23-25, 29-31; 13:24-27, 32-37; 14:25, 62; Luke 2:25-38; 4:18-19, 42-43; 6:20; 10:18-20; 11:20; Acts 1:6-8; 2:16-21; 1 Cor 15:22-28; Titus 2:11-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Coming of God’s Kingdom<\/h3>\n<p>A central component of Jesus’ message was that God’s Kingdom had arrived. The arrival of God’s Kingdom was eagerly awaited by the people of Israel, for it would fulfill the many promises of God that had not yet been realized:<\/p>\n<li>The Spirit would not only come again, as he had in the past, but he would come upon each individual believer in fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 (cp. Acts 2:16-21).<\/li>\n<li>Satan would be defeated (Mark 3:27; Luke 10:17-18), as was already being demonstrated by Jesus’ exorcisms (Mark 1:21-28; 5:1-20; Luke 11:20).<\/li>\n<li>The new covenant promised in Jer 31:31-34 would be established (Mark 14:24).<\/li>\n<li>The resurrection from the dead would produce its firstfruits (Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:33-34; 16:6; 1 Cor 15:20, 23).<\/li>\n<li>God’s Anointed, the promised Son of David (Matt 2:1-12; Luke 2:25-38) would arrive.<\/li>\n<p>These dimensions of God’s Kingdom have already been fulfilled in the birth, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. People are to repent and believe the gospel because God’s Kingdom has arrived in the person of Jesus (Matt 4:23; 6:10; Mark 1:14-15; 4:26-32; Luke 4:42-43).<\/p>\n<p>With the coming of the Kingdom through Jesus, things radically changed in Israel. The Spirit was once again active in the land, working through the prophet John the Baptist and in the ministry of Jesus. For those with eyes to see, the promised Messiah, or Christ, had appeared. Because God’s Kingdom was with them in the person of Jesus, the disciples could not fast like the Pharisees and the disciples of John the Baptist (Mark 2:18-20). Fasting became inappropriate, for the Old Testament promises were being fulfilled. It was time to celebrate and feast (Mark 2:19-20), because God’s reign had begun. People were already entering into the Kingdom (Mark 10:23-31) and experiencing its manifestations (Mark 9:1).<\/p>\n<p>There is a future, not-yet-realized dimension of God’s Kingdom that awaits Christ’s return (Mark 14:25). The ultimate judgment of evil, the final establishment of justice, and the eradication of disease, poverty, and even death will find their fulfillment when Jesus, the Son of Man, returns in glory, gathers his elect (Mark 13:24-27; Titus 2:11-14), judges the world (Mark 8:38; 14:62; Matt 25:31-46; 2 Tim 4:1; Rev 14:14-20), and resurrects the dead (1 Cor 15:12-57; 1 Thes 4:13–5:11). Although the time of Christ’s return is unknown (Mark 13:32), his followers are to be alert and watch for his coming (13:33-37) in anticipation of their blessed hope (Titus 2:13).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Jer 31:31-34; Joel 2:28-32; Matt 4:23; 5:3; 6:10; 25:31-46; Mark 1:14-15; 4:11, 26-32; 8:31-38; 9:1, 47; 10:23-25, 29-31; 13:24-27, 32-37; 14:25, 62; Luke 2:25-38; 4:18-19, 42-43; 6:20; 10:18-20; 11:20; Acts 1:6-8; 2:16-21; 1 Cor 15:22-28; Titus 2:11-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Coming of God’s Kingdom A central component of Jesus’ message was that God’s Kingdom had arrived. The arrival of God’s Kingdom was eagerly awaited by the people of Israel, for it would fulfill the many promises of God that had not yet been realized: The Spirit would not only come again, as he had in the past, but he would come upon each individual believer in fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 (cp. Acts 2:16-21). Satan would be defeated (Mark 3:27; Luke 10:17-18), as was already being demonstrat...","summary_en":"The Coming of God’s Kingdom A central component of Jesus’ message was that God’s Kingdom had arrived. The arrival of God’s Kingdom was eagerly awaited by the people of Israel, for it would fulfill the many promises of God that had not yet been realized: The Spirit would not only come again, as he had in the past, but he would come upon each individual believer in fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 (cp. Acts 2:16-21). Satan would be defeated (Mark 3:27; Luke 10:17-18), as was already being demonstrat...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"28":[{"id":5202,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Blasphemy","title_en":"Blasphemy","content_ro":"<h3>BLASPHEMY<\/h3>\n<p>Profane or contemptuous speech or writing about (or action toward) God. In a general sense, “blasphemy” can refer to any slander, including any word or action that insults or devalues another being. In Greek literature the term was used for insulting or deriding living or dead persons, but it was extended to cover the gods as well, including both doubting the power of and mocking the nature of a god.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT, “blasphemy” always means to insult God, either by attacking him directly or mocking him indirectly. Either way the glory and honor of God are lessened, so blasphemy is the opposite of praise. An Israelite might directly insult the “Name” by cursing God (Lv 24:10-16) or deliberately disobey God’s law (Nm 15:30). Either of those blasphemies was punishable by death, as was idolatry, the ultimate blasphemy (Is 66:3). It was thought that Gentiles, who had never experienced the power and majesty of the Lord, were the most likely blasphemers. Thus the king of Assyria blasphemed in equating the Lord with the gods of the nations he had already conquered (2 Kgs 19:4-6, 22). For his arrogance the king was doomed by the word of the prophet Isaiah. God was also mocked when Israel was exiled (Is 52:5), when Edom derided the desolate “mountains of Israel” (Ez 35:12, <span>kjv<\/span>), and when the enemy scoffed that God had not protected Jerusalem (Ps 74:18; 1 Macc 2:6).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, blasphemy takes on the wider Greek meaning, for it includes slandering a human being (Mt 15:19; see also Rom 3:8; 1 Cor 10:30; Eph 4:31; Ti 3:2), as well as God. It even includes mocking angelic or demonic powers, which is just as wrong as mocking any other being (2 Pt 2:10-12, Jude 1:8-10). In other words, slander, derision, and mocking of any kind are totally condemned in the NT.<\/p>\n<p>The most common form of blasphemy in the NT is blasphemy against God. One might insult God directly (Rv 13:6; 16:9), mock his word (Ti 2:5), or reject his revelation and its bearer (Acts 6:11). Jesus was accused of blasphemy when he claimed to have a prerogative belonging to God—the power to forgive sins (Mk 2:7). John 10:33-36 reports an attempt to stone Jesus; his accusers said to him, “You, being a man, make yourself God” (v 33). Jesus was condemned by the highest Jewish court, the Sanhedrin, on the charge of blasphemy, because he claimed to be the Son of Man (the Messiah) but in their view had given no evidence that he was such an exalted personage, thus appearing to mock the Messiah and, by extension, to mock God himself (Mk 14:64).<\/p>\n<p>Naturally the early Christians viewed Jesus’ trial from another perspective: the guards insulting Jesus (Lk 22:64-65) and the crowds and two dying robbers mocking him on the cross (Mk 15:29-32) were the real blasphemers. Observing how their Lord had been treated, the church was prepared to accept insult as their own lot, both personally (1 Cor 4:13; 1 Tm 1:13; Rv 2:9) and as a response to their message (Acts 13:45; 18:6). On the other hand, the church recognized that even Christians could blaspheme by giving way under persecution (26:11), by teaching false doctrine (2 Pt 2:2), or by behaving in an unbecoming fashion, which would bring others to think less of Christ (Rom 2:24; Ti 2:5).<\/p>\n<p>The Bible makes clear that blasphemy is forgivable (Mt 12:32; Mk 3:28-29), but if a person will not repent, the only remedy is to turn him or her over to Satan to be taught the lesson (1 Tm 1:20).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BLASPHEMY<\/h3>\n<p>Profane or contemptuous speech or writing about (or action toward) God. In a general sense, “blasphemy” can refer to any slander, including any word or action that insults or devalues another being. In Greek literature the term was used for insulting or deriding living or dead persons, but it was extended to cover the gods as well, including both doubting the power of and mocking the nature of a god.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT, “blasphemy” always means to insult God, either by attacking him directly or mocking him indirectly. Either way the glory and honor of God are lessened, so blasphemy is the opposite of praise. An Israelite might directly insult the “Name” by cursing God (Lv 24:10-16) or deliberately disobey God’s law (Nm 15:30). Either of those blasphemies was punishable by death, as was idolatry, the ultimate blasphemy (Is 66:3). It was thought that Gentiles, who had never experienced the power and majesty of the Lord, were the most likely blasphemers. Thus the king of Assyria blasphemed in equating the Lord with the gods of the nations he had already conquered (2 Kgs 19:4-6, 22). For his arrogance the king was doomed by the word of the prophet Isaiah. God was also mocked when Israel was exiled (Is 52:5), when Edom derided the desolate “mountains of Israel” (Ez 35:12, <span>kjv<\/span>), and when the enemy scoffed that God had not protected Jerusalem (Ps 74:18; 1 Macc 2:6).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, blasphemy takes on the wider Greek meaning, for it includes slandering a human being (Mt 15:19; see also Rom 3:8; 1 Cor 10:30; Eph 4:31; Ti 3:2), as well as God. It even includes mocking angelic or demonic powers, which is just as wrong as mocking any other being (2 Pt 2:10-12, Jude 1:8-10). In other words, slander, derision, and mocking of any kind are totally condemned in the NT.<\/p>\n<p>The most common form of blasphemy in the NT is blasphemy against God. One might insult God directly (Rv 13:6; 16:9), mock his word (Ti 2:5), or reject his revelation and its bearer (Acts 6:11). Jesus was accused of blasphemy when he claimed to have a prerogative belonging to God—the power to forgive sins (Mk 2:7). John 10:33-36 reports an attempt to stone Jesus; his accusers said to him, “You, being a man, make yourself God” (v 33). Jesus was condemned by the highest Jewish court, the Sanhedrin, on the charge of blasphemy, because he claimed to be the Son of Man (the Messiah) but in their view had given no evidence that he was such an exalted personage, thus appearing to mock the Messiah and, by extension, to mock God himself (Mk 14:64).<\/p>\n<p>Naturally the early Christians viewed Jesus’ trial from another perspective: the guards insulting Jesus (Lk 22:64-65) and the crowds and two dying robbers mocking him on the cross (Mk 15:29-32) were the real blasphemers. Observing how their Lord had been treated, the church was prepared to accept insult as their own lot, both personally (1 Cor 4:13; 1 Tm 1:13; Rv 2:9) and as a response to their message (Acts 13:45; 18:6). On the other hand, the church recognized that even Christians could blaspheme by giving way under persecution (26:11), by teaching false doctrine (2 Pt 2:2), or by behaving in an unbecoming fashion, which would bring others to think less of Christ (Rom 2:24; Ti 2:5).<\/p>\n<p>The Bible makes clear that blasphemy is forgivable (Mt 12:32; Mk 3:28-29), but if a person will not repent, the only remedy is to turn him or her over to Satan to be taught the lesson (1 Tm 1:20).<\/p>","summary_ro":"BLASPHEMY Profane or contemptuous speech or writing about (or action toward) God. In a general sense, “blasphemy” can refer to any slander, including any word or action that insults or devalues another being. In Greek literature the term was used for insulting or deriding living or dead persons, but it was extended to cover the gods as well, including both doubting the power of and mocking the nature of a god. In the OT, “blasphemy” always means to insult God, either by attacking him directly...","summary_en":"BLASPHEMY Profane or contemptuous speech or writing about (or action toward) God. In a general sense, “blasphemy” can refer to any slander, including any word or action that insults or devalues another being. In Greek literature the term was used for insulting or deriding living or dead persons, but it was extended to cover the gods as well, including both doubting the power of and mocking the nature of a god. In the OT, “blasphemy” always means to insult God, either by attacking him directly...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":12757,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Forgiveness","title_en":"Forgiveness","content_ro":"<h3>FORGIVENESS<\/h3>\n<p>Pardon, involving restoration of broken relationships; ceasing to feel resentment for wrongs and offenses. Primarily, forgiveness is an act of God, releasing sinners from judgment and freeing them from the divine penalty of their sin. Since only God is holy, only God can forgive sin (Mk 2:7; Lk 5:21). Forgiveness is also a human act extended toward one’s neighbor—a manifestation of one’s realization and appropriation of God’s forgiveness. Hence, forgiveness is a uniquely Christian doctrine.<\/p>\n<p>In other religions, forgiveness does not have the same force. In animism, there is no awareness of a personal relationship with God. In Hinduism, all have to pay the inexorable consequences of karma in the wheel of reincarnations. Buddhism likewise knows nothing of a forgiving God. The idea is present in Islam, but there is no personal God and Father. Even in Judaism, forgiveness remains a limited experience, though forgiveness as developed in the NT adds dimension to the teaching of the OT.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ExpressionsofForgivenessintheOldTestament\">Expressions of Forgiveness in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The idea of forgiveness is expressed in various metaphors. The command is <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">nasa<\/span><em>,<\/em> to “send away,” as the scapegoat was sent away into the wilderness to bear the sins of the Israelites. It is also rendered “to be merciful” (Lv 4:20; 1 Kgs 8:30, 34; Pss 86:5; 103:3). The Hebrew word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">kapar<\/span> is commonly used of atonement, meaning “to cover up,” as the sacrifice was offered to cover the deficiency of the worshiper (Ex 29:36; Dt 21:8; Jer 18:23; Ez 43:20; 45:20). Cognates of <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">salah<\/span> always refer to God’s act of forgiveness (Nm 30:5, 8, 12; Pss 86:5; 130:4; Dn 9:9). God lets go of the transgression; he removes it. Another expression is <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">maha<\/span><em>,<\/em> to “wipe away” (Ps 51:1, 7; Is 43:25; 44:22).<\/p>\n<p>The OT teaches that God is a forgiving God (Ex 34:6-7; Neh 9:17; Dn 9:9), yet he is just and punishes sin. Many incidents are also given where God refuses to forgive when the proper conditions are not met, or when certain serious offenses are committed (Dt 29:20; 2 Kgs 24:4; Jer 5:7). Forgiveness is rooted in the character of God, but his forgiveness is never indiscriminate, for people must also be penitent. The OT (cited here in the <span>rsv<\/span>) uses vivid imagery to indicate the magnitude of God’s forgiveness. Sin is cast “into the depths of the sea” (Mi 7:19), removed “as far as the east is from the west” (Ps 103:12), hid behind God’s back (Is 38:17), “remembered no more” (Jer 31:34). The stain and soil of sin is bleached white (Is 1:18). Sin, which burdens like a weight, is forever lifted and remitted.<\/p>\n<p>The dynamic of forgiveness in the OT is thus releasing one from the past. The past acts and deeds of sin are not denied, but there is no longer any bondage. Forgiveness brings freedom.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ForgivenessintheNewTestament\">Forgiveness in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, the concept of the unmerited forgiveness of God is intensified by the fact that God forgave our sins when Christ died for us. Each human is an insolvent debtor (Mt 18:23-35) who has no hope of repayment. Sinners all, we cannot keep the law or save ourselves (Mk 10:26-27). This highlights the NT teaching that it is in the person of Christ himself that there is forgiveness. He alone has the power to forgive sins (2:5-10). It is his death that is redemptive (Mt 26:28; Mk 10:45) and his blood that is the basis of a new covenant (1 Cor 11:25). It is through him that one can enter into the living experience of forgiveness (Heb 9:15, 22). So forgiveness is inseparable from the proclamation of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:38; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14; 1 Jn 2:12).<\/p>\n\n<p>There are other distinctively NT concepts of forgiveness. The Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">charizomai<\/span><em>,<\/em> meaning “to forgive sins,” is distinctively developed by Paul in terms of God’s gracious pardon (2 Cor 2:7; 12:13; Eph 4:32; Col 2:13; 3:13). Sin is considered as a debt, and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">aphesis<\/span> denotes the discharge of a debt (“putting it away”—see Lk 6:37). Forgiveness is also treated as remission, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paresis<\/span> (“passing over”). God has not executed the full retribution called for by sin (Acts 14:16; 17:30); instead, he has shown mercy.<\/p>\n<p>Yet the NT speaks of two limitations to forgiveness. One is the unpardonable sin (Mt 12:31-32; Mk 3:28-30; Lk 12:10). In this regard Christ speaks of those who, like the Pharisees, are so warped in their moral judgments that they cannot distinguish between acts of Satan and the good deeds of Christ. There is also “the sin against the Holy Spirit” that is “sin unto death” (1 Jn 5:16). This sin is not specifically defined, but its essence seems to be consistent rejection of the grace of God.<\/p>\n<p>The ethics of forgiveness in the NT insists not only on penitence as a condition for forgiveness (2 Cor 7:10), but also on the need to forgive others (Mt 6:14-15). If in the midst of receiving forgiveness one does not forgive others, it is a clear sign that repentance is not complete. Several times in his parables the Lord insists that the readiness to forgive others is a sign of true repentance (Mt 18:23-35; Lk 6:37). So Christ taught that to forgive is a duty, and no limits can be set on it. It must be granted without reserve, even to 70 times 7 (Mt 18:21-22). Forgiveness is part of the mutual relationship of believers: since all are dependent upon God’s forgiveness, all are required to forgive one another. “As the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive” (Col 3:13).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Confession; Repentance.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>FORGIVENESS<\/h3>\n<p>Pardon, involving restoration of broken relationships; ceasing to feel resentment for wrongs and offenses. Primarily, forgiveness is an act of God, releasing sinners from judgment and freeing them from the divine penalty of their sin. Since only God is holy, only God can forgive sin (Mk 2:7; Lk 5:21). Forgiveness is also a human act extended toward one’s neighbor—a manifestation of one’s realization and appropriation of God’s forgiveness. Hence, forgiveness is a uniquely Christian doctrine.<\/p>\n<p>In other religions, forgiveness does not have the same force. In animism, there is no awareness of a personal relationship with God. In Hinduism, all have to pay the inexorable consequences of karma in the wheel of reincarnations. Buddhism likewise knows nothing of a forgiving God. The idea is present in Islam, but there is no personal God and Father. Even in Judaism, forgiveness remains a limited experience, though forgiveness as developed in the NT adds dimension to the teaching of the OT.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ExpressionsofForgivenessintheOldTestament\">Expressions of Forgiveness in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The idea of forgiveness is expressed in various metaphors. The command is <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">nasa<\/span><em>,<\/em> to “send away,” as the scapegoat was sent away into the wilderness to bear the sins of the Israelites. It is also rendered “to be merciful” (Lv 4:20; 1 Kgs 8:30, 34; Pss 86:5; 103:3). The Hebrew word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">kapar<\/span> is commonly used of atonement, meaning “to cover up,” as the sacrifice was offered to cover the deficiency of the worshiper (Ex 29:36; Dt 21:8; Jer 18:23; Ez 43:20; 45:20). Cognates of <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">salah<\/span> always refer to God’s act of forgiveness (Nm 30:5, 8, 12; Pss 86:5; 130:4; Dn 9:9). God lets go of the transgression; he removes it. Another expression is <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">maha<\/span><em>,<\/em> to “wipe away” (Ps 51:1, 7; Is 43:25; 44:22).<\/p>\n<p>The OT teaches that God is a forgiving God (Ex 34:6-7; Neh 9:17; Dn 9:9), yet he is just and punishes sin. Many incidents are also given where God refuses to forgive when the proper conditions are not met, or when certain serious offenses are committed (Dt 29:20; 2 Kgs 24:4; Jer 5:7). Forgiveness is rooted in the character of God, but his forgiveness is never indiscriminate, for people must also be penitent. The OT (cited here in the <span>rsv<\/span>) uses vivid imagery to indicate the magnitude of God’s forgiveness. Sin is cast “into the depths of the sea” (Mi 7:19), removed “as far as the east is from the west” (Ps 103:12), hid behind God’s back (Is 38:17), “remembered no more” (Jer 31:34). The stain and soil of sin is bleached white (Is 1:18). Sin, which burdens like a weight, is forever lifted and remitted.<\/p>\n<p>The dynamic of forgiveness in the OT is thus releasing one from the past. The past acts and deeds of sin are not denied, but there is no longer any bondage. Forgiveness brings freedom.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ForgivenessintheNewTestament\">Forgiveness in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, the concept of the unmerited forgiveness of God is intensified by the fact that God forgave our sins when Christ died for us. Each human is an insolvent debtor (Mt 18:23-35) who has no hope of repayment. Sinners all, we cannot keep the law or save ourselves (Mk 10:26-27). This highlights the NT teaching that it is in the person of Christ himself that there is forgiveness. He alone has the power to forgive sins (2:5-10). It is his death that is redemptive (Mt 26:28; Mk 10:45) and his blood that is the basis of a new covenant (1 Cor 11:25). It is through him that one can enter into the living experience of forgiveness (Heb 9:15, 22). So forgiveness is inseparable from the proclamation of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:38; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14; 1 Jn 2:12).<\/p>\n\n<p>There are other distinctively NT concepts of forgiveness. The Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">charizomai<\/span><em>,<\/em> meaning “to forgive sins,” is distinctively developed by Paul in terms of God’s gracious pardon (2 Cor 2:7; 12:13; Eph 4:32; Col 2:13; 3:13). Sin is considered as a debt, and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">aphesis<\/span> denotes the discharge of a debt (“putting it away”—see Lk 6:37). Forgiveness is also treated as remission, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paresis<\/span> (“passing over”). God has not executed the full retribution called for by sin (Acts 14:16; 17:30); instead, he has shown mercy.