Study of Matthew

[job 1:21]

From: https://torahclass.com/
 
Lesson 1 - Matthew Introduction
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 1, Introduction
The New Testament contains 4 gospel accounts of the life, purpose, and
meaning of the most unique man in history: Yeshua of Nazareth, known better
within the Western Christian Church as Jesus Christ. The creation and ordering
of this New Testament addition to the Bible occurred early in the 3rd century A.D.
(and until that time the Bible consisted only of what gentiles call the Old
Testament). What I just told you about when the New Testament was created is
not in particular dispute among Bible scholars; however it does tend to startle and
worry many lay Christians and Pastors when they learn this. So I can be clear in
what this means for modern Believers, let me expand upon what I just stated.
While it is true that the 4 gospels and some of Paul's letters and many more
documents were circulated among the dozens of congregations of Believing
Jews and gentiles in the 1st century (that is, in the first few decades following
Christ's birth, death, and resurrection), the only authorized document that was
the Bible for these Believers continued to be the Hebrew Tanakh.... the Old
Testament. The 4 gospels and the several letters from Paul were considered
important (as were other documents that have been lost to history, and some
preserved but not accepted by the modern Church as inspired), and they carried
the same kind of authority as any edict of religious leadership bore in that era.
However.... and this is so important to understand at that time these gospels
and letters were NOT considered to be new Holy Scripture nor were they seen or
intended as the contents of a new and different Christian Bible. In fact, the
person that suggested such a radical idea was a gentile named Marcion.
The first recorded attempt to actually consider Paul's letters and certain of the
Gospels as "Holy Scripture" happened in 144 A.D. Marcion, a European, was a
recent Christian convert; a wealthy and powerful shipping magnate. He was not a
1 / 11

Lesson 1 - Matthew Introduction
church leader but he did write a book that struck a cord among the now
thoroughly gentile-dominated church. In his book entitled "Antithesis" he put
forth his personal theology and it began with the proposition that all things of
Jewish origin and flavor must be eliminated from the Church; the Church father
Ignatius agreed with this view. Therefore according to Marcion and Ignatius the
Church needed to create a new gentiles-only Christian Bible and once created
declare the Hebrew Bible as null and void for gentile followers of Jesus. Marcion
also declared that the Christian Bible should consist only of the Gospel of Luke
plus certain of Paul's epistles. But even then it should not include the ENTIRE
Gospel of Luke; what amounts to the first 4 chapters were to be eliminated since
they dealt with the Jewish linage of Christ.
Marcion was widely denounced but he also gained a substantial following. No
known church body formally adopted his proposition (at least not in the form he
suggested and not until many years passed). Even when the Gospels, Paul's
letters, and the Book of Revelation were finally adopted by the Church,
canonized, and declared inspired of God early in the 3rd century in order to form
the first New Testament, the Old Testament was retained as the foundation of the
Christian Bible. So, as an important context and background for us to correctly
discern the meaning of the Gospels and all of the New Testament, we must
accept that while today we (rightly) look upon the New Testament as inspired of
God and as infallible in its original as is the Old Testament, in no way was that
how the writers of these New Testament books saw their own literary works, nor
did the early readers of these documents assign to them the same divine and
inspired status of the venerated Old Testament.
Which of the several gospels and other documents would be included in the New
Testament vacillated over the years, depending on the branch of the Church and
which Bishop was in charge. The books and the order they are presented in that
we see today in the West is either the Protestant version or it is the Catholic
version that contains several Apocryphal books not included in the Protestant
version. Even more, the books of James, Hebrews, and Revelation have been
removed, added back in, removed again, and so on over the centuries depending
on the Church branch. However for the sake of simplicity we can generally say
that in our time the order of the New Testament books is the same for nearly all
Christian denominations and branches.
Therefore, virtually all New Testaments open with the 4 Gospels, and in the order
of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and then John. Interestingly, the first 3 Gospels are seen
2/11

Lesson 1 - Matthew Introduction
as having a different approach to telling about the life of Christ when compared to
the 4th Gospel (the Gospel of John), such that the first 3 are lumped together and
called the Synoptic Gospels. The word synoptic is taken from the Greek and it
means "to see together". So the idea is that the first 3 Gospels (Matthew, Mark
and Luke) are similar to one another and more or less seek to tell a simple story
in an easy to read style. Yet, despite the similarities, there are differences and a
number of complexities when comparing them.
The Gospel of John is seen by Bible scholars as substantially different enough in
approach and style so as to not be included as among the Synoptics. This is in
no way an attempt to diminish the importance or impact of the 4th Gospel. Even
so, I question this scholarly attempt to make John's Gospel as a sort of outlier as
compared to the first 3. When one researches various Bible academics'
explanations for why it is proper for the Gospel of John to be seen as different
enough from the others so as to be considered as a separate category, one
begins to understand how subjective and arcane the arguments are. For
instance, John's is usually said to be "the spiritual Gospel". I have no idea what
that means. Are the first 3 absent of any spiritual element? Hardly. In defense of
that dubious label, Bible scholars point out that while the Synoptic Gospels all
begin with an important event in the human life of Yeshua, John starts with
Yeshua's eternal and divine nature by saying: "In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". Yet, John quickly veers
into many acts of Yeshua during His life on earth. Bottom line: I think the
grouping of the first 3 Gospels together and separating out John's as something
substantially different is overblown and little more than an academic attempt to
rethink (if not revise) these Gospel accounts. In fact, this grouping of the 3 into
something similar and common, and therefore different and apart from the 4th,
only occurred shortly before the beginning of the 19th century and only in the
West. From my viewpoint, each of the 4 Gospels brings its own distinctive
perspective to the life, purpose, and meaning of Messiah Yeshua. Since they are
all telling the story of the same man, there is natural overlap and repetition. At the
same time, since not everything Jesus did can possibly be included in these
modest sized documents, each author picked and chose what he thought to be
the most significant events his readers ought to know about, and to a degree he
presented events that helped put together a logical progression and history of
Christ's life to best explain who He was, and the impact He made.
Over the next many months, we will be examining only the Gospels, and of them
only the first: the Book of Matthew. Before we begin in earnest we need to get
3/11

Lesson 1 - Matthew Introduction
some important housekeeping matters out of the way by dealing with some
issues that are going to come up. And the first is: why is Matthew the first
Gospel?
Naturally, Bible scholars are divided on this issue. The oldest extant New
Testament manuscripts we have, have Matthew as the first Gospel. Although we
have large fragments of the 4 Gospels going back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries,
the oldest complete New Testament is from the 4th century and is given the
name Codex Sinaiticus. So the only evidence available is that Matthew is not
only the first book of the New Testament, but it is the first of the 4 Gospel
accounts. Why was it put first in that order? The most logical explanation is that it
was the first Gospel written. Yet the majority of modern scholars don't accept that
Matthew is the oldest; rather they say it was Mark.
The Gospel accounts all contain similar stories about events in Yeshua's life and
many of the same sayings. Sometimes the accounts and sayings are identical,
and at other times they vary. How is this explained? Let's begin by grasping that
none of the 3 Synoptic Gospel writers were eyewitnesses to Christ's life, but the
author of the 4th Gospel, John, claims that he was an eyewitness.
CJB John 21:20-25 20 Kefa turned and saw the talmid Yeshua especially
loved following behind, the one who had leaned against him at the supper
and had asked, "Who is the one who is betraying you?" 21 On seeing him,
Kefa said to Yeshua, "Lord, what about him?" 22 Yeshua said to him, "If I
want him to stay on until I come, what is it to you? You, follow
me!" 23 Therefore the word spread among the brothers that that talmid
would not die. However, Yeshua didn't say he wouldn't die, but simply, "If I
want him to stay on until I come, what is it to you?" 24 This one is the talmid
who is testifying about these things and who has recorded them. And we
know that his testimony is true. 25 But there are also many other things
Yeshua did; and if they were all to be recorded, I don't think the whole
world could contain the books that would have to be written!
It is claimed in our time that the actual authors of the 3 Synoptic Gospels are
anonymous. And that only long after the Gospels were anonymously written were
they finally, somewhat arbitrarily, assigned names. Margarete Davies in her book
"Studying the Synoptic Gospels" uses the typical rationale for saying that the
Gospels only received their names at a late date. She says: "The Gospel writers,
it will turn out, did not follow the usual Greek and Roman practice of naming
4/11

Lesson 1 - Matthew Introduction
themselves, but rather the tradition of anonymous publication, a practice
frequently followed in Jewish literature." Like with a couple of other issues we'll
explore, this one is interesting in light of how modern Bible scholars have come
to this conclusion.
Let's begin with evidence that is outside of the Bible itself. Irenaeus, Bishop of
Lyons, wrote his great work "Against Heresies" not later than 180 A.D. In that
work he not only quoted specific Gospel passages that match what we have in
our New Testaments today, but he also named each Gospel by the same names
we use today: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. If we go back another 40 years, to
about 140 A.D., Papias, the Bishop of Hierapolis also alludes to at least some of
the Gospels as he mentions Matthew and Mark by name, and says he got some
of this information about the Matthew and Mark documents from an (unnamed)
but earlier church elder. No matter; the fact that these two Gospels are named by
around 110 A.D. or so says that Matthew and Mark were called by those names
no later than the generation following their creation. However, even with this
evidence sitting before our modern Bible scholars, again Margaret Davies
assumes the same conclusion they do: "In the period 90 - 150 A.D., though our
Gospels probably had been written, the author's names were not known.... in this
period Papias stands alone". Papias stands alone. In other words, during this
time period of 90-150 A.D., since the only written record of the Gospels already
being named is Papias, then this evidence has to be thrown out. To my thinking if
Papias was a liar (for what possible purpose?) he was also clairvoyant in
predicting what the Gospel names would be in the future!
And yet, do these Bible scholars have some kind of firm evidence that the
Gospels were NOT named by this time? To contradict Papias they use what
writers of that same era do NOT say when quoting Gospel passages that are
similar to what we find in the Gospel accounts today. That is: since some of the
writers in the 90- 150 A.D. timeframe do NOT mention the Gospels by name, but
only quote some passages, then many modern Bible scholars say that this is
proof positive that the Gospels could not have been named (and thus were still
anonymous), even though Papias of that same era DID list the Gospels by name!
But because he was only 1 person, and his testimony doesn't arrive at the
conclusion these scholars seek, it is discarded. No record exists of any Early
Church Fathers challenging the notion that the authors of the Gospels were
known and attributed to each Gospel from the time of their creation. So as
preposterous as it seems that some modern scholars refuse to take the historical
record to settle this matter, this is not the only issue concerning details about the
5/11


Lesson 1 - Matthew Introduction
creation of the Gospels where modern Bible scholars use the same strategy of
simple denial of the written historical evidence.
Since we find the same, or very similar, quotes from Christ used among the
Synoptic Gospel accounts, then the question is this: which Gospel was written
first such that the later ones borrowed from it? Right or wrong, it is generally the
belief of modern Bible scholars that Mark is the earliest Gospel written with
Matthew (especially) drawing heavily from it. This would be a good time to
explain something important about these Synoptic Gospel accounts: since very
likely none of the authors were eyewitnesses to Christ's life, then where did they
get their information? Clearly this is a valid question. Some say that if Mark was
the first Gospel written, when we find the same or similar quotes used in Matthew
and Luke, then it means Matthew and Luke must have used Mark's Gospel as
one of their chief sources of information. But then this also begs the question:
what were Mark's sources if indeed his was the first? The answer is that it is not
known; but it can be reasonably deduced that documents containing quotes from
Christ and other details of His life events had to be in existence prior to the
Gospel accounts being written. How many of these other sources existed, what
they were and who wrote them down we don't know.
I won't bore you with the tiny details of just how modern Bible scholars have
come to the conclusion that it was Mark who wrote his Gospel first, and Matthew
especially drew from his. However, the method is that generally similar quotes
from Mark and Matthew are held up side by side and modern experts choose
which one they think is the most authentic. Often this choice is made on the
assumption that the shorter quotation is always the correct one, and the longer is
merely modifying the shorter. What evidence is there for this? None; all is
subjective analysis. So while the academic world tilts heavily towards Mark being
the first Gospel written, and thus Matthew and Luke drew from it, there is a
substantial minority who insists that it was the Matthew Gospel that came first
and Mark and Luke drew from him. It is unlikely that this debate will ever be fully
settled since there is no absolute proof either way.
But a related issue is this: while all the existing copies of the Gospels that we
have today were written in Greek, there are hints and implications within the
Matthew Gospel that suggest that it could have been originally written in Hebrew
or Aramaic, and then very soon translated into Greek. And connected to that
matter is this: was Matthew a gentile or a Jewish Believer? The gentile Church
from as early as the mid 2nd century wanted little connection between the Jewish
6/11

Lesson 1 - Matthew Introduction
people and Christianity, and therefore desired to have a separate Christian Bible
that emphasized gentile authority and preeminence. So in modern times a broad␂based wish that is expressed in the strong opinions by Bible scholars and Church
authorities of the Gospel authorship, does not take kindly to the idea that ANY of
the Gospel accounts were written by Jews. If indeed the Gospel of Matthew was
originally written in Hebrew or even Aramaic, then it is very nearly indisputable
evidence that Matthew was a Jew and the Gospel was written for Jewish readers.
Therefore every effort is made to prove that Matthew was a gentile. Is there firm
evidence to settle this matter? There is some evidence within the Gospel itself,
but external sources are the more powerful.
Eusibius, Bishop of Caesarea (around 300 A.D.) makes a statement that he
attributes to having originally come from Papias over 150 years earlier. He says
this: "Now Matthew made an ordered arrangement of the oracles in the Hebrew
language, and each one translated as he was able." Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons,
in around 180 A.D. also referred to Papias in regard to the Gospel of Matthew:
"Matthew, also among the Hebrews, published a written gospel in their own
dialect, when Peter and Paul were still preaching in Rome and found the church
there".
These ancient records state unequivocally that the Gospel of Matthew was
written while Peter and Paul were still alive (early 60's A.D.), and that Matthew
was a Hebrew, and that he published a Gospel in his own dialect (which could
have been either Hebrew or Aramaic as they are close-cousin languages and
both were spoken fluently among ordinary Jewish folk in the 1st century A.D.).
And so from the reference to Peter and Paul we can rather easily deduce that
Matthew was almost certainly the first Gospel account written, and thus Mark and
Luke had to have drawn some of their information and quotes from him. And if
this is fact, it would seem to offer insight as to the reason that the Christian
council decided the order of the Gospels to open the New Testament as they did:
to their knowledge Matthew should be first because it was written first; Mark is
second because it was written second; Luke is third because it was written third;
and John is 4th because it was the latest Gospel written.
Surprisingly, many notable Bible scholars since the early 19th century say that
Eusibius, Irenaeus, and Papias are all wrong. These earliest Church Fathers are
thought to be in error, even though they were but a few generations from the time
when the Gospels were written, and Papias may have been living when the
Apostle John was still alive as he implies that he personally heard him speak. I
7/11
.....

Lesson 1 - Matthew Introduction
hope you're seeing a pattern here. Any ancient attestation against what some
modern Bible scholars wish to prove is brushed aside. Too much in our time,
especially linguistic experts are certain that they know the ancient languages and
their meanings better than those who lived and spoke them 2000 years ago and
more. Despite what eyewitnesses said occurred and recorded it in their ancient
documents, including such details as who was involved, when and in what order
events happened, and what it meant to those who lived it, modern historians
often believe that they are better equipped hundreds even thousands of years
later to give us a more accurate account and meaning. Not to be too harsh, but
the word I would use to describe such chutzpah is revisionist history. So while
many of these highly regarded modern era Bible scholars have indeed aided in
my study, and that of many hundreds of others, I cannot side step that such
conclusions are based primarily upon their own opinions and doctrinal beliefs that
at times go directly against the written recorded evidence.
The point is this: personal study and research make it my viewpoint that Matthew
was a Jew and his Gospel is aimed primarily towards Jewish Believers. Daniel
Harrington in his commentary on Matthew entitled "Sacra Pagina" says this in the
introduction: "This commentary on Matthew's Gospel has been written from a
Jewish perspective one that I believe is demanded from the text itself".
Obviously I agree with Harrington; and as his commentary and other fine
commentaries expose, the Gospel of Matthew is filled with semitisms (that is,
Jewish cultural expressions) that can be masked by their translation into Greek
and then later into other languages, mostly notably English. But even more
important, these Jewish expressions can be misunderstood especially when
taken out of their 1st century Jewish context.
Further, while the other Gospels also contain some amount of semitisms,
Matthew without doubt also pays closest attention to the Torah; both oral and
written. This can be best expressed by the curious reality that Christ's seminal
speech during His few years of ministry, a speech Christians rightly venerate and
call The Sermon on the Mount, is found only in the Gospel of Matthew. So
important was it to Matthew that he devoted 3 chapters to it.
I want to take just a moment to state that while it is possible that Luke was a
gentile, Mark certainly wasn't and of course neither was John. So I'm not making
the contention that of the Gospels only Matthew had a Jewish author. Rather I'm
saying that of the 3 Synoptic Gospels, Matthew can be said to be "the most
Jewish" in its form, approach, and in addressing matters that were critically
8/11


Lesson 1 - Matthew Introduction
important to the Jewish community. In fact, Matthew used much Jewish rhetoric
and several themes that only Jews would have inherently understood. Thus as
21st century readers of the Bible, expanded explanations of certain subject
matter that we hope would have been there, aren't. Why? Because for Matthew's
intended Jewish audience, no expanded explanation was necessary. We'll talk
about this considerably more as we begin to explore the text of the Matthew
Gospel chapter by chapter and verse by verse.
Although I've already explained that some Early Church Fathers that lived only a
generation or two after the time that the Gospel writers lived stated and recorded
that Matthew was the first Gospel written, the question of exactly the year it was
written needs to be answered. There are two trains of thought in Bible academia
about this. The first is that it was written before the destruction of the Temple that
happened in 70 A.D., and the second is that it was written after. The first takes
into account the ancient records that say Matthew was written first in Hebrew or
Aramaic and while Peter and Paul were still alive. And since we know that Paul
died somewhere in the mid-60's A.D., then the record of the Early Church
Fathers makes it clear that Matthew had to have been written prior to the Temple
destruction of 70 A.D., which came around 5 years after Paul's death.
The second train of thought is that Matthew was written after the Temple
destruction. This is because such a timeframe fits in better with the modern era
Bible academic belief that Mark (and not Matthew) was the first Gospel written.
Their lone piece of biblical evidence for this firm conclusion comes from a
statement in Matthew 24:1, 2 (that is also used in Luke's Gospel).
CJB Matthew 24:1 As Yeshua left the Temple and was going away, his
talmidim came and called his attention to its buildings. 2 But he answered
them, "You see all these? Yes! I tell you, they will be totally destroyed- not
a single stone will be left standing!"
Therefore since Matthew (and Luke) included this prediction from Christ in their
Gospels (and Mark didn't), then for most 20th and 21st century Bible scholars this
is proof enough that this statement was inserted only because the writer of
Matthew wanted to prove that Yeshua's prophecy actually came true.
What we find all too often in modern commentaries on Matthew (and all the
Gospels for that matter), is a sort of pseudo-forensic study of the minds of the
authors of the Gospels, in which the commentary writer claims to know what the
9/11

Lesson 1 - Matthew Introduction
Gospel writer was thinking at the time, and his motives behind saying the things
he did, or in some cases for omitting other pieces of information. I don't mean to
be rude, but I find such an attempt at dissecting the minds of people of another
culture, who lived 2000 years ago, as a bridge too far. What these scholars
decide cannot, of course, ever be proved or disproved; but they can persuade
and that makes such a practice dangerous. Today's new standard is that if a
preponderance of Bible scholars share the same opinion, it amounts to fact. But
the fact is that none of the Synoptic Gospel accounts make direct mention of the
destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.; that much is certain. Admittedly, no mention
of it is not proof positive that the destruction had not already occurred by the time
of the Gospels' creation. After all: the Gospel accounts were meant to be about
the life of Jesus, who died around 40 years before the Temple was destroyed by
the Romans. So speaking of the destruction of the Temple would have been
outside the context of the purpose and scope of their work. Thus the only direct
statements we have as direct evidence from which to judge when Matthew may
have been written are from people who are the likeliest to have known, and who
had no discernable motives to lie or make up a story like this from thin air. The
earliest Church Fathers Eusibius, Ireneaus, and Papias all say that the Gospel of
Matthew was written during a time that Peter and Paul were still preaching in
Rome (which was in the mid-60's A.D.). The Church Father Origen of Alexandria,
Egypt also agreed with Papias (Origen lived during the time that the New
Testament was first organized and canonized early in the 200's A.D.). Therefore I
can only conclude that Matthew's Gospel was written in the mid-60's A.D.,
concurrently with the ministries of Peter and Paul in Rome.
While we can trust all the Gospel accounts, I think Matthew's is especially
important because of its early date, and because he was obviously (to my
thinking) an educated Jew who was very familiar with the Torah and with Jewish
religious tradition and social structure. But was he a Holy Land Jew, or was he a
Diaspora Jew that lived in a distant land? It matters because it deals with what
kind of culture he was steeped in; a Hellenized Greek speaking culture, or a more
traditional Hebrew and Aramaic speaking Jewish culture. Interestingly, of those
scholars who accept Matthew's Jewishness, the bulk label him as a Palestinian
Jew. For them, the term Palestine is a substitute for Holy Land, or for Judea and
Galilee. This means that he was geographically residing near to the Temple such
that he could be involved with its many activities, but was also near the center of
Synagogue authority such that he was well versed not only in the Law of Moses,
but also in the traditions of the Pharisees who were the dominant religious sect
within the Synagogue system.
10/11
.....
.....
.....
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lesson 1 - Matthew Introduction
While we'll discuss at length the religious and social systems of both the Holy
Land Jews and the Diaspora Jews in following lessons, I do want to close out our
time together with this. During at least the last 150 years leading up to Christ's
birth, all during His lifetime, all during the lifetimes of Peter and Paul and of the
original Disciples, and until the fall of the Temple to the Romans in 70 A.D., the
Jewish people operated under a dual, generally complementary, religious
system. However this dual system was run by two different sets of authorities and
they couldn't have been more different. The one system was the Temple system,
under the authority of the Sadducees. These were aristocrats who inherited or
purchased their positions of authority. The other system was the Synagogue
system under the authority of educated rabbis and scribes; the common class
who, nearly universally, were members of the sect of the Pharisees. These two
systems were not necessarily rivals, but each occupied a certain space in the
overall Jewish religious scheme that was, generally speaking, inseparable from
every day social life. A natural tension existed between the two.
The Temple was where biblically mandated Feasts and sacrifices occurred, and
where the judicial system operated. The Synagogue system was a result of the
Babylonian exile, when the Temple and its system went defunct for a time.
Organized religion was a critically import part of every person's life in that era
pagan or Jew. So for the Jews up in Babylon, they could not tolerate not having
some sort of religious system operated by some kind of authority that was
Hebrew in its nature. Priests were only authorized to rule in the Temple so the
new system was run by what the Church would call lay persons.
Especially after their release from captivity in Babylon, about 95% of all Jews
chose not to return to the Holy Land but rather to live in foreign nations. Even
though Ezra and Nehemiah had led the rebuilding of the Temple and
reinstatement of its Priestly system, the bulk of Jews remained far away from the
Temple and its influence. Thus, for them, the Synagogue authority and system
emerged and it became the center of their Jewish religious expression. Only
later, perhaps 70 or 80 years before Yeshua was born, did the Synagogue finally
take hold in the Holy Land. But when it did, it became popular and every bit as
important to the Jewish people as the Temple system; just in different ways.
Clearly, of all the Gospel writers, Matthew was the one most familiar with the full
scope of Jewish religion the religion and culture of our Savior, Yeshua the
Christ and it is why his Gospel is the one we will study.
11 / 11

Lesson 2 - Matthew 1
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 2, Chapter 1
The worldview from which we are going to study the Gospel of Matthew is this:
Matthew (whether that was the author's actual name or not) was a Jewish
Believer. This is an essential starting point because for centuries the institutional
Church has tried to push the narrative that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark
and Luke) were written by gentile Believers for gentile Believers. The Earliest of
Church Fathers Papias, Irenaeus, and Eusibius record that Matthew wrote his
Gospel at the time that Paul was preaching in Rome, so that would place it in the
mid-60's A.D. no more than 30 years after Christ's ministry. It also means it was
composed and in circulation among the Believing congregations prior to the
Romans besieging Jerusalem and destroying the Temple. Very likely this was the
first Gospel account written of the 4 Gospels we find that begin the New
Testament.
Although we have some early fragments of Matthew's Gospel dating back to the
late 2nd or early 3rd century, they are not the original documents nor are they
complete. The earliest complete copy we have comes from the 4th century, and
is included in what is called the Codex Sinaiticus. All of the earliest known copies
(or even just fragments of copies) are written in Greek; however, there is actual
written historical evidence from these same earliest Church Fathers forthrightly
stating that Matthew first wrote his Gospel in his own native language, Hebrew
(perhaps it was Aramaic, a cousin language to Hebrew), before it was soon
thereafter translated into Greek. This says that Matthew's intended audience was
Jews; another key to our study.
Therefore Matthew's Gospel is (in my estimation) the most Jewish of the Synoptic
Gospels, containing a number of Jewish cultural expressions (called Hebraisms
1 / 13


Lesson 2 - Matthew 1
in the academic world), which are typically somewhat obscured or masked
because of their translation into foreign languages (such as English), but also
because while Greek is a very precise language, at times it doesn't have the
vocabulary that can accurately translate Hebrew concepts and their nuances to
the Greek language and culture. It also means that some things that Matthew put
into his Gospel that were inherently understood by Jews in that era would have
been foreign and confusing to gentiles, and it remains especially so to the
modern Church that is so many centuries removed from both the time and the
culture of the 1st century Jews. Add in a deeply embedded anti-Semitism within
Church traditions, doctrines and allegorical teachings, and we have the perfect
recipe for contorting Matthew to fit whatever meaning any particular Church
branch would like it to mean.
Parables play a crucial role in Matthew and when we come to Yeshua's teachings
using parables we're going to talk extensively about them: their nature and their
place in 1st century Jewish society. Just know this much before we get started:
Christ didn't invent the literary style of parables. Parables were common and a
mainstay within Jewish culture for a very long time before Jesus and were a
regular feature used forteaching Torah principles.
Because Matthew shaped his Gospel for reading by 1st century Jews, we're
going to spend much time learning about the mindset of those Jews and their
world in the Holy Land; but also the entirely different world where the bulk of
them lived dispersed into the gentle nations throughout Asia, Europe, and
Northern Africa. We'll study about how their religion was practiced at that time,
their societal norms and nuances, and even what it was like for them living under
Roman rule. These are among the several necessary ingredients that help to
build the much needed context for properly understanding and interpreting
Matthew's Gospel. All too often especially Christ's words, and particularly as
they were spoken in His parables, have been misunderstood over the centuries
because they have been filtered through Western gentile eyes instead of Eastern
Jewish eyes. My goal is for us to understand the meaning of Matthew's words
just as they would have been understood by the common Jewish folk in his time.
Open your Bibles to Matthew chapter 1. READ MATTHEW CHAPTER 1 all
For those who studied the Torah with me, one of the things you learned was that
2/13

Lesson 2 - Matthew 1
those long, tedious genealogies we encountered, full of impossible to pronounce
names, carried more meaning and importance than a casual reading of them
would imply. Genealogies in the Bible era were used for different purposes than
we use them today. For us genealogies are primarily a way to chart precise
family trees. The information they supply has the purpose of telling us exactly
who we are related to and perhaps where our ancestors came from. Hebrew
genealogies, on the other hand, were used for different and varying purposes
depending on the circumstances. For instance they were regularly used to prove
inheritance rights that almost always involved land. Or they were meant as a
bridge to connect a living person to a highly revered person who lived centuries
earlier thus giving the contemporary person an elevated social status. Sometimes
they were used to provide evidence of regal association and provide a basis to
that person's claim of the right to rule. Not surprisingly Mathew's Gospel begins
with such a list and it too had its own purpose and agenda. This was not an
attempt at subterfuge or spin; it was the norm for that era when presenting the
credentials of a very important person.
The second word of the opening verse of Matthew is in almost all English Bible
versions "genealogy ". Webster's Dictionary says that genealogy is "a line of
descent traced continuously from an ancestor". Therefore when we read the word
"genealogy" to us it means that this list of names is but a simple table of distant
family from the past that traces without interruption from a beginning ancestor to
Yeshua of Nazareth. However in Greek the word is "genesis"; yes, the same
word used as the title for the first book of the Bible (or more appropriately in the
case of Matthew and his era, the name of the first book of the Torah). Some
scholars will argue that we are to take this word "genesis" in the sense of a "birth
record". However that is certainly not how it was meant when pointing especially
to the 1st book of the Torah and the Creation account. Rather (as we put on our
1st century Jewish mindset) a theme that flows throughout the Gospel accounts
and all of the New Testament is that the advent of Christ is to be viewed first and
foremost as the beginning of a re-creation: a second genesis. Paul advances this
theme is several of his books:
CJB 2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is united with the Messiah, he is
a new creation- the old has passed; look, what has come is fresh and new!
John's Gospel follows along even though his doesn't begin with a genealogy;
rather he opens his story of Messiah by making a direct connection of His advent
with the 1st and original genesis. That is, for John, while Yeshua is the
3/13

Lesson 2 - Matthew 1
inaugurator of a 2nd genesis, a re-creation (that we find in the New Testament),
He was also there to inaugurate the 1st genesis, the original creation (that we
find in the Torah).
CJB John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 All things
came to be through him, and without him nothing made had being.
Paul in Romans chapter 5 expands that connection as he makes Christ to be the
epitome of a 2nd Adam. W.D. Davies in his enormous, 3 volume 2000 page
commentary on Matthew says that the best possible interpretation and translation
of the opening few words of Matthew should be: "Book of the New Genesis
wrought by Jesus Christ, son of David, Son of Abraham." This concept of Christ
inaugurating an actual (not a metaphorical) 2nd genesis, a full-on re-creation, is
brought home to us all the more in final book of the New Testament: the Book of
Revelation.
CJB Revelation 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the old
heaven and the old earth had passed away, and the sea was no longer
there. 2 Also I saw the holy city, New Yerushalayim, coming down out of
heaven from God, prepared like a bride beautifully dressed for her
husband. 3
I heard a loud voice from the throne say, "See! God's Sh'khinah
is with mankind, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and he
himself, God-with-them, will be their God. 4 He will wipe away every tear
from their eyes. There will no longer be any death; and there will no longer
be any mourning, crying or pain; because the old order has passed
away." 5 Then the One sitting on the throne said, "Look! I am making
everything new!" Also he said, "Write, 'These words are true and
trustworthy!"'
Because Matthew was a Jewish Believer, then His opening point is also to
demonstrate that Yeshua meets all the requirements of the Torah and the
Tanakh (the Old Testament) to be the Messiah of God the Hebrew people have
longed for, since according to the Scriptures the true Messiah must be a
descendant of Abraham, Jacob, Judah, Jessie, and David. Notice also how the
opening verse is like a preamble that introduces the genealogy. That is, Yeshua's
identity is summed up as simply the son of David, son of Abraham. Only
thereafter (starting in verse 2) does the actual generation by generation
accounting of Christ's ancestors begin. By saying that Yeshua is the son of
4/13
..... ......

