Comments for August 7

v.53 - Forgiveness is the first quality that we see here in Solomon as soon as he is made king. Although he has not yet requested wisdom specifically from God, he makes a wise judgement, and one that reflects the forgiveness that Christ portrayed as well. Prov.24:21.

v.45 - The phrase 'earth / city rang again' only occurs twice in Scripture. 1 Samuel 4:5 1 Kings 1:45 The first being a cry with no joy to follow. The second at a more glorious time in Israel's history.

v31 - I am sure this was just a standard saying of the time - and in human terms highly inappropriate as everyone recognised that David was on his death bed! But how apposite in spiritual terms! Indeed David was about to sleep with his fathers to await the great resurrection to eternal life where we know he will be saved.

1:5 The way in which Adonijah  prepared chariots is just the same as his brother Absalom. It is also exactly how Samuel said men would respond when they wanted to be king. (1 Samuel 8:10-11)

RIGHT TIME, RIGHT WAY

Two of David's sons became king in one day. Adonijah was the first. His method was to put himself forward with the help of some of the leading men of the kingdom, to become king. He chose to do it when his father, David, was old and weak. Adonijah had not been promised the kingdom, nor did he have the blessing of the LORD or of David. Adonijah's plan was to take the kingdom without having been given it, at an opportune time.

Solomon was the other son of David to be made king that day. Solomon was made king through the promise of both God and David. He became king at the time that was appropriate that he should take over the kingdom. Solomon also had the support of king David and the God fearing leaders of the land. Solomon did not have to take the kingdom, the kingdom was given to him at the right time.

There could not be two kings, and it was Solomon, the rightful king, who succeeded his father David. In the same way, we cannot force our way into the kingdom of God. There is only one way to be there, and that way is through Jesus. We will not get in by doing things our own way, or in our own time, by trickery or by force, instead we must be invited, called chosen, worthy and willing to act in the LORD's time and in his way.

:48 'mine eyes even seeing it' might seem a strange thing for David to say - as if he never expected one of his sons to sit on his throne. I think, rather, he had been hoping that he would not be succeeded until after his death. The reason? 2 Samuel 7:12 'when they days be fulfilled …' David was longing for the Messiah and he understood that he would only come after his death. He knew now, as he had seen Solomon crowned, that he was not the messiah. They are words of recognition that his hopes have not yet been realised.

1:7 Abiathar had been a faithful priest having been involved in many of David's faithful acts. Joab had been a faithful warrior for David. However they both turn against David because of personal grievances. Abiathar was of the line of Eli and was to lose his position  (1Kin 2:27)and Joab  had always been a self seeking man as can be seen with the way he dealt with David on a number of times. Therefore it is not surprising that Abiathar and Joab join together against David.

V.24-27 Nathan spoke without any of the dignity or authority which was his by right as an inspired prophet of the Lord.(2Sam 7:12) Now he was the humble servant of the king, eager to save his royal master from hurt or distress.

Kings I and Kings II are really one work.  The same is true of Samuel I and Samuel II; and Chronicles I and Chronicles II.

Vs.33,34 David was probably startled and unprepared to put Solomon on the throne while he was still living.  But the usurpation of Adonijah forced the issue.  However, all this was in Yahweh's plan. 

Putting Solomon on the throne instead of David, while yet alive, made a clear prophetical distinction (2Chron 1:8). Yahweh's promise, through Nathan could only be accomplished after David's death (2Sam 7:12-16; 1Chron 17:11-14). 

Therefore, the promise could not be referring to Solomon.  And so, Solomon cannot be confused with the promise that pertains to the Lord Jesus, the son of David. 

Adonijah was David's 4th son, born while David was King in Hebron (1Chron 3:1,2), so that makes him  between 30 and 40 years old when he tried to usurp the kingship in today's chapter. He had the ability to recruit Joab and Abiathar the priest, but David's more godly followers did not join the rebellion. The first really wise deed Solomon did was to postpone any punishment on Adonijah, and sent him home
(1Kin 1:53)

1:10  Adonijah clearly knew that those who had advised his father David would not support his uprising.

V.7 It is interesting to ask why would both Joab and Abiathar who had been loyal to David in difficult and trying times go against him at this time. It appears that Joab had lost favour because of the assassination of Absalom, while Abiathar was fearful of being replaced by Zadok as high priest. Adonijah would only have to mention that Zadok would be replaced and Abiather would come on board in his attempt to be king.

V.1 David, nearing the end of his life, was approximately seventy years of age (2Sam 5:4).  Now that Absalom was dead, Adonijah was his oldest son. 