<\/p>\n<p>Yet the NT speaks of two limitations to forgiveness. One is the unpardonable sin (Mt 12:31-32; Mk 3:28-30; Lk 12:10). In this regard Christ speaks of those who, like the Pharisees, are so warped in their moral judgments that they cannot distinguish between acts of Satan and the good deeds of Christ. There is also “the sin against the Holy Spirit” that is “sin unto death” (1 Jn 5:16). This sin is not specifically defined, but its essence seems to be consistent rejection of the grace of God.<\/p>\n<p>The ethics of forgiveness in the NT insists not only on penitence as a condition for forgiveness (2 Cor 7:10), but also on the need to forgive others (Mt 6:14-15). If in the midst of receiving forgiveness one does not forgive others, it is a clear sign that repentance is not complete. Several times in his parables the Lord insists that the readiness to forgive others is a sign of true repentance (Mt 18:23-35; Lk 6:37). So Christ taught that to forgive is a duty, and no limits can be set on it. It must be granted without reserve, even to 70 times 7 (Mt 18:21-22). Forgiveness is part of the mutual relationship of believers: since all are dependent upon God’s forgiveness, all are required to forgive one another. “As the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive” (Col 3:13).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Confession; Repentance.<\/p>","summary_ro":"FORGIVENESS Pardon, involving restoration of broken relationships; ceasing to feel resentment for wrongs and offenses. Primarily, forgiveness is an act of God, releasing sinners from judgment and freeing them from the divine penalty of their sin. Since only God is holy, only God can forgive sin (Mk 2:7; Lk 5:21). Forgiveness is also a human act extended toward one’s neighbor—a manifestation of one’s realization and appropriation of God’s forgiveness. Hence, forgiveness is a uniquely Christian...","summary_en":"FORGIVENESS Pardon, involving restoration of broken relationships; ceasing to feel resentment for wrongs and offenses. Primarily, forgiveness is an act of God, releasing sinners from judgment and freeing them from the divine penalty of their sin. Since only God is holy, only God can forgive sin (Mk 2:7; Lk 5:21). Forgiveness is also a human act extended toward one’s neighbor—a manifestation of one’s realization and appropriation of God’s forgiveness. Hence, forgiveness is a uniquely Christian...","source":"Articles\/F.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":37844,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"the Unpardonable Sin*","title_en":"the Unpardonable Sin*","content_ro":"<h3>UNPARDONABLE SIN*, The<\/h3>\n<p>Attributing to Satan what is actually the work of the Holy Spirit as demonstrated through Jesus Christ. This sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>The unpardonable sin must be defined by its context, which is found in Matthew 12:31-32 and Mark 3:28-30. In these passages, Jesus had just cast a demon from a man who was blind and mute. Incontrovertible evidence of the power of God had just occurred. But the Pharisees, with stubborn unbelief, credited this display of God’s power to Beelzebul, the devil (Mt 12:24). Several Scriptures reveal that many Jews had expressed the same kind of fallacious opinion, namely, that Jesus was performing miracles by the power of the devil (Mt 9:34; 11:18; Lk 7:33; 11:14-20; Jn 7:20; 8:48, 52; 10:20). A group of Jews, mostly Pharisees, were guilty of attributing to the devil what was the work of the Spirit demonstrated through the Lord Jesus. They committed <em>the<\/em> unpardonable sin when they said that Jesus’ actions, performed by the power of the Holy Spirit, originated from Beelzebul, the devil. Put simply, they sinned grievously by boldly characterizing Jesus’ work as coming from the devil. Interestingly, many Jews perpetuated this false characterization about Jesus long after his death. They did not deny that he did miracles; they said he did miracles by the power of the devil.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WhatIsnttheUnpardonableSin\">What Isn’t the Unpardonable Sin<\/p>\n<p>The unpardonable sin is not Israel’s rebellion against God, even though this rebellion resulted in the eternal judgment of thousands and a temporary elimination of God’s blessing. The “sin unto death” mentioned by John (1 Jn 5:16-17) is not the unpardonable sin. It would be impossible for a person who has redemption and the forgiveness of sin (Eph 1:7), cleansing for present and future sin (1 Jn 1:7), and eternal life (Jn 3:16) to commit an unpardonable sin. But those who commit the “sin unto death” are all Christians. First John 5:16 says the person who commits the “sin unto death” is a “brother” in Christ.<\/p>\n<p>The unpardonable sin is not rejection of the Lord Jesus, until the rejecter dies in his unbelief. Such a sin will not be forgiven throughout eternity, but it is not the same sin as that which Jesus condemned with these words: “Anyone who blasphemes against me, the Son of Man, can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, either in this world or in the world to come” (Mt 12:32, <span>nlt<\/span>). Numerous passages repeat the warning that unbelief in the Savior results in eternal death (Jn 3:18, 36; 1 Jn 5:12; Rv 20:15; 21:8), but these Scriptures do not directly speak of the unpardonable sin. Jesus asserted that a person could be an unbeliever in him, even to the degree of speaking against him, yet not be guilty of the unpardonable sin.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Justification, Justified; Sin unto Death.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>UNPARDONABLE SIN*, The<\/h3>\n<p>Attributing to Satan what is actually the work of the Holy Spirit as demonstrated through Jesus Christ. This sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>The unpardonable sin must be defined by its context, which is found in Matthew 12:31-32 and Mark 3:28-30. In these passages, Jesus had just cast a demon from a man who was blind and mute. Incontrovertible evidence of the power of God had just occurred. But the Pharisees, with stubborn unbelief, credited this display of God’s power to Beelzebul, the devil (Mt 12:24). Several Scriptures reveal that many Jews had expressed the same kind of fallacious opinion, namely, that Jesus was performing miracles by the power of the devil (Mt 9:34; 11:18; Lk 7:33; 11:14-20; Jn 7:20; 8:48, 52; 10:20). A group of Jews, mostly Pharisees, were guilty of attributing to the devil what was the work of the Spirit demonstrated through the Lord Jesus. They committed <em>the<\/em> unpardonable sin when they said that Jesus’ actions, performed by the power of the Holy Spirit, originated from Beelzebul, the devil. Put simply, they sinned grievously by boldly characterizing Jesus’ work as coming from the devil. Interestingly, many Jews perpetuated this false characterization about Jesus long after his death. They did not deny that he did miracles; they said he did miracles by the power of the devil.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WhatIsnttheUnpardonableSin\">What Isn’t the Unpardonable Sin<\/p>\n<p>The unpardonable sin is not Israel’s rebellion against God, even though this rebellion resulted in the eternal judgment of thousands and a temporary elimination of God’s blessing. The “sin unto death” mentioned by John (1 Jn 5:16-17) is not the unpardonable sin. It would be impossible for a person who has redemption and the forgiveness of sin (Eph 1:7), cleansing for present and future sin (1 Jn 1:7), and eternal life (Jn 3:16) to commit an unpardonable sin. But those who commit the “sin unto death” are all Christians. First John 5:16 says the person who commits the “sin unto death” is a “brother” in Christ.<\/p>\n<p>The unpardonable sin is not rejection of the Lord Jesus, until the rejecter dies in his unbelief. Such a sin will not be forgiven throughout eternity, but it is not the same sin as that which Jesus condemned with these words: “Anyone who blasphemes against me, the Son of Man, can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, either in this world or in the world to come” (Mt 12:32, <span>nlt<\/span>). Numerous passages repeat the warning that unbelief in the Savior results in eternal death (Jn 3:18, 36; 1 Jn 5:12; Rv 20:15; 21:8), but these Scriptures do not directly speak of the unpardonable sin. Jesus asserted that a person could be an unbeliever in him, even to the degree of speaking against him, yet not be guilty of the unpardonable sin.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Justification, Justified; Sin unto Death.<\/p>","summary_ro":"UNPARDONABLE SIN*, The Attributing to Satan what is actually the work of the Holy Spirit as demonstrated through Jesus Christ. This sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The unpardonable sin must be defined by its context, which is found in Matthew 12:31-32 and Mark 3:28-30. In these passages, Jesus had just cast a demon from a man who was blind and mute. Incontrovertible evidence of the power of God had just occurred. But the Pharisees, with stubborn unbelief, credited this display of Go...","summary_en":"UNPARDONABLE SIN*, The Attributing to Satan what is actually the work of the Holy Spirit as demonstrated through Jesus Christ. This sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The unpardonable sin must be defined by its context, which is found in Matthew 12:31-32 and Mark 3:28-30. In these passages, Jesus had just cast a demon from a man who was blind and mute. Incontrovertible evidence of the power of God had just occurred. But the Pharisees, with stubborn unbelief, credited this display of Go...","source":"Articles\/U.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":39970,"type":"textbox","type_label":"Notă explicativă","type_icon":"💡","type_color":"#8b5cf6","title_ro":"Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit","title_en":"Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit","content_ro":"<h3>Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit<\/h3>\n<blockquote><p>This is a sin mentioned only in Mark 3:28-29 and its parallels, Luke 12:10 and Matthew 12:31. The context in Mark portrays unbelievers reacting to Jesus’ sudden popularity and startling power in two ways: (1) his family considered him insane and tried to take him home; and (2) the religious leaders, who had already proclaimed him a blasphemer (Mk 2:1-12), attributed his success to demon-possession. Matthew adds that the religious leaders were Pharisees upset by a particular healing. (Luke includes the saying in a totally different context, one of confessing Christ.) Jesus, pointing out that the charge of demon-possession was illogical, also stated strongly that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit can never be forgiven. Jesus was saying that to slander the Holy Spirit is worse even than insulting or blaspheming the Son of Man or God himself (a crime punishable by death in the OT; see Lv 24:16). Yet Jesus said that those sins are forgivable. Many Jews believed that death forgave all sins, so when Jesus called blasphemy against the Holy Spirit “an eternal sin,” he was making it serious indeed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The religious leaders to whom Jesus spoke had seen clear, public, and compelling evidence of the good hand of God. By calling that power evil or demonic, they were wickedly and consciously rejecting God, his power, and his saving grace. That was willful and high-handed sin by those who had seen the truth but rejected it and slandered it to others. Thus, the “unforgivable sin” is not some serious moral failure nor persistence in a particular sin nor even insulting or rejecting Jesus in blindness or a fit of rebellion. It is conscious rejection of the “good power of God.” It represents a perversion of the mind in which God and Satan are willfully confused, a free choice of evil rather than good.<\/p>\n<p>How can this sin be unforgivable if God is always willing to forgive? Because it has gone beyond the possibility of recovery on the sinner’s part and because God respects the freedom of persons. It is unrepentable because the person, having refused so stubbornly to repent, finally becomes unable to repent; evidence is in, and such a one will still reject the truth while knowing it to be true.<\/p>\n<p>From the definition it is clear that anyone who believes he or she has committed “the unforgivable sin” could not have done so; a troubled conscience and that kind of sin could never coexist. The fact that a person feels remorse proves that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit has not yet been committed. On the other hand, Jesus’ teaching about it warns all who know the truth of God not to reject that truth or to abandon their faith.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit<\/h3>\n<blockquote><p>This is a sin mentioned only in Mark 3:28-29 and its parallels, Luke 12:10 and Matthew 12:31. The context in Mark portrays unbelievers reacting to Jesus’ sudden popularity and startling power in two ways: (1) his family considered him insane and tried to take him home; and (2) the religious leaders, who had already proclaimed him a blasphemer (Mk 2:1-12), attributed his success to demon-possession. Matthew adds that the religious leaders were Pharisees upset by a particular healing. (Luke includes the saying in a totally different context, one of confessing Christ.) Jesus, pointing out that the charge of demon-possession was illogical, also stated strongly that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit can never be forgiven. Jesus was saying that to slander the Holy Spirit is worse even than insulting or blaspheming the Son of Man or God himself (a crime punishable by death in the OT; see Lv 24:16). Yet Jesus said that those sins are forgivable. Many Jews believed that death forgave all sins, so when Jesus called blasphemy against the Holy Spirit “an eternal sin,” he was making it serious indeed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The religious leaders to whom Jesus spoke had seen clear, public, and compelling evidence of the good hand of God. By calling that power evil or demonic, they were wickedly and consciously rejecting God, his power, and his saving grace. That was willful and high-handed sin by those who had seen the truth but rejected it and slandered it to others. Thus, the “unforgivable sin” is not some serious moral failure nor persistence in a particular sin nor even insulting or rejecting Jesus in blindness or a fit of rebellion. It is conscious rejection of the “good power of God.” It represents a perversion of the mind in which God and Satan are willfully confused, a free choice of evil rather than good.<\/p>\n<p>How can this sin be unforgivable if God is always willing to forgive? Because it has gone beyond the possibility of recovery on the sinner’s part and because God respects the freedom of persons. It is unrepentable because the person, having refused so stubbornly to repent, finally becomes unable to repent; evidence is in, and such a one will still reject the truth while knowing it to be true.<\/p>\n<p>From the definition it is clear that anyone who believes he or she has committed “the unforgivable sin” could not have done so; a troubled conscience and that kind of sin could never coexist. The fact that a person feels remorse proves that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit has not yet been committed. On the other hand, Jesus’ teaching about it warns all who know the truth of God not to reject that truth or to abandon their faith.<\/p>","summary_ro":"Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit This is a sin mentioned only in Mark 3:28-29 and its parallels, Luke 12:10 and Matthew 12:31. The context in Mark portrays unbelievers reacting to Jesus’ sudden popularity and startling power in two ways: (1) his family considered him insane and tried to take him home; and (2) the religious leaders, who had already proclaimed him a blasphemer (Mk 2:1-12), attributed his success to demon-possession. Matthew adds that the religious leaders were Pharisees upset ...","summary_en":"Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit This is a sin mentioned only in Mark 3:28-29 and its parallels, Luke 12:10 and Matthew 12:31. The context in Mark portrays unbelievers reacting to Jesus’ sudden popularity and startling power in two ways: (1) his family considered him insane and tried to take him home; and (2) the religious leaders, who had already proclaimed him a blasphemer (Mk 2:1-12), attributed his success to demon-possession. Matthew adds that the religious leaders were Pharisees upset ...","source":"Textboxes\/Textboxes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55203,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:28","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:28","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:28-30<\/strong> The phrase <em>I tell you the truth<\/em> introduces many of Jesus’ sayings and gives emphasis to what follows (see also 8:12; 9:1, 41; 10:15, 29; 11:23; 12:43; 13:30; 14:9, 18, 25, 30). • <em>All sin and blasphemy can be forgiven<\/em>, but there is <em>a sin with eternal consequences<\/em>—blasphemy against <em>the Holy Spirit<\/em>. To blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to attribute the work of God to <em>an evil spirit<\/em>. Resisting and denouncing the work of God in this way prevents the convicting work of the Spirit that leads to repentance, saving faith in God, and pardon for sin (see study notes on Matt 12:31-32; cp. Heb 6:4-6; 1 Jn 5:16-17).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:28-30<\/strong> The phrase <em>I tell you the truth<\/em> introduces many of Jesus’ sayings and gives emphasis to what follows (see also 8:12; 9:1, 41; 10:15, 29; 11:23; 12:43; 13:30; 14:9, 18, 25, 30). • <em>All sin and blasphemy can be forgiven<\/em>, but there is <em>a sin with eternal consequences<\/em>—blasphemy against <em>the Holy Spirit<\/em>. To blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to attribute the work of God to <em>an evil spirit<\/em>. Resisting and denouncing the work of God in this way prevents the convicting work of the Spirit that leads to repentance, saving faith in God, and pardon for sin (see study notes on Matt 12:31-32; cp. Heb 6:4-6; 1 Jn 5:16-17).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:28-30 The phrase I tell you the truth introduces many of Jesus’ sayings and gives emphasis to what follows (see also 8:12; 9:1, 41; 10:15, 29; 11:23; 12:43; 13:30; 14:9, 18, 25, 30). • All sin and blasphemy can be forgiven, but there is a sin with eternal consequences—blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. To blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to attribute the work of God to an evil spirit. Resisting and denouncing the work of God in this way prevents the convicting work of the Spirit that leads to r...","summary_en":"3:28-30 The phrase I tell you the truth introduces many of Jesus’ sayings and gives emphasis to what follows (see also 8:12; 9:1, 41; 10:15, 29; 11:23; 12:43; 13:30; 14:9, 18, 25, 30). • All sin and blasphemy can be forgiven, but there is a sin with eternal consequences—blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. To blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to attribute the work of God to an evil spirit. Resisting and denouncing the work of God in this way prevents the convicting work of the Spirit that leads to r...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82829,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:28","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:28","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:28-30<\/strong> The phrase <em>I tell you the truth<\/em> introduces many of Jesus’ sayings and gives emphasis to what follows (see also 8:12; 9:1, 41; 10:15, 29; 11:23; 12:43; 13:30; 14:9, 18, 25, 30). • <em>All sin and blasphemy can be forgiven<\/em>, but there is <em>a sin with eternal consequences<\/em>—blasphemy against <em>the Holy Spirit<\/em>. To blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to attribute the work of God to <em>an evil spirit<\/em>. Resisting and denouncing the work of God in this way prevents the convicting work of the Spirit that leads to repentance, saving faith in God, and pardon for sin (see study notes on Matt 12:31-32; cp. Heb 6:4-6; 1 Jn 5:16-17).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:28-30<\/strong> The phrase <em>I tell you the truth<\/em> introduces many of Jesus’ sayings and gives emphasis to what follows (see also 8:12; 9:1, 41; 10:15, 29; 11:23; 12:43; 13:30; 14:9, 18, 25, 30). • <em>All sin and blasphemy can be forgiven<\/em>, but there is <em>a sin with eternal consequences<\/em>—blasphemy against <em>the Holy Spirit<\/em>. To blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to attribute the work of God to <em>an evil spirit<\/em>. Resisting and denouncing the work of God in this way prevents the convicting work of the Spirit that leads to repentance, saving faith in God, and pardon for sin (see study notes on Matt 12:31-32; cp. Heb 6:4-6; 1 Jn 5:16-17).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:28-30 The phrase I tell you the truth introduces many of Jesus’ sayings and gives emphasis to what follows (see also 8:12; 9:1, 41; 10:15, 29; 11:23; 12:43; 13:30; 14:9, 18, 25, 30). • All sin and blasphemy can be forgiven, but there is a sin with eternal consequences—blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. To blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to attribute the work of God to an evil spirit. Resisting and denouncing the work of God in this way prevents the convicting work of the Spirit that leads to r...","summary_en":"3:28-30 The phrase I tell you the truth introduces many of Jesus’ sayings and gives emphasis to what follows (see also 8:12; 9:1, 41; 10:15, 29; 11:23; 12:43; 13:30; 14:9, 18, 25, 30). • All sin and blasphemy can be forgiven, but there is a sin with eternal consequences—blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. To blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to attribute the work of God to an evil spirit. Resisting and denouncing the work of God in this way prevents the convicting work of the Spirit that leads to r...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110455,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:28","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:28","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:28-30<\/strong> The phrase <em>I tell you the truth<\/em> introduces many of Jesus’ sayings and gives emphasis to what follows (see also 8:12; 9:1, 41; 10:15, 29; 11:23; 12:43; 13:30; 14:9, 18, 25, 30). • <em>All sin and blasphemy can be forgiven<\/em>, but there is <em>a sin with eternal consequences<\/em>—blasphemy against <em>the Holy Spirit<\/em>. To blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to attribute the work of God to <em>an evil spirit<\/em>. Resisting and denouncing the work of God in this way prevents the convicting work of the Spirit that leads to repentance, saving faith in God, and pardon for sin (see study notes on Matt 12:31-32; cp. Heb 6:4-6; 1 Jn 5:16-17).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:28-30<\/strong> The phrase <em>I tell you the truth<\/em> introduces many of Jesus’ sayings and gives emphasis to what follows (see also 8:12; 9:1, 41; 10:15, 29; 11:23; 12:43; 13:30; 14:9, 18, 25, 30). • <em>All sin and blasphemy can be forgiven<\/em>, but there is <em>a sin with eternal consequences<\/em>—blasphemy against <em>the Holy Spirit<\/em>. To blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to attribute the work of God to <em>an evil spirit<\/em>. Resisting and denouncing the work of God in this way prevents the convicting work of the Spirit that leads to repentance, saving faith in God, and pardon for sin (see study notes on Matt 12:31-32; cp. Heb 6:4-6; 1 Jn 5:16-17).