|
||||||||||
|
AUDIO
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| v.13
- As long as I am understanding this verse right, it seems that Jereboams
son was being allowed to die as a reward, so that he would not have to live the
rest of his life in such a terrible situation. This was salvation for him by death,
a clear example of baptism and what it does for us. Jer.22:10
Rom 6:3-7 2Pet.2:9 Peter Cresswell [Derby Bass Street (UK)] Comment added in 2001 reply to Peter |
||||||||||
| v.6
- Ahijah here turns this mission round. Jeroboam's wife had gone to him, but he
says that he is 'sent to her' with heavy tidings, showing us that however much
we think that the decision to do something might be our own, it is always God's,
and if it turns out to be a bad decision, we must learn from it and class the
results as chastening. Every decision we make in faith is an opportunity for God
to work good in our lives if we let Him. Peter Cresswell [Derby Bass Street (UK)] Comment added in 2002 reply to Peter |
||||||||||
| 14:21
Notice that Rehoboam's mother was an Ammonite. So in being king he was in direct
violation of the law (Deuteronomy
23:3) Peter Forbes [Glenfield (UK)] Comment added in 2002 reply to Peter |
||||||||||
| WHICH WAY DO
YOU FACE? God told Jereboam how he had displeased him. He said, "You have done more evil than all who lived before you. You have made for yourself other gods, idols made of metal; you have provoked me to anger and thrust me behind your back." (1 Kings 14 v 9). There is a stark contrast here between Jereboam and David. God describes David as a man "who kept my commands and followed me with all his heart, doing only what was right in my eyes." (v 8) The way Jereboam and David faced God tells us a lot about their attitude towards him. For David to follow the LORD with all his heart, meant that his eyes were constantly on the LORD, making sure he was facing in the right direction and moving towards him. Jereboam, on the other hand, had other things to watch and to follow. He cast the LORD behind his back where he couldn't see him, faced the other way and acted in a way that was wicked. Which way are we facing? Are our eyes on the LORD, or do we need to turn around again and set our eyes on the one we have cast behind our backs? Robert Prins [Auckland - Pakuranga - (NZ)] Comment added in 2002 reply to Robert |
||||||||||
| :1-2
Jeroboam has not learnt. He tries to deceive the prophet and 'reward' him despite
what we learnt yesterday. Peter Forbes [Glenfield (UK)] Comment added in 2003 reply to Peter |
||||||||||
| 14:21 Rehoboam reigned from Jerusalem. It may seem superfluous to say 'the city which the Lord did choose'. However there is good reason for saying this. The kingdom is now divided. God is re stating where His place of worship is. Peter Forbes [Glenfield (UK)] Comment added in 2004 reply to Peter |
||||||||||
| V.6-8 The message to Jeroboam was forthright and emphatic. It was God who had exalted and crowned him, had made promises to him, and had set before him the example of David his servent All this Jeroboam had rejected. He had rebelled, he had made and worshipped other gods, and had provoked the Lord to anger.. John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2004 reply to John |
||||||||||
So soon after David and Solomon, Judah turned to idol worship (1Kin 14:22-24). Solomon had written so many proverbs and wise sayings addressed to "My son", surely Rehoboam had no excuse for allowing the people to leave God in this way.
