9:7-9 In quoting Deuteronomy Solomon, by the Spirit, I showing Israel how that the words of Moses have been fulfilled in their lives because of their faithlessness. This, then became an exhortation and warning for the future.

(v1). See 2Sa 5:11, 1Ki 5:1-2, 7-8, 10. I suggest his unhappiness at these 20 cities (one for each year of his service to Solomon v1) was not because of any shortcoming in the cities but because he saw them as implying ‘payment for services rendered’, service which had been readily and freely given out of love for David and his God. Now see Ps 105:18 where the same Heb. word cabul’ [03525] is translated as ‘fetters’ [03521] which had been applied to Joseph when in Egypt.

Hiram sees these cities as ‘fetters’ binding him as a slave to Solomon. So, as you cannot refuse a gift of cities, he sends Solomon payment for them, he is no longer under obligation. For all Solomon’s wisdom he was not always good at ‘man-management’ and could cause offence. We must too learn to read peoples feelings and motives.

9:24  Solomon showed an odd mixture here. Whilst he built a house for the daughter of Pharaoh he realised that she did not really have any part in the things of God. Hence he located her house outside the city of david for that very reason 2Chron 8:11.

9:5 In saying that He would "establish the throne of thy kingdom" God is reminding Solomon of the promise that He had made to David – 2Sam 7:12.

Vs.3,5 Yawheh promised two things that would last forever:

(1) The temple in which He placed His Name (v.3).

(2) The throne promised to David (v.5).

Jesus is the temple (John 2:19-21); and He will reign on David's throne when He returns (Luke 1:32).

However, Jesus' personal role as living temple and king is limited.  After the Kingdom Age is completed, all things will revert to Yahweh (1Cor 15:25-28).  

Yahweh is the ultimate king, the one rejected by Israel (1Sam 8:7).  His Name, placed in His Son, shall also live on in His chosen saints (the Redeemed) through the Kingdom Age and beyond (Rev 14:1).

9:11-13        It might seem that Hiram was displeased with the cities that Solomon had given him because they were of little value. However there is another view that we can take of Hiram’s attitude. He had willingly helped Solomon build the temple and his men had been paid what Hiram felt was appropriate – 1Kin 5:6  

-          Further the cities, being in the land of Israel, were part of what God had defined as His kingdom. Hiram, understanding this and being content with the payment he had received reproves Solomon for his behaviour. So Hiram is criticising Solomon’s behaviour rather than disdaining the worth of the cities.

9:3 Whilst the house was built according to the pattern given David and the promise was that Solomon would build the house there was to be no presumption that God was obligated to sanctify it. His willingness to accept the work of Solomon is an indication of God’s grace towards Solomon and the nation of Israel.

Vs.4-9 Yahweh shows the blessings of obedience in vs.4,5.  And, He shows what curses will result from disobedience in vs.6-9.  Notice, Yahweh spends twice as long emphasizing the curses than He does in outlining the blessings.  This is a consistent pattern that Yahweh uses to punctuate the gravity of disobeying Him.  For example, in the famous chapter of blessings and curses, Deuteronomy 28, you will notice that the curses are twice as long as the blessings.

V.15 This verse is much clearer in the ESV than in the KJV.  The levy (KJV) was not a monetary tax, as some suppose.  It was forced labor (ESV).

 In order to have his construction projects fulfilled, Solomon needed lots of labor.  And so, he drafted workers.  This forced labor amounted to 30,000 men, about 2% of the population (1Kin 5:13).

Vs.16,17 Gezer was captured by Joshua and given to the Levites (Josh 21:20,21). At some point, subsequently, the city reverted to Canaanite hands.

V.26 Eloth should not be confused with present-day Eilat.  At the time of Solomon, the Sea reached much further inland than it does today.  

The port of Ezion-geber (meaning man’s backbone) was probably situated about 10-15 miles (16-24 km) north of where the port of Eilat stands today. That is because the Red Sea used to cover the marshes of the Arabah. The sea does not reach as far inland today, and the marshes have, subsequently, dried out.  

9:26 Whilst we think of a ‘navy’ as comprising of military ships this is not necessarily implied in the Hebrew word <0590> as this word has its roots in a Hebrew word <0579> which relates to conveyance and not warfare. Further the way in which Solomon used his ‘navy’ indicates it was for trade and not warfare.

