loading...
AUDIO
Visit ThisIsYourBible.com
24 v.1-8 This incident demonstrated the way that the people obtained grace under the old covenant, which, we notice here, even so long ago, was written down and could therefore be read out to the people. It is picked up in some detail in Hebrews (9:18-23) to illustrate further the argument that is being made there of the superiority of the new covenant under Jesus. There is also built into today's chapter an exhortation to reading. The people listened and were successfully encouraged to observe all of the words of the law. But this was not just a single reading. There was repetition - a very important learning tool for human beings - Deut.31:11-13, Acts 13:15, Col.4:16. And for our reaction? Consider the bad example of Israel - Jer.7:23-24, and resolve to do otherwise.
Peter [UK] Comment added in 2001 Reply to Peter
25 v.3-8 - Did they have these things with them (from spoiling the Egyptians?) or did they have to embark on a very extensive search of the wilderness to find them? In either case, there was a very basic selflessness required here, as everything material is more precious (to the human way of thinking) in a place where there is not prospect of replacing it. The only way to obtain these items was for people to give them willingly (v.2). Quite a humbling thought.
Peter [UK] Comment added in 2002 Reply to Peter
Chapter 24 - There are only two occasions when Aaron and Hur are mentioned together. On the occasion of the battle against Amalek 17:10 and here. He does not even get a mention at the incident of the golden calf even though he was charged, along with Aaron, to take care of the people whilst Moses was in the mount. One wonders why he is not mentioned along with Aaron at the time of the incident of the golden calf.
Chapter 25 - This chapter begins the description of the items that were to be built to constitute the tabernacle. :10 the ark :17 the mercy seat :23 the table for the shewbread :31 the lamp stand. So the instructions start with the central piece in the tabernacle and work their way outward. So the focus is on the purpose for which the tabernacle was to be made - that God was to dwell amongst Israel.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2002 Reply to Peter
COME TO ME
Reading through the instructions for making the tabernacle it is interesting to note that God begins giving his instructions at the centre of the tabernacle and gradually works outwards.
At the very centre is the Ark and the atonement cover - the place that God would meet with his people. In the same way that the Ark, the most precious piece of furniture, was at the centre of the tabernacle, so we need to keep our God at the very centre of our lives and let his influence spread outwards from us.
The table is the next to be described. It was used to hold the bread of the presence. It held twelve loaves of bread - one for each tribe. Jesus said, "I am the bread of life." (John 6 v 35) He came for us so that if we believe in him we would never be hungry. God has provided Jesus as our bread. And just as there was one loaf of bread for each tribe, so there is enough bread for each of us.
Jesus also said, "I am the light of the world" (John 8 v 12). In the same way as the lampstand gave light to those near God in the tabernacle, so Jesus is our light to show us the way to God.
Access to God, the bread of life and the light of the world are all thing that God supplies for us - things we need to have life. But there is one item of furniture missing - the altar of incense which represents our prayers to our God. It is missing here because we are being taught that God provides for us to come to him, but prayer is what we give to God.
What amazing grace he gives us in opening the way for us to come to him.
Robert Prins [Auckland - Pakuranga - (NZ)] Comment added in 2002 Reply to Robert
ch.24 - This meeting with God provides language for Jesus in the last night of his mortal life.
|
Exodus
|
Language
|
Last Night
|
|
blood of the covenant
|
Matt 26:28 | |
|
Commandments that I have
|
John 13:34 | |
|
Tarry ye here
|
Matt 26:36,38 | |
|
we come again
|
Matt 26:40 |
25:8 Whilst there is a great amount of detail about the tabernacle the point that Israel needed to reflect on was that God was going to dwell among them - They were, in that sense, the temple and should have been holy. The lesson for us is clear.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2003 Reply to Peter
Exodus 24:18 - "And Moses went into the midst of the cloud, and got him up into the mount: and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights" - During this period of forty days, and the second period when the tables were renewed, it appears that Moses neither ate bread nor drank water. Compare marginal references - Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 9:9. In like manner, Elijah fasted for forty days, when he visited the same place - 1Kings 19:8. They were the two who met our Saviour on the Mount of Transfiguration - Matthew 17:3, the one representing the law, the other representing the Prophets, thus shadowed forth in their own experience Jesus own Fast of Forty days in the wilderness of Judea - Luke 4:1-13.
Cliff York [Pine Rivers (Aus)] Comment added in 2003 Reply to Cliff
24:3 The law was good – there was no better. However the haste with which Israel asserted that they would keep it was rather rash. As they soon learnt they were not willing to do the law. We should take careful thought about our commitment. We are committed to the things we say.
25:40 In telling Moses that he should make the tabernacle according to the ‘pattern’ Israel learnt that the tabernacle was not the ‘substance’ but that it pointed forward to something more substantial.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to Peter
Exo 25:8 God told Moses to make a sanctuary, or a place set apart, so that "I may dwell among them". What an honour! The Lord God reserving a place for Himself, on the earth He has created, and among the people He had chosen.
But in our New Testament era God has not asked for a house. He dwells in us 1Cor 3:16
David Simpson [Worcester (UK)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to David
Exo 24:10 And they saw the God of Israel The Hebrew word for God is Elohiym strong's number 430. This is a plural word. Moses and the elders did not see a singular God, what they saw were angels, God was being manifested in them. Stephen confirms this in his address of defence.Acts 7:35,38
John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to John
It is clear that Moses wrote everything that Yahweh told him in a scroll (24:4). The covenant had already been written down and indeed read to the people (24:7).
Why then was it necessary for the covenant to be written on tablets of stone (24:12)?
Perhaps it was to confirm that this covenant came from Yahweh. It appears that Moses went up the mountain, on his first visit, without any supplies. He came down with two tablets on which were written the covenant. The only possible conclusion the people could have come to was that these tablets were created by Yahweh (Exo 31:18).
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to Michael
25:17 The mercy seat served as a lid for the ark, covering it exactly. On the Day of Atonement the high priest sprinkled the blood of the sacrificial lamb on the mercy seat as a plea for forgiveness for the peoples. (Lev 16:15) The base word KAPHAR 3722 means "to wipe out" or "cover over" The N.I.V. renders it "atonement cover". The mercy seat has been replaced as the symbol and place of God's presence and atonement. Christ's death showed the perfect presence and accomplished atonement once for all. Heb 9
John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to John
24:18 - Moses went into the midst of the cloud - enclosed completely in the grace of God - accepted by God because of his humility and his recognition of the power and love of his creator, which cast out his fear - the dear that was clearly felt by all others. John tells us it is perfect love that does this - 1John 4:18 - and by this we conclude that it was Moses lack of fear that caused him to be made perfect in love. So it can be for each of us.
Peter [UK] Comment added in 2005 Reply to Peter
24:18 Whereas Moses was able to go into the cloud to receive the law he was not allowed into the tabernacle when the glory of God was there – Exo 40:34-35 thus signifying that Moses was the lawgiver, not the priest who would have access into the presence of God – that was reserved for the prophet like Moses, the lord Jesus.
25:2 Notice that the offering for the tabernacle has to be made ‘willingly’ – We are part of the temple of the living God 2Cor 6:16 and as such all our offering to God has to be willing.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2006 Reply to Peter
The people agreed to obey Yahweh (24:3,7). We know that later they reneged and disobeyed. We have agreed to obey the LORD. Let us be true and continue as obedient children (1Pet 1:13,14).
The leaders of Israel saw God (24:9-11). We are not told what form was displayed. John tells us that no one has seen God (that is the very essence of Yahweh as a spirit being) (John 1:18). And so, it is probable that the leaders of Israel saw an angel who was representing Yahweh, or some other divine representation.
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2006 Reply to Michael
24:11 "they ate & drank", having seen God, and then go on to the Golden Calf. So we eat & drink at the memorial table - do we go on to the "golden calf"?
Wendy Johnsen [Nanaimo, BC, Canada] Comment added in 2006 Reply to Wendy
The Tabernacle was made from material which had been volunteered by the community (25:2). The material came from goods taken as spoil from the Egyptians (Exo 3:22). We are in the same position of supporting the work of the Truth by volunteering our wealth garnered from the world.
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2006 Reply to Michael
24:1 Notice that Eleazar and Ithamar - the other two sons of Aaron did not ascend the mount with Moses and Aaron. Possibly being singled out like this caused them to think a bit more highly of themselves than they should have and this privilege that they had experienced actually caused them to think of themselves as special - hence they offered ‘strange fire’ Lev 10:1.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2007 Reply to Peter
25:2 Notice that Moses was to accept that which was given ‘willingly’ God was not interested in gifts that were given grudgingly. The same is true of ourselves. In fact Paul, quoting what Jesus had said teaches that the Lord loveth a cheerful giver - 2Cor 9:7
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2008 Reply to Peter
24:12 In giving a commandment that He had written God is talking of the giving of the law written on the tables of stone. However this was only a shadow of that which would be written upon the heart.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Peter
24:18 Moses did not eat or drink during the forty-day span (Exo 34:28; Deut 9:9). His experience is echoed by Elijah (1Kin 19:8); and Jesus (Matt 4:2).
