AUDIO
Visit ThisIsYourBible.com
v .14-16 - Mandrakes - Hebrew dudaim = "love-plants". The most likely thing that they were is Mandragora officinalis (botanical name), which is a relative of the night-shades and possesses mild stimulating and narcotic properties (SofS 7:13). Hence the reason that they became, as it were, currency on this occasion - worth jealous bargaining over. God rewards Rachel's selfish jealousy over this by allowing Leah to conceive again. It is not the first time important events have been influenced by human greed - Gen.25:30
Peter [UK] Comment added in 2001 Reply to Peter
v.1,14,15 - There is a lot of emotion in these years, and it seems again (supporting Peter Forbes' point on tomorrow's reading) that Rachel does not have quite the character we would have expected. She seems to be rather spoilt, doubtless at least by Jacob's affections, and have that consequent bitterness that comes from failed expectation that we see so much of in our world today. Bitterness cannot lead us to the love of God, let us beware of this, as bitterness is such a common and accepted emotion in the world in which we live. We must accept the love of God and His chastening hand in humility and faith, and with that we can have confidence in His salvation. Col.3:19, James 3:14
Peter [UK] Comment added in 2002 Reply to Peter
The way in which Jacob sought to build his own flock is certainly a puzzle. However whatever Jacob thought he was doing it is clear that his God blessed him. We can expend so much effort puzzling about the strategy Jacob used that we miss the simple lesson that God was with him.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2002 Reply to Peter
DECEIVER DECEIVED
Jacob fled to the house of Laban because he had deceived his brother Esau too many times. He was born grasping the heel of Esau, he took his birthright and his blessing. The meaning of his name, Jacob, means, "He Deceives."
When Esau spoke about Jacob he said, "Isn't he rightly named Jacob? He has deceived me these two times: He took my birthright and now he's taken my blessing!" (Genesis 27 v 36).
But when Jacob went to Laban's house he met his match. There was deceit in everything Laban did for Jacob. He gave him Leah instead of Rachel, he made Jacob work 14 years instead of 7 for Rachel, he demanded payment for any stolen property - even though it was not Jacob's responsibility, and he changed Jacob's wages ten times. If it was possible, Laban would have kept all the benefit of Jacob's hard work and sent him away empty handed.
So Jacob, the deceiver, learned what it was like to be deceived. He learnt how distasteful it was and, it seems, his character was improved by his experience.
God may put us in similar situations to improve our characters. If we have a problem he may sting us with it as he did to Jacob. So when we are confronted by attributes we despise in others, let us make sure we cleanse those attributes thoroughly from our own lives to become more like the people God wants us to be.
Robert Prins [Auckland - Pakuranga - (NZ)] Comment added in 2002 Reply to Robert
:23 Rachel said 'God hath taken away my reproach' words which Elizabeth spoke after she was promised a child (Luke 1:25)
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2003 Reply to Peter
30:27 Laban was not a spiritually minded man. However he could not help but see that God was at work in Jacob’s life ‘I have learnt by experience …’ God’s hand can be seen by the ungodly when His work is so obvious!
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to Peter
Reuben was only a little boy, say about 5 years old, in v14.
David Simpson [Worcester (UK)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to David
Gen 30:22-23 Looking at the time charts, it appears that Rachel, like Rebekah was married for twenty years before she conceived. Both these mothers of Israel were certainly tried during this period of time.
John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to John
The method Jacob used to encourage his animals to mate is interesting (vs 37-39). Animals in a free-roaming state are often distracted or frustrated in their attempts to mate.
Jacob's idea was to have his animals stationary and relaxed so that mating could take place. His sheep and goats would naturally come to the watering troughs, take water and leave. He devised a way to keep them there to encourage mating. He placed peeled roots of succulent trees directly in front of the water troughs. These delicious, sap-drenched morsels would keep contented animals chewing all day if they were permitted to do so. By carefully shunting the female animals to the trough, where they would be relaxed and occupied, the males (who do not really need much encouragement) would have a great opportunity to mate. After they were done, Jacob could do the same thing with another group and so on. This way, the chances of conception amongst his animals were greatly increased over the hit-and-miss natural method.
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to Michael
v.1 - Here we see a little of the character behind this attractive young woman. Once or twice we are given insight into some rather bitter and selfish thoughts that Rachel had.
Peter [UK] Comment added in 2004 Reply to Peter
V.22 This is the third time that we have the phrase "God remembered". We have in Gen 8:1 "God remembered Noah" as the waters of the flood dried. Then we read in Gen 19:29 that "God remembered Abraham" when Lot was being delivered from Sodom and Gomorrah. These are the only times that we have recorded that God specifically remembered an individual. This certainly places Rachel in an unique position.
John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to John
Jacob, a good shepherd, became bonded by Laban who paid his wages unfairly, mistreated him on account of others, and wouldn't give him freedom. Jacob, possibly a type of Christ, was married to two, perhaps suggesting Jews and Gentiles or perhaps desired and undesired sheep and goats who are brides married to the lamb Christ. Jacob was given the flawed animals much like Christ was a physician to sinners and those who had/have the humility to recognize their need of being healed. In v.36 we read of three days distance not unlike Christ's sacrificial 3 days that released him from his bonds. Ultimately Jacob escaped from Laban and obtained his freedom. V.37-38 we have mention of wood leading the flock to water somewhat akin to Christ's sacrifice on the cross leading us to drink of the water of life and making it possible for us to yield increase. 31:36 we find Jacob asking what crime has he committed that he be hunted down by Laban. The answer, of course, is he committed no crime.
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to Charles
30:1 Another barren woman in the line of Messiah. However Rachel lacked the patience to wait. Isn’t it wonderful that God will work with people who do not always appreciate His time scale?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to Peter
30:28When Laban said ‘appoint me thy wages’ it is probable that Jacob did not trust him because he says – Gen 30:33– ‘So shall my righteousness answer for me …’
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2007 Reply to Peter
30:3 ‘have children’ more correctly should be ‘be builded by’ catching the desire of Rachel to have children to bring on the fulfilment of the promises through her.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2008 Reply to Peter
A woman who was able to bear many children, especially sons, was held in high esteem. A barren woman was considered cursed. The LORD allowed, the originally rejected, Leah to flourish while the daughter of choice remained childless. Much competition occurred between the sisters for Jacob's attention. Boasting and an in your face attitude would not be unlikely from Leah, which would add to Rachel's sense of dejection. This situation reminds us of fertile Hagar's attitude towards the barren Sarah (Gen 16:4). However, the LORD, in His foreknowledge and mercy, allowed Rachel to finally give birth to Joseph who would rule over Leah's sons. Joseph would clearly be a Christ-type who would rule, with His appointed ones, over the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt 19:28).
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2008 Reply to Michael
30:6 Here Rachel names her son but notice her name is not based upon God’s grace. Rather the name reflects Rachel’s feeling that the has at last got that which is her right. Thus she does not manifest a very spiritual attitude.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Peter
Vs.14,16 Besides these two verses, the only other place in the Bible that mandrakes are mentioned is in Song 7:13. There, mandrakes are considered to have a pleasant smell. They have a strong smell, which is acceptable to Orientals who like strong smells. However, the smell to westerners would not be considered particularly pleasant. The mandrake plant is the atropa managdora which is closely related to the deadly nightshade plant atropa belladonna. These plants give narcotic effects. The fruit of mandrakes was used in the Ancient Near East as a narcotic stimulant used in the promotion of sexual activity. The Hebrew word for them is dudaim meaning love plants (or love apples). The fruit is an orange colored apple which ripens in May. The Arabs scorned the fruit of mandrakes and called them devil apples for their power as an aphrodisiac.
