# comment

text:
<p>New European Christadelphian Commentary</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Box 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright © 2018 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2018</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-66911-9</p><p>PREFACE</p><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Box 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright</p><p>Copyright © 2017 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2017</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-35828-0</p><p>PREFACE</p><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>: New European Christadelphian Commentary</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Box 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright</p><p>Copyright © 2018 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2018</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-65936-3</p><p>PREFACE</p><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>PREFACE</p><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>Old Testament New European Christadelphian Commentary</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Box 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright</p><p>Copyright © 2017 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2017</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-32077-5</p><p>PREFACE</p><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>Old Testament New European Christadelphian Commentary</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Box 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright</p><p>Copyright © 2017 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2017</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-62376-0</p><p>PREFACE</p><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>: A Commentary</p><p>Old Testament New European Christadelphian Commentary</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Box 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright</p><p>Copyright © 2017 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2017</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-02490-1</p><p>PREFACE</p><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>: Old Testament New European Christadelphian Commentary</p><p>Old Testament New European Christadelphian Commentary</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Box 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright</p><p>Copyright © 2017 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2017</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-32690-6</p><p>PREFACE</p><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>: Old Testament New European Christadelphian Commentary</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Box 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright</p><p>Copyright © 2017 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2017</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-63011-9</p><p>PREFACE</p><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>: Old Testament New European Christadelphian Commentary</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Box 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright</p><p>Copyright © 2017 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2017</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-03012-4</p><p>PREFACE</p><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>: Old Testament New European Christadelphian Commentary</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Box 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright</p><p>Copyright © 2017 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2017</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-03128-2</p><p>PREFACE</p><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balancebetween practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>: Old Testament New European Christadelphian Commentary</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Box 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright</p><p>Copyright © 2017 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2017</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-63168-0</p><p>PREFACE</p><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p><p>Jonah and Nahum</p><p>Nahum also prophesied against Nineveh. When we read his words, it would appear that there was no chance for Nineveh. And yet presumably there was always a chance for them, just as there was at Jonah’s time some years previously. But it seems to me that the essential message of Nahum was that of Jonah. They could have repented, even then. Not surprisingly, we find many allusions by Nahum back to Jonah:&nbsp;</p><table><tr><td></p><p>Nahum</td><td>Jonah [re. Nineveh]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>God is slow to anger (1:3)</td><td>4:2 [same Hebrew words]- and therefore He saved Nineveh.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>“Who can abide in the fierceness of His anger?” (1:6)</td><td>God turns away from “the fierceness of His anger” [s:w:] against Nineveh (3:9)- Nineveh had survived God’s fierce anger by repenting, and so they could even in Nahum’s time. The Hebrew word translated “abide” in <a href='B:410 1:6'>Nah 1:6</a> is that used in Jonah to describe how the King of Assyria “arose” (3:6) in repentance. The answer to the question: “Who can abide / arise in the [presence of] the fierceness of His anger?” is: ‘The King of Assyria if he repents’.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The wickedness of Nineveh “came up” before God’s face (2:1)</td><td>The same words are used about Nineveh (1:2).</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>God was “against” Nineveh (2:13)</td><td>Same word in 1:2</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Judged for “wickedness” (3:19)</td><td>Same word in 1:2; 3:8</td><td></td></tr></table><p>It becomes apparent that the Ninevites of Nahum’s day are being directed back to the repentance of their city at the time of Jonah; but clearly they are also being invited to share in Jonah’s personal repentance. &nbsp;</p><table><tr><td></p><p>Nahum</td><td>Jonah [about himself]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>God has His way in the storm (1:3)</td><td>Jonah’s experience in the storm</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>God rebukes the sea (1:4)</td><td>As God stilled the storm which Jonah was in</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Who can stand before God? (1:5)</td><td>Jonah had to be ‘stood up’ [s:w:]&nbsp; from his hiding in the ship when fleeing from God’s presence (1:15)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The Lord is a stronghold “in the day of trouble” (1:7) to those who trust Him.</td><td>Jonah cried to God in his “affliction” [s:w. “trouble” ] (2:2)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>An “overrunning flood” will overtake Nineveh (1:8)</td><td>“The floods…passed over [s:w. “overrunning”] Jonah (2:2); but Jonah repented and was saved. Note how the connections between <a href='B:410 1:7-8'>Nah 1:7-8</a> and <a href='B:390 2:2'>Jon 2:2</a> are in close proximity- surely an allusion is intended here.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Affliction (1:9)</td><td>Affliction [s:w:] (2:2)</td><td></td></tr></table><p>From this it becomes apparent that Jonah is seen by God as in essentially the same position as the Ninevites. This was why his appeal to them was so strong. For he had been in just their position, in essence, yet had repented. The fact Nahum makes all these allusions to Jonah’s personal repentance indicates that they well knew the story of Jonah; and his repentance had inspired that of the audience he preached to. In these we see a very real pattern for ourselves; it is our identity with our audience, as repentant sinners ourselves, which will elicit their response.</p><p>Nahum’s message was not only a warning of judgment to come upon Nineveh. It was an appeal to Israel, that unless they repented, they would likewise perish. The appeal to Judah to “perform your vows” (<a href='B:410 1:15'>Nah 1:15</a>) is couched in the very same words as Jonah used in <a href='B:390 2:9'>Jon 2:9</a>: “I will pay [s:w. perform] that which I have vowed”. Judah were being asked to be like Jonah, and not despise Nineveh, but rather appeal to her to repent.</p>


text:
<p>: Old Testament New European Christadelphian Commentary</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Box 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright</p><p>Copyright © 2017 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2017</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-33246-4</p><p>PREFACE</p><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>: Old Testament New European Christadelphian Commentary</p><p>Old Testament New European Christadelphian Commentary</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Box 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright</p><p>Copyright © 2017 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal</p><p>First Printing: 2017</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-32690-6</p><p>PREFACE</p><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>Old Testament New European Christadelphian Commentary</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Box 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright</p><p>Copyright © 2017 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2017</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-03359-0</p><p>PREFACE</p><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Box 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright</p><p>Copyright © 2017 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2017</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-93692-1</p><p>PREFACE</p><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve abalance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>Old Testament New European Christadelphian Commentary</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Box 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright</p><p>Copyright © 2017 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2017</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-33757-5</p><p>PREFACE</p><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p><p>&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:10 1:13'>1:13</a> There was evening and there was morning, a third day- We note the Hebraic way of progressing from evening to morning, the darkness towards the light; whereas in western thought, the day begins with night and fades into darkness. This is reflected in the sense that the past was wonderful, the present is far worse, and the future will be awful. Whereas from God’s perspective, the darkness is past, and the best is ahead. At least for the believer.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:10 3:21'>3:21</a> Yahweh God made coats of skins for Adam and for his wife, and clothed them- Adam sinned, and God responded to that ineffable tragedy by giving him a &quot;coat&quot; of skin. The same Hebrew word is used concerning the priestly robe. Here we see again the positive nature of our God. There was Adam, pining away in the shame of his sin; and God dresses him up like a priest, to go forward to gain forgiveness for him and his wife; and perhaps later on he used that same coat in coming to God to obtain further forgiveness for others through sacrifice. <a href='B:730 13:8'>Rev. 13:8</a> speaks of the lamb slain from the foundation of the world; so presumably a lamb was slain, setting up the principle that without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. And here we meet the idea of the imputed righteousness of the slain lamb (the Christ) being imputed to us. Note that &quot;made&quot; is the same word used of God’s 'making' of things in the creation record of chapter 1. That creation was a 'making' from pre-existing material, rather than ex nihilo.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:10 5:29'>5:29</a>  And he named him Noah, saying, This same will comfort us in our work and in the toil of our hands, because of the ground which Yahweh has cursed-<br />	Perhaps they hoped that this would be the seed of the woman who would bring the curse on the ground to an end. Clearly this hope for a Messiah figure would have been significant in the thinking of the faithful. Or did Noah's parents expect Noah to be the child who would do all the hard menial work for them, so that they would suffer less from the curse placed upon the ground in Eden? This might explain why Noah had children when he was 500, far older than others of his time (<a href='B:10 5:32'>Gen. 5:32</a>- Noah's father had had his first children at 182, Gen. 5:28; Seth had his first child at 105, Gen. 5:6; Enos at 95, Gen. 5:9; Cainan at 70, Gen. 5:12; Mahalalel at 65, <a href='B:10 5:15'>Gen. 5:15</a>; Jared at 162, <a href='B:10 5:18'>Gen. 5:18</a>; Enoch at 65, <a href='B:10 5:21'>Gen. 5:21</a>; Methuselah at 187, Gen. <a href='B:10 5:25'>5:25</a>); <a href='B:10 6:18'>Gen. 6:18</a> implies that Noah only had three sons, whereas for people with such long life spans we'd have expected him to have had far more than that. He only had three children- for he prepared the ark to save &quot;his house&quot; (<a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb. 11:7</a>) and <a href='B:10 7:1'>Gen. 7:1</a> is quite clear: &quot;&quot;Go into the ark, you and all your household&quot;- his whole household was his wife, three sons and their wives. Period . Perhaps we get the picture of a man who was the underdog, the farm worker, the sidekick of the family, whose own family life was delayed and limited by this background. Perhaps he turned to alcohol for comfort (hence <a href='B:10 9:21'>Gen. 9:21</a>). But it was he whom God chose to save, he alone who was righteous in that generation which perished. It was the quiet, broken man who was saved. The Hebrew word for &quot;Comfort&quot; [a play on 'Noah'] occurs later, when we read how God &quot;repented&quot; that He had made man (<a href='B:10 6:6-7'>Gen. 6:6,7</a>). Lamech's desire for 'comfort' was fulfilled but not as he imagined; not through his son being his personal slave, but rather in God changing His mind about humanity and making a new start. We get what we desire, in essence; and so we need to desire the right things. Another alternative is that we are to understand 'comfort' in <a href='B:10 5:29'>5:29</a> as only one possible translation; the idea could be that Lamech hoped that his son Noah would be the one who would bring about repentance / changing in God regarding the curse upon the earth. In this case, we see Lamech hoping that this son of his would be the promised &quot;seed of the woman&quot; of <a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen. 3:15</a>, a Messiah figure. However, the Lamech of <a href='B:10 5:28'>5:28</a> may well be the Lamech of <a href='B:10 4:18-22'>Gen. 4:18-22</a>; both Lamechs are described as having Methuselah as their father. As often in early Genesis, this would be a case of one history being recorded in one chapter and then another one in the next- as with the two creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2. In this case, if Lamech is the same Lamech, then Noah had very gifted and high flying siblings. His brother Jabal was the leader of the cattle owners (<a href='B:10 4:20'>4:20</a>); his brother Jubal was the leading musician of the age (<a href='B:10 4:21'>4:2</a>1); Tubalcain his other brother was the leader of all the metalworkers. Lamech was the first polygamist, who killed a young man for a slight insult and boasted about it; and whose wife Adah means 'decorated / adorned'. These were people of the world. And Noah was the sidekick brother who was to do all the menial farm work so the rest of them could pursue their careers and social lives. Against this of course it can be argued that there are differences in the genealogies of chapters 4 and 5. However, in the context, <a href='B:10 6:1-4'>Gen. 6:1-4</a> describes how the lines of Seth and Cain intermarried [the sons of God married the daughters of men] and it could be argued that the genealogies we have aren't complete, generations are skipped, and 'having a son' could be understood in a wider sense than referring to a son directly fathered by the person concerned. 'Lamech' in Hebrew is comprised of the three central letters of the Hebrew alphabet and it could be argued that this reflects his 'joining' function [as it does in other Semitic literature], in joining the Sethite and Cainite lines together. The resemblances between the six names in <a href='B:10 4:17-18'>Gen. 4:17,18</a> with six in chapter 5 is striking, and they both culminate in Lamech, as if he was the one in whom the lines mixed. Interestingly, Lamech in <a href='B:10 4:24'>Gen. 4:24</a> speaks of 77 fold vengeance coming upon him; and the Lamech of <a href='B:10 5:30'>Gen. 5:30</a> [the same Lamech?] dies at 777 years old. It also needs to be carried in mind that Semitic 'genealogies' aren't always chronological; they are constructed in order to make various points or develop themes, as in the genealogies of the Lord in Matthew and Luke.<br /></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The same root word for &quot;Noah&quot; is found in <a href='B:140 6:41'>2 Chron. 6:41</a>, where the ark of God 'rested' or 'Noah-ed' in the tabernacle. When the ark 'rested' on Ararat ['holy hill'] the same word is used (<a href='B:10 8:4'>Gen. 8:4</a>). A case can be made that Ararat was in fact Mount Zion, where the ark was later to 'rest' in the temple. The 'resting' of the ark was therefore the fulfilment of God’s intention in Noah- God’s salvation is described as a &quot;promised rest&quot; (<a href='B:650 4:10-11'>Heb. 4:10,11</a>), and it was prefigured in the final resting of the ark. Thus the final salvation of God is to be understood in terms of God 'resting' with us, in us, within His ark. He labours and struggles too... for us. And those struggles will only be at rest when we are saved in the last day; a Father's eternal struggle for His children. The 'rest' spoken of in Noah's name was thus a rest for God. Noah's going out of the ark into a cleansed, pristine world was therefore symbolic of our going forth into the Kingdom at Christ's return.<br /></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It's significant that the various Mesopotamian legends about a flood all speak of there being conflict between the divinities before the decision to flood the earth was taken; and then quarrels and recriminations between them after it. The Biblical record has none of this- the one true God brought the flood upon the earth by His sovereign will, and He lifted the flood. In the legends, the hero of the flood [cp. Noah] is exalted to Divine status, whereas in the Biblical record Noah not only remains human, but is described as going off and getting drunk. Throughout pagan legends, the Divine-human boundary is often blurred- gods get cast down to earth and become men, whilst men get exalted to 'Heaven' and godhood. This gave rise to the idea of 'angels that sinned' and were cast down to earth. But in the Biblical record, the Divine-human boundary is set very clearly- the one God of Israel is so far exalted above humanity, His ways are not ours etc. (<a href='B:290 55:8'>Is. 55:8</a>), that there can be no possibility of this happening. The exception of course was in the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ- but even He was born as a genuine human upon earth, and [contrary to Trinitarian theology] He was no Divine comet who landed upon earth for 33 years. The whole idea of the Divinity and personal pre-existence of Jesus Christ is simply not Biblical. The Mesopotamian legends speak of the flood being sent to stop man destroying Enlil's &quot;rest&quot; by his noise. The Mesopotamian gods sought for a &quot;ceasing from toil&quot;, &quot;rest from labour&quot;- identical ideas to the Hebrew concept of shabbat. This was why, it was claimed, the gods first created man and put him to work in their garden- so that they could &quot;rest&quot;. This background is alluded to in the way that Genesis speaks of man being cast out of tending the garden of Eden as a punishment- scarcely something the gods would wish if man was there to save them working there. God speaks of Him giving man a shabbat as a rest for man from his labour. And the flood, although it was Divine judgment, ultimately worked out as a blessing of 'rest' for man in that the 'world' was cleansed from sin. Thus 'Noah' was given that name, meaning 'rest', &quot;because this child will bring us relief from all our hard work&quot; (<a href='B:10 5:29'>Gen. 5:29</a> G.N.B.). Adam's work in Eden wasn't onerous; his work when cast out of the garden was hard. The wrong ideas are clearly alluded to and often reversed- in order to show that a loving God created the world for humanity, for our benefit and blessing- and not to toil for the gods in order to save them the effort. The 'rest' so sought by the Mesopotamian gods was actually intended by the one true God as His gift to humanity.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:10 5:31'>5:31</a> All the days of Lamech were seven hundred and seventy-seven years, then he died- I suggested on <a href='B:10 5:29'>:29</a> that his death at 777 would connect him with the Lamech in the line of Cain, who pronounced a multiple seven curse upon others.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:10 8:22'>8:22</a> While the earth remains, seed time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease- The reference to the seasons, planting etc. suggest this is relevant to the earth / land of Israel and not world-wide [there is no Summer and Winter on the equator]. There are six different seasons mentioned here. This would indicate a different climate at the time- although some cultures such as the Copts likewise split the year into six seasons rather than the four seasons common today in European countries.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:10 24:47'>24:47</a> I asked her, and said, 'Whose daughter are you?' She said, 'The daughter of Bethuel, Nahor's son, whom Milcah bore to him'. I put the ring on her nose, and the bracelets on her hands- This technically should have happened after the girl and her family had agreed. Eliezer had gone ahead and taken the initiative, in a way which would have otherwise been seen as rude and countercultural, and disrespectful to the family. But this is the insistent demand of the Gospel's call. It's why people were baptized immediately in the New Testament, the same hour or day they believed. This is not in fact the order in which he had done things- he offered and then gave her the signs of betrothal, and only then enquired which family she was from. He did so because he was trying to elicit a "No" from her. What he did was so bizarre that he now recounts it otherwise.  </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:10 32:8'>32:8</a> And he said, If Esau comes to the one company, and strikes it, then the company which is left will escape- &quot;Company&quot; is &quot;camp&quot;; Jacob should have perceived that there was a camp of Angels with him, that we was not alone, but his camp was but a reflection of the heavenly camp of Angels whom he had just &quot;met&quot; as a foretaste of how he would &quot;meet&quot; Esau's camp / company.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:10 35:6'>35:6</a> So Jacob came to Luz (that is, Bethel), which is in the land of Canaan, he and all the people who were with him- As noted on <a href='B:10 35:1'>:1</a>, God specifically spoke of Bethel and not Luz, in order to help Jacob see that his plan to build a &quot;house of God&quot; at the place where he had slept (<a href='B:10 28:20-22'>Gen. 28:20-22</a>) was inappropriate; God had already done that. All Jacob had to do was offer grateful sacrifice. The stress on &quot;in the land of Canaan&quot; is perhaps to show that indeed God had returned Jacob to his father’s house in peace; although Jacob was at that point surrounded by his enemies. But he had to believe that with God’s abiding help, he was indeed at peace. Or perhaps he now understood &quot;peace&quot; as not meaning peace in this world, in which we must have tribulation, but peace with God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:10 38:13'>38:13</a> It was told Tamar, saying, Behold, your father-in-law is going up to Timnah to shear his sheep- Sheep shearing was associated with immorality and alcohol abuse. Tamar knew that Judah was the type who would sleep with prostitutes at such a time- again indicating his low moral character at this time.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:40 4:2'>4:2</a> Take a census of the sons of Kohath from among the sons of Levi, by their families, by their fathers' families- &quot;From among&quot; is literally 'from the midst', and Kohath was the middle son out of Gershom, Kohath and Merari. He is perhaps listed first here because his family carried the ark. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:40 11:5'>11:5</a> We remember the fish- &quot;Remember&quot; is nearly always used of remembering Yahweh and His work in Egypt, and of His remembrance of Israel. But memory is selective, and they preferred to &quot;remember the fish&quot;, one of the few good experiences out of a host of awful experiences in Egypt. They were commanded instead to &quot;remember&quot; their affliction in Egypt (s.w. <a href='B:50 5:15'>Dt. 5:15</a>; <a href='B:50 7:18'>7:18</a>; <a href='B:50 8:2'>8:2</a>; <a href='B:50 15:15'>15:15</a>; <a href='B:50 16:3'>16:3</a>). But out of that mass of memories, they chose to &quot;remember&quot; the fish and they forgot their God. Perceptions are selective, and those who turn away from God do so because they focus upon one small aspect of experience or memory, and ignore the vast majority of the data. God’s commandments to &quot;remember&quot; their affliction rather than &quot;the fish&quot; indicates that we are not powerless in the formation of memory and understanding. We can play a conscious role in the formation of our own memory and understanding- if we have a heart for God and His ways rather than for Egypt.<br />