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Michael
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Charles
25:31 In saying that the lampstand and all its parts were to be ‘of the same’ which means all of one piece we are seeing that the item which gave light in the tabernacle, a figure of the ecclesia in certain respects, must be united. Putting it colloquially one could not see any joins in the lampstand. Likewise the family of God, the ecclesia, should be so united that divisions should not be manifest. Unity is not a luxury that we can think about. Jesus says it is a fundamental element of our preaching – John 17:21 - and we are not here simply talking about different groups of believers with different views but rather how individuals should integrate n their own communities.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Peter
A burden too heavy to carry
Have you noticed the mercy seat, on top of the ark, is the same size as the ark itself? (25:10,17). Can you imagine how heavy this would be to carry? The seat, cherubim, ark (covered in gold) and contents of stone tablets. But it is explained later at the time of David, that God had to help the priests carrying it, signifying that the law was too heavy (difficult) to be carried out by mankind (2Chron 15:26). Jesus may have been referring to this when he talked about heavy burdens.
Rob de Jongh [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Rob
Exo 25:19-22 Moses tells us that the two cherubims were part of the mercy seat. They faced each other with their wings stretched forth. It was there, between the cherubim, that the Lord communed with his people.
The Hebrew word (Strong’s H251) in v. 20 for “another” is used over 600 times in the OT for “brother(s)” or “brethren”. The cherubim faced each other across the mercy seat. It was from between the cherubim that the Lord met with His people.
Paul makes reference to the relationship between the cherubim in exhortation (Phil 2:4) “Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.”.
As the cherubim faced “one to another” so brethren should look on others to help and support.
Jesus Christ is a mercy seat (Rom 3:25 “propitiation”). The cherubim held fast as one with the mercy seat represent his brethren (John 17:21). The Lord communes from among them (Lev 26:11-12, 2Cor 6:16)
Phil 2:5-11 goes on to show that Jesus manifest all the features of the four faces of the cherubim in his perfect life of obedience to his Father’s Will. (more details see, contribution for Daily Readings Mark chap.1).
Peter Moore [Erith, UK] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Peter
25:8 That I may dwell among them shows God’s desire to fellowship man. The way that this phrase – a rare phrase in Scripture – is picked up in Psa 68:18 show how that dwelling is to be achieved. It is not through the tabernacle in the wilderness. It is to be through the death and resurrection of Jesus which is what Psalm 68 is talking about – see Eph 4:8
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Peter
IN THE HEART
At the very heart of the Tabernacle was the most precious piece of furniture - the ark of the Testimony. This was the first piece of furniture to be described to Moses. It was kept in the Most Holy place in the Tabernacle and was overlaid with pure gold. Basically the ark of the Testimony was a rectangular box made of Acacia wood, overlaid with gold.
But while we think of the ark of the Testimony as being the heart of the Tabernacle, there was more to it than that. Moses was told what to do with it when it was finished. "Then put in the ark the Testimony, which I will give you." (Exo 25:16) The Testimony, we learn a little later in Exodus, were the two tablets of stone on which God engraved the Ten Commandments.
The ark was made by people, but inside the ark, in the most intimate place in the Tabernacle, were the stone tablets, engraved by the finger of God himself detailing the commandments Israel were to have at the centre of their lives.
Just as the ark was in the heart of the Tabernacle, so God must be in the most treasured place in our lives. And within that treasured place we need to have stored within us the commandments of God - not our own version, someone else's version, or a copy - but the pure and direct words of God engraved on our hearts, kept safely so they will never be broken.
Robert Prins [Auckland - Pakuranga - (NZ)] Comment added in 2011 Reply to Robert
It seems ominous that the children of Israel say that they will do all that the Lord had commanded them and indeed we know that they would break this promise as we do too. It is a great encouragement that when Moses was given the pattern of the tabernacle he was told that God would meet with His people above the mercy seat rather than at the ark itself, containing all the testimony which the clearly cold not live up to. Under the new covenant, God meets us on the basis of the sacrificial blood of Jesus rather than our own feeble righteousness. What a blessing that is!
Jon Hale [Crewe] Comment added in 2011 Reply to Jon
25:10 Notice that ‘they’ were to make the ark indicating that this was to be made by a number of people. All the other elements of the tabernacle were to be made by ‘thou’ – see Exo 25:18 for example. Now clearly Moses did not make everything, however the instruction does make that distinction.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2012 Reply to Peter
Exo 25:17– Note that there is no depth given for the mercy seat. There is no depth that can be expressed for God’s mercy, see, Psa 103:11.
Peter Moore [Erith, UK] Comment added in 2012 Reply to Peter
24:14 Moses’ charge to the elders is seen in the way Jesus spoke to his disciples during the last night of his life on earth – Matt 26:36,38,40. Moses went into the mountain to communicate with God. Jesus, likewise, communicated with his Father.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2013 Reply to Peter
25:11 The ark was to be overlaid with gold “within and without”. No one would see the inside of the ark so why bother with overlaying it with gold? Actually we are being taught a lesson. A Godly character is not simply present when one sees the outward actions of a man. True Godliness is a matter of a way of life. Just like Sarah called Abraham “lord” in her heart Gen 18:12
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2014 Reply to Peter
24:6 When Heb 9:19 speaks of sprinkling the altar it is referring to this events spoken of in the law of Moses.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2015 Reply to Peter
Exo 25:31-40 - Christ is the light of the world (John 8:12) and he will rule on the 7th millennial day (7 lamps) which will be a spiritual perfection; the lampstand was of pure gold which may represent purity from sin and death; other than Christ, there are 6 lamps which may represent the number of man; on both sides of the main light were 3 lights which may represent the light of Christ's sacrifice and resurrection offered for both Jews on the one side and Gentiles on the other, the light is offered to all peoples; the cups shaped like almond flowers perhaps represent the complete earth and/or the number of organization as they are in groups of four (Gen 1:14-19;Num 14:21); for the lamps to be lit there would need to be oil (Matt 25:1-10) which could represent the Word of God.
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2015 Reply to Charles
25:5 We may debate what animal is being spoken of when we read of “Badger skin”, God – Eze 16:10 – says that when he found Israel he clothed “her” with badger skin. This we see whatever animal it is we are being taught something about the way God “clothed” Israel by giving them the tabernacle.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2016 Reply to Peter
LIKE HIM
While Moses was with God up Mt Sinai, God told him to make a sanctuary in the camp of Israel. "Then have them make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among them. Make this tabernacle and all it's furnishings exactly like the pattern I will show you." (Exo 25:8-9).
Paul said some very similar words when he said, "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ." (1Cor 11:1). And again, "Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children." (Eph 5:11). And Jesus said, "You are my friends if you do what I command." (John 15:14.
You see, it wasn't just Moses that had to make everything just like the pattern he was shown. The same commission has been given to us too. Our job is to follow the pattern we see in the characters of God, Jesus and Paul. We need to become like them in the way we live and act.
And just like the tabernacle, Jesus is a sanctuary. He said, "Come to me all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest." (Matt 11:28). As we imitate him, we also need to become a sanctuary of rest to the people around us. We need to become a place where they can find God.
So let us make our lives "exactly like the pattern" we have been shown.
Robert Prins [Auckland - Pakuranga - (NZ)] Comment added in 2016 Reply to Robert
24:7 Whilst Israel, a number of times, say that they will do all that God has said this is the only time that they also say “and be obedient”.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2017 Reply to Peter
24:8 No man could see God – that is Yahweh – and live – Exo 33:20. Whilst we know that on this occasion it was an angel that they saw we should appreciate that the privilege extended to Moses and the elders was amazing.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2018 Reply to Peter
24:9 Aaron had four sons Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. However the two who were privileged to ascend the mountain were the two who, in a few months’ time, would die because they failed to honour God. Does the close fellowship we have with our Father cause us to respect Him or take Him for granted?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2019 Reply to Peter
"... I have written…”
Rabbi Akiba is known as the “father of Rabbinic Judaism,” the “greatest tannaim [scholars and teachers] of the middle of the second century came from Akiba’s school, notably Meir, Judah ben Ilai, Simeon ben Yohai, Jose ben Halafta, Eleazar ben Shammai, and Nehemiah. Akiba’s true genius, however, is shown in his work in the domain of the Halakah; both in his systematization of its traditional material, and in its future development… they all took Akiba as their model in their works and followed him. All are taught according to the views of R. Akiba.” The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol 1, Louis Ginzberg. The Jewish Encyclopedia further states, “According to tradition which has historical confirmation, it was Akiba who systematized and brought into methodic arrangement the MISHNAH, or Halakah codex [the basic oral law]; the MIDRASH, or the exegesis of the Halakah; and the HALAKOT, the logical amplification of the Halakha…Akiba was the one who definitely fixed the canon of the Old Testament books.” Aquila, a Greek convert and disciple of Akiba, was inspired by Akiba to write a Greek translation of the Bible and it follows Akiba’s exegesis! The Aramaic translation of the Pentateuch, Targum Okelos, reflects Akiba’s halachic rulings! Contents that were added later were also within Akiba’s framework. Louis Finkelstein wrote in Akiba: Scholar, Saint, and Martyr, p. 156, “The later Talmudists rated these achievements so high that they declared Akiba had saved the Torah from oblivion…” Maimonides describes him as, “a great sage, one of the authors of the Mishnah.” Gershom Bader in The Jewish Spiritual Heroes, Vol 1, translated by Solomon Katz, writes of Rabbi Akiba, “The highest place of honor among all our national heroes undoubtedly belongs to Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph.” They place him higher than Abraham, higher than Moses, higher than David! Akiba’s philosophy affected even a host of Latin writers from Thomas Aquinas to Spinoza who further laid the foundation of our present day modern Western thought and beliefs.
