# commentaries

text:
<p>It shall happen that in all the land, says Yahweh, two parts in it will be cut off and die; but the third will be left in it- This appears to continue in the context of :7 and therefore refers to the fate of the flock once the shepherd is cut off. I suggested on :7 that there was an initial scenario of the appointed "shepherd" of Judah being smitten, and the people being scattered again; and now we learn that there would have been the cutting off of two thirds within the land, and then the final spiritual purging of the remaining third. The cutting off is that of :2, where the same word is used of the cutting off of idols and those who worshipped them. For those who worship and trust them are like unto them (<a href='B:230 115:8'>Psa 115:8</a>); the cutting off of the idols (:2) meant the cutting off of those who worshipped them (:8). But there has never been a time when two thirds of Judah were cut off and a third brought to repentance&nbsp; (:9). Perhaps, given that the preceding verse talks about the first century, the idea was that the Roman invasion would have led to a third repenting. This would fit in with the clear possibility that there was for the Lord Jesus to have returned in AD70. But they didn’t repent. So this threatened scenario was deferred, and will therefore come true in the last days. The reference to "all the eretz" may intend us to understand that this is not in fact talking solely about Judah in Palestine, but about all the inhabitants of the eretz promised to Abraham; and a third of them will come to repentance.</p>


text:
<p>I will bring the third part into the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will test them like gold is tested. They will call on My name, and I will hear them. I will say, ‘It is My people;’ and they will say, ‘Yahweh is my God’- This could well be speaking of how God cut off men like Zerubbabel who were poor shepherds, although potential Messiahs; and it could have then happened that during the ‘cutting off’ of Jewish population during the Antiochus invasions, a minority could have repented and ushered in the true restoration. But this didn’t happen, and so the prophecy had a deferred fulfilment, although humanly speaking somewhat out of context, in the cutting off of the good shepherd, the scattering of the disciples, and their spiritual refining. And then another possible fulfilment arose in the scattering of AD70; but the refinement was again not achieved, and so the whole scene is deferred to the last days for fulfilment. See on <a href='B:450 10:3'>Zec 10:3</a>.</p><p>If the two halves of this verse are indeed chronological, we have a salvation by grace, a pulling out of the fire just as Judah had been plucked out of the fire of Babylon (<a href='B:450 3:2'>Zec 3:2</a>)- which is only then followed by a repentant calling upon God’s Name. God took the initiative in bringing Judah and Jerusalem out of the fire- but they had to then respond. They didn’t, but the remnant of latter day Judah will do. God’s statement that they are His people is matched by their response that He is their God. But the point is that He takes the initiative in declaring impenitent people ’My people’, and they then respond. It’s rather like how the Lord broke His bread with impenitent sinners, showing them He accepted them, exactly so that they would repent. And we need to follow the Father and Son in taking such initiatives of grace; forgiving without repentance in order that God’s grace leads those forgiven to repentance</p>


text:
<p>Behold, the day of Yahweh comes- All the previous potentials had not been responded to by Judah, and I have continually mentioned throughout Zechariah that the various prophecies were therefore rescheduled and reapplied to the last days. In this sense, God’s prophetic word will come true in essence. And so it is appropriate that Zechariah finishes with a prophecy specifically about the very last days, when all the previous prophecies will come to their final term. Likewise the many judgments upon Judah which had been promised but somehow had been delayed, will all come true. Hence the coming of the day of Yahweh was to be seen as judgment for Judah (<a href='B:460 4:1'>Mal 4:1</a>).</p><p>When your spoil will be divided in your midst- The significance of "in your midst" is that it is done there rather than in the camp of the invaders outside the city. This would imply the total fall of the city and its possession by the invaders. The Egyptians sought to pursue Israel and "divide the spoil" (s:w. <a href='B:20 15:9'>Exo 15:9</a>). But there will be no Passover deliverance. Jerusalem will fall.</p>


text:
<p>For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle- The gathering of all nations to battle predicted here is the language of Revelation 9, 16 regarding the gathering of the nations to Armageddon after the release of the hordes bound by the Euphrates- and we have already seen that happening with jihadists bursting across that river into the eretz promised to Abraham. The point is, the words of Zechariah 14 are applied to the events of the last days. Jerusalem therefore must fall. &nbsp;The final outworking of all this, of course, depends upon whether, or to what degree, Israel repent in response to our appeals: "Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the Earth" (<a href='B:730 3:10-11'>Rev 3:10-11</a>).</p><p>And the city will be taken, the houses pillaged, and the women raped- This is a quotation from <a href='B:290 13:16'>Isa 13:16</a> about the fate of Babylon. Jerusalem was to be treated as Babylon because that is how they were in spirit. Zechariah was prophesying in the context of Judah’s rather unenthusiastic return from captivity in Babylon; and most of them remained behind in Babylon. The memory was still relatively fresh of how a generation ago, Babylon had captured Jerusalem, destroyed the temple and taken the people into captivity. And now they had returned after the 70 years captivity- and Zechariah was telling them that yet again, Jerusalem was to be “taken” and the population taken into captivity. It would be hard to imagine a more unpopular message. The same Hebrew word translated “taken” is many times used of how Babylon took Jerusalem (<a href='B:300 32:3'>Jer 32:3</a> “I will give this city into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and he shall take it”; <a href='B:300 32:24'>Jer 32:24</a>; <a href='B:300 32:28'>Jer 32:28</a>; <a href='B:300 34:22'>Jer 34:22</a>; <a href='B:300 37:8'>Jer 37:8</a>; <a href='B:300 38:3'>Jer 38:3</a>; <a href='B:300 38:28'>Jer 38:28</a>). Clearly the implication is that a second, revived Babylon would arise and take Jerusalem; and there would be yet another captivity. We are seeing Babylon – Assyria reforming, with a jihadist theology focusing upon taking the city of Jerusalem. The prophecy of Zechariah 14 has never been fulfilled- but it will be.</p><p>Half of the city will go out into captivity, and the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city- Significantly, half of Jerusalem is comprised of East Jerusalem, which is Arab. So when we read of how “Half of the city will go out into captivity”, this may well refer to the Jewish half of the city. "The rest of the people" is literally "the remnant"; the implication is that there will be a faithful remnant which will not be cut off and will remain in Jerusalem.</p><p><a href='B:340 9:26-27'>Dan 9:26-27</a> require the city of Jerusalem to be taken, and the abomination of desolation placed there; and this is quoted by the Lord Jesus as requiring fulfilment in the last days just prior to His return (<a href='B:470 24:14-15'>Mat 24:14-15</a>; <a href='B:470 24:29-31'>Mat 24:29-31</a>). Any previous fulfilments were incipient at best; they did not immediately herald the Lord’s visible return as required by the Oliver prophecy. <a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a> adds: "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled". The allusion is to <a href='B:340 8:13'>Dan 8:13</a>: "The transgression of desolation gave both the sanctuary and the host (i:e. the people of Israel) to be trodden underfoot":&nbsp; This part of Luke 21 is clearly alluding to Zechariah 14, a prophecy about the final desolation of Jerusalem:</p><p>Jerusalem surrounded by armies (<a href='B:490 21:20'>Luk 21:20</a>)= All nations against Jerusalem to battle (<a href='B:450 14:2'>Zec 14:2</a>).</p><p>The desolation of Jerusalem is near (<a href='B:490 21:20'>Luk 21:20</a>) = The city shall be taken (<a href='B:450 14:2'>Zec 14:2</a>).</p><p>Let them which are in Judea flee to the mountains (<a href='B:490 21:21'>Luk 21:21</a>) = You shall flee to the... mountains (<a href='B:450 14:5'>Zec 14:5</a>)</p><p>Great distress in the land(<a href='B:490 21:22'>Luk 21:22</a>) = Houses ransacked, women raped (<a href='B:450 14:2'>Zec 14:2</a>)</p><p>Led away captive into all nations (<a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a>) = Half the city shall go into captivity (<a href='B:450 14:2'>Zec 14:2</a>)</p><p>Jerusalem trodden down by the Gentiles (<a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a>) = Jerusalem a stone trodden down by the Gentiles (<a href='B:450 12:3'>Zec 12:3</a> LXX).</p><p>The “treading down” of Jerusalem didn’t end in 1967; for if that is the reference of the prophecy, then Christ should be back by now. The presence of the Dome of the Rock and Arab possession of East Jerusalem hardly sounds as if 1967 was much of a fulfilment anyway. The times of the Gentiles have clearly continued since 1967. The more logical interpretation is surely that Jerusalem must be trodden down by Gentiles until the “times” of that domination end- and that is probably a reference to the 42 months / 1260 days / three and a half year down-treading which we meet in both Daniel and Revelation.</p>


text:
<p>Then Yahweh will go out and fight against those nations, as when He fought in the day of battle- God again will act openly as He did against Israel’s neighbours in past conflicts. The ’going out’ will in a literal sense be fulfilled in the Lord Jesus, on behalf of His Father, going forth out of Heaven to intervene against Judah’s abusers.</p>


text:
<p>His feet will stand in that day on the Mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east- The description of the Lord’s feet standing on the Mount of Olives naturally looks ahead to the words of the Angels at the ascension of the Lord Jesus from that same Mount, promising that He would return in the same way. As He stands upon His feet, so do the opponents (:14 s:w:). This is the greatest showdown of human history, between God and man, Spirit and flesh.</p><p>And the Mount of Olives will be split in two, from east to west, making a very great valley. Half of the mountain will move toward the north, and half of it toward the south- This will create four separate elevated areas, with a large valley running north-south between them. Hence the reference to "My mountains" plural in :5; this valley will be the way to flee in :5. The mount of Olives is described as being on the East of Jerusalem; the faithful will flee eastwards and then through the newly created valley. This will then become the valley of Judah’s revival spoken of in Ezekiel 37; they will arise as a powerful army to subdue their enemies, energized by the Spirit and led by the returned Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>You shall flee by the valley of My mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach to Azel- As noted on :4, this implies they flee out of Jerusalem to the east and through the new valley opened up through the mount of Olives. The GNB offers: "You will escape through this valley that divides the mountain in two", avoiding interpreting "Azel" as a proper noun. A way of escape will be made, through a mountain; parted as the Red Sea was parted, that God’s people might escape. And yet according to Ezekiel, the glory is to enter from the east (<a href='B:330 43:2'>Eze 43:2</a>); so we are to imagine them uniting with the Lord of glory at the mount of Olives, and joining Him in returning through east Jerusalem. The western slopes of the Mount of Olives appear to be part of what forms the "valley of decision" of <a href='B:360 3:14'>Joe 3:14</a>, the "valley of slaughter" of <a href='B:300 19:6'>Jer 19:6</a>. It is through this new valley that the way of Yahweh is prepared to come to Zion from the east.</p><p>Yes, you shall flee, just like you fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah- The LXX is significantly different, implying instead that there will be no way of escape: "And the valley of my mountains shall be closed up, and the valley of the mountains shall be joined on to Jasod, and shall be blocked up as it was blocked up in the days of the earthquake, in the days of Ozias king of Juda". Perhaps the ambiguity is intentional; depending upon the faith of the remnant, the earthquake will either open up a way of escape through a new valley across the former mount of Olives (:4), or will block their escape and leave them to their final destruction. The earthquake at Uzziah’s time may have been one of the ways in which he was "marvellously / miraculously helped" against his enemies (<a href='B:140 26:15'>2Ch 26:15</a>). Zechariah’s prophecy is based around the restoration of the throne of David, and there are therefore allusions to the historical David throughout. Here, to the fleeing of David from Jerusalem via the Mount of Olives along this same path (<a href='B:100 15:30'>2Sa 15:30</a>; <a href='B:100 15:32'>2Sa 15:32</a>).</p><p>Yahweh my God will come, and all the holy ones with you- LXX, as GNB: "The LORD my God will come, bringing all the angels with him". This is quoted in the New Testament about the return of the Lord Jesus on God’s behalf, with "all the angels with him" (<a href='B:470 25:31'>Mat 25:31</a>). Note the change of pronouns; it’s as if Zechariah is caught up in the wonder of having Yahweh as his personal God, when otherwise addressing God ["with you"]. Such shifting of address are likely familiar to us if we have ever tried to make a transcript of our own personal prayers. Focus and address shifts within the same sentence, as we often see in the prayers transcripted in the Psalms.</p>


text:
<p>It will happen in that day, that there will not be light, cold, or frost- The idea is that seasons will be no more. But the Hebrew is difficult; the RVmg. offers "There shall not be light, the bright ones shall contract themselves". This radical change in the planets, sun and stars at the Lord’s return is likewise spoken of in <a href='B:360 3:15'>Joe 3:15</a>; <a href='B:290 13:10'>Isa 13:10</a>; <a href='B:470 24:29'>Mat 24:29</a>; <a href='B:730 6:12-13'>Rev 6:12-13</a>. It was prefigured by how Joshua-Jesus made them stop in their tracks (<a href='B:60 10:12-13'>Jos 10:12-13</a>).</p>


text:
<p>It will be a unique day- Literally, "it will be one day". This recalls the first day of creation, described this way in <a href='B:10 1:3'>Gen 1:3</a>. We will note on :21 that there are seven occurrences of "that day" in this vision. A new creation is being presented. This verse then goes on to allude to "there was evening and morning, the first day".</p><p>Which is known to Yahweh; not day, and not night; but it will come to pass, that at evening time there will be light- LXX "When this will happen is known only to the LORD"; alluded to in NT teaching that none knows the day nor hour, but only the Father. But this may be one of a number of indications that the meaning of time will be collapsed around the Lord’s return. This is really necessary for there to be the individual judgment of a multitude as many as the sand on the shore. This also explains why it’s impossible to construct a chronology of events around His coming in terms of a linear progression. "In that day" is a favourite phrase of Zechariah’s, and the events spoken of as then happening are hard to fit into a chronological framework. It would also explain the apparent tension between passages which imply an immortal emergence from the grave, and those which suggest a mortal emergence and then judgment and reward. It just depends which view of time one takes. If there is light at evening time, we would have here another way of saying that the sun will never go down, which is the language of the Kingdom of God established on earth (<a href='B:290 60:20'>Isa 60:20</a>; <a href='B:730 22:5'>Rev 22:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p>It will happen in that day, that living waters will go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the eastern sea, and half of them toward the western sea; in summer and in winter will it be- LXX "in the dry season as well as the wet". The new valley spoken of in :4,5 will have living waters flowing in it. The situation of <a href='B:330 47:1-12'>Eze 47:1-12</a> which was potentially possible for the restored exiles will then be finally brought about. Just as the waters are mentioned as being created in Genesis (see on:7,21), so in this new creation the equivalent is these living waters, parallel with the law of Yahweh going out of Jerusalem in <a href='B:290 2:3'>Isa 2:3</a>; <a href='B:400 4:2'>Mic 4:2</a>, causing the nations to flow back to Zion. And they will revive the otherwise ’Dead Sea’ to the east. These are the living waters which Judah could have earlier experienced but refused (<a href='B:300 2:13'>Jer 2:13</a>). Clearly this water of life is used symbolically in <a href='B:730 22:1'>Rev 22:1</a>, but this is not to say that the symbol will have no literal basIsa. Most symbols do. We can live the essence of the Kingdom life now, in that this living water should come forth from our innermost being to give life to the dead world around us (<a href='B:500 7:38'>Joh 7:38</a>). And this outflow from us should be constant, just as these future waters are not seasonal nor occasional.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh will be King over all the earth- Zechariah has previously spoken of a Davidic king reigning for Yahweh over all the eretz or "earth" promised to Abraham. Now this King will be reigning for Yahweh, and clearly looks forward to the Lord Jesus.</p><p>In that day Yahweh will be declared as the one and only- This declaration will cut out all idolatry amongst God’s people, and all other forms of worship amongst the Gentiles. The command to exalt Yahweh as the only God in <a href='B:50 6:4'>Deu 6:4</a> was and is therefore an invitation to live the Kingdom life now. In this sense, as in John’s Gospel, we can experience the nature of the life eternal right now. The "one day" of :7 is an eternal manifestation of the one God.</p><p>And His name unified- It may well be that <a href='B:560 4:4-6'>Eph 4:4-6</a> is alluding back to this verse; this passage inspires us to keep the unity of the Spirit, because here and now "there is one body, and one Spirit... one Lord ... one baptism, one God";&nbsp; Paul is saying that the unity of the Kingdom, as spoken of in <a href='B:450 14:9'>Zec 14:9</a>, must be found in the ecclesia of today.</p>


text:
<p>All the land will be made like the Arabah- GNB "will be made level". A new flat plateau is envisaged.</p><p>From Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem; and she will be lifted up, and will dwell in her place, from Benjamin’s gate to the place of the first gate, to the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananel to the king’s winepresses- These locations feature in the account of the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem and the temple (<a href='B:160 3:1'>Neh 3:1</a>; <a href='B:160 3:31-32'>Neh 3:31-32</a>; <a href='B:160 12:39'>Neh 12:39</a>). Zechariah wasprophesying in this context. He is implying that the work of rebuilding the temple and city had not been done according to the specifications and commandments for the exiles in Ezekiel 40-48 and <a href='B:300 31:38'>Jer 31:38</a>; <a href='B:300 31:40'>Jer 31:40</a>, and so God will finally make it good in His own way. The reference to "the king’s winepresses" at the south of Jerusalem (<a href='B:160 3:15'>Neh 3:15</a>) would only have made sense to the primary audience of Zechariah; he is inviting them to imagine how places they knew well would one day be in the literal, eternal Kingdom of God on earth. And we can imagine the same, regarding things in our lives.</p>


text:
<p>Men will dwell therein- LXX "They shall dwell in the city". This was in contrast to how in Nehemiah’s time, the returned exiles had been reluctant to dwell there because it was not safe. It was a reminder to the initial audience of the potential they had wasted.</p><p>And there will be no more curse- Quoted in <a href='B:730 22:3'>Rev 22:3</a> about the future Kingdom of God on earth. The "curse" in view is not only that placed in Genesis, but the specific curses for disobedience which had come upon Judah.</p><p>But Jerusalem will dwell safely- Proof enough, surely, that the invasion of Gog when Jerusalem ’dwells safely’ is after the Lord’s return and not before it (<a href='B:330 38:8'>Eze 38:8</a>; <a href='B:330 38:11'>Eze 38:11</a>; <a href='B:330 38:14'>Eze 38:14</a>). Attempts to identify the invaders at this stage are therefore slightly misplaced. The Hebrew phrase for ’dwelling safely’ is repeatedly used about the blessings of living in covenant relationship with God</p>


text:
<p>This will be the plague with which Yahweh will strike all the peoples who have warred against Jerusalem: their flesh will consume away while they stand on their feet, and their eyes will consume away in their sockets, and their tongue will consume away in their mouth- See on :4. This implies that the plague will be sudden, whilst the warring soldiers are standing up. The language could suggest the effects of nuclear radiation. Perhaps Yahweh will punish the nations through their destroying of each other with their own weaponry, and this is implied in :13. This is how He has destroyed previous invaders. The triple reference to "consume away" is perhaps to serve as a signpost to the fact that most of the occurrences of this word relate to the consuming away of Israel because of their sins. Now what has been done to them shall be done to those who did it, as the structure of Revelation explains.</p>


text:
<p>It will happen in that day, that a great panic from Yahweh will be among them; and they, each of them, will lay hold on the hand of his neighbour, and his hand will rise up against the hand of his neighbour- This is how historically the invaders of Israel were destroyed (<a href='B:70 7:22'>Jdg 7:22</a>; <a href='B:90 14:20'>1Sa 14:20</a>; <a href='B:140 20:23'>2Ch 20:23</a>). I suggested on :12 that they may use their nuclear weaponry against each other. "Panic" translates the word used in <a href='B:50 7:23'>Deu 7:23</a> about the destruction of the Canaanite nations; and these are the same nations in view in the last days: "But Yahweh your God will deliver them up before you and will confuse them with a great confusion until they are destroyed". It is also the word used of the destruction of the Philistines / Palestinians in <a href='B:90 5:9'>1Sa 5:9</a>; <a href='B:90 5:11'>1Sa 5:11</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Judah also will fight at Jerusalem- The repentant Jewish remnant are here prophesied as liberating the captured Jerusalem. This contrasts with passages like Psalms 2 which suggest Jerusalem will be defended and preserved from her invaders. A common way of dealing with these apparent contradictions has been to postulate a timeline of events, a series of invasions, with some happening after the return of the Lord Jesus and His enthronement in Zion. This may be a legitimate way of dealing with the problem, but no proposed chronology seems to resolve all the points of contradiction between the various prophecies. My suggestion again is that Bible prophecy is conditional. Various scenarios may happen, depending upon various factors such as the speed of Israel’s repentance, the amount and quality of prayer and spirituality in the believers of the last days, God’s grace, His desire to just end it all and get on with the Kingdom balanced against His desire to see more saved by prolonging things... And so Jerusalem may or may not fall, various invasions may or may not happen, in accordance with the human freewill factors that God so respects in how He finally works things out with Israel and this world.</p><p>And the wealth of all the surrounding nations will be gathered together: gold, and silver, and clothing, in great abundance- What was done to Judah in :1 would now be done to her abusers. This explains the structure of the book of Revelation; the seven seals of judgment upon Israel are reflected in the bowls of judgment then poured out upon those who judged her. This verse is behind <a href='B:730 21:26'>Rev 21:26</a>: "They shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into" the restored Zion.</p>


text:
<p>So will be the plague of the horse, of the mule, of the camel, and of the donkey, and of all the animals that will be in those camps, as that plague- The animals mentioned were all of military usage, and refer to the military resources of the invaders. In latter day terms this translates into the military technology and hardware of the attackers being plagued and thereby destroyed in the same way as the users thereof (:12)</p>


text:
<p>It will happen that everyone who is left of all the nations- The remnant that is left is a term which is usually used about the repentant remnant of God’s people. There will also be such a remnant amongst her latter day enemies. This is a major theme- that there will be a minority amongst the attackers who repent.</p><p>That came against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, Yahweh of Armies- We note the focus of the attackers as specifically upon Jerusalem. This fits with an increasing focus in jihadist Islam [the religion of Israel’s surrounding nations and enemies] upon Jerusalem. We can expect to see the Jerusalem issue becoming increasingly prominent, both politically and in their theology.</p><p>And to keep the feast of tabernacles- This festival is chosen because it celebrated the entry into the promised land. It will be a way of celebrating God’s grace to Israel; the Gentiles will keep it because they have so identified with Israel that her God and her history is now theirs. It was a celebration too of the end of harvest, which is often used as a metaphor for judgment. It is a mistake to think that the Law of Moses will be reinstated for some period at the Lord’s return. That law was ended permanently, as the New Testament makes clear. Under that law, men were required to appear three times before the Lord at the main feasts (<a href='B:20 23:17'>Exo 23:17</a>); but here, only one feast appears to be required. Likewise the legal requirements of the restored temple in Ezekiel 40-48 were not the Law of Moses, as they differed significantly from it.</p>


text:
<p>It will be, that whoever of all the families of the earth doesn’t go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, Yahweh of Armies, on them there will be no rain- At the time of Zechariah, rain was being withheld upon Judah because of their disobedience, as Haggai 1 and Malachi mention. The initial audience would have been aware of this and realized they were being treated like the obstinate Gentiles of the last days who would refuse all evidence of Yahweh’s supremacy and refuse to submit to Him. For this is what they were doing.</p>


text:
<p>If the family of Egypt doesn’t go up, and doesn’t come, neither will it rain on them- The obvious point is that Egypt was then the nation which was independent of rainfall, because it depended for irrigation upon the flooding of the Nile rather than precipitation. With all the huge tectonic upheavals of the last days, this situation will change. That is the clear implication of this threat. "The family of Egypt" is a slightly unusual term. The implication may be that at Zechariah’s time, the family of God in Egypt had chosen not to ’come up’ to Zion, preferring the land of their exile.</p><p>This will be the plague with which Yahweh will strike the nations that don’t go up to keep the feast of tents- Perhaps God expected the Jews in Egypt to come to Jerusalem to keep the feast. But they didn’t, and thereby were living out the condemnation of latter day people who refuse the most obvious evidence that Yahweh is indeed king in Zion.</p>


text:
<p>This will be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all the nations that don’t go up to keep the feast of tabernacles- Egypt as so often is presented as representative of "all the nations". We note that even when the Lord Jesus is enthroned in Jerusalem, obedience will not be forced. And we also are reminded that in the face of the most overpowering visual evidence, human nature is such that men can still refuse it. "Punishment" translates the same original word translated "sin", e.g. in <a href='B:450 13:1'>Zec 13:1</a>. The Hebrew language at this point was structured to reflect the fact that sin is its own punishment. It’s not so much that God punishes sin, but that sin is its punishment.</p>


text:
<p>In that day there will be on the bells of the horses, HOLY TO YAHWEH- "The horses" suggests a specific group of horses is in view; and the horses of the context are those ridden by the invaders in :15. Instead of bearing slogans glorifying their dedication to pagan gods, the "bridles" (LXX, NEV "bells") of the surviving horses will be dedicated instead to Yahweh. This is another way of saying that swords will be beaten into ploughs (<a href='B:290 2:4'>Isa 2:4</a>). "Holy to Yahweh" was the inscription on the High Priestly mitre (<a href='B:20 28:36'>Exo 28:36</a>). The idea is that such holiness would extend equally; the horses were to be as dedicated to Yahweh as the High Priest. This thought continues in the second half of the verse, where sacred bowls are to be as holy as earthen pots. And we can live with that spirit now; every part of our lives is to be dedicated to Yahweh. No area of life or field of human endeavour is to be considered as more or less sanctified than any other.</p><p>And the pots in Yahweh’s house will be like the bowls before the altar- LXX "The cooking pots in the Temple will be as sacred as the bowls before the altar". Holiness will extend to absolutely everything.</p>


text:
<p>Yes, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah will be holy to Yahweh of Armies; and all those who sacrifice will come and take of them, and cook in them- This rather conflicts with the practice amongst the Jews of the priests preparing the sacrifices, with the resultant abuses exemplified in the situation in <a href='B:90 2:13-15'>1Sa 2:13-15</a>. But God seeks for personal relationship with individual people; both now and in that future day, we are to personally prepare and offer our own sacrifice to Him. We cannot depend upon any religious structure to do this for us, assuming because we made a general donation to a fund or charitable appeal we are thereby freed from any further concept of sacrifice.</p><p>In that day- This phrase occurs seven times in the prophecy of Zechariah 14; see on :7. We are perhaps invited to see this as the consumption of the creation week, a new creation. The final "in that day" we expect to be something very significant, but instead the prophecy concludes with what could appear an anticlimax- a reference to there no longer being traders / Canaanites in the temple. But this is typical of the prophets; to focus upon moral failure which might appear relatively minor, and show how deeply significant it in fact is to God.</p><p>There will no longer be a Canaanite in the house of Yahweh of Armies- This was of obvious relevance to Zechariah’s generation; for the book of Nehemiah laments how Canaanites came and traded and even had chambers in the temple. So the crowning blessing of the Kingdom "in that day" will be that there will be no more spiritual weakness within us the people and temple of God. And this is what surely every spiritually minded believer wishes for above all. Fear of our own weakness and the corruption of God’s "house" by apostacy will then be no more.</p>


text:
<p>An oracle: the word of Yahweh to Israel by Malachi- "Malachi" is a form of malak, the word usually used for messenger of Angel. The appeal of the prophecy is to the priests, who are described in <a href='B:460 2:7'>Mal 2:7</a> as "the messenger of Yahweh of Armies". So it would seem that Malachi [s:w. "messenger"] was himself a priest who was modelling what a priest should be like by giving his prophecy. So we have here a priest rebuking priests; and this is always the most powerful way to preach, teach and pastor, when the teacher or pastor has commonality with the audience. It was and is why the Lord Jesus fully had our human nature. The priests were to ‘turn’ [s:w. ‘convert’] believers away from the life of sin and behind the way of God (<a href='B:460 2:6'>Mal 2:6</a> LXX); the priestly mission was to bring about the conversion which was required before the revelation of Messiah and the Messianic Kingdom. As explained on Haggai and Zechariah, the exiles who returned could have experienced Joshua and / or Zerubbabel as their Messianic rulers in God’s restored Kingdom in Judah. But they didn’t ’return’ to Yahweh spiritually, and most of them preferred to remain in exile anyway. It could be that ’Malachi’ was an appeal for repentance by a priest who was attempting to prepare the way for Messiah’s coming. But still Judah refused to respond, and his fellow priests, perhaps his own relatives, refused to prepare that way; and Malachi as the messenger of the covenant was rejected by his people. And so Malachi’s mission failed, but it would come true in the work of the future Elijah prophet. Hence he concludes by speaking about this. John the Baptist was the primary fulfilment of it, and the latter day Elijah prophet will be the main fulfilment. John the Baptist felt that the Elijah ministry was about being "a voice crying", and he gives no direct answer to the question "Who are you?". He was just a voice, he felt his name was irrelevant. This might explain why ’Malachi’ is anonymous, simply the messenger- of a possible new covenant.</p>


text:
<p>I have loved you, says Yahweh. Yet you say, How have you loved us? Wasn’t Esau Jacob’s brother? says Yahweh, Yet I loved Jacob- Paul cites predestination as a parade example of God’s grace. God’s love of&nbsp; Jacob over Esau was not because Jacob was better; in secular terms, he was not such a nice guy as Esau. But God’s love was for Jacob, to demonstrate His grace and to thereby elicit the response of faith and devotion. But Jacob / Israel refused. In Malachi’s time, Israel had greatly slacked in keeping the Law: "What a weariness is it!", they grumbled to each other. They divorced faithful wives so they could marry Gentiles, they practiced sorcery and sexual perversion (<a href='B:460 2:14-16'>Mal 2:14-16</a>; <a href='B:460 3:5'>Mal 3:5</a>). But the first problem which the Spirit addresses is their lack of appreciation that God really did love them deeply(<a href='B:460 1:2'>Mal 1:2</a>). All the other immorality flowed from this. We need to constantly remind ourselves never to feel "Nobody loves me". God loves us, in His Son. Let us never ever forget that.</p><p>The clear parallel between the historical man Jacob and the people of Israel is brought out here. Had Israel appreciated God’s love for the man Jacob, and perceived that he was typical of them, then they would never have doubted God’s love for them. And the same is true of us, whom Jacob likewise represents. It can be demonstrated that the weakness of Jacob, morally and even doctrinally, runs far deeper than may be apparent on the surface. Even at the end, despite the level of spiritual maturity which Jacob doubtless achieved, he still had serious aspects of incompleteness in his character. And yet he is held up as a spiritual hero, a victor in the struggle against the flesh. This was (and is) all possible on account of the phenomenal imputation of righteousness which God gave to His Jacob. He was saved by grace, not works; and Malachi appeals to God’s people to see in Jacob’s salvation an eternal reminder of God’s grace (<a href='B:460 1:2'>Mal 1:2</a>; <a href='B:460 3:6'>Mal 3:6</a>). Very often, the name Jacob is associated with the way that God sees His people of Jacob / Israel as righteous when in fact they are not (<a href='B:40 23:7'>Num 23:7</a>; <a href='B:40 23:10'>Num 23:10</a>; <a href='B:40 23:21'>Num 23:21</a>; <a href='B:40 24:5'>Num 24:5</a>; <a href='B:230 47:4'>Psa 47:4</a>; <a href='B:230 105:6'>Psa 105:6</a>; <a href='B:230 135:4'>Psa 135:4</a>; <a href='B:290 41:8'>Isa 41:8</a>).</p><p>The various questions and statements put into Judah’s mouth in Malachi, such as "How have you loved us?", are unlikely citations of what they actually said. Rather do we see here how God perceives the thought as the word, and how He sees and traces to the end the implications of our positions. We note that these same people who questioned whether God loved them were at the same time intensely religious and emotional in their apparent devotions to Him, covering His altar with tears (<a href='B:460 2:13'>Mal 2:13</a>). In this we see a challenge; we can very seriously go through the motions of religious devotion, and yet disbelieve the simple love of God toward us.</p>


text:
<p>But Esau I hated- "Hated" effectively means ’loved less’ (as in <a href='B:490 14:26'>Luk 14:26</a> cp. <a href='B:470 10:37'>Mat 10:37</a>; and <a href='B:10 29:30-31'>Gen 29:30-31</a> cp. <a href='B:50 21:15-16'>Deu 21:15-16</a>). We read that Rebekah loved Jacob, but Isaac loved Esau; this isn’t to say that each parent hated the other child, but that they loved them less. God seems to be saying that He too had (as it were) this kind of favouritism- by grace. And "Jacob" was to be awed by that grace; but they were not. In wrath God had said of Israel: “I hated them” (<a href='B:350 9:15'>Hos 9:15</a>). Yet God loves Israel with an eternal love, and hates their enemies Esau (<a href='B:460 1:3'>Mal 1:3</a>). He will “love them freely” ultimately (<a href='B:350 14:4'>Hos 14:4</a>). These windows into God’s internal struggles reveal that His love is far from cheap.</p><p>And made his mountains a desolation- Esau was judged for his sins; whereas so often, God didn’t judge Jacob as he deserved.</p><p>And gave his heritage to the jackals of the wilderness- God gave Esau and inheritance and then took it away, giving it to the jackals. Jacob / Israel sinned even worse; their mountains were also made desolate, their heritage given to others- but despite a dearth of repentance, God had still restored them to their land in Malachi’s time. This restoration was by grace alone; and Israel ought to have responded more and not questioned God’s love.</p>


text:
<p>Whereas Edom says, We are beaten down, but we will return and build the waste places; thus says Yahweh of Armies, They shall build, but I will throw down- God challenges Judah’s indolence to rebuild the temple by drawing their attention to how zealously Edom had rebuilt their “desolate places”. If Edom can do it… why can’t you, Judah, with all God’s prophecies and support behind you? God threw down what the Edomites tried to rebuild, but was eager to confirm and magnify every stone laid by Judah. We too are challenged by the devotion and commitment of secular people to causes which are unspiritual and not Godly. If they can do so much for their causes; how much more should we devote every atom of our being to the things of the Kingdom.</p><p>And men will call them ‘The Wicked Land’, even the people against whom Yahweh shows wrath forever- The curses against Judah and Edom were similar (<a href='B:290 34:5'>Isa 34:5</a>); but God never lifted the curse upon Edom, whereas by grace He had done so upon Judah. Petra remains desolate to this day. The surrounding peoples throughout the generations were persuaded that Edom was a "Wicked land" and would not rebuild it. We see here how God can act directly upon the perceptions and hearts of people; and He can do so positively through His Spirit with us. God’s wrath with Israel is described as eternal, but His grace to them was such that it was not.</p>


text:
<p>Your eyes will see, and you will say, Yahweh is great- even beyond the border of Israel!- "See" is s:w. "discern" in <a href='B:460 3:18'>Mal 3:18</a>; as explained there and on <a href='B:460 2:4'>Mal 2:4</a>, all too late, the rejected will perceive spiritual truths. The connection with <a href='B:460 3:18'>Mal 3:18</a> suggests the "Your eyes" in view are those of rejected Israel. They oppressed Gentiles (<a href='B:460 3:5'>Mal 3:5</a>) and considered eretz Israel the sole dominion of God’s kingship or kingdom. But they would realize all too late that His Kingdom included Gentiles. The context is God’s grace poured out to Jacob but not to Esau; the Jews of Malachi’s time who refused and despised that grace would be resurrected to judgment and then see Gentiles such as Edom glorifying the God of Israel.</p>


text:
<p>A son honours his father, and a servant his master. If I am a father, then where is my honour?- Just as Judah questioned in their hearts whether God loved them (:2), so they acted as if they weren’t the children of God, and therefore didn’t need to give Him the response which a son does to a father,</p><p>And if I am a master, where is the respect due me?- One doesn’t give sub-standard service to their employer. One didn’t bring him a defective animal as a gift. And yet Israel gave their God the lame and the blind animals, they only served Him as far as it didn’t hurt them (<a href='B:460 1:6-9'>Mal 1:6-9</a>). They gave Him what cost them nothing. And yet they should not only have served Him as they served their earthly masters; but, because He is the “great God”, they should have given Him even more. And so we must ask: the time we give to our careers and development in them, the thought we give to our secular lives, the respect we pay it… how does this compare to our attitude to Divine things?</p><p>Says Yahweh of Armies to you, priests- The appeal to the priests is made explicit in <a href='B:460 2:1'>Mal 2:1</a>, but it begins here. As noted on :1, Malachi was a priest, and he was appealing to the priests, possibly his own family members. The criticism of the priests for offering defective animals was really a criticism of their keeping the best sacrifices for themselves, and also allowing the people to offer defective animals. This is why the mass of society were as culpable as the priests.</p><p>Who despise My name- To know the name of Yahweh is an imperative to serve Him (<a href='B:130 28:9'>1Ch 28:9</a>). The greatness of the Name should have led to full and costly sacrifices (<a href='B:460 1:6-11'>Mal 1:6-11</a>; <a href='B:460 1:14'>Mal 1:14</a>; <a href='B:460 2:2'>Mal 2:2</a>). Thinking upon the Name led the faithful to pay their tithes and fellowship with each other (<a href='B:460 3:6'>Mal 3:6</a>; <a href='B:460 3:10'>Mal 3:10</a>). Giving unto Yahweh the glory due to His Name is articulated through giving sacrifice (<a href='B:230 96:8'>Psa 96:8</a>). If we know God, we will act and judge as He does (<a href='B:300 22:16'>Jer 22:16</a>). To perceive that Yahweh is indeed so righteous results in us humbling ourselves (<a href='B:140 12:6'>2Ch 12:6</a>), just as the declaration of the Name made Moses hide in the cleft of the rock, and as it will make men in the last days throw away all their vestige of human pride (Isaiah 2).</p><p>You say, ‘How have we despised Your name?’- The priests perhaps excused themselves by reasoning that it was the people bringing defective offerings. The fact is, God demands our all, our total best. Anything less than that is an excuse. The Hebrew for "despised" is used of Esau (<a href='B:10 25:34'>Gen 25:34</a>). In the context we have just read of how Esau was worse than Jacob but God saved Jacob by grace. This ought to have elicited in Jacob / Israel a desire not to act as Esau, but to be transformed by that grace. But instead they acted like and even worse than Esau, also despising spiritual things. To despise the Name was the presumptuous sin (<a href='B:40 15:31'>Num 15:31</a>). It was because of despising God that they had broken the covenant and gone into captivity (s:w. <a href='B:140 36:16'>2Ch 36:16</a>; <a href='B:330 16:59'>Eze 16:59</a>; <a href='B:330 22:8'>Eze 22:8</a>). Now they had been restored by grace, but they were behaving the same way. They didn’t deserve to be in the land, but rather to be sent away again into another captivity.</p>


text:
<p>You offer polluted bread on My altar- The abuses against “My altar” of <a href='B:460 1:7'>Mal 1:7</a>; <a href='B:460 1:10'>Mal 1:10</a> refer to the much-mentioned altar of Ezekiel 40-48, which was to be used in a way unlike the previous abuses of the pre-captivity period. Judah had made no difference between clean and unclean, and therefore had gone into captivity (<a href='B:330 22:26'>Eze 22:26</a>); and therefore the temple was a command / prophecy to divide the clean from the unclean in the whole way the building was designed and was to be built and operated (<a href='B:330 42:20'>Eze 42:20</a>). It was a “law” that the top of the house be “holy” (<a href='B:330 43:12'>Eze 43:12</a>). See on :8. Malachi is primarily addressing the priesthood; they were already "polluted", unable to prove their genealogy as the records had been destroyed when Jerusalem was sacked, and were only allowed to serve by grace (<a href='B:160 7:64'>Neh 7:64</a>). But they didn’t respond to that grace; they themselves polluted God’s service.</p><p>God had sworn not to allow His Name to be polluted or profaned, e.g. <a href='B:290 48:11'>Isa 48:11</a> "For My own sake, for My own sake, will I do it; for how should My name be profaned? I will not give My glory to another"; also in <a href='B:330 20:9'>Eze 20:9</a>. But He never forces, and so He ’allowed’ Judah at this time to pollute it. God invites us to see His efforts to stop His Name being polluted as somehow defeated by the extent of Israel’s pollutions. This theme comes out clearly in Ezekiel: they polluted Him, but He strove lest His Name should be polluted. Here is the extent of freewill which God gives man to sin- and also the extent of the hopefulness of God. It’s as if He didn’t imagine they would pollute Him as much as they did.</p><p>You say, ‘How have we polluted You?’ In that you say, ‘Yahweh’s table contemptible’- “They shall come near to my table” (<a href='B:330 44:16'>Eze 44:16</a>) in the restored temple. They did, but they despised it (<a href='B:460 1:7'>Mal 1:7</a>; <a href='B:460 1:12'>Mal 1:12</a>), they found it such a weariness. Yet they covered the altar with tears of religious devotion (<a href='B:460 2:13'>Mal 2:13</a>), when n reality they despised it. For God’s table was His altar, He ate in fellowship with the offerers. We have here a powerful challenge to mere religiousity. "Contemptible" is s:w. despise"in :6. They despised God’s Name by despising His table. Our attitude to His table, which in our day could refer to the breaking of bread service, is our attitude to His Name. If we treat it as mere religion, a weapon to control others with, a sign of local club membership, then we like Judah are despising His Name.</p>


text:
<p>When you offer the blind for sacrifice, isn’t that evil? And when you offer the lame and sick, isn’t that evil?- The excuse of the priests would have been that it was the people who offered these defective animals. But they were judged as responsible, as their acceptance of them encouraged the masses in their disrespect.</p><p>They offered blemished sacrifices, when it had been prophesied / commanded in the Ezekiel prophecies of the restored temple that Israel were not to do this (<a href='B:330 43:23'>Eze 43:23</a>). Those prophecies were command more than prediction, and only conditional upon Israel’s obedience- which was not forthcoming. So much prophetic potential was wasted, as it is in human life today. See on <a href='B:460 1:7'>Mal 1:7</a>; <a href='B:460 1:10'>Mal 1:10</a>; <a href='B:460 2:14'>Mal 2:14</a>; <a href='B:460 3:8'>Mal 3:8</a>.</p><p>They offered the blemished sacrifices which Israel presented to them (:8,14). Thus they failed to speak out against the low spiritual standards of their flock, but instead went along with them. So the masses got the spiritual leadership they wanted, even if they despised them (:9). For this reason, both society and priesthood were equally to be condemned.</p>&nbsp;<p>Present it now to your governor!- A Persian term is here used, suggesting Malachi was speaking not long after the restoration, when the Jews were still influenced by Persian language.</p><p>Will he be pleased with you? Or will he accept your person? says Yahweh of Armies- Heb."accept your face". Sitting at God’s table / altar with acceptable sacrifice would have resulted in them meeting God face to face as it were, over the table.</p>