V.18-19 The LORD promised to reward the desert tribe of the Rachabites, not because of their peculiar ways and practices, but because their faithfulness to the precepts of their father was a firm rebuke to infidelity and hypocrisy among His people, or whereever it may exist. The same promise applies to us today, if we are prepared to turn our backs on the things around us and are faithful to the precepts of our absent king. 

35:14  In saying that the prophets spoke ‘rising early’ we are not simply being told that the prophets were early risers. Rather they were focused on ding God’s will and did it without delay. So Abraham – Gen 21:14  rose early when he took Isaac to sacrifice him, even thugh doubtless Abraham had a heavy heart.

35:4 The bringing of the Rechabites into ‘the house of the Lord’ was to show their witness to the Jewish leaders and priests who were there the faithfulness of the sons of Rechab. Their personal testimony would be more powerful than Jeremiah just recounting their faithfulness. In taking them to the house of God and making the request we must appreciate that Jeremiah must have known that they were faithful. If they had taken the wine then Jeremiah’s point would have been destroyed.

V.7 Yahweh used the Rechabites as an object lesson for Judah on loyalty.  The Rachabites were true to their father Jonadab in the matter of never drinking wine.  However, it seems, by living in Jerusalem, they might have violated another of Jonadab's commands, to always live in tents. 

If they did live in houses, the Rechabites, probably, considered that safety and preservation trumped mode of accommodation.  This is reminiscent of the Law's commandment not to work on the Sabbath (Lev 23:3). 

But, as Jesus points out, this Sabbath commandment can be overridden if safety, preservation of life, and well-being are at stake (Matt 12:10-12).

35:1 So we are now back in the time of Jehoiakim. We must remember that Jeremiah’s prophecy is not in chronological order. However rather than trying to re order it to make it fit our understanding of how a book should be chronological we ought to try to work out why God gave it in the way that He did.

V.2 The Rechabites were of the family of Moses' father-in-law Jethro (Judg 1:16).

35:18-19 There is an ironic contrast here. Whilst Zedekiah would be told – Eze 21:27 - ‘I will overturn ... it shall be no more’ the Rechabites were told that they would continue to exist.

Vs.14-16 Yahweh contrasts the loyalty of the Rechabites to their father Rechab, with the disloyalty of Judah to their father, Yahweh.  

Vs.16,17 Because of Judah’s disloyalty to Yahweh, they would be punished.

Vs.18,19 But, because of the Rechabites faithfulness to the commands of their father Rechab, Yahweh established a place for them in His presence.

Going to break bread on Sunday is a trial for us. I always seem to get victimised by one Camel in particular, a vindictive beast that manages every week to find a way of getting to me, spitting, treading on toes, accidentally sitting on the car... you name it. And that's after we've queued for what seems like hours to get into the car park. We then drive past row after row of mules, camels and goats tied to the fence; carefully steering through the flock of sheep who every week become more reluctant to move out of the way. The new family always give us a cheerful wave as if all this is perfectly normal.

Then there's the problem with the bread. This new family don't seem to mind tucking in to three helpings of potatoe salad each at tea time, but do have some peculiar aversion to bread. The first time they turned up, as you can imagine, was such chaos that we didn't even notice this. But as the weeks went by and they appeared to be becoming a permanent fixture, I really felt I had to go and have a word. "Look, Jon" I said. "This thing about not eating bread. Can't you make an exception at the breaking of bread service? You're part of our fellowship, so why this abstinence? And these animals really don't fit in well with the city. Can't you get a mortgage for a smallholding to keep them in?" Well, I must say that I was expecting an uproar, or at least an unpleasant argument. Afterall, there's seventeen men in that family, and only five of us. But he just sat down with me and explained the whole thing to me, patiently, from beginning to end. It turns out, now I had taken the time to listen, that they believe from the Bible that eating bread made with yeast is wrong. And they shouldn't get in debt. In fact, they had vowed on it generations ago.

I still don't particularly agree with their interpretation of scripture. But I sure do admire their gentle determination and their consistency. And, I guess, so does God (v18-19). Sometimes we come accross people who do things different to us. We don't immediatly understand their motives, and we can become unkind in our assumptions. We may try to change them. But how do we know they haven't made a vow, or a private agreement with the Lord to "do this" or "not do that"?