David Simpson [Birmingham Kings Norton (UK)] Comment added in 2004 reply to David |
||||||||||
| V.17 Tirzah was located 7 miles (11 km) northeast of Shechem. Tirzah means full of delight and was a city praised for her beauty by Solomon (Song 6:4). Tirzah was first conquered in Joshua's time (Josh 12:24). In Jeroboam's reign (926-909 BC), Tirzah was the capital of the Northern Kingdom. It continued as capital until half way through Omri's reign (885-874 BC), when he built Samaria to be the new capital (1Kin 16:23,24). Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2005 reply to Michael |
||||||||||
14:7-8 We maybe tend to think of the northern kingdom of Israel as wholly evil. However God was looking for something better. Jeroboam had been given a wonderful provision in having the kingdom of Israel. Notice he is encouraged to look to David as his role model. As time went on Israel became more and more disconnected from the things of David – and consequently declined even more. The warning for us is clear. Lose contact with the things of the kingdom and disaster will follow inevitably. Peter Forbes [Glenfield (UK)] Comment added in 2006 reply to Peter |
||||||||||
14:30 We read of ‘war’ between Israel and Judah as headed up in their respective kings as a matter of fact thing. However Israel and Judah were brethren, inheritance in the land had been given to both groups of tribes. Both groups of tribes were Abrahams children – but despite that they still warred against each other. Unity is a hard thing to achieve – so in the New Testament strife between brethren is a major issue. These things stand as a warning to us today Peter Forbes [Glenfield (UK)] Comment added in 2007 reply to Peter |
||||||||||
| 14:15 God can only be worshipped acceptably in the way that He has Himself laid down. This is a lesson which cannot be too strongly emphasized. The history of apostasy, from Cain until today illustrates this clearly. Every attempt to water down or modify the requirements for acceptable worship, which our Heavenly Father has laid down, leads inevitably to substituting another god for the true God. This is idolatry John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2007 reply to John |
||||||||||
14:24 In speaking of ‘Sodomites in the land’ we see a direct violation of Deut 23:17 so things have deteriorated dramatically after the death of Solomon. Peter Forbes [Glenfield (UK)] Comment added in 2008 reply to Peter |
||||||||||
V.4 Ahijah lived in Shiloh, which was about 10 miles (17 km.) north of Bethel. Israel was, largely, descending into sinful ways. Nevertheless, Yahweh left His prophet there as His representative. And so, those individuals who wished not to follow the evil practices that abounded, had guidance from the prophet. Likewise, errant ecclesias have always had those of sound faith, who remained, to offer guidance. Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2008 reply to Michael |
||||||||||
14:4 Shiloh was in the northern kingdom. They were astray from God, however there was a prophet of God there. Clearly God had not abandoned them but rather was trying to bring them back to a faithful worship of Him. Peter Forbes [Glenfield (UK)] Comment added in 2009 reply to Peter |
||||||||||
| 1Kin 14:15 First Principles>Kingdom of God>Was overturned>History of fulfilment 4. The Northern Kingdom ended in BC 720 during the reign of Hoshea. The ten tribes went into captivity after Samaria was beieged by Assyria for three years. (Prophesied 1Kin 14:15) 2Kin 17:5,22,23. Go to Deut 28:49 to see more details of the history of Israel and its overturning. Roger Turner [Lichfield (UK)] Comment added in 2009 reply to Roger |
||||||||||
