Comments for July 4

v.5 - The sanctification process [Ex.19:10-15, Lev.20:7,8, Josh.7:13 ...] was not insignificant. Surely later events make it clear that on this occasion David was not there. He had to be fetched from tending the sheep [v.11]. There is no mention of sanctification later for David either. Samuel goes straight in to the anointing [v.12,13]. Does this suggest that David's heart was such that it did not require sanctification?

v.13 - David was anointed 'in the midst of his brethren' in contrast to Saul who was anointed in secret when even his servants had been sent away. [1 Samuel 9:27] 'In the midst of his brethren' reflects the status of the priest in Israel. [Exodus 28:1] And answers to the injunction given by Moses regarding the setting of a king over them. [Deuteronomy 17:15]

v.7 - This principle of God looking on the heart cannot be emphasised enough. We have a responsibility to recognise that the things God seeks are not the things man seeks. Consider these quite varied passages, which when taken together make quite a powerful picture. Psa.147:11, Prov.31:30, Job 10:4, Isa.55:8,9, Luke 16:15, John 7:24, 2Cor.10:7,10 1Pet.2:4, 3:4

16:1 Notice that Samuel is mourning for Saul because he has been rejected by Yahweh. However we should remember that Samuel warned the people against wanting a king (1 Samuel 8:11). Why is this? Was it that Samuel, on hearing that God would appoint a king threw his efforts behind what God was going to do? Was he mourning for Saul because he was the Lord's anointed, even though he was a rebel?

WHEN GOD HAS A PLAN FOR YOUR LIFE HE WILL WORK IT OUT
Samuel was sent to anoint David to be king after Saul. When he had been anointed the spirit of the LORTD came upon him with power. It was then, by God's design, that an evil spirit smote Saul. He needed something to lift his spirits so his servants said that harp music might help. It just so happened that David played the harp and had chosen it over the flute _ again by god's design. Also, by God's design, one of Saul's servants had seen David playing and knew of him and his other qualities - his braveness, his warrior qualities, his good speaking and good looks. So David, just like God planned it, ended up in the royal palace, living with the King and learning the ways of the leader of god's people. God was training him to be king over his people.
God has a plan for every one of us. He has prepared in advance good works for us to do. We are quite possibly, through our current circumstances, being trained and prepared to work out the plan that God has for our lives. So let us, like David, do our best in the work we have been given.

:4-5 That the elders 'trembled' at the coming of Samuel, and the question as to whether he was coming peaceably was asked indicates that Samuel was a force to be reckoned with. Maybe it also indicates that the elders of Bethlehem had guilty consciences about how they ran the town and were fearful that Samuel had found out or suspected what was going on and had come to sort things out.

16:4 We have already seen ( 7:16) the extent of Samuel's 'circuit'. Bethlehem was not one of the towns on his circuit which probably provides another reason for the unease of the men of the town when Samuel arrived.

V.7 In this, even such a man of experience and insight as Samuel could be misled. "Consider not his countenance, nor the height of his stature; because I have refused him,...Man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.

It seems like chance that David is recommended to the king of Israel, just because he can play the harp well.  But with God things are not chance or luck.  Have you noticed how David is introduced to the king's presence when the king is unwell?  In other words, the young and impressionable lad doesn't
form high and grand ideas for when he is going to be king.  Saul is troubled by "the evil spirit from God"
(1Sam 16:23)

V.7 Contrast the choice Israel made for a king to satisfy its carnal desires to Yahweh's selection of a king (1Sam 9:2).  Note, the Lord Jesus, despite popular depictions of Him, was not physically attractive (Isa 53:2). 

V.12 David, however, was physically attractive.  It is not uncommon, as some might suppose, for Semites to have red hair and light complexion.  I have seen both Israelis and Arabs like this.

V.14 The evil spirit that Yahweh gave Saul could only be soothed by the lyrical strains of David's harp (vs.17,23).  Perhaps William Congreve (1670-1729) had this episode in mind when he penned his famous line: Music hath charms to sooth the savage breast. 

Saul was the second leader of God's people who had been removed from office by God. The first was Eli. In viewing the difference between the attitudes of the two men we can learn a great deal. Both men had been notified of God that He was displeased with them. Eli quietly took the rebuke, knowing it to be well founded, and set about training and encouraging his successor. Saul, on the other hand, became increasingly jealous of his successor, and increasingly angry at the rejection he had suffered.

There was no way for either of these men to reclaim their position, but that didn't mean they could not repent and seek to restore a broken relationship with their heavenly father; accepting their loss and getting busy doing God's will. David himself was a good example of this, who, when God disallowed his intention of building the temple because of his sin, accepted it and set about preparing instead for his successor. What we are saying is that Saul's behaviour, though natural, was out of order. It was not a pre-defined path which God forced him to follow. He had the choice of putting his loyalty behind David, but didn't choose to take it. Instead, he "eyed David from that day forth with suspicion... saying "what more can he have now than the kingdom?"" (18:8-9). This attitude of Saul's was wrong on several counts. Firstly, he had never been worthy of any praise as far as being a warrior was concerned. The only real victory he had instigated was the rescue of Ramoth Gilead, where for some reason there is a marked absence in the mention of the size of enemy forces. It may have been merely a raiding band, whilst Saul's forces were huge! (11:8-11). He had then gone on to accept praise in battle where it was due to his son Jonathan (13:3-4). Most marked of all, was his failure to champion Israel against Goliath, seeing as he was head and shoulders taller than anyone in Israel (this would have made him at least 8 or 9 feet tall since we could reasonably assume that the tallest man in Israel was around 7ft). Secondly, it was not his kingdom any more, since God had already told him that it had been removed from him. Saul's jealousy, then, was founded entirely on a false sense of self esteem which he had built up around himself.

The lessons of Saul's jealousy and false ego are there for us to learn from. Have we found ourselves elevated to some position of authority by our brothers and sisters? Have we let this go to our heads, ignoring the fact that we're just not capable of carrying out this position? Have we ignored the signs that God does not want us in this role, and that we ought to back down gracefully? Do we cling on to meagre words of praise in order to feel better about ourselves? Do we find ourselves viewing with suspicion those who do well at those things we feel we ought to be doing, rather than building them up and helping them to grow?

The most difficult time in the life of anyone who has been someone, is to realise that it's time for the next generation to come forward and take over. For every master, there will come a time when their pupil will outshine them. It is at this point that the decision has to be made, whether to back down and support the newcomer, or to make futile attempts to cling onto vain past glories whilst squashing the progress of others around us. We have wonderful examples of those who did this right: Moses with Joshua, Eli with Samuel, Samuel with David, David with Solomon, Elijah with Elisha, Paul with Timothy. It is the responsibility of each of us to nurture and encourage the talents of those younger than us and to pass on the wisdom and knowledge we have gained to the next generation. If we do this, then rather than feeling jealous and bitter in the triumphs of others, we will take the joy of their triumph to ourselves.

16:16    In seeking for a ‘cunning player’ to play to Saul the advice he had addressed the symptom not the problem. The problem was that he was astray from God. Listening to music did not resolve that problem. How often do we use distraction methods to solve our problems when we should be looking at the cause of the problem and dealing with that?

V.12,13,19,20 - David is anointed, the Spirit of the Lord came upon David in power, and David is offered to Saul by his father along with bread and a skin of wine which perhaps echoes Christ. Though previously anointed, David has to go through a testing period 1Sam 20:19,20,34,35,41 (3rd day of the month, 3 arrows and bows at the stone "Ezel" which according to Smith's Bible Dictionary means "departure"); 23:16,17; 27:1 ("dead" but he didn't die) before he becomes king at age 30 (the same age as Christ when starting his 3 years, "30" is thought by many to indicate fitness for service); before his 33 year reign in Jerusalem he has to go through water (God's Word and/or baptism?)  to attain the palace where those who are blind and lame (symbolic of those who are spiritually blind and lame?) can not enter 2Sam 5:4-8

16:2  Samuel’s fear of Saul indicates that even before David was chosen Saul had begun to show his instability and fear of his successor.

MUSIC
 
David was a very talented musician. To be chosen as the king's harpist from among all the musicians of Israel, shows that his skill in playing and the feeling that he put into his music must have been outstanding. But when we also consider the theme of David's music, as seen in the book of Psalms, we see that he wrote and sang his songs to the glory of God. There is no better or more meaningful way to use our talents than to give glory to God - especially when it comes to music.
 
Music has a way of stirring us. As David played for Saul, the music and the sentiments contained in David's music would have a calming effect on Saul. The result of David's playing is described in this way: "Then relief would come to Saul; he would feel better, and the evil spirit would leave him." (1Sam 16:23)
 
As we read through the Psalms, we find the same thing happens. No matter how bad the situation at the beginning of a song, the mood and attitude of the psalmist is almost always improved.
 
Music is a wonderful blessing from God to us. Let's use it to sing out the praises of an Awesome God and let the sentiments and melody of our godly music lift us up, refresh us, and bring us together with God.

16:6   So we see that Samuel possibly was looking for a replacement for Saul who matched his stature. We are advised of this so we can really learn the lesson that God looks on the heart.

V.14 Saul was given over to a brooding, melancholy, irritable personality which was going to be pivotal to the trials David would have to endure.  We saw a hint of Saul's mental instability earlier in the issuing of an irrational command (1Sam 14:24).  It is interesting to speculate what sort of mental illness Saul had as described by today's analyses - perhaps paranoia or schizophrenia, or a combination of the two?

16:2 If it had been Samuel who had devised the subterfuge to enable him to travel to Bethlehem in safety doubtless we would question that correctness of such an action. However we should note that it was God who suggested the subterfuge. Clearly this does not enable us to justify any dishonesty but we should be aware that God actually uses it to preserve his servant here.

V.4 Bethlehem was not a town on Samuel’s usual circuit (Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpah were, 1Sam 7:16).  And so, imagine the reaction to the prophet of Yahweh in making a special visit to Bethlehem.  The elders of the town trembled because they thought that Samuel might have come to pronounce God’s judgment on them.

Vs.6-12 Yahweh knew that He wanted David as king to succeed Saul.  Why, then, did He have Samuel go through this selection process?

V.20 Taking a present to Saul via David was an act of homage (recall 1Sam 10:27).

I've often wondered if this chapter is in chronological order with chapter 17, because at the end of 16 Saul enquires about the identity of David, and in chapter 17 David is sent, from the fields, by his father to enquire after his brothers who are engaged in the war with the Philistines. 

After his conquest of Goliath, Saul again enquires after David's identity.  Any thoughts on this?

16:7 God highlights a fundamental principle here. It would have been possible for God to ensure that David was present when Samuel arrived so the choice could have been made quickly. However Samuel had to learn through repeated meetings with Jesse’s sons that God is not moved by outward appearance but by the heart. We would do well to note this.

1Sam 16:11-13 - Samuel anointed David who at the time had been diligently shepherding his father's sheep; Samuel anointed Saul who at the time (in contrast) was engaged in a fruitless wandering search for his father's lost asses (1Sam 9:1-10;10:1-2).

16:13 Saul had been anointed with a ‘vial’ of oil – 1Sam 10:1 – but David was anointed with a ‘horn’ . we should reflect upon the way in which a vial is depicted in Scripture. It is never seen as a medium for blessings.

There might be a bit of humour to the situation in 1Sam 16:6-13. Samuel has just been cautioned for looking at the appearance of Eliab, and so when David arrives, 'ruddy, with beautiful eyes and handsome', he sits frozen - almost afraid to assume that this could be God's annointed, so God has to prompt him to 'arise, and annoint him, for this is he.'

