v17 Whoever speaks the truth ['emunah] gives honest evidence, but a false [shekar] witness utters deceit.

v22  Lying [shekar] lips are an abomination to the LORD, but those who act faithfully ['emunah] are his delight.

v23 A prudent ['arum] man conceals [koseh] knowledge, but the heart of fools proclaims folly ['ewil].

The word order of ‘arum and koseh is reversed in the Hebrew text of v. 16, so that the chiasm looks like this:

fool ['ewil]

ignores [koseh]

prudent ['arum]

truth ['emunah]

false [shekar]

Lying [shekar]

faithfully ['emunah]

prudent ['arum]

conceals [koseh]

folly ['ewil]

With thanks to Bruce Waltke, Proverbs (NICOT), p. 533.

Exodus 1:15-21 The Israelite midwives lied to Pharaoh

Joshua 2; Hebrews 11:31; James 2:25 Rahab hid the spies and lied to the Jericho troops

Judges 4:18 Jael deceived Sisera

1 Samuel 16:1-5 Samuel deceived Saul about the purpose of his mission

1 Samuel 19:12-17 Michal deceived and lied to Saul’s messengers, saying that David was ill

1 Samuel 20:6 David tells Jonathan to lie to Saul

1 Samuel 21:13 David deceived Achich King of Gath into believing he is mad

1 Samuel 27:10 David lied to Achish about his raids

2 Samuel 5:22-25 David and his troops deceived the Philistines in battle

2 Samuel 14:34 David urged Hushai the Archite to deceive Absalom

2 Samuel 17:19-20 A woman deceived and lied to Absalom’s men

1 Kings 22:19-23 God sent a lying spirit to Ahab

2 Kings 6:14-20 Elijah misled the Syrian troops

Jeremiah 38:24-28 Jeremiah lied to the officials

Luke 24:28 Jesus misled his disciples by acting as if he was going farther

2 Thessalonians 2:11 God sends a powerful delusion so that his enemies will believe a lie

“What determines that a husband or wife who is not a believer is made holy is ‘the willingness of the unbeliever to continue the relationship’ which ‘has had a decisive influence on his or her behaviour.’” In such a case, “The lifestyle of the Christian partner cannot but affect the ethos and to some extent the values and lifestyle of the home, whether this be the husband or the wife. The spouse’s example, witness, prayer, and living out the world make the spouse (and the children) in this sense holy.”

Thiselton thereby gives the appropriate weight to the potentially compelling witness of a Christian spouse, without making nonsense of the need for the unbelieving spouse to come to personal faith in Jesus (cf. v. 16).

More could be said, I think, on the subject of the children mentioned later in v. 14. But insofar as it goes, this much is helpful.

“We who are strong have an obligation to bear with [bastazein] the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. 2 Let each of us please his neighbour for his good, to build him up. 3 For Christ did not please himself, but as it is written, ‘The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me.’ 4 For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.”

• “It is unlikely that bastazein means ‘endure’ here.” Presumably is doesn’t mean “bear with” either. For “Paul is requiring from the strong something much more positive than that they should tolerate the weaknesses of the weak,” which by itself might “involve putting a certain pressure upon the weak” or even harbouring “an attitude of superiority and condescension” toward them.
• Rather, bastazein means “carry,” as it does in the vast majority of other NT occurrences. This certainly fits the present context. For (and here Cranfield is superb) “What is required is that the strong should actually help the weak by taking something of the weight of the burden which they have to carry off their shoulders on to their own.” The strong are “to help to carry the infirmities, disabilities, embarrassments and encumbrances of their brothers who are having to live without that inner freedom which they themselves enjoy. Their response to this obligation will be a test of the reality of their faith.”
• “This helping to carry the burden of the infirmities which weigh the weak down will involve not pleasing oneself.”
• On the phrase “for his good, to build him up” [eis to agathos pros oikodomen], Cranfield writes, “The neighbour is very likely to be ready to be pleased by flattery and by the condonement of his wrong-doing,” which will hardly tend to his good. Instead, therefore, “the pleasing of the neighbour which is here commanded … has regard to his true good, to his salvation … which is directed owards his edification … no mere man-pleasing but [with] regard to God.”
• “Paul appeals to the example of Christ” in the phrase “for Christ did not please himself” – a statement which “sums up with eloquent reticence both the character of the incarnation and the meaning of Christ’s earthly life.”
• A surprise in v. 3 – Paul appeals not to the life of Christ but to the OT, quoting from Ps 69:9, where the righteous sufferer (Christ, in Rom 15) addresses God, declaring that men’s hostility towards their Maker has now been directed at their Saviour. Christ suffered this intense hostility from men voluntarily; how much more should we be ready to undergo willingly the comparatively trivial trial of “renouncing our self-gratification” in such matters as food, drink and special days “for the sake of our brothers for whom He suffered so much.”

This uncertainty could easily have been resolve had Luke wished. I suggest therefore that the ambiguity is deliberate. It serves to underscore the precariousness of the Pharisees’ alienation from Jesus by compounding their predicament with uncertainty. And if there’s one thing worse than alienation in a relationship, it’s alienation compounded with uncertainty.

28 And leaving everything and rising, he followed him.

29 And Levi made a great banquet for him in his house, and there was a great crowd of tax collectors and others who were with them, sitting at the table.

30 And the Pharisees and their Scribes grumbled to his disciples, saying, “Why with tax collectors and sinners does he eat and drink?”

31 And answering Jesus said to them, “The healthy have no need for a doctor, but the sick.

32 I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

Anyone who’s read much by James B. Jordan will be unlikely to find much new here. But Hamilton does the painstaking (and very helpful) work of crossing i’s and dotting t’s that Jordan deliberately leaves out in his outstanding book Through New Eyes. The two approaches therefore compliment each other very well.

Here’s a reminder of the text itself:

“I entreat Euodia and I entreat Syntyche to agree in the Lord. Yes, I ask you also, true companion, help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.” (Philippians 4:2-3)

And here are some thoughts from Peter O’Brien’s commentary:

1. What does Paul want, and how badly does he want it?

“In a direct personal appeal for unity Paul names the two women and begs them to reach a common mind … The apostle’s urging another of his coworkers to Help Euodia and Syntyche come to a common mind shows the necessity and urgency of the exhortation” (O’Brien, pp. 477-8).

2. How does Paul approach the disagreement?

“Paul refuses to take sides but makes the same appeal to both” (O’Brien, pp. 477-478).

3. Why is it so important that the dispute should be resolved?

“Their discord, whatever its precise nature, was a threat to the unity of the church as a whole. Otherwise it is difficult to explain why their names were mentioned in a letter to be read publicly in church” (O’Brien, p. 478).

4. What kind of resolution is Paul looking for?

“The expression to auto phroneiv, which means literally ‘to think the same thing’, is an appeal to Euodia and Syntyche to be at one in their mental attitude and so in the basic aim, direction, and orientation or their behaviour. Undoubtedly this would involve their having right attitudes towards each other and thus an ability to work together in harmony” (O’Brien, p. 478).

5. What do we know about the two women?

“They had contended at Paul’s side in the cause of the gospel … [and] their names … find a place in God’s record, the roll of the heavenly commonwealth … Euodia and Syntyche participated in Paul’s own struggle for the advance of the gospel … All their names are written in the book of life … including Euodia and Syntyche … This figurative language is employed several times in the book of Revelation to describe believers … who have been predestined from the foundation of the world … and who will enter the presence of God after the last assize” (O’Brien, pp. 479, 481-483).

6. Why does Paul ask his “true companion” to help them?

“It may be difficult for Euodia and Syntyche to come to a common mind on their own, so Paul requests his trusted colleague to help them. … He was probably some prominent and influential member of the congregation, perhaps a person of tact as well as influence” (O’Brien, pp. 480-481).

“Benjamin is identified as a future king in Genesis 35 without any preparation or training, while Judah was proclaimed the royal tribe only after he had offered himself as a substitute for Benjamin (Gen. 44:18-34). Similarly, Saul [the Benjaminite] became king without ever accepting the cross, while David, the king from Judah, rose to the throne only after a death and resurrection.” (Leithart, A Son to Me, p. 72)

“The diseased person had to live alone outside the camp. A solitary existence was viewed as a calamity in itself … Biblical man knew he was meant to live in society, to be a member of God’s people. Living outside the camp would, therefore, have occasioned great distress … it was the place farthest removed from God, the place to which the sinner and the impure were banished … the place where wrongdoers were executed … To live outside the camp was to be cut off from the blessings of the covenant. It was little wonder that when a man was diagnosed as unclean he had to go into mourning. He experienced a living death … As Adam and Eve experienced a living death when they were expelled from Eden, so every man who was diagnosed suffered a similar fate.” (G. J. Wenham, Leviticus, pp. 200-201)

“By performing this healing, Jesus shows that the OT code of holiness points to him. His life and death fulfill it and abrogate it. But that abrogation is not complete until his sacrificial death. Until then, there is still a need for Israel to conform to the purity laws of the OT, which require the newly cleansed leper to show himself to the priest and make an offering” (Arthur Just, Luke, pp. 214-215).

This contrasts with other readings of Luke 5, in which Jesus’ healing of the leper is seen precisely as a manifestation of the sacrificial quality of his ministry, on the premise that for the cleansing of a leper in the OT a sacrifice was required. However, Just’s reading fits better, I think, because according to Lev 13-14 the sacrifice was required after the healing, not as a means to it, and furthermore Jesus tells the man to “make an offering” (v. 14) in the temple.

The emphasis, then, perhaps does not fall on the sacrificial quality of Jesus ministry, but rather somewhere else. One possibility is that healing itself (and thus restoration to a condition of cleanness) was one thing that the OT law couldn’t do. A leper just needed to hang around and wait for the disease to go away. If it did, all well and good – the priest could then certify him as clean, offer the appropriate sacrifices, and so on. But if the disease remained, that was just too bad. The man would have been condemned to a life of exclusion and ostracism by the incurable character of his condition. This incurability is the thing that Jesus overturns. Healing and cleanness flows out from him, as a sign of the holiness within him and the greater glory of the New Covenant, by which God does not remain at a distance but comes close to us in Christ.

• “Christ’s kingdom is all about life overcoming death. Christ has come to overthrow and exorcise all sorts of death … Christ’s holiness has come to restore dying bodies” (p. 83).
• “These purity laws all seem to connect and make sense as symbolic expressions of that central distinction between life and death” (p. 85). OK, possibly. Probably, even. But there’s probably more to say too. Wholeness and one-ness as opposed to divided-ness and mixed-ness, for example. And observing created distinctions. Though there’s no need for either-or here.
• “Jesus shows up in Galilee reversing all [these manifestations of death found under the Old Covenant]. He’s not afraid of death. He rules death. Death is afraid of him … Death flees from this new Adam. He is holiness incarnate, and he removes the curse of death. He brings the life of God, and death can’t bear it. He is the High Priest purifying the people of God. His holiness is contagious. It overcomes death” (pp. 85-86)

Jeremiah 23:1–6

“Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!” declares the LORD. 2 Therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning the shepherds who care for my people: “You have scattered my flock and have driven them away, and you have not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for your evil deeds, declares the LORD. 3 Then I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries where I have driven them, and I will bring them back to their fold, and they shall be fruitful and multiply. 4 I will set shepherds over them who will care for them, and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall any be missing, declares the LORD.

5 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 6 In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: ‘The LORD is our righteousness.’”

Here Jeremiah condemns those who ruled Israel in his day – the “shepherds” (v. 2) of Israel – who cared nothing for the people of God, but were concerned only for themselves. The LORD promises to punish them “for their evil deeds” (v. 2), and to provide a shepherd “who will care for them” (v. 4). This promise is fulfilled with the coming of “a righteous Branch” who will “reign as king and deal wisely” (v. 5), in whom the LORD himself will be present, for his name will be, “the LORD is our righteousness” (v. 6).

Micah 5:1-5a

1 Now muster your troops, O daughter of troops; siege is laid against us; with a rod they strike the judge of Israel on the cheek. 2 But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days. 3 Therefore he shall give them up until the time when she who is in labor has given birth; then the rest of his brothers shall return to the people of Israel. 4 And he shall stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. And they shall dwell secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth. 5 And he shall be their peace.

Like Jeremiah, Micah also looks forward to One will ” be ruler in Israel” (v. 2). This great King shall come from a surprising place: “Bethlehem Ephrathah” (v. 2), an insignificant little town which would nonetheless be the birthplace of Israel’s Messiah, the one who will bring “peace” (v. 5).

Zephaniah 3:14-20

14 Sing aloud, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel! Rejoice and exult with all your heart, O daughter of Jerusalem! 15 The LORD has taken away the judgments against you; he has cleared away your enemies. The King of Israel, the LORD, is in your midst; you shall never again fear evil. 16 On that day it shall be said to Jerusalem: “Fear not, O Zion; let not your hands grow weak. 17 The LORD your God is in your midst, a mighty one who will save; he will rejoice over you with gladness; he will quiet you by his love; he will exult over you with loud singing. 18 I will gather those of you who mourn for the festival, so that you will no longer suffer reproach. 19 Behold, at that time I will deal with all your oppressors. And I will save the lame and gather the outcast, and I will change their shame into praise and renown in all the earth. 20 At that time I will bring you in, at the time when I gather you together; for I will make you renowned and praised among all the peoples of the earth, when I restore your fortunes before your eyes,” says the LORD.

Zephaniah looks forward with great joy to the coming of the King: “Sing aloud, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel! Rejoice and exult with all your heart, O daughter of Jerusalem!” (v. 14). The LORD is coming in the person of Christ as “a mighty one who will save” (v. 17), who will gather the mourners, the lame, and the outcast (vv. 18-19), and will punish those who oppress the weak (v. 19). When the promised King comes, all the world will see how he has restored his people (v. 20).

Haggai 2:1-9

1 In the seventh month, on the twenty-first day of the month, the word of the LORD came by the hand of Haggai the prophet, 2 “Speak now to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and to all the remnant of the people, and say, 3 ‘Who is left among you who saw this house in its former glory? How do you see it now? Is it not as nothing in your eyes? 4 Yet now be strong, O Zerubbabel, declares the LORD. Be strong, O Joshua, son of Jehozadak, the high priest. Be strong, all you people of the land, declares the LORD. Work, for I am with you, declares the LORD of hosts, 5 according to the covenant that I made with you when you came out of Egypt. My Spirit remains in your midst. Fear not. 6 For thus says the LORD of hosts: Yet once more, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land.  7 And I will shake all nations, so that the treasures of all nations shall come in, and I will fill this house with glory, says the LORD of hosts.  8 The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, declares the LORD of hosts. 9 The latter glory of this house shall be greater than the former, says the LORD of hosts. And in this place I will give peace, declares the LORD of hosts.’”

Haggai prophesied during the construction of the Temple after Israel’s return from exile – a task that was delayed because the people of God allowed themselves to become pre-occupied with their own houses rather than the house of God. Even when the Temple was finally constructed, it wasn’t very impressive – it was “as nothing in [the] eyes” of those “who saw … its former glory” (v. 3). Yet “in a little while” (v. 6), the LORD promises to “shake the heavens and the earth” and fill his house with greater glory than the earth has ever seen. And then, when the glory of the LORD has been seen in the Son, the world will know “peace” (v. 9).

First, in 5:1, “the crowd was pressing in on Jesus to hear the word of God.”

Second, in 23:23, the crowd “insistently demanded that he be crucified.”

Thus with this one word Luke tells the story of the fickleness of humanity.

Don’t end your story end in Luke 23:23.

10 I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at length you have revived your concern for me. You were indeed concerned for me, but you had no opportunity.

11 Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. 12 I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need.

13 I can do all things through him who strengthens me.

14 Yet it was kind of you to share my trouble. 15 And you Philippians yourselves know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving, except you only. 16 Even in Thessalonica you sent me help for my needs once and again.

17 Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that increases to your credit. 18 I have received full payment, and more. I am well supplied, having received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God.

19 And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.

• “The passage is about overwhelming wealth … too many fish [for the nets to contain] … [Thus] the text provides us with something of an unspoken economic test for the fishermen. Satan has just tested Jesus with the temptation of instant and immense wealth – all the kingdoms of the world, food, and safety. But Jesus resisted instant wealth, Then Jesus actually creates instant wealth in front of these very poor fishermen … This poses a subtle dilemma the fishermen have to respond to.” The astonishing thing, then, is that they “leave everything” (v.11) and follow him.
• Douglas Jones thinks that the sin lying behind Peter’s confession “I am a sinful man” (v. 8) was his (previous, and now abandoned) thirst for mammon, manifested in his endless pursuit of wealth – “we toiled all night” (v. 5). Possible, I guess, but I’m not convinced. Toiling all night isn’t a problem, especially if you’ve caught nothing.

1. Jesus could come back at any time.
2. Thought Jesus could not come at any time, nonetheless when he does come his coming will be unexpected.

Unfortunately, these statements are often conflated in people’s minds, resulting in considerable confusion. Note, however, that the Bible’s imagery of a thief in the night, and Jesus’ warnings to be ready, and so on, do not necessarily imply (1). They only require (2).

HT: MF.

494-6; v1-2

The end of the temple announced

disciple’s enthusiasm, cf. J: ‘T=doomed!’

v1 significant: ‘As Jesus was leaving the Temple’! Cf. Ezekiel, glory of God leaving!

emphatic ou me + 2x aorist subjunctive

497-505

Ctxt in Mk: climax of growing hostility to J (cf. 495)

Importance of OT refs, missed by many modern ppl

Not ‘apocalyptic’

NTW (not RTF): all of Mk 13 wrt AD 70

SoM coming from God to receive authority

‘change of gov’t’

v30 comprehensible!

RTF: v32f – parousia

change of subject: ‘that day’ (singular, cf. prev plural)

uncertain time ref (cf prev certainty)

cf. Mt, parousia explicit

Traditional view: all about parousia. Reasons:

v24-27, cosmic imagery

‘SoM’ / ‘coming with clouds’ = coming to earth, not heaven.

But in 14:26, ppl increasingly accept Dan / heavenly vindication idea. Why not in Mk 13 too?!

505-8; v3-4

Subject = destruction of temple (v3 tauta; sitting opp temple)

v4: 2 parts of question about same subject (unlike Mt 24:3)

thus disciples concerned over (a) time of destruction; and (b) what sign will allow us to prepare for it

Ans (i): v14, 26, 27, esp 30: ‘this generation’

Ans (ii): hint in v28-9: fig tree, buds

v3: mt of olives: messianic connections (11:1)? Ex 11:23, God abandoning the temple

v4. synteilesthai (to be completed) ds not imply parousia reference, contra Mt. Rather, tauta x2 => same referent

in Mt, the vb appears in a specific (eschat.) phrase, unlike here

508-13; v5-8

Josephus: many false semeia in AD30-70

resulting confrontations = foretaste of AD 70 confrontation with Rome

also wars and natural disasters

telos here ds not imply parousia, but completion

è  focus here: disciples mst not be misled by these signs

v6: ‘I Am’ (ego eimi) wrt Messiah, not YHWH (Cf. Mt, ‘messiah’)

many historical examples

Qu: Does throeomai // 2 Th 2:2 hint at parousia reference? (511)

v8: gar, implies further amplification Re: wars etc.

‘birth-pains’ in NT period was a general ref to suffering, not technical term wrt coming of messiah

513-9; v9-13

Interim period: time of proclamation, not passivity

blepete – begins imperatival focus of section. Exhortation.

series of slightly distinct exhortations

v9: direct object of blepete (eautous) personalises and focuses warning

poss progress from Jewish thru Roman persecution?

proclamation concerning Jesus both the cause and the consequence (‘witness to them’) of the opposition

v10: preaching to gentiles b4 temple destroyed

v11: recalls v9 trial scene.

519-30; v14-23

‘When you see’ – introduces more direct answer to question of v4.

‘abomination of desolation’ – reintroduces temple via ctxt of Dan

v17-20 <=> situation leading up to AD 70

Specific historical referent of these events?

(1) profanation of temple; (2) clearly discernible as sign; (3) shortly before Roman seige

v14-16: general 3^rd-person refs: therefore warnings directed toward all Judeans, not jst disciples. (cf. also 17-20)

è potential confusion and debate, but not over main flow of discourse

v14: ‘abomination of desolation’ – Dan.

masc. ptcp => ‘(male) god Zeus?

Once in place, ppl mst leave immediately!

Precise identification of AoD uncertain.

v15-19: wrt horrific war in Judea.

v20: siege of Jer lasted only 5 mths

v21-22: period of war and siege offers more opp’s for false messiahs

historical examples

v23: emphatic hymeis => ‘be warned’!