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:28-30 The phrase I tell you the truth introduces many of Jesus’ sayings and gives emphasis to what follows (see also 8:12; 9:1, 41; 10:15, 29; 11:23; 12:43; 13:30; 14:9, 18, 25, 30). • All sin and blasphemy can be forgiven, but there is a sin with eternal consequences—blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. To blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to attribute the work of God to an evil spirit. Resisting and denouncing the work of God in this way prevents the convicting work of the Spirit that leads to r...","summary_en":"3:28-30 The phrase I tell you the truth introduces many of Jesus’ sayings and gives emphasis to what follows (see also 8:12; 9:1, 41; 10:15, 29; 11:23; 12:43; 13:30; 14:9, 18, 25, 30). • All sin and blasphemy can be forgiven, but there is a sin with eternal consequences—blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. To blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to attribute the work of God to an evil spirit. Resisting and denouncing the work of God in this way prevents the convicting work of the Spirit that leads to r...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138081,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:28","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:28","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:28-30<\/strong> The phrase <em>I tell you the truth<\/em> introduces many of Jesus’ sayings and gives emphasis to what follows (see also 8:12; 9:1, 41; 10:15, 29; 11:23; 12:43; 13:30; 14:9, 18, 25, 30). • <em>All sin and blasphemy can be forgiven<\/em>, but there is <em>a sin with eternal consequences<\/em>—blasphemy against <em>the Holy Spirit<\/em>. To blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to attribute the work of God to <em>an evil spirit<\/em>. Resisting and denouncing the work of God in this way prevents the convicting work of the Spirit that leads to repentance, saving faith in God, and pardon for sin (see study notes on Matt 12:31-32; cp. Heb 6:4-6; 1 Jn 5:16-17).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:28-30<\/strong> The phrase <em>I tell you the truth<\/em> introduces many of Jesus’ sayings and gives emphasis to what follows (see also 8:12; 9:1, 41; 10:15, 29; 11:23; 12:43; 13:30; 14:9, 18, 25, 30). • <em>All sin and blasphemy can be forgiven<\/em>, but there is <em>a sin with eternal consequences<\/em>—blasphemy against <em>the Holy Spirit<\/em>. To blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to attribute the work of God to <em>an evil spirit<\/em>. Resisting and denouncing the work of God in this way prevents the convicting work of the Spirit that leads to repentance, saving faith in God, and pardon for sin (see study notes on Matt 12:31-32; cp. Heb 6:4-6; 1 Jn 5:16-17).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:28-30 The phrase I tell you the truth introduces many of Jesus’ sayings and gives emphasis to what follows (see also 8:12; 9:1, 41; 10:15, 29; 11:23; 12:43; 13:30; 14:9, 18, 25, 30). • All sin and blasphemy can be forgiven, but there is a sin with eternal consequences—blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. To blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to attribute the work of God to an evil spirit. Resisting and denouncing the work of God in this way prevents the convicting work of the Spirit that leads to r...","summary_en":"3:28-30 The phrase I tell you the truth introduces many of Jesus’ sayings and gives emphasis to what follows (see also 8:12; 9:1, 41; 10:15, 29; 11:23; 12:43; 13:30; 14:9, 18, 25, 30). • All sin and blasphemy can be forgiven, but there is a sin with eternal consequences—blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. To blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to attribute the work of God to an evil spirit. Resisting and denouncing the work of God in this way prevents the convicting work of the Spirit that leads to r...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":61221,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Spirit’s Presence","title_en":"The Spirit’s Presence","content_ro":"<h3>The Spirit’s Presence<\/h3>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord came upon a person or group when they were called to do a task or ordained for an office. The Spirit “came upon” the judges Othniel, Gideon, and Jephthah (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29), empowering them for service. Saul and David both received the Spirit of God when they were anointed king (1 Sam 10:1, 9-10; 16:13). The Spirit would depart when the task had been completed or when the officeholder was removed from office. When Samuel anointed David as the next king (16:13), the Spirit left Saul (16:14), who was disobedient and had been rejected by God as king (13:7-14; 15:10-29; cp. 28:15; Judg 16:20). After David had sinned with Bathsheba, he prayed to be spared this same judgment (Ps 51:11).<\/p>\n<p>In the New Testament, God’s Holy Spirit is given to all who put their faith in Christ for salvation, not just to individuals in specific roles (see Acts 2:14-21; 1 Cor 12:1-13; Eph 1:13-14). Still, the Spirit performs a similar role in equipping God’s servants to do the work that God has called them to do (see 1 Cor 12:7-10). The Old Testament departure of the Spirit from Saul tangibly demonstrates the need for the New Testament warnings not to sin against the Spirit and not to bring sorrow to the Spirit (see Mark 3:28-29; Eph 4:30; Heb 6:1-8).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 41:37-40; Exod 31:1-6; Judg 3:9-11; 6:34; 11:29; 14:5-6; 16:20-21; 1 Sam 10:1-10; 11:6-7; 16:13-23; 19:19-23; 2 Chr 20:13-19; 24:20-22; Ps 51:11-12; Isa 11:1-5; Jer 31:33-34; Joel 2:28-29; Mark 3:28-29; Acts 2:1-21; 4:31; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Heb 6:4-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Spirit’s Presence<\/h3>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord came upon a person or group when they were called to do a task or ordained for an office. The Spirit “came upon” the judges Othniel, Gideon, and Jephthah (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29), empowering them for service. Saul and David both received the Spirit of God when they were anointed king (1 Sam 10:1, 9-10; 16:13). The Spirit would depart when the task had been completed or when the officeholder was removed from office. When Samuel anointed David as the next king (16:13), the Spirit left Saul (16:14), who was disobedient and had been rejected by God as king (13:7-14; 15:10-29; cp. 28:15; Judg 16:20). After David had sinned with Bathsheba, he prayed to be spared this same judgment (Ps 51:11).<\/p>\n<p>In the New Testament, God’s Holy Spirit is given to all who put their faith in Christ for salvation, not just to individuals in specific roles (see Acts 2:14-21; 1 Cor 12:1-13; Eph 1:13-14). Still, the Spirit performs a similar role in equipping God’s servants to do the work that God has called them to do (see 1 Cor 12:7-10). The Old Testament departure of the Spirit from Saul tangibly demonstrates the need for the New Testament warnings not to sin against the Spirit and not to bring sorrow to the Spirit (see Mark 3:28-29; Eph 4:30; Heb 6:1-8).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 41:37-40; Exod 31:1-6; Judg 3:9-11; 6:34; 11:29; 14:5-6; 16:20-21; 1 Sam 10:1-10; 11:6-7; 16:13-23; 19:19-23; 2 Chr 20:13-19; 24:20-22; Ps 51:11-12; Isa 11:1-5; Jer 31:33-34; Joel 2:28-29; Mark 3:28-29; Acts 2:1-21; 4:31; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Heb 6:4-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Spirit’s Presence In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord came upon a person or group when they were called to do a task or ordained for an office. The Spirit “came upon” the judges Othniel, Gideon, and Jephthah (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29), empowering them for service. Saul and David both received the Spirit of God when they were anointed king (1 Sam 10:1, 9-10; 16:13). The Spirit would depart when the task had been completed or when the officeholder was removed from office. When Samuel...","summary_en":"The Spirit’s Presence In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord came upon a person or group when they were called to do a task or ordained for an office. The Spirit “came upon” the judges Othniel, Gideon, and Jephthah (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29), empowering them for service. Saul and David both received the Spirit of God when they were anointed king (1 Sam 10:1, 9-10; 16:13). The Spirit would depart when the task had been completed or when the officeholder was removed from office. When Samuel...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":65506,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Following Jesus","title_en":"Following Jesus","content_ro":"<h3>Following Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>One of the core purposes of the Gospels is to help readers understand and accept the call to take up their cross and follow Jesus. This call is addressed not only to those who would be Jesus’ apostles (Mark 3:13-19; cp. 1:16-20; 2:14) but to all who desired to follow him (Mark 8:34; cp. 2:15; 10:21, 52). For some, the call to discipleship is very hard (Mark 10:17-25), but God provides grace (10:27). Others find it easy to respond to Jesus’ call (Mark 2:14; cp. Luke 7:36-50).<\/p>\n<p>For everyone, following Jesus requires a total commitment to turn from selfish ways (Mark 8:34-35). Taking up one’s cross is a metaphor for giving up one’s life to follow Jesus—even to death. For example, Peter, Andrew, James, and John left their homes and their source of income to follow Jesus (Mark 1:16-20). For one rich man, turning from his selfish ways required selling all he had and giving the proceeds to the poor (Mark 10:21). Following Jesus also means being identified with him without being ashamed and being faithful to him and his teachings (Mark 8:38; cp. Rom 10:9). It requires removing anything that would interfere with following Jesus, regardless of how painful doing so might be (Mark 9:43-48). It requires entrusting one’s life entirely to Jesus and repenting of sin (Mark 1:15; 6:12). It even requires putting loyalty to Jesus above loyalty to one’s own father and mother (Matt 10:37; Luke 14:26).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus explicitly commanded his disciples to proclaim his message (Matt 28:18-20; Luke 24:47-49; Acts 1:8). And we see throughout the rest of the New Testament that Jesus’ followers did indeed proclaim the Good News wherever they went, leading to more and more followers (see Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26; 4:1-2, 20; 8:4; 9:20; 11:19-26; 13:1-3; Rom 1:1-16; 10:14-15; 15:18-21; 1 Cor 9:16; Col 1:23; 1 Thes 2:9; 2 Tim 4:2).<\/p>\n<p>Alongside Jesus’ demands for discipleship are the rewards of following Jesus. Those who follow Jesus are promised entrance into the Kingdom of God (Mark 9:43-48; 10:23-31). They receive his forgiveness for their sins (Mark 2:10-11; see also 3:28; 11:25), and they become members of the family of God (John 1:12). They are saved from judgment (Mark 8:35; 13:13) and obtain eternal life (Mark 9:43; 10:29-30; 1 Jn 5:11-12).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Hos 6:3; Matt 10:37-39; 28:18-20; Mark 1:15-20; 2:14-15; 3:13-15; 5:18-20; 6:6-13, 30-32; 8:34-38; 9:38-50; 10:17-31; 11:22-25; 13:9-13; Luke 14:25-35; 24:47-49; John 8:12; 10:27; 12:26; Acts 1:8; 2:42-47; 4:16-20; 8:4; 9:19-30; 11:19-24; 13:1-3; Rom 1:1-16; 10:7-15; 1 Cor 9:16; Eph 5:1; Col 1:23; 2 Tim 4:2; 1 Pet 2:21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Following Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>One of the core purposes of the Gospels is to help readers understand and accept the call to take up their cross and follow Jesus. This call is addressed not only to those who would be Jesus’ apostles (Mark 3:13-19; cp. 1:16-20; 2:14) but to all who desired to follow him (Mark 8:34; cp. 2:15; 10:21, 52). For some, the call to discipleship is very hard (Mark 10:17-25), but God provides grace (10:27). Others find it easy to respond to Jesus’ call (Mark 2:14; cp. Luke 7:36-50).<\/p>\n<p>For everyone, following Jesus requires a total commitment to turn from selfish ways (Mark 8:34-35). Taking up one’s cross is a metaphor for giving up one’s life to follow Jesus—even to death. For example, Peter, Andrew, James, and John left their homes and their source of income to follow Jesus (Mark 1:16-20). For one rich man, turning from his selfish ways required selling all he had and giving the proceeds to the poor (Mark 10:21). Following Jesus also means being identified with him without being ashamed and being faithful to him and his teachings (Mark 8:38; cp. Rom 10:9). It requires removing anything that would interfere with following Jesus, regardless of how painful doing so might be (Mark 9:43-48). It requires entrusting one’s life entirely to Jesus and repenting of sin (Mark 1:15; 6:12). It even requires putting loyalty to Jesus above loyalty to one’s own father and mother (Matt 10:37; Luke 14:26).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus explicitly commanded his disciples to proclaim his message (Matt 28:18-20; Luke 24:47-49; Acts 1:8). And we see throughout the rest of the New Testament that Jesus’ followers did indeed proclaim the Good News wherever they went, leading to more and more followers (see Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26; 4:1-2, 20; 8:4; 9:20; 11:19-26; 13:1-3; Rom 1:1-16; 10:14-15; 15:18-21; 1 Cor 9:16; Col 1:23; 1 Thes 2:9; 2 Tim 4:2).<\/p>\n<p>Alongside Jesus’ demands for discipleship are the rewards of following Jesus. Those who follow Jesus are promised entrance into the Kingdom of God (Mark 9:43-48; 10:23-31). They receive his forgiveness for their sins (Mark 2:10-11; see also 3:28; 11:25), and they become members of the family of God (John 1:12). They are saved from judgment (Mark 8:35; 13:13) and obtain eternal life (Mark 9:43; 10:29-30; 1 Jn 5:11-12).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Hos 6:3; Matt 10:37-39; 28:18-20; Mark 1:15-20; 2:14-15; 3:13-15; 5:18-20; 6:6-13, 30-32; 8:34-38; 9:38-50; 10:17-31; 11:22-25; 13:9-13; Luke 14:25-35; 24:47-49; John 8:12; 10:27; 12:26; Acts 1:8; 2:42-47; 4:16-20; 8:4; 9:19-30; 11:19-24; 13:1-3; Rom 1:1-16; 10:7-15; 1 Cor 9:16; Eph 5:1; Col 1:23; 2 Tim 4:2; 1 Pet 2:21<\/p>","summary_ro":"Following Jesus One of the core purposes of the Gospels is to help readers understand and accept the call to take up their cross and follow Jesus. This call is addressed not only to those who would be Jesus’ apostles (Mark 3:13-19; cp. 1:16-20; 2:14) but to all who desired to follow him (Mark 8:34; cp. 2:15; 10:21, 52). For some, the call to discipleship is very hard (Mark 10:17-25), but God provides grace (10:27). Others find it easy to respond to Jesus’ call (Mark 2:14; cp. Luke 7:36-50). F...","summary_en":"Following Jesus One of the core purposes of the Gospels is to help readers understand and accept the call to take up their cross and follow Jesus. This call is addressed not only to those who would be Jesus’ apostles (Mark 3:13-19; cp. 1:16-20; 2:14) but to all who desired to follow him (Mark 8:34; cp. 2:15; 10:21, 52). For some, the call to discipleship is very hard (Mark 10:17-25), but God provides grace (10:27). Others find it easy to respond to Jesus’ call (Mark 2:14; cp. Luke 7:36-50). F...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":88847,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Spirit’s Presence","title_en":"The Spirit’s Presence","content_ro":"<h3>The Spirit’s Presence<\/h3>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord came upon a person or group when they were called to do a task or ordained for an office. The Spirit “came upon” the judges Othniel, Gideon, and Jephthah (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29), empowering them for service. Saul and David both received the Spirit of God when they were anointed king (1 Sam 10:1, 9-10; 16:13). The Spirit would depart when the task had been completed or when the officeholder was removed from office. When Samuel anointed David as the next king (16:13), the Spirit left Saul (16:14), who was disobedient and had been rejected by God as king (13:7-14; 15:10-29; cp. 28:15; Judg 16:20). After David had sinned with Bathsheba, he prayed to be spared this same judgment (Ps 51:11).<\/p>\n<p>In the New Testament, God’s Holy Spirit is given to all who put their faith in Christ for salvation, not just to individuals in specific roles (see Acts 2:14-21; 1 Cor 12:1-13; Eph 1:13-14). Still, the Spirit performs a similar role in equipping God’s servants to do the work that God has called them to do (see 1 Cor 12:7-10). The Old Testament departure of the Spirit from Saul tangibly demonstrates the need for the New Testament warnings not to sin against the Spirit and not to bring sorrow to the Spirit (see Mark 3:28-29; Eph 4:30; Heb 6:1-8).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 41:37-40; Exod 31:1-6; Judg 3:9-11; 6:34; 11:29; 14:5-6; 16:20-21; 1 Sam 10:1-10; 11:6-7; 16:13-23; 19:19-23; 2 Chr 20:13-19; 24:20-22; Ps 51:11-12; Isa 11:1-5; Jer 31:33-34; Joel 2:28-29; Mark 3:28-29; Acts 2:1-21; 4:31; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Heb 6:4-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Spirit’s Presence<\/h3>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord came upon a person or group when they were called to do a task or ordained for an office. The Spirit “came upon” the judges Othniel, Gideon, and Jephthah (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29), empowering them for service. Saul and David both received the Spirit of God when they were anointed king (1 Sam 10:1, 9-10; 16:13). The Spirit would depart when the task had been completed or when the officeholder was removed from office. When Samuel anointed David as the next king (16:13), the Spirit left Saul (16:14), who was disobedient and had been rejected by God as king (13:7-14; 15:10-29; cp. 28:15; Judg 16:20). After David had sinned with Bathsheba, he prayed to be spared this same judgment (Ps 51:11).<\/p>\n<p>In the New Testament, God’s Holy Spirit is given to all who put their faith in Christ for salvation, not just to individuals in specific roles (see Acts 2:14-21; 1 Cor 12:1-13; Eph 1:13-14). Still, the Spirit performs a similar role in equipping God’s servants to do the work that God has called them to do (see 1 Cor 12:7-10). The Old Testament departure of the Spirit from Saul tangibly demonstrates the need for the New Testament warnings not to sin against the Spirit and not to bring sorrow to the Spirit (see Mark 3:28-29; Eph 4:30; Heb 6:1-8).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 41:37-40; Exod 31:1-6; Judg 3:9-11; 6:34; 11:29; 14:5-6; 16:20-21; 1 Sam 10:1-10; 11:6-7; 16:13-23; 19:19-23; 2 Chr 20:13-19; 24:20-22; Ps 51:11-12; Isa 11:1-5; Jer 31:33-34; Joel 2:28-29; Mark 3:28-29; Acts 2:1-21; 4:31; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Heb 6:4-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Spirit’s Presence In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord came upon a person or group when they were called to do a task or ordained for an office. The Spirit “came upon” the judges Othniel, Gideon, and Jephthah (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29), empowering them for service. Saul and David both received the Spirit of God when they were anointed king (1 Sam 10:1, 9-10; 16:13). The Spirit would depart when the task had been completed or when the officeholder was removed from office. When Samuel...","summary_en":"The Spirit’s Presence In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord came upon a person or group when they were called to do a task or ordained for an office. The Spirit “came upon” the judges Othniel, Gideon, and Jephthah (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29), empowering them for service. Saul and David both received the Spirit of God when they were anointed king (1 Sam 10:1, 9-10; 16:13). The Spirit would depart when the task had been completed or when the officeholder was removed from office. When Samuel...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":93132,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Following Jesus","title_en":"Following Jesus","content_ro":"<h3>Following Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>One of the core purposes of the Gospels is to help readers understand and accept the call to take up their cross and follow Jesus. This call is addressed not only to those who would be Jesus’ apostles (Mark 3:13-19; cp. 1:16-20; 2:14) but to all who desired to follow him (Mark 8:34; cp. 2:15; 10:21, 52). For some, the call to discipleship is very hard (Mark 10:17-25), but God provides grace (10:27). Others find it easy to respond to Jesus’ call (Mark 2:14; cp. Luke 7:36-50).<\/p>\n<p>For everyone, following Jesus requires a total commitment to turn from selfish ways (Mark 8:34-35). Taking up one’s cross is a metaphor for giving up one’s life to follow Jesus—even to death. For example, Peter, Andrew, James, and John left their homes and their source of income to follow Jesus (Mark 1:16-20). For one rich man, turning from his selfish ways required selling all he had and giving the proceeds to the poor (Mark 10:21). Following Jesus also means being identified with him without being ashamed and being faithful to him and his teachings (Mark 8:38; cp. Rom 10:9). It requires removing anything that would interfere with following Jesus, regardless of how painful doing so might be (Mark 9:43-48). It requires entrusting one’s life entirely to Jesus and repenting of sin (Mark 1:15; 6:12). It even requires putting loyalty to Jesus above loyalty to one’s own father and mother (Matt 10:37; Luke 14:26).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus explicitly commanded his disciples to proclaim his message (Matt 28:18-20; Luke 24:47-49; Acts 1:8). And we see throughout the rest of the New Testament that Jesus’ followers did indeed proclaim the Good News wherever they went, leading to more and more followers (see Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26; 4:1-2, 20; 8:4; 9:20; 11:19-26; 13:1-3; Rom 1:1-16; 10:14-15; 15:18-21; 1 Cor 9:16; Col 1:23; 1 Thes 2:9; 2 Tim 4:2).<\/p>\n<p>Alongside Jesus’ demands for discipleship are the rewards of following Jesus. Those who follow Jesus are promised entrance into the Kingdom of God (Mark 9:43-48; 10:23-31). They receive his forgiveness for their sins (Mark 2:10-11; see also 3:28; 11:25), and they become members of the family of God (John 1:12). They are saved from judgment (Mark 8:35; 13:13) and obtain eternal life (Mark 9:43; 10:29-30; 1 Jn 5:11-12).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Hos 6:3; Matt 10:37-39; 28:18-20; Mark 1:15-20; 2:14-15; 3:13-15; 5:18-20; 6:6-13, 30-32; 8:34-38; 9:38-50; 10:17-31; 11:22-25; 13:9-13; Luke 14:25-35; 24:47-49; John 8:12; 10:27; 12:26; Acts 1:8; 2:42-47; 4:16-20; 8:4; 9:19-30; 11:19-24; 13:1-3; Rom 1:1-16; 10:7-15; 1 Cor 9:16; Eph 5:1; Col 1:23; 2 Tim 4:2; 1 Pet 2:21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Following Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>One of the core purposes of the Gospels is to help readers understand and accept the call to take up their cross and follow Jesus. This call is addressed not only to those who would be Jesus’ apostles (Mark 3:13-19; cp. 1:16-20; 2:14) but to all who desired to follow him (Mark 8:34; cp. 2:15; 10:21, 52). For some, the call to discipleship is very hard (Mark 10:17-25), but God provides grace (10:27). Others find it easy to respond to Jesus’ call (Mark 2:14; cp. Luke 7:36-50).<\/p>\n<p>For everyone, following Jesus requires a total commitment to turn from selfish ways (Mark 8:34-35). Taking up one’s cross is a metaphor for giving up one’s life to follow Jesus—even to death. For example, Peter, Andrew, James, and John left their homes and their source of income to follow Jesus (Mark 1:16-20). For one rich man, turning from his selfish ways required selling all he had and giving the proceeds to the poor (Mark 10:21). Following Jesus also means being identified with him without being ashamed and being faithful to him and his teachings (Mark 8:38; cp. Rom 10:9). It requires removing anything that would interfere with following Jesus, regardless of how painful doing so might be (Mark 9:43-48). It requires entrusting one’s life entirely to Jesus and repenting of sin (Mark 1:15; 6:12). It even requires putting loyalty to Jesus above loyalty to one’s own father and mother (Matt 10:37; Luke 14:26).