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Michael
30:24 Leah names each of her children because of what has happened. However Rachel seems to take a different approach. Having been childless for many years, when Joseph is born, she names him with a name that indicated that immediately after the birth of her first son she is expecting a second one ‘God shall add to me a second son’. Maybe an indication of Rachel’s attitude, not one of great thankfulness but still the competing spirit. Seeking to match her sister in child bearing.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Peter
30:2 We have to presume that Jacob’s anger was kindled because this was not the first time that Rachel had come out with a petulant complaint. Maybe an indication of the lack of spirituality?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Peter
30:7-9 We read the factual details of the emotional battles between Rachel and Leah with regard to bearing seed to Jacob. However we should realise the facts cover terrible family tensions which doubtless are later seen in the children that are born. As we read through Genesis look for the family tensions and alliances between bothers and half brothers.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2012 Reply to Peter
30:1 It is hard to imagine the frustration and longing of a barren woman. However Rachel was being taught patience, though at the time she doubtless did not appreciate that. How often do we fail to realise how God is working circumstances in our lives for our spiritual growth?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2013 Reply to Peter
Both Laban and Jacob acknowledge that God has blessed Laban for Jacob's sake. 1) Can we assume from this that Laban was a worshipper of the same God - Yahweh - that Jacob worshipped? 2) What principle is at work in God's blessing of one man due to his association with a more godly man?
1. It doesn't appear that he really was even though he does use God's covenant name - Yahweh - here. In v. 27 the R.V. translates his words, "If now I have found favor in thine eyes, tarry: forI have divined that the LORD hath blessed me for thy sake." (The N.I.V. uses the phrase "have learned by divination".) The meaning of this word in all 11 occurrences is "to learn by magic, to divine", so here it appears that Laban's hypocrisy was showing up clearly. As though the worship of the true God could be associated with such superstition!!
2. It seems to me that this principle can be found time after time in the pages of the Bible where God blesses a person or a group of people because of their attachment to a very godly person. Here are some other illustrations of this phenomenon.
Noah's wife and 3 sons and their wives are saved from the flood due to their attachment to the one who walked with God, the righteous and blameless Noah (Gen 6:9).
God had been prepared to spare Sodom for the sake of 10 righteous men.
God blessed Potiphar and the whole land of Egypt for Joseph's sake.
He blessed the widow of Zarephath for Elijah's sake.
God spared a shipload of men (276 in all) due to his servant, the apostle Paul, being on board.
Children of either a believing father or believing mother are considered "holy" due to the faith of that believing parent (1Cor 7:14). {And in some sense, the "unbelieving" spouse is "sanctified" as well!}
It is true that the blessing will only be temporary and won't carry over to the great reward of eternal life in God's kingdom unless those on the receiving end of the blessing become faithful to God in the prescribed way. In some of those cases - the widow of Elijah's day and quite possibly Noah's family - there is some evidence that the followers did show that faith. With Laban here the evidence points in the other direction.
But the type is valid nonetheless. For the sake of one man, the Lord Jesus Christ, God has gladly forgiven the sins of multitudes who have joined themselves to Him.
Wes Booker [South Austin Texas USA] Comment added in 2013 Reply to Wes
30:37-40 One wonders whether Jacob thought that there was a benefit in the way that he used the “rods”. Certainly selecting the stronger of the flock would have an impact on the offspring born to those stronger animals. However the increase of Jacob’s share of the flock was not down to his skill as a shepherd. It was a consequence of the blessing of God. God can use or thwart any plan we might use in our lives. It is important to realise that the outcome in our lives is of God and not down to our own ingenuity.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2014 Reply to Peter
The promises to Abraham and their unusual effect
Talk about a dysfunctional family! If we have read this chapter before, we may have got so caught up in the drama of the story that we miss the spiritual significance of it. It is unusual in any story, whether fictional or historical, to go into such detail about childbearing. Have you wondered what the reason for it is? Clearly the two wives, Rachel and Leah, were competing among themselves to see who could bear the most children. Is that normal? If this was the usual sibling rivalry, could it not have manifested itself in other ways like who sewed the best clothes, who worked hardest in the field, who weighed the most/least, was tallest or was the prettiest or any other trait?
Let's put the chapter in context. Jacob has been sent away from his home to go and find a wife. His father (Isaac) sends him off with these words:
"Arise, go to Padan Aram, to the house of Bethuel your mother's father; and take yourself a wife from there of the daughters of Laban your mother's brother.
'May God Almighty bless you,
And make you fruitful and multiply you,
That you may be an assembly of peoples;
And give you the blessing of Abraham,' "
Gen 28:2-4
Its a completely unique commission to give to a young man. I've put in bold text where the emphasis is on childbearing, raising up a people, being fruitful, and the "blessing of Abraham", which is:
"Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him"
Gen 18:18
and notice the emphasis on the "seed" of Abraham in the promises God gave him:
"For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered."
Gen 13:15-16
So we have far from a normal situation, a man who has just been passed the promises of his Grandfather Abraham, which all relate to a "seed", or descendants, which will be very numerous and grow into a great nation. How shocking it would be, then, for Rachel to discover she was barren, and to find that Leah was in line to fulfil these promises for Jacob rather than her? And doesn't this perfectly explain the rivalry of the two women and why it focused solely on childbearing? In a way, this rivalry showed the faith that the two women had in the promises made to Abraham, and their respect for Jacob who obviously had told them of the promises and talked about them often. It gives us a peek into the daily life of this family, and allows us to see the focus of that family on the word of God despite all the challenges of life. So may it be with us too.
Rob de Jongh [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2014 Reply to Rob
WHAT'S IN A NAME?
The names and meanings of Leah's children make interesting reading.
Reuben was her firstborn. His name sounds like "He has seen my misery" and means, "See, a son."
Her second child was Simeon, which means "One who hears."
Her third was Levi, which sounds like and means "Attached."
Her fourth child was Judah, whose name means "Praise."
At that stage Leah stopped bearing children and Zilpah, her maidservant bore Jacob some children.
Gad was her first, which means "Good fortune," or "A troop."
Then Zilpah had a second son, Asher, whose name means "Happy."
Leah then had another son, Issachar, whose name means "Reward."
Issachar was followed by Leah's sixth son, Zebulun, which means "Honour."
Her last child was a daughter, Dinah, which means "Judgement."
If we put the meanings of the names of Leah's children together, we get this: See, a Son who has seen my misery and who hears will become attached to me and I will praise the Lord. He will bring good fortune and I will be happy. His reward will bring honour at judgement.
How honoured we are to know the Son this speaks of, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will bring us his reward when he comes.
Robert Prins [Auckland - Pakuranga - (NZ)] Comment added in 2014 Reply to Robert
30:6 Leah – Gen 29:32,33 – speaks of Yahweh (the LORD) giving her children whereas here Sarah can only call Him God.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2015 Reply to Peter
30:1 We are presented in Scripture we many examples of people repeating the same error / lack of judgment. Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham – and now Rachel imitates that action though it is certain that she had been made aware of the consequences of what Abraham and Sarah did.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2016 Reply to Peter
30:1 we learn – Prov 27:4 - of the stress that envy places upon an individual. Rachel was already stressed and this affected her judgement about how to speak with her husband.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2017 Reply to Peter
In Gen 30:34-35 there is a powerful example of the greed and deceitful nature of Laban: we can be sure that the "speckled and spotted cattle" and "the brown cattle among the sheep, and the spotted and speckled among the goats" were very much in the minority otherwise Laban would not have fallen over himself in his eagerness to accept the deal, yet in verse 35 we read that the very same day Laban made this agreement with Jacob, he went through all his flocks and herds and removed every one that was so marked and made sure they were well beyond the reach of Jacob - even though he had agreed that such were to be Jacob's.
Greed, parsimony and deceit turned Laban into a miserly, greedy and despicable character. Reading of his behaviour highlights a lesson for us. (compare Prov 22:9 with Isa 32:5-8)
Nigel Morgan [Fawley UK] Comment added in 2017 Reply to Nigel
30:1-2 Jacob loved Rachel Genesis 29:18 – and yet the marriage had reached a difficult point. Why? The reason is that unreasonable requests were made of one party to the marriage. Maybe we can learn from this in our own marriages.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2018 Reply to Peter
30:2 This Psalm relates to the dedication of the ark when David brought it so Zion. The first time David attempted it was a disaster – 2Sam 6:9 - but the second time was a time of rejoicing. The is the healing that David is speaking of.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2018 Reply to Peter
30:1-21 Whilst we read this section in a few minutes it the record covers events over a significant number of years. Whilst we are not told exactly how long it is clear that the tensions existed between Rachel and Leah for many years. And Isaac was caught in the crossfire. He must have contemplated the deceit that had brought about these trials.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2019 Reply to Peter
Gen 30:1-26 To avoid taking a wife of the daughters of Canaan Jacob was sent to Laban’s house (his uncle) where he met Sarah at the well in Haran (Gen 28:1-2 ; Gen 29:4,10). Ten of Jacob sons from which came ten of the tribes of Israel were born in Haran outside of the promised land (Gen 29:32-35 to Gen 30:1-25).
