v.28 Maybe there is an indication of what the Lord thought of Samuel's sons in the fact that there seem to be only two mentions of them in the whole of Scripture. 1 Samuel 8:1 1 Chronicles 6:28

v.49 Have you noticed how often, when the phrase 'servant of the LORD' is found in Scripture, it refers to Moses? Joshua 1:13 Joshua 22:5 1 Chronicles 6:49 2 Chronicles 24:9 Nehemiah 10:29 Daniel 9:11 Revelation 15:3 There are only two New Testament uses of the phrase which do not speak of Moses Titus 1:1 James 1:1. The only other man called a 'servant of the LORD' is David. Psalm 18:1 36:1

Having traced the line of the sons of Levi right up to the Babylonian captivity the record then lists the cities in which they dwelt through out the land of Israel. We notice also how David chose singers from amongst the sons of Levi. Joshua 21 gives the first account of the cities of the Levites. 1 Chronicles 6 restates the detail.

:13 Hilkiah - The father of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:1)
:15 Jehozadak - The father of Joshua (Hag 1:1)
:60 Anathoth - The home of (Jeremiah 1:1)

Vs.54,55,57 The city of Hebron was given to the Kohathites.  Originally Joshua had given Hebron to Caleb as per his request (Josh 14:12-15).  But we read that certain cities were to be given to the Levites as commanded by Moses (Josh 21:8-11).  Amongst these were the six cities of refuge, of which Hebron became one (Num 35:6). 

Did Caleb agree to relinquish his claim to Hebron and cede it to the Kohathites, and instead take possession of the surrounding fields and villages (v.56; Josh 21:12)? Or did Caleb's original understanding of the possession of Hebron take into account the Levites' provision?

6:31  Another indication that this was written after the event. Mention is made of David and the ark in Zion hen these singers were set in order.

6:15 The mention of going into captivity at the time of the Babylonian captivity indicates that this part, at least, of 1Chronicles was written after the captivity, possibly in Babylon.

6:39,44 Just a little details about temple worship – how the sons were divided between the two ‘sides’

6:54 We may think of Chronicles as just lists of names. However from this point in this chapter we learn also about the provision of dwellings for the Levites which gives us some insight into which towns had a permanent Levitical presence – from which one might conclude that the people of that city were better instructed in the things of God – when the priesthood was faithful.

Vs.14,15 Jehozadak, alternatively called Jozadak or Josedech, was the son of the chief priest Seraiah. This Seraiah should not be confused with the Seraiah whom Jeremiah charged with a task when taken captive to Babylon (Jer 51:59-64).

Jehozadak was taken captive in 588 BC, but his father, Seraiah, was executed in Riblah (2Kin 25:18-21). It seems that Jehozadak did not amount to much while in captivity, but he did father (and grandfather) high priests who played roles in post-exilic history (Ezra 3:2; Neh 12:26).

6:56 Caleb had been given Hebron – Josh 14:13 – this comment here is a summary of what has already taken place.

Vs.3,4 The lioness is Jerusalem. The first lion being described is Jehoahaz who was taken captive by Pharaoh-necho and brought to Egypt in 609 BC (see 2Kin 23:33,34). 

Vs.:5-9 The second lion, being described was Jehoiakim who rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar.  This brought about retribution, and Jehoiakim died a violent death in 599 BC. He was unceremoniously buried (Jer 22:18,19).  

V.14 A third lion of Judah is yet to appear.  He is the Lord Jesus Christ who will have the right to wear the crown that these other lions have abused (Eze 21:26,27; Rev 5:5). Jesus will be that strong stem; the scepter for ruling (ESV).

19:1  That Ezekiel was to ‘take up a lamentation’ teaches us the God did not take pleasure in the sinfulness and captivity of His people.

19:13 Israel had been planted in a good fruitful hill – Isa 5:1 – but now she is planted in a wilderness because of her sins.

V.2 The figure of a lion features prominently in descriptions of Judah and Jerusalem. Judah is here portrayed as a mother.  Jerusalem is a lioness bringing forth her cubs (the kings of Judah). Jerusalem is referred to, elsewhere, as ariel which means lion of God (Isa 29:1,2).  And, Jesus is described as the lion of the tribe of Judah (Rev 5:5).

19:2 The ‘lions’ are the leaders of the nations round about Israel. The ‘whelps’ are Israel’s young kings who were appointed by the Babylonians. This provides the basis for seeing the ‘young lions’ we read of later Eze 38:13

V.2 etc. Although whelps (KJV); cubs (ESV) refer to specific kings of Judah, Judah itself is called a whelp (cub) (Gen 49:9). But, we are told that this whelp will develop to maturity, so that no one might challenge him: who dares rouse him? (ESV).  Of course, this particular whelp, who will mature to be unchallenged, is referring to Jesus (Gen 49:10; Rev 5:5).

Figuring out the figurative

If the young lions signify the kings of Israel, as has already been said, then what is the lioness? In v2 and v5 she bore and nurtured these Kings. Yet if we apply this to Jehoahaz and Jehoakim, it doesn't fit because the record specifically states they had different mothers (see 2Kin 23:31 and 36).