	Which we ate in Egypt for nothing- It was only free because they were given it to eat in their slave camps whilst doing brutal labour. This is as bizarre as a concentration survivor remembering the 'free' food they were given whilst incarcerated. Truly, human beings tend to focus on one aspect and forget the rest.<br />
The cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic- See on <a href='B:680 2:1'>2 Pet. 2:1</a>. They forgot their misery in the slave camps of Egypt, and imagined life had been much better there than it was. In our weakness, there are times on our wilderness journey towards the Kingdom when we look back to this world and think it was all far better than it was. The Passover was to be eaten with bitter herbs to remind them of the bitterness of Egypt / the world. But because they weren't living in the spirit of the Passover, they liked to imagine that Egypt had in fact not been bitter but instead spicy and sweet. The illogicality of going back to the world is brought out by the illogicality of Israel's rejection of Moses. Israel rejected Moses because it was easier to stay where they were. Such is the strength of conservatism in human nature; such is our innate weakness of will and resolve. They rejected the idea of leaving Egypt because they thought it was better than it was, they failed to face up to how much they were suffering (<a href='B:40 11:5'>Num. 11:5</a>). And our apathy in responding to Christ's redemptive plan for us is rooted in the same problem; we fail to appreciate the seriousness of sin, the extent to which we are in slavery to sin- even though the evidence for this is all around us.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:40 11:11'>11:11</a> Moses said to Yahweh, Why have You dealt with Your servant so badly? Why haven't I found grace in Your sight- for You lay the burden of all this people on me?-<br />
	Moses argues that because God had laid the burden of His people on his shoulders, this was such a curse as to disprove God’s claim to have lavished grace upon Moses (<a href='B:40 11:11'>Num. 11:11</a>). But the language of God’s people being laid upon a man's shoulders as a burden is in fact the language of the cross. Moses was therefore rejecting the cross. He bitterly complains that the people are God’s, not his, and therefore it is unreasonable for God to expect Moses to carry them and feed them (<a href='B:40 11:11-13'>:11-13</a>). He didn’t want to manifest God, nor do the work of Messiah (<a href='B:290 40:11'>Is. 40:11</a>), even though he was intended to be the prophet like unto Messiah (<a href='B:50 18:18'>Dt. 18:18</a>).</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'p>Moses earlier had had the same doubt, as to whether he had really found grace in God’s sight; and God had magnificently assured Moses that indeed he had (<a href='B:20 33:13-17'>Ex. 33:13-17</a>). Yet Moses still struggled to accept this; the complex difficulties of his life coupled with what appears to have been some form of depression led him to again doubt it. We too struggle with accepting our salvation by pure grace; one moment we may grasp it, but life's difficulties trigger again the old doubt. Only perhaps at the day of judgment, as he see ourselves as it were from outside of ourselves, standing in the promised land of God’s Kingdom, shall we finally realize that all is ultimately OK, His grace to me is for real.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Earlier, Moses had complained about this burden, and the answer had been to follow Jethro's advice in appointing a huge number of elders and judges. The same word for &quot;burden&quot; is used in <a href='B:50 1:12'>Dt. 1:12</a>: &quot;How can I myself alone bear your encumbrance and your burden and your strife?&quot;. He had felt in <a href='B:50 1:9'>Dt. 1:9</a> that &quot;I am not able to bear you myself alone. And so Jethro had advised Moses to appoint elders so that &quot;they shall bear the burden with you&quot; (s.w. <a href='B:20 18:22'>Ex. 18:22</a>).<br />
</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Jethro had observed how stressed Moses was with the burdens of the people, and we get the sense that they were at constant strife amongst themselves. Moses' sense of inability to bear the effects of the sins of the people could be read as a desire for the Messianic figure who would bear those sins and their effects; which was to come to full term in the sin carrying of the Lord Jesus on the cross. For the &quot;burden&quot; was of sin (s.w. <a href='B:230 38:4'>Ps. 38:4</a>). These feelings of Moses were not of themselves to be read as frustration or weakness; for the same words are used of how God Himself was weary of bearing the &quot;encumbrance&quot; of His people (s.w. <a href='B:290 1:14'>Is. 1:14</a>). Moses was sharing God’s feelings.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>But Moses didn’t respond to this burden as he might have done; for now in frustration he asks God to slay him, as he just couldn't bear the &quot;burden&quot; of the people (s.w. <a href='B:40 11:11'>Num. 11:11</a>). God responded at that point by giving 70 Spirit endowed elders to assist Moses (<a href='B:40 11:16'>Num. 11:16</a>), and we can assume this was because the sharing of the &quot;burden&quot; with a system of many elders (as suggested by Jethro and as described in <a href='B:50 1:13-16'>Dt. 1:13-16</a>) hadn't worked. Because those men were themselves weak and unspiritual.</p><p>Moses had asked the same question in Ex. 5:22. He struggled with God not doing what He promised straight away. He wanted it right away, and failed to see that any delay which allowed evil to continue could be legitimate. This question lurked within Moses, and it seems at times he only wanted to be part of God's plan if it was going to work out when and how he expected and assumed. This is why Israel rejected a suffering Messiah, and why so many stumble at God today. Because they lack the humility to trust in God and accept their own assumptions of how things should be may be very wrong and short termist.  </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:40 11:12'>11:12</a> Have I conceived all this people? Have I brought them forth, that You should tell me, 'Carry them in your bosom, as a nurse carries a nursing infant', to the land which You swore to their fathers?- <br />
	Moses is depressed by Israel complaining at how boring the manna was. He doubts God’s earlier promises to him: &quot;Moses said unto the Lord, Wherefore hast thou afflicted thy servant? and wherefore have I not found favour in thy sight (God said he had, in <a href='B:20 33:17'>Ex. 33:17</a>)... have I conceived all this people? have I begotten them, that thou shouldest say unto them, Carry them in thy bosom, as a nursing father beareth the sucking child unto the land which thou swearest unto their fathers (not &quot;our&quot;- notice the uncharacteristic separation between Moses and Israel). Whence should I give flesh unto all this people... if thou deal thus with me, kill me, I pray thee, out of hand, if I have found favour in the sight (as God had earlier promised him that he had)&quot; (<a href='B:40 11:12'>Num. 11:12</a>). God was the father and conceiver of Israel, the one who would carry them to the land (<a href='B:20 19:4'>Ex. 19:4</a>; <a href='B:20 33:15'>33:15</a>; <a href='B:50 32:11-12'>Dt. 32:11,12</a>; <a href='B:350 11:1'>Hos. 11:1</a>); it is as if Moses is saying: They're your children, you look after them, don't dump them on me. Although compare this with his earlier love for them, willing to sacrifice himself for them. God then says that He will provide more food for Israel. But Moses almost mocks God: &quot;Shall the flocks and herds be slain for them, to suffice them?&quot;. And the Angel angrily replied: &quot;Is the Lord's hand waxed short? thou shalt see whether my word shall come to pass unto thee or not&quot;. If he had faith, Moses surely would have realised that if God could provide manna, he could provide any food. Moses seems to have suffered from fits of depression and also high spirituality.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>We note the alternative reading of the LXX, quoted in <a href='B:510 13:8'>Acts 13:18</a>: &quot;as a nursing father He [God] carried them in the wilderness&quot;. It was God who carried the people, but Moses had been trying to do it in his own strength, without sharing it fully with God. We note how God is likened to a woman, a nursing mother, of a very difficult infant child; although as God He is presented as a &quot;father&quot;. In those days it was common for a wealthy woman to employ another woman to be a 'nursing mother' for her infant child. But God likens Himself to such a woman, or to a poor woman who couldn't afford to hire such a woman.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:40 21:3'>21:3</a> Yahweh listened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities. The name of the place was called Hormah- Hormah means 'devoted', LXX 'Anathema'.  Paul spoke of those who leave the faith as 'Anathema' (<a href='B:530 16:22'>1 Cor. 16:22</a>), but the idea was likely that we should consider even those we separate from as 'devoted' to the Lord. We do not condemn, but pass them to the Lord, in the hope that they will finally be devoted to Him. There's a powerful logic in all this- we are to be devoted to the Lord in any case, either by condemnation or by willing devotion of ourselves to Him in this life, that we might be eternally devoted to Him. The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof- and all finally returns to Him in any case. This idea sheds light on the reference in <a href='B:530 5:5'>1 Cor. 5:5</a> to delivering a wrongdoer to &quot;Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved&quot;. The idea of delivering over in Hebrew thought was understood as delivering over to God. The 'satan' may therefore refer to a Divine Angel or some other Divine agent who would attempt to work to bring back the straying sheep, that it might be saved at the end. All separation, therefore, should be in a spirit of desiring the individual's salvation, and not as an expression of our own personal anger or dislike.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:40 21:4'>21:4</a> They travelled from Mount Hor by the way to the Red Sea, to compass the land of Edom; and the soul of the people was much discouraged because of the way- &quot;Much discouraged&quot; is Heb. 'reaped down', the same word used about how they felt in Egypt (<a href='B:20 6:9'>Ex. 6:9</a>). They adopted the same attitude they had in Egypt, ever searching for something better, and now not wanting to accept what God had planned for them, not looking at the end of their journey but just caught up in the immediacy of their daily feelings. Yet they had just had the exhilaration of having made a vow to God about the cities of Canaan, obeying it, and seeing God answer them. Before that, they had sinned (see on :1). And now, they were again discouraged and low. This is the yo-yo path through the wilderness we all experience. It's not going to be entirely positive. They likely reasoned that God should have spared them this awful part of the journey because they had just been obedient to Him. But that's not how the path to the Kingdom is. The sequence in this chapter so far was: Disobedience- Cursing - Obedience - Blessing- Cursing. And sometimes [as in the blessing of Isaac materially after his lying about his wife] the sequence can be: Disobedience- Blessing- Blessing. There is no clear connection between obedience and immediate blessing or cursing. God sees a far wider and longer picture and perspective than we do. Their route took them back on themselves at this point, heading back towards Egypt. This may have been the psychological trigger for their desire to be back in Egypt (<a href='B:40 21:5'>:5</a>). We must try to avoid things and situations which may stimulate a desire to leave the way to the Kingdom and return to the world. &quot;Because of the way&quot; reflects how this was indeed geographically one of the worst parts of Israel's journey, through shifting sands blown by the strong sirocco winds. Only camels can survive here, so it's likely that the sheep and oxen Israel had brought from Egypt would've died at this point. And this was just immediately prior to their entry of Canaan (Num. 33:41, so this may look forward to the final tribulation for His people before the Lord's return. There is in the Hebrew text of <a href='B:70 10:6'>Jud. 10:16</a> something which defies translation. We read there that God was so hurt by Israel's sufferings that in sympathy with them, &quot;His nephesh [&quot;soul&quot;] was shortened&quot; or expended. The phrase is used in <a href='B:40 21:4'>Num. 21:4</a> and <a href='B:70 16:16'>Jud. 16:16</a> about death or the diminishment of life. God’s pain was such that this was how He felt, because He so internalized the sufferings of His people. And how much more in the death of His Son?</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:40 21:5'>21:5</a> The people spoke against God, and against Moses, Why have you brought us up out of Egypt-<br />
	See on <a href='B:40 20:3'>Num. 20:3</a>. Israel &quot;chode with Moses... they strove with the Lord&quot; (<a href='B:40 20:3'>Num. 20:3</a>,<a href='B:40 20:13'>13</a>) uses the same Hebrew word for both &quot;chode&quot; and &quot;strove&quot;. To strive with Moses was to strive with the Lord- i.e. with the guardian Angel that was so closely associated with Moses? <a href='B:40 20:4'>Num. 20:4</a> continues rather strangely with the Israelites addressing Moses in the plural: &quot;The people chode with Moses, saying... Why have ye [you plural] brought up...&quot;. Could it be that even they recognized his partnership with God? Likewise <a href='B:40 21:5'>Num. 21:5</a>: &quot;And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye [plural] brought us up out of Egypt to die?&quot;.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>To die in the wilderness- <br />
	This was the punishment and consequence of their own sins; but we easily blame others, and even God, for the consequence of our own sins.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>For there is no bread, and there is no water-<br />
	An exaggeration, because they go on to say that they hated the &quot;light bread&quot;, the manna, which they were given. We can likewise assume we have nothing when in fact we do have God’s basic provision. Likewise &quot;no water&quot; was surely untrue- the water from the rock followed them (<a href='B:530 10:10'>1 Cor. 10:10</a>). But they forgot God’s daily material blessings and felt they had nothing at all. For good reason should we regularly give thanks for our food and not forget that we are daily loaded with His material blessings. See on <a href='B:40 21:16'>21:16</a> I will give them water.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>It would seem from <a href='B:50 8:2-3'>Dt. 8:2,3</a> that Israel went hungry- because they refused to eat the manna. How God works through sin is revealed in the way that although God always provided food for Israel in the wilderness, He 'suffered them to hunger' for 40 years, in order to try to teach them that man lives not by bread alone, but by God’s word (<a href='B:50 8:2-3'>Dt. 8:2,3</a>). The Jews in the wilderness despised the food God gave them as worthless; they went hungry not literally, but in the sense that they despised the manna of God’s provision. And He allowed them to have that hunger, in order that He might [try to] teach them about the value of His word. He didn’t simply punish them for their ingratitude. He sought to work through it in order to teach them something. Even the process of rejection results in the victims coming to 'know the Lord'.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>And our soul loathes this light bread-<br />
	The Hebrew translated &quot;light&quot; is usually used in the sense of 'cursing', which in Semitic thought means to make light of a person or thing. They felt the bread was inadequate for their needs, and it was a sign of their cursing by God. So easily do men come to the same attitude towards the manna we are given in the wilderness- the word of the Lord Jesus. They accept it is given, but consider it inadequate for their needs.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:40 33:4'>33:4</a> while the Egyptians were burying all their firstborn, whom Yahweh had struck among them. On their gods also Yahweh executed judgments- <br />
	Each of the plagues targeted a specific Egyptian god, and it seems that on Passover night something dramatic happened to all the gods- maybe the idols to them fell over or were destroyed. Yet Israel still took the gods of Egypt with them through the Red Sea and worshipped them on the wilderness journey (<a href='B:330 20:7'>Ez. 20:7</a>; <a href='B:510 7:43'>Acts 7:4</a>3). The pull of idolatry is against all reason, and yet there is such a strong tendency within us not to devote ourselves to only one God.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>&quot;Against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am Yahweh&quot; (<a href='B:20 12:12'>Ex. 12:12</a>; <a href='B:20 15:11'>15:11</a>; <a href='B:40 33:4'>Num. 33:4</a>). The &quot;gods&quot; are spoken of for a moment as real and existing, in order to show Yahweh's total superiority over them to the point that they didn’t exist. Note how it was the Egyptian people who were judged (<a href='B:10 15:14'>Gen. 15:14</a>); their idols (&quot;gods&quot;) are used by metonymy to stand for those who believed in them. Likewise &quot;demons&quot; is sometimes put by metonymy for those who believed in them (e.g. <a href='B:480 2:32-34'>Mk. 2:32,34</a>). The judgment upon Egypt's gods is brought out by an otherwise obscure reference in <a href='B:20 7:19'>Ex. 7:19</a> to how &quot;there shall be blood in all the land of Egypt on wood and in stone&quot;. &quot;Wood and stone&quot; is a term usually used in the Bible for idols; and &quot;the Egyptian priests used </p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The plagues specifically targeted Egyptian gods: Nile water turned to blood = HAPI – the god of the spirit of the Nile; Frogs = HEKOT – the goddess of magic who had a frog's head; &quot;The dust of the land&quot; turned to lice or gnats (<a href='B:20 8:16'>Ex. 8:16</a>) = SEB – god of the dust of the earth; &quot;Swarms of beetles&quot; (<a href='B:20 8:21'>Ex. 8:21</a> Hebrew) = RA and the forerunner of BEELZEBUB were likened to beetles; much pagan Egyptian jewelry features beetles; Murrain of cattle = APIS – the sacred bull god; Boils (<a href='B:20 9:8-9'>Ex. 9:8–9</a>) = NEIT – the queen of the heavens; Thunder and hail = SHU – god of the atmosphere; Darkness = RA – the sun god; Locusts = SERAIJA – protector of Egypt from locusts.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:50 14:18'>14:18</a> the stork and the heron after its kind and the hoopoe and the bat- <br />
These animals, the bat especially, were associated with tombs and the dead. They were thought to carry messages to the dead, and to facilitate the passage of the supposed &quot;immortal soul&quot;- a false teaching which the Bible knows nothing of. Is. 7 speaks of the chirping and muttering of the dead, alluding to the sounds made by these animals. Quite simply, Israel were to have nothing to do with these wrong ideas and the animals associated with them. The &quot;hoopoe&quot; is better &quot;lapwing&quot;, known as 'the doctor bird' and clearly associated with pagan beliefs about healing.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:50 24:20'>24:20</a> When you beat your olive tree do not go over the boughs again. It shall be for the foreigner, for the fatherless and for the widow- <br />
The essence of this was that they were not to seek maximum personal wealth. That of course is the exact opposite of the spirit of our age, and is absolutely counter instinctive. The power to overcome this basic instinct towards maximizing personal wealth can only come from an awareness of the grace we have received, and a subsequent conscience toward others because of that.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:70 20:29'>20:29</a> Israel set ambushes all around Gibeah- <br />
The strategy for taking Gibeah is very similar to that for taking Ai, and we wonder if the strategy was communicated to them by God in <a href='B:70 20:289'>:28</a>. They were to perceive the similarities. They had likewise been over confident of taking Gibeah, and they had so far failed because like Israel in the first battle of Ai, they were being punished because of their sins. This was mirroring how "some of the wicked men" of Gibeah had surrounded the house of the old man in Jud. 19:22.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:90 14:8'>14:8</a> Then Jonathan said, We will cross over to them and let them see us- <br />
&quot;See us&quot; is the word for denuding, also translated &quot;exile&quot;. The exiles were encouraged that what seemed impossible could be achieved.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:90 14:11'>14:11</a> So they revealed themselves to the garrison of the Philistines, and the Philistines said, Look, the Hebrews are crawling out of the holes they were hiding in!- <br />
From their perspective so high above them, indeed the two men would have appeared as small animals emerging from their holes and crawling upwards to their destruction.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>it happened on the third day, that behold, a man came out of the camp from Saul- <br />
