AUDIO
Visit ThisIsYourBible.com
Job was a very caring father. He got up early in the morning to offer burnt offerings, in case they had sinned against God. I’m not sure if God would have accepted an offering for anyone else, but this was almost certainly before the law of Moses, and many things were different then.
David Simpson [Worcester (UK)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to David
This imagery of the angels (= sons of God cp Job 38:7) assembled around the throne of God & discussing human activities, is seen also in 1Kin 22:19-22 , where an angel (spirit cp Psa 104:4 )is also given the authority to intervene.
Wendy Johnsen [Nanaimo, BC, Canada] Comment added in 2006 Reply to Wendy
2:3 The question may be asked, why would God allow Satan to incite him against Job? Certainly God knew the heart of Job, he did not need this extra proof of trial to find out, because God already knows the hearts of men. This was for the instruction of Satan. To show the adversary what a true righteous man was even in his affliction. Christ was the true righteous man who showed us (who were adversaries) his righteousness through the things that he suffered.
Alex Browning [Kitchener-Waterloo] Comment added in 2015 Reply to Alex
The whole book of Job is written in poetry. It records what actually took place and what was actually said. Whilst some might say the book is some sort of allegory there is no reason why it should not be read as a straight forward historical record which teaches us lessons.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2018 Reply to Peter
1:11 But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to his face.
I hope I never harbour rivalry, envy and ill will to my brothers and sisters such that I utter (or secretly think) this sort of prayer to God. I would hate to think that my malevolent mind would be the cause of suffering for my brothers and sisters.
Rather "love one another out of a pure heart fervently" 1 Peter 1:22
Bruce Bates [Forbes Australia] Comment added in 2023 Reply to Bruce
2:10 In all this, Job did not sin with his lips. (Unlike Job's wife who sinned with her lips: "Curse God and die")
Bruce Bates [Forbes Australia] Comment added in 2023 Reply to Bruce
ch.1 - As an introduction to the book of Job we must recognise that it is Yahweh who describes Job as 'just' and 'upright' and 'one that feared God'. So we must conclude that whatever the reason Job suffered it was not because he was an evil man.
We suffer the chastening hand of God. The way that Job responded to the chastening should be a lesson for us.
ch.2 - Job's friends came with the very best intentions. In sitting with him silent they were fellowshipping his sufferings. However as events prove they were 'miserable comforters' Job 16:2
We must be careful, in attempting to help people, that we do not assume that we know all the answers. This seems to be the problem of Job's friends.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2001 Reply to Peter
Job 1
REACTION TO TRIALS
No one other than Jesus has gone through the same sort of trials as Job. In one day nearly all of Job's life crumbled around him. His riches, his friends, and his children were all taken from him in an instant. All he had left were four messengers, his wife and his health. Far from being the greatest man in the east, he became, in one day, the least.
But what is incredible about Job is not that he had so much trouble in one day, but the way he reacted to it. We read that "He got up and tore his robe and shaved his head. Then he fell to the ground in worship and said, 'Naked I came from my mothers womb, and naked I shall depart. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised.'"
Many others having just one or two of those trials would have given up all hope, killed themselves or had a breakdown. But not Job! He worshipped and praised the LORD. He did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing.
How do you react to trials? Do you get depressed, antisocial, angry, violent, hyperactive or do we pray to God, worship and praise him?
I believe Job stood up to his trials because God was the centre of his life. Although everything else was taken from him, God was still there. Make God the centre of your life and when there are trials we will be able to stand more like Job.
Job 2
IN ALL THIS JOB DID NOT SIN IN WHAT HE SAID
It is almost an instant reaction to any kind of suffering - especially pain - to unthinkingly utter some sort of curse. As an engineer I hear it in the workshop all the time when things go wrong. That seems to be the moment to automatically blaspheme or swear. I think James said it well when he said that no man can tame his tongue. It is a very small part of the body, but very unruly with it!
Job, however, was a different story. He appears to have been in full control of his tongue even though his sufferings were so intense. He had lost his family, friends and possessions and now his body was covered with painful boils from head to foot. Instead of turning from God, he worshipped; instead of cursing, he praised. He said, "Shall we accept good from God and not trouble?"
Job appears to have had complete control over his whole thoughts and word during his entire horrible ordeal. Job's heart was right with God.
Jesus said, "Out of the overflow of his (a man's) heart his mouth speaks." Our mouths show what is in our hearts and sometimes that may surprise us. Let us get our hearts right with God so that we can be more like Job. If we can do that, then in all our trials and sufferings we will not sin in what we say.
Robert Prins [Auckland - Pakuranga - (NZ)] Comment added in 2003 Reply to Robert
Job 1:1 - "Job" [(347) means "hated" (that is, persecuted)], "Uz" [(5780) means "consultation, or wooded"], "perfect" [Heb. "tam" (8535) means "complete, perfect, undefiled, upright, plain"].
Job 1:5 - Job is acting as a family priest thus would appear to be before Moses and the Law while the Sabeans (Job 1:15;Gen 25:1-3) were descendants of Sheba, a grandchild of Abraham.
Job 1:6 - sons or children of God nearly always refers to mortal men (1John 3:1;Deut 14:11); "present themselves before the Lord" is a phrase used to describe people assembling to worship God" (Josh 24:1;1Sam 10:19;Deut 31:14;Judg 20:2); "the Lord" likely does not directly refer to God Himself (1Tim 6:16); "Satan" would seem not to be an immortal angel as they are ministering spirits (Heb 1:14) but "satan" is used of mortal men (1Sam 29:4;2Sam 19:22-23;1Kin 11:14,23) and perhaps was one of Job's contemporaries who harbours resentment and possibly jealousy toward him - he has no power to act on his own (Job 1:11-12;2:5-6).
Job 1:8-11 - satan is slandering and challenging God's saying Job is blameless - heavenly angels can't do that (2Pet 2:10-11) so this also casts serious doubt that satan is a heavenly angel.
Job 1:15 - "Sabeans" [descended from Heb. "Sheba" (7614) means "seven, or an oath"]. Job 1:17 - Chaldeans made out three bands. Job 1:2-4 - we have repeats of "three" which some feel suggests "divine perfection, or Christ's sacrifice and time in the grave, or the resurrection", repeats of "seven" which some feel suggests "spiritual perfection (God's seal or covenant number), or the millenial day of rest", and we have repeats of "five" which some feel suggests "mercy or grace".
Job 1:20 - "rent his 'mantle'" [Heb. "me'iyl" (4598) means "upper and outer robe, cloak, coat, mantle"] is a sign of grief and/or heartbroken astonishment; "shaved his head" is a sign of mourning.
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Charles
1:1 Job is not the only person described as sharing Job’s qualities in Scripture.
Gen 6:9 Noah
Luke 2:25 Simeon
Are but two examples.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2011 Reply to Peter
1:3 “His substance also ...” is telling us that whilst he had great possessions the main focus from God’s respective, is that Job was “perfect” – verse:1. The wealth is not a problem in a man who is “perfect” but if perfection is not found the wealth is of no consequence. What is our priority when assessing individuals?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2013 Reply to Peter
“THERE was a man in the land of Uz…”
In the War Scroll from the Dead Sea Scrolls, column 2:11, it reads that the land of Uz was beyond the Euphrates River: “They shall fight against the rest of the sons of Aramea: Uz, Hul, Togar, and Mesha, who are beyond the Euphrates.” But, as with other ancient papyri, this is disputed. In Job 1:3, we are told that Job was, “the greatest of all the men of the east.”
While it is difficult to pinpoint exactly where the land of Uz was, we do know it was raided by the Sabeans (Job 1:15), who came from Saba, known in the Hebrew, as Sheba located in Southern Arabia (Yemen) with its colonies extending along the western coast of Arabia, across the Red Sea into Ethiopia and Eritrea. Since an ancient Sabean gold mine was found in Ethiopia, it would seem that the Queen of Sheba actually travelled from Southern Arabia to the Ethiopian colony for the gold to bring to King Solomon. Arabia was also a very wealthy kingdom (cf. 2Chron 9:1). Then, in Job 1:17, the land was again raided by the Chaldeans from Chaldea in southern Mesopotamia and later were incorporated into the Babylonian Empire. Uz, therefore, had to have been in the range of Southern Arabia and Mesopotamia.
“The main character, Job, is a famous figure in ancient history, believed to have lived in patriarchal age on the borders of Arabia and Edom, a region which is well known for its wise men.” THE JERUSALEM BIBLE. The Greek and Latin versions also place Job in the confines of Idumea (Edom) and Arabia. The Gulf of Aqaba lies to the east of the Sinai Peninsula while the Gulf of Suez lies to the west of the peninsula created by the bifurcation of the northern part of the Red Sea (Edom means, “red”). Israel is north of the Peninsula; Egypt west of the Gulf of Suez.
Job: Gen 46:13, “And the sons of Issachar; Tola, and Phuvah, and Job, and Shimron.” Cf. Num 26:24 “… of Jashub… Here Job is called Jashub; likewise, in 1Chron 7:1, and in Ezra 10:19,29, we have the record that Jashub took a “strange” wife (cf. Job 2:9). It is claimed that Job is the Jobab of Gen 10:25-30, the son of Joktan, the family of Noah who dwelt “from Mesha, as thou goest unto Sephar a mount to the east.” We know Abraham sent his children by Keturah to the east (Gen 25:6). Then, some place Job before the flood, but the verse in Job 22:16, would indicate otherwise, both geographically and genealogically (cf. Gen 6; 7; 8; 9).