530-40; v24-31

Key verses for RTF’s distinctive view

So far, a full answer to v4 question has not been given

Outline:

v5-8: false ‘signs’

v9-13: digression: difficulties for disciples during intervening period

v14-22: specific sign: AoD, requiring specific response.

v24: contrastive alla highlights new focus of answer, beyond prev. ‘affliction’

24b-27: heavy dependence on OT prophets

24b-25: cosmic language => climactic changes to existing world order

v26-27: SoM comes: arrival of new world order; SoM sends out angels to gather in elect from all nations.

v28-31: answer to second half of v4 question: signs of approaching fulfilment

v28: fig tree parable – ‘be ready!’

v30: Actual time of events: within ‘this generation’

v32f: peri de – another subject

Key to RTF’s view: understand imagery in light of OT prophecy, not later Xn ‘coming of SoM’ = parousia ideas

v24-5: alla not imply change of subject, just contrast in scale of events

‘in those days’ => explicitly the same era of time as prev events: AD 70

cosmic language // in OT prophets: political changes within world history, wrt divine judgment

Shock: applied here to Jerusalem + temple!

v26: With v27, portrays +ve side of new world – the new thing that will come (cf. -ve in v24-25)

Echo Dan 7:13-14: ‘coming of SoM’ to be enthroned before God. A new king!

SoM = Jesus; in dan, SoM represents ‘saints of most high’; thus J receiving power on behalf of his ppl

How is SoM ‘seen’? What ‘evidence’? Ctxt suggests either 1. destruction of temple; or 2. gathering of ppl of God

-ve and +ve sides of same coin: powerful growth of church / SoM now the supreme authority

v27: sovereignty of SoM shown in gathering the elect

‘angels’? either (a) = ‘messengers’, => Xn missionaries, or (b) angels involved somehow in gathering the elect

v28-29: Back to v4 qu: fig tree illn that abomination of desolation / events of v14-22 are sign SoM’s coming

‘Fig tree’ – common nr Jerusalem, also symbol of Temple’s failure in Mk11

‘it’ (v29) = destruction of temple; ‘these things’ mst be before AD70 to serve as signs of its nearness

v30: ‘this generation’ = only a problem for ppl who get text wrong!

temporal sense required by construction of sentence and by v4 question (‘when?’).

alternative readings of ‘this generation’ don’t work

(a) ‘this gen’ = Jew (Jerome). actually argues in favour of RTF!

(b) ‘this gen’ = ‘that gen’, ie those alive at time of v29, understood as future age

Wrong:   (i) interpretation of v29 argues against it;

(ii) even if RTF wrong on v29, this interpretation would require ‘that gen’, not ‘this gen’!

(b’) ‘this gen’ = human race in general. It never means this; it would be a misleading way to say it!

(c) ‘all these things’ not refer to events described up to v27.

But ‘these things’ refers to v4 qu, hence destruction of temple. This view requires entirely bad interpretation.

v31: Emphasises truth of J’s pronouncement

541-6; v32-7

Peri de => change of subject. ‘That day’ (singular), contrast ‘those days’ (pl) up to v31

Contra NTW, who argues for same subject

Meaning of ‘that day or hour’:

v33-37 themes are parousia-related.

// themes in Mt, where parousia mentioned

But why change the subject here?

theological connection between judgment on Jer and on world (cf. Mt)

Blepete (v33, cf 5, 9,23) – look for true Christ (cf. prev false christs)

v32: Contrast: time of parousia unknown to J; destruction of Temple entirely predictable

v33: Blepete – summons to vigilance, unlike prev ‘cooling of expectation’ (5, 23) and call to prepare for suffering (9)

v37: Broadens perspective to ‘everyone’ – all must ‘watch!’

Further evidence the parousia is in view – relevant beyond immediate hearers

“Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4)

“Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.’” (John 6:35)

• “Jesus, like a priest, ‘laid his hands on every one of them’ and healed them” (p. 78).
• “Jesus’ royal priesthood is grounded in creation, and His goal is to bring about a restoration of creation, a new Eden. … It’s a bit of Eden breaking through. Jesus restores creation person by person” (p. 78).
• “All this kingdom work, all this liberation and restoration, creates a community attaching itself to Jesus” (p. 78). Note v. 42, “the people sought him and came to him and would have kept him from leaving them” – multiple verbal clauses intensifying and emphasising their attachment to their Messiah.
• This is potentially rather significant. The point of Jesus’ redefinition of Israel is that he’s now saying, “If you want to be an Israelite, you need to be attached to me.” The reaction of the people of Capernaum reflects exactly this (correct) instinct. Yet to be attached to Jesus they didn’t need to have him in the body. They needed only to be living within the sphere of his Kingdom. Since they are now living there, Jesus can safely go on to the other towns and preach the good news of the Kingdom there too.
• Jesus’ calling of the first disciples (Simon Peter, James and John, 5:10) at the start of Lk 5 is occasioned by the size of the task that obviously confronts him at the end of Lk 4. “He is only one Son of Man, and the world is a big place. For the kingdom to grow, he needs other royal priests to join him” (p. 79).

Teaching with authority
32 and they were astonished at his teaching, for his word possessed authority.

The man is possessed by the demon
33 And in the synagogue there was a man who had the spirit of an unclean demon,

The demon cried out
and he cried out with a loud voice,  34 “Ha! What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us?

I know who you are – the Holy One of God.”

The demon is silenced
35 But Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be silent and come out of him!”

The man is freed from the demon
And when the demon had thrown him down in their midst, he came out of him, having done him no harm.

Teaching with authority
36 And they were all amazed and said to one another, “What is this word? For with authority and power he commands the unclean spirits, and they come out!”

Reports about Jesus are taken to the outlying regions
37 And reports about him went out into every place in the surrounding region.

• God’s Messiah, King David, is looking for someone to show kindness (hesed, v. 1), and he learns about Ziba, a servant of the house of Saul (v. 2). Ziba immediately identifies himself as David’s servant. The neely-annoined Messiah has now been given everything that previously belonged to the usurper Saul, and Ziba has the good sense to know that the best job in the world is a servant of the King.
• Ziba identifies Mephibosheth, Saul’s grandson, who appears before David and describes himself as David’s servant (v. 6, cf. v. 8). The Messiah immediately welcomes him to his table.
• When Ziba reappears, he is described (significantly) not as Saul’s “servant,” but as Saul’s “lad” (‘na’ar, v. 9, though English translations often obscure this difference). The fallen pretender Saul has finally lost authority even over his own household.
• Ziba himself will work for Mephibosheth, and at this point we learn that he has many servants (v. 10) who will join him. The one who served the King is himself given the right to rule.
• Finally, Ziba declares that as the King’s servant (v. 11) he will do all his master asks, and he and all who serve him will thereafter serve Mephibosheth, the one to whom the Messiah decided to show hesed. For the Messiah will always ensure that his own are served.

Personally, I think it’s unlikely, for several reasons. Here’s the argument that intrigues me the most (I think it was David Field who first mentioned it to me):

Is it really possible that Paul would have spoken of the message that “was attested to us by those who heard” (Heb 2:3), having placed such great emphasis in Gal 1:16-17 the fact that he did not consult with the other apostles before (or even immediately after) his personal encounter with the risen Christ? Hebrews 2:3 could surely only have been written by someone who heard the Gospel second-hand, not from Jesus personally.

So, here’s a question: why the digression? What is the connection between a list of children and a record of warfare? The answer is found in Psalm 127:4-5:

Like arrows in the hand of a warrior
are the children of one’s youth.
Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them!
He shall not be put to shame
when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.

• “In the Old Testament, the Spirit is often connected with the new and the future (e.g. Ezek 36). To see so much of the Spirit here shows that the new age is upon us.” (p. 64)
• Jesus “is going to reverse Adam’s failure.” (Note the connection with the end of the genealogy in Lk 3.) His kingdom will not just raise the poor and humble the rich; it will restore the entire created order. (p 64)
• Note the OT prophetic connection between justice and restoration of creation (Isa 31:15-16; Ps 72).
• Satan’s three temptations of Jesus are not just “random shots”; they’re interconnected, and Ezekiel’s oracles against the King of Tyre (Ezek 26-28) highlight the connection. All the features of the King of Tyre – “self-interest, independence, unsacrificial wealth, violent domination, and self-exaltation” – also characterise Satan. “It is no surprise, then when Satan uses these very things to tempt Jesus.” (pp. 66-68).
  • Temptation 1: think of yourself; forget the needs of others.
  • Temptation 2: the seductions of wealth and power.
  • Temptation 3: self-interest, the right to boast in how God has served you.

• “This brief scene [3:21-22] does not focus on Jesus’ baptism, which is mentioned only in a participle, but on the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus and the voice from heaven to him.” (Tannehill, p. 56).
• Unlike Mt and Mk, Lk notes that the voice and the Spirit came while Jesus was praying. Prayer is often a moment of divine encounter in Lk/Ac (cf. Zechariah, Anna, Cornelius, Peter, Paul). (Tannehill, p. 56)
• The descent of the Spirit upon Jesus prepares for the Spirit’s key role in the following sections: full of the Spirit and led by the Spirit into the wilderness (4:1); returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee (4:14); Spirit of the Lord upon J (4:18). Just as in Acts: the Spirit descends on Jesus (Lk) / the church (Ac) in preparation for the respective parties’ participation in the mission of God. (Tannehill, p. 57).

• The focus is on neither Jesus nor John, but “on the testimony of the Spirit and the Father that Jesus is the Messiah for whom the infancy narratives and John’s preaching and baptism prepared” (Just, Luke, p. 158).
• Luther (Works, 22:77): Jesus “was ordained into ministry by his heavenly Father, and was anointed as the Teacher and King of all Christendom. He received a genuine doctor’s cap and royal crown, namely, the Holy Spirit, and was installed as a real King and Priest with these words from heaven” (Just, Luke, p. 158, n. 1).
• Jesus pours out what he first receives. As God, he always and eternally possesses the Spirit. But as a man the Spirit of poured out on him in time and space in his baptism. This Spirit them overflows from Jesus to all who are one with him.
• The story of John’s ministry ends with Herod locking him up in prison. By the time we get to Lk 9:9, John has already been executed by Herod. But the Spirit of God is not bound, chained, locked up. He’s released into the world through the Messiah at the death of the messenger. All the prophet needs to do is to die, and the Spirit will be unleashed.
• Jesus “begins his substitutionary atonement by condescending to take his place among sinners submitting to a baptism of repentance … Jesus now takes humanity’s place to receive the wrath of God against sin … From this moment, Jesus stands in solidarity with sinful humanity” (Just, Luke, p. 161).

• “John’s baptism water is not where is should be. Why is water coming out of the desert” rather than the temple, as in Ezekiel 47 (p. 53).
• “He’s providing life outside the temple system (p. 54), in keeping with his end-of-Old-Israel message. Also, the LORD has now left his people and gone into the wilderness.
• Recall the “glory of the LORD departing from Israel” (Ezek) theme in 2:9? The glory had departed (Ezekiel); and had now returned (2:9), but to the shepherds in the fields, not in the temple. John should be heard as “a threat to the first-century temple” (p. 54).
• Valleys lifted up and mountains brought down (3:5) echoes “rising and falling of many in Israel” (2:34). The mountains are the haunts of the old rulers (Jerusalem? Zion? Temple?); the valleys are the places of the downtrodden. The mountains are the homes of those mentioned in 3:1-2a. But John preaches a gospel of lifting up the weak.
• “John isn’t very missional or seeker-friendly in his preaching” (p. 55).
• John fights power-politics with repentance and faith.
• Don’t quit your job, you soldiers and tax collectors, but “seek the peace of the city” (Jer 29:7). At least for the time being, maybe?
• Imitation of Amos, who also castigated the rich, and also said, “Woe to you who desire the Day of the Lord!” (p. 57).
• According to Ezekiel 18:5, a righteous man who does what is just and right is one who habitually and normally does what John tells his hearers to do (pp. 57-58).

Baptism and gospel-proclamation
3 And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 4 As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. 5 Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall become straight, and the rough places shall become level ways, 6 and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.’”

Call to repentance
7 He said therefore to the crowds that came out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bear fruits in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. 9 Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”

Call to repentance
10 And the crowds asked him, “What then shall we do?” 11 And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.” 12 Tax collectors also came to be baptized and said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?” 13 And he said to them, “Collect no more than you are authorized to do.” 14 Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.”

Baptism and gospel-proclamation
15 As the people were in expectation, and all were questioning in their hearts concerning John, whether he might be the Christ, 16 John answered them all, saying, “I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 17 His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.” 18 So with many other exhortations he preached good news to the people.

Oppression from the powers
19 But Herod the tetrarch, who had been reproved by him for Herodias, his brother’s wife, and for all the evil things that Herod had done, 20 added this to them all, that he locked up John in prison.

41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover. 42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom.

43 And when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it,

44 but supposing him to be in the group they went a day’s journey, but then they began to search for him among their relatives and acquaintances, 45 and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, searching for him.

46 After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 And all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.

48 And when his parents saw him, they were astonished. And his mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been searching for you in great distress.”

49 And he said to them, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” 50 And they did not understand the saying that he spoke to them.

51 And he went down with them and came to Nazareth and was submissive to them. And his mother treasured up all these things in her heart.

52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favour with God and man.

He saw the source of life before he saw death.

Abijah (2 Ch 13) – complacency concerning the Priesthood

Asa (2 Ch 14-16) – loyalty to the wrong King

Jehoshaphat (2 Ch 17-20) – disrespect for the LORD’s Prophet

It turns out the 2 Ch 23 matches this rather nicely, lending further support to the prophet-priest-king outline. Here’s how it works.

After three disastrous monarchs (Jehoram, Azariah and Athaliah), Joash is rescued from Ahaziah’s murderous rampage. There are obvious echoes here of Abimelech (Judges 9) in Athaliah’s killing spree. Joash is depicted as a new Moses – being saved as a child from death at the hands of an idolatrous Monarch by (guess who…?) his sister. So you’ve got high hopes for Joash as the next chapter begins.

Chapter 23 then systematically unravels the priest-king-prophet mess from the previous chapters.

The faithful Priest Jehoiada re-constitutes the Levitical service in the house of God (23:1-7).

The Levites lead the people in crowning the right King and executing the upstart Athaliah (23:8-15).

Jehoida takes the role of faithful Prophet, speaking to the people in order to make a covenant with them to bind them to faithfulness in the future (23:16-21)

Asa (2 Ch 14-16) – loyalty to the wrong King

Jehoshaphat (2 Ch 17-20) – disrespect for the LORD’s Prophet

It’s at least possible, isn’t it? And it wouldn’t be the first time. Or the last.

The horns of an animal are the dangerous bits. The business end of the beast, so to speak. They thus represent the strength of an animal.

Besides this, however, horns had other uses in ancient Israel. They were hollowed out and used as containters for oil, and thus became associated with the anointing of Priests, Prophets and Kings. They were also used as trumpets, and thus came to be connected with the praises of the people of God or the call to battle of the LORD’s army.

Finally, horns were used as a blueprint in the tabernnacle and temple architecture. In particular, the altar had horn-shaped projections (called “horns”) on its corners, where sacrificial blood was sprinkled during sacrificial rituals.

So, putting it all together, we have something like this:

Horns of an animal – the strength of the LORD
Horns of the altar – the sacrificial blood of the Son
A horn full of oil – the anointing of the Spirit
A horn as a trumpet – the praises of God’s people

If that sounds vaguely trinitarian (Father-Son-Spirit => people), that’s because it is.

As Henri Blocher once said, the number eight is a kind of numerical symbol for the new creation. No surprise, really, since four symbolises the whole world (four corners, right?) and twice four is eight, and therefore a second world.

All OK so far? Good.

So then you’re reading through 1 Chronicles 26, diligently poring over the divisions of labour for the gatekeepers, the sons of Meshelemiah and Obed-Edom. (As my kids like to sing, “1 Chronicles, 1 Chronicles, the book with lots of funny names.”)

And lo and behold, as the Chronicler carefully enumerates O-E’s sons, he gets to “Peullethai, the eighth, for God blessed him” (v. 5).

It’s possible that these differences also reflect the number of their descendants. If Kohath and Gershon had more kids, obviously their list would take more space, and they would also probably end up needing more land. But the fact that this should itself be correlated with their tabernacle privileges (see previous post) is itself interesting, suggesting that the fulfillment of the Abrahamic blessing of descendants in the land (cf. Gen 12) goes hand-in-hand with other privileges in the sanctuary.

However, as 1 Chronicles 6 unfolds, there’s something strange about the subsequent descriptions of Levi’s descendants. First, the order of Gershon and Kohath is reversed. Kohath comes first (vv. 2-15), then Gershon (vv. 16-28), then finally Merari (vv. 29-30). Second, far less detail is given of Merari’s descendants than of either Gershon’s or Kohath’s (only two verses for Merari, 7 people in total; compared to several dozen people and about a dozen verses for each of his brothers). Why should this be?

I suspect that the answer might have something to do with the respective duties of each group of Levi’s descendants. Kohath’s responsibilities in the tabernacle involved taking care of the most holy pieces of tabernacle equipment – “the ark, the table, the lampstand, the altars, the vessels of the sanctuary” (Numbers 3:31) and so on. Gershon’s descendants looked after much of the fabric of the tent itself, the curtains, the hangings and so forth (vv. 25-26). Finally, Merari’s folk were charged with looking after the least glamorous bits and pieces – “the frames or the tabernacle, the bars, the pillars, the bases, and all their accessories … with their bases and pegs and cords” (vv. 36-37). Similar responsibilities are laid out in the Numbers 4 in the instructions for moving the tabernacle from place to place. In other words, Kohath looked after all the über-holy stuff inside the tabernacle; Gershon looked after the tent itself, and Merari made sure all the tentpegs were firmly knocked it. So Kohath comes first, Gershon second, and Merari last.

On the one hand, for example, James Jordan (Judges) says that Israel did right. They were right to act with such vigour against Benjamin, for judgment begins with the house of God, and the people of God are to be judged by a stricter standard than the world (p. 317). Benjamin had identified themselves with Canaan, and therefore both the battle of Jdg 20 and the oath referred to in Jdg 21 are justified (p. 319). Nonetheless, their sorrow at the start of Jdg 21 is also understandable, since the excommunication of a member of the body is a cause for grief, not for joy (p. 317). They therefore sought a new birth for Benjamin, in keeping with the purpose of excommunication – restoration of the offender to fellowship and participation in the people of God. The war against Jabesh-Gilead was justified, since in refusing to side with Israel against Benjamin, Jabesh-Gilead has opposed the LORD (p. 322). And the capture of the daughters of Shiloh was not a rape, but rather in keeping with the intentions of the daughters themselves, who were in fact performing a dance expressly designed to attract husbands (p. 325). The fathers might have objected to the idea of giving their daughters to Benjaminites, but the clever subterfuge of the “capture” ensured that they could not be held morally responsible, because (technically) the girls were taken, not given (p. 325). God thus worked in sovereign grace in and through through his people Israel to preserve intact all twelve tribes in the inheritance he had promised.

On the other hand, Dan Block (Judges, Ruth; NIVAC) argues that Israel did wrong. Their willingness to intermarry with Canaanites while pledging an oath against marrying their own countrymen revealed a deeply distorted set of priorities (p. 569). Now that the battle was over, they realised the folly of their oath, and sought a way around it. Their solution involves massacring the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead, for whom the text deliberately elicits sympathy (p. 574), while their sparing the virgin daughters is without legal precedent and smacks of opportunism (p. 575). Upon realising that there are still 200 Benjaminites without wives, they embark upon a second crusade, this time abducting the helpless daughters of Shiloh in a manner unnervingly similar to the Benjaminite rape of the Levite’s concubine (p. 581). The rationalisation offered to the fathers of the daughters of Shiloh might fulfil the letter of the law, but only at the expense of violating its spirit (p. 582). The final preservation of the tribe of Benjamin thus owes little to divine grace, and everything to human expediency and the people of Israel seek to preserve their own integrity by exploiting loopholes in God’s law (p. 585).

And just in case that weren’t complicated enough, Dale Ralph Davis (Judges; Christian Focus) steers a course between the two extremes. He points out the difficulty presented by Judges 21, where “the writer describes what happens but gives us little of no indication of his position on the matter” (p. 224). The chapter describes an “ambiguous situation,” in which “there is a certain rightness and a certain wrongness about what Israel does. They justifiably requite Jabesh-gilead with unjustifiable severity … they stand consistently upon their wife-oath but trample happily on the rights of the Shiloh girls” (p. 226).

And this moment coincides with the entry into the narrative of Abigail, Nabal’s beautiful and wise wife (previously mentioned in passing in v. 3, so we all knew she was going to be significant, but we didn’t know exactly how), whose presence transforms David’s fortunes no less than it transforms the narrative from the perspective of the reader.

One thing’s certain: John (the author of Revelation) wasn’t crazy. Both he and the Lord who inspired him knew exactly what they were doing.