V.2 Jeroboam was a political animal. He had set up idolatrous gods to control any movement of Israel towards Judah. But, now that his son was sick, he wanted to consult the prophet of Yahweh, not useless idols. However, he did not want to be seen doing so, to maintain the control on Israel’s idolatry, and, hence, its movement. V.4 Ahijah means worshipper of Jah. It was Ahijah who had informed Jeroboam that he would be king over Israel (1Kin 11:29-31). V.12 Imagine the anxiety of Jeroboam’s wife in knowing that she would bring the death of her son the moment she entered Shechem. V.13 Because Yahweh saw some good in Jeroboam’s son, the son would be exempt from the curse of vs.10,11. V.14 That king would be Baasha (1Kin 15:27). Interestingly, Baasha’s progeny would suffer the same fate as that of Jeroboam ( Compare v.11 with 1Kin 16:4). Vs.23,24 Homosexuality was forbidden under the Law (Lev 18:22). Idolatry was also forbidden under the Law (Lev 19:4). And so, imagine how disgusting the combination was to Yahweh. The sodomites were people who engaged in homosexuality as part of worshipping Baal’s female equivalent, Ashtoreth (Astarte, Ishtar, Venus). This practice was forbidden under the Law (Deut 23:17). Vs.26,27 Cheap, bronze shield replicas replaced the expensive, gold shields of Solomon (see my note on 1 Kings 10, v.17, for August 15). Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2009 reply to Michael |
||||||||||
14:7 We should always remember that the division of the kingdom was ‘of God’ and was a consequence of Solomon’s errors. However the fact that the division was of God was not sufficient reason o cause strife between brethren. Peter Forbes [Glenfield (UK)] Comment added in 2010 reply to Peter |
||||||||||
1Kin 14:21-24,31 - Sin and aquaintances who follow other paths can be very enticing, attractive and seductive; Solomon's Ammonite wife "Naamah" [(5277) means "pleasantness, loveliness"] very possibly worshipped "other gods" (1Kin 11:3-5) and possibly helped turn not only Solomon's heart from Yahweh but the heart of her son Rehoboam as well. 1Kin 14:26-27 - gold which is thought by some to represent "faith tried by affliction and divine character or nature" is replaced by bronze which is thought by some to represent the "corruptible/sinful nature of flesh". Perhaps this change to a baser mixed metal somewhat symbolized the spiritual decline. Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2010 reply to Charles |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| v.10
refers directly to the language of both a blessing and a curse - Deut
7:13 28:51 Peter Cresswell [Derby Bass Street (UK)] Comment added in 2001 reply to Peter |
||||||||||
| v.1-5
This release seems to have been made in recognition of the fact that Jeremiah's
prophecy was being fulfilled. Whatever the reason it must have been a great relief
to Jeremiah. Peter Cresswell [Derby Bass Street (UK)] Comment added in 2002 reply to Peter |
||||||||||
| 40:1
One presumes that Jeremiah was freed because of the way in which he had been encouraging
the Jews to go to Babylon. The Babylonians would see Jeremiah as an ally rather
than a threat. Peter Forbes [Glenfield (UK)] Comment added in 2002 reply to Peter |
||||||||||
| :9
Gedaliah's message is one of submission to kings and those in authority - though
what he sad was viewed as treason. Peter Forbes [Glenfield (UK)] Comment added in 2003 reply to Peter |
||||||||||
| 40:2-3 One wonders how much the Babylonians knew about the purpose of God and the prophecies about the destruction of Jerusalem. Peter Forbes [Glenfield (UK)] Comment added in 2004 reply to Peter |
||||||||||
| V.5 Gedaliah was well chosen for the position of governor. He was a friend of Jeremiah, and a grandson of Shaphan the scribe who had been such a help to the good king Josiah. (2Kin 22:9) Gedaliah had also held high position as a prince of the realm under Jehoiakim, and was a man of the greatest integrity, one whom Nebuchadnezzar felt he could trust. John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2004 reply to John |
||||||||||
V.1 Jeremiah had been bundled off in shackles with the rest of the captives, headed for Babylon. This was obviously a slip-up by lower echelon soldiers as Nebuchadnezzar had ordered Nebuzaradan to take care of Jeremiah (Jer 39:11,12). Nebuzaradan realized this mistake and freed Jeremiah at Ramah, not far from Jerusalem. Yahweh had a deep purpose with Nebuchadnezzar beyond being an instrument of destruction and captivity for Judah. Perhaps, Yahweh had shared His purpose with the king, who in turn, showed great respect for Yahweh's servant. Vs.2,3 It seems that Nebuzaradan, speaking on behalf of the king, gave a tongue-lashing to the shackled dignitaries of Judah. Just imagine the irony of the situation: Jeremiah's long, constant prophetical warnings had been spurned by the princes of Judah. Now, those very men were forced to listen to that truth by their captor. Jeremiah, who had been imprisoned by the leaders of Judah, was now freed in front of them while they yet remained bound. Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2004 reply to Michael |
