“My Lord, who dead and buried lay, of late Made void this tomb and stood before my face; And I was first of all his ransomed race: At first I knew him not! nor pondered there By what strong means at that unseemly hour The gard’ner should with some uncanny power Have borne him hence beyond my reach. But when he spoke, calling out my name, And I beheld my Saviour standing there, My heart did leap with sheer and utter joy; ‘Twas then, O Lord, that recognition came: With tear-dimmed eyes my precious Lord to greet, I knelt in the dust to grasp his feet.”
Archives
Mary, “three women”
Are Mary of Bethany, the woman of Luk 7, and Mary Magdalene all the same woman. According to HAW, this is a possibility — although not a provable certainty:
- Mary of Bethany = woman of Luk 7: Mary’s anointing, a perpetual memorial (Mat 26:13). Joh 11:2 seems to look back to an earlier incident: if not Luk 7, then what? Simon the (healed?) leper (Mar 14:3) = Simon the Pharisee of Luk 7. In Mat 26, Mary is deliberately repeating her earlier action. In Luk 7: how did Simon know what kind of woman this was (v 39)? How did she know to make good his omissions of courtesy (vv 44-46)? How did she get into the house at all? Also, see v 37: sig of “brought” (= “received”).
- Mary of Bethany = Mary Magdalene: Mary of Bethany, not mentioned re the crucifixion and resurrection, whereas Mary Magdalene is suddenly (for first time) extremely prominent. These 2 women are always mentioned at feet of Jesus: Luk 10:39-42; Joh 11:32; 12:3; 19:25; 20:17; Mat 28:9; Luk 7:38. Coincidences?
- Mary Magdalene = the woman of Luk 7: The only mention of Mary Magdalene before crucifixion comes in Luk 8:2, immediately after Luk 7:36-50. “Magdalene” possibly signifies “hair-braider”, ie harlot; also ref Luk 7:38. See Luk 8:2,3n.
(From WGos 247).
Mat 18:15-17
It is evident from a full consideration of the context, that the sin here is primarily a matter of personal offence, not of doctrinal divergence. (Cp v 21: “….sin against me….” and v 35: “if ye forgive not every one his brother….”) However, these vv are often considered to be the primary guideline to the pursuing and expunging of doctrinal errors from the ecclesia; so let us carefully consider the passage from that viewpoint.
“If your brother sins against you”, then you — being by Bible standard and precept “your brother’s keeper” (Gen 4:9) — are bound to warn the offender with the express purpose of turning him from his sin (Eze 3:17-21). Your love, actively manifested in an unpleasant task, may “cover a multitude of sins” (1Pe 4:8).
In such cases the offender should not be evilly thought of, or spoken of. His status and feelings will be as fully considered and respected as one’s own. Neither will he be confronted from motives and feelings personal to the visitor, but solely and purely for his own good who has transgressed.
With the object of gaining, not of sacrificing his brother, the careful brother should in the spirit of meekness strive to restore the faulty; and he should consider his own imperfections and weaknesses and consequent liability to fall into temptation (Gal 6:1). Every step which might lead to New Testament disfellowship (or withdrawal) was always intended to facilitate the repentance and reclamation of the offender. The Son of Man himself came into the world with the purpose of saving that which was lost (Mat 18:11) — and well might we be thankful that he did that very thing.
Note the special precise sequence to be followed:
(1) Tell him his fault between you and him alone. How many falter at the very first step who desire to be “peacemakers”, but instead become “peace-keepers”, ie “law enforcement officials” in the ecclesias!
(2) Then — only if he fails to hear you — go with one or two others. And should not the one or two others be those who by experience and temperament are best able to rectify the division, not simply best able to support your contention and most likely to take your side no matter what?
The two or three witnesses confirm every word. This is a necessary counterbalance to the frequent malicious tendency of the flesh to believe without verification every evil word spoken against another brother.
(3) Finally, all else failing, you should go to the ecclesia. Whose ecclesia? Yours or his? His, of course, because it is the one with primary jurisdiction in the case. Implicit in the Master’s advice is no doubt the final step: After you tell the ecclesia, you bow out; the ecclesia now being properly informed has sole authority to pursue the matter. (In our modern-day inter-ecclesial tangle, with its rapid communications and sometimes volatile differences, this point and the next become very important.)
(4) One command which is not given, but so often “read into” Mat 18: “Then tell it to all the ecclesias!” This would serve the dubious purpose of taking the “sins” (real or imagined) of your brother, whom you ostensibly sought to help, and broadcasting them to the ends of the world. This is wrong, it is malicious, and it is also a violation of the spirit of the commandment here and of the Scriptural basis of all inter-ecclesial relationships (as in Rev 2 and 3).
We should notice, in any survey of Mat 18, the related passage in the Ecclesial Guide, entitled “Cases of Sin and Withdrawal” (1949 Edition, p 24). From there we quote:
“There should be a stringent refusal to hear an evil report concerning anyone until the reporter has taken the Scriptural course….”
And in another place RR comments on the procedure: “Nothing tends more to the keeping or the restoring of peace than the observance of this law; and no law is more constantly broken. The universal impulse, when anything is supposed to be wrong, is to tell the matter to third persons. From them it spreads, with the results of causing much bad feeling which, perhaps, the original cause does not warrant and would not have produced if the aggrieved person had taken the course prescribed by Christ, and told the fault ‘between thee and him alone.’ If good men, or those who consider themselves such, would adopt the rule of refusing to listen to an evil report privately conveyed, until it had been dealt with to the last stage according to the rule prescribed by Christ, much evil would be prevented” (“Between Thee and Him Alone”, Ber 54:119).
