|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
1
vs. 18- 19 “divorce”
It is obvious here that Joseph had heard of the pregnancy of Mary, but
more notably he hadn’t heard of its Devine creation. If he had, it is doubtful by reading v. 24 that Joseph would have
contemplated divorce in the first place.
How
could Joseph divorce Mary when they were not even married? As was custom in those days, a betrothal or
pledge to be married fell between our modern day versions of marriage and
engagement. The marriage vows were said
at a betrothal!
Upon
hearing of Mary’s pregnancy, Joseph was faced with three different options by
Jewish law. He might have, if he so
desired, taken her as his wife as the act of divorce was only in place if he no
longer desired to marry.
The
second option was to divorce her as he was considering. Joseph could have done this publicly in the
presence of a magistrate, or more privately in the presence of two or three
witnesses. Because Joseph was a
righteous man, he felt no desire to air her disgrace publicly.
The
third option Joseph had, according to the law (Deuteronomy 22:23-29), was to
have her examined to determine whether she had been raped or consented
sexually. If done by consent she was to
be stoned, and if forced the man in question would be the one to die.
Joseph’s
character is displayed here by his willingness to consider his options and not
act rashly. As we know, Mary was not
raped and therefore taking the third option would have probably resulted in her
death (Deuteronomy 22:23 – 28) which really shows us two very important things:
1. God’s choice of Mary, because she entrusted
herself completely to His Divine will.
2. God’s choice of Mary because she was
betrothed to Joseph who was indeed a God fearing and upright man.
3. When God chose Mary it was because He has also chosen Joseph who was to
be the head and subsequently spiritual leader and teacher of the family.
2
vs. 1-12 “Magi”
Not much detail is given about the Magi except they came from the
east. Many consider Arabia to be their
place of departure on the basis that frankincense and myrrh could only be found
in Arabia. Gold is documented as being
found in Arabia (II Chronicles 9:14).
Wherever their origin, however, they followed in the footsteps of
Melchizdek and Job in that they knew of the Messiah while living outside of
Israel.
It is also worthy
of noting the difference between the Magi and the chief priests and teachers of
the law in that the priests and teachers knew the law and yet they did not
apply it to their own lives.
It
could not have been easy for the wise men to travel great distances on the sole
guidance of a star, and yet they had the diligence and faith to pursue it. Verses 9 and 10 suggest that they started
out by following the course of this star, but somewhere they lost track of it,
or why else would they call in at Jerusalem and not go straight to where Christ
was. This is a unique story of Gentile
men travelling by faith. When they saw
the star they rejoiced implicated they had not seen it for some time.
They are often
said to have been astronomers, therefore it might not be one particular star in
the sky that shone brightly as we all depict it to be. If so, why did everyone else not follow it
and remark on it – they had not seen it in Jerusalem. It could well be one of the specific stars, which all have names,
was pursing an unusual course that only an astronomer would really pick up on,
especially if the name was related to the King.
The shepherds were
alerted to the news by an angel and the wise men by a star – both in ways they
were acquainted with.
Those who truly
desire to know Christ and find Him will not regard pain or perils in seeking
after Him. Note also the reason of the
visit which was to worship Him.
Bethlehem = house of bread and here is born the Bread of Life. Also the well is nearby from where King
David treasured his water. Jesus was
the one who could give living water. In
this town of bread and water is born the one who said, “Whoever comes to me
will never be hungry and will never thirst again.”
vs. 13-15 “fleeing to Egypt”
This is somewhat of a tricky one.
Egypt for all known purposes, has been seen in the Bible as a place of
suffering for the Israelites (Exodus).
Hosea 11:1 is quoted here and the question arises whether this fulfilment
of prophecy was proper or improper.
A
proper fulfilment of prophecy occurs either literally or mystically. In a literal proper fulfilment of prophecy,
the exact event comes to pass. Isaiah
7:14 is exactly fulfilled in Matthew 1:23.
A proper mystical fulfilment occurs when a type is significant of
someone or something else. An example
of this is found in Exodus 12 concerning the Passover lamb. This lamb is a type of Christ’s self and
death.
An
improper fulfilment occurs when there is an occurrence that bears proportion to
something similar that has already occurred in the Scriptures. An example of this occurs when Christ uses
Isaiah’s words in Matthew 15:7-8 to describe the hypocrites in his situation
where in actual fact, Isaiah was using them to describe the people in his
situation (Isaiah 29:13).
Egypt had always
been a place of idolatry, tyranny and enmity to the people of God. It is also a type of the world, and yet was
used by God here for refuge. What a
test of faith for this couple to go down into Egypt with a baby, to a different
culture, language, religion and people group.
They would be in the world and yet separate from it as they walked by
faith and not by sight.