	LXX &quot;From the people of Saul&quot;. We wonder whether the man was in fact as he claimed, an Amalekite who had been with Saul. For David had just been fighting the Amalekites (<a href='B:100 1:1'>:1</a>), and was near their territory. I wonder if in fact he was a local man who had heard or even guessed the news and had come with his own agendas. The record of Saul's death in 1 Sam. 31 contradicts the story of the Amalekite. But the Biblical record at times describes things as they appear to be. The NT language of demons is another example. However the fact the man had Saul's crown and bracelets (<a href='B:100 1:10'>:10</a>) would suggest that he was one of the wandering types who hung around battlefields eager for the spoil.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The three days journey from Gilboa to Ziklag has been noted on <a href='B:100 1:1'>:1</a>, but we note that David had travelled with the Philistines almost to Gilboa (<a href='B:90 29:1'>1 Sam. 29:1</a>), and had then been sent back to Ziklag, and it had taken them three days to get there (<a href='B:900 30:1'>1 Sam. 30:1</a>). The record has every circumstantial evidence of being true.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>With his clothes torn and dust upon his head: and so it was, when he came to David, that he fell to the earth, and showed respect-<br />
	Literally, he made obeisance, the word being used specifically for worshipping God. He was showing that he accepted David as the new king. We note that all arguments that &quot;Jesus received worship, therefore Jesus is God&quot; are flawed in that the words for Divine worship are also sometimes used about the worship of men; and this is a parade example.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The language here is that of <a href='B:900 4:12'>1 Sam. 4:12</a>, where a Benjamite has the same tokens of mourning when bringing the news of the disastrous defeat at Aphek. I noted above that the man came &quot;from the people of Saul&quot; (LXX). Perhaps he was an Amalekite associated with Saul. See on <a href='B:100 1:4'>:4</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>David said to him, Where do you come from? He said to him, I have escaped out of the camp of Israel- <br />
This suggests the Amalekite was on Israel's side, and I have suggested on <a href='B:100 1:2-4'>:2,4</a> that he was effectively a Benjamite from Saul's tribe and close to Saul.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>David said to him, How did it go? Please tell me. He answered, The people have fled from the battle, and many of the people also have fallen and are dead; and Saul and Jonathan his son are dead also- <br />
&quot;Many of the people&quot; (<a href='B:100 1:4'>2 Sam. 1:4</a>) is no contradiction with <a href='B:90 31:6'>1 Sam. 31:6</a>, where &quot;all his men&quot; refers to Saul's immediate body-guard. The report of the bad news here is exactly that of <a href='B:90 4:16'>1 Sam. 4:16</a>, where a Benjamite reports a defeat in the same order: &quot;The rout, the slaughter among the people, the death of the leaders, are mentioned in an ascending climax&quot;. This corroborates the suggestion on <a href='B:100 1:2'>:2</a> that this Amalekite was in league with Saul quite closely.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>David said to the young man who told him, How do you know that Saul and Jonathan his son are dead?- <br />
David is sceptical of the man from the start, but accepts what he says at face value and judges him accordingly.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The young man who told him said, As I happened by chance on Mount Gilboa, behold, Saul was leaning on his spear; and behold, the chariots and the horsemen followed hard after him- <br />
'Happening by chance' contradicts his story that he had escaped out of the camp or army of Israel (<a href='B:100 1:3'>:3</a>). But David doesn't challenge this obvious contradiction, but rather judges the man according to his own words and claimed positions. Leaning upon his spear meant suicide; the contradiction was that Saul was utterly alone, and hadn't managed to kill himself by leaning upon his spear. There is no way chariots would have driven up mount Gilboa, which is a large conical hill surrounded by flat plains. It's impossible to think this man as it were stumbled across the scene on Gilboa by chance as he went about his business.</p><p>"With his spear in his hand" is the image we are repeatedly given of Saul in the records. It was the symbol of his kingship, and he was desperately gripping hold of it rather than giving it up as he should have done. Whether at home, sitting under a tree (1 Sam. 22:6)... he is pictured as madly gripping on to it. He even sleeps with the spear in the ground next to him (1 Sam. 26:7). In this lies the significance of David taking the spear from Saul but then returning it to him. What should Saul's response have been? To tell David to keep the spear and be king, whilst he retired and walked quietly with his God (1 Sam. 26:21,22). And it was that gripping on to power that was his death. If the Amalekite is to be believed, he said that Saul at his last end "was leaning on his spear" (2 Sam. 1:6), presumably before falling upon his own sword in suicide (1 Sam. 31:4). David by contrast had learnt from his victory over Goliath "that Yahweh can give victory without sword or spear” (1 Sam. 17:47). We have the picture of Saul with his last strength desperately clinging on to the symbol of the kingship. If he reigned 40 years he was now in his 60s or 70. To cling on to it was so pointless anyway. There is no necessary contradiction with him gripping onto his spear here, and committing suicide by falling upon a sword.</p> 


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>When he looked behind him, he saw me, and called to me. I answered, 'Here I am'- <br />
This contradicts the account of Saul's death in 1 Sam. 31, and is a typical example of how a liar will fabricate details to try to make their story look first hand and credible. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>He said to me, 'Who are you?'. I answered him, 'I am an Amalekite'- <br />
Here we have another internal contradiction within the man's story. If Saul wished to die not at the hands of the uncircumcised, why then would he agree to being slain by an uncircumcised Amalekite.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>He said to me, 'Please stand beside me, and kill me; for anguish has taken hold of me, because my life is yet whole in me'- <br />
The man was perhaps aware of how David had spared Saul's life because he believed it was wrong to slay Yahweh's anointed. And so the man creates the story that Saul had all but killed himself by leaning on his own spear (<a href='B:100 1:6'>:6</a>), and the Amalekite had just helped him by putting him out of the agony of a bungled suicide. The story lacks credibility.  "Anguish" is LXX "terrible darkness". This is the terrible darkness of condemnation which Jude speaks of. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>So I stood beside him and killed him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he had fallen. I took the crown that was on his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them here to my lord- <br />
As noted on <a href='B:100 1:9'>:9</a>, the man is trying to say that Saul was going to die anyway after having fallen upon his own spear in suicide (<a href='B:100 1:6'>:6</a>). In this case, there was no need to kill him, because Saul was going to die anyway in due course. The man's story is self contradictory. But David doesn't raise any of the obvious contradictions; like the Lord Jesus dealing with untruths told Him, he takes the words at face value and reasons with the man according to his own words. And this is a pattern for us, not to be so obsessed with &quot;truth&quot; that we demonstrate the contradictions in the words of others, but rather taking them at face value and drawing the conclusions from those words. In this case, despite all the contradictions, the man was saying that he had slain Yahweh's anointed, and that was the grounds of condemnation in David’s eyes.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Then David took hold on his clothes, and tore them; and likewise all the men who were with him- <br />
David accepted that the man's story was true insofar as Saul was dead, with the crown and bracelets being evidence of that. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>They mourned, wept and fasted until evening, for Saul and for Jonathan his son, and for the people of Yahweh, and for the house of Israel; because they were fallen by the sword- <br />
	We enquire why David weeps so sincerely for Saul. I don't believe it was mere theatricism, nor purely politically motivated by a desire to get the house of Saul onside with him in his new kingdom. There was something evidently genuine about his grief.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:230 35:14'>Ps. 35:14</a> is David’s comment about his grief for Saul both during Saul's life and also at his death: &quot;I behaved myself as though it had been my friend or my brother. I bowed down mourning, as one who mourns his mother&quot;. This is one verse which to me is a cameo of the extent of the victory which David won against the mind of the flesh, against our massive tendency to repay sin with sin, bitterness with bitterness, anger with anger. If we take nothing else away from this, please focus your mind on this, and keep the memory: Here David protests his love for the one who was persecuting him (<a href='B:230 35:12'>Ps. 35:12</a>) and is reflecting upon his attitude to Saul's death. &quot;As one who mourns for his mother&quot;. This is surely one of the most powerful figures that could be employed. Picture a young man of say 24, in a dark blue suit, kneeling down at the graveside of his mother, surrounded by friends and relatives, bowing down heavily in his grief. Or picture a man of 34, 44, 54, hair greying and receding now, bowing himself down heavily. Or even 64, 74, alone in his grief, bowing down heavily to the green turf, muttering words about mum. Perhaps some of us haven't yet experienced this; many have. If you haven't, just imagine it. Surely it brings a lump to your throat. Now it was with this intensity of grief that David mourned the death or sickness of his persecutor. This is a wondrous reflection of his devotion, his true love, his triumph over bitterness and anger, over all the human actions that had been directed against him. The heavy bowing down of the Lord Jesus as he wept over Jerusalem, the city that hated and rejected him, whose leaders slew him, whose people screamed for his blood. David wept for Saul as if he was his friend or brother. Who was David’s friend and brother? Surely Jonathan his brother-in-law. But he wept for Saul, David says, as he wept for Jonathan. This is testified to historically by David’s lament of 2 Sam. 1. And still David sought out the house of Saul, &quot;that I may shew the kindness of God&quot; unto them (<a href='B:100 9:3'>2 Sam. 9:3</a>). It was the experience of Divine kindness that motivated David. As he hoped for fellowship at the King's table in the future, so David delighted in inviting his former enemies to partake of his table, now he was king (<a href='B:100 9:7-13'>2 Sam. 9:7,11,13</a>). And if we hope to share the Lord's table in the Kingdom, we must share it with our weaker brethren now. I see in all this such a triumph for David, that a man should reflect the love of God to such an extent, to love in the face of such hatred, to not just love those who loved him.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The choice of a man mourning his mother, rather than a man his son, his father or his sister, was intentional. A man mourns for his mother because of the deep bond he feels now severed, and from feelings of guilt over ingratitude to her, lack of appreciation for her. And this was how David genuinely felt for Saul, despite all Saul's evil against him.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The deep sorrow of the Lord Jesus for Judas and all those who turn away is surely typified here. Right at the bitter end, the Lord still referred to him as His friend (<a href='B:470 26:50'>Mt. 26:50</a>), even though a few hours before He had been speaking of how the faithful few were His friends, and how He would give His life for His friends (<a href='B:500 15:13-15'>Jn. 15:13-15</a>). Throughout His ministry, the Lord had spoken of the faithful as His friends (<a href='B:490 14:20'>Lk. 14:20</a>; <a href='B:490 11:8'>11:8</a>; <a href='B:490 12:4'>12:4</a>). This was the spirit of the Lord Jesus in His time of dying, this is what enabled Him to  go through the mock trial, the intense degradation, the bitter pain of rejection, without bitterness and the sin of unholy anger. To be like David to Saul, like Paul to Corinth, like Christ to the Jews, like God to us, really is possible. If that's how we can live, we will truly be in the new life.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>We must however compare this great love of David for Saul with the many bitter words of imprecation he says about him in his Psalms. See on <a href='B:100 1:23'>:23</a>. Perhaps one reason for David’s sadness was that he realized that his overhasty prayers had in a way been answered. We really must be careful what we pray for, in case we receive it. Many human relationships include an element of love and hate [hence women remain in physically abusive relationships with men who protest &quot;love&quot; for them], and here David’s love finally triumphs over the hate. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>David said to the young man who told him, Where are you from? He answered, I am the son of a foreigner, an Amalekite- <br />
LXX &quot;The son of an Amalekite sojourner&quot;. The man has already stated he is an Amalekite (<a href='B:100 1:8'>:8</a>), so the intention of David’s question was not in order to elicit this information. Rather is David implying that it was even more wrong for an uncircumcised Gentile to slay Yahweh's anointed king of Israel.</p><p>We have here a typical response to grief. Having believed the man's news, David goes into the first stage of grief, crying and weeping. Then the anger comes- and he takes it out on the messenger and kills him. Of course he could justify it by reasoning that Saul had earlier been told to kill all the Amalekites. But the cult of respect for the "anointed" had been started by David himself; there was no Divine command that one who killed Yahweh's anointed must be slain. At least David should have asked the man if he knew Saul had been anointed by Yahweh. But David convicts the man of a supposed crime that he may or may not have been even aware he was committing. There is no attempt to save, just a desire to transfer blame and a blood lust. So although the man was lying on some points and clearly wanted a reward for his news, David's behaviour was again hot blooded and disrespectful for human life. David's lament over Abner is similar to this over Saul, and the intention of that was to prove "Innocent am I, and my kingship” (2 Sam. 3:28). We wonder whether David's lament over Saul was likewise partly politically motivated, to stress that he had not slain Saul nor had anything to do with it, and therefore the Benjamites should unite with Judah under his kingship. The murder of the Amalekite messenger would have supported that narrative. Rarely does David's motivation appear totally pure. Just as his first recorded words were an enquiry about the reward offered, and then a comment about the triumph of God over the uncircumcised. So here with his lament and with the slaying of the Amalekite. And yet God looked at the positive in him. It's not that David was unusually hypocritical; I suggest rather it is that we have an unusually deep insight into his human character. But what is found there is actually typical of us all- a mixture of motives, with the good finally outweighing the bad, or the good seen by God over the bad. </p><p>
He had just been fighting and totally massacring Amalekites and had killed many of them just days before, so he was psychologically liable to want to kill any other Amalekite he ran into. He failed to investigate further, and killed the man for having said he killed Saul- when in fact we know from 1 Sam. 31 that he hadn't killed Saul, and Saul had committed suicide. We note that David himself had only recently lied to Achish about his willingness to go and fight Saul and to kill Israelites- even though he hadn't actually done so. He had said that he had committed murder of Israelites when he hadn't- and now he slays a man who says he slew Saul when he hadn't. And yet David's words "Your own mouth has testified against you" (:16) are quoted by the Lord regarding how He will judge and condemn men at the last day (Lk. 19:22). Like His Father, the Lord picked out the good from David and focused upon it, and imputed righteousness to the rest.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>David said to him, How were you not afraid to put forth your hand to destroy Yahweh's anointed?- <br />
We tend to be particularly judgmental in cases where we ourselves overcame a temptation. David could have used his hand to slay Saul and his own men urged him to do so, and would've done so; but David resisted (the same term for putting forth a hand upon the anointed is used in <a href='B:90 24:6'>1 Sam. 24:6</a>,<a href='B:90 24:10'>10</a>; <a href='B:90 26:9'>26:9</a>,<a href='B:90 26:11'>11</a>,<a href='B:90 26:23'>23</a>). And now he condemns to death a man who had done what he very nearly did, and what his own men wanted to do. And so the strongest condemnation for smokers comes from ex-smokers, and so forth. We need to be aware of this feature of human nature.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>David called one of the young men and said, Go near, and fall on him. He struck him, so that he died- <br />
	David had just slain the Amalekites with extreme brutality, slaying even their children so that none would be left alive to tell others that David’s men had slaughtered them. David perhaps felt justified in this by <a href='B:20 17:16'>Ex. 17:16</a>, but I consider this was not David at his best. David still had that blood lust in him at this time. His slaying of this Amalekite could have been to demonstrate that he really was in lamentation for Saul's death and was truly sad, and believed that any who slew Yahweh's anointed must die the death. But his motives were surely mixed. He wanted to make a political statement to the house of Saul; and he also had blood lust in him from the recent fight with the Amalekites (<a href='B:100 1:1'>:1</a>). Not for nothing was he precluded from building the temple because God considered he had shed too much blood. </p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>It seems to me that this was an over the top reaction, and yet again betrays a lack of value and meaning attached to the human person. There was no attempt to convert the frightened young man to grace, to the God of Israel. The summary slaying of Rechab and Baanah has some similarities (<a href='B:100 4:12'>2 Sam. 4:12</a>). We get the impression this was another example of his wrong attitude to the shedding of blood (<a href='B:130 22:8'>1 Chron. 22:8</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>David said to him, Your blood be on your head; for your mouth has testified against you saying, 'I have slain Yahweh's anointed'- <br />
As noted above, the man's story had various points of obvious internal contradiction within it. But David doesn't dwell upon these, although he may imply he considers the man is lying about the details, but rather judges the man according to his words and intentions. This looks forward to how the Lord Jesus will judge according to our words (<a href='B:490 19:22'>Lk. 19:22</a> alludes here), by which men shall be condemned (<a href='B:470 12:37'>Mt. 12:37</a>). The need to respect Yahweh's anointed however continues to our day, for we too are anointed, in that we are &quot;in Christ&quot;, the anointed one, and anointed (<a href='B:540 1:21'>2 Cor. 1:21</a>). This deep respect for all others &quot;in Christ&quot; should impart to relationships &quot;in Christ&quot; an altogether unique quality, a love so unusual that it is enough to convert the world (Jn. 17).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan his son- <br />
David is careful to united Saul and Jonathan together; as noted on <a href='B:100 1:12'>:12</a>, he mourned &quot;as though it [Saul] had been my friend or my brother&quot; [Jonathan]. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>(and he commanded them to teach the children of Judah the song of the bow- <br />
	Saul was slain by a bow, and this was to be memorialized in the title. Similarly <a href='B:20 3:1-225'>Ex. 3:1-22</a> is called &quot;The Bush&quot; in <a href='B:480 12:26'>Mk. 12:26</a>. Or the reference may be to Jonathan's fondness for archery (<a href='B:90 20:20'>1 Sam. 20:20</a>), and his gift of his own bow to David (<a href='B:90 18:4'>1 Sam. 18:4</a>). David and Saul had a highly complex relationship, pointing forward to the complexity of relationship between Christ and Israel. Consider the  way that Jewry initially accepted John's Gospel of Messiah, how soon after the resurrection thousands of the priests who had rejected Christ then accepted him, and how even a few hours before the crucifixion the people shouted out for Jesus of Nazareth to be their Messiah-king. These are some of many hints that there was a complex acceptance-rejection relationship between Israel and Christ. Saul and David likewise had a mutual love and respect for each other. After all Saul had done to David, David’s grief at his death in 2 Sam. 1 is deep indeed. David taught all Israel to regularly sing that song of grief for Saul, and his zeal to demonstrate his forgiveness to the house of Saul is outstanding. Saul's sons and family were also involved in the anti-David campaign. </p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Behold, it is written in the book of Jashar)- <br />
	Literally &quot;the upright&quot;, showing how David imputed righteousness to Saul as an upright one. But this book has significantly not been preserved and was not Divinely inspired; because Saul is not ultimately in the book of God’s upright ones.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Your glory, Israel, is slain on your high places! How the mighty have fallen!- <br />
	LXX &quot;Set up a pillar, O Israel, for the slain that died upon thy high places&quot;. Or the Hebrew for &quot;glory&quot; is that for &quot;gazelle&quot; and may refer to the swiftness of Jonathan. If the LXX is followed, we see David unafraid to break the spirit of the Mosaic law in <a href='B:30 26:1'>Lev. 26:1</a>; just as David at times acted as a Levitical priest when he wasn't one. The reference to &quot;high places&quot; suggests idolatry, and there is the implication in the Psalms written against Saul that he was finally an idolater. The place of his death was therefore appropriate. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Don't tell it in Gath. Don't publish it in the streets of Ashkelon, lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph- <br />
But all these things did of course happen (<a href='B:90 31:9'>1 Sam. 31:9</a>). We must read this as David’s bitter regret that it happened.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>You mountains of Gilboa, let there be no dew nor rain on you, neither fields of offerings- <br />
	LXX &quot;Fields of firstfruits&quot;.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>For there the shield of the mighty was shamefully cast away, The shield of Saul was not anointed with oil- <br />
	Shields were anointed with oil before going into battle (<a href='B:290 21:15'>Is. 21:5</a>). The idea may be that Saul's shield didn’t save him, he perished as if he had not anointed it with oil; but the implication is that his anointing as king of Israel hadn't saved him. He had been rejected, in favour of David. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the mighty, Jonathan's bow didn’t turn back. Saul's sword didn’t return empty- <br />
