v.4 - A number of things were done 'for David's sake' for people who would otherwise not have deserved it. (here, ch.11:12, ch.11:32). Similar things were said of Lot - who, it seems, was saved from Sodom for Abraham's sake (Gen.19:29). We reflect that we are blessed for Jesus' sake with blessings we do not deserve. This is the grace of God. Rom 11:28 is interesting in this context.

v.12 - It was clear that the removal of this evil practice was right in God's eyes - hence the comment later in verse 14. We live in an age where this dreadful practice is yet again accepted by society. We must remember how abhorrent it is to God and not be lulled into acceptance.

15:14 It is an interesting contrast to reflect on how a man could have a perfect heart and yet still have high places in the land which he had not removed. I suppose we are all a little like that. We have a desire to serve God but all the time there are things in our lives which we do not deal with because we like to return to those ways from time to time.

:3 Notice the concept of walking in sin. This contrasts markedly with what we saw of Solomon's call (Chapter 9).

15:1 This is one of a few places in the historical record of the kings of Judah and Israel where we have a specific time which enables us to tie the two lines of kings together. In telling us that Abijam started to reign in the eighteenth year of Jeroboam  we have a conjunction of the two lines which will enable us to bring the chronologies into line.

V.13 The first recorded act of Asa, still probably quite a young man, was to depose the dowager queen, and to publicly burn her images, together with other idols which his fathers had made.

There are two very sad verses in this chapter.1Kin 15:6,16.  The two parts of God's Holy Land were at war with each other, and it was not as though the South was trying to convert the North.  There was no brotherly love, nor was their love for their God.  How it must have pained the Lord!

V.17 Ramah, about five miles north of Jerusalem, was in a strategic position on the highway between the divided kingdoms. This was the same Ramah which was used later by the Babylonians as a transit camp for processing the captives before being led to Babylon. It was here that Jeremiah was released by Nebuzaradan (Jer 40:1); and it is also the traditional burial place of Rachel (Jer 31:15).

V.4 "gave him a lamp in Jerusalem"  "a lamp"  in one's house is a phrase for continuance of family name and prosperity. Abijam was not rejected only in consequence of the Divine promise to David.

Vs.1,2  Maachah was the granddaughter of Absalom and Tamar, the daughter of Absalom (2Chron 13:2). 

Vs.9,10 Maachah was the grandmother of Asa. 

V.13 Abijam had made Maachah the Queen Mother, but Asa deposed her because of idolatry.

15:2  Abijam was the son of Absalom’s daughter. Given that the line of David ran unbroken from David to Josiah we have to conclude that Maachah married Rehoboam.

15:3 God’s assessment of Abijam was that he was evil. Compare this with his own assessment of himself – 2Chron 13:10

Vs.8,24 Because of Jeroboam's sin, Yahweh swore that He would kill every male from Jeroboam's household (14:10). This did not happen right away as the two subsequent kings, Abijah (bad); and Asa (good) were not affected. They were both buried.

Vs.28,29 It was the usurper to the throne, Baasha, who dispensed with Nadab and the rest of Jeroboam's household, thus fulfilling Yahweh's will.

15:6,7,16,32    Notice the repeated ‘and there was war between …’ So the division has really taken hold. Brethren are at war – but living in the same land – the land promised to them through Abraham.

15:10,13 We tend to think that mothers were a big influence in the development of sons. But not in Asa’s case. Maachah was an idol worshipper – so Asa must have got his instruction from Scripture and that instruction was not compromised by the influence of his mother.

V.6 There was never any open war between Judah and Israel, because Yahweh did not want that (1Kin 12:24).  However, the two camps were hostile towards one another, and perhaps a few minor fights did break out from time to time.

Vs.16,17 There was hostility, but not open war conflict between Asa and Baasha, for 35 years of Asa’s reign (2Chron 15:19). It was only in the 36^th. year of Asa’s reign that conflict arose (2Chron 16:1).

Vs.18-20 Asa’s faithfulness to Yahweh had slipped as he sought worldly help for his problems.  Yahweh was not pleased (2Chron 16:7).

V.23 Asa continued to turn away from the help of Yahweh (2Chron 16:12).

In v22 we read that Asa built Geba and Mizpah from the stones and timber Baasha had used to build Ramah (v17, 21-22). Presumably, Ramah was a fortified city, or castle of some sort "that he might let none go out or come in to Asa". So when we read of Asa using the materials, presumably it was for similar fortifications. But why is this important?

One of the ways we can witness the integrity and authenticity of scripture is the incidental details, from book to book, which fit together perfectly to give a picture we wouldn't have seen otherwise. The fact that there is no reason for these details to be there (for the main story to work) makes it even more compelling. So in this case, we have found out that Mizpah was probably a fortress or fortified city. In Jer 41 we have a seemingly random reference back to Asa building the city, mentioning a large pit (Jer 41:9). Why would such a large pit have existed? Because it was either to store food and drink to survive a siege, or it was in fact a moat or trench in front of the walls he built. 

15:18-19 Despite being ‘good’ Asa lost his faith in God and sought for help from Syria against the Northern Kingdom. So we see even faithful men fail. This should be an encouragement to us,

1Kin 15:9 - "Asa" [(1609) means "healer, physician"] and as his name suggests he did that which was right (1Kin 15:11-14) though he wasn't perfect in his walk and showed weakness in turning to Ben-Hadad (1Kin 15:18-19) for help and in seeking help from physicians but not the Lord for his diseased feet (1Kin 15:23;2Chron 16:7-12).