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus explicitly commanded his disciples to proclaim his message (Matt 28:18-20; Luke 24:47-49; Acts 1:8). And we see throughout the rest of the New Testament that Jesus’ followers did indeed proclaim the Good News wherever they went, leading to more and more followers (see Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26; 4:1-2, 20; 8:4; 9:20; 11:19-26; 13:1-3; Rom 1:1-16; 10:14-15; 15:18-21; 1 Cor 9:16; Col 1:23; 1 Thes 2:9; 2 Tim 4:2).<\/p>\n<p>Alongside Jesus’ demands for discipleship are the rewards of following Jesus. Those who follow Jesus are promised entrance into the Kingdom of God (Mark 9:43-48; 10:23-31). They receive his forgiveness for their sins (Mark 2:10-11; see also 3:28; 11:25), and they become members of the family of God (John 1:12). They are saved from judgment (Mark 8:35; 13:13) and obtain eternal life (Mark 9:43; 10:29-30; 1 Jn 5:11-12).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Hos 6:3; Matt 10:37-39; 28:18-20; Mark 1:15-20; 2:14-15; 3:13-15; 5:18-20; 6:6-13, 30-32; 8:34-38; 9:38-50; 10:17-31; 11:22-25; 13:9-13; Luke 14:25-35; 24:47-49; John 8:12; 10:27; 12:26; Acts 1:8; 2:42-47; 4:16-20; 8:4; 9:19-30; 11:19-24; 13:1-3; Rom 1:1-16; 10:7-15; 1 Cor 9:16; Eph 5:1; Col 1:23; 2 Tim 4:2; 1 Pet 2:21<\/p>","summary_ro":"Following Jesus One of the core purposes of the Gospels is to help readers understand and accept the call to take up their cross and follow Jesus. This call is addressed not only to those who would be Jesus’ apostles (Mark 3:13-19; cp. 1:16-20; 2:14) but to all who desired to follow him (Mark 8:34; cp. 2:15; 10:21, 52). For some, the call to discipleship is very hard (Mark 10:17-25), but God provides grace (10:27). Others find it easy to respond to Jesus’ call (Mark 2:14; cp. Luke 7:36-50). F...","summary_en":"Following Jesus One of the core purposes of the Gospels is to help readers understand and accept the call to take up their cross and follow Jesus. This call is addressed not only to those who would be Jesus’ apostles (Mark 3:13-19; cp. 1:16-20; 2:14) but to all who desired to follow him (Mark 8:34; cp. 2:15; 10:21, 52). For some, the call to discipleship is very hard (Mark 10:17-25), but God provides grace (10:27). Others find it easy to respond to Jesus’ call (Mark 2:14; cp. Luke 7:36-50). F...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":116473,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Spirit’s Presence","title_en":"The Spirit’s Presence","content_ro":"<h3>The Spirit’s Presence<\/h3>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord came upon a person or group when they were called to do a task or ordained for an office. The Spirit “came upon” the judges Othniel, Gideon, and Jephthah (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29), empowering them for service. Saul and David both received the Spirit of God when they were anointed king (1 Sam 10:1, 9-10; 16:13). The Spirit would depart when the task had been completed or when the officeholder was removed from office. When Samuel anointed David as the next king (16:13), the Spirit left Saul (16:14), who was disobedient and had been rejected by God as king (13:7-14; 15:10-29; cp. 28:15; Judg 16:20). After David had sinned with Bathsheba, he prayed to be spared this same judgment (Ps 51:11).<\/p>\n<p>In the New Testament, God’s Holy Spirit is given to all who put their faith in Christ for salvation, not just to individuals in specific roles (see Acts 2:14-21; 1 Cor 12:1-13; Eph 1:13-14). Still, the Spirit performs a similar role in equipping God’s servants to do the work that God has called them to do (see 1 Cor 12:7-10). The Old Testament departure of the Spirit from Saul tangibly demonstrates the need for the New Testament warnings not to sin against the Spirit and not to bring sorrow to the Spirit (see Mark 3:28-29; Eph 4:30; Heb 6:1-8).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 41:37-40; Exod 31:1-6; Judg 3:9-11; 6:34; 11:29; 14:5-6; 16:20-21; 1 Sam 10:1-10; 11:6-7; 16:13-23; 19:19-23; 2 Chr 20:13-19; 24:20-22; Ps 51:11-12; Isa 11:1-5; Jer 31:33-34; Joel 2:28-29; Mark 3:28-29; Acts 2:1-21; 4:31; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Heb 6:4-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Spirit’s Presence<\/h3>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord came upon a person or group when they were called to do a task or ordained for an office. The Spirit “came upon” the judges Othniel, Gideon, and Jephthah (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29), empowering them for service. Saul and David both received the Spirit of God when they were anointed king (1 Sam 10:1, 9-10; 16:13). The Spirit would depart when the task had been completed or when the officeholder was removed from office. When Samuel anointed David as the next king (16:13), the Spirit left Saul (16:14), who was disobedient and had been rejected by God as king (13:7-14; 15:10-29; cp. 28:15; Judg 16:20). After David had sinned with Bathsheba, he prayed to be spared this same judgment (Ps 51:11).<\/p>\n<p>In the New Testament, God’s Holy Spirit is given to all who put their faith in Christ for salvation, not just to individuals in specific roles (see Acts 2:14-21; 1 Cor 12:1-13; Eph 1:13-14). Still, the Spirit performs a similar role in equipping God’s servants to do the work that God has called them to do (see 1 Cor 12:7-10). The Old Testament departure of the Spirit from Saul tangibly demonstrates the need for the New Testament warnings not to sin against the Spirit and not to bring sorrow to the Spirit (see Mark 3:28-29; Eph 4:30; Heb 6:1-8).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 41:37-40; Exod 31:1-6; Judg 3:9-11; 6:34; 11:29; 14:5-6; 16:20-21; 1 Sam 10:1-10; 11:6-7; 16:13-23; 19:19-23; 2 Chr 20:13-19; 24:20-22; Ps 51:11-12; Isa 11:1-5; Jer 31:33-34; Joel 2:28-29; Mark 3:28-29; Acts 2:1-21; 4:31; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Heb 6:4-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Spirit’s Presence In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord came upon a person or group when they were called to do a task or ordained for an office. The Spirit “came upon” the judges Othniel, Gideon, and Jephthah (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29), empowering them for service. Saul and David both received the Spirit of God when they were anointed king (1 Sam 10:1, 9-10; 16:13). The Spirit would depart when the task had been completed or when the officeholder was removed from office. When Samuel...","summary_en":"The Spirit’s Presence In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord came upon a person or group when they were called to do a task or ordained for an office. The Spirit “came upon” the judges Othniel, Gideon, and Jephthah (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29), empowering them for service. Saul and David both received the Spirit of God when they were anointed king (1 Sam 10:1, 9-10; 16:13). The Spirit would depart when the task had been completed or when the officeholder was removed from office. When Samuel...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":120758,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Following Jesus","title_en":"Following Jesus","content_ro":"<h3>Following Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>One of the core purposes of the Gospels is to help readers understand and accept the call to take up their cross and follow Jesus. This call is addressed not only to those who would be Jesus’ apostles (Mark 3:13-19; cp. 1:16-20; 2:14) but to all who desired to follow him (Mark 8:34; cp. 2:15; 10:21, 52). For some, the call to discipleship is very hard (Mark 10:17-25), but God provides grace (10:27). Others find it easy to respond to Jesus’ call (Mark 2:14; cp. Luke 7:36-50).<\/p>\n<p>For everyone, following Jesus requires a total commitment to turn from selfish ways (Mark 8:34-35). Taking up one’s cross is a metaphor for giving up one’s life to follow Jesus—even to death. For example, Peter, Andrew, James, and John left their homes and their source of income to follow Jesus (Mark 1:16-20). For one rich man, turning from his selfish ways required selling all he had and giving the proceeds to the poor (Mark 10:21). Following Jesus also means being identified with him without being ashamed and being faithful to him and his teachings (Mark 8:38; cp. Rom 10:9). It requires removing anything that would interfere with following Jesus, regardless of how painful doing so might be (Mark 9:43-48). It requires entrusting one’s life entirely to Jesus and repenting of sin (Mark 1:15; 6:12). It even requires putting loyalty to Jesus above loyalty to one’s own father and mother (Matt 10:37; Luke 14:26).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus explicitly commanded his disciples to proclaim his message (Matt 28:18-20; Luke 24:47-49; Acts 1:8). And we see throughout the rest of the New Testament that Jesus’ followers did indeed proclaim the Good News wherever they went, leading to more and more followers (see Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26; 4:1-2, 20; 8:4; 9:20; 11:19-26; 13:1-3; Rom 1:1-16; 10:14-15; 15:18-21; 1 Cor 9:16; Col 1:23; 1 Thes 2:9; 2 Tim 4:2).<\/p>\n<p>Alongside Jesus’ demands for discipleship are the rewards of following Jesus. Those who follow Jesus are promised entrance into the Kingdom of God (Mark 9:43-48; 10:23-31). They receive his forgiveness for their sins (Mark 2:10-11; see also 3:28; 11:25), and they become members of the family of God (John 1:12). They are saved from judgment (Mark 8:35; 13:13) and obtain eternal life (Mark 9:43; 10:29-30; 1 Jn 5:11-12).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Hos 6:3; Matt 10:37-39; 28:18-20; Mark 1:15-20; 2:14-15; 3:13-15; 5:18-20; 6:6-13, 30-32; 8:34-38; 9:38-50; 10:17-31; 11:22-25; 13:9-13; Luke 14:25-35; 24:47-49; John 8:12; 10:27; 12:26; Acts 1:8; 2:42-47; 4:16-20; 8:4; 9:19-30; 11:19-24; 13:1-3; Rom 1:1-16; 10:7-15; 1 Cor 9:16; Eph 5:1; Col 1:23; 2 Tim 4:2; 1 Pet 2:21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Following Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>One of the core purposes of the Gospels is to help readers understand and accept the call to take up their cross and follow Jesus. This call is addressed not only to those who would be Jesus’ apostles (Mark 3:13-19; cp. 1:16-20; 2:14) but to all who desired to follow him (Mark 8:34; cp. 2:15; 10:21, 52). For some, the call to discipleship is very hard (Mark 10:17-25), but God provides grace (10:27). Others find it easy to respond to Jesus’ call (Mark 2:14; cp. Luke 7:36-50).<\/p>\n<p>For everyone, following Jesus requires a total commitment to turn from selfish ways (Mark 8:34-35). Taking up one’s cross is a metaphor for giving up one’s life to follow Jesus—even to death. For example, Peter, Andrew, James, and John left their homes and their source of income to follow Jesus (Mark 1:16-20). For one rich man, turning from his selfish ways required selling all he had and giving the proceeds to the poor (Mark 10:21). Following Jesus also means being identified with him without being ashamed and being faithful to him and his teachings (Mark 8:38; cp. Rom 10:9). It requires removing anything that would interfere with following Jesus, regardless of how painful doing so might be (Mark 9:43-48). It requires entrusting one’s life entirely to Jesus and repenting of sin (Mark 1:15; 6:12). It even requires putting loyalty to Jesus above loyalty to one’s own father and mother (Matt 10:37; Luke 14:26).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus explicitly commanded his disciples to proclaim his message (Matt 28:18-20; Luke 24:47-49; Acts 1:8). And we see throughout the rest of the New Testament that Jesus’ followers did indeed proclaim the Good News wherever they went, leading to more and more followers (see Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26; 4:1-2, 20; 8:4; 9:20; 11:19-26; 13:1-3; Rom 1:1-16; 10:14-15; 15:18-21; 1 Cor 9:16; Col 1:23; 1 Thes 2:9; 2 Tim 4:2).<\/p>\n<p>Alongside Jesus’ demands for discipleship are the rewards of following Jesus. Those who follow Jesus are promised entrance into the Kingdom of God (Mark 9:43-48; 10:23-31). They receive his forgiveness for their sins (Mark 2:10-11; see also 3:28; 11:25), and they become members of the family of God (John 1:12). They are saved from judgment (Mark 8:35; 13:13) and obtain eternal life (Mark 9:43; 10:29-30; 1 Jn 5:11-12).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Hos 6:3; Matt 10:37-39; 28:18-20; Mark 1:15-20; 2:14-15; 3:13-15; 5:18-20; 6:6-13, 30-32; 8:34-38; 9:38-50; 10:17-31; 11:22-25; 13:9-13; Luke 14:25-35; 24:47-49; John 8:12; 10:27; 12:26; Acts 1:8; 2:42-47; 4:16-20; 8:4; 9:19-30; 11:19-24; 13:1-3; Rom 1:1-16; 10:7-15; 1 Cor 9:16; Eph 5:1; Col 1:23; 2 Tim 4:2; 1 Pet 2:21<\/p>","summary_ro":"Following Jesus One of the core purposes of the Gospels is to help readers understand and accept the call to take up their cross and follow Jesus. This call is addressed not only to those who would be Jesus’ apostles (Mark 3:13-19; cp. 1:16-20; 2:14) but to all who desired to follow him (Mark 8:34; cp. 2:15; 10:21, 52). For some, the call to discipleship is very hard (Mark 10:17-25), but God provides grace (10:27). Others find it easy to respond to Jesus’ call (Mark 2:14; cp. Luke 7:36-50). F...","summary_en":"Following Jesus One of the core purposes of the Gospels is to help readers understand and accept the call to take up their cross and follow Jesus. This call is addressed not only to those who would be Jesus’ apostles (Mark 3:13-19; cp. 1:16-20; 2:14) but to all who desired to follow him (Mark 8:34; cp. 2:15; 10:21, 52). For some, the call to discipleship is very hard (Mark 10:17-25), but God provides grace (10:27). Others find it easy to respond to Jesus’ call (Mark 2:14; cp. Luke 7:36-50). F...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":144099,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Spirit’s Presence","title_en":"The Spirit’s Presence","content_ro":"<h3>The Spirit’s Presence<\/h3>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord came upon a person or group when they were called to do a task or ordained for an office. The Spirit “came upon” the judges Othniel, Gideon, and Jephthah (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29), empowering them for service. Saul and David both received the Spirit of God when they were anointed king (1 Sam 10:1, 9-10; 16:13). The Spirit would depart when the task had been completed or when the officeholder was removed from office. When Samuel anointed David as the next king (16:13), the Spirit left Saul (16:14), who was disobedient and had been rejected by God as king (13:7-14; 15:10-29; cp. 28:15; Judg 16:20). After David had sinned with Bathsheba, he prayed to be spared this same judgment (Ps 51:11).<\/p>\n<p>In the New Testament, God’s Holy Spirit is given to all who put their faith in Christ for salvation, not just to individuals in specific roles (see Acts 2:14-21; 1 Cor 12:1-13; Eph 1:13-14). Still, the Spirit performs a similar role in equipping God’s servants to do the work that God has called them to do (see 1 Cor 12:7-10). The Old Testament departure of the Spirit from Saul tangibly demonstrates the need for the New Testament warnings not to sin against the Spirit and not to bring sorrow to the Spirit (see Mark 3:28-29; Eph 4:30; Heb 6:1-8).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 41:37-40; Exod 31:1-6; Judg 3:9-11; 6:34; 11:29; 14:5-6; 16:20-21; 1 Sam 10:1-10; 11:6-7; 16:13-23; 19:19-23; 2 Chr 20:13-19; 24:20-22; Ps 51:11-12; Isa 11:1-5; Jer 31:33-34; Joel 2:28-29; Mark 3:28-29; Acts 2:1-21; 4:31; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Heb 6:4-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Spirit’s Presence<\/h3>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord came upon a person or group when they were called to do a task or ordained for an office. The Spirit “came upon” the judges Othniel, Gideon, and Jephthah (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29), empowering them for service. Saul and David both received the Spirit of God when they were anointed king (1 Sam 10:1, 9-10; 16:13). The Spirit would depart when the task had been completed or when the officeholder was removed from office. When Samuel anointed David as the next king (16:13), the Spirit left Saul (16:14), who was disobedient and had been rejected by God as king (13:7-14; 15:10-29; cp. 28:15; Judg 16:20). After David had sinned with Bathsheba, he prayed to be spared this same judgment (Ps 51:11).<\/p>\n<p>In the New Testament, God’s Holy Spirit is given to all who put their faith in Christ for salvation, not just to individuals in specific roles (see Acts 2:14-21; 1 Cor 12:1-13; Eph 1:13-14). Still, the Spirit performs a similar role in equipping God’s servants to do the work that God has called them to do (see 1 Cor 12:7-10). The Old Testament departure of the Spirit from Saul tangibly demonstrates the need for the New Testament warnings not to sin against the Spirit and not to bring sorrow to the Spirit (see Mark 3:28-29; Eph 4:30; Heb 6:1-8).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 41:37-40; Exod 31:1-6; Judg 3:9-11; 6:34; 11:29; 14:5-6; 16:20-21; 1 Sam 10:1-10; 11:6-7; 16:13-23; 19:19-23; 2 Chr 20:13-19; 24:20-22; Ps 51:11-12; Isa 11:1-5; Jer 31:33-34; Joel 2:28-29; Mark 3:28-29; Acts 2:1-21; 4:31; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Heb 6:4-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Spirit’s Presence In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord came upon a person or group when they were called to do a task or ordained for an office. The Spirit “came upon” the judges Othniel, Gideon, and Jephthah (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29), empowering them for service. Saul and David both received the Spirit of God when they were anointed king (1 Sam 10:1, 9-10; 16:13). The Spirit would depart when the task had been completed or when the officeholder was removed from office. When Samuel...","summary_en":"The Spirit’s Presence In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord came upon a person or group when they were called to do a task or ordained for an office. The Spirit “came upon” the judges Othniel, Gideon, and Jephthah (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29), empowering them for service. Saul and David both received the Spirit of God when they were anointed king (1 Sam 10:1, 9-10; 16:13). The Spirit would depart when the task had been completed or when the officeholder was removed from office. When Samuel...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":148384,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Following Jesus","title_en":"Following Jesus","content_ro":"<h3>Following Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>One of the core purposes of the Gospels is to help readers understand and accept the call to take up their cross and follow Jesus. This call is addressed not only to those who would be Jesus’ apostles (Mark 3:13-19; cp. 1:16-20; 2:14) but to all who desired to follow him (Mark 8:34; cp. 2:15; 10:21, 52). For some, the call to discipleship is very hard (Mark 10:17-25), but God provides grace (10:27). Others find it easy to respond to Jesus’ call (Mark 2:14; cp. Luke 7:36-50).<\/p>\n<p>For everyone, following Jesus requires a total commitment to turn from selfish ways (Mark 8:34-35). Taking up one’s cross is a metaphor for giving up one’s life to follow Jesus—even to death. For example, Peter, Andrew, James, and John left their homes and their source of income to follow Jesus (Mark 1:16-20). For one rich man, turning from his selfish ways required selling all he had and giving the proceeds to the poor (Mark 10:21). Following Jesus also means being identified with him without being ashamed and being faithful to him and his teachings (Mark 8:38; cp. Rom 10:9). It requires removing anything that would interfere with following Jesus, regardless of how painful doing so might be (Mark 9:43-48). It requires entrusting one’s life entirely to Jesus and repenting of sin (Mark 1:15; 6:12). It even requires putting loyalty to Jesus above loyalty to one’s own father and mother (Matt 10:37; Luke 14:26).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus explicitly commanded his disciples to proclaim his message (Matt 28:18-20; Luke 24:47-49; Acts 1:8). And we see throughout the rest of the New Testament that Jesus’ followers did indeed proclaim the Good News wherever they went, leading to more and more followers (see Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26; 4:1-2, 20; 8:4; 9:20; 11:19-26; 13:1-3; Rom 1:1-16; 10:14-15; 15:18-21; 1 Cor 9:16; Col 1:23; 1 Thes 2:9; 2 Tim 4:2).<\/p>\n<p>Alongside Jesus’ demands for discipleship are the rewards of following Jesus. Those who follow Jesus are promised entrance into the Kingdom of God (Mark 9:43-48; 10:23-31). They receive his forgiveness for their sins (Mark 2:10-11; see also 3:28; 11:25), and they become members of the family of God (John 1:12). They are saved from judgment (Mark 8:35; 13:13) and obtain eternal life (Mark 9:43; 10:29-30; 1 Jn 5:11-12).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Hos 6:3; Matt 10:37-39; 28:18-20; Mark 1:15-20; 2:14-15; 3:13-15; 5:18-20; 6:6-13, 30-32; 8:34-38; 9:38-50; 10:17-31; 11:22-25; 13:9-13; Luke 14:25-35; 24:47-49; John 8:12; 10:27; 12:26; Acts 1:8; 2:42-47; 4:16-20; 8:4; 9:19-30; 11:19-24; 13:1-3; Rom 1:1-16; 10:7-15; 1 Cor 9:16; Eph 5:1; Col 1:23; 2 Tim 4:2; 1 Pet 2:21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Following Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>One of the core purposes of the Gospels is to help readers understand and accept the call to take up their cross and follow Jesus. This call is addressed not only to those who would be Jesus’ apostles (Mark 3:13-19; cp. 1:16-20; 2:14) but to all who desired to follow him (Mark 8:34; cp. 2:15; 10:21, 52). For some, the call to discipleship is very hard (Mark 10:17-25), but God provides grace (10:27). Others find it easy to respond to Jesus’ call (Mark 2:14; cp. Luke 7:36-50).<\/p>\n<p>For everyone, following Jesus requires a total commitment to turn from selfish ways (Mark 8:34-35). Taking up one’s cross is a metaphor for giving up one’s life to follow Jesus—even to death. For example, Peter, Andrew, James, and John left their homes and their source of income to follow Jesus (Mark 1:16-20). For one rich man, turning from his selfish ways required selling all he had and giving the proceeds to the poor (Mark 10:21). Following Jesus also means being identified with him without being ashamed and being faithful to him and his teachings (Mark 8:38; cp. Rom 10:9). It requires removing anything that would interfere with following Jesus, regardless of how painful doing so might be (Mark 9:43-48). It requires entrusting one’s life entirely to Jesus and repenting of sin (Mark 1:15; 6:12). It even requires putting loyalty to Jesus above loyalty to one’s own father and mother (Matt 10:37; Luke 14:26).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus explicitly commanded his disciples to proclaim his message (Matt 28:18-20; Luke 24:47-49; Acts 1:8). And we see throughout the rest of the New Testament that Jesus’ followers did indeed proclaim the Good News wherever they went, leading to more and more followers (see Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26; 4:1-2, 20; 8:4; 9:20; 11:19-26; 13:1-3; Rom 1:1-16; 10:14-15; 15:18-21; 1 Cor 9:16; Col 1:23; 1 Thes 2:9; 2 Tim 4:2).