Lesson 2 - Matthew 1
David, the intent is prove that He is royalty of the tribe of Judah through David,
which makes Him of the proper family line to rule. By saying also that He is the
son of Abraham, it makes a firm connection that He is a full-fledged Hebrew and
therefore eligible to bring about the promise God made to Abraham in Genesis
12 that through Abraham all the families of the earth will be blessed. So we find
Matthew beginning his table of ancestors with Abraham, the founder of the
special set apart people for God, and so the list of Christ's ancestors is
a descending list (oldest first) that begins with Father Abraham and ends with
Messiah Yeshua.
The other genealogy of Jesus that we find in the New Testament is present in the
Gospel of Luke. It must not be overlooked that Luke's genealogy begins with
Yeshua and works in ascending order (newest first), which ends with Adam and
then God. The usual Hebrew (and thus biblical) way of presenting a genealogy is
one that is organized in descending order. Genesis 4:17 begins the Bible's first
genealogy; it is given in descending order and the Hebrew tradition of presenting
a genealogy beginning with the oldest first seems to have been taken from that.
Luke, the writer of the Gospel named for him, is regularly said to be Dr. Luke, the
gentile companion of Paul (that is very likely so). Therefore I find it informative
that when he supplies a genealogy of Christ, he does it in a very un-Hebrew way;
he writes it in ascending order (that is, backwards from the Jewish norm).
Further, while Luke endeavors to connect Christ to the ancestor of every
human Hebrew and gentile which is Adam, Matthew seeks to connect
Christ to His Hebrew origins, so he begins with the undisputed Father of the
Hebrews, Abraham. This is more evidence that while Luke was probably a
gentile, Matthew was indeed a Jew.
From an overall standpoint, we should notice that the ancestor list in Matthew's
Gospel is divided into 3 equal parts of 14 generations each. So Matthew has
created a carefully ordered structure in his genealogy that is not found in Luke's.
Between Abraham and David he lists 14 generations. Then from David to the
Babylonian Exile are 14 more generations. And finally from the Babylonian Exile
to Yeshua are the remaining 14 generations giving us a total of 42. Without doubt
the structure Matthew used is meant to convey some kind of meaning, because
the list of ancestors is incomplete and skips generations. Before we explore that,
I'd like to emphasize something I told you a few minutes ago: the Hebrews did
NOT construct genealogies with the same purpose as it is for modern
Westerners. Ancient Hebrew genealogies were most often intended to
communicate a meaning with an agenda. They were not meant to convey a
5/13

Lesson 2 - Matthew 1
precise all-inclusive record of a family tree (although there were times, such as in
certain chapters of Chronicles, when they were indeed meant primarily as a more
complete family history).
There are a number of scholarly theories behind the reason for Matthew's
structure of Christ's genealogy, and how we cannot help but notice its rather neat
mathematical basis. Some think he simply borrowed it, as is, from a pre-existing
record. Others think Matthew intended to connect it to Daniel's 7 weeks of years
(490 years). If one assigns a value of 35 years as a biblical generation (which I
think is a reach) and multiplies it by 14 it adds up to 490. Another theory says that
since a moon cycle is 28 days (which isn't really true, it's 29 1/2) with 14 days
waxing and 14 days waning, then the structure of the genealogy characterizes
the ebb and flow of Hebrew history that we find among the persons that form the
3 groups of 14 generations. I could go on with a few other theories but prefer not
to because the one theory that I think acknowledges the mathematical basis of
Matthew's structure in a way familiar to 1st century Jews is that the foundation of
it is Hebrew gematria; that is, the biblical meaning of numbers.
It is hard to ignore that David's Hebrew name consists of 3 consonants and has a
gematria value of 14. Even more, David's name is 14th on Matthew's list. So
what exactly is Matthew trying to communicate to us? While I'm not 100% certain
of it, it seems to me that David is the key to it all because all throughout the NT
Yeshua is said to be the son of David. And in the Old Testament (the only Bible
known to Matthew) as well as in many Rabbinical writings, the Messiah must be
the son of David. So I do think that the mathematical structure of David's name
expressed in Hebrew gematria may well be the best explanation for the pattern
for Yeshua's genealogy used by Matthew.
We should also not overlook the use of the number 42 in the Bible. Matthew
exposits 42 generations (3 X 14 = 42) from Abraham to Yeshua. The prophet
Daniel (upon whom so much of Revelation is based) speaks of the End Times
and the rule of the Anti-Christ using the key numbers 1260 days, 3 1/2 years, and
42 months. 1260 days and 3 1/2 years are the same as 42 months. Did Matthew
intend to communicate a connection between Yeshua's genealogy, David's
name, Daniel's End Times prophecy, and so the purpose for His coming? As of
now (at least for me) it is the most likely of all theories put forward as it
corresponds well to actual biblical information, and the Jewish culture and
mindset of the 1st century. A Jew of that day (especially the more learned ones)
would probably notice the structure at the beginning of the Gospel in those terms
6/13


Lesson 2 - Matthew 1
using the numbers 3, 14, and 42 because due to the oppression of Rome,
Daniel's prophecies were hugely popular as well as were Messianic expectations
running high. During that era it was believed that the End Times of Daniel and the
coming of the Messiah occurred in tandem. 8o it all could have worked together
quite seamlessly in the minds of Jews at that time; especially Jewish followers of
Christ. For gentiles? Not so much.
There's a few interesting and pertinent things to notice within this genealogy. One
of the most obvious is the mention of the Babylonian exile. By highlighting this
catastrophic event Matthew uses Christ's genealogy as a kind of salvation history
lesson. The Babylonian Exile was a game changer for Jews. I say "for Jews"
because 130 years or so prior to Babylon capturing Judah, Assyria had
conquered the northern region of the divided Kingdom of Israel that was occupied
by 10 of the 12 Israelite tribes. Those 10 tribes were deported and scattered
around Asia and Northern Africa and in time that event gained the mythical title of
the 10 lost tribes of Israel. The only Israelite tribes that remained free and in their
own land were those in the southern half of the Kingdom: Judah and most of
Benjamin. These are the people who came to be called Jews. So it was the Jews
(and not all of Israel) who were captives of Babylon.
This event was seen by the Jews as a terrible judgment upon them by God,
because even His own Temple was destroyed, which meant that they had no
means to atone for their sins or to commune with God. It was an event that would
forever change the community of Jews because when King Cyrus of Persia
effectively rescued the Jews from Babylon and allowed them to freely return to
their homeland, even to rebuild their precious Temple, only about 5% of those
exiled made the trip home. The remainder willingly chose to live scattered about
the countless gentile communities in the Persian Empire. Therefore whereas to
the Jewish people the term "salvation" had always meant deliverance from the
oppression of a gentile conqueror, upon the advent of Christ the word took on
new significance as meaning deliverance from sin and eternal death.
Another important factor is the naming of 4 women in Matthew's genealogy of
Yeshua; the inclusion of women in a Hebrew genealogy is rare. The 4 were
Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba (called "the wife of Uriah" in the text).
Tamar was the daughter in law of Judah (the founder of the tribe of Judah) who
disguised herself as a prostitute and produced twin sons with him. Rahab is the
inn keeper/prostitute of Jericho, who betrayed her own people to help Israel and
Joshua conquer Jericho as they began their invasion of Canaan. Ruth is the
7/13

Lesson 2 - Matthew 1
Moabite widow who gave up her allegiance to her own people and gods, and
joined herself to Israel and their God. And finally Bathsheba, whom David had a
sordid affair with and also arranged to have her husband Uriah killed, so that
David could have her as his own (Solomon was Bathsheba's most famous
offspring). While we can't be 100% certain regarding Bathsheba..... Tamar,
Rahab, and Ruth were all gentiles. Or, perhaps another way of looking at it is that
these women BEGAN life as gentiles before joining Israel and converting. It is
likely that Bathsheba was also a foreigner since her husband, Uriah, was a
Hittite. So the mention of 4 female gentile ancestors of Christ is meant to catch
our attention.... and especially to catch the attention of 1st century Jews. But in
what way and to what end?
Assuming that Matthew's genealogy structure is indeed based on Hebrew
gematria, and because numbers play such an important role in communicating a
message in the Jewish community, we should assume that since it was
exactly 4 gentile women included (and not some other number) that the meaning
of the number 4 in the Jewish mind has to be considered. And sure enough, the
number 4 in Hebrew gematria indicates universality; it means the whole world
since there are 4 directions on a compass and since in that era the Hebrew view
of the structure of our planet was that the earth was flat and square and literally
had 4 corners (hence the phrase "to the 4 corners of the earth"). So the message
seems to be that although Yeshua is thoroughly Hebrew, Jewish, of the royal
lineage of David, and born of a Jewish woman in the Holy Land, deep down in
His being and essence there are traces of gentile connections that cannot be
ignored. And even more interesting is that except for Ruth, the background of the
other 3 women mentioned is less than moral and upstanding.
After a long list of Yeshua's ancestors, verse 16 says:
CJB Matthew 1:16 16 Ya'akov was the father of Yosef the husband of Miryam,
from whom was born the Yeshua who was called the Messiah.
So Matthew is careful to make Joseph Mary's husband, but NOT the biological
father of her child. At the same time, he makes Mary Jesus' biological mother. It
is also informative that Matthew refers to Yeshua as "the Yeshua who was called
the Messiah". Why "the Yeshua"? Because Yeshua was one of the most popular
male names in the Holy Land in that era and it was necessary for Matthew to be
clear about which one of many hundreds if not thousands of Yeshuas he was
referring to.
8/13

Lesson 2 - Matthew 1
Matthew, after explaining his genealogical structure of 3 sets of 14 generations
each, in verse 18 jumps right into the birth story of Yeshua. And immediately
Matthew takes on perhaps the most controversial aspect of Yeshua's birth
circumstances if not of His entire life. Matthew explains that although Yosef and
Miryam were engaged, they were not yet married. Yet, Miryam had become
pregnant. This was a terrible scandal within the Jewish community.
The CJB uses the word "engaged" to describe the relationship between Yosef
and Miryam; however a better word is betrothed. The word engaged in the
modern Western world doesn't carry the same sense as the word betrothed in
ancient times. Engaged is an arrangement whereby a man and a woman agree
to at some point become married. Engagements are broken all the time and other
than the typical emotional toll it causes, little other harm is done. Betrothal is
another matter altogether.
Betrothal in Hebrew culture was a solemn promise sealed with a commitment in
which the male and female bound themselves together through a marriage
contract that was signed, sealed and delivered at the moment of betrothal. So the
way we think of marriage in modern times in the West occurred at the time of
betrothal among the Hebrews in ancient times. The only thing left to be done that
in Hebrew culture was called "marriage" was when the bride moved into the
home of the groom and they consummated their union. It was the norm that after
the father of the bride agreed to the formal marriage contract, the woman was
now called "wife". Even so, she typically continued to live under her father's roof
for about another year. The union was considered to be so completed that if the
betrothed husband were to die, the woman was considered a widow. So
essentially the physical consummation was little more than a private ritual. Since
the woman was already legally a "wife", then cheating during betrothal was
adultery and not merely an indiscretion as it is treated today in the West. So the
fact that she was pregnant during the betrothal period (with Joseph certainly
knowing it wasn't his child) put Mary in danger of being executed. Typically if
there was sufficient cause, a betrothed husband would have given his wife a
divorce document (a get) to end a betrothal.
It cannot be overstated how serious it would be for a betrothed girl like Mary to
become pregnant. The Mishnah in the Tractate Sanhedrin, calls for 4 kinds of
death penalty to be administered in descending order of seriousness of the
offense: stoning, burning, beheading, and strangling. A man who has sex with a
betrothed woman is subject to stoning. After the girl moves in with her husband,
9/13

Lesson 2 - Matthew 1
sex between that girl and another man brings death by strangling. I think it is
interesting to note that within a couple of centuries after Yeshua's day, the
incidences of adultery during the betrothal period became so many that the
betrothal and marriage ceremonies were combined so as to eliminate the typical
1 year period in between the two to lessen the risk of a betrothed husband or wife
committing this grave sin that would demand their deaths.
Matthew says, with no further explanation, that Mary's pregnancy was a work of
the Holy Spirit. That it, it was miraculous pregnancy and she had done nothing
wrong. And the proof Matthew offers is that although betrothed, Mary and Joseph
were not yet living together. So strong were Hebrew traditions in the 1st century
(and before) about how the marriage process and timing worked, that there are
few recorded instances of a betrothed woman having a fling with a man that is
not her betrothed husband, and just as few flings with her betrothed husband
prior to them moving in together. It would have brought enormous shame upon
the woman's father's household as well as upon the betrothed couple. Thus while
it was no doubt quite a different story within the many pagan gentile communities
of the world such that they wouldn't really understand the gravity of the situation
or the seriousness of the Hebrew marriage contract, the Jews reading Matthew's
story would have immediately understood. It would only be an issue of whether
they would believe Miryam was pregnant by the Holy Spirit or not.
One other matter is also claimed and thereby settled. By Jewish tradition, even
though the unborn child is not Joseph's, he is the legal father. So there is no
conflict should Yeshua be called a son of Joseph; actual biological relationship is
not required when the father of the family accepts a child as his own.
The next verse says that when it was clear that his betrothed was pregnant,
Joseph made a decision not to pursue a public action but to quietly put her away.
The reason he did this is because (depending on the Bible version) he was either
a just or a righteous man. Very often just or righteous is, when preached about,
defined as being kind or merciful. Rather, for Jews just and righteous held the
meaning of law abiding. And law abiding meant being observant of the only Law
that mattered to Jews: the Law of Moses. Here is the biblical law that addresses
this situation.
CJB Deuteronomy 22:23-24 23 "If a girl who is a virgin is engaged to a man,
and another man comes upon her in the town and has sexual relations with
her; 24 you are to bring them both out to the gate of the city and stone them
10/13

Lesson 2 - Matthew 1
to death- the girl because she didn't cry out for help, there in the city, and
the man because he has humiliated his neighbor's wife. In this way you will
put an end to such wickedness among you.
The very public nature of an execution held at the city gate was to bring
maximum shame upon the criminals and their families. It is difficult to explain the
extreme level of trouble this brings to a family. We must not think that shame is
the same as "ashamed" or "embarrassed" as we think of it today. Shame was
(and remains in the Middle East) a detested social status, not an emotion. Having
gained such an undesirable status, ridding oneself or one's family of it was very
difficult and it dominated that family's daily life. Being shunned by most of the
community was but the beginning. Often the only way to atone for family shame
and regain family honor was to take revenge on the one or ones who were
deemed to have caused it. This could go on not just for years but for
generations.
So Joseph decided not to accuse his betrothed of marital infidelity, the remedy
being to out her publicly and to shame her publicly in order to avoid himself being
shamed. Rather he would quietly give a letter of divorce to Miryam's father (she
was still living at home) and end the betrothal, handling the matter discreetly and
privately. I want to comment here that while one of the several purposes of
Yeshua's speeches was to teach the Jewish people that while Torah observance
was the right and holy thing to do, doing it mechanically or woodenly, without love
and without understanding the spirit of the Torah laws, perverted it. This is why
when He was famously asked what the most important of the Torah Laws were,
Jesus quoted the Shema found in Deuteronomy chapter 6. Taken from verse 5
Christ said:
CJB Deuteronomy 6:5 5 and you are to love ADONAI your God with all your
heart, all your being and all your resources.
But He also included and quoted Leviticus 19:18:
CJB Leviticus 19:18 18 Don't take vengeance on or bear a grudge against any
of your people; rather, love your neighbor as yourself; I am ADONAI.
Joseph understood the spirit of the Law of Moses, and knew that even in this gut
wrenching circumstance he was to act in love and not vengeance; even so he
was to obey the Torah. So he risked his own reputation and having shame being
11 / 13
.....

Lesson 2 - Matthew 1
brought upon himself on account of his betrothed wife being pregnant without any
believable explanation. He acted exactly how the Lord wants us to act as we go
about trying to be observant of His laws and commands in our time. Not by
abrogating or ignoring them; and not by applying our own sense of mercy or
justice to any given situation. But rather by doing the commandments based
upon the foundational principle for all the commandments just as Yeshua said to
do.
Joseph, on older man, was not one to decide and act impulsively or strictly on
emotion. So verse 20 says that he was thinking about all this when he had a
visitation from an angel. I can only imagine all the thoughts flying through his
mind. Would this fine upstanding young country girl really commit adultery; and
right under her father's nose? Would she really come up with some lame lie that
while admitting being pregnant at the same time insisting she was still a faithful
virgin? What was the cost going to be to him personally if he more or less let her
off the hook? There was no hiding this; there is so much shame involved that
someone is going to have to bear it. And if he won't avail himself of the justice
system that would condemn her but at the same time leave him free from having
shame heaped upon himself, is that prudent.... or even fair?
In a dream the angel brought Yosef a message that had to be troubling in itself. I
suppose I have to ask myself the question: if I had a dream in which it seemed
that an angel spoke to me about a very troubling matter; and what he said
seemed too fantastic to believe would I believe it? Perhaps it's not a fair
question for our time. In Yeshua's day and in earlier times, divine revelations
given in dreams were well accepted and not particularly unusual. We read of
them in Genesis and in Daniel. We hear about them in relation to Job. The
Apocryphal books that were written after the close of the Old Testament and prior
to the writings of the New spoke about divine dreams and messages from God.
Perhaps it is our own modern skepticism that shuts the door to them in our time.
Or is it that the time for this experience is not right now? In fact there is biblical
evidence that we are currently in an era of dream, vision, and prophesying
dormancy, because in the Book of Acts chapter 2, we read that Peter tells the
crowd at that special Shavuot (Pentecost) when the Holy Spirit came in a most
spectacular fashion:
CJB Acts 2:17 17 'ADONAl says: "In the Last Days, I will pour out from my
Spirit upon everyone. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young
men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.
12/13
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lesson 2 - Matthew 1
Peter is actually quoting from the Prophet Joel because Peter must have
believed that what was happening indicated entry into those prophesied Last
Days. He was wrong in that he was not living in the time of this prophetic
fulfillment of Joel. But what I would like you to take away from this is that clearly
Joel's and Peter's statements seem to say that that which had not been
happening for a long time, will suddenly start happening when we enter the Last
Days. In other words, this is a divine sign we can be looking for.
Next week we'll begin by examining what the divine dream message was and
how Joseph dealt with it.
13/13

Lesson 3 - Matthew 1 Cont.
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 3, Chapter 1 Continued
In our previous lesson we studied at length the genealogy of Yeshua that opens
Matthew's Gospel. We discovered that Matthew seems to have created a
structure for his genealogy based on the numbers 3, 14, and 42. It is unknown by
Bible research scholars whether this was an original thought for Matthew or if he
merely found it in an earlier document and used it (all 3 Synoptic Gospels had to
have used earlier documents to draw from because none of the writers were
present with Christ). However no such earlier document with the same or a
similar genealogy for Jesus has been discovered; that one might exist is purely
conjecture.
An important point to keep in mind is that unlike in modern times when
genealogies are meant to be precise reconstructions of one's direct family tree,
that was not necessarily the goal of genealogies among the Hebrews in ancient
times. Their goal was to prove something; and what was meant to be proved was
flexible according to the author's agenda. So what we find in Matthew's
genealogy seems to be an emphasis on the mathematics that in that era were
considered somewhat mysterious and itself imparted a message. The scholarly
name for this focus on numbers and their meaning is gematria. Clearly: being
precise about Yeshua's ancestral tree was not the goal, because some
generational names are skipped.
Matthew honed in on the importance of Christ being the son of David. Drawing
upon that, we find that in Hebrew David's name consists of 3 letters, and the
gematria value of his name is 14. So accordingly Matthew structured his
genealogy by dividing up the long list of Yeshua's ancestors into 3 groups of 14,
with David's name being listed (not surprisingly) as the 14th in the first group.
1 / 11
.....

Lesson 3 - Matthew 1 Cont.
When you multiply 3 times 14 the result is 42. Due to the ongoing occupation of
Rome, the bulk of the Holy Land Jewish population believed that they were either
living in the End Times or that it was imminent. And because the advent of the
Messiah was thought by most learned Jews in Matthew's era to be an End Times
event, and because the Book of Daniel was highly popular in that same era as
the source of End Times prognostications, then when we find in Daniel that in the
End Times 42 months plays a crucial role, the connection between all of these
numbers in a very numbers-conscious culture made complete sense. Keep in
mind that Matthew was a Jewish Believer and his Gospel was constructed
primarily for reading by other Jewish Believers.
Another interesting feature of Matthew's genealogy was the inclusion of 4 women
(something quite rare). But even more, every one of these women began life as
gentiles. He could have included more women (including Rachel), since she, too,
began life as a gentile, but he didn't. My speculation for why he didn't is that he
specifically wanted to arrive at the number 4 due to its meaning in gematria. Four
is meant to indicate universal inclusiveness; something that is wide spread if not
global. It is derived from the fact that a compass has 4 directions and the belief in
that era that the earth was flat, was more or less square, and had 4 corners.
Then there is the interesting matter of when we compare Luke's Gospel
genealogy to Matthew's. There has always been a Christian scholarly focus on
the exact names and their order of these 2 genealogies, and so various
explanations have been formulated to explain some obvious differences between
them. Yet those explanations and perceived differences are based on modern
Western thinking and not ancient Eastern thinking. There are two glaring
differences that seem to get overlooked, which are in line with how the Hebrews
thought about things. The first is that while Matthew lists his genealogy in typical
Hebrew descending fashion (that is, the genealogy begins with the oldest
ancestor and works backwards down to the person whose genealogy is being
presented), Luke's is an ascending genealogy that begins with the person of
interest, and eventually makes its way up to the oldest ancestor as the final entry.
Further, Matthew's genealogy lists Abraham as Yeshua's oldest ancestor, while
Luke lists Adam. This actually makes sense. Matthew was Hebrew and Luke
almost certainly was not. So for Matthew, the ancestral Father of Yeshua was of
course the Father of all Hebrews: Abraham.... not Adam. However for the gentile
Luke, his focus was on connecting Yeshua all the way back to the universal
Father of all humanity gentile and Hebrew.... Adam.
2/11

Lesson 3 - Matthew 1 Cont.
Thus we see how both Matthew and Luke had certain agendas in mind as they
each constructed their genealogies of Christ. Theirs was not "spin", nor was it an
attempt to distort or deceive. It was simply their personal worldviews, which
included how the purpose of genealogies was thought of in their era, and it was
part of the message that each Gospel writer was attempting to impart to his
readers.
Another important principle that we see woven throughout all the Gospels (and
the New Testament in general) was that Messiah was to be seen as the
inaugurator of a re-creation of everything; a second genesis. All was to be
remade new.
As Matthew begins to tell his story of Jesus' birth, he immediately brings up the
issue of Mary becoming pregnant by the Holy Spirit. I want to pause for just a
moment to explain something. Often we hear the term "immaculate conception"
in regards to this event. In effect this is conflating two entirely different things.
The immaculate conception is purely Roman Catholic doctrine that has little to do
with the birth of Christ. Rather it is a doctrine held as a core belief that the Virgin
Mary was herself conceived by a divine miracle that made her free from sin. So in
many respects, the thought is that Mary conceived her son in the same way she
was conceived. In Roman Catholicism this allows for elevating Mary beyond
normal human status to the semi-divine.
Included in the story of Christ's birth is the matter of Mary and Joseph being
betrothed. For Believers living in modern times we need to think of betrothal more
as marriage than as an engagement. Even though during this period of betrothal
the girl still lived with her father, she was called "wife" upon her betrothal, and
called "widow" should her betrothed husband die. The reality is that for Jewish
readers of Matthew's Gospel the mention of Yosef and Miryam being betrothed
mostly meant that the time for her moving in with him hadn't come yet, and it
means that they were not yet permitted to have marital intimacy. Other than for
that, they are completely married as we think of it today. In fact for a betrothal to
be called off, a get (a divorce document) had to be issued by the man because
upon the betrothal a marriage contract between the man and the girl's father had
been drawn up and executed.
We left off at the point when Joseph was trying to figure out what to do about this
shameful dilemma of his betrothed's pregnancy and had decided that he would
not publicly denounce her or charge her with a crime that literally could end with
3/11
.....
......

