25:5 That Amaziah made them captains over thousands indicates that the social structure of the kingdom had fallen into decay. The captains were not simply military leaders. They were to be involved in the government of the people.

25:6  In hiring soldiers from the northern kingdom Amaziah did wrong. The prophet reproved him for that – 2Chron 25:7 – it was as if Amaziah sought strength through numbers with no regard to where his help came from. He had no regard to spiritual integrity in his allies. How are we on this matter? Are we selective about the people that we spend time with?

25:3 In waiting until the kingdom was established before killing the servants who had killed his father we can conclude that those involved in that conspiracy were a powerful group who might even have destabilised the kingdom again

25:1 Amaziah was one of the kings whose mother’s name is specifically mentioned. Though in most cases we know little or nothing about the mother at all. Maybe we are simply being reminded that the ‘seed of the woman’ was going to come and we are being taught that seed would be one of the kings of Judah.

25:7 Jehoshaphat had made the mistake of allying himself with Israel. Now another prophet warns Amaziah. Whilst Israel were not to be viewed as an enemy association with them was to be on God’s terms

2Chron 25:14 - in worshipping other Gods Amaziah lacked fidelity to God - as the bride of Christ we are to be faithful (Eph 5:27,31,32;Rev 19:7-8;Prov 31:11-12;Dan 3:16-18).

2Chron 25:15-16 - Amaziah was arrogant and too proud to be corrected - how do we respond to God's correction? - how do we respond to our brethren's correction? - how do we correct (Matt 7:1-5;2Tim 2:24-26;2Cor 13:5;Matt 18:15-17;1Cor 5:11)?

2Chron 25:16,27 - prophecy given and prophecy fulfilled.

V.16 Darius recogized Daniel's God as a god, but not the only true God. This is seen in the way he handles the situation here; I am not my own master, and cannot deliver thee,(V.14) however much as I wish it. "Thy God will" 

Contrast Daniel with Amaziah that we have just read about.  Amaziah did that which was right, but not with a perfect heart (2Chron 25:2).  But Daniel had been consistently faithful through his sojourn under Babylon and now under the Medes. 

He became captive as a young man and was now about 80 years old at the time of the lion's den incident (v.16). 

Daniel faithfully prayed towards Jerusalem in keeping with Solomon's request concerning Jerusalem and the temple (1Kin 8).  Praying three times per day was not a law but a reasonable practice.  It seems David did the same thing (Psa 55:17).

6:1  Having shown us what the men of flesh thought abut the future which had to be interpreted by God we are now shown the conflict between the things of God and things of men – The men of flesh fight against the man f the spirit.

6:22  We knew that it was Daniel’s personal faith in his God which saved him – Heb 11:33

5:31; 6:1 The Darius mentioned was Cyrus' governor Gubarus (538-536 BC), according to the historical document the Nabonidus Chronicle.  He was the son of Ahasuerus (Xerxes) (Dan 9:1). 

Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BC and died in 530 BC, about six years after Daniel died. After the death of Belshazzar, Cyrus put Darius as viceroy over the kingdom.  It should be noted that Darius is a title and not a proper name.  It was a title meaning Lord-King which was applied to many Medo-Persian kings. 

10:1 We know that Daniel was alive in the third year of Cyrus.  Don't be confused by 1:21 which is referring to the official end of the exile when Cyrus took over from Babylon.

6:28 Whilst it says here that Daniel ‘prospered’ it is clear that he had a rather chequered career as we noted in 5:11 he seems to have been overlooked. By the time of Cyrus Daniel would have been an old man.

-

6:26 That the kingdom that "shall not be destroyed" is a refrain which starts in 2:44 and is seen again in 7:14 and is contrasted with the end of ‘raiser of taxes’ – 11:20 who will be destroyed.

The world empire of Babylon had been taken over by the Medes and Persians. Darius needed to effectively govern this vast area, and decided it would be best done by 120 local rulers, all reporting to 3 top men. Daniel was the best of the top 3 (v3). Can you imagine all that power and authority? So when Darius gave thought to elevating Daniel as supreme ruler over all the others, racism and jealousy kicked in, just as it had when Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego had been promoted (2:49, 3:8,12).

Verse 6 suggests it was almost all the 122 of them that agreed to trap Daniel. Can you imagine the impossibility of Daniel governing this great empire if all his underlings were jealous and murderous against him? So God's solution was not only to save Daniel from immediate death by lions, but also to rid him of all of his accusers. Possibly every one of the 122 rulers of this empire were thrown to the lions along with their families (6:24) which must have been a spectacle that was talked about for generations. No wonder Daniel prospered from then on, now that virtually all rivals to his skills at rulership were gone (v28).

6:7 This is similar to the way in which, some years later, evil men conspired together to have Jesus condemned to death by a gentile power through the actions of Pilate. The way these men behaved is typical of Godless men – Character assassination. May we never use such ways to bring about our own aims.

5:2 When asked why they have 'kept back' part of the money they received. Peter uses a word 3557 which is only used in relation to this event and once more in Scripture Titus 2:10 where it is translated 'purloining'. Thus whilst we might think that we are not like Ananias and Sapphira we may well be. The words to Titus speak to us about how we might behave.

6:1 This is the first sign of disunity between the brethren and sisters. Here is was on racial issues. 'Grecians' were Jews who had been born of Jews living outside the land. Hebrews were those Jews born in the land. Division along national lines became a major problem in the first century, especially when the gentiles responded to the word.

5:17 There is repeated confrontation between the disciples and the Jewish leaders which is hardly surprising. Maybe if they had gone home to Galilee they would have had a quieter time. However in Jerusalem they were continuing the work that Jesus began - that of highlighting the gospel and it's implications to the leaders.