	Jonathan and Saul's &quot; bow... and sword&quot; were used by them in the fateful battle on Gilboa. Does this mean that Jonathan was trusting in his human strength again? Psalm 44, which sounds very much like David’s meditation on Israel's defeat on Gilboa, includes the comment: &quot;I (David) will not trust in my bow, neither shall my sword  save me&quot; (<a href='B:230 44:6'>Ps. 44:6</a>). Or does it mean that although Jonathan gave David / Jesus his human strength, his bow (<a href='B:90 18:4'>1 Sam. 18:4</a>), but David gave it back to him, for him to use on his own initiative?</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>It is possible to Biblically reconstruct the battle of Gilboa, and thus to enter into the pathos of the whole scene yet more fully. Saul and Jonathan did not retreat / turn back, when the rest of Israel did (<a href='B:90 31:1'>1 Sam. 31:1</a>). Saul and his sons held their ground, slaying many Philistines. But then Jonathan was wounded by an arrow (the Hebrew word translated &quot;slain&quot; in <a href='B:100 1:19'>2 Sam. 1:19</a>,<a href='B:100 1:22'>22</a>,<a href='B:100 1:25'>25</a> means to pierce to death; crucifixion language), as was Saul. Yet they kept on fighting, until they were surrounded on all sides; they died &quot;in the midst  of the battle&quot; (<a href='B:100 1:25'>2 Sam. 1:25</a>); they &quot;perished&quot; (<a href='B:100 1:27'>2 Sam. 1:27</a>), a Hebrew word also translated 'to have no way to flee'. They tried to flee, eventually throwing down their shields so that they could run faster (<a href='B:100 1:21'>2 Sam. 1:21</a>). Eventually Jonathan and his brothers, the cream of Israel, lay slain on Gilboa, and Saul then fell on his sword. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives- <br />
	LXX &quot;Saul and Jonathan, the beloved and the beautiful&quot;. Or, &quot;loving and kindly&quot;. Saul had been anything but this, but it is part of love to impute righteousness to a person, to see them positively after their death; and this is why God’s love leads to His imputation of righteousness to us, as Rom. 1-8 explains. The sense of this verse in the Hebrew is that &quot;Neither in their lives nor in their death were they divided&quot;. But they were deeply divided in their lives. We see here David wishing by all means to impute righteousness to both Saul and Jonathan, even though he had suffered to terribly from Saul. We see here the measure of David. Despite his Psalms of imprecation against Saul, when Saul dies, he shows that in his heart he truly loved Saul and  forgave him to the point of imputing righteousness to him. We must remember that when a man rails against another. The words are indeed sinful, for we shall be judged according to our words. But human nature is so contradictory that within there may also be a core love for the person being abused in hot blood. Thankfully God judges righteously, factoring in all the invisible things of the heart which man cannot; we cannot ultimately judge, and this inability is the reason why we must not judge. </p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>In their death they were not divided. They were swifter than eagles. They were stronger than lions- <br />
	We could read this as a lament by David- Jonathan ought to have quit the court of Saul and come out to David in the wilderness. But he didn't, and so he died along with his father and was not promoted to second in command in the Kingdom of David, as he and David had earlier agreed. And David laments the unity between Jonathan and Saul. </p<p>There clearly were many divisions between Saul and Jonathan in their lives; we think of Saul’s upbraiding of Jonathan in 1 Sam. 20:30: “O son of a perverse wayward woman! Don’t I know you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame and the shame of your mother’s nakedness?". The claim they were undivided may be somewhat more than poeticism and seeing the good in the deceased; quite possibly Jonathan did veer towards Saul as opposed to David, and suffered for it. David’s lament over Saul and Jonathan is extremely positive, after the spirit of the way in which Christ looks upon his dead saints (cp. God’s positive comments on many of the kings after their death). Yet we know that Saul's death was in recompense for his dire apostasy. In that punishment, David observed, he and Jonathan &quot;were not divided&quot;. This may suggest that in some sense Jonathan was too closely linked with his father, and was therefore implicated in his punishment. It can be shown that not all Saul's sons died on Gilboa; therefore there was special point to the fact that Jonathan died with his father in that way. David’s command that there should be no dew or rain upon the mountains (<a href='B:100 1:21'>2 Sam. 1:21</a>) was to be picked up years later by Elijah, when he made the same imprecation against an apostate Israel (<a href='B:110 17:1'>1 Kings 17:1</a>). <br />
	Consider the following:<br />
	- The description of Jonathan as the son of Saul occurs a massive 23 times; the connection between them is certainly highlighted. <br />
	- Jonathan had Gideon as his personal hero. Yet there is ample evidence that Saul too saw Gideon in this light. Does this suggest that in his more spiritual days, Saul successfully imparted his spiritual enthusiasm for Gideon to his son in Sunday school lessons? <br />
	- Mephibosheth is called Saul's son (<a href='B:100 9:7'>2 Sam. 9:7</a>,<a href='B:100 9:10'>10</a>; <a href='B:100 19:24'>19:24</a>), although he was actually Jonathan's son. This suggests that the son was brought up in Saul's house. This certainly does not give the impression that Jonathan separated himself from his father’s house.<br />
	- Jonathan was commander of the army (<a href='B:90 13:2'>1 Sam. 13:2</a>). When he gave &quot;the robe that was upon him&quot; to David (<a href='B:90 18:4'>1 Sam. 18:4</a>), he was effectively making David the commander (cp. <a href='B:140 18:9'>2 Chron. 18:9</a>,<a href='B:140 18:29'>29</a>). Thus when &quot;Saul set (David) over the men of war&quot; (<a href='B:90 18:5'>1 Sam. 18:5</a>), he was tacitly going along with Jonathan's wish, even though by this time he had already heard the women praising David more than himself, and his bitter jealousy against David had already begun (<a href='B:90 18:6'>1 Sam. 18:6</a>). This little point simply shows the external unity of action between Saul and Jonathan. <br />
</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>This closeness in Jonathan's relationship with Saul shows the emotional tangle which Jonathan was in on account of his relationship with David. If we truly love the Lord Jesus Christ, and if we are honest enough to come to terms with the pull of our own natures, we will be going through exactly the same. Our Lord seems to have seen in Jonathan a type of ourselves. In the context of warning us that loyalty to Him would mean confessing him before men and conflict between fathers and sons, he encourages us that not a hair of our head will perish (<a href='B:470 10:30'>Mt. 10:30</a> cp. <a href='B:490 21:18'>Lk. 21:18</a>). This is picking up the application of this phrase to Jonathan in <a href='B:90 14:45'>1 Sam. 14:45</a>. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>You daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, who clothed you in scarlet delicately, who put ornaments of gold on your clothing- <br />
	It was those daughters of Israel who had praised David more than they had Saul, and this had been the trigger for Saul's jealousy complex against David. Samuel had warned that Saul would make the daughters of Israel suffer, making them his slavegirls. But here again, David imputes righteousness to Saul, a sign of love. And that is the same outcome of the love of God for us in Christ. Our natural desire to speak no evil of the dead, to speak only good of them [De mortuis nil nisi bonum] and to remember them positively reflects how God looks at His dead children. "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of all His saints". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:100 1:25'>1:25</a></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! Jonathan is slain on your high places- <br />
	See on <a href='B:100 1:22'>:22</a> for a reconstruction of the battle. I suggested on <a href='B:100 1:23'>:23</a> that Jonathan died not at his spiritually best. The reference to his high places could imply that he died at the high places where he performed idolatry. We note the elements of idolatry in the names of his children.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:100 1:26'>1:26</a></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan. You have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women- <br />	&quot;The love of Christ, that passeth knowledge&quot; (<a href='B:560 3:19'>Eph. 3:19</a>) is clearly prefigured in David’s feelings for Jonathan and the love of David for Jonathan. Despite many passionate relationships with women, experiencing the depth of human closeness more than many, David could sob: Your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women&quot;. The Hebrew for &quot; wonderful&quot; has a root meaning 'separate'. This love of Jonathan was separate from all other love David had known.  In this we see perhaps the first Old Testament foretaste of agape  love, love beyond the phileo and eros. Emotionally and spiritually, Jonathan and David went way ahead of their time. David speaks of Jonathan's love in terms of male: female love. He describes him as &quot;the beauty of Israel&quot;, &quot;very pleasant hast thou been unto me&quot;; and grammatically, &quot;your love to me...&quot; (<a href='B:100 1:26'>2 Sam. 1:26</a>) implies that the lover was female. These two brethren had a spiritual love for each other which totally transcended the gender division. In like manner, our Lord said that male believers could be His sister and mother. We are dealing with high things here. Yet the heights of the David: Jonathan relationship are set down here to challenge us to at least try to touch the sky, however briefly. And when David later wrote of how good and &quot;pleasant&quot; it is for brethren to dwell together in unity (Ps. 133), he surely had the pleasantness of his relationship with Jonathan in mind, and wished it to be shared by all his brethren.</p><p>David returned from killing Goliath; the women come out to congratulate David, all apparently in love with the classic handsome hero; and Jonathan also loves him (1 Sam. 18:1-6, see notes there). Possibly David alludes to this when he laments that Jonathan's love for him surpassed the love of women (2 Sam. 1:26). </p><p>David returned from killing Goliath; the women come out to congratulate David, all apparently in love with the classic handsome hero; and Jonathan also loves him (1 Sam. 18:1-6, see notes there). Possibly David alludes to this when he laments that Jonathan's love for him surpassed the love of women (2 Sam. 1:26). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:100 1:27'>1:27</a></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>How are the mighty fallen, and the weapons of war perished!- <br />	&quot;The mighty&quot;- see on <a href='B:90 14:45'>1 Sam. 14:45</a>. David had refused those same &quot;weapons of war&quot; in his victory over Goliath, and he may imply that now Israel were to learn the lesson- and trust in Yahweh rather than weapons. Indeed &quot;the mighty&quot; is the term used for Goliath in <a href='B:90 17:51'>1 Sam. 17:51</a>. It's as if David sees this defeat as a reversal of his victory over Goliath. Although "the weapons of war" were Jonathan and Saul, in the immediate context. </p><p>We note how David's victory song recorded in 2 Sam. 22 has many allusions to his lament over Saul in 2 Sam. 1. Saul is lamented as having cast away his bow and shield, he lost "the battle" and turned back from his foes and was chased by them, until he and Israel perished on "their high places". 2 Sam. 22 has David glorying in how he won victory on "the high places" with his bow and shield being blessed by God so that he never turned back from his foes and instead chased them until he had won the battle. He sees himself as succeeding in the ways Saul had failed. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>It happened, as he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezer struck him with the sword; and they escaped into the land of Ararat. Esar Haddon his son reigned in his place- <br />
As noted on <a href='B:290 38:7'>Is. 38:7</a>, this was caused by God putting a spirit / attitude of mind in these sons to do this. His Spirit, as today, confirmed the human spirit. He was killed as he was worshipping, about 20 years later; worshipping a god who had spectacularly failed him. We see here the terrible power of religion in blinding men to spiritual reality. He was given a chance to repent; just as was Pharaoh. God was extremely patient with him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Nevertheless you shall not build the house; but your son who shall come forth out of your body, he shall build the house for My name- <br />
As noted above, this would have been contrary to the spirit of the reasons God gave for declining David’s offer. He had explained that He had never asked for any permanent sanctuary to be built for Him, and tent life was His style, as He doesn't live in buildings but in hearts. And instead of building a house for Yahweh, David was instead to focus upon the wonderful grace of Yahweh's plan to turn his Messianic seed and all &quot;in him&quot; into an eternal spiritual house for His abode. Yet Solomon presents God as having been in eager agreement with the idea, but simply had some reservations about David doing it, and instead asked Solomon to build it. That would have been a contradiction of the reasoning God gave for saying He didn’t want a physical house built for Him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>in the third year of his reign, he made a feast for all his princes and his servants; the powerful ones of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the provinces, being before him- The impression is given of a man with huge power &quot;before him&quot;. And this powerful man is set to be manipulated by the invisible hand of God working through a nervous, not very spiritually strong Jewish refugee teenager.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>For the Chief Musician. For a stringed instrument. By David.<br />
	Hear my cry, God. Listen to my prayer- <br />
	David at this point was at the extremity of the land (:2), so it refers to his exile from the sanctuary at the time of Saul or Absalom. He refers to himself as "the king" (:6) so at least by that point in the psalm, the immediate reference is to his exile from the sanctuary after Absalom's rebellion.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Sing to Yahweh a new song! Sing to Yahweh, all the earth- <br />
Even in the Old Testament, the idea of living in a spirit of newness of life is to be found. David six times invites us to sing with him &quot;a new song&quot; (<a href='B:230 33:3'>Ps. 33:3</a>; <a href='B:230 40:3'>40:3</a>; <a href='B:230 96:1'>96:1</a>; <a href='B:230 98:1'>98:1</a>; <a href='B:230 144:9'>144:9</a>; <a href='B:230 149:1'>149:1</a> cp. <a href='B:290 42:10'>Is. 42:10</a>). Invariably these songs are associated with the experience of God’s redemption (cp. Rev. 5:9). Obviously those 'new songs' were intended to be repeatedly sung. Our regular experience of forgiveness and redemption should urge us onwards in the spirit of 'newness of life'. Like Paul we die daily with the Lord, and the power of His resurrection life likewise daily breaks out in us.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>for they have opened the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of deceit against me. They have spoken to me with a lying tongue- <br />
So many of the Psalms contain references to Saul's smear campaign against David (<a href='B:230 27:12'>Ps. 27:12</a>; <a href='B:230 31:13'>31:13</a> cp. <a href='B:90 26:19'>1 Sam. 26:19</a>). This frequency of reference in itself indicates the weight with which this tragedy rested upon David’s mind. It makes good homework to list all the lies Saul told David. But these words also apply to the lies told to David at the time of Absalom's rebellion, who for years prior to it had bad mouthed David to the men of Israel. Solomon repeatedly condemns &quot;the mouth of the wicked&quot; (<a href='B:240 10:6'>Prov. 10:6</a>,<a href='B:240 10:11'>11</a>,<a href='B:240 10:32'>32</a>; <a href='B:240 11:11'>11:11</a>; <a href='B:240 12:6'>12:6</a>; <a href='B:240 15:28'>15:28</a>; <a href='B:240 19:28'>19:28</a>). All he says is true enough, but he clearly enough has in view how his father David had condemned the supporters of Saul and Absalom as having &quot;the mouth of the wicked&quot; (<a href='B:230 109:2'>Ps. 109:2</a>). And these were the groups who were threatening his power and throne. Solomon presents himself by implication as having the mouth of the just / righteous. And yet we must note that David too had spoken multiple words of deceit in relation to the murder of Uriah. Indeed the phrase is used in <a href='B:290 53:9'>Is. 53:9</a> as if the Lord Jesus was the only man who didn’t have a &quot;mouth of deceit&quot;. Solomon like David was in denial of the fact that we all sin with our mouths, as James makes clear in <a href='B:660 3:1-3'>James 3:1-3</a>. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:230 113:9'>Ps. 113:9</a> He settles the barren woman in her home, as a joyful mother of children. Praise Yah!- <br />
The allusion to Hannah continues; but she was representative to the &quot;barren woman&quot; of Israel in exile (<a href='B:290 54:1'>Is. 54:1</a>), who was to be blessed with many children (<a href='B:290 49:12'>Is. 49:12</a>,<a href='B:290 49:18'>18</a>,<a href='B:290 49:20'>20</a>; <a href='B:290 54:2-3'>54:2,3</a>; <a href='B:290 60:5'>60:5</a>; <a href='B:550 4:27'>Gal. 4:27</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>He who loves purity of heart and speaks gracefully is the king's friend- Having in :10 spoken of his plan to purge Israel of opposition, Solomon now gives the other side of the coin. Anyone who is supportive of him and speaks nicely to him will be &quot;the king's friend&quot; and he considers loyalty to him an evidence of &quot;purity of heart&quot;. One sees this today in church life- anyone who takes the side of a certain leader is pronounced to be 'most spiritually minded' and so forth. But &quot;the king's friend&quot; was a technical term for a senior Government minister, and the term is used only once elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, with reference to one of Solomon's chief officers: &quot;Zabud the son of Nathan was chief officer, the king's friend&quot; (<a href='B:110 4:5'>1 Kings 4:5</a>). Nathan was one of David’s hawks, one of his hardest core loyalists, and Solomon appointed his son as his chief advisor; and justifies it by pronouncing this man as pure of heart just because he was &quot;king's friend&quot;. There is no particular ipse facto reason for thinking that a king's friend is automatically pure of heart; but this Proverb declares that to be the case. Again, Solomon appears to be using Divine wisdom to justify his own politics, and this is a lesson that needs to be learnt in church life today.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>He was oppressed- Before the cross, we are convicted of our sinfulness. And yet we are assured there of our ultimate salvation. Isaiah 53 predicted that there, &quot;He was oppressed&quot;- Heb. 'exaction was made' (s.w. <a href='B:290 58:3'>Is. 58:3</a>). He bore our punishment / condemnation on the cross. We each ought to be crucified to death- this is the exaction for sin. And yet, Jesus died for us. The exaction was made from Him. The rejected will have to bear their own sin, and therefore their feelings will be akin to His in the time of crucifixion. Yet we are to bear the cross with Him. We must either crucify ourselves now, or go through it in rejection. This is a gripping logic.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>&quot;Oppressed&quot; is the word for &quot;taskmaster&quot; and has been used by Isaiah of Judah's dominators and abusers ( <a href='B:290 9:4'>Is. 9:4</a>;  <a href='B:290 14:2-4'>14:2,4</a>). The Lord Jesus was &quot;oppressed&quot; as Israel's representative and thus became the basis for righteousness to be imputed to all who had been oppressed and had oppressed others. See on  <a href='B:290 60:17'>Is. 60:17</a>.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Yet when he was afflicted he didn’t open his mouth. As a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before its shearers is mute, so he didn’t open his mouth- John the Baptist looked at Jesus walking towards him and commented that here was the &quot;Lamb of God&quot;, a phrase the Jews would've understood as referring to the lamb which was about to be sacrificed on Passover ( <a href='B:500 1:29'>Jn. 1:29</a>). John presumably was referencing the description of the crucified Jesus in  <a href='B:290 53:7'>Is. 53:7</a>; for John, he foresaw it all, it was as if he saw Jesus as already being led out to die, even though that event was over three years distant. And so he could appeal to his audience to face judgment day as if they were standing there already. We need to have the same perspective.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'> <a href='B:290 53:7'>Is. 53:7</a> speaks of the Lord at this time as being uncannily silent: &quot;as a sheep before her shearers is silent&quot; . The LXX has: &quot;Because of his affliction he opens not his mouth&quot;, as if the silence was from pure fear as well as a reflection of an internal pain that was unspeakable. Job's experience had foretold that the cross would be what the Lord had always &quot;greatly feared&quot;. The Passover Lamb, so evidently typical of the Lord as He approached death, was to be male. And yet  <a href='B:290 53:7'>Is. 53:7</a> conspicuously speaks of a female sheep. Why such an obvious contradiction? Was it not because the prophet foresaw that in the extraordinary breadth of experience the Lord was passing through, He was made to empathize with both men and women? He felt then, as He as the seed of the woman stood silent before those abusive men, as a woman would feel. This is not the only place where both the Father and Son are described in feminine terms. It doesn't mean, of course, that the Father is a woman; what it means is that He has the ability to appreciate and manifest feelings which a male would not normally be able to. Through His experience and zeal for our redemption, the Lord Jesus came to the same ability as His Father in these areas. Those who have suffered most are the most able to empathize. And yet somehow the Lord exceeded this principle; it was true of Him, but such were His sufferings and such His final empathy that this isn't a fully adequate explanation as to how He got to that point of supreme empathy and identity with us that He did. Exactly how He did it must surely remain a mystery; for God was in Him, reconciling the world unto Himself by that fully and totally representative sacrifice.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Literally, the Hebrew is "like a sheep before the faces of its shearers". This connects with how He was "as one from whom men hide their faces" (Is. 53:7). Those men are described as behaving just as we imagine them- having to face the Lord, seeing they were His "shearers", and yet seeking to avert their gaze, hiding their faces from Him. They hid their faces from Him; but He didn't “hide his face from shame and spitting” (Is. 50:6). This is the clash between those of bad conscience with Him with the ultimate clean conscience. This is all so psychologically credible, and an example of where Old Testament prophecy fills in far more details than the simple historical descriptions of the Lord's sufferings which we have in the New Testament.