text:
<p>Now, please entreat the favour of God, that He may be gracious to us- It appears that a minority did respond to Malachi’s words. But as religious people tend to, they asked the priest [Malachi] to pray for them, rather than wanting to engage personally with God. They are perhaps alluding to the intercession of Moses for a faithless Israel.</p><p>With this, will He accept any of you? says Yahweh of Armies- The problem was that the nature of the failures was such that the whole society was implicated. The priests offered the defective sacrifices which the people brought. And yet despite this, God as it were changes His mind and does accept that minority in <a href='B:460 3:16'>Mal 3:16</a>. Such was and is His enthusiasm to save at least some.</p>


text:
<p>Oh that there were one among you who would shut the doors, that you might not kindle fire on My altar in vain!- There were to be gate openers in the restored temple (<a href='B:330 46:12'>Eze 46:12</a>). There were gate openers, but they demanded to be paid for their services (AV); or [LXX]&nbsp; the gate openers were nowhere to be found. The difference in the translations reflects the Hebraism: if you won’t serve for nothing, then you haven’t served.</p><p>An indication that Nehemiah could have been a Messiah figure is to be found in <a href='B:460 1:10'>Mal 1:10</a> RV, which laments that even if one man could be found to shut the temple doors properly, then God’s pleasure would have returned to Israel. It was Nehemiah who shut the doors (<a href='B:160 13:19'>Neh 13:19</a> - i:e. organized the temple services?), but presumably the implication is that he didn’t continue as required. See on <a href='B:440 1:1'>Hag 1:1</a>; <a href='B:440 2:7'>Hag 2:7</a>; <a href='B:450 8:22'>Zec 8:22</a>.</p><p>The AV offers:"Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for nought? neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought". If this is legitimate, then we have an allusion to the book of Job, which appears to have been rewritten under inspiration with relevance to the return from exile. The satan in the book of Job expresses his serious doubt that any man would serve God for no prospect of reward in this life (<a href='B:220 1:9'>Job 1:9</a>). One of the themes of the book of Job is to show how a real believerwill serve God for nothing. In fact, Job went beyond this. He says that he will still serve God even if he gets nothing from Him in this life and even if there is no future reward either, &nbsp;and even if God treats Him unfairly; ’Even if’, Job speculates, ’God slays me (not just ’kills’ me)’&nbsp;&nbsp; (consider <a href='B:220 13:15'>Job 13:15</a>; <a href='B:220 14:7'>Job 14:7</a>; <a href='B:220 14:14'>Job 14:14</a>; <a href='B:220 19:10'>Job 19:10</a>). This was love of God, this was devotion to ones’ creator, despite not understanding His ways. In Malachi’s time, the Jews were expecting a reward from God for every little thing they did. They are rebuked in language which is full of allusion back to Job, and his willingness to serve God"for nought"(<a href='B:460 1:10'>Mal 1:10</a> AV).</p><p>I have no pleasure in you, says Yahweh of Armies, neither will I accept an offering at your hand- The glory of Yahweh as described at the end of Ezekiel could have appeared in Haggai’s time- but this wonderful possibility was held back by Israel’s petty minded, self-satisficing laziness. The same word is used in <a href='B:330 43:27'>Eze 43:27</a> - then, when the temple of Ezekiel was built, Yahweh would “accept / take pleasure in” His people and temple. But because they built and served Him with such a mean spirit, He did not “accept” them at that time (<a href='B:460 1:10'>Mal 1:10</a>; <a href='B:460 1:13'>Mal 1:13</a> s:w:).</p>


text:
<p>For from the rising of the sun even to the going down of the same, My name is great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the nations, says Yahweh of Armies- Note the conflict of tenses; His Name will be glorified, because it is right now great. The implication is that we glorify that Name now, and thereby live the Kingdom life now. This is the sense of the Lord’s repeated offers of"life eternal"to be experienced right now. The exiles despised Gentiles (<a href='B:460 3:5'>Mal 3:5</a>), but ultimately it was Gentiles who were to offer a more pure sacrifice than the Jews. Their"pure offering"contrasts with the defective offerings of the Jews at this time. And the Jews of that generation would be resurrected to see this, and then be condemned (see on :5)."Every place"uses maqom, the word for a holy place; the whole earth was to be full of such holy places, where incense could be offered acceptably; which meant that the Jerusalem temple would no longer be the only sacred space- a lesson the exiles ought to have learnt through their relationship with God in Babylon.</p>


text:
<p>But you profane it- The purpose of building the temple system was so that Yahweh’s Name would no longer be profaned by His people in that temple (<a href='B:330 36:23'>Eze 36:23</a>; <a href='B:330 44:7'>Eze 44:7</a>); but they had profaned it (also <a href='B:460 1:12'>Mal 1:12</a>), in that they saw it all as mere religion, and the fire of a true relationship with the Almighty was smothered. Judah profaned the Sabbath too (<a href='B:160 13:17-18'>Neh 13:17-18</a>). The potential kingdom situation of Ezekiel 40-48 was therefore precluded by their disobedience to it.</p><p>In that you say, ‘Yahweh’s table is polluted, and its fruit, even its food, is contemptible’- This is typical of the prophets- to perceive the real implication of attitudes. For the Jews probably didn’t actually say those words. But because those words didn’t pass their lips and weren’t formed by their tongue... this didn’t mean that they didn’t think that. The Lord brought all this into simple truth when He stated that the thought is the action and the words.</p><p>According to the LXX titles, there were certain Psalms which were written for the dedication of the rebuilt temple, and others written by Haggai and Zechariah. They include: Psalms 96, 138, 147, 148. These all seem to speak as if the time of a glorious temple was to be the time of God’s Kingdom; this was the possibility, and it was the prevailing hope in the minds of the faithful minority. But the Psalms had to remain prophecies of the future day of Zion’s glory. Psalms 96 is very clear: “Give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name [i:e:] bring an offering, and come into his courts” (:8). But Judah did not bring the right offerings, although the glory of Yahweh’s Name ought to have elicited them (<a href='B:460 1:11-14'>Mal 1:11-14</a>).</p>


text:
<p>You say also, ‘Behold, what a weariness it is!’- What a contrast with David! The whole of Psalms 119 describes how he rejoiced at God’s law, staying up late at night, straining his eyes into the candlelight to read it, getting up first thing in the morning to read some more (<a href='B:230 119:147-148'>Psa 119:147-148</a>)."Travail"is the same word translated"weariness"here, used by Nehemiah as a summary of all the trouble that had come upon Judah in their history (<a href='B:160 9:32'>Neh 9:32</a>). This is the mindset of so many- they have travail in the world, and they consider relationship with God to likewise be"travail". Anything apart from total commitment to God will result in this miserable mindset.</p><p>And you have sniffed at it, says Yahweh of Armies-"Sniffed"alludes to an animal snorting or ’breathing back’ at food they don’t like. It is the word used about how Yahweh"sniffed"or ’blew away’ the harvest reaped by the exiles (<a href='B:440 1:9'>Hag 1:9</a>). As noted on What a weariness it is, Judah had slumped to a situation where they sniffed or blew away at the idea of giving God the best, and He sniffed or blew away what they harvested. Only total devotion to Him of our very best will bring us out of this mire of mediocrity which grips unbelieving society.</p><p>And you have brought that which was taken by violence, the lame, and the sick; thus you bring the offering- The returned exiles were stealing cattle from each other, and then quickly using them as offerings before the theft would be discovered. And by so doing, they robbed God (<a href='B:460 3:8'>Mal 3:8</a>). The Hebrew for"sick"is literally ’that which is worn away’, and it is also one of the Hebrew words translated"prayer". It is used in :9; to pray to God with entreaty is as it were to wear Him down, as in the parable of the insistent widow. The play on words here is to reflect how God would not be ’worn down’ by their prayers if their sacrifices were of worn down animals. The timeless message is that we are not to sacrifice to God that which costs us nothing, that which is in any case superfluous to our personal needs. And we need to examine all our giving to God in this light.</p><p>Should I accept this at your hand? says Yahweh- The prophetic intention was that God would"accept"the offerings of the restored exiles in the rebuilt temple (s:w. <a href='B:330 20:41'>Eze 20:41</a>; <a href='B:330 43:27'>Eze 43:27</a>). But He is saying that they were precluding the fulfilment of those prophecies by offering that which was clearly unacceptable. Again we see the open ended nature of God’s purpose, and the extreme importance thereby attached to human freewill decisions.</p>


text:
<p>But the deceiver is cursed, who has in his flock a male, and vows, and sacrifices to the Lord a blemished thing- We may ask, ’Who were the offerers deceiving?’. Not the priests, because they knew the blemishes of the animals they sacrificed. Like Ananias and Saphira, the offerers were deceiving God. And they thought they could get away with it. They would naturally have recoiled at this being stated in such bald terms, but thisis effectively what we are doing if we don’t offer the best according to our potential. The law required male offerings (<a href='B:30 1:3'>Lev 1:3</a>; <a href='B:30 1:10'>Lev 1:10</a>); the offerer was claiming that he had only a flock of females and hence couldn’t offer a male. This was obviously untrue, but they thought they could thus deceive God, as if He wouldn’t notice.</p><p>For I am a great King, says Yahweh of Armies-"The great king"is the title beloved by the kings of Assyria, Greece and Babylon (<a href='B:120 18:19'>2Ki 18:19</a>; <a href='B:120 18:28'>2Ki 18:28</a>; <a href='B:300 25:14'>Jer 25:14</a>; <a href='B:340 8:21'>Dan 8:21</a>). The emphasis is therefore upon"I". The restored exiles still felt that their imperial rulers were their great king, rather than throwing off the yoke of tribute and tithing to them and accepting Yahweh as the one and only"great king". We too can so easily fear man’s greatness rather than God’s.</p><p>And My name is awesome among the nations- It is a continual theme of Malachi that the Gentiles would ultimately serve God acceptably and better than Judah (see on :11). We note the present tense,"is awesome", as if this potential was already being developed.</p>


text:
<p>Now, you priests, this commandment is for you- The idea would be that the following is specifically for the priests, although Malachi 1 is largely directed at them also. I suggested on <a href='B:460 1:1'>Mal 1:1</a> that the priesthood was to specifically be the messenger of the new covenant heralding the potential arising of a Messiah figure. But Judah refused, and so the potential was rescheduled and reapplied to John the Baptist, and then to the latter day Elijah prophet.</p>


text:
<p>If you will not listen- Heb."hear". This was the epitome of God’s covenant:"Hear, O Israel". To not even hear meant that all the rest of the covenant principles were lost on them. To hear God, to respect His word, is essential. This is why the Bible must have paramount place in all our thinking about God.</p><p>And if you will not lay it to heart- Judah had gone into captivity because they did not"lay it to heart"(<a href='B:300 12:11'>Jer 12:11</a> s:w:). The restoration from captivity was to involve setting or laying to heart the new covenant (<a href='B:300 31:21'>Jer 31:21</a>). They had returned from captivity, but were still not laying to heart their relationship with God. This lack of mental focus is one of the most common diseases of the soul, and affects many who would otherwise consider themselves religious Christians.</p><p>To give glory to My name, says Yahweh of Armies- The exiles developed such an obsession with the Name that they even forbad the pronunciation of it. But this was typical mere religiousity, seeing that their root problem was a refusal to glorify the characteristics of God’s Name.</p><p>Then will I send the curse on you- The curse with the article suggests the specific curse for disobedience to the covenant (<a href='B:50 27:15-26'>Deu 27:15-26</a>; Deuteronomy 28).</p><p>And I will curse your blessings. Indeed, I have cursed them already, because you do not lay it to heart- This may refer to how as recorded in Haggai 1, there was famine and none of the covenant blessings which they had been promised for obedience. Or the idea may be that what apparent blessings they had were already cursed from God’s viewpoint, but there was a gap between the curse and its fulfilment; note the future sense of :3. In that gap, they could have repented and changed God’s intention. We too live within that gap, and it should impart an intensity to our living, repentance and self-examination. God had already cursed the priests, He had made that statement. But the whole point of Malachi’s appeal was that the priests would repent, and thus the curse that had “already” been pronounced would not come into operation. Note that God isn’t saying: ‘If you don’t repent, beware, I will curse you’. He had already cursed them, but at that late stage, even then, He was willing to change His word- if they repented. It was exactly the same with Nineveh. Indeed, many of the OT appeals to repentance and outlines of judgment to come are of this nature. That judgment had already been decreed. But the power of the repentance appeals is that even so, God is so sensitive to genuine repentance that He is willing to go back on His own word. It’s a great encouragement not only to personal penitence, but to perceiving the deep significance of he repentance of others, and accordingly framing our personal attitudes and judgments concerning them.</p><p>"Already"translates a Hebrew term which could mean"I have cursed them severally", taking the grammar distributively- as if to say,"I have cursed each one of your blessings". This would mean that there were a whole list of blessings potentially prepared, which one by one were now cursed. The amount of potential lost was tragic, and it continues in so many lives today as so many possible futures simply don’t come about.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, I will rebuke your seed- The reference could be to literal seed, but more likely to their children. The most common excuse for lack of devotion to God is that resources are needed for our children. This was the reason given by faithless Israel for not entering Canaan. But it was their children who would suffer.</p><p>And will spread dung on your faces, even the dung of your feasts; and you will be taken away with it- The allusion is to the taking of the dung of the sacrifices"without the camp"to an unclean place of destruction (<a href='B:20 29:14'>Exo 29:14</a>; <a href='B:30 8:17'>Lev 8:17</a> etc:). Judah were being told that without repentance, they would again be cast out from God’s holy space."Spread"is the same word used for God’s scattering of His people into exile (<a href='B:30 26:33'>Lev 26:33</a>). They didn’t repent, but this didn’t happen for centuries, until AD70. Such was God’s amazing patience, setting us a powerful challenge whenever we think we have been patient enough with lack of human response to His word. But finally, God did end their feasts by destroying the temple and ending the Mosaic law, and expelling Israel. The language is crude and shocking, purposefully so, in order to get over to these religious people who wept tears over God’s altar in apparent devotion (:13)... that they were so deeply unclean and their devotions and blemished animal sacrifices so abominable.</p>


text:
<p>You will know that I have sent this commandment to you- This continues the theme discussed on <a href='B:460 1:5'>Mal 1:5</a> and <a href='B:460 3:18'>Mal 3:18</a>, that all too late when resurrected to judgment, that generation would know the truth of all these things. This explains why condemnation is described as the mental anguish which leads to gnashing of teeth.</p><p>That My covenant may be with Levi, says Yahweh of Armies- God wanted to make a new covenant with the priests who are here addressed (:1) as"Levi". I will suggested on :5 that this was not the same as the Mosaic law, and was a separate although similar covenant to that made with Phinehas in <a href='B:40 25:12-13'>Num 25:12-13</a>.</p><p>On a general level, all those in true covenant relationship with God will realize the fullness of commitment to us which He has entered into, and will likewise make a whole-hearted response and sacrifice (<a href='B:460 2:4-5'>Mal 2:4-5</a>). <a href='B:230 103:18'>Psa 103:18</a> parallels"such as keep his covenant"with" those that remember his commandments to do them". Covenant relationship brings a natural desire to live within the atmosphere of God’s spirituality. For Israel in covenant with God, absolutely nothing- not sex, menstruation, the content of clothing fabric, diet- could fall outside the scope of their covenant relationship. And so in principle it is with us under the new covenant.</p>


text:
<p>My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him that he might be reverent toward Me; and he was reverent toward Me, and stood in awe of My name- The old covenant could not give life (<a href='B:550 3:21'>Gal 3:21</a>), nor peace with God because there was a remembrance made of personal sins each year because of the inadequacy of the animal sacrifices alone to deal with personal sin (<a href='B:650 10:3'>Heb 10:3</a>). As noted throughout Zechariah, God in Jeremiah and Ezekiel had offered the returning exiles a new covenant, which did offer life and peace:"I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant"(<a href='B:330 37:26'>Eze 37:26</a>; <a href='B:290 54:10'>Isa 54:10</a>). But they had refused it. This surely is the covenant in view rather than the old covenant. But the statement here is that this covenant had already been given and accepted. The priest who first accepted it was I suggest not the historical Levi, but Joshua the high priest who could have become a Messianic ruler. He initially accepted it but didn’t continue in that covenant, neither did the priesthood after him; see on <a href='B:440 1:1'>Hag 1:1</a>; <a href='B:440 2:4'>Hag 2:4</a>; <a href='B:450 3:1'>Zec 3:1</a>; <a href='B:450 3:3'>Zec 3:3</a>; <a href='B:450 3:6'>Zec 3:6</a>; <a href='B:450 3:8-9'>Zec 3:8-9</a>; <a href='B:450 6:11'>Zec 6:11</a>. See on :7. The allusions to Phinehas are also clear:"‘Behold, I give to him My covenant of peace: and it shall be to him, and to his seed after him, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was jealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel"(<a href='B:40 25:12-13'>Num 25:12-13</a>). This was itself an incipient form of the new covenant, which was repeated to the priesthood at the time of the restoration as part of the new covenant offered to all Judah who returned to the land.</p>


text:
<p>The law of truth was in his mouth, and unrighteousness was not found in his lips. He walked with Me in peace and uprightness- The man in view was"Levi"but this means surely an individual, specific priest, rather than Levi personally. As suggested on :5, it may not so much be Phinehas in view, but rather Joshua the intended high priest who began well but then fell away. God’s law was to be taught in truth, whereas as explained on :8, the priesthood in Malachi’s time had begun to twist the law in an untruthful way. <a href='B:290 59:3'>Isa 59:3</a> uses the same words in condemning Judah after the restoration for having unrighteous lips. They influenced the priesthood, and the priesthood influenced them. And thus the entire community was guilty. The particular unrighteousness on the lips of the priesthood would have been in teaching unrighteousness as righteousness, thereby making their audience"stumble at the law"(:8)."Uprightness"is the word translated"straight"in explaining how the priestly messenger of the covenant would make the way"straight"for Messiah’s coming (<a href='B:290 40:4'>Isa 40:4</a>; <a href='B:290 42:16'>Isa 42:16</a>). This was what was required of the priesthood and high priest in order to prepare the way for Messiah’s coming. But the priest [Joshua?] failed in this, and so did the priesthood subsequently.</p><p>And turned many away from iniquity-"Many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God"(<a href='B:490 1:16'>Luk 1:16</a>) was alluding back to Malachi’s message and prophecies of Messiah’s forerunner; and it also referred to this definition of the ideal priest as one who"did turn many away from iniquity". The high priest Joshua and the priesthood at Malachi’s time failed to prepare the way for Messiah’s coming; and so it was reapplied to John the Baptist, and again to the Elijah prophet of the last days."Turned away"is the usual word used for Judah’s"return"from exile. They had been intended to return to God as well as literally to the land. They had failed to do so, and so they were given by grace the messenger of the covenant to prepare them. This appears to have been a priest, maybe Joshua, or the figure presented as ’Malachi’, but the priesthood generally were not fulfilling this role as intended. And so it was rescheduled for fulfilment in John the Baptist and the Elijah prophet of the last days.</p><p>There is clearly a connection with <a href='B:340 12:3'>Dan 12:3</a> promising blessing for those who turn many away from iniquity. Daniel’s prophecy that there would be a time of trouble for Israel, followed by a resurrection and judgment, may have had a potential fulfilment in Haman’s persecution. The LXX of Esther 5 includes her prayer, in which she says that Haman was seeking to hinder the work of the temple. This would explain why initially the Samaritans persuaded the Persians to make the work cease, but then (humanly inexplicably) another edict is given for it to resume. The people were delivered (<a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a>), as they were by Michael the Angel manipulating Esther. But the resurrection, judgment and Kingdom didn’t follow, because Israel weren’t ready for it. Then those who turned many to righteousness- i:e. the priesthood, in the primary context- would be rewarded (<a href='B:340 12:3'>Dan 12:3</a>). But Malachi and Haggai repeatedly criticized the priesthood at the time of the restoration for being selfish and not teaching Israel. Daniel and Jeremiah were heartbroken that there had to be such a delay to the full fulfilment of the Messianic restoration of the Kingdom.</p><p>As noted on :7, all Israel were to be priests in spirit. The priests were to ‘turn’ [s:w. ‘convert’] believers away from the life of sin and behind the way of God (<a href='B:460 2:6'>Mal 2:6</a> LXX), but this is applied to all of us in <a href='B:660 5:19'>Jas 5:19</a>.</p>


text:
<p>For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth- As noted on :5, the priests had entered a new covenant on returning from exile. This new covenant required Judah to have God’s law written on their hearts, so that they each had the knowledge of God (<a href='B:300 31:34'>Jer 31:34</a>); and yet <a href='B:460 2:5-7'>Mal 2:5-7</a> laments that the priests were more interested in divorcing their wives than teaching God’s law to the people; their lips didn’t keep nor teach the knowledge of God. The priests of the new temple system were to teach Judah and to make others discern between good and evil (<a href='B:330 44:23'>Eze 44:23</a>). But they did the opposite, and therefore the huge potential predicted for them in Ezekiel 40-48 didn’t come about.</p>&nbsp;<p>Although there was a special priesthood, it was clearly God’s intention that all Israel should be like priests; they were to be a"Kingdom of priests"(<a href='B:20 19:6'>Exo 19:6</a>)."The priests lips should keep knowledge"; but the average Israelite was encouraged to study the Law for himself,"that your lips may keep knowledge"(<a href='B:240 5:2'>Pro 5:2</a> s:w:).</p><p>For he is the messenger of Yahweh of Armies- As suggested on <a href='B:460 1:1'>Mal 1:1</a>, Malachi [s:w."messenger"] was himself a priest who was modelling what a priest should be like by giving his prophecy. The messenger of the covenant (<a href='B:460 3:1'>Mal 3:1</a>) was therefore a priest or priesthood which would prepare the people to accept the new covenant in Messiah. The implication is that Malachi and the priesthood of his time could and should have been doing this; but the priests refused. So we have here a priest rebuking priests; and this is always the most powerful way to preach, teach and pastor, when the teacher or pastor has commonality with the audience. It was and is why the Lord Jesus fully had our human nature. The prophecy was reapplied to John the Baptist, who was also a priest; and seeing Israel generally failed to respond, again to the latter day Elijah prophet.</p>


text:
<p>But you have turned aside out of the way- I suggested on :5 that initially at the return from Babylon, the priest did teach God’s ways. Certainly Nehemiah and Ezra did. But the subsequent priesthood didn’t.</p><p>You have caused many to stumble in the law- This was the effect of their not rejecting the law, but finding all manner of ways of twisting it to allow female animals to be offered instead of the males stipulated (<a href='B:460 1:14'>Mal 1:14</a>), and crippled animals to be accepted instead of unblemished ones. Finding ways around God’s requirements only makes others stumble; again, a timeless warning.</p><p>You have corrupted the covenant of Levi, says Yahweh of Armies- As explained on :5, that covenant was not the old covenant, but a new covenant offered to the returning exiles, as detailed in Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 37, which they initially accepted, but now the next generation had corrupted it. There is clearly also an allusion to the covenant with Phinehas. The priests"corrupted the covenant of Levi", in that they married out of the Faith (<a href='B:160 13:29'>Neh 13:29</a>), thus violating the Spirit of the Phinehas covenant- which was given in recognition of zealous action against relationships with Gentile women (<a href='B:40 25:12-13'>Num 25:12-13</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Therefore I have also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according to the way you have not kept My ways, but have had respect for persons in the law- As will be explained on :11, the people came to despise the priests just as they had done at the time of the young Samuel. But because of this, the people were driven to idolatry. This is what happens when the leadership of God’s communities drive people away and make them simply not want to have anything to do with the community any more; those driven away rarely keep the faith, but rather drift off to various forms of idolatry. By respecting persons, showing favouritism to some, the priesthood became despised before all the people. They were unable to have a platform of respect from which to teach the people, and what they taught anyway was a corruption of the law.</p>


text:
<p>Don’t we all have one father? Hasn’t one God created us? Why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother- The covenant in view is that explained on :5:Remember that Malachi is addressing the priests (:1), and he himself was a priest (:7), probably a family relative of the priests he was addressing. Therefore the reference to brothers and having one father is to be understood in that context; the"one father"Malachi shared with his audience would then have been Levi. But the wider principle remains; the unity of God and our common relationship with Him should mean that we do not at treacherously against our brother, who also has God as Father.</p><p>Profaning the covenant of our fathers?- The purpose of building the temple system was so that Yahweh’s Name and covenant would no longer be ’profaned’ by His people (<a href='B:330 36:23'>Eze 36:23</a>; <a href='B:330 44:7'>Eze 44:7</a>); but they had profaned it (also <a href='B:460 1:12'>Mal 1:12</a>), in that they saw it all as mere religion, and the fire of a true relationship with the Almighty was smothered.</p><p>Breaking covenant with God was related to breaking covenant with their wives and marrying Gentiles. Thus those who ’married out’ in Ezra’s time admitted:"We have broken covenant with our God ("have broken faith with our God" , RSV) and have taken strange (i:e. Gentile) wives of the people of the land... now let us make a covenant with our God, to put away all these wives"(<a href='B:150 10:2'>Ezr 10:2</a> LXX). Ezra confirms the truth of what they said:"You have broken covenant and taken strange wives"(<a href='B:150 10:10'>Ezr 10:10</a> LXX). Some years later, Nehemiah stridently criticized Israel for yet again marrying Gentiles. He described their action as"breaking covenant with our God and marrying strange wives"(<a href='B:160 13:27'>Neh 13:27</a> LXX); the Levites likewise"defiled the priesthood, and the covenant of the priesthood"(<a href='B:160 13:29'>Neh 13:29</a>) by their marriages. Notice how the repentant Jews in Ezra’s time realized that they had broken the covenant, and sought to rectify things by re-entering the covenant, through serious repentance:&nbsp; Marriage with unbelievers needs to be assessed in the light of these words. In nearly every reference to marriage to Gentiles, there is the comment that this would surely lead to adopting the religious views of the Gentile partner; views which inevitably take a man away from the one and only Divine Truth, as revealed in the covenants of the Gospel. Turn through the following passages, which all make the connection between marriage out of the covenant, and adopting idolatry: <a href='B:20 34:12-16'>Exo 34:12-16</a>; <a href='B:50 7:2-9'>Deu 7:2-9</a>; <a href='B:70 3:6-7'>Jdg 3:6-7</a>; <a href='B:110 11:2-3'>1Ki 11:2-3</a>; <a href='B:460 2:11'>Mal 2:11</a>; <a href='B:540 6:14'>2Co 6:14</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Judah has dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah has profaned the holiness of Yahweh which he loves, and has married the daughter of a foreign god- The treachery was therefore marital unfaithfulness. This is the great burden of Hosea; that Judah were in covenant relationship with God but were unfaithful. And yet there was never a time when Judah stated in so many words that they were through with Yahweh and were remarrying idols. The prophets so often perceive the true implication of human actions and attitudes. They had effectively divorced God and remarried. We recall that Malachi was speaking at the time of the restoration. The common impression that they left their idols in Babylon when they returned to Judah is incorrect. It’s true that under the Maccabees they did reject idolatry, but not for a few generations. All the rebuilding of the temple and the walls of Jerusalem was therefore done against this background of idolatry. Remember that it is the priests being addressed here (:1). They had made Judah stumble (:8); they are being blamed for Judah effectively divorcing Yahweh. They had effectively taught idolatry, although they would have strongly denied this. But by driving people away from Yahweh worship by their corruption and theft from the people, which led to the people despising them (:9), they had driven the people to idolatry. There is a religious need and instinct within people; if we or our church leadership make others stumble away from serving God, putting them in a position where they feel they can’t come to meetings or remain within the believing community... then they will stumble off to other faiths. And it will be our fault.</p><p>The people were warned that the temple had been destroyed because of their previous “abominations”, and that the rebuilt temple was not to feature any such abominations (<a href='B:330 43:8'>Eze 43:8</a>; <a href='B:330 44:6-7'>Eze 44:6-7</a>; <a href='B:330 44:13'>Eze 44:13</a>). “Let it suffice you of your abominations” they were told- and were commanded not to allow the uncircumcised into the temple, as they had been doing (<a href='B:330 44:6'>Eze 44:6</a>; <a href='B:330 44:9'>Eze 44:9</a>). This sounds as if the prophecy of Ezekiel was more command than prediction- to those of his own day. But they returned, and committed the abominations [s:w:] of the Gentiles (<a href='B:150 9:1'>Ezr 9:1</a>; <a href='B:150 9:11'>Ezr 9:11</a>; <a href='B:150 9:14'>Ezr 9:14</a>) and married their daughters. udah did not ‘separate’ themselves from the surrounding tribes but instead married them and worshipped their idols (s:w. <a href='B:150 9:1'>Ezr 9:1</a> “The people of Israel... have not separated themselves from the people of the land, doing according to their abominations... for they have taken of their daughters for themselves”). The same word for “abominations” occurs here; they had"dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel". Yet it had been emphasized that the temple system Ezekiel described was to be free of all the “abominations” [s:w:] previously committed by Israel (<a href='B:330 43:8'>Eze 43:8</a>; <a href='B:330 44:6-7'>Eze 44:6-7</a>; <a href='B:330 44:13'>Eze 44:13</a>).</p>


text:
<p>May Yahweh cut off out of the tents of Jacob the man who does this, and his descendant; may he not offer an offering to Yahweh of Armies- As explained on :11, God is furious with those who cause others to stumble by effectively driving them away from the community of His children. Those who uphold disfellowship, excommunication, a closed table etc. must take this challenge very seriously."May he not offer..."confirms that we are reading specifically about the priests, who offered the scarifies.</p><p>The AV has"The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar":&nbsp; Yahweh cut off the “master” [‘the stirred up one’, s:w. about how their spirit was ‘stirred up’ to achieve the work of the Kingdom at the restoration (<a href='B:150 1:5'>Ezr 1:5</a>)] because they divorced their wives and married Gentiles (<a href='B:460 2:12'>Mal 2:12</a>). The potential work of God on men’s hearts was frustrated by their hardness of heart."The scholar"would refer to those taught by the"master"priest; perhaps Joshua the potential high priest is in view.</p>


text:
<p>This again you do: you cover the altar of Yahweh with tears, with weeping, and with sighing, because He doesn’t regard the offering any more, neither receives it with good will at your hand- This is addressed to the priests, who have in the previous verses been convicted of making the people stumble into idolatry. Covering an altar with tears and emotional behaviour recalls the priests of Baal on Carmel (<a href='B:110 18:28'>1Ki 18:28</a>). They professed such loyalty to Yahweh when effectively they had divorced Him. This is all proof enough that emotionalism in religious worship is not necessarily reflective of true spirituality. Their semblance of Yahweh worship was no better than Baal worship. Going through the motions and emotions of worship may in fact be no more than idolatry. This is an incisive challenge. They covered the altar with tears of apparent devotion whilst in their hearts doubting God loved them (<a href='B:460 1:2'>Mal 1:2</a>) and robbing and attempting to deceive God.</p>


text:
<p>Yet you say, ‘Why?’- They were somehow aware that God didn’t accept their offerings. Perhaps it was simply because Malachi was telling them so. Or maybe the absence of the shekinah glory in the temple was the evidence of this; for the restored temple scenario of Ezekiel 40-48 featured the glory and visible presence of God returning to the temple.</p><p>Because Yahweh has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion, and the wife of your covenant- see on <a href='B:300 31:32'>Jer 31:32</a>; <a href='B:460 1:8'>Mal 1:8</a>. The priests married Gentile women (<a href='B:460 2:11'>Mal 2:11</a>; <a href='B:460 2:14-16'>Mal 2:14-16</a>), even though Ezekiel 44 commanded they should not do this. They thereby precluded the possibility of the prophecies of Ezekiel 40-48 being fulfilled. I suggested on :5 that the covenant in view is that which the priests entered on returning from captivity. This is why that generation are being charged with departing from a covenant which they personally entered. Their broken covenant relationship with God was reflected in their breaking covenant with their wives. As they had divorced God and married Gentile gods (:11), so they had divorced their Jewish wives to marry Gentiles. That is the implication of the parallels. Yet their Jewish wives remained their"companion", some kind of concubine. This again reflects how Judah had effectively divorced Yahweh and married Gentile idolatry, and yet they still professed devotion and commitment to Him. The Hosea - Gomer situation expresses just the same.</p>


text:
<p>Did He not make you one, although He had the residue of the Spirit? Whyone? He sought a godly seed- The wife of youth whom they had divorced was primarily Yahweh (:11). But as so often happened, a man’s relationship with God is reflected in his relationship with others. Their divorce with God was connected to their literal divorcing of their wives and taking others, from pagan backgrounds. Just as they had divorced Yahweh and married the daughters of strange gods (:11). The Levites were not to marry divorcees or Gentiles (<a href='B:330 44:2'>Eze 44:2</a>), so they precluded the fulfilment of that potential scenario of Ezekiel 40-48.</p><p>The Hebrew is difficult and the GNB is of some help:"Didn’t God make you one body and spirit with her? What was his purpose in this? It was that you should have children who are truly God’s people". The basic point is clear; their remarriages to Gentiles were not going to produce"a Godly seed", and that is one of the reasons why marriage with unbelievers is wrong.</p><p>If husband and wife are one spirit, psychologically joined by the marriage bonding which God applies to married couples not just at the wedding but throughout their relationship, then breaking that apart is undoing His work. Our spirit is thereby working against God’s Spirit. The Lord’s teaching about marriage and divorce in <a href='B:470 19:6'>Mat 19:6</a> seems based on His reflections upon this verse.</p><p>Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of his youth- Typical of the prophets, the appeal to repentance is on the most personal level- an appeal to watch their mind and thinking,"your spirit". And this appeal to the spirit is repeated in :17. This appeal for repentance had been made in the times of Ezra and Nehemiah, and there had been response, to the point of those who had married Gentile wives divorcing them. And yet very quickly, the very same failure was committed again. No matter how intense the repentance of a moment, this is not guarantee that we can drift on acceptably to God. That is the lesson.</p>


text:
<p>For I hate divorce, says Yahweh, the God of Israel- Malachi began by speaking of God ’hating’ Esau in the sense of loving him less. Perhaps this idea is present here too; for God and Israel divorced. God is perhaps saying that He ’loves less’ divorce, it is the least preferred option. But in the next sentence, He will state that He equally hates the use of the institution of marriage to cover violence. It could be that we are to conclude that in such a case, then the open separation of divorce is preferable, although God ’loves it less’ or ’hates’ it.</p><p>But the LXX and ESV offer a translation to the effect"But if thou shouldest hate thy wife and put her away, saith the Lord God of Israel, then ungodliness shall cover thy thoughts...". This makes better sense of the connection between the words"hate"and"putting / sending away"[’divorce’] which is to be found in <a href='B:10 26:27'>Gen 26:27</a> and <a href='B:50 24:3'>Deu 24:3</a>.</p><p>And him who covers his garment with violence! says Yahweh of Armies- The garment refers to the metaphor of a man casting his garment over his wife as a sign of protection and acceptance in marriage (<a href='B:50 22:30'>Deu 22:30</a>; <a href='B:80 3:9'>Rth 3:9</a>; <a href='B:330 16:8'>Eze 16:8</a>). The idea could be that the man was using the garment of marriage to cover violence. On one hand God hates divorce, but He balances this by saying that He equally hates those who do not formally divorce but use the institution of marriage to conceal violence.</p><p>Therefore take heed to your spirit, that you don’t deal treacherously- For all their gross immorality, the appeal was to take heed to how they thought, their spirit. For this is the root of our behaviour.</p>


text:
<p>You have wearied Yahweh with your words- Several times we read of God being wearied by Israel’s sins (<a href='B:290 7:13'>Isa 7:13</a>; <a href='B:300 15:6'>Jer 15:6</a>; <a href='B:330 24:12'>Eze 24:12</a>; <a href='B:460 2:17'>Mal 2:17</a>). Even though God does not"grow weary"(<a href='B:290 40:28'>Isa 40:28</a>) by nature, it seems to me that in His full entering into His people’s situation, He does allow Himself to grow weary with the sins of those with whom He is in covenant relationship. He as it were limits Himself, in order to enter into meaningful relationship with us. It was this kind of capacity which God has which was supremely revealed in His ’sharing in’ the crucifixion of His Son.</p><p>Yet you say, ‘How have we wearied Him?’ In that you say, ‘Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of Yahweh, and He delights in them;’ or ‘Where is the God of judgment?’- Again, it is doubtful if their lips framed these actual words. But the prophets perceive the real implication of positions. And God does the same with us today. The priests are being addressed here (:1), and perhaps their false teaching was to the effect that judgment was now past and whatever the people did would not come into judgment; and that God delighted in sinners. God had given them the land because He"delighted"in them (<a href='B:40 14:8'>Num 14:8</a> s:w:). Perhaps the priests were wrongly teaching that the mere fact they were physically within the land showed that God delighted in them, even though they were doing evil.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, I send My messenger, and he will prepare the way before Me- See on <a href='B:290 40:4'>Isa 40:4</a>. As explained on <a href='B:460 2:7'>Mal 2:7</a>, the messenger of the covenant&nbsp; was a priest or priesthood which would prepare the people to accept the new covenant in Messiah; for the priests were to be"the messenger"(<a href='B:460 2:7'>Mal 2:7</a>). The implication is that Malachi and the priesthood of his time could and should have been doing this; but the priests refused. The prophecy was reapplied to John the Baptist, who was also a priest; and seeing Israel generally failed to respond, again to the latter day Elijah prophet. The restored community are accused of turning to or ’preparing’ [s:w."prepare"] their own way rather than the way of the Lord (<a href='B:290 53:6'>Isa 53:6</a>; <a href='B:290 56:11'>Isa 56:11</a> cp. <a href='B:290 40:3'>Isa 40:3</a>). But the Messianic prophecy of <a href='B:290 53:6'>Isa 53:6</a> claims that this turning to their own way would be resolved and corrected by the coming of Messiah. But for Him to come, there must first be a messenger who prepared that way (s:w. <a href='B:290 40:3'>Isa 40:3</a>; <a href='B:290 57:14'>Isa 57:14</a>; <a href='B:290 62:10'>Isa 62:10</a>). The priesthood and high priest of Malachi’s time failed in this, and so the work was rescheduled for John the Baptist, and later the Elijah prophet of the last days. The same words for"prepare the way"are found in <a href='B:330 43:1'>Eze 43:1</a>; <a href='B:330 44:1'>Eze 44:1</a>; <a href='B:330 47:2'>Eze 47:2</a> about"the way"that is ’prepared’ or ’looks’ eastward. This was the way or road over which the glory was to re-enter the restored temple. But Judah didn’t rebuild that temple as specified and as Malachi often demonstrates, the priests failed to act as commanded in Ezekiel 40-48. And so the messenger who was to prepare that way likewise failed; but finally the essence of the prophecies will come true through the work of the Elijah prophet and John the Baptist [also a priest] preparing the way of the Lord Jesus, so that His glory and Spirit could enter a spiritual temple of restored people.</p><p>Isaiah begins his section on the restoration with a bold prophecy that the restoration of Zion was to be associated with a way being prepared for Israel’s God to come to them (<a href='B:290 40:1-3'>Isa 40:1-3</a>). These words are repeated here in <a href='B:460 3:1-3'>Mal 3:1-3</a>, where the messenger&nbsp; was to prepare the way of Yahweh’s coming. It seems that in some sense they could have come true in the first return of the exiles along the wilderness way back to Zion, under Ezra. But over 100 years later, in Malachi’s time, the prophecy was still capable of fulfilment, if the priesthood would be purged. But finally it was all deferred in fulfilment until the coming of John the Baptist and the LordJesus</p><p>“Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee” is how <a href='B:480 1:2'>Mar 1:2</a> quotes <a href='B:460 3:1'>Mal 3:1</a>; but “before thy face” is added, as if to create a reference to the Angel sent before Israel in the wilderness, to find a resting place (<a href='B:20 23:20'>Exo 23:20</a>). The parallel is set up between John and the Angel, and therefore between Jesus and the people of Israel. The Lord Jesus is His people. He personally is the vine, the one body- symbols of the whole community. He isn’t the trunk, and we the branches:&nbsp; We are the branches, and He is the whole vine. We are Him to this world.</p><p>And the Lord, whom you seek will suddenly come to His temple- The Lord will return to Zion to find a repentant remnant there, converted by our preaching. When the way has been prepared, then “the Lord… shall suddenly [Heb. ‘immediately’] come to his temple”. It seems that He comes as soon as, almost to the moment, that the way is prepared. Is it going too far to imagine that when the last Jews are baptized in Jerusalem, perhaps literally on the Temple Mount, then the Lord will immediately return there, “to his temple”? Then the Lord shall “come down to fight for mount Zion and for the hill thereof” (<a href='B:290 31:4'>Isa 31:4</a>).</p><p>But we can also understand the sudden coming of"the Lord whom you seek"as a warning of judgment to Malachi’s generation of impenitent Jews. <a href='B:370 5:18'>Amo 5:18</a> and <a href='B:460 3:1-2'>Mal 3:1-2</a> warn that just ’seeking’ or desiring the coming of the Lord isn’t enough; for what end will it be, if we don’t truly love His appearing? Yet Amos goes on to say that Israel “put far away” the reality of the day of the Lord, in their minds (<a href='B:370 6:3'>Amo 6:3</a>). And yet they desired or sought it. We can study prophecy, but not really love His appearing in seriously preparing ourselves for that day. Indeed, we can subconsciously put it far from us. When we grasp for a fleeting moment how very near is the second coming for us; can we dwell upon it, retain that intensity? Or would we rather put it “far away”? This is surely why the Lord brings the list of signs of His coming to a close with some chilling parables concerning the need for personal watchfulness.</p><p>And the messenger of the covenant whom you desire, behold, He comes! says Yahweh of Armies- As noted above, Judah ’desired’ the coming of the day of the Lord and the"messenger"which was to prepare the way for Him; they even ’delighted’ in these things [AV]. But they didn’t morally respond, so the way was not prepared. Yet He would come, ultimately, to their judgment and condemnation.</p>