6:5 The problem was resolved by allowing the brethren who had a problem to select those who would represent them. The Greek names of those seven men highlights that they were chosen because those with the grievance felt that these men had sympathies with the problem.

5:17 We know that for 'envy' the Jews delivered Jesus to Pilate (Matthew 27:18). The same spirit is manifest here - see the margin or the RV.

ch 6 - The fact that there were 'a great company of priest' added to the faith created the situation which prompted the writing of the letter to the Hebrews - to the Jerusalem ecclesia.

5:28 The leaders had said 'his blood be upon us'(Matt 27:25) - and now the same men are complaining that Jesus blood would be on their heads!

6:121 In telling us that Stephen's opponents 'were not able to resist the wisdom ...' we learn that Jesus kept his word. For in Luke 21:15 Jesus told the disciples as much. So we see what Jesus said to the 12 had a wider application that just the 12 in the first century.

5:1 etc. In our three readings for today we have seen examples of people of varying faithfulness.  Amaziah was not wholehearted towards Yahweh and he suffered dire consequences; Daniel was wholehearted towards Yahweh and he prospered;  Ananias and Sapphira had imperfect hearts and they were eliminated.  The exhortation speaks for itself.

5:15,16,19 Brethren such as Peter were given the great power of the Holy Spirit .  It must have been difficult to exercise self-control and not be carried away with the experience.  It seems that, later, some who had gifts could not control themselves. This appears to be the case with those having the ability to speak foreign languages who had to be censured by Paul (see 1Cor 12). 

Some speaking brethren, today, have expressed how much they enjoy their speaking engagements but worry about the danger of their egos becoming involved.

5:29 Peter and the apostles express a thought that we do well to ponder.

5:38,39 Paul was as star student of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3).  If he were alive after Paul's conversion, I wonder if he would have been as conciliatory of Paul as he was of Peter and the apostles. 

5:33 The leaders, in stark contrast to the common people, on being challenged by the facts of the risen Jesus, seek to kill the disciples. The people (2:37) asked ‘what shall we do?’

6:1 Stephen was charged with caring for the widows but he is here preaching. This highlights that each of us does not just have one task in the ecclesia

Now here's an interesting thing. The body of believers had been made up of extortionists, violent men, thieves, prostitutes, adulterers, and murderers, and to all of these life had been given through faith in Christ. Compare that to Ananias and Sapphira, who lied, and died for it. It doesn't seem fair does it?

This incident was the first time since the birth of Jesus that the Spirit had killed, rather than making whole. It shocked the body of believers to the core, and caused great fear to spread to all who heard about it (5:11). Not since the days of the wilderness journey had there been such sudden and deadly judgment. So why was lying so bad, and why just now?

Ecclesiastes tells us that there is a time to kill, and a time to heal. All through the ministry of Jesus, he had resisted to judge (Luke 6:37, John 8:11,15; 12:47) but focussed instead on grace, mercy, and forgiveness. Nevertheless, he prophesied of a time when this would be different. The ministry of Jesus was to "bind up the broken hearted" and to "heal the afflicted". Men and women were afflicted in body, spirit, and mind, and this time was no time for judgment but for a proclamation of "peace, goodwill toward all men". What changed was that they killed the prince of peace and nailed him to a stake. They didn't want him. They didn't want the one who would "judge with equity the meek of the earth" (Isa 11:3-5).

Exalted now to the right hand of God, Jesus had a new ministry, and a new band of followers - those that had accepted him. Psa 149 tells us that his followers would have a dual role: "let the high praises of God be in their mouth, And a two edged sword in their hand... to execute vengeance". Rev 1:16 and Isa 11:4 tell us this is the word of Christ. The word that Jesus would now preach, through the disciples and believers, would either save or kill. To everyone who heard, the word would judge one way or the other. Life if they accepted, repented and believed (John 5:24). Death if they rejected, disbelieved and disobeyed (Acts 3:23). Jesus prophesied that it was his word that would judge (John 12:47-49). For this reason the Holy Spirit moved every word that was said by the apostles and believers. Jesus' exact words were being proclaimed. It was as if he was a great puppet master pulling the strings. The body of believers was a multitude of prophets speaking the word of the Lord (2:18, Matt 23:34).

In this context, then, we come to Ananias and Sapphira. They were believers, and so had received the Holy Spirit. They were amongst that band of prophets sent by Christ. What would happen, then, if they misrepresented Christ and lied? If the words they spoke in Jesus name were life or death to those who heard, should they be allowed to lie and misrepresent that word? Deut 18:15-20, quoted by Peter just days earlier, tells us the answer. "The prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name... that prophet shall die... the prophet has spoken it presumptuously". This sin was to be brought before the Judge and sentenced: "and all the people shall hear and fear, and no longer act presumptuously" (Deut 17:12-13, Acts 5:11).

6:10That the leaders could not resist Stephen’s wisdom is a fulfillment of Luke 21:15

5:17 We find that it was the Sadducees who had imprisoned the disciples. It was a Pharisee – Gamaliel – Acts 5:34– whose counsel prevailed. Whilst his counsel is doubtless very reasonable we should appreciate that we see a debate between those who do not believe the resurrection and those who do- Acts 23:8.

5:12 This is the second time that Solomon’s porch has been mentioned as a place where the disciples met. The first being in Acts 3:11. So even though the first occasion caused conflict with the Jewish leaders they returned. Doubtless the actions that had happened before as a consequence of their presence there was a spur to go back again. It would heighten people’s awareness of the activity of the believers.

5:29 ‘we ought to obey God rather than man’ is a far more direct response than the apostles gave earlier – Acts 4:19 – so as the opposition of the Sadducees increases the resolve of the apostles rises to match and resist the opposition.