V.6 Adonijah believed that he could do anything he wanted.  David was somewhat to blame as he did not discipline him as a child.  The exhortation to us is clear (Prov 22:6).

1Kin 1:6  It is interesting that David did not appear to have had good parenting skills, and had not properly disciplined his children. The result was that they went their own ways, some to David's own hurt. The marginal cross reference is to 1Sam 3:13 where God reprimands Eli for not having disciplined/restrained his sons. We know from Scripture the importance of bringing children up correctly & disciplining them for their own good, as God does us. It doesn't guarantee that they will subsequently try to lead godly lives, but it is our responsibility as parents.

1:11-14 Why the subterfuge? Why did Nathan go to Bathsheba rather than David? David, at this time, appeared as a very old man. It seems that he did not wish to hand over the throne to Solomon whilst he was still alive maybe hoping the promise of 2Sam 7:12 "when thy days be fulfilled …" would be fulfilled in Solomon who David anticipated would take the throne on his death.

1:1   David clearly was not in a fit state to rule the kingdom yet he did not relinquish power to his son Solomon. Why not?  Maybe he was hoping to die before Solomon was crowned in the hope that Solomon was the son promised in 2Sam 7:12 ‘when … thou sleep with thy fathers’.

1:7 That Adonijah sought advice from Joab and wished to involve him in the plot to take the throne indicates that Joab, at this time, was unsure about his future as captain of the army of Israel.

1Kin 1:32-34 First Principles>Kingdom of God>Was overturned>History of fulfilment
2. Saul was made king 1Sam 9:15,16,27, 1Sam 10:1 followed by David 1Sam 6:13, Solomon 1Kin 1:32-34, 1Chron 28:5 then Rehoboam 1Kin 11:43, 2Chron 9:31.
Go to Deut 28:49 to see more details of the history of Israel and its overturning.

V.2 Of general interest: This practice, of supplying body heat from a woman, was carried on in England.  It was called bundling.

The dictionaries define the term: BUNDLE (bundled, bundling). To occupy the same bed without undressing;-said of a man and woman, especially during courtship.-(Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, et al).

In England, a guest would be offered one of the host’s daughters to keep him warm during the night.  Often, the ankles of the girls were bound to ensure that no untoward behaviour would occur.

The practice came to America with the colonists: Bundling Was a Legitimate Custom, to all intents and purposes - with all its dangers - among most of the American colonists, in one way or another in those early days - A. Monroe Aurand Jr.

Native North Americans also practiced bundling.  Aurand writes about the Mohawks: The Custom of Bundling was practiced among our people on a scarcity of beds, where, on occasion, husbands frequently permitted travellers to bundle with wives; and more frequently, with daughters.

Without heating in homes, this practice was considered an acceptable gesture of hospitality.  However, precautions were often made, such as the female's donning a bundle bag which was a specially designed garment to keep the female secure and restricted.

1:8 Benaiah figures in David’s life and then in Solomon’s life as a faithful man, executing Solomon’s judgements as he had that of his father. Thus a this time we see a man who was happy to wait for the outcome of events because God was involved. He would have been happy to serve any king of God’s choosing.

1Kin 1:3 - "Shunammite" (7767) means "double resting place".

1Kin 1:5 - Adonijah wanted to be king and much like Absalom had chariots, horses and 50 men run ahead of him (2Sam 15:10,1). 1Kin 1:6 - Adonijah was handsome not unlike Absalom his older brother (2Sam 14:25). 1Kin 1:9,11 - Adonijah sacrificed animals at the Stone of "Zoheleth" [(2120) means "serpent"] as part of his preparation of becoming king without David's knowing and it would seem we have in this false king a possible echo of a false Christ and/or perhaps a symbol of sinful fleshly desire if not sin itself. Perhaps there is a lesson here for believers who might seek somewhat similar privilege to inappropriately "rule" within the confines of ecclesial life. 1Kin 1:17,28-30 - David gave Bathsheba an oath that Solomon would be his successor. 1Kin 1:33-35 - Solomon was put on King David's mule (a sign that the king's successor was on the throne) and anointed at the "Gihon" (1521) means "bursting forth" and it is the same name as of one of the rivers in the garden of Eden (Gen 2:13).  1Kin 1:50-51 - Adonijah sought refuge from Solomon on the horns of the altar; it has been said by some the altar was regarded as a place of refuge for criminals deserving of death; but according to Exodus it was only allowed to afford protection in cases of unintentional slaying (Exo 21:12-14).

1:9   Absalom’s rebellion had been quenched and so another pretender comes on to the scene.  The way in which there were these attempts to usurp the throne of David highlights the fact that there  were individuals with their own ambitions and who were not concerned with what God wanted.