The Talmud claims the Oral Law was a separate divine revelation God gave to Moses and is an extended interpretation of the written Torah. These claims contradict the Torah, which clearly informs us that what God spoke to Moses, he was commanded to write down and read to the children of Israel. God, Himself, wrote the Ten Commandments on stone tablets! The Law was written down (Exo 24:12; Exo 34:27,28). Strong’s long list on “write” and “written” is evidence of this. “Evidence indicates that the Bible, in the form we have it, is a human document, but that does not mean it is not sacred.” Rabbi David Wolpe - https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/did-god-write-the-bible/ Is this how they hold the Torah?
By the Jews own admission, the Oral Law, or Halakah Codex was not developed until the middle of the second century by R. Akiba, “who definitely fixed the canon of the Old Testament books.” He fixed it alright! “Centuries later, social and economic changes presented new problems of interpretation and required new applications of the law…” https://www.britannica.com/topic/Halakhah/ So what Oral Laws were passed on “perfectly,” as they claim? If there was an Oral Law parallel to the Written Law, God did not mention it, Moses did not mention it, Joshua did not mention it, Ezra did not mention it, no prophet, priest, or king mentioned it, or expressed any concern to know it and accurately recite it, so where did it come from?
Jacob Neusner, Scholar on Judaism, wrote, “Perhaps the exegetes took for granted that the bed-rock convictions of the laws also were assumed by the Scriptures. But they still have not shown us, where in Scripture, they locate those laws and principles, and I think the probable explanation is that they could not (and did not care to)… Implicit in the doctrine of a parallel ‘Oral Law’ given at Sinai is the recognition that much of halakha cannot be tied to the written Torah in any way at all… There are a variety of Talmudic phrases that indicate that the halakhot following them are the creation of the Rabbis, rather than an interpretation of the written Torah…” When did the Rabbis begin to speak about an “Oral Law?” “… around 100-150 A.D. While the process may have begun with Joshua and Eliezer, it was probably Aqiba who fully developed them, for it was he who set forth the foundations of the Mishna, and it was in this time that the institution of the Tanna, or reciter, is first referred to.” Early Rabbinic Judaism, pp. 25-27, 85 (highlight added).
Robert Roberts, A WORD IN SEASON, Unprofitable Questions, p. 90, wrote: "If Paul stationed Timothy at Ephesus to neutralize the influence of 'some' who were troublers, we need not wonder if nineteenth century [21st C today] experience should disclose a similar necessity (though, unfortunately, the necessity cannot be supplied as it then was). The class will not necessarily present the same features. It differs with the circumstances in which it exists. In Paul's day, there were Talmudical and pagan legends on which to expend their pertinacity and ingenuity, as to the question of their credibility; also questions of pedigree, which, in those days were something thought of..." (Emphasis added).
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2019 Reply to Valerie
Exo 25:31-40 The golden candle stick was made in “one beaten work of pure gold” (v.36). The design of the candlestick was “after the pattern which was showed in the mount” (v.40). It is interesting that the Divine architect describes the composition of the candlestick in terms of 66 elements.
|
Ex.25:32 |
6 branches + 1 centre candlestick |
Each comprising: |
|
Ex 25:33 |
Each branch a 3 bowls + 3 knops + 3 flowers |
6 branches x 9 elements = 54 |
|
Ex 25:34 |
Centre candlestick 4 bowls + 4 knops + 4 flowers |
12 |
|
|
Total elements |
66 |
The number “six” also features elsewhere in the design of the Tabernacle (Exo 26:9 ; Exo 26:22). The high priest bore the names of the 12 tribes of Israel on his shoulders when he entered the Tabernacle. The names were engraved in two oynx Exo 28:12 Do we let the light of the Gospel (the Hope of Israel) shed light on our daily path, by grace on our walk to the Kingdom of God?
Peter Moore [Erith, UK] Comment added in 2019 Reply to Peter
The Tabernacle was a meeting place between the LORD and His people. This was to be a sanctuary for Him to dwell among the children of Israel as they journeyed to the promised land (Ex.25:8). The first item to be constructed was the Ark made of shittim wood and covered in gold (Exo 25:10). The table for the showbread also was made of shittim wood and covered in gold (Exo 25:23). Similarly, the boards of the Tabernacle were made of shittim wood and covered in covered in gold (Exo 26:15-29) and the Altar for burnt offerings (Exo 27:1), the Altar of Incense (Exo 30:1).
So the LORD designed the Tabernacle with a predominantly wooden structure where the Priests would make offerings to the LORD while He dwelt among his people.
This reminds us of the time before the fall, when Adam and Eve walked among the trees in the Garden of Eden and heard the presence of the LORD (Gen 3:8).
Peter Moore [Erith, UK] Comment added in 2019 Reply to Peter
25:31 We might think that the fact that the lampstand had a total of seven lamps was to indicate that God would give Israel “light” – that is His instruction – seven days a week, not just on the Sabbath.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2020 Reply to Peter
24:1 the counterpart to the seventy elders was the seventy that Jesus sent out to preach Luke 10:1- who were faithful and contrasts with those who maybe thought they were the equivalent of the seventy at Sinai but were corrupt – that is the Sanhedrin in Jesus day. A group of seventy who sat in judgement of the nation
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2021 Reply to Peter
25:2-7 It is easy for us to give according to our preferences. However this is not how God works. He specifies the gift that has to be given to Him. In this case it is in order that the tabernacle be according to the pattern shown to Moses.
In our case He has told us what He wants – total submission to His will. That is why it is difficult to willingly give our lives to Him.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2022 Reply to Peter
25:8-9 Many men and women down through the ages have sought to exalt God by the way that they build buildings or behave in their lives. But notice the permission “let them” comes with a command “according to all that I shew thee …”
We must be so careful to only “build” lives that are in accordance to what he has revealed – implemented by regular, careful reading of His word.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2023 Reply to Peter
25:19 the “mercy seat” and the “two cherubim” were all fashioned out of one piece of God. Doubtless is would have been easier to make the three items separately and when complete join them together. But hat is not God’s way. In a similar way the member of the body of Christ are not to see themselves as separate individuals who will eventually be “one” after the resurrection.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2024 Reply to Peter
24:6-8 Whilst the people entered into a covenant with God at this time saying that they would do all of God’s commandments we should appreciate that only a few months ago they had been worshipping idols in Egypt – Eze 20:7-8
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2025 Reply to Peter
v.67-72 - (Continuing, as promised, our 'Zion' theme) - Joseph was singled out specially - he was not the official heir to his father. Ephraim too. But now both are put on one side by God in favour of Judah - the tribe from which David came and later Jesus would come. Here is the start of the royal line - a king chosen (v.70) by God as a man after his own heart. Here is the place where God chose to cause his name to dwell there, as we have just referred to in Deut. above. This place is Zion (v.68) and it is David (v.70) and of course, it is Christ - our rest for ever (Heb.4:11) - the temple that we are to be part of (1Pet.2:5) - the 'home' of our royal priesthood.
Peter [UK] Comment added in 2001 Reply to Peter
v.2-4 - Here we see a basic principle employed by God consistently that he might prove who are those that shall be given His grace. The concept of the parable is not that people might understand, but that people might not understand. Only those who make the effort to overcome and whose hearts become right before God will see the meaning. God knows in advance who those people will be (how can he not know?) but we do not, so we must strive to be amongst those that search and find the truth in Jesus.
Peter [UK] Comment added in 2002 Reply to Peter
In this Psalm we have a parable - :1-2 say it is. So the way that God dealt with Israel provided them with a parable about life. Whilst the actual events took place they became a parable for those who came after. So in looking back at their history Israel would be able to receive instruction to guide their lives.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2002 Reply to Peter
:19 In complaining about the lack of food in the wilderness Israel were doubting God's ability to feed them. David (Psalm 23:5) knew that God could feed him in the wilderness, and He actually did (2 Samuel 17:27-29)
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2003 Reply to Peter
TELL IT TO YOUR CHILDREN
The message of this Psalm is very clear. Tell your children of God's faithfulness, his power and his wonders so that they will learn to put their trust in God and obey him. The Psalmist very powerfully illustrates this with lesson after lesson from Israel's history. He tells how God did great things for Israel, brought them through the red sea, led them out of Egypt, delivered them by the plagues that came on Egypt, gave them water and food in the wilderness, drove out nations before them in the land and gave them a land flowing with milk and honey - but no sooner had they learned their lessons than they forgot them. They did not teach the lessons they had learnt to their children - they did not even reinforce what they had learnt for themselves. So what happened was that the next generation fell into the same ways and repeated the same mistakes as the last. This happened time after time until, at the end of the Psalm, David began to break the cycle. Let us also break the cycle of ignorance for the next generation. Tell your children of God'' faithfulness, his power and wonders so that they will learn to trust in God and obey him too.