||||||||||
| I remember someone suggesting that it looks as though Ramah was a holding centre for the captives who were to be taken away to Babylon (Jer 40:1-6). Jeremiah and the others were taken in chains from Jerusalem, but the prophet was released in Ramah. How true Jeremiah’s prophecy came in Jer 31:15, “A voice was heard in Ramah …Rachel weeping for her children.” Matt 2:16-18 says it came true again when Herod killed the baby boys. David Simpson [Birmingham Kings Norton (UK)] Comment added in 2005 reply to David |
||||||||||
40:5 We should not think that the ‘reward’ that Jeremiah received was some sort of payment in return for encouraging the Jews to accept the Babylonian invasion as being from God. Rather, as the margin shows, the word is ‘allowance’ Jeremiah was provided for by his captives, as in fact were all the captives who were taken into Babylon. Peter Forbes [Glenfield (UK)] Comment added in 2006 reply to Peter |
||||||||||
40:9 Gedaliah, it seems, was one of the few who heeded the words of Jeremiah the prophet. Peter Forbes [Glenfield (UK)] Comment added in 2007 reply to Peter |
||||||||||
40:3-4 So the witnessing work of Jeremiah is over and so he is freed by a nation who understood better than Israel the reasons for all the evil that had come upon them. Peter Forbes [Glenfield (UK)] Comment added in 2008 reply to Peter |
||||||||||
V.11 Most Jews were either killed or taken captive by the Babylonians. But, there were some who had seen the writing on the wall and had escaped, ahead of time, to other countries. The same pattern has existed throughout history. For example, Jews, who heeded Jesus' warnings, escaped the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, when approximately 1 million people were killed. Yahweh prompted a minority of Jews to leave Europe in the 1930's, before 6 million Jews were killed in the World War 2. Yahweh has always preserved a remnant of His people (Psa 106:8). Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2008 reply to Michael |
||||||||||
40:13-46 Gedaliah was too trusting. 2Kin 25:25 records the fact that Gedaliah was slain as he had been warned. Peter Forbes [Glenfield (UK)] Comment added in 2009 reply to Peter |
||||||||||
V.14 Ishmael was probably jealous of Gedaliah’s position of being the Governor of Judah. After all, Ishamael was a prince in David’s line (Jer 41:1). Whatever the deal with the king of the Ammonites, Ishmael would govern Judah. Vs.15,16 Johanan tried to warn Gedaliah of impending trouble, and was prepared to dispense with Ishmael. But, Gedaliah was too trusting, and allowed his assassin to live. Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2009 reply to Michael |
||||||||||
40:9 Sets the scene for this short period in the history of Israel: "do not be afraid to serve the Chaldeans". This is what Jeremiah had been saying all along, but they hadn't listened. And this fear, still very real, manifested itself in Ishmael, son of Nethaniah. He appears to have been of a large family serving the king during Jeremiah's prophecies. His father, grandfather and brothers appear numerous times in the narrative in this role. And 41:1 confirms this, calling him "of the royal family and of the officers of the king". So he and his family had been against Jeremiah's message, and at the forefront of the struggle against Nebuchadnezzar. The point is that the people couldn't let go of their fear. They had clasified Nebuchadnezzar (or Babylon, the Chaldeans) as the enemy, and couldn't let go of the idea. Ishmael was merely an outward manifestation of that fear. He was a remnant of Judah's years long struggle against Babylon. So his actions echoed what they each would have done had they the power or the courage. This is demonstrated in 41:17-18 in their readyness to flee to Egypt, even though Nebuchadnezzar had given them their own land. They didn't, truly, want to submit to him. How about us? God has made war on our sins, writing at length about them in the word so that we stand condemned. There's no place for us to hide from Him. So do we keep Him as an enemy, or submit to Him (Luke 14:31-32)? Just like Nebuchadnezzar, God is to be feared (Dan 5:19). Yet when we submit He will give us back all we have given up, and more (v9-12). And it is only our fear that will take that away (Luke 19:20-27). Will we allow Him to rule over us? Rob de Jongh [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2009 reply to Rob |