text:
<p>But who can endure the day of His coming? And who will stand when He appears?- The implication is that Malachi’s generation would not stand but fall, they would not abide the day of His coming in that they would be resurrected to condemnation in that day (cp. <a href='B:360 2:11'>Joe 2:11</a>). Knowledge of the coming of judgment leads to self-examination:"The Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come... But who may abide the day of his coming?"(<a href='B:460 3:2'>Mal 3:2</a> AV cp. <a href='B:730 6:17'>Rev 6:17</a>). Belief in the second coming must provoke the question:"What manner of persons ought (we) to be...", as we hasten towards the day of judgment?"Wherefore, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent, that ye may be found of Him... without spot, and blameless"(<a href='B:680 3:11'>2Pe 3:11</a>; <a href='B:680 3:14'>2Pe 3:14</a>).</p><p>For He is like a refiner’s fire, and likelaunderer’s soap- The implication is that the priests of Malachi’s generation would be resurrected at"the day of His coming"to pass through this refining process; and would not abide it. In Malachi’s time, they could have responded to the day of the messenger by allowing themselves to be refined. But they refused to respond to Malachi [’messenger’]. The appropriacy of the imagery of soap and laundry is because this would cleanse dirty priestly garments. This is the picture presented in Zechariah 3, of the Jewish priesthood of that time being dressed in"filthy garments". They could have been reformed and cleansed by responding to Malachi’s message; but they didn’t.</p><p>Ultimately for us too, the day of judgment is to purify us- not ultimately, for that has been done by the Lord’s blood and our lives of faithful acceptance of this. But the fire of judgment reveals the dross of our lives to us and in this sense purges us of those sins. The judgment seat is for our benefit, not God’s- He knows our lives and spiritual position already. Without the judgment, we would drift into the Kingdom with no real appreciation of our own sinfulness or the height of God’s grace. The trials of our faith are like fire which purifies us (<a href='B:670 1:7'>1Pe 1:7</a>; <a href='B:670 4:12'>1Pe 4:12</a>). And yet this is the language of the last judgment. In our response to trials, we have the outcome of our judgment. We must rejoice now in our tribulations with the same joy which we will have when we are accepted by the Lord at the last day (<a href='B:670 4:13'>1Pe 4:13</a>). Job felt that his calamities were God entering into judgment with him (<a href='B:220 14:3'>Job 14:3</a>). If we react properly to trials, we thereby receive now"the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls"(<a href='B:670 1:9'>1Pe 1:9</a>). Thus the question of the degree to which we now are ’saved’ is connected with the fact that to some degree, the judgment process is also going on now.</p>


text:
<p>And He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and He will purify the sons of Levi, and refine them as gold and silver; and they shall offer to Yahweh offerings in righteousness- The implication of :2 is that the priests of Malachi’s generation would be resurrected at"the day of His coming"to pass through this refining process; and would not abide it. Once they are destroyed, then there will be left a remnant who will be able to serve Yahweh acceptably. All these prophecies could have had a fulfilment at Malachi’s time or at the time in the first century when John the Baptist was the"messenger"and could have reformed the priesthood. But they resisted. And so the essence of the prophecies will come true in the last days. But that is not to say that every literal detail will; and so the refined Levites will not necessarily offer literal sacrifices. The offering of sacrifice will perhaps be spiritually interpreted, as it is in the New Testament (<a href='B:650 13:15'>Heb 13:15</a>). The"He"who refines the Levites is not necessarily Yahweh; it could be the messenger of the covenant, which initially referred to Malachi and later John the Baptist in their attempts to reform the priesthood.</p><p>The Levites of the restoration had been taken from among the many nations that comprised Babylon / Persia; they were brought, as many as could be bothered to go, to their own land. They were cleansed there (s:w. <a href='B:150 6:20'>Ezr 6:20</a>; <a href='B:160 12:30'>Neh 12:30</a>). But they became un-cleansed through allowing Tobiah into the temple chambers, by trading on the Sabbath, and by marrying Gentiles (<a href='B:160 13:9'>Neh 13:9</a>; <a href='B:160 13:22'>Neh 13:22</a>; <a href='B:160 13:30'>Neh 13:30</a>). The priesthood needed to be “cleansed” again (<a href='B:460 3:3'>Mal 3:3</a> s:w:). The promise of Ezekiel 36 sounds unconditional- as if, whoosh, God would make His sinful people righteous regardless of their own will; but they still needed to respond: “For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh” ( <a href='B:330 36:24-29'>Eze 36:24-29</a>). Israel were to return from captivity, destroy all the Gentile abominations and idols from their land, and then receive a new heart and a new covenant (<a href='B:330 11:18-19'>Eze 11:18-19</a>). But they didn’t do so, and now at Malachi’s time they needed cleansing again. But they refused it, and so that cleansing will ultimately only be at theLord’s return.</p>


text:
<p>Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasant to Yahweh, as in the days of old, and as in ancient years- The restored kingdom of God in Israel and the restoration of the Davidic king"as in the days of old"could have come about in Malachi’s time. If the priesthood had responded to the purging, they would again have offered acceptable offerings. But Malachi 1 explains that they offered blemished sacrifices which were not"pleasant to Yahweh". And so this possible scenario was precluded. But as explained on :1-3, the essence of the prophecies will come true in the last days. The offering of sacrifice will perhaps be spiritually interpreted, as it is in the New Testament (<a href='B:650 13:15'>Heb 13:15</a>).</p>


text:
<p>I will come near to you in judgment- In the immediate context, God was going to judge the priesthood of Malachi’s time. He was going to charge them with theft from Him, and He would be a witness in their court case, as well as their judge. But that generation did not have judgment executed upon them. This was deferred, by grace, until AD70 when the messenger in the form of John the Baptist had again come to them, and God’s own Son had appeared as their Messiah. Such is God’s amazing patience.</p><p>God’s Son was by His coming alone the manifestation of"the God of judgment", the supreme judge of men by His very being (<a href='B:460 2:17'>Mal 2:17</a>; <a href='B:460 3:1'>Mal 3:1</a>). In His coming, God"visited His people"(<a href='B:490 7:16'>Luk 7:16</a>); but the OT image of Yahweh visiting His people was one of visiting in judgment (<a href='B:300 23:2'>Jer 23:2</a>; <a href='B:350 2:13'>Hos 2:13</a>; <a href='B:350 9:9'>Hos 9:9</a>). By His very being amongst men He would convict them of their sinfulness. His light would show up the shadows of their sins. Mark begins his Gospel by quoting this Malachi passage, as if to say that the appearance of Jesus was the coming of judgment for men (<a href='B:480 1:2'>Mar 1:2</a>):&nbsp; This judgment-coming of Jesus at His revelation to Israel 2000 years ago is then described as God coming near to men in judgment (<a href='B:460 3:5'>Mal 3:5</a>). This is why a consideration of the Lord Jesus in bread and wine inevitably and naturally leads to self-examination; for He is, by His very being, our immediate and insistent judge.</p><p>And I will be an alert witness- God is presented as both judge and witness. For He alone is judge, and yet as omniscient, He is also the ultimate witness. And yet He is also presented as pleading as an advocate for His sinful people before His own judgment. God can both maintain our cause [as an advocate] and forgive, as a judge (<a href='B:140 6:39'>2Ch 6:39</a>). God is the one who will both plead our cause as an advocate, and take vengeance, i:e. order the sentence, as judge (<a href='B:300 51:36'>Jer 51:36</a>). <a href='B:400 7:9'>Mic 7:9</a> speaks of how Micah has sinned against Yahweh, and yet He will plead his cause and also execute judgment. Likewise with Israel,"the Lord standeth up to plead, and (also) standeth up to judge his people"(<a href='B:290 3:13'>Isa 3:13</a>); even though He is also the witness against them. David understood this when he asked that God would"judge [RV "give sentence"] between me and thee, and see [i:e. be the witness], and plead my cause [i:e. be the advocate]"(<a href='B:90 24:15'>1Sa 24:15</a>). These are Old Testament anticipations of the Lord Jesus as witness, advocate and judge. All these things are simply metaphors to try to expose to us the various balanced aspects within God’s view and final judgment of men.</p><p>Against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against the perjurers, and against those who oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, and who deprive the foreigner of justice, and don’t fear Me, says Yahweh of Armies- All this was going on in the restored community in Malachi’s time. It was why the mass of the people came to despise the priests and avoided Yahweh worship, leading them to stumble into idolatry (see on <a href='B:460 2:9'>Mal 2:9</a>; <a href='B:460 2:11'>Mal 2:11</a>).</p><p>In the restored temple, the princes would not oppress the people (<a href='B:330 45:8'>Eze 45:8</a>); “Moreover the prince shall not take of the people’s inheritance by oppression, to thrust them out of their possession” (<a href='B:330 46:18'>Eze 46:18</a>). But the priests did just this (also <a href='B:160 5:1-5'>Neh 5:1-5</a>; <a href='B:450 7:10'>Zec 7:10</a>).</p><p>“The [Gentile]people of the land” were to have a part in the new system of things (<a href='B:330 45:16'>Eze 45:16</a>; <a href='B:330 45:22'>Eze 45:22</a>; <a href='B:330 46:3'>Eze 46:3</a>; <a href='B:330 46:9'>Eze 46:9</a>), and yet this very phrase is repeatedly used concerning the Samaritan people who lived in the land at the time of the restoration (<a href='B:150 4:4'>Ezr 4:4</a>; <a href='B:150 10:2'>Ezr 10:2</a>; <a href='B:150 10:11'>Ezr 10:11</a>; <a href='B:160 9:24'>Neh 9:24</a>; <a href='B:160 10:30-31'>Neh 10:30-31</a>). God’s intention was that they should eventually be converted unto Him; it was His intention that Ezekiel’s temple be built at the time of the restoration under Ezra. And yet <a href='B:450 7:10'>Zec 7:10</a>; <a href='B:460 3:5'>Mal 3:5</a>&nbsp; criticize the Jews who returned and built the temple for continuing to oppress the stranger / Gentile. Israel would not. <a href='B:290 56:6'>Isa 56:6</a> defines what is meant by “a house of prayer for all nations”- it is for those of all nations who “join themselves to the Lord, to serve him and to love the name of the Lord... every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant”. But Judah herself had polluted the sabbath and broken the covenant, as Malachi makes clear.</p>


text:
<p>For I, Yahweh, don’t change; therefore you sons of Jacob are not consumed- Yahweh does change, as witnessed multiple times. Such is His grace. We think of the way He changed His purpose of destroying Israel and making a new Israel from Moses, of destroying Nineveh after 40 days etc. What is unchanging is His grace in not destroying His sinful people. This verse should not therefore be used to support the wrong idea that Yahweh is like the gods of the pagans, who were characterized by stone faced immutability.</p><p>Because of the sins listed in :5, the sons of Jacob should have been consumed. Those same sins are those listed in <a href='B:450 5:4'>Zec 5:4</a>, and there God uses the same word to say that He will"consume [the house of Jacob] with the timber and stones thereof". But this judgment was not in fact brought upon the exiles. It was deferred, by grace alone; although it finally came true in the destruction of the temple in AD70.</p>


text:
<p>From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from My ordinances, and have not kept them. Return to Me, and I will return to you, says Yahweh of Armies. But you say, ‘How shall we return?’- The returned exiles being addressed had physically returned from captivity. But they had not returned to God. He had even taken the initiative of returning to them when they had not returned spiritually to Him (see on <a href='B:450 8:3'>Zec 8:3</a>). But all the initiative of His grace had been spurned by them; it had not elicited repentance [s:w."return"]. Because they refused to accept the need for personal repentance, as many do today."How shall we return?"is not a question about the method or path, but rather carries the sense of ’Since when do we need to return / repent?’. See on <a href='B:450 1:3'>Zec 1:3</a>. Time and again in the context of the restoration it is emphasized that God would return to His people if they returned to Him (<a href='B:450 1:3'>Zec 1:3</a>). And they didn’t return to Him- most chose not to return to the land, and those who did for the most part did not return to their God in their hearts. The whole basis of Israel’s covenant relationship with God was that if they were exiled from the land for their sins, they must repent and then God would return to them (<a href='B:50 30:1-10'>Deu 30:1-10</a>). Yet God graciously states to the exiles:"I am returned unto you"(<a href='B:450 1:16'>Zec 1:16</a>; <a href='B:450 8:3'>Zec 8:3</a>). Here was grace indeed. Passages like <a href='B:330 36:24-31'>Eze 36:24-31</a> therefore speak as if God’s grace to the exiles was effectively a new covenant- which has in essence been extended to us. Having stated the conditionality of His ’returning’ to His people, and recognizing they hadn’t fulfilled their part of the conditions- God all the same returns to them, such was and is His almost desperate desire for relationship with His beloved people. This is a lesson for us in our relationships with others- to continue our acceptance and’return’ to them, even if they don’t fulfill their part of the deal. For this, day by day, is how our God deals not only with us but with His weak and wayward people as a whole.</p>


text:
<p>Will a man rob God? Yet you rob Me!- The fact God owns everything means that there can be no distinction between what is ours and what is God’s. To think like that is to steal from Him. And hence the power and force of the argument here: “Will a man rob God?”. Have we robbed God in this way, especially in our attitudes and perceptions? To take for ourselves what is God’s is to play God. Materialism and selfishness are in this sense playing God. This was Achan’s sin- to take what was devoted to God for himself. And this was why he is described as having ‘stolen’. But from whom? From God (<a href='B:60 6:18'>Jos 6:18</a>; <a href='B:60 7:11'>Jos 7:11</a>).</p><p>But you say, ‘How have we robbed You?’. In tithes and offerings- In the restored temple, they were to use just measures (<a href='B:330 45:9-14'>Eze 45:9-14</a>), unlike what they had previously done. But they robbed God in their sacrifices in the restored temple (<a href='B:460 3:8'>Mal 3:8</a>). See on <a href='B:460 1:8'>Mal 1:8</a>. Tithes were to be paid to the Levites (<a href='B:330 44:30'>Eze 44:30</a>). But Nehemiah’s record and <a href='B:460 3:8'>Mal 3:8</a> make it clear that this didn’t happen, due to petty selfishness. But we must remember that Malachi is largely addressing the priests; the tithes given to them should have been tithed in turn by them to God, but they didn’t do this. Offerings intended for sacrifice were kept by them. Only in :9 are"this whole nation"addressed.</p>


text:
<p>You are cursed with the curse; for you rob Me, even this whole nation- Although it seems Malachi the priest (see on <a href='B:460 1:1'>Mal 1:1</a>) is addressing the priests primarily after <a href='B:460 2:1'>Mal 2:1</a>,"this whole nation"are charged with robbing God, and are cursed. They had been driven away from Yahweh worship by the priests (see on <a href='B:460 2:11'>Mal 2:11</a>), but they were still guilty. If someone is made to stumble, the one who caused it is guilty; but so are they who stumbled. We cannot come to the judgment seat of the Lord Jesus and explain that we were indifferent to His love, His death for us, the offer of eternity... because he did this and she said that.</p><p>"The curse"presumably refers to the curse for disobedience to the covenant of Deuteronomy 28. God cursed them with that curse; but there is no particular evidence that it was carried out until AD70. They were not sent again into captivity until then, and they had many years of good harvests. So again we marvel at God’s grace and longsuffering. At Malachi’s time, the curse was pronounced, but there was a gap of many generations until it was carried out. In a sense we too live within such a gap, heightening the sense of intensity and urgency in responding to God’s offer to cancel the curse and instead bless us.</p>


text:
<p>Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in My house- The criticism of their position on tithing was not so much because God per se wanted or needed their tithes. Tithing was a common practice, and was a sign of devotion to the one tithed to. <a href='B:460 2:11'>Mal 2:11</a> has said that the people divorced Yahweh and married the daughter of another god. Their tithes were therefore being paid to idols; it was because of this that Yahweh asked for their tithes to be paid to His house and not to the idol temples. And we must remember that the priesthood is being addressed by Malachi; they were to tithe to God the tithe which they received from the people. But they gave only a part of it and not the"whole"which was due."That there may be food in My house"implies they were as it were starving God. They put very little on the altar, His"table"at which He ate with the worshippers,and in any case only placed upon it the lowest grade"food", the blind and sick animals. Entertainment and hospitality culture was paramount to the Middle Eastern mind. Yet they are accused of giving God low grade and small portions. As we sit at His table, we must ask ourselves this same question, as to what we are putting before Him.</p><p>And test Me now in this, says Yahweh of Armies- The Lord’s first temptation- to turn stones into bread- would not in itself have been a sin if He had agreed to it. But it would have been choosing a lower level, by breaking His fast. But the next temptations were to actually sin. If He had agreed to the first suggestion, obedience to the next ones would have been harder. It could even be argued that to put the Lord to the test was permissible on a lower level- for passages like <a href='B:230 34:8'>Psa 34:8</a> and <a href='B:460 3:10'>Mal 3:10</a> almost encourage it for those with a weak faith. Gideon likewise put the Lord to the test and was answered. But the Lord chose the higher level: and He knew Scripture which could support it.</p><p>However we must give full weight to the fact that only five verses later, this same word for"test"is used; the people complained that those who"put God to the test... escape"(:15). We could conclude that God didn’t actually intend for Him to be put to the test, and rather is He here using irony. This would take away the mainstay from beneath all Pentecostal appeals for tithes to be paid in order for the givers to receive more personal wealth. Or it could be that some did test God as invited to, and"escaped"or ’were saved’ (s:w. <a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a>; <a href='B:360 2:32'>Joe 2:32</a>).</p><p>If I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough for- Haggai 1 notes that there was a famine in the land at the restoration. In response to this, the priests and the people were giving God small portions and deficient animals. The covenant blessings of fertility were not experienced. If they returned to covenant with God, as symbolized by giving their tithes to Him and not to the idols, then they would receive the covenant blessings. This is significantly different to interpreting these passages as meaning that if you give tithes to God, then you will get material blessing.</p><p>We shouldn’t underestimate the seriousness of the famine conditions in Judah as described in Nehemiah 5. The sheer lack of food led the Jews to sell their children and land to their richer brethren just to get something to eat. <a href='B:460 3:5-15'>Mal 3:5-15</a> says that this was directly a result of their lack of zeal to rebuild and care for God’s house. What a far cry from the prophecies of plenty and huge harvests which had been made. So much potential was wasted. <a href='B:160 5:8'>Neh 5:8</a> records Nehemiah’s comment that the wealthy Jews were victimizing the poorer Jews just as Babylon once had, and now Nehemiah needed to redeem them from slavery just as God had redeemed His people from servitude in Babylon. God’s deliverance of His people simply hadn’t been responded to. Tragically, it would appear from <a href='B:160 5:15'>Neh 5:15</a> that Zerubbabel, the potential Messiah of Israel, had acted in this oppressive way too. There could even be the implication in the Hebrew of <a href='B:160 1:3'>Neh 1:3</a> that the majority of those who initially returned to Judah then returned back to Babylon- for Nehemiah speaks of"The remnant that are left of the captives there in the province"[of Judah]".</p><p>But we need to enquire whether the "blessing" promised for proper tithing was in fact material blessing. The "blessing" of fundamental importance was the blessing promised to Abraham, of relationship with God and the coming of the saviour seed. The idea of pouring out blessing upon the restored Jews of this time is repeated in <a href='B:450 8:13'>Zec 8:13</a> and <a href='B:290 44:3'>Isa 44:3</a>: "I will pour My Spirit on your seed, and My blessing on your offspring". The poured out blessing was undoubtedly spiritual rather than material- the gift of the Spirit to the seed of Abraham. And this is how the New Testament understands the poured out "blessing"- of the Spirit, of forgiveness (<a href='B:510 3:25-26'>Act 3:25-26</a>).</p>


text:
<p>I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground- The immediate context is of material, agricultural blessings of the covenant. The second half of the verse speaks of the vines yielding fruit at the right time. Here, "rebuke" is literally "corrupt", and is used in <a href='B:460 2:3'>Mal 2:3</a> of how God corrupted the seed they sowed. "The devourer", tiny rodents and lice that devoured, corrupted and ruined their seed before it sprung up, would be in turn corrupted by God, so that the crop brought forth fruit.</p><p>This sounds as if there was an Angel called "the devourer" at the time of the restoration, as there was one called "the destroyer" at the Exodus. He was given command to destroy Judah’s harvests due to their lack of commitment to God’s house; yet He could be rebuked or restrained by God, implying the Angel focused on fulfilling what He was told to do without taking into account any other factors- until God overrode or restrained Him.</p><p>But Malachi 3 is specifically about the final cleansing of Judah when the messenger of the covenant comes, and this has reference to the last days. Then, there will be a "devourer" in the form of a beast like invader devouring the land, which will be "rebuked".</p><p>Neither shall your vine cast its fruit before its time in the field, says Yahweh of Armies- In the context of the restoration from Babylon, <a href='B:450 8:12'>Zec 8:12</a> prophesied: “For the seed shall be prosperous; the vine shall give her fruit, and the ground shall give her increase, and the heavens shall give their dew; and I will cause the remnant of this people to possess all thesethings”. But we know that in reality, Judah were not obedient to the heavenly vision of Ezekiel, and therefore Judah’s agriculture was not blessed in this way; the vines cast their fruit, and the fruit of the ground was destroyed (<a href='B:440 1:6'>Hag 1:6</a>; <a href='B:440 1:11'>Hag 1:11</a>; <a href='B:460 3:10-11'>Mal 3:10-11</a>). The reason was that <a href='B:450 8:12'>Zec 8:12</a> was conditional- upon <a href='B:450 8:16-17'>Zec 8:16-17</a>: “These are the things that ye shall do [i:e. to bring these prophecies about]; Speak ye every man the truth to his neighbour; execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates: And let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour; and love no false oath: for all these are things that I hate, saith the LORD”. But Judah abused each other, and didn’t fulfil the conditions for the prophecy.</p><p>They were gathered back [although they resisted this in that many preferred to stay in the soft life of Babylon], but they hardly dwelt safely or confidently in their land. They planted vineyards, but received a poor harvest due to their lack of attention to God’s house; their enemies destroyed their fruits, and their vine “cast her fruit before the time” (<a href='B:440 1:6'>Hag 1:6</a>; <a href='B:460 3:10-11'>Mal 3:10-11</a>). Haggai and Malachi criticized Israel for this, saying it could be rectified by their obedience to the tithing principle (:10). Yet in Nehemiah’s time, Judah refused to pay tithes properly; but even then, if they had thoroughly repented, the Kingdom conditions were still possible. Such was God’s desire to continue working with His hopeless people.</p><p>The withholding of agricultural blessing occurred several times- in <a href='B:160 5:2-3'>Neh 5:2-3</a> (as prophesied in <a href='B:290 5:9'>Isa 5:9</a>), in Haggai’s time, and now later in Malachi ’s time; when the restored Zion could have been as the garden of Eden, i:e. paradise restored on earth (<a href='B:290 51:3'>Isa 51:3</a>). Here we see frightening similarities with ourselves. We know, but often don’t do. We sense this cycle of failure, crying out for mercy, receiving it, failing again, crying for mercy, receiving it, failing again... we see it in Israel, in our brethren and those around us, and in ourselves. We can expound it, lament it, feel the shame and tragedy of it all... and yet continue to have a part in it. Eventually, the people stayed in this groove so long that they degenerated into how they were at the time of Malachi- self-righteous, with no sense of failure any more, living self-centred lives of petty materialism, earning wages as they did in Haggai’s time, to put into pockets with holes in, life without satisfaction, achieving nothing, passively angry. This is what Malachi clearly portrays. It’s a terrible picture, and one which we can sail dangerously close to identifying with.</p>


text:
<p>All nations shall call you blessed, for you will be a delightful land, says Yahweh of Armies- The willingness of Yahweh to work with His people and bring about His Kingdom with them is really amazing. They had failed to live the Kingdom life for well over 100 years since Ezra first returned from Babylon. All sorts of potential Kingdom opportunities had slipped through their fingers. Finally Malachi appealed for their repentance, for them to pay the tithes, and then their land would be “delightful” and all nations would call them blessed; Messiah would come and purge a corrupt priesthood, so that “then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old” (<a href='B:460 3:1-4'>Mal 3:1-4</a>). But only a remnant “hearkened and heard” (<a href='B:460 3:16'>Mal 3:16</a>), their future salvation was guaranteed, but “the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven” to judge the heedless majority. He had offered them the Gospel of His Kingdom, had maneuvered and manipulated the greatest nations of the day to enable them to take up the offer, affecting the lives of millions of people throughout the Middle East... but they were more worried about their little farm and storing up their crops for themselves, too mean spirited to look out of themselves, too self-satisfied with their own religion, too sure of their own righteousness. Instead of subduing the nations around them with the victory of Israel’s God, they brought their own brethren into subjection unto them, that they might gain out of them (<a href='B:450 9:15'>Zec 9:15</a> s:w. <a href='B:160 5:5'>Neh 5:5</a>). It could’ve been the Kingdom, Israel could have become the joy of the whole earth and her people a joy. But instead, they were obsessed with their petty, miserable little kingdoms, and the next few centuries had nothing of the joy which Isaiah had repeatedly prophesied as being possible for them. And so with Malachi, the sun went down over the prophets, and the Father’s appeal to His wayward sons came to an end, until the coming of His Son.</p>


text:
<p>Your words have been stout against Me, says Yahweh. Yet you say, ‘What have we spoken against You?’- ’Stout words’ is the same phrase translated "... words prevailed against..." (<a href='B:130 21:4'>1Ch 21:4</a>). God is sensitive to words and the thoughts behind them. He reads thoughts as words and sees the implications of our positions as if they are words. For Judah protested they had never actually framed such words against God, when their thoughts and attitudes had in fact done so. We have highlighted the paramount importance of spiritual mindedness, emphasized heavily in the teaching of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>You have said, ‘It is vain to serve God;’ and ‘What profit is it that we have followed His instructions, and that we have walked mournfully before Yahweh of Armies?- Nehemiah, seeking for Israel’s obedience to Ezekiel’s vision (<a href='B:330 40:46'>Eze 40:46</a>; <a href='B:330 44:8'>Eze 44:8</a>; <a href='B:330 44:14-16'>Eze 44:14-16</a>), tried to get them to “keep the charges” (s:w. <a href='B:160 7:3'>Neh 7:3</a>; <a href='B:160 12:9'>Neh 12:9</a>; <a href='B:160 12:45'>Neh 12:45</a>; <a href='B:160 13:20'>Neh 13:20</a>). But soon, Judah complained that there was no benefit to them from having kept the charges (<a href='B:460 3:14'>Mal 3:14</a> s:w. "instructions"). Partial obedience discouraged them from any further effort, because the fullness of blessing can only come from a way of life conformed to God’s Kingdom vision and life. This is why people get disillusioned with religion and lose even the true faith- because they seek for immediate benefit as a result of keeping a few highly specific aspects of God’s law, rather than willingly devoting their way of life to the realization of His vision.</p><p>They had "walked mournfully", covering His altar with tears (<a href='B:460 2:13'>Mal 2:13</a>), whilst placing upon it miserly portions of inferior meat, as Malachi has just pointed out. They considered that this external appearance of religious devotion ought to be enough to get His full blessing; and this is a lesson so many religious people have to learn. And they rightly concluded that their religious devotions were "vain"; they had effectively taken His Name in vain (<a href='B:20 20:7'>Exo 20:7</a>). Before the captivity their religious devotions had been "vain" (s:w. <a href='B:290 1:13'>Isa 1:13</a>); and the restored exiles were doing just the same. And so the day would come when it would become openly apparent who served God and who didn’t, in that their service of Him was in fact nothing of the sort (:18).</p>


text:
<p>Now we call the proud happy; yes, those who work wickedness are built up- Likewise today there is a tendency to think that the proud and sinful are somehow truly prosperous and "built up", established well. But pride and happiness don’t go together; the pride is really a reflection of their internal unhappiness. And those who work wickedness rarely keep the results of it; they are not "built up" in the medium or longer term of their lives. But the people then as now looked at the apparent success of a man at one moment, and assumed that ’this is the way to go, the life to live, the man to be’.</p><p>Yes, they put God to the test and escape’- Only five verses earlier (:10), this same word for "test" was used when the people were invited to test God by tithing properly and receiving blessing. Now we read that they complained that those who "put God to the test... escape". We could conclude that God didn’t actually intend for Him to be put to the test, and rather is He here using irony. This would take away the mainstay from beneath all Pentecostal appeals for tithes to be paid in order for the givers to receive more personal wealth. Or it could be that some did test God as invited to, and "escaped" or ’were saved’ (s:w. <a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a>; <a href='B:360 2:32'>Joe 2:32</a>). Overall, putting God to the test is condemned in Scripture. We are to believe in Him rather than cynically testing Him out. Israel were condemned for putting God to the test in the desert.</p>


text:
<p>Then those who feared Yahweh spoke frequently one with another; and Yahweh listened, and heard- There was response to Malachi’s preaching and appeal, even if only amongst a minority. We shouldn’t get the impression that the prophets were totally ignored; in many of their writings there is the hint that a very few did respond. And it has always been that way, as God’s word never returns fruitless. The repentant minority spoke to each other about the truth of Malachi’s challenges and confessed their sins to each other. And God was so thrilled with their words that He as it were wrote them down for eternity. This is the significance of our words; we shall be judged by the words we speak now (<a href='B:470 12:37'>Mat 12:37</a>). They will as it were be played back to us at judgment day. We could wish for no stronger encouragement to watch our words, and to enquire as to the real content of our discussions with one another in this life.</p><p>And a book of memory was written before Him, for those who feared Yahweh, and who honoured His name- This "book" (singular) therefore contains a record of our individual works, or good words in the Malachi context. We aren’t saved by works, but our works will be reflected in the nature of the eternity which we experience. There are other indications that the book contains a record of our individual works and ways: "The dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works" (<a href='B:730 20:12'>Rev 20:12</a>). "I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the Gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life" (Php_4:3). Notice how being in the book of life is associated with certain works committed by those in it. This "book of life" was written from the foundation of the world (<a href='B:730 13:8'>Rev 13:8</a>; <a href='B:730 17:8'>Rev 17:8</a>), although it contains the records of our individual works. "The works were finished from the foundation of the world" (<a href='B:650 4:3'>Heb 4:3</a>)- the works and actions that comprise each saint were finished from the beginning, written by the Angels in God’s book. The statement in <a href='B:10 1:31'>Gen 1:31</a> that at the end of the natural creation "God saw everything that He had made..." may imply that He saw then everything He would ever make- "the works were finished from the foundation (creation?) of the world". Notice again how the unfathomable system of predestination and foreknowledge is in the hands of the Angels. The Angel wrote the book initially- Moses pleaded with the Angel on Sinai in <a href='B:20 32:32'>Exo 32:32</a> "Blot me, I pray thee, out of Thy book (of life), which Thou hast written" (from the foundation of the world).</p><p>Nehemiah several times asks God to "remember unto me" the good deeds he had done for Judah (<a href='B:160 5:19'>Neh 5:19</a> RV), and to likewise "remember" the bad works of the wicked (<a href='B:160 6:14'>Neh 6:14</a> RV). He clearly perceived judgment day as featuring the good deeds of the righteous being as it were listed, and the sins of the wicked being likewise recounted. Perhaps his prayer was heard in that in a restoration context, <a href='B:460 3:16'>Mal 3:16</a> comments that a book of remembrance was written by God to record the good deeds of the faithful at that time.</p>


text:
<p>They shall be Mine, says Yahweh of Armies, My very own possession in the day when I make up My jewels- The term for "jewels" is that used of how God’s obedient covenant people would be His "peculiar treasure"(s:w. <a href='B:20 19:5'>Exo 19:5</a>; <a href='B:50 7:6'>Deu 7:6</a>; <a href='B:50 14:2'>Deu 14:2</a>; <a href='B:50 26:18'>Deu 26:18</a>). They were to be His very own personal wealth, just as personal as the peasant woman had her dowry of coins around her forehead, the only thing in the world that was truly hers. And to lose one of them was to lose part of herself, knowing that not even her body was her own, only those few coins. This is how thrilled God will be with those who responded to Malachi’s words, and we can respond likewise. But the emphasis is upon total obedience to the covenant as the basis upon which they were His "peculiar treasure". And the next sentence indicates that this was lacking; for they needed to be "spared" by grace. But their words of repentance to each other, their spiritual conversations, their desire for relationship with Him, were enough for God to note that eternally and spare them. And so they shall eternally be some of the jewels in His eternal collection.</p><p>And I will spare them, as a man spares his own son who serves him- That is, undeservedly, only because of his parental feelings and mercy toward the child. Even the faithful will only be accepted because they are ’spared’. Those who enter the Kingdom will genuinely, from the very depth of their being, feel that they shouldn’t be there. They will cast their crowns before the enthroned Lord, as if to resign their reward as inappropriate for them (Rev 410). Indeed, they shouldn’t be in the Kingdom. The righteous are "scarcely saved" (<a href='B:670 4:18'>1Pe 4:18</a>). The righteous remnant who spoke often to one another about Yahweh will only be "spared" by God’s grace (<a href='B:460 3:17'>Mal 3:17</a>). The accepted will feel so certain of this that they will almost argue with the Lord Jesus at the day of judgment that he hasn’t made the right decision concerning them (<a href='B:470 25:37-40'>Mat 25:37-40</a>). It’s only a highly convicted man who would dare do that.</p>


text:
<p>Then you shall return and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him who serves God and him who doesn’t serve Him- This is spoken to the "you" of Malachi 3 (e.g. :14) who refused to repent. God had asked them to repent, but their response was: "Wherein shall we return?" (3:7). In the last day, they would realize that they had not really served God, whereas their humble brethren of :16,17 had done so. In their final rejection, they would repent, all too late, and appreciate the basis of the Lord’s condemnation: they will discern the crucial chasm between the righteous and the wicked, just as "then shall the Kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins..." (<a href='B:470 25:1'>Mat 25:1</a>). Then, the wicked will understand the judgments of God. But it is our wisdom to learn and appreciate them now. Then they will go through the sensation of conversion [’returning’], realising with crystal clarity the separation between the ways of the flesh and spirit which they ought to have grasped in their day of opportunity. Then they will “discern”, just as Christ will “appear” [s:w. ‘discern’] at the judgment; they will then see things through His eyes, from the perspective which He will have at the judgment (<a href='B:460 3:2'>Mal 3:2</a>). Malachi begins by saying that at the day of judgment, Edom’s eyes “shall see [s:w. ‘discern’], and ye shall say, the Lord will be magnified” (<a href='B:460 1:5'>Mal 1:5</a> AV)- although they refused to make this recognition now.</p><p>We will come to know and share the mind of our Lord as we watch Him judge, as He discerns between the sheep and the goats. Knowing God’s present judgment should have a powerful practical effect upon us. If we know the judgment of God against certain types of behaviour, we will keep away from them totally. It is only the rejected who refuse to know "the judgment of their God" (<a href='B:300 5:4'>Jer 5:4</a>).</p><p>When they are appointed their portion with the hypocrites and there is wailing and gnashing of teeth, then &nbsp;shall the Kingdom be likened unto the five wise and five foolish virgins. Then the rejected will understand the principles of that parable, crystal clearly. Members of the ecclesia of Israel will say "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord"- but be rejected (how else to understand <a href='B:470 23:39'>Mat 23:39</a>?). Likewise the Egyptians, fleeing in the mud from Yahweh as they vainly hoped against hope that the returning waters wouldn’t somehow reach them... they came to know Yahweh (<a href='B:20 14:18'>Exo 14:18</a>).</p>


text:
<p>For, behold, the day comes, it burns as a furnace; and all the proud, and all who work wickedness- This is the day of final judgment just spoken of in <a href='B:460 3:16-18'>Mal 3:16-18</a>. Note that pride is the epitome of wickedness. Likewise to the Lord, humility was the very epitome of righteousness (<a href='B:470 5:5'>Mat 5:5</a> cp. <a href='B:230 37:29'>Psa 37:29</a>).</p><p>Will be stubble; and the day that comes will burn them up, says Yahweh of Armies- The burning of straw (s:w. stubble) is the language of condemnation at the harvest of the last day inIsa 10:17; <a href='B:290 25:10'>Isa 25:10</a>; <a href='B:530 3:12'>1Co 3:12</a>.</p><p>That it shall leave them neither root nor branch- Root and branch were both words used of the Messianic shoot and branch who could have arisen at the restoration; see on <a href='B:450 3:8'>Zec 3:8</a>; <a href='B:450 6:12'>Zec 6:12</a>, the root and branch of David (<a href='B:730 5:5'>Rev 5:5</a>). These possibilities were finally fulfilled in the Lord Jesus, but His salvation will not be available for the proud and wicked who shall be burnt up in the last day.</p>


text:
<p>But to you who fear My name- The imperfect but repentant minority of Malachi’s time of <a href='B:460 3:16-17'>Mal 3:16-17</a>. It seems Malachi is addressing them directly as his audience at this point.</p><p>Shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in his rays- We noted on :1 that the salvation of the Lord Jesus will not be available for the wicked at the last day; but "to you", the faithful minority responding to Malachi, the coming of Messiah would be a time of healing and salvation [the two ideas are combined in the same Hebrew word]. We note that He returns to those in Israel who already fear the Name. Israelite repentance is a condition for the Lord’s return. He is the sun of righteousness in that He is the basis for the righteousness imputed to them; for we noted on <a href='B:460 3:17'>Mal 3:17</a> that even the repentant remnant are "spared" by grace, they are treated as totally obedient to the covenant (see on <a href='B:460 3:17'>Mal 3:17</a>) when in fact they were not.</p><p>But the healing in His rays or wings of His garment (Heb:) is of course true now. Understanding that leads to faith in His healing. The faith of the sick woman who grabbed the hem or wings of His garment is commended by the Lord (<a href='B:480 5:34'>Mar 5:34</a>; <a href='B:470 9:20'>Mat 9:20</a>)- when it was due to her understanding of the significance of the hem of the Lord’s robe that she had touched Him. She had perceived the connection with the High Priest’s hem; perhaps too she had added Job’s comment about our touching but the hem of God’s garment into the equation. And certainly she perceived that the sun of righteousness of Malachi 4 had healing in his hems / wings of his garment.</p><p>You will go out, and leap like calves of the stall- As we struggle in our daily battle with the flesh, it is necessary to keep our eye on that split-second moment of total acceptance by our Lord. We will burst out, mentally and physically, like stalled calves given freedom for the first time. <a href='B:230 68:1-3'>Psa 68:1-3</a> speak of how the rejected will be chased away, but the righteous will "be glad" and "exult before God: yea, let them exceedingly rejoice", after the pattern of Israel’s ecstasy after their deliverance at the Red Sea.</p><p>"Then shall thy light break forth as the morning [i:e. you’ll have a part in the Lord’s glory, <a href='B:460 4:2'>Mal 4:2</a>], and thine health shall spring forth [cp. <a href='B:460 4:2'>Mal 4:2</a> springing forth as stalled calves]... and thy righteousness shall go before thee [our good deeds recited by the Judge]... then [at the judgment seat of Christ] thou shalt call, and the Lord shall answer; thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I am" (<a href='B:290 58:6-9'>Isa 58:6-9</a>). If we show mercy to the desperate now, we won’t necessarily have our prayers automatically heard in this life. But in the poverty and desperate need of the judgment, our cries will be heard on account of our generous, forgiving response in this life.</p>


text:
<p>You shall tread down the wicked- This is the language of God’s treading upon the wicked Egyptians (<a href='B:420 3:13'>Hab 3:13</a>). But "the wicked" in the context are the wicked amongst God’s people (:1; <a href='B:460 3:18'>Mal 3:18</a>). The faithful will then discern them for who they are (<a href='B:460 3:18'>Mal 3:18</a>),&nbsp; whereas in this life, and particularly at Malachi’s time, it must have been difficult to perceive who were genuine and who were not. Just as we cannot discern now between wheat and weeds. The destruction of the wicked abusers of God’s people seems to be part of the same process as the destruction of the wicked amongst God’s people. They will be "condemned with the world". This is one of the passages which imply that the rejected will be physically annihilated by the Lord. Given the terrible descriptions of the mental anguish of the condemned, this would essentially be a merciful act. It may be that many will die in the judgments which come upon the world. But it could be that others are simply put out of their agony by the Lord. Some now in the ecclesia will be dashed to pieces by Him (<a href='B:730 2:27'>Rev 2:27</a>), and Malachi implies that the faithful will play a part in the destruction of their wicked brethren.</p><p>For they will be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I make, says Yahweh of Armies- The idea of burning feet turning the wicked to ashes is precisely that of the cherubim (s:w. <a href='B:330 1:7'>Eze 1:7</a>). As often intimated in Zechariah, the faithful are to become identified with the cherubim.</p>


text:
<p>Remember the law of Moses My servant, which I commanded to him in Horeb for all Israel, even statutes and ordinances- This was so that the curse for disobedience to the law would not come upon them (:7). The faithful minority of <a href='B:460 3:16-17'>Mal 3:16-17</a> are bidden remember the actual law, because the priests were teaching it wrongly (see on <a href='B:460 2:8'>Mal 2:8</a>). It was "for all Israel", not just for an enthusiastic minority. And all of that law was still binding upon Malachi’s generation, every statute and ordinance; whereas the priests were teaching that only some parts needed to be attended to.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of Yahweh comes- As explained on <a href='B:460 3:1'>Mal 3:1</a>, the restored community could still have seen a Messiah figure arise if they had responded to the messenger of the covenant preparing His way. ’Malachi’ was that messenger, as was the priesthood. But they failed to respond, and so the prophecies were rescheduled and reapplied to another priest, John the Baptist, who prepared the way for the true and full Messiah. So if Israel would receive it, John the Baptist was the Elijah prophet. The course of fulfilment of prophecy was conditional upon whether John succeeded in turning the hearts of Israel back to the fathers or not; on preparing them for the great and terrible day of the Lord. Brethren as varied as John Knowles and Harry Whittaker have all recognized in their expositions that the Kingdom could have come in the first century had Israel received John as Elijah. But they would not. And so another Elijah prophet is to come in the last days and prepare Israel for her Messiah. “If ye are willing to receive him, this is Elijah which is to come” (<a href='B:470 11:14'>Mat 11:14</a> RVmg:) says it all. More details about him are noted on Revelation 11. He need not be the literal resurrected Elijah, although that is possible; recall how the Lord Jesus is called "David", when He is not David but in the spirit and line of David (<a href='B:350 3:5'>Hos 3:5</a>; <a href='B:330 34:23'>Eze 34:23</a> etc:). The Elijah prophet who was to herald the Messianic Kingdom could have been John the Baptist- if Israel had received him. But they didn’t, and so the prophecy went down another avenue of fulfilment. It could be that :6 implies that there is still the possibility that even the latter day Elijah mission could fail. But ultimately it will succeed, for the great and dreadful day of Yahweh is that of the Lord’s final return (<a href='B:360 2:31'>Joe 2:31</a>).</p>


text:
<p>He will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers- Through the preaching of John, he turned men’s hearts- the idea of repentance, being brought about by the preacher (<a href='B:460 4:6'>Mal 4:6</a>). Such is the power of our preaching, the possibility which our words of witness give to our hearers. We have such power invested in us! If we are slack to use it, the Lord’s glory is limited, and the salvation of others disabled.</p><p>Israel were out of step with their fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Jacob, Levi, Moses and "Elijah" have just been mentioned (<a href='B:460 1:2'>Mal 1:2</a>; <a href='B:460 2:4'>Mal 2:4</a>; <a href='B:460 2:6'>Mal 2:6</a>; <a href='B:460 3:3-4'>Mal 3:3-4</a>). The appeal of the latter day Elijah is to return to the promises made to the fathers, which are the essence of the new covenant. The turning of the fathers’ hearts to the children need not imply that the fathers are still alive; the idiom of the passage means that the hearts of the children and the fathers will be at one with each other. <a href='B:490 1:16-17'>Luk 1:16-17</a> interprets "the heart of the children to the fathers" as meaning "the disobedient to the wisdom of the just".</p><p>Lest I come and strike the earth with a curse- The ultimate salvation of the earth / land of Israel and its people is still conditional, upon their response to the Elijah prophet. There is no automatic salvation just because a day on the calendar has arrived. Salvation is intensely personal and human response is absolutely essential; and that is the appropriate finale of the prophecy. And yet if the last word of the Old Testament is "curse", the first recorded word of the Lord Jesus in His public preaching of the Gospel is "Blessed" <a href='B:470 5:3'>Mat 5:3</a>.</p>97