Robert Prins [Auckland - Pakuranga - (NZ)] Comment added in 2003 Reply to Robert
Cliff York [Pine Rivers (Aus)] Comment added in 2003 Reply to Cliff
78:7 The whole purpose of life and it’s experiences is to teach that we need to put our trust in God. There is not much else we need to learn in life than this.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to Peter
Psalm 78 This Psalm is a very long song which reviews Israel's continued disobedience, in spite of a long series of Divine blessings and disciplines.
Psa 78:4 We will not hide them from our children. Just last week in our readings in Exodus we read that they ( Children of Israel) were to tell their children of the plagues in Egypt Exo 10:2 and of the events surrounding their deliverance out of Egypt. Exo 12:26
John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to John
This psalm catalogues the great deeds of Yahweh; the disobedience and subsequent punishment of His people Israel; and the mercy He still shows towards them.
We should learn from Israel's mistakes and try to avoid similar ones in our lives (Rom 15:4). However, we should be careful not to be too critical. Would we have acted better in those circumstances? How are we acting in our own circumstances?
Without God's mercy Israel would not have survived - nor we (Psa 118:1-4). We can thank Yahweh that he knows our weaknesses and pities us (Psa 103:13,14).
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to Michael
Psa 78:25 tells us that man eat angels' food. I used to think that this was a very poetic verse, describing the manna in the wilderness. I knew that angels in Heaven don't actually eat, but I imagined this was a poetic expression. But when you look it up, this is not the normal word for angel. It us usually used for strong or mighty ones. So, I wonder if this verse says that the manna was so well balanced in nutrients, vitamins, proteins, and all the other things modern health workers tell us we ought to eat, that Israel couldn't have been given a healthier diet? How great God is!
David Simpson [Worcester (UK)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to David
Notice that the prelude to the words we considered regarding Zion back in 2001 takes us through the work of deliverance which God wrought for the Children of Israel in bringing them out of Egypt. (v.51-55). And so we see that deliverance leads to a place with Him in his chosen city - Zion - the place where He has chosen to place His name - Jesus - where we dwell. But let us be sure to heed the verses in between and learn - v.56-66
Peter [UK] Comment added in 2005 Reply to Peter
78:4 Israel were to teach their children the law and speak of how God had worked in their lives. Do we talk to our children about God’s care for us? Or do we just talk about doctrines?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to Peter
Psa 78:1-3 - Jesus spoke in parables so those who rejected him and desired the praise of men more than God wouldn't understand Isa 6:9-10; Matt 13:34-35; Mark 4:10-12; John 12:42-43.
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to Charles
V.49 The angels through whom the mighty works of the Lord were done in Egypt were "evil angels". not evil in the sense that they disobeyed God, but what they did was evil in the eyes of man. God's plan and purpose with all of mankind must and will be accomplished, to do this angels will be used as they were at the time of the plagues in Egypt.
John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2006 Reply to John
Psalm 78 is one of those portions of scripture which is a synopsis of Yahweh's powerful dealings with His people. It serves to boost faith as the saving might of Yahweh is recounted. Had the king's official, during the siege of Samaria, recalled this psalm, he would not have made the rash statement which cost him his life (compare 2Kin 7:1,2 with vs.19,23,24). Hence, we should use the lessons of the past to help us with present problems (Rom 15:4).
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2006 Reply to Michael
This psalm is an amazing expression of God's grace - time & again He reaches out. It is only when hearts are hard & refuse to take the outstretched Hand that judgement is unleashed. The power of God to save is spurned & so it is used in judgement. Mark 3:28,29
Wendy Johnsen [Nanaimo, BC, Canada] Comment added in 2006 Reply to Wendy
78:18 Whilst we might think that Israel were simply hungry when they requested Manna - Exo 16- it was a lot more than that. It was not simply a matter of the ‘head’ knowing that the stomach was empty. It was a deep seated emotion – it came from the ‘heart’. Israel’s problem was that they seemed unable to translate the law on table of stone into laws which affected the ‘heart’. Of course we are no different. We struggle to make the commands of God things which we desire to do.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2007 Reply to Peter
78:8,18,37 We see the seat of Israel’s problem. Their heart was not right with God. This contrasts with the way in which God dealt with them – ‘in the integrity of His heart’ - 72
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2008 Reply to Peter
Angel, a messenger of God, is described by the Hebrew word malak. However, the reference to angel in v.25 comes from the Hebrew word abbir which describes one who is mighty, strong, or brave. The food associated with those qualities is meant to convey its complete sustaining value. Thus, the manna that Yahweh provided for His people contained all the nutritional and healthful excellence that was necessary to support abundant life.
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2008 Reply to Michael
REMEMBER TO BE FAITHFUL
As Asaph penned words of encouragement to his people, pleading with them to remain faithful to the LORD, his antidote to the faithlessness, disloyalty and rebellion shown in the past was to Remember. He draws on the example of the men of Ephraim, saying, "The men of Ephraim, though armed with bows, turned back on the day of battle; they did not keep God's covenant and refused to live by his law. They forgot what he had done, the wonders he had shown them." (Psa 78:9-11)
Asaph continued by calling to mind the things that the men of Ephraim should have remembered about God: the miracles God had done for his people; the past rebellion of their ancestors; the anger God had for their rebellion and faithlessness; the way God showed them mercy; the way God guided his people; and the way God had devastated their enemies. If they had just remembered how God had dealt with them in the past, God's word through Asaph says they would have remained faithful.
Let's not let the lesson be lost on us. Since the time of Asaph and before, God has not changed. we have many more examples of God dealing with his people to remember that both warn and encourage us to be faithful to him. So let's be faithful as we remember the ways of God.
Robert Prins [Auckland - Pakuranga - (NZ)] Comment added in 2008 Reply to Robert
V.50 - not sparing [their "soul" KJV or "them" NIV] from death. The word used here is the Hebrew "nephesh" (5315) - the word "soul" in its primary meaning means creature, a breathing creature man or animal. It is rendered variously person, creature, self, life, soul, etc. This is evidence the soul is mortal.
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2008 Reply to Charles
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Peter
First Principles>Kingdom of God>Was overturned>History of fulfilment
Go to Deut 28:49 to see more details of the history of Israel and its overturning.
Roger Turner [Lichfield (UK)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Roger
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Charles
78:2-3, These verses are quoted by Jesus – Matt 13:35– to explain why he used parables.. Now it is not simply that Jesus told parables because this Psalm says he will. Rather Psa 78 teaches that this is the way that God teaches as the Psalm continues by recounting elements of Israel’s history. So their experiences are presented as a ‘parable’ that they might learn from their experiences.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Peter
78:6 The word of God is both very powerful and very fragile. Whilst it can change our lives it will only change lives if it is taught and accepted. We may teach our children who do not accept it. They, then, do not teach their children. So within three generations the powerful word of God has lost its effectiveness.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Peter
78:5 In saying that Israel were commanded to make known the laws to their children the Psalm is, again, echoing the command in Deut 6:7
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2012 Reply to Peter
1. Psa 78:2 - "dark sayings"<2420>.
2. Psa 78:15,20,35 - "rocks, rock, rock"<6697>; Psa 78:16 - "rock"<5553>.
3. Psa 78:18,56 - "tempted"<5254>; Deut 6:16 - "tempted"<5254>; Matt 4:7 - "tempt"<1598>; James 1:13 - "tempteth, tempted"<3985>.
4. Psa 78:19,20,24,27 - does this table, smote rock gushing water, manna and flesh echo Christ?
5. Psa 78:22 - a lack of faith.
6. Psa 78:27 - "flesh"<7607>; Psa 78:39 - "flesh"<1320>.
7. Psa 78:35 - "redeemer" (<1350> can mean "near-kinsman" and thus perhaps an echo of Christ).
8. Psa 78:54 - "sanctuary"<6944>; Psa 78:69 - "sanctuary"<4720>.
9. Psa 78:60 - "Shiloh" [<7887> according to some sources means "place of rest" (1Sam 4:3-4)].
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2012 Reply to Charles
78:24 The doublet here likens the manna to bread. An idea picked up in Neh 9:15 and John 6:31 enabling us to see that the giving of the manna in the wilderness was a pattern of God providing the true bread” – Jesus.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2013 Reply to Peter
Psa. 78:49.
K.J.V. " He (God) cast upon them (i.e. the Egyptians) the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them."
If these beings are sent by God and are referred to here as "evil angels", what should we understand by that phrase since, in many other places in the Bible, angels are said to always do God's will (see e.g. Psa 103:20,21)?
