Comments for October 28

v.6 - This represented a very low rate of pay per soldier. Maybe they had also been promised the chance to plunder the enemy if they won the battle.

25:4 The passage appealed to here is Deuteronomy 24:16 We are all responsible for our own actions. This is a recurring theme in Scripture. However we like to blame someone else for our errors

v.2 - Personally I find it frightening that this scenario is shown here to exist. Where does a man stand who does that which is right in the eyes of the Lord but not with with a perfect heart. So many of us must feel that we fit this category. How much we all rely on the mercy of God!

25:9 Amaziah had sought support by seeking an alliance through the hiring of an army from Israel. On learning that he was not to use that means for defending himself it seems that his concern was for the money that he had spent. He had to be reminded by the prophet that the money was of no consequence. It was far more important to uphold the principles of the truth - do we learn this lesson?

25:21 Is telling us that the battle took place near to Beth Shemesh we realise that this battle took place only a few miles from Jerusalem, the capital of Judah. One might have thought this was a risky thing for Amaziah to get involved in.

25:2 When the record says that Amaziah did that which was right "but not with a perfect heart" the record is telling us that he simply went through the motions. How often are we just doing what is right but our heart is not in the actions?

V.4 Amaziah had been brought up in the fear of the Lord and the law of Moses was his schoolbook. That this had made a lasting impression on him is seen in his execution of those of those who had assassinated his father. Deut 24:16

Amaziah started his reign in a Godly way, and took the decision not to allow Israel to go to battle  with him because God's prophet said so.  But he very foolishly took back home the Edomite gods and worshipped them.  As God said through Ezekiel, "When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die:" Eze 3:20.

25:5 That Amaziah made them captains over thousands indicates that the social structure of the kingdom had fallen into decay. The captains were not simply military leaders. They were to be involved in the government of the people.

25:6  In hiring soldiers from the northern kingdom Amaziah did wrong. The prophet reproved him for that – 2Chron 25:7 – it was as if Amaziah sought strength through numbers with no regard to where his help came from. He had no regard to spiritual integrity in his allies. How are we on this matter? Are we selective about the people that we spend time with?

BE WHOLEHEARTED

25:3 In waiting until the kingdom was established before killing the servants who had killed his father we can conclude that those involved in that conspiracy were a powerful group who might even have destabilised the kingdom again

V.2 Amaziah served Yahweh reluctantly. He did the right things, but he did not do the things right.

Doing the right things without having the right attitude is not acceptable to Yahweh. The first, and greatest, commandment is: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37).

It is clear that Yahweh wants people to serve Him because they love Him. If serving Yahweh is bothersome, then it is only a matter of time before one falls away. Amaziah proved that. We have to examine ourselves to see whether we are half-hearted in our service to Yahweh.

25:1 Amaziah was one of the kings whose mother’s name is specifically mentioned. Though in most cases we know little or nothing about the mother at all. Maybe we are simply being reminded that the ‘seed of the woman’ was going to come and we are being taught that seed would be one of the kings of Judah.

V.4 See Deut 24:16.

V.5 Amaziah numbered those able for war. His heart must have been right with Yahweh, at this time, because Yahweh was not offended by his tabulation of fighting men.

Contrast the numbering of David (2Sam 24:2). His heart was full of pride when he numbered the people, and did not take Yahweh into account. Yahweh was offended with this, and punishment resulted (2Sam 24:12-14).

V.12 The brutal deaths of the Edomite captives must have been revenge killings for cruelty inflicted upon Judah at some point (Joel 3:19).

Since the separation of Jacob and Esau, the Edomites have been sworn enemies of Israel. But, Yahweh has vowed the demise of Edom, and all nations like Edom who hate God’s people (Jer 49:17).

V.14 Amaziah had just successfully routed the Edomites, with Yahweh’s help. And yet, incredibly, he brought back the gods of Seir and worshipped them.

If anyone wanted a good example of spiritual blindness and the pride of the human heart, this is it. In turning away from Yahweh, Amaziah signed his own death warrant (Eze 18:26). Let us never make the same mistake.

Vs.15,16 Amaziah scorned the voice of correction (Prov 13:1).

V.17 Being full of pride, Amaziah challenged Joash, king of Israel. This resulted in defeat and the capture of Amaziah (v.23). Jerusalem was damaged and looted (vs.23,24).

V.27 Amaziah received the inevitable punishment for his sin, which was death. Amaziah did not take ownership of his sins. Had he done so, he would have received mercy from Yahweh (Prov 28:13). Such is the pity of those who die in their sins. Let us make sure that we are true followers of Jesus, so that we may live and not die (Rom 6:23).

25:7 Jehoshaphat had made the mistake of allying himself with Israel. Now another prophet warns Amaziah. Whilst Israel were not to be viewed as an enemy association with them was to be on God’s terms

2Chron 25:14 - in worshipping other Gods Amaziah lacked fidelity to God - as the bride of Christ we are to be faithful (Eph 5:27,31,32;Rev 19:7-8;Prov 31:11-12;Dan 3:16-18).

2Chron 25:15-16 - Amaziah was arrogant and too proud to be corrected - how do we respond to God's correction? - how do we respond to our brethren's correction? - how do we correct (Matt 7:1-5;2Tim 2:24-26;2Cor 13:5;Matt 18:15-17;1Cor 5:11)?

2Chron 25:16,27 - prophecy given and prophecy fulfilled.

25:11  There is an interesting contrast here.  Amaziah sent away his hired army and then strengthened himself. How did he strengthen himself if he had sent his hired army away? The answer is that he trusted in God rather than an arm of flesh.

25:8  Amaziah had thought that hiring mercenaries would help. However God told him that victory or defeat came from God. The size of his army did not matter in the slightest. We do well to heed the warning. We might think that God is not involved in our lives today. However this is not so. God will fulfil His will in our lives.

25:15   There seemed to be a strange wrong idea that if one beat a foreign country in battle that one should also take their gods. However the king should have realised that if God had helped him overcome his enemies that their gods which in reality did not exist) were powerless. So why worship them?

2Chron 25:2 Not with a perfect heart. We have heard those words used elsewhere for someone else.

1Kin 11:4 Here we see Solomons heart wasnt perfect either.