1Kin 15:16 - "Baasha" [(1201) means "stink, offensive, wicked"] warred with Asa. Baasha removed Jeroboam's house in accordance with Ahijah's prophecy (1Kin 14:6-11) and interestingly, Baasha's father was also named Ahijah (1Kin 15:25-28) though not the same person.

15:4    ‘for David’s sake’ – Abijam was an evil king of Judah. However God had compassion on the nation despite that because of David’s faithfulness.

v10: Abishalom = Absalom. Rehoboam appears to have deliberately married back into King David's line to strengthen his own hold on the throne (see also his other wives of David's line in 2Chron 11:18)

15:23 The simple comment that Asa was diseased in his feet is expanded in 2Chron 16:12. In his illness he sought to physicians. This is not to say that we should not seek medical attention. Rather it is a matter of priority. For that is the contrast that is drawn in 2 Chronicles

15:27   Actually Gibbethon had been given to Dan – Josh 19:44. So here we, incidentally, see the way in which the land had been taken, at least in part, by Israel’s enemies.

15:22-23       An additional piece of information is found in Jer 41:9 where we learn that Asa also built a pit which evidently was quite large. 

15:33 It is incredibly difficult to draw time lines which relate the kings of Judah to the kings of Judah. However here we have one little detail which will help to draw the two lines together. Baasha’s reign begun in the third year of the reign on Asa.

15:9    It is incredibly difficult to draw time lines which relate the kings of Judah to the kings of Judah. However here we have one little detail which will help to draw the two lines together. Asa began to reign in the twentieth year of the reign of Jeroboam.

15:29   Whilst Ahijah – 1Kin 14:10-11 – had prophesied the killing of the house of Jeroboam this in no way justified Baasha in his murderous ways.

THE GENERATION GAME

Abijah was a king of Judah. In the three years of his reign he had done enough to convince God and the people that he was a wicked king. "His heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God as the heart of David his forefather had been." (1Kin 15:3). However, because David was a man after God's own heart, God was faithful to Abijah. "Nevertheless, for David's sake the LORD his God gave him a lamp in Jerusalem by raising up a son to succeed him and making Jerusalem strong. For David had done what was right in the eyes of the LORD." (v.4-5).

Nadab was a wicked king of Israel. He was a grandson of Jeroboam."He did evil in the eyes of the LORD, walking in the ways of his father and in his sin, which he had caused Israel to commit." (v.2). But God wasn't interested in saving Nadab or Jeroboam's line, and they were killed by Baasha "because of the sins Jeroboam had committed and caused Israel to commit and because he provoked the LORD, the God of Israel to anger." (v.30).

David and Jeroboam both had a direct effect on the lives of grandchildren they never even saw. What will our legacy to our children or grandchildren be?

15:25  resolving the inter relationship between the kings of Israel and the kings of Judah to produce a clear parallel is very difficult. The mention that Nadab began to reign in the second year of Asa is one of only a few occasions when we are told of the chronological relationship between Israel and Judah. Using this details will help us to construct our own chart showing the relationship between the kings of Judah and the kings of Israel.

15:20   One wonders what Ben Hadad thought when Asa hired him to fight Asa’s own kinsmen! The end does not justify the means used. Should brethren have been fighting against each other?

15:15 Asa’s father’s heart was not perfect - :1-3 – nevertheless, it seems, he had a concern for the temple as Asa brought in things that his father had dedicated.

15:4 We saw in 1Kin 11:12 that because of David’s faithfulness Solomon was given rulership over two tribes. We see the same principle again. This is despite Abijam being an evil king.

15:3 we often read of individual’s way of life as “walking”. We should realise that our lives are not static. We are always “walking” – it is the way in which we walk that matters, God instructed Abraham’s walk – Gen 17:1

15:13 Asa’s behaviour towards his mother reflects the sort of thinking that Jesus charged his disciples with – Matt 10:33

NOT HOW YOU DIE, BUT HOW YOU LIVE

If you did a careful search into Jewish ancestry today, I am sure you would find many people who are descendants of king David. They might not realise it right now, but David's descendants would have been numerous and had God's blessing on them.

However, if you did the careful ancestral tracing to find descendants of king Jeroboam, the first king of Israel's divided tribes, I believe you would struggle to find any. Here is one of the reasons why: Baasha killed Nadab who was king in place of Jeroboam. "And as soon as he was king, he killed all of the house of Jeroboam. He left to the house of Jeroboam not one that breathed, until he had destroyed it, according to the word of the LORD that he spoke by his servant Ahijah the Shilonite." (1Kin 15:29).

The big difference between the descendants of David and the descendants of Jeroboam was not in the way they died, but in the way they lived. David lived for the LORD with all his heart, but Jeroboam did evil in setting up other gods. The way we live can have a direct impact on our children and their descendants. Let's live for God and be blessed by him.

May the decisions we make today be ones that anticipate a blessed future.

15:12  Doubtless removing “the sodomites” was a challenging thing to do, far harder than removing idols. However it had been commanded by God – Deut 23:17. The evils as had been seen in Sodom and Gomorrah were totally unacceptable to Yahweh.

v.15, indeed the whole chapter, illustrates the truth of the words written by Solomon in Eccles.8:11-12.

In ch 40:16, It is clear that Gedeliah did not believe that Ishmael would kill him. It seems we have much record here of the pride of human nature. We all think we are right, don't we?

41:1 The slaying of Gedaliah in the seventh month is the basis for the fast in the seventh month spoken of in Zechariah 7:5. Whilst we might think that the fast was the day of atonement which occurred in the seventh month I feel that this is not the fast referred to because of the mention of 70 years in Zechariah 7:5.

:2 So Gedaliah is slain. Yesterday we noted that his words, whilst being Scriptural, would have been viewed as treason - this then provides the explanation as to why he was slain.

