However notice how the same word is used in 1 Chronicles 29 and Ecclesiastes 2 to speak of monetary wealth as well. (Exodus 19:5 Deuteronomy 7:6 14:2 26:18 1 Chronicles 29:3 Psalm 135:4 Ecclesiastes 2:8 Malachi 3:17 Titus 1:14 1 Peter 2:9)

V.13  We, like Israel ought to show generosity to those about us, particularly our brethren (Gal 6:10).  Unlike Israel, who had to perform this as a duty at specific times, we must act in love with no time constraints (Acts 20:35; 1Cor 13:3; 2Cor 9:7). 

V.14  It was a pagan custom to mutilate oneself for the dead (Deut 14:1).  This practice was abhorrent to Yahweh.

26:11      A timely reminder to Israel that they were to share their blessings with the Levite who had no inheritance and the stranger who by definition, did not have an inheritance. How easy it is for us to forget others when we are celebrating the good things God gives us.  We must heed the principles outlined here.

26:15 The request that God would look down from heaven … is seen to be the way in which the priests behaved – 2Chron 30:27 – in the days of Hezekiah

26:5,18          The contrast between ‘ready to  perish’ and ‘His peculiar people’ is stark though we may not see the force of the point. A people who were of no consequence are now God’s special people. He did it for Israel and He has done it for us also. 1Pet 2:9

26:19 Whilst the promise is that Israel will be ‘high’ and by implication their enemies will be low the reverse is promised – Deut 28:43– if they are unfaithful.

V.2 Do we remember the kindness of our God by bringing him the first and the best of our substance?

V.5 A Syrian ready to perish was my father (KJV).   The word was is not in the original text.  And so, this verse is considered differently by different translations. The Vulgate agrees with the Targum (Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible (Tanak) which was started about the time of the second temple).  They both say that it was the Syrian (Laban) who persecuted the father (Jacob).  The Septuagint says that the father (Abraham, then Jacob) abandoned Syria.  Both historical accounts are true.  More modern translations tend to favor the Septuagint’s understanding.

Third year of tithes

Why was is it mentioned here that the third year is the year of tithes? (v12) It's not mentioned anywhere else, and surely a tithe had to be taken every year or else the Levites would go hungry! (Deut 14:22).

26:11 Isn't it interesting that the ‘Levite’ is linked with 'the stranger' here. Naturally speaking one would have expected the people to treat them differently. Giving some sort of respect to the Levite whilst avoiding the stranger.

Song number 7 runs from Song 5:2-ch6:10. In today’s chapter the Bridegroom extols the beauty of His wife’s body. If the bride represents the saints in the Kingdom, then we see how glorious the future companions of Christ will be. We will be even better than Adam and Eve were when they were made, but in addition to that, in a sense we will have eaten of both the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and of the Tree of Life. Finally we find Song 8 in the Song 6:11-13. The Bride goes into the garden and talks to the maidens who have come to escort her to meet her husband.

6:6 In speaking of sheep that bore ‘twins’ we are being given a picture of fruitfulness. The stylised language is not describing a person but rather the attributes of that person – the risen Christ.

6:13 ‘Return’ – a plea for repentance – blends with the odour of Lebanon – Song 4:11 / Hos 14:6

6:4  ‘Trzah’ was none of the daughters of Zelophehad. She was one of the girls whose concern was for the inheritance. So it is fitting that the daughter of the  Song of Solomon bears, symbolically, her name. The bride of Christ, though having no ‘right’ to the land by legal descent, will inherit it because of her concern that her name might not be blotted out.

6:7 Pomegranates figure significantly in the tabernacle – Exo 28:23– and Solomon’s temple – 1Kin 7:18 highlighting the link between the bridegroom in the Song of Solomon and the House of God.

V.4 Tirzah means delight.  It was the name given to the youngest daughter of Zelophehad (Num 26:33).  The city of Tirzah was originally one taken from the Canaanites during the conquest of the land (Josh 12:24). In the time of Jeroboam, the city became the capital of the northern kingdom instead of Shechem (1Kin 14:17). Tirzah became well known for its beauty, and that is the reason it is compared to Jerusalem.  Today, the location of Tirzah it is not definitely known although there are several suggestions.