Strongs has the meaning for perfect as "to be complete or at one" the root meaning being  "to be safe in mind".

Its talking about Amazaziahs and Solomons innermost thoughts not being at one with God therefore it wasnt safe. (In fact Solomons name comes from a root meaning of SHALEM which means to be safe).

James 1:7 A doubleminded man is unstable in all his ways.

Both these kings thinking were unstable when it came to God, David was a man after Gods own heart he was perfect in mind for though he did wrong he never turned his thinking away from God.

Frightening words arent they? Doing right in the sight of God but not with a perfect heart.

If Amaziah or Solomon were in our ecclesia today how would we know if his heart was perfect?

1/ In his attendance?

2/ His dress?

3/ His materialism?

4/ His study of the word?

Or would he show his commitment by only doing good works and showing how nice he is?

2Chron 25:9 Perhaps we may see Amaziah worried about money a little to much?

25:21-25     We learnt in verse :7 that God was not with Israel. However God still used them to humble Amaziah. This should remind us that God does use godless people to fulfil His will. 

25:17  So Amaziah “took advice”. We know it was not of the faithful prophet. It must have been of individuals who were as spiritually deprived as he was.  We should take care to ensure that we listen to right counsel rather than just seeking counsel which we know we will agree with.

Amaziah was able with a greatly reduced army to conquer the Edomites. Rather than ascribing that victory to God, in a curious twist of logic he started to worship the gods of the defeated nation (v15).

25:14  What was Amaziah thinking of? Yahweh had defeated the Edomites and, by implication, their gods. But, lest we point the finger at Amaziah, how often do we return to the ways that we claim to have shunned when we were baptised?

25:20  Amaziah’s downfall was “of God” however doubtless Amaziah though the decision he made was his own – which of course it was. In a marvellous way God’s will is fulfilled without man feeling constrained at all.

PRIDE

Amaziah started out as a very promising good king. But the time came when he went to battle, and because of the great success he had been given by God, he began to grow proud.  Amaziah's pride led to a whole lot of horrible outcomes in his life.

First his pride led to idol worship, then to not listening to God's word through the prophet he sent. His pride led to arrogance as he challenged the king of Israel to battle, and then it resulted in great losses, the partial destruction of Jerusalem, the loss of all his precious goods, the loss of morale in his army, and his freedom as his people plotted against him.

Pride is hard to see in our lives but it can lead to incurable destruction. It will happen bit by bit. There will be warnings, just like Amaziah was warned, but unlike him, we need to choose to accept them and to humble ourselves. Only then will God be able to lift us up and give us grace.

25:2     There are two ways in which one might obey God’s laws. One is by simply doing what one is told. The other is by appreciating that what God’s law contains is beneficial. Clearly the second option is best. In such a condition one has made a conscious choice because one feels that it is the best thing to do as well as being “right”. The alternative – simply by commandments lends itself to the ignoring of those laws when they are not convenient. As Scripture says the laws of God should enter our hearts.Deut 11:18

25:5   in counting those from twenty years and older Azariah was copying the numbering of Israel at the beginning of the wilderness journey – Num 1:3

25:28   the comment that “they brought him on horses” indicates a departure from the custom of using mules. Maybe an indication that the people were not as committed to serving God faithfully as was Amaziah.

25:27 Amaziah had been a good king - :1-2 – he turned away from God and, it seems, did not even repent when pursued but sought refuge in a city rather than in Yahweh his God.

25:14-17         Notice the contrast. Amaziah rejected the counsel of God’s prophet. He even threatened to murder God’s messenger. But Amaziah was not averse to taking advice. The trouble was he sought it in the wrong places! It is very easy to both know what is right and good but to choose the advice of others whose counsel is more appealing to us.

25:16 we might wonder at the king challenging the word of God through the prophet. However before simply condemning the king for his actions we should think about ourselves.

Every time we consciously do something that we know violates God’s teaching we are behaving exactly as the king.

25:12  We have to question the way in which Amaziah dealt with the captives that he took and then killed.

25:3-4  The way in which we are told of the way the king behaved and his motivation is one example of how Amaziah “did that which was right”.

v.9 - The king had promoted Daniel to great heights in the kingdom. He would clearly have known of Daniel's religious views and practices, and yet here he makes a decree that condemns his best man. This is the work of God, that His power might be demonstrated and that the tables might be turned - v.25-28

6:5 Can it be said of us that 'We shall not find any occasion against Daniel ...'. The only way that fault could be found was by causing Darius to set his words against Daniel's faith.
6:10 Daniel prayed toward Jerusalem. Solomon had counselled that this be done and requested that prayers offered thus by captives would be heard. see 1 Kings 8:30. Psalm 55:17 shows David praying three times a day.
6:14 the king knew that Daniel had been 'set up' His life before Darius was the testimony to his faithfulness. Darius knew that he had nothing to fear from Daniel. If we were slandered before our boss, friends, or superiors would we shine like Daniel or would the slanderous report be believed? Daniel is the example that should be seen in us. Of course it is essential that this way of life is maintained ALL the time. One cannot be upright one minute and deceitful and devious the next and gain credibility of the sort that Daniel had.

v.2 - We tend to interpret scripture to say that we, having here no continuing city, should have no part in the political aspects of the society in which we live, and yet so often men of God were placed in positions of high authority within the governments of their day. How do we reconcile this?

6:23 'no manner of hurt' matches 3:25 'they have no hurt' On the first occasion Nebuchadnezzar was concerned for the welfare of the three faithful men. On this occasion Darius was concerned for Daniel's welfare. Whilst the two events are years apart they show the continuing care that God has for his servants.

6:12 We may talk laughingly about the inflexibility of the Medes and Persians whose rules could not be changed. One wonders whether we ever see ourselves in their foolish legalism.

6:1 This chapter marks the beginning of the second section of Daniel's prophecy. However whilst we are now introduced to "Darius" we should be aware that we will return again to Belshazzar Dan 7 so we should not think of Daniel as being a chronological book.

V.16 Darius recognised Daniel's God as a god, but not the only true God. This is seen in the way he handles the situation here; I am not my own master, and cannot deliver thee,(V.14) however much as I wish it. "Thy God will"

Contrast Daniel with Amaziah that we have just read about.  Amaziah did that which was right, but not with a perfect heart (2Chron 25:2).  But Daniel had been consistently faithful through his sojourn under Babylon and now under the Medes. 