Eliphaz (Job 2:11; Job 4:1) was a Temanite, from Teman, a city of Idumea i.e. Edom, (Amos 1:11,12; Obad 1:8,9). Bozrah was in Edom (Isa 34:5,6; cf. Isa 63:1; Eze 35:15). He honoured his son by naming him Teman, the city they dwelt in (cf. Gen 36:9-11), a common practice in those days. Teman, known for its wise men (Jer 49:7; Obad 1:8; cf. Job 15:17,18). Eliphaz was the chief speaker (Job 34:1; Job 35:1; Job 36:1). As wise as he was, Job was still the “wisest of all the men of the east” (Job 1:3).
Bildad was a Shuhite, descended from Shuah, a direct son Abraham through Keturah (Gen 25:1,2) whose family lived in Arabia. https://theisraelbible.com/glossary/bildad/ The Bible records that Abraham sent all his sons from Keturah, “eastward, unto the east country.” His brother was Midian, the father of the Midianites (Gen 25:1-6). The Midianites predominately came from the eastern side of the Gulf of Aqabah (in the area of Saudi Arabia).
Zophar was a Naamathite of the village of Naamah, (cf. Josh 15:41), a place in Palestine, the eastern Mediterranean region of Syria. Naaman, a captain of the Syrian army, was a Naamathite healed during the time of Elisha (2Kin 5:1-8).
Elihu was a Buzite from Buz, an area in the neighbourhood of Edom of Arabia (cf. Jer 25:20-23), his father was Barachel, a descendant of Buz, (Job 32:2-6), having descended from Buz, son of Nahor, Abraham’s brother (Gen 22:20-22).
There are three Scriptural references for Uz in the genealogies of Genesis: 1) Uz is descended from Shem (Gen 10:21-23). 2) Huz (Uz) was born to Nahor, Abraham’s brother (Gen 22:20,21). Note: *Aram here is not the same Aram from the line of Shem. Aram through Nahor was the father of the Aramean people, the Syrians. 3) Uz was the son of Dishan, who was a descendant of Seir. This Uz descended through Keturah, Abraham’s second wife. They inhabited Mount Seir prior to Esau taking over this land, and their descendants were known as the Horites. Esau is Edom (Gen 36:6-9; Deut 2:1-5; Josh 24:2-4)). Thus, Esau, or Edom, and his descendants became the Edomites, living in the land of the Horites, which is the land of Uz (Gen 36:20-31; cf. Gen 14:6; Jer 25:9-26; Lam 4:21). Furthermore, given the identities of Job’s friends, Job must have lived in the same area as they did, that being north of the Sinai Peninsula, adjacent to the land of Judah prior to the Edomites entering their land killing and subjugating many of the Horites (Deut 2:12,22).
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2019 Reply to Valerie
1:1 the land of Uz could well be the land inhabited by – Gen 10:23 “Uz”. If so it would make him a descendant of Shem – Abraham
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2022 Reply to Peter
It is likely that Job lived around the time of Abraham. Charles Ryrie makes four points to support this:
1) Job lived 140 years (42:16). This was not an uncommon life span in patriarchal days.
2) Wealth was measured in terms of livestock (1:3). This kind of economy existed during the time of the patriarchs.
3) Like the patriarchs, Job was the priest of his family (1:5).
4) No mention of Israel or the Mosaic Law is made. This suggests a time before 1500 BC.
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2008 Reply to Michael
1:3 Job is the only person in scripture whose possessions are listed so precisely. Why would we be told this?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2023 Reply to Peter
1:4 We maybe should realise that the activity ‘eat and to drink’ actually is often used in Scripture to speak of an unacceptable way of behaviour – Gen 25:34, Judg 9:27
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Peter
1:4-5 we might imply that Job felt it possibly – maybe probable – that his children were not as committed to serving God as he was. Hence the sacrifices he offered for them.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2017 Reply to Peter
1:5,6 - We have a remarkable number of lessons that we can draw out of the life of Job, not just for ourselves, but also in comparing the life of Job to the life of Jesus. In v.5, we see the way that he covered the sins of his children continually in his prayers to God. In verse 6 we see that the adversary that persuaded God to test him and hurt him was meeting with them. The betrayal, as it were, came from within. It was his own brethren that brought about his destruction, and yet it is to those people's benefit in the end when Job is able by his faith to save them at the end of the book - ch.42:7-9
Peter [UK] Comment added in 2001 Reply to Peter
1:5 Is the way that Job 'sanctified' his children the basis for 1 Corinthians 7:14
2:3 'perfect' is related to the word used (Genesis 17:1) in the command to Abram
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2002 Reply to Peter
1:5 It is generally understood that Job lived around the time of Abraham - before the law of Moses. However here we find him offering 'burnt offerings' which is a clear indication that there was a form of systematised worship before the law of Moses was given.
2:10 It is so easy to think that God is 'with us; when things are going well. On the other hand when problems come it is so easy to assume that God is no longer caring for us. This clearly is not so for if the Lord chastens those he loves (Hebrews 12:6) we cannot expect things to go smoothly all the time.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2003 Reply to Peter
1:5 ‘cursed God’ is rather a strong way of expressing Job’s words. From the way the word is used elsewhere it seems that Job is concerned that his children accidentally renounced God. Job is not presuming that his children are Godless but rather that they might inadvertently or carelessly deny their convictions by their behaviour. In this we are similar. Whilst we love God our behaviour from time to time belies that.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2007 Reply to Peter
1:6 - It would appear these sons of God were humans of unspecified origin. "Sons" comes from the Heb word "ben" (1121) which means "son, grandson, child, young, man", etc.. "God" in this instance is the Heb word "Elohim" (430) which means "God, gods, magistrates, angels, judges, mighty", etc.. The following are references that refer to sons of God: Luke 3:38; 2Cor 6:18; Heb 12:6; Gal 4:5; 1John 3:1; John 1:12; Isa 64:8; Heb 2:10; James 1:18; Gen 6:2.
"Satan" comes from the Heb word "satan" (7854) which means "adversary, an opponent", etc. and it is derived from a slightly different pronunciation of "satan" (7853) which means "be an adversary, to attack, accuse", etc.. So satan was apparently some adversary or opponent roaming around the earth. It doesn't mention what country he was from. Certainly God would not tolerate such an adversary in heaven as indicated by Psa 5:4-5; Matt 6:10.
We are not told where this presence before the Lord took place. Here are other presences before the Lord: Deut 19:17; 2Chron 19:6.
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to Charles
The date and the author of the Book of Job are unknown. The fact that the book does not mention the Law of Moses, could set it in either in a patriarchal or pre-patriarchal time frame. Some suggest that Job is an allegory and not an historical account. However, Ezekiel mentions Job in the same breath as Noah and Daniel (Eze 14:14,20); and James also mentions him as an example of patience (James 5:11). Those endorsements would seem to lend credence to Job's being a real character. But some difficulty might arise in understanding in 1:6-12 if Job is not allegorical. Those who believe that Satan is a fallen angel look to this passage for proof. The assumption is that the sons of God are (immortal) angels and that they presented themselves to God in heaven. Nowhere does it say that the meeting took place in heaven. Also, the phrase sons of God can refer to godly mortal men. That was the case after the Edenic fall when the sons of God (seed of the woman) married the daughters of men (seed of the serpent) (Gen 6:2). If Satan (as the epitome of evil) were a fallen angel from heaven, he would live forever because heavenly angels are immortal (Matt 22:30). That would mean evil would live forever. But the LORD's plan is to eradicate all evil (Rev 21:4), and so Satan cannot be a fallen heavenly angel. What we do know from Job 1:6-12 is that one person was empowered by the LORD to oppose Job (Satan means adversary). Why would the LORD allow a blameless and upright man to be harshly tried? He reserves, in His wisdom, the opportunity to hone the characters of His servants (James 1:3; 1Pet 1:6,7). If his servants remain faithful, then their latter state will, like Job's, be greater than their former (Job 42:12).
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to Michael
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Peter
Job 1,2.
Who might Job's Satan have been?
Before starting on this one, a disclaimer of a sort. There are a number of ideas among believers as to who Satan is in this book. I'm going to focus primarily on one possibility. If you don't like where I'm going with this, that's ok. It's not, by any stretch of the imagination, a first principle. Also it might take a little longer than normal to go through some of the thinking here, so bear with me.
First of all, I think we all know that we can rule out a fallen angel devil. The simplest reason for this is that the picture presented by most folks who believe this is that God is at one end of the spectrum - doing good things for man and Satan at the other - causing men to sin as well as bringing calamities on him. And the two would never, ever, according to this view, work in unison. But here the exact opposite is shown in these 2 chapters where there's a conversation between the two about Job and God gives Satan the power to bring one calamity after another on him and his family.
Another possibility is that he or she is a believer in God (one of the "sons of God" - Job 1:6) who ends up having several conversations with God about Job and to whom God gives supernatural powers to inflict punishments and death and disease. Some suggestions have been Job's wife, one of the three friends who show up at the end of ch. 2, or some unnamed mortal. A problem with this view, it seems to me, is the lack of Biblical precedent. Even when believers in God like Elijah or Elisha or Peter or Paul were involved in afflictions coming on men and even, in some cases, death ensuing, it seems clear that they simply knew ahead of time that God would bring these punishments and could announce what would happen. And this is very different than actually having been given the power to inflict these things - which really is the case with whoever Satan is here in Job.
