AUDIO
Visit ThisIsYourBible.com
v. 8 - The more we learn about this man the more 'human' traits we find that we can relate to ourselves. Here David is angry with God. He could not see that what Uzzah did was worthy of death, and this caused him to be afraid of the Lord that day - frightened that God would bring retribution on him for his anger against Him, presumably, and frightened to continue in case something else happened. I find it comforting that this man of whom God thought so highly, could possess these aspects to his personality, and still be approved because of the state of his heart. There is only one other recorded incident of a man of God being angry with God, and that is with Jonah (4:1-9).
Peter [UK] Comment added in 2001 Reply to Peter
v.16 - The last time that we saw Michal associated with David she lowered him down from the window to save his life [1 Samuel 19:12] She did this because of her love for him. Now she 'despised him in her heart'. She had regressed spiritually apart from David. She had ideas of grandeur for David. Hence she was unhappy because he removed his kingly robes to don the 'linen ephod'.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2001 Reply to Peter
v.9 - This fear, which is borne of our own misunderstanding of God's ways which are higher than our ways, is familiar to all of us. I find it somewhat of a comfort that David had this problem too.
Peter [UK] Comment added in 2002 Reply to Peter
The use of language from Deuteronomy 12
his place
|
Deut 12:11 |
Shows that David understood that God had actually chosen a specific place where he would place his name. It was this that drove David to bring the ark to Zion.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2002 Reply to Peter
DANCING FROM THE HEART
Michal was disgusted. David had been bringing the ark back into Jerusalem. They sacrificed a bull and a fattened calf every six steps, everyone was rejoicing - especially David, they sacrificed more offerings and David gave gifts of bread, dates and raisins to all the people. But that wasn't what disgusted Michal. It was the fact that David was only wearing a linen ephod and dancing with all his might before the LORD. David's reply to her was this. "It was before the LORD … who chose me … (that) I will celebrate before the LORD. I will become even more undignified than this and I will be humiliated in my own eyes. But by these slave girls you spoke of I will be held in honour."
David and Michal were looking at the same situation from two different points of view. David's actions were from the heart. What he did stemmed from his heartfelt worship and praise and fear of God. Michal was looking in from the outside. All she saw was her barely dressed husband making a fool of himself in front of the rest of the kingdom. David danced before the LORD. The general people seem to have seen David doing a good thing rather than disgracing himself. The lesson for us is to be like David and to act from a pure heart and not to worry about what people think. God knows what is in our hearts. David knew that.
Robert Prins [Auckland - Pakuranga - (NZ)] Comment added in 2002 Reply to Robert
:3 When David put the ark on 'a new cart' are we right in assuming that David did this out of ignorance of what the law of Moses stipulated?
If David had not known that the ark should be carried by the priests -which is unlikely - it is certain that the priests knew what the law required and they would doubtless have told David.
Can we think of a reason why David would do this in contradiction of the express teaching of the law of Moses?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2003 Reply to Peter
RIGHT THING, WRONG WAY
David's plan was a good and godly plan. David's life was lived in a good and godly way. He was described as a man after God's own heart. God was with David in everything he did, and God had blessed him. With so many positive things going for David, it is hard to see how he could go wrong.
David wanted to bring the ark of God up to Jerusalem - it was part of God's plan to have the temple and the ark at Jerusalem - but the way David did it was wrong. The Law of Moses specifically stated that the ark of the LORD must be carried by its poles, on the shoulders of the priests. Maybe David did not know this, or maybe he had forgotten this particular law, but whatever it was, he had the ark put on a new cart to move it, and when Uzzah reached out his hand and touched it, he was struck dead. David had done the right thing in the wrong way.
Can we be sure we are doing the right thing in the right way? Could it be that we have not read God's word for so long that we have forgotten the right way to serve him? Let's not make the same mistake as David. Even though we are doing the right thing, let's make sure we do it the right way.
Robert Prins [Auckland - Pakuranga - (NZ)] Comment added in 2003 Reply to Robert
6:9 David was afraid of the Lord because he did not expect what happened. This is because he realised that the Levitical priesthood was to be replaced with the Melchisedec priesthood - consequently he presumed that the requirements of the law of Moses were no longer applicable. This, I suggest, is why David put the ark on a cart and was then surprised when Uzza was struck dead.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to Peter
V.3 Uzzah and Ahio the sons of Abinadab should have known better than to follow this method of carrying the ark, and indeed so should have David, for the Law of Moses prescribed plainly that the ark must travel on the shoulders of the priests. Num 7:9 What glory could there be to God if His explicit instructions were disregarded?
John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to John
David cared more for God's approval than for his wife's. She despised him, but God loved him.
David Simpson [Worcester (UK)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to David
V.2 Baale of Judah is Kirjathjearim (Josh 15:9). It was to Kirjathjearim that the Philistines brought the ark (1Sam 6:21). Kirjathjearim was nine miles north of Jerusalem. The journey of the ark to Jerusalem began at the house of Abinadab at Gibeah.
V.4 Gibeah, near Kirjathjearim, signified a hill. From there it came to the threshing floor of Nachon. Nachon is alternatively called Chidon (1Chron 13:9). Then after the death of Uzzah, the ark resided at the house of Obededom the Gittite for three months.
Vs.10,11 A Gittite is a resident of Gath. However, there were several places in Israel which were known by the prefix Gath. Obededom is believed to have come from Gath-Rimmon. He was a Levite who is later mentioned as one of the temple gatekeepers (1Chron 26:1-4).
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to Michael
At the foot of the mount Sinai God had strictly warned the people "do not go up to the mountain or touch its base" (Exo 19:12). God's holiness was such that He could not bear the idolatrous people of Israel to touch the mountain He was descending upon. Whilst talking to Moses on the mountain, He suddenly and urgently commanded Moses to go down again in order to stop them transgressing this commandment, saying "Away! Get down... do not let the priests and the people break through to come up to the LORD, lest He break out against them" (Exo 19:24).
The fire and darkness upon that mountain were designed to put fear into the hearts of those present so that they would not approach God without due reverence. The fact that one can approach God is evident by the fact that Moses, Joshua, and other elders of Israel climbed up the mountain unharmed. What all this means is that in order to come to God we must have a proper sense of fear. Again, in Lev 10:1-3 Aaron's sons were consumed with fire because they presumed to know how to approach God, but offered "strange fire" before Him.
In this incident with Uzzah we have exactly the same principle. Uzzah and his brother had kept the Ark for a long time in their father's house. They would have become accustomed to it, and maybe even started to think of it as their ark. Uzzah's action of reaching out to hold the Ark demonstrated a deep seated comfort he had with it, which may long ago have replaced his fear or reverence. It was right, then, in God's sight, that He should "break out" against him as He had promised He would do at the base of Sinai. God's presence was in the Ark just as it had been on that mountain. The lesson for us can be taken that "by those who come near to Me I must be regarded as Holy" (Lev 10:3). What a comfort it is, however, that we now have Christ as our mediator, so that we do not need to fear such outbreaks, but come instead with confidence and boldness before the LORD our Father in prayer (Heb 10:19-22, 12:18-24, 28-29). Let us therefore have grace by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and Godly fear.
Rob de Jongh [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to Rob
6:11 We should not think that David had lost interest in bringing the ark to Zion. Rather the death of Uzza had such an effect on David that he took time to think about what to do next.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2006 Reply to Peter
V.3 David had allowed the ark to be carried on a cart. This is how the Philistines transported it (1Sam 6:7-14). The Philistines were ignorant of the ways of Yahweh and not subject to His covenant. But David should have known that the only acceptable way, to Yahweh, of transporting the ark was manually by Levites (Deut 10:8).
V.8 After the death of Uzzah, David became angry. He was not angry with Yahweh but with himself. His mistake, indirectly, cost the life of Uzzah, which greatly upset him.
V.13 Notice that when the ark was finally moved into Jerusalem, David made sure that it was done so according to the Law.