He became captive as a young man and was now about 80 years old at the time of the lion's den incident (v.16). 

Daniel faithfully prayed towards Jerusalem in keeping with Solomon's request concerning Jerusalem and the temple (1Kin 8).  Praying three times per day was not a law but a reasonable practice.  It seems David did the same thing (Psa 55:17).

Daniel was an echo of Christ: V.3,4,5,7,10,12 - There was a desire to set him over the whole kingdom. Two groups of people tried to find Daniel guilty of some crime but there was no corruption in him. These two groups of people accused him of matters having to do with the law of his God. There are trumped up accusations of him not showing loyalty to the king (Darius/Caesar). He goes to an upper room toward Jerusalem to pray which is similar to Christ going to an upper room (Mark 14:15, 22). There is another mention of 30 days and perhaps it is an echo of Christ having started his ministry about 30 years of age which is the age one is fit for service (Eze 4:6 - mentions a day for a year). Dan 6:13-17 - Another mention of three possibly echoes divine perfection or the three days in the pit plus resurrection from the pit on the third day. Darius like Pilate pronounces the death sentence regretfully. There is no evidence of Daniel opening his mouth to defend himself. Daniel is thrown in a hungry lion's pit (Christ the lion/king of the tribe of Judah) with a stone securing the entrapment (Matt 27:66). V.19,21,22 - at the first light of dawn he was alive, there was angelic assistance, he was innocent of doing wrong (Mark 16:2-4;Heb 11:33;Mark 16:5;1Pet 2:22;Heb 4:15). V.23 - He was elevated out of the pit and not a bone of his was broken (John 20:9;Luke 24:6;Acts 2:27,31;John 19:36).

At last the kingdom of the Medes and Persians was better off! “The presidents and princes” were eaten by the lions, and Godly Daniel helped the king to rule (Dan 6:24,28).

6:1  Having shown us what the men of flesh thought about the future which had to be interpreted by God we are now shown the conflict between the things of God and things of men – The men of flesh fight against the man of the spirit.

6:22  We know that it was Daniel’s personal faith in his God which saved him – Heb 11:33

5:31; 6:1 The Darius mentioned was Cyrus' governor Gubarus (538-536 BC), according to the historical document the Nabonidus Chronicle.  He was the son of Ahasuerus (Xerxes) (Dan 9:1). 

Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BC and died in 530 BC, about six years after Daniel died. After the death of Belshazzar, Cyrus put Darius as viceroy over the kingdom.  It should be noted that Darius is a title and not a proper name.  It was a title meaning Lord-King which was applied to many Medo-Persian kings. 

10:1 We know that Daniel was alive in the third year of Cyrus.  Don't be confused by 1:21 which is referring to the official end of the exile when Cyrus took over from Babylon.

6:28 Whilst it says here that Daniel ‘prospered’ it is clear that he had a rather chequered career as we noted in 5:11 he seems to have been overlooked. By the time of Cyrus Daniel would have been an old man.

6:26 That the kingdom that "shall not be destroyed" is a refrain which starts in 2:44 and is seen again in 7:14 and is contrasted with the end of ‘raiser of taxes’ – 11:20 who will be destroyed.

V.4 Jealousy goes way back to Cain and Abel. Cain’s jealousy of Abel’s accepted sacrifice drove him to murder his brother. Nothing had changed by Daniel’s time, and the same emotion is prevalent today. That is because human nature has never changed (Ecc 4:4).

V.8 The religion of the Medes and Persians was Zoroastrianism (first recorded in history in the 5^th.Century BC). The divinity in Zoroastrianism is Ahura Mazda (known by other names e.g. Ohrmazd).

The kings of the Medes and Persians were considered faultless representatives of Ahura Mazda. Therefore, any laws of Mede or Persian kings were incontestable, and could not be changed.

Vs.14,15 The king looked for a way of delivering Daniel. However, he was reminded of the indisputable law of the Medes and Persians. When a decree was made by a king, it could not be altered. The king was handcuffed by his own decree.

V.24 The unalterable law of the Medes and Persians, manipulated by the royal officials against Daniel, had now boomeranged to their demise (Prov 26:27).

V.27 Daniel’s longevity, by the grace of Yahweh, had seen him serve under Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-merodach, Belshazzar, Darius, and Cyrus.

The world empire of Babylon had been taken over by the Medes and Persians. Darius needed to effectively govern this vast area, and decided it would be best done by 120 local rulers, all reporting to 3 top men. Daniel was the best of the top 3 (v3). Can you imagine all that power and authority? So when Darius gave thought to elevating Daniel as supreme ruler over all the others, racism and jealousy kicked in, just as it had when Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego had been promoted (2:49, 3:8,12).

Verse 6 suggests it was almost all the 122 of them that agreed to trap Daniel. Can you imagine the impossibility of Daniel governing this great empire if all his underlings were jealous and murderous against him? So God's solution was not only to save Daniel from immediate death by lions, but also to rid him of all of his accusers. Possibly every one of the 122 rulers of this empire were thrown to the lions along with their families (6:24) which must have been a spectacle that was talked about for generations. No wonder Daniel prospered from then on, now that virtually all rivals to his skills at rulership were gone (v28).

6:7 This is similar to the way in which, some years later, evil men conspired together to have Jesus condemned to death by a gentile power through the actions of Pilate. The way these men behaved is typical of Godless men – Character assassination. May we never use such ways to bring about our own aims.

6:7-8   The suggestion, as it appealed to the vanity of human nature, was destined to be implemented. How often are our decisions based upon human pride?

6:14    In what way did Darius ‘labour’. The record is silent however we might consider that he spoke with Daniel maybe trying to convince him that he would not be violating his conscience if he did make a petition to God through the king.  Whilst we do not know we may contemplate on how we react to attempts to compromise our faith, especially when the attempt is instigated by one who seems to us to be ‘on our side’.

6:7      This conspiracy to try and compromise Daniel is just like the conspiracy in Daniel 3 where anyone who did not bow down to the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up would be killed. Chapter  3:5 speaks of the time of Nebuchadnezzar. This chapter speaks of the times of Darius – maybe 50 plus years later. This we see the consistency of the faithful to the service to God.