The
question remains whether Hosea 11:1 is a proper or an improper prophecy of
Christ being taken to Egypt. What seems
to be the case – although this is always open to discussion – is that the
Israelites going into an coming out of Egypt was a type of Christ’s going into
and coming out of Egypt. Essentially,
there are no straightforward answers to this one except to not that once again,
Joseph obeyed God and fled to Egypt.
Something
that may be of note is that Joseph and family were not the only ones to flee to
Egypt. Jeroboam also fled to Egypt to
escape Solomon (I Kings 11:40).
3
v. 9 “sons of Abraham”
The Jews rested a lot on their lineage from Abraham (John 8:39). This meant that they thought they were
entitled to the covenant in Genesis 17.
They believed that because they were God’s chosen race God could not
destroy them, as His promise of a seed through Abraham would not be
fulfilled. John destroys their cocoon
of security by informing them that if God so desired, He could create a seed
from stones.
4
v. 5 “holy city”
The holy city is another name for Jerusalem (Daniel 9:24-25), which
although an impure city, it was the only one to know of and worshipped (at
least some of them) the one true God
v. 17 “the kingdom of heaven”
Matthew is writing predominantly for the Jews and as the Jews never wrote
out the word God, Mathew substitutes heaven for it instead.
5
v. 1 “Jesus sat down”
Although in our culture sitting down in front of an audience is seen as
being informal, the opposite applied in the days of Jesus. He Jesus sits down to signify a formal
statement. Jesus was mentioned to have
sat at several important events (Matthew 13:2, 23:2, 24:3; Mark 9:35).
vs. 29-30 “gouging eyes and chopping hands”
This is not an example that was given to the people as something that
they should carry out to the letter, but was used to signify that the removal
of things that caused sin was necessary.
Colossians 3:5 states these as the deeds of the body and Romans 8:13
adds the sins of lust. The eye and hand
are the external commands of what the heart chooses and so, in reality, if we
were to take this verse literally, the heart is the root and should therefore
be the first to go. The danger,
therefore is what our heart desires as it controls the rest of the body.
This is also an
interesting in the context of lust which starts in the heart, but by the eye
seeing (A good example of course is David as well as John 1:16). It behoves us to beware how we dress also
(The devil tempts to sin, but men commit the sin.)
6
vs. 16-17
“sombre fasting”
In order to receive sympathy and
recognition from others for their sacrifice, the hypocrite was seen to be
sombre and tended to make it plainly obvious by facial expressions that they
were suffering.
We’ve seen it all
before whether it is a child who waits until someone is watching before crying
to attain sympathy or adults who appear sorrowful and downcast to attain
support and sympathy. Jesus, however,
tells the people that this is not the way to go and instructs them to do the
opposite in vs. 17-18. Our reward is
infinitely greater as we know that this is done, not for the commiserations and
respect of men, but to the glory of God and our own eternal reward (v. 4).
Fasting is not just food. We deny ourselves all kinds of activities
and pleasures when God calls us to some specific task or service. It can also be corporate as in Acts 13.
Fasting when it requires a spectator is nothing more than
acting. It is both hypocritical and
ironic in that they fast, but are proud of it.
7
vs. 1-5
“judging”
Now, this seems to be a favorite Scriptural saying of some people ‘judge not lest ye be judged’. Many times those who quote the Scripture, "judge not", are themselves judging the people who take a more strict stand on some type of behavior than they themselves do. They don't want anyone to tell them what is right and wrong, but they turn right around and imply that the one who is supposedly judging them is in the wrong. This is self contradictory, because they are "judging" the very one that they accuse of "judging".
One word for "judge",
"krino", is used in various ways in the New Testament. In
Matthew 7:1, it is used to mean "pronounce judgment; to subject to
censure" (Thayer's Lexicon). It is a critical, faultfinding, judgmental
attitude, or spirit, that Jesus condemns. In other places "krino"
means "to pronounce an opinion concerning right and wrong" (Thayer's
again). Jesus uses this meaning in John 7:24, where he actually tells His
hearers to "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous
judgment." He is telling them to use their judgment in a righteous
manner.
When Jesus said, "Judge not",
He was addressing hypocritical religionists who judged others while they
themselves were guilty of far worse than those whom they were judging.
"Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest:
for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest
doest the same things." (Romans 2:1).
In James 4:11, we see that again the type
of judging which is condemned is the kind that is practiced by those who do not
keep the law of God. Furthermore, this
wrong kind of judging is itself contrary to the law of God. It brings
condemnation upon the one who wrongfully judges another. James says that if we
become judges then we are not doers of the law. But it is the doers of the law, not the judges, whom God will
judge to be right in the end. "For
he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth
against judgment." (James 2:13).