• 7 x blessings: 1.3   14.13   16.15   19.9   20.6   22.7   22.14  a kind of summary of Revelation’s message
• 7 x ‘tribes, tongues, peoples, nations’  / kingdoms/ multitudes – always in a different order  – 5.10,  7.9   10.11  11.9  13.7  14.6  17.15
• 7 x the one who sits on the throne – 4.9, 5.1, 7, 13,  6.16, 7.15, 21.5  (5 variations but as if varied SO AS to have 7 of the real one)
• 7 x the Lord God Almighty (in that form) – 1.8, 4.8, 11.17, 15.3, 16.7, 19.6, 21.22
• 7 x prophets Reve 10:7,   11:18,   16:6,   18:20,    18:24,  22:6,  22:9  (not certain because in addition to these there is the reference to “two prophets in 11.10)
• 7 x Christos  – 1.1,   1.2,   1.5,   11.15,   12.10,   20.4,   20.6
• 7 x ‘amens’  1.6, 1.7, 5.14, 7.12, 7.12, 19.4, 22.20  (excepting 3.14)
• 7 x features in appearance of Son of Man in chapter 1
• 7 x comings of Christ – 2.5, 16, 3.21  16.15, 22.6, 12, 20
• 14 x the Spirit – 1.10,  4.2,  14.13,   17.3,    19.10,   21.10,  22.17  and  2.7,   2.11,  2.17,  2.29,   3.6,   3.13,   3.22
• 14 x Jesus  1:1,   1:5,   14:12,   17:6,   22:16,  22:20,   22:21   and then seven more in the phrase “testimony of Jesus” -   1:2,    1:9,  1:9,   12:17,  19:10,  19:10,  20:4
• 4 – number of the world – 7.1  20.8
• 4 – division of creation – earth, sea, (rivers and) springs, heaven
• 4 x ‘the one who lives for ever and ever’  4.9, 10,  10.6,  15.7
• 4 x divine self-declarations (using 7 titles)
• God – alpha and omega – 1.8
• Christ – first and last – 1.17
• God – alpha and omega, beginning and end – 21.6
• Christ – alpha and omega, first and last, beginning and end – 22.13
• 4 refs to seven Spirits – 1.4  3.1  4.5  5.6
• 28 products – represent all the products of whole world
• 28 x Lamb –  (of which 7 are in conjunction with God)
• No obvious numerical pattern for those features associated with evil: dragon – 13  / satan – 8  /  devil – 5  /  serpent – 4  /  Babylon – 6  /  beast – 38

Click here for more.

9 Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts. 10 On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother’s womb you have been my God. (Ps 22:9-10)

5 For you, O Lord, are my hope, my trust, O LORD, from my youth. 6 Upon you I have leaned from before my birth; you are he who took me from my mother’s womb. My praise is continually of you. (Ps 71:5-6)

Here are a couple of thoughts about these texts.

(1) The word translated “trust” in 22:9 is the normal Hebrew verb meaning “trust” or “believe.” It appears over 160 times in the OT. For example, it appears in Ps 62:8, where it refers to the “trust” that all God’s people should place in their LORD. The use of this word implies at the very least that a child (like the infant David referred to in Psalm 22) is capable of a kind of dependence on the LORD which is analogous to what we call “faith” in adults. Of course it wouldn’t be exactly the same as faith in an adult, since it would not be accompanied by the same level of understanding. Adults have adult-faith; infants have infant-faith. In each case, the disposition of dependence towards the LORD is expressed in a manner that reflects the capacities of the person involved.

(2) The idea that infants and young children can genuinely have faith in the LORD is reinforced by a number of other terms and phrases in the above verses that mean similar things. David was “cast” on the LORD (22:9); from his mother’s womb he says God has “been by God” (echoing the promise to Anraham in Genesis 17); his “hope” is in the LORD (71:5); and he has “leaned” on the LORD (71:6). This repetition of synonymous or near-synonymous words and phrases is typical of Hebrew poetry, which often says the same sort of thing in several different ways to give different perspectives on the subject at hand. The overall picture is clear: infants and young children are here said to be capable of exhibiting precisely the sort of dependence on the LORD which is required of all of us, and indeed for which Jesus commends children in Luke 18:15-17.

Here’s a comment about Psalm 71:5-6 taken from Gerald H. Wilson’s commentary on Psalms 1-71: “The psalmist claims to have ‘leaned on’ God for support ‘from the belly/womb,’ to that reliance is perceived as antedating birth” (p. 970).

Here’s the text:

23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. (1 Cor 15:23-26)

An amillenialist might contend that the spread of the gospel does not necessarily entail the numerical dominance of the kingdom of God over the kingdom of the world. Every argument that is demolished (2 Cor 10) and every soul that is saved represents a step forward for the kingdom and the destruction of another enemy. Thus they would argue that 1 Cor 15 does not support postmillennialism.

A postmillennialist, by contrast, would say at least two other things:

(1) The conquest of enemies (1 Cor 15) needs to be viewed in the light of the fact that according to (for example) Daniel 2 and 7 the kingdom of God displaces its enemies as it grows. The kingdom of God grows and the kingdom of this world shrinks, because, after all, the kingdom of this world will one day have become the kingdom of the Lord and of his Christ (Rev 11:15).

(2) How many enemies are left immediately before the end? None, says Paul, except “the last enemy … death”. This means, a postmillennialist would say, that even ungodly political power – ungodly nations in their capacity as nations in enmity towards God – will by that point have been brought to repentance before Christ.

Many commentators argue that this apparently fairly obvious reading is correct. Daniel Block, for example, in his outstanding commentary on Judges and Ruth in the NAC series, and Dale Ralph Davis in his more popular-level book published by Christian Focus. Dan Block delivers a pretty uncompromising verdict: Jephthah was guilty of “despicable behaviour”; a “faithless” and “paganized” ruler with “no reservations about manipulating God” (pp. 364, 372, 373).

For what it’s worth (not much, perhaps, though I’m not the only one who begs to differ at this point), I disagree. Here’s what I reckon happened, and here’s the Q&A we had afterwards.

• because he is just and faithful (Psalm 33:3)
• for his saving grace and power (Psalm 40:3) which extends through all the world (Psalm 96:1)
• for the manifestation of his righteousness before all the nations (Psalm 98:1)
• because he rescued his king from his enemies (Psalm 144:9)
• because he made and rules his people (Psalm 149:1)
• because he conquers his enemies (Isaiah 42:10)

It’s interesting, though, that ‘a new song’ is only ever sung in the OT in praise of the LORD God, Yahweh.

So what are we to make of Revelation 5?

And they sang a new song, saying, ‘Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.’ Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands,  saying with a loud voice, ‘Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honour and glory and blessing!’ And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, ‘To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honour and glory and might forever and ever!’ And the four living creatures said, ‘Amen!’ and the elders fell down and worshiped. (Revelation 5:9-14)

Thanks to John Richardson, from years ago when he taught a couple of courses at the Cornhill Training Course.

These images are used to portray different aspects of our relationship with Christ. For example, the image of the head and the body highlights the necessity of honouring Christ (1 Cor 11) and submitting to Christ (Eph 5:22-24), and the futility of ‘not holding fast to the Head’ (Col 2:19).

The husband and wife image famously appears in Eph 5:25-33, where stress is laid on Christ’s love for his body (vv. 25, 29-30) and the intimacy of our union with him (vv. 31-32).

The image of the vine and branches is found in Rom 11: the branches share in the holiness of the root (v. 16), are supported by the root (v. 18), and can be severed from the root if they persist in unbelief (vv. 19-22). Similarly, Jesus describes himself as ‘the true vine’ (John 15:1). His Father, ‘the vine dresser’ (v. 1), prunes the branches to increase their fruitfulness (v. 2), and the branches can bear fruit only if they remain in the vine (vv. 4-5). Finally, as in Rom 11, Jesus warns that any branch that does not abide in him by keeping his commandments will be cut off, thrown away and burned (vv. 6, 9-10).

Having seized the throne by deceit and treachery, do you really think that the LORD will allow your kingdom to last? Don’t be ridiculous. The people who were wicked and deceitful enough to establish you in power are not suddenly going to become loyal and principled enough to keep you there.

No, Abimelech, the next loathesome son of a slave who brings along his relatives and throws a party will become the new man of the moment (9:26; cf. 9:3). Pretty soon the men with whom you plotted your ascent to power and the murder of those you (wrongly) regarded as your rivals will be plotting your demise (9:26-29).

And so the end of your kingdom will be announced almost as soon as it has begun (9:22); the three years of your rule will vanish in the blink of an eye; you are destined to perish in disgrace – just like the great deceiver who went before you (9:53-54; cf. Gen 3:15); and after you are gone no one will mourn your passing (9:55).

Congratulations on your new appointment, Abimelech. But you’re already dead.

The story of Abimelech the macho man is framed by two women: the first, who gave him life (8:31), and the second, who took it (9:5) … Neither human pretension (8:22-32) nor human ferocity (9:1-55) could dislodge Yahweh from his throne. In the end Abimelech’s egomaniacal ambition must yield to the kingship of God, and with this the story of Gideon is complete. (p. 334)

1-2  Introduction
3  The Three Assassins
4-5  Happy Campers
6-8  Gideon
9  Abimelech
10  Tola, Jair and another cycle
11-12  Jepthah plus three
13-16  Samson
17-18  Micah, the priest and Dan
19-21  Levite, concubine, Benjamin, civil war

1. Gideon was from the wrong tribe. Genesis 49 says that the king must be from Judah (though some think Benjamin was also a potential contender), whereas Judges 6:15 says Gideon was from Manasseh.

2. Gideon was the wrong man. Deuteronomy 17 says the king must be explicitly chosen by God, and Gideon was not.

3. Gideon was selected for the wrong motives. The Israelites wanted Gideon to be their King because they believed that he had delivered them from the hand of Midian (Judges 8:22). But Gideon rightly perceived that this amounted to a rejection of the LORD’s rule, since it was by divine power alone that Midian had been defeated (Judges 7).

4. Gideon came at the wrong time. The king needed to come from Judah’s son Perez. But Perez was an illegitimate child, so ten generations needed to pass before anyone from that family could enter the assembly of the LORD (Deuteronomy 23:2). It’s not clear that ten generations had passed by Gideon’s time, so it wasn’t yet the right time for Israel to have a King. Contrast this with the genealogy at the end of Ruth 4, which highlights that ten generations from Perez had elapsed by the time of David.

This final point raises a further conundrum: why was it necessary for the king to come from the line of Perez? After all, Judah had four other sons – what about them? A glance at Genesis 38 suggests a possible answer.

Judah had five sons: Er, Onan, Shelah, Perez and Zerah. Of these, Er was wicked, so the LORD put him to death (v. 7). Onan was then charged with fulfilling the obligations of Levirate marriage to Tamar, Er’s wife. He refused, and so the LORD put him to death too (v. 10).

At this point Shelah was too young to father children (v. 11), so Tamar was left waiting for him to step in to Er’s shoes. In the meantime, however, the infamous meeting between Judah and Tamar-in-disguise took place, as a result of which Tamar became pregnant and gave birth to Perez and Zerah. Perez was the firstborn, and therefore inherited the king-promise given to Judah.

But here’s the big puzzle: why did the promise not devolve to Shelah? Why could one of Shelah’s descendants not be king? Tricky one. Perhaps the reason runs like this: Judah in effect stepped into his son Er’s shoes in a ghastly perversion of a Levirate marriage. (In fact, the whole of Gen 38 is, from one perspective, about messed-up Levirate marriages.)  Consequently, his children Perez and Zerah, born of his daughter-in-law Tamar, were reckoned not only as his illegitimate children, but also as his grandchildren by his firstborn, Er. Thus their descendants were excluded from the assembly for ten generations (as per Dt 23:2), but nonetheless the promise of the kingship devolved upon them, and specifically upon Perez, the (legal) firstborn son of Judah’s firstborn son Er.

(HT: BB, JBJ)

¹ May God be gracious to us and bless us
and make his face to shine upon us,

² that your way may be known on earth,
your saving power among all nations.

³ Let the peoples praise you, O God;
let all the peoples praise you!

⁴ Let the nations be glad and sing for joy,
for you judge the peoples with equity
and guide the nations upon earth.

⁵ Let the peoples praise you, O God;
let all the peoples praise you!

⁶ The earth has yielded its increase;
God, our God, shall bless us.

⁷ God shall bless us;
let all the ends of the earth fear him!

One surprisingly common form of deceitfulness in such contexts is the selective appointment of witnesses intended to give a veneer of impartiality to a legal process that has all the integrity of a sack of damp sewage.

So, for example, Naboth:

So she wrote letters in Ahab’s name and sealed them with his seal, and she sent the letters to the elders and the leaders who lived with Naboth in his city. And she wrote in the letters, ‘Proclaim a fast, and set Naboth at the head of the people. And set two worthless men opposite him, and let them bring a charge against him, saying, “You have cursed God and the king.” Then take him out and stone him to death.’ (1 Kings 21:8-10)

David:

Give me not up to the will of my adversaries; for false witnesses have risen against me, and they breathe out violence. (Psalm 27:12)

Stephen:

Then they secretly instigated men who said, ‘We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.’ And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council, and they set up false witnesses who said, ‘This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law, for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us.’ (Acts 6:11-14)

Paul:

And after five days the high priest Ananias came down with some elders and a spokesman, one Tertullus. They laid before the governor their case against Paul. And when he had been summoned, Tertullus began to accuse him… (Acts 24:1-2)

And, of course, Jesus:

For many bore false witness against him, but their testimony did not agree. And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, ‘We heard him say, “I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands”.’ Yet even about this their testimony did not agree. (Mk 14:56-59)

The Lord evidently takes a dim view of this sort of conniving:

If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (Deut 19:16-21)

• If you can remember Genesis 11-50, you’ll roll your eyes at yet another man with two wives (1 Sam 1:1-4 – remember Jacob and Rachel and Leah?). After all, Genesis is (in one sense) all about the mess people get themselves into when they tinker with the divine institution of marriage.
• On the other hand, Genesis also teaches us to expect the LORD to bring something good out of the unpleasant situation in 1 Sam 1 – probably through the “barren” wife.
• The LORD’s provision of a son for Hannah is cast in terms of resurrection in 1 Sam 2:6: “The LORD kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up.” Genesis reveals the same connection between children and resurrection when Abraham displays his willingness to sacrifice Isaac because he “considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead” (Heb 11:19; cf. Gen 22).
• The LORD’s message to Samuel in 3:11 (the two ears of everyone who hears it will tingle), like Hannah’s response to Samuel’s birth in 1:20 (I have asked for him from the LORD) both reflect the meaning of Samuel’s name (heard of God).
• Samuel was known to be “established as a prophet of the LORD” (3:20) because just as in Gen 18:17ff. (cf. Gen 20:7) the “Lord GOD does nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7).

The coverage is variable, to put it mildly. Most of them spend two pages explaining what the other commentaries say before hastily moving on. Fortunately, a few stand out from the crowd. Here are the ones I looked at, together with a rating from ***** (great commentary) to * (great doorstop).

Block (NAC). *****
Jordan. *****
Younger (NIVAC). ****
Wilcox (BST). ***
Schneider (Berit Olam). **
McCann (Interpretation). **
Boling (ABC). *
Gray (NCBC). *
Lindars (Jdg 1-5 only).*
Niditch (OTL). *
Soggin (OTL). *

Herod is left hanging in mid-air for most of Luke’s Gospel.

It’s as if Luke is saying, “Yeah, Herod the Tetrarch really wanted to see Jesus, but it turned out that Jesus was busy with more important things like feeding the poor and healing sick children and talking with women.”

• When the Pharisees ask why Jesus’ disciples eat and drink rather than fasting, they’re obviously talking about the newly-repentant tax-collector friends of Levi (5:33). And the eating and drinking referred to is obviously the feast they’re eating at that very moment.
• This means that the “wedding guests” (5:34), too, are those same “tax collectors and sinners,” and that Jesus is their “bridegroom”.
• When Jesus tells the parable of the wineskins, he’s addressing the obvious (implied) question from the Pharisees, “Hey, what about us – we’re God’s people, right; aren’t we the wedding guests at the LORD’s feast?”  Jesus has already answered this in part in 5:32 (No you ain’t – I’ve come to call sinners like these, not you righteous people). The old/new wineskins parable takes the explanation further. The new wineskins into which the wine of the feast is poured are to be identified with the repentant tax collectors and sinners sitting around him. After all, they’re at a feast – wine is quite literally being poured into them at that very moment.

Apparently Satan’s Scripture Memorisation System didn’t get as far as Ps 91:13: “You will tread on the lion and the adder; the young lion and the serpent you will trample underfoot.”

Jesus then moves on to the Synagogues (note the inclusion in vv. 15 and 44; cf. also vv. 16, 20, 28, 33, 38). He gets a cool reception. The crowds respond particularly badly when he mentions the Elijah-Zarephath and Elisha-Naaman episodes, no doubt perceiving the implied comparison between themselves and the godless Israelite nation in 1-2 Kings.

Ironically, their reaction tells us all we need to know about them. While Satan had urged Jesus to jump from the pinnacle of the Temple, the Israelites wanted to “throw him down the cliff” (v. 29).

The opening words of John 1:1, “In the beginning,” are a conscious allusion to Genesis 1:1, which invites us to read the account of creation in Genesis alongside the opening section of John. Once you start doing this, you notice that John 1-2 contains a number of chronological markers (”the next day” in John 1:29, 35, 43; “on the third day” in John 2:1) that suggest a correspondence between sections of John and the days of Genesis 1. Assuming that John 2:1 marks the third day after the events of John 1:43-51, the opening sections of John correspond to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 7th days of creation.

Now look at what happens on each of the days (some are more obviously compelling than others, and more could doubtless be added):

To forget in this context is not simply to “not remember”. The people of Israel were guilty of much more than absent-mindedness.  Shcch often occurs in parallel with “forsake” (‘zb), as in 1 Sam 12:9-10, Isa 65:11; Lam 5:20. It’s not a lapse of memory; it’s a failure of commitment, a neglect of obligations.

We “forget” the LORD not when we can’t remember the way to church, but when we decide that something else is more important.

A (1) Boaz introduced as a potential helper

B (2) Ruth offers to glean

C (3) Ruth gleans, and experiences God’s grace through Boaz

D (4-7) Boaz speaks to his men and hears of Ruth’s godliness

E (8-9) Boaz speaks with Ruth, assuring her of protection

F (10) Ruth exclaims, “Why have I found such favour in your eyes?”

G (11-12) Boaz speaks to Ruth about her godliness and the Lord’s reward

F’ (13) Ruth exclaims, “I have found favour in your eyes!”

E’ (14) Boaz speaks with Ruth, providing generously for her

D’ (15-16) Boaz speaks to his men and instructs them to help Ruth

C’ (17-18) Ruth gleaned, Naomi experiences God’s grace through her

B’ (19)  Ruth reports her gleaning

A’ (20)    Boaz described as a potential redeemer

HT: CH

A (v. 1) Blessed is everyone who fears the LORD, who walks in his ways!

B (v. 2a) You shall eat the fruit of the labour of your hands;

C (v. 2b) you shall be blessed, and it shall be well with you.

C’ (v. 3a) Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house;

B’ (v. 3b) your children will be like olive shoots around your table.

A’ (v. 4) Behold, thus shall the man be blessed who fears the LORD.

D (v. 5a) The LORD bless you from Zion!

E (v. 5b) May you see the prosperity of Jerusalem

F (v. 6c) all the days of your life!

E’ (v. 6) May you see your children’s children!

D’ (v. 6b) Peace be upon Israel!

Notice the shift from 3rd person (vv. 1-4) to 2nd person (vv. 5-6).

Notice also a couple of the correspondences in the chiasms:

• The fruit of the labour of your hands are the children around your table (B).
• The blessing of the LORD is your fruitful wife (C).
• We see the prosperity of Jerusalem as the LORD preserves our children’s children (E).
• The final blessing is peace for God’s people (F).

With thanks to Steve Hayhow. Click here to listen to the sermon.

(Let’s run with the imagery for a moment, assuming all the usual caveats about biblical imagery, anthropomorphic language, and so on).

Perhaps this explains why the LORD is so often absent from the church in our day. He has nowhere to sit. What – you don’t expect an honoured guest to stand all the way through your church services, do you?

HT: JBJ.

There’s a fairly obvious link between the calming of the storm and Moses leading the Israelites across the Red Sea (4:35-41). But Horne takes it further by highlighting the connection to the next passage. “Legion,” says Horne, is “a military term for a great number of soldiers.”And lots of strange things happen in this (extended) exorcism account. Like the demons (soldiers?) get drowned in the sea.

Ringing any bells yet? Over to Mr Horne again:

Jesus has just brought [His disciples] through the sea by a miracle and now He drives a demonic horde into that same sea to drown them. Like Moses at the Red Sea, the enemy army is destroyed by the very means God uses to transport His people across the water. (pp. 94-95)

I’ll leave you to chew over why Mark bothers to mention that before being liberated the demon-possessed man was always “bruising himself with stones” (5:5). (Genesis 3:15; Judges 5:26; 9:53; etc).

For an example of the latter, consider Micah 6:14-15.

14 You shall eat, but not be satisfied, and there shall be hunger within you; you shall put away, but not preserve, and what you preserve I will give to the sword. 15You shall sow, but not reap; you shall tread olives, but not anoint yourselves with oil; you shall tread grapes, but not drink wine.

This is the kind of eating that produces no satisfaction; the kind of drinking that leaves a ravaging thirst. Like eating stale bread and drinking salt water.

Or perhaps it’s like drinking sour wine (Mark 15:36), or drinking the cup of the wrath of the LORD (Mark 13:36), as Jesus did as he suffered on the cross for our sins.