1. Dan 6:1 - is this the same Darius as Darius the Median (Dan 5:31)? It should be noted that in Dan 6:28 the word "and" can also be rendered "even" which would potentially allow for the title of Darius to apply to Cyrus the Persian in Dan.6:1-28.

2. Dan 6:2 - the three presidents are likely represented by the three ribs in the mouth of the bear (Dan 7:5).

3. Dan 6:2,10,13 - the mentions of 3 remind us of the 3 days in the pit, the resurrection on the third day, and divine perfection as noted in a previous comment. 

4. Dan 6:3,6 - because Daniel was preferred, and considered to rule the whole kingdom, others were jealous of him much as the leaders of the Jews were jealous of Christ so they assembled themselves (and both were at least figuratively murdered by men who governed).

5. Dan 6:4 - neither Daniel or Christ had any fault found in them (Exo 12:5;Mark 14:55-59;1Pet 2:22;Heb 4:15).

6. Dan 6:7-9 - a trap was set for Daniel and Christ to take advantage of their righteousness (Mark 14:1,2,10,43-46,61-64).

7. Dan 6:13 - he's Jewish, he doesn't regard the king, he's breaking the law (which they crafted to depose of Daniel as a result of their jealousy) which can be compared to Christ (John 19:21;18:33-35;19:7,12,15;Luke 23:1-2;John 11:46-53;18:30-31;Mark 15:10,28;Matt 27:4).

8. Dan 6:14-16 - the saddened king realized that a trap had been set for Daniel and he reluctantly went along as did Pilate (Mark 15:10;John 19:12,15;Matt 27:19,23,24).

9. Dan 6:20 - both Daniel and Christ were delivered from death.

10. Dan 6:23 - Daniel was not hurt because he believed (i.e. had faith) in his God.

11. Dan 6:24 - with both Daniel and Christ, godliness defeated the powers of evil or sin (Gal 1:4;1John 3:8;Heb 2:14-15); it was in accordance with Persian custom to punish the relatives of a man because of his crime and so Daniel's adversaries were judged, as was the nation of Judah in 70 AD (Matt 27:25).
12. miracles convinced Nebuchadnezzar and Darius that the God of Israel was the true God (Dan 3:29;6:26) and that there would be a future kingdom that would never be destroyed (Acts 1:9-11;Matt 5:5;2Sam 7:16-17;Isa 2:2-4).

6:18     On four  other occasions – Dan 2:1, 4:5, 5:9– a Babylonian king was troubled for reasons he knew not. Now on this occasion the ‘troubled’ mind was because he did have understanding. But on this occasion his understanding caused him to realise that a great injustice had been committed and he was party to it.  

FAITHFUL OBEDIENCE

When the king hurried to the lion's den first thing in the morning to see if Daniel was still alive, he called out to Daniel, "Daniel, servant of the Living God, has your God, whom you serve continually, been able to save you from the lions?" (Dan 6:20). Daniel's reply was one that only took a few seconds to say, but it summed up a lifetime of practice. Daniel replied, "My God sent his angel, and he shut the mouths of the lions. They have not hurt me because I was found innocent in his sight. Nor have I ever done any wrong before you, O king." (v.22).

The night God saved Daniel in the den of lions was not some great leap of faith at the time, but rather it was the climax of a life spent serving God every day. It began as a young boy, even before he was taken to Babylon, and lasted through his entire life. It is the continuity of Daniel's faith, service and obedience that we need to have in our lives. We can't expect miracles of faith if we haven't worked up to them, just like we can't expect to stand on top of a tall mountain unless we have taken each step to the top.

So let's live like Daniel in faithful obedience all our lives.

6:6   one wonders whether the king wondered or even asked where Daniel was when the presidents and princes came to plead with the king.

6:2-4   Elevated to the dizzy heights from the position of slavery would turn the head of a lesser man than Daniel. But we see – 6:5 – that the other presidents realised that Daniel’s behaviour was faultless.

6:9         Darius had spent the night troubled and now gets up early to see what, if anything, had happened to Daniel. This is not the behaviour of a world leader who had not regard for me. But Daniel was special. He had earned favour because of his faithfulness to his god which was reflected in the way he behaved towards the king. We can learn from this. Our faithfulness to God will be seen in the way we deal with our fellow men and women.

6:16,20,26   Notice that in Darius’ eyes Daniel’s God becomes the living God. As he becomes more aware of the God Daniel serves and worships the more in awe Darius becomes of Daniel’s God.

6:2       the elevation of Daniel to the position of first in command to whom all the other presidents had to report would engender jealousy. The high position that Daniel had brought great challenges. We should be careful that we do not expose ourselves to challenges that impact on our faith. Worldly advancement such as Daniel achieved bring responsibilities and great challenges.

STAND OUT WITH A GREAT ATTITUDE

Daniel would have been in his eighties when Darius set him over all the officials in his kingdom. Certainly Daniel had had a lot of experience working in the palace with previous kings, but Daniel was different, even from people with lots of experience or qualifications. The Bible tells us why:

"Then this Daniel became distinguished above all the other high officials and satraps because an excellent spirit was in him." (Dan 6:3).

It was his excellent spirit that distinguished Daniel from everybody else. He was there when he was needed, nothing was too much trouble, he was doing his job for the king - not for what he could get out of it. Daniel, it seems, had a great attitude, and that was what made him stand out.

Qualifications and experience are important in today's working society, but our attitude and the spirit in which we work is the most important thing that will distinguish us from everybody else.

Daniel could have figured that he was old enough to take it easy, but he didn't. He showed us what it means to "obey your earthly masters ... rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man." (Eph 6:5-6)

Let us follow his example.
 

6:9 It would seem that Darius signed the decree without thinking through the implications of it as it is inconceivable that he was not aware of Daniel’s faith and actions

6:28   when we are told that Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius and Cyrus we should remember that they were, to a large extent, contemporary and ruling different areas of the Medo-Persian empire.

6:5-9 The presidents and princes understood what human nature was like and understood that Daniel did not fit into the pattern of a man driven by human tendencies. They knew also that Darius, like them, was motivated by his human nature. Behind their behaviour was envy. The Proverbs ask “who is able to stand before envy” – Prov 27:4. The clear answer is that godly men and women can. Daniel did and so did Jesus who was delivered to Pilate because of envy – Mark 15:10. They both looked beyond the current situation to the God determined future. Is that how we respond to challenges in our lives?