<\/p>\n<p>Alongside Jesus’ demands for discipleship are the rewards of following Jesus. Those who follow Jesus are promised entrance into the Kingdom of God (Mark 9:43-48; 10:23-31). They receive his forgiveness for their sins (Mark 2:10-11; see also 3:28; 11:25), and they become members of the family of God (John 1:12). They are saved from judgment (Mark 8:35; 13:13) and obtain eternal life (Mark 9:43; 10:29-30; 1 Jn 5:11-12).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Hos 6:3; Matt 10:37-39; 28:18-20; Mark 1:15-20; 2:14-15; 3:13-15; 5:18-20; 6:6-13, 30-32; 8:34-38; 9:38-50; 10:17-31; 11:22-25; 13:9-13; Luke 14:25-35; 24:47-49; John 8:12; 10:27; 12:26; Acts 1:8; 2:42-47; 4:16-20; 8:4; 9:19-30; 11:19-24; 13:1-3; Rom 1:1-16; 10:7-15; 1 Cor 9:16; Eph 5:1; Col 1:23; 2 Tim 4:2; 1 Pet 2:21<\/p>","summary_ro":"Following Jesus One of the core purposes of the Gospels is to help readers understand and accept the call to take up their cross and follow Jesus. This call is addressed not only to those who would be Jesus’ apostles (Mark 3:13-19; cp. 1:16-20; 2:14) but to all who desired to follow him (Mark 8:34; cp. 2:15; 10:21, 52). For some, the call to discipleship is very hard (Mark 10:17-25), but God provides grace (10:27). Others find it easy to respond to Jesus’ call (Mark 2:14; cp. Luke 7:36-50). F...","summary_en":"Following Jesus One of the core purposes of the Gospels is to help readers understand and accept the call to take up their cross and follow Jesus. This call is addressed not only to those who would be Jesus’ apostles (Mark 3:13-19; cp. 1:16-20; 2:14) but to all who desired to follow him (Mark 8:34; cp. 2:15; 10:21, 52). For some, the call to discipleship is very hard (Mark 10:17-25), but God provides grace (10:27). Others find it easy to respond to Jesus’ call (Mark 2:14; cp. Luke 7:36-50). F...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"29":[{"id":16169,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Hell","title_en":"Hell","content_ro":"<h3>HELL<\/h3>\n<p>Place of future punishment for the lost, unrepentant, wicked dead.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Definition and Description<\/p>\n<p>• Biblical Terms<\/p>\n<p>• The Justice of Eternal Punishment<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DefinitionandDescription\">Definition and Description<\/p>\n<p>Hell is the final destiny of unbelievers and is variously described by the figures of a furnace of fire, eternal fire, eternal punishment (Mt 13:42, 50; 25:41, 46); outer darkness, the place of weeping and torment (8:12); the lake of fire, the second death (Rv 21:8); a place for the devil and his demons (Mt 25:41). Evidently, those in hell experience everlasting separation from the Lord, never to see the glory of his power (2 Thes 1:9). Those who worshiped the beast will be subject to continuous torment (Rv 14:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>Other expressions that indicate that the final state of the wicked is eternal are these: “burn with unquenchable fire” (Mt 3:12); “to the unquenchable fire . . . where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched” (Mk 9:43, 48); there is sin that “will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Mt 12:32, <span>rsv<\/span>). When Scripture is understood properly, there is no hint anywhere of the termination of the terrible state of unbelievers in hell. Their doom is unending; there is a solemn finality about their miserable condition. (It is significant that the most descriptive and conclusive utterances about hell come from the lips of Jesus.)<\/p>\n<p>A summary of all Scripture that speaks of hell indicates that there is the loss and absence of all good, and the misery and torment of an evil conscience. The most terrifying aspect is the complete and deserved separation from God and from all that is pure, holy, and beautiful. In addition, there is the awareness of being under the wrath of God and of enduring the curse of a righteous sentence because of one’s sins that were consciously and voluntarily committed.<\/p>\n<p>Although the biblical descriptions of hell are stated in very physical and literal terms, the essential character of hell should not be conceived in or limited to designations such as the worm that devours, the stripes that are inflicted, the burning or being consumed by fire. This affirmation does not detract from the horror or the gravity of the situation in hell, because nothing could possibly be worse than separation from God and the torment of an evil conscience. Hell is hell for those who are there essentially because they are completely alienated from God, and wherever there is alienation from God, there is always estrangement from one’s fellows. This is the worst possible punishment to which anyone could be subject: to be totally and irrevocably cut off from God and to be at enmity with all those who are around oneself. Another painful consequence of such a condition is to be at odds with oneself—torn apart from within by an accusing sense of guilt and shame. This condition is one of total conflict: with God, one’s neighbors, and oneself. This is hell! If the descriptions of hell are figurative or symbolic, the conditions they represent are more intense and real than the figures of speech in which they are expressed.<\/p>\n<p>Punishment for sin is a persistent teaching of the Bible. The doctrine of judgment is as extensive as the Canon itself. Typical of such passages are Genesis 2:17; 3:17-19; 4:13; Leviticus 26:27-33; Psalm 149:7; Isaiah 3:11; Ezekiel 14:10; Amos 1:2–2:16; Zechariah 14:19; Matthew 25:41, 46; Luke 16:23-24; Romans 2:5-12; Galatians 6:7-8; Hebrews 10:29-31; and Revelation 20:11-15.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BiblicalTerms\">Biblical Terms<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew word “Sheol” in the OT is predominantly used for “the grave, the pit, the place of the departed dead” (Gn 37:35; Jb 7:9; 14:13; 17:13-16; Pss 6:5; 16:10; 55:15; Prv 9:18; Eccl 9:10; Is 14:11; 38:10-12, 18). There does not seem to be a very clear distinction in the OT between the final destiny of the good and the evil. They all alike go to the grave, to the world below, a world of gloom, weariness, darkness, decay, and forgetfulness, where one is remote from God (Jb 10:20-22; Ps 88:3-6), yet accessible to him (Jb 26:6; Ps 138:8; Am 9:2). It is a place characterized by silence (Pss 94:17; 115:17) and rest (Jb 3:17). Other texts, however, seem to suggest some aspect of consciousness, hope, and communication in Sheol (Jb 14:13-15; 19:25-27; Pss 16:10; 49:15; Is 14:9-10; Ez 32:21). A few texts seem to suggest the threat of divine judgment after death (Pss 9:17; 55:15). On the whole, Sheol was regarded with dismay and foreboding (Dt 32:22; Is 38:18).<\/p>\n<p>It was not until the time of the postcanonical Jewish literature, the writings that were developed between the close of the OT and the beginning of NT times, that clear distinctions were made between the final destinies of the righteous and the unrighteous. The idea of separate divisions within Sheol for the good and the evil was developed. It is unmistakable that there was in Jewish thought, as reflected throughout the OT, a belief in a future and continued existence beyond death, however shadowy and indefinite the concept.<\/p>\n<p>The Greek word “hades” in the NT is used very similarly to “Sheol” in the OT. It was, in fact, used by the translators of the Septuagint, the Greek version of the OT, for Sheol. It designated in general the place or state of the dead, the grave, or death itself. In some versions the word is not translated at all but is transliterated simply as “hades.” The NT is not always very explicit about the meaning of hades, other than what has just been described. Use of the word often does not reveal much about the specific condition of the dead. There are some passages, however, that indicate a distinct advance over the use of Sheol in the OT. One NT passage definitely describes hades as a place of evil and punishment of the wicked, and may appropriately be translated “hell” (Lk 16:23). In all other instances, hades indicates nothing more than the place of the dead.<\/p>\n<p>The Greek word “Gehenna” is used in a number of NT texts to designate the fiery place for punishment of sinners and is often translated “hell” or “the fires of hell” (Mt 5:22, 29-30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Mk 9:43, 45, 47; Jas 3:6). It is usually used in connection with the final judgment and often has the suggestion that the punishment spoken of is eternal. Gehenna is derived by transliteration from the Hebrew of the OT “valley of Hinnom” or the “valley of the son of Hinnom,” a ravine on the south side of Jerusalem. This valley was the center of idolatrous worship in which children were burned by fire as an offering to the heathen god Molech (2 Chr 28:3; 33:6). In the time of Josiah it became a place of abomination, polluted by dead men’s bones and rubbish (2 Kgs 23:10-14) and by the garbage and filth of Jerusalem dumped there. A fire burned continuously in this valley. It thus became a symbol of the unending fires of hell where the lost are consumed in torment. It was a symbol of judgment to be imposed on the idolatrous and disobedient (Jer 7:31-34; 32:35).<\/p>\n<p>Another Greek word used to designate hell or “the lower regions” is “Tartarus” (2 Pt 2:4), a classical word for the place of eternal punishment. The apostle Peter uses it for the fallen angels who were thrown into hell, “committed . . . to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment” (<span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>As noted above, there are, in addition to these terms, the very explicit and vivid phrases that clearly teach the doctrine of hell, as developed at the beginning of this article. The biblical doctrine is determined much more by these decisive phrases than by the somewhat indecisive but frequently used terms “Sheol” and “hades.”<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheJusticeofEternalPunishment\">The Justice of Eternal Punishment<\/p>\n<p>It is difficult for us to understand the righteous judgment of a holy God who, on one hand, hates all evil, yet, on the other hand, loves the evildoers enough to sacrifice his only Son for their salvation from sin. Divine wrath is the necessary reaction of a holy God who hates all that is contrary to his righteous nature. When the only remedy for human sin is rejected and all appeals of a loving, seeking God for the reconciliation of rebellious sinners are refused, there is no other course of action that God himself can pursue but to leave the sinner to his self-chosen destiny. Punishment for sin is then the inevitable and inescapable response of holiness to that which is morally opposite, and it must continue as long as the sinful condition requiring it continues. There is no indication anywhere in Scripture that lost sinners in hell are capable of repentance and faith. If in this life they did not turn away from sin and receive Christ as Savior with all the favorable circumstances and opportunities afforded them on earth, it is unreasonable to think they will do so in the life to come. Punishment cannot come to an end until guilt and sin come to an end. When the sinner ultimately resists and rejects the work of the Holy Spirit whereby he is convicted of sin, there remains no more possibility of repentance or salvation. He has committed an eternal sin (Mk 3:29; Rv 22:11), which deserves eternal punishment.<\/p>\n<p>The impossibility of faith and repentance in hell is seen also from the tragic reality of the depraved will, conditioned and determined by its repeated rebellion against God. Sin reproduces itself in the will, and character tends to become irrevocably fixed. God responds to endless sinning with the necessary counterpart of endless punishment.<\/p>\n<p>If the question is raised, How can a loving God send people to an everlasting hell? it must be replied that God does not choose this destination for people; they freely choose it for themselves. God simply concurs in their self-chosen way and reveals the full consequences of their evil choice. It must always be remembered that God is not only loving; he is also holy and righteous. There must be some adequate reckoning with justice in the universe where a revolt against God has brought evil consequences of enormous proportions.<\/p>\n<p>While the duration of punishment in hell is eternal for all who have chosen that destiny for themselves, there are degrees of punishment proportional to the degrees of guilt of each individual. Only God is able to determine what those degrees are, and he will assign the consequences with perfect justice according to the responsibility of each one. Evidence of such gradations in future punishment is found in Scripture (Mt 11:20-24; Lk 12:47-48; Rv 20:12-13; cf. Ez 16:48-61). An obvious comparison is made in these texts between the differing intensities of punishment that are involved in the contrasting privileges, knowledge, and opportunities.<\/p>\n<p>From all that has been said, it should be obvious that a variety of nonbiblical views must be ruled out, however attractively they may be presented by their advocates and however popular they may be from time to time. Among these views are the erroneous, but sometimes persuasive, doctrines of universalism, annihilationism, and second probation. Universalism promotes the concept that God will save everyone in the end. Annihilationism teaches that hell is not a place of conscious suffering but of final extermination. And second probation is a notion that people can be delivered from hell. It must always be remembered that the Bible is our rule of faith for the doctrine of hell, however difficult the doctrine may seem for natural reason or for human sentiment. Scripture leaves no doubt about the terrible nature and the eternal duration of hell. Rejection or neglect of this doctrine will have dire effects upon the mission of the church.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> “Abraham’s Bosom”; Dead, Place of the; Death; Gehenna; Hades; Intermediate State; Sheol; Wrath of God.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HELL<\/h3>\n<p>Place of future punishment for the lost, unrepentant, wicked dead.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Definition and Description<\/p>\n<p>• Biblical Terms<\/p>\n<p>• The Justice of Eternal Punishment<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DefinitionandDescription\">Definition and Description<\/p>\n<p>Hell is the final destiny of unbelievers and is variously described by the figures of a furnace of fire, eternal fire, eternal punishment (Mt 13:42, 50; 25:41, 46); outer darkness, the place of weeping and torment (8:12); the lake of fire, the second death (Rv 21:8); a place for the devil and his demons (Mt 25:41). Evidently, those in hell experience everlasting separation from the Lord, never to see the glory of his power (2 Thes 1:9). Those who worshiped the beast will be subject to continuous torment (Rv 14:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>Other expressions that indicate that the final state of the wicked is eternal are these: “burn with unquenchable fire” (Mt 3:12); “to the unquenchable fire . . . where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched” (Mk 9:43, 48); there is sin that “will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Mt 12:32, <span>rsv<\/span>). When Scripture is understood properly, there is no hint anywhere of the termination of the terrible state of unbelievers in hell. Their doom is unending; there is a solemn finality about their miserable condition. (It is significant that the most descriptive and conclusive utterances about hell come from the lips of Jesus.)<\/p>\n<p>A summary of all Scripture that speaks of hell indicates that there is the loss and absence of all good, and the misery and torment of an evil conscience. The most terrifying aspect is the complete and deserved separation from God and from all that is pure, holy, and beautiful. In addition, there is the awareness of being under the wrath of God and of enduring the curse of a righteous sentence because of one’s sins that were consciously and voluntarily committed.<\/p>\n<p>Although the biblical descriptions of hell are stated in very physical and literal terms, the essential character of hell should not be conceived in or limited to designations such as the worm that devours, the stripes that are inflicted, the burning or being consumed by fire. This affirmation does not detract from the horror or the gravity of the situation in hell, because nothing could possibly be worse than separation from God and the torment of an evil conscience. Hell is hell for those who are there essentially because they are completely alienated from God, and wherever there is alienation from God, there is always estrangement from one’s fellows. This is the worst possible punishment to which anyone could be subject: to be totally and irrevocably cut off from God and to be at enmity with all those who are around oneself. Another painful consequence of such a condition is to be at odds with oneself—torn apart from within by an accusing sense of guilt and shame. This condition is one of total conflict: with God, one’s neighbors, and oneself. This is hell! If the descriptions of hell are figurative or symbolic, the conditions they represent are more intense and real than the figures of speech in which they are expressed.<\/p>\n<p>Punishment for sin is a persistent teaching of the Bible. The doctrine of judgment is as extensive as the Canon itself. Typical of such passages are Genesis 2:17; 3:17-19; 4:13; Leviticus 26:27-33; Psalm 149:7; Isaiah 3:11; Ezekiel 14:10; Amos 1:2–2:16; Zechariah 14:19; Matthew 25:41, 46; Luke 16:23-24; Romans 2:5-12; Galatians 6:7-8; Hebrews 10:29-31; and Revelation 20:11-15.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BiblicalTerms\">Biblical Terms<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew word “Sheol” in the OT is predominantly used for “the grave, the pit, the place of the departed dead” (Gn 37:35; Jb 7:9; 14:13; 17:13-16; Pss 6:5; 16:10; 55:15; Prv 9:18; Eccl 9:10; Is 14:11; 38:10-12, 18). There does not seem to be a very clear distinction in the OT between the final destiny of the good and the evil. They all alike go to the grave, to the world below, a world of gloom, weariness, darkness, decay, and forgetfulness, where one is remote from God (Jb 10:20-22; Ps 88:3-6), yet accessible to him (Jb 26:6; Ps 138:8; Am 9:2). It is a place characterized by silence (Pss 94:17; 115:17) and rest (Jb 3:17). Other texts, however, seem to suggest some aspect of consciousness, hope, and communication in Sheol (Jb 14:13-15; 19:25-27; Pss 16:10; 49:15; Is 14:9-10; Ez 32:21). A few texts seem to suggest the threat of divine judgment after death (Pss 9:17; 55:15). On the whole, Sheol was regarded with dismay and foreboding (Dt 32:22; Is 38:18).<\/p>\n<p>It was not until the time of the postcanonical Jewish literature, the writings that were developed between the close of the OT and the beginning of NT times, that clear distinctions were made between the final destinies of the righteous and the unrighteous. The idea of separate divisions within Sheol for the good and the evil was developed. It is unmistakable that there was in Jewish thought, as reflected throughout the OT, a belief in a future and continued existence beyond death, however shadowy and indefinite the concept.<\/p>\n<p>The Greek word “hades” in the NT is used very similarly to “Sheol” in the OT. It was, in fact, used by the translators of the Septuagint, the Greek version of the OT, for Sheol. It designated in general the place or state of the dead, the grave, or death itself. In some versions the word is not translated at all but is transliterated simply as “hades.” The NT is not always very explicit about the meaning of hades, other than what has just been described. Use of the word often does not reveal much about the specific condition of the dead. There are some passages, however, that indicate a distinct advance over the use of Sheol in the OT. One NT passage definitely describes hades as a place of evil and punishment of the wicked, and may appropriately be translated “hell” (Lk 16:23). In all other instances, hades indicates nothing more than the place of the dead.<\/p>\n<p>The Greek word “Gehenna” is used in a number of NT texts to designate the fiery place for punishment of sinners and is often translated “hell” or “the fires of hell” (Mt 5:22, 29-30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Mk 9:43, 45, 47; Jas 3:6). It is usually used in connection with the final judgment and often has the suggestion that the punishment spoken of is eternal. Gehenna is derived by transliteration from the Hebrew of the OT “valley of Hinnom” or the “valley of the son of Hinnom,” a ravine on the south side of Jerusalem. This valley was the center of idolatrous worship in which children were burned by fire as an offering to the heathen god Molech (2 Chr 28:3; 33:6). In the time of Josiah it became a place of abomination, polluted by dead men’s bones and rubbish (2 Kgs 23:10-14) and by the garbage and filth of Jerusalem dumped there. A fire burned continuously in this valley. It thus became a symbol of the unending fires of hell where the lost are consumed in torment. It was a symbol of judgment to be imposed on the idolatrous and disobedient (Jer 7:31-34; 32:35).<\/p>\n<p>Another Greek word used to designate hell or “the lower regions” is “Tartarus” (2 Pt 2:4), a classical word for the place of eternal punishment. The apostle Peter uses it for the fallen angels who were thrown into hell, “committed . . . to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment” (<span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>As noted above, there are, in addition to these terms, the very explicit and vivid phrases that clearly teach the doctrine of hell, as developed at the beginning of this article. The biblical doctrine is determined much more by these decisive phrases than by the somewhat indecisive but frequently used terms “Sheol” and “hades.”<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheJusticeofEternalPunishment\">The Justice of Eternal Punishment<\/p>\n<p>It is difficult for us to understand the righteous judgment of a holy God who, on one hand, hates all evil, yet, on the other hand, loves the evildoers enough to sacrifice his only Son for their salvation from sin. Divine wrath is the necessary reaction of a holy God who hates all that is contrary to his righteous nature. When the only remedy for human sin is rejected and all appeals of a loving, seeking God for the reconciliation of rebellious sinners are refused, there is no other course of action that God himself can pursue but to leave the sinner to his self-chosen destiny. Punishment for sin is then the inevitable and inescapable response of holiness to that which is morally opposite, and it must continue as long as the sinful condition requiring it continues. There is no indication anywhere in Scripture that lost sinners in hell are capable of repentance and faith. If in this life they did not turn away from sin and receive Christ as Savior with all the favorable circumstances and opportunities afforded them on earth, it is unreasonable to think they will do so in the life to come. Punishment cannot come to an end until guilt and sin come to an end. When the sinner ultimately resists and rejects the work of the Holy Spirit whereby he is convicted of sin, there remains no more possibility of repentance or salvation. He has committed an eternal sin (Mk 3:29; Rv 22:11), which deserves eternal punishment.<\/p>\n<p>The impossibility of faith and repentance in hell is seen also from the tragic reality of the depraved will, conditioned and determined by its repeated rebellion against God. Sin reproduces itself in the will, and character tends to become irrevocably fixed. God responds to endless sinning with the necessary counterpart of endless punishment.