||||||||||
While Gedeliah's failure to heed the warning may give the impression he was too trusting, the lesson here is that God provided Gediliah with a warning and Gedeliah failed to act. At a minimum he should have investigated but above all he should have consulted God on the matter. He had Jeremiah there with him, there is no evidenece that he sought God's counsel on the matte. Instead he trusted in his own judgement. It was not that he was too trusting of Ishmael, but rather he was too trusting of his own judgement - A deadly failure. Alex Browning [Toronto East, Canada] Comment added in 2009 reply to Alex |
||||||||||
40:7 Not content with rebelling Against God the princes now rebel against the man the king of Babylon had appointed to take care of the land of Israel and what remained of Jerusalem. Thus we see the rebellious nature of His people. Peter Forbes [Glenfield (UK)] Comment added in 2010 reply to Peter |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| v.32
- Gethsemane was an olive-yard at the foot of the mount of Olives. Olive trees
of a great age (though not verifiable) still grow there today. It seems that Jesus
left the disciples in this olive-yard - in the care of the house of Israel, as
it were, while he went outside that care to communicate with his Father, acting,
as he was, on behalf of all, not just Israel. v.33-35
Matt.26:36-39 Peter Cresswell [Derby Bass Street (UK)] Comment added in 2001 reply to Peter |
||||||||||
| :37
Jesus seems distressed that the disciples were not able to stay away whilst he
was praying - even though they had no idea what he was praying about or what was
going to happen next. David 'looked for comforters and found none' [Psalm
69:20] and was distressed by this also. Have we thought about how we can support
our brethren and sisters in their tribulation even if we do not fully understand
their dilemma? It would seem that the simple presence of the disciples - or in
David's case his friends - would have provided some form of sustenance. Peter Forbes [Glenfield (UK)] Comment added in 2002 reply to Peter |
||||||||||
| :36
In saying 'not what I will but what thou wilt' Jesus' thoughts echo David's (2
Samuel 5:22) when he was fleeing from Jerusalem when Absalom tried to take
the throne. Peter Forbes [Glenfield (UK)] Comment added in 2003 reply to Peter |
||||||||||
| The comments of certain disciples in v4-5 are interesting. This event of the "wasting" of money seems to have been the final straw for Judas, who went and betrayed Jesus immediately in v10. From this, I assume Judas was the one who made the comment in v4. I wonder whether such comments betray an inner secret, which is that we care about money too much? It certainly did in the case of Judas. How often do we ourselves criticise the use of the ecclesia's funds, even when they are being used in a worthwile cause?
A further point to ponder: In v34 Jesus was "exceedingly sorrowful even unto death". This wording is very helpful, because it makes the link between this struggle of Jesus in Getsemane, and Hebrews 12, which speaks of the chastening of the Lord. The link is in Hebrews 12v4 "you have not yet resisted unto bloodshed, striving against sin". Jesus resisted (or strove against) sin, even unto death, and unto bloodshed - but where did he do it? It was in the garden, where his sweat came as "great drops of blood" (Luke 22v44). This struggle of Jesus was designed by God to perfect him, as it says in Hebrews 12v10-11. Rob de Jongh [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2003 reply to Rob |
||||||||||
|
14:1 Whilst John John 12:2-10 seems to imply that Jesus was anointed in Bethany six days before the Passover Mark tells us it was two days before the Passover, as does Matt 26:2-14. It seems that the meal at Bethany which was designed by the sisters to celebrate the raising of Lazarus was not held until Jesus had finished his public ministry.