We note how the full and complete context speaks so eloquently, not of judgment, nor of condemnation or disfellowship, but rather of reconciliation, reunion, mercy, and forgiveness:
(1) Verse 14: “It is not my Father’s will that any of these little ones [cp the children of vv 1-6] should perish.” Surely these fellowship matters are dynamite, and when wrongly handled they explode and the weak ones and the young ones “for whom Christ died” are most in danger of injury or “death”. How many young ones, it may be asked, ever perished spiritually because of that “dangerous” but little-understood “false doctrine” or improper action halfway round the globe? But how many truly became disillusioned and ultimately drifted away from the Brotherhood because of the grievous spectacle — on their own doorsteps — of envious, small-minded brethren, and their internal bickering and accusatory letters?
(2) How many times should I forgive? “Until seventy times seven” (v 22). Almost without end! And Jesus adds the parable of the debtors, with the comment that the Father in heaven will by no means forgive the unforgiving (vv 23-35). Notice the extreme contrasts in this parable. How heavily must the balance be weighted on the side of mercy in our cases!
It may also be noted that in Mat 18 there is no provision for a disgruntled, dissatisfied individual or minority to withdraw from the ecclesia because of a difference in judging a case. The ecclesia, as a body, is assumed to have the greater ability judiciously to weigh the facts and to reach a Scriptural and just decision. Most of our ecclesial “constitutions” contain a provision to this effect: “That we mutually engage to submit to the order and arrangements preferred by the greater number” (Article 5 of the Birmingham “Constitution”).
It may be confidently asserted that nearly every division in the Christadelphian world since these words were written has been brought about by a disregard of this very principle, which all have bound themselves to honor.
Finally, if it be argued that Mat 18:15-17 applies only to individual cases in one’s own ecclesia, and not to cases in other ecclesias, then I would ask: (1) Should it be easier — in view of the doctrine of the One Body and the superlative examples of and inducements to peace and unity — to judge and disfellowship thousands at a distance than individuals at home? (2) Or, put the other way round, do many brethren deserve less love and consideration than one?
This section closes with a document drawn up by several brethren in England during the “Berean” division of the 1920s, entitled “A Series of Rules proposed to govern inter-ecclesial disputes, based on Matthew 18:15-17”:
“1. That imputations against brethren affecting their fidelity to the faith ought not to be made except as commanded by Christ.
“2. That the same rule applies to ecclesias — especially as affecting inter-ecclesial co-operation.
“3. So, if a brother is convinced that a brother or brethren in an ecclesia of which he is not a member is or are advocating heresy, or otherwise in danger of rejection at the judgment seat of Christ, the proper course for such a brother to adopt is:
(a) First to see that brother ‘and tell him his fault with him alone’.
(b) If unable to adjust the matter, then it is his duty to ask the help of one or two more members of the ecclesia to whom the erring brother belongs, ‘that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’
(c) Failing agreement, the case may then be considered by the ecclesia to which the erring brother belongs, in which case the brother originally moving in the matter shall have the opportunity of being present with full liberty of speech.
(d) If the matter cannot be adjusted in harmony with the wishes of the brother who has endeavored to help an erring one on his way to the kingdom, he is then at liberty to consider whether he shall refuse cooperation with them in their labors and shall respectfully notify his intention to the said brother and ecclesia in question.
(e) In case no further attempt is made by the ecclesia thus notified to adjust the matter, he may now ask the ecclesia to which he belongs to join him in refusal of cooperation.
“4. The above rules may not be possible of observance in detail where ecclesias are so far separated as to make a personal interview unfeasible, but in any case, an opportunity should be given for those who are associated with one who teaches error, to repudiate the same before exclusion from fellowship” (“So Do Unto Them”, Xd 61:455).
With the above agree also the very well-balanced remarks of Brother Roberts (“A Second Voyage to Australia”, Xd 35: 331,332), from which come the following extracts: “It ought not to be in the power of any ecclesia to pass judgment on an accused brother in his absence, unless that absence was willful. This was an elementary principle recognized in every system of law, ancient or modern, human or divine. It was a feature of British law all over the world — that no man should be condemned without the opportunity and invitation to answer the charge made against him. It used to be the same with Roman law, as casually comes out in Act 25:16: ‘It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die before that he that is accused have the accusers face to face and have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him.’
“The Jews observed the same practice: ‘Doth our law judge any man before it hear him?’ (Joh 7:15)
“Lastly, Christ enjoined the same thing in the law of Mat 18 for dealing with an offending brother, only that he added the merciful requirement (absent from all human laws), that public accusation should not be made until the accused had been approached personally and privately by the accuser, and a second time with one or two others in case of failure.”
Matthew and money
There are two extreme schools of thought as to the means by which the books of the Bible were composed. The one, which we might call the “dictation” school, implies that the authors were really no more than “secretaries” who wrote down, word for word, what God spoke to them. The other extreme declares that the authors compiled and arranged and edited various materials, part written and part oral, from many older sources. Since these sources were not necessarily “inspired” in any regular sense of the word, and since the compiler was at liberty to “pick and choose”, therefore the final result could scarcely be considered the infallible “word of God”. An “advancement” (?) upon this second school of thought is that the gospels, for example, did not take their final forms until some time in the second century, after later disciples “tinkered around” with their predecessors’ stories.