God remembered Rachel and she was blessed with her first born son Joseph (Gen 30:22-25). Her second son Benjamin was the only one of the tribes named to be actually born in the land of promise! (Gen 35:16-18). The scriptures give us so much detail, it is all written for our edification.
Peter Moore [Erith, UK] Comment added in 2019 Reply to Peter
While Leah appears the more spiritual woman, it must be remembered that she entered into the deception with her father Laban, to marry Jacob. Jacob, made the vow to Rachel not Leah. So it is interesting that the Scripture never records Leah as Jacob’s wife, not even when recounting the occupants of the Cave at Macpelah - Gen 49:31. However the divine record does call Rachel “wife” Genesis 46:19.
Beulah Edwards [Christchurch West New Zealand] Comment added in 2019 Reply to Beulah
30:41-43 Jacob seems to have worked out a way in which he thought he would benefit from the agreement. However it was God who was in control of events that ensured that Jacob “increased exceedingly.”
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2020 Reply to Peter
30:16 So Jacob is but a pawn in the feuding between Leah and Rachel!
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2021 Reply to Peter
30:22 Four times – Gen 8:1, 19:29 , 30:22 , Exo 2:24 – we read that “God remembered”. It is not that God had forgotten and all of a sudden these things came back into His mind. Rather He was constantly thinking about the individuals concerned but there now arose a time when He actually intervened on their behalf. This should give us assurance that He will remember all of His faithful servants when He finally rises up to judge the world.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2022 Reply to Peter
30:8 Notice again Rachel sees the having children as a battle with her sister rather than a blessing from Yahweh.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2023 Reply to Peter
30:6 Maybe, in saying “God …” Rachel is taking up Jacob’s response - :2 – am I in God’s stead wishing to make the point that God had blessed her despite Jacob’s inability to provide her with a child.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2024 Reply to Peter
30:16 To me, it is so sad to note that the intensity of Rachel & Leah's sibling rivalry drove them both into treating their husband as a gigolo.
Nigel Morgan [Fawley UK] Comment added in 2024 Reply to Nigel
30:2 Even in his anger Jacob spoke true words. He recognised that Rachel’s barrenness was of God. Can we, under stressful circumstances still present true Bible teaching on how we should live?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2025 Reply to Peter
v5. - The word ashamed here is chapher, which is a relatively rare word (17 occurrences). The normal word for ashamed (eg. Gen.2:25) is buwsh (109 occurrences) and is used a lot. This word here in Ps.34:5 means confused or abashed or confounded, which is the most common translation. It is the first of several uses of this word in Psalms. The others are in Ps.35:4 (confusion), 35:26 (confusion), 40:14 (confounded), 70:2 (confounded), 71:24 (shame), and 83:17 (shame).
Peter [UK] Comment added in 2001 Reply to Peter
v.7 - This must apply to us too, though we seem to find it so hard to accept. Maybe we are like the young man in 2Kings 6:17 to whom the previously invisible legions of angels guarding them were revealed. Let us remember the protective hand of God, and lean on Him to take us to His kingdom. Psa.91:11, Matt.18:10
Peter [UK] Comment added in 2002 Reply to Peter
The titles of this Psalm shows us why the Psalm was written. There is a change in focus of the Psalm at :11 where David moves from speaking about how God has worked in his life. From :11 David is instructing his 'children'. These children, in the first instance are the 400 who were with him in the cave 1 Samuel 22 - the next event recorded after he escaped from Gath.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2003 Reply to Peter
In order to see the issues that were in David’s mind we should highlight all the words related to fear and prayer in this Psalm. We will learn that David saw a way through his fears – it was prayer to his God.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to Peter
Psalm 34 This Psalm was probably written after David's escape from Achish (1Sam 21:13) David here acknowledges his complete dependence on God.
John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to John
This psalm is in reference to David's departure from Achish, King of Gath (1Sam 21:13,14). The name Abimelech as a general title for Philistine kings.
See also Abraham and Isaac's similar encounters (Gen 20:2, 26:8).
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to Michael
v.1 (Title) we are told here this is from the time when he feigned madness before Abimelech, which is recorded for us in 1Sam 21:13-15. It seems that here God is using David's clear acting ability to keep him safe. Even though this madness is not real (borne out by his ability to write this Psalm at the same time) God allows it to save him from his enemy.
Peter [UK] Comment added in 2004 Reply to Peter
There is no doubt that the encamping of the Lord's angel around us, is the best news we could ever be given. He's not only in front, to prepare the way for us; he's not only at the side to lend us a hand and encourage us; and he's not only behind us to give us a prod, and motivate us - but the Lord's angel is encamping, or pitching all around us.
David Simpson [Worcester (UK)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to David
Psa 34:5 - your comment sent me scurrying to the Aramaic translation where it is disappointed, instead of the KJ ashamed.
Fits better with the meanings you give.
It uses confounded in 34:5, confusion in v.6, confounded in 40:14, 70:2 confusion 71:24 confounded.
Gives a much clearer understanding of what the Psalmist is saying.
Jean Cheetham [Moorestown New Jersey (US)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to Jean
34:19-20 - A righteous man may have many troubles but the Lord, perhaps assisted by guardian angels v.7 delivers him from them all. Ultimate deliverance will be when Christ returns and in v.20 we note a reference to Christ who suffered no broken bones John 19:36;Exo 12:43-47.
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to Charles
34:16 God’s face and it’s disposition towards man is a topic which we find often in Scripture. Whereas the wicked would do well to hide from His face the righteous will seek it Psa 24:6. Are we happy that our Father is always looking at what we do?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to Peter
34:11 The ‘children’ are the 400 men who are with David in the cave of Adullam. He is instructing them as to how to deal with persecution – David has learnt from his experience before Achish that God will care for His children.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2007 Reply to Peter
This Psalm has a structural pattern that uses a successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet to begin each verse, starting with aleph (A) to tau (Z). PSALM 119 is made up in a similar manner. Each section is divided into eight verses, the first letter of each verse in a section begin with the same letter (1-8 begin with aleph,; 9-16 begin with beth) We can see the hand of God at work, it would have been almost impossible to achieve by the human mind or hand. Keeping the important message and maintaining the alphabetic pattern going is remarkable. The book of Lamentations is written in the same manner, each chapter having 22 verses, except chapter 3, which has 3 x 22 verses.
John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2007 Reply to John
Psa 34:5 links with 2Cor 3:12-18 "...we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord..." & so we are not confused or confounded..
Wendy Johnsen [Nanaimo, BC, Canada] Comment added in 2007 Reply to Wendy
34:12-14 Peter (1Pet 3:10) quotes this area of the Psalm to encourage the brethren of his day. The context is so appropriate. David was being persecuted by Saul even though he had not done anything wrong. Peter is encouraging his brethren as to how to deal with persecution in their day.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2008 Reply to Peter
This psalm is acrostic, that is, each section of the psalm successively follows the Hebrew alphabet (א to ת - aleph to tav). There are 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet. Besides Ps. 34, other examples of acrostic presentations are: Psalms 1; 9-10; 25; 34; 37; 111; 112; 119; 145; Proverbs 31:10-31; Lamentations 1; 2; 3; 4. Some start each single verse with a different letter. Others use a different letter for a clump of verses. Ps. 119, for example, the first eight verses begin with aleph, then the next eight verses begin with bet, and so on. Acrostics provide alphabetical hooks which make it easier for the (Hebrew) reader to remember the text.
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2008 Reply to Michael
WE ARE NOT ALONE
We are not alone. How many times have we heard this message from those gazing into space or hunting aliens from other galaxies? We are not alone. They believe that with the size of the universe, there must be at least one other planet like ours that contains life. But they are looking in all the wrong places. We are not alone. We don't have to look that far to find more intelligent life - we just need our eyes opened to be able to see it.
The Bible tells us that there is more life around us than we think. There is probably someone standing or sitting next to you right now and you are not even aware that they are there. "The angel of the LORD encamps around those who fear him, and he delivers them." (Psa 34:7)
It is an awe inspiring thought to know that God has not placed us here alone in the universe. Both as a race and individually, we have the wisdom and power of God's angels around us, placed there by God to guide and protect us. Angels have more to do with our lives than we could ever imagine - especially if we love God.