Compare the annointing of David with the annointing of Saul. In 1Sam 9:14-27 we see Samuel full of confidence: 'I am the seer. Go up before me to the high place, for today you shall eat with me, and in the morning I will let you go and will tell you all that is on your mind. As for your donkeys that were lost three days ago, do not set your mind on them, for they have been found. And for whom is all that is desirable in Israel? Is it not for you and for all your father's house?' He goes on to annoint Saul in 1Sam 10:1-8 with a great deal of instruction, yet in 1Sam 16 he annoints David in what appears to be complete silence.

1Sam 16:7

“…for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.”

This passage ranks among the most misunderstood and misused texts in Scripture. The context is about Samuel’s mission to find another king to replace Saul (1Sam 13:13-14). When Samuel saw Eliab, he assumed Eliab was God’s choice because his outward stature resembled Saul’s (1Sam 9:2). God did not want another Saul; He wanted someone who was after His own heart (Acts 13:22).

To take this passage and conclude that God does not care about a person’s outward appearance regarding their attire is to totally take it out of context! The whole counsel of God teaches us, whether explicitly or implicitly, that our outward appearance should be a reflection of our inward love for Him. God looks both on the heart and outward appearance. Consider these Old Testament passages: Exo 28:2,40; Lev 19:28; 21:5; Num 15:38-39; Deut 22:5,12. Consider these New Testament passages: 1Cor 11:2-16; 1Tim 2:9-10; 1Pet 3:3-4.

Since man can only see the outward appearance, how much more should we live up to our Father’s commands in this regard! The Israelites were ordered to dress differently from the nations around them that they remember who they are and whose they are (Num 15:38-40). God expects His children to dress in such a way that it reflects His holiness. We are called to be living epistles (2Cor 3:3).

Prov 7:10 speaks of a woman with, “the attire of an harlot.” Several years ago I witnessed a woman come out of church showing more bosom than blouse, and without any blush or shame had a cross nestled between her cleavage! How foolish it would be for us who have been instructed not to love the world (1John 2:15-16) to then mirror worldly fashions in our appearances because the LORD looks only on the heart!

16:12 Here and in 1Sam 17:42 David’s appearance is given approvingly. However God does not look on the outward appearance 1Sam 16:7 so what is it about David that causes God to comment on his appearance?

16:16   The word translated “player” is the Hebrew word Neginoth found in some of the Psalm titles – for example in the title of Psalm 4. As we can see what Neginoth means from its use here.

16:5  Clearly David was not sanctified with Jesse and his brothers. So we have to conclude that Jesse did not think David was of any consequence – just the right sort of person to be a king!

1Sam 16:7

A reader writes: “... I did note your comments on 1 Samuel 16, my thoughts were concerning, God's choice of David the 8th son of Jesse; God "looking upon the heart". Going back further we have God's choice of Noah who found grace in the eyes of God. Eight people saved in the Ark; circumcision instituted the 8th day; the true Jew is circumcised of the heart, inwardly [Roman's ch.2 v 29], and there are several other references relating to the 8th day which I am certain you are aware of as 8 in scripture numerology relates to resurrection and regeneration unto salvation...”

My reply: Thank you for your comment. Bible numerics are God’s watermark of authenticity of the Bible as it moves through its pages in a similar fashion as lines run through paper money. The number 8 is also the personal number of Jesus (888); “the truth” (adds up to 64 or 8x8); the book of Revelation contains 888 Greek words, and Jesus rose from the dead on the eight day, also referred to as the first day of the week.

16:22   So Saul, relying on hearsay, decides that David is the man who he needs to help him. Not the way a circumspect man would behave. Such an one would, on hearing a report, check its veracity before making a decision.

Our Working Life

I quite like Verse 11, where it introduces David for the first time and shows him working, whilst his brothers were being examined by Samuel to see if they were the LORD's anointed. Perhaps they were trying to claim an elevation, with the encouragement of Jesse (Vs 8-10). 

It's interesting to note that David wasn't at the sacrifice - he was sent for afterwards. Despite the commotion of Samuel's arrival, where the elders trembled and asked if Samuel came peaceably (perhaps in fear of judgement), he was tending to the job he had been given. How often have we had someone important walk into our workplace, for everyone to stop what they were doing and tend to them? Here is a brilliant example of remaining faithful in the workplace and not seeking to be elevated.

Had David left the sheep unattended to seek a name for himself, he would have failed the job he had been given and would be no better than Saul, who had left the people of Israel during the battles we read of in the previous chapters. Although it seemed like a simple job at the time, the work was preparing David to look after the sheep of Israel during his reign. It is those who are patient and humble who shall be exalted (see Prov 29:23 and Matt 23:12). So therefore, let us not be slack or grumble at the work we have been given, but instead thank God for it, as it could be preparing us for a much greater job in the coming Kingdom! 

16:18-19     And so the king to be is introduced to the king who has been rejected. The beginning of a turbulent relationship between Saul and David.

16:21     David had been chosen to play before Saul when the evil spirit came upon him. However Saul, true to form, sees in David a military man and makes him his armour bearer.

16:12  In speaking of David as £goodly” the same description is used that was used – Exo 2:2 – of the child Moses.

16:23    Of all the kings of Judah Saul is the only one who’s mental health is spoken of.

16:14 the “evil spirit” is nothing  more than Saul’s fear of David as can be seen in 18:12.

16:14 the “evil spirit” is nothing  more than Saul’s fear of David as can be seen in 1Sam 18:12.

16:6-8 All of Jesse’s sons were strong, powerful, young men. But when Goliath challenges Israel they are nowhere to be found. It is the “stripling” David who stepped into the breach to honour Yahweh.

16:19-20 One wonders what went through David’s mind. He had been summoned by Saul, the king, after he had been anointed to be king himself. What followed was a turbulent time of “cat and mouse” with David’s life in danger from Saul. It is maybe good that we, like David, are unaware of what the future holds for us! But God is in control – as David clearly understood.  As David said at the end of his life Psa 18:2 The Lord is my rock … and my deliverer

16:2 Whilst Samuel was the priest that officiated at this time it is clear that Saul had already shown his hatred of Samuel – doubtless because of the fact that he had given Saul God’s words that he had been rejected. The implications to Samuel were clear – a new king in Bethlehem would spell  animosity towards Samuel from Saul.

v.11 - The gates of Zion (and this is surely Zion here - ch.59:20) are now opened to all who believe, that each might walk through those gates, which the Lord loves [Psa.87:2], which represents baptism into Christ, who is the gate - the door to the sheepfold, who is loved of God. And we too are counted through that gate as we enter - Psa.87:5,6. Let us indeed be sure that we seek the safety that is inside those walls [Rev.22:14], because if not ... Rev.22:15.

v.11 - The continually open gates is picked up in Revelation 21:25.

v1 - Our light is come. The bright and morning star - Rev.22:16 - the light of the gospel of the resurrection. This light, we see here, should make us shine - surely a reference back to Moses face when he came down from the mount. We should be a true reflection of that man we worship.

The echo of the words of Psalm 102 may well be an element of the fellowship that existed between Isaiah and Hezekiah - it seems likely that Hezekiah wrote Psalm 102.

:14 The way that the gentiles were to bow themselves at the feet of Israel reflects the conquest of the land under Joshua (10:24).

60:3 Notice the repetition of 'shall come' in this chapter (Isa 60:3,4,5,6,7,13,14) Israel must have seen the force of this message when Isaiah  spoke. They had not yet gone into captivity with the Babylonians but here Isaiah is speaking of their return! And also of gentiles being involved in the work after the return (60:10)

V.1 "glory of the LORD" not the Shekinah glory, or cloud of glory, such as rested above the ark., but the glory of the Lord in person.Jer 3:16-17

Vs.1-3  proclaim the Lord Jesus as Redeemer of the world (See also Isa 9:2; John 8:12).  The rest of the chapter paints a beautiful picture of conditions after Christ has returned to earth to assume His kingly role. 

V.9 Jews from all over the world will stream to Israel to serve their king.  Perhaps Britain and her allies (Tarshish) will play a role in transporting them. 

V.11 Open gates to the new Jerusalem will be maintained (Rev 21:25). 

V.12 All nations will be invited to submit to the King of all the earth.  Those who refuse to submit shall be destroyed (Rev 14:19,20).

V.19 In that time, Yahweh's glory alone will illuminate the earth (Rev 22:5).

Let us be diligent so that we will be invited into Yahweh's rest (Heb 4:1).

BLESSINGS OF ZION
 
Since the time of Solomon, nothing like this has ever been seen in Jerusalem.  Even the wealth and glory of Solomon's reign was only a shadow of this time of praise and glory to come.  In fact, throughout the history of the world there would be precious few nations or even cities that have risen to the heights described in Isaiah 60 of Zion in the future.
 
Zion today is a place of war and darkness.  People look toward Israel, not because they want to be like her or serve her, but because she is a world trouble spot.  It has been said that when the problem of Jerusalem is solved, the world will have peace.  For many of the people in the world, that means getting rid of the Jew.  But that is far from God's plan.  His plan is to make Jerusalem into the city that all nations will flow to, and exalt the Jews as his precious and special people.
 
At that time the whole world will bow toward Zion.  They will bring gifts and the glory of the nations into her.  They will help and support her.  Israel will be the head and not the tail as God promised so much earlier.  It will not be because of anything Israel has done, but because God has decided to fulfil the promises he made to them and because he has chosen to fill the earth with his glory, beginning at Jerusalem.
 
We too can share in that glory and the promises he has given when we become part of the family of God.  It is too great a blessing to miss out on.  Let's be sure we are part of it.

V.19 The sun and moon, the brightest objects by day and night, shall be eclipsed by the glory of God manifesting Himself. Rev 21:23;, Rev 22:5

When Jesus comes both the Jews and the Gentiles will come to Him, (Isa 60:1-4).  Kings will come to the brightness of His rising.  It came partly true when He was born 2,000 years ago, but this passage will have its final fulfilment at His return.  “Even so, come, Lord Jesus”
(Rev 22:20).

60:2 The ‘darkness’ over the earth echoes Isa 9:2 as a basis for the redemption. Unless we can see that the world is in darkness we will not appreciate the light of the gospel.

60:3 In saying that ‘the gentiles shall come to thy light the prophet is returning to a theme he presented in Isa 42:6

V.3 Jesus is the light of the world (John 8:12).  Physical light phenomena have been used to describe the brilliance of Jesus.  He is seen as the sun (Mal 4:2); and the morning star (Rev 22:16).  Venus, the brightest planet, is called the morning star because it can be seen at its maximum brightness just after sunrise, and, also, just after sunset.  And so, Jesus' radiance will shine from sunrise to sunset when He returns to set up His new order of government.

60:6 the way in which gentiles will ‘show for the praises of the Lord’ is used by Peter to highlight the responsibility of believers – 1Pet 2:9

V.13 This verse is talking about the fourth temple that shall be established in the Kingdom.

Vs.14,15 Israel, the nation of Yahweh, has been oppressed and downtrodden throughout history.  But, Yahweh will save a remnant of His people to enjoy life in the Kingdom.

V.16 See Isa 49:23.

V.22 The promises about Israel were made a long time ago to one man Abraham. He promised this one man that he would become the father of a great nation (Gen 12:2; 32:12). This nation includes both Natural Israel and Spiritual Israel (Gal 3:29).

History has been unfolding for a long time since Abraham walked the earth. But when Jesus returns (and Abraham is raised from the dead), things will happen quickly, and the promises to Abraham will be expedited: I the LORD will hasten it in his time.