These two views more or less hold sway among modern theologians. The “scholarly” majority favor various “compilation” theories to explain the origins of the Scriptures. Among the intelligentsia, the theories tend to the use of letters and numbers as a sort of insiders’ “code”. One can sympathize with the simple Bible believer who picks up a modern text and finds listed as Bible authors — not Moses and Matthew and Mark — but some anonymous gentlemen (or committees, perhaps?) designated only as “J”, “E”, “D”, “P”, and “Q”. Then, without warning, his old friend Isaiah, right before his eyes, is “cloned” into three parts: First, Second, and Third Isaiah!
The “dictation” theory comes somewhat as a reaction to these liberal modern views. It has many advocates in mainstream American denominations. More than one major church conference has seen “pitched battles” between the apostles of “inerrancy” and the disciples of “higher criticism”.
While our sympathies tend toward the conservative in such a dispute, it seems that the “dictation” theory goes too far when it denies that the Spirit of God used the writer’s “personality” at all.
In many subtle ways the unique qualities of each writer show forth in his works. We find, for example, that Luke’s writings reveal many traces of a scientific, specifically a medical, background. We find that Paul’s writings demonstrate a wide-ranging knowledge of things Greek as well as Jewish, which accords with what we know of his education. This line of investigation, when followed up, refutes the “dictation” theory. But it also (and this may be more important) goes quite a ways toward refuting the various “compilation” theories also. If, to take another example, it can be shown that Matthew’s gospel reveals an unusual degree of interest in financial matters, then (since Matthew was a publican) the reader is given a further solid presumption that Matthew (and not a committee or some anonymous second-century disciple) did in fact write the first gospel.
Money matters in Matthew
In fact, this is precisely the case. Totaling the references to money in the first three gospels, we have the following tabulation:
Matthew, 44; Mark, 6; Luke, 22.
Luke’s total includes nine references in one parable to the “pound”, whereas Matthew has 14 references in one parable to the “talent”. If these frequent references are reduced to one word each, the totals would be: Matthew, 31; Mark, 6; Luke, 14.
The vineyard workers
Matthew alone of the gospel writers preserves the parable of the vineyard workers (Mat 20:1-16). The teaching of Christ that a man who worked one evening hour should be entitled to the same wage as one who bore “the burden and heat of the day” would strike a money-minded publican as nothing short of revolutionary. The grace of God is an unmerited gift — not parceled out so much per hour or so much per good deed — but heaped up and overflowing to any who go into the vineyard with a will to work. We can imagine the “old publican” in Matthew mumbling to himself, “You just don’t treat money that way!” How true, Matthew — but the grace of God is a different matter altogether.
The unmerciful servant
Another “money” parable given only in Matthew is that of the unmerciful servant (Mat 18:21-35). The king’s servant owed him ten thousand talents. Since, in the vineyard parable, one “penny” (denarius) was a fair day’s wage, and a talent was equal to 6,000 “pennies”, then an ordinary laborer could expect to earn one talent every twenty years! (20 years times 300 workdays per year = 6,000 days.) Assuming a wage of $4 per hour, and 8 to 10 hours per day, one talent would equal approximately $200,000; and the servant’s full debt would be $2,000,000,000 — enough to stagger even a fair-sized country! On the other hand, the debt owed to the servant by his fellow was a relatively trivial 100 denarii ($3,000)! Too much, of course, to be dismissed without a thought, but not very much after all when compared to the other debt. The enormity of the first debt tells us something about the “price” we should place upon our salvation, while the disparity between the two debts (approximately a ‘million to one’ ratio) suggests the relative ease with which we should forgive our “debtors”.
Paying tribute
In another event reported only by Matthew, the tax-collectors asked Peter, “Doth not your master pay tribute (‘didrachma’)?” Before Peter could even take up the question with Christ, Christ spoke about it to him, concluding firstly that the children of the “king” are “free” from taxation, but secondly that they must avoid offending the authorities. He then sent him off to hook a fish in whose mouth he would find a piece of money (a “stater”) large enough to pay for them both. It is notable also that the names of these two coins are found nowhere else in the Bible. We see that Matthew shows the care of an accountant in his technical designation of coins (Mat 17:24-27).
Other money matters
All three synoptic gospels relate Christ’s instructions to the disciples as they were sent forth to preach (Mat 10:9; Mark 6:8; Luke 9:3). But, whereas Mark refers only to brass and Luke only to silver (“argurion”), Matthew uses three terms — gold, silver, and brass! With the carefulness of a man who must have once really loved money, he now renounces it in all its forms!
In another example of precision, Matthew is the only gospel writer who reports the exact amount of the payment made to Judas: 30 pieces of silver (Mat 26:15). Such a paltry price for which to sell one’s eternal life! And Matthew alone tells his readers that the sepulchre guards were paid “hush money” (Mat 28:12,15)! Finally, Matthew is also the only writer to record the saying about swearing by the gold in the temple (Mat 23:16,17).
Conclusion
Perhaps all these points are only minor ones. But in the honored tradition of JJ Blunt’s “Undesigned Scriptural Coincidences”, taken all together they present irresistible arguments: Contrary to the “higher” critics’ theories, there is strong internal proof that that otherwise obscure publican Matthew did indeed write the First Gospel. And, contrary to the “dictation” theory, the Holy Spirit did make use of the personalities, character traits, knowledge, and experiences of the individual writers.