Peter Forbes [Glenfield (UK)] Comment added in 2004 reply to Peter |
||||||||||
| V.36 We see the complete submission of Christ to His Father's will. "Remove this cup from me." is immediately modified by "nevertheless, not what I will but what thou wilt" What a lesson for all of us, our prayers are answered, but not always the way we want, it must be according to our Heavenly Father's will. John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2004 reply to John |
||||||||||
V.53 The ruling Council of the Jews (the Sanhedrin) was made up seventy-one of the richest, most powerful elite of society. They were mainly Sadducees, although some prominent Pharisees were among them. Vs.63,64 Under the direction of the high priest, the Council unanimously condemned Jesus to death, although they were not allowed to execute anyone (John 18:31). Joseph of Arimathea (Mark 15:43) and Nicodemus (John 3:1) were members of the Sanhedrin. However, they must have proclaimed their faith in Jesus before this event, otherwise they would have been counted in the unanimous decision of the council. They would have given up great wealth and power to follow their master, and would have certainly been shunned, lost wealth and power; and would probably have been persecuted by the council. Their faith is recorded as they cared for the body of the Lord (John 19:38-40). Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2004 reply to Michael |
||||||||||
| V.15 "upper room" This room would have been the perfect place for such a gathering. It would have been relatively free from any disturbance; a place for discussion, fellowship, meditation, and prayer. It was furnished and ready for the feast. John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2005 reply to John |
||||||||||
V.65 Jesus would have had a full beard as was the custom of the Israelites. Under the Law, the beard must not have its edges clipped (Lev 19:27). The Jews abused Jesus while in their custody. One of the abuses was that they plucked out His beard (Isa 50:6). This was contrary to the Law and constituted a great insult (just like Hanun's treatment of David's servants) (2Sam 10:4,5). Such was the disdain that the Jewish leaders had for Jesus, that by plucking out his beard, contrary to the Law, they were saying that He had no part in Israel. Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2005 reply to Michael |
||||||||||
|
14:23 Notice Jesus took the 'cup' on every occasion when the last supper is described it is always the cup, not the wine, that is spoken of. A review of the way that there is a cup of wrath and a cup of blessing explains what Jesus is doing. He is stressing the two options open to the disciple. Peter Forbes [Glenfield (UK)] Comment added in 2006 reply to Peter |
||||||||||
| V.40 As we read this verse, we see the power of prayer. Even Peter, James, and John have become weary and have left Jesus alone, his only source of support or strength is now prayer. How often do we find ourselves in a situation when we think that we are alone, no one to turn to for support. We must always be fully aware of, and use the power of prayer. John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2006 reply to John |
||||||||||
|
14:4-6 The beautiful odour of the ointment was marred by the dissention amongst the disciples, fuelled by Judas. In fact Judas was like the ‘Dead files’ which mar the ointment of the apothecary -Ecc 10:1 Peter Forbes [Glenfield (UK)] Comment added in 2007 reply to Peter |
||||||||||
|
V.9 Jesus said that the incident described in v.3 would be known throughout the world wherever the gospel is spread. Jesus here links the gospel to the reading of the Word. How else would people know about this event unless they read about it in the Bible? How else would people understand the gospel message unless they look into the Scriptures? Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2007 reply to Michael |
||||||||||
14:12 That the next day is mentioned in details as the ‘first day of unleavened bread’ confirms that the meal in Bethany when Jesus was anointed was two days before the Passover even though John 12:1 – seems to indicate that meal took place six days before the Passover. Peter Forbes [Glenfield (UK)] Comment added in 2008 reply to Peter |
||||||||||
14:11 That the chief priests were ‘glad’ was not simply because Judas had offered to betray Jesus. After all they could see Jesus every day. They knew who he was. Their joy was doubtless because Judas had told them that they would be able to take Jesus when there was no one around if they were willing to pay him money Peter Forbes [Glenfield (UK)] Comment added in 2009 reply to Peter |
||||||||||
Vs.3,10 There is a chance that Judas was Simon the leper’s son. For the possible connection, see my note on Matt 26, for Jan 4. V.5 Three hundred pence (denarii) amounted to one year’s wages for a labourer (Matt 20:2). V.32 Gethsemane comes from an Aramaic word meaning oil press. It was located on the lower slope of the Mount of Olives, opposite the Kidron valley. Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2009 reply to Michael |
||||||||||
14:24 When the law was given Moses sprinkled the people saying ‘this is the blood of the covenant’ – Exo 24:8 – Jesus adds the word ‘new’ when speaking of the breaking of bread. The word ‘new’ takes one back to Jeremiah 31:31 blending together the old and new with the forgiveness of sins. Peter Forbes [Glenfield (UK)] Comment added in 2010 reply to Peter |
||||||||||
| I have always assumed Jesus took the last supper with just the twelve present. But notice the two in v13 are not part of the twelve in v16-17. So there were at least two more. Also v15 it was a large room. Bear in mind Jesus was able to recline at the table with the twelve even in a normal dining room (e.g v3), so why the large room? Thirdly, there are many occasions when Jesus was with a multitude yet spoke specifically to the twelve as they were closest to him, so there's no need to assume from v17-20 that there were only the twelve with him. Rob de Jongh [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2010 reply to Rob |
||||||||||