The female element in Old Testament sacrifice pointed forward to the Lord's sacrifice, as a sheep before her shearers. His identity with both male and female, as the ultimate representative of all humanity, meant that He took upon Himself things that were perceived as specifically feminine. The mother was the story teller of the family; when people heard the Lord tell parables and teach wisdom, it would have struck them that He was doing the work of the matriarch of a family (V.C. Matthews and D.C. Benjamin, The Social World Of Ancient Israel (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1993) pp. 28-29).  &quot;Typical female behaviour included taking the last place at the table, serving others, forgiving wrongs, having compassion, and attempting to heal wounds&quot;, strife and arguments (B. J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights From Cultural Anthropology (Louisville: Westminster / John Knox Press, 1993) p. 54). All this was done by the Lord Jesus- especially in His time of dying and the lead up to it. He was in many ways the idealized mother / matriarch. His sacrifice for us was very much seen as woman's work. And this is why the example of his mother Mary would have been a particular inspiration for Him in going through the final process of self-surrender and sacrifice for others, to bring about forgiveness and healing of strife between God and men. In a fascinating study, Diane Jacobs-Malina develops the thesis that a psychological analysis of the Gospels shows that the Lord Jesus played his roles like &quot;the wife of the absent husband&quot; (Diane Jacobs-Malina, Beyond Patriarchy: The Images Of Family In Jesus (New York: Paulist, 1993) p.2. ). And assuming that Joseph disappeared from the scene early in life, His own mother would have been His role model here- for she was indeed the wife of an absent husband. You'd have to read Jacobs-Malina's study to be able to judge whether or not you think it's all valid. But if she's right, then it would be yet another tribute to the abiding influence of Mary upon the character of the Son of God.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>This idiom of being a lamb dumb and not knowing the outcome of events is used about Jeremiah to describe his wilful naivety about Israel's desire to slay him: &quot;I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter; and I knew not that they had devised devices against me&quot; ( <a href='B:300 11:19'>Jer. 11:19</a>). In this Jeremiah was indeed a type of Christ. Likewise we note that being cut off out of the land of the living (:8) is also the language of Jeremiah (Jer. 11:19). Perhaps the connections are to teach us that the Lord died with Jeremiah on His mind.  On one hand, the Lord Jesus knew from the beginning who should betray Him; and yet He went through the pain, shock and surprise of realizing that Judas, his own familiar friend in whom He trusted, had done this to Him ( <a href='B:230 41:9'>Ps. 41:9</a>;  <a href='B:500 6:64'>Jn. 6:64</a>;  <a href='B:500 13:11'>13:11</a>). He knew, and yet He chose to limit that foreknowledge from love. This is in fact what all human beings are capable of, seeing we are made in the image of God. Thus Samson surely knew Delilah would betray him, and yet his love for her made him trust her. And we as observers see women marrying alcoholic men, wincing as we do at the way their love makes them limit their foreknowledge. There is an element of this in God, as there was in His Son as He faced the cross.<br />
</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The Greek for &quot;delivered Him&quot; ( <a href='B:520 8:32'>Rom. 8:32</a>) is three times used in Is. 53 LXX about the handing over to Jesus to His death [NEV &quot;that is led&quot;]. The moment of the Lord being delivered over by Pilate is so emphasized. There are few details in the record which are recorded verbatim by all the writers ( <a href='B:470 27:26'>Mt. 27:26</a>;  <a href='B:480 15:15'>Mk. 15:15</a>;  <a href='B:490 23:25'>Lk. 23:25</a>;  <a href='B:500 19:16'>Jn. 19:16</a>). The Lord had prophesied this moment of handing over, as if this was something which He dreaded ( <a href='B:480 9:31'>Mk. 9:31</a>;  <a href='B:480 10:33'>10:33</a>); that point when He was outside the legal process, and must now face His destruction. The Angels reminded the disciples: &quot;Remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men&quot; ( <a href='B:490 24:6-7'>Lk. 24:6,7</a>). The emphasis is on &quot;How&quot;, with what passion and emphasis.  <a href='B:520 4:25'>Rom. 4:25</a> makes this moment of handing over equivalent to His actual death: &quot;Who was delivered (s.w.) for our offences, and raised again for our justification&quot;. So much stress is put on this moment of being delivered over to crucifixion. The Gospel records stress that Pilate delivered Him up; but in fact God did ( <a href='B:520 8:32'>Rom. 8:32</a>); indeed, the Lord delivered Himself up ( <a href='B:550 2:20'>Gal. 2:20</a>;  <a href='B:560 5:2'>Eph. 5:2</a>,<a href='B:560 5:25'>25</a>). Always the same word is used. Notice how <a href='B:510 8:32'>Acts 8:32</a> changes the quotation from Is. 53 to say that Christ was led (this isn't in the Hebrew text). His passivity is another indication that He was giving His life of His own volition, it wasn't being taken from Him.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>We are in Christ, connected every moment with the life and living out of His cross. We are dying with Him, our old man is crucified with Him because His death is an ongoing one. &quot;It is Christ that died... Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?... As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter&quot; (<a href='B:520 8:34-36'>Rom 8:34-36</a>). According to Isaiah 53, He on the cross was the sheep for the slaughter; but all in Him are all day long counted as sharing His death, as we live out the same self-control, the same spirit of love and self-giving for others, regardless of their response...</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Isn't it to distribute your bread to the hungry, and that you bring the poor who are cast out to your house? When you see the naked, that you cover him; and that you not hide yourself from your own flesh?- The leaders of Judah in Nehemiah's time were abusing their brethren. Their receipt of grace should have led them be generous to their poor brethren, rather than exploiting them. And that principle is true for us; for the restoration is used in the New Testament as a type of our redemption from the Babylon of sin and this world. And yet too many like to kid themselves that their response to grace is to do the opposite; to cast out their own brethren from their houses and then ignore their need, physically and spiritually.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:290 43:13'>Jeremiah 43:13</a> He shall also break the pillars of Beth Shemesh that is in the land of Egypt; and the houses of the gods of Egypt shall he burn with fire- Beth Shemesh is 'house of the sun' and probably refers to Heliopolis, which has the same meaning. &quot;The pillars&quot; refer to an avenue of obelisks in front of the temple erected by Thothmes III (BC 1500), one of which remain, and the other is &quot;Cleopatra's Needle,&quot; placed on the Thames Embankment in London in 1878.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Does it seem a small thing to you- The intention of the gripping passage in Ez. 16 was to convict Jerusalem of her sins (<a href='B:330 34:2'>:2</a>); because they considered their spiritual and literal prostitution &quot;a small matter&quot;. The same word is used here in accusing the priesthood of considering it &quot;a small matter&quot; for the flock to have been ruined by them. This was the problem, as it is today- the real implications of attitudes and behaviour are not taken seriously. We fail to perceive how deeply we affect both God and man. Society makes us feel insignificant cogs, but we are not like that to God. This was the problem with Ezekiel's audience; they had a light hearted approach to eternal issues. To them, sin was a light thing (<a href='B:330 8:17'>Ez. 8:17</a>; <a href='B:330 22:7'>22:7</a>). This was the role of the prophets, to convict people of the gravity of their sins and positions, and the consequences to come.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>To have fed on the good pasture, but you must tread down with your feet the remainder of your pasture; to have drunk of the clear waters, but you must foul what remains with your feet?- It is a characteristic of those who reject the message of the Kingdom that they seek to stop others entering it as well (see on <a href='B:490 11:52'>Lk. 11:52</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>I will put My Spirit within you- This is the same idea as developed in the valley of dry bones prophecy, where God causes His Spirit to enter into Israel and revives them (<a href='B:330 37:5'>Ez. 37:5</a>). The Corinthians were given the Spirit potentially, but were &quot;not spiritual&quot; (<a href='B:530 3:1'>1 Cor. 3:1</a>). Like many today, they wasted the potential. And the same was true of Judah at the restoration. <a href='B:150 9:9'>Ezra 9:9</a>: &quot;For we were bondmen; yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us [s.w. &quot;put&quot; my spirit] a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the desolations&quot;. They revived the stones out of the heaps (<a href='B:160 4:2'>Nehemiah 4:2</a>). A new spirit was potentially given to them, God put in the heart of men like Nehemiah to revive the work (<a href='B:160 2:12'>Nehemiah 2:12</a> s.w.). But this didn’t force them to be obedient. They chose not to be, and so the promised kingdom blessings of corn etc. were replaced by famines, in the times of Nehemiah, Haggai and Malachi. Judah were forgiven at the restoration; but they failed to live the life of response to that grace, and therefore the spirit did not continue with them.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>And cause you to walk in My statutes, and you shall keep My laws and do them- God under the new covenant gives a spirit of obedience, He makes us obedient to Him. The same causative power is referened in the many prophecies that Yahweh would "cause" the captives to "return", to repent, and then return to the land. </p><p>
We notice the clear parallel with the new covenant of Jer. 31:33, which says that God would put His law within them; here, "my spirit I will put within
you". The spirit of God is in His word, the law of Moses was intended to produce the spirit of Christ, ultimate spirituality. But God promises to instill this within His people, to make them internalize His perfect law. Jer. 31:33 continues: "And I will be their God, and they shall be My people". This is matched here in Ez. 36:28: "And you shall be my people, and I will be your God". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Lest I strip her naked, and make her bare as in the day that she was born, and make her like a wilderness, and set her like a dry land- This was the punishment for a prostitute, a punishment which she should've had right back at the start. But instead of this punishment, Hosea had married her. We are perhaps nervous to equate our sinfulness, our rebellion, our unfaithfulness, with Gomer's prostitution. But this, surely, is what we are intended to do, and to thereby perceive the extent of God’s patient love toward us, to the end that that grace and goodness might lead us to repentance. Because Hosea had loved this woman, he had feelings of anger- he desired to strip her naked and slay her, to &quot;discover her lewdness in the sight of all her lovers, and none shall deliver her out of my hand&quot; (<a href='B:350 2:10'>Hos. 2:10</a>). These feelings were quite natural. Hosea was the wounded lover, the betrayed man. And these are exactly the feelings of God over the unfaithfulness of His people.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'> </p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The metaphors used to describe the anger of God with Israel are awful. Her children to be slain with thirst, she was to be stripped naked by her husband (Hosea 2), gang raped by her lovers; all similar to the language of having her nose cut off and left a battered, bleeding mess in the scrubland (<a href='B:330 16:23'>Ez. 16,23</a>), to have her skirt pulled up over her head and her nakedness revealed (<a href='B:300 13:20-27'>Jer. 13:20-27</a>), wishing to pluck off her own breasts for shame (<a href='B:330 23:34'>Ez. 23:34</a>). Jerusalem is to be raped, violated and humiliated, according to Ezekiel. Indeed, Ezekiel's images verge at times on what some would consider pornographic. He speaks of the woman Israel's pubic hair, breasts, menstrual cycle (<a href='B:330 16:7'>Ez. 16:7</a>,<a href='B:300 16:10'>10</a>); the gang rape by her enemies which God would bring about, leaving her mutilated and humiliated (<a href='B:300 16:37'>Ez. 16:37</a>; <a href='B:300 23:22-49'>23:22-49</a>); about the size of her lovers' sexual organs and coital emissions, and how she let them fondle her breasts (<a href='B:300 23:8'>Ez. 23:8</a>,<a href='B:30023:20'>20</a>). This is shocking language, which perhaps we skip over in our Bible reading from sheer embarrassment- and we are modern readers brutalized by exposure to this kind of stuff in the media. For early Israel, it would all have been even more shocking. It all seemed out of proportion to having 'merely' made a few political alliances with Egypt and Assyria. Was that really like a wife letting other men fondle her breasts and have sex with her, admiring their bodies as she did so? Did it all have to end in such brutality and vulgarity? Today, sex and violence are what attract attention. From lyrics of songs to advertising and movies, that's clear enough. And the prophets are using the same tactics to arrest Israel's attention, all the more so because nudity and sex were things simply not up for public discussion. There's an anxiety which any talk about sex seems to arouse in us, and it was the prophets' intention to make us likewise get on the edge of our seats, anxious, rapt, sensitive for the next word… realizing that really and truly, this is what human sin does to God. The outrageous sex talk was to bring out how outrageous and obscene are our sins and unfaithfulness to the covenant we cut with God in baptism.</p><p>Those who find this language over the top... need to ask whether they have rightly understood the nature of sin, and the undoubted existence of the wrath of God [just read Romans 2, as well as the prophets]. The fact we in Christ are "saved from wrath through Him" only has wonder and meaning if we appreciate that God's wrath is real. Even though, as with the wrath of Hosea, it is all a part of love. For truly "the wrath of God is the love of God". So often the wrath of God is considered an outdated idea, never to be mentioned. But it's rather like the Victorians thought of sex- never to be spoken of, but accepted as present.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'> </p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>And kill her with thirst- The punishment intended for Hagar, which was again rescinded by grace. All the allusion to the wilderness and thirst is to give insight into how God felt toward Israel in the wilderness, when He wanted to destroy them for still worshipping the Egyptian idols; but by grace alone He did not.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'> </p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Let's remember that God’s own law was pretty clear about adultery. The adulterous woman was to be punished with death- for one act of adultery. Even if she repented. And in any case, it was a defiling abomination [according to the Mosaic Law] to remarry a divorced wife. But Hosea doesn't strictly keep the law; his love and grace are beyond it. He lets his wife commit multiple acts of adultery, and he still loves her and pleads with her- even though he was a man in love with God’s law. And this reflects the turmoil of God in dealing with human sin, and His sinful people. Hosea outlines his plan in Hosea 2. He will hamper her movements so she can't find her lovers; if she does find them, he will take away her food and clothing, so she appreciates his generosity to her; and if she still doesn't return, he will expose her naked and shamed in front of her lovers. But there's no evidence Hosea ever did that. He just… loved her, was angry with her as an expression of that love, loved her yet more, yet more… And this perhaps too reflects God’s mind- devising and declaring judgments for Israel, which are themselves far less than what He has earlier stated in His own law, and yet the power of His love means He somehow keeps bearing with His people. Even in the context of speaking of His marriage to Israel, God says that He will punish them &quot;as women that break wedlock are judged&quot; (<a href='B:300 26:38'>Ez. 26:38</a>; <a href='B:300 23:45'>23:45</a>). And yet, He didn’t. His love was too great, His passion for them too strong; and He even shamed Himself by doing what His own law forbad, the remarriage to a divorced and defiled wife. Perhaps all love involves a degree of paradox and self-contradiction; and a jealous, Almighty God in love was no different. This, to me, is why some Bible verses indicate God has forsaken Israel; and others imply He hasn't and never will. Somehow, even right now, the Jews you meet… are loved still by their God. And he still fantasizes, in a way, over their return to Him. Imagine His utter joy when even one of them does in fact turn to Him! That alone motivates me to preach to Israel today.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>As for Ephraim, their glory will fly away like a bird- There was a tremendous sensitivity in Hosea to both God and to the sin of His people, honed and developed by his own relationship with Gomer. At the start of Hosea's prophecy, Israel were prosperous. They worshipped Yahweh, and assumed He was with them. And yet Hosea discounts their worship of Yahweh as being effectively idolatry. Time and again Hosea accuses Israel of idolatry, using words to describe their idolatry which are word plays on language associated with Yahweh. He speaks of their kabod [glory] (<a href='B:350 9:11'>Hos. 9:11</a>; <a href='B:350 10:5'>10:5</a>)- a word usually used about the glory of Yahweh. They worshipped lo'al (<a href='B:350 7:16'>Hos. 7:16</a>)- and he uses al to refer to Yahweh in <a href='B:350 11:7'>Hos. 11:7</a>. They worshipped sor (<a href='B:350 9:13'>Hos. 9:13</a>)- the same consonants as sur, the &quot;rock&quot; of Yahweh (<a href='B:50 32:31'>Dt. 32:31</a>). He calls Yahweh qados (<a href='B:350 11:9'>Hos. 11:9</a>), but they worshipped qedosim (<a href='B:350 12:1'>Hos. 12:1</a>). We tend to assume that Hosea's denunciation of idolatry meant that Israel worshipped both Yahweh and various other images and idols of their pagan gods. But that seems to be an over-simplification. Archaeologists have actually not found much evidence of such gods as stand alone entities. Summarizing much research, Cogan concludes: &quot;There is no evidence of Assyrian interference in the Israelite cult prior to the 720 BCE annexation of Samaria [after Hosea's time]… Israel was free of any cultic obligation&quot; (M. Cogan, Imperialism And Religion: Assyria, Judah and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries BCE (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1974) pp. 103,104). And yet, Hosea speaks for all the world as if there were shrines etc. to other gods all over the place. My conclusion is that the idols, shrines etc. to which Hosea refers were therefore actually understood by Israel as a form of Yahweh worship. But he points out to them that actually, their worship of Yahweh is a form of idolatry. And all this has relevance to us. For actually things like daily Bible reading, attending church, going through the formalities of a religion, can become a form of fetishism rather than parts of the dynamic, Spirit filled life which they ought to be a vital part of. Worshipping Yahweh in the &quot;high places&quot;, i.e. the pagan shrines, was Israel's besetting sin. It's rather like the way they turned the bronze snake of the wilderness into an idol. They, like us, never simply turned their back on the true Way. Rather did they mix it with the way of the flesh, the way of the world, and pronounced that as in fact Yahweh worship. And it was all this which Hosea was so deeply sensitive to, as demonstrated by the careful word plays he made, in order to demonstrate that their worship of Yahweh was in fact idol worship.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>There will be no birth, none with child, and no conception- Gomer had no conception from Hosea, and became infertile, just like Israel were to God (<a href='B:350 9:14'>:14</a>).</p><p>No conception, barren wombs, dead children, wandering (Hos. 9:11,15-17) is the language of the curses for breaking the covenant (Lev. 26:26). As Gomer had broken the marriage covenant, so Israel had broken the old covenant. But they were by grace being offered a new covenant- but even that they, and Gomer, refused. And so it was offered to us. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'> Ephraim has bitterly provoked anger- Just as Hosea was provoked to anger by Gomer; God &quot;hated&quot; Israel for their rejection of Him (see on <a href='B:350 9:15'>Hos. 9:15</a>).  We noted on <a href='B:350 11:8'>Hos. 11:8</a> the very deep provocations of feelings within God’s heart.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Therefore his blood will be left on him, and his Lord will repay his contempt- As noted on <a href='B:350 12:13'>:13</a>, Hosea is as the watchman prophet who is telling Israel what is coming upon them. Their blood is therefore no longer on his head but on theirs, according to the principle of <a href='B:330 33:6-8'>Ez. 33:6-8</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>A manipulative woman arranging the death of a prophet through a weak willed ruler recalls Jezebel in 1 Kings 21; and she was a protagonist of Elijah, upon whom John the Baptist was clearly modeled.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>For- The context is the end of chapter 19, about the first now being last in the eternal order of things to be established at Christ's return. The parable is therefore about the situation amongst believers in Christ. At <a href='B:470 19:1'>19:1</a> I presented a chiasmus plan, showing that this parable is to be read in the context of chapters 18 and 19 with their theme of the need to accept and not reject our brethren. That theme is to be found at the very end of the parable- insofar as the harder workers are inclined to reject their brethren who have not worked so long nor so hard. Many of the parables contain their essential point right at the end, and this parable does likewise. The end stress is upon the need for the harder working brethren to accept their weaker brethren, standing as they all do before the judgment presence of the Lord Jesus. The teaching that &quot;the last shall be first&quot; concluded chapter 19 and it concludes this parable (<a href='B:470 20:16'>20:16</a>). I suggested under <a href='B:470 19:30'>19:30</a> that the point of this is that the first in a secular sense within the community of believers will be saved only by grace and will be &quot;the last&quot; in the Kingdom. The phrase therefore talks of salvation by grace, and this is the theme of this parable too.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The context of the parable is Peter's comment: &quot;What shall we have therefore?