A brother wrote in with these thoughts -
Could these have been the angels that were sent to kill the first born of the Egyptians? Other angels may have been posted outside the doorways to prevent the evil angels from killing the Hebrew first born. Wasn't the blood put on the inside of the doorways, as they opened out and not in?
my comments - It is clear from the account in Exodus that there were angels of the LORD at that time with 2 widely different functions: 1) to smite Egypt with the various plagues and 2) to protect the Jews (and any others who followed Moses' instructions) from the death of the firstborn at the initial Passover, as well as during plagues 4-9. Each type were doing God's will. The key to understanding this phrase the Psalmist uses about angels is to realize how the word "evil" is used throughout the Bible. Though it is sometimes synonymous with "sin", it doesn't have to be. It may simply mean something like calamitous, or what those afflicted by it perceive as a very negative occurrence. The N.K.J.V. translates the phrase "angels of destruction". And the N.I.V. translates "a band of destroying angels." Each one hits the mark for they for they were sent by God for the purpose of punishing the Egyptians. But, of course, they were not sinning in doing so but rather carrying out God's plan.
The same point can be made in regard to God Himself. In Isa. 45:7 - K.J.V. - we read of Him -
"I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I the LORD do all these things."
It's obvious here that evil does not equate to sin since God didn't bring that into being. The N.I.V. has "I bring prosperity and create disaster." And the N.K.V. has "I make peace and create calamity."
Understanding this truth about God and His angels makes irrelevant the point that some believers in a fallen angel devil believe to be true. And that is that calamities are his work and not God's. Nothing could be further from the truth for a couple of reasons. 1. The Bible states unequivocally that this is all God's work - whether we truly understand all the reasons for it or not. And 2. no such monster is ever found in the pages of the Bible; the devil being a code name for a specific sinner or a personification of sin.
Wes Booker [South Austin Texas USA] Comment added in 2013 Reply to Wes
78:54 In speaking of the “mountain” which He had purchased we see an echo of Miriam’s song – Exo 15:17 – where Miriam sings of the deliverance from Egypt
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2014 Reply to Peter
If God has helped you before, why wouldn't He help again?
The whole trouble with Israel in the wilderness and afterwards, can be summed up by this verse:
"Because they believed not in God, and trusted not in his salvation" Psa 78:22
They are presented to us as the ultimate example as a people for whom God did everything, gave everything, and gave every reason for them to have trust in Him -- yet, quite amazingly, they still didn't believe Him when He said He would look after them:
"Yea, they spake against God; they said, Can God furnish a table in the wilderness?" Psa 78:19
even though He had opened heaven to rain food down on them.
"Yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel." Psa 78:41
How could a people who had seen all the miracles they had, limit God? Would they not above all people magnify God's power and willingness to save? In the end, Jesus showed them that even Gentiles who had none of the heritage and privilege of Israel could get this right:
"The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed ... When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour." Matt 8:8-13
Do we limit God?
Do we limit God like Israel did? How about when we're about to pray about something then decide not too because "it's too silly" or "it's too insignificant"? Are we saying God (who created our ability to laugh, love and feel sad) is too busy or too uncaring to care about us? How many times does God have to prove that He does care and he does want to help and that He can help?
I have just had a whole string of answered prayers that I praise God for. My niece was healed from a life threatening complication after birth and is now completely well. My father in law had major surgery, where he was said to have extra complications, and came through unscathed. I parked my car on an inner-city street and as I walked away saw a gang hanging around - yet when I returned hours later and found I'd left my phone in full view on the dashboard, both the car and the phone were untouched. I also had to do a frightening public presentation, and I was brought through it unscathed and all my anxieties were taken away. The first two are important, the third seemed important, and the last one perhaps wasn't at all, yet having seen God's hand at work on the first two occasions contributed to the faith I had to pray about the latter two. Should we pray about a presentation? I wondered about that, but then went ahead and did so, and I think this is how God wants us to behave. It's abundantly clear from the Psalm that Israel was expected to remember their deliverance from Egypt and the miraculous sea crossing as proof that they could trust God in any and every situation. It is hard to transfer prior learning to future events, but this is essentially what faith is and we must develop it to be pleasing to God. Faith in the little things of life is still faith, and "faith is counted for righteousness" (Gen 15:6, Rom 4:5).
Rob de Jongh [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2014 Reply to Rob
“He (God) cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them (the Egyptians).”
A brief outline of this Psalm is: Verses 1-16 records God’s goodness toward His people; vv. 17-33, their rebellions and punishment; vv. 34-37, His peoples’ feigned repentance; Psa 78:38-39, God’s compassion toward them; vv. 40-42, their backsliding and forgetfulness of His mercy; vv. 43-51, the plagues God brought upon the Egyptians; Psa 78:52-58, God delivers His people from Egyptian slavery and the peoples’ repeated ingratitude and disobedience; vv. 59-64, their punishment; vv. 65-66, God’s wrath against their adversaries; vv. 67-72, God’s rejection of the tribe of Israel, His choice of the tribe of Judah, and God’s choice of David to be king over His people.
“Evil angels” are a pair of words, which seem ill-matched, and this is the first mention we have of evil angels. There are those who take this literally, that God sent “devils,” or “satans” to execute judgments against His people to punish them for their rebelliousness (cf. Matt 12:22-27; Luke 11:14-19)! God’s angels are not “evil,” nor are His human messengers, and the future immortalized saints sent to do His will before the Millennium (cf. 2Thess 1:7-10; Heb 1:14; Rev 14:10,19-20). They appear “evil” only to those upon whom punishment is afflicted. In Scripture, “angel” is defined as anyone sent by God be they supernatural or natural beings. So, what is meant here by the term “evil angels, and who are they?
The original Hebrew version translates this verse as: “y’shaLach-Bam charon aPo ev’rah wazaam w’tzarah mish’lachat mal’akhey raiym.” Mal’akhey raiym is literally translated as “messengers of evil,” not “evil angels.” This proper translation makes a profound difference in its interpretation! The context of Psa 78:43-54 deals with the Exodus, and the messengers of evil are no other than Moses and Aaron sent by God to warn and denounce Pharaoh and inflict the several judgment plagues against Egypt because of Pharaoh's refusal to listen to them - the last plague being the worst. In this sense they were the messengers of evil, or affliction.
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2014 Reply to Valerie
78:26-30 The nation had complained in the wilderness so God, using seemingly natural events – the wind -, provided for the people. However the motivation for their desire for food was “lust” not basic need. So even when God provided for them they did not recognise the teaching of Deuteronomy 8:3. We need to recognise that we need more than natural food. We need God’s word, the bile.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2015 Reply to Peter
78Title. The word “Maschil” means instruction. The way in which the Psalm speaks of Israel’s history should be seen as instruction for us about how God has worked in the past.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2016 Reply to Peter
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2017 Reply to Peter
78:11 Israel’s problem was that they did not remember the good things that God had done for them. How he had delivered them from their enemies. Consequently they did not worship Him. We run the danger of falling away from serving Him if we do not regularly think about the things He has done for us. This is one reason why breaking bread week by week is so helpful to us.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2018 Reply to Peter
78:67-68 When the nation was divided into two parts after the reign of Solomon God made a choice. His “home” was Zion so the kingdom of Judah clearly would be His choice.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2019 Reply to Peter
78:4 that the praises of God – that is the Law of Moses – was going to be passed from generation to generation in Joel 1:3 the punishment from God was going to be told by the fathers down through the generations. What a terrible contrast.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2020 Reply to Peter
“He [God] cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them.”
“Evil” is Strong’s # <7459>, ra, and comes from # <7489>, ra`a. They have several different interpretations, but the closest and accurate one comes from # 7489, “punish.” Angels are not evil, and choosing “evil” was a very poor choice here to describe them. They are angels who execute God’s punishments upon disobedient people and nations.