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2006 Reply to Michael
6:1 There are a number of echoes of the Philistines taking the ark in this chapter. The first is the 30,000 men that David chose which is like the 30,000 that fell when the ark was taken – 1Sam 4:10
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2007 Reply to Peter
When we go to the thirtieth Psalm it appears that not only Uzzah suffered from the wrath of God at the attempt to bring the ark up from Kirjathjearim. Wrath fell upon David himself, as the one untimely responsible. He was struck down by an illness so severe that he expected to die (Psa 30:3). Yet in neither the account recorded in Samuel or in Chronicles is there any indication of David's affliction.
John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2007 Reply to John
ACTIONS AND ATTITUDE
David did it with joy, he did it out of love for God, he did it with the right attitude, and he did the right thing. But David did it the wrong way. As David made his first attempt to bring the ark of God into Jerusalem, everything seemed right. There were no double standards, there were no idolatrous attitudes, and it was all done to show love for God and to put him first. But "Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. The LORD's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there before the ark of God." (2Sam 6:6-7)
After a few months to examine the situation, David learnt that the ark of the LORD was to be carried by the priests - not to be put on a cart. So three months later, as they brought the ark of God into Jerusalem, carried by the priests with the same rejoicing and positive attitude (maybe a little more fearful and humble), God allowed the ark to arrive safely at it's resting place. David learnt that even with the right attitude, there is still a right way and a wrong way to do things.
God has not changed since the days of David. Let's make sure we get things right as we serve the LORD, both in the things that we do and in the attitude we show as we do them.
Robert Prins [Auckland - Pakuranga - (NZ)] Comment added in 2007 Reply to Robert
6:18 When David ‘blessed the people’ he was acting the part of the priest who was to bless the nation – Num 6:22-27
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2008 Reply to Peter
Vs.3,6,7,8 Uzzah means strength. Uzzah was the son of Abinadab in whose house the ark rested for twenty years. Abinadab was a Levite, therefore, Uzzah was also. It was the Kohathite branch of the Levites that was responsible for transporting the holy things of the sanctuary (Num 4:15).
However, if anything was touched, the person who touched it would die. That is just what happened to Uzzah. As a Levite, he would have known the rules. However, his knee-jerk reaction to save the ark from damage cost him his life. Yahweh could not go against His Word. But, Yahweh, who knows the heart, will have understood the motivation of Uzzah. Will Yahweh be merciful to Uzzah and restore him to life at the last day?
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2008 Reply to Michael
6:2 Even though David set about moving the ark in an inappropriate way we should notice that he actually went to Baale of Judah and supervised the moving of the ark. He was heavily involved in the work and not just a commander who gave instructions to others.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Peter
V.3 This method of transportation violated the Law Num 7:9).
V.14 David had stripped from his royal clothing and heartily danced (1Chron 15:27).
Vs.15,20 Michal saw, in her mind, the king behaving in an undignified way. The king had disrobed from his royal Vesture and was gyrating about in the sight of his subjects. His movements would have been slow, in keeping with the solemn music which would have been played for this occasion.
V.23 By dancing, David was praising Yahweh, from the heart, for His blessing of kingship. But, Michal was more interested in monarchical ritual than in praising the one who granted the post. It was a case of flesh versus the spirit between Michal and David. Michal’s royal snobbery cost her motherhood, as Yahweh was not pleased with her attitude.
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Michael
6:4 The mention of Abinadab’s house reminds us that in 1Sam 7:1 the ark was taken to his house when it was returned by the Philistines.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Peter
2Sam 6:13-17,20-22 - V.13 we have sacrifices after six steps and the number "six" is often viewed as the number of man so perhaps we have an echo of a man (Jesus) who would be sacrificed; the "ark" [Heb. "aron" (717) means "chest, ark, coffin" and comes from (727) which means "gathering or pluck" and thus it is suggested the ark should in some aspect be understood in the sense of "gathering" or "plucking"] has a connection to Jesus' sacrifice "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me" ( John 12:26-33,36); V.14 -17, 20-22 the abbreviated clothing of a linen ephod was technically speaking a priestly garment and Barbara M. Bowen has been quoted offering these comments, "At the head of a great procession there would frequently be seen a half naked buffoon dancing, going through gesticulations usual on such occasions. It was all done in honour of the person to whom the procession was made, and was the office of a slave only” - David was dancing as a slave to serve/glorify/honour God versus acting as a slave to sin and shameful conduct.
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Charles
2Sam 6:6-7;Hos 4:6;Rom 10:2 - when we try to achieve desired ends our way, not God's way, there are consequences
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Charles
6:15 The only mention of musical instruments in the reign of Saul was in relation to his evil spirit. No mention of music in worship. Things were very different in the days of David.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2011 Reply to Peter
“And when they came to Nachon’s threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God.” (Cp. 1Chron 13:10).
The first mistake David made was not to inquire of the Lord, but consulted with men (1Chron 13:1-4) The second mistake was that he did not transport the Ark according to God’s instructions (Num 3:27-31; 4:15; 7:9;10:21. The third mistake was that Uzzah was not a Levite, but from the tribe of Benjamin (1Chron 8:7), and should have never been so close to the Ark. Even the priestly Kohathites whose job it was to transport the Ark were not permitted to touch it, but to bear upon their shoulders the poles of the Ark (Exo 25:12-15). The very act of putting the Ark of God on a cart was a violation of God’s instructions. The fourth mistake David made was in failing to see the proud presumption on Uzzah's part (2Sam 6:8). David later repented of his displeasure over this incidence and corrected his mistakes (1Chron 15:11-15).
The Ark typified Christ, and God's way of salvation cannot come through man's works of the flesh. Uzzah broke this type! God was not harsh, as some suggest, in vindicating His holiness by striking down Uzzah (Num 4:15). It was presumptuous of him to think that good intentions justified breaking God’s commandments. "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death" (Prov 14:12).
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2011 Reply to Valerie
6:19 The provision of bread and wine here by David echoes, in the same physical location, Melchisedec’s meeting with Abraham with bread and wine – Gen 14:18 and Jesus’ last supper with the disciples in the upper room.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2012 Reply to Peter
6:20-23 David had been in the wilderness fleeing from Saul. Michal, by contrast was probably taken care of well by Saul her father. However whilst David grew spiritually during his wilderness experience Michal seems to have lost any spirituality she had. We might ask of ourselves where we think is the best place to be. In the wilderness or in comfort.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2013 Reply to Peter
2Sam 6:20-23 I wonder if Michal's castigation of David "disrobing in the sight of the slave girls of his servants" (NIV) is a snide remark about his having married ladies not of "royal" descent - perhaps Abigail and Ahinoam among others.
Abigail describes herself as David's "maidservant" in 1 Samuel 25:41. Perhaps Ahinoam was her "slave girl"
Obviously David's "disrobing" had the effect of producing children by his new wives - a benefit to be denied to Michal (v23) until the day of her death and just recompense for her contemptuous remarks.
Clive Parsons [Aylesbury UK] Comment added in 2013 Reply to Clive
6:6 This is the first of two threshing floors mention in David’s involvement with the ark. The second being that of Araunah the Jebusite – 2Sam 24:18 – which later became the site for Solomon’s temple – 2Chron 3:1
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2014 Reply to Peter
6:17 So the ark is settled in Zion in Jerusalem. This fact helps us to date Psalms which speak of God being in Zion. For example Psa 9 because of Psa 9:11
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2015 Reply to Peter
Matt 23:5 notice how the scribes and pharisee's dress in fancy garments, yet if we compare David in 2Sam 6:14 he cast off all regal clothing to dress in a linen ephod to represent a servant, just as Christ did when he put on an apron to wash his disciples feet.
stephen cox [Sedgley UK] Comment added in 2015 Reply to stephen
6:7 That God’s anger was against Uzza we have to conclude that he should have known what he was doing. So we might wonder whether he was a priest and so should have known very clearly that that ark had to be carried
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2016 Reply to Peter
6:5 It is clear that “Michal” is not included in “all [David’s] house” because she was not even there! 2Sam 6:20
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2017 Reply to Peter
2Sam 6:6,7 (cf. 1Chron 13:9-12)
“And when they came to Nachon’s threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And the anger of the LORD (Yahweh) was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God.”