Matthew’s genealogy
Both “biblos” (Bible) and “genesis” emphasize the new beginning made by God in Christ. Adam had sinned, and now the world was filled again with “chaos” and “darkness” — this time man-made. Into this “formless” and “void” world the Father sent a new light, the precursor of a totally new, a spiritual creation. “Let there be light”, He said again, and that light came into the world, and the people who sat under the dark shadow of death saw it and rejoiced (Mat 4:13-17).
The phrase “genealogy” or “generation(s) of…” occurs fourteen times in the whole Bible, eleven times in Genesis, twice more in the Old Testament, and finally this, as might be expected, the fourteenth time (surely a significant number: Mat 1:17). After Jesus the Bible offers no new “generations”, for there are none of any consequence. Jesus was, and is, the beginning of his Father’s “new creation” (Col 1:15-18; 2:12; 3:1,10), one which will never be spoiled nor supplanted.
True to his main purpose in writing (which is to portray Jesus as the king of the Jews and the hope of Israel), Matthew offers first an abbreviated genealogy (“the son of David, the son of Abraham”) which stresses Jesus as the heir of David’s throne and the individual “seed” of Abraham through whom all nations will be blessed. The foundation verse of the New Testament thus establishes unbreakable and essential links with the Old. Unless the reader understands the great thematic promises made to Abraham and the patriarchs and to David, he cannot hope to understand the mission of Jesus. And if the reader of Scripture is ever disposed to dismiss these genealogies as nothing more than “dull” lists of names, let him try to imagine how Abraham the “father” of believers and David the “man after God’s own heart” would have thrilled to read such “dull” lists (Joh 8:56; Mat 22:43).
At least four generations are skipped by Matthew. Three are between Joram and Uzziah (Mat 1:8). These (Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah) are probably passed over because they are also the seed of the wicked Athaliah, daughter of Jezebel, and because they proved true to their heritage. It is not surprising that each of these three also died a violent death: Ahaziah was slain by the avenging Jehu (2Ki 9:27), while conspirators killed Joash (2Ki 12:20) and Amaziah (2Ki 14:19). A fourth exclusion is Jehoiakim, who fits between Josiah and Jeconiah (Mat 1:11); perhaps he is omitted because he was appointed king by the king of Egypt and not by God.
Whatever the reasons, it is clear that Matthew, impelled by the Spirit, has been quite selective in his listing. The genealogy is easily remembered, being readily divisible into three equal sections (v. 17). There are definite links between the 42 generations and the 42 “stations” in the wilderness march of Israel (Num 33:3-49), as well as the 42 months of affliction in Rev 13:5. In each case the central idea is a period of probation or persecution, which climaxes in inheritance and the kingdom. Thus Matthew, by the device of his genealogy, crystallizes Israel’s history in 42 segments that terminate in the revelation of the true king, who will bring the inheritance to the faithful in Israel.
Forty-two generations are mentioned by Matthew, but this figure (and the equal divisions into three cycles of 14 each) can be achieved only by counting Jeconiah twice — as the last of cycle 2 and the first of cycle 3. To do this would then be inconsistent, since the same double-counting is not seen between the first two cycles.
What is the solution to this difficulty? The simplest answer might be to suggest that one name has dropped out of the final group, but there is no textual evidence for this. There is a better, and more satisfying, possibility: although forty-one men are mentioned, there are forty-two names of men. Mary’s son is twice named, as “Jesus” and as “Christ” — thereby making up fourteen names in the last division. Does Matthew mean to imply that Jesus had two “births” — one according to the flesh, and the second from the dead by God’s Spirit, which declared him to be the Son of God (Rom 1:4)? This second “birth”, thirty-three years after the first, would then finish the “genealogy” or “generations” of Jesus Christ (Mat 1:1), and would include prospectively those “in Christ” who would be “born again”, to constitute his multitudinous “body”.
Matthew mentions five women in Christ’s ancestry; certainly each is very important. Of the first four, three were Gentiles: Tamar, a Canaanitess (Mat 1:3), Rahab of Jericho (v 5), and Ruth a Moabitess (v 5 ). The fourth, Bathsheba (v 6), was married to a Gentile, a Hittite. In these four, a legacy of scandal was attached to the royal family of Israel: Tamar was guilty of incest, Rahab of prostitution, and Bathsheba of adultery. Ruth, a widow, was scorned by the nearest kinsman, possibly because he questioned her virtue (Rth 4:6). Yet these four also showed great faith: Tamar by perpetuating Judah’s line, even if it meant danger for herself; Rahab and Ruth by freely associating themselves with Israel; and Bathsheba by securing her son Solomon the rightful inheritance of David’s throne (1Ki 1:11-31).
The inclusion of their names, while those of Sarah, Rebekah, and others are excluded, foreshadowed the coming Gentile heirship in the “hope of Israel”. Many Gentiles will one day, along with these women, make up the Gentile bride of Christ (Rev 19:7). They are typified by the Samaritan woman at the well, a sinner of some note (Joh 4:17,18), yet destined despite those sins to be part of the bride of Christ.