6:3  What was the “excellent spirit” that was found in Daniel and not in the other presidents? Whilst the record does not tell us we might conclude the “excellent spirit” was seen in his integrity.

Men in power are often corrupt, seeking their own ends and promoting themselves, often through dishonest practices. This would never be the way that |Daniel behaved – he was a faithful servant of Yahweh.

One presumes that we would never use the tactics of godless men to advance ourselves in our line of business.

6:10 [Daniel] got down on his knees three times a day and prayed  and gave thanks before his God

It was Daniel's practice to pray three times a day. This might appear, at first glance, to be ritualistic. However it probably is good to program times for prayer during the day  so that prayer and thankfulness are not neglected within our over-busy lives. It also allows us to regularly stop and get everything in perspective.  This is not prescriptive (three times per day) but a helpful way of giving central place to our relationship with God.  Jesus often departed to a solitary place for the express purpose of praying.

6:14 The king was displeased with himself because he was trapped by laws he was bound by. In reality he had been compromised by not thinking through the implications of the request that he might made a decree requiring all to bow down to him. Again his own pride got in the way of him thinking through the implications of what he was planning to do.

6:1-2  Daniel had proved himself faithful for many years when appointed over elements of Chaldea. Darius doubtless was aware of this and, whilst taking control of the same area, saw no need to change the administrators. From this we might conclude that he saw that Daniel was a faithful servant who, whilst faithful, was not necessarily a support of the Babylonian system.

This could be you or I if we were in a position of responsibility in the administration of the country’s policies. It would make no difference to us whatever the complexion of the government as we have not political allegiance to earthly powers.

6 v.3 - No-one questions the number of people. Seven is maybe the ideal. Should all Arranging Brethren's Committees have seven members - chosen according to the criteria laid down here, of course?

5:2 When asked why they have 'kept back' part of the money they received. Peter uses a word 3557 which is only used in relation to this event and once more in Scripture Titus 2:10 where it is translated 'purloining'. Thus whilst we might think that we are not like Ananias and Sapphira we may well be. The words to Titus speak to us about how we might behave.

6:1 This is the first sign of disunity between the brethren and sisters. Here it was on racial issues. 'Grecians' were Jews who had been born of Jews living outside the land. Hebrews were those Jews born in the land. Division along national lines became a major problem in the first century, especially when the gentiles responded to the word.

5:17 There is repeated confrontation between the disciples and the Jewish leaders which is hardly surprising. Maybe if they had gone home to Galilee they would have had a quieter time. However in Jerusalem they were continuing the work that Jesus began - that of highlighting the gospel and its implications to the leaders.

6:5 The problem was resolved by allowing the brethren who had a problem to select those who would represent them. The Greek names of those seven men highlights that they were chosen because those with the grievance felt that these men had sympathies with the problem.

5:17 We know that for 'envy' the Jews delivered Jesus to Pilate (Matthew 27:18). The same spirit is manifest here - see the margin or the RV.

6:7 - The fact that there were 'a great company of priests' added to the faith created the situation which prompted the writing of the letter to the Hebrews - to the Jerusalem ecclesia.

5:28 The leaders had said 'his blood be upon us'(Matt 27:25) - and now the same men are complaining that Jesus blood would be on their heads!

6:10 In telling us that Stephen's opponents 'were not able to resist the wisdom ...' we learn that Jesus kept his word. For in Luke 21:15 Jesus told the disciples as much. So we see what Jesus said to the 12 had a wider application that just the 12 in the first century.

 5:20 We can summarise the words spoken by the angels

5:1 etc. In our three readings for today we have seen examples of people of varying faithfulness.  Amaziah was not wholehearted towards Yahweh and he suffered dire consequences; Daniel was wholehearted towards Yahweh and he prospered;  Ananias and Sapphira had imperfect hearts and they were eliminated.  The exhortation speaks for itself.

5:15,16,19 Brethren such as Peter were given the great power of the Holy Spirit .  It must have been difficult to exercise self-control and not be carried away with the experience.  It seems that, later, some who had gifts could not control themselves. This appears to be the case with those having the ability to speak foreign languages who had to be censured by Paul (see 1Cor 12). 

Some speaking brethren, today, have expressed how much they enjoy their speaking engagements but worry about the danger of their egos becoming involved.

5:29 Peter and the apostles express a thought that we do well to ponder.

5:38,39 Paul was as star student of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3).  If he were alive after Paul's conversion, I wonder if he would have been as conciliatory of Paul as he was of Peter and the apostles. 

 5:3 The sin of Ananias was covetousness which was the same sin that Judas gave way to. He let it be a thought that that he had sold his land and given all the money to the ecclesia. This adds pride as another sin, for he desired the praise of the ecclesia for his benevolence. He was double minded in his ways by loving money and also loving the Lord's service James 1:8

5:33 The leaders, in stark contrast to the common people, on being challenged by the facts of the risen Jesus, seek to kill the disciples. The people (2:37) asked ‘what shall we do?’

6:1 Stephen was charged with caring for the widows but he is here preaching. This highlights that each of us does not just have one task in the ecclesia

Now here's an interesting thing. The body of believers had been made up of extortionists, violent men, thieves, prostitutes, adulterers, and murderers, and to all of these life had been given through faith in Christ. Compare that to Ananias and Sapphira, who lied, and died for it. It doesn't seem fair does it?

This incident was the first time since the birth of Jesus that the Spirit had killed, rather than making whole. It shocked the body of believers to the core, and caused great fear to spread to all who heard about it (5:11). Not since the days of the wilderness journey had there been such sudden and deadly judgment. So why was lying so bad, and why just now?

Ecclesiastes tells us that there is a time to kill, and a time to heal. All through the ministry of Jesus, he had resisted to judge (Luke 6:37, John 8:11,15; 12:47) but focused instead on grace, mercy, and forgiveness. Nevertheless, he prophesied of a time when this would be different. The ministry of Jesus was to "bind up the broken hearted" and to "heal the afflicted". Men and women were afflicted in body, spirit, and mind, and this time was no time for judgment but for a proclamation of "peace, goodwill toward all men". What changed was that they killed the prince of peace and nailed him to a stake. They didn't want him. They didn't want the one who would "judge with equity the meek of the earth" (Isa 11:3-5).