Angels are referred to as, “Yahweh of hosts,” (Josh 5:14,15; 1Kin 22:19; Psa 148:2). They manifest God in a particular manifestation, portraying God working through them as warriors (cf. Exo 15:3. All of God’s holy angels are His messengers and their work is two-fold: protect the faithful (Psa 34:7; Psa 91:11; Heb 1:14), and execute judgements upon the disobedient (Psa 11:4-6). It is slanderous to refer to God’s pure angels as, “evil,” a word that feeds into the myth of fallen angels and so written, because Jews believe that fallen, or evil angels are still under God’s authority! “There are however some important differences between the Satan of Judaism and the Satan of Christianity. In Judaism, Satan is an angel who remains subservient to God rather than becoming an opponent to God.” https://www.inquirer.com/philly/columnists/mike_uram/Angels_Satan_amulets_3_things_most_dont_know_about_Judaism.html/
In the book, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature, Cambridge University Press, 2005, p. 266, by Annette Yoshiko Reed, it states: “… Nevertheless, these [fallen] angels are still subordinate to God; the reacceptance of rebel angels in Midrashic discourse was posterior, and probably influenced by the role of fallen angels in Islamic and Christian lore.” Papyri and pottery fragments dug up by archaeologists and in the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in Israel in 1948 contain Jewish myths about wicked angels and demons, which were later taken up by the Gnostics.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/34636702.pdf/
“A special category are the so-called Fallen Angels, frequently mentioned in post-biblical literature. This concept is also common to all Semitic peoples; the idea of vanquished gods or demons, who then appear as accursed and damned, is one that prevailed among all the peoples of antiquity. It is found in a special form in earlier versions of the story of the creation, in which Rahab appears in the role of the vanquished god. Although for a variety of reasons little trace has remained of the ideas upon which the Rahab legends are based, the dualistic concepts of paganism have nevertheless exerted a profound influence upon Judaism, and the concept of the existence of good and evil powers, contradicting as they did the idea of monotheism, found their way into Judaism through the story of the Fallen Angels… It was only at a later stage, when the dualistic belief in the existence of evil demons had become a firm component of popular religion, that attempts were made to find biblical authority for this concept, contradictory as it was to monotheism.” https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/angels-and-angelology-2/ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1468-2265.2009.00523_18.x/
We are warned against Jewish myths by the apostle Paul (Titus 1:14). “It may be argued that these are the genuine words of Enoch which survived as an oral tradition, were preserved in the Book of Enoch, and then used selectively by Jude. But this is impossible for 4 reasons: Firstly how did an oral tradition from before the flood survive without ever having been written down?” Cf. http://www.christadelphia.org/pamphlet/p_sinned.htm/
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2020 Reply to Valerie
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2021 Reply to Peter
78:1-8 the majority of this Psalm recounts God’s involvement in the life of the nation of Israel. The reason why this history is important explained in the first 8 verses. Future generation were to learn from the past. It was the responsibility of the parent to instruct the child. Deut 4:9 is one of many places where the instruction to educate the younger generation can be found. Whilst we may not have parents instructing us the responsibility to learn is still present. The parents taught the children by recounting their history as recorded in the Old Testament. We can instruct ourselves by learning the lesson of God’s people as we read the accounts. The key to benefitting from the record is to see ourselves in the narrative.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2022 Reply to Peter
78:8 The history that was to be told to the children was what is recorded of their forefather’s exploits. Sadly much of what is recorded shows the godless behaviour of the people. In telling these unsavoury and sad things to the children there was the hope that the children would not follow the way of their forefathers.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2023 Reply to Peter
78:21-24 Notice the relationship between unbelief and punishment on Israel. They had seen the evidence that God was able to save the physical body with the provision of manna in the wilderness but still lacked faith I His ability to save – so, humanly speaking, He left them to defend themselves.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2024 Reply to Peter
78:5-7 The way that Israel were to teach their children God’s laws was the most effective way for their children to hold fast to the things that God had revealed. As children the promises and deliverances from affliction would form the thought patterns in their minds as to how their God worked. These were not fairy tales, nor stories that appealed to the flesh like so much of the written material available to children today. It is difficult to block the type of reading material youngsters read today. However we can avoid encouraging it by always focussing on What God has revealed.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2025 Reply to Peter
v.1-12. We are living in a society where these verses are made a total mockery. Here is an area where the laws and attitudes of society are at variants with God. Our young people growing up today have an ever-increasing problem trying to match the beliefs that they know to be correct with the attractive views of society. Perhaps it helps to remember what God wanted us to learn from this situation. It was an institution of great antiquity, going right back to Adam and Eve - v.6 - It is ordained of God, and underwritten by Him - v.9. It is part of a picture which is very much part of the most intimate aspects of our lives now - to point forward to the relationship which Christ has with his bride - Eph.5:25-33.
Peter [UK] Comment added in 2001 Reply to Peter
v.1 Jesus and the disciples have passed over Jordan into what is now the Golan Heights. Part of the territory taken by the two and a half tribes.
v.21 Notice that Jesus asks the young man to 'follow me' He does not though the blind man at the end of the chapter, on being healed, did. Whilst the ruler who could 'see' was blind the blind man could 'see'. I believe that the spirit is wishing to stress the contrast for us.
v.33 Another 'unholy alliance' against Jesus The scribes and priests Matthew 2:4 16:21 20:18 21:15 26:3 57 27:41 Mark 8:31 11:18 27 14:1 43 53 15:1 31 Luke 9:22 19:47 20:1 19 22:2 66 23:10
v.36 the words of Jesus to the sons of Zebedee are strikingly like the words to the blind man Mark 10:51 Only the responses are different. They want glory. The man wishes to see. The lessons are clear for us.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2001 Reply to Peter
:2-12 The question, which was designed to tempt Jesus, may well have been a more than simply a trick question. If we think about it we realise that the answer from Scripture is clear. However the leaders were trying to rid themselves of Jesus. We know that John the Baptist had been imprisoned and then beheaded by Herod because he had testified against him about the taking of his brother Philip's wife [Mark 6:18]. Could it be that the leaders thought that in getting Jesus to answer this question they would be able to report him to Herod, thinking that he might suffer the same fate as that great prophet?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2002 Reply to Peter
The question 'is it lawful for a man to put away his wife ' :2 was clearly a question designed to trap Jesus. However it may well have had an origin in the events of the time for John had reproved Herod (Mark 6:18) for taking his brother's wife.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2003 Reply to Peter
Cliff York [Pine Rivers (Aus)] Comment added in 2003 Reply to Cliff
10:2 As we commented before Jesus is now in what is now the Golan height - and yet the Pharisees still come to see him. We noticed in Mark 7 that they had come from Jerusalem all the way to Galilee, and now they are going even further in their obsession with finding fault with Jesus.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to Peter
Mark 10:33-34 The details of Christ's death recorded here are by far the most detailed recorded by Mark. Every thing that was foretold here of Christ's death, Mark has also recorded the fulfilment.
|
foretold
|
event
|
fulfilled
|
|
The Son of man shall be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes
|
||
|
They shall condemn Him to death
|
||
|
They shall deliver Him to the Gentiles
|
||
|
They shall mock Him and spit upon Him
|
||
|
They shall scourge Him
|
||
|
They shall kill Him
|
||
|
Three days later He shall rise again
|
>
John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to John
Contrast the healing of blind Bartimaeus (v.46-52) with that of the blind man in Mark 8:22-25 (see my note Feb. 12).
With Bartimaeus there was no involved procedure. The Lord just made his pronouncement (v.52). Unlike the other blind man, Bartimaeus made a declaration of faith (v.47). By recognizing Jesus as the son of David, he announced him as the Messiah. In fact, he was the first person in the Gospels to do so publicly.
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to Michael
v.21 - The requirements of our walk are huge. Not only should we remember this for ourselves, but we should also take heed of the fact that this action of Jesus is done in love - and that we are called upon to love our enemies. Here is a very practical way in which we should do that - emulating our Master.
Peter [UK] Comment added in 2005 Reply to Peter
10:18 The rich man's greeting 'Good master' may well have been a respectful way of addressing Jesus. We might have let such a comment pass. However Jesus addresses this first. The reason is that it highlighted a fundamental error in the thinking of the man. Until that was resolved Jesus' and God's status were not clear and so the basis of Jesus' comments would not be understood. The man had fallen into the trap that many fell in to. He was interested in the opinion of a man. Jesus focused his attention on what God had said rather than just giving another man's opinion.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2006 Reply to Peter
v 21 "Jesus...loved him" Just like God's grace, Jesus' love is reaching out to us. We have to accept it in order for it to have an effect on us, and for a relationship to form & grow. God's & Jesus' love is about relationship - if we turn our backs & walk away, we spurn it.
Wendy Johnsen [Nanaimo, BC, Canada] Comment added in 2006 Reply to Wendy
v 29 we don't choose to follow Jesus just because he is a charismatic figure, but because he is central to the gospel.
Wendy Johnsen [Nanaimo, BC, Canada] Comment added in 2006 Reply to Wendy
I wonder if there is a connection between Jesus speaking of His death and resurrection in Mark 10:32-34, and the account which immediately follows of the request of James and John to sit either side of Him in the Kingdom, (Mark 10:35-45). From Matthew’s record we read that this request came from their mother (Matt 20:20-28). Either she was a great woman of faith, and totally believed that after His death and resurrection would come the Kingdom, OR she was just wanting honour for her two sons. What do you think?
David Simpson [Worcester (UK)] Comment added in 2006 Reply to David
10:14 Maybe the disciples thought that Jesus’ teaching was so important that here was not time to spend with children. Or maybe they thought that they would not understand the teaching. Whatever the reason the disciples had to learn that Jesus had time for the children because people of the kingdom are like children. Do we, in our desire to be effective and productive, brush aside aspects of preaching which might slow us down but which, in reality, would be more effective than many of the other things that we might think to do?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2007 Reply to Peter
31 In response to Peter's comment "lo, we have left all, and have followed thee," Jesus promises blessings. However he also issues a warning, in order that no one may think that reward is obtainable by that which one has done. It is something that can not be earned, it is truly a gift. "Many that are first shall be last; and the last first."
John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2007 Reply to John
Mark 10:46 - This tells us that we are very close to the crucifixion, as Jesus only went to Jericho the once as far as I can see. When Jesus is reported as going to Ephraim in John 11:54 - which is in the region of Jericho. It is significant, surely, that Jesus went up from Jericho to Jerusalem for his final hour.