Lesson 3 - Matthew 1 Cont.
her execution. Rather, he'd merely handle things as quietly and privately as
possible, which meant he would end the betrothal by handing Mary's father a
divorce document. However as Yosef slept an uneasy sleep, he was visited in a
dream by an angel who brought him a message from God that gave him different
marching orders.
Open your Bibles to Matthew chapter 1. READ MATTHEW CHAPTER 1:18 - end
The angel brings an astounding message to Joseph in a dream. I'll admit upfront
that perhaps there was no angel involved at all. The reason I say this is because
the term angel in the Hebrew concept simply means messenger. The messenger
could take any form from the spiritual to the common human. But it also could be
a rather fuzzy term that adds a spiritual element to a human thought. We must
remember just how God-oriented people were in that era; life was not
compartmentalized into the spiritual and the natural. On the other hand there are
some Bible commentators who insist that this angel is not only a real angel, but is
the Angel of the Lord and not a regular angel. Although most of Protestant
Christianity does not accept the concept that the Angel of the Lord is an
additional manifestation of God Himself (because it would create a problem with
the Trinity Doctrine that God is entirely and only Father, Son and Holy Spirit), in
fact that is precisely what the Angel of the Lord is and good Bible scholars
acknowledge that reality. I find no evidence of this here in Matthew.
In the Old Testament, in Hebrew, the term for Angel of the Lord is Malach
Yehoveh (Yehoveh NOT meaning Lord, but rather it is God's personal name that
He first gave to Moses, better known in Christianity as Jehovah). That term is not
used in this verse. However to get around the problem, some commentators say
that in verse 21 where Joseph is told what to name this child in Mary's womb,
and because the verse concludes with: " because He will save His people from
their sins", that in fact the verse should say "because He will save MY people
from their sins". Therefore, it has the angel speaking to Joseph describing the
people to be saved in a possessive manner: that is, they are the angel's people.
So if the angel is claiming the saved people for himself then the angel must be
God the Angel of the Lord. But that is not what the verse says. The same
Greek word, autos, is used twice to end the verse. The first time it means "He"
and the second time it means "His" not "My". In Greek there are 2 words that
can be translated to "my": emos and mou. Neither are used. So this is a regular
4/11

Lesson 3 - Matthew 1 Cont.
angel, or perhaps it is a divinely inspired thought, that is being communicated to
Yosef by means of a dream.
Joseph was still deciding what to do. The angel tells him not to interrupt the
marital process but rather to continue on because Mary is innocent. She has
conceived a son by means of the Holy Spirit; that is, a divine miracle of God's will
has occurred. Joseph's first thought would not have been how that was
scientifically impossible (as it is today), but rather what the meaning of such an
amazing thing would be. Therefore the messenger tells him what this child will do
and that it shall be reflected in the child's name Yeshua, which means God
saves. At least that's what most Bibles will say. If ever there were reasons for us
to thoroughly understand the meaning of a name it is here as it involves the most
famous and earth changing name ever given. So we're going to cut away to a bit
of a detour to talk about it.
I want to begin by saying that the name Yeshua was, in Christ's day, actually
among the most popular of all male names given; hundreds, probably thousands,
of Jewish men were named Yeshua. Part of the reason for that is that Yeshua is
really just another way of saying Joshua. I'm going to borrow heavily from David
Stern's Commentary on the New Testament because I've not run across another
Bible scholar who has done such a wonderful job of research and of making an
understandable explanation about Yeshua's name. I'll also add some thoughts of
Professor David Flusser and a couple of my own as well.
In Hebrew the name Yeshua is spelled yud-shin-vav-ayin (in the English alphabet
we would say Y-S-V-A. It means the same as the Hebrew root word yoshia,
which means "he will save". However yoshia is a statement while Yeshua is a
proper name. Yeshua is actually but a common contraction of another Hebrew
name Y'hoshua; those 2 names mean exactly the same thing because they are
essentially exactly the same name. It is not unlike myself with the given name of
Thomas, but most often called Tom. Tom is a contraction of Thomas but it means
the same thing so the names are virtually interchangeable. Now please hear
me: Y'hoshua does NOT mean "God saves"; it means "Yehoveh saves". And
therefore so does Yeshua NOT mean "God saves" but rather "Yehoveh saves". It
makes the author of the saving transaction quite specific and quite personal. But
it also says something else that can produce quite a headache among Believers.
Even Christ's name says that it is not He who is the author of salvation, but rather
it is His Father whose name is Yehoveh.
5/11

Lesson 3 - Matthew 1 Cont.
Do not misunderstand me. I am in no way wavering from the fact that Jesus is
the one who died on the cross for our sins, thus atoning for them. Nor do I deny
that the Bible calls Him Savior. But Yeshua's name itself does throw the spotlight
back upon the Father, Yehoveh, rather than shoving the Father offstage and
focusing everything on Jesus as modern Christianity tends to do. Throughout the
Gospel accounts we find Christ deflecting attention and glory from Himself and to
His Heavenly Father. Listen to how Mary perceived what was going on inside her
womb and whom she glorified as her Savior.
CJB Luke 1:41-48 41 When Elisheva heard Miryam's greeting, the baby in her
womb stirred. Elisheva was filled with the Ruach HaKodesh 42 and spoke up
in a loud voice, "How blessed are you among women! And how blessed is
the child in your womb! 43 "But who am I, that the mother of my Lord should
come to me? 44 For as soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears,
the baby in my womb leaped for joy! 45 Indeed you are blessed, because
you have trusted that the promise ADONAI has made to you will be
fulfilled."
46 Then Miryam said, "My soul magnifies ADONAI; 47 and my spirit
rejoices in God, my Savior, 48 who has taken notice of his servant-girl in her
humble position. For- imagine it!- from now on, all generations will call me
blessed!
Continuing with the name of the child: interestingly, the way that name was
pronounced was different in Galilee than it was in Judea. Different dialects had
developed between the two Holy Land regions, as well as a goodly number of
different traditions. In Galilee His name was pronounced Yeshu. That is, Galilean
Jews at this time dropped the "a" (ayin) at the end of a word or a name when
they pronounced it out loud. Let me include that when they wrote the name the
"ayin" would have been retained. So in Galilee the way His name was spoken
sounded like Yeshu, but in Judea it sounded like Yeshua. To make an example
for you lets use the word almond (the nut). In most of America the word is
pronounced all-mond; but in some parts of America the "L" sound is dropped and
it is pronounced ah-mond. But in both areas it would still be spelled with the L
included. That is the effect of dialect.
But in older Jewish society (well after the time of the Temple destruction), the use
of the name Yeshu became derogatory (there were no longer any Judean versus
Galilean dialects). Why derogatory? Because there is a Hebrew saying that
means "May his name and memory be blotted out." The first letters of each of the
Hebrew words used in the saying form an acronym that when spoken sounds
6/11


Lesson 3 - Matthew 1 Cont.
like Yeshu. Historically it is used by non-Believing Jews in a mocking way when
referring to Yeshua (Jesus). Oddly enough the word Yeshu no longer is used
universally throughout Jewish society in this same way, with many Jews today
rather innocently thinking that Yeshu is actually the proper Hebrew name for
Christ. Still, I highly advise that when talking with Jews about Christ (and when
you are in Israel) you avoid saying Yeshu because it can cause some conflict
depending on who you're talking to. Stick with Yeshua.
Let me add that there is nothing wrong using the name Jesus; it is the accepted
English name for Yeshua. I have heard all kinds of arguments against using the
name Jesus including that it is the English translation of the Greek word Zeus.
That is simply false. I prefer to use the name Yeshua because a) it was His given
name in His native tongue, and b) because English speakers can easily
pronounce it. We usually give foreigners the privilege of being called by their
given name in their native tongue except when it is so difficult to pronounce that
we English-ize it. My opinion is that, for the most part, we ought to give Yeshua's
actual birth name that same respect.... because we can. But it is not sinful or
pagan if we don't.
I think we've exhausted that subject, so moving on.... if we were to compare Luke
1:31 to Matthew's birth narrative we would find one of a few conflicts among the
Gospel accounts. Luke has it that it is Mary who is told the name for her child
while in our Matthew study it is Joseph. We needn't make too much out of this. In
Hebrew custom the male child was given his name at his circumcision ceremony;
and there was no real conflict over which Jewish parent gave the boy his name.
Besides, all things considered, it could well be Luke and Matthew aren't in conflict
at all; rather perhaps both Yosef and Miryam were told by God what to name the
child.
Let's discuss this statement in Joseph's dream that the reason for Yeshua's
name is because He is going to save people from their sins. I'm not sure exactly
how Joseph and others would have taken this. Yeshua was among the most
common male names in that era, and among the Jews the term "salvation" still
mostly meant deliverance from an earthly oppressor. In fact, the Jews nearly
universally believed that the hoped-for Messiah would deliver them (save them)
from the oppression of Rome. The more spiritual nature of the term as meaning
salvation from sins had to do with being healed from sickness. It is to be
remembered that there was no understanding of germs or bacteria so there were
few explanations for where illnesses came from. Mostly they were seen as
7/11
.....


Lesson 3 - Matthew 1 Cont.
punishments from a god, and in Israel they were seen as divine consequences
for disobedience to Yehoveh sinning.... meaning to break the Laws of Moses.
Sin and sickness were closely tied together among Jews. We find instances
within the Gospel accounts of Christ's healing of sickness being perceived by the
observers as people being "saved" from their sins.
It is easy for us to look back and understand that it is Messiah's atoning death for
our sins, saving us from eternal damnation, that is in view in Joseph's dream; but
few Jews in his day would have comprehended it that way.
Verse 22 brings all that Mary and Joseph are experiencing into a Heavenly
orientation as opposed to a human orientation. That is, despite the terribly difficult
circumstances that the couple are facing, there is a reason for it that goes well
beyond their wants and needs. It is because God, through His Prophets,
prophesied that the Messiah would come into the world in just this way. And the
precise prophecy from 700 years earlier is quoted out of the Book of Isaiah.
CJB Isaiah 7:14 Therefore Adonai himself will give you people a sign: the
young woman* will become pregnant, bear a son and name him 'Immanu El
[God is with us].
Before we discuss this particular verse as the prophecy that Mary's pregnancy is
fulfilling, I want to highlight something that has caused a goodly portion of the
institutional Church to veer terribly off course in some ways. Perhaps more than
ever the Old Testament is shunned as being irrelevant for Christians. If it has any
relevance at all remaining, then it can only be for the Jewish people. The birth of
Christ essentially not only closed the book on the Old Testament, it abolished it.
None of this is true, and it actually defies Holy Scripture. But when this
fundamental doctrinal attitude is taken, it greatly tarnishes and diminishes the
Bible's divine authority and so we can easily lose our way.
Verse 22 directly connects the Old Testament to Mary's pregnancy. Yeshua's
birth, life, death, and resurrection are foretold in the Old Testament. In the New
Testament we have the record of those hundreds of years old prophecies coming
to fruition. The Old Testament is as much the foundation for the New as the
foundation of a building is laid so that something can be constructed upon it. But
once built, can the foundation then be removed? Can you imagine building a
house with the first step being to lay the foundation. Then atop it you construct
the living quarters, bring in furniture, decorate it, and move in. Once done, do you
8/11

Lesson 3 - Matthew 1 Cont.
call the contractor back and tell him that it is now time to remove the foundation
from under the house, because it is no longer needed? Just because the
foundation has become buried underneath it all doesn't make it obsolete. Yet, the
very prophecies of a Messiah along with where he'll come from, what his nature
is, what he'll do, and what his life and death will mean are all contained NOT in
the New Testament but rather in the Old. Those Old Testament prophecies are
the foundation and to remove it means the house will collapse.
David Stern claims that more than 50 messianic pretenders have come and gone
since just before Christ's birth. None of them fulfilled the Old Testament
prophecies; only Yeshua has. The latest one is a fellow named Menachem
Mendel Schneerson, a Rabbi who passed away in 1994. His followers so revered
this man that they declared that he was the Messiah and many still believe he is.
It matters not at all to his Orthodox Jewish flock that the Rabbi, a good and
decent man, fulfilled none of the Tanakh that they supposedly are learned in. Yet
despite the fact that Yeshua of Nazareth did fulfill all the prophecies about a
Messiah, these Orthodox along with almost all other Jews refuse to accept Him,
and prefer to wait for another.
Now as for Isaiah's prophecy.... notice that the CJB says that the "virgin" will
conceive and bear a son. We'll find the word "virgin" used in most English
translations. However that is not what is in Isaiah's prophecy. The Hebrew word
is almah and it means maiden or handmaiden of good reputation. It inherently
means a young, unmarried woman who is of child bearing age. In Hebrew society
such a woman was supposed to remain in a virgin state; but not all did. So the
idea of virginity was indeed in the background of the definition of almah however
that is not the main point of the word itself. It is meant to convey youthfulness and
the marriage eligibility of the woman. The Hebrew word for virgin, where virginity
is the point, is bethulah.
If we're still being intellectually honest about it, the context for this prophecy in
the Book of Isaiah was addressed to King Ahaz; it seems to be about the
eventual birth of a Davidic prince that was meant as a sign of hope for the
struggling Kingdom of Judah. There is no good evidence that later Judaism took
Isaiah's prophecy about the young woman conceiving a child to be a Messianic
prophecy nor that it involved a miraculous conception whereby the male seed
was actually God's. However, clearly, some among the Jewish people were open
to understanding it that way. Nonetheless, the prophecy of a prince coming from
David's line to rule over God's people fits right in with the son-of-David focus of
9/11


Lesson 3 - Matthew 1 Cont.
Matthew's genealogy of Jesus and the ancient biblical prophecies that also
focused on the Messiah having to come from David's royal line.
It has been proposed by any number of Bible scholars that the concept of a
young girl giving birth as a virgin is pagan in its source. Yet when challenged to
come up with a parallel in the pagan world, it cannot be found except where a
male is somewhere involved in the conception process. Interestingly this same
concept is vague among any currently known ancient Jewish sources. So the
claim of a true virgin birth actually happening, with the Holy Spirit of God
substituting for the male seed, is essentially unknown until the Gospel of
Matthew; it is totally unique both in concept and event. For non-Believers this
makes the story even less believable if not silly; and for Believers this makes the
story all the more believable and wonderful; so you see the dilemma. Just as
trust in God and in Christ is a matter of faith, and faith itself is a divine gift and not
something conjured up by our own human will or soul, so are the Gospel
accounts' insistence that Mary's virgin pregnancy was quite real is a matter of
faith in the truth of the Word of God. Naturally to an atheist or agnostic, the story
is laughable, largely because it cannot be tested or reproduced in a laboratory.
But the Church has also fallen into a trap because more and more Bible
commentators and mainstream Pastors feel that all that we read of "miraculous"
events in the Bible must have natural explanations if they are to appeal to
modern well educated people. Yet to the human mind if a fully natural
explanation can be proven, then it is hardly a divine miracle and instead is but
ancient myth.
Therefore it is no longer unusual for professing Christians to at once claim to be
followers of Jesus, but at the same time dismiss the many miracles surrounding
His conception, birth, life, death, and resurrection. At the risk of offending, I warn
those who embrace such a dual mindset that you are likely not saved Believers
at all, but rather you merely practice a modern philosophy of Jesus that you think
He preached. Yet it is a philosophy that has been filtered, sifted, and picked-over
to rid it of anything divine, miraculous, or even authoritative in the modern world,
and leans more towards whatever is the current political correctness. Thus
sincere faith and trust is no longer required; just participation in a group of the like␂minded.
Verses 24 and 25 tell us that Yosef not only heard but also acted upon the
instructions within his dream. This is the very definition of the Hebrew concept
of shema.... hearing and obeying.... as opposed to the passive concept of
10/11
......

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lesson 3 - Matthew 1 Cont.
listening without action. Despite full knowledge by Yosef that this child was not of
his seed, he fully accepted Yeshua as his son. In the Mishnah, Bava Batra 8:6
we read: "If one says 'this is my son' he is to be believed". Even more, in the
Gemara this concept of sonship is expanded upon and says that this right is to be
extended even as it involves inheritance. This is important because since Joseph
is in the royal line of David, then Yeshua inherits the right to the throne from his
legal, but not biological, father Joseph.
So in the end Joseph did not issue Mary a get. Rather, likely somewhat sooner
than customary, he hurried to complete the betrothal period by having her move
in with him. Yet the consummation of the union was postponed. This passage
states frankly that they did not have sexual relations until after Mary's divinely
conceived child was born.
I want to sum up Matthew chapter 1 in this way: Matthew's purpose was
expressly to begin his Gospel by explaining who Yeshua is. He is the Messiah,
Son of David, Son of Abraham, brought into this world by an otherwise non␂descript, unimportant country girl. His unique conception was a direct work of the
God of Israel and none else. Believability and plausibility play no roles because
God doesn't bend His will or His ways to suit mankind's expectations. Even
Messiah's name is God-ordained because it says what He will do. Through
Christ's earthly father, Yosef, Yeshua is legally connected to the throne of David.
Through Christ's earthly mother, Miryam, his origin is divine.
We'll take up chapter 2 next time.
11 / 11

Lesson 4 - Matthew 2
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 4, Chapter 2
We concluded chapter 1 of Matthew's Gospel last time, and I remarked then
that Matthew's goal was to begin his Gospel by explaining who Jesus is.
According to Matthew He is the prophesied Messiah of Israel; the Son of David,
Son of Abraham. The importance of Believers understanding this cannot be
overstated. Christ is a Hebrew; or more specifically a Jew. He was not and is not
some kind of generic universal human being. We must understand His
Jewishness and embrace His Jewishness in order to find the correct context for
understanding His words to us. And as we will read in chapter 2, He came for the
people of Israel.
Christ's one-of-a-kind conception was a direct work of the God of Israel, or more
correctly a work of the Holy Spirit. Matthew goes on to explain that the Messiah's
Hebrew birth name, Yeshua, was God-ordained because it explains what He will
do: He will act as the Father's agent to save the people of Israel from their sins. I
realize that including the Father in the salvation process sounds almost like
heresy to much of Christianity, so focused on Jesus of Nazareth is the Church.
But because a name in that era carried such weight in projecting the character,
destiny and purpose of a Jewish person, we must look closely at what Christ's
actual Jewish birth name, Yeshua, means. Typically Pastors and even Bible
scholars will say it means "God saves". That is not correct. Rather it means
"Yehoveh saves". Yehoveh is the formal name of the Father as first revealed to
Moses. It is most certainly true that by His death on the cross Yeshua atoned for
our sins, also that He is part of who God is (in some mysterious way that no one
has found a means to adequately describe), and that Yeshua is also our
Passover Lamb who is both our King and Lord. Yet, Yeshua is subordinate to the
Father, and the salvation plan of which He was the cornerstone is of the Father;
1 / 11

Lesson 4 - Matthew 2
that much is made clear by the ancient Old Testament prophets, by Christ
Himself in the Gospels, and also by the Apostle John in the Book of Revelation.
As we turn our Bibles to the 2nd chapter of Matthew we begin by encountering a
story that has caused both controversy and incalculable joy within Christianity. I
want to encourage you that although we are going to immediately take a
substantial detour that is pretty technical, everyone listening is perfectly capable
of understanding it both for the content and for its importance to followers of
Christ. You don't have to be highly educated or a theologian; God's Word is
meant for ordinary humans; not just the elite class. Thomas Edison once said:
"Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration". So the issue is not your ability
to comprehend; it is your determination and dedication to focus and learn (and
hopefully apply) what the Lord wants us to know.
Open your Bibles to Matthew Chapter 2.
READ MATTHEW CHAPTER 2 all
The first half of verse 1 concludes Matthew's story of the conception and birth of
Yeshua by saying that He was born in Beit Lechem (Bethlehem) of Judea.
Although Matthew doesn't go into detail by explaining the significance of the
place of Christ's birth, it was because the common Jew of his day would already
have known it (and as I'll occasionally remind you, Matthew was a Jewish
Believer whose Gospel was written to Jews). But for we Believers of the 21st
century (mostly gentiles), I'll explain that Bethlehem of Judea was also the
birthplace of King David. The direct familial connection between the Messiah and
King David is a must in the messianic prophecies (as demonstrated by Matthew's
genealogy of Yeshua in chapter 1), as well as the two figures (born many
centuries apart) sharing a common birth place.
The second half of verse 2 gives us an approximation of the date of Jesus' birth
based on the reign of King Herod. We know that by modern calendars Herod
ruled from 37 B.C. to 4 B.C. So according to Matthew's timeline Jesus had to
have been born prior to 4 B.C. The last part of verse 2 also begins a captivating
story about a visitation of magi in search for this new king of the Jews; an
account that we find only in Matthew's Gospel. To be clear, this story about magi
coming and meeting with King Herod as part of their search, and of a mysterious
star that seems to move and then hover over Bethlehem in order to guide the
magi, appears in no other place in the New Testament than in the Book of
2/11

Lesson 4 - Matthew 2
Matthew. Because we've just read the story of the visitation of the magi, we're
now going to begin our detour in order to better understand it because a
significant number of scholarly explanations about who the magi were and what
prompted them to make such a long journey, and of course about the
appearance of this mysterious star, have been set forth in Christianity and I think
we can probably shed a little more light on the subject and clear up some
misconceptions. Most explanations that we're all familiar with have been based
either on modern Western thinking, or they incorporate the mindset and
circumstance of an ancient era and region that does not properly represent the
era and place of Christ's birth.
I want to say in advance that I owe a debt of gratitude to the outstanding works
and research of scholars like Michael Molnar, Otto Neugebauer, Wayne Sayles,
Owen Gingerich, and others who have gone the extra mile to publish their
findings that shed such valuable light on the subject of the magi within the
context of the magi's beliefs and understanding of the celestial bodies as it was in
the 1st century at the time of Christ's birth. So here we go.
Who were these magi? The first thing to notice is that despite the many Christian
traditions and songs about them, and the countless Christmas programs that
always portray 3 magi, we are not told how many there were. So the idea
of 3 magi traveling to find the Christ child is entirely fictional and not supported by
the Bible or any other ancient source. Perhaps the next most fictional description
within Christian tradition is that the magi were "kings". So the famous song that
begins "we 3 kings of orient are", is wrong on just about every account.
The magi were highly respected experts in their field in which they used the
wandering lights in the sky to interpret current events and especially to determine
future events. Although they are said to have come from the east, there's an
awful lot of land mass to the east of Judea so their point of origin can't be
pinpointed (although there are some hints that might narrow it down a bit).
Perhaps the most important feature of the magi for us to understand is that they
were not astronomers as we might think of an astronomer today, and they were
not Babylonian astrologers; rather they were Hellenistic astrologers. What does
Hellenistic mean? It means those who have adopted the Greek language,
culture, thought, art, and religious views. In the 1st century it mostly meant to
assimilate into the Greek based Roman culture; so what the magi believed and
practiced was standard and universally accepted within the Roman worldview of
the Roman Empire. To say it another way: these magi did not practice some
3/11

Lesson 4 - Matthew 2
ancient form of oriental Babylonian astrology as is typically portrayed. In fact that
particular form of astrology had ceased to exist shortly after the world-changing
conquests of Alexander the Great in the 300's B.C.
The other point that is fundamental for proper understanding is that Jews
(particularly Holy Land Jews) generally did not practice any form of astrology at
this time. They did not look to the skies for understanding events or for foretelling
the future. However understanding events and foretelling the future is exactly
what Hellenistic astrologers did, and so it is what the magi that we read of in
Matthew did.
There is an underlying historical context that greatly aids our understanding of
the role of the magi is Christ's birth story. First: Rome and the Holy Land were in
a constant state of confrontation and tension. The Jews felt offended by Rome's
overwhelming presence, and Rome was frustrated with these stubborn people
who refused all effort to assimilate. The Jews valued and insisted on keeping
their unique faith, culture, traditions and history while Rome wanted them to
abandon their heritage and instead conform to the progressive Hellenistic way of
life that the rest of the empire adopted. This festering hatred of the Romans led
the Jews to openly express their hope for a Jewish Messiah to deliver them from
Rome's heavy hand. In turn the Romans were very concerned about the Jews'
messianic prophecies of a charismatic deliverer, and so were on high alert for his
arrival. Interestingly, in both cases, the expectation was for a Jewish leader to
emerge that would defy and challenge the Romans militarily. The Jews of course
welcomed the notion, while Rome feared it.
The second element of the context for the influence of the magi on our story is
that astronomy was advancing at a high rate in the years leading up to Christ's
birth. It is ironic that while Hellenistic astronomers still thought of the earth as flat,
the sun as revolving around the earth, and they had a rather mistaken
understanding of the layout of our solar system, nonetheless their many years of
celestial observations enabled them to develop mathematical equations that
could fairly accurately predict the movement of the stars and planets. This will
play a role in our understanding of the famous star that the magi followed to
Bethlehem.
The third element is that there was no real distinction between astronomy and
astrology in this era (in fact those terms are modern and weren't in use in the 1st
century). The constantly progressing understanding of the movement of the
4/11
.....
..............