41:8 That the ten men could escape with their lives on the basis that they knew where there was food indicates the straits that Jerusalem had been in during the siege.

V.3 This must have been quite the massacre at Mizpah, not only the Jews, but also the Chaldeans as well were murdered. Ishmael set about to systematically destroy all who supported Gedaliah.

This chapter puzzles me. One very satisfying thing about the story-like accounts in the old testament is that the wicked always seem to get their just desserts. You can read in Samuel about Joab and all the terrible things he did, building up a real loathing for the man, and feeling very satisfied when he gets his just reward by the hand of Solomon. But what about Ishmael the son of Nethaniah? I have hardly heard of a more evil man, yet I search in vain for any reference to his end. He seems to escape without any reprisal even though he massacred many men and women without pity.

I guess it's good that this is here, though. David complains in Psa 73:3-6 "why does the wicked flourish?". It is not God's way to punish the wicked as soon as they commit evil. He does, however, always bring it back upon their head in the end. Even though Ishmael seemed to get away, we can be assured that he didn't die peacefully. God keeps His promises to the evil just as he does to the faithful. (Psa 7:15, 35:8, 37:14-15).

Vs.17,18 After the upsetting actions of Ishmael, Johanan and his officers became afraid. They worried about reprisals from the Babylonians after the killing of Gedaliah their appointed governor of Judah.  They felt that they ought to remove themselves to a safer place.  And so they decided to move to Egypt.  This would prove to be a fatal mistake as we will see in subsequent chapters.

It was 3 months after Jerusalem had fallen that Ishmael killed Gedaliah. God had prophesied destruction, and just 3 months after many of the Jews had been killed or taken captive, now more Jews were killed by a descendant of the Jewish king (Jer 41:1-3). God’s word came true.

41:5  Notice that some came from ‘Samaria’ to worship. This indicates that there were some in the North who had decided that they would worship the God of Israel. So maybe they were descendants of some of those that the Assyrians had put in the land from the Jews to teach the people. 2Kin 17:27

41:2  The slaying of Gedaliah – the governor set over the land of Israel by the Chaldeans – indicates that the people still were unwilling to accept the word of God when He had said that Jerusalem would be taken captive by the Chaldeans.

V.5 These eighty men were probably mourners on their way to Jerusalem. There were no priests in the city which had been evacuated (39:9). Yet it seems that these men were intent upon offering sacrifices themselves.

However, their comportment was not compatible with that of priests. These men had shaved off their beards, torn their clothes, and cut themselves. As priests, such actions were not allowed under the Law (Lev 10:6; 21:5).

This incident shows how strict adherence to Yahweh's ways had faded in favour of a worship which included worldly practices. Do we pretend to be something that we are not? Do we walk with Yahweh and the world at the same time?

41:6-7 So even though those from Samaria came with good intent Ishmael deceived them and slew them.

41:17 The mention of the ‘habitation of Chimham’ so long after the days of king David highlights that at least the promise of 2Sam 19:37 was kept by David’s successors.

V.1 In October, two months after Jerusalem had been set on fire, Ishmael and Gedaliah sat down to eat bread together.  This indicates more than sharing a meal. It implies that Ishmael and Gedaliah were making a covenant, an agreement to co-exist.  Of course, it was all a sham on the part of Ishmael as he was intent upon assassinating Gedaliah.

Vs.3,4 Ishmael slew everyone else that was around, so that nobody outside of Mizpah would know what had happened.

V.10 Ishmael had made an alliance with Baalis, the king of the Ammonites (Jer 40:14).

V.12 Ishmael was on the road to Ammon, when Johanan intercepted him at Gibeon, which was situated about 4 miles (6+ km) northwest of Jerusalem.

V.18 If, and when, the Babylonians found out about Ishmael’s actions, they might think that these remaining Jews had something to do about it.  And so, the Jews thought it safer to go to Egypt.  But, this would be the wrong thing to do (Isa 31:1).

41:11-15 The city has been taken and the temple sacked. Most of the Jews are now in captivity. However we should not think that the land was left as a barren wilderness with no people in it. Political intrigue continued!

41:2 This chapter, by and large, recounts the evil behaviour of Ishmael. Not content with the captivity of the Jews he sought to murder those that were left. 

41:12-18          The chaotic way in which things happened under the rulership of Ishmael who had been left in charge by the Chaldeans is an indication of the extent to which the fabric of daily life had been destroyed by the Chaldeans.

41:9 This is the only mention of the pit which Asa built. There is no mention of this in the historical records of his activities in 1Kin 15:22-23 and 2Chron 16:6

JEALOUSY

When Jerusalem was taken, and all the rich and important people had been taken captive, Gedaliah was appointed to be governor over the rest of the people. He was not of royal blood but was obviously someone the king of Babylon believed he could trust.

Ishmael son on Nethaniah, on the other hand, "was of royal blood and had been one of the king's officers." (Jer 41:1). But Ishmael was not chosen for any special role under the new regime. He probably thought that with his experience and pure blood line, he should be the governor. His jealousy drove him to murder Gedaliah and all the people with him. Then he murdered another seventy men, and took everyone he could captive. I suppose his actions got rid of the opposition and created a feeling of power for Ishmael. But though he got his way, and for a time all the people bowed to his wishes, none of his actions did anything lasting. As soon as they could, the people overpowered him and he barely escaped with his life.

The consequences of jealousy are never good. Ishmael thought there might have been some beneficial consequences to his actions, but he ended up in a worse position than when he started. Let's not be ruled by jealousy, but aim to do our best with what we are given, to support rather than pull down.