So then we're left with the following decent possibility with only one potential problem - but not necessarily an insurmountable one. And that is that this Satan is an angel of the LORD. Keep in mind that in the Old Testament the word Satan (meaning "adversary") is used for the angel of the LORD who withstood Balaam in his plan to go and curse Israel (Num 22:22). Also there's the comparison between parallel accounts of the same incident - David's numbering of Israel - 2Sam 24:1 & 1Chron 21:1 - where God is seen to be Israel's "Satan" or adversary. So in this scenario in Job, the angel comes to present himself before the LORD (i.e. in heaven) and when asked by God where he's been, his answer - "from going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it" - seems to fit in with what we're told elsewhere about angels and their dealings with men. And then God's giving of him powers to bring about one catastrophe after another also fits with what the Bible states about God's angels bringing such things on Egypt, Israel, etc. For example -
Psa. 78:49 - "He (God) unleashed against them (Egypt) his hot anger, his wrath, indignation, and hostility - a band of destroying angels."
2 Sam. 24:15,16 - "So the LORD sent a plague on Israel from that morning until the end of the time designated, and 70,000 of the people from Dan to Beersheba died. Whenthe angel stretched out his hand to destroy Jerusalem, the LORD was grieved because of the calamity and said to the angel who was afflicting the people, 'Enough! Withdraw your hand...."
Isa. 37:36 - "Then the angel of the LORD sent out and put to death 185,000 men in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning - there were all the dead bodies."
So from these and other examples in Scripture we know that God can and will use some of His angels for these - what we might call "negative" purposes. The one potential problem with this interpretation in Job is how we take what he says about Job and what he thinks Job will do if serious trials come upon him - e.g. ch. 1:11 -
"But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face."
Also ch. 2:4 - "Skin for skin! A man will give all he has for his own life. But stretch out your hand and strike his flesh and bones and he will surely curse you to your face."
Keep the following in mind concerning what the Bible tells us about angels - though sinless and immortal, there are things that they do not as yet understand - i.e. their understanding, though obviously at a much higher level than ours (to say the least), is limited. Jesus said, "No one knows the day nor the hour (of my return), not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only" (Mat. 24:36). And Peter in speaking about the Old Testament prophets said, "...when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven.Even angels long to look into these things."
So then - given these facts - isn't it possible to read what Satan says in the following way? "In my experience of human nature and its hypocrisy, the best of human motives are not good. If men serve God, they do so out of self-interest." So God then says - in effect - let's see, Job is in your hands. You can do whatever you wish to him short of taking his life, and we'll see if your conclusions are valid for what appears to be a very righteous man, Job.
One more point that may add some credence to this idea. Though the phrase "sons of God" (Job 1:6; Job 2:1) is used in various books of the Bible as equivalent to mortal believers in God, how is it used elsewhere in the book of Job? The only other place where that phrase is used is ch. 38:6,7 in the context of God speaking to Job out of the whirlwind and asking him where he was when God created everything.
"Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? Or who laid the corner stone thereof; when the morning stars sang together, andall the sons of God shouted for joy?"
Here obviously "the sons of God" must have reference to the angels since they were the only ones who could have been there to witness and rejoice in God's creative work.
Wes Booker [South Austin Texas USA] Comment added in 2012 Reply to Wes
1 v.8 - In all that happens in this book, let us not forget that God attests that Job is an upright man, with none like him in the earth. This is the highest available praise for an individual. As we go through the trials which God employed to purify this man, let us remember that this was his status in God's sight. As long as we keep this in mind, we will never against believe that the bad things in life cannot be turned to our own good. So let us resolve that we, like Job, will face the trials God gives us, knowing that the outcome could (if we allow it) make us perfect by the grace of God in the end.
Peter [UK] Comment added in 2002 Reply to Peter
Job 2:11 - Job had three friends just as Christ had an inner circle of three (Matt 17:1-3;Mark 5:37;14:32-34), both later spoke with a newly introduced associate (Job 32:4;Acts 9:1-6), both had an enemy (Job 1:8-11;Matt 26:48-49).
Many of my 2010 comments on Job were gleaned from a variety of sources such as: The Education of Job by David Baird, The Book of Job (outlines and notes) by Donald Styles, The Book of Job by Cyril Tennant, The Book of Job by Warren H. Phillips.
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Charles
Job 1:13,18 - Job's children were drinking wine and sharing a meal at their elder brother's house which perhaps reminds us of brethren in Christ who partake of the emblems. In Job 42:10-15 Job was comforted by everyone who knew him (perhaps like Christ he over came the adversary/satan as well) and he received double of everything except for his children. Perhaps Job's children who shared a meal in their elder brother's presense and house will meet Job in the millenial kingdom and then he will have double of everything. Admittedly a stretch, but Job 1:19 with the mighty wind or spirit somewhat reminds me of the day of Pentecost Acts 2:1-2;Matt 18:20 along with their (and our) elder brother in their midst. In a number of ways Job echos Christ, and perhaps his children (those prior to his suffering, and those after his symbolic death and resurrection of sorts) echo believers in Christ. Job also bore a burden and suffered for others Job 2:4;Isa 53:3-4 though it was also for himself as he was edified, saw God's heavenly majesty Job 38:12-33;Job 42:5 and was asked if he could set up God's dominion over the earth (as Christ will). There was silence for a time Job 2:13;Isa 53:7 and Job did not sin in all that he did Job 1:8;Job 2:10. Though Job didn't truly die Job 2:6 was was perhaps symbolically and literally tested in his walk and thoughts Job 2:7;Heb 4:15. horribly disfigured Job 2:12;Isa 52:14 and externally becoming as a broken vessel shaped by the potter Job 2:8 and then a resurrection of sorts where he was given a new body and was a mediator Job 42:8,9,12.
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2014 Reply to Charles
1:8-11 Freed from the erroneous belief in a supernatural Satan we can assess the way things are presented here. The adversary was simply looking to find fault. God highlights Job as a positive example that the adversary might contemplate imitating. However the adversary decided on character assassination, rather the emulate Job’s qualities. This is exactly how the Jewish authorities reacted when confronted with the perfect life of Jesus. How do we react in similar situations?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2016 Reply to Peter
Have you noticed that God doesn't actually answer Satan's request? In Job 1:11 Satan asks "stretch out Your hand and touch all he has", whereas God gives him leave to do it himself. Again in Job 2:5 he asks "stretch out your hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh" but God answers "Behold, he is in your hand". This is similar to what we have recently read of Haman and Ahasuerus in Esther 3:10-11, 8:8.
Rob de Jongh [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Rob
1:14-19 The multiple disasters might reflect the thing that Job was most worried about. He said that the thing that he was most afraid of had happened to him- Job 3:25 – Maybe God was showing him, therefore, that he could survive without the things he felt he needed.
2:3 God describes Job as having ‘integrity’. It was that which his wife thought he may as well disregard. However even at the end of his trials he still retained his integrity – Job 27:5, 31:6 – the problem was not that Job lacked integrity. It seems, despite his integrity, he did not understand how God worked in the lives of faithful men and women.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2006 Reply to Peter
1:18 The fact that Job’s children all died seems to be the basis on which Bildad questions their morality – 8:4– when he talks about their transgressions being the reason for their death.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2019 Reply to Peter
Job 1:20. We see here the effect that the first four trials on Job. He would have been sitting while he received the messengers, and now stands and:
He rent his mantle: He was heartbroken. (David 2Sam 13:31)
He shaved his head: To express his determination to make a new start.(Num 6:9-11)
He laid on the ground: Totally surrendering himself to God.
He started with nothing and expected to return to the ground with nothing. What a lesson for us in this materialistic world we live in.
John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2003 Reply to John
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2014 Reply to Peter
1:21 Do we truly share Job’s attitude? Do we really believe that we do not deserve to have any of the possessions that we have? Would we still trust in God if everything was taken away from us?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2015 Reply to Peter
2:1Was “satan” one of the “sons of God” or an antagonist who had joined them?
It is sad to say that those who are “sons of God” can also be adversaries to their fellow believers.
Are we ever adversaries to our fellow believers – putting stumbling blocks in their way as we all walk together towards the kingdom of God?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2024 Reply to Peter
Job 2:3 - "his integrity" [Heb. "tummah" (8538) means "innocence, integrity" and is in the uncommon feminine form] - perhaps Job here epitomises the bride of Christ.
Job 2:4 - "Skin for skin" - perhaps an expression of the day which suggests Job is willing to give up skins of others but not his own.
Job 2:6 - "save his 'life'" [Heb. "nephesh" (5315) means "life, person, living breathing creature"], this is the common Hebrew word translated "soul" and satan is not allowed to go so far as to take Job's life thus indicating the "soul" is mortal.
Job 2:10 - "did not Job sin with his lips" (Job here is perhaps a type of Christ in not sinning and suffering for others). Job 2:12 - "lifted up their eyes afar off, and knew him not" perhaps reminds us of "...marred more than than any other man..." and the women (bride of Christ?) were afar off (Mark 15:40-41;Matt 27:55-56).