1:21    The way in which Bathsheba quotes 2Sam 7:12‘sleep with thy fathers’ was designed to cause David to realise that he had an obligation rather than to just leave things in God’s hand.  Humanly speaking Adonijah would thwart God’s plan if David did not seek to bring about the fulfilment of the promise.

1:29     It was David’s confidence in God’s previous saving work that enabled him to be sure that Adonijah’s uprising would fail. If we cannot see that God has worked in our lives in the past we will find it harder to be confident about His involvement in our lives in the future. 

Joab and Benaiah

In v44 the fact that Joab is mentioned tells us that he was one of the main conspirators. In order for any bid for the throne to be successful they would need the commander of the army to be on their side.

v26 the fact that Benaiah remained loyal to David and Solomon meant that there was an army commander on their side too. Benaiah, whilst not over the main army, commanded David's personal army which would have been most strong in Jerusalem. This man, even without an army, was greatly feared and a match for Joab in combat. Look at a list of his achievements in 1Chron 11:22-25

Cherethites & Pelethites

See Eze 25:16 and Zeph 2:5 appear to have been Philistines and part of the 600 men that followed David from Gath (a Philistine city), see 2Sam 15:18

1:39    The “recipe” for the anointing oil had been given – Exo 30:23-25. Whilst there is no requirement in Exodus for that oil to be kept in the tabernacle clearly it was as a horn of oil was brought from the tabernacle to anoint Solomon.

1:17   There is no actual record of David swearing to Bathsheba that Solomon would reign after David, though clearly he had spoken to her on this matter, making a promise.

1:5     Adonijah “exalted himself” indicating that he was not spiritually minded. The one who was to be king had to read Scriptures regularly in order that he be not exalted – Deut 17:20

1:47        Earthly leaders / kings might like to think of themselves as the pinnacle. However God is requested to make Solomon’s name greater than David. David, being a godly man, would doubtless have assented to that sentiment. Do we always think of others better than ourselves? Phil 2:3

1:25    The way in which Joab behaved here possible prompted the words in Psa 35:16

1:2-4  No Divine comment is made on the arrangement spoken of here even though we are told it. So was it a good thing to do or not? We have to use our own judgment, based on Scripture, to decide.

1:5    One wonders why Adonijah thought that he would be able to take the throne from avid given that his brother Absalom’s attempt was unsuccessful.

1:50        So yet another attempt to thwart God’s plan for the kingdom is over. Consider. Saul wished to stope David becoming king. Absalom and then Adonijah sought to prevent Solomon becoming king. So we see man’s greed and Yahweh’s determination to fulfil His will.

1:28-33 David is, by now, an old frail man - :1-4 - but notice as soon as the question of his successor is raised David springs into action! Do we ever feel too frail or tired to focus on the things of the kingdom?

1:20 So there has been yet another challenge to David’s position. Solomon was God’s appointed replacement for David. One presumes that many in the nation knew that was what had been promised. So now they are looking for David to do something.

There comes a time when it is not sensible to sit on the side lines. Action is required. The wise will realise that inactivity is not appropriate in our own working with fellow believers.

1:7  Adonijah’s brother Absalom clearly was not trusted by Joab who ensured that he was brought back from his banishment in order that he could keep an eye on him. But Joab never seems to have had any confidence in Absalom’s attempt to take the throne. But now he supports Adonijah. One presumes that he saw a better opportunity with him than Absalom. One wonders why did he not simply wait for Solomon to be made king as it would appear, by this time, it was well known that Solomon would succeed David.

v.9 - Here is the test of a prophet. It seems that Hananiah was one of the more prominent or at least more courageous of the false prophets, but it seems there were many of them that Jeremiah had to contend with every day - consider these passages: Jer.4:10, 6:14, 8:11, 14:13 - all leading up to today's chapter where there is much more detail of a specific incident. Beware, as many many people now in our day are teaching a doctrine that is more attractive than the truth. Jeremiah saw it as his job to show the false teachings up for what they were.

v.1-4 - Whilst the words of Hananiah were pleasant words and even though Jeremiah also wanted them to be true [28:5-6] they were not Yahweh's words and so would not come to pass. Here we have two individuals claiming to speak God's word. The test was in whether the words came true or not [Deuteronomy 18:21-22]

v.17 - Further to the comment above, here we have evidence of Jeremiah's truth as a prophet. It was necessary for every prophet to make short term predictions so that the people could carry out the test on them to assure themselves that they did indeed speak God's word.