In the hand of the LORD is a cup full of foaming wine mixed with spices; he pours it out, and all the wicked of the earth drink it down to its very dregs. (Ps. 75:8)

Awake, awake! Rise up, O Jerusalem, you who have drunk from the hand of the LORD the cup of his wrath, you who have drained to its dregs the goblet that makes men stagger. (Isa. 51:17)

This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, said to me: ‘Take from my hand this cup filled with the wine of my wrath and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. When they drink it, they will stagger and go mad because of the sword I will send among them.’ (Jer. 25:15-16)

This is what the Sovereign Lord says: ‘You will drink your sister’s cup, a cup large and deep; it will bring scorn and derision, for it holds so much. You will be filled with drunkenness and sorrow, the cup of ruin and desolation, the cup of your sister Samaria. You will drink it and drain it dry; you will dash it to pieces and tear your breasts.’ I have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD. (Ezek. 23:32-34)

You will be filled with shame instead of glory. Now it is your turn! Drink and be exposed! The cup from the LORD’s right hand is coming round to you, and disgrace will cover your glory. (Hab. 2:16)

It is because Jesus drank like this that we may enjoy the other kind of eating and drinking pictured by the prophet Micah:

They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks … they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree, and no one shall make them afraid, for the mouth of the LORD of hosts has spoken. (Micah 3:3-4)

• What is unusual about the way that Jesus heals the blind man (verses 22–26)?
• What different ideas do people have about Jesus’ identity (verses 27–28)? What does Peter think (verses 29–30)?

It’s possible that the two-stage healing in verses 22–26 is intended to illustrate Peter’s two-stages understanding of Jesus’ mission. Like the man after the first stage of his healing, Peter could see, but not very clearly. Peter understands (sees) that Jesus is the Christ; but he doesn’t yet see that Jesus must suffer.

• Jesus now begins to teach something that we’ve not yet heard much about in Mark’s Gospel. What is it? How does Peter respond (verses 31–33)?
• How does Jesus’ explanation in verses 34–38 address Peter’s initial reaction?

Why might Peter have said what he did in verse 32? Do you ever find yourself thinking the same way? How might verses 34–38 be relevant to you?

But who could have guessed just how significant this particular digression would prove to be? Here we catch our first glimpse of the theme that will occupy much of our attention for not only the rest of the book of Genesis, but the whole Bible – how will God create and preserve a people to fulfil the task at which Adam failed in Genesis 3?

It’s striking that the theme is introduced as a problem to be solved, a human impossibility that God alone can overcome. The moment when human wisdom and strength can go no further is the point at which God really sets the ball rolling.

We see emptiness; God sees a vessel that he alone can fill. We see impenetrable walls; God sees a city doomed to destruction. We live in weakness; God sees an opportunity to display his grace and power.

The book of Nehemiah is all about rebuilding the wall and gates of Jerusalem, so we must understand their significance in order to grasp the message of the book.

The walls of a city are a means of security and defence, and thus a comfort for its citizens and a measure of its stature as a city. It’s handy to have high walls because you can drop millstones from them onto people’s heads (Judges 9:52), while if the walls are broken down, the city is finished (Josh 6). Walls define the geo-political ‘space’ occupied by the city, and thus serve as the boundaries of the city’s civic activity, governance, and so on.

The gates in particular serve this civic function – lots of civic affairs take place there (e.g. Dt 17:5; 21:19; 25:7; Ruth 4; Amos 5:10; Ps 127:5). The gates are also the place where public announcements are made (since it’s the main thoroughfare) and the place where God’s people encounter the pagan world. So if you wanted to proclaim the gospel to the nations, where would you stand?

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the walls and gates of the City of God are ‘salvation’ and ‘praise’ (Is 60:18), and the LORD himself is identified with the walls of his city (Ps 48:12-14). After all, what else would God’s people announce to the world other than the gospel of their King, and who else would be their protection?

In summary, the walls and gates of the people of God say two things to the world:

1. Walls mean KEEP OUT! The Israelites built the walls to keep the nations out so that they could follow the Lord. So also the church needs to be separate from the unbelieving world so that we can follow Jesus.

2. Gates mean COME IN! The Israelites built the gates to welcome the nations in so that they could also follow the Lord. So also the church needs to welcome people in so that they can also follow Jesus.

Or, to put it another way, we’re separate from the world for the sake of the world. We leave the world in order to save the world. And so on.

For more, see ‘Wall’ and ‘Gate’ in the Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (IVP).

It wasn’t really fair of me to describe Samson as suicidal. True, he ended his life by pulling down the Philistine temple on top of himself and the Philistine army. But given his circumstances (blinded, imprisoned, etc) this was actually a fairly brave thing to do. And, after all, we all rejoice in a Saviour who willingly gave himself up to death in order to conquer our enemy. ‘Suicide’ isn’t quite the right word.

Perhaps Samson’s problem was not so much the way he died, but the sense of uncontrolled fury that pervaded his life. He was hardly a man in control of his desires and actions, in stark contrast to the Lord Jesus, who always knew exactly what he was doing.

Jephthah is a little more complicated. On Sunday I said that his great mistake was the foolish vow he made to God, that ‘If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whatever comes out from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites shall be the LORD’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering’ (Judges 11:30-31). This rather hasty undertaking backfired spectacularly when ‘Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah. And behold, his daughter came out to meet him with tambourines and with dances. She was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter’ (vv. 33-34).

It then looks like Jephthah made matters far worse by actually going ahead and doing what he’d promised. Convinced that he ‘cannot take back [his] vow,’ Jephthah ‘did with her according to his vow that he had made’ (vv. 35, 39).

However, it’s just possible that we should read the passage another way. James Jordan suggests that after the Spirit of God ‘empowered’ Jephthah, He ‘provoked’ him to his vow, which was ‘calculated, not rash.’ It was an expression of ‘gratitude to God,’ and a confession that only ‘God is able to do the work.’ Jephthah is anticipating that a person, not an animal, will come to meet him – after all, sacrificial animals don’t live inside houses. And, crucially, ‘the whole burnt sacrifice represents the consecration of the whole person to God, wholly dedicated to him.’ Jephthah had in mind not the execution of anyone or anything, but ’some permanent service to God that would prevent the person from living a normal life’ (Jordan, Judges: A Practical and Theological Commentary, pp. 200-201).

Perhaps this reading gains additional credence from the fact that Jephthah’s daughter laments not her death, but her virginity (vv. 38-39). On the other hand, such appalling mistreatment of women was not entirely unheard of during the period of the Judges (cf. ch 19). Dan Block is one commentator who takes the more critical view of Jephthah (Judges, Ruth [NAC], pp. 364-379), and his treatment is well worth considering in detail. For now, I’m not sure, though I still think I incline more towards Block’s negative interpretation of Jephthah’s actions than Jordan’s positive construction.

Maybe we’ll have some sermons on Judges sometime.

The English Standard Version (ESV, which I love, and which we use for the readings and sermons at Emmanuel) was first published in 2001. A second edition appeared in 2007, and contains a number of these tiny changes. A representative of the ESV translation team has given a brief explanation. Most of the changes are pretty insignificant. A few, however, are worth knowing about, especially if you happen to be a preacher speaking to a congregation of ESV-users who might, in fact, have (very slightly) different versions.

Surprisingly, the ESV team haven’t published a complete list of these changes. However, the list below was compiled by Rick Mansfield, who was alert with some Bible software during the rather odd process by which the updated version was released.

Anyway, here’s the list of verses that have been changed.

Gen 2:19; Gen 24:60; Gen 25:20; Gen 26:17; Gen 30:35; Gen 37:22; Gen 37:24; Gen 38:12; Gen 44:18; Ex 17:15; Ex 20:11; Ex 22:16; Ex 29:27; Ex 32:31; Lev 19:31; Lev 20:6; Lev 20:24; Lev 20:27; Lev 23:6; Lev 26:46; Num 4:7; Num 21:3; Num 21:14; Num 21:18; Deut 9:26; Deut 18:11; Josh 10:14; Josh 11:5; Judges 2:20; Judges 6:17; Judges 6:21; Judges 6:24; Judges 8:1; Judges 11:6; Judges 11:8; Judges 11:9; 1 Sam 1:14; 1 Sam 10:3; 1 Sam 11:3; 1 Sam 13:18; 1 Sam 16:14; 1 Sam 16:15; 1 Sam 16:16; 1 Sam 16:23; 1 Sam 17:19; 1 Sam 23:14; 1 Sam 23:15; 1 Sam 27:11; 2 Sam 8:4; 2 Sam 18:9; 2 Sam 24:23; 1 Kings 2:24; 2 Kings 5:5; 2 Kings 5:22; 2 Kings 5:23; 2 Kings 19:15; 2 Kings 21:6; 2 Kings 22:16; 1 Chron 4:31; 1 Chron 7:9; 1 Chron 19:19; 2 Chron 1:5; 2 Chron 9:18; 2 Chron 21:2; 2 Chron 21:19; 2 Chron 30:14; 2 Chron 31:17; 2 Chron 33:6; 2 Chron 34:24; 2 Chron 34:32; 2 Chron 36:9; Ezra 6:21; Ezra 7:8; Neh 1:9; Neh 3:15; Neh 9:29; Neh 9:35; Neh 11:30; Neh 13:24; Job 39:29; Psalm 2:2; Psalm 8:2; Psalm 10:1; Psalm 11:4; Psalm 19:4; Psalm 28:6; Psalm 35:21; Psalm 40:6; Psalm 40:8; Psalm 40:14; Psalm 42:3; Psalm 42:10; Psalm 53:6; Psalm 64:5; Psalm 65:2; Psalm 70:2; Psalm 80:19; Psalm 86:14; Psalm 106:7; Psalm 107:8; Psalm 107:15; Psalm 107:21; Psalm 107:31; Psalm 109:31; Psalm 139:16; Prov 6:33; Prov 20:14; Prov 24:22; Prov 30:15; Eccl 7:22; Eccl 9:2; Eccl 9:7; Eccl 10:20; Song 4:14; Isa 2:6; Isa 5:26; Isa 7:8; Isa 8:1; Isa 8:3; Isa 8:6; Isa 8:13; Isa 10:30; Isa 14:22; Isa 26:12; Isa 28:24; Isa 31:4; Isa 37:16; Isa 45:15; Isa 48:14; Isa 49:13; Isa 51:9; Isa 53:1; Isa 53:10; Isa 59:14; Isa 66:19; Jer 2:20; Jer 9:26; Jer 11:11; Jer 18:11; Jer 22:2; Jer 23:23; Jer 29:11; Jer 29:13; Jer 31:19; Jer 31:38; Jer 32:17; Jer 38:10; Jer 44:30; Jer 46:14; Jer 48:3; Jer 49:3; Jer 50:20; Jer 52:31; Ezek 3:7; Ezek 16:30; Ezek 21:9; Ezek 33:19; Ezek 37:11; Ezek 44:19; Ezek 46:20; Ezek 48:35; Dan 2:26; Dan 7:9; Dan 11:11; Jon 2:4; Mic 4:3; Mic 5:2; Mic 7:19; Hab 1:13; Zech 9:9; Zech 14:14; Mal 2:16; Mal 3:10; Matt 3:7; Matt 3:11; Matt 5:32; Matt 8:18; Matt 13:17; Matt 13:38; Matt 16:26; Matt 17:18; Matt 17:24; Matt 19:5; Matt 22:15; Matt 24:37; Matt 25:26; Matt 27:62; Mark 1:10; Mark 2:5; Mark 3:30; Mark 3:35; Mark 4:41; Mark 5:5; Mark 7:25; Mark 8:34; Mark 8:36; Mark 8:37; Mark 9:23; Mark 10:8; Mark 13:14; Mark 13:22; Mark 13:35; Luke 1:19; Luke 1:53; Luke 8:12; Luke 14:14; Luke 18:24; Luke 20:4; John 3:19; John 3:20; John 3:21; John 4:7; John 4:14; John 5:46; John 6:58; John 6:53; John 7:21; John 8:17; John 8:39; John 8:41; John 12:2; John 12:8; John 15:2; John 15:13; John 19:17; John 20:23; Acts 1:3; Acts 1:18; Acts 2:15; Acts 2:42; Acts 3:11; Acts 5:21; Acts 7:52; Acts 8:7; Acts 10:6; Acts 13:15; Acts 13:38-39; Acts 17:19; Acts 20:4; Acts 25:10; Acts 27:34; Rom 1:23; Rom 2:2; Rom 2:3; Rom 3:30; Rom 4:5; Rom 5:17; Rom 6:12; Rom 6:20; Rom 6:21; Rom 7:2; Rom 7:6; Rom 7:7; Rom 7:8; Rom 7:15; Rom 8:6; Rom 8:21; Rom 9:10; Rom 9:11; Rom 9:21; Rom 10:2; Rom 10:3; Rom 10:12; Rom 10:14; Rom 11:20; Rom 11:25; Rom 11:30; Rom 12:16; Rom 13:6; Rom 13:9; Rom 14:8; Rom 15:27; 1 Cor 1:30; 1 Cor 1:31; 1 Cor 4:4; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Cor 7:9; 1 Cor 7:16; 1 Cor 9:17; 1 Cor 9:24; 1 Cor 10:1; 1 Cor 11:5; 1 Cor 11:27; 1 Cor 12:8; 1 Cor 15:19; 1 Cor 15:30; 2 Cor 2:10; 2 Cor 4:16; 2 Cor 4:17; 2 Cor 5:1; 2 Cor 8:3; 2 Cor 8:13; 2 Cor 9:3; 2 Cor 9:7; 2 Cor 9:11; 2 Cor 10:14; 2 Cor 11:2; 2 Cor 11:5; 2 Cor 12:7; Gal 2:21; Gal 3:28; Eph 1:5; Eph 2:15; Eph 4:9; Eph 4:11; Eph 5:7; Eph 5:19; Phil 2:21; Phil 3:3; Col 3:12; Col 4:5; 1 Thess 4:1; 1 Tim 1:3; 1 Tim 1:11; 1 Tim 3:15; 1 Tim 4:15; 1 Tim 5:1; 1 Tim 5:2; 1 Tim 5:16; 2 Tim 2:26; Phlm 5; Phlm 14; Heb 2:11; Heb 3:9-10; Heb 3:14; Heb 6:4; Heb 6:6; Heb 6:10; Heb 7:18; Heb 9:13; Heb 10:2; Heb 10:3; Heb 10:9; Heb 11:29; James 1:20; James 1:27; James 3:2; James 5:6; 1 Pet 1:20; 1 Pet 2:2; 1 Pet 3:3; 1 Pet 3:5; 1 Pet 3:15-16; 1 Pet 4:3; 1 John 2:5; 1 John 3:24; Jude 12; Jude 14; Jude 20; Rev 1:14; Rev 2:23; Rev 6:4; Rev 17:13

How many times have you found yourself diligently pouring in your efforts over here, only to discover that the Lord pours out his blessing over there. You spend ages praying and trying to explain the gospel to the bloke across your desk at work, all to no avail; and then your next-door neighbour calls round out of the blue to ask if he can come to church with you next Sunday.

This is how the ’streams in the Negeb’ work. There are no streams in the Negeb – at least not most of the time. It’s a desert. But occasionally, when you get heavy rain up in the mountains a hundred miles away, the Negev’s river beds spring into life. Heavy rain over here; abundance of life over there. The water comes from … well, nowhere obvious. But it certainly makes an impact when it does.

If you don’t believe me, take a look at this. It was shot in the Negeb at Nahal Zin, about 40 miles south of Beersheba. I’m not sure whether the guy with the camera is brave or just plain stupid. That’s right, he’s standing at the edge of a waterfall…

Strange thing to say, don’t you think? Don’t all parents think that their kids are beautiful? And in any case, why would Moses ‘beauty’ be sufficient reason to hide him?

Look closer, and we discover a couple of intriguing details.

The word translated ‘beautiful’ (asteion) is, to put it mildly, a bit tricky. To put it less mildly, no one really knows what it means. It appears only a couple of times in the Greek translation of the OT, one notable example being Judges 3:17, where ‘beautiful’ is hardly an apt description of King Eglon. So why use it about Moses?

One possibility is that it rhymes. Seriously. Here’s what the full phrase says in Greek: eidon asteion to paidion.

It means, literally, ‘They saw [that] beautiful [was] the child.’

Try reading it out loud a few times, accenting the bold bits. There, good huh? Poetry. That’s beautiful.

Another possible explanation is found in the underlying Hebrew phrase in Exodus 2:2, where Moses’ mother says (literal translation again), ‘She saw that he was good.’

Now where have we heard something like that before? Yup, Genesis 1, where God says exactly the same thing over and over again about the newly-created, perfect world.

So, maybe Moses’ parents saw something (who knows what) that told them that their little baby would grow up to lead God’s people into a New World, a land of freedom, away from the sin-cursed land of Egyptian tyranny.

That would be a good reason to keep him hidden, don’t you think?

and they were not afraid of the king’s edict.

²⁴By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, ²⁵choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin.

²⁶He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward. ²⁷By faith he left Egypt,

not being afraid of the anger of the king,

for he endured as seeing him who is invisible. ²⁸By faith he kept the Passover and sprinkled the blood, so that the Destroyer of the firstborn might not touch them.

It’s all in Hebrews 11:23-28.

because they saw that beautiful [was] the child,

and they did not fear the decree of the king.

24 By faith Moses, when he was full-grown,

refused to be called [the] son of the daughter of Pharaoh, 25 choosing rather to suffer with the people of God

than temporarily to have [the] pleasure of sin.

26 Greater riches

he considered [than] the treasures of Egypt

the reproach of Christ,

for he kept his eyes on the reward.

27 By faith he abandoned Egypt, not fearing the anger of the king,

for just as seeing the invisible, he endured.

28 By faith he kept the Passover and the sprinkling of the blood, in order that the destroyer of the firstborn should not touch them.

• 6:1-8 sets the context of increasing corruption and ungodliness prior to the toledoth Noah, with which Noah’s godliness contrasts starkly, and against which Noah would have had to contend.
• Humanity’s heart evil (6:5); the LORD’s heart vexed (6:6).
• Noah found hen (favour, acceptance) in the eyes of the LORD (6:8).
• ‘Noah’ the first word in the toledoth Noah (6:9).
• Noah introduced immediately as ‘righteous’ (first occurrence of ‘righteous’ in the Bible). Cf. Noah as the one who had found hen (favour, acceptance – again, first occurrence in the Bible) in the LORD’s eyes. Bruce, Hebrews, p. 288.
• ‘Noah walked with God’ (6:9). We already know what happens to people who do this (5:22, 24). It won’t be surprising if Noah (like Enoch) is ‘taken away’ from the world that’s coming under judgment.
• ‘Walked with God’ in OT: Only (1) Noah and Enoch (Heb et); (2) Priests (Malachi 2:6 Heb et); [(3) basic requirement of all people (Micah 6:8, Heb im)].
• Lots of ‘earth’ (aretz) in Gen 6:9ff.
• Gen 6:11-13: repetition; God ‘seeing’. Earth ‘ruined’ x5 (spoiling of a garment or pot; Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 171).
• ‘Animals and men had been intended to fill the earth (1:22, 28); instead, violence (hamas) fills it’ (Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 171).
• It was specifically to Noah that God disclosed his plan to destroy the earth (6:13), followed by the instructions concerning the ark. Perhaps, then, it would have been down to Noah to proclaim the coming judgment to other people. Hence ‘herald of righteousness’ (2 Pet 2:5)?
• 6:18-19 ‘with you’ (itak) x3. God’ will establish his covenant ‘with you [Noah]’; therefore your relatives will be safe [only] ‘with you’; and the animals shall be kept alive ‘with you’. Cf. 6:20 ‘with you [eleyka] to keep them alive’. Similarly, Noah told to take ‘to you’ all the food, and it shall be food ‘to you and to them’ (6:21). Again, repetition of Noah in 7:13: lit, ‘Noah and Shem and Ham and Japhet the sons of Noah and the three wives of his sons [went] with him into the ark.’ Furthermore, 7:23b says that ‘Only Noah was left, and those who were with him.’ Every other living thing is sustained by its solidarity with, and provision at the hands of, Noah.
• 6:22 repeated emphasis on Noah’s obedience. 7:1 Emphatic placement of ‘you’. Lit, ‘for you, I have seen, are righteous before me in this generation.’ Moreover, ‘I have seen’ resembles ‘the LORD saw’ (same verb), which ‘[introduces] a decisive divine intervention’ (Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 143-144) and ‘a state of affairs that had long been in existent, and on account of which a decision has to be taken’ (Wenham, 144, quoting Cassuto). Again, more focus on Noah. Noah’s obedience again in 7:5, 9. 16.
• Noah doesn’t say a single word throughout Gen 6-8, despite the fact that the LORD says a lot to him. Noah finally speaks in Gen 9:25, his first words are somewhat surprising: ‘Cursed be Canaan…’ – ‘the first time a man is recorded as uttering a curse’ (Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 201). Maybe that’s what Heb 11:7 means when it says that Noah ‘condemned the world.’
• Noah’s curse is focused on Canaan, not Ham, which is surprising since Ham is the one who’s sinned. Perhaps Noah wants to avoid going against God’s blessing of Ham, along with Noah and his other sons, in 9:1. See further Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 201.
• Noah ‘condemned the world’ – how? Bruce: he built the ark in obedience to the Lord, and ‘in the event his faith was vindicated and their unbelief was condemned’ (p. 288).