The Isles ("coastlands" in NKJV) in v9 appear to refer to the lands Tyre & Sidon sent merchant ships to. This can be deduced from the way the phrase is repeated in Jer 25:22, Eze 26:15-18, 27:3. So it includes Crete, Greece, Malta but also further afield to Italy, Spain, the rest of Europe and North Africa. During the reign of Solomon, there was a trade agreement between these merchants and Israel so that trade in the Middle East was effectively controlled from Jerusalem (1Kin 10:22-29, 2Chron 8:18, 9:10-13, 21-24).

So v9 suggests that this arrangement will exist again when Jesus administers the world from Jerusalem. This gives us an enormously vivid picture of the Kingdom time, because we can read all about the reign of Solomon, his splendour and glory, and how he administered his kingdom, and apply it to Jesus' rule. See Psalm 72 especially v8,10.

Isa 60:14 First Principles>Sure Mercies of David>Capital City>Jerusalem Glorified
Jerusalem, rebuilt and glorified, will become the metropolis of God's Kingdom which will embrace all nations. Psa 48:2, Isa 52:1, Isa 60:14, Jer 3:17, Zech 14:16, Matt 5:34-35
First Principles>Sure Mercies of David> For more details go to Isa 55:1-3.

60:10 The way in which Isaiah speaks of the ‘sons of strangers’ helping build the walls is echoed by the later prophet –Zech 8:23

60:4-5 Isaiah continues the theme of a national regathering of the Jews – but they have not yet even been taken captive by Babylon. But the way the verses speak show that the prophet is speaking of the final restoration.

60:18 The way, in this chapter where Israel’s exaltation in the kingdom when Jesus returns, is shown as her walls being salvation echoes the earlier words of the prophet – Isa 26:1 – another chapter which speaks of the resurrection of Jesus. A pre requisite for the establishment of the kingdom of God on the earth.

60:8  The almost incredulous question shows the great mercy of God. He provides a blessing (of a faithful nation) against all expectations.

Another king like Solomon and Jesus

As well as alluding to the reign of Solomon and foreshadowing the reign of Jesus (please see my previous comment) this chapter also alludes to the reign of another king. Who do you think that could be? He would attract kings to come and honour him (v3,10,11), attract great wealth (v5,17), and Jerusalem be seen as the centre of worship of the LORD (v6,7,14). Which of the Kings of Israel experienced such wealth and greatness except Solomon?

See how many links you can find between our chapter and the king in these verses:

2Chron 31:21, 2Chron 32:22-23, 27-30

60:6  The people who would show forth God’s praise is shown by Peter to the believers – 1Pet 2:9 – and they are to do it now else they will not be in the kingdom where they will show God’s praise for eternity. 

60:9  The way in which the returning exiles will bring wealth in the form of silver and gold which is given to the Lord echoes the generosity of Israel at the time of the building of the tabernacle  and the time that Solomon built the temple.

The New Creation:

Isa 60:2 - darkness

Isa 60:1-3 - light

Isa 60:19 - sun and moon

Isa 60:7-8 - animals and birds

Isa 60:21;Isa 61:11 - the Lord's garden

Isa 60:13;Isa 61:3 - trees

Isa 60:7 - acceptable sacrifice

Isa 60:11 - gates not shut

Isa 61:7 - no more shame

Isa 61:9 - seed blessed

Isa 61:10 - clothed with garments of salvation; bridegroom and bride

Isa 61:11 - a garden like Eden

Isa 62:4-5 - the marriage blessed

1. Isa 60:1 - Christ is the light.

2. Isa 60:1,2,20;Isa 59:20 - Zion's light is the Lord, the  redeemer, the Father revealed Himself 2000 years ago as "the light of the world" (John 8:12) in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son (Isa 9:1-2;Matt 4:14-16), who was a manifestation of and glory of the Lord even in the flesh (John 1:14;Isa 40:5).

3. Isa 60:1 - the redeemer has come to Zion, with his seed, and there is rejoicing replacing mourning (Isa 59:20;Isa 60:14-15 - obviously not a figurative Jerusalem above seeing as it was afflicted and hated, etc.).

4. Isa 60:2 - "the Lord rises".

5. Isa 60:3 - "Nations will come to your light" (Gentiles to be included in the kingdom age of restored Israel).

6. Isa 60:3,5,6,11 - the Gentiles shall come to thy light; primarily about the Messianic age and includes Gentiles; (Gen 22:18;Gal 3:8,16,22-29;Heb 2:10-11;Rev 16:15;Rev 14:6;Rev 21:24;Isa 60:12;Rev 14:8).

7. Isa 60:4 - "all assemble"

8. Isa 60:5 - "to you the riches of the nations [i.e. Gentiles] will come"

9. Isa 60:6 - "And all from Sheba will come...proclaiming the praise of the Lord".

10. Isa 60:7 - "all the flocks of Kedar...on mine altar, and I will glorify the house of my glory"; is this the restoration of sacrifice (Isa 19:21;Isa 56:5-7;Zech 14:16;Mal 3:3-4;Jer 37:15-18;Eze 43:18-27;Heb 10:1-4,8-10)? Kedar and Nebaioth were the first two sons of Ishmael.

11. Isa 60:8 - does this refer to the saints and the Jews (Song 2:14 a dove as the bride of Christ; a dove as the Jews Hos 7:11-13;Hos 11:11).

12. Isa 60:9 - an overseas restoration from the west?

13. Isa 60:10 - restoration from foreigners and compassion  from God.

14. Isa 60:11 - the gates of Zion (i.e. the Jerusalem capital of the millennial kingdom on earth to soon come) will be continually open (Rev 21:25).

15. Isa 60:12 - nations that don't serve Zion will perish.

16. Isa 60:13-15 - Jerusalem in the millennial era will be glorious (Isa 60:18-22;Isa 26:9;Matt 5:5;Matt 6:10;Isa 2:1-5); V14 the sins of your oppressors will cause them to bow, and they shall call Jerusalem the city of the Lord, the Zion of the Holy One of Israel; V14 (Rev 3:9,12); V15 formerly forsaken and hated, Zion will be the everlasting pride and joy of all generations.

17. Isa 60:16 - "thy Redeemer" refers to the Messiah Jesus Christ.

18. Isa 60:17 - bronze to gold (flesh to spirit? mortality to immortality?);  "I will make peace your governor and righteousness your ruler" (this would seem to be the millennial era with Christ ruling).

19. Isa 60:18 - "No longer will violence be heard in your land, nor ruin or destruction within your borders, but you will call your walls Salvation and your gates Praise"; (Rev 21:12).

20. Isa 60:19-20 - "the Lord will be your everlasting light"; V19 (Rev 21:23); V20 is a figurative visual of God's blessing on the new Israel of God in the age to come; V20 (Rev 21:25).

21. Isa 60:21 - "Then will all your people be righteous and they will possess the land forever. They are ...the work of my hands"; (Rev 21:27).

22. Isa 60:22 - Rev 22:20.

60:1   The light that had come replaced the darkness of Isa 9:2

60:6       The way in which the gentiles will show God’s praise echoes the way in which Isaiah – Isa 43:21 – speaks of Israel showing God’s praise when they have turned to Him.

60:19  The absence of the need for the sun and moon to provide light is taken up in Rev 21:23.

60:21. There are many times that the Old Testament speaks of righteous inheriting the land of Israel. The first, we might see, being Gen 13:15 in the promise to Abraham which is the basis for all of the other occasions the promise is made.

60:22 In speaking of a “small one” being a “strong nation” we see a fulfilment of the promise to Abram – Gen 12:2

60:22 the way that the prophet speaks of the sun and moon and light is the basis for what Jesus says – Rev 21:23 – when he told John about the coming kingdom of God on earth.

60:18 the way in which walls as salvation is reminiscent of the City of Refuge -Num 35:11 - into which the one who had accidentally killed someone could flee. We have “fled for refuge” Hebrews 6:18 and so the risen Christ is our “wall”. Do we always put our trust in him and our god?

60:9 Tarshish had been a great trading power gaining wealth, from amongst other things the slave trade – Eze 27:13But now during the millennial reign of Christ the trading will be of a totally different sort. The people transported will be returning Jews, not slaves, taken back to their homeland, the land of Israel.

60:2-12 the sorry state of the world and the judgments against is must be seen against the background of the way that gentile nations will come to worship Yahweh. Notice how many times we read “shall come” in this section.

Then, as now, men and women will have a choice. The wise will respond positively whilst the unwise will rebel.

v.35 - Jerusalem is held in the highest honour. What fate will befall those who currently fight for her ownership? We hope and pray that it is not long before the Great King comes to own his own city. 2Chr.6:6, Ps.48:2, Rev.21:2,10.

v.1 - Note that Jesus went up into a mountain with the disciples when he saw the multitude, therefore the 'sermon on the mount' was delivered to the disciples - not to the multitude. In the gospels there are a number of times when Jesus took himself away from the crowds up into a mountain. [Matthew 5:1 8:1 14:23 15:29 17:1 24:3 28:16 Mark 3:13 6:46 9:2 13:3 Luke 6:12 9:28 22:39 John 6:3 15 8:1] It seems that this was either for solitude for himself of privacy in order to instruct his disciples. We should note that whilst Jesus went about preaching and teaching and devoting himself to the Father's work he did take time out to fulfil his own personal needs.

5:44 Jesus' words 'bless them that curse you.' Are quoted (Romans 12:14) as part of the instruction of how we are to be living sacrifices (Romans 12:1)

LET YOUR LIGHT SHINE
Jesus tells us to let our lights shine before men so that they may see your good deeds and praise you Father in heaven. But the question is, How do we get the light inside us in the first place? Jesus said that he is the light of the world. We are also told that God's word is a lamp to our feet and a light to our paths. I believe that the way we get the light inside of us in the first place is to get it from the source of light himself - God. Read the Bible, pray and let Jesus live in your life and then, to have a light that shines really brightly, be filled with them all.
The next question is, How do we let it shine?
Psalm 89 v 15 - 17 gives us a great picture of how to let it shine.
"Blessed are those who have learned to acclaim you,
who walk in the light of your presence, O LORD.
They rejoice in your name all day long;
they exalt in your righteousness.
For you are their glory and strength,
and by your favour you exalt our horn."
If we are filled with God's light we will not be able to keep it in! We will be filled with a compelling urge to do what God wants us to do, to praise and worship God and tell other people what awesome things God has done for us.
Some people pretend to be Christians - and you can tell it in the way their light shines because it flickers light and dark. Let us not be one of them.
Remember that no light can shine from you until you let the light in. So pray today to be filled with God's light.

LOVE EVERYONE
God is good to everyone no matter who they are or what they do. He sends the rain on the good and the bad and the sun rises and sets for all of us. God is perfect and he does good things for everyone whether they love him or not. If we want to be perfect and want to be imitators of God we must follow his example in this. Just as he loves everyone and gives his good gifts to all of us, we must love everyone too. This is one of the things that makes a Christian so different from most people in the world. Most people love their friends and they stop there. They speak to people that they like or think they might get on with. If they prayed they would stop before they got to the people that they dislike. But we must aim to be more like God. We must aim to be good to all people whether we like them or not. "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. … Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly father is perfect."

:28 Whilst we may think that Jesus here extends the principles seen in the law we should remember that Job understood this principle and his understanding guided his life (Job 31:1)

5:48 We might manage to explain away the word ‘perfect’ by saying that it mans ‘complete’ or some other variation. But whatever we do with the word we must remember that we should be ‘as your Father …’ forces us to accept that whatever the word means Jesus is telling us that we must match God’s character. A tall order!

V.13 Though salt has many characteristics: whiteness, flavour, preservative power, etc, it is the last quality, the potency of salt as an antiseptic, a substance that prevents decay, upon which the emphasis falls here. The truth is to be preserved. 