41:2   It would appear that Ishmael was actually a relative of king Zedekiah for Jer 41:1 and , 2Kin 25:25describe him thus. So he continues the evil of his relatives who had been taken into captivity.

41:1    The Gedaliah we meet in this chapter and in subsequent chapters is not the same Gedaliah that we met in Jer 38:1. He was the son of Pashur whereas this one is the son of Ahikam.

41:12   the great waters that were at Gibeon is the place where Joab and Abner met and argued out the matter of which tribe – Judah or Benjamin – should provide the king after Saul was dead –2Sam 21:13-16

OUTLINE OF JEREMIAH

PART TWO -- THE PROPHECIES TO JUDAH (JEREMIAH 2:1 to 45:5)

IV. The Present Fall of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 34:1 to 45:5)

   D. Messages After the Fall (Jeremiah 40:1 to 44:30)

      2. Jer 41:1-18

         a. 41:1-9 the execution of the plot: Gedaliah was assassinated (Jer 39:2;Jer 41:1-3) within 3 months of his appearance as governor over Judah; Jer 40:14 did King "Baalis<1185>" want to conquer Judah as he instigated the murder of Gedaliah by Ishmael ?  Jer 40:16 Gedeliah did not believe Ishmael would kill him; V1 7th month (the number 7 may suggest rest, completion, perfection, God's seal or covenamt number, to be full, sacrifice); V1 "Mizpah<4708>";  V1 "Ishmael <3458>", son of "Nethaniah<5418>", son of "Elishama<476>"; V1 to eat bread together was a sign of fellowship and mutual acceptance; V1 murder at a feast (similar to Amnon and Absalom 2Sam 13:23-29 and perhaps even echoes Christ Psa 41:9;John 13:18); V1 sham covenant between Ishmael and Gedaliah; V1 (2Kin 25:25) Gelaliah was not of royal blood as was Ishmael, could Ishmael have been Jealous? Are Israel's cousins jealous of Israel today as the Jewish leaders were jealous of Christ? V1 10 +1 =11 men killed Gedaliah which is the number of imperfection, disorder, transgression, evil, peril, sin; V3 Ishmael killed Gedalaih, the Jews, and even the Babylonians at Mizpah (was this an attempt to leave no witnesses to the assassination?); V5 improper mourning by the 80 men who came from Shechem, Shiloh, and Samaria (Lev 19:27-28;Lev 21:5;Deut 14:1); V6 Ishmael weeping was to deceive the 80 men and 70 of them would be killed and perhaps this reminds of how some disciples of Christ would be killed while those ultimately saved with eternal life would have fed others with spiritual food; V7 "pit<953>"; V8 10 men not killed as they traded food for their lives; V8 the number 10 may signify perfection of divine order or judgment; V9 king "Asa<609>", king "Basha<1201>".

      2. Jer 41:1-18

         b. 41:10 the abduction of the remnant: V10 even the king's daughtrers were taken captive; V10 "Nebuzaradan<5018>"; V10 "Ammonites<1121><5983>"; V10 Ishmael made an alliance with Baalis king of the Ammorites (Jer 40:14); VS 10,15 Ishmael took the remnants of people left in Mizpah and then fled with 8 other men to the Ammorites escaping Johanan by the water of Gibeon.

         c. 41:11-18 the rescue of the remnant: V11 "Johanan<3110>", the son of "Kareah<7143>"; VS 11-15 was prompt in his pursuit of the murderers and though he failed to capture Ishmael, he did secure the release of the prisoners; V12 "Gibeon<1391>"; V12 the Gibeonites previously had deceived the Israelites (Josh 9:3-24); V15 8+1 = 9 which is thought by some to signify finality or judgment; V16 the rescued survivers were from Mizpah; V15 Ishmael is defeated yet escapes (like sin which can be defeated and yet come back again at an opportune time); VS 16-18 Johanan did not return to Mizpah but dwelt in Chimham; V17 "Geruth<1628>" "Chimham<3643>" by "Bethlehem<1035>" to enter into Egypt (this reminds me of Christ in Bethlehem and then entering into Egypt); VS 17-18 after the upsetting actions of Ishmael, Johanan and his officers feared Babylonian reprisals even though it was not they who had killed Gedaliah and the  Babylonians who guarded/supported him; V18 escaping the Babylonians as they were afraid; V18 warnings about going into Egypt (Isa 31:1).

41:1    Notice that Ishmael was “of the seed royal” – that is he was of royal descent. Gedaliah, it seems, was not. So maybe, egged on by Baalis – Jer 40:14 – Ishmael was seeking the position of governor for himself.

41:11-18             the final wave of captives had been taken to Babylon. Those that remained then were involved in power struggles amongst themselves. Having killed Gedaliah Ishmael sought power only to find that he lacked the support to bring that about. So he fled to Ammon.

41 Summarising this chapter we see -

:1-11-    Ishmael killed Gedaliah and seeks to flee to the Ammonites.  -

:11-14–  but those  who are taken captive by Ishmael are recovered by Johana.  -

:15-      Ishmael escapes and goes to the Ammonites -

:16-18   whilst those recovered by Johanan settle in the land of Israel in a specified location.

41:2 it would appear from Jer 40:14 that Ishmael was being encouraged by the king of the Ammonites.  Ammon wishing to inflict even more damage and problems on Judah than the Chaldeans were likely to bring.

41:2-7 What do we think Ishmael’s motives were for killing Gedaliah and the men who came from Samaria?

Whilst the record does not make it explicit we might think it was some sort of patriotism. After all Gedaliah was a “puppet” of the Chaldean enemy.

However we do well to remember that Ishmael was encouraged by the king of Ammon – Jer 40:14 - Ishmael was in some sort of partnership with Ammon who repeatedly opposed Israel.