25 Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbour, for we are members one of another. 26 Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, 27 and give no opportunity to the devil… 29 Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.

Notice that the Lord here also makes a positive demand of us. It’s not just that our words shouldn’t do damage; they should positively do good: only such words as are ‘good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.’

This is particularly important to remember when we are discussing the sins of other people. It’s sometimes necessary to discuss the sins of others – for example, parents talking about their children, or when we feel wronged and need to seek advice about responding to a difficult situation.

But Ephesians 4 reminds us that the goal of all such conversations should never be simply to get confirmation that we were in the right and that ‘they’ (whoever they are) were in the wrong.

Rather, our goal should be to do good to everyone, including the one who has wronged us. ‘Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up.’

1. ‘Faith’ (v. 22), ‘hope’ (v. 23) and ‘love’ (v. 24).

2. Father, Son and Spirit.

• We ‘draw near’ to the Father (v. 22).
• We ‘hold fast’ to the Son (v. 23). This is a bit harder to spot, but notice that the same language of ‘holding fast’ to our ‘hope’ appears in 6:18-20, where the ‘hope’ is described as a ’sure and steadfast anchor for the soul’ (6:19), and identified as ‘Jesus’ in 6:20.
• We encourage one another (10:25) – note that ‘encouragement’ is identified as a Spiritual gift in Romans 12:8.

3. We focus on the Lord, ourselves and each other.

• We draw near to God (v. 22).
• We hold fast to our own, individual confession (v. 23; note the warning directed to individuals in 10:26ff.)
• We encourage each other (vv. 24-25).

4. The three exhortations map onto the three ‘offices’ of priest, king and prophet.

• We ‘draw near’ (v. 22) as priests into the heavenly sanctuary.
• We ‘hold fast’ to our hope (v. 23) – language reminiscent of the description of Christ in 3:6, who was ‘faithful over all God’s house as a Son’, i.e. as God’s anointed King (cf. Ps 2), and in whom ‘we share’ if we ‘hold … firm’ (3:14) to our confidence.
• We encourage each other as prophets, speaking the word of God to each other.

Here’s a quick taster. Having observed the faith-hope-love triad in Heb 10:22-25 (p. 286), he says:

One of the first indications of a lack of love toward God and the neighbor is for a Christian to stay away from worship services. He forsakes the communal obligations of attending these meetings and displays the symptoms of selfishness and self-centredness. (p. 290)

Rough structure:

Intro: vv. 1-3 The LORD is good, because he gathers his people from all over the place. (Do the 4 corners of the world in v. 3 map onto the 4 sections in vv. 4-32?)

Then there are four main sections (vv. 4-9, 10-16, 17-22, 23-32), dealing with four main categories of predicament. In each case his people cry out to him (same words each time); are delivered from trouble (in different ways); and then thank him (same words again).

Then there’s an epilogue (?) in vv. 33-43 setting out the blessings promised to those the LORD redeems.

Now, I challenge you: find a situation that’s not represented in vv. 4, 10, 17 or 23. So, is there anything from which the LORD cannot rescue us?

Or again, another challenge: If the LORD is committed to rescuing his people when their folly and sinfulness lands them in all sorts of trouble (v. 17), shouldn’t we be committed to praying that those same people would indeed cry ‘to the LORD in their trouble’ and so be ‘delivered … from their distress’? (v. 19). Yup. Even if the sins that led them into such dire straits were committed against us.

It’s fairly unlikely that the author of Hebrews has slipped up here – he seems to know his OT pretty well. It’s even less likely that the Israelites felt at liberty to shift the Tabernacle/Temple furniture around willy-nilly. So what’s going on?

One possibility is that we’re supposed to see that the division between the two sections of the tent had already been removed, so that the temple (the rebuilt tabernacle?) was already in the process of being dismantled before it was finally destroyed in AD 70. (Hebrews was almost certainly written before this date – see the present tenses in 5:3; 8:4; 10:11; etc.) The distinction between the MHP and the HP had therefore been removed; the temple/tent had a single section, not two separate sections. Consequently, anything that had previously been in the HP was (by the time Heb was written) to be regarded as being in the MHP too.

Makes sense, since the temple curtain (between the HP and the MHP) was torn in two when Christ died (Mk 15:38).

To you I lift up my eyes, O you who are enthroned in the heavens! Behold, as the eyes of servants look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maidservant to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the LORD our God, till he has mercy upon us. (vv. 1-2)

To begin with, we look in anticipation of his mercy (v. 2).

But more than this: ‘as the eyes of servants look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maidservant to the hand of her mistress’.

So how do servants/maidservants look to their masters/mistresses? Examples:

• Awaiting the next instruction, eager to serve with wholehearted dedication and commitment. You want the roof scrubbed? The gutters fixed? The drains unblocked? Leave it to me.
• In the expectation of receiving all we need – a servant’s master, after all, is charged with caring for his staff.

Then think about what Deuteronomy 15 says about servants (slaves?). After six years of service, they are entitled to their freedom (v. 12), and are sent out laden with blessings from the flock, the threshing floor and the winepress of their former masters (v. 14).

But, bizarrely, some would rather remain enslaved than gain their freedom. Their master has treated them so well that they’d prefer to stay in his service, even though it’s quite a painful step to do so: ‘then you shall take an awl, and put it through his ear into the door, and he shall be your slave forever’ (v. 17).

This, perhaps, is the kind of looking-to-the-LORD that Psalm 123 has in mind: The kind that would choose slavery to our Father rather than freedom in the world. After all, wouldn’t you rather be a doorkeeper in the house of the LORD than dwell in the tents of the wicked?

• Compare this miracle and the following events with the similar occasion in Mark 6:30-44. What differences can you find (see especially Mark 8:5, 6, 8, 9, 12-21)?
• Jesus apparently sees some significance in the numbers mentioned in this episode (verses 19-21). Using the following suggestions, what might Jesus be trying to communicate?

4 – The whole world (the 4 corners of the earth)

7 – Completeness (7 days in a week); Or possibly all the different nations of the world

12 – The whole of God’s people (12 tribes of Israel in the Old Testament)

1000 – A very large number

4000 – 4 x 1000

(These are over-simplified, of course, but have a go anyway…)

How might the significance of these numbers be relevant to us today?

• Why do you think Jesus refused to give a sign to the Pharisees in verses 11-13?
• What do you think Jesus means by his warning in verse 15?

In what ways could this warning be relevant to you?

1. One of the first questions to arise is the sense in which the New Covenant is unbreakable. Whatever this passage says about this subject, there are lots of NT passages that, at least at face value, seem to teach quite clearly that the New Covenant can (in some sense) be broken. John 15:1-6; Rom 11:17-24; Heb 2:1-3; 3:7-42; 10:26-29; 12:25; 2 Peter 2; etc.

2. Hebrews 8:8-9, on the other hand, contrasts the covenants at precisely this point: the New Covenant, unlike the Old, can be broken in some sense. However, a closer look reveals that it is the people as a whole, not individual believers that Hebrews has in mind. In particular, Jer 32 (immediately following the text in Jer 31 from which Heb 8 quotes) is all about the exile of Israel in 586 BC, which resulted from the apostasy of the nation. There were some faithful individuals even at this dreadful time. Heb 8 can be reconciled quite easily with the covenant-breaking texts in the New Testament in this way: it does not teach that God will never break covenant with individual New Covenant believers; rather, it teaches that God will never forsake the New Covenant church as a whole.

3. An important pastoral point flows from point 2. Since God has committed himself irrevocably to the New Covenant church, one important way to deal with the problem of lack of assurance is to ask yourself this question: are you a faithful member of a faithful church? Remember: the Lord will never abandon the church. Take your eyes off yourself for a moment. Remember, if you’re in a faithful church (one where the Bible is rightly taught, the sacraments rightly administered, and discipline rightly maintained), and if you’ve not been excommunicated, that means that the elders are (implicitly) saying to you, ‘If our judgment, you’re a faithful member of the community of God’s saved people here on earth – the people whom the Lord has promised that he will never abandon.’ So whaddaya worried about?

4. So then, what about the apparent differences between the New and Old Covenants mentioned in Hebrews 8? Well, the first thing to remember is that not everything mentioned here does in fact represent a difference between the covenants. God’s Old Covenant people had the law on their hearts (v. 10, cf. Deut 6:4-6; 30:11-14; 2 Ki 23:25; Ps 37:31; 40:8; 119:11, 111), and also experienced the forgiveness of sins (v. 12, cf. Ex 34:6-7; Ps 32; 51; 103). Hebrews doesn’t actually say that the New Covenant will differ in these respects – indeed, there’s a near-quote in Heb 8:10 from Gen 17 (I will be their God, and they shall be my people, cf. Gen 17:7, 10) which points in precisely the opposite direction.

5. Perhaps there’s a different in our experience of the assurance of forgiveness under the New Covenant.We no longer have any need of repeated sacrifices, which previously served as a ‘reminder of sin’ (10:3); instead, Christ has made one perfect sacrifice, so our sin is (from the experiential point of view) decisively put behind us.

6. Similarly, there’s a greater intensity in our knowledge of God under the New Covenant. The privilege of drawing near to God, previously reserved for the priests alone, is now enjoyed by all God’s people (Heb 4:16; 7:19; 10:22; 11:6). As a result, there is now no special priestly class within the believing community, uniquely able to teach their brothers to ‘know the Lord’ (Heb 8:11; cf. the job of the priests in Deut 33:10; Mal 2:6-7) from the perspective of personal experience. Instead, all believers have been granted sanctuary access in Christ, and all ‘know the Lord’ personally.

7. Finally (related to 6), ‘they will all know me’ apparently means all-without-distinction, not all-without-exception, since it is elaborated in what follows: ‘from the least of them to the greatest’.

Hebrews 7 – a better priest

Hebrews 8 – a better covenant

Hebrews 9 – a better sanctuary

Hebrews 10 – a better sacrifice

One of the (many) reasons why this needs to be nuanced slightly is that the new-and-better covenant of which Jesus is mediator (ch 8) sits within the context of the new-and-better sanctuary in which he ministers.

Thus 8:1 sums up much of the preceding chapter; 8:2 sets off on the new-sanctuary trail which continues down to 8:6a; and the new covenant is introduced in 8:6b as a way of expressing the greatness of the new sanctuary. Thus 8:6 could be paraphrased: Jesus’ (new) ministry (in the heavenly sanctuary) is greater than the old ministry (in the earthly sanctuary) just as the new covenant is greater than the old covenant.

8:7-13 expresses of the comparative greatness of the new covenant, which in this context echoes the comparative greatness of the heavenly sanctuary. Then back to the comparison/contrast between the two sanctuaries in 9:1ff.

13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. 15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.

Several considerations suggest that Paul is talking here about the final judgment, not AD 70.

• The presenting issue is what will happen to believers who have ‘fallen asleep’ (i.e. died, 4:13-15; cf. 1 Cor 11:30). It’s hard to imagine how a reply about Jesus coming in judgment on the Temple would address this concern.
• Paul answers this concern by drawing a parallel between Jesus’ death and resurrection, on the one hand, and the way in which God will bring with Jesus those believers who have died (4:14), on the other. Just as Jesus died and was raised, the argument runs, so also these brothers and sisters who have died will be raised. Again, this points to the general resurrection.
• The reference to the general resurrection becomes explicit in 4:16: ‘the dead in Christ will rise first’.

So far, so good. But there’s a fly in the ointment. Paul seems to anticipate that he and his hearers will still be alive at ‘the coming of the Lord’ (4:15) about which he has been speaking. ‘We who are alive’, he says twice (4:15, 17); not ‘those who are alive’. How can the text be about the general resurrection if Paul expected to still be alive when the great day came?

Some have attempted to solve this puzzle by suggesting that Paul was mistaken about the time of Jesus final coming. Others (e.g. C. H. Dodd) have argued that Paul changed his mind about the timing of the last day: near the beginning of his ministry (when he wrote 1 Thessalonians) he expected Jesus to return very soon, but later he had decided that the final judgment would be delayed.

I’m not sure how these solutions can be reconciled with an evangelical doctrine of Scripture. It’s one thing to say that Paul’s understanding of the gospel developed during his life – after all, he started out as a gospel denying, church-persecuting Pharisee. But it is quite another to claim that Paul expressed his early misunderstandings in his biblical writings, for this effectively undermines the truthfulness of the Bible.

A much better solution is found by looking closer at the Greek text. It turns out that the phrase ‘we who are alive’ doesn’t necessarily imply that Paul expected the parousia to occur before his death. Following I. H. Marshall and C. E. B. Cranfield, Paul Woodbridge[1] has pointed out that the ‘we’ may be hypothetical (i.e. ‘if we are alive’), or indeed it may ’signify nothing more that a general designation’ (i.e. ‘we, insofar as this will, as events turn out, apply to us’). Paul’s ‘we who are alive’ does not, in itself, indicate that Paul expected the day of resurrection to come before his death.

Taking all this together, it seems overwhelmingly likely that 1 Thess 4:13-18, like 2:19-20; 3:11-13 and 5:23-24, refers not to AD 70 but to the general resurrection.

• What does the woman ask Jesus to do (verses 25-26)?
• What extra information does Mark give us about this woman in verse 26?

Jesus’ reply in verse 27 likens the Israelites to ‘children’ and the Gentiles to ‘dogs’, in keeping with common first-century figures of speech.

• How does verse 28 demonstrate the woman’s faith in Jesus?
• How does Jesus respond in verses 29-30?

What hope does Jesus’ response hold out for people all over the world today?

• What problem does the man have in verse 32? How does Jesus solve it in verses 33-35?
• Does anything about what Jesus does strike you as strange in verse 33?
• When a slave was adopted as a son in Old Testament times, his ears would be pierced. Bearing this in mind, what might Jesus’ symbolic actions represent in verse 33?

How would meeting Jesus have changed the life of the man in verses 31-37?

We’ll begin with 1 Th 2:19-20; 3:11-13 and 5:23-24.

19 For what is our hope or joy or crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus at his coming? Is it not you? 20 For you are our glory and joy. (1 Th 2:19-20)

11 Now may our God and Father himself, and our Lord Jesus, direct our way to you, 12 and may the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all, as we do for you, 13 so that he may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints. (1 Th 3:11-13)

23 Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 He who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it. (1 Th 5:23-24)

It’s tempting, when reading these texts, simply to assume that the ‘coming’ (parousia) spoken of is the final coming of Jesus at the last judgment. After all, we all believe in the second coming. Well, it’s true that Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead on the last day, but to assume that ‘coming’ means this here comes dangerously close to begging the question about their referent. After all, the purpose of the present discussion is precisely to work out whether or not the text might actually be referring to Jesus’ ‘coming’ in judgment on apostate Israel in AD 70. It’s at least possible for parousia to be used in this latter sense, as in Matthew 24:3, 27 (so R. T. France, Matthew). So what does it mean here?

1 Th 2:19 says that the Thessalonians will be the ‘crown [stephanos] of boasting’ for Paul and his companions at Jesus’ coming. The term stephanos appears in only three other places in Paul’s letters – 1 Cor 9:25; Phil 4:1; 2 Tim 4:8. Phil 4:1 is especially relevant, because here Paul refers to his believing readers as his stephanos, just as in 1 Th 2:19. The context plainly has to do with the bodily resurrection, when Christ ‘will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body’ (Phil 3:21).

2 Tim 4:8 points in the same direction, for here Paul is contemplating his own death: ‘I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race’ (2 Tim 4:7). This being the case, clearly the next event in world history with particular significance for him would be the day of resurrection, not the destruction of the Jewish Temple. Again, the stephanos is the reward received at the final judgment.

Similarly, 1 Cor 9:25 speaks of an ‘imperishable’ staphanos, which must surely be understood as a picture of the everlasting blessings of the resurrection age.

Thus 1 Th 2:19 seems to refer to the final coming of Christ at the last judgment.

The use of the same word for ‘coming’ (parousia) in both 1 Th 3:11-13 and 5:23-24 might make us think that these texts also refer to the day of resurrection. But we shouldn’t be too hasty, for the same word can mean different things in different contexts. As it happens, though, the context in each of these two texts does in fact support a final judgment referent.

The two passages are remarkably similar. Both are prayers for the sanctification of the Thessalonians, and as prayers go they are pretty ambitious. Paul prays not just that they would ‘increase and abound in love’, but that they would be ‘blameless … at the coming of our Lord Jesus’ (3:13; 5:23). More than this, he appears confident that God ‘will surely do it’ (5:24). This can only refer to the final judgment on the day of resurrection, for only then (and not before) will God’s people be ‘blameless in holiness’ before him.

Thus a preterist reading of 1 Th 2:19-20; 3:11-13 and 5:23-24 would be mistaken. These texts refer to Jesus’ ‘coming’ to judge the living and the dead at the general resurrection.

Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.

Consider the infinite grace and kindness of Christ, that he joins his people at such humble meetings. Not only where thousands celebrate, but where two or three are gathered – there the Lord is found.

When Potiphar’s wife keeps pestering Joseph to sleep with her, he replies at length about the privilege he enjoys at the hand of his Egyptian master. The obvious implication being that it would be an outrage to repay Potiphar’s kindness with such treachery (Gen 39:8-9). Yet at the climax of Joseph’s reply, his words echo David’s concern not to sin against the Lord: ‘how then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?’

A king of peace (Heb 7:2), like the Prince of Peace (Isa 9:6).

• Ps 110 contemplates a priestly kingship, in whom the requirement for all Israel to be a priestly kingdom (Ex 19) is fulfilled. David’s line is intended ‘to reflect, in the occupant of the throne of Israel, the values which the Sinai covenant had required of the nation as a whole’, so that ‘the full intentions of the divine purpose for the race, expounded in Gen. 1-2 might be achieved’ (Dumbrell 152).

• Melchizedek actually means, in Heb, either (1) my king is sedeq; or (2) Milku is righteous; or (3) my king is righteous. Wenham (316) says (1) or (2) more likely in Gen; though Heb 7:2 is closest (though not exactly) to (3).

• Salem almost certainly Jerusalem, not the town associated with Shechem, since it’s obviously in the south, whereas Shechem is further north. The unusual name Salem (as opposed to Jerusalem, which was attested very early) is probably used bcs of the significance of ’slm’ = peace, as in Heb 7:2.

• Bread and wine comprises a royal banquet, appropriately provided by a king. Poss a covenant meal?

• Gen 14:17-24 is a meeting between Ab and two kings – of Salem (Mel and Sodom). Mel honours and blesses Ab (bread and wine, blessing), whereas the King of Sodom shows disdain (’give me the persons’, v21; so Wenham). Thus contrast between the two kings’ attitudes to the one to whom God’s promise had been given.

• Melchizedek blesses Abraham (Gen 14:19), as anticipated by the promise of Gen 12:1-3, so we anticipate that Mel would himself experience the Abrahamic blessing. By contrast, the King of Sodom’s disdain leads us to anticipate that he will not experience this blessing, but rather God’s curse (Gen 12). Interestingly, he gets ’stuff’ (Gen 14:23), though his end is not far away (Gen 19).

• ‘Ps 110, often seen as a coronation liturgy, declares the Davidic king to be a priest “after the order of Melchizedek” (v 4) … Gen 14 implies that because Melchizedek blessed Abram, divine blessing would rest on his successors, the priest-kings in Jerusalem.’ (Wenham 322).

• ‘Tithe-giving implies acknowledgement of status.’ (Wenham 322)

• Ps 110 is about a king who is declared a priest, not vice versa (86). But maybe Heb doesn’t use it in quite this way.

• 7:1-3 begins ‘this Mel’ and ends ‘remains a priest forever’. This should be regarded as the key assertion of the paragraph, and the intervening material as the (necessary and sufficient) grounds for the assertion. (Rooke 88) On this basis, then, need to understand the significance of the rest of 7:1-3.

• Driving towards ch 7 (exposition of Melchizedekian priesthood) ever since 2:17, where ‘high priest’ first mentioned (cf. Stedman). Breaks off immediately after 2:17; into exposition of ‘faithful and merciful’ (ch 3-4), then another hint in 5:6, 10, then another delay before ch 7. Delay before full exposition stimulates sense of intrigue in readers – ‘what’s which HP thing all about?!’ (cf. Lane).

• 7:3 ‘elaborate rhetorical flourish’ (Attridge) to draw attention to Mel’s status.

• When Mel is first introduced in 5:10, Heb then digresses bcs the readers have ‘become dull of hearing’ (5:11). Then there follows an extended exhortation to not go back to the OC systems (6:1-8), and (among other things) to maintain earnestness (6:11). Finally, then, Heb returns to this doctrine for the ‘mature’ (6:1) in 6:20/7:1, with the re-introduction of Melchizedek. Thus the Melchizedekian priesthood of Xt is cast as a fairly tricky thing to understand but which will, nonetheless, pay rich dividends for our spiritual maturity. It’s fine to eat candy floss, but eventually you need to sit down to a plate of meat and veg.

• ‘The perspective of 4:14-16, with Xt the ascended high priest who is able  to sympathise with our weaknesses and provide mercy and grace to help in our time of need, is central to our writer’s aim in his “word of exhortation”.’ (Clarke quoting Peterson 114) Key applicatory principle: Look at Xt as this kind of high priest.