Jesus teaches His disciples what is commonly referred to as the Beatitudes.  Notice the reward of the meek (v.5) and the reward of the persecuted (v.10).  As Yahweh has the same reward for all His faithful, then the inheritance of the earth and possession of the kingdom of heaven is the same thing.  Thus, the idea of souls floating off to heaven at death is not scriptural.  Indeed, Christ will bring the reward of inheritance to the faithful when He returns to earth (Col 3:24; Rev 22:12).

V.13 Salt is a preservative which has the quality of being hygroscopic (ability to absorb water from the air).  Being the salt of the earth implies absorbing the water of the Word. 

Jesus was the Word made flesh (John 1:14) and following His commandments ensures hydration (John 7:38).  Failing to absorb water makes salt a useless commodity.  Failing to absorb the water of the Word renders one useless in the sight of the Lord.

Jesus may have taken his teaching in Matt 5:41 about going the second mile, from David's double dowry for Michal (1Sam 18:25-27), and Jacob's double dowry for Rachel (Gen 29:27).  On both these occasions the father-in-law sought to ensnare his future son in law (1Sam 18:21, Gen 31:6-7), and in both cases the son in law gave double the asking price for the hand of their daughter.  The lesson for us is that despite these men being used by their fathers in law, God made a distinction between them and blessed them all the more.  The lesson Jesus brings out is that men who "do good to those that hate you" will be called "sons of your Father in heaven" (Matt 5:45) rather than a son of Saul or Laban.

5:20 The righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees was in their own eyes through the keeping of the law of Moses. Our righteousness must be conferred on us by God because we believe - Like Abraham Gen 15:6 - it is harder to believe that God will do something than it is to think that we can achieve righteousness by our own actions.

5:34 The teaching of Jesus is used a number of times in the letters. ‘Swear not …’ is used by James 5:12

Each beatitude consists of three parts: (A) The ascription of blessedness. (B) A description of the person, his character, or condition (the poor in spirit, the mourner.) (C) A statement of the reason for this blessedness. (for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. for they shall be comforted.)

5:48     Moses’ charge to Israel – Deut 18:13 –shows that Jesus’ words are not new. He is simply restating the principles of the law of Moses.

V.5  The word meek comes from the Greek praus which implies humble.  We are told that Moses was a very meek man (Num 11:3).  The word meek used here is from the Hebrew anav which implies to depress (one’s ego).  Peter exhorts us to be humble (1Pet 5:6). The Greek word for humble, here, is tapinoo, which also implies to depress (one’s ego).  And so, we can see that meekness really implies humility.

However, one does not have to skulk around apologetically to be meek, as some suppose.  One can be bold and vigorous and still be humble.  Think of some of the Biblical characters who had boldness and vigour and yet were humble (otherwise they would have been rejected by Yahweh) - such characters as Phinehas, Caleb etc.

5:5 In this world the meek do not get anything, they are pushed around. However the spirit of those who are children of the kingdom is to be meek quoting Psa 37:11,22

V.17 The Law pointed forward to Jesus who had not been born yet.  But, now that Jesus is here, the Law has done its job. The job of the Law (schoolmaster (KJV); guardian (ESV)) was to lead Israel to its Messiah, Jesus (Gal 3:24,25).

Vs.23,24 We should make sure that we are at peace with our brethren before engaging in any activity with them. If a problem with someone still exists, it is better to opt out of the activity.

V.28 Although males are the ones more likely to offend, women are not above casting an adulterous eye.  And so, this observation applies to them also (See also 1Pet 2:14).

Vs.31,32 See Matt 19:4-9.

Vs.34-36 Neither should one swear on the Bible, because it is God’s Word.

V.44 How, then, can a true follower of Jesus join the army, police force, or any organisation that could cause harm to another human being?

5:48 Jesus call to be ‘perfect’ is alluded to by Paul – 1Cor 2:6 – when encouraging the believers in Corinth.

5:9 There is a difference between a peace maker and a peace keeper.  It is far harder to make peace than it is to keep peace once it has been made.

Matt 5:9

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."

God is a God of peace, and His plan of redemption is to provide peace with Him who were formerly alienated from Him. We are to bring this peace to others. It goes beyond having peace with one another. It begins with reconciliation with God, and then we are to extend this true peace to others. In other words, we are to live peacefully, AND we are to spread the gospel of peace. Together, these comprise the "peacemakers."

Matt 5:21,27,31,33,38,43

In these verses we read Christ say, "Ye have heard that it hath been said...but I say unto you..." By doing so, he was sharply contrasting his own teachings against the distorted teachings of the self-righteous Scribes and Pharisees. When Jesus referred to the Old Testament teachings, he used the formula, "it is written" (Matt 4:4).

Matt 5:43-47

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you..."

The Sermon on the Mount is the heart and core of our faith. Love toward God and toward one's fellow man is the essence of both the Sermon on the Mount and the Law of Moses. Hating our enemy was a Pharisaic addition to the Mosaic Law, which clearly commanded not to hate our brother and to love our neighbor (Lev 19:17-18).

Matt 5:31-32

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away (apoluo) his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement (apostasion): but I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away (apoluo) his wife, saving for the cause of fornication (porneia), causeth her to commit adultery (moichao): and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced (apoluo) committeth adultery (moichao).”

A lot of confusion has arisen over the issue of divorce and remarriage, making it one of the most controversial and divisive subjects in the body of Messiah. This passage of Scripture is part of the “Sermon on the Mount.” In verses 17-19, Jesus disclaimed the idea that he was trying to destroy or undermine the Law, and positively condemned those who would break the least commandment and teach others so.

“It hath been said.” The Scribes and Pharisees fell short of the Law’s righteous standard, and misinterpreted it in many ways (verses 21-44). When speaking of what the Law really said, Jesus used, “It is written.”

“But I say unto you.” Jesus is not changing or adding something new to the God’s Law, given by God, Himself to Moses, but is showing the true and deeper meaning contained in the Law, which had been distorted. This is not to be construed to mean that Jesus is abrogating any of the Divine Laws, or that he is replacing them with something different. He is not discrediting the Law of God, but discrediting the Pharisaical false teachings to the people in their interpretation of the Law!

“Put away…put away…divorced (wrongly translated)…” is one word in the Greek – apoluo, #<630> in Strong’s, and is the Hebrew equivalent of shalach, "to put away." It is only a part of the divorce process, and not synonymous with divorce as widely believed and taught. A margin note in the Geneva Bible translated from the Textus Receptus in 1560 about 50 years before the 1611 KJV, also translated from the Textus Receptus, writes concerning "put away:" "that is, was not lawfully divorced." "Put away" appears more than 65 times, but translated only once as "divorce, and that is here in verse 32!

“Divorcement” is apostasion, #<647>, and is the Hebrew equivalent of keriythuwth, "a complete cutting off of the marriage bond." If a separated woman remarried without legal divorce papers, she committed adultery. Many of them were not following the Law of Deut 24:1-4. They were simply separating from their wives without giving a writing of divorcement because they wanted to keep the dowries.

“Saving for the cause of fornication.” It is important to note the two distinct words Jesus used. “Adultery,” moichao, Strong’s #<3429>, is a word that describes illicit sexual relations involving at least one married person that violates a covenant, and “fornication,” porneia, Strong’s #<4202>, is any kind of illicit sexual activity without necessarily being in a covenant relationship. The context being of legally bound couples, what Jesus is saying is where there is no lawfully binding marriage contract in the first place, there is no need to appeal to the Law for divorce papers. Illicit sex does not legally bind anyone, and is a totally separate issue.

Matt 5:13

“Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.”

It is recorded in ancient Jewish writings that in Herod’s temple there was a salt chamber for storing salt used with the sacrifices. The priests needed large quantities and when large quantities of salt were stored some spoiled and lost their savor. The priests sprinkled this spoiled salt over the pavement of the temple to prevent their feet from slipping. It was literally thrown out and trampled underfoot by men! Salt-less salt served no purpose at all.

Only those who have “salt” can lose it. A professing believer who willfully discards the eternal ordinances of salt that they don’t like has lost his savour as a child of salt. As children of salt we are to bring the salt of the Scriptures to any who will listen, while discarding the half-baked sermons and teachings of apostate religions (Hos 8:7; Eph 4:14-15). Those using only half of the “salt shaker” – the New Testament without the Old Testament, or use passages that itch their ears (2Tim 4:3-4), are under the influence of apostate preachers.

Being truly in Messiah is a lifestyle and not just doctrine. Let us be the salt and let us shake the salt, being called to a salt covenant – a salt that is designed to create a strong thirst in us for the true teachings of Messiah, which refreshes, but is, at the same time, a “salt irritant” to those who throw out the doctrine of salt being unpalatable to them. (See my notes on Luke 14:34-35).

THE MEEK WILL INHERIT THE EARTH

"Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth."(Matt 5:5)

According to the Scriptures, one of the best examples of meekness we could ever see is the man Moses. "Now Moses was a very humble (AV, meek) man, more humble (meek) than anyone else on the face of the earth." (Num 12:3) Humility, teachableness and putting the needs of others above your own are the characteristics of a meek person.

You don't find meek people grumbling about their situation in life. Instead they get on, counting their blessings and continuing to help others who are worse off than themselves. Moses was a great example of this when he pleaded for his people over the sin of the golden calf. He said, "Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made for themselves gods of gold. But now, please forgive their sin - but if not, blot me out of the book you have written." (Exo 32:31-32) Moses was prepared to give up his reward in order to save others.

It is the meek who are not looking out for a reward for themselves, who selflessly devote themselves to the needs and wants of others. This is why the meek are promised such a rich reward. The meek will inherit the earth! What a blessing! The riches they help others to receive will be their reward. Let us strive to develop meekness in our lives.

Matt 5:32

A reader asks:

“What about the part that says, ‘and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.’”

Note: Just reading this, we would have to conclude that it is only the man who commits the adultery. In actual fact, what is being conveyed here is that the man commits adultery against the husband of the woman because she is still married, though separated, but not divorced from her husband! This passage goes a lot deeper, and a mere isolated surface reading would only have us come to erroneous conclusions. This misinterpreted passage is so often used to ostracize, criticize, and demoralize those that have gone through just such an experience, and hinder those who would enter the Kingdom. 

My reply:
In Matt 5:32, the word divorced is the Greek word apoluo, and simply conveys the idea of being separated! "Divorced" has been incorrectly translated here as Strong's Concordance will verify. The word in the Greek for divorced is apostasion. In other words, if you remarry without a proper legal divorce, you are committing adultery being still married. In our day, bigamy and polygamy, while overlooked during Old Testament times, is under the Law of Christ considered adultery. The problem sometimes concerning this issue is usually because it is taught wrongly by those who misunderstand this and other passages.
Please also read my notes for the July 31st readings on Rom 7. The ecclesia is the bride of Christ, and what the apostle Paul is addressing and showing those who know the law, that you cannot be under the Law of Moses and Christ at the same time. Remember, that the Jews were married to God under the Law of Moses; they were His wife (see Jer 3:14 AV), and thus, the Jews could not accept being married to another, even Christ. In actual fact, it was now the other way around, as Paul tried to show them. That is all! These believers in Messiah whom Paul addressed were Judaisers who were trying to have it both ways, which is, indeed, spiritual adultery. Taken any other way, it would contradict numerous Scriptural passages.  All the pieces of the puzzle MUST fit; if it does not then we know that we are missing the mark.
This passage is one of those passages that Peter wrote of Paul as, "hard to be understood" (see 2Pet 3:15-16), but can be understood if we study the Word and dig in deeply, "as for hid treasure." Then, and only then, will we understand this issue and interpret it in its proper context. I am not asking you to take my word for it, but I am asking you to study it for yourself, and then you decide.