No matter how much a person may pride
himself with "I never judge anybody.", everyone who has his mental
faculty makes judgments much of the time. Whether or not these judgments
are expressed is another thing, which James strongly implies by the words
"speaketh evil". Many times it is what we say, how we say it,
and with what motives that determines whether we are guilty of the type of
judging that the Bible forbids. It is usually better to say nothing at
all than to say the wrong thing and perhaps to never be able to repair all the
damage caused. "Thou hypocrite,
first cast out the beam" (a "stick of timber, or a pole" --
Strong's Greek Dict.) "out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see
clearly to cast out the mote" (twig or straw -- Strong's again) "out
of thy brother's eye." (Matthew 7:5).
We can certainly help one another, but
some of those to whom Jesus was speaking were guilty of far worse than some of
the outward "transgressions" about which they were judging
others. They were guilty of lack of love, lack of mercy, lack of proper
judgment (ability to discern between right and wrong). After we get the
major problems in ourselves repaired, we can "see clearly" to truly
help our brother with pure motives of love, mercy, and true judgment
It is important not to miss-interpret
this passage for what it is. It is not
possible to consider v. 1 without the rest of the passage as if it were, then
the Bible would contradict itself. It
does so in that we are to judge ourselves (I Corinthians 11:31), and we are to
“prove all things” (I Thessalonians 5:21) and “test the spirits” (I John
4:1). This Scripture does not mean that
we are not to judge others either as if this were so, no believer in Christ
could hold the position of judge or any related position.
What are
forbidden by these few verses are the rash judgments that we so often
make. An example of this type of
judgment is seen in Matthew 26:8-9 concerning the disciples judgment of the
woman who anointed Jesus.
Another judgment that is forbidden is
the judgment of peoples or beliefs that are alien to our own and perhaps
contradict what we think to be correct (Romans 14:1-3).
In conclusion to this passage, in simple
terms, would be that judgment should not occur outside of what Scripture
dictates. If a believer errs according
to the Scriptures, then it is our duty to show them. What should be a grave concern, however, is that we do not have
the right to judge without first both prayer and the consultation of
Scripture. No matter whether right or
wrong, our warning comes in vs. 3-5.
Remember that if there’s a plank in your eye, then you must be looking
extremely close to even see a speck in the eye of someone else.
We are to judge sin (II Corinthians 5),
but not the motives of people or their hearts as that is God’s prerogative
(James 4:11 – 12).
v. 6 “dogs and
pigs”
What this verse relates to is the
behaviour of some people to the hearing of the Word of God. Although we are commanded to preach to every
creature (Mark 16:15), our conduct and declaration should be tempered to the
people we are in contact with. There is
danger in sometimes outwardly declaring our beliefs and often this can lead not
to repentance but to the hardening of hearts (Proverbs 9:8; I Samuel 25:17;
Acts 19:9).
This is not an
excuse for us to remain silent as we so often do, but is a simple warning that
there are times when it is better to let things drop than cause someone to
completely reject the message of the Truth.
Unclean creatures do not take kindly to
holy things. They will resent what is
precious too. Hardened scorners (Psalms
1) will not receive spiritual truths or reproofs of instruction. However in the context of judgement it is
not our place to condemn, or determine whom these are. We need to be careful and cautious – “many a
patient is lost by being thought to be so.”
8
v. 4 “don’t tell
anyone”
The question arises whether Jesus
meant for the man not to say anything, or only declare the miracle bestowed on
him after having showed himself to the priest.
It seems likely that Jesus meant for the man not to say anything at all
because he commands the same thing to other people in Matthew 9:30; 12:16;
17:9. Why would Jesus do this? Either Jesus did this to demonstrate His own
glory or Christ did not feel it was time to publicly declare Himself by His
miracles. It is said that He didn’t
want the word to reach the priests before they saw him.
Whatever the
reasoning behind it, Jesus commands the man to offer the gift Moses commanded to
demonstrate to the man that his healing was God’s doing. He had to show himself in order to
participate in temple worship and ordinary life again (having been an outcast
from society).
This could have depended
on the location of the person. Legion,
for example, was told to go and tell, but he was on the other side of the
lake. Those in connection with Judea
were told not to as it was to be by the Word and Miracles of Christ Himself and
not man (Acts 2:22), which is why He also forbade the demons to declare Himself
to others.
v. 12 “subjects
of the kingdom”
Quite simply put, many of those
that were considered heathen would be welcomed to the feast and many of the
Jews will be rejected (Matthew 7:21-23).