<\/p>\n<p>If the question is raised, How can a loving God send people to an everlasting hell? it must be replied that God does not choose this destination for people; they freely choose it for themselves. God simply concurs in their self-chosen way and reveals the full consequences of their evil choice. It must always be remembered that God is not only loving; he is also holy and righteous. There must be some adequate reckoning with justice in the universe where a revolt against God has brought evil consequences of enormous proportions.<\/p>\n<p>While the duration of punishment in hell is eternal for all who have chosen that destiny for themselves, there are degrees of punishment proportional to the degrees of guilt of each individual. Only God is able to determine what those degrees are, and he will assign the consequences with perfect justice according to the responsibility of each one. Evidence of such gradations in future punishment is found in Scripture (Mt 11:20-24; Lk 12:47-48; Rv 20:12-13; cf. Ez 16:48-61). An obvious comparison is made in these texts between the differing intensities of punishment that are involved in the contrasting privileges, knowledge, and opportunities.<\/p>\n<p>From all that has been said, it should be obvious that a variety of nonbiblical views must be ruled out, however attractively they may be presented by their advocates and however popular they may be from time to time. Among these views are the erroneous, but sometimes persuasive, doctrines of universalism, annihilationism, and second probation. Universalism promotes the concept that God will save everyone in the end. Annihilationism teaches that hell is not a place of conscious suffering but of final extermination. And second probation is a notion that people can be delivered from hell. It must always be remembered that the Bible is our rule of faith for the doctrine of hell, however difficult the doctrine may seem for natural reason or for human sentiment. Scripture leaves no doubt about the terrible nature and the eternal duration of hell. Rejection or neglect of this doctrine will have dire effects upon the mission of the church.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> “Abraham’s Bosom”; Dead, Place of the; Death; Gehenna; Hades; Intermediate State; Sheol; Wrath of God.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HELL Place of future punishment for the lost, unrepentant, wicked dead. Preview • Definition and Description • Biblical Terms • The Justice of Eternal Punishment Definition and Description Hell is the final destiny of unbelievers and is variously described by the figures of a furnace of fire, eternal fire, eternal punishment (Mt 13:42, 50; 25:41, 46); outer darkness, the place of weeping and torment (8:12); the lake of fire, the second death (Rv 21:8); a place for the devil and his demons (Mt...","summary_en":"HELL Place of future punishment for the lost, unrepentant, wicked dead. Preview • Definition and Description • Biblical Terms • The Justice of Eternal Punishment Definition and Description Hell is the final destiny of unbelievers and is variously described by the figures of a furnace of fire, eternal fire, eternal punishment (Mt 13:42, 50; 25:41, 46); outer darkness, the place of weeping and torment (8:12); the lake of fire, the second death (Rv 21:8); a place for the devil and his demons (Mt...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"31":[{"id":42332,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Mary, Mother of Jesus","title_en":"Mary, Mother of Jesus","content_ro":"<h3>Mary, Mother of Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>Mary, the wife of Joseph, was the virgin mother of Jesus. Luke tells us that as a young girl in Nazareth, Mary was betrothed to Joseph, a local carpenter. Before the marriage took place, an angel announced to her that she would become pregnant by the power of God’s Spirit and give birth to the Son of God (Luke 1:26-35). Mary responded to this extraordinary message in simple faith, humbly submitting herself to God’s will (Luke 1:38; see also Luke 1:46-55). Shortly thereafter, the message was confirmed by her relative Elizabeth, who spoke of Mary as the most blessed of all women (Luke 1:39-45). Mary’s miraculous bearing of the Son of God was viewed as a fulfillment of prophecy (Isa 7:14).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ birth took place in unusual circumstances, when Joseph took Mary to Bethlehem to register for an official Roman census. The child was born in a stable because no other lodging was available (Luke 2:1-7). Some time later, Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt to save the child from Herod’s massacre of young boys in the Bethlehem area (Matt 2:13-18). When they returned, they resettled in Nazareth to raise their family (Matt 2:19-23). After Jesus’ birth, Mary apparently gave birth to several other sons and daughters (Matt 13:55-56; Mark 6:3). It is likely that Mary herself told Luke the details of Jesus’ birth and the unusual events associated with it (see Luke 2:51).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus was twelve years old, he stayed in the Temple during a family trip to Jerusalem. Mary and Joseph rebuked him for staying behind when they departed, but they did not understand Jesus’ response (Luke 2:41-51). Early in Jesus’ public ministry, Mary encouraged him to do a miracle at a wedding in Cana (John 2:1-11). Later, when she and Jesus’ brothers went to see Jesus, he said that his disciples were his “real family” (Matt 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus was crucified, Mary was among the women looking on (cp. Mark 15:40, 47; John 19:25). As Jesus was dying, he asked John, the “disciple he loved,” to take care of Mary as his own mother (John 19:26-27). After Jesus’ death and resurrection, Mary was apparently a member of the believing community; she is listed among those who were praying together when the Spirit came on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 1:14).<\/p>\n<p>God chose Mary to bring his Son, the Savior, into the world. For all Christians, she is a model of humble and obedient submission to God’s will.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 1:16, 18-25; 2:11, 13-23; Luke 1:26–2:51; John 19:25-27; Acts 1:14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Mary, Mother of Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>Mary, the wife of Joseph, was the virgin mother of Jesus. Luke tells us that as a young girl in Nazareth, Mary was betrothed to Joseph, a local carpenter. Before the marriage took place, an angel announced to her that she would become pregnant by the power of God’s Spirit and give birth to the Son of God (Luke 1:26-35). Mary responded to this extraordinary message in simple faith, humbly submitting herself to God’s will (Luke 1:38; see also Luke 1:46-55). Shortly thereafter, the message was confirmed by her relative Elizabeth, who spoke of Mary as the most blessed of all women (Luke 1:39-45). Mary’s miraculous bearing of the Son of God was viewed as a fulfillment of prophecy (Isa 7:14).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ birth took place in unusual circumstances, when Joseph took Mary to Bethlehem to register for an official Roman census. The child was born in a stable because no other lodging was available (Luke 2:1-7). Some time later, Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt to save the child from Herod’s massacre of young boys in the Bethlehem area (Matt 2:13-18). When they returned, they resettled in Nazareth to raise their family (Matt 2:19-23). After Jesus’ birth, Mary apparently gave birth to several other sons and daughters (Matt 13:55-56; Mark 6:3). It is likely that Mary herself told Luke the details of Jesus’ birth and the unusual events associated with it (see Luke 2:51).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus was twelve years old, he stayed in the Temple during a family trip to Jerusalem. Mary and Joseph rebuked him for staying behind when they departed, but they did not understand Jesus’ response (Luke 2:41-51). Early in Jesus’ public ministry, Mary encouraged him to do a miracle at a wedding in Cana (John 2:1-11). Later, when she and Jesus’ brothers went to see Jesus, he said that his disciples were his “real family” (Matt 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus was crucified, Mary was among the women looking on (cp. Mark 15:40, 47; John 19:25). As Jesus was dying, he asked John, the “disciple he loved,” to take care of Mary as his own mother (John 19:26-27). After Jesus’ death and resurrection, Mary was apparently a member of the believing community; she is listed among those who were praying together when the Spirit came on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 1:14).<\/p>\n<p>God chose Mary to bring his Son, the Savior, into the world. For all Christians, she is a model of humble and obedient submission to God’s will.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 1:16, 18-25; 2:11, 13-23; Luke 1:26–2:51; John 19:25-27; Acts 1:14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Mary, Mother of Jesus Mary, the wife of Joseph, was the virgin mother of Jesus. Luke tells us that as a young girl in Nazareth, Mary was betrothed to Joseph, a local carpenter. Before the marriage took place, an angel announced to her that she would become pregnant by the power of God’s Spirit and give birth to the Son of God (Luke 1:26-35). Mary responded to this extraordinary message in simple faith, humbly submitting herself to God’s will (Luke 1:38; see also Luke 1:46-55). Shortly thereaf...","summary_en":"Mary, Mother of Jesus Mary, the wife of Joseph, was the virgin mother of Jesus. Luke tells us that as a young girl in Nazareth, Mary was betrothed to Joseph, a local carpenter. Before the marriage took place, an angel announced to her that she would become pregnant by the power of God’s Spirit and give birth to the Son of God (Luke 1:26-35). Mary responded to this extraordinary message in simple faith, humbly submitting herself to God’s will (Luke 1:38; see also Luke 1:46-55). Shortly thereaf...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":69958,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Mary, Mother of Jesus","title_en":"Mary, Mother of Jesus","content_ro":"<h3>Mary, Mother of Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>Mary, the wife of Joseph, was the virgin mother of Jesus. Luke tells us that as a young girl in Nazareth, Mary was betrothed to Joseph, a local carpenter. Before the marriage took place, an angel announced to her that she would become pregnant by the power of God’s Spirit and give birth to the Son of God (Luke 1:26-35). Mary responded to this extraordinary message in simple faith, humbly submitting herself to God’s will (Luke 1:38; see also Luke 1:46-55). Shortly thereafter, the message was confirmed by her relative Elizabeth, who spoke of Mary as the most blessed of all women (Luke 1:39-45). Mary’s miraculous bearing of the Son of God was viewed as a fulfillment of prophecy (Isa 7:14).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ birth took place in unusual circumstances, when Joseph took Mary to Bethlehem to register for an official Roman census. The child was born in a stable because no other lodging was available (Luke 2:1-7). Some time later, Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt to save the child from Herod’s massacre of young boys in the Bethlehem area (Matt 2:13-18). When they returned, they resettled in Nazareth to raise their family (Matt 2:19-23). After Jesus’ birth, Mary apparently gave birth to several other sons and daughters (Matt 13:55-56; Mark 6:3). It is likely that Mary herself told Luke the details of Jesus’ birth and the unusual events associated with it (see Luke 2:51).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus was twelve years old, he stayed in the Temple during a family trip to Jerusalem. Mary and Joseph rebuked him for staying behind when they departed, but they did not understand Jesus’ response (Luke 2:41-51). Early in Jesus’ public ministry, Mary encouraged him to do a miracle at a wedding in Cana (John 2:1-11). Later, when she and Jesus’ brothers went to see Jesus, he said that his disciples were his “real family” (Matt 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus was crucified, Mary was among the women looking on (cp. Mark 15:40, 47; John 19:25). As Jesus was dying, he asked John, the “disciple he loved,” to take care of Mary as his own mother (John 19:26-27). After Jesus’ death and resurrection, Mary was apparently a member of the believing community; she is listed among those who were praying together when the Spirit came on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 1:14).<\/p>\n<p>God chose Mary to bring his Son, the Savior, into the world. For all Christians, she is a model of humble and obedient submission to God’s will.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 1:16, 18-25; 2:11, 13-23; Luke 1:26–2:51; John 19:25-27; Acts 1:14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Mary, Mother of Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>Mary, the wife of Joseph, was the virgin mother of Jesus. Luke tells us that as a young girl in Nazareth, Mary was betrothed to Joseph, a local carpenter. Before the marriage took place, an angel announced to her that she would become pregnant by the power of God’s Spirit and give birth to the Son of God (Luke 1:26-35). Mary responded to this extraordinary message in simple faith, humbly submitting herself to God’s will (Luke 1:38; see also Luke 1:46-55). Shortly thereafter, the message was confirmed by her relative Elizabeth, who spoke of Mary as the most blessed of all women (Luke 1:39-45). Mary’s miraculous bearing of the Son of God was viewed as a fulfillment of prophecy (Isa 7:14).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ birth took place in unusual circumstances, when Joseph took Mary to Bethlehem to register for an official Roman census. The child was born in a stable because no other lodging was available (Luke 2:1-7). Some time later, Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt to save the child from Herod’s massacre of young boys in the Bethlehem area (Matt 2:13-18). When they returned, they resettled in Nazareth to raise their family (Matt 2:19-23). After Jesus’ birth, Mary apparently gave birth to several other sons and daughters (Matt 13:55-56; Mark 6:3). It is likely that Mary herself told Luke the details of Jesus’ birth and the unusual events associated with it (see Luke 2:51).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus was twelve years old, he stayed in the Temple during a family trip to Jerusalem. Mary and Joseph rebuked him for staying behind when they departed, but they did not understand Jesus’ response (Luke 2:41-51). Early in Jesus’ public ministry, Mary encouraged him to do a miracle at a wedding in Cana (John 2:1-11). Later, when she and Jesus’ brothers went to see Jesus, he said that his disciples were his “real family” (Matt 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus was crucified, Mary was among the women looking on (cp. Mark 15:40, 47; John 19:25). As Jesus was dying, he asked John, the “disciple he loved,” to take care of Mary as his own mother (John 19:26-27). After Jesus’ death and resurrection, Mary was apparently a member of the believing community; she is listed among those who were praying together when the Spirit came on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 1:14).<\/p>\n<p>God chose Mary to bring his Son, the Savior, into the world. For all Christians, she is a model of humble and obedient submission to God’s will.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 1:16, 18-25; 2:11, 13-23; Luke 1:26–2:51; John 19:25-27; Acts 1:14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Mary, Mother of Jesus Mary, the wife of Joseph, was the virgin mother of Jesus. Luke tells us that as a young girl in Nazareth, Mary was betrothed to Joseph, a local carpenter. Before the marriage took place, an angel announced to her that she would become pregnant by the power of God’s Spirit and give birth to the Son of God (Luke 1:26-35). Mary responded to this extraordinary message in simple faith, humbly submitting herself to God’s will (Luke 1:38; see also Luke 1:46-55). Shortly thereaf...","summary_en":"Mary, Mother of Jesus Mary, the wife of Joseph, was the virgin mother of Jesus. Luke tells us that as a young girl in Nazareth, Mary was betrothed to Joseph, a local carpenter. Before the marriage took place, an angel announced to her that she would become pregnant by the power of God’s Spirit and give birth to the Son of God (Luke 1:26-35). Mary responded to this extraordinary message in simple faith, humbly submitting herself to God’s will (Luke 1:38; see also Luke 1:46-55). Shortly thereaf...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":97584,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Mary, Mother of Jesus","title_en":"Mary, Mother of Jesus","content_ro":"<h3>Mary, Mother of Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>Mary, the wife of Joseph, was the virgin mother of Jesus. Luke tells us that as a young girl in Nazareth, Mary was betrothed to Joseph, a local carpenter. Before the marriage took place, an angel announced to her that she would become pregnant by the power of God’s Spirit and give birth to the Son of God (Luke 1:26-35). Mary responded to this extraordinary message in simple faith, humbly submitting herself to God’s will (Luke 1:38; see also Luke 1:46-55). Shortly thereafter, the message was confirmed by her relative Elizabeth, who spoke of Mary as the most blessed of all women (Luke 1:39-45). Mary’s miraculous bearing of the Son of God was viewed as a fulfillment of prophecy (Isa 7:14).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ birth took place in unusual circumstances, when Joseph took Mary to Bethlehem to register for an official Roman census. The child was born in a stable because no other lodging was available (Luke 2:1-7). Some time later, Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt to save the child from Herod’s massacre of young boys in the Bethlehem area (Matt 2:13-18). When they returned, they resettled in Nazareth to raise their family (Matt 2:19-23). After Jesus’ birth, Mary apparently gave birth to several other sons and daughters (Matt 13:55-56; Mark 6:3). It is likely that Mary herself told Luke the details of Jesus’ birth and the unusual events associated with it (see Luke 2:51).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus was twelve years old, he stayed in the Temple during a family trip to Jerusalem. Mary and Joseph rebuked him for staying behind when they departed, but they did not understand Jesus’ response (Luke 2:41-51). Early in Jesus’ public ministry, Mary encouraged him to do a miracle at a wedding in Cana (John 2:1-11). Later, when she and Jesus’ brothers went to see Jesus, he said that his disciples were his “real family” (Matt 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus was crucified, Mary was among the women looking on (cp. Mark 15:40, 47; John 19:25). As Jesus was dying, he asked John, the “disciple he loved,” to take care of Mary as his own mother (John 19:26-27). After Jesus’ death and resurrection, Mary was apparently a member of the believing community; she is listed among those who were praying together when the Spirit came on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 1:14).<\/p>\n<p>God chose Mary to bring his Son, the Savior, into the world. For all Christians, she is a model of humble and obedient submission to God’s will.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 1:16, 18-25; 2:11, 13-23; Luke 1:26–2:51; John 19:25-27; Acts 1:14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Mary, Mother of Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>Mary, the wife of Joseph, was the virgin mother of Jesus. Luke tells us that as a young girl in Nazareth, Mary was betrothed to Joseph, a local carpenter. Before the marriage took place, an angel announced to her that she would become pregnant by the power of God’s Spirit and give birth to the Son of God (Luke 1:26-35). Mary responded to this extraordinary message in simple faith, humbly submitting herself to God’s will (Luke 1:38; see also Luke 1:46-55). Shortly thereafter, the message was confirmed by her relative Elizabeth, who spoke of Mary as the most blessed of all women (Luke 1:39-45). Mary’s miraculous bearing of the Son of God was viewed as a fulfillment of prophecy (Isa 7:14).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ birth took place in unusual circumstances, when Joseph took Mary to Bethlehem to register for an official Roman census. The child was born in a stable because no other lodging was available (Luke 2:1-7). Some time later, Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt to save the child from Herod’s massacre of young boys in the Bethlehem area (Matt 2:13-18). When they returned, they resettled in Nazareth to raise their family (Matt 2:19-23). After Jesus’ birth, Mary apparently gave birth to several other sons and daughters (Matt 13:55-56; Mark 6:3). It is likely that Mary herself told Luke the details of Jesus’ birth and the unusual events associated with it (see Luke 2:51).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus was twelve years old, he stayed in the Temple during a family trip to Jerusalem. Mary and Joseph rebuked him for staying behind when they departed, but they did not understand Jesus’ response (Luke 2:41-51). Early in Jesus’ public ministry, Mary encouraged him to do a miracle at a wedding in Cana (John 2:1-11). Later, when she and Jesus’ brothers went to see Jesus, he said that his disciples were his “real family” (Matt 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus was crucified, Mary was among the women looking on (cp. Mark 15:40, 47; John 19:25). As Jesus was dying, he asked John, the “disciple he loved,” to take care of Mary as his own mother (John 19:26-27). After Jesus’ death and resurrection, Mary was apparently a member of the believing community; she is listed among those who were praying together when the Spirit came on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 1:14).<\/p>\n<p>God chose Mary to bring his Son, the Savior, into the world. For all Christians, she is a model of humble and obedient submission to God’s will.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 1:16, 18-25; 2:11, 13-23; Luke 1:26–2:51; John 19:25-27; Acts 1:14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Mary, Mother of Jesus Mary, the wife of Joseph, was the virgin mother of Jesus. Luke tells us that as a young girl in Nazareth, Mary was betrothed to Joseph, a local carpenter. Before the marriage took place, an angel announced to her that she would become pregnant by the power of God’s Spirit and give birth to the Son of God (Luke 1:26-35). Mary responded to this extraordinary message in simple faith, humbly submitting herself to God’s will (Luke 1:38; see also Luke 1:46-55). Shortly thereaf...","summary_en":"Mary, Mother of Jesus Mary, the wife of Joseph, was the virgin mother of Jesus. Luke tells us that as a young girl in Nazareth, Mary was betrothed to Joseph, a local carpenter. Before the marriage took place, an angel announced to her that she would become pregnant by the power of God’s Spirit and give birth to the Son of God (Luke 1:26-35). Mary responded to this extraordinary message in simple faith, humbly submitting herself to God’s will (Luke 1:38; see also Luke 1:46-55). Shortly thereaf...