&quot;, implying that the disciples ought to get a far greater reward than the spiritually immature rich people who refused to part with their wealth but could be saved anyway by the Lord's grace. The hard workers are thereby to be equated with the disciples and all who consider themselves spiritually superior to others- they &quot;expected that they should have received more&quot; (<a href='B:470 20:10'>20:10</a> NIV), just as Peter likewise expected more. The parable suggests the Lord wanted to specifically reward the lazy and weaker workers. For they are called first to receive their penny- when surely appropriacy would demand that the harder workers were first in line. And yet the parable had wider relevance to the situation in the first century- and today. The harder workers somehow felt unhappy with the basis of contract upon which the lazier workers had been taken on and 'saved' by being given the same penny as they. But the basis of salvation was the same- for the zealous and for the lazy, for Jew and Gentile. And that basis was grace. The weaker workers showed perhaps more faith in the Master's offer- because it would've seemed unreal that they would be given the same pay as the stronger, longer workers. But they believed it- which is why they went to do their little work.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The impression we are left with is that the Lord was and is utterly desperate for workers- He is willing to take on any &quot;little ones&quot; prepared to believe His amazing offer. And the same impression is given in the parable of the street people being urged in to the feast. All they had to do was say yes- there was an urgency to fill the house. And surely we in these last days must perceive ourselves as the 11th hour workers, then ones taken on at the very last minute. That alone adequately explains the mixed bag which comprises the body of Christ in our times, and the weak state of that body.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house- AV &quot;A man&quot;. The man, the head of the house, is clearly the Lord Jesus. And the Kingdom of God is like… Him. The grace of the Lord Jesus, His manner of being and judging amongst men, is the essence of the Kingdom both now and evermore.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Perhaps we are to connect this parable to the other parable about a householder who had a vineyard (<a href='B:470 21:33'>21:33</a>- the same Greek words are used). Putting the two parables together, God worked so hard to prepare the vineyard so that maximum spiritual fruit would be brought forth. But Israel rejected His prophets and murdered His Son- even though God was confident they would &quot;reverence My Son&quot;, actually they killed Him. The wonderful vineyard was therefore given out to the Gentiles, or at least, to others, whom the owner was likewise confident would tend it and bring forth fruit for Him. But this parable indicates that actually He had a major problem getting them to come work in it- meaning that much potential fruit was lost. And the parable of <a href='B:470 21:28'>21:28</a> says that the vineyard owner's very own sons were not much help either- one refused to go, and only later went to the work; the other said he would go and work, but never did. God’s hopefulness for human response, and the tragedy of our paucity of response, is thus brought out yet stronger. It may be objected that the parables appear to be chronologically out of sequence if they are indeed intended to be read together. My response would be that we have in the Gospels a highly abbreviated record of the Lord's teaching, and likely He repeated His teachings and parables many times over. Perhaps the parable of the vineyard owner was told in full [both parables put together] several times, but we have just parts of the parable recorded on two separate occasions.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Who went out- This is emphasized four times (also in <a href='B:470 20:3-6'>:3,5,6</a>). The Greek word is often used about the Lord Jesus 'going out' to men with the Gospel; it is the same word in Jn. 8:42 &quot;I proceeded forth… from God&quot; and <a href='B:500 13:3'>Jn. 13:3</a> &quot;He was come from ['went out from'] God&quot;. Rather than suggesting any personal pre-existence, this is simply a reference to the Lord during His ministry likewise 'going forth' to men and women with the Gospel, seeking to engage men in the Father's service. The call of the Gospel, therefore, is not merely to believe the Gospel- it is a call to action, to harvest fruit, to work in the vineyard.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Early in the morning- The very same Greek phrase is used about how the Lord &quot;went out early in the morning&quot; to pray about the calling of the disciples (<a href='B:480 1:35'>Mk. 1:35</a>). The language is also used about the earliest disciples 'going out' from the tomb of the risen Lord, also &quot;early in the morning&quot;, to bring word to others. The message was ultimately not just passing on information, but an invitation to actually work.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord Himself was noted for rising up early and praying (<a href='B:480 1:35'>Mk. 1:35</a>). The observant Jew prayed three times / day, the first and last prayers being merely the recital of the shema. Yet Jesus spent hours in those morning and evening prayers (<a href='B:480 1:35'>Mk. 1:35</a>; <a href='B:480 6:46'>6:46</a>). <a href='B:290 50:4'>Is. 50:4</a> prophesies of the Lord Jesus that morning by morning, God awoke His ear &quot;to learn as a disciple&quot;. That last phrase is surely to signal the intended similarities between the Lord's path of growth, and that of all disciples. The next two verses go on to predict that because of this morning-by-morning teaching process, &quot;I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair; I hid not my face from shame and spitting&quot; (<a href='B:290:50:5-6'>Is. 50:5,6</a>). Thus we come to the cross, the life of cross carrying, as the end result of our morning reflections. It was from His own experience that the Lord could bid us take up our cross- His cross- each morning.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Have you ever had to make yourself wake up before dawn, without an alarm clock? You can only do it by having a deep internal, subconscious awareness that you must get up early. You don't sleep well, you keep waking up and wondering if it's time to get up. So to make oneself rise up early was easily understood as a figure expressing great mental effort. And God did this every day for centuries... This figure of rising up early is surely the basis for the Lord's parable in <a href='B:470 20:1'>Mt. 20:1</a>- where God is likened to a man going out early in the morning to hire labourers. It is through the ministry of His word that God does this- each morning that word calls us to labour for Him in His vineyard. Israel didn’t notice the huge effort God puts into His word- that every day He rose early and taught them. We can also misunderstand Biblical inspiration to mean that God effortlessly inspired &quot;the original autographs&quot; long ago, and moved on; but actually the whole process is an ongoing and incredible outgiving of God’s energy in appealing to us. And... in our mismanaged, weakly disciplined lives, is it so that we don't even make time to read His word daily? If Job could value God’s word more than His regular daily food... then for us too, regular contact with His word should be part of the atmosphere of life within which we live.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>To hire- <a href='B:520 4:4'>Rom. 4:4</a> uses the same word in stressing that salvation is not our &quot;hire&quot; from God, it is the gift of grace. One wonders if Paul is alluding to the parable- to make the point that salvation is a gift, and yet in another sense we each receive a response for our labour. This is in that our labours now will receive eternal recognition in the form in which we will be throughout eternity.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Labourers for his vineyard- Literally, 'toilers'. There can be no mistaking the Lord's impression here- response to His invitation is not merely intellectual assent to the truth of Bible teachings, nor is it about painless involvement in the work of His church when, how and how far convenient to us. It's an invitation to toil and really work in His enterprise. The Lord had earlier lamented that the harvest was more plenteous than the few labourers (<a href='B:470 9:37-38'>Mt. 9:37,38</a>). He had asked the disciples to pray for more labourers- and the added detail of this parable is that those labourers were still not enough, and were weak [nobody had wished to hire them] and didn’t in the end do much work. In this we see how the total conversion of others is limited by the preachers; for the Lord surely implies that there are more potential converts than there are preachers to bring them in. This passage paves the way for the giving of the great commission to us all later in Matthew- to work in the vineyard in harvest time, gathering the plentiful harvest. The &quot;Go…&quot; of <a href='B:470 20:4'>:4</a> fulfils the same function. Elsewhere the Lord likens labourers to the preachers. He clearly saw a primary reason for our calling as to preach and help others to the harvest of the Kingdom. He called us in different ways to labour for and with Him in this work; not to merely passively hold various doctrinal truths in intellectual purity, or to dumbly attend church meetings of whatever sort.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>For I was hungry and you did not give me anything to eat. I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink- <br />
The ideas of being hungry, thirsty and in prison connect with the picture we have in the sermon on the mount (<a href='B:470 5:5-11'>Mt. 5:5-11</a>)- where those very categories of people are those who are blessed by the Gospel. The implication of the connection may be that their being given food, water and comfort is articulated through the body of Christ today. And those who refuse to be the channel for those things are thereby showing themselves to not be part of the body of Christ.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>I was a stranger and you did not welcome me. Naked and you did not clothe me. Sick and in prison and you did not visit me- <br />
&quot;Welcome me&quot; translates the same Greek word used for welcoming others into salvation. It is translated &quot;assemble together&quot; in the context of church meetings (<a href='B:500 20:19'>Jn. 20:19</a>; <a href='B:510 4:31'>Acts 4:31</a>;  <a href='B:510 11:26'>11:26</a>;  <a href='B:510 14:27'>14:27</a>;  <a href='B:510 15:6'>15:6</a>, <a href='B:510 15:30'>30</a>;  <a href='B:530 5:4'>1 Cor. 5:4</a>), and specifically of gathering together to break bread ( <a href='B:510 20:71'>Acts 20:7</a>). Clothing the naked likewise has connections with accepting the otherwise spiritually unacceptable. It is all a sober warning to those inclined to &quot;not welcome&quot; some at the Lord's table.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>But she was greatly disturbed at the saying, and cast in her mind what manner of greeting this might be- She has a natural reaction of shock to the news, but unlike Zacharias, she gets over it and joyfully believes her ambitious prayers have been ansewred. &quot;Cast in her mind&quot; translates a word often used in Luke about people struggling within their minds to process the challenge of Christ, and coming down on the side of unbelief. Mary alone comes down on the side of belief (<a href='B:490 3:15'>Lk. 3:15</a>; <a href='B:490 5:21-22'>5:21,22</a>; <a href='B:490 12:17'>12:17</a>; <a href='B:490 20:14'>20:14</a>). We all have these struggles, in which our faith and our unbelief struggle together. She wondered whether in fact the news was bad or good. And she came down to the obvious truth- that the Gospel of Christ is good news. Why should we wonder whether such positive greeting, &quot;highly favoured... blessed&quot; should in fact be a bad kind of greeting? We also have such language applied to us. The message of Christ is either the sickest trick- or what it claims to be, good news. Many refuse to believe it because we are wired to not believe good news, pure grace. But she is set up as an example to us all.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>But he that denies me- The whole purpose of the true church is to be a light to the world- &quot;the only cooperative society in the world that exists for the benefit of its non-members&quot;, as William Temple put it. The Lord will tell some in the last day that He never knew them, He will deny them; and yet He will deny those who never confessed Him before men (<a href='B:470 8:23'>Mt. 8:23</a>; <a href='B:470 10:32-33'>10:32,33</a>). These people will have prophesied in His Name [i.e. preached to the ecclesia], and done &quot;mighty works&quot; for Him; but the fact they didn’t confess Him before men is seen as not knowing Him; for to know Him is to perceive that we are intended to confess Him before men. This, perhaps, is our greatest danger. The presence and witness of God is no longer in a tent in the Sinai, nor in a Jerusalem temple. God reveals Himself through the group of ordinary, mixed up folks who comprise the ecclesias. For the watching world, we present proof that Christ is indeed alive; we provide the visible shape of what God and Jesus are really like. This is how vital is the matter of witness. It is utterly fundamental to the whole purpose behind our having been called. If we deny Christ, we deny that Jesus is the Christ (<a href='B:690 2:22'>1 Jn. 2:22</a>); and yet we deny Christ if we don't preach Him (<a href='B:470 10:33'>Mt. 10:33</a>). It follows that if we really believe that Jesus was not just Jesus of Nazareth but the Christ of God, therefore we won't deny Him but will preach Him. This is why there is connection between confessing Jesus as Christ and preaching Him (<a href='B:500 9:22'>Jn. 9:22</a>; <a href='B:510 18:5'>Acts 18:5</a>; <a href='B:570 2:11'>Phil. 2:11</a>). A grasp of who the Lord Jesus really is and the height of His present exaltation will naturally result in a confession of Him to the world, as well as a deep personal obedience to His word and will (<a href='B:650 2:1'>Heb. 2:1</a>).</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>There are at least three Biblical examples of people denying Jesus- the same Greek word is used- and yet repenting. Peter denied the Lord &quot;before all&quot; (<a href='B:470 26:70'>Mt. 26:70</a>), and yet was restored. The entire crowd around Jesus, including the healed woman, initially 'denied' they had touched Jesus (<a href='B:490 8:45'>Lk. 8:45</a>); but the woman then came out into the open and confessed Christ before all. The Jews 'denied' Christ (<a href='B:510 3:13-14'>Acts 3:13,14</a>) but then repented and were baptized publically. The point is, that in the moments when we deny Him, He denies us; but we can change the situation.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>It's tempting to wonder whether all this talk of confession and denial is only really relevant to those standing trial for their Christian faith, with the threat of death before them and the possibility of saving their life if they make some symbolic denial of Christ. But the words for confessing and denying occur together in <a href='B:630 1:16'>Tit. 1:16</a> about those within the ecclesia who &quot;Profess [s.w. 'confess'] that they know God, but in works deny Him&quot;. We can make the profession of faith before men, and in the public confession of baptism- whilst effectively denying the faith in our lives. There were some within the ecclesias of the first century who 'denied' the Lord (<a href='B:680 2:1'>2 Pet. 2:1</a>). External membership can appear as 'confession', but the point is that it isn't necessarily. It can actually be a front for denial of Him…</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>In the presence of men shall be denied in the presence of the angels of God- The Lord Jesus in the last day will confess, or witness to in a legal sense, for His people &quot;before the angels of God&quot; (<a href='B:490 12:8-9'>Lk. 12:8,9</a>); and yet He uses the same language to describe how right now, He confesses us in Heaven in the presence of His Father (<a href='B:470 10:32'>Mt. 10:32</a>). Thus when we witness- or don't witness- to our relationship with Him, the Lord Jesus either confesses or denies knowledge of us before His Father. Right now. And this, therefore, is a foretaste of the final judgment. And we face these foretastes day by day in human life, as we encounter the choices of confessing or denying our Lord.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>There is a direct correlation between our attitudes to witnessing before men now, and the attitude of the Lord Jesus about us in Heaven &quot;before&quot;, or 'before the face of', the Father. Witnessing is essentially personal, each of us individually &quot;before men&quot;. As modern life progresses in reducing relationships to online abstractions, we must remember this. An individual may press the right keys on their keyboard, send money online to a preaching organization- and yet never be making any witness about Christ before the faces of men. Indeed, those with whom the person does have face to face relationships may well be totally unaware he is a Christian. It's this kind of thing which the Lord is addressing in such demanding terms- our witness before men , not in some anonymous world of avatars, is related to how we witnesses about us before the face of God in Heaven. </p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>So whoever denies the Lord before men will be denied before the Angels. Two words are used here, the first weaker than the second. If we deny Jesus, He will utterly deny us before the Angels- what we do now on earth is even more strongly reflected in Heaven and at judgment day. The Heavenly response to our words and actions is out of proportion to our words. This surely inspires us in our daily words and decisions.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>And he said to the vinedresser- Again the unreality is emphasized; a vinedresser is asked to pay special attention to a solitary fig tree. See on <a href='B:490 13:6'>:6</a>.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Behold, these three years I came seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down. Why should it use up the ground?- The allusion is to the Mosaic principle that such fruit was only clean after three years. After the three years of His ministry, during the Lord's final six months, God suggested to Him that the nation of Israel be cut down (this is but one example of the private intercourses between Father and Son). The Lord knew when He must die soon; He had already steadfastly set His face to go to die at Jerusalem (<a href='B:490 9:51'>Lk. 9:51</a>). It seems to me that He knew He would be killed by the Jews in a few months time. But He asks the Father to spare Israel for at least another year- as if to show that He knew they wouldn't accept Him even after His death, but He's saying to God: 'Give them a chance even after they kill me'. Those who think further along the lines suggested by the parable will see that in reality, Israel were not cut down by God for another 37 years. The implication is that this was due to Christ's pleading with God during those  years for patience to be shown to the nation who rejected and  crucified Him. The element of unreality in the story reflects the grace of Jesus- for it was unthinkable for a servant to argue back with his master, asking not to do what he had been ordered to do. The ground was 'used up' or 'sterilized' in that nothing else was able to grow. The Jews are here presented as hindering the growth of fruitbearing plants, i.e. the Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:490 17:8'>17:8</a> Instead will he not say to him: Make ready my supper and dress yourself and serve me, and after I have eaten and drunk, then you shall eat and drink?- <br />
The picture is of a hard life, full of works. Out working in the field all day, and then preparing food for the master in the evening; then, personally eating and drinking, sleeping- and getting up early to another similar day. This is &quot;our duty&quot; (<a href='B:490 17:10'>:10</a>). Whilst we are saved by grace through faith, and it is not of works lest any man should boast- it is also true that the Lord here envisages the Christian life as being totally centered around His cause and person. True Christianity is therefore no mere occasional hobby nor an inherited tradition. If we acccept the Lord's assurance of salvation, then our lives are totally taken over by it. But the difference is that the servant does eat at his master's table. And the Lord says that He is among us at table as one that serves, and washes our feet. And He shall come forth and serve us at the future Messianic banquet. Because His servant heart remains; He is the same yesterday, as He was in His ministry, as He shall be for ever (Lk. 12:37 "Blessed are those servants, whom the master when he comes shall find awake. Truly I say to you, that he shall dress himself for service and make them sit down to eat, and shall come and serve them"). We are intended to connect the Lord's teachings. We are to connect that teaching with what we read here, that it is ours to serve, we are unworthy to sit at His table. Let alone to be served by Him, in the greatest inversion of all things.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Was seeking to see who Jesus was; but on account of the crowd he could not, because he was small of stature- The fact nobody made way for him is a tacit reflection of how his wealth had not bought him respect. As he was seeking Jesus, so the Lord was seeking him (<a href='B:490 19:10'>:10</a>). We see here the mutuality which there is between us and the Lord. Luke the doctor seems to pay special attention to those whose physical appearance was non standard; it is Luke who likewise records the healing of the woman bent over; just as Luke also focuses upon women and the marginalized. Those marginalized for whatever reason were now drawn in to the people of God- to such an extent that we get the impression that the new people of God are in fact those marginalized and rejected by society.</p><p>"Small of stature" is a Greek phrase used in contemporary literature for a dwarf. This would explain why he was so small that he literally couldn't see the Lord; and how a sycamore bush / tree could support him. Dwarfism was seen as a sign of Divine displeasure; outward appearance was seen as a reflection of a person's inward and spiritual state. Physical deformity was seen as reflective of spiritual disformation. Dwarfs were forbidden access to the temple on the basis of the Mosaic proscription of men with some deformities [although dwarfism isn't specifically mentioned] being priests. Dwarfs were also thought to be comical characters. Running, climbing trees etc. was not seen as the behaviour of the wealthy or noble [hence the significance of the Father running to meet the prodigal]. This places Zacchaeus in a difficult position- seen as unable to come to God, thought to be non-standard and weird, wealthy in a generally poor society, seen as a national traitor, with a career that isolated him from people. But he saw that the Lord Jesus called individuals regardless of those things.