Matt 5:32

The reader further asks:
“I am trying to understand what you have here, I looked up the one word you say means separation, but it said divorce as well.  I will have to get to the library & look it over better as I am using my phone & I cant copy & paste too well.  Also, what about going to law to obtain a divorce.  Is that right to go to man's court.”

My reply: 
The Concordance does insert the word, "divorce" along with "separation" because apoluo has been translated as divorce in the text by the translators. Separation is separation, divorce is divorce. We are not at liberty to pick and choose, which word suits best our beliefs. We have this mindset that if someone is put away, that they are divorced, but there is a distinction as ultimately Scripture reveals. The same situation occurs in the OT passages in Lev 21, Lev 22, Num 30:9, wherein the word, "divorced" is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word, garash, to "put away," the difference from shalach (also Hebrew, to put away) being that the separation was done in a forceful manner. Again, the Concordance includes the word, "divorce." The Law of Divorcement was not given till later in Deuteronomy! The actual Hebrew word for "divorce" is keriythuwth, a complete cutting off of the matrimonial bonds, and not found anywhere in the OT before Deut 24!

In Isa 50:1, "divorcement" is keriythuwth, and "put away" is shalach. The LORD (Yahweh), Himself, made the distinction between the two words. Likewise, in Jer 3:8. Yahweh followed His own decree as He gave to Moses! A careful study of the context and applying good hermeneutics will reveal that apoluo, as used by Jesus, did not mean divorce as defined by Moses, and as some understand it today.
Consider the following: Jesus DID NOT use the Greek words for divorce, apostasion or lusis. Jesus used the word apoluo for put away, or separation. Why did Jesus use apoluo that those in his day new to be just a separation? The onus is on us to search ALL the passages (Prov 25:2), interpret them in their context, and then we will be able to put all the pieces together to see the complete picture.
When it comes to matters of marriage and divorce how can we justify those that teach apoluo means divorce, and further claim that Jesus taught that the divorced could never marry anyone other than remarry their former spouse? Why to do so, some would have to divorce again, which would require them going to court before a judge or magistrate, which they also oppose! What confusion!

Apoluo does not mean divorce. It means to put away, or send away from the home. It is a part of the divorce process set up by Moses and given by God. We read in Deut 24: "When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house."  Notice that in order for a man to obtain a legal divorce he had to do three things: 1) Write a bill of divorcement; 2) Give it to his wife; 3) Send her out of his house. If all a man did was apoluo his wife (put away, or send - shalach, the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek, apoluo, her out of his house) then he was still legally married to that woman.
Moses also wrote the reason WHY a man was to follow these procedures: It was so that the woman WOULD BE FREE TO MARRY ANOTHER MAN: "And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife" (Deut 24:2). Moses would never have allowed this if divorce and remarriage was adultery, which is punishable by death! Furthermore, bear in mind that the Law of Moses is the Law of God as handed down to Moses! Some would have us believe that Jesus CHANGED the Law of Moses, or the Law of His Father as given to Moses when he did no such thing. Jesus never contradicted his Father! The moral and ethical Laws did not change. Would Jesus then declare that one who divorces his spouse and remarries is guilty of the sin of continual adultery? Is this statement in agreement with what the Law of Moses said? Would Jesus have been rightly referred to as keeping the Law of Moses perfectly IF he had taught CONTRARY to the Law? I don't think so!
For further evidence that put away is not divorce, consider this: A margin note in the Geneva Bible translated from the Textus Receptus in 1560 (51 years before the KJV) concerning the term put away, said, "that is, was not lawfully divorced."  This margin note was in reference to Matt 19. These men were not following the Law by giving their wives a proper divorce because they wanted to keep their dowries. They were simply separating, without giving her a writing of divorcement. Imagine that it is this very thing that some teach, that they can separate, or put away, but not divorce, which very thing, shalach, God hates (Mal 2:16)! (This is not speaking about a temporary separation in hopes of reconciliation, if such a possibility should exist between the two parties.)

About going to court, I expect you are referring to the passage in 1Cor 6. The context refers to lawsuits against those who cheat one another by fraud! If we are defrauded, we are to suffer the loss of material possessions, and not sue in a court of law to be recompensed, especially when it is believer to believer before an unbeliever. What kind of example is that! It is nothing short of shaming the Truth before unbelievers!  We are to apply Matt 18:15-17 amongst each other. Christ said “if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also” (Matt 5:40). These disciples were suing and taking to court fellow believers for redresses in direct disobedience to Christ’s command!

It does not make sense that it is permissible to obtain a writ of divorce, but then cannot go to a judge or magistrate to obtain it! It is confusion, and God is not the author of confusion. Merely filing for divorce papers in civil court is not suing at law for the purpose of redress. However, having said that, those of the world who apply for a divorce often do go for the jugular, and try to obtain not just a divorce, but go on to sue for property, money, and any and everything else they can grab when appealing to a judge. This, the disciples of Christ are forbidden to do. It is not unheard of that a believer may be summoned to court, and would have to comply by attending and possibly defending oneself. The court is to enforce the laws of the land, and which we are to obey, unless they are a direct violation of God's commands. The laws of the land are meant for our good, to protect us, and the court is not our enemy, as we tend to think. "For rulers (magistrates) are not a terror to good works, but to the evil... (Rom 13:3-4).

I hope you find this helpful.

5:15   The disciples are reminded to ensure that their light is shining is seen again in Luke 11:33

5:8     Those with a ‘pure heart’ will be invited into God’s dwelling –Psa 24:3-4

Matt 5:32

A reader writes on my in-depth study of the divorce and remarriage issue:

"I have a file of your comments saved on my PC to draw from as soon as you gave permission, hoping that you would... But just how to break the ice and ask for it had been alluding me until this last comment for Matt. 5 in 2012. I had been thinking for quite some time that you were on the right track... Your arguments and reasoning appear to be unassailable. I have looked for discrepancies. Of course I am quite fallible but I find them quite sound...

Matt 5:5;6:10;1Cor 14:33 - the meek shall inherit the earth, God's kingdom is coming; is this a complicated confusing concept that God's Word has not made fully clear?

Matt 5:31,32

“... Whosoever shall put away (# <630>, apoluo) his wife, let (Christ allowed) him give her a writing of divorcement (# <647> apostasion): But I (Christ) say unto you, That whosoever shall put away (# <630> apoluo) his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever  shall marry her that is divorced (# <630>, apoluos) committeth adultery.”

A reader writes: “... I don’t see the difference, if you put someone away it is divorce...”

My reply: The fact that Strong’s Concordance defined put away as also meaning “divorce” does not mean it is correct, and that put away may be used interchangeably with divorcement. We read in Matt 19:7: “... Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement (# <647>, and to put her away (# <630>)? Another example that differentiates between the two words is found in Mark 10:4: “... Moses suffered (Moses allowed) to write a bill of divorcement (# <647>), and to put her away (# <630>).” When we read Deut 23:1-4 where the law of divorce was given by God to Moses, and not just Moses’ giving it, we learn the Hebrew word for divorcement is # <3748>, keriythuwth, and the Hebrew word for sent her away is # <7971>, shalach. Thus, it is very clear that these two different words are two separate acts. The fact that this is so is not a coincidence, but God-incidence!

Let me delve into another area, which perhaps will further help clarify the mistranslation of certain words: Another example of Strong’s Concordance mistranslation is the Greek word, ekklesia, defining it as “assembly, congregation... and church”! They translated ekklesia 115 times as church! The only place ekklesia is correctly translated by them is found in Acts 19:32,39,41. Please read my notes on Acts 19, for May 7^th for a further explanation on this.

We read in Heb 2:12: “... I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church...”

Church is # <1577>, ekklesia, “... community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both: assembly, church.” By using church instead of assembly or congregation, it gave the context a totally different meaning. The apostle Paul quoted Psa 22:22. We read here: “I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.” Congregation is # <6951>, qahal, “... assembly, company, congregation, multitude.”

Sadly, the compromise of knowingly mistranslating these words has continued the perpetration of false teachings. The fact is that the King James Bible translators, along with today’s modern translators had the opportunity to correct these errors, but failed to do so. Their Catholic and Protestant teachings merely serve to expose their bias.

Mat. 5:19.

5:37    Integrity and commitment to one’s word are not part of the modern way of thinking. However nothing less that total integrity is expected of a follower of Jesus. Our word should be our bond. Interestingly James 5:12 draws on this aspect of Jesus’ teaching to remind us of the challenge. 

5:28  Jesus’ warning about looking on a woman to lust after her draws on the idea we find in Prov 6:25

Matt 5:27,28

“…. Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

We work hard keeping our outward appearance attractive, and work a lot less in keeping our inside attractive. We forget that what is inside that others can’t see is more important to God, and so the praises of men become more important to us than the praises of God (John 12:43). Scripture clearly teaches us that the real issues of life are spiritual and are really matters of the heart, the inner man. Maybe it is for this reason the word “heart” is found so many times in the bible.

The biggest pollution problem is not in the air or in the water, it is in the heart. This verse is very sobering. It shows us the necessity of being regularly introspective, and praying that God reveal our character flaws that need to be rectified that we may be sanctified (John 17:17).

We witness a modern day laissez-faire attitude toward adultery. What was originally shocking has become acceptable. These folks, and those not caught in flagrante delicto, have become desensitized to evil (cf. Isa 5:20). It is, therefore, all the more urgent and ever more incumbent on us to pray David’s admirable prayer, “Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting” (Psa 139:23,24). David understood this principle and set the example for us of being proactive in this process.

5:13     Jesus again – Luke 14:34 – uses the metaphor of salt losing its flavour.

Matt 5:4

“Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.”

We often think of grief as a loss: loss of a spouse, loss of parents, loss of a pet, loss of health, loss of a job, and so on, but grief takes on so many different forms of loss and often we do not even realize it. Grief is more than going through its stages. It is personal and different to every individual. Every single relationship is unique with different dynamics and interactions.

Grief encompasses coming home to an empty house, when cooking for two becomes cooking for one, when the “we” becomes “me.” What we did together, we now do alone. There is no one to talk to and is there anyone who really cares? We want to talk about our loss because in some strange way it feels like that person is still with us, but who really wants to listen?

Grief is a feeling of incompleteness. It is a deep feeling and very strong, especially when the loss was not anticipated. An essential part of us is gone and we feel sick and weak. Coping with life in general hurts and we may wonder if we even want to try. It brings about this feeling of fear, of anger, feelings of guilt and frustration. The nights are long and sleepless. Grief is a real journey. It is about handling ourselves as we go through these difficult times.

We tend to identify ourselves by our relationships, our work, our activities and involvements, but that identity has changed. The widower is regarded as “eligible,” while the widow is regarded as a “threat.” Yes, facing grief is a real challenge!

When Yahshua uttered these words, it was directed to his disciples and not the general population (vv. 1,2). We cannot pull one or two verses from Scripture and build a theology around them. These words were designed to prepare his followers for his kingdom. “Mourn” means to “experience deep sadness.” In other words, all our grief no matter how deep that experience, ought not to exceed our grief for sin! A tall order, yes, but doing so brings about for us a state of blessedness. This kind of mourning that leads to repentance is truly blessed (2Cor 7:10). Our only way to happiness is to mourn over sin. We can reclaim and redefine ourselves, and as with any grief, we may not get over it, but we can go through it.

5:13      The disciples are likened to “salt”. The word translated “salt” <3471> is elsewhere – Rom 1:21, 1Cor 1:10  -  translated “fool”. Jesus is indicating that if the disciples stopped showing God’s message they would be no better than those called “fools” – that is those who had no regard for the things of God.