35:16 The way in which we have seen, in this chapter, the way in which the Rechabites had observed a promise that their fathers had made to their father is now cited as an example to the rebellious Jews in Jerusalem who will not keep to the words of their fore fathers who assented to the words of God in Deut 27:18. They were willing to take the benefits of being the children of those men but were unwilling to accept the responsibilities.

Jesus uses two symbols to demonstrate the destruction that will come upon someone who causes "one of these little ones to stumble". Being thrown into the water (v42), or being thrown into the fire (v43, 45, 47). Earlier in the chapter, we have a boy who had been thrown into the fire and water by an evil spirit to destroy him (v22).

The malady of the people of Israel, and the boy, was the same. The Israelites were going to be destroyed by the judgment that God was about to pour upon them for their sinfulness. We know this is the context, because Jesus quotes Isaiah 66 which speaks of this. Likewise, the boy was going to die at the hands of this spirit. Both of them desperately needed the intervention of Christ.

V.21 Jesus did not need the information from his question to affect a cure, so why did He ask it?  He was using the episode as an object lesson to instruct Israel.

This man's son had possessed an evil spirit since being a child (infancy).  Israel, God's son had possessed an evil spirit of rebellion since infancy (Deut 9:7; Psa 78:8; Isa 64:2-5; Jer 5:23; Eze 2:3 etc.). As the man's son was healed through faith, so God's (national) son could be also (v.23). 

Vs.49,50 Salt is a preservative which has the quality of being hygroscopic (ability to absorb water from the air).  Being the salt of the earth implies absorbing the water of the Word. 

9:22 It might seem a casual point that the ‘spirit’ cast the boy into the ‘’fire’ and ‘water’. Jesus’ miracles are designed to show that he was Christ working with God’s power. Many of the miracles - possibly all of them - show the fulfilment of Scripture. On this occasion the words ‘fire’ and ‘water’ are lifted from Isaiah Isa 43:2 Isaiah told Israel that God would redeem them and preserve them from ‘fire’ and ‘water’.

9:18    The way in which the boy ‘pineth away’ shows that his illness was representative of Israel who were disobedient to God – Lev 26:39. Jesus’ healing of the boy typified the spiritual regeneration of the nation of Israel.

9:18    The way in which the boy ‘pineth away’ shows that his illness was representative of Israel who were disobedient to God – Lev 26:39. Jesus’ healing of the boy typified the spiritual regeneration of the nation of Israel.

9:7 ‘this is my beloved son’ echoes the words spoken by God at Jesus’ baptism – Mark 1:11

V.1 Jesus seems to be telling his disciples that some of them will remain alive until He returns to earth to set up His Kingdom.  However, we know this cannot be the case.  All the disciples met violent deaths, except, possibly, John who was exiled to Patmos and probably died there. 

The phrase taste of death (KJV) could be referring to the death upon rejection at the judgement.  Jesus' discourse in John might clarify what this phrase means (John 8:51,52).  Jesus promised His disciples a place in His Kingdom, which meant that they would be immune to the taste of death (KJV) (Luke 22:30). 

However, the qualification some could be a reference to the fact that Judas will not be in the Kingdom.  If he is brought back for judgement, he will be rejected, probably receive a glimpse of the Kingdom like so many others (Luke 13:28), and then the taste of death (KJV) will be permanent. 

Another explanation could be that Jesus is foretelling His transfiguration in vs.2-8. This event was a glimpse of the coming regal glory of Jesus.  The some, who witnessed the occurrence, were Peter, James, and John.

Vs.19,29 Jesus berates the disciples for their lack of faith. Then, He proceeds to tell them that prayer is necessary for healing. The two elements of healing that Jesus describes are: 1) faith 2) prayer (James 5:15).

V.37 Dealing the brothers and sisters of Jesus is the same as our dealing with Jesus Himself. We had better be very careful how we treat our brothers and sisters in Christ. At the judgment, Jesus will have a full accounting of our dealings with them.

9:25 The healing of the on with the ‘dumb and deaf spirit’ is one of the many times that we see the prophets being fulfilled in Jesus’ healing – Isa 35:5,6