Job 2:11-13 - "Temanite... Shuhite...Naamathite...lifted up their voice, and wept...seven days and seven nights, and none spake a word" indicates these were more than fair weather friends as they came from distance, wept aloud when they saw him, and sat silently with him for seven days and seven nights - V.13 also suggested is the seven days and nights perhaps being a traditional mourning period for the dead or in Job's case the symbolically dead (1Sam 31:13;Gen 50:10), or it could be an echo of the ritual test for uncleanness a leper would be required to undergo according to the law of Moses (Lev 13:26).
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Charles
2:3 The way in which God invites the adversary to consider Job at this point in his trials gives a clear indication that Yahweh was in control as he later -:6 - gives that adversary permission to afflict Job more.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2020 Reply to Peter
2:3 The way in which God invites the adversary to consider Job at this point in his trials gives a clear indication that Yahweh was in control as he later -:6 - gives that adversary permission to afflict Job more. He was in control throughout all of Job’s tribulations. The book of Job teaches us that no matter how difficult life becomes our Father in in control and working for our own eternal well-being.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2021 Reply to Peter
2:5 The adversary thought that affliction would destroy Job’s faith. Are we “fair weather” believers? Do we expect that having accepted Jesus as our saviour life will be problem free? If so we are mistaken. After all Jesus was a faithful believer but we cannot say that his life was trouble free. And he is our example 1Pet 2:21-24
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2012 Reply to Peter
2:8 A potsherd was not a piece of broken earthen vessel, but an instrument made for scratching (it comes from a root word 2775 CHEREC meaning to scrape or scratch the itch), the sore was too disgusting to touch. "To sit in the ashes" marks the deepest mourning (Jon 3:6); also humility, as we see with Abraham, as if the mourner was nothing but dust and ashes (Gen 18:27)
John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to John
KEEPING INTEGRITY
What would it take to make us lose our integrity before God? Job lost everything. He lost his riches, his children, his prestige and then finally his health. Looking at it from Job's position, it would have been easy to think that God was not in control, that he was not there, that he was not listening to Job's prayers, and that he hadn't seen the righteous life Job was living. It would have been easy to give up on God altogether. This was what Job's wife was encouraging him to do. She said, "Are you still holding on to your integrity? Curse God and die!" (Job 2:9)
Even among the dust and ashes that used to be his life, Job still believed that God was there, and that he was sill in control, whether Job liked it or not. Job replied to his wife, "You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God and not trouble?" (v.10)
God gives us good things, but he also allows us trouble, for whatever reason it may be. He is no less in control of the bad times than he is in the good. While times are good, let us, like Job, build up a faith and trust in God that allows us to keep our integrity before God even when bad times come.
Robert Prins [Auckland - Pakuranga - (NZ)] Comment added in 2012 Reply to Robert
Nick Kendall [In Isolation] Comment added in 2017 Reply to Nick
2:13 So Job’s friends sat silent for seven days. Actually it is probable that their silent vigil was more comfort to Job than all the words that they said. A lesson for us when a brother or sister is in trouble.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2008 Reply to Peter
Apparently the people of Nineveh were worshipping, amongst others, a fish god, who was half man half fish and white in appearance. Perhaps this is why they initially accepted Jonah as his skin, we are told, would be bleached white by the stomach juices of the whale, and he would have a strong smell of fish, we might assume. Did God do all this so that the people of Nineveh would listen to Jonah in the end, as well as His other reasons?
Peter [UK] Comment added in 2002 Reply to Peter
3:5 The preaching of Jonah caused gentiles to accept the message. Jesus gave the sign of Jonah - (Matthew 12:39 Matthew 16:4). Jesus' message was accepted by the gentiles though, like Jonah, the Jews of Jesus day did not want the message to go to the gentiles.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2003 Reply to Peter
ASKED AGAIN
As parents, one of the things we try to teach our children is to respect authority and to do what they are told. Try as we might, there are still regular times when a child has to be asked two, three, or even more times to do a task before they finally rouse themselves to do as they are told. As parents we find that their unresponsive attitude can be quite frustrating, yet we are also like children in God's sight.
Jonah, a grown man, was asked to go to Nineveh to proclaim God's message to the people there. He did the same as our children sometimes do: he hid. But like a parent God didn't forget or ask another of his children to do the job. Instead Jonah paid a consequence that got him thinking about his actions, and then God asked him a second time. This time, when God had asked twice, Jonah did as he was told.
We are probably no better than Jonah, and just like our children. How many times do we have to be told what God wants from us before we obey? Do we regularly proclaim God's message and love our neighbours as ourselves (even neighbours we don't like)? Do we totally trust God in every aspect of our lives? Or pray without ceasing? Let's not be like our children or even like Jonah, but be quick to obey and serve the LORD with all of our hearts.
Robert Prins [Auckland - Pakuranga - (NZ)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to Robert
The scribes and Pharisees asked Jesus for a sign (Matt 12:38). The only indication He would give was that of Jonah (Matt 12:39-41). Here we see the equation between Jonah's stay in the belly of the fish and the Lord's stay in the tomb. Jonah was released from the darkness of the fish to see light once more. Likewise, Jesus was released from the blackness of the grave to see light again for ever.
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to Michael
Jonah's prayer in the Psalms
The ordeal Jonah went through prepared Jesus for his own death. Just as Jonah was in the belly of the fish, hidden away as if he were in the grave, so Jesus would be dead for three days (see Matt 12:40). The idea of Jonah's ordeal as a foreshadowing of the death of Jesus is further carried on in Psalm 88. Notice how similar this is to Jonah's prayer in Jonah 2, and all the references to the grave and the water:
"my life draweth nigh unto the grave. I am counted with them that go down into the pit: I am as a man that hath no strength: Free among the dead, like the slain that lie in the grave, whom thou rememberest no more: and they are cut off from thy hand. Thou hast laid me in the lowest pit, in darkness, in the deeps. Thy wrath lieth hard upon me, and thou hast afflicted me with all thy waves." Psa 88:3-7
The rest of the chapter is full of similarities with Jonah's prayer. How many can you find?
Rob de Jongh [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2014 Reply to Rob
3:3 Then the word of the LORD came to Jonah the second time
It could be, without being dogmatic, that there is a gap in time from 2:10 to 3:1 - maybe some weeks or months. During that time, news of a Jewish prophet being swallowed by a fish and miraculously surviving would have circulated far and wide - including Nineveh. The returned sailors' testimony would have added to this excitement. So when God commands Jonah to return to Nineveh from his Jewish home, Jonah would have been listened to as the man whom God protected in the stomach of the fish. His bleached complexion (from the stomach acids of the fish) may still have been obvious, thereby confirming his identification as the prophet of God.
Bruce Bates [Forbes Australia] Comment added in 2023 Reply to Bruce
2:1 Jonah had been pursuing a course which was astray from God’s command. God had intervened to create an environment in which Jonah could think about his actions. He has now thought about his position and prays. Not because he is in a fix but because he has repented and seeks to be reconciled to God.
3:1`God heard Jonah’s prayer and delivered him. However the original command still stands. So God makes the same request of Jonah as He had made in Jon 1:2. Jonah’s response will determine the sincerity or otherwise of his repentance.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2006 Reply to Peter
Jonah was entombed in a great fish that the LORD prepared (provided) for His purpose (1:17; 2:1). No further description of the sea creature is given. Therefore, it is not accurate to call it a whale, as is the wont of some.
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2007 Reply to Michael
2:1-3 - V2 the belly of a fish is referred to as ["hell" KJV or the "grave" NIV - the original Hebrew word is "sheol" (7585) and is translated in the KJV as grave, pit, hell]. Sheol is not a fiery place in the middle of the death as the fish's belly amply demonstrates, it is the grave - the fishes belly must have seemed like a grave to Jonah at the time. Animals go to sheol Psa 49:14 as did the righteous Jacob Gen 37:35 ["grave" is translated from the Hebrew "sheol" in both cases]. The Bible notes in a number of places the dead have no thoughts. The death state is like sleep Psa 146:4
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2008 Reply to Charles
GOD IS READY TO LISTEN
He is ready to listen. Even if we have turned away from God, even if we have sinned against Him and feel distant, unclean and feel that perhaps He doesn't want to hear us any more, He is ready to hear your prayer - and respond to it.
Not many of us get to go as low as Jonah. He was one of the few chosen to hear God's voice and given a task to do. But Jonah refused and ran the opposite direction trying to escape from God. He had a guilty conscience. He knew he had done wrong. He even admitted his sin to the sailors on the ship he was sailing on. But as he lay below deck, I suspect he was keeping strangely silent instead of praying to the LORD his God. He was running away!
It wasn't until he had been heaved overboard, nearly drowned in the sea, and swallowed by a huge fish that Jonah was distressed enough to call on God. "From inside the fish Jonah prayed to the LORD his God. He said, 'In my distress I called to the LORD and he answered me.'" (Jon 2:1-2).
If God listened to rebellious Jonah when he discovered he was in trouble, he will listen to us too. He wants to hear from you. Let's turn to him today.
Robert Prins [Auckland - Pakuranga - (NZ)] Comment added in 2014 Reply to Robert
“THEN Jonah prayed unto the LORD his God out of the fish’s belly.”
This is one of those great Biblical mysteries. Jonah tried to escape God’s command to preach to the Ninevites only to be swallowed up by a great fish and then to be vomited out of its belly. This story is often cited as merely a myth, but is it?
We know Jonah was a real person (2Kin 14:25). Jesus also recognized Jonah as a real person and recounted it as a true historical event, likening it to his own death and resurrection (Matt 12:29-31; 16:4; Luke 11:29-30,32). Thus, there is no disputing the veracity of this story.