This story often presents challenges to the natural eye. It appears extreme for an apparently well-meant and almost natural action in keeping the Ark of the Covenant, the most sacred symbol of Israel, from falling embarrassingly to the ground.
In Num 4:15, we read no holy thing was allowed to be touched “lest they die.” God also expressly commanded the Ark- representing the holiness of God - was to be carried on staves and upon the shoulders of the Kohathites (Num 7:9; Exo 25:12-14). Had Uzzah remembered to pay attention to Yahweh’s law and keep it, this calamity would not have overtaken him.
There is a supreme lesson for us here, in that we must have an accurate concept of God! God is love, God is good, God is all-powerful, God is all-knowing, God is merciful, God is forgiving, but there is something else that we often forget – God is holy! We cannot truly understand God’s forgiveness and mercy until we first grasp the holiness of God. God’s holiness defines all the other attributes. We cannot conduct ourselves any old way and expect God’s forgiveness because He is full of grace and mercy. God will vindicate His holiness when violated just as He did with Nadab and Abihu (Lev 10).
The Ark was correctly transported to the house of Obed-edom, the Gittite, for three months (2Sam 6:9-11). Obed-edom, was a Kohath Levite from Gath. One of his spiritual duties was to care for the Ark, and from all accounts was a Godly man. He was a doorkeeper of Solomon’s Temple. His and his family’s responsibilities included the South Gate of the Temple and the storehouse for that gate (1Chron 15:18-24; 1Chron 26:1-15). God didn’t strike Obed-edom and his family dead, but blessed everything he owned! Holiness will either kill us or bless us; it all depends on which side we are on.
God’s eternal purpose of salvation, justice, and mercy are reconciled only through the predetermined sacrifice that was accomplished by His Son, the Christ. The declaration that Christ is “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev 13:8) implies the existence, not of him, but of a principle in the Divine nature which requires satisfaction before God can enter upon the work of redemption. Christ, the Word, the revelation of God, the manifestation of His character, His law, His love, His life, is the only foundation upon which we can build a character that will endure (cf. 1Cor 1:30; Heb 10:10). The principle is none other than Holiness (cf. Isa 6:3; Heb 12:14; 1Pet 1:13-16).
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2017 Reply to Valerie
v. 2 It would appear that the ark itself was called by the name of Yahweh. YAHWEH OF HOSTS. Though this might seem like idolatry, that a thing would be called Yahweh, it is really the name representing the the Lord who dwelt between the cheruibim
Alex Browning [Kitchener-Waterloo] Comment added in 2017 Reply to Alex
6:9 The distress that this caused David was immense. However he did bring the ark to Zion. Psalm 30 talks of that time. So when in Psalm 30:2 he speaks of being “healed” he is reflecting on the way God did bless him in allowing him to bring the ark to Zion.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2018 Reply to Peter
6:21-23 some might think that David’s behaviour was a fit of rage. However rather we should see it as the reaction of a godly man serving his God. As such intimate association with a wife who did not understand those things would have been unhelpful in his spiritual growth.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2019 Reply to Peter
6:3 The ark was in Kirjath-Jearim, also called Baale. The mention of “Gibeah” here should not confuse into thinking that the ark was in the town called “Gibeah” which is miles away from the location of the ark. We should note – as the margin will say – is that “Gibeah” means “hill”. The house was on a hill in Baale / Kirjath-Jearim.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2020 Reply to Peter
A reader writes: “Dear sister Valerie, your comments are always so helpful and insightful. Thank you for your sharing of your obvious love for and study of God’s word. We're not the sons of Abinadab listed as Uzzah and Ahio?”
My reply: ... In 1Sam 31:2 we read “Jonathan, and Abinadab, and Melchishua” were Saul’s sons. Abinadab is not mentioned in 1Sam 14:49, but is mentioned in 1Chron 8:33; 1Chron 9:39 1Chron 10:2 as Saul’s son along with another son, Esh-baal. We may deduce from this lineage that they were direct sons born sometime after to King Saul.
In 1Sam 7:2, we read Abinadab’s son was Eleazar, who was placed in charge of the Ark. No lineage indicates that Uzzah and Ahio were Abinadab’s direct sons. Were they? Maybe, but more likely grandsons, “sons” being a usage frequently found in the Old Testament referring to grandsons. Many commentators claim Abinadab had three sons, but I am not inclined to accept it. Considering the lapse of time when the Ark was taken to Abinadab’s house, or household, being the middle of Saul’s reign at around 20 years and the Ark sat there for 20 years, 40 years had lapsed. “House” # 1004, is bayith, and its application especially refers to “family.” Saul reigned for another 20 years, for a total of 40 years (Acts 13:21, to which Josephus attests to), though some claim 42 years, based on 1Sam 13:1, after which King David succeeded him .
Abinadab had died with his father and brothers in the Battle of Gilboa and there is no mention of Eleazar in the account who had been placed in charge of the Ark. The only explanation why Uzzah and Ahio were now in charge, being of the household of Abinadab, is that Eleazar had died.
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2020 Reply to Valerie
6:20-22 the fact that Michal was not out rejoicing with David when he brought the ark to Zion speaks volumes about her attitude to the things of God. However her tirade against David confirms the suspicion that her mind was not on the fulfilment of God’s plan – bringing the ark to Zion. Like so many others her mind was focussed on man’s status, not God’s. From her perspective David’s behaviour abased him – whereas she was concerned with status. Hence David’s comment about Saul being rejected (:21). Because he was king he behaved as he did – exalting God above himself. He was concerned with God’s status whereas Michal was concerned about her own!
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2021 Reply to Peter
6:3 The ark was in Kirjath-Jearim, also called Baale. The mention of “Gibeah” here should not confuse into thinking that the ark was in the town called “Gibeah” which is miles away from the location of the ark. We should note – as the margin will say – is that “Gibeah” means “hill”. The house was on a hill in Baale / Kirjath-Jearim.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2022 Reply to Peter
6:7 the word translated “error”<7944> is rendered “rashness” in the margin. Doubtless Uzzah was well meaning in his actions. However being well meaning is not sufficient. The laws that God has given must be observed at all time. We must be careful ourselves to ensure that we do not behave in a rash way by making a speedy but ill informed decision.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2023 Reply to Peter
6:10 In telling us that David “carried” the ark into the house of Obed-Edom maybe we are seeing the first indication that David realised what he had done wrong in placing the ark on a new cart.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2024 Reply to Peter
v. 19 - Whilst this verse is quite clearly prophetic of the time of the crucifixion of Christ, it is also something which was personal to Jeremiah, who shared this rejection - ch.18:18, see also Ps.35:15.
Peter [UK] Comment added in 2001 Reply to Peter
Jeremiah draws Israel's attention to the covenant that their parents had agreed to just before they entered the land.
Quotations and allusions to Deuteronomy
Out of the land of Egypt the iron furnace | Jer.11:4/Deuteronomy 4:20 |
said so be it [amen] | Jer.11:5/Deuteronomy 27:15 etc: |
and do them | Jer.11:6/Deuteronomy 27:26 |
imagination | Jer.11:8/Deuteronomy 29:19 |
which I commanded | Jer.11:8/Deuteronomy 27:1 |
to hear | Jer.11:10/Deuteronomy 27:9 |
to escape [Heb to go forth] | Jer.11:11/Deuteronomy 28:19 |
they shall cry ... not hearken unto them | Jer11:11/Leviticus 26:31 |
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2001 Reply to Peter
v.4 - Egypt is referred to on three occasions as an iron furnace - here, Deut.4:20, 1Kings 8:51. Consider also these two verses in Ezekiel as well in this context, where the same two Hebrew words occur in close proximity: Eze.22:18,20
Peter [UK] Comment added in 2002 Reply to Peter
11:5 In using 'amen' - so be it - Jeremiah is forcefully reminding Israel how they agreed to the words of the covenant by assenting 'amen' after each clause (Deut 27:15). The lesson for us is clear. We should be aware of the commitments that we have made.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2002 Reply to Peter
:14 This is the second of three times (7:16 here 14:11) when God tells Jeremiah not to pray for the people. So Jeremiah has been speaking God's words of judgement against a sinful people - and so he prayed for their deliverance - even when he had been told to stop! How do we feel about those in the world who are in darkness?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2003 Reply to Peter
11:19 Against the background of the evil of the inhabitants of Jerusalem Jeremiah feels an outcast and laments in language which is strikingly like the prophecies of Isaiah about Messiah (Isa 53:7-8)
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to Peter
V.13 "shameful thing" or "shame" namely, the idol, not merely shameful, but the essence of all that is shameful.(Jer 3:24 Hos 9:10 ) which will bring shame and confusion on oneself.