Matt 5:32

Those who deny the existence of the "exceptive clause" have taken the position of the Roman Catholic Church. Their Church law states: “A valid Christian marriage, if consummated, cannot be dissolved (as to the bond) by any human power or for any cause except death.” This statement is deceptive because they do allow for the disannulment of a marriage and subsequent re-marriage if the parties are prominent enough, or have sufficient funds to pay for the annulment. The Duke of Marlborough and Consuelo Vanderbilt had their Catholic marriage annulled on the grounds that they were pressured into the union. At the time of their annulment, they had been married 33 years!

The following who had access to the Greek manuscripts wrote:

Josephus (ca 37-95AD), in Ant 4.8.23, p. 253 writes: “He that desires to be divorced from his wife for any cause whatsoever (and many such causes happen among men), let him in writing give assurance that he will never use her as his wife any more; for by this means she may be at liberty to marry another husband, although before this bill of divorce be given, she is not to be permitted so to do; but if she be misused by him also, of if, when he is dead, her first husband would marry her again, it shall not be lawful for her to return to him.”

Clement of Alexandria (ca. 195AD)—“You shall not put away your wife except for the cause of fornication.”

Tertullian (ca. 207AD): “Jesus prohibits divorce except for the cause of fornication.” Again, Christ “permits divorce when the marriage is spotted with unfaithfulness.” He allows “divorce for no cause, except one.”

Novatian (ca. 235AD): “Christ said that a wife must not be put away, except for the cause of adultery.”

Origen (ca. 245AD): “The Savior does not at all permit the dissolution of marriages for any other sin than fornication alone.”

Jerome (ca.383) “And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.”

Prior to 325 c.a., several Ante-Nicene “Church Fathers” refer to the texts containing Jesus’ exception clause. “The exception clause is mentioned by most of the writers who comment upon the subject of divorce, for most take Matthew’s Gospel as their main source. The clause is mentioned in Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, and Lactantius” (Divorce and Remarriage in the Early Church, Pat E. Harrell, p. 190). Those claiming that the exceptive clause was not inclusive have not adequately researched it. It is claimed that Erasmus, a Dutch Humanist who became a Catholic priest, (1466-1536) added it. What duplicity!

It is obvious from Josephus, a Pharisee, embraced the School of Hillel interpretation to divorce for “every cause” (Matt 19:3), and what today is classed as "no-fault." Jesus denounced it as hard-hearted unlawful divorces (Matt 19:8).

There is no way the Jews in Christ time would have interpreted that permission for divorce did not allow for permission to remarry, as taught today! We must look at the statements (Matt 5:32; 9:32) in their Biblical and Historical context. If it would have differed, Jesus would have made it plain to them and for all those after them.

Matt 5:40

“And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.”

This verse must be taken in context with the rest of the verses (vv. 38-42). The Pharisees incorrectly taught that “an eye for an eye” (Exo 21:23-25; Lev 24:20; Deut 19:21) allowed for personal revenge, but it actually spoke of equitable justice being meted out. Each time, the phrase is used in the context of a case being judged before a civil authority, as a judge. It was used as a guiding principle for the lawgivers and judges.

The concept of “an eye for eye,” was part of the Mosaic Law used in the Israelites’ justice system, the principle being that the punishment must fit the crime. Justice was to be equitable and not excessive. The Pharisees ignored the judicial basis of this law, and were corrected by Christ.

Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek (v. 39) applies to personal relationships, not judicial policy. The principle of “an eye for an eye” is meant as a judicial policy, not as a rule for interpersonal relationships. The believer in Christ is guided by Jesus’ words to forgive. True followers of Christ are radically different from those who follow the natural inclination to respond in kind, as was taught by the Pharisees.

Matt 5:22,28,32,34,39,44

“…But I say unto you…”

The opening word “But” is expressive of contrast, and the “I say unto you” is reflective of Jesus’ authority. It was in opposition to the Pharisees' shallow interpretation and practice of the Law that Jesus said, “But I say unto you.” This was after he had already stated that he did not come to change the Law (Matt 5:17).

Taking just one example, the Pharisees, the recognized figures of authority in Christ’s day, were permitting to put away and divorce their wives without due consideration to the cause (Matt 5:31, cp. Deut 24:1). To them any cause would do. They were not aware of the spiritual nature and intended duration of marriage, but rather paid paramount attention in legalistically satisfying the law of Deut 24:1-4.

Matt 5:32

“But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”

The different Greek words used for “put away” and “divorce” has been covered in previous entries. Let us now look closely into another set of two separate words, which also come from two separate Greek words.

Fornication # <4202> is porneia, “harlotry, (incl. adultery and incest)…” it comes from # <4204>, porne, “… an idolater:-harlot, whore…” It is the feminine of # <4205>, pornos, “… debauchee…” i.e. a person given to excessive sensual pleasure. Our English word pornography comes from porneia.

Adultery # <3429> is moichao,” to commit adultery.”

We read in Num 12:8, “With him [Moses] will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches…” Therefore, we need to pay close attention to what Moses wrote. The Bible interprets itself. It is not about what men think or say, but what Yahweh says. Thus, any issue on any topic must come from and conform to the Word in its entirety. The Pharisees were teaching their own opinions and laws as if they came from Yahweh (Matt 15:9).

Christ, by using the word porneia instead of moichao in the exceptive clause, it draws our attention that porneia is directly related to some uncleanness. Porneia was any sort of physical sexual immorality, as defined in the Law, including adultery (moichao), but not restricted to it. It is so used in Matt 19:9 too! By reiterating porneia twice in both exceptive clauses, Christ confirms the matter to be very important and establishes it to be so (cf. Lev 11:10,11). Porneia covers an entire range of sexual sins, not all punishable by death, and should not be restricted solely to adultery. I elaborate on this in my notes on Deut 24:1

The Law of Divorcement was not abrogated by Christ; he actually upheld it, as even shown by his choice of the word, porneia (cf. Matt 5:17)! Deut 24:1-4 was not a loose permission to divorce, but actually restricted it. Christ reminded the Pharisees that Yahweh’s original plan was one man, one woman for life, and even though Yahweh gave the Bill of Divorcement through His servant, Moses, it was to regulate and restrict divorces, and not given for just any reason.

Matt 5:32

“… Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement.”

“MARRIAGE & DIVORCE: those who have adopted the Catholic dogma of no divorce should examine the scriptural facts as opposed to the many current theories. A careful reading of the Gospel record will reveal the teaching of Christ on this subject.   It will also reveal the background to His teaching and why He spoke as He did.”

http://www.pioneerchristadelphians.org/index1.htm/

“    brothers love to quote Mark, who does not record the ‘exceptive clause." But Mark does not record the ‘sign of the prophet Jonas,’ which does appear in Matthew. Do they suggest therefore this ‘sign’ is not to be accepted? No. It is only where it suits them that they take this attitude. The undeniable fact is that Mark is the briefest of the Gospel writers, & does not record many things. Many Bible scholars have suggested that the 4 Gospels show the 4 aspects of the Lord” … “Today the ‘exceptive clause’ may be used by both husband and wife, for ‘there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.’” (Gal 3:28; Matt 19:9).

“An attempt is made by some to deny the 'Pauline Privilege' on the basis that Jesus

had not earlier stated it as a legitimate reason for divorce. This must be rejected for similar reasons to those given above. The silence of one Divine spokesperson on any particular subject cannot be used to deny the witness of another, because all is revealed in the way and the time consistent with the Divine purpose - consider Eccles. 3v1-8.”

http://www.pioneerchristadelphians.org/Objections-Answered.htm/

I thank the numerous brethren and sisters who have emailed me to express their thanks and appreciation for my extensive study on this topic. However, I am just continuing what others before me have already studied and wrote on.

It originated with the pioneer brethren, Dr. John Thomas and Robert Roberts and other very knowledgeable brethren/sisters who took on the D/R issue long before I came along. May our thanks and appreciation go out to them for their persistence despite the very unkind and out-and-out mean critics with their personal attacks and false accusations (cf. Matt 5:11,12).

Matt 5:32; Matt 19:9

The following article appeared in the CHRISTADELPHIAN FAMILY JOURNAL, March 1927, p. 351. It is titled: TO A TROUBLED MINORITY

“We are deeply grieved at the trouble that has come upon your meeting as a result of the adoption of what you term the ‘whatsoever resolution’ by the brethren meeting in Avondale Hall. You appear to be in a similar position to that in which we (who now meet in Bijou Hall) were about this time last year. We were required by the brethren meeting at Avondale Hall to consent to the passing of a resolution which necessitated the disfellowship of a brother or sister, who, in harmony with Christ’s teaching (Matt. V. 32 and xix. 9.), might deem it expedient to obtain a legal divorce. How could we consent to put aside Christ’s teaching in this way? How could we consent to put aside Christ’s teaching in this way? How could we consent to deeply wrong a brother or sister for availing him or herself of Christ’s permission?

It was impossible. So the few of us who were of one mind came away from the strife and false teaching, and formed ourselves into an ecclesia. We are united and happy and are pushing on with the work of the Truth, without hindrance, striving to build one another up and also to enlighten the stranger.

Now, at the end of close upon twelve months, we do not see that we could have acted differently without searing our consciences. Nay, we can say that God has greatly blessed us.

You ask for our advice. We do not see that there is any middle course open to those who would be faithful. Better ‘two or three’ meeting in humility and harmony on the basis of Christ’s teaching than an influential number carrying out the ‘whatsoever resolution’ of a misguided ecclesia.”

My comment: To deny Christ made any exceptions as recorded in Matthew, that Deut 24:1-4 was only during Mosaic times and abrogated, when clearly Christ said not one jot or tittle would change from the Law till all is fulfilled is to believe in Partial Inspiration of the Bible. When will all be fulfilled of which Christ spoke? It is not his death and resurrection, as some claim, but till [old] heaven and earth pass away (Matt 5:18; Rev 21:1)! To believe, otherwise, is Partial Inspiration of the Scriptures and furthermore, it is taking away from the Word! The same is applicable to the teachings of the apostle Paul on this issue.

Robert Roberts wrote in the Christadelphian, Vol. XXII., pp. 120, 121, “… a partly-inspired Bible means one that can only partly be relied upon. It practically means much more than this, for, as there is no indication in the Bible of any difference between inspired parts and uninspired parts, the acceptance of partial inspiration would mean that we should never know which was to be relied upon and which was not. One might object to one part, another to another, and none would have any certain foundation at all. It is a case of a little leaven leavening the whole lump. Such a theory cannot and will not be sanctioned by faithful men. The absolute inspiration of the Bible is the leverage of all exposition and exhortation; the rock of all hope and strength.”

Matt 5:32; Matt 19:9

A Brother writes: “We both realise that you [editors of CFJ) have taken up the Scriptural attitude over the question of divorce, and cannot see how we could think otherwise. What Christ allowed, how can man presume to disallow, or cut off from fellowship one who is simply being guided by Christ’s utterances?” “… We consider the words of Dr. Thomas and Brother Roberts are unchallengeable in relation to the matter [divorce].” June 1927, THE CHRISTADELPHIAN FAMILY JOURNAL

Those who claim Bro. Robert Roberts did not believe in divorce and remarriage and conveniently avoid Dr. Thomas’ teaching on the subject, I quote: “Nothing disannuls the marriage contract but death or adultery.” Brother Roberts—Christadelphian, 1883, p. 31. Later, he wrote: “Christ does not mean that if divorced from a proper cause a woman may not marry again.” Brother Roberts—Christadelphian, 1892, p. 422.