</p><p>
We note that the crowds were a barrier for him coming to the Lord- just as they were, Luke notes, for the blind beggar (Lk. 18:35-43) and the man who had to be let down through the roof because the crowds stopped him coming to the Lord (Lk. 5:17-19). Crowds, comprised of members of the people of God [Israel], with a professed interest in Jesus of Nazareth... stopped sincere individuals coming personally to the Lord. Just as the disciples tried to stop the little children and their mothers coming to the Lord, and also the Syro Phoenician woman. Luke notices this situation, and how the Lord was aware of it. And called people despite it.  </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>I came from the Father and came into the world. Now I leave the world and go to the Father- <br />
The disciples have just been commended for having &quot;believed that I came from the Father&quot; (<a href='B:500 16:27'>:27</a>). Their faith was in the fact that Jesus was the begotten Son of God, that Mary had been made pregnant with Jesus by the Holy Spirit. This is what it meant to believe that the Lord Jesus &quot;came from the Father&quot;. The disciples didn’t believe the Lord Jesus was some pre-existent Divine being. This was not at all what their belief in His 'coming from the Father' meant. And so His 'coming into the world' refers to His entry into the Jewish world, as the begotten, Messianic Son of God- rather than referring to any entry into earth's atmosphere from 'heaven'. Literal descent from Heaven &quot;into the world' isn't in view. Likewise His 'leaving the world' was not referring to any literal ascent from planet earth to Heaven. If this were the case, then surely the language would have been of &quot;earth&quot; rather than the more social term &quot;the world&quot;.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>His disciples said: Now you speak plainly and not in figurative language!- <br />
The irony of course was that the Lord was still speaking in somewhat figurative language (see on <a href='B:500 16:28'>:28</a>). And the disciples didn’t really understand; for after His resurrection, the Lord was to rebuke them for their lack of understanding. And yet [under Divine inspiration], the record here is a transcript of how John usually preached the Gospel. He is as it were poking fun at himself and his brethren, in that they were so sure that &quot;Ah! Now we get your sense!&quot;, when actually they were very far from it. By implication, John appeals to his audience to not be as slow to understand as he had been. And it is a similar confession of our own weakness which will make our witness the more attractive and persuasive.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now finished, so that the scripture might be accomplished, said: I thirst- This wasn't just ingenious thinking on the spur of the moment. Victims lived for around two days on the crosses, but this was only due to a regular supply of liquid being handed up to them. One wonders if the person who organized the drink was one of the relatives of the thieves, or perhaps His own relatives. Surely His mother and aunty and Mary had come prepared to do all they could for Him in this final agony. They knew what the relatives of the crucified had to do. The thieves had probably received liquid already during the ordeal. But our sense must be that the Lord didn’t. Perhaps His mother even suggested it, with an inward glance back to the sweet days of early childhood: &quot;Do you want a drink? I can get you one&quot;. But as He refused the painkiller, as He refused to push down on the footrests, so He refused to quench His thirst. </p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Note that the sponge was placed on a hyssop plant, which is only 50cm. long at the most. This is internal evidence that the cross was quite low, and the Lord's feet only a few feet above the ground.  The Lord Jesus began to quote Psalm 22 in His final moments on the cross, and He earnestly desired to complete the quotation. He asked for something to wet His throat so He could complete the last few verses. This indicates not only His earnest desire to say out loud &quot;It is finished&quot; with all that meant, but also the level of His thirst. Every word He spoke out loud was an expenditure of effort and saliva. He was intensely aware of this. He realized that unless He had more moisture, He just would not be able to speak out loud any more. And yet He so desperately wanted His last words to be heard and meditated upon. His sweat in the Garden had been dropping like blood drops; the nervous tension of bearing our sins sapped moisture from Him. There would have been a loss of lymph and body fluid to the point that Christ felt as if He had been &quot;poured out like water&quot; (<a href='B:230 22:14'>Ps. 22:14</a>); He &quot;poured out his soul unto death&quot; (<a href='B:290 53:12'>Is. 53:12</a>), as if His sense of dehydration was an act He consciously performed; He felt that the loss of moisture was because He was pouring it out Himself. This loss of moisture was therefore due to the mental processes within the Lord Jesus, it was a result of His act of the will in so mentally and emotionally giving Himself for us, rather than just the physical result of crucifixion.<br />
</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The Psalms, especially 22, indicate the extent of His dehydration- largely due to the amount of prayer out loud which He did on the cross (&quot;The words of my roaring&quot;). <a href='B:650 5:7'>Heb. 5:7</a> speaks of His strong crying and tears (again an expenditure of moisture) while on the cross; and <a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom. 8:26</a> alludes to this, saying that our Lord has the same intensity in His present mediation for us. The physical extent of His thirst is expressed by that of Samson, when in an incident typical of Christ's conquest of sin on the cross, he nearly died of thirst in the midst of a spectacular victory (<a href='B:70 15:18'>Jud. 15:18</a>). A perusal of that incident will enable us to enter into the thirst of our Lord a little more.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The Messianic Psalms also speak of the great spiritual thirst of the Lord Jesus in His sufferings. The intensity of His physical thirst therefore reflected His spiritual thirst, His desire to be with the Father, His desire to finish His work and achieve our salvation. We are better able to imagine His physical thirst than His spiritual thirst. Yet we are surely intended to see in that physical thirst a cameo of His desire for spiritual victory, His thirsting after God’s righteousness. </p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>&quot;As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God. My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: when shall I come and appear before God? My tears have been me meat...while they continually say unto me (on the cross), Where is thy God?&quot; (<a href='B:230 42:1-3'>Ps. 42:1-3</a>). Christ's thirst was to come and appear before God. Appearing before God is Priestly language. Now He appears in God’s presence in order to make mediation for us (<a href='B:650 9:24'>Heb. 9:24</a>), and He will appear again as the High Priest appeared on the day of Atonement, bringing our salvation. This means that Christ thirsted not so much for His own personal salvation, but for ours; He looked forward to the joys for evermore at God’s right hand (<a href='B:230 16:11'>Ps. 16:11</a>)- i.e. the offering up of our prayers. How this should motivate us to pray and confess our sins! This is what our Lord was looking forward to on the cross. This is what He thirsted for.<br />
</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>&quot;O God... my God (cp. &quot;My God, my God&quot;)... my soul thirsteth after thee, my flesh longeth for thee in a dry and thirsty land, where no water is&quot; (<a href='B:230 63:1'>Ps. 63:1</a>)- cp. Christ as a root growing in a spiritually dry land on the cross (<a href='B:290 53:1'>Is. 53:1</a>)<br />
	&quot;I stretch forth my hands unto thee (on the cross): my soul thirsteth after thee, as a thirsty land&quot; (<a href='B:230 143:6'>Ps. 143:6</a>).<br />
</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The thirsty land surrounding Christ on the cross represented spiritually barren Israel (<a href='B:290 253:1'>Is. 53:1</a>; <a href='B:230 42:1-3'>Ps. 42:1-3</a>); but the Lord Jesus so took His people upon Him, into His very soul, that His soul became a thirsty land (<a href='B:230 143:6'>Ps. 143:6</a>); He felt as spiritually barren as they were, so close was His representation of us, so close was He to sinful man, so fully did He enter into the feelings of the sinner. In the same way as Christ really did feel forsaken as Israel were because of their sins, so He suffered thirst, both literally and spiritually, which was a punishment for Israel's sins:</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>&quot;Thou shalt serve thine enemies... in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of all things&quot; (<a href='B:50 28:48'>Dt. 28:48</a>). This is an exact picture of Christ on the cross. And Paul likewise alluded to this language when describing his own sufferings for the sake of taking the Gospel to Israel (<a href='B:540 11:27'>2 Cor. 11:27</a>), as if he too felt that he was a sin-bearer for Israel as Christ had been. This is to be understood in the same way as his appropriating to Himself the prophecies concerning Christ as the light of the Gentiles. This is so relevant to the cross. <br />
	&quot;They shall not (any more) hunger or thirst&quot; (<a href='B:290 49:10'>Is. 49:10</a>) occurs in the context of comforting Israel that they will no longer be punished for their sins. <br />
	&quot;Ye are they that forsake the Lord... therefore... ye shall be hungry... ye shall be thirsty... ye shall be ashamed&quot; (<a href='B:290 65:11-13'>Is. 65:11,13</a>). This too is exactly relevant to the cross. <br />
	&quot;Let (Israel) put away her whoredoms... lest I... set her like a dry land, and slay her with thirst&quot; (<a href='B:350 2:3'>Hos. 2:3</a>). <br />
	&quot;I will send a famine in the land, not a... thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord... in that day shall the fair virgins and young men faint for thirst&quot; (<a href='B:370 8:11-13'>Am. 8:11,13</a>).<br />
</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>This literal and spiritual thirst which was a punishment for Israel's sins came upon the Lord Jesus. He genuinely felt a thirst for God, He really felt forsaken, as if He had sinned, He truly came to know the feelings of the rejected sinner. And because of this He really is able to empathize (not just sympathize) with us in our weakness, to enter right into the feelings of those who have gone right away from God, as well as those who temporarily slip up in the way (<a href='B:650 5:2'>Heb. 5:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said: It is finished! And he bowed his head and gave up his spirit- The suggestion is that His humanity was such that He needed at least some moisture in order to utter His final words. That perhaps is all there is to His request for a drink.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>All crucified men bow their heads on death. The record of this therefore suggests that He lifted up His head to the Father, and then nodding His head towards His people, gave His Spirit towards them- those who had walked out across the no mans land between the crowd and the soldiers, those who stood there declaring in front of all their allegiance to this crucified King. Yet the spirit of Christ is essentially the mind and disposition of Christ rather than an ability to perform miracles etc. The power to be like Him is passed to us through an inbreathing of His example on the cross. In this sense, the Lord's lifting up in glory on the cross enabled Him to impart His Spirit to us (<a href='B:500 7:37-39'>Jn. 7:37-39</a>). Notice that Christ gave up His last breath of His own volition- the withdrawal of a man's Spirit by God, as with the withdrawal of the Spirit gifts, is to be seen as God’s judgment of man. Gen. 6:3 LXX and RVmg. implies this. This cry was the giving up of the Spirit. He gave His life, it wasn't taken from Him. As He wasn't pushing down on the footrests, breathing was agonizingly difficult. I suggest He took one last great breath, with head uplifted, the nails tearing at that sensitive nerve in His hands as He did so, and then He felt His heart stop. In that last two seconds or so, He expired in the words &quot;Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit&quot;. Thus He gave His life- for us. The centurion, when he saw how He died (Mk., NIV), believed. The display of self-mastery, of giving, of love so great, so free, was what made that man believe (perhaps he was Cornelius?). It has been observed that the phrase &quot;He gave forth His spirit&quot; is unique; death isn't described like that in contemporary literature. &quot;Nowhere in antiquity is death described as the giving forth of one's spirit&quot; (I. de la Potterie, The Hour of Jesus (New York: Alba House, 1989) p. 131).<br />
</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>This was a final victory cry. The spirit of the New Testament is that the cross was a pinnacle of victory, not of temporal defeat. There is no way that Christ was just muttering the equivalent of 'Well, that's it then'. &quot;It is finished&quot; encompassed so much. That tiny word &quot;it&quot;, not even present in the Greek or Aramaic which Jesus actually spoke, compasses so much; the whole purpose of God. So we ask the question: What was finished? The key to this question is in <a href='B:500 17:4'>Jn. 17:4</a>: &quot;I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do&quot;. &quot;The work&quot; is therefore parallel with Christ's glorification of God. &quot;It is finished&quot; therefore reflects Christ's appreciation that He had now totally glorified His Father. But we need to ponder what exactly it means to glorify God. The glory of God refers to the characteristics intrinsic in God’s Name; thus when Moses asked to see God’s glory, the attributes of the Name were declared to him. Christ understood that in His death He would manifest God’s Name / character to the full, although of course He had also manifested it in His life: &quot;I have declared unto them (the believers, not the world) thy name, and will declare it&quot; in His forthcoming death (<a href='B:500 17:26'>Jn. 17:26</a>). <br />
	It is a major theme of John's Gospel that God was glorified in the death of the Lord: <br />
	&quot;Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from Heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again&quot; at the cross (<a href='B:500 12:28'>Jn. 12:28</a>)<br />
	&quot;Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him (i.e. the achievement of God’s glorification was internal to Jesus, within His mind, where characteristics are found). If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him&quot; on the cross (<a href='B:500 13:31-32'>Jn. 13:31,32</a>)<br />
	&quot;And now, O Father, glorify me with thine own self (i.e. your fundamental being and character) with the glory which I had with thee...I have manifested thy name&quot; (<a href='B:500 17:5-6'>Jn. 17:5,6</a>).<br />
	&quot;I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it&quot; on the cross (<a href='B:500 17:26'>Jn. 17:26)</a>.<br />
</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Christ's perfect character is only appreciated by the believers, and therefore it is only to them that God’s Name / glory / very own self is revealed by Christ's example. It was to us that God’s glory was finally revealed in the death of Christ. To those who wanted to see it, there was almost a visible righteousness exuding from Christ in His time of dying. &quot;Truly this man was the Son of God... Certainly this was a righteous man&quot; (<a href='B:480 15:40'>Mk. 15:40</a>; <a href='B:490 23:46'>Lk. 23:46</a>) was the response of the Centurion who was &quot;watching Jesus&quot;; and collating the Gospels, it seems he said this twice. &quot;It is finished&quot; implies that Christ's manifestation of the Father was progressive. He was &quot;made perfect&quot; by His sufferings, only becoming the author of our salvation when He had finally been perfected by them (<a href='B:650 2:9'>Heb. 2:9</a>; <a href='B:650 5:8-9'>5:8,9</a>). This surely teaches that Christ died once He had reached a certain point of completeness of manifestation of the Father. If we accept this, we should not think of Christ just hanging on the cross waiting to die. He was actively developing His manifestation of the Father's characteristics, until finally He sensed He had arrived at that totality of reflection of the Father. Likewise in our carrying of the cross we are not just passively holding on until the Lord's return or our death. We should be actively growing; for surely we only die once we have reached, or had the opportunity to reach, a certain point of spiritual completeness. This may well explain why some believers die young relatively soon after baptism; they reach their intended completeness, and are therefore taken away from the grief of this life. The perfection of Christ's manifestation of the Father was steadily progressing until at the point of death He completely manifested Him. Thus at Christ's most forlorn and humanly desperate point, utterly exhausted, with no beauty humanly that we should desire Him, utterly despised, rejected and at best misunderstood by every human being, the Lord Jesus at that point was supremely manifesting the Father; He was manifesting God’s very own self at that point when He cried &quot;It is finished&quot; (<a href='B:500 17:5'>Jn. 17:5</a>). It is axiomatic from this that the Gospel of God will be generally rejected by men. The Lord foresaw that His cross would be the final consummation of God’s plan in that He at times almost spoke as if He saw His death as His glorification. Thus He speaks of the cross as a going to the Father (<a href='B:500 16:16-17'>Jn. 16:16,17</a>,<a href='B:500 16:28'>28</a>). The description of Him as the snake lifted up in the wilderness is in the context of Christ ascending to Heaven (<a href='B:500 3:12-14'>Jn. 3:12-14</a>), as if the lifting up of the snake was a reference to both the crucifixion and ascension of the Lord.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'> <br />
	At the point the Lord expired, He laid down His life. So close was the link between Father and Son at this point, so deeply was God in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, that John could later comment: &quot;Hereby perceive we the love of God, because He laid down His life for us: and we ought (in response) to lay down our lives for the brethren&quot; (<a href='B:690 3:16'>1 Jn. 3:16</a>). The love of Christ and the cross are paralleled in <a href='B:540 5:12'>2 Cor. 5:14</a>. To behold Christ there at the end, to imagine the sound of those words &quot;It is finished&quot;, to begin to sense Christ's spiritual supremacy at that point, should deeply deeply motivate us. Christ loved us with a love which was love &quot;unto the end&quot; (<a href='B:500 13:1'>Jn. 13:1</a>)- the same word translated &quot;finished&quot; in &quot;It is finished&quot;. As Christ said that, His love for us was complete, it was love unto the end, love right up to and beyond the limits of the concept of love. And we are actually asked to imagine that love, the growth of it for us until it was finished, perfected in the laying down of His life- and respond to it.<br />
</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord thought as much: &quot;I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it (in his forthcoming death, cp. <a href='B:500 12:26'>Jn. 12:26</a>): that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them&quot; (<a href='B:500 17:26'>Jn. 17:26</a>). &quot;In this we know love, that he laid down his life for us&quot; (<a href='B:690 3:16'>1 Jn. 3:16</a>). Herein was the definition of love, not that we loved God but that He loved us and gave His son for our sins (<a href='B:690 4:10'>1 Jn. 4:10</a>). By beholding the finished perfection of the Lord Jesus, the spirit of Christ will dwell in us, and the love of God will be deeply in our hearts. There is almost a mystical power in reflecting upon the example of the Lord Jesus on the cross; somehow by beholding His glory, His matchless display of God’s righteousness at the end, we will start to reflect that glory in our very beings. &quot;We all, with open (RV &quot;unveiled&quot;) face beholding as in a glass the glory (moral attributes, the peerless character) of the Lord (Jesus), are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit (mind and influence) of the Lord (Jesus)&quot; (2 Cor. 3:18). Time and again is it stressed that the Lord did all this &quot;for us&quot;. <a href='B:500 10:14-15'>Jn. 10:14,15</a> link His knowing of us His sheep, and His giving His life for us. It was because He knew us, our sins, or kind of failures, who we are and who we would be, and fail to be… that He did it. And knowing our brethren, building understanding and relationship with them, is how and why we will be motivated to the same laying down of life for them.<br />
</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>But the work finished by the Lord Jesus was not just the faultless display of God’s characteristics. The Son's manifestation of the Father was to the end that we might be saved (a point fundamental to an appreciation of the Gospel). The work that Christ ended when He cried &quot;It is finished&quot; was the execution of the whole will of God; for the work that He finished was God’s will: &quot;I have meat to eat that ye know not of... my meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work&quot; (<a href='B:500 4:32-34'>Jn. 4:32,34</a>). The will of God is that we might be sanctified, counted as righteous, and ultimately given salvation (<a href='B:590 4:3'>1 Thess. 4:3</a>; <a href='B:680 3:9'>2 Pet. 3:9</a>; <a href='B:650 10:10'>Heb. 10:10</a>). &quot;I came down from heaven... to do... the will of him that sent me... and this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life&quot; (<a href='B:500 6:38-40'>Jn. 6:38-40</a>). God’s will is that we should &quot;see&quot;, i.e. understand, the righteousness of Christ, and believe that this will be imputed to us, and thereby we can be saved. To have an appreciation of the righteousness of Christ is therefore something absolutely essential for us to develop.<br />