Matthew presents Jesus as the King of
the Jews – they thought the Kingdom was for a nation. Christ starts to show them He will be rejected by the Jews (John
1:11-12), but it is a matter of the heart and inward, not the outward as He
shows to the Pharisees many times. Salvation comes by faith, not our parentage. Note that standing denotes going and sitting
denotes staying.
These two verses tell a lot about
human nature. Anyone reading these
verses literally would consider Jesus to be harsh not allowing someone to bury
their father, but it is important to understand the context. The fact that the man sets no specific time
to his duties would suggest that his father was not yet dead. In other word the man is setting his own
agenda before the work of Jesus. Our
duty is first God then man.
It is said that burial took place on the
actual day of the death so if the father had literally died we know that a
compassionate Christ would not have called him to come instantly. Can we trust Christ with our families? This is about not being prepared to follow
Christ when He calls. Children are
known to frequently die before their parents, and therefore he may never live
even to do Christ’s bidding.
9
v. 24 “asleep”
The question arises as to whether the child
was actually dead or asleep. Sleeping
is often used in the Bible as a substitute for death (I Kings 14:20; John
11:11; Acts 7:60; I Corinthians 15:6,18; II Peter 3:4). Jesus also could have said this to diminish
the working of His miracle to lower to stir He was creating. Although this seems unlikely, we have
already seen His commands to people to remain silent following their
healing. The other sense in which He
might have said it was in their unbelief of what He could do in that He was the
resurrection and the life (John 11:23-25).
Therefore in a sense Jesus might have been saying that her soul was not
yet dead because it was He who is the resurrection and the life.
When we are the Lord’s we are not
separated Romans 8:38 – 39. We are born
dead (Ephesians 2:1), but are made alive in Christ who quickens our spirits.
There are many today in body, but they are dead. There are many who have died, and yet they live. It’s one of those spiritual paradoxes that
make sense to those who have experienced life in Christ.
10
v. 14 “shaking
the dust”
This act was a sign that stemmed
from the Old Testament. The shaking of
the robes or feet was seen as an act of “laissez faire” so to speak in that the
person involved would have nothing more to do or say about the matter in
question (Nehemiah 5:13). This later
actually happened in both Acts 13:51 and Acts 18:6. This is somewhat similar to the command in Matthew 7:6 in that
some people are better left alone than stirred up.
They were not even to carry the dust
from that city with them when they left.
It was a dissociation of their guilt and coming judgement with the
people there – rather they were left to the judgement and wrath of God upon
them.
11
vs. 12-14 “the
Elijah”
God had told the Jews in Malachi
4:4-5 that He would send Elijah. It was
believed by the teachers of the Law that Elijah would come again before the
Messiah, but they mistakenly believed that he would come in the form of a
person. This, however, was not the case
as he came “in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17). The disciples later understood that it was
in fact John the Baptist that fulfilled the role of Elijah (Matthew 17:9-13).
12
v. 1 “picking
grain”
What seems to be the case at first is that Jesus and His disciples
were stealing grain from someone else’s field.
Jewish law, however, permitted this, as long as the grain was hand
picked (Deuteronomy 23:25). This is
supported by the statements of the Pharisees who did not accuse Jesus of
stealing, but of violating the Sabbath.
v. 32 “the Son
of man and the Holy Ghost”
What seems straightforward in this
passage is the willingness of Christ to forgive sins following repentance and
faith in Him. What creates much more
difficulty is the following comment that those who speak against the Holy
Spirit will not be forgiven.
What sin against the Holy Spirit would
cause this comment from Christ? Mark
3:30 adds to the story by informing us that the people believed He had an
unclean spirit. They completely
revolted against their own consciences, having seen the miraculous work of
Jesus for the good of man, by declaring Him to be of the devil and in the power
of the devil.
This is indeed a
serious offence and is punished in such a light. What seems to appear from this
passage is that there are different degrees of sin. Offences that are caused by ignorance will not be punished as
highly as those that are made completely in light of the Truth.
This is supported
in other parts of the Scripture. Hebrew
6:4-6 tells of the seriousness of choosing to remove their lives from the
protection of Christ. (For a more
detailed analysis of this passage refer to the Hebrews section.)
This is an
extremely hard passage to both explain and understand, but its significance is
evident even today. There are many
Christians who will understand the situation of a friend or member of the
family who understand the Gospel, and yet they become hardened to the Truth. Biblically, there is also examples of those
who had a clear knowledge and deliberately rejected Christ. Pharaoh, Saul, Ahab and Judas Iscariot are
just but a few.
Blasphemy against Christ was forgiven as
with Paul who was a blasphemer. (1 Timothy 1:13). This passage was the actual rejection of Christ and the Kingdom
He came to establish as He offered it to them.
They claimed that His power was demonic (v.24) which was utter nonsense
of course (vs. 26 – 27) and here we read of the Kingdom Offer in verse 28, but
this was an evil generation. (v. 34).