• Westcott thinks that the use of the participle ‘resembling’, rather than the adjective, means that Mel’s significance lies in his biblical representation, not the man himself. (cf Lane, 165)

• Mel is a ‘priest for ever’ in the sense that there is ‘no point at which he takes over from another priest or surrenders his office to someone who will succeed him’ (Clarke, quoting Schenk 78).

• Inclusios: 1-3 (hiereus); 4-9/10 (dekanten); 11-19 (nomos); 20-28 (orkomosias)

• The inability of the law to perfect the believer (11-19) is implicit in the appointment of a Melchizedekian priest subsequent to the establishment of the levitical priesthood.

• Change of priesthood entails change of law bcs law establishes priesthood. Therefore if the levitical priesthood is superseded, there must (necessarily have) be(en) a change in the law also. 7:11-12, 18-19.

• Xts appointment as priest coincided with his enthronement as king. Power of indestructible life establishes it (7:16). Why is it that this kind of priesthood (founded on resurrection life) has this kind of quality?

Bcs he always lives to make intercession (7:25)

Established by oath, and thus unchangeable (6:16-18)

Guarantor of better covenant, which can’t be broken or changed (ch 8, esp 8:6)

Problem with levitical priesthood was both with (a) the system itself; and (b) the flaws of the people who enacted it (5:3 cf 7:27)

Mel priesthood is a royal priesthood

• The establishment of the Melchizedekian priesthood in the ascended and enthroned Christ necessarily entails the passing away of the levitical priesthood, and prepares the way for the destruction of the home of the levitical priesthood – the temple.

• ‘A different order of priesthood comes with an entirely different system. The priesthood is intertwined with the law, with the covenant, with the sanctuary, with the sacrifices. When the priesthood is changed, these inevitably change as well.’ Thus the establishment of the new order of priesthood prepares the way for 8:1-10:18, which expounds the establishment of the new covenant (ch 8), the new sanctuary (9:1-10) and the new sacrifice (9:11-10:18). (Clarke)

• Priests were from the tribe of Levi, from the family of Aaron, whereas kings were from the tribe of Judah. The fact that Melchizedek is ‘without genealogy’ (7:3) means (1) he must be from a different order of priests, which doesn’t depend on descent (hence 7:16); (2) we thereby avoid the ‘problem’ that a genealogical qualification for the (aaronic) priesthood would disqualify him from the kingship and vice versa (cf 7:14).

• The connection between the ‘oath’ to Abraham in 6:13ff. and that concerning Melchizedek in 7:20ff. is likely to be established by considering how Melchizedek features in the Abraham narrative in Genesis, rather than (in the first instance) Ps 110, since Gen brings Mel, Abraham and the ‘oath’ together.

• The third term in 7:3 (’without genealogy’) amplifies and explains the significance of the first two. ‘Without Father or Mother’ does not establish his eternity, but his lack of written genealogical qualification for the aaronic priesthood, and by implication that he must have possessed a different kind of priesthood which Abraham recognised. (Lane 165f.) Of course he had a father and mother; they’re just not recorded, so he couldn’t have been a levitical priest. Poss especially significant since Genesis is all about genealogical descent. It’s true, therefore (following many modern exegetes), that Heb constructs an argument from silence, but the silence is obviously significant. (This answers the objection of Horton, 153f., that the silence can’t be significant because Jethro also has no recorded genealogy. Since Jethro appears in Ex/Num, not Gen, it makes sense that the genealogical silence should be less significant.)

• Think shadow-reality, not promise-fulfilment, to understand why Heb sees more in Ps 110 and Gen 14 than might initially appear to be there.

• Granerod thinks that Mel was regarded as immortal, and that this is crucial for the argument about Xt’s immortality and perpetual priesthood (Granerod, 195). Doubtful (SJ)

• Strangely appropriate that Mel should drop of sight from Heb after ch 7, just as he does after Gen 14.

• Melchizedek isn’t mentioned much in the Bible. One verse in Ps 110; one paragraph in Gen 14. Gen 14 is tricky because it seems at first glance rather unconnected to the Gen narrative. Mel just pops up and disappears, so it’s hard to see his relationship to other biblical themes. Ps 110 is tricky for the opposite reason – it’s quoted and alluded to so often in the NT that there’s so much biblical data to take into account. Moreover, though the general message of the Psalm seems fairly clear (esp in the light of these NT refs), there are some obscure details.

• Recall that 4:14-5:10 highlights important differences between Christ priesthood and the aaronic priesthood. E.g. Xt no ignorant or beset with weakness (5:2); no need to offer sacrifices for his own sins (5:3). This prepares for the argument of ch 7 that Xt’s priesthood is of a different order, anticipated in 5:10.

• Heb can be analysed thematically as a presentation of Xt as prophet (e.g. 3:1ff), priest (e.g. 4:14ff) and king (e.g. 2:5ff.). Cf. overview in 1:1-4. Of these, priest and king prob occupy most attention in the book. Also significant is the fact that Xt combines these offices; cf. 2:10-11 – the king who brings his people to glory also sanctifies them. Not something that could ordinarily be done in Israel! Makes sense of one of the first things Heb draws attention to about Mel – that he’s King of Salem and priest of God most High.

• Significance of the location of Salem, where Melchizedek was priest/king: the site of the later city of Jerusalem, palace of the kings of Israel, temple of the LORD.

• Most modern exegetes mention the Qumran scrolls, but they hold a range of different views on their significance for Hebrews.

• Lane (159) and Granerod (200) both mention the established Hebrew exegetical principle of gezerah shawah, whereby a connection between two texts is established merely on the basis of a common word, and the texts are then deployed to shed light on each other. Interesting that this hermeneutical approach has some pedigree.

• Heb 7 refers explicitly to both Ps 110 and Gen 14. Ps 110:4 repeated lots of times (Heb 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 17, [21], etc.)

• Significance of bib-theo framework: Adam was a priest in the garden-sanctuary, charged with ruling world as a king. Need, therefore, to encompass this work in one person. The roles were separated in the law, since priests and kings were from different tribes, though acc to Ps 100 the king anticipated and retained aspects of the earlier Melchizedekian priestly privileges. Xt’s Melchizedekian priesthood is the climactic bringing-together of his twin second-Adamic roles of priest and king.

• Relationship between the church’s priestly role towards the nations (Ex 19; 1 Pet 2; etc) and Xt’s priestly role for the church in relation to Xt’s Melchizedekian priesthood.

Bruce A. Demarest, ‘Hebrews 7:3: A Crux Interpretum Historically Considered,’ Evangelical Quarterly 49 (1977) 141-162

William L. Lane, Hebrews 1-8 (WBC)

Gard Granerod, ‘Melchizedek in Hebrews 7,’ (2009)

W. J. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 152.

Richard Longenecker, ‘The Melchizedek Argument in Hebrews,’ in Guelich (ed.), Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology

David Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection (SNTSMS)

Ros Clarke, ‘How and why does Hebrews make so much of the assertion that Christ is ‘a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek”?’ (Unpublished essay)

D. W. Rooke, ‘Jesus as Royal Priest: Reflections on the Interpretation of the Melchizedek Tradition in Heb 7,’ Biblica 81 (2000) 81-94

G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (WBC)

New Bible Dictionary, ‘Shechem’

Thx also to MS, RAS, JBJ, SW, RD, AJPT

• What was the Pharisees’ complaint to Jesus (verses 2 and 5)?
• How does Jesus initially respond in verses 6-7? How does he summarise his response in verse 8?

Why might it be tempting to replace God’s word with our own traditions? In what ways might you be tempted to do this?

• According to verses 15-23, what does not make a person ‘defiled’ (i.e. spiritually unclean)? What does make a person defiled?
• What implications does this have for the Pharisees’ traditions (see especially verses 3-4)?

Look again at verses 21-23. Does anything in particular challenge you?

1. Faith looks unwaveringly to the promised future destination

2. Patience endures persistently our painful present circumstances

Interestingly, Adam was not the last to make such a mistake. Abraham did very much the same thing when his wife Sarai suggested that he should ‘go in to my servant; it may be that I shall obtain children by her’. Abraham followed her suggestion, and once again, Scripture highlights that Abram ‘listened to the voice of Sarai‘ (Gen 16:2).

Obviously, none of this implies that husbands shouldn’t listen to their wives. The issue is how husbands should listen to their wives. The examples of Adam and Abraham highlight the peril of husbands failing to take the responsibility for leadership that the LORD has placed on them. Husbands should listen and think, being ready to learn and encourage, or possibly to re-direct or challenge, as necessary. The fact that Adam’s failure was repeated suggests, perhaps, that the danger of ungodly acquiescence may be more real than we imagine.

Alongside this recognition of the narrative unity of the Bible has come an increasing appreciation of what might be called the symbolic unity of the Bible. Take for example IVP’s new(ish) Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, or J. B. Jordan’s Through New Eyes. Even seemingly mundane objects like trees, rocks, stars, rivers, plants and so on tend to tie together developing ideas in Scripture, and the various biblical authors deploy these images quite deliberately to call to mind a vast multiplicity of associations between biblical themes.

Within this framework, the first time a particular object, person or institution is mentioned tends to take on a particular significance. For example, a person’s first words may set the agenda for that person’s life, as in the case of Jonah – ‘A Hebrew am I’ (Jonah 1:9) – whose nationalistic exclusivism provides the thrust for much of the plot in the book that bears his name.

Or consider the notion of covenant, so central to the structure of biblical revelation, which is first mentioned explicitly in connection with Noah (Gen 6; 9). In particular, consider the purpose of the first (explicitly defined) covenant sign – the rainbow. It’s purpose is to remind God to keep his promises. Thus the LORD says:

I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth. (Genesis 9:13-16)

Presumably, therefore, this should inform our understanding of the purpose of other covenant signs established later in Scripture. Their purpose is not so much to remind us of our covenant obligations and privileges (though no doubt this is one aspect of their purpose), but to ‘remind’ God (in whatever sense an omniscient Creator ‘needs’ a reminder) to keep his covenant promises.

To give a name to something is to assert authority over it. (p. 68)

Man names woman … [indicating] that she is expected to be subordinate to him. (p. 70)

A couple of other points:

1. It’s interesting that Adam names his wife twice – 2:23 (Woman) and 3:20 (Eve). This highlights another aspect of naming – it can be vocationally descriptive. The name of something can tell us what it’s for, or something else important about it.

Thus the narrative comments following Adam’s two namings of Eve are noteworthy. The similarity between ‘man’ (Ish) and ‘woman’ (Ishshah) in 2:23 highlights the woman’s origin – ’she was taken out of man’ (2:23). And ‘Eve’ is derived from the Hebrew for ‘life’ (indeed, it’s translated Zoe, meaning ‘life’, in the LXX) – a clue to Eve’s role as ‘the mother of all the living’ (3:20).

2. Although naming is one aspect of exercising dominion, it’s only a very basic and elementary aspect. Naming something in the creation is the necessary prerequisite to doing anything else with it, but it’s hardly the end of the road. Thus Adam’s naming of the animals should be seen both as a symbol of the authority God had given him, and also as the first step along a long road towards filling and subduing the earth (1:28) – a journey that Adam’s redeemed descendants still travel.

‘And the LORD was sorry [nhm] that he had made ['sh] man on the earth, and it grieved ['tsb] him to his heart.’ (Genesis 6:6)

• How does Jesus feel, and what does he do, when he sees the ‘great crowd’ in verse 34?
• What problem emerges in verses 35-36? How does Jesus solve it in verses 37-42?
• What happens when Jesus and his disciples arrive at their destination (verses 53-56)? Can you remember where something similar has happened before?
• This section of Mark’s Gospel echoes the rich symbolism found in Psalm 23, a famous Psalm from the Old Testament. Look at the opening lines of Psalm 23 (below). How do they relate to the different episodes in this section of Mark’s Gospel? What does this tell us about Jesus?

The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. (hint: see Mark 6:34)
He makes me lie down in green pastures. (hint: see Mark 6:39)
He leads me beside still waters. (hint: see Mark 6:48-51)
He restores my soul. (hint: see Mark 6:56)

Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

Jesus’ body was broken so that his Body, the church, could be made whole.

John 19:34

One of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.

Jesus’ blood was poured out in death so that by faith we could drink this wine and be strengthened in life.

Paul Ellingworth, Hebrews (NIGTC). Lots of technical detail. Hard to read. Sometimes hard to see the wood for the trees. But, on the other hand, trees are often helpful.

F. F. Bruce, Hebrews (NICNT). Useful, though less detail than Lane and Ellingworth, and sometimes a bit more help with the flow of the argument would be useful. Evangelical.

John Owen, Hebrews (7 vols). Vast, slightly (!) overwhelming. Preterist reading, which may be unfamiliar to some. But I dare you to dismiss his interpretation without reading it. All of it. Or else he’ll not be happy when he catches up with you…

And Judah and Israel lived in safety, from Dan even to Beersheba, every man under his vine and under his fig tree, all the days of Solomon.

The vine and the fig tree here speak of the security and peace enjoyed by Judah and Israel during the reign of Solomon. Such produce of the land fulfilled the expectations of e.g. Deuteronomy 8:8 (cf. also 1 Kings 4:20), besides testifying in a very practical way to the fact that they had rest from war. After all, cultivating vines is pretty labour-intensive, and the plants tend to suffer if you’re always dashing off to deal with invading armies.

Thus wine speaks of safety, security, peace.

• What does Jesus do in verses 1- 2?
• What is strange about the people’s response in verses 2-3? How does Jesus explain and describe their response in verses 4-6?

How does this episode illustrate the old maxim, ‘Familiarity breeds contempt’?

• Why did Herod put John in prison (verses 17-19)?
• What did Herod really think of John the Baptist (verse 20)?
• In verses 21-28, how did Herod place himself in a dilemma? What picture of Herod emerges from this episode?

What lessons should we learn from Herod’s mistakes?

• How does Mark describe the woman’s illness in verses 25-26?
• What does the woman decide to do in verses 27-28? Why might she have thought this was a good idea? (Hint: see Mark 1:40-42.)
• What happens to the woman in verse 29? What is surprising about Jesus’ response (verses 30-32)?

How does this episode highlight the uniqueness of Jesus’ power?

• How serious is the little girl’s condition in verse 23? What happens during the delay while Jesus is healing the woman (verse 35)?
• What different attitudes do the onlookers show in verses 35 and 38-40?
• How does Jesus react to the situation in verses 36-37 and 41?

What do these different reactions tell us about Jesus’ attitude to death?

People sometimes misunderstand what Jesus is saying here. They wrongly imagine that he is doing away with the category of law as such, and replacing it with love: ‘The Old Testament taught about law; Jesus taught about love.’

The problem with this ought to be obvious. The Bible commands us to love. Consequently, if commandments as a category are now to be abandoned, then by the same token love is lost as well. Listen to John Frame:

Scripture clearly makes love a command of God. That fact immediately rules out any opposition or antithesis between love and commandments in general. Any arguments directed against the keeping of commandments in general carry equal weight against the keeping of the love commandment specifically. But in an ethic governed by Scripture, such arguments carry no weight at all. (Frame, Doctrine of the Christian Life, pp. 194-195)

The relationship between law and love works equally the other way. Not only does the Bible command us to love; it also tells us that true love is necessarily expressed in obedience to God’s commands. For example:

You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. (Deuteronomy 6:5-6)

Frame again: ‘Jesus says that those who love him will keep his commands’ (p. 195; cf. John 14; 1 John 2; 5; 2 John).

• Jesus tells a parable in verses 1-9 about ’seed’ and four types of ’soil’. How does he explain this imagery in verses 14-20?

Each of the next two parables highlights a different aspect of how God’s kingdom grows.

• What do verses 26-28 teach about how God’s kingdom will grow?
• What do verses 30-32 tell us about the future prospects for God’s kingdom?

What encouragements are offered by the two parables in verses 26-32?

And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, ‘Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?’ And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.’

Once upon a time there was a great King, who lived in a magnificent palace surrounded by a beautiful garden. And the king had a gardener. The king gave the gardener everything he needed and more besides, but the gardener was lazy and wicked. He didn’t care for the King’s garden, but stole its produce and mocked the King behind his back.

The King knew about all this, of course, and one day confronted the gardener with a long list of his offences. Horrified and ashamed at his own wickedness, the gardener turned to leave, but the King called him back.

Instead of suing the gardener to regain his stolen property, the King forgave him. More than that, the King invited him to take up residence with him in the palace, and to join him at his own table.

The gardener was overwhelmed at the King’s generosity. Occasionally he looked back at his former sins, and felt guilty for what he’d done. He sometimes didn’t feel that he belonged in the King’s house at all – he certainly didn’t deserve a place at his table!

But the gardener knew that the King wouldn’t want him to think in this way. After all, the King had decided to forgive him! However intensely the gardener felt his unworthiness, he knew that the King loved him more. ‘These wonderful meals are a celebration of my King’s abundant kindness,’ he said to himself, ‘not an opportunity for me to feel sorry for myself!’

So the King and the gardener rejoiced as they ate and drank together.

Sometimes we make the mistake of thinking that ’salvation’ (God’s gracious work of redeeming and restoring his people in Christ) and ‘judgment’ (in the sense of God’s condemning and punishing the wicked) are two very different things. In one sense this is true – certainly the two outcomes are poles apart for those on the receiving end. However, God’s gracious action in salvation is very closely tied to his mighty acts of judgment.

Psalm 79 is one of the many OT passages that highlight this connection. God’s people are rescued precisely by God’s judgment of the wicked, who are not only his enemies but also theirs. Israel’s enemies oppress them terribly (vv. 1-7). In response, God’s people cry out to him for compassion, salvation, deliverance and atonement (vv. 8-9). As they do so, they plead with God to act in vengeance against those who in taunting them have also taunted him (vv. 10-12, cf. v. 4).

Consider carefully the logic of vv. 11-13:

Let the groans of the prisoners come before you; according to your great power, preserve those doomed to die! Return sevenfold into the lap of our neighbours the taunts with which they have taunted you, O Lord! But we your people, the sheep of your pasture, will give thanks to you forever; from generation to generation we will recount your praise. (Psalm 79:11-13)

There is one body and one Spirit – just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call – one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

The oneness of Christ’s body, the church, is represented here by the oneness of the bread (1 Cor 10:17). Similarly, just as Christ’s body was broken, so also this bread is broken.

Christ’s body was broken; the bread is broken; the church is united.

• What effect does the Pharisees’ hostility to Jesus have on his popularity among ordinary people (verses 7-8)? How do verses 9-10 help to explain this?
• God’s Old Testament people, Israel, began from twelve men, the heads of the twelve tribes. How might Jesus’ appointment of twelve apostles (i.e. authorised representatives) fulfil and transform this Old Testament pattern?
• What accusation does Jesus face in verse 22? How does he reply in verse 23?
• What do verses 33-35 say about those who do God’s will?

What reassurance can Christians find in verses 33-35?

• Why did the Pharisees object to Jesus associating with Levi and his friends (verses 13-16)?
• How does Jesus’ response in verse 17 challenge the Pharisees’ preconceptions?
• Why didn’t Jesus’ disciples fast (i.e. abstain from food), according to verse 19? What does this tell us about Jesus?

The Pharisees wrongly accused Jesus of breaking the Old Testament Law about the Sabbath Day by allowing his disciples to pick grains of corn (verse 24), and by healing a man’s hand (verse 5). In fact, he merely challenged their man-made religious traditions.

• Why, according to Jesus, did God make the Sabbath (verse 27)? How do verses 3-5 illustrate this principle?
• How did the religious leaders react to Jesus (verse 6)?

People seem to react very strongly to Jesus – either very positively or very negatively. Why do you think this is so?

2. We have been enthroned through our sanctification (10-18)

This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD … I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

The forgiveness of sins is surely one of the greatest blessings of the New Covenant. Jesus said, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood’ (Luke 22:20). As you drink, remember and rejoice that your sins have been forgiven through Christ.

They are boys … in their youthful folly and adolescent bravado … Rehoboam’s folly is a characteristic folly of a ‘boy,’ a young man who chooses advisors full of youthful pride, cockiness and crudity, the type of companion against whom Proverbs warns repeatedly (13:20; 28:7; cf. Ps. 119:63). (Leithart, 1 and 2 Kings, p. 92.)

Christian men must heed this warning, or we shall very likely repeat Rehoboam’s stupidity. Unless we pay careful attention to our godliness, it’s possible to still be boys in our early forties, being ‘men’ only in the sense that we’re now big enough to do damage. Boys will be boys; men must not be. But the example of Rehoboam and ‘the boys’ reminds us that this won’t happen automatically. No one ever drifted into maturity.

• People with leprosy were social outcasts and regarded as spiritually ‘unclean’. In the light of this, what is unusual about what Jesus does in verse 41?
• Being ‘unclean’, lepers were forbidden from worshipping God in the temple. How is this man’s life changed in verses 42-44?

What does the example of this man’s healing show us about how Jesus can transform our lives?

• What is the man’s most obvious problem (verses 3-4)? In view of this, what is surprising about Jesus first words to him in verse 5?
• How do the scribes (Jewish leaders) react in verse 7? What does Jesus do in verses 8-12 to demonstrate that he has authority to forgive sins?