V.13 Shulamite means peaceful and is in effect the feminine form of Solomon.

The company of two armies (KJV) really means the dances of the two armies. This suggests an occasion of peace and celebration of two camps (armies).  The Targum explains the two camps as being Judah and Israel.

If we follow this line of reasoning, when the great marriage of the Lamb and His bride takes place (Rev 19:7), the nation of Israel will be healed (Jer 3:18, 33:14; Zech 8:13).  This will happen in the kingdom that Jesus will establish when He returns to earth.

6:5 The ‘flock of goats’ speaks of covering as in coverings of the tabernacle where goats skins were used – Exo 35:23

Acts 21 - 23 The visit to Jerusalem which is found in Acts 21 is the fourth time that the apostle has gone up to Jerusalem according to Acts. The other three visits are mentioned thus:-
1] Acts 9:26 [after his conversion]
2] Acts 11:27-30 [Paul and Barnabas take "alms" to the "brethren that dwelt in Judea"]
3] Acts 15:4 [The Jerusalem council]
We search in vain in the preceding chapters for the reason for Paul's great desire to go to Jerusalem. He knew that great trouble awaited him there. Acts 21:13 "Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus". Nevertheless he went. What was the motivation? We learn of the reason for the visit when Paul is before Felix. For he says, Acts 24:17 "Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings". This visit to Jerusalem was the culmination of a task that had been in the forefront of Paul's mind since the events recorded in Acts 11. Doubtless the journeys and places he visited on his way to Jerusalem was to advance the cause of the poor saints in Jerusalem.

ch.22 Paul is now before antagonistic Jews because brethren in Christ had sought to get him to show that he kept the law of Moses by involving him in the Nazarite vow of some men [Acts 21:20-25]. Whilst there was nothing inherently wrong in what they did their actions had a terrible consequence. From this time forward, from the details we find in Acts Paul was never a free man again. We should consider how our actions can impact on the lives of our brethren and sisters before doing anything which may be damaging to the lives of our brethren and sisters.

21:4 As the disciples 'through the spirit' said that Paul should not go to Jerusalem' was Paul resisting the Holy Spirit in continuing and going? Consider this option. The advice of the brethren contained information about what was going to happen to Paul in Jerusalem rather than a command forbidding him to go. In 16:5-7 we see the Spirit providing direction but there the Spirit 'forbad'.

22:2 The impct of Paul speaking in Hebrew is interesting. Were they unused to hearing Hebrew spoken in every day speech? The answer is probably yes. It was the language of the law. Greek was the language in general use in day to day matters.

21:29 Notice, Paul is back in the land of Israel as he is at Caesarea and he is concerned to tell the (Jewish) brethren about the response of the gentiles. He could have presented a very negative picture by speaking about the Jewish opposition. His approach was both uplifting to the brethren and served the purpose of unifying Jew and gentile in Christ.

When we could present a negative or a positive picture which do we tend to do?

22:3 When Paul said he 'was zealous toward God' his audience would doubtless remember his opposition to the early brethren so his change would have been the more powerful an indictment to them. He forces home this point by speaking about his involvement in the death of Stephen.(:20)

22:24,25,29 The Roman custom was to examine an accused man by scourging - being beaten with a many-tailed whip which had pieces of bone or metal attached to its strands.  The purpose was to elicit an admission of guilt.  (In the case of Jesus' scourging, this was not forthcoming).   A Roman official stood at the side of the man being beaten, ready to write down the utterances of the accused.  It was not legal for a Roman citizen to be scourged, and so Paul was forgiven that indignity.  One wonders, though, that a mere oral claim to Roman citizenship would get him off the hook.  Perhaps Paul, like other citizens, carried documentation (metal or wood insignia) to prove their status.

21:20 The existence of ‘many Jews’ that were ‘zealous for the law’ doubtless refers to the many priest which believed. Their presence in Jerusalem generated the need for the Latter to the Hebrews.