The ancient Babylonian historian, Berosus wrote that the Assyrians worshipped a fish-man god called Dagon. This would explain why the Ninevites were so eager to accept Jonah’s preaching once they learned that he had been swallowed and then vomited out of a big sea fish! They believed Jonah was a fish god! Dagon is mentioned several times in relation to the Philistine god (Judg 16:23,24; 1Sam 5:1-7; 1Chron 10:10).
Since the Bible also tells us “God prepared a great fish” (Jon 1:17), God either specifically created this fish, or prepared an existing big fish and had it in the right place at the right time.
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2016 Reply to Valerie
A careful reading of Jon 2:1-9 convinces us that it contains two of Jonah's prayers. The second prayer, from the fish's belly, is a prayer of thanksgiving. It celebrates God's saving response to Jonah's first prayer. That first prayer was a cry for help that he silently 'screamed' as he tumbled into the ocean's depths.
The words of Jonah 2:7, ​​​​​​​​'When my life was fainting away, I remembered the LORD, and my prayer came to you,into your holy temple' remembers his 'cry for help' for salvation from a watery grave – 'the belly of Sheol'. The remembered prayer is recounted in Jon 2:1-7.
Did Jonah actually die by drowning? Was he dead for three days and nights in the fish's belly, as Jesus seems to be implying in Matt 12:38-40?
Whatever is the answer to this question, when Jonah became conscious he realised that God had wrought salvation in response to his first prayer. That first prayer contained a vow (Jonah 2:9) that Jonah had now to fulfil.
Brian Armour [Maryborough-Hervey Bay Australia] Comment added in 2020 Reply to Brian
2 v.2 - That this is a precursor of the death and resurrection of Christ is without question (Matt.12:40). This aspect of being in hell - which means a place of darkness, usually the grave, as we know - is also brought out in Acts 2:27 which quotes Psa. 16:10.
Peter [UK] Comment added in 2001 Reply to Peter
Jonah 2:2-9. Jonah’s prayer here is certainly a psalm of thanksgiving.
John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2003 Reply to John
2:2-9 These verses actually record the prayer that Jonah uttered in the great fish. He sees – verse :9 – that God seeks praise rather than animals. Another indication that he was not unwilling to speak about his God.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2008 Reply to Peter
2:3 Despite Jonah's flight towards Tarshish and the seeming natural storm Jonah knew it was of God. He has said so in the boat during the storm. He expresses this realisation directly to God in this chapter. If only we could see God at work in our lives when He is. The signs are doubtless there but we tend so often to find natural explanations for the things that happen.
The way in which the king and the people repented so that the words which Jonah had spoken did not come to pass shows that there is more to the work of a prophet than simply predicting or foretelling the future. As the words of Jonah did not come to pass his prophecy failed - or so it would seem. However God was more concerned that the men of Nineveh would repent. He did not want to destroy them, If Israel had repented like Nineveh then much of the predictions of the prophets would not have come true!
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2002 Reply to Peter
2:3,5,9 Jonah’s mind seems to have been in the Psalms in his prayer. Consider the use he makes of the Psalms.
Jonah 2 |
Words |
Psalm |
All thy billows ... over me |
||
The waters compassed ... the soul |
||
salvation is of the Lord |
Is Scripture the language we use in prayer?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2012 Reply to Peter
2:4 That Jonah 'looked towards thy holy temple' shows that he was aware of the words of Solomon and also recognised his error. 1 Kings 8:30
3:2 The commission from the Lord is almost identical to the one he was given in Jonah 1:2 He has to preach the words that Yahweh gave him. Now he doubtless was aware that this was the task of a prophet so why is his commission spelt out so specifically?
I suggest that the commission is so specific because Jonah had already been rebellious.
3:4 This is the sum total of the recorded words of Jonah's prophecy, though we have noticed 2 Kings 14:25 that he had spoken other words which had been fulfilled.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2001 Reply to Peter
2:4 In saying he was 'cast out of thy sight' Jonah is not simply saying that God cannot see him which is clearly untrue. He is saying that because of his rebellion he has destroyed his fellowship with his God.
3:6The word translated 'robe' here is the same word translated 'garment' in Josh 7:21 which helps to fill in the picture of what Achan actually took. It was not just a piece of clothing. It was royal apparel.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to Peter
2:4 In saying that he will look towards God’s holy temple Jonah is reflecting on the words of Solomon – 1Kin 8:30 – in his prayer at the dedication of the temple.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2016 Reply to Peter
2:4 Isn’t it ironic? Jonah fled “from the presence of the Lord” Jon 1:3 but now, in distress, he calls upon the same God worried that he is not in God’s presence! Do we ever feel like this?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2017 Reply to Peter
2:4 Jonah had sought to flee from the presence of the Lord – 1:3 – but now, in distress, being out of God’s presence is not an appealing position to be in. When we feel that the constraints of the gospel are too much for us we should remember that the alternative is worse.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2018 Reply to Peter
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2011 Reply to Peter
Jonah had rebelled against the Word of the LORD. He had been given an assignment and decided he did not want to do it. But after being entombed in the great fish, he realized that he could not thwart the LORD's will. He sought the LORD and promised to carry out his duty (Jon 2:7-9). He went to the idolatrous Ninevites to preach the Truth. The question is: why was Jonah reluctant to go to Nineveh in the first place? Tomorrow we will find out.
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to Michael
2:7 Jonah a servant of God struggled with his commission. However when he was in great difficulty it did not stop him praying to his God. We can learn from this. Whilst the journey might be challenging we have a God who listens to our prayers.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2019 Reply to Peter
2:7-9 We might think that in times of distress that the last thing on our midst would be that God is a saviour. But this was Jonah’s way of thinking. Difficulties did not diminish his recognition of Yahweh as the God and the Creator of all things. In reality God was always in Jonah’s mind. In both good and difficult times. Is this our way of thinking?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2022 Reply to Peter
2:7 It was when Jonah was in deep despair that he "remembered the Lord”. It is good to remember our God when we are in difficulty. However we should not only call on Him when we are in trouble. He deserves our praise at all times.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2023 Reply to Peter
2:9 Having experienced in his own life God's power to rescue him from the jaws of death, Jonah brings his personal thanksgiving to a climax with the words "Salvation comes from the LORD". There were no other words that could show his appreciation of all that God had done for him.
John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2007 Reply to John
2:9 Jonah’s exclamation ‘salvation is of the Lord’ echoes the Psalm – Psa 3:8. So Jonah recognised that, even though he had fled away from God it was God who had delivered him, as David expressed.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Peter
2:10 A simple piece of narrative. However it echoes Genesis and the creation narrative where God spake and it was done as described in Psa 33:9
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2013 Reply to Peter
a) Have you noticed how many quotations from the Psalms there are in Jonah’s prayer in Jon 2? Probably 15. b) In Jon 3:1 God again came to Jonah, and told him to go East to Nineveh. This time he went. I wonder how long apart these two calls were?
David Simpson [Worcester (UK)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to David
SECOND CHANCES
"Then the word of the LORD came to Jonah a second time: 'Go to the great city of Nineveh and proclaim to it the message I give you.'"(Jonah 3:1-2) God had given Jonah his first opportunity to obey him, but Jonah had stuffed it up. Instead of preaching to the people of Nineveh, he had run away, rebelled against God, disobeyed and should have ended up either drowned or digested! But God gave him a second chance. After the experiences of the first chance, Jonah grudgingly did as he was told.
But after Jonah had preached to Nineveh and had seen how God gave the people there a second chance, he got really grumpy. It seems he was happy enough to have had his second chance - after all, a second chance was one of the things he had prayed for while he was inside the fish. But Jonah couldn't bear the thought of these 'sinners' in Nineveh being given grace from God.
I am glad God gives me second chances. Like Jonah, I often fail miserably the first time (and often more than that), but God gives me more chances until I get it right. Let's remember the second chances that God has given us, and be gracious in offering God's grace and his second chances to others. Freely we have received, Let's freely give.
Robert Prins [Auckland - Pakuranga - (NZ)] Comment added in 2013 Reply to Robert
3:1-2 We see the mercy of God in that he spoke to Jonah “the second time”. It would have been easy for God to find another prophet to send to Nineveh. However in His love He spoke to Jonah again charging him to preach to the Ninevites.
We learn from this how merciful and compassionate Yahweh is towards His children.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2024 Reply to Peter
3:2 how do we understand God commanding Jonah twice to go to Nineveh? One thing we learn is that God is compassionate. God brought circumstances into Jonah’s life so that he could reflect on God’s command and once Jonah had learnt God spoke to him again. Wouldn’t it be terrible if God forsook His children the first time they disregarded His word?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2021 Reply to Peter
3:3 This time the prophet's obedience was instant, he responded without a complaint or excuse, not only that he preach what the LORD had told him. An example to each of us, we all have been called.
John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to John
3:3 Nineveh was indeed a great city, being much larger than Babylon. Diodorus said that the circumference of the city was 55 miles. The population was probably 600,000 - 1 million. There were 120,000 small children alone (4:11).