Exalted now to the right hand of God, Jesus had a new ministry, and a new band of followers - those that had accepted him. Psa 149 tells us that his followers would have a dual role: "let the high praises of God be in their mouth, And a two edged sword in their hand... to execute vengeance". Rev 1:16 and Isa 11:4 tell us this is the word of Christ. The word that Jesus would now preach, through the disciples and believers, would either save or kill. To everyone who heard, the word would judge one way or the other. Life if they accepted, repented and believed (John 5:24). Death if they rejected, disbelieved and disobeyed (Acts 3:23). Jesus prophesied that it was his word that would judge (John 12:47-49). For this reason the Holy Spirit moved every word that was said by the apostles and believers. Jesus' exact words were being proclaimed. It was as if he was a great puppet master pulling the strings. The body of believers was a multitude of prophets speaking the word of the Lord (2:18, Matt 23:34).

In this context, then, we come to Ananias and Sapphira. They were believers, and so had received the Holy Spirit. They were amongst that band of prophets sent by Christ. What would happen, then, if they misrepresented Christ and lied? If the words they spoke in Jesus name were life or death to those who heard, should they be allowed to lie and misrepresent that word? Deut 18:15-20, quoted by Peter just days earlier, tells us the answer. "The prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name... that prophet shall die... the prophet has spoken it presumptuously". This sin was to be brought before the Judge and sentenced: "and all the people shall hear and fear, and no longer act presumptuously" (Deut 17:12-13, Acts 5:11).

6:3 The wisdom of the apostles is shown here when they ask those who complained about the way things were managed in the ecclesia, to appoint men of their own to do the necessary work within the ecclesia. The apostles who would have been Hebrew, had been criticised by the Greek Brethren, now ask those who complained to appoint Brethren to assist in the work. This action also shows the humility of the apostles.

5:32 The first sin in the garden of Eden was one of disobedience. Now the only way we can please God is to obey Him. This is done by close attention to His Word as spoken by His Son, who manifested Him. The same words were now spoken by Peter who told them to repent, then forgiveness would follow. The word "obey" is PEITHARCHEO (3980) which is a submissive obedience. We understand the tense used here shows that the meaning intended is "those who are continually obeying him." One act of obedience is not enough. It must be continuous.  

5:34 The respected teacher Gamaliel was the grandson of the renowned Rabbi Hillel. He persuaded the Sanhedrin to let the apostles go, realizing that if God was at work in them they could not be stopped. Gamaliel was also the Apostle Paul's teacher (Acts 22:3). I wonder what he would have thought of his former student's gospel work.

5:17 We find that it was the Sadducees who had imprisoned the disciples. It was a Pharisee – Gamaliel – Acts 5:34– whose counsel prevailed. Whilst his counsel is doubtless very reasonable we should appreciate that we see a debate between those who do not believe the resurrection and those who do- Acts 23:8.

5:17,18 During His ministry, Jesus had confrontations mainly with the Pharisees, not the Sadducees. Why, now, were the Sadducees becoming oppositional to the apostles?

During Jesus’ ministry, resurrection was not a contentious issue. But, now, resurrection was the cornerstone of the new sect of Christians (Rom 10:9).

The Sadducees did not believe in resurrection (Acts 23:8). And so, the Sadducees were concerned that the apostles were drawing many Jews away on, what they considered, a false doctrine (6:7).

6:9 The Libertines were Jews who had been freed by Rome (Latin libertini = freedmen). They had been taken prisoner by Pompey and other generals during the Syrian wars. Having been freed, some of them made their way to the land of their fathers. Here, we see them opposing Stephen, and setting him up for execution.

5:12 This is the second time that Solomon’s porch has been mentioned as a place where the disciples met. The first being in Acts 3:11. So even though the first occasion caused conflict with the Jewish leaders they returned. Doubtless the actions that had happened before as a consequence of their presence there were a spur to go back again. It would heighten people’s awareness of the activity of the believers.

5:1 etc. The hypocrisy of Ananias and Sapphira cost them their lives. Anyone who calls himself/herself a follower of Jesus, but who is not honestly following His commands, will be subject to the same fate as Ananias and Sapphira. There are individuals, religious systems, and organisations that fall into this category.

5:1 etc. There were many positive expressions of the Spirit, such as healing, and even restoration of life. But, here we see an application of the Spirit which produced death. Faith (or lack of it) of the individual was the determining factor in all cases.

Let us move prayerfully forward in faith and joy (Rom 12:12). At the same time, let us have a healthy fear towards Yahweh who has the power of life and death in His hands (Matt 10:28).

5:36 We have no information on Theudas. Josephus mentions a Theudas who led an insurrection, but this happened at a much later date than the Theudas mentioned in this verse.

6:1 These were Greek Jews who complained.

6:5 Stephen was a Greek Jew

Philip is not one the apostles, but Philip the evangelist (Acts 21:8).

Prochorus was probably a Greek Jew. Tradition calls Prochorus the nephew of Stephen  and a companion of John the Evangelist, who consecrated him bishop of Nicomedia in Bithynia (modern-day Turkey) …and was said to have ended his life as a martyr in Antioch in the 1st century (Wikipedia).

Nicanor means conqueror. No other information is given about this disciple.

Timon means honouring. He was a Greek Jew.

Parmenas means abiding. He was a Greek Jew. Tradition states that he was martyred at Philippi (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia).

Nicolas means victor of the people. He was a Jewish convert from Antioch.

5:29 ‘we ought to obey God rather than man’ is a far more direct response than the apostles gave earlier – Acts 4:19 – so as the opposition of the Sadducees increases the resolve of the apostles rises to match and resist the opposition.

5:16   Whilst the events of the day of Pentecost took place in Jerusalem it is clear from the way that  the sick were brought from ‘the cities round about’ that news of what happened in Jerusalem on that day travelled far and wide round the land of Israel.

5:6, 10 The seeming unceremonious way in which both Ananias and Sapphira’s bodies were simply gathered up and removed is a bit like the removal of Nadab and Abihu in Lev 10:5. Their sin required a lesson be made of them. No mourning, no ceremony

Acts 5:30.