Lesson 4 - Matthew 2
luminous objects in the sky that could now be predicted (something that we could
probably call science) made the development of astrology all the more credible
and exciting. The entire purpose of astronomical observations in that era was to
more accurately aid in the predictions that the cosmos was thought to reveal to
the magi. The belief that fate could be determined in advance of a future event by
means of observing and interpreting the movement of stars and planets was well
accepted throughout the Roman Empire (except by the Jews). Thus those highly
educated people who were expert star gazers (the magi) were greatly prized and
admired for their knowledge, and their wisdom was much sought after and
believed. They were anything but charlatans; they were convinced that the
movement of the stars and planets, when properly understood, was a gift from
the gods to help humankind navigate the present and to prepare for the future.
By the time of Christ's birth, the astrologers had devised a system of interpreting
the meaning of the lights in the sky that we might call the Zodiac. It consisted of
constellations of stars that were named and associated with living creatures. Very
interestingly the Hellenistic star gazers had determined that the constellation
Aries, the Ram, was the Zodiac symbol that had to do with the region of Judea.
Thus the magi from the east would have looked towards Aries to tell them about
events concerning Judea, among which could be indications of the death of a
current king or birth of a new king of the Jews. It is within that belief system that
we have to consider the fascinating Bethlehem Star.
One doesn't have to read too many biblical commentaries on the Book of
Matthew to see the wide spectrum of both theological and scientific views about
the star of Bethlehem. Among those views is that this star is just a fictional myth
meant to add drama and glory to the birth of Jesus. Another view is that there is
no point in trying to explain the star astronomically or astrologically or in any
natural terms; there indeed was a star but it was a supernatural event a rather
short lived divine miracle of God. Other views are usually about trying to find rare,
but natural, celestial events that coincided with the nativity. Recently some
scholars have argued that the appearance of the mysterious star is a Jewish
Middrash on the famous Old Testament account of the seer named Balaam; an
account that says that the appearance of a star would accompany the birth of the
Messiah. We read about this in the Torah, in the Book of Numbers.
CJB Numbers 24:15-17 "This is the speech of Bil'am, son of B'or;
the speech of the man whose eyes have been opened; 16 the speech of him
who hears God's words; who knows what 'Elyon knows, who sees what
5/11

Lesson 4 - Matthew 2
Shaddai sees, who has fallen, yet has open eyes: 17 "I see him, but not now;
I behold him, but not soon- a star will step forth from Ya'akov, a scepter will
arise from Isra'el, to crush the corners of Mo'av and destroy all
descendants of Shet.
Obviously Balaam's mention of a star stepping forth is being related by some
scholars to the star over Bethlehem. While I don't find this line of thinking
conclusive, it is hard to ignore the many parallels between the story of King Balak
with his hired gun Balaam, to the magi's journey to Judea and its back story.
1) King Herod's family was from Idumea (formerly known as Edom), and King
Balak was also from that same region.
2) Just as the magi ruined King Herod's plans to kill the Christ child, so did
Balaam ruin King Balak's plans to kill off the Israelites.
3) Balaam was, himself, a magi just as were the star gazers of the east who
came to find the new king of the Jews.
4) The magi came because a star announced the birth of new king of the Jews,
and Balaam mentioned a star that had to do with the arrival of a savior and king
that would come from among the people of Israel.
So on its face, we can't simply discard the idea of this connection between
Balaam's prophecy and the magi coming from the east as an explanation for the
Bethlehem star. So what would have been the significance for these magi of a
star appearing? Why would they or anyone pay attention to it?
During the time of King Herod's reign over the Holy Land it was not only the Jews
who were looking for a sign of a new figure to arise and fundamentally change
the circumstances within Judea. For the Jews the expected figure was a
Messiah; for the pagan star gazers the figure was a king. The sign the Jews were
looking for was not to be found in the sky, and yet the Jews in some ways didn't
seem to know for sure exactly what they should be looking for beyond their
current circumstances and their hopes for a charismatic military leader to
suddenly come upon the scene. But the sign the magi were looking for could only
be in the sky because that's where they believed all such signs appeared (they
were, after all, astrologers). The terms that more closely fit what the magi looked
for are "portents" and "omens"; terms more associated to the pagan worldview.
6/11

Lesson 4 - Matthew 2
So those are the terms that I will use as we go forward as it relates to the magi.
Let's look again to the story of the magi and the Bethlehem Star that is in
Matthew chapter 2 verses 1 - 16. A close reading shows that the magi did NOT
go to King Herod and ask "where is the newborn king of the Jews?" Rather they
arrived in Jerusalem and began asking around of the common city folk. It was the
word of this inquiry that reached the ears of Herod because it so unsettled the
residents of Jerusalem. One can only imagine what this news did to Herod's
already paranoid and suspicious psyche. Herod was a brutal man who committed
terrible atrocities even upon his closest family members. It was not just his
brutality that distanced him from his Jewish subjects; it was also that Herod
wasn't even a Jew. His mother was Nabatean and his father Idumean (the Greek
name for Edom). Even though some time earlier Idumea had been forced to
accept Judaism as their authorized religion, Herod was not raised in a Jewish
household, but rather in a Hellenistic household where some combination of
Hellenistic and Jewish traditions were practiced.
Herod, then, was a Hellenistic tyrant, completely aligned with Rome and fully in
tune with Roman culture although in another sense he knew and adopted some
of the Jewish traditions taught to him in his childhood. Any inkling of danger to his
throne (real or imagined) was instantly dealt with murderously. He killed 3 of his
own biological sons thinking they might be plotting against him. He had so many
people killed (most of them innocent) that Augustus Caesar once commented
that it was safer to be Herod's pig than Herod's family. With thousands of Roman
troops trampling over the Holy City coupled with Herod's ruthless rule, it is no
wonder that the Jewish people yearned for a deliverer and thought that they must
be living in the prophesied times of the apocalypse.
Notice that the question the magi asked the residents of Jerusalem was not IF a
new king of the Jews had been born but rather WHERE. There was no doubt in
their minds that a new Judean King had been born because a celestial portent
had alerted them to it, and they fully trusted what they saw and what it meant.
Oddly enough the good people of Jerusalem, as well as Herod, were startled by
the magis' hunt for a new Jewish king; they were unaware of such an event. Yet
Herod understood the dire consequences of the meaning of the magis' message
because he believed that they were not talking about yet another of the many
rivals for his throne, but rather this new king would also be the Messiah. We are
left, however, with a couple of important but unanswered questions: 1) how
exactly did the magi know that this new king of the Jews had been born and 2)
7/11

Lesson 4 - Matthew 2
what was it they saw in the sky that alerted them to it? Something that the very
people over whom this new king was supposed to rule were completely unaware
of, but pagan star gazers expected and found? Clearly the Star of Bethlehem
plays a key role in this mystery. Because the Bethlehem Star has mesmerized,
thrilled, and inspired millions and millions of Christians over the centuries it is
definitely worth our while to explore exactly what this star might have been and
where it might have come from.
Most of the theories about it are based upon how best to translate the Greek
word for star, which is aster. Matthew doesn't go to any lengths to give us much
help to understand the particulars of this star. But perhaps the main problem we
face is that the term aster could describe any number of heavenly bodies and
luminaries including comets. Therefore perhaps the most widely proposed
solution for the identity of the Bethlehem Star is that it was indeed a comet.
Because of their nature, comets can appear in the sky unexpectedly, hang
around for weeks or a couple of months, and then disappear. Here's the issue
with such a seemingly reasonable solution that the star was actually a comet: for
the pagan magi, a comet was a portent of disaster; it was a bad omen. It was
anything but something to be excited or joyful about. Comets were thought to
portend the death of a king... perhaps even an emperor as powerful as Caesar...
not his birth.
During the rule of Vespasian in 79 A.D., less than a decade after the destruction
of the Temple, a comet suddenly appeared in the night sky and he knew that his
subjects and rivals would believe that this was an astrological portent that the
end of his life was imminent. When such a thing is believed by the population in
general and his enemies in particular, it often became a self-fulfilling prophecy. It
gives them an opening to act upon a king and blame it on fate. So to deflate any
such hope for his demise, Vespasian's reaction and clever counter-move was
recorded by the historian Suetonius:
".......... He (Vespasian) did not cease his jokes even in apprehension of
death and in extreme danger; for when among other portents.... a comet
appeared in the heavens, he declared that it applied to the king of the
Parthians, who wore his hair long." So Vespasian declares that the comet's bad omen of death didn't apply to him,
but rather to the king of Parthia. What has long hair to do with it? It is because
the Greek term cometai (from which we get the English word comet) doesn't just
8/11


Lesson 4 - Matthew 2
mean "comet"; it literally means "long haired stars" (because most comets have
long trailing tails behind them). Parthian kings customarily wore long hair and
Vespasian took advantage of this common knowledge to deflect any belief that
his death was imminent. However to end this short story I must tell you that after
a few months from the first appearance of the comet, the long haired king of
Parthia still hadn't died; but Vespasian did from what was probably dysentery. I
could offer you a few more stories and examples from Roman times about the
bad omen that comets symbolized, but time doesn't permit it. So I'll just sum it all
up by quoting Claudius Ptolemy, a famous Greek astrologer, from about 150 A.D.
",.......For these comets naturally produce the effects peculiar to Mars and to
Mercury: wars, hot weather, disturbed conditions, and the accompaniments
of these. And they show, through the parts of the Zodiac in which their
heads appear and through the directions in which the shapes of their tails
point, the regions upon which the misfortunes impend..."
The point is that comets were harbingers of death and calamity to the Hellenistic
astrologers of the first couple of centuries before and well after Yeshua's birth. So
the thought of modern Bible scholars that the Star of Bethlehem was a comet that
happily portended the birth of new king of the Jews to the visiting magis doesn't
pass muster. The Star of Bethlehem was no comet, and we can confidently
scratch that one off of our list of possibilities.
Modern astronomers, and the Bible scholars who consult them, have sometimes
come to the conclusion that the Bethlehem Star must have been a Supernova.
Nova means "new star". It is named thusly because all of a sudden a new light
appears in the sky that hadn't been there before and it hangs around for a few
weeks. For those among us who have interest in such matters, a celestial nova is
not an event revealing the birth of something new, but rather it concerns a
sudden change in something that is old. A nova is a star that has burned for
billions of years but is now in the late stages of dying. Without getting technical,
this star that had formerly been too faint to see but suddenly is so bright that it
can't be missed, occurs as it begins to run out of fuel and the result is essentially
like the violent meltdown of a runaway nuclear reaction. But there is also
something similar that scientists term a Supernova; it is even more spectacular
than a regular nova. A very bright new light in the sky suddenly appears and over
a period of a few months slowly fades into oblivion. There are many today who
mentally picture the Star of Bethlehem as a super bright object lighting up the
nighttime sky that suddenly appeared and then soon faded away. Thus the
9/11
....

Lesson 4 - Matthew 2
thought by some Bible academics is that the birth star of Christ was actually a
coincidental Supernova event. It is interesting that it was Johannes Kepler, the
famous astronomer of the early 17th century, that first came up with this theory.
However in time he discarded it when the astronomical evidence from his own
research proved to him that this was not the case, and instead he opted for the
Bethlehem star being a divine miracle.
In the end, there is no historical evidence going back to the 1st century that
claims that a bright new star appearing (whether a nova or Supernova) was of
much interest to the astrologers. And it certainly did not portend the birth of a
king. So from the viewpoint of the magis a bright new object in the sky in and of
itself had no bearing on their search for a new king of the Jews. Let's move on to
the next theory.
The next most popular theory of the Bethlehem Star is that it was a somewhat
rare planetary conjunction. What is a planetary conjunction? A conjunction is
when any two or more objects in the sky appear to be very close together. A
conjunction could be of asteroids, comets, stars or planets (thus
a planetary conjunction as opposed to some other kind).
The reality, however, is that in the 1st century not a great deal of distinction was
made between stars and planets. They were all called aster what we translate
as stars. So for the astrologers of that day stars, aster, was a rather all
encompassing term applied to the many different kinds of lights in the sky
because they had no means to understand what they were or how they might be
inherently different from one another other than what the naked eye could detect.
It is fascinating that when Kepler was first formulating his Supernova theory
(which he later abandoned), that he also calculated that there was an event that
occurred in 6 B.C. of not 2 but 3 planets coming into conjunction (this has been
confirmed by modern math and science). Although he made note of this rarity, he
didn't associate it with the Bethlehem Star.
Here's the rub of what we've discussed thus far: whether comets, supernovas, or
planetary conjunctions, there is no historical evidence that these kinds of events
would have played any role in the perception of the magi about the Bethlehem
Star in and of themselves or would it announce the birth of a king of the Jews.
Further, when Matthew reports about the Bethlehem Star he in no way describes
it as a divine miracle. Rather what we must find (if possible) is some celestial
circumstance that would have conformed to the detailed and powerful
10/11

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lesson 4 - Matthew 2
astrological belief system of the magi; not something that might tantalize us.
Some spectacular happening in the skies no doubt would have caught their
attention and they would have thought deeply about it. But the portent of the birth
of a king (in our case, a king of the Jews) would have had to fit an already well
established set of criteria in order for the magi to assign it that specific meaning.
Here's the thing to ponder as we finish today's lesson: what did the Magi see that
without any doubt whatsoever to their minds told them (correctly, by the way) that
a new king of the Jews was born in Judea? And yet the people in Judea certainly
didn't notice it. Jews may not have practiced astrology but that doesn't mean they
didn't pay attention to the movement of the stars, the sun, and the moon. They
used them to determine months, years, seasons and even the beginning and
ending of the some of their festivals. So they certainly would have noticed
something spectacular or unusual occurring in the sky. What this heavily implies,
then, is that whatever the magis saw in the sky that told them that a new king of
the Jews had been born, it had to be subtle and not obvious. Or even better: it
had to be something that learned star gazers would notice, but nobody else
would.
We'll pick up this topic again next time and see if we can discover what it was
that alerted the magi to the birth of Yeshua.
11 / 11
......

Lesson 5 - Matthew 2 Cont.
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 5, Chapter 2 Continued
We spent the bulk of our previous time together on the birth story of Our Lord and
Savior as we find it in the Book of Matthew; it is the only place in the New
Testament that we'll hear about the magi and the Star of Bethlehem. We have
spent some time understanding who the magi were, what their profession
actually was, and what it was that they saw that caused them to go on a long
journey to Judea in search of a new born king. We'll briefly review.
The magi were astrologers. We must not picture in our minds modern astrologers
who mainly produce horoscopes. Rather the magi were a combination of
astronomers and seers. They were experts in understanding the heavens,
tracking and predicting the movements of stars and planets, and then using those
objects' positions in the sky as omens and portents for the purpose of interpreting
the present and foretelling the future. These were not the ancient Babylonian
brand of astrologers because that practice had died out 3 centuries earlier.
Rather they were Hellenistic astrologers; that is, the brand of astrology they
practiced was the product of a Greco-Roman culture and so was seen throughout
the Roman Empire as valid and valuable except for the Jews who did not
practice or accept it.
Even though the Jews did not embrace the concept of the Zodiac or employ
astrologers to tell them the future, they did, of course, pay attention to the sky as
did all human beings. They were aware of the several constellations formed by
patterns of stars. The Book of Job is considered by most scholars to be the
oldest book in the Bible, written well before the time of Moses and the Torah. In it
we find this statement in which Job is describing the greatness of God:
1 / 12

Lesson 5 - Matthew 2 Cont.
CJB Job 9:8-10 8 He alone spreads out the sky and walks on the waves in
the sea. 9 He made the Great Bear, Orion, the Pleiades and the hidden
constellations of the south. 10 He does great, unsearchable things, wonders
beyond counting.
The Great Bear and Orion are constellations. The Pleiades (also known as the
Seven Sisters) is a star cluster that helps to form the constellation Taurus. Job
gives God credit for forming these stars into patterns. So even in Job's day these
stars and constellations were observed and named.
We spent the final half of our time together last week discussing the Star of
Bethlehem that appeared in the sky and what it might have been. Unfortunately
to explore this phenomenon we have to get a bit technical; but I think you'll find it
worth the effort. Some theologians believe the star was a comet. Others think it
was a Supernova. Another group surmises it was a planetary conjunction. We
examined each of these and found that none of these, of themselves, would have
alerted the magi that a new king of the Jews had been born. That falls in line with
the thinking of many Believers that the star was simply a divine miracle. We'll
continue the pursuit of the nature of this star as we continue with today's lesson.
Part of what we are dealing with is that when we compare the words of Matthew's
Gospel to what has become Christian Tradition and unquestionable belief by
millions of Believers, we find some inconsistencies. For instance the birth star is
usually pictured in illustrations as an unusually large and bright star that suddenly
appeared. Nowhere does Matthew suggest such a thing. In Matthew (the only
place in the New Testament where the star is mentioned) it is made clear that the
ONLY people who had any knowledge of a special star announcing a newborn
king of the Jews were the pagan magi; the Jews seemed to be completely
unaware of it. Even King Herod knew nothing of it and this paranoid man was
always on high alert for any sign of anyone that might represent the slightest
threat to his throne.
We read in Luke's Gospel that it was NOT the star that illuminated the place of
Christ's birth, but rather it was something else.
CJB Luke 2:8-11 8
In the countryside nearby were some shepherds spending
the night in the fields, guarding their flocks, 9 when an angel of ADONAI
appeared to them, and the Sh'khinah of ADONAI shone around them. They
were terrified; 10 but the angel said to them, "Don't be afraid, because I am
2/12

Lesson 5 - Matthew 2 Cont.
here announcing to you Good News that will bring great joy to all the
people. 11 This very day, in the town of David, there was born for you a
Deliverer who is the Messiah, the Lord.
So it was the Glory of the Lord (the Shekinah) that accompanied an angel that
illuminated the area and informed the Shepherds of the birth of Messiah, not the
star. So what was the sign of how these Shepherds would know which child was
the long awaited Deliverer?
CJB Luke 2:12 12 Here is how you will know: you will find a baby wrapped in
cloth and lying in a feeding trough." So the sign that this was the Messiah was where the baby was located, and that
he'd be lying in a feeding trough (a manger). It had nothing to do with a star, and
interestingly, it was not a newborn king the Jews were to be looking for but rather
their Deliverer. Here's where things begin to get dicey.
After visiting Herod, and the magis being urged by him to find this newborn king
of the Jews and then to let him know right away, they continued their journey.
Here's how Matthew describes it:
CJB Matthew 2:9-10 9 After they had listened to the king, they went away;
and the star which they had seen in the east went in front of them until it
came and stopped over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw the
star, they were overjoyed.
A plain reading of these 2 verses seems to say that this special star that the magi
first saw, which told them that a new king of the Jews had been born in Judea,
actually moved and led them to where the child was; and then it stopped and
hovered over the place where Yoseph, Miryam, and Yeshua were. This defies
any natural explanation so it is no wonder that much of Christianity sees this star
as a miracle of God. It may well be that it was. However there's another
explanation that must be considered because Matthew in no way implies that the
star was miraculous or supernatural.
Various constellations of the Zodiac were thought by the magi to represent
different regions of the known world. The constellation Aries, the Ram, was
representative of the region under the control of Herod at this time, which
centered around Judea. So Aries is where these astrologers would have looked
3/12

Lesson 5 - Matthew 2 Cont.
for portents about Herod's kingdom. Vettius Valens of Antioch as well as Ptolemy
recorded that Herod's kingdom was ruled by the Zodiac sign of Aries.
Before we continue concerning the star I want to add one more piece of
information. In Luke 1:5 we're told this: 5
In the days of Herod, King of
Y'hudah, there was a cohen named Z'kharyah who belonged to the Aviyah
division. His wife was a descendant of Aharon, and her name was
Elisheva. This is the beginning of the birth story of John the Baptist, and we're
told that this took place during King Herod's reign, meaning it had to have
happened before 4 B.C. when Herod died. Luke 1:36 puts Yeshua's birth about
15 months following the conception of John the Baptist. We also know that Herod
was still living and ruling after Christ was born. Thus it is becoming more and
more agreed upon by biblical scholars that 6 B.C. is a very good candidate for
the year of Messiah's birth.
At this point the understanding of the Zodiac and the position of planets and stars
within each sign of the Zodiac enters greatly into the matter of what the magi
were looking for as a portent. It is well beyond our scope to get into much detail
about this, so I will just present you with some interesting bottom line facts.
Where stars and planets appear within a section of the sky that represents the
sign of a certain region on earth had much to do with what omen or portent was
being signaled. Of the many things these ancient Hellenistic astrologers were
looking for, was the sign of a king dying or being born since kings were very
powerful and greatly affected matters of importance. The position of planets in
the Zodiac had everything to do with determining a portent about a king. To quote
Michael Molnar: "Thus, for a horoscope to be undeniably suited for a royal birth it
must have a strong set of conditions for attendance". In other words: the magi
would have been looking for something very specific and technical about those
tiny dots of light in the sky that only they and other members of their profession
would have known to look for.
As the famous astronomer Kepler pointed out around 1600 A.D., there had
indeed been a somewhat rare (about every 60 years) conjunction of planets that
occurred in 6 B.C., the likely year that Christ was born. Using modern
mathematical and astronomical techniques, scientists have determined that
precisely on March 20, 6 B.C., a special conjunction of planets and the
movement of both the moon and the planet Jupiter occurred within the Zodiac
sign of Aries (the sign for the region of Judea). Might this have been what the
magi saw that alerted them to the birth of a new king of the Jews? It certainly fits
4/12

Lesson 5 - Matthew 2 Cont.
the scenario quite well. More importantly it fits within the mindset of pagan
astrologers, the magi, of the 1st century A.D.
But now what to make of the statements in Matthew about the mysterious
movement of the Star of Bethlehem? The first thing we must do is to attempt to
get outside our modern Western thinking and instead adopt the mindset, and
grasp the vocabulary, of Greek astrologers in the 1st century, which is also the
time at which the Book of Matthew was being written by a man who had no
choice but to consult with experts, eye witnesses, and written records in order to
gather the many details contained in his Gospel account that we are studying.
Verse 2 of the second chapter of Matthew has the magi asking the people of
Jerusalem this question: "Where is the newborn King of the Jews? For we
saw his star in the east and have come to worship him." What is the
meaning of the description of where it is that they first saw the star? Does it mean
that the magi were located in the east where they resided when they saw it? The
term "in the east" is taken from the Greek and the literal English translation of it is
indeed "in the east"; but what it sounds like to us isn't what it meant to these
ancient astrologers. For them "in the east" is a technical astrological term that
means "at the rising" (in fact, in recognition of this some Bible translations are
now saying "at the rising" instead of "in the east"). This term is referring to a
planet that rises over the eastern horizon of the earth before the Sun appears.
Thus what the magi saw was a morning star.
A few verses later in Matthew 2 we read:
CJB Matthew 2:9 9 After they had listened to the king, they went away; and
the star which they had seen in the east went in front of them until it came
and stopped over the place where the child was.
"Went in front" or "Went before" are also literal translations of astrological terms.
The technical term is proegeseis, and while it means in laymen's terms to "go
before", in astrological parlance it means "to go in the same direction as the sky
moves". The ancient Greeks thought that the regular direction in which a planet
moves is the same as the direction that the overall sky moves. For those of us
who live in the 21st century the idea that the sky "moves" is rather amusing. But
remember that we're talking about people who had incorrect views about the
structure of our solar system, believed the sun revolved around the earth, that the
earth was flat and had 4 corners, etc.). So the term "stopped over" or "stood
5/12
.....

Lesson 5 - Matthew 2 Cont.
over" (that seems to us to describe the birth star becoming stationary over the
place where Christ was born) has a slightly different meaning in ancient
astrology. According to Ptolemy it more means "above in the sky". So allow me to
rephrase the meaning of Matthew 2:9 into its astrological meaning to reveal what
this verse is telling us.
"After they had listened to the king, they went away; and the star which they had
seen at the rising, which went in the same direction as the sky moves, came and
was above in the sky where the child was".
In the end what we have in Matthew regarding the Star of Bethlehem is that
either it was a celestial event that signaled a portent, appearing in the Zodiac
sign of the Ram (Aries), which only the highly trained magi would have
recognized; a very subtle sign that occurs about every 60 years, and one that
would indeed have been marked by a morning star that rises in the east and then
moves its position across the sky, and then at some point appears to stop (before
it makes kind of a looping turn) or we have a miracle of God. I cannot say with
certainty which it is. But as we ponder this event we also need to factor into our
thinking that the birth star was NOT a sign that God gave to the Jews, but rather
it was a celestial sign meant for pagan astrologers. As Luke chapter 2 explains,
the sign God provided for the Jews was that they were to look in Bethlehem for a
baby that was laid in a feeding trough. Would God actually give pagan
astrologers a sign (any sign) of the birth of a divine Jewish Messiah? We find
God interfacing with pagans on a number of occasions in the Bible and one of the
more famous encounters involved the pagan magi Balaam, in the Book of
Numbers, which we talked about in a previous lesson and may be prophetically
connected to the birth of Christ.
In Matthew 2:11 when the magi finally found the child: Upon entering the
house, they saw the child with his mother Miryam; and they prostrated
themselves and worshipped him. Then they opened their bags and
presented him gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.
The magi worshipped the child as they would any king. Remember: the magi
were not looking for a Savior or a god but rather for a new born king of Judea.
Prostrating oneself before a king was usual and customary. Presenting
expensive gifts when visiting a king was usual and customary especially for first␂time foreign visitors.
6/12


Lesson 5 - Matthew 2 Cont.
My opinion on the matter is this: God in His amazing providence timed the birth of
His Son to coincide with a sign that pagan astrologers were looking for. A sign
that the Jews had no knowledge of, and a sign so subtle that the Jews never
noticed it (because they would have no reason to notice it). Gentile pagans
worshipped Miryam's child as a king, with no understanding that He was Israel's
divine Messiah. At the same time God gave His chosen people a) a miraculous
announcement of the arrival of their Messiah (as a human baby) by means of an
angel and the appearance of the Glory of God in the night sky near Bethlehem;
and b) He also gave them a sign in order for them to positively identify this child
by saying He would be the one laying in a feeding trough in Bethlehem. So God
introduced His Son to the world as both King and Messiah; king to the pagans,
and Messiah to the Jews. And He did it in ways that each could identify with and
using means that each could accept. Let's keep that in mind as we carry out our
commission to introduce Jesus Christ to our unbelieving friends and family.
OK; let's return from our extensive detour and put the narrative of Matthew
chapter 2 together. Several pieces of information are given to us in rapid fashion
in the 1st verse. First, the name of the child (the Deliverer) is given: it is Yeshua.
Second, the place of His birth is provided: it is in Bethlehem of Judea. There
were a number of "Bethlehems" in the Holy Land so the addition of the words "of
Judea" was necessary. Third, Christ's birth occurred during the reign of King
Herod (meaning it had to have happened before 4 B.C., and the most likely year
for Yeshua's birth is 6 B.C.). Fourth, magi from a foreign land came to Jerusalem
looking for this new king of the Jews. Why Jerusalem? Because it was the seat of
government in Judea and so it seemed logical to them that this is where the new
king would be found. When they asked the local townspeople where this king
was they weren't asking in terms of what city or town he might be in; rather they
fully expected him to be somewhere in Jerusalem. Turns out, they were in the
wrong place because we've already been told that He was born in Bethlehem
(something they did not yet know).
When in verse 2 the magi say they have "seen his star", it more means that they
have identified an astrological portent that indicates a king has been born in the
region of Judea. Most Bibles have it that they say the reason they came was "to
worship" him. While that is not wrong, to the Western mind "worship" is reserved
for deities. However from an old English standpoint, worship means to pay
homage (usually to a king or aristocrat). Therefore some Bible translations such
as the NAS use the word "homage" (this projects a much more correct image to
we moderns because what the magi intended was in no way religious).
7/12

Lesson 5 - Matthew 2 Cont.
Verse 3 says that it didn't take long for Herod to hear about these magi asking
the townspeople about a new king of the Jews. Naturally this caught his attention
and the townspeople knew full well that the homicidal and brutal Herod would not
take this news lightly, so everyone got upset right along with him. Herod did what
any experienced king would do: he called for experts to come and give him
council. We are told that the chief priests (plural) came, and so did the Scribes of
the people (or as the CJB has it, the Torah Teachers).
We discussed in the Introduction to Matthew that at this time in history the Jews
operated under a dual religious system consisting of the Temple and the
Synagogue. These institutions were completely separate and run for different
purposes by different sets of authorities. The Levite priests ruled the Temple, and
the Scribes (who were not Levites) ruled the Synagogues. There was one
Temple but there were scores and scores of Synagogues. Also notice that when
the Chief Priests of the Temple were summoned, this was not speaking of the
High Priest but rather the most senior regular priests. Herod wanted to know
exactly where the Messiah was to be born, and seemed to understand that since
His advent was prophesied such information would be found somewhere in Holy
Scripture. Without hesitation (because those who knew Scripture knew the
answer) the priests and Scribes said it was to be Bethlehem of Judea because
the prophet had recorded it. The prophet they were speaking of is Micah, and
what they quote is essentially Micah 5:1 or 5:2 depending on which Bible version
you are using.
CJB Micah 5:1 But you, Beit-Lechem near Efrat, so small among the clans of
Y'hudah, out of you will come forth to me the future ruler of Isra'el, whose
origins are far in the past, back in ancient times.
So in the mid-700's B.C. (the time of Micah) it was foretold that the Messiah
would be born in Bethlehem. But now around 5 B.C. Herod wanted to know
WHEN the magi first saw this star that sent them on their journey because from
this he could judge the child's current age, which would be useful in identifying
him. Please notice that Herod had no doubt that the magi were correct. Herod
was fully a Hellenistic king and so bought in to pagan astrology. We're not told
how the magi responded to him; only that Herod bade them go to Bethlehem and
find this new king. And once they did, report it back to Herod so that he, too,
might go and pay homage to him. Yeah, right. The magi were intelligent men;
they understood that King Herod was not about to go and pay homage to his
potential replacement. The magi of course behaved as though they were obeying
8/12
.....