22:1-21 It might seem strange that Paul is relying on his personal conversion to preach the gospel however the thrust of his point is to develop the argument that he was to go and preach to the gentiles. He was not seeking conflict but rather seeking to generate ‘envy’ in the Jews that they might turn to Christ. Deut 32:21

22:3  Paul is in Jerusalem. The mention of Gamaliel would surely have caused men to prick up their ears. Gamaliel was a respected teacher in Jerusalem. One wonders what he thought about Paul’s teaching now

21:1-3 We read the journey as if it is a simple trip. We can follow it on a map. However in the first century it would have been a hazardous and time consuming journey. The ships being at the mercy of the weather in the Mediterranean which is susceptible to sudden storms.

21:5 The seeming incidental comment that they ‘kneeled’ when they prayed gives us an insight into New Testament practice also seen in Acts 9:40 Based upon Solomon’s practice – 1Kin 8:54

21:23,24 Paul had a bad reputation with Jewish brethren who still revered Moses and the law (21:20,21). He appeared to them as one who despised Moses.  The council suggested Paul ameliorate this situation by underwriting the Nazarite vow of four Jewish brethren.

Those who had taken a Nazarite vow needed to be supported by supplying the animals, oil, and flour needed for their sacrifices (Num 6:1-21).

By this act of kindness, Paul would be considered generous and supportive and show a love and respect for Moses and the Law. This would appease the discomfort of the Jewish brethren.

21:10 Agabus had already established his credentials as a prophet – Acts 11:28- However Paul was willing to accept that he would be imprisoned when he went to Jerusalem.

BUTTONS, ZIPPERS OR VELCRO

Let's measure our love for our brothers and sisters in Christ. Do we love like buttons, zippers or velcro?

Buttons are the sort of people who find it hard to make a committment to loving their brothers and sisters. They have the potential to hold together really well, especially with one or two people, but if they feel tied down or under pressure they tend to wriggle and squeeze, and finally they end up having wriggled out of their commitment, burst free or broken off all together.

Zippers are a lot more reliable. They make a strong bond with their brothers and sisters and hold them close as if nothing will move them. Their love is joined in many different ways so that one small issue is is not going to destroy the whole love, as it would with a button. But zippers can get tired and in that lies their downfall. Over time as they get tired or bored with the same-old, same-old, and like a zipper, the clasps of love can undo to an embarrassing level.

We need to aim to be Velcro's. When velcro sticks, it stays stuck. With velcro there are many hooks that bind us together in love and velcro will not let go until the very last hook has been forced apart. A velcro person is the last to leave their church on a Sunday morning because they love being with their fellow believers so much. They do not want to leave the company of brothers and sisters.

The bond between Paul and the Ephesians was a Velcro bond. It was painful to leave them them. We read "And when we had torn ourselves away from them..." (Acts 21:6) They did not want to leave and the believers in Ephesus did not want to let them go.

How does our love measure up? Are we buttons, zippers or velcro?

Have you ever been in a situation where you have given in to temptation and are heading down the wrong path, only to have God pull you out of trouble at the last minute? It happened here to Paul.

In 21:26 we see that Paul had given in to James and his persuasive words. Maybe he had rationalised it to himself in this way: "even though I know the law is of no effect in Christ, there's no harm in going back to it just this once. And besides, James is telling me to do it. And he's a pillar of the community!" So Paul had fallen. And if he had been allowed to carry out his intentions in the temple, he would never again have been able to write to the believers about freedom from the law (e.g. Gal 2:11-21). While he was in the temple a whirlwind of events overtook him. These events would bring about the end of his attempt to reconcile the Jews (and their binding law) with Christ (and freedom).

What can we learn from this? Firstly, even our elders can be wrong in what they tell us. Whilst we should give them utmost respect, we should nevertheless check what they say against scripture. Secondly, even when we make the wrong choices, Jesus can still turn things around for the better. We should trust in him and not worry too much about difficult decisions in our lives. Had Paul never made this difficult decision, he might never have ended up having quiet time in jail to write the letters we need so much for our instruction. So once Jesus had overruled Paul's decision, all things really did end up working out for good (Rom 8:27-28).