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

  1. 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).

  2. 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).

  3. 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

Military and police

The Lord Jesus never raised a finger to hurt any human being, however great the provocation. The provocations he received would have led a lesser man to fight back, but it was not so with Jesus. When Samaritans denied him hospitality, his disciples spoke of vengeance:

“Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elijah did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them” (Luk 9:54-56).

Again, when the officers of the High Priest, led by a traitorous disciple, came to arrest him, the Lord could reveal his power and still refuse to take advantage of it: “Judas then, having received the band of soldiers, and officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, came thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. Jesus therefore, knowing all the things that were coming upon him, went forth, and saith unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith to them, I am he… They went backward, and fell to the ground” (Joh 18:3-6).

He allowed his enemies to rise from the ground and arrest him. When Peter sought to defend him with his courageous but misguided use of a sword which he should not even have been carrying, the Lord resisted that temptation also and rebuked his disciple:

“Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?” (v 11).

“All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Mat 26:52).

Long before, he had withstood the temptation to accept kingship from the multitudes (Joh 6:15). Now, at his trial before Pilate, he declares his resistance in principle to the thought: “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence” (Joh 18:36).

It was at the very time when they were crucifying him that the Lord Jesus revealed how deep and sincere was his desire that no one should needlessly be made to suffer on his account, for in his terrible agony he could cry out: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luk 23:34).

This was a prayer which certainly extended beyond the Roman soldiers who were merely doing their duty, to embrace the Jews who had conspired to bring about his crucifixion. In fact Peter puts before us for our imitation the entire manner of life displayed by the Lord Jesus during the period before his death:

“This is acceptable, if for conscience toward God a man endureth griefs, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye sin, and are buffeted for it, ye shall take it patiently? But if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye shall take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For to this were ye called: because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that ye should follow in his steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously” (1Pe 2:19-23).

The Lord’s teaching

The very things that Jesus did in his own life, he commends to his disciples in theirs. In the Sermon on the Mount, for example, he said:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit… they that mourn… the meek… the merciful… the peacemakers… they that are persecuted for righteousness’ sake… when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake” (Mat 5:3-12).

He took the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” and extended it to cover even hard words and unwarranted rage (vv 21-26). He also taught: “Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man would go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go one mile, go with him two” (Mat 5:39-41). “Love your enemies, and bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you: that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust” (Mat 5:43-45).

The Apostles’ teaching

The apostles certainly took the Lord’s words to heart, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit they recalled for the instruction of the ecclesias what the Lord had said to them (1Pe 3:14; 4:14; Rom 12:14-22). Nowhere is this more plainly taught than in Paul’s words:

“The Lord’s servant must not strive, but be gentle towards all, apt to teach, forbearing, in meekness correcting them that oppose themselves; if perhaps God may give them repentance unto the knowledge of the truth” (2Ti 2:24,25).

There is much more evidence of the same kind in the writings of the Apostles. The Lord’s sufferings, his restraint, his teaching of his disciples, and their own counsel to one another, all create an atmosphere in which anything pertaining to war or bloodshed has no place. If we summarize the impression created by the evidence, it is that, on grounds of principle, the believer is forbidden to participate in war and other acts of violence against others.

Love one another

In 1Co 12 Paul speaks of spiritual gifts — that is, the gifts of the Holy Spirit bestowed on some in the first-century ecclesias. These gifts were given with one goal in mind, and no other: the edification of the saints.

In Corinth, apparently, the possessors of these various gifts were flaunting them before their brethren in a disgusting show of pride. The other members of the ecclesia, not so favored, were showing just as much ignorance of the proper use of the gifts, because they coveted them for their own elevation.

To counteract this jealousy and factionalism Paul emphasizes the essential unity of the ecclesia. The ecclesia consists of many members, but they are all parts of the one body of Christ. The individual members possess many gifts (teaching, healing, tongues), but they are all from the one Spirit, and should be used for the benefit of every member equally.

Rather than rivalry, and antagonism, and presumption, the brethren must show love, and care, and modesty, and forbearance toward one another, All are equally partakers of God’s greatest gift: grace and mercy and peace through Christ. Some brethren may have special talents, which of necessity set them apart from their fellows, but these talents must be exercised for the mutual benefit of all.

“There are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you’, nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you.’ On the contrary the parts of the body which seem to be weaker are indispensable…” (1Co 12:20-22).

It is a sad but common mistake that we nearly all are guilty of. We Chink first of the prominent among us, or the well-educated, or the socially forward, and we rush to greet them, to talk with them, to keep them company. But the ones perhaps who most need a warm greeting or a kind word are the ones we thoughtlessly bypass.