Lesson 5 - Matthew 2 Cont.
Herod and set out towards Bethlehem. We are told that the star led them there,
but as we discussed earlier that's a misunderstanding of terminology. First of all,
they didn't need to be led to Bethlehem. The road to Bethlehem was well marked
and well traveled, and it was no more than a half-day's walk from where they
were. Second, Bethlehem was a small place and the process of finding the Christ
child wouldn't have been difficult. Nonetheless, they were excited beyond
measure that the star had indeed given them the correct information, and inside
the house they found Miryam and her child the new born king of the Jews.
It has become a Christian tradition that Miryam gave birth to Yeshua not in a
house or an inn, but rather in something like a barn or a cave. Verse 11
specifically says "house"; it can't be translated any other way. This tradition of a
cave or barn comes from the mention of the child being laid in an animal feeding
trough. But in that era (and it is still that way in parts of the Middle East) animals
are brought in at night to a courtyard that is part of the residence, and the
residents will sleep nearby to the animals. The purpose was to protect these
valuable animals from predators and from thieves. So naturally there was a
manger (a feeding trough) inside the courtyard. No doubt where the holy family
stayed was very lowly (it wasn't usual to put a child in a feeding trough as a bed).
According to Matthew it was a house and I feel certain that it was.
The magi paid homage to the child-king, giving him gifts of great value. How old
might this child have been by the time the magi found him? It is difficult to
ascertain. The description seems to be of an infant. And yet the timing says the
child might have been about a year old. So we'll just have to leave that an open
question. I'll repeat what I said earlier; to the magis' minds they were not
worshipping this child from the religious sense even though Christian Tradition
makes it seem so. Rather they were paying the typical homage due to a king.
Honoring even a baby if it was born regally was not at all unusual.
After paying homage the magi began the long journey back to their homeland (it
is not stated where that is), but they were warned in a dream not to return to
Herod. As seers they were sensitive to dreams and visions. Did they really have
a dream or was it really their instincts that told them that Herod was obviously up
to no good?
In verse 13 the magi now completely exit the story but the issue of Herod's
clearly murderous intent towards this child remains. We are told that an angel of
the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph to warn him to take his family and flee to
9/12

Lesson 5 - Matthew 2 Cont.
Egypt because Herod wants to harm the child. There is disagreement among
Bible versions about whether this is "the" angel of the Lord or he is "an" angel of
the Lord. The first suggestion makes this a unique angel, or even the Lord
Himself. The second suggestion ("an" angel) makes this an unidentified angel of
which there were others like him. I opt for "an" angel for a couple of reasons.
First: when we find the phrase "the angel of the Lord" in the Bible, invariably the
original language word isn't actually "Lord", it is Yehoveh... God's name. However
here Lord means Lord; God's name isn't used. There is only one Angel of the
Lord (Angel of Yehoveh) because this Angel is but another manifestation of God.
Yet a complication is that we have this angel speaking in the first person; he uses
the term "I" when he says to go to Egypt and stay there until I tell you to return.
Second: usually when the first person is used by an angel described as the Angel
of the Lord, that Angel is God. However here the wording is such that it could be
that God will again send this particular angel to Joseph in Egypt once it is safe for
them to go home (and the angel is aware of this fact). However the unusual way
Matthew phrases this indeed leaves room for doubt.
Verse 14 explains that Joseph obeyed the angel in his dream, and then verse 15
presents us with a sticky problem. The angel says that the overriding reason
Joseph, Mary and Jesus were to go to Egypt was so that the prophecy of "Out of
Egypt I called my son", would be fulfilled. This prophecy is taken from Hosea
11:1. Context is everything in the Bible, so listen to the entire verse.
CJB Hosea 11:1 "When Isra'el was a child, I loved him; and out of Egypt I
called my son.
So Matthew is applying to Yeshua a prophecy that specifically named Israel as
the child that God calls "my son". So the original context in Hosea is the exodus
of Israel from Egypt as led by Moses. Israel is called God's son as far back as
Exodus 4:22, going so far as God insisting that Israel is His firstborn son. So is it
right of Matthew to make such application by switching the subject of the
prophecy from Israel to the Messiah? It seems much like allegory for him to do so
rather than revealing straightforward biblical history and truth. While we could
camp here quite a while I'll hurry us through it.
Again remembering that Matthew is a well educated Jewish Believer, who (as we
will see as we move through the chapters) is equally knowledgeable with the
biblical Torah as he is with Jewish Tradition, he is likely employing what is called
the remez method of Bible interpretation. I've taught this before, but briefly: there
10/12

Lesson 5 - Matthew 2 Cont.
were 4 standard and accepted means of interpreting the Bible among the Jews of
Christ's era and it has more or less remained so to this day. The first
is p'shat that means "simple". That is, it is the plain, literal sense of the biblical
words. The second is remez that means "hint". That is, the biblical passage hints
at a truth a bit deeper than what we read in the p'shat (the simple, literal sense).
The third is drash, from which we get the Hebrew word midrash. It allows a
person to make application of what is said in the Scriptures in a way similar to
(but not quite the same as) allegory. That is, drash depends on God guiding the
human interpreter to truths not necessarily directly stated by the biblical words.
The Apostle Paul was a master at drash. Fourth is sod, meaning "secret". It is
the mysterious meaning behind the plain meaning. Gematria (the use of
numbers) to reveal less apparent truth is part of sod. Might Matthew be making
use of one of these 4 methods when he connects Hosea's prophecy to Christ?
Probably. I would speculate that he is employing the remez method of
interpretation; that is, Hosea 11:1 speaks directly of Israel as God's Son that He
calls out of Egypt, but in fact it also hints of a prophetic future calling of His Son
Yeshua out of Egypt.
Such a concept makes a direct and intimate link between Israel as God's Son
and the Messiah as God's Son. Christ and Israel are as one. Yeshua represents
the ideal Israel. This idea is sprinkled throughout the prophets and especially in
Isaiah 49. Essentially we have Jesus repeating Israel's experience by being
called by God the Father to come out of Egypt.
Herod died in 4 B.C., so we can assume that it was in that same year when the
angel returned to Joseph and told him his family could safely return to the Holy
Land. They probably were in Egypt for about a year. However shortly before his
death, Herod went into a paranoid rage when he realized the magi had tricked
him. They had gone to Bethlehem as instructed, but then went home without
returning to him with the information he had sought. In response Herod ordered
all children (probably only the males) 2 years of age and under who lived in
Bethlehem and areas nearby to be slaughtered. Apparently in their visit to Herod
the magi had told him when it was that they first saw the star. However their
seeing the star didn't necessarily mean (to him) that it represented the specific
date the child was born; it could have a little earlier or a little later. Since he
wasn't certain of the date he killed a wide range of ages: the children who were 2
years old and younger. Here we see the continuing connection with Egypt
because Pharaoh did something similar to the Israelite children 1400 years
earlier.
11 / 12
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lesson 5 - Matthew 2 Cont.
CJB Exodus 1:15-22 15 Moreover, the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew
midwives, one of whom was called Shifrah and the other Pu'ah. 16 "When
you attend the Hebrew women and see them giving birth," he said, "if it's a
boy, kill him; but if it's a girl, let her live." 17 However, the midwives were
God-fearing women, so they didn't do as the king of Egypt ordered but let
the boys live. 18 The king of Egypt summoned the midwives and demanded
of them, "Why have you done this and let the boys live?" 19 The midwives
answered Pharaoh, "It's because the Hebrew women aren't like the
Egyptian women- they go into labor and give birth before the midwife
arrives." 20 Therefore God prospered the midwives, and the people
continued to multiply and grow very powerful. 21 Indeed, because the
midwives feared God, he made them founders of families. 22 Then Pharaoh
gave this order to all his people: "Every boy that is born, throw in the river;
but let all the girls live." We'll close for today and pick up Matthew chapter 2 next week and then move
into chapter 3.
12/12



Lesson 6 - Matthew 2 & 3
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 6, Chapters 2 and 3
As we drink in and deeply reflect on the beauty, salt, and light that the Book of
Matthew provides us, let us also be reminded of something about the author
himself. Our Jewish Matthew was not an eyewitness to anything he was reporting
nor does he claim that he was. The disciple Matthew was a tax collector, while
writers of Gospels were usually literary experts, often making a living from it as a
profession, even if that wasn't their only occupation. So all indications are that
this is not the same Matthew that was an original disciple of Christ. Therefore,
Matthew the Gospel writer had to do extensive research of documents for
information about Yeshua's life and ministry, and also would have conducted
interviews with some folks who may have been eyewitnesses to it. He would
have had to familiarize himself with some matters of which he didn't personally
have any expertise, so he would have sought out those who were knowledgeable
in the field. And before I say another word I would be remiss if I didn't credit the
Holy Spirit and divine inspiration for leading and directing Matthew's writing (who
was probably mostly if not completely unaware of God's hand upon him) to
provide us with the truthful and invaluable information that we have before us
today.
Because he was a Jewish Believer who probably lived in the Holy Land near to
the Temple and also to synagogue leadership; a man who we will soon see had
considerable depth of Torah knowledge as well as a solid grasp of Jewish
Tradition, he would have had little to do with pagan astrology because such a
thing was shunned within the more strict segments of Jewish society. Thus in his
birth story of Jesus, wherein he placed considerable relevance on the visitation of
the magi (the other Gospel writers never even mention it), he would have had to
seek out those who practiced astrology for their knowledge on the subject.
1 / 10

Lesson 6 - Matthew 2 & 3
I point this out because I was (and perhaps you were, too) quite struck with
Matthew's use of technical astrological terms and phrases that only a few experts
would have known; terms and phrases to help describe the magis' discovery of
the heavenly portent of a new king of the Jews being born in Judea; a portent
known in Christianity as the Star of Bethlehem. I suspect that Matthew might not
have been all that surprised that pagan star gazers from a distant land had
received knowledge of Christ's birth. While it is true that the magi didn't in any
way think of this child as divine or as a Messiah, but rather as an earthly king,
nonetheless it was not a mere coincidence that in using the celestial Zodiac and
astrological reckoning they were, by Matthew's account, the first to know of
Chris's advent even before the Jews did! While that might seem odd to us the
biblical pattern may just reveal that for His own good reasons, this is how God
had always intended it.
When I look at a listing of Old Testament prophecies put together by the classic
Christian scholars that predict the coming of a Messiah, I have yet to run across
one that includes the story of Balaam and Balak in the Book of Numbers. And
yet Jewish sages and scholars have for millennia emphasized this story, and
especially Balaam's speech in Numbers 24, as a clear and powerful prophecy
about a Messiah for Israel that will come from the tribe of Judah that seems to
even include a celestial portent.
CJB Numbers 24:15-17 15 So he (Balaam) made his pronouncement: "This is
the speech of Bil'am, son of B'or; the speech of the man whose eyes have
been opened; 16 the speech of him who hears God's words; who knows
what 'Elyon knows, who sees what Shaddai sees, who has fallen, yet has
open eyes: 17 "I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not soon- a star will
step forth from Ya'akov, a scepter will arise from Isra'el, to crush the
corners of Mo'av and destroy all descendants of Shet.
Balaam was a pagan magi, just as were the magi who visited the Christ child. In
Numbers we have Balaam making this incredible prognostication that one would
think would only come from the lips of a great Sage of Israel or perhaps a
venerable Hebrew prophet. But no; this comes from the mouth of a pagan magi.
So why does Matthew give so much attention to the magi when none of the other
Gospel writers even mention them? And why doesn't Matthew wonder out loud
about the seemingly ironic reality that pagan astrologers were the first to learn of
Messiah's coming and this due to some confluence of stars and planets in the
sky? I can only speculate that because of the Jews' belief that the Balaam
2/10
.....


Lesson 6 - Matthew 2 & 3
speech was prophetic of a Messiah, which even included the mention of a star
a Torah account that the learned Jew Matthew was no doubt quite familiar with....
that it was Matthew who put 2 and 2 together and saw the relationship between
the magis visiting the Christ child in Bethlehem and the Balaam story.
Later in Matthew chapter 2, Matthew again exposes his Jewish mindset and Bible
knowledge by connecting a prophecy found in Hosea 11:1 with Yeshua. There
we read:
CJB Hosea 11:1 "When Isra'el was a child, I loved him; and out of Egypt I
called my son.
But one must ask: how does Matthew legitimately transfer the meaning of
Hosea's words, which clearly has Israel in mind, to Yeshua? We discussed last
week that the Jews used (and continue to use) 4 different methods for
interpreting Holy Scripture, and one of those standard methods is called remez,
meaning hint. Only an educated Jew like Matthew would be aware of these kinds
of interpretation techniques and be able to deftly apply them to the situation of
Joseph, Mary, and Jesus fleeing to Egypt to avoid being murdered by King
Herod. So here is early evidence in the Book of Matthew that Matthew was
determined in his Gospel to show his readers something of supreme importance.
Something that has been all but lost within Christianity: it is the proper
relationship between Christ and the Torah and the Prophets. And at the same
time (as we'll see later) questioning (if not rejecting) many of the views and
teachings of the synagogue authorities of that era: the Scribes and the
Pharisees. Why? Because so many of those views were based on manmade
traditions and customs that were not founded on actual biblical truth. So taking
Matthew's lead, we'll continue today to do our best to put on a Jewish mindset in
order to understand what the Jewish Matthew is telling us, but also to take the
Bible for what it says and avoid filtering those words through long held Christian
traditions.
We ended our study last time with the death of King Herod in 4 B.C., about 2
years after Yeshua's birth, and with Herod's unconscionable slaying of the
children in Bethlehem and nearby areas because of his paranoia that the magi
were right: a new king of the Jews had been born and so that meant Herod's hold
on power might be challenged.
Open your Bibles to Matthew chapter 2.
3/10

Lesson 6 - Matthew 2 & 3
RE-READ MATTHEW CHAPTER 2:16 - end
Before we move on, it is important that we notice something else about
Matthew's Gospel that supplies an important backdrop for his presentation. It is
that there is a strong connection present in Matthew between Moses' life and
Yeshua's. I don't think it is too strong to say that Matthew makes Jesus a kind of
second Moses. And while that thought might at first unsettle us, when we look at
the matter from the 30.000 foot view it makes sense. To begin with, in the Torah
we hear these words from Moses:
CJB Deuteronomy 18:14-19 14 For these nations, which you are about to
dispossess, listen to soothsayers and diviners; but you, ADONAl your God
does not allow you to do this. 15 "ADONAl will raise up for you a prophet
like me from among yourselves, from your own kinsmen. You are to pay
attention to him, 16 just as when you were assembled at Horev and
requested ADONAl your God, 'Don't let me hear the voice of ADONAl my
God any more, or let me see this great fire ever again; if I do, I will
die!' 17 On that occasion ADONAI said to me, 'They are right in what they are
saying. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their
kinsmen. I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I
order him. 19 Whoever doesn't listen to my words, which he will speak in my
name, will have to account for himself to me.
The biggest error that the Hebrews of old, and Believers today, make regarding
understanding prophecy is that they (and we) don't take it literally enough. When
we look back at the prophecies that have already been fulfilled, invariably they
have hit the nail on the head including details that may have seemed improbable
or not comprehensible until these fulfillments finally occurred. The near universal
tendency in Christian academic circles of teaching prophecy allegorically
(because the scholar can't see how the event can happen literally as the Bible
predicts) takes Believers on wild goose chases or builds false expectations that
are completely unnecessary. Some of this is due to our impatience to know the
outcome of a prophecy in advance and rather than waiting for it to actually
happen. The result is that speculation is substituted for fact and then it is adopted
by the eager student or congregation member as a settled matter.
When Moses said that God would raise up "a prophet like me" from among
Israel, it happened exactly as said. So it should be no surprise to anyone that the
Messiah would be that prophet, and that the similarities between he and Moses
4/10
.....

Lesson 6 - Matthew 2 & 3
would be extensive. One of the reasons I address this with you is because many
modern Bible scholars and the commentaries they write (commentators who are
usually skeptical of the ancient biblical records) take the many similarities
between Jesus and Moses as an indication that the entire story of Christ is
suspect and contrived because it bears such resemblance to Moses and his
experiences completely ignoring that such resemblance is exactly what was
prophesied by Moses in the Torah!
I have explained in previous lessons that perhaps Christ's overriding and
underlying theological purpose is to inaugurate a re-Creation. Genesis opens
with the first heavens and earth, and the Book of Revelation ends with the re␂Creation of a new heavens and new earth, and Yeshua is at the center of it all.
Therefore it should not be surprising that while Moses was God's first Mediator,
and brought God's Word in stone to God's people, Yeshua was God's second
and better Mediator and was Himself God's Word in the flesh brought to God's
people. Moses was the Father's agent of redemption for God's people in one
capacity, and Jesus was the also the Father's agent of redemption for God's
people but in another and greater capacity. I could go on with the many
similarities but time doesn't permit. So just be acutely aware of the
Yeshua/Moses connection that Matthew has in mind as we study his Gospel.
Verse 17 explains that the mass homicide King Herod perpetrated upon helpless
children simply because any Jewish boy under 2 might have been the new king
the magi came to find, was itself a fulfillment of prophecy according to Matthew.
He quotes from Jeremiah 31:14 (or 15 depending on your Bible version).
CJB Jeremiah. 31:14 14 This is what ADONAI says: "A voice is heard in
Ramah, lamenting and bitter weeping. It is Rachel weeping for her children,
refusing to be comforted for her children, because they are no longer
alive."
Matthew connects Rachel weeping and refusing to be comforted because her
children are no longer alive with the mass slaughter of Jewish children by Herod
that would have devastated the entire Jewish community. However context is
everything and so as good students of God's Word we need to continue reading
in Jeremiah.
CJB Jeremiah 31:14-16 14 This is what ADONAI says: "A voice is heard in
Ramah, lamenting and bitter weeping. It is Rachel weeping for her children,
5/10

Lesson 6 - Matthew 2 & 3
refusing to be comforted for her children, because they are no longer
alive." 15 This is what ADONAl says: "Stop your weeping, and dry your
eyes, for your work will be rewarded," says ADONAl. "They will return from
the enemy's land; 16 so there is hope for your future," says ADONAI. "Your
children will return to their own territory.
When we add in more context we see that although Rachel is weeping
uncontrollably at the moment, God tells her to stop weeping because there is
hope. Be aware that when Jeremiah mentions Rachel (who was one of Jacob's
wives), it is using her name as representative of some or all of Israel. Many
Christian scholars scratch their heads over Matthew 2:18 because the connection
between Rachel weeping and the murder of small children in Bethlehem shortly
after Jesus' birth is weak if not irrelevant. So what's Matthew's intent? It seems to
me that once again we see Matthew's Jewish mindset at work because he
employs one of the 4 Jewish methods of Bible interpretation
(perhaps remez although in this case it could be the drash method) in order to
connect the Jeremiah prophecy to the horrific murdering of Jewish children by
Herod. In other words, Matthew sees a firm relationship between the two events
that occurred far apart in history.
On the surface Jeremiah's prophecy is not a Messianic prophecy but rather it's
about return from exile for Israel. Jeremiah lived at the time of the Babylonian
conquest of Judea that included the destruction of Solomon's Temple and the
exile of most of Judea's population. Genesis 35:19 explains that Rachel died on
the way to Ephrath; interestingly Ephrath was an early name for Bethlehem. Yet,
Jeremiah's prophecy can't be primarily about the Babylonian exile because
Rachel's children are Joseph and Benjamin (plus Dan and Naphtali through her
handmaiden, Bilah). While in Egypt, Rachel's son Joseph fathered 2 sons of his
own: Ephraim and Manasseh. Ephraim and Manasseh together represent the
bulk of the 10 northern tribes of Israel that were conquered by Assyria around
720 B.C. and scattered all over their empire. The territory of Benjamin was like a
buffer state between the northern Kingdom of Israel and the southern Kingdom of
Judah, so there were mixed loyalties among the Benjamites. The part of
Benjamin that was loyal to northern kingdom went into exile with them, and the
part that was loyal to the southern kingdom remained in the land but would
themselves be exiled upon the Babylonian conquest about 130 years later. So
God seems to be telling Rachel to stop weeping because all the exiles of Israel
(both the northern and southern kingdoms), and perhaps even the dead ones,
will eventually return to the Holy Land.
6/10

Lesson 6 - Matthew 2 & 3
Notice the common elements of Matthew's narrative that include Egypt,
Bethlehem, and the murder of Israelite children. All of these apply both to
Rachel's children and to Christ's birth story. In the end, despite the gut wrenching
disasters associated with the two exiles and the murder of the innocents, God
says there is hope; so hope is the theme. The underlying connection seems to be
that there is hope for Israel's return from exile and there is also hope that it is the
Messiah that will manifest that return. The Good News is that Messiah has been
born. A Jewish reader in the 1st century might catch on to this; but a gentile
reader would have found it most difficult to understand what Matthew is getting
at. But now you know.
Starting in verse 19 we're told that once Herod died an angel came in a dream to
Joseph as he and his family were still in Egypt, and the all-clear was given to him
to return home. However when Joseph heard that it was Herod's son Archelaus
that replaced his father, Joseph decided to go the Galilee instead of returning to
Judea. It seems that Archelaus assumed control over Judea, Samaria and
Idumea. Joseph 's decision to avoid Judea was a wise one because Archelaus
turned out to be at least as brutal as his father. In fact his cruelty so alarmed
Rome that they finally stepped in and replaced him with a Roman governor in 6
A.D. and from then forward only Roman governors ruled Judea and the region.
Galilee, where Joseph took his family, and neighboring Perea were put under the
control of another of Herod's sons, Antipas. He was a somewhat more
reasonable ruler and so the area was generally peaceful and secure.
Now for verse 23. Frankly this verse is problematic and there is little way around
it. The first half of the verse is simple enough in that it identifies Nazareth as the
town that Joseph and his family settled in. Nazareth, like almost all of Galilee,
was agricultural. It was a small and insignificant place; perhaps Joseph chose it
just for that reason so that they could be inconspicuous as a protection for his
son Yeshua. The problem part of the verse is the second half. Matthew claims
the fulfillment of a yet another prophecy and supposedly quotes Scripture from
some unnamed prophet that says that the Messiah will be called a Nazorean or
in Hebrew, a Natzrati. No known Scripture or combination of Scriptures does
that. Several possibilities to solve this dilemma have been suggested that I'll
briefly go over. First, is that the intention was to say that Christ became a
Nazarite. Nothing in the New Testament or in His actions imply that He took the
vows of a Nazarite. Second is that the meaning is that a Nazorean is what a
resident of Nazareth is called. And third is that the word comes from the Hebrew
7/10
......

Lesson 6 - Matthew 2 & 3
term nezer, which means "branch" and thus it connects Yeshua to Isaiah 11:1.
CJB Isaiah 11:1 But a branch will emerge from the trunk of Yishai, a shoot
will grow from his roots.
I sort of favor the simplest solution. In John's Gospel 1:44 - 46 we read:
44 Philip was from Beit-Tzaidah, the town where Andrew and Kefa
lived. 45 Philip found Natan'el and told him, "We've found the one that
Moshe wrote about in the Torah, also the Prophets- it's Yeshua Ben-Yosef
from Natzeret!" 46 Natan'el answered him, "Natzeret? Can anything good
come from there?" "Come and see," Philip said to him.
The point is that Nazareth was apparently a town that was often the brunt of
jokes for some reason. So people who lived there were considered to be living in
a worthless place, therefore any resident of Nazareth took on the same worthless
character as the town. Therefore to be called a Nazorean (or a Natzrati) identified
a person who lived in a place unworthy of mention. To me that fits well with the
characterization of Yeshua as a humble man from a humble place; a Messiah
and king who was anything but prominent, aristocratic, or charismatic in
appearance all things that humans tend to value but God doesn't.
Let's move on to chapter 3.
READ MATTHEW CHAPTER 3 all
In this chapter Matthew quickly turns from the birth of Messiah and all the
circumstances that surrounded it, to John the Baptist. In fact, Matthew suddenly
jumps over about 30 years; that is, Christ's entire childhood is not discussed. The
Gospel of Mark does the same. Only Luke's Gospel spends any time with
Yeshua's youth and if you'd like to know more about it read Luke 2:21 - 52. Most
scholars attribute this curiosity to Matthew essentially copying Mark's interests
and style. We've already discussed that the historical record provided by the
earliest Church Fathers is that whatever copying was done was done by Mark,
since Matthew's was the first Gospel account written according to those same
Church Fathers. But I think that what we need to be focusing on is that Matthew
was certainly a Jew, and nearly as certainly so was Mark. Luke, on the other
hand, was just as certainly a gentile (he was Dr. Luke who accompanied Paul on
some of his journeys). So for the Jews Matthew and Mark, Yeshua's youth was
8/10


Lesson 6 - Matthew 2 & 3
relatively unimportant; it's His adult life that mattered. But for the gentle Luke,
who thought and wrote as a gentile and for gentiles (remember how he
constructed Christ's genealogy not as Hebrews did but rather as gentile Romans
did in his era), Yeshua's youth was an important part of his story and his mostly
gentile readers (and probably his patron) would have wanted to know about it.
Verse 1 begins "In those days" or "During those days". This is an indefinite term
that simply means some amount of time has passed and entirely new
circumstances are about to be discussed. In this case the time that has passed
from the end of chapter 2 is 3 decades, plus or minus a couple a years. The new
circumstance involves a very strange, yet passionate, man called John the
Baptist. "John" of course was not his birth name; rather it is an English-ized
version of Yochanan. In Hebrew Yochanan means "Yehoveh shows favor"
(NOT God shows favor).
Matthew characterizes John as a preacher, and his starting point of preaching is
said to be the wilderness of Judea. For anyone who has been to Israel,
Jerusalem, and the south, it quickly becomes apparent that wilderness does not
mean densely forested hills and valleys but rather stark and mysterious desert.
Matthew also always refers to John as "John the Baptist"; not just "John" as Mark
tends to do. An interesting feature in this chapter is that just as Matthew jumped
completely over Yeshua's youth, he does the same with John the Baptist. It is
often stated in Christian commentaries that this omission assumes that John (and
Yeshua) were already well known in the Jewish community, as were their birth
circumstances, so there was no need to mention it. Perhaps. However my view is
that in Jewish thought and writing, unless the point of a biblical narrative is about
a person's time as a youth (such as when David as a teenager faced down the
menacing Goliath, partly as a humiliation of the adult Israelites who were too
scared to do it) then the Hebrew cultural value system of placing more value on
mature adults than on infants and children was what was at play. Further, since
all the Gospels are about a religious matter, and since in Jewish society a man
had to be 30 years old to be considered eligible to be a religious authority, then
for Matthew what those 2 men did as youth wasn't particularly relevant. When we
consider that Yeshua grew up in distant and tiny Nazareth, and John was a
strange man who lived the later part of his youth in a desolate desert, then
whatever encounters the Jewish public may have had with these two as youth,
must have been few and far between. So it is difficult to imagine the local Jewish
society being familiar with Yeshua's and Yochanan's infancy and youth.
9/10
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lesson 6 - Matthew 2 & 3
It is significant for us to gain what the term "baptize" meant to Jews in the 1st
century A.D. because whatever we find in the New Testament about baptize and
baptizing is meant to be taken in that context. We'll discuss this at length to begin
our next lesson. What I can tell you for the moment is that Christian Tradition has
altered the meaning of the term and the means of performing it.
John the Baptist brings two critical messages to the Jewish public: repent for your
sins, and the Kingdom of God is near. They are at once two different things, and
yet intimately related. As David Sterns aptly says in his New Testament
Commentary, the idea of repenting because the Kingdom of God is at hand
mostly conjures up a picture of some weirdly dressed guy, standing on a
makeshift box, at a busy street corner, shouting to no one in particular, and
people avoiding looking at him. So even in the Church, the idea of repenting
because the Kingdom of God is near can bring a communal wince upon the
congregation members. So much so that the most popular of TV evangelists try
to avoid using those terms.
John doesn't say to repent; he says to turn from your sins. However the English
term repent is an excellent word to abbreviate John's words. The Hebrew
word teshuvah embodies this concept. Literally it means to turn or to return. In
its Jewish religious sense it means to turn from one's sins AND to return to God.
So it doesn't only mean to quit your bad behavior; it also includes sincerely and
personally recommitting one's life to the Lord and to His ways. An atheist can
notice his or her bad behaviors and stop them; but that is not biblical repentance.
Reforming one's relationship with the God of the Bible is the other necessary
ingredient. Further, Jews rightly acknowledge that even this act of the human will
is set into motion by God. We can only truly repent by God's grace. All else is but
a short-lived emotional response to our conscience.
The second part of John the Baptist's message is that the Kingdom of God is
near. What, exactly, is the Kingdom of God and what does he mean that it is
near? And further what relationship does that have to repentance? We'll discuss
that and more next time.
10/10


Lesson 7 - Matthew 3
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 7, Chapter 3 Continued
If we were to do a deep comparison between the 4 Gospel accounts that open
the New Testament, it would become evident that each Gospel writer approaches
the matter of the advent, life, death, and resurrection of the Messiah with his own
unique mindset and perspective, and that he has a specific purpose and
audience for his Gospel in mind. For instance Mark expresses zero interest in
Yeshua's background as a youth, and only speaks about Him starting with the
day Christ's ministry begins. He also outlines Christ's life and actions in an
orderly but rather abrupt way that in my opinion reads like a biography. Luke is
trying to please his customer and patron, Theophilos. We don't know who
Theophilos was, but his was a Roman gentile name. Luke doesn't seem to
expect Theophilos to know much about Jewish Tradition or history and so takes
the time to explain certain things Matthew wouldn't have because Matthew was a
Jew writing to other Jews and so most Jewish concepts needed no clarification.
John also expected his readers to be mostly Jewish and thus familiar with Jewish
Tradition and the Holy Scriptures. Therefore the opening sentence of his Gospel
speaks of the uniquely Hebrew concept of "The Word" without further
explanation. Most Jews would know what the term "The Word" was pointing to,
but the vast majority of gentile Believers would not. "The Word" was familiar
among Jews; it was the Hebrew notion of the Memra. The Memra represented a
mysterious manifestation of God that had to do with the power of speech (as in:
God "spoke" the Universe into existence). The term itself comes from the Hebrew
root word 'amar, which means "to say". The Hebrew Memra was translated to
the Greek Logos, which has to do with speech and speaking. But
while Memra had a spiritual connotation within the Jewish community, logos did
not have such a connotation with the Roman gentile community.
1 / 12
......