We should be careful to avoid compromising ourselves so that we end up committed to doing things which would displease Go.

Does God leave the wicked unpunished?

(It is nearly twenty years after I wrote my previous comment, and I have found the answer to the question I had back then. The word of the LORD is wonderful!)

Ishmael the son of Nethaniah stands out in the Bible as one of the most evil men imaginable. His actions are not only barbaric and cruel, but far reaching in their implications. By killing the Jewish governor that Nebuchadnezzar had appointed, he destroyed any chance for the remnant of the people to live in the land of Israel:

And they departed, and dwelt in the habitation of Chimham, which is by Bethlehem, to go to enter into Egypt, Because of the Chaldeans: for they were afraid of them, because Ishmael the son of Nethaniah had slain Gedaliah the son of Ahikam, whom the king of Babylon made governor in the land. (Jer 41:17-18 KJV)

His actions are all the more despicable because he acted when the Jews were at their lowest, having been conquered by the Babylonians. He even killed mourners in cold blood:

That there came certain from Shechem, from Shiloh, and from Samaria, even fourscore men, having their beards shaven, and their clothes rent, and having cut themselves, with offerings and incense in their hand, to bring them to the house of the LORD. And Ishmael the son of Nethaniah went forth from Mizpah to meet them, weeping all along as he went: and it came to pass, as he met them, he said unto them, Come to Gedaliah the son of Ahikam. And it was so, when they came into the midst of the city, that Ishmael the son of Nethaniah slew them, and cast them into the midst of the pit, he, and the men that were with him. (Jer 41:5-7 KJV)

He acted as a mourner himself, and then turned on them when he had them inside his city.

It is a great puzzle why Ishmael got away with his actions, escaping to the King of Ammon. There is no further mention in scripture of this man getting his just deserts:

But Ishmael the son of Nethaniah escaped from Johanan with eight men, and went to the Ammonites. (Jer 41:15 KJV)

So what should we think about this? Did God allow this evil man to get away with his crimes? Or is God more consistent and just than that?

Notice that God gives us some clues in scripture as to why this happened. First, we learn that the Edomites, Moabites and Ammonites had learned of Judah's overthrow by the Babylonians, and that there was a small remnant left:

Likewise when all the Jews that were in Moab, and among the Ammonites, and in Edom, and that were in all the countries, heard that the king of Babylon had left a remnant of Judah, and that he had set over them Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan; (Jer 40:11 KJV)

These three nations are of the same family as Abraham. Ammon and Moab were Lot's sons. And Edom came from Esau. They ought to have had compassion on their neighbour. Instead, we are told that Ammon hired Ishmael to kill Gedaliah the governor of Judah:

Moreover Johanan the son of Kareah, and all the captains of the forces that were in the fields, came to Gedaliah to Mizpah, And said unto him, Dost thou certainly know that Baalis the king of the Ammonites hath sent Ishmael the son of Nethaniah to slay thee? But Gedaliah the son of Ahikam believed them not. (Jer 40:13-14 KJV)

It means that, rather than showing love for a brother and a neighbour, the king of Ammon sought to use Israel's catastrophe as an opportunity to exact revenge.

Let's put this into perspective. It is like changing the parable of the good samaritan, and changing the samaritan with an Ammonite, who see the man lying half dead, and goes over to him and kicks him to death. Then he goes on his way humming a tune.

It is truly one of the most horrendous acts in scripture, and that's saying something!

So we have to ask the question, would God leave such a person without judgement? It is clear from scripture that He would not:

The wicked have drawn out the sword, and have bent their bow, to cast down the poor and needy, and to slay such as be of upright conversation. Their sword shall enter into their own heart, and their bows shall be broken. (Psa 37:14-15 KJV)

We need to have confidence in God, that He is righteous, and armed with this certainty, we can prayerfully comb the scriptures to find the answer.

Now that we realise that this was a contract killing commissioned by the King of Ammon, we can look at that nation and see what God had to say about it. And we would find this word of the LORD through Ezekiel who prophecied at the same time as Jeremiah:

The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying, Son of man, set thy face against the Ammonites, and prophesy against them; And say unto the Ammonites, Hear the word of the Lord GOD; Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thou saidst, Aha, against my sanctuary, when it was profaned; and against the land of Israel, when it was desolate; and against the house of Judah, when they went into captivity; (Eze 25:1-3 KJV)

This is the precise same event! We see that God has noticed the evil of Baalis and Ishmael, and He pronounced judgement upon them for their evil acts:

For thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thou hast clapped thine hands, and stamped with the feet, and rejoiced in heart with all thy despite against the land of Israel; Behold, therefore I will stretch out mine hand upon thee, and will deliver thee for a spoil to the heathen; and I will cut thee off from the people, and I will cause thee to perish out of the countries: I will destroy thee; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD. (Eze 25:6-7 KJV)

41:10  the almost incidental way in which we learnt of  “the king’s daughters” highlights yet another facet of the brutality of the Babylonians. Zedekiah had been taken to Babylon after seeing his sons killed before him- 2Kin 25:6-7-. But now we realise that he did not spend the last years of his life with his daughters either.

41:17-18  The slaying of Gedaliah, a man appointed by the Chaldeans to govern the land,  brought fear to those who had been party to his murder. And so they flee to Egypt!  But Egypt was to be overrun by the Chaldeans also –43:10-11

15:47 - The record is at pains to provide named witnesses to every part of this process which God knew would be disputed by many in future generations. John 20:29 1Cor.15:1-8

14:61 15:2, 5 'answered nothing' should remind us of the prophecy of Isaiah - 'as a sheep … so he opened not his mouth' [53:7]
:16 'led' continues to echo the sacrifice language.
:39 Consider how often in the New Testament centurions are cast in a good light. How many centurions were impressed by the gospel? How many responded to the gospel? May it be that we are being introduced to one centurion in different locations who eventually accepted the gospel?