Jesus’ ancestors, as a whole, were not the sort to inspire pride in the flesh. Of course this was the purpose — that no flesh should glory in God’s presence (1Co 1:29). The open sins implicit in the listing of these four women prepared the way for the same sort of scandal at the end, where the lovely Mary must appear publicly as an adulteress and an unwed mother (Mat 1:18,19). Each of the first four women had known other men (though apparently bearing no children) before they conceived sons in the royal line. By stark contrast and irony, Mary had known no man at all when she conceived Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit. Yet the implied sin was inescapably obvious, and it became a “cross” which she and Jesus had to bear ever after. In giving birth to Jesus, Mary, though in that respect sinless, appeared to be a sinner. In dying upon the cross, Jesus, though sinless, also appeared to be a sinner.
Matthew, overview
The Gospel According to Matthew is well suited as the opening book of the New Testament because of its emphasis on the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. In it the promises of God are recalled and their fulfillment in Jesus Christ is made evident.
It is obvious that the Gospel of Matthew was aimed at a Jewish audience because…
- The author makes no attempt to translate or explain Jewish words and practices.
- The gospel quotes more frequently from the Old Testament than does any other gospel.
- Most important, however, Jesus is portrayed as a descendant and “heir” of the three greatest personalities of the Old Testament, although he surpasses them.
- Matthew traces Jesus’ genealogy back to Abraham (Mat 1:2), the father of the faith.
- In the Sermon on the Mount (Mat 5-7), Jesus appears as a royal teacher whose authority exceeds that of Moses, the founder of the faith.
- And Jesus fulfils the hopes of David, the greatest king of Israel. He is born in Bethlehem (mentioned five times in (Mat 2)), and like David he appears as a king (Mat 19:28). He is frequently recognized as “the son of David” (Mat 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 21:9; 21:15), although in truth He is David’s “Lord” (Mat 22:41-46).
One could well question why a Gospel written for the Jews by a Jew, was written in Greek. For those who may see this as an issue, the explanation (a very detailed one of which can be found in Nelson’s Bible Dictionary) seems to be that Matthew wrote what was basically a collection of facts, which was later written into the “Gospel Format”. According to Nelson, “The actual author probably was a Palestinian Jew who used the Gospel of Mark, plus a Greek translation of Matthew’s Aramaic ‘oracles,’ and composed the gospel in Greek. The name of the gospel, therefore, stems from the apostle Matthew on whom the author draws, in part, to compose his work…” Either way, whoever the ‘composer’ of the Gospel may have been, it still remains that the Gospel is Matthew’s thoughts and portrayal of Christ the King. Main Themes
- Matthew sought to prove to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ, the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy; hence the recurring statement that occurs in this gospel is, “All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet” (Mat 1:22; 2:15,17,23).
- Matthew writes to prove that Jesus is the king to whom God has given power and authority to redeem and to judge mankind (Mat 1:1-17; 2:2; 21:1-11; 27:11,37; 28:18).
- If Matthew tries to portray Christ as the king, then it figures that he would place considerable emphasis on a Kingdom, and hence one of the most prominent messages of this gospel is about the “kingdom of heaven” or “kingdom of God.” This kingdom is mentioned 51 times in the Gospel of Matthew, twice as often as in any other gospel, (Mat 5-7; 10; 13; 18; 24-25).
The Gospel of Matthew concludes with Jesus’ command to go into all the world and make disciples, baptizing and teaching them in His name. He leaves His disciples with this assurance: “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Mat 28:20).
Outline
| Mat 1:1 – 2:23: | Jesus’ birth and childhood |
| Mat 3:1 – 17: | John the Baptist |
| Mat 4:1 – 25: | Temptation and early ministry |
| Mat 5:1 – 7:29: | The Sermon on the Mount |
| Mat 8:1 – 11:30: | Miracles and preaching |
| Mat 12:1 – 50: | The Pharisees |
| Mat 13:1 – 53: | Seven parables of the Kingdom |
| Mat 13:54 – 17:27: | Further preaching and conflict with the Pharisees |
| Mat 18:1 -20:34: | For the disciples |
| Mat 21:1 – 22:46: | Towards Jerusalem |
| Mat 23:1 – 24:51: | Warning — prophecy |
| Mat 25:1 – 46: | On the Kingdom |
| Mat 26:1 – 27:66: | The crucifixion |
| Mat 28:1 – 20: | The resurrection |
Mediatorship of Christ
The Greek “mesites”, or mediator, is derived from “mesos”, in the middle. Hence “mesites” means one who finds himself between two bodies or parties.
In classical Greek “mesites” was a legal term with the meaning of the neutral place between two parties in conflict, occupied by the arbitrator who seeks to judge and settle. This may be compared with 1Co 6:5: ‘Can it be that there is no man among you wise enough to decide between one and another of his brothers?’ In legal terminology “mesites” had a wide range of meanings: he could be the conciliator or arbitrator in cases that had not yet come before a court of law, so as to prevent this happening; he could be the administrator or trustee for something in dispute; he was also the witness to legal business that had been settled with the responsibility of guaranteeing that the decision would be carried out. He could be a pawnbroker and sometimes a guarantor, who guarantees the liabilities of another with his own property; he could even be a negotiator, appointed by one side to establish a link with the other side and so negotiate appropriate terms (eg, in a peace treaty) (NIDNTT).