Imitate Jesus

It is the natural tendency at meetings to gather around the leading brethren, the outgoing personalities, or the visiting speakers — while ignoring those shy, quiet ones “around the edges”. But one of the divine characteristics which Christ showed (to the amazement of the proud Pharisees) was his obvious interest in the lower ranks of society, the poor and ill and discouraged. Can we do any better than to imitate our Master?

Paul enumerates the “gifts” of the Spirit (1Co 12:28-30) and agrees that the higher ones, at least, are desirable (v 31). But great gifts (or even talents and abilities bestowed providentially upon some of us today) are not an end in themselves. They are, or should be, the means to an end.

The end is, as we have said already, the upbuilding of the Body of Christ. The means to that end is the “still more excellent way” (v 31) — the way of love. This is the catalyst without which all of our “gifts” or abilities would be useless. Thus Paul continues:

“If I speak in the tongues of men, and (even) of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing” (1Co 13:1,2).

This is the question: Does a man live for himself or for others?

A man may think of his “service” in the Truth as a series of good works, which take a relatively short time, interspersed with a lot of time to care for his own wants. A few dollars in the collection (to be disbursed in some worthy cause by the properly delegated party, with the least amount of fuss and bother). A practiced “Sunday morning” smile for the struggling widowed sister. A Bible class talk hastily prepared and casually given. Several indifferent daily readings sessions. All this set on the scales over against 40 or 50 or 60 hours of secular work, many hours of “entertainment” or “recreation”, twenty-one meals… Another week in the life of an average “saint”? Is this the proper use of our “talents” in the more excellent way of love?

How best to serve God

God has given us all that we have: the air we breathe, the food we eat, the homes we live in. Is any amount of devotion too much when this is considered? Shouldn’t we, at every waking moment, think how best to serve God?

God is a jealous God. He demands all our love and attention. But because we love God the more, do we love our brethren less? Sometimes it seems that we think so. We stand strong and proud on the principles of obedience to God, and the “purity of the Truth”. And we use these concepts to exalt ourselves above our brethren, while remaining indifferent to their spiritual needs.

Our love for God is different, in this respect, than our love for another person. If we truly love God, we will show our love for Him in practical expressions of love for others. True divine love does not exclude human love; it enhances it.

Verses 4-7 contain a dozen or so characteristics of Scriptural “love”:

“Love is patient”

We have the example of Christ, who patiently taught his disciples and time after time helped them when they stumbled and lost faith. Undoubtedly there were times when he wanted to throw up his hands and abandon the effort altogether, for they were so slow to learn and so bent on maintaining their own natural affections. But he loved them dearly; he loved them despite their inadequacies; he prayed for them; and he persisted until his efforts began to bear fruit. Can we do any less for our brethren?

“Love is kind”

This English word “kind” is one of those pale, sentimental words that just does no justice to the original. We should say, instead, that love is consideration — active, involved concern for the needs of others, even to the detriment of one’s own comfort. I am sure that we all think of ourselves as being “kind”, for we certainly are never (seldom?) “unkind”, are we? Are we?

“If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and filled,’ without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?” (James 2:15,16).

There are times when a “kind word” is no more than hypocrisy, because it masks a failure to help in any practical way. Have we ever been guilty of such an act, in a benign, “friendly” indifference to the circumstances of others? Then we may have been courteous and civil and pleasant, but we have not been kind, and we have not been loving.

“Love is not jealous”

The divergence of gifts among the Corinthian brethren was a cause of jealousy. Likewise, envy can result today from comparisons between brethren: “Who is the better speaker?” “Why was elected Arranging Brother?” “So-and-so wants to run everything. Who he put him in charge?” The person who can ask such questions does not have at heart the best interests of the whole body.

Jealousy is a terrible disease, and often fatal. It destroys its originator much more quickly than the one at whom it is directed.

“Love is not boastful… not arrogant”

Envy and boasting are quite closely related. They both stem from the same basic problem: love of self rather than love of others. True love does not have to be pushy. It does not need attention. It can afford to wait. Remember what Jesus said of the arrogant Pharisees — who did their works to be seen of men: “They already have their reward.” Let this not be said of us.

“Love is not rude”

There is a right way and a wrong way to do almost anything.

Sometimes a gentle admonition or even a stern rebuke needs to be administered. It is possible to be in the right — even to say the right thing — but to say it in absolutely the wrong way. A criticism may be correct in every particular, but if it is delivered with a superior or proud or overbearing manner — or if it is delivered in front of an audience — it will not achieve a good result. As always, the principle is consideration for others: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. In short… love.

“Love does not insist on its own way”

Have you ever participated in a three-legged race? You may be the fastest runner at the picnic, but you’ll wind up sprawled on the grass unless you can adapt yourself to the style of your partner. This principle also holds true in the ecclesia. We are all members of the one body, and we must learn to function as a unit. We are “yoked together” with our brethren in many endeavors; we cannot always choose the way that pleases us most.