In context they denied the power of
Christ, which was nothing less than the Holy Spirit at work amongst them. We know that Christ was empowered by the
Spirit, led by the Spirit and lived a Spirit filled (controlled) life. However, this generation rejected Him and
this generation even crucified Him.
Today we have to believe that “Whosoever will” means just that and
whosoever will may be saved and leave the judgement of hearts with our Lord,
the Righteous Judge who knows even the intents of each heart.
v. 42 “the Queen of the South”
The story of the Queen of Sheba
is found in I Kings 10:1-30 and II Chronicles 9:1-12. Jesus here is telling the story of a queen who, because she had
heard of the fame and wisdom of Solomon, sought him out in person to hear his
discourse. Jesus condemns the Jews
because of the fact that He is greater than Solomon and yet they would not seek
the Truth that Jesus imparts. Because
of this great unbelief, Jesus says, the queen of Sheba will rise at the Day of
Judgment as a witness against them and condemn them.
They did not seek either truth or wisdom
as did the Queen of Sheba from Solomon and found much more than she ever
thought or dreamed of!
Nineveh would
shame them for not repenting and the Queen of Sheba for their unbelief.
13
vs. 44-46
“hidden treasure and the pearl”
Jesus uses these two small
parables to say a great deal about entering the kingdom of heaven. Anyone that finds something of value will
use his or her utmost ability to possess it.
Jesus suggests that entrance to the kingdom of heaven needs to be
purchased. Isaiah 55:2-3 claims that
this salvation cannot be bought with money.
For a transaction to occur, however, parting with something that someone
else wants is necessary. Our parting
with our sin is traded with God’s grace allowing us access to the kingdom of
heaven counting everything as loss so as to win Christ (Philippians 3:8).
14
v. 1 “tetrarch”
A tetrarch is a government of
four. Herod was the tetrarch of Galilee
and Perea. Luke 3:1 lists all four
leaders.
v. 25 “fourth
watch of the night”
The fourth watch of the night was
about three hours before sunrise (3am to 6am).
The Jews at one time separated the night into three four-hour segments,
but this changed with the arrival of the Romans. The Romans used four three-hour segments called “watches” because
they were designed for the military.
15
vs. 21-28 “to
every creature”
At first glance this passage
indicates the unwillingness of Jesus to help the Gentiles. As the Jews believed that the Messiah should
be only applicable to them, the disciples were annoyed by her pleas and asked
Jesus to send her away. Jesus had
already refused to answer her and this time He told her that His duty was to
the Jews. By this time the disciples
must have been delighted to see the point blank refusal by Jesus to help the
woman. Verse 26 completes the refusal
by stating that it was not right to take the children’s bread (God’s blessings
on the Jews) and toss it to their dogs (“Dogs” was a standard epithet that the
Jews used for the Gentiles). Somehow,
the woman must have understood what Jesus was trying to accomplish and
responded to His refusal. Jesus tells
her that she has great faith and rewards her by healing her daughter.
Was Jesus merely
being fickle by refusing a woman’s request three times and then giving in to
her? There is a purpose to this story
and it stems from the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 22:16-18. Through the ages, the Jews had forgotten the
fact that God had promised that all
nations would be blessed through Abraham.
This passage was an attempt by Jesus to break down the barrier placed by
tradition to the rejection of the Jews.
Jesus did not merely remember that the Jews were to preach to all
nations (Matthew 28:19) as a final thought before leaving. Jesus, on closer inspection of His life,
mixed with many races in order to teach the disciples that He came not only for
them, but also as a Saviour to the world.
There are many references to Jesus’ witness to all people, but here are
a few: Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 2:30-32; Luke 4:24-28; Luke 10:30-34; Luke
17:11-19.
There is more than one
word for dogs and the one used here (kunaria) is not the usual one for wild and
scavenging, roaming dogs, but the one denoting a little dog or puppies as in
the home.
Remember as always that with Matthew
Jesus is portrayed as King of the Jews and coming to offer the Kingdom to
Israel (who rejected it). The woman
recognised him as the Messiah, “Son of David,” and exercised her great faith in
her response that yes, He was the Messiah, but yet she would still receive
benefit and blessing as the dogs do under the table.
16
v. 4 “the sign
of Jonah”
The sign of Jonah was used here
by Jesus as a type of Himself. The
ordeal of Jonah compares with the trials faced by Jesus.
According to the Catholics, this
is where record of the infallibility of the Pope is written. Bear in mind that although many people think
otherwise, the Pope’s infallibility occurs only….
These passages
have caused a lot of confusion and arguments in the world, so it’s important to
try and rationalize what’s actually going on here. Bear in mind, however, that man does the interpretation of these
verses and their opinions may therefore be flawed.