If we ever found an alien we may find it helpful, but more likely terrifying or threatening. God has given us angels to deliver us. Let us thank God that we are not alone!
Robert Prins [Auckland - Pakuranga - (NZ)] Comment added in 2008 Reply to Robert
34:7 The apostle Peter – Acts 12:11 – learnt that this was true when an angel delivered him from certain death in the prison.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Peter
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Charles
34:19 Paul in 2Tim 3:11-12 – uses these assuring words of David to encourage Timothy.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Peter
This Psalm makes solid observations about God's care for those who love Him, but sets this treasure in the frame of our afflictions: "many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the LORD delivers him out of them all". So what we have is a realistic picture of life for those who fear God. We can look back at David's life to see how these promises are worked out, in particular how he was fed time and time again (v9-10), delivered from troubles (v6-7, 17), and even rescued out of his heartbreak (v18). If we take time to read (taste) these Bible accounts and match them to the Psalms, then apply them when we are next in trouble, we will both "taste and see that the LORD is good" (v8). Unfortunately, if we leave out the tasting part, we might miss the seeing too.
Rob de Jongh [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Rob
v8 Taste and see that the LORD is good.....as, surely, we do each Sunday
Ken Trelfer [Rockingham Forest, UK] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Ken
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Peter
34:20 That the “righteous” keep all their bones, not one is broken, echoes Exo 12:46 where the Passover lamb is spoken of and is fulfilled in Jesus – John 19:36 – when Jesus was crucified.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2012 Reply to Peter
Psa 34:6,22 - the sixth letter of this near acrostic should be "vav" (the Heb letter "vav" denotes a nail) but it's skipped while the letter "pe" is repeated in the last verse with the word "redeemeth" <6299> - could this be to draw our attention to Christ's sacrifice?
Psa 34:1 - "bless" <1288>, Psa 34:8 - "blessed" <835>.
Psa 34:15 - "cry" <7775>, Psa 34:17 - "cry" <6817>.
Psa 34:15,17 - God hears the prayers of the righteous (James 5:16;Prov 15:29).
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2012 Reply to Charles
Psa 34 Title. This Psalm and Psa 56 should be seen as complementary. It would appear that David went towards Gath expecting a safe haven only to be captured by the Philistines – Title Psalm 56 – and then arrayed before Achish – as spoken of in this Psalm – when he “feigned madness”
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2013 Reply to Peter
Psalms 34:8 "O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him."
Other bible references to taste refer to the word of God, but in this Psalm the word refers to the experience of answered prayer. Praying in time of trouble (v6) and being delivered as a result (v7) is the personal evidence we all need to prove to us that God is good. These experiences produce faith, or "trust" as this Psalm has it. Both faith and an appreciation of God's goodness are needed in order for us to be acceptable to God (Heb 11:6), and so we can see why a certain amount of trouble can be an important catalyst for godliness in our lives.
Rob de Jongh [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2013 Reply to Rob
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2014 Reply to Peter
VAV. I read with interest brother Charles comments on the letter VAV and researched this a little further.
The letter VAV is 6th letter of Hebrew alphabet and has a numerical value of 6, 6 = man. It represents a hook/nail and looks like a tent peg when written
Its first use is in Gen 1:1 and links heaven and earth, just as heaven and earth are to be linked spiritually.
Exo 27:9-10 speaks of hooks that fastened the curtain to the posts and is the word Vav.
The tabernacle was the habitation of God for the Israelites, the scribes who wrote the Torah believed the word of God was Gods habitation for them, so they constructed the Torah as the tabernacle, each parchement was a curtain and each column upon it a post, and they wrote each column of text beginning with Vav!
Do we hold the word so precious?
Gen 2:4 These are the generations of.
Here the word Toldot is used, however after the fall of Adam the word is spelt differently when "these are the generations of" are used. It is spelled with a missing letter VAV! The link between heaven and earth has been lost and defective.
However in Ruth 4:18 these are the generations of is spelt with a missing VAV restored, why?
The connection has been restored in the generation of Perez. Perez = breakthrough in order for the hook/connection to be made between heaven and earth must break through Perez generations.
David would come from Perez and so would the Lord Jesus Christ, the redeemer spoken of in PS 34!
stephen cox [Sedgley UK] Comment added in 2014 Reply to stephen
34:2 Having experienced the deliverance from God David “boasts” that is explains his deliverance to others. This is a major theme of the Psalm - that God has delivered him and others can learn of this as can be seen in verses 11-19. Do we tell others about how God has delivered us from problems?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2015 Reply to Peter
Psa 34:7,9
"The angel of the LORD encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them."
In verses 7,9, we are admonished to fear the LORD, and then in verses 11-14, we are told what the fear of the LORD is. To fear the LORD is more than just regarding God in high esteem, or holy reverence. It is a vital lesson God wants all His children to learn. We live in an Age when the fear of the LORD, as biblically defined, is rare, indeed.
To fear the LORD is to depart from all forms of evil (Psa 34:13,14; Prov 8:13). When we compromise or court with evil, it is because evil does not look so bad to us, and it is then that we begin to justify sin. To fear God is to submit to His will, to hate evil, to learn to walk in His favour all the days of our life, and it is to such God extends His mercy and blessings (cf. Psa 33:18; Psa 145:18-20; Psa 147:11; Mal 4:2). Psa 112, amongst numerous other Scriptural passages, describes the life we are to lead in the Truth (eg 1Pet 3:1-12). It is a life of submission to God because we love Him (Prov 8:17). God hates evil and all those who love the LORD hate evil too (Psa 97:10). Any form of immorality, any form of disobedience is evil, and evil is a very destructive force. A righteous person cannot countenance it (cf. 2Pet 2:7-9).
To fear God is to love (agape) God; it is to reverence God; it is to hearken to God; it is to live a life of devotion and submission to God based on our recognition of who He is (cf. Psa 81:8, cp. v. 11; Neh 9:34). This is the Biblical definition of what it is to fear the LORD. This kind of fear comes only through the diligent study of the Bible, and as we build our faith, we begin to hate what God hates, we develop a discerning spirit, which will enable us to make wise decisions. Will God pour out His blessings in all its fullness upon those who choose to court with evil rather than shun it? Those who do, have not learned the true meaning of what it is to fear God.
Furthermore, this verse is not about keeping us from periods of distresses, but a promise to deliver us out of them. No matter how dark the circumstances are sometimes around us, our confidence, faith, trust, and steadfastness in God will deliver us because this honours God, and He will guide us through them all (cf. Psa 145:18,19; Psa 147:11).
The decision is not to try, but to believe and do it. To try is a plan to fail; trying contains the expectation of failure; it is a built in excuse. The choice is ours: we can try or we can do (Phil 4:13).
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2015 Reply to Valerie
34:1 David had placed himself in a compromised position which terrified him. God delivered him form the circumstances of being in prison in Philistine county. So he praised God. We may pray for help when we are in trouble but do we equally praise God when our problem has been resolved?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2016 Reply to Peter
34 Title the way in which Abimelech “drove” David away uses the same word used of Egypt’s behaviour to Israel – Exo 12:39 when Israel were “thrust out” <1644>
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2017 Reply to Peter
Nick Kendall [In Isolation] Comment added in 2017 Reply to Nick
Nick Kendall [In Isolation] Comment added in 2017 Reply to Nick
Nick Kendall [In Isolation] Comment added in 2017 Reply to Nick
34:15 When things are not going as we would like. When we are praying and not getting the answer we want – or even just an answer – we may fall into the trap of thinking that God is not listening. David, reflecting on his dire circumstances before Abimelech / Achish observes that indeed God does hear. – always.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2018 Reply to Peter
34:1title. The title of this Psalm helps us to see that this Psalm fits into the historical record in 1Sam 21:10
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2019 Reply to Peter
34:6 In saying “this man cried, and the Lord heard” shows us that when David was trapped by the Philistines – see the Psalm title – he prayed to God for deliverance. We can be sure that he prayed for deliverance because he was delivered from the Philistines.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2020 Reply to Peter
34:4 We might ask what were David’s fears when he fled to Achish king of Gath. Those fears are expressed later – 1Sam 27:1 – it is a fear of what Saul might manage to do.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2021 Reply to Peter
34 David fled from Saul being afraid of him (1Sam 21:10) but then was “sore afraid” before Achish (1Sam 21:12)
Psalm 34 is written against that background – after he was delivered from Achish.