28:16-17 The death of Hananiah two months after the prophecy would have been a great comfort to Jeremiah at this time when there were many opposing the claim that he was a prophet of Yahweh. Though doubtless his antagonists would not see the fulfilled prophecy as an indicator of his status as a prophet.

:14 I … the neck quotes Deuteronomy 28:48
Yet another quotation from Deuteronomy confirming that Israel were choosing the curses rather than the blessings as they were sinful. The repeated use of the curses was designed to bring repentance to Israel. They should have seen that the things happening were not chance occurrences. They were 'of God' because He was keeping His word.

28:9 In speaking of watching for the words of the prophet to come to pass Jeremiah is appealing to the test of a prophet in Deut 18:22

V.14 The use of iron suggests that far more than the Babylonian invasion is being referred to. That was but the beginning of Israel's punishments: A punishment which would reach its terrible climax in the later judgements poured out by the iron. (Dan 2:40 , Dan 7:19) The power of Rome, which fulfilled Deut 28:48 to its ultimate.

Hananiah broke Jeremiah’s yoke (as in yesterday’s chapter, Jer 27:2,3). But his false message was not from God, and he died just 2 months later, (Jer 28:1,17).  This should have left the people in no doubt Who was the true God, and who was His true prophet.

28:6 Jeremiah’s response to Hananiah’s evil words is interesting. Rather than argue with him Jeremiah says he would like what he had said to be true, but that his words would not come to pass. |Hananiah was confrontational, Jeremiah simply restated God’s message and left the hearers to decide who to believe.

Vs.1-4 Zedekiah began to reign in 596 BC.  Hananiah's prediction would have been made in 593 BC.  He predicted that Babylon would be neutralised and Judah restored by 591 BC.  This did not happen and Jerusalem was eventually destroyed in 587 BC. 

According to Yahweh's standards, Hananiah proved to be a false prophet (Deut 18:22).  The people would plainly see that.  There were still four years for the people to hearken to Jeremiah's warnings and repent, but they chose to ignore the opportunity. 

Vs.16,17 Ironically, Hananiah means Jah has favoured, but as we know Yahweh did not favour him.

28:17 The death of Hananiah actually showed that Jeremiah was a prophet from God – Deut 18:20-22

28:2-3 Hananiah not only spoke evil words. He must have been convinced that they were true as he set a time limit – two years – for the fulfilment of his words. The fact this false prophet could speak so confidently was no indication that his words were true, though doubtless they deceived some of the people who liked what they heard. Likewise we should not be deceived by words just because the speaker of those words is confident.

28:12 Whilst we might read the dialogue between Jeremiah and Hananiah as the sort of dialogue that might have taken place between two men we see here that Jeremiah was directed by God as to what he should say.

v 14 First Principles>Kingdom of God>Was overturned>History of fulfilment
Go to Deut 28:49 to see more details of the history of Israel and its overturning.

V.8 The prophets who preceded Jeremiah were: Joel, Amos, Hosea, Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk.

V.9 The pronouncements of future events come true for the genuine prophets of Yahweh (Deut 18:22).  False prophets, like Hananiah, are caught in a lie (v.15). 

Jesus was a true prophet, proven by His prediction of the temple’s destruction, which occurred in 70AD (Luke 21:5,6).

V.11 Contrast Hananiah's false prediction with Jeremiah’s true prediction of which we read yesterday in Jer 27:7.

Vs.16,17 Jeremiah was proved to be a true prophet of Yahweh.  And yet, the people still wanted to believe and do as they wished.  Such is human nature.

It took great faith for Jeremiah to simply walk away from this confrontation, as it says in v11 "and Jeremiah went his way". Do we have this kind of faith when others argue with us? If we believe God is right in what He promises and predicts, then we can leave it to sceptics to see for themselves. All we need to do is carefully state God's words, and then leave it. Likewise when we are being victimised as Jeremiah was, do we believe that God himself will recompense? If we do believe, then we will act like Jeremiah and walk away from confrontation.

27:13 ‘why will ye die ...’ is the stark and blunt question of the prophet. However the king and the people would not listen. This is, basically our message. We should be careful not to dilute, for fear of offending people, the message we preach.

28:4   Hananiah, not content with saying that Babylon would be overthrown in two years – Vs :3– he says that the evil king Jechoniah and all the vessels that have already been taken – vs :3 -  pleasant words. However they, even though it was claimed spoken ‘in the name of the Lord’ – vs :2-, were not going to come to pass. One wonders when the Babylonians finally came whether the people remembered Hananiah’s words and realised that he was not a prophet of the Lord or whether, like many news items of today, it just passed and was forgotten.