John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to John
V.21 If Jeremiah had not uttered his prediction, they would not have plotted against him. None were more bitter than his own fellow townsmen. We can see a similar situation when we compare the conduct of the Nazarites towards Jesus. Luke 4:24-29
John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to John
V.14 It was the role of the priest to pray for the people. Yahweh told Jeremiah not to pray for the people. Yahweh was recognizing Jeremiah as a priest. Indeed, it seems that Jeremiah came from a priestly line (Jer 1:1). This line probably extended from Abiathar, who Solomon sent to Anathoth (1Kin 2:26,27).
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to Michael
God says that because of Judah’s sin He will actually close His ears when His people cry to Him. They have gone so far away, that He will not help them (Jer 11:11,14). For the loving Lord God, Who had called Israel to be His own people, to say such a thing, really illustrates how far they had gone from Him.
David Simpson [Worcester (UK)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to David
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2006 Reply to Peter
Vs.21-23 The people from Jeremiah's home town, Anathoth, sought to kill him. However, Yahweh promised to dispatch these would-be killers. The year of their visitation (punishment) (KJV) came when the Babylonians overran Anathoth.
However, Yahweh saw beyond the exile and instructed Jeremiah to buy some land in Anathoth (Jer 32:6-15). He was signalling a time of restoration for the city. This is borne out by Nehemiah's record of returnees (Neh 7:27; 11:32).
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2006 Reply to Michael
11:8 The ‘covenant’ that the prophet is speaking of is not the one Israel entered into at Sinai. Rather it is the covenant of obedience recorded in Deut 27 - 29
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2007 Reply to Peter
11:7 ‘rising early’ is not saying that the prophet got up early every morning. Rather it is speaking of an attitude of mind which sought to do the things of God immediately. Such an example is seen in Abraham when he went to offer Isaac – Gen 22:3
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2008 Reply to Peter
11:4 ‘from the iron furnace (of Egypt)’ is one of the many quotations in Jeremiah from Deuteronomy – this is from Deut 4:20
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Peter
Vs.3,4 The Law was a curse if it were not complied with fully (Deut 27:26; Gal 3:10). If just one of the 613 tenets of the Law was missed, the whole law was considered abandoned (James 2:10).
V.9 The rebellion against Yahweh was not from an isolated source, but from a deliberate, concerted effort to disobey. It was the band of unsanctioned prophets who were at the core of this opposition to Yahweh (Eze 22:25). Perhaps, we can better appreciate the witness of Jeremiah amidst this dedicated group of false prophets. If these prophets had come together against Yahweh, then they would have surely been hostile to His servant, the only true prophet (Psa 83:5).
V.13 It was not just that there was idolatry in Judah and Jerusalem, but the sheer proliferation of it that was horrendous. The increase of the shame of Judah and Jerusalem was directly proportional to the increase of idolatrous sites.
V.16 As long as Yahweh’s people were attached to Him, they were green (fertile) and would bear good fruit (Psa 52:8). Once they left the nurture of Yahweh, they would shrivel up, be useless, and therefore thrown out to be burned. In this case, it would be the Babylonians who would burn the useless cast-out branches.
The New Testament follows the same theme. John Baptist reminds the Jews to be fertile (Luke 3:8,9). And, Jesus exhorts His followers to be attached to Him and bear fruit, otherwise they will be cast away and destroyed (John 15:4-6).
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Michael
How would you feel if the leaders of your Church were to be discovered plotting your death? What if the reason they wanted to kill you was simply because you spoke the truth about God, and they preferred lies? And what if these men and women were your own family? (Jer 11:18-23; 12:1-2, 6; 1:1)
Rob de Jongh [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Rob
11:3 Josiah was shown a copy of the law which was found in the temple during the reform he instituted – 2Kin 23:24. From the way in which Jeremiah makes repeated use of the quotation from the blessings and cursings of Deut 27 and 28 we might conclude that this was the part of the law of Moses that was found.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Peter
11:6 Notice they were to both ‘hear’ and ‘do’ the commandments. It is all too easy just to hear the word of God but then not do as we have read. The warning of Israel is just as relevant for us today.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2011 Reply to Peter
11:8 In speaking of the imagination of the heart Jeremiah is saying that the people re no better than those in the days of Noah – Gen 6:5– when God destroyed all mankind, save 8, with the flood.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2012 Reply to Peter
11:9 The “conspiracy” was that the people said that they would keep God’s word but they did not. Josiah was a good king who sought to bring about reforms but, in the end, he was one of the few who remained faithful in that he not only heard the word of God but did it also.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2013 Reply to Peter
Breach of contract
In v4-5 we are reminded that God had made an agreement, or covenant, with Israel. He would bring them out of Egypt, from slavery, carry them through a great wilderness, and bring them to a land that was so fruitful He called it a "land flowing with milk and honey". He would chase out the inhabitants of the land and give it to them, then bless them in everything they did so that they would become the envy and talk of the surrounding nations. All that was God's side of the bargain, and he kept it right down to the very last detail (see Josh 24). Israel's part of the bargain was to obey His commandments (v4). As is customary in the making of a contract, there were penalties agreed for breaking the contract. So in this chapter God is reminding Israel of the contract, notifying them of their breach of contract, and serving them of warning that He will bring the agreed penalties upon them.
Rob de Jongh [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2013 Reply to Rob
11:6,8,10 The “covenant” spoken of here by the prophet is the agreement that Israel made with God that they would keep His commandments – outlined in Deut 27, & 28
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2014 Reply to Peter
OBEY ME
There was only one thing that God wanted out of Israel. He wanted to be obeyed. He said to them, "Obey me and do everything I command you, and you will be my people and I will be your God." (Jer 11:4). And He remembered how Israel responded to His command: "From the time I brought your forefathers up from Egypt until today, I warned them again and again, saying, 'Obey me.' But they did not listen or pay attention; instead they followed the stubbornness of their evil hearts." (v.7-8).
Because Israel refused to obey God, they were punished by exile, captivity, and scattering among the nations. Looking back we could say that it would have been much better for them if they had obeyed. We could even look at their choices and think how stupid they were to choose disobedience.
Jesus said, "You are my friends if you do what I command." (John 15 v 14). In other words, Jesus says to us, "Obey Me." Little by little, Israel turned away from obeying God to follow their own pleasures. What about us? How far have we already turned from obeying Jesus because our way seems more appealing?
"Obey Me,"is all he asks. Will we look back in hindsight, as we do for Israel, and wonder why we didn't make the right choices and why we chose not to obey?
Robert Prins [Auckland - Pakuranga - (NZ)] Comment added in 2014 Reply to Robert
11:11 A man who had turned away from hearing the law of God would not be heard – Prov 28:19.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2015 Reply to Peter
12:7 God forsook the temple because He was (and still is) unwilling to dwell with people He cannot fellowship. Our worship can be a hollow sham if we only give lip service to serving Him whilst putting our own preferences first.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2015 Reply to Peter
OUTLINE OF JEREMIAH
PART TWO -- THE PROPHECIES TO JUDAH (JEREMIAH 2:1 to 45:5)
I. The Condemnation of Judah (Jeremiah 2:1 to 25:38)
D. Fourth Sermon - Judah's Breach of the Covenant (Jeremiah 11:1 to 12:17):
1. Jer 11:2 - "the words of this covenant(<1285> cutting away the flesh and shedding blood)" refer to the law of Moses given at Sinai, forgotten/neglected but rediscovered in the early days of Josiah and reinstituted, but then seemingly again forgotten/disregarded; the function and duration of the law of Moses (Gal 3:19).