text:
<p><em>The book of the generation-</em></p><p> &quot;Book&quot;, Gk. biblos, suggests a formal volume. It could be that Matthew refers only to the genealogy- but in this case, biblos hardly seems the appropriate word. The Gospels were transcripts of the Gospel message preached by e.g. Matthew, and as time went on and the Lord didn't return, under inspiration they wrote down their standard accounts of the good news. The Greek genesis translated &quot;generation&quot; is also translated &quot;nature&quot; in its' other two occurrences (<a href='B:660 1:23'>James 1:23</a>; <a href='B:660 3:6'>3:6</a>). If the &quot;book&quot; refers to the book of the Gospel of Matthew, the idea could be that this is a Gospel which focuses upon the nature of Jesus. Related words occur often in the genealogies- people &quot;begat&quot; [Gk. gennao] their descendants, until Jesus was gennao of Mary (<a href='B:470 1:16'>Mt. 1:16</a>). Jesus as a person had a 'genesis', He was 'generated' by Mary as His ancestors had been 'generated' by the 'generations' of their ancestors- the whole chapter is a huge blow to the idea that Jesus pre-existed as a person before His birth. His 'generation' is presented as being of the same nature as the 'generation' of His human ancestors.</p><p>The son of David, the son of Abraham- The Roman emperors and Greek heroes sometimes traced their pedigree back to a god- and therefore the genealogy of Jesus, whom the Gospels present as the ultimate Emperor, is quite radical in this regard. For it traces the pedigree of Jesus back to a man, Abraham. The greatness of Jesus was in his humanity.</p>


text:
<p>1:2&nbsp;<em>Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, Jacob begot Judah and his brothers</em>-</p><p> The fact Isaac and Jacob had brothers is carefully omitted- because the descendants of Ishmael and Esau were not counted as the people of God.</p>


text:
<p>1:3&nbsp;<em>Judah begot Perez and Zerah of Tamar and Perez begot Hezron, Hezron begot Ram</em>-</p><p> Since the Lord was descended through the line of Phares, why mention the birth of Zara- seeing that so many details are omitted in this genealogy, even whole generations, why take space to record this? Perhaps it was because Zara was the first born, but Phares got the birthright. And the genealogies teach us how God delights to work through the underling, the rejected, the humanly weak.</p><p>Tamar was a prostitute and adulteress, just like Rahab. See on 1:5.</p>


text:
<p>1:4&nbsp;<em>Ram begot Amminadab, Amminadab begot Nahshon, Nahshon begot Salmon-&nbsp;</em>Salmon was of the tribe of Judah, because this is the genealogy through Judah (<em><a href='B:470 1:2'>Mat 1:2</a></em>). The two spies who had been faithful the first time when spies were sent out were Joshua and Caleb- of the tribes of Ephraim and Judah (<em><a href='B:40 13:6'>Num 13:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 2:9'>Jdg 2:9</a></em>). It seems a fair guess that when the two spies were sent out, they were from these same two tribes. Salmon was a prince of the tribe of Judah- it’s a fair guess that he was one of the two spies who went to Rahab, and he subsequently married her.</p>


text:
<p>1:5<em>&nbsp;Salmon begot Boaz of Rahab and Boaz begot Obed of Ruth and Obed begot Jesse-&nbsp;</em>Rahab was a Gentile and a sinner. Jesus was morally perfect, and yet the genealogy shows how He had much against Him spiritually. We can’t blame our lack of spirituality upon our bad background. Note that there was so much intermarriage with Gentiles like Rahab and Ruth throughout Israel’s history; their standing with God was therefore never on the basis of ethnic purity, but rather by cultural identity and God’s grace:&nbsp;Matthew’s genealogy features [unusually, for Jewish genealogies] several women, who had become the ancestors of Messiah through unusual relationships. It’s almost as if the genealogy is there in the form that it is to pave the way for the account of Mary’s conception of Jesus without a man.</p>


text:
<p>1:6&nbsp;<em>Jesse begot David the king</em>-</p><p> Literally “<em>the&nbsp;</em>David&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;king”. The others aren’t mentioned as being kings. The implication may be that Jesus was the promised descendant of David and the promises of eternal Kingship made to David’s descendant are therefore applicable to Jesus.</p><p><em>And David begot Solomon of her that had been the wife of Uriah-&nbsp;</em>Literally “she of Uriah”. “She that had been the wife of” is added by some translators in explanation, but isn’t in the original. Whilst God ‘forgets’ sin in the sense that He no longer holds it against us, the memory of those sins isn’t obliterated, and His word is full of such allusions to sin which although He has forgiven it and symbolically “blotted it out”, it still remains within Divine history. We too can forgive but ‘forgetting’ isn’t always possible, and is no sign that we have failed to forgive.</p>


text:
<p>1:7&nbsp;<em>And Solomon begot Rehoboam, Rehoboam begot Abijah, Abijah begot Asa&nbsp;</em>-</p><p> Wicked Roboam begat wicked Abia; wicked Abia begat good Asa; good Asa begat good Josaphat; good Josaphat begat wicked Joram. Perhaps the emphasis is that spirituality isn’t genetic, and neither is sinfulness. Jesus was perfect despite being from such “bad blood”; and we likewise can’t blame our failures on bad background. Neither can we assume that the children of the faithful will be righteous.</p>


text:
<p>1:8&nbsp;<em>Asa begot Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat begot Joram, Joram begot Uzziah</em>-</p><p> Three generations are skipped here. See on <em><a href='B:470 1:17'>Mat 1:17</a></em>. Perhaps the omission was because Joram married Athaliah, daughter of Jezebel the wife of Ahab, and those generations were idolaters. As we note on <em><a href='B:470 1:12'>Mat 1:12</a></em>, children who don’t worship the true God are forgotten in the ultimate course of Divine history. In this case, his iniquity was indeed visited upon the third generation (<em><a href='B:20 20:3-6'>Exo 20:3-6</a></em>). We also see here a fulfilment of the prophecy that Ahab’s house would be eradicated (<em><a href='B:120 9:8'>2Ki 9:8</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>1:9&nbsp;<em>Uzziah begot Jotham, Jotham begot Ahaz, Ahaz begot Hezekiah</em>-</p><p> The record here and in :10 seems to stress that the good beget the bad who beget the good; as if to establish the point that natural pedigree is no guarantee of spirituality. This was something the Jews needed to appreciate.</p>


text:
<p>1:10&nbsp;<em>Hezekiah begot Manasseh, Manasseh begot Amon, Amon begot Josiah</em>-</p><p> See on :9.</p>


text:
<p>1:11&nbsp;<em>Josiah begot Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the captivity in Babylon</em>-</p><p> The apparent contradiction with <em><a href='B:130 3:5-6'>1Ch 3:5-6</a></em> is solved if we understand this to be a reference to Joachin:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>1:12&nbsp;<em>And after the captivity in Babylon, Jechoniah begot Shealtiel, Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel</em>-</p><p> Therefore the reference to Jechoniah being written “childless” (<em><a href='B:300 22:30'>Jer 22:30</a></em>) perhaps means that as Jeremiah goes on to comment “No man of his seed shall prosper”. If our children aren’t spiritually prosperous, it is as if we were childless. Thus we see that the whole purpose of having children is to “raise a Godly seed”.</p>


text:
<p>1:13&nbsp;<em>Zerubbabel begot Abiud-&nbsp;</em>Other children of Zerubbabel are recorded in <em><a href='B:130 3:19'>1Ch 3:19</a></em>. But it was through one who was not otherwise of note or fame that the Lord was descended. Or perhaps Abiud was another name for one of the sons listed there. The apparent contradiction with <em><a href='B:490 3:27'>Luk 3:27</a></em> is solved if we read that as "which was the son of Rhesa Zerubbabel". See on :16.</p><p><em>Abiud begot Eliakim, Eliakim begot Azor</em>-</p><p> This part of the genealogy is not found in the Old Testament. We wonder whether God as it were beamed this information into Matthew, or whether he did his own research through public registers and was Divinely guided and inspired in his findings and how he recorded it.</p>


text:
<p>1:14&nbsp;<em>Azor begot Sadoc, Sadoc begot Achim, Achim begot Eliud</em>-</p><p> Matthew is presenting the line through Judah. But there was a Levite at this time also called “Zadok” (<em><a href='B:160 10:21'>Neh 10:21</a></em>). It could be that this person was descended from both Judah and Levi through an inter-tribal marriage of his parents. In this case he would’ve been a potential king-priest, preparing the way for us to understand Jesus as a king-priest.</p>


text:
<p>1:15&nbsp;<em>Eliud begot Eleazar, Eleazar begot Matthan, Matthan begot Jacob</em>-</p><p> The genealogies prove that Joseph was a descendant of David, indeed the rightful king of Israel had there been a monarchy at the time of Jesus. Jesus was his adopted son; he was "as was supposed", or 'as was reckoned by law', the son of Joseph (<em><a href='B:490 3:23'>Luk 3:23</a></em>). The record in Luke appears to be that of Mary; Joseph being "the son of Heli" was probably by reason of marrying Mary, the daughter of Heli (<em><a href='B:490 3:23'>Luk 3:23</a></em>); the Talmud speaks with gross vitriolic about Mary the daughter of Heli going to hell for her blasphemy, referring to Mary the mother of Jesus. This shows that the Jews accept that Mary was the daughter of Heli. Heli's father was Matthat, who can be equated with Matthan the grandfather of Joseph. Thus Mary and Joseph were cousins (hinting at an arranged marriage?), and therefore Jesus was a son of David through both his mother and father by adoption. In the light of this it is evident that the question mark over the validity of a genealogy through Joseph is an irrelevancy, seeing that Joseph and Mary had a common grandfather. The point has to be made that a humanly fabricated genealogy would be sure to make some glaring errors, especially if it was produced by simple, uneducated men as the Jews claim the New Testament was. The wonder of the New Testament genealogies is that closer study reveals ever more intricate internal evidence for their truth and reliability, rather than exposing more problems.</p>


text:
<p>1:16&nbsp;<em>Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:490 3:27'>Luk 3:27</a></em> describes Zerubbabel as the head / chief / leader. The term Rhesa is incorrectly rendered in many versions as a name. Perhaps Luke’s point was that the Lord Jesus was the final Messiah, after the failure of so many potential ones beforehand. ‘Zerubbabel the chief’ would then be a similar rubric to “David the king” in Matthew’s genealogy (:6):&nbsp;</p><p>Joseph was actually the rightful king of Israel, according to this genealogy. Yet he was living in poverty and without recognition for who he was- exactly the kind of person God would use for the great task of raising His only begotten Son.</p>


text:
<p>1:17&nbsp;<em>So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations and from David to the captivity in Babylon fourteen generations and from the captivity in Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations-&nbsp;</em>This must have some connection with the 42 stopping places before Israel reached Canaan, as described in <em><a href='B:40 33:2'>Num 33:2</a></em>. Thus the birth of Christ would be like God's people entering the promised land of the Kingdom in some way. It could be argued from this (and other evidence) that it was God’s intention for the Kingdom to be entered by Israel at the time of Jesus- it was after all, His intention that Israel accepted their Messiah. But they crucified Him, and therefore the potential didn’t come true. This open ended nature of God’s prophetic program means that it’s impossible to fit together all latter day prophecies into some chronological framework.</p><p>The genealogy presented by Matthew doesn’t include every generation, there are some gaps (see on <em><a href='B:470 1:8'>Mat 1:8</a></em>; and Zorababel was Salathiel’s grandson, <em><a href='B:130 3:19'>1Ch 3:19</a></em>, yet <em><a href='B:470 1:12'>Mat 1:12</a></em> says be “begat” him). Thus some “begat” their grandson or great grandson. Clearly Matthew had a purpose in presenting the material like this- but expositors have failed to come up with anything convincing. It could simply be that the Gospels were designed to be memorized, as most Christians were illiterate; and the 3 x 14 structure was to aid memorization. One interesting observation is that the last 14 generations from the captivity to the time of Christ amount to the 490 years prophesied for this same period by <em><a href='B:340 9:25'>Dan 9:25</a></em> - if we take a generation to be 35 years, which it is in <em><a href='B:220 42:16'>Job 42:16</a></em>. The numerical value of the Hebrew word “David” is 14, so it could also be that Matthew is eloquently demonstrating that Jesus was indeed the promised seed of David. If indeed six is the number of man and seven represents perfection, then 6 x 7 = 42- the generations culminated in the perfect man, Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>1:18&nbsp;<em>Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit</em>-</p><p> The Greek seems to imply she was understood [“found”] to be with a child which had come&nbsp;<em>ek</em>, out of, from, the Holy Spirit. This could be implying that Joseph himself believed or perceived that the child was from the Holy Spirit. This would explain why he sought not to humiliate her publicly about the matter (<em><a href='B:470 1:19'>Mat 1:19</a></em>).</p><p>The descriptions of Mary as keeping things in her heart (<em><a href='B:490 2:19'>Luk 2:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:52'>Luk 2:52</a></em>), and the way it seems she didn’t tell Joseph about the Angel’s visit, but instead immediately went down to Elisabeth for three months… all these are indications that Mary, like many sensitive people, was a very closed woman. Only when Mary was “found” pregnant by Joseph (<em><a href='B:470 1:18'>Mat 1:18</a></em> - s:w. to see, perceive, be obvious) was the situation explained to him by an Angel. It seems His move to divorce her was based on his noticing she was pregnant, and she hadn’t given any explanation to him. She “arose” after perhaps being face down on the ground as the Angel spoke with her, and went immediately off to Elisabeth. And then, after three months she returns evidently pregnant (<em><a href='B:490 1:39'>Luk 1:39</a></em>). Mary is portrayed as somehow separate from the other ministering women. It would have been psychologically impossible, or at best very hard, for the mother of the Lord to hang around with them. The group dynamics would have been impossible. Likewise in <em><a href='B:510 1:14'>Act 1:14</a></em> we have “the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus”, as if she is separate from them. She followed Him to Cana, uninvited, and also to Capernaum. Next she is at the cross risking her life, but she isn't among the women who went to the grave. Why not? It was surely natural that she would go there, and that the other women would go with her to comfort her. But she was a loner; either she went alone, as I think I would have tried to, or she just couldn’t face contact with the others and simply hid away. And could it be that Jesus, in recognition of her unique perception of Him, appeared to her first privately, in a rightfully unrecorded meeting? But by <em><a href='B:510 1:14'>Act 1:14</a></em>, she was in the upper room, as if His death led her to be more reconciled to her brethren, to seek to get along with them... although by nature, in her heart and soul, she was a loner, maybe almost reclusive. A struggler to understand. A meditator, a reflector, who just wanted to be alone, one of those who take their energy from themselves rather than from other people. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>1:19&nbsp;<em>And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not willing to make her a public example, decided to send her away secretly</em>-</p><p> The very same phrase is used by Matthew to describe Christ as the ultimately just or righteous man as He hung upon the cross (<em><a href='B:470 27:19'>Mat 27:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:24'>Mat 27:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:47'>Luk 23:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 3:18'>1Pe 3:18</a></em>); the implication is surely that Joseph’s just or righteousness played a role in the final perfection of Jesus as the ultimately “just man”. For it was he who would’ve first taught Jesus the&nbsp;<em>shema</em>, emphasizing the word “one” as Jewish fathers did, correcting the young Jesus as He stutteringly repeated it. The same term is used about Jesus now in His heavenly glory (<em><a href='B:510 22:14'>Act 22:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:1'>1Jn 2:1</a></em>) and as He will be at the day of judgment (<em><a href='B:620 4:8'>2Ti 4:8</a></em>); the influence of parents upon their children is in some sense eternal. For Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever; we too, as the sum of all the influences upon us, will really be saved and immortalized as persons. And the same was true of Jesus; hence the words and style of Mary’s hymn of praise can be found repeated in the later words of Jesus, and also in the words He spoke from Heaven to the churches in Revelation. Joseph had various alternatives open to him; the trial of jealousy of Numbers 5, divorce, seeking compensation from the father, public shaming of the wife, or to stone her. But his justice was such that he sought to show grace and quietly divorce her (see on 1:20&nbsp;<em>Take unto you</em>). Love protects from shame, not as it were covering up sin which needs to be exposed, but seeking to cover over in the sense that God’s atonement covers over our sins, as 1 Corinthians 13 defines at length:&nbsp;</p><p>It was normal that the father of the crucified disposed of the body. But another Joseph, also described as a “just man” as Joseph was (<em><a href='B:490 23:50'>Luk 23:50</a></em>), was the one who took this responsibility; remember that Joseph was alive and known as the apparent father of Jesus during His ministry (<em><a href='B:500 6:42'>Joh 6:42</a></em>). Likewise one would think it appropriate that the first person to whom the risen Lord revealed Himself would’ve been to His mother, for she after all was the channel of the whole marvellous thing, the only one who for sure believed in a virgin birth. But by an apparently cruel twist of circumstance, it was to another Mary, Magdalene, that the Lord first revealed Himself, and it is she and not His mother Mary who takes the message to others. In this context we recall how in His last mortal moments, Christ motioned to His mother that John and not He was now her son (<em><a href='B:500 19:26'>Joh 19:26</a></em>), addressing her as “woman” rather than “mother”- an unusual and even rude form of address to use to ones’ mother in public. In all this we see a conscious diminishing of the human significance of the Lord’s earthly family, in order to underline that now a new family of Jesus had been brought into existence by the cross. This must have been so hard for Joseph and Mary, as it is for us- to realize that we are but channels, used by God in certain ways at certain times, to the development of His glory according to His program and not our own.</p>


text:
<p>1:20&nbsp;<em>But as he thought on these things, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying: Joseph you son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit</em>-</p><p> The descriptions of Jesus as a "man", a human being, have little meaning if in fact He pre-existed as God for millions of years before. The descriptions of Him as "begotten" (passive of&nbsp;<em>gennan</em>&nbsp;in <em><a href='B:470 1:16'>Mat 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 1:20'>Mat 1:20</a></em>) make no suggestion of pre-existence at all. And the words of the Lord Jesus and His general behaviour would have to be read as all being purposefully deceptive, if in fact He was really a pre-existent god. There is no hint of any belief in a pre-existent Jesus until the writings of Justin Martyr in the second century- and he only develops the idea in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew. The Biblical accounts of the Lord's conception and birth just flatly contradict the idea of pre-existence.</p><p><em>He thought</em>-</p><p> The Greek&nbsp;<em>en-thumeomai</em>&nbsp;could mean to be angry or indignant, for that is how&nbsp;<em>thumeomai&nbsp;</em>is usually translated in the NT. His anger and frustration would still be possible even if he correctly perceived that the child was from God (see on <em><a href='B:470 1:18'>Mat 1:18</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>"Do not be afraid" was a feature of Joseph's life at this time. The three Angelic appearances to him which are recorded show him immediately responding. Such immediacy of response is typical of God’s faithful servants; delay in these cases is so often an excuse for inaction and disbelief:&nbsp;The Greek&nbsp;<em>phobeo</em>&nbsp;is also used of reverence and awe before God. Perhaps he understandably thought that he could in no way marry and sleep with a woman who had been the channel of God’s Spirit to produce His only begotten son. Those thoughts surely did cross his mind, whatever view we take of&nbsp;<em>phobeo</em>&nbsp;here. We see here the sensitivity of God to human fears and feelings; He knows our thoughts and fears perfectly, and gives the needed assurance. The message that “that which is conceived of her&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;of the Holy Spirit” would therefore have had the emphasis upon the word “is”, confirming Joseph in his perception (see on <em><a href='B:470 1:18'>Mat 1:18</a></em> - he had perceived [AV “found] that the child was of the Holy Spirit).</p><p>The implication of "take Mary as your wife" could be that they were about to marry, when it became apparent Mary was pregnant. He immediately married her (:24), seeking to protect her from the shame of the situation, thereby giving the impression that the child was his.</p>


text:
<p>1:21&nbsp;<em>And she shall give birth to a son, and you shall call his name Jesus; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins</em>-</p><p> But the mission of Jesus was to save “the world” (<em><a href='B:500 3:17'>Joh 3:17</a></em>), to save those enter into Him (<em><a href='B:500 10:9'>Joh 10:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:21'>Act 2:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 10:13'>Rom 10:13</a></em>). The “world” is ultimately the people of Christ whose sins have been forgiven. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>1:22&nbsp;<em>Now all this happened so what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying</em>-</p><p> The present tense reflects the ongoing, living nature of God’s word. Otherwise, a past tense would be required. What was spoken is still being spoken to each individual Bible reader / listener.</p>


text:
<p>1:23<em>&nbsp;The virgin shall be with child and shall give birth to a son; and they shall call his name Immanuel, which means God with us</em>-</p><p> God&nbsp;<em>meta&nbsp;</em>us means somewhat more than simply “God with us”. The idea is also “among”. God is now among humanity through we who are the body of Christ:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>1:24&nbsp;<em>And Joseph woke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife</em>-</p><p> Such immediate obedience is highly commendable, especially as marrying an already pregnant woman was bound to make the rest of his life very difficult. We think of Rebekah and others who were immediately obedient; it is the flesh that always wishes to delay our response.</p>


text:
<p>1:25&nbsp;<em>But he did not have sexual intercourse with her until she had given birth to a son; and he called his name Jesus</em>-</p><p> The obedience of Joseph (in this case, to :21) is emphasized. Likewise 2:20,21 “Arise... and he arose”:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>2:1&nbsp;<em>Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea in the days of Herod the king, astrologers from the east came to Jerusalem, saying</em>-</p><p> Probably Jews from Babylon who had seen the similarity between the 'star' and the Messianic star out of Jacob whom Balaam had prophesied (<em><a href='B:40 24:17'>Num 24:17</a></em>). Perhaps they are called here&nbsp;<em>magos</em>, sorcerers, magic men, because this is the image they presented to Herod, rather than stating they were Jews in search of Judah's Messianic King. Daniel had once been counted amongst the 'wise men' of Babylon (<em><a href='B:340 2:48'>Dan 2:48</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>2:2&nbsp;<em>Where is he that is born King of the Jews? For we saw his star in the east and have come to worship him</em>-</p><p> The star did not take them directly to Bethlehem. It may have disappeared for a while, so they went to Jerusalem, assuming the king was to be born there. This would indicate they were ignorant of <em><a href='B:400 5:2'>Mic 5:2</a></em>, the prophecy of Messiah's birth in Bethlehem, or had at least failed to interpret the prophecy properly. Seeing that stars do not move across the sky over time in a way which can be followed on earth over a period of days or weeks, it's clear that again (see on :1), things are being described as they appeared to an observer on earth. It could be that they first saw the 'star' two years previously (see on <em><a href='B:470 2:16'>Mat 2:16</a></em>):&nbsp;</p></p><p><p>Some kings become kings by revolution or war, others are born into a kingly line. They clearly understood that this king was in the kingly line of Judah- a direct descendant of David.</p>


text:
<p>2:3&nbsp;<em>And when Herod the king heard it, he was disturbed and all Jerusalem with him-&nbsp;</em>"All Jerusalem" were "troubled", whereas the birth of Messiah was to be a time of joy for Israel and "to all people" (<em><a href='B:490 2:10'>Luk 2:10</a></em>). The despised and lowly shepherds rejoiced, but "Jerusalem", perhaps referring to the Jewish ruling class, were "troubled". They rejected the good news of the Gospel because it threatened their little power structure. "All Jerusalem" cannot be taken literally because there were some in the city awaiting the birth of Messiah and joyful at the news of His birth (<em><a href='B:490 2:38'>Luk 2:38</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>2:4&nbsp;<em>And gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ should be born</em>-</p><p> The priests are repeatedly described in the OT as the priests&nbsp;<em>of Yahweh</em>. Now they are merely the priests of the people, just as the OT "the feasts of Yahweh" become 'feasts of the Jews' in the Gospels. They hijacked Yahweh's religion and turned it into their own religion, meeting the basic religious needs of humans, rather than accepting His Truth for what it was. Biblically there was to only be one chief priest- but Israel now had several, hence the plural&nbsp;<em>chief priests</em>:&nbsp;</p><p>"Be born" is Gk:&nbsp;<em>gennao</em>. Messiah was procreated, gendered, beginning within the womb of Mary- a concept incompatible with theories of a literal pre-existence of Christ.</p><p>Herod understood that the wise men were seeking the Messiah. This indicates that they were Jews who understood Messiah to be the King of Judah in David's line.</p>


text:
<p>2:5&nbsp;<em>And they said to him: In Bethlehem of Judea. For thus it is written through the prophet</em>-</p><p> We get the impression that the reply was immediate, and that it was expected that Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. When Angels appeared in praise of a baby born to a poor woman in a stable, people were not so quick to accept that God acted not according to their expectations of Him. And Judaism within the next 30 years moved away from this expectation towards a position whereby they taught that nobody could know where Messiah was from (see on <em><a href='B:500 7:27'>Joh 7:27</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>2:6&nbsp;<em>And you Bethlehem, land of Judah, are in no way least among the princes of Judah. For out of you shall come forth a Ruler, who shall be shepherd of My people Israel</em>-</p><p> The emphasis is on the word "not". She was perceived as the least, but she was not in God's sight. This is so typically His style- to use the most despised and lowly in order to do His work:&nbsp;The same was His style with Mary</p>


text:
<p>2:7 <em>Then Herod secretly called the Magi and learned from them exactly what time the star appeared</em>-</p><p> Herod was already making his plan. He wanted to know when the star had appeared because he felt the need to destroy any possible competitors to him. Already the desperate plan of mass genocide was forming within him. And there is a psychological consistency and ring of truth in the record. For "learned from them exactly" is the same word used in <em><a href='B:470 2:8'>Mat 2:8</a></em> of how he urges the wise men to "search carefully". If we are passionate about something, we wish others to have that passion; we urge them to the same feelings and attitudes which we have. And Herod does this to the wise men. The Scriptures time and again have this ring of psychological credibility to them; and when they then invite us to believe in the supernatural, the flow of credibility continues naturally.</p>


text:
<p>2:8&nbsp;<em>And he sent them to Bethlehem</em>-</p><p> They followed this providential leading, and then the star re-appeared and confirmed them in the path (:9). Divine guidance is rarely constant, there are times when it appears to leave us and we are left to work and order our path on our own initiative, and then guidance reappears to confirm us.</p><p><em>And said: Go and search carefully for the young child, and when you have found him, bring me word, that I may also come and worship him</em>-</p><p> "Search" is the same Greek word as in 2:7 concerning how Herod enquired diligently about Jesus. The impression is given that Herod wanted the wise men to as it were be his agents; his diligence was to be theirs. It could be that he was simply lazy to himself go to Bethlehem to see the child when it was far from confirmed that the child was in fact there.</p>


text:
<p>2:9&nbsp;<em>And they, having heard the king, went their way; and the star which they saw in the east went before them until it came and stood over where the young child was</em>-</p><p> The star gave varying degrees of guidance- it led them to Palestine, and then to Jerusalem in general. Then it disappeared. Now it specifically pinpointed the building in Bethlehem. Divine guidance is rather similar in our lives.</p>


text:
<p>2:10&nbsp;<em>And when they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceedingly great joy</em>-</p><p> Because the star had disappeared but had now reappeared:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>2:11&nbsp;<em>And they came into the house and saw the young child with Mary his mother; and they fell down and worshipped him, and opening their treasures they offered to him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh</em>-</p><p> These three gifts are typically what was offered to kings and there are several references to kings being presented with these three things. The extent of the wise men's conviction was therefore very great. This is how much it can cost us to accept that Jesus really is Lord and King of our lives- financial expense, risk, long travel...</p><p>Note the absence of any reference to Joseph. His amazing obedience and immediacy of response to God’s word wasn’t rewarded by any permanent recognition. He played his role without recognition, and this is the lesson to us in our largely unrecognized and humanly unappreciated lives.</p>


text:
<p>2:12&nbsp;<em>And being warned in a dream that they should not return to Herod</em>-</p><p> The Greek for "warned" implies 'to be answered', so it seems they had prayed to God for guidance- and now received it.</p><p><em>They departed for their own country by another route</em>-</p><p> As Joseph the next night likewise had an Angelic message, immediately responded and 'departed' to another country. Their obedience was an example for Joseph and Mary to follow <em><a href='B:470 2:13-14'>Mat 2:13-14</a></em> Joseph was told to arise and take Jesus to Egypt; and he arose from sleep and did it. And the same double ‘arising’ occurred when he left Egypt to return to Israel (<em><a href='B:470 2:13-14'>Mat 2:13-14</a></em> cp. 20,21).</p>


text:
<p>2:13&nbsp;<em>Now when they had departed, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying: Arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt and stay there until I tell you, for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him</em>-</p><p> The Hebrew idea of 'seeking' includes the idea of worship- which was exactly Herod's pretext for wanting to locate Jesus:&nbsp;If Joseph hadn't been obedient, would God's whole plan in the Lord Jesus have been destroyed? Presumably so, or else the whole impression given of command and obedience would be meaningless, for Joseph would've just been acting out as a puppet:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>2:14&nbsp;<em>And he arose and took the young child and his mother by night and departed into Egypt-&nbsp;</em>That same hour of the night (assuming dreams happen at night), Joseph obeyed the strange call. The observation has been made that Matthew’s record has much to say about Joseph, and Mary is presented as passive; whereas in Luke, far more attention is given to Mary herself. The suggestion has been made by Tom Gaston that Joseph gave eyewitness testimony which was used by Matthew, and Mary gave such testimony to Luke. "Arose and took" was in exact obedience to <em><a href='B:470 2:13'>Mat 2:13</a></em> "arise and take". See on <em><a href='B:470 1:25'>Mat 1:25</a></em>:&nbsp;For&nbsp;<em>Departed</em>-</p><p> See on 2:12:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>2:15&nbsp;<em>And stayed there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: Out of Egypt did I call My son</em>-</p><p> One of many NT statements of the nature of inspiration of the OT writers. God spoke&nbsp;<em>dia</em>&nbsp;the prophets, they were a channel&nbsp;<em>for His word</em>, they were not speaking merely for and of themselves.</p><p>The emphasis is that&nbsp;<em>Joseph</em>&nbsp;fulfilled this prophecy- the grammar states that&nbsp;<em>he</em>&nbsp;was in Egypt until he was told to return. <em><a href='B:350 11:1-2'>Hos 11:1-2</a></em> speaks of how Israel were disobedient to this call: “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt<em>…&nbsp;</em>But the more I called Israel, the further they went from me”. The implication again is that Joseph had the freewill to obey this call or not- and he was obedient. For the call to leave Egypt had not been answered by Israel and it was no foregone conclusion that it would have to be by Joseph:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>2:16&nbsp;<em>Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the astrologers</em>-</p><p> The record doesn't give the impression that the wise men did what they did because they were mocking Herod. Rather did they fear him and obeyed God's desire to foil his evil plot. But Herod perceived what they did as mocking him, and the record states things from the perspective of how he perceived things [as with the language of demons]- see on <em><a href='B:470 2:1'>Mat 2:1</a></em>:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Was furious</em>-</p><p> An example of where the Bible teaches us basic human psychology. He felt mocked by the wise men, although actually they hadn't mocked him, he just perceived it that way- and so he took out his anger against them on the babies of Bethlehem. He transferred his anger from one to another. And that explains why the woman behind the till was so angry with you for no reason this morning- because she was transferring onto you the anger she felt against her mother / partner / neighbour arising from an incident [probably a misunderstanding and wrong imputation of motives] which happened last night:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And sent out soldiers and slew all the male children that were in Bethlehem and in all the borders of it aged two years and under, according to the time which he had determined from the Magi</em>-</p><p> This would suggest that when he asked them when the star had first appeared, they replied 'about two years ago'. It would seem they had been planning their journey, or perhaps even making it, for two years:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>2:17&nbsp;<em>Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying</em>-</p><p> Be aware that when it comes to&nbsp;<em>prophecy</em>, in the sense of foretelling future events, the New Testament sometimes seems to quote the Old Testament&nbsp;<em>without&nbsp;</em>attention to the context- at least, so far as human Bible scholarship can discern. The early chapters of Matthew contain at least three examples of&nbsp;quotations whose context just cannot fit the application given: <em><a href='B:470 2:14-15'>Mat 2:14-15</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:350 11:1'>Hos 11:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 2:17-18'>Mat 2:17-18</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:300 31:15'>Jer 31:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 1:23'>Mat 1:23</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:290 7:14'>Isa 7:14</a></em>. Much Christian material about Israel shows how they have returned to the land, rebuilt the ruined cities, made the desert blossom etc:, as fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies in Jeremiah etc. The context of these prophecies often doesn’t fit a return to the land by Jews in the 20th century; but on the other hand, the correspondence between these prophecies and recent history is so remarkable that it can’t be just coincidence. So again we are led to conclude that a few words here and there within a prophecy can sometimes have a fulfilment outside that which the context seems to require.</p>


text:
<p>2:18&nbsp;<em>A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children</em>-</p><p> But the focus of the massacre was Bethlehem. Clearly a reference to one event is being applied to another, and this is how Matthew understood the 'fulfilment' of prophecy. &nbsp;</p><p><em>And she would not be comforted, because they are not</em>-</p><p> The words are used about Rachel's husband Jacob weeping for Joseph, a clear type of the Lord, and refusing to be comforted because he 'was not' [<em><a href='B:10 37:35'>Gen 37:35</a></em> - cp. the brothers' explanation about Joseph's supposed death, that "one is not", <em><a href='B:10 42:13'>Gen 42:13</a></em>]. This again is rather out of strict context because Rachel died before Joseph's supposed death (<em><a href='B:10 35:19'>Gen 35:19</a></em>). The literary argument seems to be that&nbsp;<em>if</em>&nbsp;she had then been alive,&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;she would have wept as Jacob wept for her son Joseph. Jacob's weeping [on behalf of Rachel] for the death of Joseph / Jesus was ultimately misplaced because Joseph was safe in Egypt. And so the weeping of 'Rachel' for the Bethlehem babies was done whilst Jesus was in fact safe in Egypt. This could explain the semantic link between the quotation of 'Out of Egypt have I called My Son' and then this quotation about Rachel weeping as Jacob wept for Joseph, when in fact he was safe in Egypt. <em><a href='B:300 31:15-16'>Jer 31:15-16</a></em> reports Rachel weeping for her children who had been lost, and then being told to stop crying because they would come again from the Gentile land where they had been taken. In other words, she was being told that the children she thought were dead and gone were actually alive- in a Gentile land. Which was exactly the case with Jacob's mourning for Joseph which is clearly the basis for the mourning of 'Rachel' here. But then the problem is that the women this verse is applied to in Matthew 2 had lost actual children by real physical death. It's all a very complicated argument, and very forced and unsatisfactory to Western eyes and ears because the context appears to always be so inappropriate and the facts don't quite fit. Only parts of the picture fit. But this is very much the style of Jewish&nbsp;<em>midrash</em>&nbsp;[commentary] on the Old Testament. It probably would've been more persuasive, interesting and intriguing to first century Jewish ears than it is to ours in the 21st Century.</p>


text:
<p>2:19&nbsp;<em>But when Herod was dead, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying</em>-</p><p> Literally, "appears", not 'appeared'. The inconsistent use of tenses isn't the grammatical mistake of an uneducated, uninspired writer. This device is common in the Gospels. It focuses attention upon the Angel appearing, and encourages us to re-live the moment, as if to say, 'And wow, lo and behold- an Angel appears!'. The Gospels were initially intended for public reading, even performance on street corners, as the majority of people in the first century world were illiterate. So this kind of device is just what we would expect:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>2:20&nbsp;<em>Arise and take the young child and his mother and go into the land of Israel, for they are dead that sought the young child's life</em>-</p><p> Herod was not alone in wanting Jesus dead. The "they" presumably referred to the Jerusalem leadership of <em><a href='B:470 2:3'>Mat 2:3</a></em> [see note there].</p>


text:
<p>2:21&nbsp;<em>And he arose and took the young child and his mother and came into the land of Israel</em>-</p><p> Again we note his immediate obedience. International migration was a major thing in those days, when people rarely travelled more than 50 km. from their birthplace let alone moved that far:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>2:22<em>&nbsp;But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea instead of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And being warned by God in a dream, he withdrew into the region of Galilee</em>-</p><p> The implication could be that Joseph had no other information apart that from Herod had died, but on crossing the border, he learnt that Herod's son was reigning- and Joseph feared to go further. Therefore, so I read the record, God made a concession to Joseph's weakness and told him to go to the backwater of Galilee. He "turned aside" into Galilee suggests in the Greek that he 'withdrew himself', as if pulling back into obscurity. The same Greek word is found in <em><a href='B:470 12:15'>Mat 12:15</a></em>: "Jesus withdrew himself from there". He likewise "withdrew into a desert place" (<em><a href='B:470 14:13'>Mat 14:13</a></em>), "withdrew [from the crowds]" (<em><a href='B:480 3:7'>Mar 3:7</a></em>), "withdrew" when the crowds wanted to crown Him King (<em><a href='B:500 6:15'>Joh 6:15</a></em>), judges "withdrew" and talked privately amongst themselves (<em><a href='B:510 26:31'>Act 26:31</a></em>). So the picture seems to be that God intended Joseph to raise Jesus somewhere other than Galilee, perhaps in Bethlehem or Jerusalem. But Joseph feared Archelaus, and therefore he was given a 'plan B', to withdraw and fade away into the obscurity of Nazareth. But in God's perfect way, the upbringing in Nazareth could also fulfil His plans and this explains the otherwise rather forced interpretation that Jesus lived in Nazareth so that He would be a 'Nazarene' (see on 2:23). God works oftentimes with us in the same way. He makes concessions to our weaknesses, and whilst the plan Bs, Cs and Ds don't fit as snugly into His prophetic intentions as plan A might have done- they still fit. Because He makes them fit. And that in my opinion explains the slight sense we get in some parts of the record here that events are being 'made to fit' Bible prophecies. And we see it in our own lives. We may take a plan C or D, e.g. a sister may marry an unbeliever, and this doesn't mean that God's purpose with her finishes, but rather that [e.g.] Bible teaching about marriage just doesn't fit as snugly to her experience as it might have done otherwise.</p>


text:
<p>2:23&nbsp;<em>And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets-</em></p><p>&nbsp;It was not specifically spoken by plural prophets that Messiah was to be called "a Nazarene" because He would grow up in despised Nazareth, but that was the implication of the prophecies that Messiah was to be despised of men. See on <em><a href='B:470 2:22'>Mat 2:22</a></em> for some thoughts about this apparent 'forcing' of the prophetic fulfilment here:&nbsp;</p><p><em>That he should be called a Nazarene</em>&nbsp;- The town was despised spiritually as incapable of producing a prophet (<em><a href='B:500 1:46'>Joh 1:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:52'>Joh 7:52</a></em>), and yet in Hebrew it meant 'town of the shoot', and the shoot was a title of Messiah (<em><a href='B:290 11:1'>Isa 11:1</a></em>). Again this is typical of God's style- to invest the most spiritually despised with the highest spiritual calling.</p>


text:
<p>3:1&nbsp;<em>And in those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying</em>-</p><p> Presumably this connects with 2:23, meaning that whilst the Lord was still living in Nazareth, John began preaching. One wonders whether John maybe began his ministry up to three and a half years before the baptism of Jesus, seeing his work was typical of the three and a half year Elijah ministry preparing for the&nbsp;<em>second</em>&nbsp;coming of the Lord Jesus:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>3:2&nbsp;<em>Repent! For the kingdom of heaven is at hand</em>-</p><p> There has always been the rulership of God over the individuals whose hearts accept His Kingship. But through the work of the Lord Jesus, this rulership was made so much greater, and His example, teaching and spirit enabled believers to come more totally within that rulership. But clearly the Kingdom was "at hand" not in the sense of its literal establishment on earth physically, but in that as King of the Kingdom, the Lord Jesus could rightly have "the Kingdom of Heaven" as a title:&nbsp;</p><p>It appears that Matthew under inspiration expressed the Gospel in terms which were attractive and not unduly provocative to his hearers, hence he uses 'Heaven' for 'God' as was common Jewish practice. We too should present the Gospel with the same kind of forethought to the sensitivities and nature of our audience, rather than baldly present 'truth' to them considering that we have thereby done our duty. We are not seeking to merely fulfil a duty, but to actually "so speak" that we convert men and women.</p><p>A possibility is that the Kingdom of God / Heaven could have come soon at that time ["at hand"]&nbsp;<em>if&nbsp;</em>Israel had repented. Then they would not have killed their Messiah and King but rather accepted Him. Whilst God's purpose was not ultimately thwarted by Israel's rejection of the Lord Jesus and their impenitence, the Divine project would have taken a different form if they had repented and accepted Him. We note that those who responded to John’s call to repentance were again asked to “Repent” by the Lord (<em><a href='B:470 4:17'>Mat 4:17</a></em>). Their repentance was therefore only surface level. The Lord cursed the fig tree (cp. Israel) because they had only leaves, an appearance of repentance and spiritual fruit in responding to John’s message, but actually there was not even the first sign of real fruit on that tree when it was really analysed. The Lord describes John as mourning to his audience, and them&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;</em>mourning in sympathy and response (<em><a href='B:490 7:32'>Luk 7:32</a></em>). They rejoiced in the idea of repentance, but never really got down to it.</p>