Our most serious problems often lie under the surface of our lives. What, according to this episode, is our most serious problem of all? What can Jesus do about it?

Isaiah’s response (15-17) is like a gasp of amazement at the sheer audacity of God! No one who saw the captives from Judah struggling to rebuild their shattered lives in Babylon would guess their significance. They were not a nation – scarcely even the remnant  of one, since all their national institutions had been destroyed. [But one day] the tables would be completely turned; idolaters, presently so powerful, would be put to chame, while God’s people, presently so weak and insignificant, would be saved with an everlasting salvation (16-17). (Webb, Isaiah, pp. 185-186)

For example, Acts 4:10-11.

Let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead – by him this man is standing before you well. This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone.

It’s just so matter-of-fact: You killed him; God raised him. You discarded the stone; God built the entire edifice around it.

Try it again if you like – persecute the church (Acts 8:1), scattering the believers, and they’ll take the gospel with them to the ends of the earth (8:4). The living God exploits the very conspiracies of his enemies to achieve his own purposes, turning around evil for good.

• What did the people think of Jesus’ teaching? Why?
• How does Jesus demonstrate the authority of his words in verses 25-26?

How should we respond to Jesus’ words today?

• What reaction does Jesus’ ministry produce in verses 28 and 32?
• How does Jesus demonstrate his power in verses 29-34?

Many people think that Jesus was just an inspiring religious leader and nothing more. Do you agree? Why or why not?

Brief introductions to the passage of Scripture are in normal paragraphs; bulleted questions are designed to open up the passage we’re looking at; questions for personal reflection are in italics.

Verse 1 introduces the book, and then John the Baptist, who prepared the way for Jesus, is introduced in verses 2-8. Jesus arrives on the scene in verse 9 and begins his ministry. Verses 16-20 record how some people responded to Jesus.

• What does verse 1 tell us about Jesus?
• What do we find out about John the Baptist in verses 2-8? According to verses 7-8, how does he compare to Jesus, who will come after him?
• Who speaks in verse 11? What does he say?
• What is Jesus’ message summarised in verses 14-15? How does Jesus want people to respond to him?
• What did the different people do when Jesus called them to follow him in verses 16-20?

How does your personal response to Jesus compare to the different responses in verses 16-20?

All the prosperous of the earth eat and worship.

It’s possible that ‘eating’ and ‘worshipping’ here are conceived as two separate acts. But it’s surely not impossible that they are identified: they worship by eating; they worship as they eat.

We worship God when we receive his created goodness with thanksgiving, honouring him in our hearts as the Provider.

I wonder why.

After the death of Solomon, the Israelites pleaded with Jeroboam to lighten the heavy workload imposed by his late Father (1 Kings 12:4). Here was the perfect chance for a new leader to show that he cared for the people; to earn their respect. Jeroboam initially turned for advice to the older men, who assured him that the people would respect and serve him if he dealt graciously and servant-heartedly with them:

If you will be a servant [Heb. 'ebed] to this people today and serve [Heb. 'abad] them, and speak good words to them when you answer them, then they will be your servants [Heb. 'abadiym] forever. (1 Kings 12:7)

But Rehoboam ignored their counsel, instead following the advice of ‘the young men who had grown up with him’ (v. 8) and adding to the already harsh burden of the people. Predictably, the northern tribes rebelled, and the kingdom was divided.

People will respect leaders who respect them.

Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Like the blood of the lambs at the first Passover, Christ’s blood shelters us from the wrath of God. And like the first Passover, the Lord’s Supper is a meal on the road to freedom.

How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire! And the tongue is a fire, and world of unrighteousness. (James 3:5b-6a)

1. The tongue is destructive. Obviously. You ever seen a forest fire?

2. Once its started, impossible to put out, and the trees 100 miles downwind are as good as dead.

3. The damage is irreversible. You can’t unburn charred wood.

If you look in your Bible, you’ll probably notice that 7:53-8:11 is separated from the main text by brackets, or relegated to a footnote. Some Bibles include an explanatory note saying something like, ‘The earliest manuscruipts do not include John 7:53-8:11.’ This is perfectly true. In fact, as Carson comments,

These verses … are absent from virtually all early Greek manuscripts that have come down to us … they are also missing from the earliest forms of the Syriac and Coptic Gospels, and from many Old Latin, Old Georgian and Armenian manuscripts. All the early church Fathers omit this narrative [and] a number of (later) manuscripts that include the narrative mark it off with asterisks or obeli, indicating a hesitation as to its authenticity. (Carson, John, p. 333)

It’s true that ‘most medieval Greek miniscule manuscripts’ (Carson, p. 333) include them, which is perhaps why the AV doesn’t indicate any doubt about their authenticity. But it’s almost certain that they weren’t in John’s original, which is why we’re not going to be reading them at church.

Of course, there’s ‘little reason for doubting that the event here described occurred’ (Carson, p. 333). Presumably reports about it circulated independently of John’s Gospel, and perhaps it was eventually added here at a later date to illustrate the theme of the Jews’ hostility to Jesus (a theme high on John’s agenda at this point). But that does not mean we should treat it (and therefore read it) as Scripture at church.

Two final thoughts. First, this isn’t something to get heated about. In all matters like this we’re just using our judgment to make what seems the wisest decision. There are many who believe we should follow the textual tradition represented in the AV, while others cannot in good conscience treat this passage as Christian Scripture. There will be other churches that follow a different practice to us; this is not something to fuss about or divide over.

Second, the fact that scholars are uncertain about the provenance of this episode highlights how extremely certain they are about the authenticity of the rest of the text. This isn’t a ’slippery slope’; we’re not about to take out the scissors and start hacking chunks out of God’s word. On the contrary, we praise God that his word has come down to us with such clarity, via such a large number of textual witnesses, that we can be to all intents and purposes certain that what we now have in front of us is what he wants us to read. The fact that little glitches like this are even noticeable at all testifies to the overwhelming certainty we have about the rest of his word.

2. Jesus is our conquering king!

3. Jesus is our joyful husband!

Cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 25:30)

‘It is never true to say that something “hurts like hell.” Nothing hurts like hell’ (John Blanchard).

They were not the first (nor, I suspect, will they be the last) believers to need such a reminder. The exiled Israelites who read Isaiah 49 were apparently stricken with a similar sense of incredulity about what God is capable of. Though the LORD assured them that he had ‘answered’ and ‘helped’ them (v. 8), they nonetheless cried, ‘The LORD has forsaken me, my Lord has forgotten me’ (v. 14).

In response, God urged them first to consider his character. Though a woman might (conceivably, though rarely) ‘forget her nursing child … yet I will not forget you,’ he declared (v. 15).

More than this, the LORD urged them to look around at what he would do. Not content with merely gathering Israel back to himself (cf. 49:6), he would bring in the nations in such numbers that the land would scarcely have space for them (vv. 18-21), at which point Israel’s incredulous disbelief would turn to incredulous joy:

Then you will say in your heart: ‘Who has borne me these? I was bereaved and barren, exiled and put away, but who has brought up these? Behold, I was left alone; from where have these come?’ (Isaiah 49:21)

This lesson is one that many of us, perhaps, need to learn. The LORD will demonstrate his power and manifest the glories of his grace by doing things that look to human eyes utterly unbelievable – drawing the people of the nations to him in such impossibly vast numbers that, in the end, we will be forced to conclude that only the LORD could have done it.

Then all flesh shall know that I am the LORD your Saviour, and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob. (Isaiah 49:26)

However, this brings with it a further danger. Mature Christians can become so preoccupied with the challenging decisions of daily life, not to mention the thrilling and enriching biblical answers to them, that other vital aspects of our faith can easily be neglected, if not displaced completely from the centre of our attention.

For example, it’s possible for our concerns about bringing up kids, our engagement with contemporary political and social issues, our zeal for evangelism and apologetics and our excitement about the profound depths of the Bible’s teaching to distract us from Jesus. There’s no need for this to be the case – there’s nothing intrinsic to the above concerns that should prevent us being Christ-centred. But just in terms of the sheer amount of time we spend thinking about different things, it’s easy to get out of balance and lose the centre.

How much time do we spend just thinking about and glorying in our magnificent Saviour?

Hebrews will re-orient our priorities. Because Hebrews is all about Jesus.

2. Jesus is the ruler of God’s creation

3. Jesus is the purifier of God’s people

5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, 6 not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, 7 rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, 8 knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. (Ephesians 6:5-8)

Here’s an encouragement to ‘obey your earthly masters … doing the will of God’ (vv. 5, 6): we will receive back from the Lord whatever good we do to others. I’m no economist, but presumably that a pretty strong incentive for ’slaves’ (v. 5), who spend most of their waking lives doing things for other people. Their chains will be refashioned as crowns.

This is perplexing, the Psalmist continues, because ‘we have not been false to your covenant’ (v. 17). Such an act of judgment would be understandable ‘if we had forgotten the name of our God’ (v. 20) and turned to idols, but (the Psalmist insists) we have not! So please, O LORD, ‘arouse yourself! Do not reject us for ever … Rise up, come to our help’ (vv. 23, 26).

It’s interesting to reflect on how this Psalm is quoted in the NT. Paul quotes v. 22 in Romans 8:36, where it describes the suffering of God’s faithful people under the New Covenant:

As it is written, ‘For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.’

Thus with the coming of Christ the way to be faithful to God’s covenant, such that we can rightly plead with God using the words of Psalm 44:23-26 and legitimately anticipate the covenant blessings recounted in Psalm 44:1-8, is to be in Christ, trusting in him and renewed by his Spirit (Rom 8).

2. The nations shall turn to the LORD (27-31)

Perhaps the most obvious facet of the Psalm’s teaching in this connection is that the hope, though still future, is undimmed. The fact that it is not yet experienced does not make it any less certain. Nor does it make the vision of the future any less magnificent, or the anticipated extent of God’s rule any less total. The Psalm teaches us to believe what God has said about his Son’s triumph, even though we don’t (yet) see it as clearly as one day we will, and even though our present trials sometimes make it hard to believe that the world is headed in the right direction.

To live like this is to live by faith, in the sense that it is to believe what God has said about the future while that future is still unseen. Faith in the Bible, though sometimes connected with believing in what is intrinsically invisible (God, for example), is also often connected with believing in what is now invisible only because it hasn’t yet happened. Think for example of the future blessings to which the heroes of faith looked forward in Hebrews 11. Faith is thus confidence in the future manifestation of a victory already accomplished.

But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your ‘yes’ be yes and your ‘no’ be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation.

No easy answers, I’m afraid. But isn’t it intriguing that oaths generally seem to bring more than their fair share of trouble throughout the Bible? For example:

But when Herod’s birthday came, the daughter of Herodias danced before the company and pleased Herod, so that he promised with an oath to give her whatever she might ask. Prompted by her mother, she said, ‘Give me the head of John the Baptist here on a platter.’ And the king was sorry, but because of his oaths and his guests he commanded it to be given. (Matthew 14:6-9)

Then they came near and said before the king, concerning the injunction, ‘O king! Did you not sign an injunction, that anyone who makes petition to any god or man within thirty days except to you, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions?’ The king answered and said, ‘The thing stands fast, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be revoked.’ Then they answered and said before the king, ‘Daniel, who is one of the exiles from Judah, pays no attention to you, O king, or the injunction you have signed, but makes his petition three times a day.’ (Daniel 6:12-13)

And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD and said, ‘If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whatever comes out from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites shall be the LORD’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.’ So Jephthah crossed over to the Ammonites to fight against them, and the LORD gave them into his hand … Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah. And behold, his daughter came out to meet him with tambourines and with dances. She was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter. (Judges 11:30-32, 34)

Now the men of Israel had sworn at Mizpah, ‘No one of us shall give his daughter in marriage to Benjamin.’ And the people came to Bethel and sat there till evening before God, and they lifted up their voices and wept bitterly. And they said, ‘O LORD, the God of Israel, why has this happened in Israel, that today there should be one tribe lacking in Israel?’ (Judges 21:1-3)

And that’s just for starters. I’m sure someone will figure it out and let me know. But for now, best just to listen:

Be not rash with your mouth, nor let your heart be hasty to utter a word before God, for God is in heaven and you are on earth. Therefore let your words be few. (Ecclesiastes 5:2)

B   Israel’s seed [zr'] shall serve the Lord (23)

C     The afflicted/poor ['nw] shall eat ['kl] and be satisfied (24-26)

C’     The rich shall eat ['kl] and bow down [schh] (27-29)

B’   The seed [zr'] of the nations shall serve the Lord (30a)

A’ The seed shall declare [spr] the Lord’s righteousness to the next generation (30b-31)

Note that the matching sections are about the same length, and that they make good lexical and theological sense (e.g. corresponding vocabulary;  B: Israel-Nations; C: poor-rich; etc).

22 I will declare [spr] your name to my brothers

in the midst of the congregation [qahal], I will praise you.

23 You who fear the LORD – praise him!

All you seed [zr'] of Jacob – glorify him!

And stand in awe of [from?] him, all you seed [zr'] of Israel!

24 For he has not despised and he has not scorned the affliction ['nw] of his afflicted ['nw],

and he has not hidden his face from him,

but when he cried to him, he heard!

25 From/to [?] you [is] my praise in a [the?] great congregation [qahal, v. 22]

my vows I will fulfil before those who fear him.

26 The afflicted ['nw, v. 24] shall eat ['kl] and be satisfied,

they shall praise him who seek the LORD

may your hearts live for ever!

27 They shall remember and return to the LORD, all the ends of the earth

They shall bow [schh] before you, all the tribes of the nations [goyim].

28 For to the LORD [is {belongs?}] the kingdom,

and he rules in [over?] the nations [goyim, v. 27].

29 They shall eat ['kl, v. 26] and bow [schh] – all the rich of the earth

30 Seed [zr', v. 23] shall serve him;

it shall be declared [spr, v. 22] of the Lord to a generation

31 They shall come, and they shall proclaim [ngd] his righteousness to a people being born,

that he has done it.

One way is to hold our hand. That way we can feel him near us, just as a child can feel the gentle squeeze and reassuring warmth of Mum’s hand .

The other way is rather like those reins that parents sometimes use to restrain their kids. They’re a bit like a slimmed-down parachute harness. Really handy – if the kid heads toward trouble, you can just haul him out of the way in no time.

The difference, of course, if that it’s not always possible to feel the reins, just as we don’t always feel God’s closeness to us. But just like a parent holding tight to the reins, God is always holding us tight, even when we don’t feel him.

Remember this when you’re praying Psalm 22. While we can legitimately pray v. 1: ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ remember that we’re never truly forsaken. For Christ was utterly forsaken once for all in our place, and has transformed that path of forsakenness from a place of punishment to a road towards maturity.

To such couples Psalm 78:5-8 offers great encouragement.

He established a testimony in Jacob and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers to teach to their children, that the next generation might know them, the children yet unborn, and arise and tell them to their children, so that they should set their hope in God and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments; and that they should not be like their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation, a generation whose heart was not steadfast, whose spirit was not faithful to God. (Psalm 78:5-8)

Every thousand-generation dynasty of faithful Christian believers will be able to trace its lineage back to its first parents.

Pray that God would grant you that privilege.

Men wanted for hazardous journey. Small wages. Bitter cold. Long months of complete darkness. Constant danger. Safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in case of success.

Not a very attractive proposition, is it? I imagine that many enthusiastic explorers were dissuaded from applying! But this was no doubt Shackleton’s intention. He knew that his own path would be marked by hardship and struggle, and he knew that those who followed him must be prepared for the same.

The Lord Jesus was equally clear about the hardships that awaited him, and just as honest about the likely cost to his followers. In Mark 8, when Peter finally recognised Jesus as the Christ, Jesus immediately began to explain that he himself ‘must suffer many things and that he must be killed’ (Mark 8:31). Anyone wanting to be Jesus’ disciple ‘must deny himself and take up his cross’ (v. 34) and follow him.

We’re already seen that Jesus turned aside God’s wrath from his people and defeated the devil at the cross. Let’s now think about the third great achievement of the cross: it provides the ultimate example of sacrificial service of others.

This seems to be a lesson that James and John had trouble grasping. They were going up to Jerusalem (Mark 10:32), where Jesus knew that death awaited him. Let’s pick up the story from v. 35:

And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came up to him and said to him, ‘Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.’

Always a smart move: try to get someone to agree before you make an outrageous request. The conversation continues with Jesus’ reply (v. 36):

And he said to them, ‘What do you want me to do for you?’ And they said to him, ‘Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.’

They’re asking for the places of ultimate privilege among God’s people. They want to sit at the top table in his everlasting kingdom. They want the places of honour in the New Creation; they want the highest reward.

The interesting thing is that Jesus doesn’t actually rebuke them for desiring places of honour. It would have been easy for Jesus to say, ‘No, you can’t have the high places. In fact, you shouldn’t even be seeking them. You should want to have nothing at all – ever – in the kingdom of God.’

But he doesn’t say this. He tells them that they don’t know what they’re talking about, and he tells them that it is his Father’s prerogative to grant blessings in the New Creation. But he doesn’t criticise the desire for blessing. On the contrary, the Bible explicitly encourages us to seek blessings from God. Take Psalm 37:4, for example:

Delight yourself in the LORD, and he will give you the desires of your heart.

So what was the disciples’ problem? The answer comes later, when the rest of the disciples hear about this conversation, and start arguing among themselves.

And when the ten heard it, they began to be indignant at James and John. And Jesus called them to him and said to them, ‘You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. (vv. 41-44)

Here’s the problem. Jesus’ disciples are competing with each other, striving for positions of authority. They all want to be the boss, and they want it now. They want to be in charge, they want to be respected, and admired, and privileged, and they don’t want to wait. And they certainly don’t want any hardship along the way. They’re acting just like the rest of the world – just like ‘the rulers of the Gentiles’ (v. 42). They don’t want life to cost them anything. They want God’s blessings at the expense of everyone else.

Again, notice that Jesus doesn’t criticise the desire to be ‘great’. On the contrary, in vv. 43-44 he assumes that it is a good thing! But he gives a simple recipe for achieving true greatness: ‘whoever would be great among you must be your servant,  and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all.’

This is the route to true greatness: slavery. If you want to be first (and you should, according to Jesus), you need to place yourself at the bottom of the pile. You need to place everyone else’s concerns above yours. Because the first will be last, and the last first.

And who’s the ultimate example of true greatness? Where do you have to look if you want to see how to be ‘first’? Look at v. 45:

For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

Jesus’ death on the cross is the ultimate example of true service. He did the costliest thing possible, to bring the greatest benefit possible, to as many people as possible, all at his own expense. Jesus was a slave, and Jesus is our example.

So whenever you find yourself in any situation, at any time where you’re not sure what to do, just ask yourself this simple question: ‘What would a slave do’? Because that’s what Jesus would do. So it’s what we should do.

This is the example of the cross.

Certainly there are lots of questions that Christians might ask about the devil. What does the devil do? Does he have any power over us? And if so, has Jesus done anything to defeat him? We find the answer to these questions in Zechariah 3.

In Zechariah 3, the prophet sees a vision of a heavenly courtroom, in which Joshua the High Priest, representing God’s people, stands before Almighty God. Beside him stands Satan, the devil, and here we discover what Satan does. Look at v. 1:

Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him.

Satan accuses God people. Indeed, the name ‘Satan’ means ‘accuser’. Satan stands before God like a prosecution lawyer, listing the sins we have committed against God. ‘Look!’ he says to God, ‘Look at those people, whom you have created! Look at their wickedness! Look at how they mistreat each other! Look at how they ignore your law! Look at how they make other gods for themselves, and ignore you, the only true God!’

Satan’s case is well founded, for his accusations are true. For v. 3 says, ‘Joshua was standing before the angel, clothed with filthy garments.’ These filthy garments symbolise the sin that defiles not only Joshua, but all of God’s people.

This explains why the Bible describes Satan as ‘the one who has the power of death’ (Hebrews 2:14). Satan has no power of his own to impose the death penalty; only God can do that. But Satan stands before God, demanding that he should impose the penalty that he – God – has stipulated. And since God is a righteous judge, he cannot ignore the charges that Satan brings.

So it seems that Satan is a powerful enemy indeed. He holds the power of accusation – he accuses us of sin before God. And because we have sinned, he holds the power of death, because death is God’s penalty for sin. God cannot lie, so sinners cannot live.

How is this great enemy to be defeated? We discover the answer in vv. 4-5:

And the angel said to those who were standing before him, ‘Remove the filthy garments from him.’ And to him he said, ‘Behold, I have taken your iniquity away from you, and I will clothe you with pure vestments.’ And I said, ‘Let them put a clean turban on his head.’ So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the LORD was standing by.

In Zechariah’s vision, God’s provides a wonderful solution to Joshua’s predicament: a change of clothes. His filthy garments, symbolising his sin, are taken from him, and replaced with clean robes, ‘pure vestments’ (v. 4).

This means that Satan no longer has any power over him, because his accusations are now not true. Joshua has been purified. He no longer stands before God defiled and guilty, but pure and sinless. Satan says, ‘Look at this filthy, loathsome sinner!’ And God replies, ‘Where? I can only see a man dressed in white robes, a righteous man, a priest fit to serve in my temple.’ Satan’s accusations are silenced, and so Satan’s power is broken.