HONOUR OR SHAME?

Was it an honour or a shame for Simon of Cyrene to carry the cross of Christ?

When a man was about to be crucified they made him carry his cross from the court to the place of crucifixion outside the city. This was the procession that began to draw the crowds when the people would jeer and mock at the man carrying the cross. But Jesus was too weak to carry it alone, so Simon was selected to help. The only time a man carried a cross was when he was going to die on it - except for Simon. Yet because of his position, with the cross on his shoulder, he would have received the same shame and ridicule as our Lord. He was forced to carry the cross behind Jesus. What shame must have been involved in that action.

Then again, it was the cross of the sinless Son Of God. It was the cross that would bear our shame, the cross that would have the sins of mankind nailed to it. What an honour to carry the cross of the Messiah, the Savior of the world even though the people there didn't recognize it at the time.

What is Christ to us? Are we embarrassed to be a Christian or do we hold our head up high, honoured to bear the cross for Christ?

:46 In taking the body of Jesus and burying it - handling it in the process - Joseph would be barred from partaking of the Passover as he would be ceremonially unclean. However he doubtless was not concerned about that. After all he had been defiled by carrying the true Passover lamb!

The inscription above Jesus encapsulated the very thing that had been his temptation for the last three and a half years. Should he take the throne now? Should he do what the people wanted, and become their king immediately? Should he bow to their desires, and let them crown him king, and lead them in a perfect revolt against their Roman captors? On more than one occasion he  removed himself from the people, for they were about to make him king. Now the taunt of the Roman soldiers provided one last temptation let the Christ, the king of Israel, descend NOW from the cross (v32).

But Jesus didn't descend now. He descended later. But what difference did it make, waiting that short space of time? What was the difference between coming down of his own volition, or coming down later, a dead man? The difference was that Jesus the king of the Jews died on the cross. The inscription was correct. Jesus left that man on the cross. He gave that title up, along with the glory and ambition the Jews wanted to place on it.

On the road to Jerusalem the blind man had called out to Jesus, calling him the Son of David. In his teaching to his disciples in 12v35 he had tackled the subject of whether he should be called the son of David. In doing so he took them back to Psalm 110, where David doesn't call him his son, but Lord! How could he be the son of David if his own father called him Lord? In v4 is the key: "you are a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedek". Melchisedek had no recorded genealogy, a point made explicitly in Hebrews (Heb 7v3) so whose son was he? The verse continues "but made like the son of God".

Jesus the son of David died on that cross, along with the kingship. He had made the choice to give that title up. Instead, he was taking on the much greater, much better, much more highly exalted sonship of God. He was taking on the role of the priest according to Melchisedek, a role he could only take on if he was to die on the cross, a perfect sacrifice. This role allowed him to be king over all the world - not just Israel; and over all time - not just for one mortal life. In doing this he would re-gain the title of son of David as well as son of God.

15:22 There have been many suggestions as to why the name 'Golgotha' - the place of a skull - was the name given to the area where Jesus was crucified. A Biblical link may well be found in David's behaviour. He took Goliath's head to Jerusalem 1Sam 17:54

V.15 It is a comfort to know that back of Pilate stood God. The responsibility for the sinful act, to be sure, remained with Pilate, and those who pressured him into delivering Jesus to be crucified. All these sinners were included in the over all plan and purpose of God. Acts 2:23

15:34 - Why would Jesus say "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

The quote would appear to be from Psa 22:1 where the word for "forsaken" is "azab" (5800) and can mean "relinquish, permit, forsake", etc. The writers translated the word "azab" perhaps to show Christ was quoting Psa.22:1 but they also included Christ's actual word "cebak". 

 The rest of the prophetic Psalm which Jesus was unable to finish refers to the crucifixion process including the mocking, piercing of his hands and feet, casting of lots for his clothing, etc.  Interestingly, Jesus uses a different word for "forsaken" than that used in Psalms 22:1. He uses "cebak" (5442) which refers to a "thicket" and says essentially, "My God, my God, why have you thicketed me?". This is a probable reference to Gen 22:13 where a sacrificial ram was caught by its horns in a thicket when Abraham was preparing to sacrifice his only son Isaac with the wood arranged on the altar.

It would seem Christ with his last breaths was teaching the people of his prophetic sacrifice in pointing out two key scriptures.

Vs.14,15 Pilate was not convinced that Jesus was a threat to either the Jewish or Roman powers. But, as a Roman administrator, he had to be politically expedient. Thus, he acceded to the wishes of his Jewish subjects for the sake of political peace. And if that meant sending an innocent man to be crucified, so be it.

To absolve himself of the obvious injustice of this act, Pilate publicly proclaimed his virtue over the matter (Matt 27:24). Is it not ironic that Pilate means firm in Latin? By his actions, he showed anything but firmness in moral conviction.

15:43 There are a number of phrases used around the time of the death of Jesus which are also found around the time of his birth. 'waited for the kingdom of God' is found also in Luke 2:25

15:10 Pilate recognised the cause of the Jews’ opposition to Jesus. It was ‘envy’. Prov 27:4 highlights that no man can stand before envy. It is as if the Proverb is saying that the end is inevitable when the cause, in Jesus’ situation, was envy.

15:23 The reason that Jesus rejected the wine, would have been because he had to endure the full pain of that which was in store for him.