Lesson 7 - Matthew 3
Matthew, like John, wrote in a way that had certain expectations of his readers
that included knowledge of Hebrew history and custom; but Matthew seems to
have expected even more of his readers than did John. Therefore, as we
discussed in the prior lesson, Matthew wrote with the ever present backdrop of
Yeshua being the second Moses; something Jews would have related with. More
specifically Yeshua was the "Prophet like me" that Moses said in the Torah would
eventually come. Matthew at times also made somewhat obscure connections
between words of the ancient Prophets and certain events within the life of
Jesus. Even a well educated gentile would have a rough time trying to
understand how Matthew could legitimately make some of these associations
such that Jesus (or an event associated with Jesus) became the prophetic
fulfillment of the Prophets' words. However a Jew of that era (probably a more
studied one) would understand that Matthew was using one of the four different
methods of Bible interpretation that the Scribes and Sages employed in order to
make his point. Again, such knowledge would have been outside the scope of
what gentiles (including Believers) could typically have understood.
Since we are 20 centuries distant from the writing of Matthew's Gospel and the
cultures that existed at that time, we are going to step through Matthew's Gospel
at a careful pace, and I'm going to do my best to help you climb into the mindset
of a 1st century Jew in order to understand where Matthew is coming from and
what he meant by what he said. We're going to discuss a number of terms, some
of which are rather standard in Christianity (such as Baptism and The Kingdom of
Heaven), because often we'll see that what that meant to 1st century Jews is not
exactly how the Church has come to define it.
As we began Matthew chapter 3 last week John the Baptist was introduced to us.
We'll re-read the entire chapter to have a good foundation for today's teaching.
Open your Bibles to Matthew chapter 3.
RE-READ MATTHEW CHAPTER 3 all
The first verse proclaims that John the Baptist began his ministry in the desert of
Judea. Since there are a few Johns in the New Testament, recognize that this is
not John the Apostle, an original disciple of Yeshua, who is also the writer of his
own Gospel and of 3 more letters 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John. This is a very
unique John whose story begins in other Gospels, but not in Matthew's, when he
was still in his mother's womb. The desert of Judea is speaking of the southern
end of the Jordan River valley and extending all the way past the Dead Sea and
2/12



Lesson 7 - Matthew 3
down to that finger of the Red Sea known today as the Gulf of Aqaba, over which
Moses miraculously led the Israelites through parted waters as they fled Pharaoh
and his army.
There were several religious communities that lived in that desolate region in the
1st century, seeking peace and separation from both the Romans and the corrupt
Temple authorities. None was larger nor more famous than the sect of the
Essenes who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, the discovery of which in the mid-20th
century opened an entire new vista of understanding and study of the Old
Testament and of Jewish history. It is nearly impossible to imagine John not living
among one or more of those communities during his years of preparation in that
barren desert. So today there is much speculation about his possible involvement
with the Essenes of Qumran. Perhaps the greatest evidence of his involvement in
Qumran is that he uses very similar terms and phrases that are found among the
Dead Sea Scrolls in the section known as the Community Documents. My
opinion is that John the Baptist indeed spent significant time with the Essenes,
although he didn't become one of them. Still we're not going to spend any of our
time with this matter because it really doesn't advance our study of Matthew nor
is there any firm evidence either way to hang our hats on.
John's twofold message that he brought to the Jewish community was that
people needed to turn away from their sins and return to God, and this was in
preparation for the imminent coming of the Kingdom of Heaven. In verse 3
Matthew once again connects an ancient prophetic oracle with the events
surrounding the advent of Yeshua; this time it is about John the Baptist. He
quotes Isaiah 40:3.
CJB Isaiah 40:3 A voice cries out: "Clear a road through the desert for
ADONAI! Level a highway in the Aravah for our God!
Different Bible versions will quote this passage differently, but they all amount to
the same thing: someone coming from the desert of Judea is going to announce
the arrival of God or someone God is sending. The differences among Bible
versions come mainly from taking Isaiah's quote either from the Hebrew Tanakh
or from the Greek Septuagint. Although it is agreed by Judaism and Christianity
that this passage is prophetic of the coming of a Messiah, in reality at the time it
was written the context was of the return of the Jews from their captivity in
Babylon. I've taught you before that it is the Jewish way (a way we find often in
the New Testament) to quote only a few words (or perhaps a couple of
3/12

Lesson 7 - Matthew 3
sentences) from an Old Testament book, expecting the reader to know the
remainder. In other words, Jews knew the context of the brief quote.... but
gentile Christians usually didn't and still don't! It is worth our time to see the
context for ourselves so open your Bibles to Isaiah 39; we'll start at verse 5 and
continue through Isaiah 40 verse 11. READ ISAIAH 39:5-40:11
We see that this passage, in context, is related to the Jews' return from Babylon.
Yet clearly from the way those verses are written, the fullest fulfillment of this
prophecy is much wider and more grand than only the Jews coming home from
Babylon. From a Jewish viewpoint Matthew would say that the remez of the
passage speaks of the Messiah, even though the p'shat is about returning from
Babylon (go review the previous lesson if you are not clear about the
terms remez and p'shat). It was also understood among Jews that the person
who is crying out, the one who is preparing the way for the Lord, is Elijah.
Speaking of John the Baptist, Matthew says in chapter 11:14:
CJB Matthew 11:14 Indeed, if you are willing to accept it, he (John the
Baptist) is Eliyahu, whose coming was predicted.
Elijah's return was a prediction found in Malachi.
CJB Malachi 3:23 Look, I will send to you Eliyahu the prophet before the
coming of the great and terrible Day of ADONAl.
Let me point out that depending on your Bible version, this verse could also
appear as Malachi 4:5 or 4:6.
It is here that we need to pause and take a couple of brief detours to explain
some terms. Because John is called the Baptist, or in terms more familiar to the
minds of Jews, "the immerser", I'd like to discuss the concept of baptism.
For Jews to be immersed (or baptizein in the language of the Greeks) was
meant in the same sense as one might dye a piece of cloth. That is, one dips a
cloth into a vat of colored dye and when removed that cloth has taken on the
characteristics (the color) of that dye. However for Jews, this dipping and
absorbing of characteristics was also meant in a religious context that revolved
around ritual purity. Before a Jew could present his offering at the Temple he first
4/12


Lesson 7 - Matthew 3
had to be immersed in one of the several Mikvehs that were located either in or
near the Temple grounds. This immersion was in obedience to several passages
in Leviticus, which prescribed this immersion and washing to remedy any of a
number of causes for the worshipper to have become ritually impure.
I think the most important thing to notice is less the exact method of immersion,
and more what the immersion is about. Historically for Jews, immersion was
about ritual cleansing from spiritual impurity. But John said (and would amplify on
this later) that this new immersion that he brought was NOT for cleansing from
ritual purity but rather it was a cleansing from sin. Let me impress upon you that
impurity and sin are two entirely different things and cause two entirely different
human conditions and outcomes. Impurity is not sin. Impurity could almost
always be set right with what I call a wash and a wait. That is, most of the
reasons for becoming ritually impure could be solved by the worshiper immersing
him or her self in living water and then waiting until a new day began (which was
at sunset). So the remedy for impurity was usually quick and painless, and
theoretically cost nothing (a few of the more serious reasons for impurity required
more extensive procedures and a longer wait time). But the remedy for sin
always involved an animal sacrifice upon the Temple altar, which ranged from
inexpensive animals like birds, all the way up to the hefty price tag of a mature
bull. Impurity was cured with water; sin was cured with the blood of an innocent
animal. Jews were acutely aware of this difference.
Let me be clear: it is NOT that (according to John) an immersion in water now
itself atoned for sin. Rather it is that when one trusted in the One that John was
preparing the way for, immersing in the water now was symbolic of taking on the
characteristics of the One who atoned for sins. We'll soon see that it was
symbolic of identifying with the Christ. This also did not mean that immersion in
water to remedy ritual impurity would end. Rather, it was that one would have to
declare what the immersion was for.
While many Pharisees and Scribes would argue from the position of Jewish
Tradition that there was indeed a kind of supernatural nature in the living water of
a river or lake or in a Mikveh that had an actual physical effect upon the human
body sufficient to remove the toxic impurity, others of the more learned and
enlightened Jews understood that the effect of immersion was symbolic on the
one hand, but also it was in obedience to the command of God on the other. So
whatever physical effect that ritual impurity there might be on the body or soul
was erased by God in response to righteous obedience to the Law of Moses; it
5/12


Lesson 7 - Matthew 3
was not because water literally washed it away like dirt coming off the body when
taking a bath.
It is interesting that although the term baptizein (baptize) means "to immerse",
hundreds of years ago within the Church the practice of sprinkling began. How
sprinkling can be seen as the same as immersing I don't know except that my
suspicion is that as with nearly everything else in early gentile Christianity, goal
number one of the Bishops was to separate gentile Christians from Jewish
practices, including those that were biblically ordained. David Sterns notes that
in the 16th and 17th centuries some in the Church revolted against this rather
dubious substitution of sprinkling for immersion, and the first groups to break
away appropriately called themselves "Baptists".
As to the actual immersion process, so far as the ancient documents tell us, a
Jew was not "dunked" by another person. Rather it was a self-immersion. Even
today there is often a supervisor at a mikveh to make sure that a person is 100%
unclothed, or has no open wound on them, or that every last hair became
submerged, and they watch for a few other violations as well. We do read that
John is said to have baptized people, and this is usually taken to mean that he
physically immersed worshippers. But his role was probably that of a supervisor,
and to have the immersion candidate publicly declare what their immersion was
meant to accomplish.
While I advocate for self immersion with supervision (it is, after all, the way it was
done among the Jews who invented the process), I also don't take the position
that if a person is "dunked" by another that such baptism is inferior or invalid. But
as for sprinkling? I have a stronger position against that except in the case where
a person lives in a primitive place where water is so scarce that immersion is
simply not an option. Having a few drops of water flicked on you is not
immersion, and therefore it is not baptizing. Neither is the practice of baptizing
infants or small children efficacious because they have no choice of the will in the
matter. If you are one who was sprinkled or perhaps baptized as a child before
the age of accountability, my advice is to be properly baptized as soon as
possible.
As a somewhat shorter detour, I now want to briefly talk about the term "The
Kingdom of Heaven". This term has essentially the same meaning as, and is fully
interchangeable with, "The Kingdom of God". So I will alternate those two terms
throughout our study of Matthew. The reason that some Jews preferred the term
6/12
.....

Lesson 7 - Matthew 3
"Kingdom of Heaven" is because they didn't want to use the word "God" due to a
taboo of saying His name that began around 300 B.C. I think it is fair to say that
the more strict Jews no doubt many of the Holy Land Jews as opposed to the
Diaspora Jews.... more carefully avoided using the term "God" in any context. It
is noteworthy that Matthew is the one Gospel writer who almost exclusively uses
the term "The Kingdom of Heaven" instead of "Kingdom of God" because as for
the other 3 Gospel writers, it is the reverse. It is all the more reason that I view
Matthew as not only the most "Jewish" of all the Gospels, but also that Matthew
himself was a learned and pious Holy Land Jew.
The term "Kingdom of Heaven" or "Kingdom of God" is directly connected to the
concept of ultimate restoration of God's Creation. Christ is quoted as saying:
CJB Luke 17:20-21 20 The P'rushim asked Yeshua when the Kingdom of God
would come. "The Kingdom of God," he answered, "does not come with
visible signs; 21 nor will people be able to say, 'Look! Here it is!1 or, 'Over
there!' Because, you see, the Kingdom of God is among you." The CJB along with the majority of Bible translations say that the Kingdom of
God is "among you". It implies that Christ Himself is the Kingdom of God, which
is not biblical. The word being translated is entos, which the various Greek
Lexicons says means "within" or "inside". It does not mean "in the midst" and
certainly not "among". In other words, The Kingdom of Heaven is not a place or a
time. Rather it is a state of being. It is a state of being whereby all has been
restored to the original perfection. All is new and the Universe is forever free from
sin and death. In the biblical context it also means that all living beings quite
naturally glorify God as the ruler over all things.
But what does John the Baptist mean by the Kingdom of Heaven is near? First, it
doesn't indicate proximity since the Kingdom of Heaven isn't a time or a place or
a creature. Rather it is that the arrival of the state of being called the Kingdom of
Heaven is a process that involves many stages. John the Baptist's presence and
ministry is its beginning because he is the one who will prepare the way and
announce the arrival of God's agent, Yeshua, who will eventually bring it about.
The Kingdom of Heaven will only be in a partial state of being until The Devil and
his minions are no more, and the new heavens and new earth arrive. Even the
Millennial Kingdom (the 1000 years reign of Messiah) will not be the fullest
fulfillment of the Kingdom of Heaven because we know that sin and death and
even rebellion against God will occur during that span of time and especially at its
7/12
...... .....

Lesson 7 - Matthew 3
end.
For now, in our day, by trusting in Our Savior Yeshua, we can have the Kingdom
of Heaven, such as it currently is, within us. That is, its ideals and goals, its
hopes and helps, will be present within us. We can choose to live holy lives that
reflect the perfection of the Kingdom of Heaven, in determined obedience to God,
as we wait for the Kingdom in all of its completeness to arrive universally. Let me
say this another way; for now only in Believers hopefully you does the
Kingdom of Heaven exist on earth.
Verse 4 says that John wore a garment of camel's hair and a leather belt around
his waist. In 2Kings 1:8, we read this about the Prophet Elijah.
CJB 2 Kings 1:8 "He was a hairy man," they answered him, "with a leather
belt around his waist." He said, "It was Eliyahu from Tishbe."
Interestingly other Bible versions say:
NAB 2 Kings 1:8 They replied, "He wore a hairy garment with a leather belt
around his waist." "It is Elijah the Tishbite!" he exclaimed.
I cannot prove which is the correct translation. However since Matthew seeks to
connect Elijah and John together, with John as essentially the new Elijah, it can
be no coincidence that John's appearance was described as hairy and with a
leather belt, just as was Elijah's.
Eating locusts and wild honey is not the Jews' regular diet, yet it was survival
food. But as the ascetic monk that John was, that this is what he was said to
have eaten fits his persona.
Certain kinds of locusts were considered kosher food for Jews (Leviticus 11
spells this out). It may not sound particularly appetizing to us, but the Hebrews
weren't, and aren't, the only culture that finds eating certain insects to be an
acceptable addition to their diet. What is the "wild honey" that John also lived off
of? Probably it is bee honey taken from colonies of bees that made hives in trees,
in carcasses of dead animals, etc.; in other words bee hives that were not
cultivated by humans. I say this because until the last couple of years it was
believed that man-made bee hives and bee husbandry was a relatively late
development. However about 3 years ago, in an archaeological dig in Rahov in
8/12
.....
.....
.....

Lesson 7 - Matthew 3
northern Israel, a large cache of man-made beehives was discovered and dated
to about 900 B.C. (just after the time of King Solomon). These are by far the
oldest beehives ever discovered anywhere in the world. So it seems that the
current scholarly take that the biblical term "honey" meant a sweet extract taken
from dates is going to have to be revamped. And therefore there truly was
cultivated honey and there was also wild honey, both a product of honeybees,
just as we might find it today.
The point is this: John the Baptist lived a life not connected to regular Jewish
society, and he did it by choice and by divine inspiration. He wore the outfit of an
ancient prophet no doubt to identify himself with that profession, if not the actual
person of Elijah. In fact I think it is reasonable to ask ourselves what the
attraction was to John such that in verse 5 we read that people from Jerusalem
and all Judea went to him to be immersed. Their purpose, we're told, was to
confess their sins. This was in no way symbolic (at that moment) of a conscious
identity with Christ because Christ hadn't yet begun His ministry. It seems
probable to me that many people in the Holy Land region in and around
Jerusalem thought that John indeed was the prophesied return of Elijah. He
looked like it, dressed like it, and acted like it. What is it they say? If it walks like a
duck, quakes like a duck, and looks like a duck it's probably a duck.
It has long been known (and can be easily gleaned from the New Testament) that
common everyday Jews in that era felt so oppressed by Rome that they were
certain they had to be living in the prophesied End Times. And since the Prophet
Malachi said that Elijah would come before the Day of the Lord meaning that
Elijah would re-appear in the End Times then it makes sense that John would
be seen as Elijah, whether he confessed to it or not. In fact when directly
confronted about it as recorded in John 1:21 The Baptist famously said that he
was NOT Elijah. I suspect that in the same way Yeshua would be so elusive at
first about admitting whether or not He was the Messiah, so it was that John was
elusive enough about whether or not he was Elijah that even when he answered
"no", it didn't matter to many of the people. They were convinced that he was the
2nd coming of Elijah. That of course is only my opinion.
It is difficult to understand exactly why the people came to be immersed if it
wasn't to see Elijah. It doesn't help much to read the other Gospels on this matter
because they each give the meaning for folks wanting John's baptism as
something a little different. One says it was for forgiveness of sins, another says
it was for repenting, and Matthew says in one verse it was for confession and in
9/12

Lesson 7 - Matthew 3
another for repenting. John the Baptist is also quoted as saying it was for
avoiding God's wrath. This is probably (at least partly) why the next verse has the
religious authorities from Jerusalem suddenly coming to investigate. If this was
indeed Elijah, or just another holy man who wanted to gain a following, they
needed to know.
In verse 7 we find representatives of the Pharisees and the Sadducees coming to
John to question him. John obviously did not welcome them, calling them vipers
to their faces. But he also sarcastically asked who had warned them about the
soon coming of God's wrath, implying that they didn't know about it or weren't
ready for it. There's so much to untangle here. First let's grasp that we have
representatives of both halves of the Jews' dual religious system of that era
showing up. The Pharisees represented the Synagogue system and the
Sadducees the Temple system. The Pharisees and Sadducees were uneasy
rivals, but they weren't enemies. They were certainly unified in the motive of
wanting to guard their religious territory and authority; so the growing flocks of
people seeking out John sent up a red flag. That John characterized the two
representatives' visit as trying ot avoid God's coming wrath once again plays right
into the Elijah and End Times scenario because Elijah was believed throughout
Judaism to appear shortly before the Day of the Lord when God would indeed
pour out His wrath.
So apparently the common folks coming to John believed they were living in the
End Times. Without doubt the Apostles Paul and Peter believed they were living
in the Last Days and taught it to anyone who'd listen. The people were fearful of
it and so possibly came to participate in a ritual immersion from this very strange
man (who many thought was Elijah) in order to perhaps avoid God's wrath in
some way that just isn't clear. Would any of us or our neighbors be much
different?
I have no doubt that when all * breaks loose and the arrival of the End of Days
becomes apparent to those who at least harbor some measure of religious
interest, people will want a speedy way to purchase some kind of personal
protection against God's wrath. You can bet they will be accommodated by
throngs of unscrupulous Pastors, Priests, and Rabbis all too happy to take their
money in return for a ritual, an amulet, a special prayer, a large donation,
anything that gives those frightened folks false comfort.
In no way am I suggesting that this is what John was doing; but I suspect that a
10/12

.....

Lesson 7 - Matthew 3
good portion of the crowd was coming in belief that they were going to get to see
Elijah and they didn't want to miss an opportunity to be made right with God in
those perilous times. There were plenty of charlatans seeking profit in John's
day, playing upon the fears and vulnerability of the Jewish people, even though
he wasn't one of them. But there is sufficient historical proof that these folks of
the 1st century were not unlike Westerners of the 21st century that will go and
seek out any number of religious sounding people who claim they have the
antidote to fix their finances, to cure illnesses, to predict the future, and to protect
from eternal damnation.
Verse 8 is one that needs to connect deeply within our souls especially in these
turbulent times we live in. It has John saying to the Pharisee and Sadducee
representatives that if they are sincerely coming to confess or repent then they
need to bear fruit to prove it. This concept of fruit, meaning works and deeds, as
the necessary proof of one's faith in the God of Israel is stated several times in
various of the New Testament books. But the one statement that is perhaps the
most well known is found in James.
CJB James 2:15-18 15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and
daily food, 16 and someone says to him, "Shalom! Keep warm and eat
hearty!" without giving him what he needs, what good does it do? 17 Thus,
faith by itself, unaccompanied by actions, is dead. 18 But someone will say
that you have faith and I have actions. Show me this faith of yours without
the actions, and I will show you my faith by my actions!
Felling sorry for people in need is not the same thing as taking action to help
people in need. Good fruit is not our nice thoughts and well wishes; it is physical,
tangible deeds that we do to alleviate people's sufferings. While James uses this
good fruit as proof of our faith, John uses it as proof of our sincerity. John then
takes it one step farther by telling these religious authorities that simply being a
Hebrew descended from Abraham (the Father of all Hebrews) is not good
enough to be in good stead with God. That is, being a Jew doesn't negate the
need for personal forgiveness of sins, restoration and redemption.... or for
performing good deeds. The take away is that sincere trust in God can only be
proven by one's outward deeds and actions, which obviously begins with
obedience to God. One's affiliation to a group or one's family heritage does not
include or exclude anyone from having peace with God. However, if there is no
obedience, and there are no good deeds and works to go along with a professed
faith actions and fruit as prescribed by the Holy Scriptures.... then one's faith
11 / 12
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lesson 7 - Matthew 3
is to be legitimately doubted. This doesn't just concern a doubt of your true faith
by the people in your social circle. The lack of good fruit ought to first and
foremost be an alarm signal to one's self that perhaps we've been deceiving
ourselves all along.
As our Messiah so soberly warned us:
CJB Matthew 7:19-23 19 Any tree that does not produce good fruit is cut
down and thrown in the fire! 20 So you will recognize them by their
fruit. 21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord!' will enter the Kingdom
of Heaven, only those who do what my Father in heaven wants. 22 On that
Day, many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord! Didn't we prophesy in your name?
Didn't we expel demons in your name? Didn't we perform many miracles in
your name?' 23 Then I will tell them to their faces, 'I never knew you! Get
away from me, you workers of lawlessness!'
We'll continue in Matthew chapter 3 next time.
12/12


Lesson 8 - Matthew 3 Cont.
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 8, Chapter 3 Continued 2
As we re-open Matthew chapter 3, we left off with verse 7, the mention of
Sadducees and Pharisees coming to John ostensibly to be immersed by him, but
in reality it was to investigate this strange man who seemed to have developed a
large following nearly overnight. Let's re-read beginning with verse 8.
RE-READ MATTHEW CHAPTER 3:8 - end
John immediately discerned that the Sadducees and Pharisees who came to him
were not coming with trueness of heart. He knew this not because he had some
divine ability to read minds or hearts but because he well knew what the
Sadducee and Pharisee leadership believed and taught, and that it was
fundamentally in conflict with Holy Scripture and therefore in conflict with what
John's baptism was all about.
The Sadducees were Jewish aristocrats who ruled over the Temple. Not since
the Maccabees had succeeded in taking the Temple back from the pagan gentile
Antiochus Epiphanies and his army (about 190 years earlier than John the
Baptist's time), was the Temple leadership structured or occupied by the Levite
clans that God had ordained in the Torah. Rather, unauthorized priests (not of
the correct priestly lineage) were put in charge, and then later those who became
even the High Priests literally purchased their way into their prestigious and
powerful positions.
To understand what a mockery of the Temple system these Sadducees were,
one must try to piece together what it is that they believed and taught. To begin
with, the Sadducees were complicit with Rome in their handling of the Jewish
1 / 12

......