He fled to the cave of Adullam (1Sam 22:1) and was joined by 400 who were discontented with Saul’s rulership (:2).
In the Psalm David shares how he trusted in God, prayed to him and was delivered (:4)
David then uses his experience to teach those men who had resorted to him calling them “children” (34:11) making the point, amongst other things, that God will deliver the righteous from afflictions (34:19) Of course this does not mean that David was saying ”righteous” individuals would not have trouble,. But that there was deliverance – He has redeemed the soul of His servants (Psa 34:22). This assurance is guaranteed to us by the resurrection of Jesus and our faith in that salvation.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2022 Reply to Peter
34:2 We probably see the word “boast” in a negative way. We should not be boastful. It is helpful to look at the word translated “boast” <1984> as we find that it is translated “praise” 117 times out of a total of around 165 occurrences in the bible.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2023 Reply to Peter
34:1-2 Whilst many might think that David was clever in changing his behaviour before Achish – 1Sam 21:13 – which is the context of the Psalm we notice that David does not rejoice in his wisdom in extricating himself from the problem of the lords of the Philistines. Rather he “boasts in the Lord” recognising that the deliverance was of God, not of David’s cleverness.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2024 Reply to Peter
34:1 Mankind tends to seek God when in trouble, and then, if deliverance comes, tend not to give Him a second thought let alone praise Him. But notice faithful David, who at this time was in great distress, praises God at all times!
What about us? Does our behaviour match David’s?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2025 Reply to Peter
THE EYES OF THE LORD
“EVENTS in private life may be loudly trumpeted as ‘providential’ which God has not affected at all, but which are the natural juxtapositions of fortuitous occurrence. Nevertheless, there is a providential control, through all circumstances all circumstances are not controlled. We must not be scared or discouraged out of a recognition of the true by the vast mass of the spurious. Where God is feared, His promises believed and His commandments obeyed, there is a providence at work, shaping natural circumstances, to give them an appointed issue for good though the road travelled may be apparently evil. ‘The eyes of the Lord are over the righteous: His ears are open to their cry.’”
Robert Roberts, The Ways of Providence, p. 214
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2025 Reply to Valerie
v.25 - This is a very pertinent question. And notably Jesus is emphasising along with the rest of scripture:
1. That God looks on the heart, not the outward appearance (1Sam.16:7, Jer.17:10)
2. That only a remnant shall be saved (Matt.24:22, Luke 13:23-24, Rom.11:5)
This passage in Matt. 19 shows the truth of the proverb in Prov.16:2
Peter [UK] Comment added in 2001 Reply to Peter
19:3 Maybe the question about putting away wives was not simply a theoretical question. John Baptist had already reproved Herod for taking his brother Philip's wife [Mark 6:17] Maybe the leaders thought that they could trap Jesus with this question and cause him to suffer the same fate as John.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2002 Reply to Peter
19:21 In telling the rich man to 'sell all that he had' Jesus is implementing the teaching of the parable (13:44-46)
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2003 Reply to Peter
19:22 Note the contrast between the rich ruler here who 'went away' and the blind men (20:34) who 'followed him' - exactly what the rich man had been asked to do (19:21)
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to Peter
:10-11 - along with Paul's words in 1Cor 7:8-9 we have here a clear indication that the best state for worship is unmarried, but also that it is recognised that not all can manage this.
Peter [UK] Comment added in 2004 Reply to Peter
Matt 19:26 Man is dependent on God in every way for salvation.. Christ answers the question of the young man in a truthful way when he said "WITH MEN THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE" Christ answered Nicodemus; "EXCEPT A MAN BE BORN OF WATER AND OF THE SPIRIT, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD" John 3:3-5 Of himself man can do nothing, there must be a spiritual rebirth.
John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to John
Vs.23,24 The picture of a camel going through an actual eye of a needle does not seem to make sense. However, if the eye of a needle is referring to a narrow aperture through a rock, then perhaps it does. Imagine a camel loaded with goods in transit through a rocky region (not uncommon in the time and place of Jesus). Somewhere along the way, the path encounters a narrow passage through the rock face. It is not possible for the camel to go through fully loaded. First, one must unload the camel and squeeze it through the opening and then reload it on the other side.
The Lord is telling his disciples (and us) that in order for a rich man to enter the kingdom he must first divest himself of his wealth. In fact this figure follows from Jesus' advice to the young man (v.21).
Does that mean we should give everything we have away?
That's a choice, of course, but the not the Lord's categorical demand. He does not say that a rich man will not enter the kingdom - he says hardly. Riches can be dangerous if they are misused or become a focus of our confidence (idolatry) (Matt 6:24, 1Tim 6:17,18). But shared, selflessly, for the greater good, they can honour the Lord (2Cor 9:7, Acts 2:44,45).
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to Michael
WHAT DO I LACK?
It was a brave question the rich young man asked Jesus. It started with, "What good thing must I do to get eternal life?" (Matt 19:16) Jesus' reply listing the commandments was too easy for him, so he asked, "What do I still lack?" (v. 20)
Have you ever wondered the same of yourself? What do we still lack in our Christian lives? We may have some idea of what Jesus would say to us. It would probably result in something very precious to us being given away - not necessarily riches, but maybe pleasures or time. It may feel comforting to know that Jesus is not around to ask and so we think we can continue on as we are. But like the rich young man, we need to know the way to be the best we can be.
If we are brave enough we could ask the people who know us. If they know we are followers of Christ, nearly everyone will be able to tell us what we lack in our Christian walk. We need honest answers from people who know us well, who see us every day and who have a good idea of what our character is like. It may even be that friends are too close to give us an honest answer, and it is likely that someone we don't see eye to eye with will have the best advice - if we care to listen.
Once we know what we lack, what will we do with that knowledge? The rich young man went away sad because he couldn't bring himself to do what needed to be done. Are we prepared to change?
Robert Prins [Auckland - Pakuranga - (NZ)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to Robert
v.2 - One might ask, did he wait to heal them in Judea because he needed to see their demonstration of faith in following him so far, or was it because the faith of the people in Galilee did not permit him to heal there? It had been OK in 4:23, but Galilee was his own country where as a prophet he tells us he was not honoured 13:57
Peter [UK] Comment added in 2004 Reply to Peter
V.21 - "perfect" Grk."teleios<5046>" means "complete (in various applications of growth, mental and moral character, etc.), completeness, of full age, man, perfect", etc.
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to Charles
19:21 The call to the ruler to 'sell all' echoes the way that the man who found the pearl of great price responded - Matt 13:44.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to Peter
V.26 With men this is impossible. At every point, beginning, middle, and end, man is completely dependent on God for everything; of his own he can do nothing, a spiritual rebirth must take place. To obtain salvation, man must be born again (John 3:3-5). It is God who, through Christ is able to provide salvation (Heb 7:25).
John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2006 Reply to John
a) The comment made by Jesus in Matt 19:4,5 tells us what isn't very plain in Gen 2:23,24. Adam said that his new wife Eve was bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh, then God makes the comment in v24, that a man should leave his parents and be joined completely to his wife.
b) God never tells us all to sell up our possessions, Matt 19:21,22. Jesus only said it to this young man because he obviously trusted in his wealth, to the exclusion of his real love of God.
David Simpson [Worcester (UK)] Comment added in 2006 Reply to David
19:3 Maybe the question that the Pharisees asked had an origin in recent events. John the Baptist had been imprisoned because he had witnessed against Philip’s behaviour – Matt 14:3-4
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2007 Reply to Peter
19:3 The question ‘is it lawful …’ actually misses the point of what God’s mercy is all about. Whilst the law made provision for a man to ‘put away’ his wife such actions fell far short of the ideal. The lesson for us is clear. Whilst something might be ‘lawful’ it might not be the Christ like thing to do.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2008 Reply to Peter
V.12 From a spiritual point of view it is better to remain single. But not many can follow that path. The apostle Paul did, but he realized that for others (probably most) it is better to marry than to burn (1Cor 7:9). Nevertheless he concluded that: ...if you do marry, you have not sinned...but those who marry will face many troubles in this life...(1Cor 7:28). Marriage is a God-given institution and should be respected (Heb 13:4). However, things can and do go radically wrong sometimes. The Lord wants married couples to remain together, but if adultery occurs the marriage bond is essentially broken. True, the offended party can agree to forgive the offending party and choose to remain in the relationship. However, if the offended party cannot reconcile, he or she can dissolve the marriage. But, can he or she re-marry? Does the offended party have to remain celibate and burn? The Lord seems to suggest that, under these circumstances, it is permissible to re-marry (Matt 19:9). This so-called exceptive clause tilts towards mercy. The offended party can decide to remarry or to remain single - that is his or her choice. Of course, the least complicated state would be to remain single. Whatever the decision, others should check their mercy meter and not stand in judgement.