15:43   The way in which Joseph came ‘boldly’ contrasted markedly with the timidity of the disciples who his after Jesus’ death hid for fear of the Jews.

V.17 In the Diaglot, the crown of thorns is described as an acanthine wreath.  The acanthus is a plant with large thistle-like leaves.

15:7 There is no need for us to know the name of the man that was to be freed but his name is significant. It means ‘son of a father’. Jesus was ‘the son of the Father’.

V.15 Barabbas was released in exchange for Jesus, the Son of God.  Barabbas means son of the father.  By character, Jesus was the son of the Most High God, while Barabbas was the son of Belial.

V.16 The Praetorium (KJV) was the area in a Roman camp where the Governor had his residence.  It was also where the judgment hall was located.

V.22 Golgotha means the place of a skull.  It might have received its name because of its physical appearance. Golgotha was a bare, round hillock that looked skull-like.  Another suggestion is that Golgotha is the place to which David took the head of Goliath (1Sam 17:54).

V.28 is a quote from Isa 53:12, and is included in the KJV. Modern versions either do not include v.28, or include it with a qualification that the verse is not found in many manuscripts.

V.38 Shredding the veil from top to bottom could only be done by divine action.  Human action would attempt to rip it from the bottom

15:31 One wonders if there was a tinge of worry amongst the religious leaders as they mocked Jesus calling upon him to come down off the cross. They had sent a multitude to take him in the Garden of Gethsemane. They doubtless had feared his power.

The point Mark is making in v1 is that the whole ruling fabric of the Jews was agreed on Jesus's destruction. In v2 he makes the observation that they were trying to kill their King. Pilate saw this and drew the correct conclusion that they wanted to kill him because of envy - if he was the rightful heir to David's throne, he would unseat them from their position (v10).

15:25 The ‘third hour’ is 9.00 in the morning.

In Mark 15:39we read: “…Truly this man was the Son of God.”

In Matt 27:54we read: “…Truly this was the Son of God.”

In Luke 23:47we read: “Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.”

The original Greek of the New Testament does not use plural forms for God, and when it quotes passages from the Hebrew Bible, or the Greek Septuagint that contain the word, “God,” it is always in the singular noun, Theos. The translators chose to use this word to translate Elohim and El, and chose Kyrios (Lord) to translate Adonai and Yahweh.

For example, let us consider Rom 14:6: “He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord (Yahweh); and he that eateth, eateth to the Lord (Yahweh), for he giveth God (Elohim) thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord (Yahweh)he eateth not, and giveth God (Elohim) thanks.” In Strong’s concordance, “Lord” is # <2962>, Kurios, and “God” is # <2316>, Theos.

Why is all this significant? Because Elohim is a plural noun, and Theos is a singular noun. The reason for this was that at the time of the Septuagint translation, Greek idolatry was rampant. The translators, therefore, mistranslated the names in confining them to only two words in the singular, and as a result the idea of God manifestation in a multitude is completely lost, unlike in the Hebrew! Elohim being a plural noun, the singular being Eloah, means “mighty ones,” and can refer to various pagan gods (Exo 12:12), angels (Psa 8:5), judges (Exo 21:6; Exo 22:8,9,22,28), and mortal men (Exo 7:1). The translators did not concern themselves with any later misunderstandings because of their omissions. If they had translated the names and titles properly this confusion would not exist today.

This foundation is important, as most regard the centurion’s confession as read in Matthew and Mark from a purely human estimation. What does his utterance actually amount to? This pagan Roman centurion knew very little of Jesus. What he did know was through his observation of Jesus’ calm submission to an excruciating death; he did not rail against those that brutalized him, and his concern for his mother’s well-being at a time when he was agonizing in pain. To Jesus’ very last breadth, the centurion witnessed Jesus’ dignity and strength. You may be absolutely certain that he had never witnessed anything like this before, which could only lead him to one conclusion that Jesus was wrongly convicted – he was a righteous and innocent man. The centurion testified to this truth, and in so doing honoured Yahweh.

Matthew and Mark give us different parts of the same story wherein they add that the centurion also said, “Truly this was the Son of God.” Note in their account, that the article, “a” is used (see margin), not the definite article, “the,” and “God” translated, Theos, is Elohim. What the pagan centurion really said was: “Truly he was a son of the gods.” He categorized Jesus a son among many sons of the gods! This title was also attributed to the pagan Roman rulers (cf. Acts 12:22)! We see this principle in Dan 3:25 where the account reads in speaking of an angel, “and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.” What this pagan Babylonian really said was, “…and the form of the fourth is like a son of a god (elah - Chaldee singular; Eloah - Hebrew singular)!

There is nothing in the text that seems to suggest that the centurion had any admiration for Jesus, and made his comment only after Jesus died and then fearfully spoke of him as a son in the past tense! The centurion did, though, unwittingly herald the divinity of Jesus by his statement, but without a Scriptural understanding of exactly who Jesus really was. In Clarke’s Commentary, Adam Clarke writes: “…It is not likely that this centurion had any knowledge of the expectation of the Jews relative to the Messiah, and did not use the words in this sense. A son of God, as the Romans used the term, would signify no more than a very eminent or Divine person; a hero.”

15:9  Whilst the Jewish leaders wanted Jesus dead it seems that Pilate would happily have let Jesus go free. Maybe the dream of his wife -  Matt 27:19 -  and his awareness that Jesus was no threat to the Roman power plus a  desire to humiliate the Jewish leaders was his motivation.

15:1    This is the last time that ‘straightway’ or a similar word is used in Mark’s gospel. The first is in 1:10.