Equally tragic coming from those who wrest the Scriptures is how the upright spouse is dragged through the mud when it is the wicked spouse that created the atmosphere necessitating divorce in the first place! Why? Because these have a false interpretation of what necessitates “going to law,” and what does not (going to law is not suing at law); that Christ did not mean what he said, that the apostle Paul did not say what he said! Yahweh not only gave His law to govern such matters, but they had to be administered by “judges” and “officers,” with the right to take all difficult cases to the priest or judge (Num 4:14-31; Deut 16:18; 17:8-13). God’s will for us today remains the same because civil authorities, or rulers are servants and ministers of God for our good. When Paul wrote this, the cruel Nero was in power (Rom 13:1-7 cf. 1Pet 2:13-15)!

The indissolubility of marriage and claiming marriage after divorce is adultery is nothing short of Papal heresy! 1Tim 4:1,3 speaks of those who have departed “from the faith.” Roman Catholicism  never had the faith to depart from. Timothy is speaking of believers who are giving heed to “seducing spirits and doctrines of devils” i.e. Romanism, and one of their doctrines is “forbidding to marry” – not just for their clergy, but for divorced couples too – unless, for a fee, they purchase from them an “annulment,” a document claiming they were never married in the first place!

Matt 5:32

“ON THE UNRELIABILITY OF MATTHEW V. 32 AND XIX. 9”

The following is correspondence that took place between the Editor of THE BEREAN, Bro. G.H. Denney and Bro. Walter J. Livermore in 1927:

Bro. Denney: “Re ‘except for fornication” please remember that all modern scholars reject this as spurious: an interpolation.”

Bro. Livermore: “Will you please give me particulars, names, quotations, and proofs that ‘all modern scholars reject’ ‘except for fornication’ in Matt. 5, 32 and 19, 9 as an interpolation? I would like to get this, if true, as it would greatly strengthen our position, and remove a seeming difficulty. However, I have searched for this; but all the authorities I have—Bullinger, Rotherham, Macknight, Doddridge, New Interlinear (which includes Elzevir, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorff, Tregelles, Alford and Wordsworth), the Emphatic Diaglott, Weymouth, Tischendorff, the A.V., the E.R.V., and the A.R.V.. all insert it without question.”

Bro. Denney: “If you will write Dean Inge at his address, St. Paul’s Churchyard, London, E.C.I., he will give you the answer to your question providing you quote his words correctly. He did not say ‘all modern scholars reject’ etc.”

Bro. Livermore: “Regarding your evasion of my 3^rd question, brother, I fail to see why I should write to ‘Dean’ Inge for the answer. Neither in my question nor in my letter previous to this had I mentioned his name; I did not refer to him, nor quote his words, he was not in my thoughts. The words I quoted were your own words, and appear in your December 7^th, 1926 letter—‘Re ‘except for fornication’ please remember that all modern scholars reject this as spurious; an interpolation’ – Your words here formed the basis of my Question 3; if your statement were true I would be glad to accept it as strengthening our position; but I, though wanting to accept it, yet asked you for the proof. Now brother, if you believe that statement to be true, you should have the proof thereof before you, before making it; and if you had this proof why could you not supply it when asked by a brother? Why need you to refer a brother to an alien, a prominent ‘Harlot daughter’ servant and ‘Higher Critic’ at that, when you had it in your hands all the time? Why make me wait at least another month for the proof I want, whilst I correspond with an outsider, should I be disposed to? Prov 3, 27-28.”

Comment from the editors’ brethren E.W. Browne and A.T. Jannaway in THE CHRISTADELPHIAN FAMILY JOURNAL, August, 1927:

“If there were irrefragable evidence that the words ‘except for fornication’ in Matt. v. 32 and xix. 9 were an interpolation, our contention concerning the permission they give would instantly cease. But the unsupported assertion of a brother in the Avondale Hall fellowship is not evidence. It is because we believe that the words were uttered by Christ that we cannot consent to disfellowship any brother or sister who might avail him or herself of the permission they give.”

My comment: Since the very moment in the Garden of Eden when that first sin of disobedience shattered the harmony of the world, man has devised to make his own way, to be his own master, and set up teachings based on prejudices and Paganism. If we dilute the Gospel in any way, there is no Gospel, or Good News to share. We need to cling to the Highest Authority. We need to be diligently studying the Word and glean the Scriptures, the whole counsel of Yahweh, for ourselves. The responsibility of judging righteous judgment is ours. “Senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (Heb 5:14) is one of the saints’ qualifications, and this precludes idly following the greatest crowd – even family ties.

Matt 5:39

“But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil…”

The NIV and NASB read: “… do not resist an evil person…” The ESV has, “do not resist the one who is evil…”

Our first reaction when we are being slandered is to retaliate. This is wrong on our part, but at times we do fail and confess it. It is as the apostle Paul said, that it is no longer I, but sin that dwelleth in me and, likewise, feel wretched about it (Rom 7:17-20,24). To connect this verse to Deut 24:1-4; Matt 5:32; Matt 19:9; 1Cor 6:1 is truly mind-boggling!

In an appeal for dissolution of a marriage, the guilty spouse is under no compulsion to go to court, or to respond in any way! I know of a case, which in addition to physical abuse in attempting to cause death of the spouse, there was $10,000 taken from the innocent spouse and the guilty spouse absconded. There was no redress for the money at any time by the spouse seeking the dissolution. If there had been redress, there would have been no resistance to the one who is evil and this command would have been broken, not the command allowing for divorce under certain circumstances. Resist not evil also does not mean this spouse could not try to save herself; if it did, she would be dead today. This is not what Christ taught by this verse!

Why do some then class divorce as being resistance of evil when God didn’t, nor Christ, or are we now charging God and Christ in violation of their providential Goodness? In essence, this is what it amounts to! It is to take what Christ said in Matt 5:39,40 totally out of context, as Christ introduced this verse after completing his discussion on separation and divorce and introduced a new topic. Brother Robert Roberts answered many questions concerning divorce, but never once did he quote 1Cor 6:1 in connection with it. See the Christadelphian, 1872, pp. 330, 491, 492;1889, p. 537. Resistance of evil is in context with his new topic - the law of an eye for an eye given in the Mosaic Law, and Christ identified it to be so. Resist not evil is about not suing for debts and damages, or for seeking redress.

5:7       The relationship between showing mercy and receiving mercy is a fundamental truth and reflect the way in which God speaks – Psa 18:25 being one such place

Matt 5:33,34

“Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths.” But I say unto you, Swear not at all…”

“To thine own self be true… And it must follow, as the night the day… Thou canst not then be false to any man.” William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 3, lines 78-80

In the Bible, swear and oath go together. To swear is to make an oath, and an oath is what we swear (cf. Heb 6:16). To forswear is to swear falsely. To swear is to make an oath or a vow. An oath is a declaration with regard to a commitment one makes with another in which we call God to be our witness. A vow, as a covenant marital vow, is a solemn promise made to God dedicating oneself to God’s appointed marital way of life. It is a declaration of intent, a promissory oath, to accept and perform faithfully the vows the couple made to one another. A covenant is a relationship bond involving oaths and vow - the text of the covenant pertaining to oaths to one another, and vows to God. An affirmation or promise is equivalent to an oath.

Solomon advises us that it is better not to vow then to vow and not keep it (Ecc 5:5). Our desires strongly influence the way we live. At times we may wish to have something so badly that we will go to almost any length to get it even if it means breaking vows or promises. The entire chapter of Num 30 is devoted to instructions on vows, and the importance of keeping one’s word. Obedience builds character, and the Decalogue teaches us to love God and fellow man. To lie is to be a false witness against a person (Exo 20:16; cf. Prov 25:18; Zech 8:16,17; Mal 3:5); it is not love. The command against being a false witness was meant to protect against defamation of character and to uphold an honest man’s reputation. It concerns very real life problems and not limited to just falsehoods, or false oaths (cf. Lev 19:11-18).

Men’s’ character and disposition are revealed by their keeping or not keeping these commands.  Understanding the Truth is not enough, we must live the Truth, and pursue it earnestly. When we fail to keep our vows, we fail God, and I would think to fail God is a very painful experience and that we would strive really, really hard not to – unless, of course, we care more about self than God! Let us stand true and faithful to God and Christ, be true to ourselves, family, and neighbours; this is to be a person of integrity, acting honestly and morally toward one another.

Customs change, cultures change, philosophies change, but what will never change is God’s Moral Laws, which were given to teach us how to live. The “law” Christ referred to in Matt 5:18 references the Moral Laws. These moral principles apply today and transcend the old Law only judicially. The Moral Laws deal into the deepest recesses of our hearts, our attitudes and motives (cf. 1Cor 4:5), something the Israelites failed to see. These, unlike the Ceremonial and Judicial Laws, were not abolished nor limited to time, as they were. Rather, it shows us our deep need for Christ and how closely we are to keep ourselves aligned to God.

Matt 5:32

“But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife… and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”

A reader writes: “… After a long haul to read the entirety of your article… I found it to be extremely insightful and I feel it is very straightforward and is constantly pointing back to scripture and explaining the research into it in profound detail, as well as the comments regarding the pioneer brothers with their stances on both the issue and fellowship in general. I was wondering if you could please provide me with an easier-to-read condensed statement…”

My reply: I thought the best way to approach this is by laying the foundation of the different Hebrew and Greek words Yahweh and Christ used to distinguish divorce and separation – as to what is lawful regarding divorces and remarriages and what is not and we can move on from there, Yahweh willing. The distinction of the words used are very important. They are specific words for specific circumstances. The pioneer Brethren, Dr. John Thomas, Robert Roberts, A.T. Jannaway and others taught and believed in D/R in their day under specific circumstances.  As with you, I delved more deeply into it because of the vehement controversies it raised and wanted to know who was right.

Divorce in Hebrew is “keriythuwth,” Strong’s # <3748>, “a cutting of the matrimonial bond.”  Deut 24:1,3; Isa 50:1; Jer 3:8

Put away in Hebrew is “garash,” Strong’s # <1644>, incorrectly translated as “divorced,” is “put away, thrust out forcibly.” Lev 21:14; 22:13; Num 30:9. Also, “shalach,” Strong’s # <7971> is to “send away,” but no force is used. Incorrectly translated, or interpreted as meaning “divorce” in Mal 2:16 by the various translators.

Divorce in Greek is “apostasion,” Strong’s # <647>, “a writing [bill] of divorcement.”

Put away in Greek is “apoluo,” Strong’s # <630>, incorrectly translated as “divorced,” is to “send away,” “dismiss.” Matt 5:32. Not having a bill of apostasion means that “whosoever shall marry her that is put away (apoluo), committeth adultery.” The context explains it. Matt 5:31,32; Matt 19:7; Mark 10:4

*A bill of divorce is a lawful document instituted by Yahweh, which the husband must give his wife before sending her away, some even forcibly thrusting them out of their home, or abandoning them altogether.

The Pharisees asked Christ if it was lawful to “put away,” apoluo, Strong’s # <630> (Matt 19:3). To their query Christ replied, “… not put asunder,” (v. 19:6) chorizo, Strong’s # <5562>, “not separate.”

The Pharisees wrested the law of Deut 24:1-4, because Yahweh’s law was not to just separate, but to give a bill of divorce under specific circumstances before putting the wife away. Christ corrected their error and pointed out that because of their hard-heartedness in just sending the wife away, Yahweh gave the law of Deut 24 to Moses and so regulated it. The Pharisees did not use apostasion, the Greek for divorce, and Christ did not reply using apostasion, either!

Matt 5:32

A reader asks: “Where do you get the concept from in scripture that the husbands under the law were putting away their wives (but not divorcing) so they could keep the dowries? Is the reference I should read Mal 2? 

I’ve also done more reading in response to someone’s claim that the fornication Christ mentions is only referring to sexually illicit acts outside of marriage, which I’m not certain correct at least according to Vines.”