It is important
to bear in mind that Jesus did not ask these questions in vs. 13-15 to Peter
alone but to all His disciples and therefore although directing v. 18 at Peter,
He actually was speaking to all of them.
Jesus says in v
18 that He would build His church “on this rock”. There are two main views to this passage.
Does this actually mean that Peter would
be the foundation on which Christ’s church would be built? It might be that in a sense Peter was the
rock on which the church was built because it was he who first begun the
workings of the church in both the Jewish community (Acts 2) and the Gentile
community (Acts 10). This is highly,
however, that Peter would be the “rock” as presented by Christ, as Peter was a
child of Adam and therefore a sinner and like us all, flawed. If this were what Jesus meant then it would
have been more likely for Jesus to say, “on you I will build my church” instead
of “this rock”.
The second opinion is that the “rock”
was referring to Christ. Because the Bible
does not always give the actions of speakers it is sometimes hard to interpret
them. Christ could easily have pointed
at Himself when He made this statement but we can’t say for sure. There are many verses, which refer to Christ
as the foundation of the church (I Corinthians 3:11; I Peter 2:6).
Something also worth mentioning is that
in the Greek, Petros means stone and petra means rock. Would
Jesus really build the whole church on someone in v. 22 is defined by Jesus as
an agent of Satan?
Verse 19 has
caused even more controversy through the centuries. Does this mean that Peter was given the power to admit souls to
heaven; hardly likely as Revelation 1:18 states that Christ holds the keys. What seems to be the case here is that Jesus
is giving them the keys to the gospel.
There are other keys mentioned in the Bible: key of government, Luke
11:52; key of the house of David, Isaiah 22:21. It seems that He gave them to Peter because he was the first to
realize the necessity of preaching to the Gentiles (Acts 10:28). Note that it says, “I will give” and not
“have”. These gifts were given after
His ascension (Ephesians 4:8). They were
also not given solely to Peter (John 20:21-22).
In conclusion,
therefore, what seems to be the case is that Jesus promised them the key to
heaven “the Holy Spirit” which would help them to govern and guide the church
of Christ.
17
v. 3 “Moses and
Elijah”
For a look at the possible
significance of Moses and Elijah refer to my commentary on Genesis 5:24.
An Interesting Thought Here: Moses had
died but Elijah had not so some thing this also represents the messianic
Kingdom and the two groups who will return with Christ, namely those who have
died (now resurrected) and those who yet lived (were translated) whilst the disciples
on earth represent those who will be on earth and the time of the 2nd
Advent.
v. 27
“offensive”
This is a pre-cursor to I
Corinthians 9-10. Although Jesus could
argue that He did not need to pay taxes, He does so as to not cause
offence.
18
v.10 “their
angels”
Some have thought that this means
that each child, if not everyone, is given a special angel, or guardian angel
so to speak. The verse is a general
one, however, in that it states “their angels” not “their respective angels” or
something similar. We do know that
angels are commanded to guard us (Psalm 91:11) and what seems to be apparent is
that there are angels in heaven responsible to act out God’s will in relation
to these children (Acts 12:15 and Hebrews 1:4).
v. 19 “granting of
requests”
I John 5:14 explains in better
detail the purpose of this verse. God
is more than willing to answer our prayers on the condition that it is
according to His will. If I myself pray
for something, it might be done according to my own will. This needs to be kept in its context =
Church Discipline. He will honour the
prayerful decisions of the gathered body of Christ. Church discipline is handled by more than one person and must be
accompanied by prayer (James 5:16).
It does state
that whatever we ask for will be done for us.
The obvious question arises, therefore, of why we don’t see answers to
our prayers. If we know it’s within
God’s will then surely it’s only fair to be answered. Caution is here advised because we cannot claim to understand the
purpose of events in our lives and we, unlike God, are imperfect and may never
see the answers to our prayers. One
day, however, we will see how God controlled lives and situations for the
glorification of His name (1 John 5:14)
v.34 “torture?”
One question
that I have here which doesn’t seem logical at all is how could the man pay
back the money he owed when he was “handed over to the tormentors”?
Another thought is looking at the word
tormentors (basanistai), which comes from the verb basanizo, which is used of
sickness. Thus God allows sickness and adverse circumstances to be the
tormentors (Matthew 4:24, 8:6, I Corinthians, 11:30 – 32, and II Peter 2:8 – in
relation to Lot).
Note that this story follows the passage
and context of church discipline with a believing brother sinning, thus the
need for forgiveness as Peter asked – how many times?