28:2-11          We ought not to see the events spoken of in this chapter as a casual event. Rather it must have been watched by many who were left wondering who to believe. The challenge to the people of God is always a simple choice between two ways. It started with eve in the Garden of Eden – was she to listen to God or the serpent? We should be careful not to try and justify our sinful actions on the grounds that the choice is difficult and that we are struggling to discern between competing options.

28:6   There comes a time when a reasoned argument is of no value. Both Jeremiah and Hananiah had spoken. Their words were in diametric opposition to each other. It was now time to wait and see who was right. In our own circumstances there may come a similar time when discussion / argument is pointless.  Whilst we often feel the need to press our point there may come a time when the most profitable thing to do is just wait and see.

28:10 We often say that actions speak louder than words. However Hananiah’s actions, though very powerful, did not have the support of Yahweh and so were doomed to failure. How often are we dazzled by what we see and thus ignore what we hear and know to be true? 

WHO'S RIGHT?

There was quite a competition going on between Jeremiah and Hananiah. Both of them claimed to be prophets of the LORD. Both proclaimed their messages to the people of Israel. Yet they had vastly different things to say. Hananiah said that everything would come right in the next couple of years - Nebuchadnezzar would be a distant memory and the temple would be restored. But Jeremiah prophesied that things would get worse, and recommended that the people submit to God's plan for destruction.

The time came for their face off. Hananiah gave his prophecy of peace, while Jeremiah continued prophesying destruction. If I was Jeremiah I would have wanted to have done all I could to convince Hananiah that he was wrong, to make him recant and to agree with the message God had given me. But that wasn't what Jeremiah did. He stated his case firmly, set out God's guidelines for which prophet to believe, spoke a prophecy against Hananiah, and then he seems to have walked away.

Looking on we would have wondered who was right. But Jeremiah left it to God to shine truth into the hearts of the people. When Hananiah died two months later, they would have known which prophet spoke the truth.

Like Jeremiah, let's not get sucked into nasty debates, but state the truth, allow God to prove it and let Him open hearts to His message.

28:6-9  Despite Jeremiah’s message of doom and destruction his desire was that the city would not be destroyed by the Babylonians. In fact he had been praying that such things might not happen – Jer 7:16, 11:4, 14:11

28:5  There are a number of previous occasions when Jeremiah has stood in the house of the Lord to present his message. – Jer 7:1, 19:14, 26:2

OUTLINE OF JEREMIAH

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

II. The Conflicts of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 26:1 to 29:32)

   C. Conflict with Hananiah (Jeremiah 28:1-17):

      1. Jer 28:1-4 - Hananiah's prophecy - 

         a. V1 Zedekiah began to reign circa 596BC, Hananiah's prediction circa 593BC

         b. VS 1,17 - Hananiah as a punishment for false prophecy died within 2 months.

         c. VS 2-4 - according to the false prophet Hananiah, the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar would be broken with Babylon neutralized and Jerusalem restored circa 591BC.

         d. V3 "the vessels<3627>"

      2. Jer 28:5-9 - Jeremiah replies to Hananiah's false prediction -

         a. the V9 prophet test (Deut 18:21-22) and death was the sentence of a false prophet (Deut 18:20;Deut 13:5) and for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:29).

II. The Conflicts of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 26:1 to 29:32)

   C. Conflict with Hananiah (Jeremiah 28:1-17):

      3. Jer 28:10-11 - Hananiah's demonstration -

         a. VS 10-11 - Hananiah breaks the yoke of wood on Jeremiah and falsely prophesies God will break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar within 2 years.

      4. Jer 28:12-17 - Jeremiah's verification of his message -

         a. VS 12-17 - God's reply of a yoke of iron put on nations to make them serve Nebuchadnezzar.

         b. V14 - Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon circa 587BC.

         c. VS 15-17 - God did not send Hananiah, and God would punish Hananiah with death for false prophecy.

         d. V16 - "rebellion<5627>".

28:1    so we are now no more than 7 years from the final destruction of Jerusalem and the taking of Zedekiah captive to Babylon.

28:2    By now two waves of captives had been taken to Babylon – and yet the false prophets continue to resist the word of God!

28:2   the phrase “Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts” occurs around 30 times in Jeremiah’s prophecy. This is the only time that the words are not on the lips of Jeremiah. Hananiah was making a bold claim, challenging the status of Jeremiah. His audience had to decide who was actually speaking Yahweh’s words.

28:2  “I have broken the yoke of the king of Babylon” was a pleasant word. However any rational person in Jerusalem must have realised that it was not true. However human thinking clings on to hope against all the evidence.  Therefore people would believe the message.  How often do we cling to expectations against the evidence?