2. Jer 11:3-5 - the copy of the law shown to Josiah (2Kin 23:24) seems to have included the people promising obedience to it as a result of the associated blessings and cursings (Exo 24:7;Deut 27:1-26;Deut 28:1-68;Deut 29:1-29;2Kin 22:1,8;2Chron 34:1,14-16;Gal 3:10;James 2:10); V4 the covenant marked their deliverance from the iron furnace which was symbolic of the intense suffering (Deut 4:20;1Kin 8:51;Isa 48:10) while in Egyptian bondage; V5 "a land flowing with milk and honey" (this expression occurs only here, in the Pentateuch, in Jer 32:22, and in Eze 20:6,15); V5 (KJV) "So be it<543>", "Amen<543>" (Deut 27:15), associated with God "the God<430> of truth<543>" (Isa 65:16), also referenced to the Messiah "Amen<281>" (Rev 3:14), "Amen<281>" (2Cor 1:19-20).
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2015 Reply to Charles
D. Fourth Sermon - Judah's Breach of the Covenant (Jeremiah 11:1 to 12:17):
3. Jer 11:6-11 - VS 6-10 (Exo 19:4-8;Matt 7:24-29;James 1:21-25 - but they obeyed not); V6 they were to hear and do the words of this covenant; V7 "rising early<7925>" perhaps is an echo of the resurrection (Gen 22:3,13;Mark 16:9); V8 "imagination of their evil heart" as in the days of Noah and the last days (Jer 17:9;Gen 6:5;Matt 24:37-39); VS 9-11 they forgot both God's grace and His justice, and as a result they are doomed to worse than the 'iron furnace' (Jer 11:4) of Egypt.
4. Jer 11:11-13 - the massive apostasy of Manasseh and Amon (2Kin 21:1-26;2Chron 33:1-25) was succeeded by the reforms of Josiah, but upon his death the old abominations were re-introduced, and as a result Jerusalem and the inhabitants of other Judean cities would pay the price; V12 the idols "they shall not save them at all in the time of their trouble"; V12 the covenant (Jer 11:3) brought blessing to its observer, but curses and exile to its breakers; V13 Judah had as many gods as cities (Jer 2:28).
5. Jer 11:14 - "pray not thou for this people" (Jer 7:16;John 17:9) as their corruption was so deep rooted.
6. Jer 11:15 - quotes Prov 2:14; "my beloved" refers to Jerusalem (Jer 11:13).
7. Jer 11:16-17 - God planted a beautiful olive tree upon the mountains of Israel, but it was broken down and burnt "for the evil of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah" (Rom 11:17-21); as Michael Parry notes in his 2009 comments, when Yahweh's people were no longer attached to Him they would no longer bear good fruit (Psa 52:8;Luke 3:8,9;Gal 5:22-26;John 15:4-6;Gal 5:19-21;Matt 21:18-21).
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2015 Reply to Charles
D. Fourth Sermon - Judah's Breach of the Covenant (Jeremiah 11:1 to 12:17):
8. Jer 11:18-19 - Jeremiah speaks to natural Israel of knowing, echoing Christ who spoke to each of the seven churches (Rev 1:1;Rev 2:2,9,13,19;Rev 3:1,8,15), and being like a lamb brought to the slaughter is about Jeremiah (who they wanted to kill) and is similarly echoed in referrence to Christ (Isa 53:7-8); V19 (NIV) "destroy...its fruit" means kill Jeremiah's relatives too so he is no longer remembered - just as they tried to destroy followers of Christ so Christ would no longer be remembered.
9. Jer 11:20 - Jeremiah prays to God for vengeance (God had previously Jer 11:14 told Jeremiah not to pray for this people).
10. Jer 11:21-23 - V21 God notes the men of "Anathoth<6068>" are saying (NIV) "...Do not prophesy in the name of the Lord or you will die by our hands" (Luke 4:24) and thus, like Christ, Jeremiah is rejected by his own brethren; VS 21-23 Anathoth the city of Levites where they changed over to Baal worship (Jer 1:1,16-19), and was home to the priestly class of Abiathar, close friend of David (1Sam 22:20-23), but despised by Solomon in favor of the younger rival house of Zadok (1Kin 2:26,27,35); Jeremiah, bred of the Anathoth priesthood had spoken against the unfaithful priests (2Kin 23:8;Jer 10:21;Jer 8:1;Matt 13:57); VS 21-23 God answers Jeremiah's call for vengeance in the affirmative - the men of Anathoth seem to have perpetuated the enmity of Abiathar against "Zadok<6659>" (1Kin 1:5-8,32-34;1Kin 2:26-27) which may echo the enmity of the priests against Christ (Heb 7:2,11-24); VS 21-23 the people from Jeremiah's hometown, Anathoth, sought to kill him, but God instructed Jeremiah to buy some land in Anathoth (Jer 32:6-15) which indicates a time of restoration for the city
(which already happened in part as we read in Nehemiah's record of those who returned Neh 7:27;Neh 11:32), and for Jeremiah (which will happen when Christ returns Heb 11:1-2,32-40).
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2015 Reply to Charles
11:10 The fathers were to teach the children God’s laws – Deut 6:7– but the fathers were teaching error instead of truth. The lesson is clear for us. Our instruction must always be right and true. Doubtless those spoken of here would recount what Moses said but their lives demonstrated that they did not believe what they were saying.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2016 Reply to Peter
11:17 When God says that He planted Israel he is reminding them of what He has done for them as he says in Jer 2:21
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2017 Reply to Peter
11:21-23 Jere was being persecuted by his own family at this time. God is giving words of encouragement. In speaking of “the men of Anathoth” He is speaking of Jeremiah’s own family.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2018 Reply to Peter
11:4-5 God had made a covenant with the patriarchs - starting with Abraham. For this reason He will keep His word and Israel will be His people and they will worship Him faithfully. His promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the driving force which guarantees that God will keep His word.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2019 Reply to Peter
11:10 Israel’s problem was not that the did not know what God wanted of them. It was not a lack of understanding. It was not even that they lapsed from His laws from time to time. They had set their hearts to totally ignore what he said. When we doubt our position before God we should reflect on how we view His words. Surely, no matter what we do or think we are never like Israel.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2020 Reply to Peter
11:1 there are a number of different ways in which we might divide Jeremiah into sections. One is the recurring phrase “The word that came to Jeremiah” of which there are seven occasions 7:1, 11:1, 25:1, 30:1, 32:1, 40:1 and 44:1.This division might help in our seeking for a structure in the prophecy of Jeremiah which certainly is not recorded in chronological order.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2021 Reply to Peter
11:5 the oath referred to was made to Isaac and his father Abraham previously – Gen 26:3. Whilst the “oath” was given many years earlier Jeremiah was inspired to remind his hearers of it. It does not matter how long it was since God made the oath. His continued existence and character mean those promises to the patriarchs will be fulfilled.
If we ever wonder how current events will end we should look at the overall picture of our Father’s plan and take comfort in His promises..
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2022 Reply to Peter
11:4-5 God through the prophet Jeremiah is appealing to the nation to listen to His words so that he can fulfil His promise that he has made to them!
We might read this and just pass on without thinking too much about what God said. But stop for a moment. The Creator is pleading with His people that they might repent so he can bless them.
As we read elsewhere, God does not take pleasure in the death of men Eze 33:11. Rather He is looking for repentance so that He can forgive – John 3:16
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2023 Reply to Peter
11:13 Do we think that God is exaggerating when he speaks of the number of gods and altars that the nation have?