Mark 15:36 WHy did Jesus drink this wine?  in type Jesus was a Nazerite for he completely separated and dedicated his life to God and those under Nazerite vow were excluded from drinking wine? They were also not to touch dead bodies, yet Jesus touched them and they sprang to life! We all know death speaks of DEAD WORKS which lead to death. Rom 8:6 Tells us a carnal mind leads to death but a spirit mind leads to life. SO it was putting away carnal thinking which the Nazerite was to put away symbolised in dead bodies.

 Wine in scripture indicates apostasy, So Jesus fulifilled the Nazerite vow in his mind, never having apostasy or dead works in his mind.

What about hair? Hair symbolised that the nazerite's mind or head was growing in spirituallity. So if Jesus touched dead bodies and drank wine was his hair long or short? I would say his hair was short becuase his mind was fuly grown in spiritual thinking which goes against all those paintings in apostate churches.

BUt why drink wine here on the stake? Num 6:20

When the Nazerite completed his vow he drank wine, here then Jesus exclaims in John 19:28 "it is finished"! After touching no dead bodies, drinking no wine and growing his mind his nazerite vow was finished. I am sure as he died and his head dropped it would symbolise the Nazerite after completing his vow his head would fall forward to sut off his hair, Jesus then literally cut off all flesh by his mind full of Gods spirit word!

Mark 15:46 Jesus body was taken out of the "camp" and buired in a sepulchre. Lev 4:11 The sin offering is shown here,

After the blood was shed the Bullock was taken out of the camp and burnt in a clean place, remember flesh has no place before Yahweh and was taken outside the camp and destroyed completely. Signifying also that flesh profiteth nothing.

The head and inwards was offered on the altar but the body was taken away to be consumed and destroyed.

Heb 13:11

Here we see this typified beautifully in the sacrifice of our great high priest, after destroying his own sinful nature by giving his mind and emotions to his father in complete obedience, his body was then also taken outside the camp and it too was taken to a clean place to an unused tomb destroying once and for all his flesh nature.

15:11   Urged on by the leaders, the people now not understanding that Jesus’ kingship would not come through violence, discard Jesus favouring a criminal! We must be careful that when our expectations are not met that we do not reject the messenger.

15:47  “Mary the mother of Joses” is, in fact, Jesus’ mother – Mark 6:3

15:23 In refusing the wine mingled with myrrh Jesus is not simply refusing a drink. He is avoiding taking anything that will dull his senses. With dulled senses he would not be able to correctly glorify his Father. Do we have such an attitude that we seek always to be in full control of our senses so that we can always glorify our Father in heaven?

15:5,45   On two occasions it is recorded that Pilate “marvelled”. The first time because Jesus did not behave like a regular prisoner facing death. The second occasion that Jesus died quickly on the cross. Pilate said “I find no fault in him”  John 19:4,6. In a normal court of law Jesus would have been acquitted. But this was by the determinate counsel of God Acts 2:23

15:2 The accusation against Jesus was clear. Clearly Pilate did not believe the accusation. So when he asked Jesus the question one presumes that he did not expect Jesus to acknowledge what was said of him was true. Now was not the time for kingship.

v. 44 It says that Pilate when he wondered if Jesus was dead so soon, summoned "the centurion" not a centurion. It would appear that he summoned from the crucifiction site the very centurion that witnessed Jesus' death and who proncounced that he must be the Son of God. This may have supported Pilates actions at giving Jesus' body to Joseph rather than treating him like a crimminal. 

15:9  It would appear that Pilate’s description of Jesus as “king of the Jews” was designed to irritate the Jewish leaders. That is exactly what they did not want to recognise Jesus as.

15:40 In saying that the women were “afar off” is not simply stating something to do with how near they were physically to the cross. Rather the words of the Psalmist are echoed – Psa 38:11. Those that wanted to be near Jesus were repulsed by what was happening

15:3 Whilst Jesus “answered nothing” we should be aware that at this time Jesus had feelings and was troubled about the whole proceedings. Psa 39 gives us an insight into Jesus feelings at the time of his trial. In particular :2

15:4-5 We will never be in such circumstances as Jesus was in – being tried for his life for something that he had not done. But notice Jesus’ reaction to the questioning. He “answered nothing”. Silence from time to time for us is the best response to comments made. However it is probably one of the hardest things to do – not to respond to an accusation.

15:5 Whilst Pilate “marvelled” we should conclude that his accusers were simply angry. They had nothing to lay as a charge against him and he was saying nothing to condemn himself. It is evident from Pilate’s response that Jesus’ behaviour was most unusual for a prisoner being tried for his life. As a dumb sheep – Isa 53:7

15:9  Pilate had his finger on the pulse of the nation. He knew what had been going on with Jesus. Hence he knew of their “envy”. Starkly Prov 27:4 asks whether anyone can stand before envy.

BE BOLD

The circumstances were compelling. Even the Roman Centurion declared that Jesus was the Son of God when he saw how Jesus had died and how he had willing submitted to his fate even though he was innocent. (Mark 15:39).

Many others would have experienced the same compelling evidence: the earthquake, the darkness, willingly giving up his own life, and the innocence of the condemned man. These people would likely have come to the same conclusions.

Even the leaders of the Jews should have seen the same - especially since they had the added evidence of the scriptures that prophesied of him, the scriptures Jesus quoted, and the curtain in the temple being torn from top to bottom.

But after the death of Jesus only one man was bold enough to take sides. "So as evening approached, Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body." (Mark 15:42-43).

In his death, Jesus had proved to be the Son of God. In his resurrection there is even more proof. Joseph risked alienation and disfellowship from everyone that was important to him as he sided with a dead Messiah. Will we be bold enough to risk ourselves for our Living Messiah?