28:3-4 Hananiah’s words are a clear contradiction of What Jeremiah had said –  27:16 –. False teaching always contradicts God’s word. That might seem an obvious point but it is something we tend to overlook when making choices about life. With God there are no shades of grey – just black and white. We tend to try and justify some of our actions with what seem like plausible arguments. We must always ask the simple question about our thoughts and actions. Are they right or wrong?

28:6 Jeremiah’s use of the word “amen” is indicating that he would like to be able to agree with the false prophet. Jeremiah, like Yahweh, would have preferred Israel to turn to God so that the captivity would not happen. However the truth was that the false prophet’s words were just that – false.  So Jeremiah left the scene to allow the people to decide who to listen to.  Are we willing to “walk away” from a situation when further words will have no beneficial effect? Or do we feel that we have to have the “last word”?

28:11 There comes a point in an argument when the one holding opposing views will not listen to reason. At that point it is wise and sensible to walk away from the argument rather than keep repeating the same point.

Jeremiah “went his way” leaving those who heard the dispute with the false prophet to make their own minds up based on the evidence.

28:1-3  whilst this detail is recorded a number of verses after 27:1  we should appreciate that Hananiah’s words are a direct response and contradiction of Jeremiah’s word and yoke. God’s words were being challenged as they did not appeal to the people or false prophets. Hananiah was seeking to both discredit Jeremiah and elevate his own status amongst the people and the king.

v.12 - There is a suggestion here that the people were used to 'faith healing' on a much smaller scale, but here they saw the real thing, which made their own efforts pale into insignificance. There has to be a lesson here. ch.1:27, 12:23, Matt.9:8, 15:31, Luke 5:26, 7:16, 13:13, 17:15

v.2 - As Jesus is in a house at Capernaum and we have seen in Chapter 1 that Peter lived at Capernaum and it was in his house that his mother in law was healed it is reasonable to assume that this miracle took place in Peter's house.
v.5 - There are only two occasions in the gospels where it is recorded that Jesus forgave the sins of those who came to him, though the implication is clear that this was a feature of his message and healing. Matthew 9:2 Mark 2:5 Luke 5:20, 7:48
v.16 - There are at least two occasions when the religious leaders questioned the disciples rather than addressing Jesus directly. Matthew  9:11 Mark 2:16, 7:2 Luke 5:30. This indicates that they thought that it was easier to attack the disciples rather than Jesus.

2:14 Levi who is here styled 'the son of Alphaeus' actually is the brother is 'James the son of Alphaeus' [3:18]. He is also styled 'Matthew' [Matthew 9:9]. So Jesus calls two brethren who, secularly, were dissimilar. As a tax collector Matthew / Levi would be despised by the Jews. We probably would have not appointed someone from that type of background to such an important task as we would probably think it would not help our cause to present that type of image. This should cause us to think about what basis we use for making selections in ecclesial life.

:14 In saying that Jesus called Levi 'as he passed by' we might be tempted to think the call of the disciples was a random thing, as if Jesus just chose them on a whim. We know this is not so because he recognised that they were all given to him by God (John 17:9)

What does Jesus mean with his illustration of the old garment with the new patch? It's quite a ludicrous picture isn't it, of cutting a hole in a new garment to make a patch for the old! Similarly to get an old wine bottle, open a new one, then pour the contents into the used bottle! Jesus is clearly saying that these things are completely the wrong way round.

So it is with the Sabbath in v27. The Pharisees were placing the importance of the Sabbath above the importance of the man, for whom the Sabbath was made. They were placing the regulation for observing the fasting ritual, above the benefit that it was designed to give. It was the wrong way round. In Ezekiel 20v11-13 God explains how he had given these things for their benefit "which, if a man does, he shall live by them". The statutes of God had been given to benefit men and women if they would keep them. The Pharisees had made them into ordinances that would merely condemn men and women if they didn't keep them. They had got it completely the wrong way round.

2:5-7 The scribes were correct. It is only God that can forgive sins. Jesus was demonstrating his sonship fulfilling Isa 43:25 but the scribes were blind to the significance of the event, even though they knew the Scriptures.

V.5 Most translations show the word "be" as "are" as in Luke 5:20 For it is not a command to his sins to depart, but an authoritative proclamation of the man's pardoned state as a believer.

V.15 Jesus had chosen to operate his ministry from Capernaum which was now considered his city (Matt 9:1).  He had a house there.  Whether this was the house described in v.1 is not clear.  Peter, Andrew and Matthew appear to have resided there, and perhaps John and James also.  And so, the house of v.1 could have been one of theirs.