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2008 Reply to Michael
19:4 Jesus’ response to his critics who are asking about what is ‘lawful’ directs their attention to Gen 1:27 and 2:24. Their response was to question what Moses said in the law of Moses, implying that in some way there is a difficulty with the Genesis account because of what Moses said. So often we see one passage of Scripture as if it is in conflict with another. However given that all Scripture is inspired we ought to look at the passages as complementary rather than as if they cause a conflict.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Peter
Vs.13,14 Some people claim that these verses allow for children who have died to be saved. This is a sweet sentiment but it is not supported by scripture. Scripture says, clearly, that belief and baptism are necessary for salvation (Mark 16:16). This is predicated upon a free-will choice from an understanding mind. Children are hardly able to make that choice.
The Lord is not advocating salvation for children but rather pointing out an acceptable attitude for believers. Unless one is prepared to adopt a child-like faith (unquestioning trust and humility), then one will not obtain salvation (Matt 18:3,4).
V.30 actually begins Matthew Ch.20.
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Michael
-
Rob de Jongh [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Rob
There are three ways to go about religion. 1) Haphazardly. 2) Perfectly. 3) Trustingly. The first one is downright rude to the Father who created us and gave us everything. The second is insulting to Jesus who was perfect for us so that we needn't be. The third gives glory to God and Jesus who worked so hard to give us a method of salvation that was realistic for us to achieve.
Both the man in v16 and the disciples in v27 concentrated on method 2. Inheriting the kingdom by works. Jesus is careful to praise their good works whilst pointing out the better way to go about salvation. So in v29-30 and ch.20 v1-16 he warns them that no matter how much work you do for God, the inheritance is by faith, and the gift of life the same. Later in their lives the apostles would genuinely struggle to see the Gentiles inheriting the same promises, yet without keeping the law perfectly (Acts 21:25).
Rob de Jongh [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Rob
v28 First Principles>Sure Mercies of David>Government
Every Kingdom has a King, a Government, a People, a Land and a Capital City. This section is to do with the Government of God's coming Kingdom.
The disciples looked for a restoration of Israel Acts 1:6
Jesus has promised the disciples that they will govern Jesus' Kingdom. Matt 19:28, Luke 22:30.
1. The government was prophesied previously Isa 9:6, Mic 4:1-4
2. The rulership is not limited to the twelve 2Tim 2:12, Rev 5:9-10, Rev 2:26-27, Rev 3:21
Princes shall rule in judgement Isa 32:1
The blessed will inherit the kingdom Matt 25:34
The saints will possess the Kingdom Dan 7:18,22
The saints will judge the world 1Cor 6:2
Also see Psa 149:7-9
For more information about First Principles>Sure Mercies of David, go to Isa 55:1-3
Roger Turner [Lichfield (UK)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Roger
Matt 19:17 - "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God" Thus Jesus is refering to his and all mankind's flesh and sinful nature and how it differs from God who is incapable of sin (Rom 7:18;Heb 4:15;James 1:13-15;Num 23:19); Jesus is plainly saying he is not God.
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Charles
19:17 It might seem that Jesus’ rebuke of the young man is unnecessary and might even deter him from seeking more of Jesus. However it was important to set out the important principle which is laid out in Psa 14:1 before saying any more. The reason for this is that unless the principle is understood it is impossible to move on to the next stage in this young man’s development.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Peter
Matt 19:4-7 - marriage is a faithful bond between one man and one woman. This echoes the relationship between Christ (the bridegroom) and his faithful followers (the bride) - Matt 19:4-7;John 3:27-30;Luke 5:34-35;Eph 5:23-33;1Cor 7:1-40. In Old Testament times, prior to Christ, the Law sanctioned the taking of more than one wife (Deut 21:15).
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Charles
v24 The eye of a needle is both strait and narrow Matt 7:14
Ken Trelfer [Rockingham Forest, UK] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Ken
19:4-5 The way that the words of Genesis are joined with ‘and said’ indicates that it was God who said ‘for this cause ...’ which is not obvious from the Genesis record. So here we see a place where a later record clarifies an earlier record.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Peter
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2012 Reply to Peter
“What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”
This phrase is so often used at Christian wedding ceremonies, but the words, “till death do us part” has been added. An appropriate Scriptural vow would read more like this: “By God’s grace, and through His strength, I give myself solely to you, to have and to hold, to love, honour and obey according to His will for us,” for in ourselves we are weak. We cannot do it in our own strength.
The word, asunder, is # <5562>, choreo, and is a derivative of # <5563>, chorizo, “to go away, separate.” The context is not about divorce, but separation within the body of Christ. The couple exchanged marital vows with one another, which they are to honour and not pull their marriage apart when problems arise. But man (either partner) does put asunder. To separate is not a sin, but the circumstances that lead to the separation are.
The whole tenor of the New Testament is forgiving those who sin against us. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves his ecclesia and gave himself for it, and wives are to love their husbands by submitting to them as unto the Lord, not lording over her husband (1Cor 11:3; Eph 5:22-27)! If this order were kept and in the right spirit by both partners, separations and divorces would never occur within the body of Christ.
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2012 Reply to Valerie
19:15 Jesus was east of Jordan – Matt 19:1 but his audience were hostile towards him Matt 19:3. Consequently Jesus did no miracles there. However the ‘children’ doubtless did not decry him and so, in his usual way, he lay his hands on them before departing. Even though his adult audience was hostile Jesus did not forget the children.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2013 Reply to Peter
“And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female…”
Just recently, CNN interviewer Piers Morgan stated that the, “U.S. Constitution and the Bible are well-intentioned but inherently flawed.” He went on to say: “My point to you about gay rights, for example—it’s time for an amendment to the Bible.” My question to him would have been: “Amend it to what - Adam and Steve?” Mr. Morgan must not have read Mal 3:6: “For I am the LORD (Yahweh), I change not…”
The Bible says in several places that we are not to add or subtract from the Bible (Deut 4:2; Deut 12:32; Prov 30:6), and the strongest admonition may be read in Rev 22:18-19. Why? Because all of God’s word is truth and pure (Psa 119:160; Prov 30:5)! Adding is not just about adding additional words, but is also about changing the words to mean what they don’t according to the individual’s personal bias. This is known as isogesis, which eventually leads to heresy. Exegesis, on the other hand, is to investigate all Scripture in order to extract its actual meaning. This is what every true student of the Bible must do.
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2013 Reply to Valerie
19:16 Whilst the young man’s focus was on what he should “do” life as a believer in Jesus is a life of actions motivated by faith – a belief that God will keep His word. So the order should be firstly to believe and then act according to that belief. Simply asking what one should do avoids the need to think about faith first.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2014 Reply to Peter
Matt 19:9-10 Marriage and divorce.
We need to understand this fully in an age where "man does what is write in mans own eyes".
Fornication = promiscuity, prostitution and acts of sexual immorality before marriage. Only duaghters could commit fornication Hos 4:13
Adultery = To have unlawful sex with another mans wife.
So is Jesus saying if a wife sleeps with another man then you are free to remarry?
Yes he is!
However husband and wife here is a little different, and Jesus had experience of such an occasion and i wonder whether the Jews here knew it. Matt 1:18-19 here we see Joseph is described as a husband and Mary as his wife, notice they hadnt "come together".
Today Mary and Joseph would be described as Fiance and Fiancee and in Jewish law a Bethrothal was just as legally bining as marriage is supposed to be today, but there was no intimacy. A young couple would make a vow before the altar and remain bethrothed or promised to each other for a period of 1 year. (just in case the woman was preganant).
If the wife slept with another man during the betrothal therefore committing FORNICATION or the bed sheets were clean on their first night she COULD be put away.