Is there significance to Peter's use of the word "tree" instead of "cross", which one might expect? If so, what is it?

This is actually one of five places in the New Testament where this word is used instead of what would seem to be the normal word in that context - "cross". Besides what Peter says here, they are Acts 10:39 (Peter); Acts 13:29 (Paul); Gal 3:13 (Paul); and 1Pet 2:24 (Peter). Paul does use the term "cross" a number of times as a kind of code word for the whole of the sacrifice of Christ. The word here is "xulon" and means wood, timber, or tree. Possibly (?) both Peter and Paul had in mind the original Gen. 2,3 account of Adam's and Eve's fall where there was the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden that God provided man and that he could potentially partake of its fruit and live forever (in contrast to the tree that Adam and Eve partook of and became sinners, subject to death). If so, then they were seeing in the sacrifice of Jesus God's provision of eternal life to men by this means.

So Jesus' dying on the dead piece of wood became, in symbol, a tree of life providing eternal life to all who would partake of him, or even, in the analogy of the bronze serpent on the pole in Moses' day, look to him in faith and live (see Num 21:9 cp. John 3:14,15). This is all in anticipation of Jesus' usage of "the tree of life" in this symbolic way in Revelation. In Rev. 2:7 Jesus says, "...to him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God." See also Rev 22:2,14.

What is really interesting to me is that if this is the right way to look at this, both Peter's and Paul's minds would automatically, when speaking or writing, go to such a symbolic picture of the salvation God was providing for man through His Son.

5:24  The leaders were more concerned with stopping the spread of the gospel than by being convinced by the miracles that they saw. Remember we are still only weeks after the resurrection of Jesus. So we see their blind opposition to the preaching of the gospel. They would rather maintain their status than receive forgiveness of sins through faith in the risen Jesus.

6:4     Notice the association between ‘prayer’ and ‘the ministry of the word’. The work is not ours, it is God’s. Consequently prayer should be a major part of our activity when planning preaching and doing the actual preaching

5:30    We might debate whether Jesus was hung on  a ‘cross or a ‘tree’. Peter specificity uses the word ‘tree’ here to direct attention to Deut 21:23.

5:3     Some may wish to debate whether the “cross” on which Jesus was crucified was a “stake” or a “cross” in the way in which the church depicts it. However there are a few occasions –  Acts 5:10, 10:39, 13:29, Gal 3:13 – where the word “tree is specifically used. It is important to note that on all these occasions the audience are Jews. Rather than debate what it was we should reflect on the way that the word “tree” is used when speaking to Jews – to remind them of the words of Deut 21:21

Acts 5:1-11

The story of Ananias and Sapphira is a sad story that actually began at the end of Acts 4. They were a part of a group of believers and so knit together that they shared their lands, houses, and money for distribution to those in need. They were at liberty to give what ever they wanted, it didn’t have to be all, but Ananias and Sapphire chose to lie and say they gave all.

Then, as now, it is so easy to gloss over God’s holiness, forget that He is pure, righteous and holy and hates sin. Their sin of covetousness, hypocrisy, lying, and desire to garner the accolades in the ecclesia was dealt swiftly and decisively as an example to all believers. The “great fear” that seized the ecclesia showed that God insists on the purity of the ecclesia.

We read in Prov 21:6, “The getting of treasures by a lying tongue is a vanity tossed to and from of them that seek death.” Scripture is full of warning about honest business dealings, Ahab and Jezebel seized Naboth’s vineyard, and look what happened to them (1Kin 21:1-24). Did Achan enjoy his treasures while he was stoned to death and fire burned his bones (Josh 7:20-26)? Did Gahazi enjoy his treasures while he rotted with terminal leprosy (2Kin 5:20-27) How about Judas Iscariot who ended up hanging himself (Matt 27:3-5)?

How about us? Are we honest in all our dealings no matter how menial? Do we disclose what needs to be disclosed concerning selling our homes, our cars, our financial transactions? Do we keep all our commitments? Do we lie and keep back part of the whole truth in our various affairs of life? These are sobering questions, and we do well to ponder them and take stock of our lives and start measuring ourselves by the Word.

Accumulation of earthly treasure is vanity and vexation of spirit, and will not help in the day of death (Ecc 1:14; Matt 6:19), but godliness with contentment is great gain (1Tim 4:8; 6:6. Our greatest treasure is to lay hold on to the kingdom of God (Matt 6:33; 13:44).

Acts 7:6; Gal 3:17;

Stephen said: “… his seed should sojourn in a strange land, and that they should bring them into bondage, and entreat them evil four hundred years.” (cf. Gen 15:13).

The apostle Paul writes: “… the law which was four hundred and thirty years after…” (cf. Exo 12:40,42).

These years are often disputed and said to contradict each other, but a closer examination will reveal that this is not the case.

From the call of Abram from Haran to the Exodus after which the Law came was 430 years (cf. Gen 12:1-4; Acts 7:2,3). This included the time Abraham resided in Canaan to the giving of the Law after the Exodus.

The prophesied time the Israelites would return to Canaan, Abraham’s seed, Isaac, and their descendants would sojourn in a strange land; that they would be in bondage and ill treated for 400 years (cf. Exo 6:4; Heb 11:8-13). Isaac was born 25 years after the promise and Abram’s call out of Haran, and was mocked by Ishmael, his half brother, who was half Egyptian, when Isaac was weaned (Gen 21:8,9). Isaac would have been five years old when this ill-treatment commenced, which was 30 years after Abram’s calling and promise. This continued right into the time Joseph came to power, as Scripture tells us that it was an abomination for the Egyptians to eat with the Hebrews (Gen 43:32).

Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews wrote that the Israelites “left Egypt in the month of Xanthicus, on the fifteenth day of the lunar month; four hundred and thirty years after our forefather Abraham cane into Canaan, but two hundred and fifteen years only after Jacob removed into Egypt” (II. 15.2).

The Septuagint on Exo 12:40 has: “And the sojourning of the children of Israel, while they sojourned in the land of Egypt, and the land of Chanaan, was four hundred and thirty years.”