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2008 Reply to Michael
3:3 Nineveh was not three days journey from where Jonah was cast up on the sea shore. It was the distance either across or round the walls of the city.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2014 Reply to Peter
3:4 The way that Nineveh responded to the preaching of Jonah contrasts markedly with Sodom in the days of Lot when the city was destroyed because they would not heed the words of Lot – Gen 19:25
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Peter
The use of sackcloth, worn as a sign of woe by those in mourning and anguish, was common in the Near East (3:5,6,8). Sackcloth was a coarse cloth made from either goat or camel hair. It was used for bagging things. One of the qualities of sackcloth is that it is porous. This is interesting, since those in anguish or mourning, wearing sackcloth, sometimes described their troubles as being poured out like water (e.g. Job 3:24). The first example of the use of sackcloth, in the Bible, is by Jacob (Gen 37:34).
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2006 Reply to Michael
3:6-7 The king of Nineveh not only repented but saw the need for national repentance. This highlights the extent of his recognition of his sin. As king he needed to recover the people he had allowed to fall away. So we see a gentile who recognised sin being spoken to by a prophet who did not recognise God’s compassion.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2007 Reply to Peter
3:9 The king of Nineveh’s repentance is interesting. It seems that he did not know how God would respond. However we might conclude that he was aware that the God of Israel was merciful. It is probable that he was aware of at least some elements of the Law of Moses.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2020 Reply to Peter
“And God (Elohim) saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God (Elohim) repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.” Likewise, we read in Gen 6:6, “And it repented the LORD (Yahweh) that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” How are we to interpret these passages when compared to Mal 3:6 and James 1:17 wherein it states the LORD God does not change, and “with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning”?
By a careful reading of the passages in question in their contexts, and by clearly defining what is and what is not said, we see that the context of Jon 3 and Gen 6 reveals the sinful state man is living in, and it is man’s sinfulness that triggered God’s sorrow, not man’s existence. The Hebrew word for, “repented” is # <5162>, nacham, and expresses the idea, “to be sorry” for, or “to pity” what has taken place. “Repented” here does not indicate a change, but a state of regret. Neither of these passages shows that God’s character changed, or that God did something contrary to His character. The Ninevites changed, not God, and they became obedient, so He preserved them. Their change did not obligate God to do what He said He would. If that were the case, where would we be?
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2011 Reply to Valerie
3:10 In His foreknowledge God knew that this repentance would be short lived. He knew that Assyria would behave terribly towards His people. However, even knowing this, he accepted their repentance at face value. How encouraged we should be with this realisation.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2015 Reply to Peter
8:6 Notice the way that Jesus was better than the old order
1. More excellent ministry
2. Better covenant
3. Better promises
In fact throughout the whole of the letter to the Hebrews we see about 12 occasions where Jesus is 'better' than the Mosaic order - though the word 'better' is not always used.
9:13-14 Another contrast is developed. Whilst the animals could only purify the flesh the sacrifice of Christ purged the conscience.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2003 Reply to Peter
OUT OF THE SHADOWS
God gave Moses a pattern when he made the Tabernacle. The pattern Moses was given, we learn from Hebrews, was the pattern of heaven itself. So when the Tabernacle was completed in all its splendour, Israel had a little slice of heaven in the midst of them. They should have been able to look at the Tabernacle and see all that was holy and pure - to see God dwelling among them.
Now we learn that the Tabernacle, all its furnishings and the offerings associated with it, are just a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. (Hebrews 6 v 5) The priests at the Tabernacle were only a shadow of the great High Priest, Jesus. The covenant God made with Israel was only a precursor to a much better covenant. Now, instead of having rituals to perform for sin, we can have our sins forgiven through Jesus Christ.
Even though so much has been fulfilled and made better, the patterns have not all been fulfilled. The dwelling of God is not with men, and we have not been made totally sinless, because we still sin. One day Jesus will return and then, just as the Tabernacle was a shadow of the real thing, so our lives will be taken out of the shadowlands and brought into a wonderful reality in the kingdom of God.
Robert Prins [Auckland - Pakuranga - (NZ)] Comment added in 2003 Reply to Robert
8:1 provides a summary of what the Apostle wishes us to see in the first eight chapters of Hebrews. This summary is most helpful in that it ensures that we are seeing the correct message in the letter.
ch.9 - And now the tabernacle on the day of Atonement is described so that Jesus can be presented as a better more effective sacrifice than the sacrifices on that day.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2001 Reply to Peter
The real priesthood
It's not often that we will find such a clear pointer in our studies as this in verse 1: "this is the main point of what we are saying". So we can read what follows and be confident of its importance. What then is the writer's main point?
It's right there in v1-5 and then expounded throughout the rest of Hebrews. If we were to reword it we might read this: "If Jesus were on earth, he wouldn't be a priest because you've already got earthly priests. Instead, he lives in heaven with God and is a heavenly priest. In fact, heaven and earth are so different, and heaven is so incomprehensible to us that God has created the earthly service (contained in earthly buildings, temples, tabernacles and such) just so that we can comprehend the true heavenly temple and priesthood. So Jesus isn't an alternative priest, Jesus is the true priest, the real building, whereas your law and temple is just a learning aid to help you understand him".
Can you imagine how inflammatory that statement was to Hebrew people? Furthermore in 8:13 we read that the Hebrew form of worship (and its temple and priesthood) was obsolete, old and decaying away! Let's be careful not to go back to the learning aid, rather than the true.
Rob de Jongh [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Rob
“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, When I will make a new covenant…In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old…”
“New” is the Greek word, kainos, # <2537>. It is new not just in the sense of time (neos, # <3501>), but also in the sense of quality – Expository Dictionary of the Bible Words. Jesus’ priesthood was better than the Aaronic priesthood (Heb 5:1-7); Jesus is related to a better covenant (Heb 8:1-13); Jesus is a better sanctuary (Heb 9:1-12); Jesus is a better sacrifice than the animals were (Heb 9:13 to Heb 10:18), and in Jesus the new covenant is based on better promises (Heb 10:19 to chapter 12:3). Jesus is the only “high priest over the house of God” (Heb 10:21). This covenant relationship is “new” in point of time (neos, Heb 12:24), as well as “new” in quality (kainos, Heb 9:15). Only through Jesus is it possible to have a new relationship with God.
The typological Old Testament Covenant foreshadowed the eschatological reality of the New Testament Covenant saving act in Christ, the "new and living way" (Heb 10:20).
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2011 Reply to Valerie
8:1 In speaking of Jesus being on the right hand of the majesty in the heavens we are reminded of the way in which David spoke of God – 1Chron 29:11
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2018 Reply to Peter
8:1-2 Notice the contrasts with the Mosaic ordinances
Messiah |
Law of Moses |
High priest … right hand of God |
Mortal high priest |
In the heavens |
on earth |
The tabernacle |
the shadow |
Pitched by God |
Made by Moses |
So this summary sets the scene for the rest of the letter.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2023 Reply to Peter
8:3Gifts and sacrifices picks up on two aspects of the offerings under the law of Moses. Whilst Israel seemed too often viewed their offerings as an obligation they were not only something that God requested but something that Israel wanted to offer also.
How do we feel about our service to God? Is it done out of obligation or freely. The Lord loveth a cheerful giver (2Cor 9:7)
9:9,14 Notice the contrast being drawn between the day of atonement and the sacrifice of Christ. The sacrifice on the day of atonement was not effective in purging the conscience. The sacrifice of Christ is. A telling point for those who wished to return to the law of Moses.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to Peter
“So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.”
“Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins” (v. 22). Under the Law sin had to be purged by shedding blood. We also read, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1Cor 15:50). Christ’s glorified body was “flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39), having shed his blood. Blood had to be shed to make his sacrifice “clean” (Lev 17:11; cf. Gen 9:4,5; Deut 12:23,24).
The shedding of the blood of Christ, as the sacrifice under the Law (cf. Gal 4:4), cleansed, or purified him, and it is only his blood that can cleanse us (1John 1:7; Heb 9:12,13cf. Rom 3:24,25). By comparing Scripture with Scripture, the type is easily deduced that sin dwelt in Christ’s flesh with the blood, that he was not clean and needed to make “atonement” for himself first, even though he did not commit sin (2Cor 5:21), before he could atone for us (cf. Heb 2:17,18 cp. Lev 16:6). How could Christ being made sin for us, being made flesh and blood like us, and by bearing our sins be declared as “clean” (Heb 2:14,16; 1Pet 2:24; cf. Isa 53:5,6,10? It is not a Scriptural teaching; it is heretical!
Christ was both the High Priest and the sacrifice. We read in Isa 53:12, “… because he hath poured out his soul [life] unto death…” Hence, the blood, or life of the sacrifice was the sin-offering, or “sin” (cf. Heb 8:3). Jesus “became sin” in his blood and became the sin-offering for those who lay hold of the Abrahamic Covenant, and confess his name. Christ will appear without blood (ou choris haimatos), literally, not as the unblemished sin offering, sacrificially, but unto salvation now to those who eagerly look for him.
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2017 Reply to Valerie
8:4 The nature of Jesus’ priesthood has been discussed already in Heb 7:1-28. The writer now returns to the subject and emphasises that from a natural perspective Jesus would not be a priest. This highlights the point that Jesus was not involved in priestly matters relating to the building – Herod’s temple.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2013 Reply to Peter
COMPLETELY UNQUALIFIED
Jesus was completely unqualified for the job he was given. He is our high priest. The main qualification of a high priest was that he should be a descendant of Aaron, the high priest for Israel in the wilderness. Jesus wasn't. He was from Judah and so disqualified from taking the high priest position before he had even applied for it. God's word puts it this way:"If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law." (Heb 8:4). In all other ways, Jesus is the only one truly qualified to fit that position.