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125210,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Mary, Mother of Jesus","title_en":"Mary, Mother of Jesus","content_ro":"<h3>Mary, Mother of Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>Mary, the wife of Joseph, was the virgin mother of Jesus. Luke tells us that as a young girl in Nazareth, Mary was betrothed to Joseph, a local carpenter. Before the marriage took place, an angel announced to her that she would become pregnant by the power of God’s Spirit and give birth to the Son of God (Luke 1:26-35). Mary responded to this extraordinary message in simple faith, humbly submitting herself to God’s will (Luke 1:38; see also Luke 1:46-55). Shortly thereafter, the message was confirmed by her relative Elizabeth, who spoke of Mary as the most blessed of all women (Luke 1:39-45). Mary’s miraculous bearing of the Son of God was viewed as a fulfillment of prophecy (Isa 7:14).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ birth took place in unusual circumstances, when Joseph took Mary to Bethlehem to register for an official Roman census. The child was born in a stable because no other lodging was available (Luke 2:1-7). Some time later, Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt to save the child from Herod’s massacre of young boys in the Bethlehem area (Matt 2:13-18). When they returned, they resettled in Nazareth to raise their family (Matt 2:19-23). After Jesus’ birth, Mary apparently gave birth to several other sons and daughters (Matt 13:55-56; Mark 6:3). It is likely that Mary herself told Luke the details of Jesus’ birth and the unusual events associated with it (see Luke 2:51).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus was twelve years old, he stayed in the Temple during a family trip to Jerusalem. Mary and Joseph rebuked him for staying behind when they departed, but they did not understand Jesus’ response (Luke 2:41-51). Early in Jesus’ public ministry, Mary encouraged him to do a miracle at a wedding in Cana (John 2:1-11). Later, when she and Jesus’ brothers went to see Jesus, he said that his disciples were his “real family” (Matt 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus was crucified, Mary was among the women looking on (cp. Mark 15:40, 47; John 19:25). As Jesus was dying, he asked John, the “disciple he loved,” to take care of Mary as his own mother (John 19:26-27). After Jesus’ death and resurrection, Mary was apparently a member of the believing community; she is listed among those who were praying together when the Spirit came on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 1:14).<\/p>\n<p>God chose Mary to bring his Son, the Savior, into the world. For all Christians, she is a model of humble and obedient submission to God’s will.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 1:16, 18-25; 2:11, 13-23; Luke 1:26–2:51; John 19:25-27; Acts 1:14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Mary, Mother of Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>Mary, the wife of Joseph, was the virgin mother of Jesus. Luke tells us that as a young girl in Nazareth, Mary was betrothed to Joseph, a local carpenter. Before the marriage took place, an angel announced to her that she would become pregnant by the power of God’s Spirit and give birth to the Son of God (Luke 1:26-35). Mary responded to this extraordinary message in simple faith, humbly submitting herself to God’s will (Luke 1:38; see also Luke 1:46-55). Shortly thereafter, the message was confirmed by her relative Elizabeth, who spoke of Mary as the most blessed of all women (Luke 1:39-45). Mary’s miraculous bearing of the Son of God was viewed as a fulfillment of prophecy (Isa 7:14).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ birth took place in unusual circumstances, when Joseph took Mary to Bethlehem to register for an official Roman census. The child was born in a stable because no other lodging was available (Luke 2:1-7). Some time later, Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt to save the child from Herod’s massacre of young boys in the Bethlehem area (Matt 2:13-18). When they returned, they resettled in Nazareth to raise their family (Matt 2:19-23). After Jesus’ birth, Mary apparently gave birth to several other sons and daughters (Matt 13:55-56; Mark 6:3). It is likely that Mary herself told Luke the details of Jesus’ birth and the unusual events associated with it (see Luke 2:51).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus was twelve years old, he stayed in the Temple during a family trip to Jerusalem. Mary and Joseph rebuked him for staying behind when they departed, but they did not understand Jesus’ response (Luke 2:41-51). Early in Jesus’ public ministry, Mary encouraged him to do a miracle at a wedding in Cana (John 2:1-11). Later, when she and Jesus’ brothers went to see Jesus, he said that his disciples were his “real family” (Matt 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus was crucified, Mary was among the women looking on (cp. Mark 15:40, 47; John 19:25). As Jesus was dying, he asked John, the “disciple he loved,” to take care of Mary as his own mother (John 19:26-27). After Jesus’ death and resurrection, Mary was apparently a member of the believing community; she is listed among those who were praying together when the Spirit came on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 1:14).<\/p>\n<p>God chose Mary to bring his Son, the Savior, into the world. For all Christians, she is a model of humble and obedient submission to God’s will.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 1:16, 18-25; 2:11, 13-23; Luke 1:26–2:51; John 19:25-27; Acts 1:14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Mary, Mother of Jesus Mary, the wife of Joseph, was the virgin mother of Jesus. Luke tells us that as a young girl in Nazareth, Mary was betrothed to Joseph, a local carpenter. Before the marriage took place, an angel announced to her that she would become pregnant by the power of God’s Spirit and give birth to the Son of God (Luke 1:26-35). Mary responded to this extraordinary message in simple faith, humbly submitting herself to God’s will (Luke 1:38; see also Luke 1:46-55). Shortly thereaf...","summary_en":"Mary, Mother of Jesus Mary, the wife of Joseph, was the virgin mother of Jesus. Luke tells us that as a young girl in Nazareth, Mary was betrothed to Joseph, a local carpenter. Before the marriage took place, an angel announced to her that she would become pregnant by the power of God’s Spirit and give birth to the Son of God (Luke 1:26-35). Mary responded to this extraordinary message in simple faith, humbly submitting herself to God’s will (Luke 1:38; see also Luke 1:46-55). Shortly thereaf...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20589,"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>\n<p>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 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>Two 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>\n<p>Joseph 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>\n<p>After 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>\n<p>Upon 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>\n<p>When 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). <em>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>\n<p>When 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>\n<p>Jesus 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>\n<p>During 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>\n<p><em>See 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. <em>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). <em>See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>10. KJV rendering of Josech, an ancestor of Jesus, in Luke 3:26. <em>See<\/em> Josech.<\/li>\n<li>11. Jonam’s son and an ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:30). <em>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). <em>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>\n<p>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 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>Two 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>\n<p>Joseph 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>\n<p>After 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>\n<p>Upon 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>\n<p>When 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). <em>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>\n<p>When 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>\n<p>Jesus 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>\n<p>During 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>\n<p><em>See 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. <em>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). <em>See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>10. KJV rendering of Josech, an ancestor of Jesus, in Luke 3:26. <em>See<\/em> Josech.<\/li>\n<li>11. Jonam’s son and an ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:30). <em>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). <em>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":55204,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:31","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:31","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:31-35<\/strong> Mark resumes from 3:20-21. • <em>Your mother and your brothers:<\/em> Jesus’ brothers are commonly understood to have been children born to Joseph and Mary after Jesus’ birth (see also 6:3; Matt 1:25; 12:46; John 19:26-27); some interpreters instead believe that they were either Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage or Jesus’ cousins, due to the Roman Catholic belief that Mary was perpetually a virgin.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:31-35<\/strong> Mark resumes from 3:20-21. • <em>Your mother and your brothers:<\/em> Jesus’ brothers are commonly understood to have been children born to Joseph and Mary after Jesus’ birth (see also 6:3; Matt 1:25; 12:46; John 19:26-27); some interpreters instead believe that they were either Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage or Jesus’ cousins, due to the Roman Catholic belief that Mary was perpetually a virgin.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:31-35 Mark resumes from 3:20-21. • Your mother and your brothers: Jesus’ brothers are commonly understood to have been children born to Joseph and Mary after Jesus’ birth (see also 6:3; Matt 1:25; 12:46; John 19:26-27); some interpreters instead believe that they were either Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage or Jesus’ cousins, due to the Roman Catholic belief that Mary was perpetually a virgin.","summary_en":"3:31-35 Mark resumes from 3:20-21. • Your mother and your brothers: Jesus’ brothers are commonly understood to have been children born to Joseph and Mary after Jesus’ birth (see also 6:3; Matt 1:25; 12:46; John 19:26-27); some interpreters instead believe that they were either Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage or Jesus’ cousins, due to the Roman Catholic belief that Mary was perpetually a virgin.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82830,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:31","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:31","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:31-35<\/strong> Mark resumes from 3:20-21. • <em>Your mother and your brothers:<\/em> Jesus’ brothers are commonly understood to have been children born to Joseph and Mary after Jesus’ birth (see also 6:3; Matt 1:25; 12:46; John 19:26-27); some interpreters instead believe that they were either Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage or Jesus’ cousins, due to the Roman Catholic belief that Mary was perpetually a virgin.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:31-35<\/strong> Mark resumes from 3:20-21. • <em>Your mother and your brothers:<\/em> Jesus’ brothers are commonly understood to have been children born to Joseph and Mary after Jesus’ birth (see also 6:3; Matt 1:25; 12:46; John 19:26-27); some interpreters instead believe that they were either Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage or Jesus’ cousins, due to the Roman Catholic belief that Mary was perpetually a virgin.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:31-35 Mark resumes from 3:20-21. • Your mother and your brothers: Jesus’ brothers are commonly understood to have been children born to Joseph and Mary after Jesus’ birth (see also 6:3; Matt 1:25; 12:46; John 19:26-27); some interpreters instead believe that they were either Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage or Jesus’ cousins, due to the Roman Catholic belief that Mary was perpetually a virgin.","summary_en":"3:31-35 Mark resumes from 3:20-21. • Your mother and your brothers: Jesus’ brothers are commonly understood to have been children born to Joseph and Mary after Jesus’ birth (see also 6:3; Matt 1:25; 12:46; John 19:26-27); some interpreters instead believe that they were either Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage or Jesus’ cousins, due to the Roman Catholic belief that Mary was perpetually a virgin.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110456,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:31","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:31","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:31-35<\/strong> Mark resumes from 3:20-21. • <em>Your mother and your brothers:<\/em> Jesus’ brothers are commonly understood to have been children born to Joseph and Mary after Jesus’ birth (see also 6:3; Matt 1:25; 12:46; John 19:26-27); some interpreters instead believe that they were either Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage or Jesus’ cousins, due to the Roman Catholic belief that Mary was perpetually a virgin.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:31-35<\/strong> Mark resumes from 3:20-21. • <em>Your mother and your brothers:<\/em> Jesus’ brothers are commonly understood to have been children born to Joseph and Mary after Jesus’ birth (see also 6:3; Matt 1:25; 12:46; John 19:26-27); some interpreters instead believe that they were either Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage or Jesus’ cousins, due to the Roman Catholic belief that Mary was perpetually a virgin.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:31-35 Mark resumes from 3:20-21. • Your mother and your brothers: Jesus’ brothers are commonly understood to have been children born to Joseph and Mary after Jesus’ birth (see also 6:3; Matt 1:25; 12:46; John 19:26-27); some interpreters instead believe that they were either Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage or Jesus’ cousins, due to the Roman Catholic belief that Mary was perpetually a virgin.","summary_en":"3:31-35 Mark resumes from 3:20-21. • Your mother and your brothers: Jesus’ brothers are commonly understood to have been children born to Joseph and Mary after Jesus’ birth (see also 6:3; Matt 1:25; 12:46; John 19:26-27); some interpreters instead believe that they were either Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage or Jesus’ cousins, due to the Roman Catholic belief that Mary was perpetually a virgin.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138082,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:31","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:31","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:31-35<\/strong> Mark resumes from 3:20-21. • <em>Your mother and your brothers:<\/em> Jesus’ brothers are commonly understood to have been children born to Joseph and Mary after Jesus’ birth (see also 6:3; Matt 1:25; 12:46; John 19:26-27); some interpreters instead believe that they were either Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage or Jesus’ cousins, due to the Roman Catholic belief that Mary was perpetually a virgin.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:31-35<\/strong> Mark resumes from 3:20-21. • <em>Your mother and your brothers:<\/em> Jesus’ brothers are commonly understood to have been children born to Joseph and Mary after Jesus’ birth (see also 6:3; Matt 1:25; 12:46; John 19:26-27); some interpreters instead believe that they were either Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage or Jesus’ cousins, due to the Roman Catholic belief that Mary was perpetually a virgin.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:31-35 Mark resumes from 3:20-21. • Your mother and your brothers: Jesus’ brothers are commonly understood to have been children born to Joseph and Mary after Jesus’ birth (see also 6:3; Matt 1:25; 12:46; John 19:26-27); some interpreters instead believe that they were either Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage or Jesus’ cousins, due to the Roman Catholic belief that Mary was perpetually a virgin.","summary_en":"3:31-35 Mark resumes from 3:20-21. • Your mother and your brothers: Jesus’ brothers are commonly understood to have been children born to Joseph and Mary after Jesus’ birth (see also 6:3; Matt 1:25; 12:46; John 19:26-27); some interpreters instead believe that they were either Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage or Jesus’ cousins, due to the Roman Catholic belief that Mary was perpetually a virgin.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"33":[{"id":18368,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"James (Person)","title_en":"James (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>JAMES (P<span>erson<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. James, brother of Jesus; leading elder in the church at Jerusalem; author of the epistle bearing his name.<\/li>\n<p>The only two references to James in the Gospels mention him with his brothers Joseph (Greek Joses), Simon, and Judas (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). This James may have been, after Jesus, the oldest of the brothers. The question has been raised about whether these were indeed full brothers of Jesus by Mary, for such a situation has created difficulty for those who cannot square it with their views on the perpetual virginity of Mary. But there seems to be no good reason to challenge the fact from Scripture. As with the other brothers, James apparently did not accept Jesus’ authority during his earthly life (Jn 7:5).<\/p>\n<p>There is no specific mention of James’s conversion; it may have dated from Jesus’ appearance to him and the others after Jesus’ resurrection (1 Cor 15:7). He became head of the church at Jerusalem (Acts 12:17; 21:18; Gal 2:9). Although Jesus had always taught the relative subordination of family ties (Mt 12:48-50; Mk 3:33-35; Lk 8:21), it is hard to believe that James’s authority was not somehow enhanced because of his relationship to the Master.<\/p>\n<p>James was regarded as an apostle (Gal 1:19), although he was not one of the Twelve. Some suggest he was a replacement for the martyred son of Zebedee; others infer his apostleship by widening the scope of that term to embrace both “the Twelve” and “all the apostles” (see the two separate categories cited in 1 Cor 15:5, 7).<\/p>\n<p>Tradition stated that James was appointed the first bishop of Jerusalem by the Lord himself as well as the apostles. What is certain is that he presided over the first Council of Jerusalem, called to consider the terms for admission of Gentiles into the Christian church, and he may have formulated the decree that met with the approval of all his colleagues and was sent to the churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (Acts 15:19-20). James evidently regarded his own special ministry as being to the Jews, and his was a mediating role in the controversy that arose in the young church around the place of the law for those who had become Christians, from both Gentile and Jewish origins.<\/p>\n<p>That he continued to have strong Jewish-Christian sympathies is apparent from the request made to Paul when the latter visited Jerusalem for the last time (Acts 21:18-25). This was also the last mention in Acts of James’s career. His name also occurs in the NT as the traditional author of the Epistle of James, where he describes himself as “a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Jas 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>According to Hegesippus (c. 180), James’s faithful adherence to the Jewish law and his austere lifestyle led to the designation “the Just.” It seems clear that James suffered martyrdom. Josephus places it in the year 61, when there was a Jewish uprising after the death of Festus the procurator and before his successor had been appointed.<\/p>\n<li>2. James, son of Alphaeus; one of the 12 apostles.<\/li>\n<p>James, son of Alphaeus, is always listed as one of the 12 apostles (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13), but nothing is known for certain about him. Levi (also known as Matthew) is also described as the son of Alphaeus (Mk 2:14), but it is improbable that he and James were brothers. Many scholars have identified him with the one called “James the less” or “James the smaller.” The description “the less” seems to have been given to distinguish him from the son of Zebedee, and it may signify that he was either smaller or younger than Zebedee’s son (the Greek word can cover both interpretations).<\/p>\n<li>3. James, son of Zebedee. One of the 12 apostles; the first of them to be martyred (<span>AD<\/span> 44).<\/li>\n<p>James was a Galilean fisherman whose circumstances we can suppose to have been comfortable (Mk 1:19-20) and who was called to be one of the disciples at the same time as his brother John (Mt 4:21; Mk 1:19-20). It is reasonable to assume that he was older than John, both because he is nearly always mentioned first and because John is sometimes identified as “the brother of James” (Mt 10:2; 17:1; Mk 3:17; 5:37).<\/p>\n<p>James, John, and Simon Peter, who were part of a fishing partnership that included Andrew, Simon’s brother (Lk 5:10), were a trio who attained in some sense a place of primacy among the disciples. They are found at the center of things—for example, when Jairus’s daughter was raised (Mk 5:37; Lk 8:51), at the Transfiguration (Mt 17:1; Mk 9:2; Lk 9:28), on the Mount of Olives (Mk 13:3), and in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:37; Mk 14:33). It was James and John, moreover, who had earlier accompanied Jesus to the home of Simon and Andrew (Mk 1:29).<\/p>\n<p>James and John were given by Jesus the nickname Boanerges, or “sons of thunder” (Mk 3:17), when they were rebuked by the Lord for impetuous speech and for having totally misconceived the purpose of his coming. This may have been the consequence of the suggestion made by them that they should pray for the destruction of the Samaritan village, the inhabitants of which had rejected the Lord’s messengers (Lk 9:54; cf. Mk 9:38; Lk 9:49).<\/p>\n<p>The presumptuous and ill-considered thinking of the two brothers was obvious also when, after asking with his brother for a place of honor in the kingdom, James was corecipient of the prophecy that they would drink the cup their Master was to drink (Mk 10:35-40; cf. Mt 20:20-23). The two sons of Zebedee are also assumed to have been present with the other disciples when the risen Christ appeared by the Sea of Galilee (Jn 21:1), though curiously James’s name is nowhere mentioned in the fourth Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>We know nothing about James’s career subsequently until about the year 44, when Jesus’ prophecy was fulfilled: James was killed “by the sword” by Herod Agrippa I, and thus became the first of the Twelve whose martyrdom was referred to in the NT (Acts 12:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>The wife of Zebedee was Salome (Mt 27:56; Mk 15:40), who may have been a sister of the Lord’s mother (Jn 19:25). If this were so, it would mean that James and John were first cousins of Jesus and that they may have considered themselves to have been in a privileged position.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JAMES (P<span>erson<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. James, brother of Jesus; leading elder in the church at Jerusalem; author of the epistle bearing his name.