Two hundred and fifteen years was the time Jacob/Israel and his descendants lived in Egypt because of a great famine and before the Exodus. This was 215 years after God’s promise to Abram. From the time of Abram’s calling to Israel’s entrance into Egypt was also 215 years.

According to the ages as recorded in the Bible, we have the following:

Abram 75, Yahweh makes promise to Abram and leaves Haran (Gen 12:1-4). Years to the Exodus are 430.

Abram 75-85, Yahweh tells Abram his descendants will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants and afflicted for 400 years (Gen 15:13; Acts 7:6). Years from the Promise, 0-10 years, years to Exodus, 420.

Abram 85, lived now 10 years in Canaan; Hagar becomes his wife and she conceives Ishmael (Gen 16:3,4). Years from the promise, 10, years to the Exodus, 420.

Abram 86, Ishmael is born (Gen 16:15,16). Years from the promise, 11, years to Exodus 419.

Abraham 100 (Ishmael 14) Isaac is born (Gen 21:5). 25 years from the promise, years to the Exodus, 405.

Abraham 105, Isaac is weaned and Ishmael mocks/persecutes Isaac (Gen 21:8,9; Gal 4:29,30). Years from the promise, 30, years to the Exodus 400.

Abraham 140, Isaac 40 and marries Rebekah (Gen 24; Gen 25:20). Years from the promise, 65, years to the Exodus, 365.

Abraham 160, Isaac 60 when Esau and Jacob are born (Gen 25:26). Years from the promise, 85, years to the Exodus, 345.

Abraham 175, Isaac 75, Jacob 15, Abraham dies (cf. Gen 25:7). Years from the promise 100, years to the Exodus, 330.

Isaac 151, Jacob 91, Joseph is born. Years from the promise, 176, years to the Exodus, 254.

Isaac 168, Jacob 108, Joseph 17. Joseph sold into slavery and taken to Egypt (Gen 37). Years from the promise, 193, years to the Exodus, 237.

Isaac 180 , Jacob 120, Joseph 29. Isaac dies (Gen 35:28,29). Years from the promise, 205, years to Exodus, 225.

Jacob 121, Joseph 30, is made second to Pharaoh in Egypt (Gen 41:46). Years from the promise, 206, years to the Exodus, 224.

Jacob 130, Joseph 39, Joseph reveals himself to his brethren, two years into the famine with five years left (Gen 45:4-6; 47:9). Years from the promise, 215, years to the Exodus, 215.

Jacob 147, Joseph 56, Jacob dies (Gen 47:28). Years from the promise, 232, years to the Exodus, 198.

Joseph 110, dies (Gen 50:26). Years from the promise, 286, years to the Exodus, 144.

64 years pass from the time Joseph dies to when Moses is born (cf. Exo 6:16-20).

Moses 3 months old, adopted by Pharaoh’s daughter, (Exo 2). Years from the promise, 350, years to the Exodus, 80.

Moses 80, with Aaron begin the Exodus from Egypt (Exo 7:7; Exo 12:40,41; Gal 3:16,17). Years from the promise, 430, year to the Exodus, 0.

5:16      In speaking of curing people of “unclean spirits” we see the apostles continuing the work that Jesus started in his ministry – for example in Mark 1:27 – in fulfilment of Zech 13:2

Acts 5:42

“And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.” “… have taught you publickly, and from house to house” (Acts 20:20).

These verses are used by some denominations as Scriptural proof that we are to go from house to house, knocking on doors and handing out leaflets to further the Gospel.

To correctly understand what these verses say, we need to check the original Greek for “house to house.” “House to house”, # <3624> oikos, “a house, a dwelling… by impl. a family…” This does not help us out that much, but when we go into the literal Greek translation, we learn that “house to house” is kat oi’kon, literally translated, “according to houses.”

The Diaglott conveys the correct idea of what is presented here. “And every Day, in the TEMPLE and at HOME they ceased not teaching and preaching the glad tidings of the ANOINTED Jesus (Acts 5:42). The apostles taught in the Temple, or in public areas, in their homes, upper chambers, or the homes of interested persons, as in the case of Paul (Acts 20:20).

The plural form, kat oi’kous is found in Acts 20:20. What Paul really did was teach publicly, like at a marketplace, and went to their homes afterward to teach privately. He did not go house to house, as we have come to understand it. The Diaglott reads: "... neglecting not to declare to you and to teach you publicly and at your HOUSES." It was customary for the early Christians to gather in their houses (Acts 2:46; 20:7,8cf. 1Cor 1:16; 16:19; Rom 16:5; Col 4:15; Philem 1:2). When Dr. John Thomas came to the United States to introduce the Truth, he gave public lectures and accepted invitations to further expound the Truth privately, if they so wished. This is in conformity to Bible teaching.

The following Scriptures clearly point out that furthering the Truth was not about knocking on strangers’ doors and handing out literature (Matt 10:11-13; Luke 10:5-7; Acts 2:46). None of the mentioned Scriptures may be used as proof for, or to justify a door-to-door method. The pioneer brethren and early Christadelphians did not go house- to-house. They held public lectures and accepted invitations to further expound the Truth privately to those interested. They also advertised in the local papers and those who responded were offered information on true Biblical teaching, and arrangements were made if they requested to meet. Bibles were also offered if they did not have one or could not afford one.

Neither Christ nor the apostles established knocking on a door-to-door method of spreading the Truth (cf. Matt 9:35;Matt 11:1; Mark 1:38; Mark 4; Mark 10:1). It is recorded in Mark 2:1,2 that those that desired to hear Christ preach, went to him. Christ’s visit to Simon, the Pharisee, was by invitation (Luke 7:36 cf. Luke 19:1-10). Christ did not go from house-to- house. This house-to-house method is totally foreign to what Christ taught and what the apostles did. To believe otherwise is to wrest Scripture; it is a sin of disobedience against a specific command of Christ no matter how valiantly we may feel about doing a good work in promoting the Truth in this fashion (cf. 1Sam 15:22,23; Matt 7:22-24).

5:4       “conceived in thy heart” shows the origin of the thought. It was a deep seated way of thinking that reflected on the way the couple thought. They did not think through the implications. They were not simply deceiving and robbing men. This should cause us to think carefully about our motives.

Acts 6:5,8; Acts 7:14

“… and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit…”