20
vs. 1-16
“economical sense”
This parable completely lacks
economical sense but this was not the point Jesus was trying to put
across. What He was trying to teach was
that grace, unlike money, is not distributed according to the individual or
work done, but as a gift from God that anyone at anytime can receive. Therefore someone like the robber on the
cross could receive the benefits of grace as much as someone like Moses who
trusted God for nearly all of his life.
When we get a grasp of this story we
just begin to have an insight into God’s Grace. Note that they all had the same wage to meet the same need = a
day’s wage that would provide food for their family. When each man arrived home there was a family to be fed, from the
first to the last. Thus each one was
able to put food on the table that night.
21
v. 7 “the
donkeys”
Compare this verse with Mark
11:7. Somewhere a donkey goes missing
from the scene. Not really missing
actually as the ass was brought along with the donkey to quieten the colt,
which had never been ridden upon before (and it is undisputed that Jesus would
ride upon the colt). Zechariah 9:9 is the prophecy and other gospels would
consider the ass unimportant – it was the colt that was significant as being
the very first time of riding it.
v. 12 “anger in
the Temple”
Many scholars consider the area
that Jesus entered to be what is known as the court of the Gentiles. This court was designed especially to remind
the Jews of their obligation to the Gentiles as set out in the Abrahamic
Covenant (Genesis 22:16-18). This was
the only area that foreigners or God-fearing Gentiles could worship.
Originally, the
selling of animals for sacrifices, if this actually occurred, was taken place
outside the Temple precinct. The
natural instinct of the businessman, however, is to try and find an advantage
to increase sales. As this particular
courtyard was used for Gentiles, being lesser people, why not use it to get
closer to the action and increase sales?
Jesus, upon
seeing this, was furious and drove them all out. He taught that God’s temple would be a house of prayer for all
nations (Mark 11:17) as a justification for His actions (Isaiah 56:3,6,7). Jesus did not only drive out the
moneychangers not only to defend the sanctity of the Temple, but to defend the
rights of the Gentiles to worship the One true God.
It’s interesting to note who followed
Him into the temple after this, namely the blind, the lame and the children.
22
vs. 1-14 “the
Gentiles”
Once again Jesus uses a parable
to demonstrate the unwillingness of the Jews to proclaim Him their king. They reject Him and therefore, as a
consequence, the Gentiles are welcomed to the banquet feast and the Jews are
shunned. He continues in this vein in
Matthew 23:33-38.
v. 30 “like the
angels”
There are two things in which we
will be like the angels. Only one
similarity is found in Matthew but both are found in Luke 20:27-40. The first is that we shall not die anymore
and the second is that we will not marry or be given in marriage.
23
v. 5 “the
phylactery” Worn as a literal translation
of Exodus 13:16
The phylactery was a small box made
of leather that contained portions of the Law.
(Exodus 13:2 – 10, 11 – 17 also Deuteronomy 6: 4 – 9, and 11: 13 – 22.)
There were four fringes to the garments as set out by Numbers 15:37-40 and
Deuteronomy 22:12. The fringes were to
remind them of the commandments of the Lord when they saw them. The Pharisees took it upon themselves to
make the fringes and phylacteries broader than other men so that they may be
seen more readily. This is what Jesus
attacks in this verse.
25
vs. 1-13 “the ten
virgins”
This parable was told as a
continuation of the warning Jesus gave in chapter 24 about the suddenness of
the coming of Christ.
It is important,
in all parables, to understand the customs behind them or it is easy to draw
the wrong conclusions. Weddings in this
day and age were held at night hence the need for lamps. Usually, as was the custom, young virgins
were selected to attend to the bride and young males attended the bridegroom
(Mark 2:19; John 3:29). Unlike Western
custom today, the bride waited for the bridegroom. Upon his arrival, the women attending the bride would go out to
meet him with their lamps to guide and his companions into the house. Upon entering, the door was closed and the
wedding commenced.
Now it is not
difficult to understand what Jesus is trying to imply here. Whether the ten virgins represent the church
as a whole or its individual members or the Jewish remnant in the Tribulation
is not important.
This is a warning to those who believe
that they can survive on what they have.
We know not when Christ will return, and as such, we need to continually
make sure that our lamp for Christ remains lit and shines for when He returns.
vs. 31-46 “a
completely different viewpoint”
The key difference between the
sheep and the goats is that the sheep took care of people regardless of who
they were. The goats, however, looked
only to help those who would reward them.
The Son of Man saw this and for this reason He condemns them. “For whatever you did for the least of these
brothers, you did for me” vs. “For
whatever you did not do for one of these, you did not do for me.” (vs. 40+45).
Another completely different viewpoint
is relating to Israel & the Millennial Kingdom. The Tribulation is to prepare Israel for her Messiah and the
nations for coming judgement. The two
aspects of judgement here imply Israel as individuals, and the nations. There is no mention of the church here (Dan.