So Jesus was saying the only reason you can put a woman away during your betrothal is for fornication, if you put here away for any other reason then you cause her next marriage to be one of Adultery. Jesus didnt agree with putting away for fornication, it was a law made for heart hearted man because he taught forgivness and of course it had effected his own mother. Notice how Joseph dealt with Mary...
It does not mean today if our wife or sister whether in the truth or not commits adultery (Adultery isnt fornication) then we are free to remarry (exceptive clause). And marriages to a wordly partner are just as binding.
Nor does it allow for someone who is divorced before coming to the truth be free to marry after baptism. 1Cor 7:20
stephen cox [Sedgley UK] Comment added in 2014 Reply to stephen
19:2 There are a number of occasions in the gospels when we are told that Jesus “healed them” We are being reminded that God had healing power as Hos 11:3 is being quoted
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2015 Reply to Peter
19:19 This account of the man who had to sell his possessions is the only one to mention the commandment ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’. Interestingly this commandment is spoken of in the Sermon On The Mount – Matt 5:43
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2016 Reply to Peter
A reader writes: “… {he} argues that Deut 24:1 is not teaching divorce but rather refers to a pre-marital separation… {he} implies that as Christ upheld the ideal divine template of marriage it is therefore contrary to his teaching that there should be permissions for divorce.”
My reply: Please refer to my notes on Deut 24, May 7th reading. It is a grave mistake to take one verse and ignore all the others that follow, as he did by just using Deut 24:1. We must compare Scripture with Scripture – from both the Old and New Covenants. We must refer to the original Hebrew and Greek words related to this topic.
Introducing the concept of a break up of an engagement is totally foreign to the context of Deut 24, and is totally foreign to the context of Matthew and Christ's debate with the Pharisaical Rabbis.
If a person broke an engagement and went on and married, why would this person be an adulterer? Does breaking an engagement now become adultery? The context of all these various Scriptures clearly touches on a consummated marriage.
Those who refer to Deut 24:1 as solely a separation of a broken engagement are the very ones who do not allow for divorce for any reason whatsoever. In order to make Scripture fit this belief, Scripture is wrested, “that God sealed marriage with His divine authority, and placed the act of human consent beyond the possibility of lawful change…” [emphasis mine]. Yet, Yahweh, Himself, introduced a law that did!
To take the engagement concept and impose it upon passages that deal strictly with marriage and divorce on the basis of its Old Covenant root is really to add something that simply is not there, while subtracting what is!
Deut 24 is not concerned about the engagement period, and if Christ had in mind the engagement period, he would be adding something to the Old Covenant standard, making his Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:31,32) inconsistent with what he had in mind and taught. He did not do this.
It was Adam who pronounced the words in Gen 2:23,24 while in a sinless state, and Yahweh endorsed it. Christ reaffirmed this standard as the ideal to which we must strive and was not happening. “Very good” flesh became sinful flesh and this ideal was not upheld, so regulation was needed. Thus, Deut 24 was introduced by Yahweh through His servant, Moses. Christ is not adding to or taking from it!
What the rabbis were teaching in Christ's day, and used Deut 24 for its justification, was that they could divorce for any reason, which Christ corrected. Deut 24 merely regulated the condition and manner for a divorce, not encouraged it.
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2016 Reply to Valerie
19:23 This one of a number of times when Jesus uses the reaction of others to instruct the disciples. We can be instructed by watching others and their reaction to the gospel. Not that we fault individuals – rather we realise that it is so easy to follow their ways.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2017 Reply to Peter
Nick Kendall [In Isolation] Comment added in 2017 Reply to Nick
God speaks of 1) leaving, which speaks of the priority of marriage; 2) cleaving, which speaks of pursuing hard to stick to the wife; 3) becoming one flesh, which speaks of the purpose of marriage. God shows us that for a marriage to last, we must have a total commitment to make the marriage last, and it is this commitment that enables love to go on, not vice versa. Without a total commitment by either partner, the marriage will disintegrate. Commitment is an absolute MUST. It is about, “If you ever leave me, I’m going with you” attitude. The principal is to make up not break up.
Being “one flesh” is more than just the physical act of love. Being one flesh speaks of absolute openness and oneness without which the physical act loses its meaning. Being “one” is about being totally committed to one another to make the marriage last, it is about the need of loving communication and loyal confrontation with one another without inhibitions nor should the various acts of communication be rooted in selfishness or ego trying to prove who is right. It is about attacking the problem, not one another. These combined acts make the married couple “one” without which the marital act is meaningless.
Jesus in reply to the question, “… Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” quoted Gen 2:24. God here did not prohibit separation or divorce, rather, God instructed us on how to keep our marriages together. This is His intent. They were separating and divorcing for “every cause,” but God said that the husband was to “cleave,” or pursue hard to stick to his wife, which is what the word means. It was never stipulated in the beginning that a husband/wife could not terminate the marriage, but it did stipulate that we are to make it work, and work hard at it. Because of the hardness of their hearts, they did not strive to make their marriages work, but rather chose separation, later divorce for any and every cause. This aspect of separating or divorcing for any cause was never so! And, this gives further credence to the so-called, "exceptive clause."
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2017 Reply to Valerie
Perhaps an overlooked aspect of verse 6 is that the emphasis is on the word what rather than on whom. The verse is not saying that every marriage is Divinely ordained, because if that were the case, then it could rightly be argued that Yahweh ordained every gay marriage as well, which clearly He did not as we know such unions are an abomination to Him (Lev 18:22; Rom 1:27). Rather it means that what was Divinely ordained was for a MAN to be joined to a WOMAN and NOT to another man or a woman to a woman. This aspect has particular relevance for our generation.
Nigel Morgan [Fawley UK] Comment added in 2017 Reply to Nigel
“…. but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments…”
Nowhere throughout the New Testament does it state specifically that we are commanded to keep the Ten Commandments, yet Sabbatarians will use this scripture among numerous others (1Cor 7:19; 1John 5:3, etc.) to “prove” Christ taught us to keep the Sabbath. They claim that ten is ten, not nine, or 0! The apostle Paul quoted this saying of Christ some 30 years later in Rom 13:9,10.
A Sabbatarian writes on these Scriptural passages: “He [Paul] recited half of the Ten Commandments. He then quoted another command, from Lev 19:18 that summarizes the intent of the Ten Commandments and [in doing so] confirms the validity of the rest of the law.” When I checked these Scriptures, the context has nothing to do with Sabbath-keeping! Everywhere in the New Testament that speaks of God’s laws, they interpret it to include the Ten Commandments, which includes keeping the Sabbath. They must not be aware of Eph 2:15 wherein it states, "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances..."
No one disputes the sanctity of the Sabbath in the Old Testament, but to claim Christ made it eternally binding using further the following Scriptural passages (Matt 5:17-19; Matt 19:17) is to take what Christ taught totally out of context! It is to add to his words! Christ’s mission, as prophesied, was to carry out his mission, and this was fulfilled, i.e., “to carry out, to satisfy (requirements, obligations)” which he did when he died. We cannot fulfill anything once dead! The Sabbath Law pointed to Christ, as did the other Ceremonial/Judicial Laws, which were abolished at Christ’s death. What was not abolished were the Moral Laws, which are a lot more than the remaining 9 Commandments (e.g. Witchcraft, lying with beasts, homosexuality, etc.), and so many other Moral Laws strewn throughout the Bible.
Then, the Sabbatarians blame the Roman Catholic Church for changing the Sabbath Saturday worship to Sunday. It was not the Roman Catholic Church, but Emperor Constantine, a Pagan worshipper of the unconquerable sun god, Sol Invictus, converted to “Christianity,” who by the Edict of Constantine in 321 A.D. changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. He wrote: “On the venerable Day of the sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits: because it often happens that another Day is not so suitable for grain sowing or for vine planting: lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost.”
43 years later, at the Council of Laodicea in 364 A.D., the Catholic Church determined to keep Sunday, as the day of worship charging those who kept the Sabbath on Saturdays were “Judaizers”! The Catholic Church declared: “Christians must not Judaize by resting on the Sabbath [that is, Saturday], but must work on that day, rather honoring the Lord’s day …. But if any shall be found to be Judaizers, let them be anathema [cursed and excommunicated] from Christ.”