text:
<p>3:3&nbsp;<em>For this is he</em>-</p><p> Is this part of John's message about&nbsp;<em>Jesus</em>? Or is this a note from Matthew about&nbsp;<em>John</em>&nbsp;being the voice in the wilderness? The other Gospel writers use the Isaiah quotation as if it is their comment on John (<em><a href='B:480 1:3'>Mar 1:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:4'>Luk 3:4</a></em>). The present tense 'this is he' can be understood as part of the dramatic present tense style of some parts of the Gospels [see on <em><a href='B:470 2:19'>Mat 2:19</a></em>]. The way <em><a href='B:470 3:4'>Mat 3:4</a></em> continues "And this same John..." might suggest that "This is he" is also Matthew's comment about John. &nbsp;</p><p><em>The voice of one crying</em>-</p><p> When asked who he was, John’s reply was simply: “a voice” (<em><a href='B:490 3:7'>Luk 3:7</a></em>). He was nothing; his message about Jesus was everything. In all this there is a far cry from the self-confident, self-projecting speaking off the podium which characterizes so much of our ‘preaching’ today. So John’s appeal to repentance was shot through with a recognition of his own humanity. It wasn’t mere moralizing. We likely don’t preach as John did because we fear that confronting people with their sins is inappropriate for us to do, because we too are sinners. But with recognition of our own humanity, we build a bridge between our audience and ourselves. In this context it's worth reconsidering <em><a href='B:490 3:7'>Luk 3:7</a></em>: "Who has warned you to flee from the wrath to come?". John said these words to those who were coming to him wishing to be baptized by him- exactly because he had warned them of the wrath to come. It's possible that John meant this as a rhetorical reflection, thus enabling us to paraphrase him something like this: 'And what kind of man am I, who am I, just another sinful guy like you, who has warned you to flee? I'm nothing- don't get baptized because of me, but because you repent and are committed to bringing forth the fruits of repentance". And it’s worth meditating that if Israel had responded to his preaching, then the glorious salvation of God might have even then been revealed in the form of the Kingdom coming on earth, even then. But instead of heeding John’s message, Israel in the end crucified their King, necessitating a latter day John the Baptist mission (<em><a href='B:470 11:13-14'>Mat 11:13-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 17:11-12'>Mat 17:11-12</a></em>). And it’s not going too far to suggest that our latter day witness to Israel and indeed to the world is to conducted in the spirit of John’s preaching; hence the crucial importance of understanding the spirit and content of his witness.</p><p><em>In the wilderness</em>-</p><p> John the Baptist prepared a highway in the desert through baptizing repentant people (<em><a href='B:480 1:3-4'>Mar 1:3-4</a></em>). This highway was to be a path&nbsp;<em>to&nbsp;</em>Christ as well as the one He would travel. Those converted became a path to Christ for others. One purpose of our calling to the Gospel is to assist others onto that same way. And it's worth reflecting that Christ can only come once the way for Him is prepared- as if His coming depends upon a certain level of response to our preaching, especially to the Jews of the very last days.</p><p><em>Make ready the way of the Lord</em>-</p><p> The quotation from Isaiah suggests that if the way was prepared by human repentance, then this would be the path over which the Lord's glory would return to Zion in the establishment of the Kingdom. See on <em><a href='B:470 3:2'>Mat 3:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>repent</em>. The strong suggestion is that the Lord's coming in glory was a possibility if Israel had repented at John's preaching and accepted Jesus as their Messiah. <em><a href='B:490 3:6'>Luk 3:6</a></em> goes on to say that if they had repented, then the prophecy that "all flesh shall see the salvation of God" would come true- and that is clearly language of the future Kingdom of God on earth. For not even all Israel saw / perceived the Jesus / salvation of God, let alone "all flesh". The term "all flesh" is used frequently in the OT about mankind generally rather than just Israel; indeed it is used in contradistinction to Israel (<em><a href='B:50 5:26'>Deu 5:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 34:15'>Job 34:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 49:26'>Isa 49:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 66:16'>Isa 66:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 66:23-24'>Isa 66:23-24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 25:31'>Jer 25:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 4:12'>Dan 4:12</a></em>).</p><p><em>Make His paths straight</em>-</p><p> The implication is that the repentance of people in Judah would make straight the Lord's path over which He would travel. Repentant people are therefore His way to Jerusalem. This of itself suggests that the Lord shall only come to Zion once there is repentance in Israel, seeing repentant people are the way or road which enables Him to travel. The allusion is clearly to the practice of preparing the road for an important person to travel upon. The whole metaphor suggests that Christ will only come to Zion once His people are spiritually ready, once there is repentance, perhaps specifically in Israel. John the Baptist was to prepare the Lord's way (<em><a href='B:490 1:76'>Luk 1:76</a></em> same Greek words). But it was repentant people who were to prepare the Lord's way. John's appeal was for others to prepare the Lord's way by repentance. But his preaching meant that he was the one preparing the way; the change of life in his hearers would therefore as it were be counted to John. The work of preparing the Lord's way is mentioned in <em><a href='B:460 3:1'>Mal 3:1</a></em> as being the work of "the messenger"; and the context appears to be the restoration from Babylon. Perhaps because those addressed in <em><a href='B:290 40:1'>Isa 40:1</a></em> ("Prepare&nbsp;<em>ye</em>") failed in their task and God sought to see it fulfilled through a specific messenger.</p><p>The ideas of fleeing wrath (<em><a href='B:490 3:7'>Luk 3:7</a></em>) and preparing a way are surely based upon the Law’s command in <em><a href='B:50 19:3'>Deu 19:3</a></em> that a way or road should be prepared to the city of refuge (symbolic of Christ- <em><a href='B:650 6:18'>Heb 6:18</a></em>), along which the person under the death sentence for manslaughter could flee for refuge. John was preparing that way or road to Christ, and urging ordinary people to flee along it. They didn’t like to think they were under a death sentence for murder. They were just ordinary folk like the soldiers who grumbled about their wages, and the publicans who were a bit less than honest at work. But they had to flee. But they wouldn’t be alone in that. If a man prepares his way after God’s principles (<em><a href='B:140 27:6'>2Ch 27:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 4:26'>Pro 4:26</a></em>), then God will ‘prepare’ that man’s way too (<em><a href='B:230 37:23'>Psa 37:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 119:5'>Psa 119:5</a></em>), confirming him in the way of escape:&nbsp;</p><p><em>His paths straight</em>-</p><p> There is a definite allusion to the language here in <em><a href='B:510 13:10'>Act 13:10</a></em>, where a man is accused by Paul of perverting "the right [s:w. 'straight'] ways of the Lord". Paul clearly saw&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;mission as likewise to prepare straight paths for the Lord Jesus by preaching the Gospel of transformation. The implication could be that John's mission ultimately failed, in that the Lord Jesus did not come to Zion in glory. Paul seems to imply that therefore that work is now placed upon all Christian preachers; we are to prepare the way so that the Lord can come to Zion and establish God's Kingdom. When we read that Paul instructed men "in the way of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:510 18:25'>Act 18:25</a></em>) we have the same idea- we are preparing the way of the Lord Jesus. Each person who is truly converted is part of the Lord's highway, and once there is sufficient transformation of human life, the way will be ready enough for the Lord to return upon it:&nbsp;</p><p>Just as the preaching of the Gospel was to make straight paths for the Messiah to come (<em><a href='B:490 3:4'>Luk 3:4</a></em>), so we are to make&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;paths straight (<em><a href='B:650 12:13'>Heb 12:13</a></em>)- as if somehow we are the Lord Jesus; His revelation to this world at the second coming will in a sense be our revelation. Hence the final visions of Revelation speak of the Lord's second coming in terms which are applicable to the community of those in Him [e.g. a city of people coming down from Heaven to earth]. John’s preaching was in order to make [s:w. ‘to bring forth fruit’] His [the Lord’s] paths straight- but the ways of the Lord are “right” [s:w. “straight”] anyway (<em><a href='B:510 13:10'>Act 13:10</a></em>). So how could John’s preaching make the Lord’s ways straight / right, when they already are? God is so associated with His people that their straightness or crookedness reflects upon Him; for they are His witnesses in this world. His ways are their ways. This is the N:T. equivalent of the O:T. concept of keeping / walking in the way of the Lord (<em><a href='B:10 18:19'>Gen 18:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 21:22'>2Ki 21:22</a></em>). Perhaps this is the thought behind the exhortation of <em><a href='B:650 12:13'>Heb 12:13</a></em> to make straight paths for our own feet. We are to bring our ways into harmony with the Lord’s ways; for He is to be us, His ways our ways. Thus <em><a href='B:290 40:3'>Isa 40:3</a></em>, which is being quoted in <em><a href='B:490 3:4'>Luk 3:4</a></em>, speaks of “Prepare ye the way&nbsp;<em>of the Lord</em>”, whereas <em><a href='B:290 62:10'>Isa 62:10</a></em> speaks of “Prepare ye the way&nbsp;<em>of the people</em>”. Yet tragically, the way / path of Israel was not the way / path of the Lord (<em><a href='B:330 18:25'>Eze 18:25</a></em>).</p><p>There was an intensity and critical urgency about John and his message. John urged people to make their path “straight”- using a Greek word elsewhere translated “immediately”, “forthwith” (<em><a href='B:490 3:4'>Luk 3:4</a></em> s:w. <em><a href='B:480 1:12'>Mar 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 1:28'>Mar 1:28</a></em> and often). Getting things straight in our lives is a question of immediate response. He warns people to “flee from the wrath to come” (<em><a href='B:490 3:7'>Luk 3:7</a></em>). This was what their changed lives and baptisms were to be about- a fleeing from the wrath to come. He speaks as if that “wrath to come” is just about to come, it’s staring them in the face like a wall of forest fire, and they are to flee away from it. And yet Paul (in one of his many allusions to John’s message, which perhaps he had heard himself ‘live’) speaks of “the wrath to come” as being the wrath of the final judgment (<em><a href='B:590 1:10'>1Th 1:10</a></em>), or possibly that of AD70 (<em><a href='B:590 2:16'>1Th 2:16</a></em>). But both those events would not have come upon the majority of John’s audience. And the day of ‘wrath to come’ is clearly ultimately to be at the Lord’s return (<em><a href='B:730 6:17'>Rev 6:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 11:18'>Rev 11:18</a></em>). Yet John zooms his hearers forward in time, to perceive that they face condemnation and judgment day right now, as they hear the call of the Gospel. This was a feature of John; he had the faith which sees things which are not as though they already are. Thus he looked at Jesus walking towards him and commented that here was the “Lamb of God”, a phrase the Jews would’ve understood as referring to the lamb which was about to be sacrificed on Passover (<em><a href='B:500 1:29'>Joh 1:29</a></em>). John presumably was referencing the description of the crucified Jesus in <em><a href='B:290 53:7'>Isa 53:7</a></em>; 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>John the Baptist's ministry was so that the 'crooked' nation of Israel should be 'made straight' and ready to accept Jesus as Messiah (<em><a href='B:490 3:5'>Luk 3:5</a></em>). God's enabling power was present so that this might have happened; but the same word is used in <em><a href='B:510 2:40'>Act 2:40</a></em> and <em><a href='B:570 2:15'>Phi 2:15</a></em> to describe Israel as still being a 'crooked' nation. John's preaching, like ours, was potentially able to bring about the conversion of an entire nation. So instead of being discouraged by the lack of response to our witness, let's remember the enormous potential power which there is behind it. Every word, witness of any kind, tract left lying on a seat... has such huge potential conversion power lodged within it, a power from God Himself. John’s mission was to prepare Israel for Christ, to figuratively '<em>bring low'&nbsp;</em>the hills and mountains, the proud Jews of first century Israel, and raise the valleys, i:e. inspire the humble with the real possibility of salvation in Christ (<em><a href='B:490 3:5'>Luk 3:5</a></em>). Paul uses the same Greek word for "bring low" no fewer than three times, concerning how the Gospel has humbled him (<em><a href='B:510 20:19'>Act 20:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 11:7'>2Co 11:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 4:12'>Phi 4:12</a></em>). It's as if he's saying: 'John's preaching did finally have its’ effect upon me; it did finally make me humble enough for the Lord Jesus'. And as John made straight paths for men's feet that they might come unto Christ (<em><a href='B:470 3:3'>Mat 3:3</a></em>), so did Paul (<em><a href='B:650 12:13'>Heb 12:13</a></em>):&nbsp;There was another reason behind John’s appeal for repentance. It was that he perceived how eager God is to forgive, and how our acceptance of that forgiveness is His glory and His salvation. John says, quoting <em><a href='B:290 40:5'>Isa 40:5</a></em>, that if men repent and ready themselves for the Lord’s coming, then “all flesh shall see the salvation of God”. But he is changing the quotation- Isaiah said that all flesh shall see the glory of God. But saving men and women is the thing God glories in:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>3:4&nbsp;<em>Now John wore a garment-&nbsp;</em>Lit. 'Had his clothing<em>':&nbsp;</em>The Greek&nbsp;<em>ekho&nbsp;</em>translated "had" is also translated 'conceive', 'count' and 'take for'. He took himself as Elijah. Clearly John was consciously presenting himself as the Elijah prophet by the way he dressed. He had to make some personal effort to fulfil the prophecies about him. Even if a calling is intended for us by God, we still have to make conscious effort to fulfil it. We can easily overestimate the amount and frequency of Divine contact with Bible characters. It was not so much that John was told 'You are to be the Elijah prophet, now you must dress, act and speak like him!'. The choice of dress, appearance and even location in the wilderness were all probably John's own conscious attempts to be like Elijah, without being specifically asked. We too are set up with Bible characters whom we are asked to follow in essence- for this is why so much of God's word is really history. And there are ways in which the initiative is left with us as to how and how far we follow them.</p><p><em>Of camel's hair and a leather girdle about his loins</em>-</p><p> This was not the clothing of the poor- their garments were typically made of goat's hair. Indeed, camel's hair coats were a luxury. We therefore conclude that John was consciously modelling himself on Elijah, who had dressed like this (<em><a href='B:120 1:8'>2Ki 1:8</a></em>).</p><p><em>And his food was locusts and wild honey</em>-</p><p> Not necessarily from bees, but perhaps tree gum e.g. from the tamarisk tree.</p>


text:
<p>3:5<em>&nbsp;Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him-&nbsp;</em>These global terms such as 'all Judaea' clearly aren't literal- people from all Judaea went out to John. Perhaps John set up his place of witness as he did so that those interested had to make some effort to come out to him for baptism, considering that candidates had to make some effort and show some commitment. On the other hand, if he wanted to reach as many people as possible, surely he could've set up his place of preaching and baptism in the city and thereby attracted and saved more people. For not everyone was able to make the long journey down to Jordan and back. One wonders whether he made the same mistake as the historical Elijah, in having too low a view of others. Whatever, his hard hitting message attracted people, so much so that the city dwellers streamed out to him, motivated by the testimony of the others who had been there and returned to share the good news of sin confessed and forgiven and of the coming of the Christ.</p>


text:
<p>3:6&nbsp;<em>And they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins</em>-</p><p> As if they confessed their sins whilst in the water and the baptism process was ongoing:&nbsp;<em>Exomologeho&nbsp;</em>essentially means to agree with, hence the same word is used about 'confessing' in the sense of praising (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 11:25'>Mat 11:25</a></em>, <em><a href='B:520 15:9'>Rom 15:9</a></em>). To repent, to confess sin, is essentially to agree with God's perspective on our sins. They agreed that they were sinners. Elsewhere, what they did is described as 'the baptism of repentance', of&nbsp;<em>metanoia</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:480 1:4'>Mar 1:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:3'>Luk 3:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:24'>Act 13:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:4'>Act 19:4</a></em>):&nbsp;<em>Metanoia</em>&nbsp;strictly means to think again, or legally, a reversal of a legal decision. The legal connotations of the language are developed further in Romans 1-8, which expounds the Gospel in terms of the court room. I have suggested elsewhere that Paul may have heard John preaching, for all Jerusalem went to hear his message, including "many of the Pharisees" (:7), and Paul the Pharisee was living in Jerusalem at the time. This would explain his many allusions to John's teaching, and it could be that the whole legal approach of Romans 1-8 is based upon this language of charge, agreement with the charge and re-thinking of the human case which we meet here, right at the start of the NT Gospel story (see on <em><a href='B:470 3:7'>Mat 3:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The wrath to come</em>&nbsp;to see how Romans uses John's term 10 times). The decision that we are condemned must be agreed with by us, whereas previously we had not agreed with it- considering us to be not that bad as people, victims of circumstance etc. Our re-thinking leads to God's re-thinking and reversal of the judgment against us. Note that the whole sense of the Greek words for 'confessing' and 'repenting' is internal to the human mind. Practical change is not of itself implied in the words. This of course comes as a result of a genuine agreement with the charge of sin and a radical re-thinking. It is not therefore for us to demand repentance from others in terms of external appearance. We cannot judge the secrets of the heart, and are to accept repentance as claimed, seeing that it is a deeply personal and internal affair:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>3:7&nbsp;<em>But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:490 3:12'>Luk 3:12</a></em> records how there "came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do?". There is a parallel between desiring baptism and realizing that they must<em>&nbsp;do</em>&nbsp;something concretely in their lives. The baptism process brings us into the realm of God's gracious forgiveness and redemption, and into living contact with the real Christ. There is no way we can be passive to this and do nothing about it. Note that Matthew himself was a publican- this is an example of the Gospel records being a transcript of the message standardly taught by e.g. Matthew:&nbsp;</p><p><em>You offspring of vipers</em>-</p><p> This intense, urgent presentation of the ultimate issues of life and death, acceptance and rejection, brought forth a massive response. People lined up for baptism. And John was hardly polite. He called his baptismal candidates a “generation of vipers”, alluding obviously to the seed of the serpent in <em><a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a></em>. Yet his tough line with them, his convicting them of sin, led them to ask what precisely they must do, in order to be baptized. They didn’t turn away in offence. They somehow sensed he was for real, and the message he preached couldn’t be ignored or shrugged off as the ravings of a fanatic. Time and again we see the same- the very height of the demand of Christ of itself convicts men and women of Him. And it’s for this reason that it seems almost ‘easier’ to convict people of Christ and the need for baptism into Him in societies [e.g. radical Moslem ones] where the price for conversion to Him is death or serious persecution… than in the easy going Western countries where being ‘Christian’ is the normal cultural thing to do. The Gospel was presented in different forms by the early preachers, according to their audience. John the Baptist set the pattern in this. Having quoted the prophecy about the need for the rough to be made smooth and the proud to be humbled in order for them to accept Jesus, John “said&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>&nbsp;to the multitude… ye offspring of vipers” (<em><a href='B:490 3:7'>Luk 3:7</a></em> RV). He used tough and startling language because that was what the audience required. He had set his aims- to humble the proud. And so he used “therefore” appropriate approaches. The early preachers as Paul became all things to all men, so that they might win some. They therefore consciously matched their presentation and&nbsp;<em>how</em>&nbsp;they articulated the same basic truths to their audience. But perhaps even his comment “Generation of vipers” was said with a heart of love and appeal, reflecting the “heart of mercy” which he had come to know in the Father. He was “the friend of the bridegroom” (<em><a href='B:500 3:29'>Joh 3:29</a></em>)- the one who introduced the groom to the bride and arranged the marriage and then the wedding. John’s “Generation of vipers” stuff was all part of his attempt to persuade the bride, Israel, to accept the groom, the Lord Jesus. He wasn’t angrily moralizing, lashing out at society as many a dysfunctional preacher does today, working out his own anger by criticizing and condemning society in the name of God. No, John was appealing. He had an agenda and an aim- to bring Israel and the Son of God together in marriage.</p><p><em>Who warned you</em>-</p><p> The Greek means to exemplify, to 'exhibit under the eyes', and can imply that John had himself shown them the way of repentance by having done so himself. John the Baptist rhetorically asked his hearers: “Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” (<em><a href='B:470 3:7'>Mat 3:7</a></em>). The answer, of course, was ‘Well, you, John’. And John continues: “Bring forth&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>&nbsp;[i:e:, because I am the one who taught you] fruits meet for repentance”. John recognizes that his converts will be after his image in one sense; as Paul put it, what his hearers had heard and seen in him as he preached, they were to do. So I suggest the emphasis should be on the word 'who', rather than on the word 'you'. The sense is not 'You lot of sinners? Ha! And where did you lot hear of the need for repentance!'. Rather is it a rhetorical question. Who warned them to flee from the wrath to come? John himself. Here we see another window onto the humility of John in his appeal. He is saying that he too has confessed and repented of his sins, and he knew this was witnessed in his life. And he asks the legalistic Pharisees to follow his example. John was asking them to repent of their legalism and accept Jesus as Messiah, and it would seem that John had had to pass through that very same path himself, freeing himself from the Essene's legalism which it seems he had got associated with. And Elijah, John's role model, was another man who was led to repent of exclusivism and legalism. The point is clinched by a look at the Greek word translated 'warned'. It literally means to exhibit, to exemplify. John was the pattern for them. And if Paul was indeed amongst that crowd of cynical Pharisees, Paul was ultimately John's most stellar convert, although little did he realize it at the time. The same can happen with our preaching. We may make converts years after our death. And the lesson comes home clearly, that the preacher or the teacher is to be the living embodiment of his or her message, the word being preached made flesh in the preacher.</p><p><em>To flee from the anger to come</em>-</p><p> A common idea of Paul's especially in his letter to the Romans (<em><a href='B:520 1:18'>Rom 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 2:5'>Rom 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 2:8'>Rom 2:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 3:5'>Rom 3:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 4:15'>Rom 4:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 5:9'>Rom 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:22'>Rom 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 12:19'>Rom 12:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 13:4-5'>Rom 13:4-5</a></em>). <em><a href='B:590 2:16'>1Th 2:16</a></em> surely alludes here in speaking of how the wrath has come upon the orthodox Jews. See on <em><a href='B:470 3:6'>Mat 3:6</a></em>. In <em><a href='B:470 23:33'>Mat 23:33</a></em> Jesus seems to say that it is now impossible for that group to flee the coming wrath. Even in this life the frame of opportunity can come to an end before death.</p><p>Paul alluded to some parts of the Gospels much more than others. An example of this is the way in which he alluded so extensively to the passages related to John the Baptist. I would suggest that the reason for this is that he saw John as somehow his hero, one for whom he had a deep respect. In doing so he was sharing the estimation of his Lord, who also saw John as one of the greatest believers. There are many 'unconscious' links between Paul's writings and the records of John, indicating how deeply the example and words of John were in Paul's mind (e.g. <em><a href='B:470 3:7'>Mat 3:7</a></em> = <em><a href='B:590 1:10'>1Th 1:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 5:9'>1Th 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:31'>Joh 3:31</a></em> = <em><a href='B:530 15:47'>1Co 15:47</a></em>). Or consider how John said that wicked Jewry would be "hewn down" (<em><a href='B:470 3:10'>Mat 3:10</a></em>); Paul uses the very same word to describe how the Jewish branches had now been "cut off" (<em><a href='B:520 11:22'>Rom 11:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:24'>Rom 11:24</a></em>). Paul saw himself as being like the best man, who had betrothed the believers to Christ (<em><a href='B:540 11:2-3'>2Co 11:2-3</a></em>)- just as John had described himself as the friend of the bridegroom (<em><a href='B:500 3:28'>Joh 3:28</a></em>). Or again, reflect how Paul's mention of John in <em><a href='B:510 13:24-25'>Act 13:24-25</a></em> apparently adds nothing to his argument; it seems out of context. But it surely indicates the degree to which John was never far below the surface in Paul's thinking. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>3:8<em>&nbsp;Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of repentance</em>-</p><p>It seems likely that Paul went to hear John the Baptist preach; "there went out to him all the land of Judea and they of Jerusalem" (<em><a href='B:480 1:5'>Mar 1:5</a></em>), and at this time Paul was living in Jerusalem. I believe Paul heard John and was convicted by him of Christ. John preached the need to "bring forth fruits meet unto repentance" (<em><a href='B:470 3:8'>Mat 3:8</a></em>); and Paul made those his own watchwords in his world-wide preaching (<em><a href='B:510 26:20'>Act 26:20</a></em>)- Paul describes his preaching in language which is directly alluding to how John preached. As John said that he was&nbsp;<em>sent</em>&nbsp;to baptize, but especially to witness of Christ (<em><a href='B:500 1:33'>Joh 1:33</a></em>), so Paul felt that he too was&nbsp;<em>sent to baptize</em>, but his emphasis was more on the preaching of Christ than physically baptizing (<em><a href='B:530 1:17'>1Co 1:17</a></em>).</p><p>“Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of repentance" must be connected with our Lord's description of the Gentile believers as "a nation bringing forth the (vineyard) fruits" of the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 21:43'>Mat 21:43</a></em>). These are defined in <em><a href='B:520 14:17'>Rom 14:17</a></em>: "The Kingdom of God Is... righteousness, and peace, and joy". Christ's parable of the vine in John 15 explains that it is the word abiding in us which brings forth fruit. Bringing forth fruit is therefore a way of life (cp. <em><a href='B:520 6:21-22'>Rom 6:21-22</a></em>). In each aspect in which we 'bear fruit', we have in a sense 'repented'. Our repentance and fruit-bearing is not something which we can set time limits on within this life. Christ would have been satisfied if Israel had borne at least some immature fruit (<em><a href='B:490 13:7'>Luk 13:7</a></em>). Only when there is no fruit at all, in any aspect of spiritual life, will Christ reject us. Some will bear more fruit than others- some sixty, some an hundredfold. <em><a href='B:470 3:8'>Mat 3:8</a></em> connects repentance with fruit bearing. This shows that God may recognize&nbsp;<em>degrees</em>&nbsp;of repentance and response to His word, as He recognizes degrees of fruit bearing. It is far too simplistic for us to label some of our brethren as having repented and others as being totally unrepentant. In any case, the fruits of repentance are brought forth unto&nbsp;<em>God</em>, not necessarily to fellow believers (<em><a href='B:520 7:4'>Rom 7:4</a></em>). There is a marked dearth of evidence to show that a believer must prove his repentance in outward terms before his brethren can accept him:&nbsp;The “fruits” John had in mind are made more explicit in Luke 3. In order to prepare the way of the Lord, to make a level passage for Him, the man with two coats should give to him who had none, and likewise share his food (<em><a href='B:490 3:11'>Luk 3:11</a></em>). So the ‘equality’ and levelling was to be one of practical care for others. We have to ask, how often we have shared our food, clothing or money with those who don’t have… for this is all part of preparing for the Lord’s coming. It could even be that when there is more of what Paul calls “an equality” amongst the community of believers, that then the way of the Lord will have been prepared. And He will then return.</p><p>And yet despite the demand for “fruit”, John the Baptist showed a spirit of concession to human weakness in his preaching. He told the publicans: “Extort no more than that which is appointed you” (<em><a href='B:490 3:13'>Luk 3:13</a></em> RV). He tacitly accepted that these men would be into extortion. But within limits, he let it go. Likewise he told soldiers to be content with their wages- not to quit the job. And seeing there were no Roman Legions in Judaea at his time [Josephus,&nbsp;<em>Antiquities</em>&nbsp;18:5:1], these were likely Jewish soldiers. He didn’t tell them to quit their jobs, but to live with integrity within those jobs. He told the soldiers to be content with their wages- implying he expected them to not throw in their job. This is juxtaposed with the command for them to do no violence. But not grumbling about wages was as fundamental an issue for John as not doing physical violence to people. To have as Paul put it “Godliness with contentment” [another of his allusions to John’s preaching?] is as important as not doing violence. And yet our tendency is to think that moaning about our wages is a perfectly normal and acceptable thing to do, whereas violence is of an altogether different order. It’s like Paul hitting the Corinthians for their divisiveness, when if we’d been writing to them we would likely have focused upon their immorality and false doctrine. John would have been far less demanding had he simply told the publicans and soldiers to quit their jobs. By asking them to continue, and yet to live out their lives within those jobs with Godly principles, He was being far more demanding. John places complaining about wages [a common human fault] in juxtaposition with doing violence to others (<em><a href='B:490 3:14'>Luk 3:14</a></em>)- to show that in his serious call to a devout and holy life, there are no such things as little sins. <em><a href='B:330 16:49-50'>Eze 16:49-50</a></em> defines the sins of Sodom as including “pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor… they were haughty, and committed abomination”. The abomination of their sexual perversion is placed last in the list, as if to emphasize that all the other sins were just as much sin. Likewise Paul writes to the Corinthians about their failures, but he doesn’t start where I would have started- with their drunkenness at the memorial meeting. Instead he starts off with their disunity. Those things which we may consider as lesser sins, the Bible continually lists together with those things we have been conditioned into thinking are the greater sins. Clearest of all is the way Paul lists schism and hatred in his lists of sins that will exclude from the Kingdom. The Anglo-Saxon worldview has taught that sexual sin is so infinitely far worse than a bit of argument within a church. But is this really right…?</p>


text:
<p>3:9&nbsp;<em>And think not to say within yourselves</em>-</p><p> Always the Biblical emphasis is upon internal thought processes and the need to be aware of them. John's great convert Paul several times uses the same device in his letters- foreseeing the likely thought process in response to his message, and answering it ahead of time (e.g. <em><a href='B:530 15:35'>1Co 15:35</a></em>).</p><p><em>We have Abraham as our father, for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham</em>-</p><p> Said perhaps pointing to the stones. Perhaps they were the 12 stones set up after the Jordan crossing (Joshua 3, 4). There is a word play between&nbsp;<em>avanim</em>, stones, and&nbsp;<em>banim,&nbsp;</em>sons:&nbsp;<em>Avanim</em>, stones, in turn sounds like&nbsp;<em>evyonim</em>, the term for the poor, the social outcasts- these were the "stones" which were being accepted into the covenant of grace:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>3:10<em>&nbsp;And even now the axe lies at the root of the trees. Therefore, every tree that does not bring forth good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire-&nbsp;</em>John's words about cutting down the fruitless tree are directly quoted by the Lord Jesus in <em><a href='B:470 7:17-19'>Mat 7:17-19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:33'>Mat 12:33</a></em> - as if to show His solidarity with John's teaching. Perhaps the Lord Jesus had heard these very words being preached by John when He went to be baptized by him. "Now [also]", right now; John felt that the day of Christ's judgment was very close. The language of gathering grain into the barn and burning the chaff is used by the Lord concerning the future judgment at His second coming (<em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>). John saw the Lord Jesus as already having the winnowing fork in His hand (:13), meaning that in essence, judgment began with the ministry of Jesus. In essence, we stand before His judgment right now. Judgment day is not some unknown future entity which has no connection with this life:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>3:11<em>&nbsp;I indeed baptize you in water to repentance, but he that comes after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to carry. He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire</em>-</p><p> Christ "shall baptize&nbsp;<em>you</em>" plural was deeply meditated upon by Paul, until he came to see in the fact that we&nbsp;<em>plural</em>&nbsp;are baptized the strong implication that therefore we should be one body, without unnecessary divisions (= <em><a href='B:530 12:13'>1Co 12:13</a></em>).</p><p>John prophesied that the disciples would be baptized with fire (<em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>); this was fulfilled by tongues of Spirit descending which looked like fire (<em><a href='B:510 2:3'>Act 2:3</a></em>). Evidently this was not literal fire or else it would not have rested on the heads of the disciples. So the words of <em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em> spoke of how things would&nbsp;<em>appear&nbsp;</em>to the disciples, without saying so explicitly.</p><p>John described himself as a preacher of Christ who was not "worthy" to do so. The same Greek word is used by Paul when he says he is "not&nbsp;<em>meet</em>&nbsp;(s:w:) to be called an apostle" (<em><a href='B:530 15:9'>1Co 15:9</a></em>); and that it was God's grace alone that had made him an "<em>able</em>&nbsp;(s:w. "worthy") minister of the Gospel" (<em><a href='B:540 13:6'>2Co 13:6</a></em>). He knew that his "<em>sufficiency</em>" (s:w. "worthy") to give knowledge of salvation (John language- <em><a href='B:490 1:77'>Luk 1:77</a></em>), to be a preacher, was from God alone (<em><a href='B:540 2:16'>2Co 2:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 3:5'>2Co 3:5</a></em>); and that in fact this was true of&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;preachers. But do we really feel like this in our preaching? John was a burning and shining light to the world (<em><a href='B:500 5:35'>Joh 5:35</a></em>), just as we should be (<em><a href='B:570 2:15'>Phi 2:15</a></em>). And therefore, if we are to witness as John did, we need to have the humility of John in our preaching. He was 'in the Truth' from a baby, he lived a spiritual, self-controlled life. And yet he had this great sense of personal sinfulness and unworthiness as a preacher. It's difficult for those raised Christian to have the sense of sinfulness which Paul had, and thereby to have his zeal for preaching. But actually his zeal was a reflection of John's; and John was a 'good boy', brought up in the Faith. Yet he had a burning sense of his spiritual inadequacy. Anglo-Saxon Christianity urgently needs to capture his spirit:&nbsp; Truly Paul 'bore' Christ to the world just as John 'bore' (s:w:) Christ's Gospel (<em><a href='B:510 9:15'>Act 9:15</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>). If ever a man was hard on himself, it was John the Baptist. His comment on his preaching of Christ was that he was not worthy (RVmg. ‘sufficient’) to bear Christ's sandals (<em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>). The sandal-bearer was the herald; John knew he was heralding Christ's appearing, but he openly said he was not worthy to do this. He felt his insufficiency, as we ought to ours. Would we had that depth of awareness; for on the brink of the Lord's coming, we are in a remarkably similar position to John. Paul perhaps directs us back to John when he says that we are not “sufficient” to be the savour of God to this world; and yet we are made sufficient to preach by God (<em><a href='B:540 2:16'>2Co 2:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 3:5-6'>2Co 3:5-6</a></em> RV). To carry the master’s sandals (<em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>) was, according to Vine, the work of the lowest slave. This was how John saw himself; and this is what witnessing for Jesus is all about, being the lowest slave and servant of the Lord of glory. It's interesting in this context to note how the Lord Jesus states that in some sense, John 'was Elijah', whereas he himself denies this (<em><a href='B:470 11:14'>Mat 11:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 17:12'>Mat 17:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:13'>Mar 9:13</a></em>). Such was his humility.</p><p>For baptizing in water unto repentance, see note on <em><a href='B:470 3:3'>Mat 3:3</a></em> above. Given that Isaiah 40 offered forgiveness in order to provoke repentance, it could be that the AV translation is correct- although&nbsp;<em>eis</em>&nbsp;["unto"] has a very wide range of meaning. John baptized in order to lead people to repentance, rather than baptizing only those who had repented and got their lives in order. Even the NET Bible's "baptize... for repentance" could be read the same way- baptism was for the end of provoking repentance, rather than being baptism only for the visibly repentant. This likelihood is strengthened once we realize that there is surely an allusion here to <em>Wis_11:23</em>: "You overlook the sins of men, unto repentance". Repentance in any case is an internal attitude (see on 3:6), and John as he stood in the Jordan River was totally incapable of judging whether or not in practice his hearers had actually changed their lives. He baptized them because they had confessed their sins and re-thought, re-pented. Not because they had actually changed in practical, ongoing lifestyle issues. Likewise the apostles who baptized 3000 people in Acts 2 had no way of measuring repentance in practice. <em><a href='B:480 1:15'>Mar 1:15</a></em> records John’s message as being: “Repent ye and believe the Gospel". This might seem to be in the wrong order- for we have come to think that surely belief of the Gospel comes before repentance. And so it does very often- but there is another option here- that the repentance is ongoing. Life after conversion is a life of believing the basic Gospel which led us to conversion and repentance in the first place:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>"</em>He shall baptize you" points up the contrast is between John baptizing unto repentance, and Jesus baptizing with the Holy Spirit. The contrast is between 'repentance' and 'the Holy Spirit'. I suggest that the idea is that the gift of the Holy Spirit would empower repentance and new-mindedness far more than what was achieved by unaided, steel-willed human repentance.</p>


text:
<p>3:12&nbsp;<em>Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing-floor and he will gather his wheat into the barn; but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire</em>-</p><p> "He (Jesus) shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit (even) with fire: whose fan is in his hand, and... he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire" (<em><a href='B:470 3:11-12'>Mat 3:11-12</a></em>). John put a choice before them: fire, or fire. Either we are consumed with the fire of devotion to God, or we face the figurative fire of condemnation. This is the logic of judgment. John says that the axe is laid to the root of the trees; his hearers were about to be cut down and thrown into the fire of condemnation. And He says that the Jesus whom he heralds is about to come and divide the wheat from the chaff in judgment, gathering in the wheat, and burning the chaff with “unquenchable fire” (<em><a href='B:490 3:17'>Luk 3:17</a></em>). But the ‘fire’ of condemnation and the division of wheat and chaff is to be done ultimately at the Lord’s second coming (<em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:48'>Mar 9:48</a></em>). But for John, the moment his audience met Jesus, they were standing before the Lord of judgment, the Judge of all the earth. In their response to Him, they were living out the final judgment. And this is just as true of us, both as preachers and hearers of the Gospel. The message that the Lord will "burn with unquenchable fire" those who reject Him is described as preaching "good tidings unto the people" (<em><a href='B:490 3:18'>Luk 3:18</a></em> RV). Likewise the stark teaching about the mortality of man in Isaiah 40 is quoted in 1 Pet. as being the Gospel. The harder side of God is in fact the good news for those who reflect deeply upon the essential message and nature of the Almighty. In <em><a href='B:300 26:2'>Jer 26:2</a></em>, Jeremiah is warned to “diminish not a word, if so be…” Israel may repent. His temptation of course was to water down the message which he had to deliver. But only the harder, more demanding side of God might elicit response in them. By making the message less demanding, it wouldn’t have any chance of eliciting a response.</p>


text:
<p>3:13&nbsp;<em>Then Jesus went from Galilee to the Jordan, to John, to be baptized by him</em>-</p><p> John's ministry was known throughout the Lord; perhaps the Lord travelled with others, some who would later become His disciples; this of itself was an act of identity with the humanity of first century Palestine.</p>


text:
<p>3:14&nbsp;<em>But John would have stopped him, saying: I need to be baptized by you, and yet you come to me?</em>-</p><p> There had clearly been contact between the Lord and John; John had not literally remained his whole life in the wilderness. Or if he did, then the Lord had travelled out there to meet him. His limited contact with the Lord had persuaded him that He was Messiah; for he wanted the Lord to baptize him. Baptism was something which it was expected would be done either by the Elijah prophet or Messiah (<em><a href='B:500 1:25'>Joh 1:25</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>3:15&nbsp;<em>But Jesus answering said to him-&nbsp;</em>The sensitivity of the Lord is reflected in how He frequently sensed and foresaw human behaviour and objections / response to His teaching and actions. You can read the Gospels and search for examples. Here’s a classic one: “But John would have hindered [Jesus]… but Jesus answering said…” (<em><a href='B:470 3:14'>Mat 3:14</a></em> RV). Jesus ‘answered’ John’s objection even before John had properly expressed it (see another example of this in <em><a href='B:490 22:70'>Luk 22:70</a></em>).</p><p><em>Permit it now, for thus it becomes us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he permitted him</em>-</p><p> Maybe the Lord Jesus felt that this act of total identification with sinners in their need was necessary for Him to achieve perfect / total righteousness. And He needed John's assistance in this- "it becomes&nbsp;<em>us</em>":&nbsp; He was baptized in order to be absolutely perfect, and that perfection involved the act of identification with sinners in order to totally identify with them. Perfection will never be achieved by holding aloof from sinners, but rather by identification with them that they might be saved. The reason for Jesus being baptized was surely that He wanted to identify with sinful man, taking His place in the line of mixed up folk waiting on the banks of the Jordan:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>3:16<em>&nbsp;And Jesus when he was baptized immediately came up out of the water, and the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and coming to rest on him</em>-</p><p> Sometimes God indicates from what perspective the record is written; at other times He doesn’t. Thus <em><a href='B:470 3:16'>Mat 3:16</a></em> makes it clear that the Lord saw Heaven opened at his baptism, and the Spirit descending like a dove. But <em><a href='B:490 3:21-22'>Luk 3:21-22</a></em> just says that “the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended”. Luke doesn’t say that this is only what happened from the Lord’s perspective. This problem of perspective is at the root of the misunderstanding of the demon language in the Gospels.</p><p>"To Him" suggests that only the Lord Jesus saw this, although John too saw the dove descending and heard the voice (<em><a href='B:500 1:33'>Joh 1:33</a></em>). But He uses the same language in <em><a href='B:500 1:51'>Joh 1:51</a></em>: "Hereafter&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;shall see Heaven open, and the Angels of God... descending", just as He had seen the heavens opened and the dove descending upon Him. His sense was that His experience at baptism was in essence to be that of all in Him. This connection lends weight to the idea that His baptism was an act of identification with us, He shared our experience and we are to share his. Likewise the Spirit 'lighted' upon Jesus at His baptism, and the only other time we find this idea is when He promised that although we know not from whence the Spirit 'lights' ["comes"], it will indeed 'light' upon every one that is born of water and Spirit (<em><a href='B:500 3:8'>Joh 3:8</a></em>). The same term is used in <em><a href='B:510 19:6'>Act 19:6</a></em>, where after baptism the Spirit 'lighted upon' those baptized. Thus the believer's baptism is spoken of in terms reminiscent of the Lord's. He was baptized to set us an example, identifying with us in order to appeal for us to likewise identify with Him:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>3:17&nbsp;<em>And a voice came from the heavens, saying: This is My beloved Son</em>-</p><p> Surely an allusion to <em><a href='B:10 22:2'>Gen 22:2</a></em> (LXX), where the sacrificed Isaac was Abraham's beloved son.</p><p><em>In whom I am well pleased</em>-</p><p> Combining references to <em><a href='B:230 2:7'>Psa 2:7</a></em> and <em><a href='B:290 42:1'>Isa 42:1</a></em>. Klausner: "In whom I shall be blessed". Quoted about the Lord also in <em><a href='B:470 12:18'>Mat 12:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 17:5'>Mat 17:5</a></em>. The contrast is with how the Father was not "well pleased" with Israel when they were in the wilderness (<em><a href='B:530 10:5'>1Co 10:5</a></em>); but He was well pleased with His Son in the wilderness. Many prophecies about Israel, the 'servant' of Isaiah's prophecies, come true in Jesus. God's plan in Israel failed due to their disobedience, but the intention behind it came true in Jesus; He was the Son who fulfilled the Father's wishes after Israel failed Him. Jesus thus became the embodiment of Israel; He was their representative before God. It is in this context that the representative nature of the Lord Jesus was first established; He was God's Son who was fully representative of Israel. It is thereby through Him that Israel can be finally restored to their Father.</p>


text:
<p>4:1&nbsp;<em>Then was Jesus led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil-</em><p><p> The Lord Jesus was led of the Spirit at His time of testing; and Paul uses just those words of us in our present experience of trial (<a href='B:520 8:14'>Rom. 8:14</a>).  His victory in the wilderness therefore becomes a living inspiration for us, who are tempted as He was (<a href='B:650 4:15-16'>Heb. 4:15,16</a>). Note how Mark speaks of Jesus being 'driven' at this time. Being driven by circumstances can be a form of leading- it just depends which perspective we have.</p><p>Commentary on what this passage does not mean can be found in my book The Real Devil, http://www.realdevil.info</p>