The answer has to be that He is not exaggerating at all. In like manner we should look at ourselves and identify what we feel that we cannot live without. Doubtless there are things in our lives that can easily get in the way of our worship and commitment to our Father.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2024 Reply to Peter
BIBLE MARKING: "...Let us destroy the tree with its fruit, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be remembered no more." Jer 11:19 ------> "They have said, 'Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation, that the name of Israel may be remembered no more.'" Psa 83:4
If anyone outside the Truth ever asks: "why does God allow violence toward His people?" Show them v12. For here we learn that the People would turn to their idols in hopes they might be saved, God seeing this, deliberately stopped from such event from happening as not to give life to the idol statues. It was not a petty abuse of power, it was a lesson that they, and we, need to learn very quickly if we want to stand beside Christ on that day 1Cor 8:4
Matthew McCracken [Milford Road USA] Comment added in 2024 Reply to Matthew
v. 5 - Notice that the servants, in making their excuses about attending the wedding (of Christ and the bride) actually state the nature of their idolatry. His farm ... his merchandise. We must be careful that we do not love the things of this life so much that when we are called to that wedding, we do not make light of it and return to the things in which we have become accustomed to put our trust. Gen.19:14, 25:3, Matt.13:22, Acts 24:25.
Peter [UK] Comment added in 2001 Reply to Peter
v.19 - Jesus asks them to 'show me the tribute money' and the record says 'they' brought it. The Pharisees were so antagonistic to the Roman state they would not be carrying the tribute money. The Herodians were so willing to bow to Rome that they would be the ones who produced the money. But think about it. Rampant patriots of Rome working together with vigorous opponents to the Roman occupation.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2001 Reply to Peter
22:12-15 The parable - spoken against the leaders - left them speechless as the man in the parable. So they sought to trap Jesus in his own words! See the way of the flesh. Because they had no answer, rather than acknowledge that Jesus was a teacher sent from God they sought to undermine his teaching by trapping him in his teaching.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2002 Reply to Peter
:31 In saying that at the bush Exo 3:1-6 God spoke ' unto you' we see a most powerful testimony that even though in the first instance Scripture was written or spoken many years ago it has a lasting and all embracing relevance. The same point is taught in Romans 4:23-24.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2003 Reply to Peter
In 21v43 Jesus told the Jews how the vineyard was to be taken away and given to "another nation bearing the fruits of it". Here in the parable of the wedding feast he reinforces what he has just said, in the hope of gaining their repentance. V3-4, the sending of the servants relates to the prophecy of Jeremiah in 7v13 "but you did not listen". Jer 7v15 "and I will cast you out of my sight" relates to the parable v7, and Jesus' own words in Matt 23v37. This should have been such a clear warning to the scribes and Pharisees, if they had known their old testament. But instead of repenting, they were angry with Jesus and plotted against him v15. Is it possible for us also to be this blind?
Rob de Jongh [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2003 Reply to Rob
22:42 Whilst Jesus was under attack all day he did not simply defend himself. When he had silenced his critics he appeals to them with a question from Scripture.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to Peter
V.7 "burned up their city" Jerusalem, once "the city of the Great King" Psa 48:2, and even up almost to this time Matt 5:35; but now it is "their city" just as the Lord, a day or two after this , said of the temple, "Behold your house is left unto you desolate" Matt 23:38
John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to John
V.36-40 - this second greatest commandment begs the question, who is our neighbour? In Luke 10:36 Jesus answers the question. Race and distance has nothing to do with who is our neighbour.
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to Charles
22:7 Notice it is 'their' city that is burnt up. In Matt 23:38it is 'your’ city that will be desolate. Even though Jerusalem had been 'the city of the great king' (Psa 48:2) God now no longer viewed it as His city.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2006 Reply to Peter
Vs.2-7 Jesus came, initially, to save His people Israel (Matt 15:24). However, the Jews rejected Jesus' invitation to join Him in His marriage feast. They would be punished and their city burned (Jerusalem 70 AD).
Vs.9,10 And so, Jesus opened His invitation to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46). They would be gathered from all over. As guests to the wedding they would have been given a wedding garment. It was up to them to put it on.
Vs.11-13 One person, who was invited, decided not to put his garment on and was unfit to remain at the marriage feast. He was promptly ejected.
We all have an invitation to attend Jesus' marriage feast (eternal life). But we must put on the acceptable clothing (covering). That garment is Jesus (Gal 3:27). To ensure that we are properly dressed at all times, we must check to make sure not to soil our garment (Jude 1:23).
When the king comes in, He will inspect His guests (judgement). Only those who are wearing the correct garment, which has been kept clean (Rev 3:4), will be allowed to stay. All others will be ejected. Out of the many who have received a wedding invitation, some will fail to put on the wedding garment; others will put it on but fail to keep it clean. After inspection, only a comparative few will be allowed to stay (Matt 22:14). Let's make sure of where we stand (2Pet 1:10).
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2006 Reply to Michael
22:14 ‘For many are called but few are chosen’ returns to the point that Jesus already made – Matt 20:16. So whilst this parable had been directed against the Jewish leaders Jesus had his disciples in mind as well for that is whom he was speaking to in chapter 20.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2007 Reply to Peter
22:16-18 The whole event was designed to trap Jesus in his words. They asked a question which they had worked out would trap him whatever answer he gave. Do we ever ask our brethren and sisters questions in order to trap them?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2008 Reply to Peter
22:23‘The same day’ reminds us that we are still in the day which started in Matt 21:20. This is the longest day recorded in the ministry of Jesus as it does not end until Matt 25:46
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Peter
Vs.16,17 The Herodians were members of the Jewish aristocracy who followed the principles of Herod Antipas. This group supported the Roman government. Their question Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? was designed to trap Jesus into revealing Himself as seditious against Rome. He did not fall for their ruse but showed that by obeying the laws of the land one was serving Yahweh (see Titus 3:1).
V.23 The Sadducees were the Jewish noble class. These aristocrats were the richest and most powerful Jewish sect, and held most of the seats in the Great council (Sanhedrin). From this elite group came Joseph of Arimathea (Matt 27:57-59). In throwing his lot in with Jesus, Joseph would have been ousted from his position of wealth and power (Matt 19:29).
The Sadducees differed with the Pharisees over the question of resurrection. It was this point that the apostle Paul exploited in his defence (Acts 23:6,8).
The Sadducees and Pharisees did not particularly like each other and differed on many doctrinal points. Each group thought that they were the true leaders of Israel.
A prominent Pharisee, Nicodemus, broke with his party and supported Christ. He would have given up much to follow Jesus. It was Nicodemus who accompanied Joseph of Arimathea to Jesus’ tomb (John 19:38,39). Although the Sadducees and Pharisees never got on, ironically, it was the fact that two notable members from each party became untied in Christ. They were prepared to become poor and despised to gain the riches in Christ.
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Michael
22:24The Sadducees use of the word ‘master’ is not in any way a recognition of Jesus’ status. Rather they ascribe to him that status so they can show, they thought, that he did not have the credentials of being a teacher.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Peter
In v41-46 the Pharisees gather together to trip Jesus up. We should be in no doubt that Jesus' life was in danger here, because the reason for these questions was to "entangle him" (v15). So they, being enemies of Jesus, should have feared when he quoted Psalm 110 to them. By looking at the Psalm, can you see why?
Rob de Jongh [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Rob
22:23 It was the Pharisees in Matt 22:15 and now it is the Sadducees who come. Two groups with significant differences join together against Jesus.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2011 Reply to Peter
"... when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment..."
What was this guest's offense that merited him being bound hand and food, and cast "into outer darkness"? By accepting the invitation to the wedding, he ought to have known what was required for acceptance to the wedding. This man's offense was a churlish disrespect to the invitation in not being prepared. This invitation was, "Come to the feast," but the implication was, "Come in a fit state." What are these implied conditions?
Each guest must possess righteousness (1Cor 6:9; Matt 5:20), walking in the Spirit and not in the flesh (Gal 5:16-26). We accepted the invitation at baptism, but what kind of garment are we wearing? The apostle Paul incessantly exhorts us to walk as "becometh saints."