This is a vivid picture of what Jesus Christ did to break Satan’s power over all his people. Just as Satan stood before God, accusing Joshua of sin, so also he accuses each of us. He stands before God brandishing a list of sins – sins of which we are all guilty. ‘Look at those people,’ he says, ‘Look! Look at their wickedness! Look at how they mistreat each other! Look at how they ignore your law! Look at how they make other gods for themselves, and ignore you, the only true God!’

But God took that list of sins out of the hand of Satan, and nailed it to the cross of Christ. The sins that God’s people have committed are the sins for which Christ died. Listen to how the apostle Paul described what happened at the cross:

And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. (Colossians 2:13-15)

According to Paul, the ‘record of debt’ was cancelled. The list of sins was taken away, and was nailed ‘to the cross’. Christ died under the condemnation due to us for our sins. This means that Satan no longer has any power over God’s people. He can accuse us all he likes, but now his accusations are false. Just as Joshua stood before God dressed in pure vestments, so also we stand holy and righteous in God’s sight.

Satan’s hold over us is broken; we need not fear his accusations.

When Satan tempts me to despair
And tells me of the guilt within,
Upward I look and see Him there
Who made an end of all my sin.

This is the victory of the cross.

These events are not just ‘bad news’; they’re sickening. They’re hard even to listen to. They’re so ghastly that TV presenters sometimes warn us beforehand, ‘You may find some of these images disturbing.’

We find something similar in Psalm 22. This Psalm is the first-hand account of how a king – King David of Israel – suffered terribly at the hands of his enemies. Like all the Psalms, it speaks also about a greater king, the Lord Jesus Christ. And so Psalm 22 vividly depicts the trial, suffering and death of Jesus.

As we read through the Psalm, perhaps you noticed how accurately it describes the events of the first Good Friday.

Consider how Jesus was rejected by so many of his own people. Then look at v. 6:

I am a worm and not a man, scorned by mankind and despised by the people.

Consider how the chief priests and the scribes taunted Jesus, saying, ‘He saved others; he cannot save himself. Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross that we may see and believe’ (Mark 15:31-32). And then look at vv. 7-8:

All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads; ‘He trusts in the LORD; let him deliver him; let him rescue him, for he delights in him!’

Consider how Jesus hung naked as the soldiers gambled for his clothing. Then look at vv. 16-18:

Dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet. I can count all my bones – they stare and gloat over me; they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.

This Psalm – written many hundreds of years before Christ – paints an eerily accurate picture of his suffering and death. And it’s an image we might well find disturbing.

I wonder, what would you think about a man who suffered in this way? If you heard a report on the radio of such a barbarous act of torture, how would you feel about the victim? Perhaps you would feel pity. Perhaps you would feel outrage – how could people do this to each other? Perhaps you would feel helpless, frustrated, powerless to prevent such a shocking injustice. All of these feelings would be quite understandable.

But how would you feel if you discovered that the victim had suffered willingly? If he had resolutely set out for the city where he knew he would be tortured, if he had rebuked those who tried to stop him? If he had prayed that his heavenly Father would actually bring about his death, and despite his understandable terror, had willingly submitted to his Father’s will? Perhaps you would think he was insane. Yet Jesus did all these things (Luke 9:51; Mark 8:31-33; 14:36; John 17:1).

Surely you would want to know why. What drove the Lord Jesus Christ to suffer willingly in this way? We hear a hint of the answer from his own lips during the final minutes of his life. As Jesus hung on the cross, he quoted from part of Psalm 22. But he didn’t choose any of the verses we looked at previously, despite the accuracy with which they describe his experience. Instead, he quoted the very first words of the Psalm: ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ (v. 1)

This tells us what was foremost in Jesus mind. It was not the physical trauma of crucifixion; it was what lay behind it: the anguish of being forsaken, abandoned, by God. According to the Bible, being abandoned by God is a punishment for sin. God abandons those who have abandoned him, following gods of their own making. This is something that all people have done, in one way or another, and so this terrible fate is what all people deserve.

This takes us to the heart of the meaning of Good Friday. Christ suffered the punishment that sinners like us deserve, in our place, so that we might be spared from it. What made the cross so appalling was not, in the end, the crown of thorns and the nails. It was not the rejection of his own people and the brutality of the Romans. It was the experience of divine wrath, abandonment by God, that Jesus endured in our place. And Jesus suffered this in order that we might be delivered, rescued from it.

This is the deliverance of the cross.

Most obviously, there are the bulls, lions and dogs of vv. 12-21, arranged chiastically, with the added twist that the (domestic, though a little scary) bulls of v. 12 have turned into wild (and therefore utterly terrifying) oxen by v. 21.

A – Bulls (12)

B -   Lion (13)

C -     Dogs (16)

C -     Dog (20)

B -   Lion (21)

A – Wild oxen (21)

These animals are described in similar terms to the mockers of vv. 6-8 (compare for example v. 7 with v. 13). Indeed, the animals are almost grotesquely personified: they ’stare and gloat’ (v. 17), and in v. 20 David pleads to be delivered from (literally) ‘the hand [Heb. 'yad'] of the dog’. Perhaps the violent aggression of the animals (vv. 12-21) is intended not as a description of something different from the sophisticated contempt of the mockers (vv. 6-8), but as another angle on the same experience.

Then there’s v. 6: ‘I am a worm and not a man’. Assailed by animals, David himself becomes almost dehumanised – a worm, a creature of death.

Finally, there’s another animal in the superscription: ‘The Doe of the Dawn’. In almost every biblical occurrence, the Doe is a symbol of life, vigour, freedom. For example:

He made my feet like the feet of a deer and set me secure on the heights. (2 Sam 22:34)

Naphtali is a doe let loose that bears beautiful fawns. (Gen 49:21)

But there’s one exception. Jeremiah 14:5 says that in the severest of famine ‘even the doe in the field forsakes her newborn fawn because there is no grass.’ The occcurrence here of ‘doe’ and ‘foresake’ in such close proximity is striking, for the same two words appear right at the start of Psalm 22. Perhaps Jeremiah 14:5 finds an ominous echo in Psalm 22. Perhaps the doe, so often representing life and freedom, is in Psalm 22 twisted into a symbol of abandonment.

The world will no longer invade the vineyard; the vineyard will invade the world … Here at last will be the fulfilment of the promise made to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3. (p. 113).

Membership of the international people ‘people of God’ comes with ‘the acknowledgement that salvation is found nowhere else than in the God is Israel (45:22)’, as we bow in worship before him (p. 115).

Such worship is not an escape from reality but a return to it, and it is in returning to reality that the world, so long out of joint, will finally be made whole (66:22-23). (p. 115)

[The rebellious Israelites in the desert] tested God in their heart by demanding the food they craved. They spoke against God, saying, ‘Can God spread a table in the wilderness?’

Yes he can. Indeed, yes he has. Just as he set before the wandering Israelites the food they needed, so also he sets before us this feast, nourishing us as we feed on Christ by faith on our journey to the Promised Land.

Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies; you anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows.

The Lord does not lead us through the valley of the shadow of death merely in order to get us out the other side, but to take us somewhere better. He does not set before us an open plain, but a table, a bounteous banquet, an overflowing cup.

Just so, the Lord does not lead us through hard times merely in order to get us back where we started. He always takes us somewhere better. Refined through suffering, his people are being transformed through hardship more into the likeness of the Son.

A Psalm of David, when he changed his behaviour before Abimelech, so that he drove him out, and he went away.

It relates to the incident in 1 Samuel 21:10-15, where David took refuge in Gath at the court of the Philistine King Achish (=Abimelech?), only to be discovered as the great Israelite warrior who had ’slain … his ten thousands’ (v. 11). Realising that the Philistines would probably not sit idly by while an internationally feared assassin sat a few yards from their King, David ‘was very much afraid’ (v. 12). So he feigned insanity, with the result that the King of Gath threw him out as a lunatic rather than (perhaps) executing him as a would-be murderer.

In other words, David came within a whisker of an untimely end, and (humanly speaking) only this spur-of-the-moment ruse saved his life.

So perhaps this detailed superscription is intended to draw attention to two things:

1. The extreme depths to which the LORD sometimes allows his people to sink before finally delivering them.

2. The apparently desperate and forlorn character of the schemes by which the LORD’s deliverance sometimes takes effect.

So don’t despair if it feels like the LORD has let you go right to the edge. The darkest hour is just before the dawn.

4 But the LORD said, ‘Is it good that you burn with anger [lit, ‘that it burns to you’]?

5 Now Jonah had gone out from the city, and he sat to the east of the city, and he made for himself there a booth, and he sat under it in the shadow, until he might see what would happen in [to?] the city. 6 And the LORD God appointed [1:17] a castor-oil plant, and it went up over Jonah, to bring to pass a shadow over his head, to deliver him from his calamity [lit. ‘evil’]. And Jonah rejoiced over the castor oil plant – a great rejoicing. 7 And God appointed a worm in the going-up of the dawn on the next day, and it struck the castor-oil plant, and it withered. 8 And at the rising of the sun God appointed a scorching east wind, and the sun struck the head of Jonah, and he became faint. And he asked that his soul would die, and he said, ‘Better is my death than my life.’

9 And God said to Jonah, ‘Is it good that you burn with anger [lit, ‘that it burns to you’] about the castor oil plant?’ And he replied, ‘It is good for me to be angry – unto death!’

10 And God said, ‘You had compassion on the castor oil plant, which overnight came to be and overnight perished. 11 So should I not have compassion on Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 men who do not know their right hand from their left, and also many cattle?’

All three of Jonah’s speeches in chapter 4 end in a death wish – ‘please take my life from me, for it is better for me to die than to live’ (4:3, cf. vv. 8, 9). His second speech in chapter 1 is similar: ‘pick me up and hurl me into the sea’ (1:12). And his ’sermon’ (all five [Hebrew] words of it) in chapter 3 is along the same lines, except that this time the Ninevites are in the firing line: ‘Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown’ (3:4).

Apart from this, Jonah makes only two other speeches in the whole book. Jonah 1:9, which loses its superficial shine (does he really ‘fear the LORD’?) on the lips of a man who thinks he can get away with 1:3ff. In these circumstances, the opening words of 1:9 – ‘I am a Hebrew’ – sound more like the nationalistic boast we’d have expected by the time we read Jonah 4:2.

And finally, of course, there’s the Psalm of chapter 2 – fine words, but (like 1:9) hard to view as the reflection of a pious heart. At least, that’s what the fish seems to think: ‘it vomited Jonah out onto the dry land’ (2:10).

The LORD, by contrast, begins by summoning Jonah to preach to a rebellious nation – a summons which (it turns out) reflects his desire that they should not perish.

Apart from that, the LORD speaks directly only in chapter 4, where he spends considerably more time than Jonah deserves trying to persuade his no-good prophet to adopt a more positive attitude to the greatest Gentile revival in biblical history.

Jonah speaks words of exclusion, death and vomit-inducing hypocrisy.

The LORD speaks words of warning, grace and abundant kindness.

Peter T. O’Brien’s analysis is typically sane, thorough and insightful (Philippians [NIGTC], pp. 146-147).

The precise meaning of the verb politeuomai has occasioned considerable discussion … Most commentators have observed that politueuomai is not Paul’s customary word to describe Christian conduct or behaviour.

He continues, noting that according to R. R. Brewer, ‘the political overtones [of politeuomai] must be regarded as paramount in a highly Romanized Christian congregation in the colonia of Philippi.’

Again, O’Brien notes, E. C. Miller says that politeuomai in Hellenistic Jewish literature represented ‘a life lived [by Jews] “faithfully in the covenant relationship with God as manifested in obedience to Torah”.’ Thus ‘the exhortation in v. 27 is a call to those who confess Christ crucified and may be paraphrased as: “See to it that you are the true Israel, people who live not according to Torah, but who live a life worthy of the new law which is the Gospel about the Christ who is Jesus”.’

O’Brien’s verdict: ‘It is not necessary to see all the theological nuances and contrasts that Miller has read into the term. Nevertheless, politeuomai … probably does retain a shade of its original significance’, especially in view of ‘3:20, where it is followed by the same two verbs.’ As A. T. Lincoln puts it, ‘they belong to the heavenly commonwealth and, as its citizens, are to reflect its life.’

O’Brien should (indeed, one day certainly will) sit down some day with two other Peters. First:

The Philippians, so proud of being Roman citizens and so protective of Roman custom, needed to learn to live as citizens of a different commonwealth that placed new demands on its citizens … Paul was treating the Church as an alternative to the politico-religious organization of the city and the empire. (Peter Leithart, Against Christianity, pp. 28, 30

And second (far more significantly):

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. (1 Peter 2:9-11)

My soul will be satisfied as with fat and rich food, and my mouth will praise you with joyful lips, when I remember you upon my bed, and meditate on you in the watches of the night; for you have been my help, and in the shadow of your wings I will sing for joy.

As our mouths are satisfied with food, so our souls are satisfied with God himself.

And by ’soul’, understand not the ‘disembodied self’, but the (very much embodied) whole being.

The vision of God’s glorious and committed love provides the thirsting psalmist with life-sustaining satisfaction. Again, it is not some disembodied spiritual part of the psalmist that is being fed but his whole animated being – the self-aware nepes, which includes mind and body together. (Gerald H. Wilson, Psalms vol. 1, NIVAC, p. 891)

How precious is your steadfast love, O God! The children of mankind take refuge in the shadow of your wings. They feast on the abundance of your house, and you give them drink from the river of your delights.

Feasting on the LORD’s abundant blessings; taking refuge in the shadow of the LORD’s wings. Both are gifts of the steadfast love of the LORD.

As you eat and drink, look up by faith and see the wings of the LORD – hovering, protecting, sheltering, providing.

4 And Jonah began to go into the city, a journey of one day. And he called out, saying, ‘Forty more days, and Nineveh will be overthrown!’

5 And the men of Nineveh believed in God. And they called [cf. 3:2, 4] a fast, and they put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them to the least of them. 6 And the word [thing?] reached the King of Nineveh. And he arose [cf. 3:1] from his throne, and he caused his robe to pass off [pass over?] from upon him, and he covered [himself with] sackcloth, and he sat on the ashes.

7 And he made a proclamation, and he said in Nineveh, ‘From the decree of the King and his great ones: “The man and the beast, the herd and the flock – they shall not taste anything! They shall not feed, and water they shall not drink! 8 The man and the beast shall cover themselves with sackcloth! And let them call [3:2, 4, 5] to God mightily! And let man repent of his evil way and from the violence which [is] in his hand! 9 Who knows? God may turn [repent, 3:8] and have pity, and turn [repent; 3:8] from the burning of his anger, and we may not perish [cf. 1:14].”’

10 When God saw their deeds – that they turned [cf. 3:8, 9] from their evil way [cf. 3:8] – God had pity [cf. 3:9] concerning the disaster [evil, 3:8] which he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it.

On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. And he will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations.

A glorious banquet – a picture of the feast in the Kingdom of God.

While we swallow the rich food and aged wine of the Kingdom, the LORD will swallow up the ‘covering’ of death itself – the funeral shroud that covers all peoples.

And David said to [Mephibosheth] ‘Do not fear, for I will show you kindness for the sake of your father Jonathan, and I will restore to you all the land of Saul your father, and you shall eat at my table always.’

Mephibosheth would have been a pitiful figure. The grandson of Saul, he was crippled in both feet, having been dropped by his nurse while still an infant (2 Sam 4:4). He would doubtless have been looked on with disdain – hopeless as a soldier, unable to look after himself or even to stand with dignity.

Yet King David invited this outcast to share the highest privilege – to eat at the King’s table. As the courtiers and visiting dignitaries stode purposefully into the great hall to take their seats at the banquet, Mephibosheth would have hobbled – or perhaps even been carried – to his seat. And their he sat, enjoying all the blessings of life in the Messiah’s Kingdom, a trophy of the King’s grace.

Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counsellors there is safety. (Prov 11:14)

and Jonah was in the inner parts of the fish three days and three nights.

2:1 And Jonah prayed to the LORD his God

from the inner parts of the fish

2 I cried out from my distress to the LORD, and he answered me

from the belly of Sheol and called for help, and you heard my voice

3 You cast me [into] the depths, in the heart of the sea

all your breakers and your waves passed over me.

4 [But I], I said, ‘I have been driven away from before your eyes,

yet I shall surely look again toward your holy temple.’

5 Water encompassed me unto life, flood surrounded me

weeds were wrapped around my head

6 To the roots of the mountains I went down;

the earth – her bars closed upon me for ever

You brought up my life from the pit, O LORD my God

7 When my soul was feeble within me [?], the LORD I remembered

and it came to you, my prayer, to your holy temple

8 Watchers of the vanity of idols,

their steadfast love they forsake

9 But I, with a sound of a song of thanksgiving, will sacrifice to you;

that which I have vowed, I will make good.

Salvation [is] from [to?] the LORD!

10 And the LORD spoke to the fish, and it vomited Jonah onto the dry land.

A Jonah lurks in every Christian heart, whimpering his insidious message of smug prejudice, empty traditionalism, and exclusive solidarity. He that has ears to hear, let him hear and allow the saving love of God which has been outpoured in his own heart to remold his thinking and social orientation. (p. 235)

And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations (matheteusate panta ta ethne), baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,  teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’ (Matthew 28:18-20)

The Greek text of Matthew 28:19 (matheteusate panta ta ethne) should be translated, ‘disciple all the nations’, with ‘all the nations’ as the object of the verb. And it means exactly what it says.

Think about that for a moment.

If our Lord had wanted his followers merely to disciple people from every nation, there would have been at least three different ways of saying it, but Jesus chose none of them.

(FWIW, they are ek with the genitive [cf. Galatians 2:15; Revelation 5:9; 7:9; 11:9], en with the dative [cf. Acts 10:35], or apo with the genitive [cf. Acts 2:5; 15:19]).

As it stands, however, Matthew 28:19 is quite clear: the nations are to be discipled, as anticipated by the Abrahamic covenant (cf. Genesis 22:18).

This obviously entails that people within the nations are to be discipled, but it envisages more than this. Nations, as nations, will learn to conduct themselves in all their affairs (legal, political, economic, social, etc.) in obedience to the Lord.

John Owen got the hang of it:

The great promise of Christ is, that in these latter days of the world he will lay the nations in a subserviency to him, the kingdoms of the world shall become his; that is, act as kingdoms and governments no longer against him, but for him. (Owen, ‘Christ’s Kingdom and the Magistrate’s Power’, Works 8:390)

That is what is meant, properly speaking, by ‘A Christian Nation’.

Phillip Cary, Jonah (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible). Hilarious, insightful, glittering prose. Easy to read. Non-evangelical.

Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah (Word Biblical Commentary). Solid, informative, though sometimes under-reads the subtlety of the text. Technical. Evangelical.

Now the word of the LORD came to Jonah the son of Amittai, saying, ‘Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and call out against it, for their evil has come up before me.’ But Jonah rose to flee to Tarshish from the presence of the LORD. (Jonah 1:1-3)

What was he thinking?

By the time we get to 4:1-2, we discover one side of the answer: Jonah fled to Tarshish because he didn’t like the idea of God showing mercy to the Ninevites. And since God’s mercy has a habit of spilling out all over the place, the only safe course was to steer well clear. After all, the Ninevites didn’t deserve the grace of God, right? Er…

But there are always other sides to the answer in Jonah. Isn’t it possible, for example, that Jonah had in mind the appalling ungodliness of the Assyrian nation – particularly the sins they had committed against his own countrymen? How many of Jonah’s friends and family had been butchered by Assyrian soldiers during Israel’s defence of her borders (2 Kings 14)?

And here lies the danger for us. It’s not hard to love those with whom we are at peace; loving our enemies is the difficult thing. It can be tempting to justify (little?) sins against others on the grounds of the (greater?) sins they have committed against us.

Tempting. But never wise.

The remark by John Lennon, which triggered deep indignation mainly in the United States, after many years sounds only like a ‘boast’ by a young working-class Englishman faced with unexpected success, after growing up in the legend of Elvis and rock and roll.

I’m not sure exactly what the Vatican says this is, but it certainly is not forgiveness. This is revising the original estimate of the bad-ness of Lennon’s words (which may or may not be the right thing to do): ‘We used to think it was wicked, but we’ve changed our minds – it wasn’t so bad after all.’

That ain’t forgiveness.

Forgivenesss leaves the verdict of ‘wicked’ on the deed itself intact. It doesn’t redefine the action as ‘non-sinful’, but instead announces that the offence has been covered over, and the verdict reversed, whilst simultaneously insisting that it was a sin, and it would still be a sin if you did it again.

Forgiveness (well, God’s forgiveness, anyway) isn’t a make-believe re-write of history, with all the nasty bits rubbed out. God lets history stand intact, full of the glaring horror of human wickedness, and at the same time declares, ‘I won’t count that against you. Or that. Or that. Or even that.’

Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered;  blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin. (Romans 4:7-8)

Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. (James 3:13)

Listen to Thomas Manton:

Men of abstracted conceits and sublime speculations are but wise fools; like the lark, that soareth high, peering and peering, but falleth into the net of the fowler. (Thomas Manton, James, p. 299)