text:
<p>4:2&nbsp;<em>And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterwards he hungered</em>-</p><p> The only other two men recorded as doing this are Moses and Elijah (<em><a href='B:20 34:28'>Exo 34:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 19:8'>1Ki 19:8</a></em>). The Lord chose to seek to enter into their experience; it was presumably His decision to fast for this period. And the Father responded to that by giving Him the encouraging vision of those same two men at the transfiguration. We see here how God is in dialogue with man; if we wish to identify with some Bible character, the Father will respond His side to enable us to do so yet more.</p><p>With His familiarity with Scripture, Christ would have seen the similarities between Himself and Elijah, whose morale collapsed after 40 days in the wilderness (<em><a href='B:110 19:8'>1Ki 19:8</a></em>) and Moses, who forfeited his immediate inheritance of the land at the end of 40 years in the wilderness. Jesus at the end of 40 days, was in a similar position to them - faced with a real possibility of failure. Moses and Elijah failed because of human weakness - not because of a person called “the devil”. It was this same human weakness, the “satan’, or adversary, that was tempting Jesus.</p><p>The temptations were controlled by God for the Lord’s spiritual education. The passages quoted by the Lord to strengthen Himself against His desires (“devil”) are all from the same part of Deuteronomy, regarding Israel’s experience in the wilderness. Jesus clearly saw a parallel between His experiences and theirs: -</p><p><table border="1"><tr><td></p><p><em><a href='B:50 8:2'>Deu 8:2</a></em> “The Lord thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep His commandments (word), or no."</td><td>Matthew 4 / Luke 4 “Jesus led up of the spirit” “forty days” “in the wilderness”. Jesus was proved by the temptations. Jesus overcame by quoting the Scriptures that were in His heart (<em><a href='B:230 119:11'>Psa 119:11</a></em>), thus showing it was the Scriptures that were in His heart.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em><a href='B:50 8:3'>Deu 8:3</a></em>. “And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna... that He might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word…of the Lord..."</td><td>“He was afterward an hungered". In John 6 manna is interpreted by Jesus as representing the Word of God, which Jesus lived by in the wilderness. Jesus learnt that spiritually He lived by the Word of God. “He answered…it is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word …of God”:,</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em><a href='B:50 8:5'>Deu 8:5</a></em> “Thou shalt also consider in thine heart, that, as a man chasteneth his son, so the Lord thy God chasteneth thee”</td><td>Jesus no doubt reflected on His experiences. God chastened His Son, Jesus- <em><a href='B:100 7:12'>2Sa 7:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 89:32'>Psa 89:32</a></em>.</td><td></td></tr></table><p>Thus the Lord showed us how to read and study the Word - He thought Himself into the position of Israel in the wilderness, and therefore took the lessons that can be learnt from their experiences to Himself in His wilderness trials. The description of the Lord Jesus as being in the wilderness with beasts and Angels (<em><a href='B:480 1:13'>Mar 1:13</a></em>) is another connection with Israel’s experience in the wilderness- they were plagued there by “wild beasts” because of their disobedience (<em><a href='B:50 32:19-24'>Deu 32:19-24</a></em> and context):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>4:3&nbsp;<em>And the tempter came and said to him-&nbsp;</em>Matthew's record speaks of "the tempter", and the suggestion has been made that this was a technical term used to refer to the Essene priest whose duty it was to test the claims to Messiahship made by people (5). This would confirm the suggestion that the Lord's temptations were at the hands of the Jews. The desert where He was would've been accessible from the Qumran settlement of the Essenes, and the preceding chapter 3 of Matthew has recorded how many of these people appear to have accepted baptism from John the Baptist in the very area where the temptations occurred. Perhaps "the tempter" priest stayed around and entered into dialogue with Jesus. In confirmation of the idea that the "devil" was some form of Jewish priestly figure, we note that <em><a href='B:470 4:4'>Mat 4:4</a></em> records that Jesus told him that "It is&nbsp;<em>written</em>...". To the illiterate, Jesus usually said that they would have&nbsp;<em>heard</em>&nbsp;something&nbsp;<em>said</em>&nbsp;in the Old Testament; but to the literate Jewish religious leadership, He prefaces His quotations or allusions by saying that "It is&nbsp;<em>written</em>". The fact He uses this phrase here would suggest He may have been talking to one of that class. The Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-20&nbsp;has a surprising number of similarities to the Lord’s life and death amongst the Jews, suggesting that they did indeed subject Him to tests of His Messiahship:</p><p>“Let us lie in wait for the virtuous man, since he annoys us and opposes our way of life, reproaches us for our breaches of the law an accuses us of playing false…he claims to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a son of the Lord. Before us he stands, a reproof to our way of thinking, the very sight of him weighs our spirits down; His way of life is not like other men’s... in His opinion we are counterfeit... and boasts of having God as His father. let us see if what he says is true, let us observe what kind of end he himself will have. If the virtuous man is God’s son, God will take his part and rescue him from the clutches of his enemies<em>. Let us test him with cruelty and with torture, and thus explore this gentleness of His and put His endurance to the proof. Let us condemn him to a shameful death</em>&nbsp;since he will be looked after- we have his word for it" (Susan Garrett lists several Greek words and phrases found in the Gospel of Mark which are identical to those in this section of the Wisdom of Solomon. It would seem that Mark was aware of this passage in the Wisdom of Solomon, and sought to show how throughout the Lord's ministry, and especially in His death, the Jews were seeking to apply it to Him in the way they treated Him. See Susan Garrett,&nbsp;<em>The Temptations Of Jesus In Mark's Gospel</em>(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) p. 68:).</p><p>Every other use of the word "tempter" in Matthew is about the temptation / testing of Jesus by the Jewish leadership (<em><a href='B:470 16:1'>Mat 16:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:3'>Mat 19:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:18'>Mat 22:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:35'>Mat 22:35</a></em>); and that very group are presented as the 'satan' or adversary to the Lord Jesus and His work. There is nothing sinful of itself about putting someone to the test. The same word is used about Jesus putting the disciples to the test (<em><a href='B:500 6:6'>Joh 6:6</a></em>); Paul tested / put to the test [s:w:, A:V. "assayed"] the idea of preaching in Bithynia (<em><a href='B:510 16:7'>Act 16:7</a></em>); we are to put ourselves to the test (<em><a href='B:540 13:5'>2Co 13:5</a></em>); God put Abraham to the test (<em><a href='B:650 11:17'>Heb 11:17</a></em>), false apostles were to be put to the test by the faithful (<em><a href='B:730 2:2'>Rev 2:2</a></em>). It ought to be clear that there is nothing sinister nor sinful about the idea of being 'put to the test' nor of putting another to the test:&nbsp;</p><p>If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread - It's perhaps noteworthy that in the wilderness temptation, the Lord responds to the "If you are the Son of&nbsp;<em>God</em>..." by quoting <em><a href='B:50 8:3'>Deu 8:3</a></em> "<em>man</em>&nbsp;shall not live by bread alone"- and the Jonathan Targum has&nbsp;<em>bar nasha</em>&nbsp;[son of man] here for "man". If we are correct in understanding those wilderness temptations as the Lord's internal struggles, we see Him tempted to wrongly focus upon His being Son of<em>&nbsp;God</em>, forgetting His humanity; and we see Him overcoming this temptation, preferring instead to perceive Himself as Son of&nbsp;<em>man</em>. The&nbsp;<em>if... then</em>&nbsp;structure here (a 'first class conditional') effectively means 'Because…' (See Craig A. Evans,&nbsp;<em>Matthew</em>&nbsp;(Cambridge: C:U:P:, 2012) p. 83). In this case, we are clearly being given an insight into the internal thinking of the Lord Jesus. 'Because You are Son of God, why not…'. A truly human Jesus would inevitably have had such thoughts, and the record here makes that clear. Seeing that Mary appears to have become somewhat influenced by the surrounding view of Jesus as her illegitimate son, it's likely the Lord too had moments when He wondered whether this could all be true- whether He really was God's Son:&nbsp;</p><p>Command that these stones become bread- This would not in itself have been a sin if He had agreed to it. But it would have been choosing a lower level, by breaking His fast. But the next temptations were to actually sin. If He had agreed to the first suggestion, obedience to the next ones would have been harder. It could even be argued that to put the Lord to the test was permissible on a lower level- for passages like <em><a href='B:230 34:8'>Psa 34:8</a></em> and <em><a href='B:460 3:10'>Mal 3:10</a></em> almost encourage it for those with a weak faith. Gideon likewise put the Lord to the test and was answered. But the Lord chose the higher level: and He knew Scripture which could support it. But the fact He chose the highest level first of all, meant that He was better able to take the higher level again, and to finally overcome the third temptation, which was definitely a clear choice between right and wrong. More than this, anything other than a desire to make the highest maximum commitment can lead to failure. “The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left” (<em><a href='B:250 10:2'>Ecc 10:2</a></em> NIV) has been understood as referring not so much to right and wrong, good and evil, as to the highest good and lesser good (cp. how the left hand can stand for simply lesser blessing rather than outright evil, e.g. <em><a href='B:10 48:13-20'>Gen 48:13-20</a></em>). The fool inclines to lower commitment. The wise will always incline to the maximum, wholehearted level.</p>


text:
<p>4:4&nbsp;<em>But he answered and said: It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God</em>-</p><p> The&nbsp;Lord&nbsp;overcame&nbsp;all&nbsp;His&nbsp;temptations&nbsp;by&nbsp;quoting&nbsp;from Deuteronomy, showing that His mind was seeking strength from the words of the Angel leading Israel through the wilderness. There are clear similarities between the Angel's leading of Israel through the wilderness and the Lord's experience in the wilderness:</p><p><table border="1"><tr><td></p><p><em><a href='B:50 8:2-3'>Deu 8:2-3</a></em></td><td>&nbsp;</td><td><em><a href='B:470 4:1-4'>Mat 4:1-4</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>v. 2 "The Lord thy God [an Angel] led you... in the wilderness"</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>v. 1 Jesus led by the spirit (an Angel?) into the wilderness.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Forty years in the wilderness</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>Forty days in the wilderness</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>v. 3 "He (the Angel who led them in v. 2) suffered you to hunger".</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>The Angel made Jesus hunger.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The Angel "fed you with manna" (<em><a href='B:230 78:25'>Psa 78:25</a></em>)</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>Jesus was tempted to ask the Angel to provide bread as He did to Israel in their testing.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>“Man does not live by bread alone"</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>v. 4 "Man does not live by bread alone"</td><td></td></tr></table><p>Thus the Lord Jesus surveyed His own experience in the wilderness, and saw that He could take to Himself personally the lessons given to Israel. The Angel led Israel through the wilderness "to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep His commandments or no" (<em><a href='B:50 8:2'>Deu 8:2</a></em>). God Himself knows anyway, so this must be regarding the Angel, seeking to know the spiritual strength of Israel, as Job's&nbsp;Satan Angel sought to know Job's strength. Similarly, the Lord’s&nbsp;Angel led Him into the wilderness, suffering Him to hunger, to humble and&nbsp;prove Him, to reveal His real attitude to the word of God. His quoting of the word to answer the temptations surely proved this to the Angel, especially since the Lord showed Himself so capable of thinking Himself into Scripture, and therefore taking the lessons most powerfully to Himself. The Lord was made to realize the importance of His memory of the word, as He would have later reflected that this was the only way He had overcome- that man spiritually lives by "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God". As a result of their wilderness temptations, both Israel and Christ were led to "consider in (their) heart, that, as a man chasteneth his son, so the Lord thy God (the Angel) chasteneth thee". The chastenings of the Lord spiritually&nbsp;in&nbsp;the&nbsp;wilderness&nbsp;were therefore arranged by the Angels. There did not have to be Angels actually tempting Christ in the wilderness temptations- because they can act directly on a man's heart, they can lead us into temptation. The fact we pray for Him not to implies that He does- through the Angels, as He Himself tempts no man (<em><a href='B:660 1:13'>Jas 1:13</a></em>), although the Angels tempted Abraham, and Israel among others. Thus the Angels may arrange an external stimulus, e. g. the fruit of the tree of knowledge, knowing it must produce certain internal desires within us which tempt us. Note how the temptation to throw Himself off the top of the temple was a temptation to misuse Angelic care. He answered it by a quotation which has an Angelic context: "You (Jesus) shall not tempt the Lord your God, as ye tempted Him in Massah" (<em><a href='B:50 6:16'>Deu 6:16</a></em>). At Massah the Israelites put the Angel to the test by questioning whether He could provide water (<em><a href='B:20 17:2-7'>Exo 17:2-7</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>4:5&nbsp;<em>Then the Devil took him into the holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple</em>-</p><p> The Greek for "took him" is often used in a non-literal sense, with the idea of receiving someone into an office or situation. The same word is used in :8 about the Lord being taken up a high mountain. The idea may well be that He was imagining being received into rulership of the Messianic Kingdom, and was wondering whether that would be possible through accepting 'the devil', be it His own flesh or the Jewish system, who humanly speaking seemed able to offer a path to this. Likewise '<em>set him</em>' later on in :5 carries the idea of being appointed, established in authority:&nbsp;</p><p>The Synoptics speak of how satan ‘comes to’ and tempts and challenges the Lord Jesus to claim earthly political power, which ‘satan’ can give him (<em><a href='B:470 4:8-9'>Mat 4:8-9</a></em>). But John describes this in terms of “the people” coming to Him and trying to make Him King- which temptation He refused (<em><a href='B:500 6:15'>Joh 6:15</a></em>). Likewise it was ‘the devil’ in the wilderness who tempted Jesus to make the stones into bread. But in <em><a href='B:500 6:30-31'>Joh 6:30-31</a></em>, it is the Jewish people who offer Him the same temptation. In the wilderness, the Lord responded that man lives by the bread which comes from the mouth of God. In <em><a href='B:500 6:32'>Joh 6:32</a></em>, He responds likewise by speaking about “the true bread from heaven”. The temptation from ‘the devil’ to publicly display His Divine powers in front of Israel in the Jerusalem temple (<em><a href='B:470 4:5-6'>Mat 4:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 4:9-12'>Luk 4:9-12</a></em>) is repeated by John in terms of the Lord’s brothers tempting Him to go up to the same temple and openly validate Himself “to the world” (<em><a href='B:500 7:1-5'>Joh 7:1-5</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>4:6&nbsp;<em>And said to him: If you are the Son of God, cast yourself down. For it is written, He shall give His angels charge concerning you, and on their hands they shall carry you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone</em>-</p><p> Presumably this was to be taken literally- the Angels physically with Him would have literally held Him under the arms if He jumped from the temple. So we see the literal physical presence of the Angels in our lives. The eyes of God, an evident reference to the Angels, are associated with the temple (<em><a href='B:110 8:29'>1Ki 8:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 11:4'>Psa 11:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 5:6-8'>Psa 5:6-8</a></em>). The implication surely is that the Angel[s] specifically functioned in the temple / sanctuary. It seems that great stress is placed in Scripture on the Angels physically moving through space, both on the earth and between Heaven and earth, in order to fulfil their tasks, rather than being static in Heaven or earth and bringing things about by just willing them to happen.</p><p>The ‘devil’ of the Lord’s own thoughts tempted Him to apply <em><a href='B:230 91:11'>Psa 91:11</a></em> in a wrong context, and jump off the pinnacle of the temple. But if the Lord had gone on, as surely He did, He would have found the words: “Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet” (<em><a href='B:230 91:13'>Psa 91:13</a></em>). This promise would have been of wonderful comfort, as throughout the wilderness temptations the Lord “was with the wild beasts” (<em><a href='B:480 1:13'>Mar 1:13</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>4:7&nbsp;<em>Jesus said to him: Again it is written, You shall not make trial of the Lord your God</em>-</p><p> The Greek effectively means 'On the other hand, it is also written…'. The Lord Jesus did not try to reconcile the two verses, He accepted them as part of a dialectic whereby this verse says that but this verse says this- which is typical Hebrew reasoning. Geek reasoning would seek to explain that this verse says this, but that is qualified by this other verse, so the truth is a mixture between the two verses. The Hebrew style of reasoning leaves apparent contradictions to the Western, Greek reasoning mind. But they are not this at all, just dialectical style.</p>


text:
<p>4:8&nbsp;<em>Again, the Devil took him to an exceeding high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them</em>-</p><p> The Greek could be translated 'the very highest', clearly a reference to the time of the Kingdom of God on earth. It can hardly be that a fiendish being took the Lord Jesus literally up the highest mountain (Everest) from where He could see all the world. Nor would being up a tall mountain enable the Lord to see "the glory of them". Surely a non-literal event is implied here- within the Lord's mind.</p><p>The temptations are hard to take literally:-</p><p>- <em><a href='B:470 4:8'>Mat 4:8</a></em> implies that Jesus was led up into a high mountain to see all the kingdoms of the world in their future glory, “In a moment of time”. There is no mountain high enough to see all the world. And why would the height of the mountain enable Jesus to see what the world would be like in the future? The earth, being a sphere, there is no point on its surface from which one can see all the parts of the world at one time.</p><p>- A comparison of Matthew 4 and Luke 4 shows that the temptations are described in a different order. <em><a href='B:480 11:13'>Mar 11:13</a></em> says that Jesus was “in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan”, whilst <em><a href='B:470 4:2-3'>Mat 4:2-3</a></em> says that “when he had fasted forty days…the tempter (Satan) came to Him...". Because Scripture cannot contradict itself, we can conclude that these same temptations kept repeating themselves. The temptation to turn stones into bread is an obvious example. This would fit nicely if these temptations occurred within the mind of Jesus. Being of our nature, the lack of food would have affected him mentally as well as physically, and thus his mind would have easily begun to imagine things. Just going a few days without food can lead to delirium for some (cp. <em><a href='B:90 30:12'>1Sa 30:12</a></em>). The similarity between rolls of bread and stones is mentioned by Jesus in <em><a href='B:470 7:9'>Mat 7:9</a></em>, and doubtless those images often merged in his tortured mind - although always to be brought into swift control by his recollection of the Word</p><p>- Jesus probably told the Gospel writers the record of His temptations, and to bring home in words the intensity of what He underwent, He could have used the figurative approach seen in Matthew 4 and Luke 4.</p><p>- It seems unlikely that several times the devil led Jesus through the wilderness and streets of Jerusalem and then scaled a pinnacle of the temple together, all in view of the inquisitive Jews. Josephus makes no record of anything like this happening - presumably it would have caused a major stir. Similarly, if these temptations occurred several times within the forty days as well as at the end of that period (which they did at least twice, seeing that Matthew and Luke have them in different order), how would Jesus have had time to walk (note the devil “led” Jesus there) to the nearest high mountain (which could have been Hermon in the far north of Israel), climb to the top and back down again, return to the wilderness and then repeat the exercise? His temptations all occurred in the wilderness - He was there for forty days, tempted all the time by the devil (he only departed at the end, :11). If Jesus was tempted by the devil each day, and the temptations occurred only in the wilderness, then it follows that Jesus could not have left the wilderness to go to Jerusalem or travel to a high mountain. These things therefore could not have literally happened.</p><p>That the temptations were internal to the mind of Jesus is suggested by the way that in Matthew's record, there is a progression from the desert, to the temple pinnacle, to a high mountain- as if in some sort of ascent toward Heaven. It's even possible that Paul has this in mind when he comments that Jesus did not consider rising up to equality with God a thing to be grasped at, He dismissed that temptation, and instead He progressively&nbsp;<em>lowered</em>&nbsp;Himself, even to the death of the cross (<em><a href='B:570 2:6-8'>Phi 2:6-8</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>4:9&nbsp;<em>And he said to him: All these things will I give you, if you will fall down and worship me</em>-</p><p> The Lord knew full well that "all things", the Kingdom of God when the kingdoms of this world have been subsumed beneath it, could only be given to Him to God. He was tempted to play God, to assume that by His own action He could grasp it for Himself without the cross. It is perhaps to this that Paul alludes when he writes that the Lord did not consider such equality with God a thing to be even grasped after (<em><a href='B:570 2:6'>Phi 2:6</a></em>). Again we see how the essence of the wilderness temptations returned to the Lord on the cross. For <em><a href='B:570 2:6'>Phi 2:6</a></em> specifically speaks of the Lord in His time of dying.</p>


text:
<p>4:10&nbsp;<em>Then said Jesus to him: Away with you Satan! For it is written: You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve</em>-</p><p> The record of the Lord’s wilderness temptations is almost certainly a reflection of&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;self-perception; He spoke to the ‘devil’ / personification of sin which was within Him, He saw Himself as two people, and His spiritual man triumphed gloriously against the man of the flesh. <em><a href='B:490 4:8'>Luk 4:8</a></em> records how “Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve”. He understood that we can only serve two masters: God or the flesh (“mammon” is another personification of the flesh, similar to ‘satan’). He saw His own flesh, His own internal thoughts, as a master begging to be served which He must totally reject. His words are a quotation from <em><a href='B:50 6:13'>Deu 6:13</a></em>, which warns Israel to serve Yahweh alone and not idols. He perceived His own natural mind and desire as an idol calling to be served. When the Lord explained what had happened in the wilderness to the disciples and thereby to the Gospel writers, He opened His heart to them. He gave us all a window on how He perceived Himself, as He sought to explain to men the internal struggles of the Son of God. Bringing it all back home, I must ask firstly how much we even&nbsp;<em>struggle</em>&nbsp;with temptation? And as and when we do, would we not be helped by the Lord’s example of talking to ourselves, and personalising Scripture as He did? ‘You don’t want to do&nbsp;<em>that</em>! Give up your place in the Kingdom, for that... drug, that girl, that job? Of course not! Come on. There&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;a way of escape; Paul told me God won’t try me beyond my strength, He will make me a way of escape’:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>4:11&nbsp;<em>Then the Devil left him, and angels came and ministered to him</em>-</p><p> The same words are used of how they minister to&nbsp;<em>us</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:650 1:14'>Heb 1:14</a></em>). And the theme of Hebrews 1, 2 is that the Lord was indeed of our nature, and in essence had the same relationship with us as they had with Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>4:12&nbsp;<em>Now when he heard that John was imprisoned-&nbsp;</em>It's as if the Lord took the end of John's public ministry as the cue to begin His (“from that time…”, :17). He may have worked this out from the implication of the prophecies about the Elijah prophet. Or it may be that He took John’s imprisonment as the sign to go to Galilee. Whatever, He was acting according to information which came to Him, and structuring His ministry accordingly. We get the impression that this was done without direct commandment from the Father but at His initiative.</p><p>He withdrew into Galilee- The Greek definitely implies to withdraw oneself. This seems typical of the Lord during His ministry- to go public for a while and then withdraw.</p>


text:
<p>4:13&nbsp;<em>And leaving Nazareth</em>-</p><p> Gk. ‘to forsake’. Perhaps because of the lack of response already apparent in His home town. Again, as commented on :12, we see the Lord making decisions about His ministry on His initiative in accord with how situations developed.</p><p><em>He went and dwelt in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali</em>-</p><p> The idea is of 'to reside'. He changed His base from Nazareth to Capernaum in order to give His message more access to Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p>4:14&nbsp;<em>That it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying</em>-</p><p> This sounds as if the Lord was consciously attempting to fulfil God's word. He was "the word made flesh" but He had to consciously achieve that. See on <em><a href='B:470 3:15'>Mat 3:15</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>4:15&nbsp;<em>The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, toward the sea, on the other side of the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles-</em></p><p>"Toward the sea" is "by the way of the sea" (AV)<em>.</em>&nbsp;The idea was that John the Baptist was to prepare “the way” for Messiah. Even at this early stage in the ministry, it seems that the Lord recognized that that “way” was going to have to be amongst the Gentiles:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>4:16&nbsp;<em>The people dwelling in darkness have seen a great light-</em></p><p>Each of the Gospels is somehow personalized to the writer. Matthew, for example, changes the Lord's quotation of <em><a href='B:290 9:9'>Isa 9:9</a></em> from "the people which&nbsp;<em>walked</em>&nbsp;in darkness..." to "the people which<em>&nbsp;sat</em>&nbsp;in darkness saw great light" (<em><a href='B:470 4:16'>Mat 4:16</a></em>), because he was&nbsp;<em>sitting</em>&nbsp;at the receipt of custom when the Lord called him (<em><a href='B:470 9:9'>Mat 9:9</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>And for those dwelling in the region and the shadow of death-&nbsp;</em>As if death is personified, having its own region and shadow. The darkness of the context in <em><a href='B:290 9:2'>Isa 9:2</a></em> is that of <em><a href='B:290 8:22'>Isa 8:22</a></em> - the darkness of condemnation, for the rejected for whom there was 'no dawn' (<em><a href='B:290 8:20'>Isa 8:20</a></em> Heb:). We can be condemned in this life and yet still change that verdict- by coming to the light of Christ. Isaiah 8 concluded by speaking of the wicked being sent into the darkness of condemnation (a common figure in Isaiah, e.g. <em><a href='B:290 5:30'>Isa 5:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 9:19'>Isa 9:19</a></em>). Those who dwell in the dark shadow of death are therefore those who have been condemned- but for them, the light of Christ arose from despised Galilee and the area around the Sea of Galilee (<em><a href='B:290 9:1'>Isa 9:1</a></em> - "the sea" surely refers in the context to the Sea of Galilee, not the Mediterranean):&nbsp;</p><p><em>On them a light has dawned-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The light is clearly the Lord Jesus. He uses the same word soon afterwards in speaking of how God makes His light to ‘spring up’ upon both the just and the unjust, the evil and the good (<em><a href='B:470 5:45'>Mat 5:45</a></em>). These categories are therefore within the group of those to whom the light of the Gospel has been revealed. Likewise the rising of the sun in the parable of the sower (<em><a href='B:470 13:6'>Mat 13:6</a></em> s:w:) would refer to the beginning of Christ’s public ministry; the various types of ground initially responded to John’s message, but when Christ’s ministry was revealed openly, i:e. the sun sprung up, then persecution began, and they fell away.</p>


text:
<p>4:17&nbsp;<em>From that time began Jesus to preach and to say: Repent!-</em></p><p>&nbsp;The Lord’s first public word was the challenge to change. His opening words were surely carefully chosen to verbatim repeat those of John (<em><a href='B:470 3:2'>Mat 3:2</a></em>). He wanted to show the continuity of the message from John to Himself. For He was building upon John’s work, which had been intended to prepare the way for Him to come triumphantly to Zion over the ‘way’ which had been prepared in the hearts of repentant people. The exact repetition of John’s message could suggest that the Lord saw John’s ministry as not having been responded to- and therefore his message and appeal needed repeating.</p><p><em>For the kingdom of heaven is at hand</em>-</p><p> Gk. 'approaching'. The idea was that John the Baptist had attempted to prepare the way, the highway, over which Messiah would come. So now, Messiah was approaching. "The kingdom of God" was a title for Messiah, seeing that He was the King of the Kingdom; and the term is used like that in Scripture too, e.g. <em><a href='B:490 17:21'>Luk 17:21</a></em>. The Kingdom could have been then established, the glory of Yahweh could have come to Zion if John's work of preparing the road for it had been successful. But ultimately, Israel would not. But the Greek can also mean that the Kingdom was being ‘made near’, it was being drawn near by repentance- which is why the Lord was appealing for repentance. This is a significant theme in Bible teaching- that the exact calendar date of the Kingdom’s establishment is dependent upon the repentance of Israel. This repentance appears a prerequisite to the Lord’s coming in glory and the establishment of the Kingdom. Our focus should therefore be upon appealing to Israel to repent.</p>


text:
<p>4:18<em>&nbsp;And walking by the sea of Galilee-&nbsp;</em>"Walking by" is literally ‘around’. The idea could be that He walked all around the lake:&nbsp;</p><p><em>He saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen</em>-</p><p>The Lord's call always comes at the most inconvenient moment. It was whilst Simon and Andrew were in the very act of casting their net into the sea, caught in a freeze-frame of still life, silhouetted against the sea and hills of Galilee, that the Lord calls them to go preaching (<em><a href='B:480 1:17'>Mar 1:17</a></em>). The Lord surely intended them to [at least later] figure out His allusion to <em><a href='B:300 16:14-16'>Jer 16:14-16</a></em>, which prophesied that fishermen would be sent out to catch Israel and bring them home to the Father. And He called them to do that, right in the very midst of everyday life:&nbsp; <em><a href='B:490 5:5'>Luk 5:5</a></em> gives more detail. Despite having toiled all night and caught nothing, Peter was able to subdue his natural wisdom, his sense of futility, and the sense of irritation and superiority which exists in the experienced working man: "Nevertheless (how much that hides!) at&nbsp;<em>thy word</em>&nbsp;I will let down the net" (<em><a href='B:490 5:5'>Luk 5:5</a></em>). It would seem that the parallel record of this is found in <em><a href='B:470 4:18'>Mat 4:18</a></em>, which describes the call of the disciples soon after Christ's triumphant emergence from the wilderness temptations. We learn from <em><a href='B:500 1:41-42'>Joh 1:41-42</a></em> that it was Peter's brother, Andrew, who first told Peter about Jesus, and who brought him to meet Jesus first of all. The point is that at the time of Peter's call as he was fishing, he had probably heard very few of Christ's words personally. He had heard about Him, and listened to His words for perhaps a few hours at different times in the past. So where did he get this tremendous respect for the word of Christ from, which he demonstrated when Christ called him? The answer must be that he meditated deeply on those words that he had heard and understood, and came to appreciate that the man saying them was worth giving all for. Our far easier access to God's word does not seem to make us more meditative as individuals. We have access to hearing God's word which previous generations never had. We can listen to it on any manner of mobile devices, have recordings of Scripture playing at home, analyse it by computer, hear it sung to us according to our taste in music, read it from pocket Bibles as we work and travel... we&nbsp;<em>can</em>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<em>could</em>&nbsp;do all these things. My sense is that we just don't make use of our opportunities as we should. Why has God given our generation these special opportunities to be ultra-familiar with His word? Surely it is because our age contains temptations which are simply more powerful than those of former years. So it is&nbsp;<em>vital</em>, vital for our eternal destiny, that we do make as much use as possible of all these opportunities. We should be&nbsp;<em>cramming</em>,&nbsp;yes cramming, our hearts and brains with the words of God. I certainly get the feeling that Peter would have listened to a recording of Isaiah on his mobile device if he had one, as he went out fishing; that he'd have had tapes of the Psalms going all evening long in his little fisherman's cottage, wife and kids caught up in his enthusiasm too (<em><a href='B:480 10:10'>Mar 10:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:15'>Mar 10:15</a></em> suggests that the incident with the little children occurred in Peter's house):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>4:19&nbsp;And<em>&nbsp;he said to them: Follow me, and I will make you</em>-</p><p> One intention of our calling to the Gospel is to bring others to the Kingdom. Evangelism isn’t therefore something intended for only some within the body of Christ. And the Lord has a personal training program for each of us- "I will make you...".</p><p><em>Fishers of men</em>-</p><p> The Greek&nbsp;<em>halieus</em>&nbsp;is literally ‘a salty one’, from&nbsp;<em>hals</em>, salt. The Lord invites all in Him to see themselves as the salty ones of the earth (<em><a href='B:470 5:13'>Mat 5:13</a></em>). The call to be fishers, salty ones, is therefore not only for those men on the shore of Galilee, nor for just some of us- but for us all. The Qumran documents spoke of ‘the fishers of men’ as being those who would condemn Israel in the last day; and yet the Lord clearly had the idea that they were to ‘catch’ people out of the ‘sea’ of the nations and bring them to salvation. So the preachers as ‘fishers of men’ actually have a double role- as Paul put it, to some our preaching is the savour of death, to others, the savour of life (<em><a href='B:540 2:16'>2Co 2:16</a></em>). Not only does this encourage us as the preachers to&nbsp;<em>plead</em>&nbsp;with men to choose life rather than death; but it is a sober reminder that we too face the impact of the very Gospel which we ourselves preach, and must likewise live lives of ongoing response. We preach, therefore, aimed at a decision- not merely ‘witnessing’, nor simply imparting helpful information.</p>


text:
<p>4:20&nbsp;<em>And they immediately left the nets and followed him</em>-</p><p> The Greek word translated “left” is used throughout the Synoptic records of the disciples ‘leaving’ what they knew in response to the Gospel. They left their nets, then their boat and even their father (:22). The same word is translated ‘to forgive’. Because of our experience of having our sins ‘let go’ by God and His Son, we are thereby motivated to ‘let go’ not only others’ sins and debts to us, but all the ties that bind us to the things of this life. The immediacy of their response is a theme of Matthew's; it is he who begins by so stressing how immediately Joseph and Mary responded.</p>


text:
<p>4:21&nbsp;<em>And going on from there he saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them</em>-</p><p> They were intending to continue fishing. There was therefore no theatrics attached to their dramatic leaving of all:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>4:22&nbsp;<em>And they immediately left the boat and their father and followed him-&nbsp;</em>They became His disciples, that is the meaning of the idiom. The way the Lord called people in the midst of their daily lives, and they immediately “left all and followed Him” is surely recorded to set a pattern for all future response to Him (<em><a href='B:470 4:22'>Mat 4:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 1:18'>Mar 1:18</a></em>). See on :20. Those fishermen who left their nets had heard the message some time earlier, but the record is framed so as to stress the immediacy and totality of response to Him, in the midst of daily life. In a day when the complexity of modern living can become an excuse to justify almost anything as an expression of discipleship, we need to remember the starker simplicities of Jesus’ first call: “Follow me”. And the immediate response which was made to it. In this sense, Jesus through His word that makes Him flesh to us, i:e. an imaginable person…still walks up to fishermen, into shops, accountants’ offices, school classrooms: and bids us urgently and immediately leave behind our worldly advantage, and follow Him in the way of true discipleship. The immediacy of response is quite a theme (:20, and especially in Mark's early chapters). It continues with the speed at which people were baptized in the Acts:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>4:23&nbsp;And<em>&nbsp;Jesus went about in all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom and healing all manner of disease and all manner of sickness among the people- "</em>Went about… teaching… preaching… healing" is just what we read of the Lord's followers doing in Acts. The preaching of the apostles (and of ourselves) continues the personal work of the Lord in whom they lived and moved, and therefore often Acts records the preaching work in language lifted from Luke as well as the other Gospel records (e.g. <em><a href='B:510 4:2'>Act 4:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:12-16'>Act 5:12-16</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 4:23'>Mat 4:23</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>The preaching of the Kingdom is made parallel to preaching the time of acceptance with God and forgiveness of sins&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:490 4:43'>Luk 4:43</a></em> cp. 19, <em><a href='B:540 6:2'>2Co 6:2</a></em>); <em><a href='B:520 14:17'>Rom 14:17</a></em>, which seems to teach that the Kingdom of God is more about "peace and joy in the Holy Spirit", both now and eternally, than physical, tangible things. Christ's parables about the Kingdom don't speak of a political Kingdom, but rather about the relationship between God and the believer in the here and now:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>4:24&nbsp;<em>Then his fame went throughout all Syria; and they brought to him all sick people who were afflicted with various diseases and torments, and those who were demon possessed, epileptics, and paralytics; and he healed them</em></p><p><em>-</em></p><p>&nbsp; The repetition of the word “and..." gives the impression that every kind of illness – physical and mental, understood and not understood – was healed by the Lord Jesus. “Lunatic” translates the Greek&nbsp;<em>selçniazomai&nbsp;</em>– “to be moon struck”, derived from the noun&nbsp;<em>selçnç</em>, the moon. It’s not true that some mental illnesses come from being moon–struck. But the idea is used, without correction – just as the idea of ‘demon possession’ is in the preceding phrase. “Brought” translates a word which was used in the technical sense of bringing sacrifice- and the idea of converts as sacrifices is repeated in <em><a href='B:520 15:16'>Rom 15:16</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>4:25&nbsp;<em>And great crowds followed him, those from Galilee and Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea and from the other side of the Jordan</em>-</p><p> Luke makes the point that His popularity was not only because of the miracles, but because of His teaching. <em><a href='B:490 4:22'>Luk 4:22</a></em> records how people were amazed at the gracious words He spoke; there was something very unusual in His manner of speaking. Because of the gracious words and manner of speaking of Jesus, therefore God so highly exalted Him (<em><a href='B:230 45:2'>Psa 45:2</a></em>). The Father was&nbsp;<em>so&nbsp;</em>impressed with the words of His Son. Evidently there must have been something totally outstanding about His use of language. God highly exalted Him because He so loved righteousness and hated wickedness (<em><a href='B:230 45:7'>Psa 45:7</a></em>), and yet also because of His manner of speaking (<em><a href='B:230 45:2'>Psa 45:2</a></em>); so this&nbsp;<em>love&nbsp;</em>of righteousness and hatred of evil was what made His words so special. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>5:1&nbsp;<em>And seeing the crowds, he went into the mountain and when he had sat down, his disciples came to him</em>-</p><p> The article suggests a specific mountain in mind- perhaps the great mountain Jesus had in mind in <em><a href='B:470 4:8'>Mat 4:8</a></em>? Jesus taught up a mountain, suggesting that His teaching is accessible to those who make some effort to receive it. The Sermon on the Mount is the equivalent of the giving of the Law, also on a mountain. As God / the Angel gave the law to Moses, so Jesus did to the disciples. The disciples ascending the mount to receive the teaching parallels them with Moses, with the implication they too were to relay it to Israel. Instead of the people being forbidden to come up the mountain, they were allowed to- for by the end of the Sermon we learn that the multitudes were also there/ bound by the Sabbath commandment. But it was well understood in the first century that priests on duty&nbsp;were free from the Sabbath legislation. The hint could therefore be that the Lord believed that because His obedient listeners were to live their lives as the new priesthood, they were therefore free from Sabbath legislation. The Lord was surely very conscious that John had come to prepare the way for Him, in terms of Isaiah 40. And yet that same prophecy saw the good news being declared to Jerusalem from a mountain (<em><a href='B:290 40:9'>Isa 40:9</a></em>). Perhaps the Lord was seeking to consciously fulfil this by going up a mountain and proclaiming blessedness and good news to spiritual Jerusalem. It could be further noted that the Gospel of Matthew features five sections of recorded speeches of Jesus, each concluded by the phrase “When Jesus had finished these sayings” (<em><a href='B:470 7:28'>Mat 7:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 11:1'>Mat 11:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:53'>Mat 13:53</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:1'>Mat 19:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:1'>Mat 26:1</a></em>). It may be that Matthew is seeking to present the Gospel as a new Torah, with five ‘books’ to it just as there were in the old Torah.</p>


text:
<p>5:2&nbsp;<em>And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying</em>-</p><p> As if this struck Matthew, recalling how this manifesto of His teaching first fell from His lips. There may be the implication that what He said was by direct revelation from God.</p>


text:
<p>5:3- see on 5:43.</p><p><em>Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven-&nbsp;</em>Our prayers should be like those of a man on death row in a dark dungeon, waiting to die, but groaning for salvation (<em><a href='B:230 102:17'>Psa 102:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 102:20'>Psa 102:20</a></em>). This is the extent of our desperation. We are “the poor” (Gk. ‘the crouchers’), cringing in utter spiritual destitution (<em><a href='B:470 5:3'>Mat 5:3</a></em>). And yet we have a terrible tendency to only occasionally&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;pray, content with prayer on a surface level. The Lord's parables invite us to see ourselves as, e.g., the desperate widow woman pleading for deliverance from her oppressive landlord (<em><a href='B:490 18:3'>Luk 18:3</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>5:4&nbsp;<em>Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted-&nbsp;</em>Associated in the Old Testament with mourning for sin (<em><a href='B:20 33:4-5'>Exo 33:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:150 10:6'>Ezr 10:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:160 8:9'>Neh 8:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 38:5-6'>Psa 38:5-6</a></em>). The comfort offered in Isaiah was specifically comfort for sinners who realized their desperation (<em><a href='B:290 12:1'>Isa 12:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 40:1'>Isa 40:1</a></em>). The time of God's grace was extended, therefore, to those who mourned for their sins (<em><a href='B:290 61:2-3'>Isa 61:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 66:10'>Isa 66:10</a></em>). Such Godly sorrow is the sorrow of repentance (<em><a href='B:540 7:10'>2Co 7:10</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>We noted in chapter 4 that the Lord had in mind the way that John had prepared the way for Him in terms of the prophecy of Isaiah 40, which spoke of 'comfort' to God's doubting people. If this comfort were accepted, then the glory would come to Zion and John's work would have prepared a highway of repentant people over which the Lord Jesus could have come to Zion and established the Kingdom there and then. Comfort to the mourners was one of Isaiah's descriptions of that possible Kingdom. It could have all happened in the first century, but Israel would not- and so the final fulfilment of this comfort will be at Christ's return and the establishment of God's Kingdom fully on earth. "Be comforted" may be a prophesy of the Comforter which was to give a measure of comfort even in this life (<em><a href='B:500 14:16'>Joh 14:16</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>5:5&nbsp;<em>Blessed are the meek</em>-</p><p> Those humbled by their sins. James, in his commentary on the Sermon, alludes here by saying that God gives grace to the meek, and therefore sinners should cleanse themselves (<em><a href='B:660 4:6'>Jas 4:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 4:8-10'>Jas 4:8-10</a></em>).</p><p><em>For they shall inherit the earth</em>-</p><p> Clearly a reference to the promises to Abraham. But it was no good just being a physical descendant of Abraham- humility was the required characteristic. To the Lord, humility was the very<em>&nbsp;epitome</em>&nbsp;of righteousness (<em><a href='B:470 5:5'>Mat 5:5</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:230 37:29'>Psa 37:29</a></em>), as Malachi saw pride as the epitome of wickedness (see the parallelism in <em><a href='B:460 4:1'>Mal 4:1</a></em>). There is a telling parallelism in <em><a href='B:430 2:3'>Zep 2:3</a></em> which equates Yahweh God of Israel with humility: "Seek ye Yahweh... seek meekness”.</p>