The lesson of this parable is sobering. It shows mere acceptance of the Gospel will not save us. It shows us there must be a clothing of the inner man, which constitutes the wedding garment for salvation. This fact helps us to rightly estimate the Spirit's invitation as we read in Rev 3:18.
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2011 Reply to Valerie
22:34-35 One would like to think that if our arguments were shown to be false that we would change our way of thinking. Not the Jewish leaders. Bring along our legal team to prove us right is the response of the Pharisees. Do we ever resort to legalistic explanations to bolster views which we realise are not actually correct but which we have held for many years?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2012 Reply to Peter
22:24-27 This conundrum dreamt up by the Jewish leaders is actually a circular argument. They denied the resurrection and so devised a scenario which created problems for those who though there was a resurrection. However their conundrum ignored other areas of Scripture. We need to be careful that we do not attempt to support our views by raising other issues which violate other parts of Scripture.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2013 Reply to Peter
WITH ALL YOUR HEART
Any time we read in the Bible, the Old Testament or New, about loving or serving God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, or any combination of them, the heart always comes first. The time Jesus was asked, "Which is the greatest commandment in the law?", was no exception. (Matt 22:36) This was his reply: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." (v.37)
Why is it significant that the heart comes first? Because it is the most important. God wants us to be emotionally attached to him. He wants us to love him with our emotions first. David was a man who loved God with his emotions. Just think of the emotional content of nearly all his psalms! That's what God wants from us when we love him with all our heart.
How do we do it? the Scriptures tell us: Leap for joy, weep for Jerusalem as you pray for it, be enthusiastic about sharing your faith, rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep, build a desire to be with God, let God take your worries, refrain from anger, spend time praising God and telling him that you love him. Maybe you could try writing him a poem or song that expresses your love, thanks or praise. Or maybe writing down how you feel and expressing those emotions to God.
Let us love the Lord our God with all our heart.
Robert Prins [Auckland - Pakuranga - (NZ)] Comment added in 2013 Reply to Robert
Matt 22:14 - "many are called, but few are chosen" - somewhat addressing this are my June 17th 2013 comments in the third reading (1John 3-4).
Matt 22:14 - additionally, many are called to the Gospel message to which they make merely an outward response, and they must go beyond that to be chosen by God; V14 - also we have Jesus saying those who are obedient to his Father's will are those chosen to be in the family of Christ (Matt 12:46-50); "called<2822>", "chosen<1588>".
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2013 Reply to Charles
22:31 Another example of people being told that what was written in the past and spoken to other people was actually spoken to them can be seen in Heb 4:2. It is all too easy to forget that things written in the past have a direct relevance to us and are not just storied that we might read.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2014 Reply to Peter
22:12 The man in the parable was 'speechless' - and so the Pharisees sought to 'entangle Jesus in his talk' :15 but eventually they were indeed speechless - :46.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2015 Reply to Peter
22:21 In commanding that dues be rendered to whom they are due Jesus sets the basis for Paul’s comment – Rom 13:7
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2016 Reply to Peter
22:10 The “wedding garment” answers to that – Isa 61:10 – that is to be worn by those who have been clothed with salvation. Those, in the parable, who came to the wedding did not recognise their need for salvation provided by God.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2017 Reply to Peter
22:4 The concept of being “ready” for the marriage is a running theme through the rest of Matthew’s gospel. We se readiness emphasised again 22:8, 24:44, 25:10, On each occasion there was a need for preparedness. These words speak very powerfully to us about our need to make ourselves ready now for the lord’s return
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2018 Reply to Peter
“For many are called, but few are chosen.”
The Hebrews were the first to be invited to the wedding feast of the King’s son, but since they refused the invitation (v. 3), their rejection extended the call to the Gentiles (v. 9). When the King joined his guests, he noticed one without a wedding garment (v. 12). He was without excuse, was rejected and sent from the feast. The parable ends with Christ pronouncing the aphorism that summarizes the parable, “For many are called, but few chosen.”
Call is the invitation that was given through the prophets in Old Testament times to the Hebrews, and then through Christ and his apostles/disciples in New Testament times to both Hebrews and Gentiles. It is a call to repentance and salvation. Those who refused the call were culpable for refusing it. With knowledge comes responsibility. But, it doesn’t stop there. Christ also showed that it is possible to accept the call and not be saved at all. Let me repeat, our acceptance of the call is no guarantee of salvation. Reading Rom 8:30; 1Cor 1:26,27; 2Tim 1:9 may lead us to believe otherwise, that Christ did it all, we are under grace. Christ shows us this is not the case, so we are misinterpreting these verses. Christ does not teach one thing, and his apostles/disciples another. Christ made it very clear that while accepting the call there were those who never truly embraced what is offered in the call (cf. Matt 15:8; Isa 29:13). In other words, there was no change of character as the Word commands, and they just continued to go through the motion of worshipping while living and acting like they did before; their hearts were not in it! These are rejected.
The chosen, on the other hand, are those who accepted the call, repented and changed both in their thinking and conduct. They grew spiritually, lived a life of holiness in maintaining separateness from the world and worldly minded, they grew in grace and in knowledge. The epistles of Peter are well worth reading over and over again. We will soon realize in striving to be spiritual, that there is no way any of us will just saunter into the Kingdom; we have a lot of work to do because “that which is flesh is flesh” (John 3:6), and not so easily changed. It takes time and a lot of effort. It takes a lot of faith too to conform, but as Peter asked Christ, “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life” (John 6:68). These are the ones who wear the “wedding garment” and will be chosen.
In essence then, there is an outward calling to which we respond by a physical full-immersion baptism, or external washing, and there is an inward calling, or internal washing, which is to become spiritual, “that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6); it is to learn a new way of life (Eph 4). Without the outward calling, though, no one could respond and be saved! Both go hand-in-hand (John 3:5). The call becomes effectual only if there is regeneration (Matt 19:28).
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2018 Reply to Valerie
22:5 One wonders what reasons we use to excuse ourselves from gatherings of fellow believers. Are our reasons valid or are they simply excuses because we have what we consider better things to do than spend time with fellow believers around the word of God?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2019 Reply to Peter
A reader writes: “I often read your comments and they make so much sense…I often think of the days of Noah....it is staggering to think, that out of all the people inhabiting the earth, at the end, only 8 people, God saw fit, to save. Only 8!! We can sweep the page with all the ‘what, where how and whys, yet nevertheless, it is what an Australian would say, is "mind blowing". There were Bros and Sis there no doubt, but they must have been taking a lot for granted in their daily living, attitude of mind, reasoning, actions, purposes, and so and etc....yet....only ONE Family went in and stepped out of that Ark, ALIVE! And FILLED, with the grace and compassion of a Loving God… Dear Noah was a wonderful preacher of righteousness....The most valuable and precious thing we are to get, have and keep, is OIL....the valuable, precious Word of our dear God in heaven....so as we think, and do, and live our lives we, who are nothing in His sight, yet, to submit ourselves to the understanding of His Love, trust and care, turning away from all and everything that will distract our hearts and minds to following His pathway, that we know is safe, leads to life, and here it is...."And Few there Be, that Find It"....I think that would make a fit heading for a breathtaking talk and study....”
My reply: I find your email most refreshing and encouraging; thank you very much! When Christ said (Matt 22:1-13) “few,” he meant “few,” but too few of us are willing to accept this and so the fleshly mind rationalizes it that in comparison to the world’s population of over 7 billion, the 50 thousand some Christadelphians represent a “few,” and, indeed, they do! The problem with this is that it is wrong in relation to eternal matters, as evidenced by the parable Christ gave on the “wedding feast.” This parable is about an invitation (Jews first, then Gentiles), about a King who invites certain people to the wedding feast for his son. We may see the significance of the parable, as it relates to rejection and acceptance.
Jesus’ parables have this engaging effect that challenges our imaginations and invites us to re-examine our convictions in matters of eternal importance. We have the invited and it is among the invited that we find rejection and acceptance. “Few are chosen,” has nothing to do with those “without,” but of those “within.” It is from the invited, but then not all will have on the “wedding garment” (vv. 11,12), and Jesus summarizes their rejection (v. 13). The “called” are those invited to the feast; the “chosen,” or “elect” are those from among the called.