<\/li>\n<p>The only two references to James in the Gospels mention him with his brothers Joseph (Greek Joses), Simon, and Judas (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). This James may have been, after Jesus, the oldest of the brothers. The question has been raised about whether these were indeed full brothers of Jesus by Mary, for such a situation has created difficulty for those who cannot square it with their views on the perpetual virginity of Mary. But there seems to be no good reason to challenge the fact from Scripture. As with the other brothers, James apparently did not accept Jesus’ authority during his earthly life (Jn 7:5).<\/p>\n<p>There is no specific mention of James’s conversion; it may have dated from Jesus’ appearance to him and the others after Jesus’ resurrection (1 Cor 15:7). He became head of the church at Jerusalem (Acts 12:17; 21:18; Gal 2:9). Although Jesus had always taught the relative subordination of family ties (Mt 12:48-50; Mk 3:33-35; Lk 8:21), it is hard to believe that James’s authority was not somehow enhanced because of his relationship to the Master.<\/p>\n<p>James was regarded as an apostle (Gal 1:19), although he was not one of the Twelve. Some suggest he was a replacement for the martyred son of Zebedee; others infer his apostleship by widening the scope of that term to embrace both “the Twelve” and “all the apostles” (see the two separate categories cited in 1 Cor 15:5, 7).<\/p>\n<p>Tradition stated that James was appointed the first bishop of Jerusalem by the Lord himself as well as the apostles. What is certain is that he presided over the first Council of Jerusalem, called to consider the terms for admission of Gentiles into the Christian church, and he may have formulated the decree that met with the approval of all his colleagues and was sent to the churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (Acts 15:19-20). James evidently regarded his own special ministry as being to the Jews, and his was a mediating role in the controversy that arose in the young church around the place of the law for those who had become Christians, from both Gentile and Jewish origins.<\/p>\n<p>That he continued to have strong Jewish-Christian sympathies is apparent from the request made to Paul when the latter visited Jerusalem for the last time (Acts 21:18-25). This was also the last mention in Acts of James’s career. His name also occurs in the NT as the traditional author of the Epistle of James, where he describes himself as “a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Jas 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>According to Hegesippus (c. 180), James’s faithful adherence to the Jewish law and his austere lifestyle led to the designation “the Just.” It seems clear that James suffered martyrdom. Josephus places it in the year 61, when there was a Jewish uprising after the death of Festus the procurator and before his successor had been appointed.<\/p>\n<li>2. James, son of Alphaeus; one of the 12 apostles.<\/li>\n<p>James, son of Alphaeus, is always listed as one of the 12 apostles (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13), but nothing is known for certain about him. Levi (also known as Matthew) is also described as the son of Alphaeus (Mk 2:14), but it is improbable that he and James were brothers. Many scholars have identified him with the one called “James the less” or “James the smaller.” The description “the less” seems to have been given to distinguish him from the son of Zebedee, and it may signify that he was either smaller or younger than Zebedee’s son (the Greek word can cover both interpretations).<\/p>\n<li>3. James, son of Zebedee. One of the 12 apostles; the first of them to be martyred (<span>AD<\/span> 44).<\/li>\n<p>James was a Galilean fisherman whose circumstances we can suppose to have been comfortable (Mk 1:19-20) and who was called to be one of the disciples at the same time as his brother John (Mt 4:21; Mk 1:19-20). It is reasonable to assume that he was older than John, both because he is nearly always mentioned first and because John is sometimes identified as “the brother of James” (Mt 10:2; 17:1; Mk 3:17; 5:37).<\/p>\n<p>James, John, and Simon Peter, who were part of a fishing partnership that included Andrew, Simon’s brother (Lk 5:10), were a trio who attained in some sense a place of primacy among the disciples. They are found at the center of things—for example, when Jairus’s daughter was raised (Mk 5:37; Lk 8:51), at the Transfiguration (Mt 17:1; Mk 9:2; Lk 9:28), on the Mount of Olives (Mk 13:3), and in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:37; Mk 14:33). It was James and John, moreover, who had earlier accompanied Jesus to the home of Simon and Andrew (Mk 1:29).<\/p>\n<p>James and John were given by Jesus the nickname Boanerges, or “sons of thunder” (Mk 3:17), when they were rebuked by the Lord for impetuous speech and for having totally misconceived the purpose of his coming. This may have been the consequence of the suggestion made by them that they should pray for the destruction of the Samaritan village, the inhabitants of which had rejected the Lord’s messengers (Lk 9:54; cf. Mk 9:38; Lk 9:49).<\/p>\n<p>The presumptuous and ill-considered thinking of the two brothers was obvious also when, after asking with his brother for a place of honor in the kingdom, James was corecipient of the prophecy that they would drink the cup their Master was to drink (Mk 10:35-40; cf. Mt 20:20-23). The two sons of Zebedee are also assumed to have been present with the other disciples when the risen Christ appeared by the Sea of Galilee (Jn 21:1), though curiously James’s name is nowhere mentioned in the fourth Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>We know nothing about James’s career subsequently until about the year 44, when Jesus’ prophecy was fulfilled: James was killed “by the sword” by Herod Agrippa I, and thus became the first of the Twelve whose martyrdom was referred to in the NT (Acts 12:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>The wife of Zebedee was Salome (Mt 27:56; Mk 15:40), who may have been a sister of the Lord’s mother (Jn 19:25). If this were so, it would mean that James and John were first cousins of Jesus and that they may have considered themselves to have been in a privileged position.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JAMES (Person) 1. James, brother of Jesus; leading elder in the church at Jerusalem; author of the epistle bearing his name. The only two references to James in the Gospels mention him with his brothers Joseph (Greek Joses), Simon, and Judas (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). This James may have been, after Jesus, the oldest of the brothers. The question has been raised about whether these were indeed full brothers of Jesus by Mary, for such a situation has created difficulty for those who cannot square it ...","summary_en":"JAMES (Person) 1. James, brother of Jesus; leading elder in the church at Jerusalem; author of the epistle bearing his name. The only two references to James in the Gospels mention him with his brothers Joseph (Greek Joses), Simon, and Judas (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). This James may have been, after Jesus, the oldest of the brothers. The question has been raised about whether these were indeed full brothers of Jesus by Mary, for such a situation has created difficulty for those who cannot square it ...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55205,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:33","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:33","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:33-34<\/strong> In God’s Kingdom, one’s true relatives are determined not by blood but by a faith relationship (see also 10:29-30).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:33-34<\/strong> In God’s Kingdom, one’s true relatives are determined not by blood but by a faith relationship (see also 10:29-30).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:33-34 In God’s Kingdom, one’s true relatives are determined not by blood but by a faith relationship (see also 10:29-30).","summary_en":"3:33-34 In God’s Kingdom, one’s true relatives are determined not by blood but by a faith relationship (see also 10:29-30).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82831,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:33","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:33","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:33-34<\/strong> In God’s Kingdom, one’s true relatives are determined not by blood but by a faith relationship (see also 10:29-30).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:33-34<\/strong> In God’s Kingdom, one’s true relatives are determined not by blood but by a faith relationship (see also 10:29-30).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:33-34 In God’s Kingdom, one’s true relatives are determined not by blood but by a faith relationship (see also 10:29-30).","summary_en":"3:33-34 In God’s Kingdom, one’s true relatives are determined not by blood but by a faith relationship (see also 10:29-30).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110457,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:33","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:33","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:33-34<\/strong> In God’s Kingdom, one’s true relatives are determined not by blood but by a faith relationship (see also 10:29-30).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:33-34<\/strong> In God’s Kingdom, one’s true relatives are determined not by blood but by a faith relationship (see also 10:29-30).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:33-34 In God’s Kingdom, one’s true relatives are determined not by blood but by a faith relationship (see also 10:29-30).","summary_en":"3:33-34 In God’s Kingdom, one’s true relatives are determined not by blood but by a faith relationship (see also 10:29-30).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138083,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:33","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:33","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:33-34<\/strong> In God’s Kingdom, one’s true relatives are determined not by blood but by a faith relationship (see also 10:29-30).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:33-34<\/strong> In God’s Kingdom, one’s true relatives are determined not by blood but by a faith relationship (see also 10:29-30).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:33-34 In God’s Kingdom, one’s true relatives are determined not by blood but by a faith relationship (see also 10:29-30).","summary_en":"3:33-34 In God’s Kingdom, one’s true relatives are determined not by blood but by a faith relationship (see also 10:29-30).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"34":[{"id":5798,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of Jesus*, Brothers","title_en":"of Jesus*, Brothers","content_ro":"<h3>BROTHERS OF JESUS*<\/h3>\n<p>James, Joses (or Joseph), Simon, and Judas, identified in the NT as members of Jesus’ own family (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). They are described as visiting Jesus with Mary, his mother (Mt 12:47-50; Mk 3:34-35; Lk 8:19-21), and hearing Jesus’ statement that all who did the will of God were brother, sister, and mother to him.<\/p>\n<p>They were well enough known in Nazareth that when Jesus returned to preach there, the people said, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” (Mk 6:3, <span>rsv<\/span>). In Matthew’s Gospel the order of the names of the last two brothers is reversed (Mt 13:55). When Jesus and his disciples went to Capernaum, they were accompanied by Mary and his brothers (Jn 2:12). Just before the Feast of Tabernacles the brothers visited Jesus to persuade him to go to Jerusalem for the festival. Although they were skeptical about his miracles, they said he should perform his feats in public to gain recognition (Jn 7:4). Jesus acknowledged opposition from within his family when he said, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his own family” (Mt 13:57, <span>nlt<\/span>). His brothers or other friends from home thought him to be losing touch with reality when crowds were first attracted to him (Mk 3:21).<\/p>\n<p>In spite of their earlier skepticism, however, the brothers became active members of the Jerusalem church during its earliest days. They are mentioned as being frequently at prayer in an upper room with Mary, showing a sharp reversal from their earlier lack of faith (Acts 1:14). One of the resurrection appearances was made to James (1 Cor 15:7). On Paul’s return to Jerusalem after his conversion, he met Peter and James, “the Lord’s brother,” but not the other apostles (Gal 1:19). When the apostle Peter was released from prison, he went to the home of Mary the mother of John Mark, and despite the excitement of the occasion, he immediately asked the group to “tell this to James and to the brethren” (Acts 12:17, <span>rsv<\/span>). A number of references in Acts show James as a strong, respected leader of the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:13-21; 21:18). In the council at Jerusalem, he expressed a strong opinion on the acceptance of Gentiles into the church; he was later visited by Paul, who told him about his ministry and the many conversions among the Gentiles. Although James is mentioned more often by name, all the brothers seem to have been well respected at that time. Thus, their actions were used as an example by Paul when he argued that it would be appropriate for him also to have a wife accompany him on his journeys, as Jesus’ brothers did (1 Cor 9:5).<\/p>\n<p>The author of the Epistle of James is generally assumed to be the Lord’s brother, although he does not identify himself specifically that way (1:1). It seems clear, though, that the author wrote as a recognized leader in the church; hence, to identify him as the Lord’s brother seems logical. The author of the Epistle of Jude identifies himself as the brother of James. The reference would most logically be to James, the leader mentioned in Acts and probably the author of the other epistle. The author thus seems to be the Judas named as the brother of the Lord in the Gospels (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3).<\/p>\n<p>Throughout the NT the group of the 12 apostles is consistently distinguished from the brothers of the Lord. Luke named the apostles and then said, “All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers” (Acts 1:13-14). The apostle Paul pointed to the brothers of the Lord as a group separate from the apostles (1 Cor 9:5); each mention of them in the Gospels describes them as family members and distinct from the disciples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> James (Person) #1; Joseph #7; Jude (Person); Mary #1.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BROTHERS OF JESUS*<\/h3>\n<p>James, Joses (or Joseph), Simon, and Judas, identified in the NT as members of Jesus’ own family (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). They are described as visiting Jesus with Mary, his mother (Mt 12:47-50; Mk 3:34-35; Lk 8:19-21), and hearing Jesus’ statement that all who did the will of God were brother, sister, and mother to him.<\/p>\n<p>They were well enough known in Nazareth that when Jesus returned to preach there, the people said, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” (Mk 6:3, <span>rsv<\/span>). In Matthew’s Gospel the order of the names of the last two brothers is reversed (Mt 13:55). When Jesus and his disciples went to Capernaum, they were accompanied by Mary and his brothers (Jn 2:12). Just before the Feast of Tabernacles the brothers visited Jesus to persuade him to go to Jerusalem for the festival. Although they were skeptical about his miracles, they said he should perform his feats in public to gain recognition (Jn 7:4). Jesus acknowledged opposition from within his family when he said, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his own family” (Mt 13:57, <span>nlt<\/span>). His brothers or other friends from home thought him to be losing touch with reality when crowds were first attracted to him (Mk 3:21).<\/p>\n<p>In spite of their earlier skepticism, however, the brothers became active members of the Jerusalem church during its earliest days. They are mentioned as being frequently at prayer in an upper room with Mary, showing a sharp reversal from their earlier lack of faith (Acts 1:14). One of the resurrection appearances was made to James (1 Cor 15:7). On Paul’s return to Jerusalem after his conversion, he met Peter and James, “the Lord’s brother,” but not the other apostles (Gal 1:19). When the apostle Peter was released from prison, he went to the home of Mary the mother of John Mark, and despite the excitement of the occasion, he immediately asked the group to “tell this to James and to the brethren” (Acts 12:17, <span>rsv<\/span>). A number of references in Acts show James as a strong, respected leader of the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:13-21; 21:18). In the council at Jerusalem, he expressed a strong opinion on the acceptance of Gentiles into the church; he was later visited by Paul, who told him about his ministry and the many conversions among the Gentiles. Although James is mentioned more often by name, all the brothers seem to have been well respected at that time. Thus, their actions were used as an example by Paul when he argued that it would be appropriate for him also to have a wife accompany him on his journeys, as Jesus’ brothers did (1 Cor 9:5).<\/p>\n<p>The author of the Epistle of James is generally assumed to be the Lord’s brother, although he does not identify himself specifically that way (1:1). It seems clear, though, that the author wrote as a recognized leader in the church; hence, to identify him as the Lord’s brother seems logical. The author of the Epistle of Jude identifies himself as the brother of James. The reference would most logically be to James, the leader mentioned in Acts and probably the author of the other epistle. The author thus seems to be the Judas named as the brother of the Lord in the Gospels (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3).<\/p>\n<p>Throughout the NT the group of the 12 apostles is consistently distinguished from the brothers of the Lord. Luke named the apostles and then said, “All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers” (Acts 1:13-14). The apostle Paul pointed to the brothers of the Lord as a group separate from the apostles (1 Cor 9:5); each mention of them in the Gospels describes them as family members and distinct from the disciples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> James (Person) #1; Joseph #7; Jude (Person); Mary #1.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BROTHERS OF JESUS* James, Joses (or Joseph), Simon, and Judas, identified in the NT as members of Jesus’ own family (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). They are described as visiting Jesus with Mary, his mother (Mt 12:47-50; Mk 3:34-35; Lk 8:19-21), and hearing Jesus’ statement that all who did the will of God were brother, sister, and mother to him. They were well enough known in Nazareth that when Jesus returned to preach there, the people said, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of Ja...","summary_en":"BROTHERS OF JESUS* James, Joses (or Joseph), Simon, and Judas, identified in the NT as members of Jesus’ own family (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). They are described as visiting Jesus with Mary, his mother (Mt 12:47-50; Mk 3:34-35; Lk 8:19-21), and hearing Jesus’ statement that all who did the will of God were brother, sister, and mother to him. They were well enough known in Nazareth that when Jesus returned to preach there, the people said, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of Ja...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"35":[{"id":55206,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:35","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:35","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:35<\/strong> Doing <em>God’s will<\/em> includes repentance from sin, faith in God, and following Jesus (1:15, 18, 20).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:35<\/strong> Doing <em>God’s will<\/em> includes repentance from sin, faith in God, and following Jesus (1:15, 18, 20).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:35 Doing God’s will includes repentance from sin, faith in God, and following Jesus (1:15, 18, 20).","summary_en":"3:35 Doing God’s will includes repentance from sin, faith in God, and following Jesus (1:15, 18, 20).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82832,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:35","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:35","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:35<\/strong> Doing <em>God’s will<\/em> includes repentance from sin, faith in God, and following Jesus (1:15, 18, 20).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:35<\/strong> Doing <em>God’s will<\/em> includes repentance from sin, faith in God, and following Jesus (1:15, 18, 20).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:35 Doing God’s will includes repentance from sin, faith in God, and following Jesus (1:15, 18, 20).","summary_en":"3:35 Doing God’s will includes repentance from sin, faith in God, and following Jesus (1:15, 18, 20).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110458,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:35","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:35","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:35<\/strong> Doing <em>God’s will<\/em> includes repentance from sin, faith in God, and following Jesus (1:15, 18, 20).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:35<\/strong> Doing <em>God’s will<\/em> includes repentance from sin, faith in God, and following Jesus (1:15, 18, 20).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:35 Doing God’s will includes repentance from sin, faith in God, and following Jesus (1:15, 18, 20).","summary_en":"3:35 Doing God’s will includes repentance from sin, faith in God, and following Jesus (1:15, 18, 20).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138084,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 3:35","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 3:35","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:35<\/strong> Doing <em>God’s will<\/em> includes repentance from sin, faith in God, and following Jesus (1:15, 18, 20).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:35<\/strong> Doing <em>God’s will<\/em> includes repentance from sin, faith in God, and following Jesus (1:15, 18, 20).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:35 Doing God’s will includes repentance from sin, faith in God, and following Jesus (1:15, 18, 20).","summary_en":"3:35 Doing God’s will includes repentance from sin, faith in God, and following Jesus (1:15, 18, 20).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}]},"labels":{"article":"Articol","map":"Hartă","chart":"Diagramă","textbox":"Notă explicativă","picture":"Imagine","profile":"Profil","study_note":"Notă de studiu","theme_note":"Temă biblică"},"icons":{"article":"📖","map":"🗺️","chart":"📊","textbox":"💡","picture":"🖼️","profile":"👤","study_note":"📝","theme_note":"🎯"},"typeColors":{"article":"#d4af37","map":"#2d7d46","chart":"#3b82f6","textbox":"#8b5cf6","picture":"#ec4899","profile":"#f59e0b","study_note":"#06b6d4","theme_note":"#ef4444"}}
🔍
Niciun rezultat
Nu am găsit versete care să conțină textul căutat.
Marcu 3
📘 Info carte
Se încarcă...
📖 Resurse
Muzică de relaxareSelectează o piesă
0:00
Redare audio
0 piese
🍪 Folosim cookie-uri
Folosim cookie-uri esențiale pentru funcționarea platformei și cookie-uri de analiză pentru a îmbunătăți experiența ta.
Află mai multe
✝️
Logosasistentul Biserica Online
✝️
Bine ai venit! 👋
Sunt Logos, prietenul tău spiritual. Începe conversația — te ascult cu drag! ✨