text:
<p>5:6&nbsp;<em>Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness-&nbsp;</em>Notice how some of the Lord’s very first words on opening His ministry were “<em>Blessed</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:490 1:48'>Luk 1:48</a></em>) are they which do&nbsp;<em>hunger</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:490 1:53'>Luk 1:53</a></em>) and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be&nbsp;<em>filled&nbsp;</em>(<em><a href='B:490 1:53'>Luk 1:53</a></em>)” (<em><a href='B:470 5:6'>Mat 5:6</a></em>). Clearly He is alluding to His mother’s own description of herself. It’s as if He stands up there before the hushed crowd and lays down His manifesto with those words. This was the keynote of what He had to say to humanity. Everybody was waiting to hear what His message really was. And this is what He said. He was saying ‘This, guys, is what I essentially and most fundamentally seek to inspire in you’. And He saw His dear mother as the epitome of the converts He was seeking to make. I lay great store by this allusion. For it makes Mary, at least at the time of the Angel’s visit, truly our pattern. She heard the glad tidings and believed that word in faith, holding on to it in her heart (<em><a href='B:490 8:15'>Luk 8:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:21'>Luk 8:21</a></em>). She was a model for all who hear the Gospel. It could even be that the language of <em><a href='B:490 1:32-33'>Luk 1:32-33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:35'>Luk 1:35</a></em> is framed in such a way as to make Mary appear to be the first person who heard the gospel about Jesus. &nbsp;</p><p><em>Thirst after righteousness</em>-</p><p> The characteristics of the 'blessed' in the first four beatitudes are that they will be spiritually poor (:3), mourning (often used in connection with contrition for sin), humbled, and thirsting to be more righteous than they are. "Righteousness" could mean 'justice' but the term is used by Paul to specifically refer to 'justification from sin'. These descriptions immediately give us all the encouragement that this message of the Kingdom is for me, even me. The next blessing is for the merciful, the forgiving, because they shall obtain mercy- i:e. final cleansing from sin and justification on judgment day. Although of course this is possible even now. See on <em><a href='B:470 5:9'>Mat 5:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>peacemakers&nbsp;</em>and on <em><a href='B:470 6:12'>Mat 6:12</a></em>.</p><p><em>For they shall be filled</em>-</p><p> S:w. <em><a href='B:470 14:20'>Mat 14:20</a></em> about the 'filling' of the multitude who came to hear the word of Jesus. All the Kingdom blessings have some fulfilment in this life. John's version of this is the record of the Lord saying that the salvation He provides would satisfy those who hungered and thirsted for it (<em><a href='B:500 6:35'>Joh 6:35</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>5:7&nbsp;<em>Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy</em>-</p><p> This is apparently missing in Luke's record. He says instead that the reviled and excluded will be blessed (<em><a href='B:490 6:22'>Luk 6:22</a></em>). Samuel Lachs suggests another original text actually read "Happy are they who are excommunicated for they shall receive mercy" (Samuel T. Lachs,&nbsp;<em>A Rabbinic Commentary of the New Testament</em>&nbsp;(Jersey City: Ktav, 1987) p. 75). There's a clear connection with <em><a href='B:230 18:25'>Psa 18:25</a></em>: "With the merciful you will show yourself merciful. With the perfect man, you will show yourself perfect". This verse was clearly in the Lord's mind, and it may shed light on His later challenge to be perfect as the Father is perfect (<em><a href='B:470 5:48'>Mat 5:48</a></em>)- in this case, He would be inviting us to forgive others as God does. Paul in <em><a href='B:620 1:16'>2Ti 1:16</a></em> saw Onesiphorus as the merciful man of <em><a href='B:470 5:7'>Mat 5:7</a></em>; and the Jerusalem ecclesia (<em><a href='B:650 10:34'>Heb 10:34</a></em>) as the persecuted people of <em><a href='B:470 5:12'>Mat 5:12</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>5:8&nbsp;<em>Blessed are the pure in heart</em>-</p><p> Heb:&nbsp;<em>bare lev</em>, also translated 'broken hearted' in <em><a href='B:290 61:1'>Isa 61:1</a></em>. A pure heart can also be understood in the context of what happens on repentance and receipt of forgiveness, for <em><a href='B:230 51:10'>Psa 51:10</a></em> uses the term to describe David's position after his repentance and forgiveness (also in <em><a href='B:230 73:13'>Psa 73:13</a></em>).</p><p><em>For they shall see God</em>-</p><p> Again the Lord is encouraging the disciples whom He was addressing to see themselves as Moses (see on <em><a href='B:470 5:1'>Mat 5:1</a></em>), for Moses was held in Judaism as the only one who had seen God (<em><a href='B:20 33:11'>Exo 33:11</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>5:9&nbsp;<em>Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God</em>-</p><p> Samuel T. Lachs suggests another original text actually read "Blessed are they that stumble" (Lachs, p. 77), and this would fit with our suggestion made on <em><a href='B:470 5:6'>Mat 5:6</a></em> that the 'happy' people are those who are spiritually weak but are accepted and forgiven. However, the reference may be to the priesthood, with whom God made a covenant of peace, that they might bring Israel to peace with Him (<em><a href='B:40 25:12'>Num 25:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 2:6'>Mal 2:6</a></em>). Just as the Lord encouraged the disciples to see themselves as Moses, so He inspires them with the thought that they, the nothing special, secular Jews, could and would take over the work of the priesthood:&nbsp; Rabbi Hillel “exhorted his students to become disciples of Aaron, ‘peace lovers and peacemakers’ (mAb1:12)” (As quoted in Geza Vermes,&nbsp;<em>The Authentic Gospel of Jesus</em>&nbsp;(London: Penguin, 2004) p. 314).</p>


text:
<p>5:10&nbsp;<em>Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven</em>-</p><p> 'Persecute' is literally 'to drive away' (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 1:23'>Mat 1:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 23:34'>Mat 23:34</a></em>), maybe carrying the idea of excommunication. Being thrown out of the synagogue was a major and frequent occurrence for many who came to Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 9:22'>Joh 9:22</a></em>). There are Old Testament connections between persecution and suffering for sin (<em><a href='B:50 30:1-7'>Deu 30:1-7</a></em>), so the Lord could also have in view, as often in the Beatitudes, that He is offering blessing and happiness for the messed up sinners who are suffering in this life for their sins.</p>


text:
<p>5:11&nbsp;<em>Blessed are you when men reproach you because of me, and persecute you and falsely accuse you of all sorts of evil</em>-</p><p>&nbsp; Quoted by Peter in <em><a href='B:670 4:14'>1Pe 4:14</a></em> where he says that we are blessed / happy if we are reviled for the sake of Christ's Name. Verses 10 and 11 seem to imply that persecution, slander and serious opposition is inevitable for all who will follow Christ. Yet when these things happen, we seem to be shocked and surprised.</p><p>Paul's extraordinary ability to rejoice in his trials seems to have been rooted in his sustained reflection upon <em><a href='B:470 5:11-12'>Mat 5:11-12</a></em>: "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you... rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward... for so persecuted they the prophets”. These words are alluded to in at least 5 verses in his epistles. Again seeking to challenge the prevailing views of the Jewish leadership, the Lord invited His humble fishermen-followers to see themselves as the great prophets of old being persecuted by a wicked Israel (<em><a href='B:470 5:11'>Mat 5:11</a></em>). When Corinth reviled him (<em><a href='B:540 7:4'>2Co 7:4</a></em>), Paul saw this as being reviled and persecuted after the pattern of <em><a href='B:470 5:12'>Mat 5:12</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>5:12- see on <em><a href='B:470 5:7'>Mat 5:7</a></em>:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven; for likewise they persecuted the prophets that preceded you-&nbsp;</em>The language of persecution is also rooted very much in the language and experience of the prophets. The similar language in <em><a href='B:480 13:8-11'>Mar 13:8-11</a></em> and <em><a href='B:490 21:12-18'>Luk 21:12-18</a></em> suggests the same. Again, just as the Lord has challenged his secular, nothing-special followers to see themselves as Moses, now He invites them to see themselves as the prophets. And so a theme develops in the Sermon- that He is seeking to place the mantle of Moses, David and the prophets upon ordinary, sinful members of spiritual society, seeking to show them their huge potential significance in God's program. And that impression must come home to us too in our situations, no longer considering that spiritual heroics and work for God are somehow for 'the others', the leaders.</p>


text:
<p>5:13&nbsp;<em>You are the salt of the earth</em>-</p><p> Salt inevitably affects, by reason of&nbsp;<em>what it is</em>, whatever is next to it. We are lights in a dark world. Lights give light. If the salt doesn't have the influence of salt, it is thrown away. Our&nbsp;poor&nbsp;record of preaching by personal contact is very worrying when seen in this light. We have hidden behind leaflets and press adverts and giving money. But if we aren't the salt, if we don't show&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;light in our little world; are we in fact the salt or the light of the earth? This unconscious spirituality, this natural witnessing, is the essential reflection of our experience of the Lord Jesus. He didn't say 'Do good works so that men may see the light'. He said "<em>let your light shine</em>" - and&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;men will see your good works and glorify the Father:&nbsp;</p><p>One characteristic of salt is that it creates thirst. We are mistaken if we assume that all those people out there are just waiting for us to come to them with a series of true doctrinal propositions. Virtually nobody is seriously interested- until they meet you and me. We need to create some sort of realization of need in those we mix with. Through our examples and through the way we make our initial approaches to them, we need to plug in to that basic human hunger for their creator. Plenty of other religions do just this- and we ought to be far more ‘in there’ than many of us are. The language seems to suggest that unless we are not influencing others, then we will be condemned. As in <em><a href='B:470 4:19'>Mat 4:19</a></em>, the Lord seems to be teaching that some form of outgoing effect upon others, if not evangelism, is part and parcel of following Him. The parable of the light under the bucket in <em><a href='B:470 5:15'>Mat 5:15</a></em> teaches the same.</p><p>We&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;the salt of the earth. The Lord doesn’t say that we ought to be the salt of the earth, or should try to be. Salt with no flavour or influence is pointless, worthless, untrue to what it is intended to be, displeasing to its user, fit only to be thrown out; and so are we, if we fail to witness to others (<em><a href='B:490 14:35'>Luk 14:35</a></em>). Likewise, we&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;the light of the world. By the very nature of who we are as in Christ, we are to influence the world around us. We don’t just hold the light in our hands;&nbsp;<em>we&nbsp;</em>are the light, our whole being, every moment we live. Preaching the light is not therefore something which we occasionally do. Sodium chloride (salt) is inert, meaning it remains unchanged by processes acting upon it and retains its characteristics through whatever. In the same way as the believer is the city set on a hill which cannot be hid, the man who builds on rock, the good tree that must bring forth good fruit, so the Lord seems to be saying again that the essential direction of a believer's life is clear. God sees as either His people or not, and there is no grey area. We don't drop in and out of fellowship with Him. And this should be a comfort to us. We are his. Any salt that lost its saltiness was not true salt, but some imitation (at the time, gypsum was sold by rogue salt traders as salt) or just something which appeared like salt- there is some 'salt' from the Dead Sea area which may have been in the Lord's mind. But the point was, that it was not true salt from the start. The covenant of salt was given to Aaron (<em><a href='B:40 18:19'>Num 18:19</a></em>)- so yet again, the Lord is encouraging those secular men to see themselves as a new priesthood:&nbsp;</p><p>The counter-culture of which Jesus is Lord is indeed radical. The Sermon on the Mount, and so much of Jesus' later teaching, revolves around "us" [His people] acting one way whilst the world acts in another. We are to love all men, whereas the world loves only its friends; we are to pray meaningfully, whilst the Gentile world merely heap up empty phrases; we are to seek the things of God's Kingdom, whilst the world seeks only for material things. Human values are radically reversed in Christ. The humble are exalted and the proud debased; the first are put last, the servant made the greatest. But Jesus also contrasts His followers not only with "the Gentiles" but with the contemporary religious people- the 'scribes and Pharisees'. Thus we are to be radically different both from the nominal church, and the secular world in general. Repeatedly Jesus speaks of "they" and "you"; and yet He also spoke of the handful of Palestinian peasants who really grasped His teaching as being the salt of the earth [Israel?] and the light of the [whole Gentile] world. It was their separateness from the world that was to be a part of the world's salvation. So Jesus was certainly not teaching a bunker mentality, an island existence, but rather a reaching out into the world of others for their salvation. The true radicalism is the radicalism of love- love lived out in ordinary life. Whether we strive for absolute truthfulness, what place we seek at a feast, the struggle to grant real and total forgiveness- this is the radicalism of love.</p><p>The beatitudes were spoken generally of all believers, but "You are the salt of the earth" was spoken specifically to the disciples. We can understand the 'earth' as the land- of Israel. The Lord pinned His hopes for the whole land of Israel on that band of rather unlikely men, most of them secular, non-religious Jews. It was in their power to change and prepare the whole land for Him. The very metaphor of salt was well chosen- for salt was cheap and common. It was by their very earthliness and humanity that their mission was to succeed, just as was the case for the Lord Himself.</p><p><em>But if the salt has lost its savour, with what shall it be salted? It becomes good for nothing but to be thrown out and trodden under the feet of men</em>-</p><p> The idea could be that if we are not salt for the earth, preparing people to be acceptable sacrifices to God, then there is no plan B. It all depends upon us. And if we don’t do that work, then we shall be rejected. Note how Paul speaks of the conversion of people as the offering up in sacrifice of the Gentiles (<em><a href='B:520 15:16'>Rom 15:16</a></em>).</p><p>"Good" in "good for nothing" has the idea is of being able, to have possibility. If we will not use our potential for good, then we will be rejected, because we have no possibilities for use. It's only when we wilfully lose our potential for good that we really are of no use. <em><a href='B:490 14:34'>Luk 14:34</a></em> carries the same idea- if salt loses savour, what then can be used for seasoning ["wherewith shall it be salted"]? The idea is surely that if salt cannot be used for making salty- then it can be used for nothing, it has no practical use.</p><p>The same phrase "thrown out" is used about the rejection of the wicked at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 13:48'>Mat 13:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em>). The 'treading underfoot by men' would then refer to the faithful having some part to play in the condemnation of the wicked. The idiom may mean that they will be despised by them. Or there could be a literal element to it (<em><a href='B:460 4:3'>Mal 4:3</a></em> "the wicked shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in that day"). It is not for us to thus judge others&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;because we are to do so&nbsp;<em>then</em>.</p>


text:
<p>5:14<em>&nbsp;You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid</em>-</p><p> The reference is surely to Jerusalem, which was known as the city set on a hill (N:T. Wright,&nbsp;<em>Jesus and the Victory of God</em>&nbsp;(London: S:P:C:K:, 2001) p. 289). The connection between this city and "the light of the world" is clearly drawing from Old Testament descriptions of Jerusalem being a light to which the true Israel would rally and the Gentile world would come for enlightenment about the true God (<em><a href='B:230 132:17'>Psa 132:17</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:110 11:34-36'>1Ki 11:34-36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 2:2'>Isa 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 60:1'>Isa 60:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 66:20'>Isa 66:20</a></em>). Jerusalem was the classic external symbol of Israel and Judaism- and the Lord is saying that His largely non-religious, secular Jewish disciples were to be the true Zion for the enlightenment of both Israel and the world. This is similar to His invitation for them to see themselves as Moses, who alone "saw God", and sharing in the persecutions of the prophets. This high calling echoes down to us- we who like to think that we are not amongst God's great heroes, and who prefer to leave the dramatic acts of faith to our leaders and high profile members. But the calling is to each of us, to be of no less significance than them, not to hide behind the grand religious symbols of faith such as the temple and the city of Jerusalem- but to be those things in daily life. Judaism understood the Levitical priesthood as the light of the Jewish and Gentile worlds. The Testament of Levi 14:3 claimed of the priesthood: "For as the heaven is purer in the Lord’s sight than the earth, so also be ye, the lights of Israel, (purer) than all the Gentiles [or in another manuscript "ye who are the lights of Israel, shall be as the sun and moon"]". And yet as so often in the Sermon, the Lord applies the language of priesthood to his secular, spiritually poor listeners:&nbsp;</p><p>There appears the idea that if we hide who we are from others, then we are not really Christian. A city on a hill cannot possibly be covered. It is totally public. There must be an element about our discipleship which is likewise absolutely open and obvious to the world. When the Lord returns, it would be strange indeed if our neighbours were shocked to know that we were actually one of His people. The same word is used about the man who 'hid' the talent of the Gospel (<em><a href='B:470 25:25'>Mat 25:25</a></em>). The relevance of this emphasis in the first century world was that it was apparently easier to merely quietly assent to Christian teaching, rather than come out in the open about it. The same word is used of how Joseph of Arimathea 'secretly', hiddenly, believed, for fear of the Jews (<em><a href='B:500 19:38'>Joh 19:38</a></em>). But in the end, he 'came out', as we all are lead to do by providential circumstance and our own growing conviction of Christ:&nbsp;</p><p><em>All&nbsp;</em>those who preach Him are like a city that cannot be hidden (<em><a href='B:470 5:14'>Mat 5:14</a></em>); just as He likewise “could not be hid” in His preaching (<em><a href='B:490 7:24'>Luk 7:24</a></em>). He was the light of the world, and so are we. In the work of witness, we find ourselves especially united to Him. We are Him to this world, and in a sense, He only shines in this world through us. Witnessing is in a sense for our benefit. Perhaps in answer to the unspoken question 'How can we avoid losing our saltiness?', the Lord replied by saying that a city set on a hill cannot be hid (<em><a href='B:470 5:14'>Mat 5:14</a></em>). He meant that the open exhibition of the Truth by us will help us in the life of personal obedience to Him. The city set on a hill is specifically spoken as being Nazareth, where the Lord had grown up (<em><a href='B:490 4:29'>Luk 4:29</a></em>). Jesus must've seen the town from the distance and thought out His teaching over the years before He now publicly stated it.</p>


text:
<p>5:15&nbsp;<em>Neither do men light a lamp and put it under a basket but on the stand; and it shines for all that are in the house</em>-</p><p> The Lord speaks of how we are the light of the world, giving light to the world in the same way as "they" light a lamp. Who are the "they"? The point has been made that to 1st century Palestinian ears, the answer was obvious: Women. Because lighting the lamps was a typical female duty, which men were not usually involved in. Could it not be that the Lord Jesus even&nbsp;<em>especially</em>&nbsp;envisaged women as His witnesses? Did He here have in mind how a great company of women would be the first to share the news that the light of the world had risen?</p><p>The Greek article in "the lamp / candlestick" refers to the specific candlestick, and to Jewish minds this would surely have referred to the candlestick in the Holy Place (s:w. <em><a href='B:650 9:2'>Heb 9:2</a></em>). This continues the theme of the Lord teaching a new form of Judaism, for His sermon on the mount is full of allusions to previous Mosaic practice, but redefining it. The implication of :16 is that ordinary men are present in the Holy Place too, who will see our light. Or it could be that Jesus has in mind how it was the priests who alone entered the Holy Place- and He is saying that the light from those who followed Him would illuminate the Jewish priesthood. The light of the candlestick is both the believer (<em><a href='B:470 5:15'>Mat 5:15</a></em>) and the Gospel itself (<em><a href='B:480 4:21'>Mar 4:21</a></em>). We are to be the Gospel. We must burn as a candle now, in shedding forth the light, or we will be burnt at the judgment (<em><a href='B:470 5:15'>Mat 5:15</a></em> and <em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em> use the same words). This is but one of many examples of the logic of endurance; we must burn anyway, so why not do it for the Lord's sake and reap the reward.</p><p>The story of the candle that was put under a bucket brings out an issue related to that of the desire to root up the tares: the candle was put there (presumably) on account of an almost paranoiac fear that the wind would blow it out; but this over-protection of the lamp in itself caused the light to go out (<em><a href='B:470 5:15'>Mat 5:15</a></em>). Time and again, preaching the light, holding up the beacon of the word of Christ's cross, has been impeded or stifled in the name of preserving the truth, strengthening&nbsp;what remains (words taken out of context). And because of this lack of witness, this lack of holding out the light to others, the fire of Christ has waxed dim amongst us. This ties in to the theme that preaching is not just commanded as a publicity exercise for Almighty God; He doesn't need us to do that for Him. It is commanded for the benefit of the preacher more than those preached to. To put a candle under a bucket or bed seems senseless; yet this is how senseless and inappropriate it is to hold back preaching for the sake of defending the Faith. Indeed, to put it under a bed (<em><a href='B:480 4:21'>Mar 4:21</a></em>) and then go to sleep (candles are normally only lit at night) is likely to destroy the person who does it, to burn them while they are asleep. All who have the light but don't preach it (in whatever form) are likely to suffer the same; notice how the Lord (by implication) links night time and sleepiness with an apathy in preaching. Evidently the Lord foresaw the attitude that has surfaced amongst His people: 'We must concentrate on keeping the Truth, new converts are often problematic, too much energy goes to preaching rather than building up ourselves in the faith'. Probably the resistance to preaching to the Gentiles in the first century used similar reasoning. The Lord may have had in mind a Talmud entry (<em>Shabbat</em>&nbsp;107a) which permitted the covering of a lamp with a bowl on the Sabbath if it was done in order to stop the entire house catching fire. He is arguing that such a fear based attitude, fearful of possible consequence if we share the light, will result in the light going out. And that lesson needs to be learnt time and again.</p>


text:
<p>5:16&nbsp;<em>Likewise, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven</em>-</p><p> These are those "in the house[hold]" (:15), "those who enter" (<em><a href='B:490 8:16'>Luk 8:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:33'>Luk 11:33</a></em>). The general public does not seem to glorify God because of good works. <em><a href='B:540 9:2'>2Co 9:2</a></em> seems to understand the verse as meaning that we give light and opportunity for praise to other believers. Paul writes of how the generous commitments of the Corinthian ecclesias had “inspired very many” to generosity (<em><a href='B:540 9:2'>2Co 9:2</a></em>). And we too, in our abundant responses to God’s super-abundant grace, will inspire each other likewise. I don’t mean, of course, in the proud manner of many charity donors, trying to outshine each other before the publics’ gaze by their ‘generosity’. I mean that in the graces of forgiveness, kindness in a myriad modest ways, that we see performed by others, we will find&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;motivation to do likewise. For rightly-performed good works are a light to the world; perhaps it is their very modesty which makes them “<em>shine</em>&nbsp;before men”. So in this sense we will perceive others’ acts of grace and be inspired by them, no matter how discreetly and modestly done they are. For they inevitably shine in a way that gives light to all who are in the (ecclesial) house, so that they too glorify the Father (<em><a href='B:470 5:16'>Mat 5:16</a></em>).</p><p>It could be that the "men" who glorify God in Heaven are the Angels- the same "men" who lit our candle in the first place (:15). "Men" in the parables who do the 'gathering' of our fruits (<em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:16'>Mat 7:16</a></em>) represent Angels, who are the ones who will actually do the gathering at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 13:41'>Mat 13:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:31'>Mat 24:31</a></em>). This seems to make most sense, and avoids the idea of our doing good works specifically in order to impress men. And men do not glorify God just because they see our good works. But Angels, who lit our candle in the first place, notice how our light is shining out to others "in the house", and glorify God in Heaven ["<em>is</em>&nbsp;in Heaven" is unjustified- the idea is that they glorify the Father, in Heaven]. In this interpretation, the "men" are different to those who are "in the house".</p>


text:
<p>5:17&nbsp;<em>Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I came not to destroy but to fulfil</em>-</p><p> The idea that the Lord Jesus ended the Law of Moses on the cross needs some reflection. That statement only pushes the question back one stage further- how exactly did He ‘end’ the Law there? How did a man dying on a cross actually end the Law? The Lord Jesus, supremely in His death, was “the end of the law” (<em><a href='B:520 10:4'>Rom 10:4</a></em>). But the Greek&nbsp;<em>telos</em>&nbsp;[“end”] is elsewhere translated “the goal” (<em><a href='B:610 1:5'>1Ti 1:5</a></em> NIV). The character and person of the Lord Jesus at the end was the goal of the Mosaic law; those 613 commandments, if perfectly obeyed, were intended to give rise to a personality like that of the Lord Jesus. When He reached the climax of His personal development and spirituality, in the moment of His death, the Law was “fulfilled”. Then, it was "accomplished" (:18), and&nbsp;<em>ginomai&nbsp;</em>there is usually used about events being accomplished; the supreme event in view is the cross. The Lord taught that He “came” in order to die; and yet He also “came” in order to “fulfil” the Law (<em><a href='B:470 5:17'>Mat 5:17</a></em>). <em><a href='B:470 5:17'>Mat 5:17</a></em> = <em><a href='B:550 5:14'>Gal 5:14</a></em>. Christ fulfilled the Law by His supreme love of His neighbour (us) as Himself. The Law of Moses was intended to create a perfect man- if it were to be totally obeyed. The Lord Jesus did this- and therefore there was no more need for the Law. Yet the Beatitudes were addressed to those who hungered to be righteous, and who were spiritually poor, having broken God's laws. It was therefore in this context that the Lord Jesus sets before those very people the ultimate good news- that He has come determined to succeed in perfect obedience to the Law, and thus fulfilling it, He would remove its binding nature upon others. Hence the Law was added&nbsp;<em>until&nbsp;</em>the Seed should come (<em><a href='B:550 3:19'>Gal 3:19</a></em>). This conclusion (in broad terms) was also arrived at by Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Dietrich Bonhoeffer,&nbsp;<em>The Cost of Discipleship</em>&nbsp;(London: S:C:M:, 2001 ed:) pp. 74-76). The Lord's total obedience and fulfilling of the Law is therefore further good news for we who have failed both historically and in present life to keep it.</p>


text:
<p>5:18&nbsp;<em>For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the law, until all things be accomplished</em>-</p><p> Vine comments: "Jot is for jod, the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet. Tittle is the little bend or point which serves to distinguish certain Hebrew letters of similar appearance. Jewish tradition mentions the letter jod as being irremovable; adding that, if all men in the world were gathered to abolish the least letter in the law, they would not succeed. The guilt of changing those little hooks which distinguish between certain Hebrew letters is declared to be so great that, if such a thing were done, the world would be destroyed".</p>


text:
<p>5:19&nbsp;<em>Whoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments</em>-</p><p> See on 'jot and tittle' (:18). Note the connection between breaking "these least commandments" and being "least in the Kingdom". The least in the Kingdom will therefore be those who didn't consider the small things worthy of their attention. But the principle is that by our attitude to that which is "least" we show our appropriacy to receive that which is great (<em><a href='B:490 16:10'>Luk 16:10</a></em> s:w:):&nbsp;</p><p><em>And shall teach men to do so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven</em>-</p><p> The Lord explained that “the least in the Kingdom of Heaven” would have broken “the least” commandments, and would have taught men so (<em><a href='B:470 5:19'>Mat 5:19</a></em>); and yet “the least in the Kingdom” was a phrase He elsewhere used about those who would actually be in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 11:11'>Mat 11:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:40'>Mat 25:40</a></em> "the least of these my brothers"). Here surely is His desire to save, and His gracious overlooking of intellectual failure, human misunderstanding, and dogmatism in that misunderstanding (‘teaching men so’). The idea of being called / named / pronounced great or least in the Kingdom suggests differing degrees of reward distributed at judgment day. The idea of being called / named at the day of judgment has just been used in <em><a href='B:470 5:9'>Mat 5:9</a></em> (s:w:). There is thus the possible implication that some who will be accepted by the Lord who even at their acceptance at the judgment have wrong attitudes towards their brethren. Thus before the Lord of the harvest, those who thought they had worked hardest complained that those they thought had done less, were still getting a penny. They were rebuked, but they still had their penny (cp. salvation; <em><a href='B:470 20:11'>Mat 20:11</a></em>). The subsequent comment that the first shall be last might imply that they will be in the Kingdom, but in the least place. Likewise the brother who takes the highest place in the ecclesia will be made with shame to take the lower place (<em><a href='B:490 14:9'>Luk 14:9</a></em>). Or the bitter elder brother, angry at the Father's gracious enthusiasm for the worthless brother, is addressed by the Father (God) in language which is relevant to the Lord Jesus: "Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine" (<em><a href='B:490 15:30'>Luk 15:30</a></em>). These sentiments are elsewhere expressed about the Lord Jesus. Is the implication that bitter elder brother is still in Christ and accepted in Him, even though his attitude to his brother is not what it should be? The least in the Kingdom will be those who break commandments&nbsp;<em>and teach men so&nbsp;</em>(<em><a href='B:470 5:19'>Mat 5:19</a></em>); but the least in the Kingdom will be counted greater than John the Baptist was in this life (<em><a href='B:470 11:11'>Mat 11:11</a></em>). The simple message is that there will be some in the Kingdom who simply weren't very obedient in this their day of probation. Admittedly, these details are capable of other interpretations. But bear these points in&nbsp;mind, especially if you ever struggle with the apparent harshness of some Christians you may meet.</p><p>The least in the Kingdom will be those who break commandments&nbsp;<em>and teach men so&nbsp;</em>(<em><a href='B:470 5:19'>Mat 5:19</a></em>); but the least in the Kingdom will be counted greater than John the Baptist was in this life (<em><a href='B:470 11:11'>Mat 11:11</a></em>). The simple message is that there will be some in the Kingdom who simply weren't very obedient in this their day of probation. Admittedly, these details are capable of other interpretations. But bear these points in&nbsp;mind, especially if you ever struggle with the apparent harshness of some Christians you may meet:&nbsp;</p><p>It is Jesus Himself who shall be called great (the same two words used in <em><a href='B:490 1:32'>Luk 1:32</a></em> "He shall be&nbsp;<em>great</em>&nbsp;and shall be&nbsp;<em>called</em>&nbsp;the Son of the Highest"). The one who would do and teach supremely would be Jesus. Here, as so often, the Lord makes an oblique reference to Himself (as in mentioning that some seed would bring forth one hundred fold). The fact we teach others to do righteousness will be a factor in our acceptance (<em><a href='B:470 5:19'>Mat 5:19</a></em>); although not the only one. Again we see the implication that we are to somehow teach others, to engage with others, in order to be acceptable:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>5:20&nbsp;<em>For I say to you, that unless your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no way enter into the kingdom of heaven-&nbsp;</em>The Lord asks us to&nbsp;<em>exceed</em>&nbsp;the “righteousness” of the Pharisees (<em><a href='B:470 5:20'>Mat 5:20</a></em>). By “righteousness” he refers to their charity, for which they were well known. In addition to tithing ten percent of absolutely everything, they gave a fifth of their income to charity such as widows, orphans, newly-wedded couples etc. In addition they made anonymous gifts in a “quiet room” of the Temple. How does our giving compare to that? And the Lord challenges us that unless we&nbsp;<em>exceed</em>&nbsp;that, “ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven”. Radical, challenging words- that are hard to re-interpret or get around. And yet surely the answer is that super-abounding (AV 'exceeding') righteousness is only attainable by being justified / counted righteous in Christ. The Lord's challenging statement was surely in order to lead us to the same conclusions reached in Romans 1-8 about being counted righteous when we have no righteousness of our own. For to super-abundantly exceed the technical, points-scoring righteousness of the Pharisees was well-nigh impossible:&nbsp;</p><p><em>'</em>Entering the Kingdom' is a very common idea in the Lord's teaching. But He understood people to be 'entering' the Kingdom right now ("them that are entering", <em><a href='B:470 23:13'>Mat 23:13</a></em>). In the same way as judgment is ongoing now, so is condemnation and entry into the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>5:21&nbsp;<em>You have heard that it was said to those of old: You shall not kill, and whoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment</em>-</p><p> Jesus was addressing the illiterate poor. Elsewhere, to the educated and literate, He says that they are aware that "It is&nbsp;<em>written</em>". Here He quotes both one of the ten commandments and also the tradition of the elders. We need to reflect upon the implications of the fact that the vast majority of the early Christians were illiterate. Literacy levels in first century Palestine were only 10% at the highest estimate. Some estimate that the literacy level in the Roman empire was a maximum of 10%, and literacy levels in Palestine were at most 3%. Most of the literate people in Palestine would have been either the wealthy or the Jewish scribes. And yet it was to the poor that the Gospel was preached, and even in Corinth there were not many educated or “mighty” in this world within the ecclesia. Notice how the Lord said to the Pharisees: “Have you not&nbsp;<em>read</em>?” (<em><a href='B:480 2:25'>Mar 2:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:5'>Mat 12:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:4'>Mat 19:4</a></em>), whilst He says to those who responded to Him: “You have&nbsp;<em>heard</em>” (<em><a href='B:470 5:21'>Mat 5:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:27'>Mat 5:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:33'>Mat 5:33</a></em>). His followers were largely the illiterate:&nbsp;As the ecclesial world developed, Paul wrote inspired letters to the ecclesias. Those letters would have been&nbsp;<em>read</em>&nbsp;to the brethren and sisters. Hence the great importance of ‘teachers’ in the early churches, those who could faithfully read and transmit to others what had been written.</p>


text:
<p>5:22&nbsp;<em>But I say to you</em>-</p><p>&nbsp;Having quoted one of the ten commandments, Jesus implies that His teaching now supersedes them. See on 5:1:&nbsp;</p><p><em>That everyone who is angry with his brother</em>-</p><p> We are all brothers and sisters, each of us adopted into the Divine family, each of us freed slaves, rejoicing in that pure grace. Most times the NT speaks of ‘brothers’, it is in the context of tensions between people (see <em><a href='B:470 5:21-24'>Mat 5:21-24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:43-48'>Mat 5:43-48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:1-5'>Mat 7:1-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:15-35'>Mat 18:15-35</a></em>). We can’t separate ourselves from our brethren any more than we can from our natural families. Once a brother, we are always a brother. No matter what disappointments and disagreements we may have, we are baptized into not only the Lord Jesus personally, but also into a never ending relationship with each other. We cannot walk away from it.</p><p><em>Without a cause</em>-</p><p> As added in some texts and AV. The Greek is always translated elsewhere 'vainly', the idea being 'in vain', 'without an effect'. Anger which doesn't achieve anything positive is wrong. God's anger is creative- e.g. the 'anger' of His judgment through the flood brought about the salvation of the faithful. Anger therefore is not in itself wrong. The motives are all important.</p><p><em>Shall be in danger of the judgment, and whoever shall say to his brother Raca shall be in danger of the council, and whoever shall say Moros shall be in danger of the fire of Gehenna-&nbsp;</em>One of the major themes of the Lord's teaching in the sermon on the mount was the need to respect others; to see the value and meaning of persons. Indeed, it can rightly be said that all sin depersonalizes another person. Sin is almost always against persons. Relentlessly, ruthlessly, the Lord drives deeper, and yet deeper, into the very texture of human personality in demanding that, e.g., we are not even angry with others, lest we effectively murder them. To say "Raca" to your brother was to commit sin worthy of serious judgment, He taught (<em><a href='B:470 5:22'>Mat 5:22</a></em>). "Ra-ca" was the sound made when a man cleared his throat to spit, and it was a term of abuse in earlier Semitic languages. To despise your brother, to disregard his importance as a person, was to be seen as an ultimate sin. In this light we should seek to avoid the many terms of abuse which are so common today:&nbsp;“a right idiot" etc. The Law taught that one should not curse a deaf person. Think what this really means. Surely the essence of it is that we should never be abusive, in any form, to or about anyone, even if it is sure that they will never know or feel our abuse.</p><p>Every word will be judged (<em><a href='B:470 12:36'>Mat 12:36</a></em>), and in some cases by words we will justified and by our speech we will be condemned. So we must speak as those who will be judged for what we speak (<em><a href='B:660 2:12'>Jas 2:12</a></em>). The man who&nbsp;<em>says&nbsp;</em>to his brother 'Raca' or 'Thou fool' is in real danger of hell fire (<em><a href='B:470 5:22'>Mat 5:22</a></em>). The tongue has the power to cast a man into hell fire (<em><a href='B:660 3:5-6'>Jas 3:5-6</a></em>)- some may be condemned for what they have said, perhaps connecting with how the beast is thrown into the fire of destruction because of his words (<em><a href='B:340 7:11-12'>Dan 7:11-12</a></em>). Thus there is a link between the judgment of the unworthy and that of the world. The process of condemnation will remind the wicked of all their hard words and hard deeds (<em><a href='B:720 1:15'>Jud 1:15</a></em>). Yet now, we can speak words all too easily. Yet we talk and speak as those whose words will be taken into account at the last day. This little selection of passages is powerful- or ought to be. There is reason to think that specific record is kept of incidents, and in some form there will be a 'going through' of them. Thus when self-righteous Jews told their brethren "Stand by yourself, come not near me, for I am holier than you", God comments that "This is written before me... I will recompense" (<em><a href='B:290 65:5-6'>Isa 65:5-6</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>&nbsp;</em>His standards were sometimes unbelievably high. Whoever called his brother a fool (Gk:&nbsp;<em>more</em>-</p><p> a moron, but implying a rebel, an apostate- <em><a href='B:230 78:8'>Psa 78:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 5:23'>Jer 5:23</a></em> LXX) was liable to eternal condemnation by Him. John Stott claims that the Greek may directly transliterate the Hebrew word&nbsp;<em>mara</em>&nbsp;(a rebel or apostate) (John Stott,&nbsp;<em>The Message of the Sermon on the Mount: Christian Counter-culture</em>&nbsp;(Leicester: I:V:P:, 2003) p:84). The fact that calling our brother a 'fool' warrants definite condemnation surely implies of itself that the term meant that the fool would be condemned at judgment day. If we condemn others, even if they are to be condemned, then we shall be condemned. That is the Lord's message. We must remember that in Hebrew thought, to pronounce a curse upon a person was seen as highly meaningful and likely to come about. To declare someone as condemned at the future judgment seat would therefore have had a huge psychological effect upon the person. They would have felt that they really would be condemned. The evil practice of disfellowshipping individuals, implying implicitly and at times explicitly that they have no place in the body of Christ, can have the same effect:&nbsp;</p><p>When the Lord spoke about calling your brother a fool being the same as murdering him (<em><a href='B:470 5:22'>Mat 5:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:15'>1Jn 3:15</a></em>), He may well have been thinking of the passage in <em><a href='B:30 19:16-18'>Lev 19:16-18</a></em>: "Thou shall not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people... thou shalt not hate thy neighbour in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise (frankly, NIV) rebuke thy neighbour... thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudge... but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". The fact this passage is expanded upon so many times in Proverbs would indicate that gossip was as major a problem among the old Israel as it is among the new. But notice the fine psychology of the Spirit here: gossip in the church is related to having a grudge, to hating your neighbour in your heart, to not loving your neighbour as you love yourself (and we are&nbsp;<em>very</em>&nbsp;conservative about our own failings). To hate your brother in your heart, to gossip about him, was and is as bad as murdering him. And this same connection between gossip and murder is made in the prophets (<em><a href='B:330 22:9'>Eze 22:9</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:240 26:22'>Pro 26:22</a></em>). But the Law provided a way out. If you had something against your brother, frankly tell him about his failure,&nbsp;<em>so that</em>&nbsp;you would not hate him in your heart. If we don't do this, or try to get someone else to do it, we will end up hating our brother in our heart and we will gossip about him. &nbsp;</p><p><em>"</em>In danger of" in the Greek doesn't imply a mere possibility, but rather, that such a person will receive the threatened judgment. "The council" refers to the Sanhedrin; but you didn't come before them for muttering 'Raca'. The Lord surely meant that such would come before the Heavenly council, of Angels. For this was a well-known, Old Testament based idea- that there is a Heavenly council of Angels. And Christ will come with the Angels with Him to judge us. So the rejected will first come before the Lord, then the Angelic council, and then condemnation. It could be argued that calling a brother 'Raca' and being angry at him without a cause would lead to discussion about this at the day of judgment; but not condemnation ['hell fire', Gehenna]. Only pronouncing a brother a 'fool’, i:e. positively condemned and not to enter God's Kingdom, would lead to that condemnation. There appears to be a three stage progression here from judgment / discussion to council (Gk:&nbsp;<em>sanhedrin</em>), to condemnation in Gehenna. It could be that the three ideas are all parallel. But it's tempting to see them rather as a progression, and to note the similarity with the three stage progression of <em><a href='B:470 18:15-17'>Mat 18:15-17</a></em>, where in case of interpersonal conflict there was firstly a private reasoning with the brother, then bringing the church together to discuss the case (cp. the Sanhedrin), and then treating the person as a sinner. However, the surrounding context of <em><a href='B:470 18:15-17'>Mat 18:15-17</a></em> suggests to me that the Lord spoke all that tongue in cheek and did not intend it to be obeyed literally. For the question of the context is 'If my brother sins against me'. The Lord outlines the three step scenario- and then says that if your brother sins against you, forgive him 70 x 7, that is, even if his repentance seems less than credible, without seeking to test the legitimacy of his repentance. The three stage process was well known in Judaism, and the connection with <em><a href='B:470 5:22'>Mat 5:22</a></em> shows that in the Lord's thinking, it was an attempt to reflect the judgment and condemnation of God in the community of believers today. And that is precisely what the Lord implores us&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;to do (especially in <em><a href='B:470 7:1'>Mat 7:1</a></em>):&nbsp;<em>We</em>&nbsp;are not to attempt to mimic Heaven's judgment and condemnation in our encounter with our brethren in this life. There are churches and groups who seek to follow <em><a href='B:470 18:15-17'>Mat 18:15-17</a></em> to the letter, claiming they are being Biblical in their approach. But some more research would indicate that perhaps by doing so they are doing exactly what the Lord did not want us to do, and by doing so may be placing themselves in danger of condemnation.</p>


text:
<p>5:23&nbsp;<em>If therefore</em>-</p><p> The link with :22 is not immediately apparent. The idea seems to be that we should reconcile with our brother in order to avoid the temptation to unwarranted anger with our brother, muttering 'raca' about him, or pronouncing him a condemned fool. If we are unreconciled, even if the situation is our brother's fault because&nbsp;<em>he</em>&nbsp;has something against&nbsp;<em>us</em>, then we are liable to the temptation to become wrongly aggressive and condemnatory towards him. And this is a significant part of spiritual life- getting ourselves into an environment of thought and situation with others where temptation will not press so strongly upon us. It's easy to leave situations unreconciled, but time does not actually heal them, and the situations lead to temptations towards aggression and judgmental attitudes which may lead to our condemnation.</p><p><em>You are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you-&nbsp;</em>I’d always read this, or perhaps glanced over it, as saying that I shouldn’t offer my gift on the altar if&nbsp;<em>I</em>&nbsp;had something against my brother, but I should reconcile with him; but seeing&nbsp;<em>I</em>&nbsp;have nothing against anyone, well I can just go on in serving the Lord. There may be others who have a problem with me, but then, that is for them to sort out with me. But no. The Lord is saying: ‘If your brother has something&nbsp;<em>against you</em>; if the fault is&nbsp;<em>his.</em>:. then&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;take the initiative and try to reconcile it, before doing anything else’.</p>


text:
<p>5:24&nbsp;<em>Leave your gift before the altar and go your way</em>-</p><p> The only Old Testament case of an interrupted sacrifice was Cain and Abel. Yahweh told Cain that if he would 'do well', then his sacrifice would be accepted, and Yahweh appears to suggest an animal for Cain to offer (<em><a href='B:10 4:7'>Gen 4:7</a></em>)- on this basis I would suggest that the sacrificial meeting was interrupted by Cain murdering Abel. The Lord also may have in view the way that a thief or deceiver could repent by&nbsp;putting things right with his brother&nbsp;<em>and then</em>&nbsp;offering a sacrifice (<em><a href='B:30 6:4-6'>Lev 6:4-6</a></em>). The Lord is assuming that we are guilty- and this is part of the hyperbole. If you have a relationship breakdown with your brother, then you are guilty. That's the hyperbole; we are not always guilty, but the Lord is making the point that we simply must do all within our power to reconcile, with a sense of pounding urgency. Refusal to talk to our brethren is absolutely not the right way. The Lord also surely has in mind the teaching that the sacrifice of the wicked is unacceptable (<em><a href='B:240 15:8'>Pro 15:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 21:27'>Pro 21:27</a></em>). Again the hyperbolic point is that we should act as if we are the guilty party in the case of relationship breakdown, and act with urgency to put things right. For time never heals in these cases- the longer the situation continues, the harder it is to ever resolve. Perhaps in turn Paul alludes to these things by urging us to examine ourselves (and his context is to examine our attitude to our brother) before we make the sacrifice at the Lord's table in the breaking of bread (<em><a href='B:530 11:27-28'>1Co 11:27-28</a></em>)- 'the Lord's table' was another way of speaking about the altar, thus making the breaking of bread meeting the equivalent of offering sacrifice under the Old Covenant.</p><p><em>First be reconciled to your brother and then come and offer your gift-&nbsp;</em>Particularly in that watershed night of wrestling, Jacob was our example. The Lord taught that we must all first be reconciled with our brother before we meet with God with our sacrifices (<em><a href='B:470 5:24'>Mat 5:24</a></em>)- an obvious allusion to Jacob's reconciliation with Esau in his heart, and then meeting with God. We really must&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;go through that process, whether in one night or a longer period. Reconciliation with our brother is required before acceptably meeting God. And yet many if not most die unreconciled with someone. This is one window onto the necessity of the judgment seat- it is for our benefit rather than the Lord's. There we will become reconciled to our brethren as we observe their judgments, realizing why they were as they were, and perceiving our own desperate need for grace. The tough alternative to this suggestion is that those who refuse to reconcile with their brethren in this life shall not therefore meet the Lord acceptably. Now we perhaps understand better what Paul meant when he urged us "as much as lies in&nbsp;<em>you</em>" to live at peace with all men (<em><a href='B:520 12:18'>Rom 12:18</a></em>). Given that Christ can come at any moment, or our lives end, there is an urgency in all this. Which lead the Lord to urge us to reconcile "quickly" with our brother at any cost (:25). See on :25&nbsp;<em>lest at any time</em>.</p>