The ones sincere about their calling are the ones who “strive to enter in at the strait gate” (Matt 7:13,14,23; Luke 13:24). “And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and sinner appear” (1Pet 4:18,19; cf. Prov 11:31)? Even then, it is only on account of grace extended to them because of their striving to be righteous.
The main lesson Christ teaches us through this unsettling parable is that not only those who were invited to the feast, but refused it, are rejected, but also those who accepted the invitation, only to pay lip service to the calling never having truly embraced Jesus as offered them in that call. Pretty sobering, I would think!
The beauty of the parables of Jesus, though unsettling rather than reassuring, is that they are meant for us to think analytically, to reexamine our convictions about eternal matters. The world, the various denominations, who claim to believe in God, love Jesus, yet at the same time create beliefs contrary to what the Bible says, do not factor in this parable. The fleshly mind does not like the “striving” part, and takes sin lightly while busily emphasizing grace. But, who are the recipients of this grace? Those who are striving, those who desire to be obedient, who praise and glorify God in their thoughts, words, deeds, who feel the pain within themselves when they fail, and in abject repentance turn to the Father through His son.
And, what does the parable of the ten virgins teach us? It teaches that some things cannot be borrowed; some things cannot be lent! Only we, ourselves, can work out our own salvation. We cannot rely on others’ teachings who would have every Christadelphian in the Kingdom. We have to search it out for ourselves diligently and prayerfully comparing Scripture with Scripture even with issues not palatable to us, because we want God’s Truth, not men’s.
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2019 Reply to Valerie
“For many are called, but few chosen.”
“Reliable statistics are hard to come by, but one estimate is that there are about 50,000 members in 120 countries worldwide, 6,500 of them in the USA. Another source suggests that there are 20,000 members in the UK and 300 ecclesias.” These figures were given in 2009.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/subdivisions/christadelphians_1.shtml
We do not know the exact figure of the number of Christadelphians since June 25, 2009, but it still translates to a very few in terms of the world's population of 7.7 billion! Our beliefs definitely do not cater to the masses, and yet amongst us only a few will be chosen! How sobering!
Brother Robert Roberts wrote: “Some, though few, will be chosen, and who shall they be but those who ever live in the remembrance and service of His name? Forward! persevere! forget the things behind! Redeem the time! Die in the fight, or be found in its thick when the Lord comes, and all will be well.” 1870 (Emphasis added).
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2019 Reply to Valerie
BACK TO THE BASICS
How do you go at interpreting rules? There are rules everywhere: time to start and finish work; speed limits; dress codes; rules about buying and selling; unwritten rules of etiquette; and rules of hygiene, to name a few.
Often our interpretation is to use the rule to squeeze out a little more for ourselves. If the speed limit on the road is 60kph, we allow a tolerance of 10% and decide we can safely travel at 66kph. If our lunch break is half an hour, we stretch it out to 35 minutes by ambling to and from our job.
The teachers of the Law did the same in Jesus' day. "Should we pay taxes to Caesar or not?" they asked. "What about marriage at the resurrection?" And "What is the greatest commandment?" (Matt 22:17,24-28,36).
The answers Jesus gave to these question astonished those who asked. Instead of trying to wriggle out of responsibility, the answers Jesus gave got back to the basics, asking how God could be honoured the most in the answers and the practice of them.
So how do we interpret the rules that are imposed on our life? Is it by getting what we can out of them? Or do we take the opportunity to honour God in the way we act.
Robert Prins [Auckland - Pakuranga - (NZ)] Comment added in 2019 Reply to Robert
22:9 The thought that wedding guests would be a seeming random selection of people would be totally unacceptable to the Jewish leader. But this is how God works. In a seeming random way He calls men and women to His salvation. We need to be careful that we do not reflect the way that the Jewish leaders thought as we speak to others about God’s offer of salvation.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2020 Reply to Peter
TWO IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES
In order to really know God, how He works and what He has planned, there are two things we need to know. The Sadducees were lacking both when they asked Jesus about marriage at the resurrection. They had come up with a very complicated question that appeared to make an almost impossible situation for God - if the dead were to be raised.
In his reply, Jesus told them plainly where they had gone wrong in their logic. This is what he said, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God." (Matt 22:29).
Like the Sadducees, we also need to get familiar with both those aspects of knowing God. We need to know the Scriptures. And we need to know the power of God.
If we are to know the Scriptures we need to get familiar with them. We need to read the whole of the Bible on a regular basis, progress through it every day, and maybe even several times each day. Think about it, meditate on it, pray for understanding, and talk about it with other people. When we are familiar with the Bible we are half way there.
We also need to know the power of God. Focus in on his power in the Scriptures, see it in creation, look for it in answered prayer, hear about it in the lives of other faithful people, and have faith that God is more powerful than we could ever dream.
So if you want to get to know God and his plan better, read his word and get to know his power in your life.
Robert Prins [Auckland - Pakuranga - (NZ)] Comment added in 2020 Reply to Robert
22:1 Again it should be emphasised that the chapter division is totally artificial. If we do not see this we may well miss the clear connection between Jesus response against the background of the leaders fearing the people.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2021 Reply to Peter
22:11-12 Those who are called to the gospel are from all walks of life. Some of us might think we came from a “respectable” background. Others may well have had a very dissolute life up to the point of hearing the gospel. The gospel can and should change all of us whether from a “good” or “bad” background. We are not told which group the one without a wedding garment came from. His background was unimportant. Rather the problem was that he was not properly attired. He had accepted the invitation but was not wearing the appropriate garment. This person represents – hopefully not you or I – the one who heard the gospel, accepted it, and then did not submit to the liberty of a life in Christ.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2022 Reply to Peter
22:7 The parable speaks initially about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A 70. The “armies” are the Roman legions.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2023 Reply to Peter
22:16 On this occasion the Pharisees (the leaders) did not go themselves. They had already found that they could not answer Jesus’ words so they send their “disciples” in the hope, maybe, that Jesus would not realise what was happening, that a trap was being set for him.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2024 Reply to Peter
LOVE
“As it was customary to ask great teachers for wisdom, once Jesus was asked to articulate the greatest of all commandments. He answered without any hesitation.
Jesus, just like Rabbi Hillel before him, affirmed that both greatest commandments were the ones that command to love. In the first, love was to be directed towards perfect God, and in the other, love was to be extended to his imperfect people.
Loving people is not easy. In Hebrew (leahov) means ‘to love’ and (ahavah) is a noun for ‘love.’ What is intriguing is that in Hebrew ‘liking’ and ‘loving’ is the same. To love means to like, and to like, means to love. In many languages there is a clear distinction between ‘liking’ and ‘loving,’ but not in Hebrew, (ahavah) is an all-encompassing idea.
As we ponder God’s commandment to love, all kinds of people come across our minds, some we like a lot, others we tolerate, while there could be some, we can’t stand at all.
Are we truly commanded to love everyone or just some people? Lev 19:18 [Deut 6:5,6] commands us to treat ‘brothers’ fairly and to love ‘our neighbor’ as oneself? The word (reah) translated as ‘neighbor’ in Hebrew literally means ‘someone who is nearby,’ standing not far from us.
People generally have a notion that if we feel good about someone (we like them) we will do good to them (we will love them). However, according to ancient Eastern wisdom, it is the other way around: If we do good to someone, we also begin to feel good about that person.”
40 DAYS OF HEbrEW DEVOTIONS, Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg with Pinchas Shir& Jamie Purcell, pp. 35,36
The Pharisees incorrectly inferred and taught that we are to “hate thine enemy” (Matt 5:43). When Jesus said, “But I say unto you” (Matt 5:44-48), he was not giving a “new teaching.” He was quoting from the Old Testament as read in Lev 19:18; Deut 6:5. “But I say unto you,” was to correct the false teachings of the Pharisees. In no way did Jesus change or add to the Father’s Moral Laws.
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2024 Reply to Valerie