Your way of doing things may always be the best, but I can guarantee you that it won’t always be the one chosen by the majority. Then what do you do? Go along or “drop out”? There have been cases of members who have left meetings because of absolutely trivial disagreements, in which they failed to get their own way and just could not bend enough to go along with the others. And they, and sometimes their families, have paid for that stubbornness with twenty or thirty years of self-imposed isolation. There is an extremely illuminating passage, the force of which fairly exploded upon me one day. I had read it dozens of times, but never to much purpose until one day it hit me! Just six words, but a world of exhortation and self-examination:

“For even Christ pleased not himself” (Rom 15:3).

So who are we to think that things should always go our way? Who are we to please ourselves in everything?

“Love is not irritable or resentful”

A person possessing the true love of God has a peace of mind that no other has. In the midst of strife and controversy, he maintains a calm and reasoning mind, and a disposition to peacemaking. He has that same inner serenity that sustained Christ through his great trials.

A person in such a frame of mind cannot be offended by others. He is not provoked to backbiting or vengeance. He relies upon the grace of God, he knows that there is a final judgment that will right all wrongs, and he is not concerned about what man may do to him in the meanwhile. If God is for him, who can be against him?

“Love does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right

If ever a thought might be coupled with “Let a man examine himself”, surely this is it! Don’t we all do this? Don’t we all listen to gossip and rumors and evil insinuations? Don’t we all — sometimes — derive pleasure from the shortcomings of others, especially those who have previously appeared to be models of rectitude?

We judge ourselves by the standards of others, and when we do this we are glad to see them fall. We tend to think we are lifted up in proportion as our brother is cast down. But when we live by this standard we are completely corrupting Paul’s teachings of the unity of Christ’s body and the dependence of one member upon another. These lofty ideas lose their meaning when cooperation is replaced by competition.

“Love bears all things”

We need go no further than Christ’s example. Christ bore our sins in his body on the tree, and more than that he bore our sorrows that he might be a perfect mediator.

The mind lingers on a picture, perhaps well-known to many. One boy with a younger boy on his back. “He ain’t heavy. He’s my brother!” Strain is obviously there, but he bears his burden gladly. All things are relative, aren’t they? Yes, in more ways than one! We are willing to do for our families what seems intolerable if done for others. Do we sit in the meeting on Sunday morning, and feel that those with whom we break bread are really our family? We write salutations like “Dear Sir” to faceless clerks in faraway cities. For all we know, we could be addressing a computer as “dear”! Are our expressions of “Brother Smith” and “Sister Jones” the same sort of formal, stylized address, or do they express a reality? If a reality, then let us live that family relationship with our brethren. Let us rejoice with them that rejoice, and weep with them that weep. Let us “bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2).

“Love hopes all things… endures all things”

The Christian’s life of love is a joyful existence. In the midst of sorrows and pains, he rejoices in the great gifts of his Creator.

His eye is firmly set upon the hope that rises as a mountain before him. There may be a valley to traverse before he reaches that distant peak. But he never takes his eye off that glorious future; and all life’s little annoyances and Inconveniences are seen for what they are — stepping-stones in route to the kingdom. Paul says in another place: “I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound; everywhere and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” (Phi 4:12,13).

***

All that God has given us… riches, talents, intelligence, health… diminish with the passing of time. Man grows old and dies. Only love remains, as a bridge between this life and the life to come, a bridge over the chasm of eternal nothingness. Every other gift or talent will fail, just as the Holy Spirit gifts finally ceased. The only thing that endures is the character of a man, engraved in the infinite mind of God.

“Greater love hath no man than this — that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

The bridge over that chasm is constructed from the two timbers of a cross. On one is written, “Love God”. And on the other, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” By those two principles he lived and died, and he asks us to do the same — to fill up in ourselves, as best we can, the measure of the perfect man. We have been children, petulant and selfish and impatient. Let us now be men, and put away childish things. We have seen in our mirrors blurred images of the perfect man who is striving to be “born” in us, but one day we will see the man himself face to face — and we will know at once by his look whether or not we have made his love our example. For, lest we ever forget, that is the test by which we shall stand or fall:

“So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but…”

“THE GREATEST OF THESE IS LOVE.

Luke’s genealogy

Luke’s genealogy is given after the record of the baptism of Jesus, and not as part of the record of his birth, because it reveals the reason for his baptism: his descent, shared with all men, from Adam. Jesus’ baptism was the initial step of obedience by which he would deliver himself and others from the condemnation of Adam. It was necessary that the Savior be himself subject to the same weaknesses and infirmity of the flesh as those whom he sought to save (Heb 2:14,15; 4:15; 5:7,8).