Vs.19-22 In Mark's account (and Matthew's) the parable of the garment and bottles seem to be attached to the discussion of the bridegroom.  Luke's account seems to separate them and so, perhaps, we can consider the two independently (Luke 5:36).   

The two examples are showing the same thing.  First, attaching a piece of new cloth to an old garment will make the tear worse.  That is because the new piece has not been shrunk.  When it does shrink, it will pull out the stitching and make the tear worse. Likewise, old wineskins (bottles) cannot take new wine because they are cracked and will leak. 

The message that the Lord is conveying is that the new covenant he is bringing cannot be contained in old vessels - they are incompatible.  In order for one to accept the gospel, the old person has to change to conform to the new way.

V.6-7 We have here the scribes carrying on a dialogue, throwing thoughts back and forth. What they are saying is Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming  He is claiming for himself a prerogative that belongs to God alone, and is guilty of blasphemy. He is robbing God of the honour that belongs to no one else, for Who can forgive sins but God alone. Jesus gives them the unexpected answer in V.10.

MEETING WITH JESUS
 
I watched a film last Sunday about believers in Jamaica.  The thing that struck me as I watched it was both their poverty as far as worldly riches go, and their rich faith that almost eclipses our own in a prosperous land.  Their devotion to their God and to their fellow believers was an inspiration.  The film documented one lady who would travel for three hours just to get to the meeting place on a Sunday morning, and then have to travel three hours back again afterwards.  Would we?
 
When Jesus entered Capernaum people crowded in to see him.  "So many gathered that there was no room left, not even outside the door." (Mark 2:2)  As in Jamaica, the people of Galilee would not have been rich, but they were keen to be in the presence of Jesus.  Again we read, "Jesus went out beside the lake.  A large crowd came to him, and he began to teach them." (v.13)  And, "When they heard all that he was doing, many people came to him from Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea, and the regions across the Jordan and around Tyre and Sidon." (3:8)
 
How much does meeting with Jesus mean to us?  Would we have been one of those in the crowds that followed Jesus on foot for miles and miles?  Maybe it's not convenient; the 20 minute trip to church is too far; it is raining and there is no undercover parking; we are tired; or there is an important sports game on TV.
 
Let's get our priorities right and store up the true riches of Christ.

2:8 Jesus perceived in his spirit' that the scribes were finding fault with him in their hearts. How did Jesus know this? We might think that he has a revelation from God. However we should rather think of it being a product of is acute awareness of what was in man. (John 2:25). He could read people's body language. We should be very aware of body language so that we are able to correctly judge a situation.

V.18 Jews were only required to fast publicly three times per year.  It was common to fast on occasions of mourning, which is what the disciples of John were doing in mourning his death.  Notice that the Pharisees were also fasting.  They fasted twice per week as a public show of piety (Matt 23:5).   

2:1 In saying that Jesus ‘again entered into Capernaum’ we have to conclude that after the events recorded in Mark 1 Jesus left the area for some time before returning. Mark does not give much detail of the intervening period because in this area of his gospel he is, by the spirit, focusing on events in Capernaum.

2:12 The man believed that the One who ordered him to get up, take up his bed, and go home would also enable him to obey the order. So in full view of all the onlookers he at once obeyed the command and went home. As a result we are told that all the people glorified God. There can be no doubt among the many who did exalt him there were those upon whom Christ's words and deeds made a lasting impression.

2:25-26           Notice that Jesus said of David ‘when he had need’ David’s behaviour was not a capricious flouting of the Law of Moses even though his behaviour violated Lev 24:9. There are many areas where the Law of Moses is superseded by need – for example the ox in the ditch.

V.5 The scribes thought that Jesus was blasphemous when He forgave sins.  The Jews judged by sight and not by faith.  They could accept the physical miracle that Jesus performed because they could see it with their eyes.  But, they could not accept Jesus' forgiveness of sins, because they could not physically see it. 

Vs.9,10 Eyes of faith are needed to accept things which cannot be physically seen.  Jesus points this out.

2:14-15 Notice the threefold repetition of ‘follow’. Just a point of detail in which the way Scripture repeats key words that we might see the force of the events.

V.4 Palsy means paralysis. And so someone sick of the palsy would be paralysed in some part of his body. This condition can be accompanied by convulsions and difficult breathing.

Roofs on houses in the Ancient Near East were flat. A trap door allowed the occupants of the house to access the roof. It was not uncommon to sleep on the roof during the hot summer nights. Also, the roof was a good place to store or dry things.

The paralytic could not be lowered through the trap door because his mattress was too big. And so, part of the roof around the trap door was broken open to allow him access.