Lesson 8 - Matthew 3 Cont.
people since the only thing that actually mattered to them was holding on to their
wealth and authority. Notice carefully what they denied: they did not believe in
resurrection, and refused acceptance of the existence of any kind of afterlife.
They believed not in human free-will, or even God's will per se, but rather in the
thoroughly Greco-Roman concept of Fate. These doctrines would set them on a
path of irreconcilable differences with the teachings of the man for whom John
was divinely sent to prepare the way: Messiah Yeshua. Interestingly, the
Sadducees also denied the authority of Oral Torah, also known as Jewish Law,
Tradition, and Halakah.
Sometimes it can be difficult to trace why a religious sect believes what they do
and denies what they do. But in the case of the Sadducees denying the authority
of Halakah the reason is rather obvious: it was as a result of their political and
religious rivalry with the Pharisees. Halakah (Tradition) was the center and focus
of the teachings of the political/religious sect of the Pharisees. Recall we have
discussed on a couple of occasions that there was a well ordered dual religious
system in place in the 1st century A.D.: the Temple system and the Synagogue
System. The common Jews and many of the wealthier Jews were attached to
one synagogue or another and that was where they obtained their moral, ethical,
and religious instruction. Much of their social life revolved around the synagogue.
The Temple system was where the common people went when they needed
legal justice (the Sanhedrin being the highest court), and it is also where they
followed God's laws concerning sacrificing, tithing, and observing the ordinances
of the appointed times including the biblical feasts. The Temple was also where,
according to the Torah, the people were to go for direct Torah instruction from the
Levite priests; but that practice had long ago died out.
I want to point out Matthew's acute awareness of this dual religious system and
the position and place each of these systems inhabited within Jewish religious
and social life, as well as the authority structure of each. It might surprise you to
know that even though Jewish scholars give no credence to the New
Testament's claim of Yeshua of Nazareth as being the Messiah, they readily
acknowledge that the most complete (nearly the only) record of the history,
practices, and beliefs of 1st century Judaism is found in this same New
Testament. Paul's letters and the Book of Matthew more than any others seem
(from my personal interaction with Jewish biblical scholars) to be the ones they
consult the most and I think for good reason. Paul was a highly trained and
learned Pharisee and a prolific writer who dealt with both Holy Land and
Diaspora Jews, and Matthew was clearly a well-educated Jewish Believer who
2/12

Lesson 8 - Matthew 3 Cont.
had been deeply immersed into the Jewish culture of the 1st century and so
understood many of the cultural nuances.
John the Baptist knew upfront that what the Sadducees believed and much of
what the Pharisees believed were not compatible with what he believed and with
what he strongly felt he must teach in advance of, and soon alongside, the
ministry of the Messiah of Israel, Jesus. He knew that nothing he said was going
to change their minds, and in fact they didn't honestly come to him as seekers of
truth, but rather they came to intimidate the people who were flocking to John
and to try to find fault with him.
It has been a common Christian teaching for centuries that the Pharisees and
Sadducees as depicted in chapter 3 are representative of all Israel, and the
sincere people coming to John to be baptized are representative of the Church.
Later in verse 9 when John says that mere descent from Abraham is not
sufficient to prove one's distance from sin, he adds that God could raise up sons
of Abraham from stones. So it has been an equally common teaching that these
stones are representative of gentiles. The early Church Father Jerome (from the
4th century) used as his belief that the stones in this passage meant gentiles by
pointing to Ezekiel 36. In his commentary on Matthew Jerome says this:
"God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham." He calls
the Gentiles stones because of their hard hearts, We read in Ezekiel: "I will
revive their stony hearts and give them hearts of flesh".
Yet when we go to Ezekiel 36, which Jerome used to validate his point, we find
that it was pertaining directly to Israel, whose people were to be gathered out of
all nations and sent back into their ancestral land. This habit of cherry picking
verses out of context and applying them willy-nilly to try to confirm or create a
desired doctrine has been something of a plague within our Christian institutions,
which (as did the Sadducees and Pharisees) lead the people to many false
doctrines that blinded them to the truth. By no means was verse 9 referring to
gentiles but rather the reference to the stones was simply an expression meant to
indicate that although to be born to a Jewish mother was sufficient enough for
one to be considered part of the covenant people of God (the Hebrews), and
therefore to be considered a son of Abraham, it was the faith of Abraham that
had to be appropriated and not merely his blood line.
Fellow Believers, it is important that we realize that there is biblical truth and
3/12

Lesson 8 - Matthew 3 Cont.
there is NOT biblical truth; and there's little in between. All too often Christians
fold when confronting a fellow Believer who plainly misunderstands some of the
most basic biblical truths, or when facing the sharp rebuttal of a person of
another religion. In the 21st century that other religion is almost always Islam. We
shy-away because, we claim, we value peace and harmony over disagreement.
While it is not that we should all be as bold or as lacking in tact as John the
Baptist (or Paul for that matter) by calling people snakes or stupid, nor should we
be unyieldingly rigid on biblical and spiritual matters that are at times challenging,
highly nuanced, and not so cut and dried (an attitude of my way or the highway),
we also must not compromise on the weightier matters of critical importance such
as the enduring relevance of God's laws and commands, and the supremacy of
Christ's sacrifice on the cross above the central figure and doctrines of all other
faiths.
Many Believers are reluctant to defend their faith because outside of a handful of
bumper sticker sayings they learned in Church, they realize that they can't make
a reasoned argument for their faith. Or they know that the outward evidence of
their faith (the fruit) is lacking and they don't want to be embarrassed by
someone who points it out. So often we hurriedly just disengage by telling the
non-Believer or the deceived Believer that we respect their faith, and we move
on....relieved. I don't think we should do that. Rather we can make it clear that we
respect the person. But to tell them we respect their questionable faith is nothing
we'll find any Apostle, John the Baptist, or even Christ saying because to do so
validates in that deceived person what may be a very wrong faith that leads them
further into darkness instead of into light. So what do we do? We all instinctively
know when someone is coming to us for an honest inquiry, hopefully as a
teachable person, versus when they're coming to trap us or simply wanting to
engage in a dispute. Honest inquiry deserves an honest and well-mannered
answer; but a person who comes only to be divisive or means to ensnare us or to
display anger, deserves only to be given a polite "good bye". At the same time,
we must equip ourselves with sound biblical truth, earned by serious Bible study,
so that we can give a sincere person an honest and reasoned answer, and also
know God's Word well enough to discern when we should take more time to
explain versus when we should walk away. John the Baptist was doing exactly
that when he called out those Sadducees and Pharisees who came to him with
insincere motives.
In verse 10 John tells the Sadducees and Pharisees what happens to the
insincere... like them. He uses the metaphor of an axe chopping down a tree that
4/12
.....

Lesson 8 - Matthew 3 Cont.
doesn't produce good fruit and then destroying the felled tree with fire. The tree
represents a person who is a member of God's covenant community: an Israelite.
The fruit is the product of that person's life that is, his actions and deeds. It is
what is seen outwardly that is a window into that person's character; it reveals
what that person dedicates his life to. So bad fruit comes from bad character and
good fruit comes from good character. But in the context of religious Judaism
bad fruit means evil deeds or lack of good deeds, and good fruit means doing
righteous deeds and works. I stress: everything that we're reading so far in this
chapter has John applying it to his fellow Jews; and in this particular instance it is
especially aimed at Jewish religious leadership that he sees as having bankrupt
character thus producing only wicked fruit.
It is true that later on in Matthew's Gospel, Yeshua makes use of the same
statement that John used; but more likely the reason for using it is that it seems
to have been a rather standard Jewish expression of that era. Yeshua says this:
CJB Matthew 7:16-20 16 You will recognize them by their fruit. Can people
pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every
healthy tree produces good fruit, but a poor tree produces bad fruit. 18 A
healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, or a poor tree good fruit. 19 Any tree that
does not produce good fruit is cut down and thrown in the fire! 20 So you
will recognize them by their fruit.
Christians of all branches have allegorized these words of Christ to make all
kinds of applications. But in this quote, Christ is referring to ONE THING ONLY!
Listen to the verse that precedes what I just quoted to you.
CJB Matthew 7:15-16 15 "Beware of the false prophets! They come to you
wearing sheep's clothing, but underneath they are hungry wolves! 16 You
will recognize them by their fruit. Can people pick grapes from thorn
bushes, or figs from thistles?
So who exactly was Yeshua referring to? It was false prophets. His admonition
certainly was not being aimed at every Israelite in general. This use of the term
false prophets meant false teachers of God's Word. By the 1st century it is not
that the term "prophet" had lost its meaning as one who tells us of future events
or consequences. In the New Testament unless the term prophet is referring to
one of the prophets of old, nearly always it means a person who teaches
the Tanakh (the Old Testament, the Bible). So we have 2 important take-aways
5/12

Lesson 8 - Matthew 3 Cont.
from this. First: biblical context must always be preserved. John was NOT making
some vastly generalized statement about a tree not producing good fruit being
cut down. He was applying it ONLY to the Pharisees and Sadducees who came
to investigate him and to bother the people who came for John's baptism. And
Christ was not making some vastly generalized statement about a tree not
producing good fruit being cut down. In this case He was applying it only to those
who claimed they were teaching or preaching God's Word but in fact were not.
And second, in both uses of this Jewish metaphor the result of bearing no fruit or
bad fruit is the same: eternal destruction.
Those who learned Torah with me will recall that in the Bible God uses fire mostly
for two purposes: either purification or for destruction. Purification is to burn off
the dross of sin and imperfection, but it leaves the core element not only intact
but pure. Destruction is to take a wicked thing and end its existence. From John's
message the leaders and teachers of the Temple and the Synagogue are who
are being warned; and from Christ's message the teachers of God's Word are
again being warned only this time the warning is being more broadly applied to all
Israelites who would claim they are teaching the biblical truth or are bringing "a
word from the Lord" to others; but in fact they are not and instead they are
twisting the truth in order to deceive.
In verse 11 Messiah is more formally introduced by John. His statement in the
CJB is:
CJB Matthew 3:11 It's true that I am immersing you in water so that you
might turn from sin to God; but the one coming after me is more powerful
than /- I'm not worthy even to carry his sandals- and he will immerse you in
the Ruach HaKodesh and in fire.
It's more familiar form is found in the KJV.
KJV Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he
that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to
bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
These two translations express exactly the same thing so there is no conflict.
However the KJV translation is the better one to help us deal with what it means
to be baptized in water unto repentance (repentance meaning, as the CJB
properly explains, to turn from sin to God). The Theological approach is to say
6/12


Lesson 8 - Matthew 3 Cont.
either that it means that the water itself actually brings about our repentance, or
that it summons repentance within us. However there is another alternative
meaning that far more fits with the Bible in general. It is that immersion in water
(baptism) expresses our already repentant condition. This position makes
repentance a joint venture between the worshipper and God whereby an act of
God's will places the needed faith within us in order that we can accept His truth,
thereby enabling a response of the human will to sincerely repent. Thus until God
moves upon a human the human does not move. Therefore even in our
repentance God gets all the glory.
While John calls for an immersion in water that amounts to a public profession of
the worshipper's act of repentance, he says that the One who is coming (Yeshua)
will immerse this same repentant worshiper in the Holy Spirit, and with fire.
Immersion in water is only ritually symbolic in one sense, but yet is done as an
obedience to the commandment of God. However immersion into the Holy Spirit
actually changes the very nature of that same person. This change is expressed
by the words that follow "Holy Spirit, which are "with fire". Remember what we
just discussed: fire is used for purification or it is used for destruction. The "fire" of
the Holy Spirit brings divine purification to the worshipper, stripping that person of
the uncleanness caused by a life time of sinning, and making him or her
acceptable to God; rather than that person remaining unclean and unacceptable
to God, thus suffering the divine destruction that will come to those who refuse
the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Let me simplify that: acceptance of Our Savior
allows us to be immersed into the Holy Spirit of God, which brings on a
completely changed nature within us. Those who refuse it (Jew or gentile) will
face the consequence of complete eternal destruction.
I want us to be very careful as we encounter phrases such as "immersion into the
Holy Spirit", immersed in "fire", and so on. The writers of the Bible, under God's
inspiration, use metaphors and illustrations and cultural situations of the physical
world that they were familiar with in order to help describe and explain the
otherwise inexplicable. But the physical is not the spiritual so we must not carry
the illustrations and comparisons out too far. One of the main obstacles for
Believers in the 21st century is to grasp what these metaphors and illustrations
and cultural situations used to impart spiritual understanding meant to these 1st
century Jews, because it is the meaning within that context that is the most
correct.
Verse 12 presents the contrast to the last words of verse 11. In verse 11 John
7/12

Lesson 8 - Matthew 3 Cont.
speaks of the repentant worshipper being immersed into the Holy Spirit and in
the fire (of purification); that is, to use the vernacular of today, what happens to
the Saved. Verse 12 now speaks of the alternative; what happens to the
unsaved. Notice how this illustration shows what happens when this same wheat
from the same harvest is winnowed. Winnowing is a process of separation. In the
winnowing process a winnowing fork is used to toss the harvest up into the air,
and the breeze carries away the lighter part but the heavier part falls to the
threshing floor. The usable wheat kernels are in this way separated from the
waste part. The grain is saved and put away, but the unusable chaff is gathered
up and burned up. The winnowing is another metaphor used to illustrate the
consequence of those who have refused the baptism offered by Christ; a baptism
that John says he cannot offer. Notice thus far how the saved and the unsaved
will experience fire. The Believer's experience with fire will not only not hurt us or
harm us, it will purify us. The non-Believers' experience with fire destroys them.
Now notice something else. Backing up just a bit, the opening words of verse 10
are: "Already the axe is at the root of the trees". And the beginning of verse 12 is:
"He has with Him His winnowing fork". What would these 2 phrases say to you if
you were a Jew living in the 1st century? To me they would say "imminent". They
would say "any day, now". But those words would certainly not say to me "it will
happen in some distant future". John, and then Jesus, were not the ones to raise
the alert of the Apocalypse. They were living in the times of the expectation of it
and their presence and message also seemed to validate it. The belief that the
Jews were already in the End Times was well established, and it was further
believed with each passing year of Roman occupation and each new atrocity
perpetrated upon the Jews.
In a sudden turn of events, verse 13 changes the entire tone of what has been
happening when Jesus comes to John to be immersed. Notice that we are finally
definitively told where the baptisms of John had been taking place: at the Jordan
River. I'll take a brief detour here to ask a question: why was John baptizing in
the Jordan River and not at one of the many Mikvehs scattered around
Jerusalem? More than likely it is because the Temple authorities never would
have allowed it since whatever witness to purification immersion was required, it
would have been under Temple rules and supervision. We've already established
that John was a not a welcome figure to the Temple or the Synagogue, so he had
to baptize at someplace where they held little or no control. The solution was the
Jordan River.
8/12


Lesson 8 - Matthew 3 Cont.
Interestingly, the place where John was regularly baptizing and living at that time
may have been found. Dr. James Tabor, Professor of Ancient Judaism at the
University of North Carolina, and Shimon Gibson, head of the Archaeology
Department at the University of the Holy Land feel the evidence is strong that this
place has been discovered. And, right where one might expect it; east of
Jerusalem at the Jordan River. It includes a cave where John lived, because we
are told that he was in the desert. He needed to keep a certain distance from the
Jewish religious authorities, and indeed this place would have provided that
distance.
When Yeshua arrives at the Jordan River, John of course balks at the suggestion
that he should baptize this man because he has already said that he is not fit to
carry the sandals of the One who is coming (Yeshua); and yet Yeshua insists.
The controversy and doctrinal debates that surround Yeshua's immersion by
John is hard to overstate. I have personally found 9 different explanations for
Jesus seeking this baptism and I know there are more. I am not sure I agree with
the conclusion of any of them.
It is my opinion that what leads to these many (and sometimes strange) doctrines
about Yeshua's baptism is because of trying to vault Him from His 1st century,
Jewish culture and environment into our present age, with Christ leaving behind
His Jewishness and becoming a Christian.
When we deliberate about this event (that in any case is not without its mystery)
and take into account the very Jewish nature of it, some aspects of it become
more clear. For one thing: this was hardly Yeshua's first immersion. He would
have been immersed hundreds of times by this point in His life, just as any
observant Jew would have been; especially a Jew that lived in the Holy Land as
opposed to one who lived out in the far flung Diaspora.
I spoke to you before about what, exactly, John's baptism was meant to do. And
how even among the 3 synoptic Gospel accounts, it isn't entirely clear. I think
then when we look at them as a whole from the long view and not the
microscopic, the meaning comes into better focus: it is about repenting from sins.
I think this because typically immersion (baptism) had to do with being purified
from some sort of ritual uncleanness. It was as a required preparation for
entering the Temple grounds, for example. Jews well understood that water didn't
atone for sin; sin required the spilling of innocent blood at the Temple altar. So
John's immersion had to do less with purification and more with declaration. And
9/12
.....
.....
......
.....
.....

Lesson 8 - Matthew 3 Cont.
the declaration was that the candidate had decided in his or her heart that they
were a sinner, they were sorry for offending God, and that they no longer wanted
to sin but rather they wanted to turn back to God and His ways. No doubt the
undercurrent of the times in which the Jews thought they were living in the End of
Days drove many to search themselves inwardly and question whether they were
indeed right with God or not. When we look around at the world we live in
today, does it not send up some red flags indicating that we ought to be doing to
same and perhaps with the same motive?
But then the question becomes: if Christ was born sinless, and had remained
sinless all of His life, then why His insistence that He be baptized for "repentance
of sins"? His answer to that question helps only a little bit. In verse 15 Yeshua
tells John it is to "do everything righteousness requires". But what does that
mean? Again, there is little scholarly consensus. I'd like to offer this as a solution:
virtually every suggestion proposed by Bible scholars to interpret this passage
that I've ever seen assumes that the righteousness being spoken of is human
righteousness OUR righteousness. Rather I think this is speaking of God's
righteousness. Instead of spending a great deal of time explaining this, on your
own please read the Torah Class lesson #21 on the Book of Exodus. There this
matter is dealt with in detail. For today I will only give you the bottom line: it is that
God's righteous is all about salvation. God's righteousness is a saving
righteousness. God's righteousness is His will to bring about righteousness in
humans according to His plan. And His plan involved a Messiah that was as
human as He was divine.
Thus in Yeshua's eyes, He journeyed the long distance down the Jordan Valley
from his home in the Galilee to obey His Heavenly Father and to begin to carry
out His part of The Father's plan of salvation. In this way, Yeshua achieved the
righteousness of God. So much so that at that same moment we're told that the
Holy Spirit of God descended upon Him like a dove. This does NOT mean that a
supernatural dove lighted upon Christ. Rather this describes a spiritual
happening in physical terms, and physical terms and illustrations are all we have
to use. So let me say this another way: God's righteous is what Yeshua was
referring to not human righteousness.... but of course humans benefit from it.
God's righteousness is His will to save. Yeshua is the focus and fulfillment of
God's plan to save, and thus since Yeshua is God, He too carries within Him
God's righteousness. The Holy Spirit coming down from Heaven is meant as
visible proof of this since Yeshua was also a readily identifiable human being who
grew up in Nazareth of the Galilee. And then a voice from Heaven clearly the
10/12
......

Lesson 8 - Matthew 3 Cont.
Father's voice since Christ was chest deep in the River Jordan at the time
said that this man was the Father's Son whom He loves and in whom He is well
pleased.
Let's back up a bit. One of the things we see happening here (when Jesus comes
to John) is that we have a contrast developed between John and Jesus. Jesus is
supreme and above John. This might sound simple and obvious to us today. But
there is no doubt that this was not necessarily how John's followers took it. One
such example takes place in Acts 19. Recall that John by this time was long
dead.
CJB Acts 19:1-7 While Apollos was in Corinth, Sha'ul completed his travels
through the inland country and arrived at Ephesus, where he found a few
talmidim. 2 He asked them, "Did you receive the Ruach HaKodesh when you
came to trust?" "No," they said to him, "we have never even heard that
there is such a thing as the Ruach aKodesh."
3 "In that case," he said, "into
what were you immersed?" "The immersion of Yochanan," they
answered. 4 Sha'ul said, "Yochanan practiced an immersion in connection
with turning from sin to God; but he told the people to put their trust in the
one who would come after him, that is, in Yeshua." 5 On hearing this, they
were immersed into the name of the Lord Yeshua; 6 and when Sha'ul placed
his hands on them, the Ruach HaKodesh came upon them; so that they
began speaking in tongues and prophesying. 7
In all, there were about
twelve of these men.
So there were independent groups of John's disciples who had developed their
own sense of what baptism meant, what should happen afterwards, and still
maintained something that could only be called John's baptism. However, John
never claimed that his baptism brought salvation; only that it was for repentance
of sins. Repentance is not the same as trust in Christ. Repentance is a necessary
step towards salvation, but it is not salvation.
Good New Testament scholars note a particular tension that grew between John
and Jesus, and between their separate groups of disciples. We learn of the
ambiguity in John's mind about Yeshua in another part of the Book of Matthew.
CJB Matthew 11:1-3 After Yeshua had finished instructing the twelve
talmidim, he went on from there to teach and preach in the towns
nearby. 2 Meanwhile, Yochanan the Immerser, who had been put in prison,
11 / 12
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lesson 8 - Matthew 3 Cont.
heard what the Messiah had been doing; so he sent a message to him
through his talmidim, 3 asking, "Are you the one who is to come, or should
we look for someone else?"
Some time after John's immersion of Yeshua, and after Yeshua had chosen His
12 disciples and was well into His earthly ministry, John was not certain about
who Yeshua was. Therefore, no doubt John's own flock wasn't certain either. And
the story in Acts 19 says that as much as 30 years after Yeshua's death and
resurrection, there remained groups of John's disciples who still didn't understand
who Yeshua was, and what it meant to receive the Holy Spirit in Yeshua's name.
Even so, were these disciples of John saved? No they were not. Because it is the
receiving of the Holy Spirit that is both reward and proof of our salvation.
We'll begin Matthew chapter 4 next time.
12/12


Lesson 9 - Matthew 4
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 9, Chapter 4
As we work our way through the Gospel of Matthew and discover so many
important details buried in the text, and also discover those present in Christian
traditions and just as importantly in the ancient Jewish traditions, we are regularly
going to step back and review what we've studied from a more panoramic
vantage point. Therefore before we open our Bibles to Matthew chapter 4, let's
briefly sum up the first 3 chapters.
Matthew opens with an extensive, but purposeful, genealogy of Yeshua. Because
Matthew is a well educated Jewish Believer, and because he is well versed in
Jewish Tradition as well as in the Hebrew Bible, all that we uncover from here
forward will have a decidedly Jewish flavor and worldview. The genealogy he
presents, then, is given in a particularly Hebrew style; it is given in descending
order with the oldest ancestor named first. In this case that oldest ancestor is
Abraham. Why did Matthew start with Abraham? Because Abraham is the Father
of the Hebrews and Matthew's intent is to prove Yeshua's fundamental Hebrew
connection.
The next point to recognize is that King David is central to Christ's genealogy in
order to prove His right to royal inheritance, but also to prove His credentials as
the Messiah. David's name consists of 3 Hebrew consonants that have a total
gematria value of 14. Thus, the genealogy is given to us in 3 sets of 14 names
each, with David's name as the 14th in the 1st set. The list is not complete and
exhaustive; some generations are skipped not because Matthew didn't know they
existed or who those people were, but because he needed to have his list add up
to 42 (3 times 14 equals 42) to match with Daniel's extensive use of the number
42 in his book of prophecy that was highly popular at this time. Interestingly, 4
1 / 12

Lesson 9 - Matthew 4
women are included in the genealogy (it's not usual to include women), but even
more stunning is that the 4 women mentioned all began their lives as gentiles. In
this way, Matthew is showing that while Jesus is thoroughly Jewish, a connection
to gentiles exists in His underlying biology and so cannot be overlooked.
About halfway through the 1st chapter Matthew tells the story of Yeshua's birth
circumstances, beginning with the odd, if not shameful, situation of his biological
mother not having a completed marriage with his non-biological father. In typical
Jewish courting and marriage custom, Joseph is betrothed to Mary. However
soon thereafter Mary turns up pregnant and the scandal cannot be contained
because Joseph knows it's not his child. Biblically, betrothal is closer to marriage
than it is to engagement as we think of it today. A marriage contract between the
husband and the woman's father is executed at the time of betrothal. As of that
moment the man is called husband and the woman is called wife. Still the woman
remains with her father's household for a time, usually about 1 year. At the end of
this time the woman moves out of her father's home and into her husband's
home where consummation occurs. The marriage is only then fully completed.
Mary being pregnant while still living with her father brings a loss of honor to all
parties, and by the Law of Moses it is a crime that demands the death penalty to
the girl. Joseph doesn't want that for Mary, so he decides to divorce her quietly;
but an angel comes in a dream and tells him not to do that. Rather he is to
continue on with the marriage process. In faith and trust in God, he obeys.
Joseph is told that Mary was not pregnant by normal human means but rather the
male seed is supplied by the Holy Spirit. The son that will be produced is to be
named Yeshua, which means "Yehoveh saves". We are also to notice that
Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary (meaning he did not consummate
the marriage) until after the child was born. So by every Jewish standard, Christ
was born to a mother whose marriage was incomplete.
Chapter 2 begins by explaining that Mary's child was born in the small town of
Bethlehem of Judea, during a historical time when Herod the Great ruled. Now
unfolds the story of some non-specified number of pagan magi (astrologers)
coming to Judea. They say they know that a new king of Judea has been born
and this is because they have seen the portent of it in the sky.
They arrive in Jerusalem and begin asking around where this new king is,
because in their minds where else would a Jewish king be located other than in
2/12
.....

Lesson 9 - Matthew 4
the capital city of Jerusalem? The news of these magi reaches Herod, he is
alarmed by it, and calls together his advisory council; he asks them where the
Messiah would be born. They respond: in Bethlehem. Herod immediately
summons the magi, sends them to Bethlehem, and tells them to report back to
him exactly who this child is.
Notice: the pagan magi are the first to be aware of Christ's birth, even before the
Jewish people. Also notice that they come to Judea looking for a king and not for
a Messiah or a god. The magi's purpose for their visit is purely political. Herod's
concern makes the leap from the political to the religious. He knows enough of
the ancient prophecies (and the hopes of his people for a Deliverer) to realize
that perhaps this child the magi are searching for could be the foretold Messiah.
And if true, then it presents a real problem for him hanging on to his throne.
The magi leave for Bethlehem. It is short 3 or 4 hour walk on a well traveled trail
from Jerusalem. The text says that a star led them to Bethlehem and to the
house where the child was located.
We spent some time investigating what it was that these pagan astrologers saw
that convinced them to make a long journey to find this new king. In the end we
discovered that Matthew had researched enough to use astrological language in
his report about the magi such that it seems that these seers had observed the
placement of a conjunction of 3 planets in the Zodiac sign of Aries. Aries was
believed by them to represent the region of Judea. This conjunction of planets
was, for astrologers, an unmistakable omen that a new king had been born there.
They wanted to go and pay homage to this new king (realizing, of course, that
this new king was but a baby). But such was the politics of the day that it usually
paid off to make such a connection with a future king as soon as possible.
The magi knew before they left their homes that they were traveling to Judea,
and just as obviously to the seat of government of Judea if they were going to
find this new king: Jerusalem. The Jews on the other hand, because they
shunned astrology, had no hint of the event the magi came for and were
confused and startled when the magi began inquiring of them about it. However,
in the fields of Bethlehem the Glory of God burst upon some humble Jewish
shepherds, producing a blinding light, and an angel vocally announced the birth
of their Deliverer the long promised Messiah. The Shepherds went to the
house in the village where the Messiah lay in a feeding trough, because that was
the sign that the angel gave to them as a means to find and positively identify
3/12
......