My reply: 1) Regarding dowries, it is mentioned in Gen 24:53; 29:16-28; 34:12; Exo 22:16,17; 1Kin 9:16. Dowries were part of the prenuptial marriage contract referred to as a Ketubah. It outlines the husband’s obligations to provide for his wife food, clothing, conjugal rights, etc. (cf. Exo 21:10,11; 1Tim 5:8). The marriage contract provided an element of financial security in case of widowhood, or against a negligent husband. Since daughters normally did not inherit anything from their father’s estate (cf. Num 26:33, cp. Num 27:1-7), they got a dowry from their parents, which was to offer them some security. It also included the husband’s guarantee to pay a certain sum in the event of divorce. It was primarily to protect the wife, discourage sending her away or from divorcing. It contains the gifts the bride and groom bring into the marriage which is returned to them should the marriage fail. It could be money, jewelry, or free labour as in the case of Jacob and foreskins in the case of David. Some included an agreement that would require the groom to give the bride a get, or bill of divorce should the marriage end since the wife could not divorce her husband no matter how cruel he was.  It was to protect the women who had very little rights under their Hebrew civil law. By dowry, we are to understand this, as it was part of the marriage contract, their civil law, and custom, and also evidenced by ancient historical records, which give invaluable insights as to why some things happened the way they did during Biblical times!

Without divorcing the wife, the marriage was still in effect and the husband was not obligated to give monies, etc. promised her in their Ketubah. Furthermore, God made provisions to protect the wife accused of adultery by her husband should she be innocent (cf. Num 5:11-31). Have you ever wondered why husbands would do that? Charges of adultery, would not have only eliminated the wife, he got to keep everything stipulated in their Ketubah! http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9290-ketubah/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketubah/

2) Malachi 2:16 is taken to mean that God hates divorce (see NIV version)! “Putting away,” is to send away, which is what God hates. So many misinterpret this word as meaning divorce. It is the word, shalach, # <7971>, which means “send away.” The word divorce in the Hebrew is keriythuwth, # <3748>. Separation is not divorce, there is no bill of divorcement, but when one is divorced with a bill of divorce they are also separated. The book of Malachi was written about 440 and 400 BC, several thousand years later, and we read that the problem of "putting away" still existed even that late! Sadly, our critics are the least informed, take the least amount of time to study, refuse to listen and learn, but they know better!

3) The Greek word Christ used for fornication in, Matt 5:32; 19:9 is porneia, # <4202>, “harlotry (includ. adultery and incest); fig. Idolatry. Christ said a man could not divorce his wife unless she committed fornication against him. A wife is a married person and Christ would not use the word fornication if he meant it only for a single person, because they don’t need a divorce! What he said then would make no sense! Critics will use this and claim there is no “exceptive clause.” As you can see from the Greek, this word has great latitude, and divorce is not restricted to just adultery, which is another misinterpretation of what Christ said! No man can change what both God and Christ authorized! Robert Roberts erred in limiting fornication to just adultery, but Dr. John Thomas and others rightly interpreted the latitude given by the word, fornication - porneia, that Christ used. Read also Strong’s # <4203>, porneuo, # <4204>, porne, # <4205>, pornos.

God accused Israel, prefigured as His wife (cf. Jer 3:14; Isa 54:5; Isa 62:5), of both fornication, “playing the harlot with many lovers” (Jer 3:1; cf. Hos 2:7), and adultery (Jer 3:8; Eze 16:26-29) and has set the standard for marriage and for divorce. The Hebrew word for harlot is zanah, # <2181>, showing harlotry is in the category of fornication! Adultery, # <5003>, na’aph, “to commit adultery, fig. to apostatize.” Christ’s words blend beautifully with Yahweh’s! There is no indication in both the Old and New Covenants that that the sin of fornication is committed only by a single person, no matter how many dictionaries claim it to be so, like Webster’s New College Dictionary, 1995 edition.

Matt 5:39

“But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil…”

“Jesus said ‘Resist not evil,’ but this command is qualified by precepts that modify the extreme construction that some would put upon it… That which appears beyond our liberty at present is the resort to any mode of defence or vindication which involves the subjection of others to violence at our hands.” Robert Roberts, Christadelphian, 1898, p. 531. (Emphasis added)

“Some have genuinely distressed over difficulties raised by those who put forward 1 Cor. vi. 1 as forbidding a brother or sister to obtain a legal divorce.

To these we would point out that to appeal for a divorce does not necessitate, in the good providence of God, the resistance of evil, as is the case in suing for debts and damages.

In an appeal for a dissolution of marriage, the guilty partner is under no compulsion to go to court or to respond in any way. Surely this is a situation providentially created since the Truth has been proclaimed in our country. (Emphasis added)

If any have a conscientious scruple against entering a divorce court, by all means let them refrain from doing so (if they can lead a godly, upright life), but let them not seek to disfellowship those who deem it necessary to avail themselves of a permission given by Christ.” A.T. Jannaway, CFJ, Sept 1927, p. 110.

To sue is to litigate (a lawsuit for redress); to appeal is to petition (to grant relief, favours, or privileges without redress) - two very different procedures with two very different results. I was once a victim of medical mal-practice and I could have sued for a substantial amount of money that would have secured my financial security for the rest of my life, but in obedience to resist not evil, I chose not to. No amount of money is worth risking our relationship with God and Christ. Obedience is what is required of us and expected of us. The outcome had I pursued with a lawsuit be it in court or out-of-court settlement would have ruined the young doctor and destroy his family. What a price I would have paid!

5:14 in telling the disciples that they were “the light of the world” he is setting a high standard. Whilst Jesus may be talking about preaching the message it must also encompass living a life of total obedience to the Father. What was true for them is true for us also.

Matt 5:44

“But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”

In Matt 5:43, we read, “love your neighbor and hate your enemies,” but the Law found in Lev 19:18 never said that, so to believe Jesus changed this Old Testament Law is false. What verse 43 left out, as stated in the Law and so read in the Septuagint is, “thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (cf. Mark 12:31). The Law no more taught to hate, than Jesus taught to hate our parents, our children, our brothers and sisters, and our own lives (Luke 14:26)!  What God hates is not the people, but sins (John 3:16,17), and this is what we ought to hate too. We hate the wrong, the injustice of the enemy, not the enemy.

How do we love our enemies? By not treating them as they deserve to be treated. We do not retaliate and do to them what they have earned and deserve to get (cf. Psa 103:10). To love our enemies has nothing to do with how we feel about them, or having a relationship with them. We love them by not retaliating and seeking revenge (Rom 12:19,20; Eph 4:26). We need to let it go and not allow the person who hurt us to have emotional or psychological control over us. God’s love, joy and peace ought to control us. We are to walk in love, not in bitterness and anger (Eph 4:31; Eph 5:1,2; Col 3:15), and it is for our own well-being to do so (Heb 12:15).

In Rom 13:8, Paul makes it clear how he and the apostles understood the Old Testament. The moral law is an outline of God’s own character – His integrity, love, and faithfulness, and His moral law is carried on in the New Testament. Christ’s coming changed how we worship in regards to the ceremonial and civil laws. He did not come to change God's moral law, but to magnify it (Isa 42:21).

Matt 5:38,39

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you: That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

“Eye for eye,” “tooth for tooth” were a part of the Mosaic Law’s judicial system. The principle is that the punishment must meet the crime. There is no Biblical account that it was followed literally. It was not about settling personal grievances via vigilantism! This phrase, as given in the Old Testament by God (Exo 21:23-25; Lev 24:20; Deut 19:21), was a guiding principle for Moses, judges, and civil authorities in judging cases. They were not to be overly strict, or overly lenient. They heard the cases and determined the penalties (Exo 21:22). It also required witnesses (Deut 17:6).

In correctly studying this passage of Scripture, we must understand the context in which it was given. It is very dangerous to take a verse, remove it from its context, and try to understand it without regard to other verses connected with it. This is what the Pharisees did, along with making their own laws along the way (e.g. corban), and were sharply rebuked by Christ (cf. Matt 23:13-36)!

The Scribes and Pharisees ignored the judicial basis of the law, wrested it, and taught that seeking personal revenge was acceptable! It was the Civil Judicial system that was responsible for punishing evil-doers. Christ’s disciples’ responsibility is to love their enemies, forgive them, and pray for them (Matt 5:44; cf. Deut 32:35; Rom 12:19).

Jesus and his disciples had a torrent of verbal persecutions. They were slandered, criticized, insulted, maligned, mocked, and spoken evil against! They spoke up in their defense, without being revengeful, giving a very specific kind of response to a specific kind of situation, for which they were eventually murdered. Indeed, verbal attacks should not be taken any less seriously, than physical attacks (cf. Acts 6; 7).

When Jesus said, “… whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also,” it was not meant to be interpreted literally. In ancient Hebrew culture, striking a person’s cheek was a way to humiliate the person (cf. Lam 3:30). It was a great insult, which was often met with retaliation. Jesus, himself, did not passively “turn the other cheek,” if you will, but questioned the officer who struck him, and defended and stuck up for himself (John 18:19-23). There is an ancient Arab proverb that says, “He who strikes the second blow starts the fight.” Why? Because it is retaliatory, it is to give blow for blow, it sustains, encourages, and prolongs it. There can be no fight if there is no retaliation. This is what Jesus taught and showed by example.

We have Christ and the apostles as examples. They exposed the false doctrines of the religious leaders of their day and also revealed the fruit of it by their everyday living, thus, who they really were (Matt 7:15-20; Luke 6:43,44; 2Pet 2)! They were not just false in their teaching, but also false in their living. We need to look at both. We have been called to holiness. It is a call to separate from an evil world, to be a holy nation, but it is also a call to separate ourselves from sin, resist not evil in every aspect of our lives. We have a system of accountability, and we are to do our best to watch both the lives and the doctrines in ourselves and of those who claim to have the Truth (cf. James 3:11).

Matt 5:32

"The Holy Spirit has not reversed the teaching given by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount. Read once more Matt 5:32; 19:9. You will be well advised to refrain from tampering with truth. The end of this course, in the early centuries led to 'strong delusion'--a judicial blinding (2Thess 2:11). God's ways do not change."

Brother A.T. Jannaway, 1927

5:48      the call to perfection is referred to –Phil 3:15 – by Paul writing to the Philippians.

5:14 Nazareth illustrates this principle. It was so insignificant that it is not even mentioned in the Old Testament, yet it had a reputation: “Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?” (Jno. 1:46). How come they had even heard of this city? Because of “the hill whereon” Nazareth “was built” (Lk. 4:29), for a “city that is set on an hill cannot be hid”

5:14 that the disciples are “the light of the world” is quoted – Phil 2:15 – by Paul when writing to the Philippians.

5:14 The Pharisees and Sadducees saw themselves as the teachers and those who listened as their “disciples”. That was the relationship. However Jesus’ message was different. Those who leant his message and put it into practice were “the light of the world”. That is the message was spread by the lives of those who learnt of him. With the religious leaders it was a matter of learning “facts” changing lives was not part of their message.

We need to be careful that we see the gospel message as something that changes our lives rather than just a list of things to believe.

5:20  the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees was in their observance of the letter of the Law of Moses – Deut 24:13– exceeding that “righteousness” is seen in the man who, rather than simply following a series of rules, applies the principles of that law in their lives.

5:13 The “Sermon on the Mount” here is the foundation teaching that Jesus gave about the kingdom of God. It related to a way of living, not a set of laws. So it is not surprising he returns to topics in the sermon later in his ministry. So when we come across the teaching about salt losing ins savour – Luke 14:34 – we appreciate that Jesus would expect his audience to realise he was restating things he had said before.