Small Reading Group [Derby Bass Street (UK)] Comment added in 2007 Reply to Small Reading Group
10:15The repeated use of ‘children’ in this chapter might blind us to the fact that the whole idea of accepting God’s message like ‘a little child’ echoes the change that took place in Naaman the Syrian when he did what the prophet commanded – 2Kin 5:14.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2008 Reply to Peter
10:1 Jesus taught on this occasion ‘as he was wont’ – that is a characteristic of the life of Jesus was simply that he was a teacher. It was part of his makeup as he had to manifest the qualities of his Father. We, likewise, should be ‘apt to teach’ – 1Tim 3:2, 2Tim 2:24
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Peter
How (not) to follow Jesus
Notice the contrast in the blind beggar and the seeing rich man. The blind beggar's possession was a coat, and yet he was willing to throw it aside as if it were nothing (v50), in order to reach to Jesus. That coat was possibly all he owned, so it was actually worth a great deal. And if he hadn't have been healed, how would he have found the coat again? The rich man had no such worries - he came running to Jesus. Yet whilst both of these men bowed before the Lord and asked him for something, only one of them received it.
Notice the marked difference in Jesus' response. This may help us decide how to approach Jesus to ask him for what we need:
|
Runner
|
Beggar
|
|
v21 "you lack something"
|
v51 what can I give you that you lack?
|
|
v21 "go away and fix it"
|
v52 I release you of any need to repay me
|
|
v21 "you're welcome to come and die with me on the cross"
|
(he isn't asked to give anything)
|
|
v22 he goes away of his own accord
|
v52 the man follows of his own freewill
|
Rob de Jongh [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Rob
10:10 We see, in the disciples asking Jesus ‘in the house’ a characteristic we have seen before - Mark 4:10, 7:17– how those who were interested in what Jesus had to say always sought for private fuller explanation from Jesus.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Peter
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2011 Reply to Peter
Summary of Chapter
10:1 In the coasts of Judea
10:2-9 Pharisees tempt Jesus regarding putting away wives
10:10-12 In the house disciples ask Jesus about putting away wives
10:13-16 In the house – little children brought to Jesus
10:17-22 In the way – what shall I do to have eternal life
10:23-27 How hardly shall rich men enter the kingdom
10:28-31 Peter – we have left all – what shall we have?
10:32-34 In the way going to Jerusalem Jesus tells disciples he will die
10:35-45 James and John – can we sit on right hand and left hand in kingdom – other disciples displeased
10:46-52 Leaving Jericho – healing of blind Bartimaeus
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2012 Reply to Peter
A reader asks: “I was interested to read your comments on Mark 10:9-11. I would like to have read your further comments on Matt 5:32; 19:9 and Luke 16:18…My husband and I have been invited to a wedding. The groom is a divorced Brother and he is marrying a newly baptized divorced sister. My feeling is that I should not attend the wedding…However, my husband…asked the opinions of various people in ‘the meeting’ and they have advised that to attend is the right thing to do. Please have you any comments with regard to this?”
My reply: Let me begin by first mentioning that in both the Old and New Testaments, divorce and separation, or putting away use two distinct words distinguishing the one from the other. The LORD did it in Isa 50:1 wherein we find the word used for "divorcement" is keriythuwth, and "put away" is shalach. We find these distinctions time and time again in both Testaments. We find Jesus also makes the distinction in Mark 10:4 wherein "divorcement" is apostasion, and "put away" is apoluo. Jesus is quoting from Deut 24, where the same distinction was originally used. Moses wrote the bill of divorcement for the women, primarily, that they may remarry, especially in those days, when women were completely dependent on the men for their livelihood. He wrote this precept because the men were hard-hearted in throwing their wives out, keeping their dowries, and at the same time indulgenced in the lusts of their flesh without any care for their wives well-being! Hard-heartedness does not negate this principle; it was a merciful Law for the women.
This brings us to Mark 10:9-11, which is also covered under Matt 19: "Asunder" means to "depart or separate," not divorce. It is no more synonymous with divorce as separation is! What the Lord is saying is that the man should not put away (apoluo), or leave his wife. We also read in 1Cor 7:11-12, that women should not leave or separate (apoluo) from their husbands, but if she does let her remain unmarried, and try to reconcile. If they should remarry without a proper bill of divorcement (apostasion), being only separated, or apoluo, they commit adultery (Mark 10:11-12).
Regarding Mark 10:6, please read my notes on Matt 19, July 18th readings. It is the same with Luke 16:18. Whoever marries a person put away (apoluo) - separated, commits adultery, and whoever marries her that is just separated (apoluo) from her husband commits adultery against her husband.
The privilege of God giving divorce papers was not meant to be abused, but God realized the necessity of it when He, Himself, sanctioned it, and had Moses write it. We must not, indeed cannot, judge the circumstances of their divorce, otherwise we find ourselves being the judge and executioner! This line of thinking is often influenced by our pre-conceived prejudices. They in the meeting advised you correctly - it is the right thing to do.
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2012 Reply to Valerie
A reader writes: “… Christ is answering the Pharisees regarding deut.24. It was not right & He showed them very clearly that there was NOTHING right about it. The husband was hard hearted, stubborn & by giving the writ of divorce#647, & BY that writ he was able to put her away#630. And by doing so, he tempted, caused her to defile herself by going to another man (ish). Remember,when He says "BUT I SAY." He is not contradicting his Father. He is contradicting the sadducees & the wrong that was permitted at that time as that is what THEY wanted.”
Reply: Please refer to my notes on Deut 24:1-4 wherein I show the incorrect interpretation of verse 4 to which you are referring. The issue Christ had was that they were indeed, “putting away” without a “writ of divorce,” and where there was a writ of divorce, their reasons were all wrong in obtaining it.
The apostle Paul would differ with you on this for he wrote the law is just and good! He did not say, “except for Deut 24.” God would never give a law that had, “NOTHING right about it.” Read what Paul wrote concerning the law in Rom 2:13; Rom 3:31; Rom 4:15; Rom 7:1,12; Rom 13:8; 1Cor 7:19. The New Testament is full of examples showing the need for Old Testament law. Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible reveals 1,050 places where the Old Testament law is referred to in the New Testament! Their hardness of heart, or motives for getting rid of their wives was wrong, not the given law.
From the start of Christ’s ministry (Matt 5-7), Christ clarified he did not come to destroy or annul any of God’s moral laws – not even a “jot or tittle,” but to fulfill, or complete the law (Matt 5:17-19). Christ confirmed the constancy of the law to even its smallest letter, which happened to compose the law! By saying, “but I say unto you,” Christ went on to expound the changes of attitudes and approaches to God’s law that we must acquire to exceed the righteousness of the pharisaical law-abiding people (Matt 5:20). He taught them not as the “letter of the law” Scribes and Pharisees did, but, “as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (Matt 7:28-29). Jesus saw past the rigid letter of the law, and went to the very heart and purpose of the law giving its true meaning and relevance to life (cf. 1Sam 15:22; Hos 6:6). Jesus amplified the law’s meaning by expanding the scope of the law not just to physical actions, but to the very conditions, attitudes, and inclinations of the heart.
With Christ referring to the beginning, he referred to the very beginning before sin entered the world, a setting to which we will never be able to return to in this Age. By saying, “in the beginning it was not so,” it was in answer to a question asked by the religious leaders (Matt 19:1-9) concerning the moral issue of divorce for every cause and so Christ takes them to the beginning of what marriage was intended to be. After the fall in the Garden of Eden, Scriptures show how the moral structure of mankind began to crumble through time up until the flood, then all the way to Mount Sinai, when hundreds of year later God gave Israel a marital law to guide their relationships and moral conduct. Jesus confronted those who were guilty of trying to cover up their way of living by using a private interpretation of what they wanted to believe Moses actually taught. Moses did not teach for "any reason," but for some "uncleanness," which some interpret has a sexual connotation to it.
Marriage was intended to be for life, nevertheless, Jesus did go on to show that Deut 24:1-4, the law of divorce, was introduced and granted much later because of moral decline. He, however, limited the reasons for a divorce, which the apostle Paul later expounded on, not just for the any reason excuse as taught by the perverted Pharisees! Note the response the disciples gave Jesus and his response in Matt 19:10-12. This is in keeping with its context.
When Jesus was asked, “which is the great commandment in the law,” he replied in Matt 22:36-40: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, (This command is taken from Deut 6:4-9 and often referred to as the Shema) …and the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (This command is not taken from Lev 19:18). Why is this important? It confirms that the law of Moses, which is the law of God as handed down to Moses, is required of us even today! Christ shows us that to love him we must keep and obey his commandments, which he received of the Father (John 14:15,21; 15:10). The commandments spoken of refer to the commandments God delivered to Moses in the Old Testament. These are the standards we are to strive to work out in life as the children of God if we are to attain to the Kingdom of God. The people in Christ’s day abused a privilege God gave, and may well be abused by His children in our day. Christ is not negating Deut 24:1-4, but shows how a marriage in Christ will work if both partners walk in the spirit and not in the flesh - here the husband could have forgiven his wife her "uncleanness," but chose not to.
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2012 Reply to Valerie
10:19 There is no debate as to whether the one who had come to Jesus knew the law. Jesus’ response ‘thou knowest the commandments’ shows this. His problem was not knowing them but rather it was he did not understand them. There is a danger here for us. We may know what Jesus taught but we may not understand how those teachings should be put into practice in our daily lives.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2013 Reply to Peter
10:13-15 The repeated use of child / children forces upon the disciples that a childlike trust is what is required of disciples. A powerful lesson for us also.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2014 Reply to Peter
Mark 10:18 Do we have an idication to the Nature of Christ? Adam and Eve we created "very Good" able to sin but not sin probable and death capable but not death bound.