text:
<p>5:25&nbsp;<em>Agree with your adversary</em>-</p><p> The context of the preceding verses imply this is our brother. The Lord recognized there would be satans and personal adversaries within His ecclesia.</p><p><em>Quickly-&nbsp;</em>We must agree with our adversary quickly, for we are on our way to judgment (<em><a href='B:470 5:25'>Mat 5:25</a></em>). This continues Matthew's theme of immediate response; see on 4:20. The call of the Gospel is effectively a call to go to judgment. If we truly perceive this, and our coming need for the utmost grace, we will settle our differences with our brethren- “quickly”. The whole Kingdom of God is likened to the parable of the virgins about the judgment (<em><a href='B:470 25:1'>Mat 25:1</a></em>). We are&nbsp;<em>speeding</em>&nbsp;towards judgment, therefore we should watch with urgency what manner of people we are (<em><a href='B:680 3:11-12'>2Pe 3:11-12</a></em>). This urgency of our approach to preaching is in harmony with the generally urgent call to spiritual life which there is everywhere in the Lord’s teaching. He gives the impression that we are living life on a knife edge. He saw men as rushing to their destruction. We are the accused man on the steps of the court, whose case is hopeless. Now is the very last moment for him to settle up with his brother (<em><a href='B:470 5:25'>Mat 5:25</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 12:58'>Luk 12:58</a></em>). We’re like the unjust steward, with a knife at our throat because all our deceptions have been busted.<em>&nbsp;Everything</em>&nbsp;is at risk for the guy. Life in prison, goodbye to wife and kids, poverty… stretch out before him. He&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;get right with his brethren by forgiving them their debts. We can’t come before God with our offering, i:e. our request for forgiveness, if our brother has any complaint against us regarding unforgiveness (<em><a href='B:470 5:23'>Mat 5:23</a></em>). Forgiving each other is as important as that. As we judge, so we will be judged. Our attitude to the least of the Lord’s brethren is our attitude to Him. There are likely no readers who don’t need this exhortation- to ensure that they have genuinely forgiven all their brethren, and that so far as lies within them, they are at peace with all men. At any moment the bridegroom may return… so have your lamp burning well, i:e. be spiritually aware and filled with the Spirit. Put on your wedding garment, the righteousness of Jesus, before it’s too late (<em><a href='B:470 22:11-13'>Mat 22:11-13</a></em>). He’s just about to come. The judge stands before our door, as James puts it.</p><p><em>While you are with him in the street</em>-</p><p> Gk. "in the way”. The Lord seems to have in mind Joseph's admonition to his brothers to not fall out whilst in the way together, but to abide under the deep impression of his grace towards them (<em><a href='B:10 45:24'>Gen 45:24</a></em>).</p><p><em>Lest</em>-</p><p> The idea seems to be 'In case he…', or even perhaps stronger, implying 'because he will…'. Surveying the NT usage of the term, it generally seems to imply that 'this will be the case'. The idea is that if you have an adversary and do not reconcile with him, then you will be found guilty. The facts of the case don't come into it- if you are unreconciled, then you are guilty. Thus hyperbole is to reinforce the point made in :24- that reconciliation is so vital. There is of course the unspoken rider, that we must be reconciled "as much as lies in you" (<em><a href='B:520 12:18'>Rom 12:18</a></em>). Paul died apparently unreconciled to many brethren- they in Asia had turned away from him personally (note the irony, that they 'turned away; (<em><a href='B:620 1:15'>2Ti 1:15</a></em>) from the one who had 'turned them away' from idols (<em><a href='B:510 19:26'>Act 19:26</a></em>)), although some of the believers in Asia are addressed positively by the Lord Jesus in the letters of Revelation 2, 3. But the point of the Lord's hyperbole is that those unreconciled to their brethren will be tempted to get into aggressive and condemnatory attitudes which may well lead to their exclusion from the Kingdom. And therefore He uses this hyperbole- that the unreconciled will be certainly found guilty and condemned, simply because they are unreconciled and have adversaries amongst their brethren.</p><p><em>The adversary deliver you</em>-</p><p> The implication is that our brother has the power to deliver us to judgment, or not. Again we see how reconciliation is a choice; it is in our power to bring our brother to judgment for certain things, and that process might even lead to his condemnation. But, the metaphor implies, we can&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;be adversarial, reconcile, and therefore our brother will not come to judgment for being unreconciled with us:&nbsp;</p><p><em>To the judge</em>-</p><p> The synagogue official. Luke seems to translate the Palestinian style of things into terms which were understandable by a Roman audience. Thus <em><a href='B:490 6:47'>Luk 6:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:33'>Luk 11:33</a></em> speak of houses with cellars, which were uncommon in Palestine; and in <em><a href='B:490 8:16'>Luk 8:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:33'>Luk 11:33</a></em> of houses with an entrance passage from which the light shines out. The synagogue official of <em><a href='B:470 5:25'>Mat 5:25</a></em> becomes the "bailiff" in <em><a href='B:490 12:58'>Luk 12:58</a></em>. In Palestine, the cultivation of mustard in garden beds was forbidden, whereas <em><a href='B:490 13:19'>Luk 13:19</a></em> speaks of mustard sown in a garden, which would have been understandable only to a Roman audience. It seems in these cases that inspiration caused Luke to dynamically translate the essence of the Lord's teaching into terms understandable to a non-Palestinian audience. Even in <em><a href='B:470 5:25'>Mat 5:25</a></em> we read of going to prison for non-payment of debts, which was not the standard Jewish practice. Imprisonment was unknown in Jewish law. The point of all this is to show that we must match our terms and language to our audience.</p><p><em>And the judge deliver you to the officer and you be thrown into prison</em>-</p><p> There will be degrees of punishment. For some, the judge will pass them to the officer, who will cast them into prison (i:e. condemnation). For others, the judgment will pass them to the council and from there to hell fire (<em><a href='B:470 5:21-25'>Mat 5:21-25</a></em>). Although the wages of sin will still be death at the judgment, it will be a "sorer punishment" for those under the New Covenant than those under the Old. Because there are, in some way, degrees of sin, there must also be degrees of punishment (<em><a href='B:140 28:13'>2Ch 28:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 28:22'>2Ch 28:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 6:18'>1Co 6:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 5:18'>Lev 5:18</a></em> note "according to thy estimation"; Judas had a "greater sin" than Pilate, <em><a href='B:500 19:11'>Joh 19:11</a></em>). The punishment of the wicked at judgment will somehow take this into account. If the rejected are destroyed together (<em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>) and yet there are varying degrees of punishment, it follows that the punishment must be on a mental level; and "gnashing of teeth" certainly fits in with this suggestion. The progression judge-officer-prison is similar to judgment-council-Gehenna condemnation in :22. I suggested that this may refer to the stages of the judgment process for the condemned at the last day, with unresolved sin being passed further on to others [Angels?] to consider. I suggested also that perhaps judgment and council may refer to unresolved sins being referred to more serious processes of judgment, out of which we may still emerge 'saved', but have eternally learnt our lesson. The same idea may be here- and even the final 'prison' can be exited, although at great cost to us (although on the other hand, a similar metaphor is used in <em><a href='B:470 18:34'>Mat 18:34</a></em> for the unforgiving debtor who is cast into prison and tormented "until he should pay all that was due". This could be speaking of condemnation). These metaphors may all be speaking about the learning process through which the unreconciled may have to pass at judgment day.</p><p>The rejected amongst the people of God will in some ways share the condemnation of the world which they loved. It may be that there will be different geographical areas of punishment; some are cast into fire, others into outer darkness, into prison (<em><a href='B:470 5:25'>Mat 5:25</a></em>)... or are these simply saying that there will be different kinds of punishment? Or are they different figures for the same thing? Whatever, the sense that the day is drawing near should find expression in the love and care we show towards our brethren. The Lord exhorts to agree with our adversary quickly, whilst we are on the way to judgment- and He says this in the context of warning us to be reconciled with our brother (<em><a href='B:470 5:23'>Mat 5:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:25'>Mat 5:25</a></em>). In the light of approaching judgment there is an urgency about our need for reconciliation both with our brother and thereby with God (is He the "adversary" in the parable?). All this talk about reconciliation is placed in the Lord's opening manifesto of His fundamental values and beliefs. It should have the same prominence in our thinking and action.</p>


text:
<p>5:26&nbsp;<em>Truly I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny</em>-</p><p> This may refer to the eternity of final condemnation for having been unreconciled to our brethren. In this case, we need to do all we can so that each and every situation of lack of reconciliation is truly not our fault. At the very least we are to have an open table to all our brethren. But not getting out "until" could mean that a slack attitude to reconciliation with our brethren will lead to dire consequences for us in this life, and there will be no way out until whatever our fault was in the matter, our debt, is completely manifested and paid.</p>


text:
<p>5:27&nbsp;<em>You have heard that it was said: You shall not commit adultery-&nbsp;</em>AV "Said by them of old time". The Lord seems to avoid saying 'By Moses'. He seems to be stressing that the ten commandments had come down to them in oral form; and He was standing before them actually telling them new commandments. The contrast is 'They said... but I say', rather than 'Moses wrote, but I write…'.</p>


text:
<p>5:28&nbsp;<em>But I say to you, that everyone that looks on a woman-&nbsp;</em>Bathsheba was "very beautiful to&nbsp;<em>look upon</em>" (<em><a href='B:100 11:2'>2Sa 11:2</a></em>). And David did just that. Our Lord surely had his eye on that passage when he spoke about him that "<em>looketh on</em>&nbsp;a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already" (<em><a href='B:470 5:28'>Mat 5:28</a></em>). Jubilees 4:15,22, a commonly known book in Judaism at the Lord's time, claimed that the sons of God of <em><a href='B:10 6:2'>Gen 6:2</a></em> were Angels who fell because they lusted with their eyes after "the daughters of men". As so often in the Bible, wrong ideas are alluded to and corrected. It was not that Angels sinned by lustful looks leading to adultery- this language is reapplied to us as humans:&nbsp;Looking on a woman lustfully is also the language of <em><a href='B:220 31:1'>Job 31:1</a></em>: "I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?". Job recognized that if he did so, this would be the same as actually committing the deed. He says he will not look lustfully on a maid because "Is not destruction to the wicked? and a strange punishment to the&nbsp;<em>workers</em>&nbsp;of iniquity?" (<em><a href='B:220 31:3'>Job 31:3</a></em>). Thus Job's understanding that a lustful look in the heart was working iniquity was at the basis of Christ's teaching.</p><p><em>Lusting for her</em>-</p><p> Gk. 'to set the heart upon'. The Lord is not speaking about involuntary turning of the eyes to simply look at a woman.</p><p><em>Has already committed adultery with her in his heart</em>-</p><p> Gk. 'even now'. The suggestion is that the adultery is going to happen in real physical terms, but it happened before God at the time of fantasizing it. It seems to me that the sense of the Greek here implies that an act of actually physically committed fornication will always begin with lust for the act in the heart. This is not to say that sexual fantasy is OK and only actually performing it is sinful. But the sense of 'even now' would appear to mean that this is not what the Lord is teaching here. He is saying that acts of fornication are actually committed ahead of the act- within the human heart. Sexual fantasy about forbidden partners would surely be outlawed by the many NT commands about spiritual mindedness- e.g. "Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God" (<em><a href='B:540 7:1'>2Co 7:1</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>5:29&nbsp;<em>And if your right eye causes you to stumble</em>-</p><p> To make to stumble, not to give umbrage. The eye must surely be understood in the context of :28. It could be that the Lord specifically has sexual sin in mind. It is His form of "Flee fornication". Paul saw <em><a href='B:470 5:29-30'>Mat 5:29-30</a></em> in a sexual context (= <em><a href='B:580 3:5'>Col 3:5</a></em>); which fits the context of <em><a href='B:470 5:28'>Mat 5:28</a></em>.</p><p><em>Pluck it out</em>-</p><p> The Greek word is every other time translated to save or deliver:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And throw it away -</em></p><p>&nbsp;The Lord taught that we should cut off those parts of our lives that offend us, and “cast it [away] from you”- because in the end, the whole body of the wicked person will be “cast [away] into hell” (<em><a href='B:470 5:29'>Mat 5:29</a></em> - the same Greek word is used in both places in this same verse). What He’s saying surely is that we must recognize those parts of our lives which are worthy of condemnation, and&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;must condemn them now in this life, dissociating our spiritual self from our carnal self as Paul does in Romans 7 - for this is the meaning of the figure of ‘casting away’. He has just used the term in <em><a href='B:470 5:13'>Mat 5:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:25'>Mat 5:25</a></em>, and it is so often used to mean 'cast to condemnation' elsewhere too (<em><a href='B:470 3:10'>Mat 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:19'>Mat 7:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:42'>Mat 13:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:50'>Mat 13:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:30'>Mat 18:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:49'>Luk 12:49</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em>). We are to "cast out" the parts of our lives which offend us, and if we don't, we will be "cast" into condemnation at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 5:29-30'>Mat 5:29-30</a></em>). The word play on "cast" is obviously intentional; the Lord clearly has the idea that we are to self-condemn those things in our lives which are sinful and worthy of condemnation. If we don't, then we will be 'cast out' in our entirety at judgment day. Sin is to be condemned; we either condemn ourselves for it now, or we will be condemned for it then:&nbsp;</p><p><em>For it is profitable for you that one of your members should perish and not your whole body be thrown into Gehenna</em>-</p><p> The idea of self-condemnation is continued here:&nbsp; If we literally cut off part of our body, it perishes. If we do not, then the whole body will perish in Gehenna, the condemnation of the last day. For God is able to destroy [s:w. to perish] the body in Gehenna (<em><a href='B:470 10:28'>Mat 10:28</a></em>). So we are to make perish those parts of our lives which make us sin- i:e. we are to condemn them.</p>


text:
<p>5:30- see on <em><a href='B:470 7:19'>Mat 7:19</a></em>.</p><p><em>And if your right hand causes you to stumble-&nbsp;</em>Not just 'your hand'. The right hand was a Hebrew idiom for the power, the thinking, the dominant desire of a man. If it’s all taking us the wrong way, we must cut it off- and cast it from us, with no regrets about what we have given up:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Cut it off and throw it away, for it is profitable for you that one of your members should perish and not your whole body go into Gehenna-&nbsp;</em>Even though Jesus never sinned, He reveals a remarkable insight into the process of human sin, temptation and subsequent moral need. This was learnt not only from reflection on Old Testament teaching, but surely also by a sensitive seeking to enter into the feelings and processes of the sinner. This is why no sinner, ourselves included, need ever feel that this perfect Man is somehow unable to be touched by the feeling of our infirmities. Consider how He spoke of looking upon a woman to lust after her; and how He used the chilling figure of cutting out the eye or hand that offended (<em><a href='B:470 5:29'>Mat 5:29</a></em>)- the very punishments meted out in Palestine at the time for sexual misbehaviour. He had surely observed men with eyes on stalks, looking at women. Although He never sinned, yet He had thought Himself into their likelihood of failure, He knew all about the affairs going on in the village, the gutter talk of the guys at work... yet He knew and reflected upon those peoples' moral need, they were questions to Him that demanded answers, rather than a thanking God that He was not like other men were. Reflect on the characters of the Lord's parables. They cover the whole gamut of first century Palestinian life- labourers and elder sons and officials and mums and dads. They were snapshots of typical human behaviour, and as such they are essays in the way Jesus diagnosed the human condition; how much He had reflected upon people and society, and perceived our tragic need as nobody else has. &nbsp;He invites the zealous saint to cut off the various limbs of the body (for they&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;cause offence at some time!), so that he might enter the Kingdom. To the Jewish&nbsp;mind, imagining such a scene would have created the impression of priestly action. The sensitive reader is invited to see himself as “the offering and the priest”.</p>


text:
<p>5:31&nbsp;<em>It was also said: Whoever shall send away his wife, let him give her a contract of divorce</em>-</p><p> I suggested earlier that the Lord was carefully not saying that 'Moses said this, but I say differently'. But now He moves on to criticize the teaching of the religious leaders about divorce, which had effectively been elevated to the level of God's law. Divorce was often practiced in ancient societies for trivial reasons and in the heat of the moment. The divorce contract demanded by Moses however required some forethought; for one thing it had to be written, which in a largely illiterate society would involve getting others involved. And the contract would have stated the reasons, and the conditions regarding any issues of maintenance. This is a far superior and more morally developed way than in many primitive societies.</p>


text:
<p>5:32&nbsp;<em>But I say to you, that everyone that divorces his wife, except for the cause of sexual immorality-&nbsp;</em>The Lord has in view the guilty Pharisees of the Hillel school who were twisting <em><a href='B:50 24:1-4'>Deu 24:1-4</a></em> to mean that one could divorce for any reason so long as a divorce paper was written. Jesus at this point is not addressing the Pharisees but His potential followers. He is probably citing this well-known controversy in order to demonstrate how motives behind an action are what are culpable. He is inviting His hearers to consider the motive for divorce and perceive that as all important, rather than the fact of divorce. This is why I suggest the key word in this verse is&nbsp;<em>logos</em>, translated "cause". It is the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;of fornication which is the reason for divorce (see on <em><a href='B:470 5:37'>Mat 5:37</a></em>). The thinking, reasoning, idea of fornication is what leads to divorce. This interpretation makes the Lord's reasoning here flow seamlessly and directly on from His teaching in preceding verses about the root of sexual sin being in the mind. So the Lord is indeed saying that the Hillel school of thought- that divorce was possible for any trivial reason- was wrong. But as always, He moves the focus to a higher and more demanding level. He implies that "fornication" is the Biblical justification for divorce, but He says that actually it is the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>, the thought, of fornication which is the problem. And this is in line with what He has just been teaching about the thought and action of fornication being so closely connected:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Makes her commit adultery-&nbsp;</em>There is no doubt that we can be counted responsible for making another brother sin, even though he too bears responsibility for that sin. The man who commits adultery causes his ex-wife to commit adultery too, the Lord observed (<em><a href='B:470 5:32'>Mat 5:32</a></em>). Her sin remains her sin, but he too is guilty. <em><a href='B:240 5:15-16'>Pro 5:15-16</a></em> (NIV) teach likewise: that a man should drink the waters of his own well, i:e. take sexual fulfilment from his own wife, otherwise his waters (i:e. the sexuality of his wife) will overflow into the streets for all and sundry. She will turn to other men due to his unfaithfulness. Sin thus has so many aspects.</p><p><em>And whoever shall marry a divorced woman commits adultery</em>-</p><p> The 'whosoever' earlier in this verse seems to refer to men who thought they could divorce their wife for any reason and go off with another woman. This view led women into sinful relationships with those men. But perhaps what is in view in this part of the verse is the women who divorced their husbands for any reason- for women in some circles did have the power to divorce in the first century. The man who married such a woman was also committing adultery. The 'whosoever' refers to people who were getting divorced for any reason apart from fornication, and thereby leading both themselves and their new partners into sin.</p>


text:
<p>5:33&nbsp;<em>Again, you have heard that it was said to them of old: You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord</em>-</p><p> This refers to perjury, i:e. lying about something in court. Perjury has a motive- e.g. simply lying about your age to a causal enquirer is not perjury, but it is perjury if you lie about your age in order to get old age retirement benefits. So we see the theme of&nbsp;<em>motive</em>&nbsp;being continued. But the Lord takes the matter further. He not only forbids false swearing but swearing at all- as if He foresaw that any oath is likely to end up a false oath, such is the weakness of humanity and our tendency not to be truthful. <em><a href='B:660 5:12'>Jas 5:12</a></em> quotes this and says that "Above all" we should not swear falsely, lest we fall into condemnation. This is strong language. The implication is that if we lie in a human court, that is one thing- but that lie will be tried in the court of Heaven and will lead to condemnation.</p>


text:
<p>5:34&nbsp;<em>But I say to you: Swear not at all, neither by the heaven, for it is the throne of God</em>-</p><p> The Lord taught that His people were to be unconditionally truthful, because every untruthful word would be judged at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 12:36'>Mat 12:36</a></em>). When He taught us ‘swear not at all’ (<em><a href='B:470 5:33-37'>Mat 5:33-37</a></em>), He spoke specifically about not swearing by the judgment throne of God at Jerusalem. Jews and indeed all Semitic peoples were in the habit of swearing by the last day judgment, to prove that they were truthful (cp. <em><a href='B:470 23:16-22'>Mat 23:16-22</a></em>). The Lord is saying that His people have no need to use those invocations and oaths- because they are to live&nbsp;<em>always</em>&nbsp;as if they are before the final judgment seat of God in Jerusalem. And therefore, our words will be true- because we live as men and women who stand constantly before His judgment presence. Swearing by "heaven" may refer to the temple; the "earth" of :35 would be the land of Israel.</p>


text:
<p>5:35&nbsp;<em>Nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet. Nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King</em>-</p><p> The Jews, like many people, swore too easily. They thought that swearing by something greater than them was so acceptable that it actually excused them from basic truthfulness within their hearts. Their reasoning therefore was that they could lie about a matter because they judged they would never be found out; and swore by all manner of greater things to add credibility to their lie. This is the whole problem with religious structures of whatever kind; external things&nbsp;are invested with more authority and importance than the need for internal truth and spirituality. We see here the Lord's penetrating analysis of human psychology. The Lord clearly understood God as a personal being, who was personally manifest in the earth / land of Israel and Jerusalem- despite their apostasy. Clearly God does not offer His fellowship only on the basis of purity, nor does He practice any sense of guilt by association.</p>


text:
<p>5:36&nbsp;<em>Neither shall you swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black</em>-</p><p> Starting with the greatest thing- the throne of God- down to the apparently most insignificant (one hair), the Lord shows that absolutely nothing (great or small) can give any more meaning to human words than the words themselves.</p>


text:
<p>5:37&nbsp;<em>But let your Yes mean Yes, and your No, No. For whatever is more than these comes from evil-&nbsp;</em>The AV and some manuscripts add "Let your communication be...". The word&nbsp;<em>logos&nbsp;</em>is used. The contrast is between 'swearing' in words, and having an internal&nbsp;<em>logos</em>, a thought behind the words, which is clear and honest. This continues the theme of <em><a href='B:470 5:32'>Mat 5:32</a></em> about the<em>&nbsp;logos</em>&nbsp;of fornication. We are to pay attention to our&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;rather than merely the external word and action.</p><p><em>Yes, yes</em>-</p><p> People had the idea that there was normal language, and then oaths, which ensured that what you were saying was really true. The Lord is teaching that we should operate on only one level of language- absolute truth. We should not think that some areas of our language use can be less honest than others. The demand is for a total influence of God's truth into every aspect of human life and thinking.</p><p>Wrong words come&nbsp;<em>ek</em>, 'out of', evil or "the evil one". Yet the thrust of the Lord's teaching so far in the Sermon has been that wrong words and behaviour come&nbsp;<em>ek</em>, out of, the human heart and motivations. This, then, is 'the evil', personified as 'the evil one'. In using this term the Lord was radically redefining the popular conceptions of an external 'evil one' as an external being, teaching that it is the evil<em>&nbsp;logos&nbsp;</em>within the human heart which is the real 'evil one'. We note how deeply the Lord's teaching is concerned with internal thought processes. Whatever is more than a simple yes-no way of speaking involves something from 'the evil one'; and we weasel our way with words and meanings only when we are under temptation to be sinful. But that is a deeply internal, psychological situation, deep, deep within the human heart.</p>


text:
<p>5:38<em>&nbsp;You have heard that it was said: An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth</em>-</p><p>When the Lord Jesus gave His commandments as an elaboration of Moses' Law, that Law was still in force. He didn't say 'When I'm dead, this is how you should behave…'. He was showing us a higher level; but in the interim period until the Law was taken out of the way, He was opening up the&nbsp;<em>choice</em>&nbsp;of taking that higher level, even though making use of the concessions which Moses offered would not have been a sin during that period. Thus He spoke of not insisting on "an eye for an eye"; even though in certain rare cases the Law did allow for this. He was saying: 'You can keep Moses' Law, and take an eye for an eye. But there is a higher level: to simply forgive'. And that in fact was inculcated by Moses' law itself.</p>


text:
<p>5:39&nbsp;<em>But I say to you: Do not resist him that is evil</em>-</p><p> The Greek term for resisting evil occurs only in <em><a href='B:560 6:13'>Eph 6:13</a></em>. We are in this life to arm ourselves spiritually, so that we may be able to resist in the evil day. If Paul is alluding to this part of the Sermon, the point would be that we are not to resist evil in this life, because our time to ultimately resist it will be in the last day. Then, along with the Lord Himself, we will resist and overcome evil through the establishment of the Kingdom on earth. <em><a href='B:520 13:2'>Rom 13:2</a></em> is likely another allusion to "resist not evil"- if we "resist" [s:w:] Governments whom God has put in power, then we are resisting God. This means that Paul fully understood that the 'powers that be' are indeed "evil", but they are not to be proactively 'resisted' by those in Christ. The time for that will come, but is not now. We are, however, to "resist the devil" (<em><a href='B:660 4:7'>Jas 4:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 5:9'>1Pe 5:9</a></em>). Surely "resist not evil" is in view. We are to resist sin within us, but not evil in its political form around us. Again, as so often in the Bible, we see that the focus for our spiritual struggle is within rather than without. As always in the Sermon, the example of Jesus was the making of the word into flesh. <em><a href='B:660 5:6'>Jas 5:6</a></em> seems to make this point, by pointing out that Jesus did not and in a sense does not resist evil done against Him: “You have condemned, you have murdered the righteous one. He doesn’t resist you”. And yet He will judge this behaviour- not now, but at the last day.</p><p><em>But whoever hits you on your right cheek</em>-</p><p> You singular. Time and again the Sermon on the Mount / Plain seems to take a broad sweep in its record of the Lord’s teaching to us all; and then He suddenly focuses in on the individual. The AV brings this out well through the use of “you” (plural) and “thee” (singular): “Blessed are you poor… love your enemies… to him who strikes thee on the cheek…”. Note how many times there is this change of pronoun in Luke 6. Clearly the Lord wants us to see our collective standing before Him, and yet not to overlook the purely personal nature of His appeal to us individually:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Turn to him the other also</em>-</p><p> The Lord was smitten on the cheek but enquired why He was being smitten, rather than literally turning the other cheek. But to do this would be so humiliating for the aggressor that it would be a far more effective resistance of evil than anything else. The power in the confrontation is now with the one who turns the other cheek. S/he is calling the shots, not the beater. The idea of not resisting evil and offering the other cheek (<em><a href='B:470 5:39'>Mat 5:39</a></em>) we normally apply to suffering loss from the world without fighting for our rights. Yet Paul took this as referring to the need to not retaliate to the harmful things done to us by members of the ecclesia (<em><a href='B:520 12:16-17'>Rom 12:16-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 6:7'>1Co 6:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 5:15'>1Th 5:15</a></em>). When struck on the right cheek- which was a Semitic insult to a heretic- they were to not respond and open themselves up for further insult [surely a lesson for those brethren who are falsely accused of wrong beliefs]. And yet the compassion of Jesus shines through both His parables and the records of His words; as does His acceptance of people for who they were. People were relaxed with Him because they could see He had no hidden agenda. He wasn't going to use them for His own power trip.</p>


text:
<p>5:40&nbsp;<em>And if anyone wants to sue you and take away</em>-</p><p> A rather liberal translation of the single Greek word&nbsp;<em>krino</em>. The idea is quite simply of judging. We can be wrongly judged by others without them taking us to court. The simple principle 'Do not resist wrong judgment of you' is a very large ask. Even in this life, truth often comes out. And if we believe in the ultimate justice of the final judgment, we will not for ever be going around correcting others' misjudgements and wrong impressions of us. That is something I have had to deeply learn in my own life.</p><p><em>Your coat, let him also have your cloak-&nbsp;</em>It was forbidden by the Law to keep a man’s outer garment overnight (<em><a href='B:20 22:26-27'>Exo 22:26-27</a></em>). But the Lord taught&nbsp;<em>whilst the law was still in operation&nbsp;</em>that we should be willing to give it up, and even offer it (<em><a href='B:470 5:40'>Mat 5:40</a></em>). The threatened man could have quoted the Law and kept his clothing. But the Lord bids us go to a higher level, beyond using God’s law to uphold our own rights. And in this He raises a vital if difficult principle: Don’t always enforce what Biblical rights you have against your brother. Don’t rush to your own defence and justification even if Scripture is on your side. Live on the level of true love and non-resistance to evil. In this case the idea would be that even if someone amongst God's people does something unBiblical to us, clearly breaking God's laws, we are still to not resist evil but rather by our grace to them, shame them into repentance.</p>


text:
<p>5:41&nbsp;<em>And whoever shall compel you to go one mile, go with him two-&nbsp;</em>The Lord’s high value of persons is reflected in how He taught His followers to not resist evil. A poor man had only two garments- an outer one, and an inner one (<em><a href='B:50 24:10-13'>Deu 24:10-13</a></em>). Underneath that, he was naked. Yet the Lord taught that if you had your outer garment unjustly taken from you, then offer your abuser your undercloth. Offer him, in all seriousness, to take it off you, and leave you standing next to him arrystarkus. This would have turned the table. The abuser would be the one left ashamed, as he surely wouldn’t do this. And thus the&nbsp;<em>dignity of the abused person was left intact at the end</em>. This was the Lord’s desire. Likewise, Roman soldiers were allowed to impress a Jew to carry their pack for a mile, but they were liable to punishment if they made him carry it two miles. To offer to carry it the second mile would almost always be turned down by the abusive soldier. And again, at the end of the exchange, he would be the one humiliated, and the Lord’s follower, even though abused, would remain with head up and dignity intact.</p>


text:
<p>5:42&nbsp;<em>Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would</em>-</p><p> Luke says that the Lord taught that we should “give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, shall they give into your bosom. For with what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again” (<em><a href='B:490 6:38'>Luk 6:38</a></em>). We might have expected Him to say: ‘Give generously, with a good, running over measure, and this is what you will receive in return’. But He doesn’t. He says simply “Give”; and then we will be given to in a generous measure, because with what measure we use in our giving, we will receive. Thinking it through, He means surely that “giving”, by His definition, means a generous, well packed, abundant giving; for that&nbsp;<em>is&nbsp;</em>Christian giving. And note that the context of <em><a href='B:490 6:38'>Luk 6:38</a></em> is the Lord talking about not being critical and judgmental of others, but rather forgiving and accepting them. It is our 'giving' in this sense which is to be so full and generous. Only God’s grace / giving can inspire this attitude within us, as we live hemmed in by the people of a materialistic, mean world, where nobody takes up a cross for anyone else. This is why Paul makes a play on the word ‘grace’ when writing to the Corinthians about giving; for&nbsp;<em>charis</em>, “grace”, means ‘giving’. He urges them to not receive God’s grace in vain, but rather, motivated by it, to give grace to others (<em><a href='B:540 6:1'>2Co 6:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 8:6-7'>2Co 8:6-7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 8:19'>2Co 8:19</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>Borrow from you</em>-</p><p> The Greek strictly means to borrow for interest. Seeing this was illegal under the Law of Moses, the Lord is saying that we should just lend- but not for interest. We would all soon bankrupt if we read this as it stands in many English translations. Or it could be that the Lord was aware that He was talking to extremely poor people who had so little to lend that it was not as hard for them to take Him seriously on this point as it is for those who have so much more.</p><p>According to Luke’s record here, the Lord taught that we must love our enemies “and lend [in whatever way] never despairing” (<em><a href='B:490 6:35'>Luk 6:35</a></em> RV). The Lord sought to inculcate in His followers His same positive spirit. To never give up with people, for all the losses, the casualties, the hurt… never despairing of humanity. This was and is the spirit of Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>5:43<em>&nbsp;You have heard that it was said: You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy-&nbsp;</em>The Lord's attitude to the Essenes is a case study in bridge building- developing what we have in common with our target audience, and yet through that commonality addressing the issues over which we differ. The Dead Sea scrolls reveal that the terms "poor in spirit" and "poor" are technical terms used only by the Essenes to describe themselves". So when the Lord encouraged us to be "poor in spirit" (<em><a href='B:470 5:3'>Mat 5:3</a></em>), He was commending the Essene position. Likewise when He praised those who were eunuchs for God's Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 19:10-12'>Mat 19:10-12</a></em>), He was alluding to the Essenes, who were the only celibate group in 1st century Israel. And yet lepers were anathema to the Essenes, and the Lord's staying in the home of Simon the leper (<em><a href='B:480 14:3'>Mar 14:3</a></em>) was a purposeful affront to Essene thinking. The parable of the Good Samaritan has been seen as another purposeful attack upon them; likewise the Lord's teaching: "You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy" (<em><a href='B:470 5:43'>Mat 5:43</a></em>). It was the Essenes in their&nbsp;<em>Rule Of The Community</em>&nbsp;who taught that Essenes must yearly chant curses upon their enemies. So the Lord even within Matthew 5, and certainly within His teaching as a whole, both commended and challenged the Essenes; His bridge building didn't involve just accepting their position.</p>


text:
<p>5:44&nbsp;<em>But I say to you: Love your enemies and pray for them that persecute you-&nbsp;</em>Praying for our enemies and abusers, not wishing a curse upon them but rather a blessing, sounds like Job (<em><a href='B:470 5:44'>Mat 5:44</a></em> = <em><a href='B:220 31:30'>Job 31:30</a></em>). 'Blessing' has Biblical connection with the ideas of forgiveness and salvation. There would be no point in praying for forgiveness for the obviously impenitent unless God might actually grant it. This opens huge possibilities and potentials to us. God is willing to forgive people for the sake of the prayers and efforts of others (<em><a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a></em>). Jesus isn't simply telling us to vaguely pray for our enemies because it is psychologically good for us and eases our pain a bit. Genuine prayer for abusers really has the possibility of being heard- for God is willing to save people for the sake of our prayers. Otherwise, this exhortation to do good to abusers through praying for their blessing would be rather meaningless. 'Cursing' likewise tended to carry the sense of 'May you be condemned at the day of judgment'. Those who condemn others will be condemned (<em><a href='B:470 7:1'>Mat 7:1</a></em> etc:)- and yet we can pray for their blessing. It is perhaps only our prayers and desire for their salvation which can over-ride the otherwise certain connection between condemning others and being condemned. This gives those condemned and abused by others so much work to do. In fact, so amazing are the possibilities that that alone is therapeutic. Moses' praying for Pharaoh in <em><a href='B:20 9:28-29'>Exo 9:28-29</a></em> is perhaps the Old Testament source of Christ's words. Let's not read those records as implying that Moses simply uttered a few words to God, and then each of the plagues was lifted. There was an element of real fervency in Moses' prayers- which may well be lacking in ours. This is surely an example of genuinely praying for our enemies.</p><p>Curse [condemn]... hate... despitefully use [slander]... persecute [chase out- excommunicate]<em>&nbsp;</em>the terms used here are very applicable to attitudes from some members of God's people to others- first century Israel, in the first context, and the Christian church in the longer term context. The language is not to applicable to persecution at the hands of the unbelieving world. Likewise the commands to pray for spiritual blessing and acceptance of our abusers is surely more appropriate to prayers for those who are bitter misbelievers than for complete unbelievers who profess no desire to please God:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>5:45 See on 6:26.</p><p><em>That you might be sons of your Father who is in heaven-&nbsp;</em>Jesus juxtaposed ideas in a radical way. He spoke of drinking His blood; and of a Samaritan who was good, a spiritual hero. It was impossible for Jews to associate the term 'Samaritan' and the concept of being spiritually an example. And so the stark, radical challenge of the Lord's words must be allowed to come down into the 21st century too. <em><a href='B:490 6:35'>Luk 6:35</a></em> has Jesus speaking of "children of the Most High" and yet <em><a href='B:470 5:45'>Mat 5:45</a></em> has "children of your father". What did Jesus actually say? Perhaps: "Children of&nbsp;<em>abba</em>, daddy, the Most High". He juxtaposed His shocking idea of&nbsp;<em>abba&nbsp;</em>with the exalted title "the Most High". The Most High was in fact as close as&nbsp;<em>abba</em>, daddy, father:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>For He makes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust-</em></p><p>&nbsp;God consciously makes the sun rise each day- it isn't part of a kind of perpetual motion machine. Hence the force of His promises in the prophets that in the same way as He consciously maintains the solar system, so He will maintain His Israel. Psalms 104 is full of such examples: "He waters the hills... causes the grass to grow... makes darkness (consciously, each night)... the young lions... seek their meat from God... send forth Your Spirit (Angel), they are created" (not just by the reproductive system). There are important implications following from these ideas with regard to our faith in prayer. It seems to me that our belief that the world is going on inevitably by clockwork is one of the things which militates against faith. To give a simple example: we may need to catch a certain train which is to leave at 9 a:m. We wake up late at 8:30 a:m. and find it hard to have faith in our (all too hasty) prayer that we will get it, because we are accustomed to trains leaving on time. But if we have the necessary faith to believe that each individual action in life is the work of God, then it is not so hard to believe that God will make the action of that train leaving occur at 9:30 a:m. rather than at 9 a:m. when He normally makes it leave. The whole of creation keeps on going as a result of God having a heart that bleeds for people. “If he causes his heart to return unto himself”, the whole of creation would simply cease (<em><a href='B:220 34:14'>Job 34:14</a></em> RVmg:). His spirit is His heart and mind, as well as physical power. Creation is kept going not by clockwork, but by the conscious outpouring of His Spirit toward us. In times of depression we need to remember this; that the very fact the world is still going, the planet still moves, atoms stay in their place and all matter still exists… is proof that the God who has a heart that bleeds for us is still there, with His heart going out to us His creation. And the spirit of the Father must be in us His children.</p><p>Just because the Father gives His sun and rain to all without discrimination, we likewise should love our enemies (<em><a href='B:470 5:43-45'>Mat 5:43-45</a></em>). This is the imperative of creation. We noted on <em><a href='B:470 5:44'>Mat 5:44</a></em> that our prayer and goodness to our enemies is in order to lead them to repentance and salvation. This is surely one motive behind the way God sends rain and sunshine upon the evil as well as the good. His goodness to them is intended to lead them to repentance. Only at the day of judgment will He execute judgment against them, and that is to be our perspective too. See on 5:39&nbsp;<em>resist not evil</em>:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>5:46&nbsp;For<em>&nbsp;if you love them that love you</em>-</p><p> We tend to love in response to others' love. But the love which the Lord has in mind is the love which is an act of the will, consciously effected towards the&nbsp;<em>un</em>loving:&nbsp;</p><p><em>What reward have you?</em>-</p><p> The idea is of wages. Whilst salvation itself is a free gift, in contrast to the wages paid by sin, this is not to say that there will not be some element of reward / wages / eternal recognition of our spiritual achievements in this life. The preceding verses have spoken of prayer and blessing for our abusers. This kind of attitude will be eternally rewarded. Not least if we see those we prayed for, those we blessed and forgave without their repentance, eternally with us in God's Kingdom. The final judgment will be of our works, not because works justify us, but because our use of the freedom we have had and exercised in our lives is the basis of the future reward we will be given. Salvation itself is not on the basis of our works (<em><a href='B:520 11:6'>Rom 11:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 2:16'>Gal 2:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 3:5'>Tit 3:5</a></em>); indeed, the&nbsp;<em>free gift&nbsp;</em>of salvation by pure grace is contrasted with the&nbsp;<em>wages&nbsp;</em>paid by sin (<em><a href='B:520 4:4'>Rom 4:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a></em>). And yet at the judgment, the preacher receives&nbsp;<em>wages</em>&nbsp;for what he did (<em><a href='B:500 4:36'>Joh 4:36</a></em>), the labourers receive&nbsp;<em>hire</em>&nbsp;(s:w. wages) for their work in the vineyard (<em><a href='B:470 20:8'>Mat 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:8'>1Co 3:8</a></em>). There is a&nbsp;<em>reward</em>&nbsp;(s:w. wages) for those who rise to the level of loving the totally unresponsive (<em><a href='B:470 5:46'>Mat 5:46</a></em>), or preaching in situations quite against their natural inclination (<em><a href='B:530 9:18'>1Co 9:18</a></em>):&nbsp;<em>Salvation</em>&nbsp;itself isn't given on this basis of works; but the nature of our eternal existence in the Kingdom will be a reflection of our use of the gift of freedom in this life. In that sense the judgment will be of our works.</p><p><em><a href='B:490 6:32'>Luk 6:32</a></em> speaks of us having “thanks”. The Greek for "thank" in <em><a href='B:490 6:32'>Luk 6:32</a></em> is 'charis', normally translated "grace", and often connected with the help of the Spirit which is given to us in response to our own efforts. Taking responsibility for others is often thankless. Our human dysfunction cries out for recognition and affirmation, and we tend not to do those things for which we are not thanked. This is one of the most radical aspects of our calling as followers of Christ- to serve without being thanked. Belief in God’s judgment helps us with this. For all our works will be rewarded in some sense by Him at the last day. If we love those that love us, we have no “thank”- but we will have “thank”, or “praise of God” ultimately. And this is what ultimately matters.</p><p><em>Even the tax collectors do the same</em>-</p><p> As demonstrated by the account of Zacchaeus, these were the most friendless people in society. Rejected by family, they were unloved by about everyone. The only person who would salute / greet them was a fellow publican (:47). The implication is that publicans [tax collectors] were loved only by themselves. Loving those who love us is little better than the selfish self-love of the lonely publican. Matthew was a publican and he surely had himself very much in view as he recounted this teaching of the Lord.</p>