</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>To achieve that fullness of righteousness and salvation for us meant more to the Lord Jesus than physical food; His great physical hunger in John 4 was bypassed by the fact that He was bringing about the salvation of a fallen woman. He had a baptism, i.e. a death and resurrection, to be baptized with, and He was &quot;straitened until it be accomplished&quot; (<a href='B:490 12:50'>Lk. 12:50</a>), the same word translated &quot;finished&quot; in <a href='B:500 19:30'>Jn. 19:30</a>. He agonized throughout His life, looking ahead to that moment of spiritual completion. The more we appreciate this, the more we will be able to enter into His sense of relief: &quot;It is finished / accomplished&quot;. And this too should characterize our lives; ever straining ahead to that distant point when at last we will attain that point of spiritual completeness. The incident with the Samaritan woman in John 4 was recognized by Jesus as but a cameo of His whole life; our salvation through His perfect manifestation of the Father was the end in view, it was this which was all consuming for Him. He was not motivated solely by a desire firstly for His own salvation, as some of our atonement theologians have wrongly implied. His meat and drink was to do the Father's work and will, which was to save us through imputing Christ's righteousness to us. This is what motivated His obedience, His perfection; it was our salvation which was the last thing in His human consciousness as He cried &quot;It is finished&quot; . His attitude, both at the start of His ministry and in His approach to His death, was &quot;Lo, I come to do thy will, O God... by the which will we are sanctified (counted righteous) through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ&quot; (Heb. 10:10).<br />
</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>&quot;I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do&quot; ultimately finished when the Lord cried &quot;It is finished&quot; (<a href='B:500 17:4'>Jn. 17:4</a>; <a href='B:500 19:30'>19:30</a>; it alludes to several Old Testament passages. <a href='B:340 9:24'>Daniel 9:24</a> had prophesied that Messiah's sacrifice would &quot;finish transgression... make an end of sins... make reconciliation for iniquity... bring in everlasting righteousness... and to anoint the Most Holy&quot;, as if a new sanctuary were being inaugurated. In prospect, the whole concept of sin was destroyed at the point of Christ's death, the devil (sin) was destroyed, the opportunity for us to have the everlasting righteousness of Christ imputed to us was opened up. &quot;It is finished&quot; may well have been uttered with an appreciation of this passage (for surely Dan. 9 was in the mind of our dying Lord). In this case, Christ died with the final triumphant thought that our sinfulness had now been overcome. Surely this should inspire us to a fuller and more confident, joyful faith in this.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:20 40:33'>Ex. 40:33</a> describes how Moses &quot;reared up&quot; the tabernacle, representing us (<a href='B:540 6:16'>2 Cor. 6:16</a>); &quot;So Moses finished the work&quot; God had given him to do. <a href='B:50 31:24'>Dt. 31:24</a> likewise speaks of Moses finishing the work. The Hebrew for &quot;reared up&quot; is also used in the context of resurrection and glorification / exaltation. As our Lord sensed His final, ultimate achievement of the Father's glory in His own character, He could look ahead to our resurrection and glorification. He adopted God’s timeless perspective, and died with the vision of our certain glorification in the Kingdom. This fits in with the way Psalms 22 and 69 (which evidently portray the thoughts of our dying Lord) conclude with visions of Christ's &quot;seed&quot; being glorified in the Kingdom. There are a number of passages which also speak of the temple (also representative of the ecclesia) being a work which was finished (e.g. <a href='B:140 5:1'>2 Chron. 5:1</a>). In His moment of agonized triumph as He died, the Lord Jesus saw us as if we were perfect. Surely, surely this should inspire us to have the confidence that this is still how He sees us, both individually and collectively? The mystery of God will ultimately be &quot;finished&quot; in the Kingdom (<a href='B:730 10:7'>Rev. 10:7</a>); and yet on the cross Christ could see that effectively &quot;It is finished&quot; at that point, in that the way had now been made absolutely certain. So confident was the Lord in the power of His sacrifice, so great was His sense of purpose and achievement! And nothing has changed with Him until this day.<br />
</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>&quot;It is finished&quot; has some connection with the Lord loving His people &quot;to the very end&quot; (<a href='B:500 13:1'>Jn. 13:1</a> - eis telos). To the end or completion of what? Surely the Lord held in mind Moses' last speech before he died. Then, &quot;Moses had finished writing all the words of this Law in a book, even to the very end (LXX eis telos)&quot; (<a href='B:50 31:24'>Dt. 31:24</a>). It was Moses' law which was finished / completed when the Lord finally died. Again we marvel at the Lord's intellectual consciousness even in His death throes. The fact He had completed the Law was upmost in His mind. This alone should underline the importance of never going back to reliance upon that Law, be it in Sabbath keeping or general legalism of attitude.<br />
</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Putting all this together, we see our Lord realizing that He had achieved the perfect reflection of the Father's glory, His character; He had finished the work the Father had given Him to do. He knew that the perfection of that manifestation which He had achieved would be imputed to us, and therefore He looked forward to us as if we were perfect, He foresaw our salvation, He saw us in the Kingdom. It is quite possible that in some sense the Lord Jesus had a vision of us in the Kingdom. It can be noted that Christ's working of the work of God is associated with His miracles. Each of them was part of the work which the Father had given Him to finish (<a href='B:500 5:36'>Jn. 5:36</a>). The Lord's miracles were not motivated by a desire to do solve the need of this present evil world; they were &quot;signs&quot; which spoke of the Father's character; they were a progressive manifestation of the glory of the Father in order to deepen the faith of the disciples (<a href='B:500 2:11'>Jn. 2:11</a>). This is why each of them can be seen as deeply parabolic, teaching so much about the character / glory of the Father. Any temporal physical help which they provided was only an incidental by-product.<br />
</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The progressive nature of the Lord's manifestation of God’s glory through the miracles is suggested by <a href='B:500 2:11'>Jn. 2:11</a>: &quot;This beginning of miracles did Jesus... and manifested forth his glory&quot;. Likewise Matthew's Gospel has at least four references to the fact that the Lord &quot;finished&quot; or &quot;ended&quot; revealing God’s words (<a href='B:470 11:1'>Mt. 11:1</a>; <a href='B:470 13:53'>13:53</a>; <a href='B:470 19:1'>19:1</a>; <a href='B:470 26:1'>26:1</a>), using the same word as in <a href='B:500 19:30'>Jn. 19:30</a> &quot;It is finished&quot;. His words were a manifestation of the Father's glory / character. Thus in Jn. 17 the Lord associates His manifestation of the Father's Name / glory with His (progressive) giving of the Father's words to the disciples. Thus at the very end He must have felt that now He had reached the end of that progressive revelation, now He was manifesting the fullness of God, a God who is love- as He hung naked, covered in blood and spittle, totally misunderstood, deserted by His superficial disciples. At that point He was fully, fully, completely, manifesting the Father.<br />
</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>In His final physical agony, the mind of our Lord was full of thoughts of our salvation. Such was the extent of His devotion to us. It has taken us hundreds of English words to just begin to enter into the intensity of spiritual thinking which was going on in the mind of our Lord. And yet He asks us to share His cross, to run our whole life with endurance even as He endured on the cross (<a href='B:650 12:1-2'>Heb. 12:1,2</a>), to personally enter into His sufferings; to be likewise filled with an overpowering concern for the salvation of others and the reflection of God’s character in our own. It seems that Paul was able to enter into the mind of the Lord Jesus in this. &quot;This also we wish, even your perfection&quot; (<a href='B:540 13:9'>2 Cor. 13:9</a>), your finishing, your rearing up as a perfect tabernacle; this was Paul's attitude to spiritually weak Corinth. &quot;I have finished my course&quot; (<a href='B:620 4:7'>2 Tim. 4:7</a>) uses the same word as in <a href='B:500 19:30'>Jn. 19:30</a> (&quot;It is finished&quot;). 2 Tim. 4 has a number of other allusions to Christ's final sufferings. As the Lord felt He had finished the work just before He actually had (<a href='B:500 17:4'>Jn. 17:4</a>), so did Paul in 2 Tim. 4; He felt He had entered into that sense of finishing which his Lord had on the cross. Our aim is to be perfected, to come to the full knowledge of Christ, &quot;unto a perfect man (a finished man; the same word as in &quot;It is finished&quot;), unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ&quot; (<a href='B:560 4:12-13'>Eph. 4:12,13</a>). As our Lord moved towards that point of ultimate spiritual completeness, so do we too. At last we will attain that perfection, at last we too will know the feeling of &quot;It is finished&quot; - as a result of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>And the men that journeyed with him stood speechless- They stood, whilst Saul fell to the ground because of the light. The awesomeness was only felt by Saul, otherwise the others would have fallen to the ground too.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Hearing the voice but seeing no one- After Saul arose, he too saw no man (<a href='B:510 9:8>'>:8</a> AV). The implication is that Saul did see the Lord Jesus during this vision. Paul says this explicitly in <a href='B:530 15:8>'>1 Cor. 15:8</a>. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord</em>- The commendation of Paul's mission by the Antioch brethren could suggest that they took Paul's side in the dispute. But despite being seen as having done the right thing by conservative brethren, Paul's later allusions to the incident suggest he later realized that he had done wrong, and the approbation of his brethren didn’t make it right before God. There is no record that the brothers commended Barnabas and John Mark on their missionary journey to Cyprus, nor is there any account of the journey. But there is the record here that they did as it were legitimize Paul's journey with Silas, although it began under the cloud of personal division. We wonder whether this is a hint that Paul's concerns about John Mark were not totally groundless. Or is it that the focus of Acts is simply upon Paul and therefore the missionary journeys of others aren't mentioned. But we never read of Barnabas again- nor of any reconciliation between him and Paul. Perhaps we are to take comfort that even some of the finest believers have died with unresolved conflicts and relationship breakdown. And yet surely Paul would have tried to practice what he often wrote about our unity in Christ. So possibly Barnabas caved in even more to the Judaizer element, with whom he had grown up in Jerusalem- i.e., the lack of reconciliation was his fault. He would have joined the many Jewish Christians who fell away to legalism and Judaism, caught up in the wave of Jewish nationalism that swept the Jewish world at the time, as lamented in Hebrews, James and the letters of Peter. In this case we see how a man may be gracious and truly inclusive, but still fall away to legalism. Grace has to be worked on and responded to consciously, all our days.
The sharpness of the disagreement seems to suggest that both sides were dogmatic and would not compromise. Barnabas comes over in the previous accounts of him as wonderfully gracious, and having a special care for Paul- we recall how he sought out Paul in Tarsus and roped him in to Gentile-focused missionary work in Antioch. Did he have another, harder side to him? Was he 'hard' over the need to include John Mark and not exclude him, despite his Jewish conservative background, just as Barnabas had worked to include Paul earlier? Or did Barnabas change into a harder person and continue to cave in to the pressures as he had done in Antioch (Gal. 2:13)? But contra that we have Paul's deathbed desire for reconcilliation with John Mark which we read of in 2 Tim. 4? Why at that point did Paul not ask for Barnabas to come and see him? Had Barnabas died? Had he totally returned to Judaism? There are so many intentionally open ended issues here. And that is purposeful, so that we might explore the options- because interpersonal conflict between brethren over fellowship issues is probably one of the most common experiences of all believers.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>And the maniac answered and said to them: Jesus I know and Paul I know, but who are you?- The sick man on one level 'knew' Jesus and recognized Paul; on that level of personality, the man was a believer.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>And when they heard this, they were filled with anger and cried out, saying: Great is Diana of Ephesus!- Because Paul's preaching 'despised' the goddess Diana, her worshippers perceived that she and they were somehow thereby shamed; and so they were angry. It's perhaps possible to understand the wrath of God in this way, too. For His wrath is upon those who break His commands; and by breaking them we shame God (<a href='B:520 2:23'>Rom. 2:23</a>); we despise his desire for our repentance (<a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom. 2:4</a>). We note how pagan gods were local in worship and supposed sphere of influence- Diana was &quot;of Ephesus&quot;, and the Jews considered Yahweh the God of Israel alone, and the likes of Jonah even thought that His presence was limited outside the land of Israel. The Christian message of a loving Father involved with &quot;all men&quot; as their saviour was therefore radical in its huge, global scope.<br />
</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Their anger was related to shame that their god had been exposed as a fake. There's a definite link between shame and anger. Take a man whose mother yelled at him because as a toddler he ran out onto the balcony naked, and shamed him by her words. Years later on a hot Summer evening the man as an adult walks out on a balcony with just his underpants on. An old woman yells at him from the yard below that he should be ashamed of himself. And he's furiously angry with her- because of the shame given him by his mother in that incident 20 years ago. Shame and anger are clearly understood by God as being related, because His word several times connects them: &quot;A fool's anger is immediately known; but a prudent man covers his shame&quot; (<a href='B:240 12:16'>Prov. 12:16</a>); A king's anger is against a man who shames him (<a href='B:240 14:35'>Prov. 14:35</a>). Or consider <a href='B:90 20:34'>1 Sam. 20:34</a>: &quot;So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and did eat no meat the second day of the month... because his father had done him shame&quot;. Job's anger was related to the fact that he felt that ten times the friends had shamed him in their speeches (<a href='B:220 19:3'>Job 19:3</a>). Frequently the rejected are threatened with both shame and anger / gnashing of teeth; shame and anger are going to be connected in that awful experience. They will &quot;curse [in anger]... and be ashamed&quot; (<a href='B:230 109:28'>Ps. 109:28</a>). The final shame of the rejected is going to be so great that &quot;they shall be greatly ashamed... their everlasting confusion shall never be forgotten&quot; (<a href='B:300 20:11'>Jer. 20:11</a>). Seeing they will be long dead and gone, it is us, the accepted, who by God’s grace will recall the terrible shame of the rejected throughout our eternity. Their shame will be so terrible; and hence their anger will likewise be. Their anger was related to shame [being 'despised', :27] that their god had been exposed as a fake. There's a definite link between shame and anger. Take a man whose mother yelled at him because as a toddler he ran out onto the balcony naked, and shamed him by her words. Years later on a hot Summer evening the man as an adult walks out on a balcony with just his underpants on. An old woman yells at him from the yard below that he should be ashamed of himself. And he's furiously angry with her- because of the shame given him by his mother in that incident 20 years ago. Shame and anger are clearly understood by God as being related, because His word several times connects them: "A fool's anger is immediately known; but a prudent man covers his shame" (Prov. 12:16); A king's anger is against a man who shames him (Prov. 14:35). Or consider 1 Sam. 20:34: "So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and did eat no meat the second day of the month... because his father had done him shame". Job's anger was related to the fact that he felt that ten times the friends had shamed him in their speeches (Job 19:3). Frequently the rejected are threatened with both shame and anger / gnashing of teeth; shame and anger are going to be connected in that awful experience. They will "curse [in anger]... and be ashamed" (Ps. 109:28). The final shame of the rejected is going to be so great that "they shall be greatly ashamed... their everlasting confusion shall never be forgotten" (Jer. 20:11). Seeing they will be long dead and gone, it is us, the accepted, who by God's grace will recall the terrible shame of the rejected throughout our eternity. Their shame will be so terrible; and hence their anger will likewise be. And yet we have had all shame removed from us by the Lord's death. It is the rejected who will walk naked in shame, not us. And this is a big factor in removing anger from us; for the root of anger is in pride and shame. But the only ultimate shame is before God, and not before men; and that shame is now removed. Like Adam and Eve, we now are clothed through the slaying of the lamb, and no longer walk in shame. And so a significant root of anger is removed. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>For this cause the Jews seized me in the temple and tried to kill me- The &quot;cause&quot; was that they had been called upon to repent, and their refusal to do so was leading them to try to kill Paul. This is how conscience works. We seek to eliminate the persons or issues causing our guilt, and which summon us to repentance. The opposition to Christian preaching is exactly because it is [or should be] a call to repentance.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>For this night there stood by me an angel of the God whose I am, whom also I serve- &quot;Whose I am&quot; was understood by Paul to be on the basis that he had been purchased for His service by the sacrifice of His Son (<a href='B:530 6:19-20'>1 Cor. 6:19,20</a>). He may well have explained that to them. His idea was that as a bound prisoner, he was still serving his God, and therefore that God would protect him, because he was on a mission for Him. Even within apparent constricture as a result of the ties that bind us in life situations, we are still on the Father's active service. We wonder why an angel appeared, when at <a href='B:510 23:11'>23:11</a> it was the Lord Jesus Himself who appeared to Paul and encouraged him that he would surely bear witness at Rome. Perhaps the pagan mariners were more likely to accept the idea of an angel appearing, as a messenger of the gods, than to accept the direct appearance of the Lord Jesus to Paul. The focus here upon God rather than the Lord Jesus was perhaps in order to witness to the pagans in terms they could more easily relate to- which were to God rather than His Son. Paul's words here are surely alluding to those of Jonah in a similar situation (<a href='B:390 1:9'>Jonah 1:9</a>). There are plenty of other Jonah allusions in the chapter. Paul realized that this storm was in a sense for his sake; even though it could be argued from a more human viewpoint that it was the fault of the misjudgement of the crew and owner. We too at times may wonder whether a certain situation is our fault, or debate whose fault it is. The answers are never clear; the question is too nuanced. Especially when God’s hand is involved. And so here too, the storm was in a sense for Paul's sake, but also for the potential salvation of all on the boat.</p>


text:
Isn’t it to distribute your bread to the hungry, and that you bring the poor who are cast out to your house? When you see the naked, that you cover him; and that you not hide yourself from your own flesh?- The leaders of Judah in Nehemiah's time were abusing their brethren. Their receipt of grace should have led them be generous to their poor brethren, rather than exploiting them. And that principle is true for us; for the restoration is used in the New Testament as a type of our redemption from the Babylon of sin and this world. And yet too many like to kid themselves that their response to grace is to do the opposite; to cast out their own brethren from their houses and then ignore their need, physically and spiritually.


text:
<p>Yes, the animals of the field pant to You, for the water brooks have dried up, and the fire has devoured the pastures of the wilderness- As noted above, "pant to you" suggests that the turning of the animals to God was to serve as a pattern for Judah’s panting to God in repentance. The description of the water sources drying up is very much the language of the situation in Elijah’s time; and again, the drought was intended to elicit repentance. The bush fires which broke out in the pasture lands were intended to provoke repentance, so that the fire of the Babylonians as they burnt Jerusalemand the temple would not have been necessary. God likewise works with us, seeking to elicit repentance from His hand in our lives, and then having to increase the intensity if we don’t respond. This would then explain <a href='B:360 2:3'>Joe 2:3</a> "A fire devours before them, and behind them a flame burns".</p>