Vs.25,26 See 1Sam 21:3-6.

2:16 The name ‘Pharisee’ actually means ‘separate’. This was one of the characteristics of the Pharisees. They kept themselves apart from the people, believing that the people were too lax in their understanding of God and in the way they lived their lives. It is so easy to be like that ourselves. Not just about people who know not God but even towards those who share our beliefs. It is all too easy to think of ourselves better than others.

The story of the paralytic man is well known. They dug through a roof to let their friend down to Jesus to be healed. Have you ever thought whose house it was, and what the owner thought about the damage? Well, in v1 we see it was "the house" (or "at home" in the English Standard Version) in Capernaum, the town where Jesus had moved (Matt 4:13). It was Jesus' house. Was this the same house as in v15?

2:16   Notice here and Mark 2:16,24 the repeated attacks of the religious leaders is being highlighted.

FRIENDS

We all need friends, and other people need us to be a friend to them. Two examples from the life of Jesus illustrate this clearly.

The first was when a paralysed man was brought to Jesus. In Jesus day there was no hope for a paralysed man. He could not work and so, unless he had a friend, there was no hope of even surviving. But this paralytic had four friends who carried him on his stretcher all the way to Jesus. And when they couldn't get to Jesus because of the crowd, these friends would not give up. "They made an opening in the roof above Jesus, and after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralysed man was lying on." (Mark 2:4) It was the faithful friendship of these four men that allowed the paralysed man to be forgiven and to be healed by Jesus. We all need friends like that, and we all need to be the sort of friends that don't give up even when times get tough.

The other example was when Levi had been called to become a follower of Jesus. In this case Levi was the friend his friends could not do without. Once he had begun to follow Jesus, Levi made a dinner at his house where it appears he invited "many tax collectors and sinners" to eat with Jesus and his disciples. (v.15) The people that Levi invited were the ones that needed Jesus the most. As a friend Levi opened his house to his friends - the people that needed Jesus.

Let us be a true friend always doing what is best for the people around us, sharing salvation with them, and never giving up.

2:10    Whilst it is clear that Jesus had power because the sick man was healed the word more accurately would be translated ‘authority’. God had given Jesus that authority.

2:17   Jesus’ words here are so familiar to us that we may tend to forget their force. Unless a person sees their need for salvation no matter how much the message is presented it will have no effect. 

2:16,24            Notice the two occasions that the Pharisees sought to find fault with Jesus. The scribes (verse 6) have found fault in their hearts with Jesus. This is a characteristic of the religious leaders right through Jesus’ ministry.

2:27    One way in which the Sabbath was made for man was to teach him about the kingdom that was to come. Adam was to work every day – Gen 3:7 – so the introduction of the Sabbath taught that the perennial labour was to cease.

2:6,16,24          Notice that the record shows how that the religious leaders persisted in following Jesus around to find fault with him.

2:1     At this point in Jesus’ ministry his fame was not as great as it became. It took “some days” for word that he was in Capernaum to spread. Later in his ministry it seems that he could not move anywhere without crowds knowing of his movements.

2:28 In saying that he was the lord of the Sabbath Jesus is drawing on God’s description of the Sabbath -  Exo 20:10

2:16       The Pharisees were watching Jesus whilst he was sharing the feast with Levi and his friends. Do we think that the Pharisees had been invited also or had they just turned up to see what was happening? 

2:1 When Jesus entered Capernaum “after some days” was it that he remained separate for seven days after he touched the leper –  1:41?

2:14  We should not assume that Matthew’s conversion was instant. He had been sitting at the receipt of custom all the time Jesus had been in Capernaum on previous occasions. He had seen, or at least heard of Jesus’ healing powers He had doubtless heard at least second hand, the things that Jesus taught. His reaction to “follow me” was based on a considered reflection on what he knew of Jesus.

2:16-17 Notice that whilst the Pharisees are finding fault with Jesus it is the disciples they challenge. We will see this sort of action a number of times in the gospel records. They choose to challenge the disciples rather than Jesus directly. Clearly they are trying to undermine the confidence the disciples have in Jesus’ teaching.

2:14  we find Jesus passing by on a number of occasions in the gospel records. We should not think of this as a casual movement of Jesus. Clearly he was looking all the time at who he could see. Who he could involve in the saving plan of his Father.

QUESTION: Matthew obviously calls himself "Matthew" in his own account with the name of book and in Matt 9:9. So why do Mark and Luke use "Levi"? (Mark 2:14, Luke 5:27) And why does Luke, just a chapter later from his account of this story, decide to now use "Matthew"? Luke 6:15?

Would love suggestions!