Jesus is shown to be the son of Adam, and the last “Adam” because he was the beginning of a new creation. The first Adam brought only death, but in the last Adam all who believe will have life (1Co 15:22,23).

As with Matthew’s list, the numbers are again important. Counting God (Luk 3:38) and Jesus (Luk 3:23), Luke’s genealogy contains 77 names, and 77 is the number of times we must forgive those who sin against us (Mat 18:22; ct Gen 4:24). All those who have sinned against God and His Son may have forgiveness of sins through Christ. Beginning the genealogy with Adam, there are actually 75 generations. Seventy-five is the number of Jacob’s family that went down into Egypt, and died there (Act 7:14,15); they sig all men, who are “dead in their sins” until Christ their passover is sacrificed that they might be set free.

Women are nearly always excluded from genealogies. [To substantiate: Case of Jair, father of Judah (1Ch 2:22). But his grandfather had married the daughter of Machir, tribe of Manasseh (1Ch 2:21; 7:14). And Jair is called the SON of Manasseh (Num 32:41).]

Luke, overview

Luke has the most universal outlook of all the gospels; he portrays Jesus as the perfect man with compassion for all peoples.

Whereas Matthew traces Jesus’ genealogy back to Abraham, the father of the Jews (Mat 1:2), Luke traces it back to Adam the father of the human race (Luk 3:38).

Luke is written for the Greeks. He substitutes Greek expressions for nearly all the Jewish expressions (“Amen” is one of the few exceptions), and he seldom refers to OT prophecy.   Luke was a skilled writer, and the literary quality of the Gospel of Luke is thought to be the highest of all four gospels. The literary structure of the Gospel of Luke is constructed primarily around Jesus’ ministry in Galilee and in Jerusalem.   Main Themes

* When He was in the synagogue at Nazareth, Jesus gave the keynote of His ministry by reading from Isaiah:

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To preach deliverance to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord” (Isa 61:1- 2).

In Luke, Jesus’ life is presented as a commentary on this passage of Scripture:

  1. He blesses the poor, the hungry, those who weep, and the excluded (Luk 6:20-23).

  2. In one parable He takes the side of a beggar who sits outside the gate of a rich man (Luk 16:19-31); and in another parable He celebrates a tax collector who shies away from the Temple because of his sinfulness (Luk 18:9-14).

  3. Jesus reaches out to a widowed mother who had lost her only son (Luk 7:11-17) and to a sinful woman (Luk 7:36-50).

  4. In another parable the hero of mercy is a despised Samaritan (Luk 10:25-37); and after a healing, a Samaritan is praised for his gratitude (Luk 17:11-19).

  5. The open arms of the Father, as in the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luk 15:11-32), await all who return to Him. Jesus’ identification with sinners leads Him to open His arms to them on the cross, where “He was numbered with the transgressors” (Luk 22:37).

* The Return of Christ is one of this Gospel’s main points and makes this gospel one of joy.

* Luke is a gospel of prayer.

  • The multitude prays as Zacharias serves at the altar (Luk 1:10)…

  • Mary prays at the news of salvation (Luk 1:46-55)…

  • Jesus prays at His baptism (Luk 3:21)…

  • When He chooses His disciples (Luk 6:12)…

  • At Peter’s confession (Luk 9:18)…

  • At His transfiguration (Luk 9:29)…

  • In the solitude of prayer Jesus takes the first steps of ministry (Luk 5:16)…

  • On the Mount of Olives (Luk 22:39-46)…

  • He gives His final breath back to God, “Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit” (Luk 23:46).

* There are 10 parables recorded by Luke which are not recorded by the other gospel writers: (1) the good Samaritan (Luk 10:30-37); (2) a friend at midnight (Luk 11:5-13); (3) the barren fig tree (Luk 13:6-9); (4) the lowest room (Luk 14:7-14); (5) counting the cost (Luk 14:28-33); (6) the lost coin (Luk 15:8-10); (7) the prodigal son (Luk 15:11-22); (8) the unjust steward (Luk 16:1-13); (9) the importunate widow (Luk 18:1-8); and (10) the pounds (Luk 19:11-28).

Outline

Luke 1:1-4: Introduction
Luk 1:5 – 2:52: The birth and childhood of Jesus
Luk 3:1 – 4:13: Preparation for the ministry — John the Baptist; Jesus’ baptism; Jesus’ temptation
Luk 4:14 – 9:50: The ministry in Galilee — Teaching through parables; teaching through healing
Luk 9:51 – 19:40: The ministry continues on the way to Jerusalem
Luk 19:41 – 21:38: The ministry in Jerusalem — prophecy
Luk 22:1 – 24:53: The crucifixion, resurrection and ascension