In order to help us with this problem, we are now given a second (but equivalent) picture in v10-14. Scripture often does this in case we're tempted to mix up the actors in a play with the characters they portray. God reminds us that He could use any figure to bring across the same message. This is important, because it reminds us that figures in scripture are not fixed to any one context, but can be re-used. The lion could apply to any king of any land, in a different context. So neither does the lion always refer to a king of Israel, nor does the vine always refer to Judah's ability to produce kings.

So getting back to the question, we can see from the combination of the second figure with the first, that the lioness and vine refer simply to the fruit-bearing characteristic of Judah. Basically, the king-making element of the national consciousness. So when certain nobles, leaders and decision makers were carried away to Babylon (a dry and barren place for king making) no more kings were ever produced (v13-14).

19:1 The lamentation was to be taken up even though the city had not been taken by the Chaldeans. So certain was the outcome of the Babylonian siege

v4 whose houses was he talking about?
v8 why did the master commend dishonesty?
v8 what has the phrase "the sons of this world are more shrewd in this generation than the sons of light" got to do with it?
v9 again, who are the "they"? What are the "everlasting habitations"?
v13 why say this, when it seems completely out of context? Why draw this conclusion?

The key lies in verse 15. Here we have two camps, which equate to the two camps in v13, God or Mammon. In v16 we have them repeated again, either the law and the prophets, ending with John, one camp, or the kingdom of God, since John, another camp. In the next parable we have the two camps described as a rich man and a poor man.

The poor man, when he dies, goes to an eternal habitation, with Abraham. The rich man goes to an eternal habitation, Hades. Notitce that Jesus uses Abraham, and not Moses or any other prophet. Abraham is the father of faith. The poor man is in the kingdom by faith, with Abraham. The rich man is in Hades along with those who "justify themselves before men" (v15). The rich man realises too late that to be with Abraham requires simply a confession "have mercy on me" (v24). The poor man had realised this early enough. He is the man in Luke 18v13. The rich man is the one in 18v11-12.

In v13 Jesus says "you CANNOT serve God and Mammon". Likewise in v15 "what is highly esteemed among men, is an abomination in the sight of God". To be highly esteemed for your good works is an abomiation to God. Riches, self reliance, self justification, trusting in the law, trusting in yourself, is an abomination to God. What He requires is humility. God requires us to abase ourselves. The one who does this will be exalted. The unjust steward realised this. He was the man who realised his own sin, and that it would lead to death. He was the man who realised he had fallen short of the requirements of the law. The law had condemned him to death (v2). Having nowhere to turn (v3), this man turned to Christ, and decided to start forgiving the servants of his master their debts also. He realised that whoever forgives, his sin will be forgiven (Luke 6v38).

Jesus had come to judge the children of Israel. Whoever turned to him in faith, would be forgiven. If that man as a result forgave his fellow, he would receive eternal habitation (v9). Whoever didn't believe, and remained under the law, would remain condemned under that law. There are two camps: Righteousness by the law, riches, comfort, justification in the eyes of men, serving our earthly master, Mamon, leading to condemnation when we fail, eternal death. Or: Humility, abasing oneself, begging for mercy and forgiveness, righteousness by faith in Christ, leading to justification even though we fail, and life everlasting.

Which camp are we in?

16:18 In speaking of putting away the wife Jesus returns to the same point he made at the beginning of his ministry Matt 5:32. But why make the point again? May it be because of the high profile man Herod who had his brother’s wife? Matt 14:3-4

16:10 The idea of the one who is faithful in little being blessed is developed by Jesus only a few months later when speaking to the disciples again - Matt 25:21. This complements our comment for March this year and so we see that Jesus repeatedly taught the importance of faithfulness in the small things in life.

The Lord spoke the parable of the unjust steward to His disciples in the hearing of the Pharisees, and then followed on with the parable regarding the rich man and Lazarus, spoken directly to the Pharisees.

The first parable hit hard at the Pharisees who loved wealth, power, and position. They served themselves rather than serving Yahweh.

The second parable again hit the Pharisee's love of riches (which cannot save).  The rich man represented them.  Actually it represented them through their leader the high priest Caiaphas (Matt 26:3) who had five brothers (v.28).

The two parables show us that we should trust Yahweh completely (Prov 3:5), and not to trust in wealth (Mark 10:24, 1Tim 6:17-19).

16:15 In that the Pharisees ‘justified themselves’ highlights exactly their problem. Having designated themselves as separate (the meaning of Pharisee) they then highlight what they see as their virtues rather than their need for forgiveness. How do we rate in this respect?

Jesus uses this example to show that we ought to be kind and generous to the debtors and the poor in our lives.  If we do, we will be received into a heavenly home.  This eternal home will be a place in the Kingdom of God, on earth, which will be established when Jesus returns to the earth.

16:8 Jesus here introduces the phrase ‘children of light’ to speak of faithful followers. Paul picks this language up – Eph 5:8, 1Thess 5:5 – to speak of faithful believers

For some thoughts on the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, please e-mail me.

16:23 In speaking of Abraham ‘afar off’ Jesus is returning to the repentant prodigal on Luke 15:20. Over the years in our comment son this are of Luke’s gospel we have seen a significant number of links between the different parables. Thus we see in this area of Jesus’ teaching a powerful theme flowing through the parables.