Time and again God takes unqualified people and sets them in positions that he has for them. Paul as a preacher to the Gentiles; timid Timothy as a leader of the early church; David the shepherd as king of Israel; fishermen as disciples of Jesus and preachers of God's way. Even in the list of qualifications given for overseers and deacons, it is not the business and financial orientated leaders of men that are selected, but people with a heart and life given to God.
As it was with Jesus, it is the state of our heart that qualifies us to serve our God, not our university degree or any other experience. Let's make sure our hearts are open to hearing from God so that we can serve Him in the way He asks of us.
Robert Prins [Auckland - Pakuranga - (NZ)] Comment added in 2015 Reply to Robert
8:5 In Col 2:17 Paul also speaks of the ordinances of the Law of Moses as a shadow. They, dimly, proclaimed the work of Messiah. A faithful Jew would see that rather than just slavishly follow the ordinances.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2022 Reply to Peter
9 v. 15 - This is the constant theme of this book - to point out to its Jewish readers (and to us) that the covenant established by Jesus' death is not only new and different but better and eternal in its nature. See also 7:22, 8:6,8, 12:24, 2Cor. 3:6
Peter [UK] Comment added in 2001 Reply to Peter
8:6 Moses was a 'mediator' (Deuteronomy 5:5) His works as a mediator are described in Deuteronomy 5:5. But Jesus work is associated with a 'better covenant'. It is 'better' because it can bring life - Moses' law could not.
9:11 In saying 'not made with hands' we are reminded of a Biblical phrase which occurs a number of times
the stone
|
|
the temple of Jesus' body
|
|
The house of David
|
|
Circumcision of the heart
|
All these uses show that the event spoken of was of God's instigation.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2002 Reply to Peter
Jesus is described as a mediator of a new covenant (8:6; 9:15). His role as mediator is to reconcile two parties, those of humankind and God. Men and women are naturally alienated from God, but Jesus is the means whereby men and women can be brought into a harmonious relationship with the LORD. He is able to do this because He behaved perfectly before God, His Father, and because He gave His life on the cross. His selfless sacrifice on the cross was the means to take away the sins of people. But, He is not the Savior of all people automatically, i.e. He is not a universal Savior. His sin offering is for many not for all (9:28). All people do have access to Him, but salvation is conditional upon their believing the true Gospel; being baptised into His Name; and behaving in the same Godly manner as He did. When people do this they come into this covenant relationship with the LORD. They now have the freedom to pray directly to Him in Jesus' Name. This is because Jesus, as a mediator, brought God to us (Immanuel = God with us Isa 7:14).
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to Michael
1. Hebrews 8-9 show the difference between Christ (the Son of God) and God (the Father of Christ). The covenants (old and new) are between God and man. Man can only be reconciled to God by the shedding of blood.
2. Heb 8:6 - Jesus is the "mediator<3316>" (Jesus is the "mediator<3316>" between God and man 1Tim 2:5);
Heb 9:11-14 - Christ is offered to God (God isn't offered to God, that wouldn't make sense); Heb 9:15 - Jesus is the mediator of the new "testament/covenant(<1242> some versions replace testament with covenant but the Greek words here are the same)" and again we are reminded of the role of mediator 1Tim 2:5 (God doesn't mediate with man from one part of Himself to another part of himself, that would be illogical, because Christ was man tempted in all points as we are (unlike God who cannot be tempoted with evil Heb 4:15;James 1:13) and now sits on the right hand of God he is uniquely suited for the role of mediator between man and God; Heb 9:24-26 - Christ appears for us in God's presence (note it doesn't limit to the Father's presence, it reads in God's presence) as a mediator.
3. Heb 8:8-10 - God makes the "covenant/testament<1242>" (which needs something to happen between immortal sinless God and mortal man in order to reconcile/activate the covenant); Heb 9:1-10 touches on the old and new covenant among other things.
4. Heb 9:16-22 - there can be no will without blood and no forgiveness without the shedding of blood which cleanses; Heb 9:20 - God "enjoined/commanded<1781>" believers keep the blood of the covenant/testament; Heb 9:26-28 - Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people (seeing as Christ is a sacrifice to God in order to reconcile us to God, how could Christ possibly be God as many trinitarians believe? It would be illogical sacrificing God to God, so God could be reconciled, and would God be a mediator to God?, not to mention God can't die or even be seen by mortals (1Tim 6:16) in contrast to Christ who died and was seen by many; John 17:21-23 explains the oneness.
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2015 Reply to Charles
“But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.”
The differences between the Old Covenant and New Testament is given here. How is it better? Firstly, Gentiles were now invited to take hold of the Abrahamic Covenant, unlike the Covenant God made only with Israel at Mt. Sinai through Moses. Secondly, we cannot fit the Old Covenant of animal sacrifices into the New Testament because Christ’s perfect and once-for-all sacrifice of himself voided the need for the continuous Old Covenant animal sacrifices. Those only covered sins (cf. Heb 10:4-18), but Christ’s shed blood took away sins (Luke 22:20). As such, Christ became the guarantor of a new and better testament (Heb 7:22). The sacrificial ordinances with its attending Feasts became obsolete (Heb 8:8,13; Heb 12:24). It is not teaching, as some claim, that the New Testament abrogated the Old Covenant. To use the following passages as proof, Matt 9:14-17; Mark 2:21,22; Luke 5:33-39, is to take Christ’s and his disciples’ teachings totally out of context!
Please read related notes on Matt 9:14-17.
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2017 Reply to Valerie
“… a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.”
The Old Covenant was based on Works – “doing,” and was culturally contingent. The New Covenant is based on Grace – “being,” and is not culturally contingent.
Under the Old Covenant we have Judicial Laws, Ceremonial Laws, and Moral Laws.
Judicial Laws dealt with moral issues in terms of prescribed punishments, and restitution for its violations. It was culturally contingent, in that it was given to the nation of Israel only. It pointed to Christ, and is no longer binding on us. In Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek (Gal 3:28; Gal 2:15,16). However, while the Judicial Laws have changed under the Law Giver, the Law Giver has not changed. Every law we have is a legislation based on one or many legislators’ morals. This is important to keep in mind.
Ceremonial Laws dealt with animal sacrifices, laws of uncleanness, feasts, festivals, circumcisions, Passover, redemption of the firstborn. It was culturally contingent specific to ancient Israel (Eze 20:10-13), and pointed to Christ. They are no longer binding on us (cf. Rev 7:9).
Moral Laws reveal God’s will and character; we get to know Him intimately (cf. John 17:3). It is to live in ways that please Him and is based on God’s Holiness. As such, it is holy, just, and unchanging (Rom 7:12-14). It is not culturally contingent, does not point to Christ, and is binding. The Moral Laws illuminate the fallen state of mankind. God spoke inerrantly through some 40 different men in the space of thousands of years, and throughout they form a unified and cohesive form of His character. It is His plan and His design for our lives. Thus, it is more than just the Ten Commandments (now nine), given to Moses, but includes subsequent laws given by Him.
We read in Eph 2:15, “… Having abolished… the law of commandments contained in ordinances…” and in Col 2:14, “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances…” The word, “ordinances” is the Greek word, dogma, # <1378>, “… a law… decree,” pertaining specifically to civil, ceremonial, or ecclesiastical (not moral). Ordinances are rules of law that prescribe certain punishments for breaking certain statutes, which govern us as to what is lawful and what is not. Scripture tells us the ordinances prescribed to the nation of Israel had been abolished, and these were the Judicial and Ceremonial Laws given specifically to Israel. These no longer apply, but the Moral Laws certainly do.
Having said this, the distinction of these Laws is actually a false trichotomy, in that it was done so by man, not God! These divisions were done for the purpose of better understanding Scripture and has consequently led to ignoring the Moral Laws and furthered divisions. This is sad because we fail to see that all these Laws actually portend to some aspect of a believer’s life today. Rather than advancing them from their shadowy prefiguring to something better, we reject them! They are all useful for instructions (2Tim 3:16)! To “cherry pick” at God’s Holy Moral Laws (what we accept, or like, and what we won’t accept, or dislike), puts us in a very dangerous position (2Pet 3:16). God’s Moral Laws are very much applicable to us, as they are God’s moral behavioural instructions for us in all manner of living. Under grace, stoning is no longer an option for violating one of God’s Moral Laws, nevertheless, if ignored, unconfessed and unrepented of will, likewise, bring with it the death sentence at Christ’s Judgment Seat.
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2017 Reply to Valerie
8:6 The Jews had a covenant with God because of what was said to Abraham. However without the death and resurrection of Jesus the promise of the land was a transient thing. The “better covenant” is what follows- the forgiveness of sins. This is the only way in which eternal inheritance of the promise could be achieved.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2019 Reply to Peter
8:8 Israel were expected to realise that the law of Moses was to be replaced because it was flawed – if that were not so God would not have given the ‘new covenant’ recorded in Jer 31:31. In this we learn a way of looking at Scripture. The words, against the background of earlier revelation, teach principles.
9:12 Even on the day of Atonement the high priest entered into the holy place more than once performing the office of priest. Jesus only had to make one offering. ‘Eternal redemption’ contrasts with the ‘year by year’ of the day of Atonement which Paul addresses in chapter 10
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2006 Reply to Peter
“…Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.”