There is no single term for a mediator in OT. It was not really a question of arbitrating between the two parties, but of listening to accusation and defense and restoring the infringed law by dealing with the guilty party — unless of course the accusation was rejected. Thus the relationship between the parties was restored. In Israel there was no civil code which would function by upholding a golden mean between conflicting interests. There was only divine law, which bound together the members of the people as fellow-men. Hence there could hardly be any real difference between an arbitrator and an official judge in Israel. Where the term appears in relation to the Jews, it means something quite different from the concept in the Gr world. The priest and prophet were mediators between God and his people, though never in the role of a neutral third party. Two mediators stand out in Israel’s history. One comes at the beginning and the other is prophetic. Moses mediated salvation at the Red Sea (Exo 14:15-18). He was the mediator of the covenant at Sinai (Exo 24:4-8) and as such of the law and of revelation (Exo 33:7-11). These thoughts occur again in the prophetic picture of the awaited Servant of Yahweh (Son of God) in Isaiah. He is the bearer of God’s revelation (Isa 42:1-4). God makes him the bearer of salvation to the nations (Isa 49:1-6). He bears the sin of men and blots out that sin [or perhaps more precisely, provides a basis by which those sins may be forgiven] by his suffering (Isa 52:13–53:12).
The verb form of “mediator” occurs only once in the NT: “Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath” (Heb 6:17); here it has God as its subject. The noun occurs only 6 times. (a) As applied to Christ, “mesites” is qualified by “diathekes”, signifying a covenant (Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24), or by “between God and men” (1Ti 2:5). (b) It also refers to the one who once mediated the Law of Moses — Moses himself (Gal 3:19,20).
In the letter to the Hebrews, “mesites” has a somewhat different meaning. Here we are concerned with the surety for our attaining the promised kingdom. The promise which underlies this surety is expressed in the new covenant (diatheke). In Heb this always denotes the right instituted by God through Christ for liberation from death and sin. “Mesites”, like “diatheke”, has a legal function, and describes the one who procures and guarantees that right. On the one hand, this right is secured by the promise given (Heb 8:6) and, on the other hand, it is the presupposition of the fulfillment of the promise (Heb 9:15), which in any case was guaranteed by God with an oath (Heb 6:17). Strictly speaking, in Heb, then, “mesites” does not mean “mediator” or “go-between”, but rather the one who “guarantees” the promises of God. This is closely akin to the concept of the covenant-victim — the one whose sacrificial death provides a seal or guarantee of God’s covenant (Mat 26:27,28; Heb 9:15-17; 13:20).
Since the Heb passages present the “mesites” as more of a “guarantor” than a “go-between”, there remains only one passage in the NT where Jesus Christ is explicitly called a mediator between God and man (1Ti 2:5). The fuller context of this passage is as follows: “God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men — the testimony given in its proper time” (1Ti 2:3-6). So, even in this passage, the concept of ‘go-between’ (as in prayer) seems subordinate to the concept of salvation (the “ransom”) developed and implemented through Christ the means or ‘medium’ of God. For it is a plain teaching of the NT that salvation is only through the means of Jesus Christ: Gal 3:12-19; 2Co 5:14-19; Act 4:12; Joh 3:36; 14:6; 1Co 3:11; 1Jo 5:11,12; etc.
In summary, it may be said that the “mediation” of Christ for men is much more than as a ‘go-between’, and much more than as a ‘conduit’ for prayers. Rather, Christ is the “total package” — the absolute and perfect representative of God, in whom is developed and revealed the fullness of God’s eternal plan to be glorified in the salvation of men and women. In that sense, Christ is THE “mediator” between God and man in his life and death and resurrection and coming again — as well as (but certainly not restricted to) his current role whilst sitting at the right hand of the Father.
Memorial meeting, importance
Only two “rites” are absolutely commanded to the believer: baptism, and the Breaking of Bread. By the first we join God’s family, and by the second we regularly reaffirm our membership in this family.
It is surprising that there are any with full opportunity to attend regularly who are content to be at the Breaking of Bread just now and then. For this most important service is essentially a thanksgiving. A casual attitude toward it, with irregular attendance, in effect declares, “I am thankful to God for the Lord Jesus Christ and what he has done for me, but not much! And there are other things which I regard as being more important.”
Put down in black and white, this looks horrible. But is there really anything unfair about such a diagnosis?
Would there be such a careless attitude to the Table of the Lord if it were properly appreciated what this meeting can mean? Consider the familiar words, “My blood of the new covenant… shed… for the remission of sins” (Mat 26:28).
Here is the identical phrase which is used about our baptism into Christ. These two holy rites are designed to supplement one another. Baptism washes away every sin committed up to that moment. But — such is human frailty and human thinking — spotless robes of righteousness invariably begin to become drab and soiled. However, the disciple who lives by faith in Christ knows that with the Memorial Service comes remission (forgiveness) of sins. There the robe of righteousness resumes its original brightness.
Yet faced with such startling but delightful truths as these, there are some who are indifferent to this most important thing in life, and do not mind openly asserting, by their lack of enthusiasm, that this is how they feel!
Away from home
From time to time, believers find themselves away from their homes, and their home ecclesias, on a Sunday. Such times are fine opportunities to get to know other Christadelphians, by attending memorial meetings of other ecclesias. A little foresight and planning before weekend trips or vacations can be spiritually rewarding, in experiencing at first hand the true worldwide family fellowship of our brotherhood. A week or two spent on business in a strange city far from home, rather than being a desolate and lonely time, can be a wonderful time of sharing with people who are truly “family” — family in a more meaningful sense, quite often, than one’s own natural family. As Jesus said,
“Who is my mother, and who are my brothers? Pointing to his disciples, he said, Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother” (Mat 12:48-50).