9:25 – 27 comes to notice) and the sheep and goats are distinct from the
brethren. There are many Tribulation
Passages such as Deuteronomy 4:30, Daniel 2:1, Jeremiah 25: 32-22, Joel 3:102,
Ezekiel and so on.
26
v. 56 “trials”
“Then all the disciples deserted
Him and fled.” It interesting to note
that in the relative safety of a room full of friends, they all swore their
allegiance to Christ (v. 35). But when
trials came they fled. We must not
condemn them for their actions, however, because in their situations we would
have probably done the same. What must
be accredited to them is that following their persecution and Christ’s
resurrection, they returned to Him and preached the gospel of Christ’s
death. There are many times when we
might run from situations and although it is better to face them, we are all
the more humbled when we return to Christ for forgiveness.
Note that in v.35 Peter said that he
would not deny Christ, “likewise said ALL the disciples!”
v. 57 “Caiaphas” Son-in-law of the deposed Annas
According to the Law laid out by
God in the desert, the high priest was to be a descendant of Aaron, but this
had changed as now high priests were chosen annually with the Romans having a
large say in who was elected. The
integrity of Caiaphas must be questioned, as it was his view that someone
needed to die for the people (John 18:14).
27
v. 32 “Simon the
Cyrene”
It’s worthy of noting that it was
not Simon’s choice to carry the cross as often depicted in films or stories,
but he was forced to do so. The cross
was an extremely heavy object and therefore is seems that Simon carried the
base of the cross as opposed to Jesus carrying it by Himself as suggested by
some (Luke 23:26).
v. 44 “the
thieves”
Luke 23:39-43 further expands on
this occurrence. The contrast between
the two thieves is astonishing. One, in
his anger and hatred, blames Jesus for everything while the other recognizes
the innocence of Jesus and believes in the power of Christ to save
sinners.
This key
happening has been a huge stumbling block for those who believe that it is by
good works that man is accepted into paradise.
In a mere two sentences this robber goes from being the worst of sinners
to being a sinner saved by grace. No
matter how far away someone goes from Christ, the same can occur for him or her
also.
v. 51 “the torn
curtain”
Although many people know the
significance of the torn curtain it is a key moment in time. The high priest, once a year, was the only
person allowed into the Most Holy Place.
By the destruction of the curtain (top to bottom signifying it was not
done by man) God broke tradition and made access to Himself available to
everyone – both Jew and Gentile (Hebrews 10:19-20). Imagine, if you will, the effect this would have had on the
teachers of the Law and priests at the time (Acts 6:7).
vs. 52-53
“resurrection of the holy people”
This is indeed a strange story
which only Matthew mentions. What is
the case from these two verses is that this did not occur until after Christ
had risen also. Although not many
conclusions can be drawn from this brief abnormality, it does show His complete
victory over death and that the resurrection of Christ not only saved those who
have lived since His death but also those before it (Hebrews 13:8).
There were many Old Testament
resurrections so the time is not so important, or what happened to them. It would be recorded for us if it were. Christ is the first fruits in that while all
others died again He never did (We call them resurrections, but they were
really healings for they did eventually die. Jesus, on the other hand ever
lives). Of course these here may not
have died again – there are all kinds of theories as to whom they were and this
particular time is thought to probably be the visible demonstration of
Ephesians 4:8-9. The most important thing is that it validated the complete
victory over death!
v. 62 “okay for
some, not for others”
The chief priests and Pharisees,
in their own fear of Christ, made final their own hypocrisy by breaking their
own Sabbath laws.
Even here there are disputes about what
day it is. Some people think that yes,
they were meeting about this on the Sabbath while others think that the
preparation day (as mentioned John 19:14, 31) was the one before the Passover
Feast. It depends on how you count the
three days and nights (Matthew 12:40).
What is interesting is that they took
His words seriously in this if not in anything else.
28
vs. 2-4; 11-15
“running from the truth”
This is indeed a sad account of
the willingness of the guards to cover up the most amazing event that they would
ever see. Out of fear and greed they
were willing to shut out a miraculous event that could have changed their lives
into eternal joy and wealth.
If they had been asleep how would they
have known what happened? Talk about
being found out in your own lie. It
they had been asleep for sure they would have been punished by the governor and
not bribed to be silent to appease him.
People do anything for money, but this is interesting in that they would
lose their integrity, after all who wants to employ sleeping soldiers? It is also sad that those who were told
feared men and not God – what unbelief.
vs. 18-20 “the
great commission”
In these final three verses Jesus
declares three things; His own power and authority, the delegation of power,
and His own promise to be with us forever.
What more can be said?