The “new covenant” is the new covenant of Jer 31:31. It reads: “Behold, the days come saith the LORD (Yahweh), that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah.” What is this “new covenant”?
In Lev 26:40-44 we read about the covenant God made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It was a land covenant… “… and I will remember the land”(v. 42). This land promised to Abraham and his descendants was the land of Canaan (Gen 12:1-3,7). They received the land of Canaan and became a great nation (Gen 46:3; Exo 6:2-8; Deut 1:6-8; Deut 30:17-20). But, the Israelites sinned grievously and though the LORD was patient and longsuffering with them, He eventually drove them out of the land. The northern kingdom of Israel was carried away into Assyrian captivity in 733 B.C. (2Kin 17:5,6,22,23). The southern kingdom of Judah was carried away into Babylonian captivity (2Kin 24; 2Chron 36; Dan 1:2. This captivity would last 70 years, but only a remnant would be restored to the land, not the whole nation (Isa 10:20-22 Jer 23:3). We still await a full restoration of God’s covenant to Abraham and that “in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed” (Gen 12:3).
The “new covenant” addressed here in Heb 8, is the Abrahamic covenant, which preceded the Mosaic covenant by four centuries. “It is 'new' in relation to Israel in that they are for the first time inducted into it” (The Christadelphian, 1953, pp. 40, 41). Christ is “the seed” (Gal 3:16; Acts 3:24-26) and if we are in Christ then we are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise (Gal 3:26-29).
" ... This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you" (Luke 22:20). Alfred Nicholls writes in Remember the Days of Old p. 85: “Christ’s use of the word ‘new’ then links the Abrahamic covenant with his own death, and the confirmation of it in his blood: ‘this is my blood of the new covenant'. Abraham looked forward in faith to that confirmation, indeed, symbolically took part in it in a vision (Genesis 15), in which God Himself was represented by a burning lamp passing between the tokens of the future sacrifice of Christ. The patriarch slept the deep sleep of death while the generations passed and he awoke to find that ‘in the same day’ the Lord had repeated the covenant. He rejoiced indeed to see the day of Christ, for although in the sense of its fulfilment he ‘received not the promise’, he was persuaded of the ‘better thing’ which went far beyond any immediate possession on the part of a dying, childless man of the land whereon he lay.”
The New Covenant encompassed in Christ is still very much in effect, though it has remained largely unfulfilled. The ultimate fulfillment will come during the Kingdom Age. It rested upon the sacrifice of Christ, and secures the eternal blessedness of the house of Israel and Judah and to all who believe (Heb 8:10-13 cf. Jer 31:31-34; Gal 3:13-29). Both Israel and Judah will be forgiven and restored, not on the basis of the old Mosaic conditional Covenant, but on the basis of the New Abrahamic unconditional land Covenant in Christ still to be fulfilled (cf. Gal 3:15-18; Heb 6:13-20).
The Abrahamic Covenant is an example of a covenant that could be signed and sealed, but not every provision would go immediately into effect. Some went into effect right away as the change of names and circumcision. Another part of it went into effect 25 years later when Isaac was born, and then another 400 years before the conquest of the land of Canaan, while other provisions are still in the future, like the settlement of ALL the Promised Land. This awaits the return of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and then Israel's final redemption and restoration.
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2013 Reply to Valerie
The writer to the Hebrews confirms that Jesus superseded the Law of Moses. He also looks beyond the present dispensation towards the one that Christ will bring when He returns. He quotes Jeremiah in this look forward (8:10-12; cf. Jer 31:33,34).
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to Michael
Verse 13 is often referred to as proof that the Old Covenant is of no significance, since it has been done away with, in Christ. But, a careful reading of the text does not state this at all. Verses 10,11 are not about the “church” replacing Israel. This is, “Replacement Theology.” Paul speaks of a literal, not figurative, Israel that will be saved (cf. Rom 11:26). He points out the natural branches of the olive tree are the Jews, the wild branches are the believing Gentiles grafted into the olive tree (Rom 11:16-29). The distinction is made; there is no replacement. The believing Gentiles are very much a part of the olive tree!
The New Covenant of the House of Israel, when they will be saved, will occur when their Deliverer, Redeemer, Christ, will come from Zion to turn away their present-day lawlessness (Isa 59:20,21; Jer 31:33,34). Israel, today, still lives in unbelief of their Messiah having come; they keep parts of the Law of Moses, albeit, imperfectly, and want to build a third temple with animal sacrifices to hasten Messiah’s return! The land is rife with pagan practices and beliefs, and tolerated! They have a zeal for YHWH, but not according to knowledge, being ignorant of YHWH’s righteousness (Rom 10:1-8).
Regardless of their current state of unbelief, a remnant will repent and fulfill their calling to establish truth and righteousness by faith (Rom 9:27; Zech 8:7,8; 12:10; Zech 13; Zech 14). Israel will be restored spiritually after Christ’s second coming, and their Old Covenant of ordinances, sacrifices, and a worldly sanctuary with all the fixtures that pointed to Christ will be done away with at that time (Rom 9).
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2019 Reply to Valerie
8:12 The new covenant has an element which was absent from the Law of Moses – the forgiveness of sins. But it is spoken of – Jer 31:34–in the new covenant. This sets the scene for the way the writer will move on to highlight the shortcomings of the day of Atonement in chapter 9 and 10
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Peter
8:12 notice that the New Covenant is associated with sins being forgotten, This contrasts with the Law of Moses where the Day of Atonement was for the purpose of Israel remembering their sins – Heb 10:3 Notice the contrast. This is what the writer will develop more full in in the nest two chapters.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2020 Reply to Peter
8:12 notice that the New Covenant is associated with sins being forgotten, This contrasts with the Law of Moses where the Day of Atonement was for the purpose of Israel remembering their sins – 10:3 Notice the contrast. This is what the writer will develop more full in in the nest two chapters.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2021 Reply to Peter
8:13 Isa 51:6 which is quoted in the vanishing away of the old order is set in a context of speaking to those who ‘follow after righteousness’ Isa 51:1. Whilst the Jews sought to establish their own righteousness – Rom 10:3 – God was removing the law of ordinances for those who sought His righteousness.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2008 Reply to Peter
9:25 The use of the phrase “Every year”, echoing Lev 16:34, introduces the day of atonement that will be spoken of in Hebrews 10 and builds upon the description of the tabernacle which was presented in Heb 9:2-5
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2014 Reply to Peter
9:5The word translated ‘mercyseat’ <2435> is only found once elsewhere – Rom 3:25– where it is translated ‘propitiation. So the use of the word in Hebrews explains what is meant in Rom 3:25
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2007 Reply to Peter
9:7 The priests, and the nation of Israel, would be well aware that the high priest only went into the most holy place once a year. The point being made here is that the fact that it was only once was significant. It showed that limited access was available to only one man.
We need to read the text carefully and question all that we read. We should be asking “why …?” Of course we might not be able to work out the significance of what we read but unless we ask we will never find the answers. In this case, by comparing scripture with scripture we learn the significance.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2024 Reply to Peter
9:9 The very existence of the place where the priests performed their service was a testimony that God's presence was inaccessible
John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to John
9:10 The important word here is ‘until’ – The whole of the ritual of the law of Moses was a temporary affair, to be superseded when Christ came. This was the key thing that they had to remember.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2011 Reply to Peter
9:11-14 In these few verses, and in other sections of this letter the author carefully shows that Christ became both priest and sacrifice. Christ became subject and object at the same time; He served at the alter as priest and was laid on the alter as a sacrifice. Christ shed his blood as a sacrifice on the cross, and figuratively as high priest entered the Most Holy Place of the temple.
John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2006 Reply to John
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2012 Reply to Peter
“… having obtained eternal redemption for us.”
“‘For us’ is not in the original and is excluded by the ‘voice’ of the verb—the middle—which concentrates the application on himself.”
Brother Robert Roberts
The original text was written in Koine Greek - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrews_9/
“Having obtained—having thereby obtained; literally, "found for Himself” - Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary.
These added two short words, “for us,” are responsible for a lot of doctrinal errors. It feeds into the belief that Christ is God and did not need to obtain redemption for himself! Lev 16:6,15 is the pattern, but as Paul says, Christ used his own blood, not the blood of goats and calves to obtain salvation for himself and afterward for us (Heb 9:15).
(Underlines added)
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2018 Reply to Valerie
9:13-14 Notice the contrast. Animal sacrifices – even those supremely associated with cleansing – can only purify the flesh. Whereas Jesus’ sacrifice purges the ‘conscience’ thus it is more effective. Ceremonial cleanness is not as valuable as a mind which has been purged.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2015 Reply to Peter
9:13-14 Notice that the writer is not saying that the sacrifices under the Law of Moses were of no value. Rather, through the holy spirit, he is making the point that if you have confidence in what you did under the Law of Moses then surely you will take hold of the more effective sacrifice of Jesus.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2017 Reply to Peter
9:15-23 Jesus’ shedding of blood is now contrasted with the beginning of the old covenant where Moses sprinkled the book of the law and the people - Exo 24:6-9– saying that whilst the “pattern” (the old Covenant) was enjoined with animal blood the new covenant was enjoined by the death of a man – making it more effective. In fact this new covenant is the means whereby sins can be forgiven and forgotten rather than brought o remembrance.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2016 Reply to Peter
9:24 Exo 24:18 shows that Moses met with God for a short period of time this is contrasted with Jesus who went to heaven, not just up into a mountain.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Peter