In isolation
There will be times, of course, when it will be clearly impossible — or extremely difficult — to attend a Sunday meeting of Christadelphians. What should be done then? The partaking of the bread and wine, accompanied by suitable Bible readings and prayers, can be a tremendously fresh and rewarding experience — even for an individual or a couple temporarily isolated from all other spiritual companionship.
Memorial meeting, significance
Our Sunday service is properly a memorial. It is not a sacrifice, as the “Catholic” church insists; neither is it a “sacrament”, that is, an act which mechanically appropriates grace to the doer. It is simply a memorial, a means of remembrance:
“This do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me” (1Co 11:25).
If we are to live up to the New Testament pattern, we must be a family gathered around a table, partaking of a meal and in so doing remembering an absent member. It is an uncomplicated act, an act of loving companionship, of warmth and familiarity, not of pomp and ceremony.
We do not break bread and drink wine in order to assert any superiority over outsiders. We do not break bread and drink wine as a substitute for the rigorous discipline of service to God in its many features, to which the Truth calls us. Neither do we break bread and drink wine to encourage personal feelings of self-righteousness or complacency. (Especially on this last we must beware, because frequent repetition, instead of fostering memory, can in fact encourage forgetfulness of the true principles.)
But, purely and simply, we partake of these emblems in order to remember: first, God’s love; second, Christ’s sacrifice; and third, our duty.
There are two absolutely essential aspects of worship: baptism and the memorial supper. Baptism is the process by which the believer is “born” into his new “family”. And the Breaking of Bread is the perpetuation of that “family life” begun at baptism, by the repeated affirmation of the believer’s membership in the marvelous “family of God”!
Why are there two different emblems? The obvious answer is that the bread represents Christ’s body and the wine his blood. But that answer seems somewhat inadequate since either one alone might convey, almost as well as both together, the sense of sacrificial death. Is there some further distinction?
Perhaps it is this: the bread represents the strength of our Lord’s life — a life totally dedicated to the will of the Father. The wine more aptly represents his death — the blood willingly poured out as a climax to his life’s work.
The bread was broken and passed to each disciple. Each disciple drank a portion from the cup. But we must not suppose that this apportioning out of the emblems implies, in any sense, that Christ can be divided among us, or that we in any sense partake of only a portion of the blessings involved. All the blessing belongs to every individual among us. The bread must be broken in order that many can share it — there just is no other way to accomplish the practical object of providing for each brother and sister to eat of it. But the body, which the bread represents — Christ’s spiritual, multitudinous body — cannot be broken; it is one! “For we being many are one bread, and one body” (1Co 10:17). And the body is “knit together” in love with the Head, which is Christ himself (Col 2:2,19).
The component parts
It may be profitable to consider, item by item, the component parts of the Memorial Meeting, as to the significance of each:
1. First of all, in keeping with Hab 2:20, we enter the meeting room and take our seats, as much as possible in a spirit of quietness and meditation. Now is the time for serious thought and preparation and self-examination. Despite the ordinariness of the surroundings, if that is the case, we are nevertheless coming into the very presence of God! As for being late, when it is avoidable: This is not just wrong because it has the potential of disturbing our brothers and sisters, but also (and especially) because it is an appointment with God. Is this important? Consider the parable of the virgins in Mat 25: the foolish virgins, not being prepared ahead of time, came late to the marriage feast, to find the door shut against them!
2. General appearance and dress: In this, as in many areas of our life in the Truth, no hard-and-fast rules can (or should) be imposed. But surely we can be governed by intelligence and common sense. How would we dress for a “special occasion” such as meeting some important human dignitary? And how would we behave at such a meeting? Let us answer such questions for ourselves, and then realize, with wonder and awe, that we are going on Sunday morning to “meet” the Lord of the Universe and His Son!
3. The presiding brother: Presiding is perhaps the most important duty of all, more important to the memorial meeting than even exhorting. The presiding brother’s is the first voice to be heard; it is his duty to set and maintain the tone of the meeting; and by his presence, attitude, and words to give unity and continuity to the whole service. His duty is also to introduce the central feature of the whole worship service, the partaking of the emblems. This should require preparation (and prayer!) at home, even before coming to the meeting. Our minds are drawn to that first Memorial Meeting, in the upper room in Jerusalem, where Jesus was the first presiding brother, conveying an all-pervasive calm and confidence to his brethren, by which he demonstrated to them God’s presence and God’s love.
4. Music and singing: This can become something of an ordeal in small meetings, when those who play and those who sing may be all too aware of their inadequacies. So it must be remembered that our hymns are not important as a display of technical skill, but only for the spiritual quality of the worship itself. It is entirely possible to sing (and play) in the spirit which Jesus condemned: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me” (Mat 15:8).
In short, the words and their message must always be the motivating principle in our hymns.
5. Reading of Scripture: The crucial point to recognize here, as in every Bible reading, is that God is speaking to us:
“This is what the Lord says: ‘Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. Where is the house you will build for me? Where will my resting place be? Has not my hand made all these things, and so they came into being?’ declares the Lord. ‘This is the one I esteem: he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word'” (Isa 66:1,2).
Just as with prayers, there should be no unnecessary movements, no interruptions, and no noise. Whether we speak to God (in prayers and hymns) or God speaks to us (in Bible readings), we are dealing with divine communications!