Christ is saying i believe "that i am not good, because i am sin prone and death bound"?
Surely then he wasnt God as in the trinity, nor was he clean flesh!
stephen cox [Sedgley UK] Comment added in 2014 Reply to stephen
10:23,24 Whilst some might see riches an hindrance to enter the kingdom of God it is not the riches that are the problem. It is the trust that one might place in them. As Paul says later – 1Tim 6:10 - it is the “love” of them that causes the problem.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2015 Reply to Peter
10:17 Ezekiel’s experience of the people of his day, as explained by God, - Eze 33:31 - is the thinking of this man who came to Jesus
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2016 Reply to Peter
10:31 In the matter of the first becoming last Jesus has more to say – 20:1-16 – in the parable of the labourers in the vineyard
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2017 Reply to Peter
10:39 The response of Pete rand John “we can” how easy it is to make rash promises. Rather than think less of the brothers we should take their rashness as a warning to ourselves when we think we have the strength to do things – especially when we do not really appreciate what the work entails.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2018 Reply to Peter
“For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.”
MEDITATIONS—NO. 31, Christadelphian Family Journal, January 1927, p. 261
“This is Christ’s teaching. It is an arrangement which requires the going out, on the part of the man, from his parental home, and the open assumption of the position of a husband. This, and nothing short, is marriage in Christ’s eyes. The man having assumed marital responsibilities, is to ‘cleave’ to his wife in close and loving companionship; as elsewhere counselled, there is to be a living joyfully with the wife of his youth (Prov 5:18,19); Ecc 9:9). The divine instructions conveyed through the prophet, were that there was to be no treachery against the wife: ‘She is thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant’ (Mal 2:14). Companionship is one of the rights of marriage, and a properly-minded husband will not be found here and there whilst the wife is solitary and miserable at home. A wife’s happiness and well-being were kept to the front in Israel’s law. It embodied such enactments as a year’s freedom from national calls that the husband might ‘cheer up’ his wife (Deut 24:5). It forbad vexatious conduct towards a wife; ‘neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her’ (Lev 18:18). God’s pleasure also requires care concerning his wife’s salvation, ‘as being heirs together of the grace of life’ (1Pet 3:7). A God-respecting husband will not be careful about his own eternal well-being and indifferent about his wife’s. A husband’s position is one of great trust and responsibility, and it behooves every brother to remember that Christ’s eyes are upon him to see whether he is faithful to his Master’s instructions.”
(Emphasis added).
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2018 Reply to Valerie
“For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife… What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
Cleave is # <4347>, proskollao, “to adhere:-cleave, join (self).” This verb comes from # <4314> and # <2853>. In 1Cor 6:16,17, “joined” is # 2853, kollao, “to stick, cleave, join (self), keep company.” By cleaving, we are called not only to be “one flesh (physical),” but also to be “one spirit (spiritual).”
In Gen 2:24, it is the husband who is commanded to “cleave” to his wife. The Biblical text is clear that the husband is to bond, or build a close relationship with his wife, and besides God, the wife is to be his highest commitment and no one else. He is to cleave, or be committed to keeping the marriage tightly glued to him. A marriage built around a close Godly bond includes two people who are willing to listen and to talk about their problems in a spiritual way.
A sister writes: “Do we need an angel to tell us that surreptitious visits paid to a partner or partners hidden away from sight is not the marriage which God instituted? Do we need to be told that the partner who joins himself or herself to another is breaking wedlock and putting asunder what God has joined together? All this is simple elementary teaching from the lips of Christ…”
My comment: Most of our marriages, if we are truly honest with ourselves, do not meet God’s original design. Holding a marriage certificate does not mean we are cleaving to our marriages. (Please read my notes on this in Matt 19:8). Furthermore, a sister who commits adultery, leaves her husband and children, and moves in with her illicit lover, has put her marriage asunder long before her husband divorced her!
Husbands and wives need to value their marriages, be committed to building and preserving the marital bond, strive to come as close as they can to a beautiful, loving relationship, and not to lose sight of God’s beautiful design and not to give it up for a mess of pottage.
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2018 Reply to Valerie
Brother ATJ wrote the following in 1927!
“To forbid divorce, in the case of broken wedlock, is the teaching, not of the Scriptures, but of the Papacy. It is diametrically opposed to the simple statements in Matt. v. 32 and xix. 9, and so far as the latter-day revival of the Truth is concerned, is new teaching, as can be seen by reference to the writings of Dr. Thomas and brother Roberts.
Brethren who, in defiance of Christ’s teaching are advocating the indissolubility of marriage, would do well to pause and reflect. Their action has a two-fold evil consequence. It is a step on the road to apostasy, and by forcing strife, where peace and unity once prevailed, it is a cause of stumbling to Christ’s little ones.”
Brethren John Thomas and Robert Roberts denounced this “new teaching,” and several of their quotes and expositions on this have already been submitted. They come with stern warnings, as Brother Roberts wrote, “Let our brethren everywhere beware of those who are constantly seeking to introduce ‘some new thing.’” The full quote may be read in Rom 16:17, as well as my commentary in Matt 19:8.
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2018 Reply to Valerie
A reader writes: “As you say it is truly remarkable that the pioneers held to Scriptural teaching
on D&R, yet they have been ridden roughshod over by what I (perhaps rather cruelly) call the seemingly inexorable rise in Phariseeism in our community over the last 50 or so years, which has no other basis to it than human pride i.e. the pride of life.
Could I ask you which of A.T.J.s books that quote came from as I may just have a copy. And SOMEWHERE I have a book that cataloged all the splits that have taken place in our community since its inception - and it's a VERY long list. Sadly, as you say, many if not most of the splits have been about personal opinions that got out of hand and the herding instinct ruling supreme. 1Cor 1:10-3:11 anyone?”
My reply: The quote was taken from THE CHRISTADELPHIAN FAMILY JOURNAL, February 1927 of which Bro. A.T. Jannaway was assistant to the editor, then Bro. E.W. Browne. I have attached photos of the article Bro. ATJ wrote in his article titled: “DIVORCE AND SEPARATION” pp. 308-310, and you will see the quote at the bottom of page 309.
You know how much I went through and how maligned and attacked I was because of this issue. This is the lot of all those who love the Word and desire to deeply absorb it to know God and Christ's mind on any issue. When I first came into the Truth, I was taught that to marry after a divorce is adultery, but thanks be to God I continued my studies and read the writings of the pioneer brethren with the Bible at hand and prayer, and saw the “whole counsel of God” on this issue. With the advent of Christ upon us, may we continue to encourage those cast out that Christ has not cast them out, and to cling to him. Other new teachings were subsequently introduced, after which I left this ecclesia having to do with abortion not being killing even after the baby is born provided it does not take that first breath through the nostrils! As Bro. Thomas said, “this is too much for my stomach’s deglutition!”
We trod on because it is the right thing to do. Bro. A.T.J’s article is available to anyone upon request.
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2018 Reply to Valerie
10:14 “much displeased” is a strong was to describe Jesus’ response. However it must be an accurate description. Normally such a reaction was reserved for the Jewish leader. But now it is shown to his disciples. So important was it that people brought children to Jesus.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2019 Reply to Peter
10:51 Jesus’ question “what wilt thou” echoes what he had already said - :36. But the desire was different. Whilst the two disciples sought status this man simply wanted to see!
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2020 Reply to Peter
10:50 Note the contrast with Achan. Amongst the spoils of Jericho Achan saw a garment and coveted it (see Joshua 7:21). At Jericho Bartimaeus casts away his garment so that he might see.
Nigel Bernard [Pembroke Dock UK] Comment added in 2020 Reply to Nigel
10:45 In speaking of giving himself as a “ransom” Jesus is speaking of more than just serving. Echoing Isa 35:10Jesus is speaking of the effect of his death as the ultimate service for others.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2021 Reply to Peter
10:24 Jesus uses a different word for “children” here compared with :14. In verse :14 the word is generally used of any child. However here Jesus uses a word which more appropriately speaks of “offspring”. Whilst Jesus is clearly echoing his comments in verse :14 he uses a different word to emphasise that the 12 are in a different relationship with him compared to the masses of children brought to Jesus
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2022 Reply to Peter
10:35 The two brother’s request is an open ended “Do for us what we are going to ask you” How often do we say vague and open ended prayers to our Father? We should take time to think about what we should pray for knowing that He will answer according to His will.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2023 Reply to Peter
10:19 The law also condemned covetousness Exo 20:17 – which Jesus does not say, replacing it with “defraud”. There is a difference. It was, and is possible, to covet and yet not defraud anyone. The thought has not been translated into action. However Jesus has already, in a specific situation - Matt 5:28 - taught that the thought is as bad as the action.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2024 Reply to Peter
10:3 Moses’ words were held in high regard by the Pharisees, so their answer did accurately reflect what Moses wrote – as far as it went. But Jesus highlights the point that the provision of the Law of Moses, or more precisely the limits it laid down were not a comment but something allowed because God knew that the people were hard hearted. The Jews of Jesus’ day were no different from the Jews to whom Moses spoke.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2025 Reply to Peter