In A.D. 1163, Pope Alexander III at the Council of Tours made this decree: “Whereas a damnable heresy has for some time lifted its head in the parts about Toulouse, and already spread infection through Gascony and other provinces, concealing itself like a serpent in its folds; as soon as its followers shall have been discovered, let no man afford them refuge on his estates; neither let there be any communication with them in buying and selling: so that, being deprived of the solace of human conversation, they may be compelled to return from error to wisdom.”
The Roman Catholic Church did not change the day of worship to Sunday, but decided to keep it and their reason for doing so was Scriptural!
It was the Pagans who gave names to the days of the week, not God! His days were numbered as were the months. We are commanded in the New Testament to remember Christ not by keeping the Sabbath, but by the Memorial Breaking of Bread instituted by Christ before his crucifixion (Matt 26:17-30; 1Cor 10:16,17; 11:23-26). The Apostles and Christ’s disciples kept every first-day of the week, or eighth day, we call Sunday (John 20:7; 1Cor 16:1,2), which was the day after the Sabbath, the seventh day, which we call Saturday also named after the Pagan god of agriculture, Sartuni - Saturn!
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2017 Reply to Valerie
19:7 The subsequent question “why then did Moses …” can be seen either as a desire for clarification or as an attempt to give Jesus a problem about divorce. We must always be careful when we ask questions as to whether we are really seeking further education or whether we are simply trying to demolish another person’s argument.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2018 Reply to Peter
“… Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so.”
When Christ spoke these words to the Pharisees, he took them back to Creation before sin marred God’s design. He certainly did not mean the period after our first parents sinned. Only God knows how many years passed before the fall, but without doubt, those years with the first couple were tender and totally unselfish love unaffected by sin. Side by side they lived and laboured in perfect harmony, shared a sense of mutual interdependence, enjoyed their communion and communication, possessed a deep-flowing affection that bound their spirits to each other; they were inseparable. Eve did not resent Adam’s leadership, but assisted Adam as his help mate in sharing the awesome responsibilities with her husband. There was no resentment, no tainted attitudes of superiority and exploitation, man and animals ate the fruit of the land, not each other. There was no sin in them, not subject to death, no knowledge of good and evil, no pain, no sorrow, the ground was not cursed, no thorns and thistles in the Garden they tended, no pests, no diseases, no guilt or shame of being unclean before a holy God, no strife between them and were at peace with God and at peace with each other. They were one with God and one with each other. This oneness in all its dimensions culminated in the glory of God. In a nutshell, this was their state before the fall. This was a marriage dedicated to God for life by a husband and a wife determined to do God’s will. This was the married life God intended it to be and was, yet they failed, and sin entered and marred what was once “very good.”
We cannot go back to Eden, because this Eden no longer exists. We cannot bring our sinfulness to what was then a sinless world. Christ pointed out to the Pharisees the beautiful harmony and love that once existed between a husband and wife, and how it became marred not just by them since the fall. Christ pointed out the kind of relationship with God that He meant for us to have with Him in the beginning. God designed marriage to be a testimony for Him, but they lost sight of this, and some of us have too.
As fallen sinners, we can never experience what Adam and Eve did before the fall. Today, marriage comes with the label, “Much assembly required.” Our instruction manual is the Bible, and it is hard work. Still, we cannot expect the pre fall results with sin in the flesh, but God in His mercy gave us His son who only lived a sinless life since, and the only one who could redeem us from a fallen sinful world.
Christ taught and showed us the way we are to honour and serve the Father in our lives and in our marriages; how God meant for us to worship Him in obedience and striving to live up to His expectations for us to the best of our ability in a cold and broken world. We have to deal with sin now while we grow morally and spiritually in holiness and in all obedience. If we do, we will grow in spiritual intimacy with one another, cleave to one another in our marriages, in our ecclesias, and cleave to our God and His son who taught us all about love, and through whom we may obtain forgiveness when we fail.
Never, never give up, despite the painful circumstances we may find ourselves in. May our every breadth permeate our praises to our Heavenly Father’s holy name, and may our prayers turn into praises, our supplications swallowed up in praises, and may we love God for His loving kindness and tender mercies forever and ever.
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2018 Reply to Valerie
19:12 The Apostle Paul’s advice – 1Cor 7:25-27 – may well have Jesus’ words here in mind.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2019 Reply to Peter
19:16 The young man’s “do” is contrasted – 20:31 – with the blind man who did not want to “do” anything. He wanted Jesus to “do” something – show him mercy
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2020 Reply to Peter
It is not good that man be alone (Gen 2:18); a man shall "leave <5800> <2641>" (psychologically and perhaps physically) his father and mother and "cleave <1692>" to his wife (Gen 2:24;Matt 19:4-5); there was one male and one female for human and animal in the ark, and many wives will lead one astray (Gen 7:9;Deut 17:17).
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2020 Reply to Charles
Marriage and Divorce:
The Hillel rabbinic school allowed divorce for anything that displeased the husband.
The Shammai rabbinic school allowed divorce for unchastity by the wife.
Matt 19:3 - Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?
Matt 19:6 - "What God has joined together, let man not separate"; Mal 2:16 - God hates divorce; Hos 1:2 - God prefers a forgiving spirit even if there is fornication.
Matt 19:7-9;Deut 22:13-20;Deut 24:1-4 - the certificate of divorce; condition for divorce is "fornication<4202>" and to marry another when divorced is "adultery<3429>"; Matt 5:31-32; a woman divorcing a man (Mark 10:2-12); a woman is bound to the husband as long as he lives (Rom 7:2); remarriage after divorce is adultery (Luke 16:18).
Matt 19:10-12 - In some cases it is good not to marry; "Some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven."
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2020 Reply to Charles
Matt 19:1 - "Galilee<1056>", "Jordan<2446>".
Matt 19:3 - "Pharisses<5330>"
Matt 19:13-15;Matt 18:1-6 - teachable abd humble like little children (balanced by 1Cor 14:20)
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2020 Reply to Charles
Matt 19:18-22 - Jesus gives the six commandments which deal with actions toward others initially omitting coveting; The love of money is the root of all evil (1Tim 6:10).
Matt 19:23 - many Jews thought wealth was a reward for the righteous (reminds me of the divine retribution theory in Job's day and the more recent prosperity gospel), though there was also a tradition of the rich as oppressors.
Matt 19:23-26 - "the eye of a needle" according to some was a small door or opening and a camel had to stoop down have its burden or baggage unloaded and then with great difficulty pass through, but according to others it was literally a needle's eye and not a door indicating it would be impossible (as opposed to very difficult if it was a small door) for a rich man to enter the kingdom without God making the impossible possible.
Matt 19:27-28 - those who left everything to follow Christ will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.
Matt 19:29;Mark 10:30 - those who are giving up things in this life will gain in the next.
Matt 19:30; Matt 20:8-16 - the reward for those chosen has nothing to do with if they were Jews chosen first before Gentiles, or believers baptized and working in the Lord's vineyard for a longer period of time than others.
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2020 Reply to Charles
19:1 Here we have a geographical note about Jesus’ movements. We see him travelling south from Galilee towards Jerusalem where the events of the rest of this gospel record took place.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2021 Reply to Peter
19:13-15 Self-importance can get in the way of humility. The disciples, it seems, thought Jesus had better things to do than speak with children. They ascribed to Jesus a status that he did not wish to have. We may think of others as being “too important” to be involved is some activity. However what is really dangerous is seeing ourselves as above undertaking certain demeaning task. If ever we feel a job is beneath us consider Jesus washing the disciples’’ feet – especially considering how Jesus is described here –John 13:1-5 .
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2022 Reply to Peter
19:7The Jews clearly saw a conflict between the words in Genesis and the words that Moses spoke under inspiration that allowed for divorce. I suspect that the Jewish leaders were not expecting Jesus to tell them that their problem was a consequence of their hard heart! How often, not necessarily with respect to divorce, create a problem in our understanding of scripture because we are hard hearted.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2023 Reply to Peter
19:21-22 There is a marked contrast being presented to us here with the two blind men in 20:34. The man in this chapter went away even though called to follow Jesus. By contrast the two blind men did “follow” Jesus
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2024 Reply to Peter
19:1 The journey Jesus takes will eventually bring him to Jerusalem. We see elements of the journey as we read through the next few chapters. By 20:29 Jesus has crossed the river Jordan and is now leaving Jericho.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2025 Reply to Peter