6. Collection: Although we were not redeemed by corruptible things such as silver and gold, we cannot escape from their use in the service of God. Indeed, there is something satisfying in the thought that the world’s monies can be put to other-worldly uses. It is our privilege to consecrate what we have of this world’s goods to the service of the Giver of all things.
In our day there remains the need for money and materials for the service of our God. There is the rent or purchase of a meeting room or hall; there are the poor, the elderly, the children and young people to whom we have special responsibility; the word must be preached, the meetings advertised; there are the funds collected centrally for special causes and special occasions.
How do we give? How much do we give? We should give willingly and without grudging as though giving were, as indeed it is, a service to Christ personally. How much? That depends upon the giver. There is a twin gauge: our ability to give (our means and income) and our spirit (our liberality or otherwise).
Some churches use tithes by which to bring in the money they need: others employ businessmen with a flair for touching people’s hearts and pockets and find their annual income increased by many thousands of dollars. We do none of these things and, perhaps, rightly so. But our own system of giving should not be an excuse for minimum contributions. The left hand may not know what the right hand is doing, but the Lord knows nevertheless.
7. Prayers: Public prayers should be relevant (ie, related to the object at hand, whether an opening prayer, prayer on behalf of others, thanks for bread or wine, etc.) and not repetitious. Prayers should be fresh and spontaneous, if possible; in common, everyday language — not stilted, artificial “Sunday only” speech. When all else fails, the pattern of Jesus in what is commonly called “the Lord’s prayer” will surely set us on the right road again.
8. The exhortation: The exhortation is not primarily a Bible study talk — so it should not be particularly technical or detailed. Neither is it the best place to teach, or re-teach, the first principles of our faith. Instead, it is primarily an introduction to the emblems of bread and wine, and therefore an aid to remembrance and self-examination. An exhortation should emphasize God’s holiness and purity and love; and the awesome responsibility of our calling to serve Him. It should not discourage, but rather encourage and comfort (which is the primary meaning of the Greek word translated “exhort”). It should, above all else, show us Christ. Wherever our thoughts and words take us as we contemplate God’s message, there we will find Christ: the central character in the Bible. If the exhortation has done its work, we will leave the Memorial Meeting feeling and acting as though we have been changed for the better:
“When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus” (Act 4:13).
9. The memorials themselves have been sufficiently discussed above, as to their importance and significance. Let it be merely added that in “showing the death of Christ”, our service on Sunday morning is in a sense a funeral. In attending a “funeral” we are showing respect for the dead (in this case, one who was dead, but is now alive, gloriously and eternally alive!), and for the occasion. And we are recognizing, for ourselves as well, the solemnity of both life and death, and how, in our daily lives, we can come in contact with eternal things. “Ask not for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.” Surely, if we grasp this fact, we need not worry that we will forget to examine ourselves.
10. Conclusion: After a final hymn and prayer, a brief musical interlude closes the meeting. This is not a convenient background to cover the noise of shuffling feet and whispers about lunch plans. Rather, it is a final quiet moment to gather together the threads of thoughts from the worship, and to prepare to face the rest of the day and the week to follow — being sure that Christ is going with us as we leave the place of meeting.
Remember, our service can be beautiful and holy even without the external trappings of an expensive building and a large congregation. Christ on a mountain side, or in a secluded room, with no more than a dozen friends, could lead the holiest of all services. And so it may still be:
“For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them” (Mat 18:20).
Micah, overview
Time: 735 – 700 BC.
Summary: Micah was contemporary with Isaiah and was to the southern kingdom of Judah what Amos was previously to the northern kingdom of Israel. Both were fierce critics of the rich and powerful who exploited the poor. Micah’s leading ideas are the regeneration of Israel’s remnant through judgment, the establishment of the kingdom of God in the line of David, and the conversion of the nations through that kingdom. The conclusion of his prophecy is a triumphant expression of faith, seen in its true quality against the background of the materialism and the corruption of the reign of Ahaz.
“Micah’s message is proclaimed with no uncertain sound, as with passionate forthrightness he attacks the social evils of his day. His stubborn refusal to float on the tide of his social environment, and his courageous stand for his convictions of God’s truth, must commend Micah to believers in every age” (Allen).
Key verses: “In the last days the mountain of the Lord’s temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and peoples will stream to it” (Mic 4:1)
Outline
| 1. | Judgment against Israel and Judah: Mic 1:1 — 3:12 | |
| a) | Introduction: Mic 1:1-2 | |
| b) | Predicted destruction: Mic 1:3-7 | |
| c) | Lamentation for the destruction: Mic 1:8-16 | |
| d) | Corruption in Micah’s society: Mic 2:1-11 | |
| e) | Hope in the midst of gloom: Mic 2:12-13 | |
| f) | The leaders condemned: Mic 3:1-12 | |
| 2. | Hope for Israel and Judah: Mic 4:1 — 5:15 | |
| a) | The coming Kingdom: Mic 4:1 — 5:1 | |
| b) | The coming king: Mic 5:2-15 | |
| 3. | The Lord’s case against Israel: Mic 6:1-16 | |
| a) | The Lord’s accusation: Mic 6:1-8 | |
| b) | The coming judgement: Mic 6:9-16 | |
| 4. | Gloom turns to triumph: Mic 7:1-20 | |
| a) | Micah laments the corruption of his society: Mic 7:1-7 | |
| b) | A bright future for God’s people: Mic 7:8-20 | |