Lesson 9 - Matthew 4
him. The year of Our Lord's advent was likely 6 B.C. by our modern calendars,
since Herod the Great died a couple of years later in 4 B.C. (the year of Herod's
death is well attested).
The magi also locate the child, believe him to be the new king their astrological
portent had revealed, honor him with very expensive gifts, and leave for home
without reporting back to Herod. Herod soon realized they weren't coming back to
him with the information he wanted and so in a homicidal rage, taking no
chances, he ordered all male children in and around Bethlehem to be murdered
so that which ever of these children this Messiah might be, he wouldn't survive.
Before the slaughter began an angel came to Joseph in a dream and told him to
flee with his family at once to Egypt and there to await word from this same angel
for when the family could return to the Holy Land. They were in Egypt for
probably around a year before this same angel returned with the good news that
Herod was dead and the danger had passed. Even so the succeeding king, one
of Herod's sons, was about as bad as his father and ruling over Judea, so
Joseph decided it would be the safer choice to go to the Galilee and live in
Nazareth, a small and remote country village.
As we entered chapter 3, the subject turned to John the Baptist; therefore several
years passed from the end of chapter 2 to the beginning of chapter 3 perhaps
as many as 30 years. John was a desert dweller, and apparently dressed much
like the prophets of old, wearing a camel's hair garment with a leather belt around
his waist. There is little doubt in my mind that he thought of himself as a
successor to Elijah, and the Jewish people believed he might be the return of that
ancient prophet.
John's message to the Jews was twofold: 1) the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand,
and 2) people should prepare for it by turning from their sins to God. He is called
John the Baptist because those who heeded his message also came to be
ritually immersed by him in the Jordan River. Although the Gospel accounts don't
entirely agree on the exact purpose of John's baptism, it seems to me that it was
mostly about a public declaration of repentance and the immersion was a symbol
of cleansing from the old and putting on the new. During this era, due to the
ruthless and painful occupation of the Romans, the Jews generally believed they
were living in the End Times. So when a Prophet comes along who declares that
the Kingdom of God is about to appear (something that was thought to
accompany the End of Days) many pay attention if for no other reason than out
of fear and self preservation.
4/12

Lesson 9 - Matthew 4
Apparently the number of people flocking to John was substantial enough to
alarm the religious leadership of both the Temple and the Synagogue. Holy men
who gathered enough disciples could present a challenge to their authority, or
worse upset Rome, and so the Pharisee and Sadducee leadership came to John
to investigate. John knew they didn't come to him sincerely, and so he didn't
welcome them. In fact he chided them, saying that they were snakes, and that
their heritage of Abraham as their ancestral father was in no way sufficient to
protect them from God's wrath. John went on to explain his own purpose as the
one who was to prepare the way for the emergence of a great man; a man who
was far greater than himself. And when this great man comes, one of the things
he will do is to identify the righteous from the unrighteous and separate them the
way a winnowing fork separates the wheat from the chaff.
We hear not one word about Christ's youth. It is now that Yeshua, as an adult,
enters the picture as He comes from Galilee to John in Judea to be immersed.
John balks at such a notion, feeling that he is not worthy to do so. Yeshua insists
and upon immersion the Holy Spirit in some visible, detectable form descends
upon Him in dove-like fashion. A voice booms from Heaven that can be none
other than the Father. He says that this is His son, and that He is well pleased
with Him. What comes next is the subject of Matthew chapter 4. Open your
Bibles to that chapter.
READ MATTHEW CHAPTER 4 all
The theme for chapter 4 is the beginning of Yeshua's ministry. Interestingly the
first thing Matthew deals with is a string a 3 temptations Jesus faced,
orchestrated by Satan. It is curious that we are told that it was the "Spirit" that led
Yeshua into the wilderness (the Judean desert that John the Baptist called
home). The Spirit has to be referring to the Holy Spirit; so it is God that guided
Christ into the desert to have an encounter with the Devil. The term "The Devil"
comes from the Greek word used here, which is diabolos. It is an attempted
translation of the Hebrew term Satan, which itself means adversary. So these
several terms for the evil arch enemy of God like Devil, Satan, Evil One,
Adversary, and others are equal and referring to this same evil spiritual being.
Sometimes we can forget that Satan, like all other beings or objects, was created
by the only Creator that exists: The God of Israel. Naturally, even though he
wants to be, Satan is not equal to his Creator. The Bible makes it clear that Satan
is the source of all evil, all degradation, and thus the underlying cause of all sin.
5/12


Lesson 9 - Matthew 4
Let me state without hesitation that those who say there is no God, and that as
humans they are the superior beings of this planet (if not Universe), are operating
in the image of the Adversary. Those who in English are called atheists are the
most dangerous creatures on this planet because they embody the very essence
of the Devil: those who oppose the Creator, see themselves as equal to Him, and
desire to take His place.
We won't find a great deal of information in the Bible about the realm of the Devil,
nor much about the realm of God. This is because the writers of the Bible didn't
know much about those 2 realms and because they assumed that their readers
(at the minimum) accepted the idea that there exists two opposing spiritual
regimes: those beings that are loyal and obedient to God the Creator who
represents light and perfection, and those beings that are loyal and obedient to
Satan, God's adversary, who represents darkness and evil. So there is no need
to explain it.
Please notice that of the 3 temptations the Devil offers Yeshua, Yeshua rebukes
them all by quoting Scripture. And the Scripture He quotes is from the Torah;
specifically Deuteronomy 6 and 8. One of the reasons these particular passages
are appropriate is because of something we discussed in an earlier lesson: Jesus
is being depicted as a kind of second Moses, and thus Jesus is echoing Israel's
experience in the wilderness: the Exodus. As Davies and Allison so eloquently
put it:
"Having passed through the waters of a new exodus at his baptism, he
enters the desert to suffer a time of testing, his 40 days of fasting being
analogous to Israel's 40 years of wandering. Like Israel, Jesus is tested by
hunger. And like Israel, Jesus is tempted to idolatry".
In Deuteronomy 8 we read this that was spoken to Israel as they navigated the
trials of the wilderness and were about to emerge into the Promised Land:
CJB Deuteronomy 8:2-3 2 You are to remember everything of the way in
which ADONAl led you these forty years in the desert, humbling and testing
you in order to know what was in your heart- whether you would obey his
mitzvot or not. 3 He humbled you, allowing you to become hungry, and
then fed you with man, which neither you nor your ancestors had ever
known, to make you understand that a person does not live on food alone
but on everything that comes from the mouth of ADONAl.
6/12
.....

Lesson 9 - Matthew 4
God led the fleeing Israelites through the desert; He did so intentionally in a way
to achieve a specific purpose: to teach them, through testing and humbling, that
what was hidden in the deepest recesses of their hearts would pour out in
response to their circumstances. One of those humbling experiences they faced
was that they became hungry, and God's purpose for them enduring this was to
teach them that God's people don't live on food alone, but rather on what pours
forth from His mouth that is, His Word. His truth. His laws and commands.
Yeshua, as a sort of second Moses, would now face similar trials.
Indeed as verse 2 says, out in the desert Yeshua went without food for 40 days
and nights, and of course He became hungry (a rather significant
understatement!). For the Jews, the desert was not just a dangerous place it was
also a scary place. Even in the God commanded observances of Yom Kippur,
one of the rituals involved the Scapegoat. One of the goats was killed, and the
other was set free to wander in the desert and face evil.
CJB Leviticus 16:8-10 8 Then Aharon is to cast lots for the two goats, one lot
for ADONAl and the other for 'Az'azel. 9 Aharon is to present the goat
whose lot fell to ADONAl and offer it as a sin offering. 10 But the goat whose
lot fell to 'Az'azel is to be presented alive to ADONAl to be used for making
atonement over it by sending it away into the desert for 'Az'azel.
There has always been mystery associated with this 'Az'azel. However the
general consensus within Judaism is that 'Az'azel was a powerful demon whose
earthly realm was the Judean desert. Notice in Leviticus how of the two goats,
one goes to God, the author of good, and the other goes to a demon, the author
of evil. And sure enough, out in the lonely desert, the starving Jesus (the One
designated to become our sin offering) encounters the Evil One. And what does
the Evil One do? He tempts Yeshua.
I want to inject here that what the Devil did towards Yeshua he does to us all,
even to Believers. At our weakest and most unexpected moments he tempts us
to go against God. Yeshua gave us the formula for resisting the Evil One. Satan
knew, of course, exactly who Yeshua is and what God's purpose is for Him. And
yet it didn't deter him whatsoever from attempting to pervert Yeshua's destiny
and mission.
Yeshua was beyond famished after 40 days and nights of not eating: His body
was literally deteriorating. It is interesting that Matthew says the fasting lasted for
7/12

Lesson 9 - Matthew 4
40 days and nights and not just 40 days because adding in the "and nights" is
not usual when speaking of periods of time in the Bible. Not surprisingly there
were a couple of famous Bible characters who came before Yeshua that spoke of
periods of time in the same way. Moses said:
CJB Deuteronomy 9:9 9
/ had gone up the mountain to receive the stone
tablets, the tablets on which was written the covenant ADONAI had made
with you. I stayed on the mountain forty days and nights without eating
food or drinking water.
So here we again see the connection between Moses and Christ, and the idea
that Christ is reliving the experience of Israel and the exodus. But even more
there is another important connection that is being made.
CJB Jonah 2:1 ADONAI prepared a huge fish to swallow Yonah; and Yonah
was in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights. 2 From the belly
of the fish Yonah prayed to ADONAI his God;
Everyone in ancient times understood that a day meant one entire sun and moon
appearance; daytime and nighttime in sequence. So the addition of the phrase
"and nights" is not a usual Hebrew expression but rather is rare. When something
is rare in the Bible, we need to pay attention. Later in His ministry Christ will
make use of this rare phrase and it's prophetic connections:
CJB Matthew 12:38-40 38 At this some of the Torah-teachers said, "Rabbi, we
want to see a miraculous sign from you." 39 He replied, "A wicked and
adulterous generation asks for a sign? No! None will be given to it but the
sign of the prophet Yonah. 40 For just as Yonah was three days and three
nights in the belly of the sea-monster, so will the Son of Man be three days
and three nights in the depths of the earth.
It is the addition of the phrase "and nights" that is the connecting tissue that pulls
all of this together.
Although I've never experienced hunger to the level that Jesus was experiencing
it, I'm told it is painful. The Devil, however, has an easy solution for Him; he tells
Yeshua that IF He is really the Son of God, then turn the stones that are laying all
around Him into bread. The Devil of course is trying to sow self-doubt into Jesus.
IF....what a big word IF is; it is word meant to describe uncertainty. Have we all
8/12

Lesson 9 - Matthew 4
not heard deep within our minds: "If you are really saved, you would not have
had that bad thought or done that bad thing". "If you really love Jesus, He would
enable you to live a perfect life and do everything God wants you to do". At the
same time, this temptation of IF happens early in Christ's ministry and there is
ample biblical evidence that He indeed is still struggling with exactly who He is,
where He fits in His Father's plan, and how to justify or perhaps balance His
humanness with His divineness. I suspect that most of us will, similar to Yeshua,
struggle our entire lives to understand and balance our new Godly nature with
our old corrupted human nature. It is to be expected; and yet it is also fertile
ground for the Adversary to strike us at any moment. What do we do? We follow
Our Savior's example.
Yeshua responded to this attack by quoting the Bible; and as we discussed
earlier in the beginning of today's lesson, it was from the Torah that Yeshua
spoke to rebuke the Devil. He says from Deuteronomy 8:3: a person does not
live on food alone but on everything that comes from the mouth of
ADONAI.
This verse was of course spoken 1400 years earlier by Moses. The circumstance
was even similar. Listen to the entire passage:
CJB Deuteronomy 8:3 3 He humbled you, allowing you to become hungry,
and then fed you with man, which neither you nor your ancestors had ever
known, to make you understand that a person does not live on food alone
but on everything that comes from the mouth of ADONAI.
God provided starving Israel with manna, but they grumbled and complained
about it, endlessly. They were thankful only for a moment. Would Christ, The Son
of God (remember, God also called Israel Son of God), behave as Israel did in
the wilderness? Or would he be faithful? As the second Moses, He quotes Moses
and passes the test. So far Yeshua is, indeed, the ideal Israel and not the
unfaithful one.
Next in verse 5 the Adversary takes Jesus to Jerusalem and the Temple. Note
that it was God who took Yeshua to the desert for testing (just as God took the
Israelite refugees to the desert for testing); but this time it is The Devil that takes
Yeshua to the holy city of Jerusalem for testing. He takes Him to the pinnacle of
the Temple and once again tries to sow seeds of doubt. He says "IF you are The
Son of God then jump." Will Yeshua have the faith to do the most fearful thing
9/12

Lesson 9 - Matthew 4
one can imagine? Will He jump and trust His Father to somehow, miraculously,
catch Him, saving His life? Wouldn't that be the result IF He was actually the Son
of God? Satan goes so far as to quote Scripture to Jesus in order to convince
Him to take the leap.
Instead of trying to prove Himself or prove God by throwing Himself off this high
place, He quotes Scripture to the Devil in response to the Devil using Psalm 91 to
make his point. There we read:
CJB Psalm 91:11-12 11 for he will order his angels to care for you and guard
you wherever you go. 12 They will carry you in their hands, so that you
won't trip on a stone.
This is legitimate Scripture Satan is using. Even the context for it (which is about
God caring for His own) seems correct. Yeshua's response is more than
appropriate, it is a caution to us His disciples. Many of us are very good at
remembering Scripture passages. And sometimes when we encounter a difficult
or stressful situation or a tough decision, we can find ourselves hearing one of
those biblical passages in our minds telling us to do something challenging or
even frightening. But then we have to remember a principle that Jesus teaches
right here:
CJB Deuteronomy 6:16 16 Do not put ADONAl your God to the test, as you
tested him at Massah [testing].
Let me give you a quick Hebrew lesson. While often in English translations we
see the idea of testing or tempting used twice in this verse, in fact that's an
illusion because it is three times. The Hebrew actually makes a play on words. In
the first use of the word test or tempting, the original Hebrew
is nacah (pronounced naw-saw). The 2nd time we see test or tempt in this verse
the original Hebrew is the same: nacah. But the 3rd use is Massah, and it mostly
means a place of tempting. In fact, nacah in this context is not best translated as
tempt or test as it is in many translations; rather nacah is meant in a judicial
sense, like putting someone on trial. So what this passage in Deuteronomy is
meaning is to not put God on trial, as Israel tried to put God on trial at the place
of tempting. God took Israel to a place to tempt them, thus putting their faith on
trial. But Israel tried to turn it around and put God on trial. We are never to put
God on trial; we are never to judge Him. And jumping off of a tall building trying to
prove to someone (perhaps even to yourself) that you have faith in God (because
10/12
.....

Lesson 9 - Matthew 4
God is certainly able to catch you if He wants to) is to put God on trial and that is
never right.
I cannot tell you how many emails I get from sincere persons who are assured in
their minds, and backed-up with a Scripture verse, that they are to do something
that seems abundantly foolish, but they think they should do it for God. They are
among the hardest to persuade that what is really happening is that either the
Devil or more likely their own evil inclination is putting them in a losing situation,
which when it fails they will blame on God or at least they will lose a substantial
measure of faith and trust in Him. It is that they are certain that God's will for
them is to do something that appropriate Scripture teaching, in context, tells them
to do otherwise. And almost always it is because they so badly want to do what
their own will wants to do, they are blind to the error of it.
Yeshua rebukes this test of Satan by recalling the Massah incident during
Israel's exodus from Egypt.... once again providing connection between He and
Moses.
In verse 8, again the Devil leads Yeshua to a high place; this time even higher
than the pinnacle on the Temple. It is to a mountain top in order to gain a wide
vantage point so that Satan can dramatically make his offer. Notice how we go
from a low place, the desert, to a high place, the pinnacle of the Temple, to the
highest place a mountain top. And in lockstep with the ascending geography
is the ascending temptations. Now the Devil offers Christ the world that he lays
out before Him. He makes it clear that he has the ability to give Messiah all the
world's kingdoms for Him to rule over. The price? Bow down and worship him.
The point is not hard to see. It is Satan's attempt to replace God. I don't know
whether Yeshua, at this point in time, already knows that He is God's agent to
rule the world, or not. Nevertheless the world belongs to God because He is the
Creator of it. It is His and His alone to rule over, or to assign the rule to another.
Interestingly the Devil's offer of Christ worshipping him in exchange for world rule
uses the same word in Greek that the magi used when worshipping
Yeshua: proskuneo. It is better translated as homage. That is, just as the magi
paid homage in the political sense to the Christ Child (who the magi saw as a
king), so is the Devil telling Yeshua to pay homage in the political sense and
much less so in the religious sense because the Devil sees himself as ruler (king)
of the world. Satan is proposing a role reversal since we know from other Bible
passages that God has designated Yeshua to be the ruler of the world, with
11 / 12
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lesson 9 - Matthew 4
Satan bowing down to Him.
Yeshua again rebukes the Evil One with Scripture.
CJB Deuteronomy 6:13 You are to fear ADONAl your God, serve him and
swear by his name.
The next words of this Gospel of Matthew are: "Then the Adversary left Him
alone". At that moment the Devil's hopes were crushed. The testing was over;
there was nothing left to test. He had failed to shake the faith of Our Messiah,
The Son of God.
We'll continue with chapter 4 next week.
12/12


Lesson 10 - Matthew 4 cont
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 10, Chapter 4 continued
The Early Church Father Chrysostom said this about the temptations of
Christ: "The devil begins with the temptation to indulge the belly. By this
same means he cast out the first man, and by this means many are still
cast down."
In our study of Matthew chapter 4, immediately Yeshua is led into 3 temptations.
As Chrysostom comments, it is not a coincidence that Yeshua and the first man
Adam (or better, first couple) were tempted with food by the Evil One. Food is a
powerful need in humans and therefore can be a powerful force in swaying
humans. And yet Chrysostom sees that there is more to food than only the
nutrition and calories that it necessarily provides.
For those who have studied the Torah with me (and I hope you all have because
you'll get so much more out of any study of the New Testament), you'll recall that
Adam and Eve were originally given, by God, what I call "a one-law Torah". And
what was the first and only law God gave to them while they were still being
allowed to inhabit the Garden of Eden? Do not eat of the fruit of the tree of
knowledge of good and evil. And, of course, they broke that law. The breaking of
that law is known in various Church doctrines as the Fall of Man, the Fall from
Grace, and a few other titles. So the first law ever given to mankind involved diet:
food. And the breaking of a law about food completely redirected the destiny of
all of humanity in innumerable and painful ways that would require a Redeemer
to fix it. Centuries later, at Mt. Sinai, God would give Israel a more extensive set
of laws regarding diet; laws that have come to be popularly known as Kosher
food laws.
1 / 11

Lesson 10 - Matthew 4 cont
Nearly all of the Earliest Church Fathers whose commentaries on Matthew's
Gospel have survived, noticed this connection between Adam and Christ, and
some of them noticed this matter of food as the object of a temptation they both
faced. In Adam's case he had an abundance of food in the Garden. And still
when the Devil tempted him by making this one specific food off-limits, Adam
succumbed to it. While in Christ's case of the temptation in the wilderness He had
no food, this starving man was also tempted by the Devil by telling Him to turn
stones into food to satisfy His gnawing hunger (which, apparently, Yeshua could
have done as He did not dispute Satan on the matter except that He should not
do such a thing). Yeshua resisted the temptation and was victorious.
I find it instructional that the Early Church Fathers were so very aware of the
relationship between Adam and Yeshua's temptations, and that food was the
object of the first temptation for both of them. But then these same Church
Fathers seem to ignore or rationalize away that God goes on in the Torah to
carefully lay out what the diet for humans ought and ought not to be. That is,
what God ordains as permissible for eating versus what is forbidden. One could
argue that this God-commanded diet was only meant for Hebrews, or perhaps
that gentile Believers in Yeshua are also to be included along with the Hebrews. I
would respond that all mankind was meant to eat this way. However it is logical
and it is human nature that only those who trust in the God of Israel and believe
His Word would think to follow the food laws. All others would find such
instructions as irrelevant to them.
So, fellow Believers and followers of Jesus of Nazareth, what say you? I say
unequivocally that we are to eat biblically kosher. Is it sin not to follow those food
laws? Of course it is. The definition of sin is to disobey God's commandments.
Note I say biblically kosher food commandments because I don't accept the large
body of manmade Rabbinical Tradition about kosher eating that has taken but
one chapter in Leviticus concerning food and turned it into scores of pages of
arcane eating rules.
It is a curious truth that even in the secular world of medical science, it is said
that "we are what we eat". It has been understood for a long time that our diet
plays a significant role in our lives. Although Doctors, scientists, and nutritionists
are speaking only of our physical biological lives, God views diet as affecting
primarily our spiritual lives (and that didn't start at Mt. Sinai but rather in the
Garden of Eden). In the spiritual realm the Lord is the first to tell us that in His
eyes "we are what we eat". On the surface the matter of food is a rather simplistic
2/11

Lesson 10 - Matthew 4 cont
one: God has set down what is food for humans and what is not. Edibility is not
the point of the food selection process, and for the most part neither are health
benefits. God, in His supremacy and perfection, has deemed and commanded
the proper human diet. As Believers in Him, then all that is left for us to decide is:
will we obey or not? Yes, the issue is obedience versus sin and nothing else.
Don't be searching for scientific rationale for whether you should or should not
follow the biblical food laws; lots of things we could eat are no doubt delicious
and physically healthy. Rather be considering your position before the Lord, and
whether you want to be seen by Him as faithful or not. God did not set the food
laws down as an option for us; Adam found that out the hard way, and we've all
been affected by that rebellious act ever since. Yeshua, in the most stressful and
painful of circumstances, chose to trust and obey His Father and so refused to
take the Devil's bait in order to satisfy His want of food. We've all benefited by
that faithful act of Our Savior ever since.
The second temptation of Christ involved Satan taking Him up to the highest
point of the Temple in Jerusalem, and inviting Him to jump off. Taunting Him
that IF He was truly God's Son, His Father would send angels to catch Him. The
Devil was trying to sow seeds of doubt into Yeshua by employing the "if" word.
But He swatted that one away by quoting God's commandment in Deuteronomy
6:16 that man should not put God on trial by doing such a foolish thing as
jumping off a high place and expecting God to catch us. The Early Church Father
Hilary of Poitiers, at about the turn of the 3rd to the 4th century, made this
fascinating observation in his commentary on Matthew. Hilary says: "He (the
Devil) set Him (Christ) on the pinnacle of the Temple, as if towering over the
laws and the prophets". In other words, Satan indeed was trying to put himself
above God's laws and commandments, which by definition means he was trying
to put God on trial. Let that gestate for a few seconds. When we think that we...
mere created beings.... can set aside our Creator's laws and commands by
manufacturing new doctrines and commands that please us better, we are
putting God on trial. We are putting ourselves towering above God, towering over
His laws and commands, thus behaving exactly as the Devil did in this second
temptation of Christ.
In the very next chapter of Matthew, which begins Yeshua's Sermon on the
Mount, Yeshua makes sure that His followers understand what I just told you.
CJB Matthew 5:17-19 17 "Don't think that I have come to abolish the Torah or
the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete. 18 Yes indeed! I
3/11


Lesson 10 - Matthew 4 cont
tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or a
stroke will pass from the Torah- not until everything that must happen has
happened. 19 So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot and teaches
others to do so will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But
whoever obeys them and so teaches will be called great in the Kingdom of
Heaven.
So even Christ did not put Himself above God's laws and commands such that
He could add to or subtract from them. Even though the vast bulk of the
institutional Church has for centuries not been faithful or truthful on this matter,
and instead has instituted new manmade doctrines that has told billions of
Christians that for them God's laws and commands are dead and gone because
Christ did away with them, Christ Himself said otherwise. In Matthew 4 when
Yeshua fights the Devil He specifically uses Scripture passages from the Torah
as His weapon. Now, why, if His purpose was to abolish the Torah would He use
it as an example for us to follow? Why would He soon follow up in His Sermon on
the Mount and specifically declare that not only didn't He come with the purpose
of abolishing the Torah and the Prophets, but also warning that whoever might
think to disobey these laws and commands of the Torah and teach others to do
so is going to find him or her self occupying the lowest possible rung on the
Heavenly Ladder in God's Kingdom society. It pains me to no end that the
Church has done such a damaging and unscriptural thing primarily with the
purpose of trying to achieve gentile superiority over the early Church's Jewish
leadership. It has led to nothing but disobedience and a weakening of Christian
faith. But now you know the truth, and you are seeing it for yourself in God's
Word. So how you respond to this scriptural knowledge will have much to do with
your personal eternal future and where you might be placed within God's
Kingdom structure.
The third temptation of Christ was that the Devil offered Yeshua rulership over
the entire planet in exchange for bowing down to him. Jesus's response to him
was "away with you Satan" or more popularly "get behind Me, Satan". Next we
read: "Then the Adversary let Him alone..." In an anonymous Christian
commentary on Matthew, written sometime in the 5th century; a work that has
been labeled by Theologians as The Incomplete Work on Matthew, Homily 5, its
unknown writer offers us this uplifting perspective about what happened with
Yeshua and how this applies to us.
"He (Christ) put an end to the Devil's tempting when he said 'Get behind me
4/11

Lesson 10 - Matthew 4 cont
Satan!". The devil could progress no further with his temptation. But we
can rightly understand and reasonably ascertain that he withdrew not as
though in obedience to the command. Rather it was the divinity of Christ or
the Holy Spirit in Christ who drove away the Devil. This gives us great
consolation, for the Devil cannot tempt God's people as long as he wishes.
He can tempt them only so long as Christ or the Holy Spirit who is in them
allows him to." What a wonderful and important point of view for us to grasp. It is not the
mechanical quoting of Scripture passages that blocks the Devil, just as it is not
the mechanical doing of God's laws and commands that satisfies the Lord. When
we are saved, and Christ or the Holy Spirit (however we choose to phrase it)
dwells within us, and when as Believers we find occasion to rebuke the Devil's
temptations by speaking God's Word to him, it is the power of God within us that
the Devil flees from; not from our human ability to remember and quote it.
So now let's move on in Matthew chapter 4 to learn about what follows the
temptation of Christ. Open your Bibles to Matthew 4.
RE-READ MATTHEW CHAPTER 4:11 - end
I'd like to remark here that the implication that after Satan withdrew and let Jesus
alone that angels ministered to Him, is sort of mysterious to me. How, exactly, did
angels minister to Him? Did they bring Him food? Did they comfort Him in some
way? Did they congratulate or praise Him? Why couldn't regular humans, instead
of angels, do most of this for Him? I don't think I have a solid enough answer to
this because there is simply no further information provided to us. Yet let's not
overlook the plain matter that apparently Yeshua, Himself also being
God, needed to be ministered to. It can be very complicated and challenging to
either separate or combine Yeshua's humanity with His divinity and speak of it
and think of it in some orderly and comprehensible way. Since God has no
needs, then in this case it can only be that Jesus, the human being, did.
We're not told how long it was between each of the 3 temptations or if they
occurred in rapid succession. After a person has not eaten in 40 days, a couple
of hearty meals doesn't bring a person back to good health. So perhaps a time of
regaining His physical strength had something to do with the ministration of the
angels. I suspect that it also had to do with His spirit and His emotions. I cannot
even imagine the stress He was under and the physical exhaustion that
5/11

Lesson 10 - Matthew 4 cont
accompanied it; He knew the weight of the world, and the eternal fate of
humanity, rest upon His shoulders. The Devil tried to take advantage of this fact; I
think the angels came to give Jesus rest in a way that can only come from
Heaven.
Verse 12 shifts the subject. Here we learn that John the Baptist has been
arrested but we're not given any particulars about it. Later in chapter 14 Matthew
will address this in more detail as kind of a flash-back. Nonetheless John's arrest
occurred while Yeshua was in Judea and so it became a signal to Yeshua that
He needed to leave and go back home to the Galilee. Some commentators see
what Yeshua did as fleeing because He is so intimately connected to John that
He thinks He'll be the next to be arrested. And yet the Galilee isn't all that far
away and if Antipas really wanted to find Yeshua and arrest Him it wouldn't have
been terribly difficult. Others think that the arrest of John, and Jesus going back
to the Galilee, are not necessarily linked. It's just that Matthew is only telling us
two separate things: 1) John had been imprisoned, and 2) Jesus went back to the
Galilee to begin His ministry. I'm not at all sure which is the case. However the
next verse may give us some more information that gives us a clue about it.
Verse 13 says that He went back to His hometown of Nazareth, but then moved
to Capernaum. Was He doing this to evade the authorities? Perhaps. But
Matthew says in verse 14 that the reason for this move was in order to fulfill a
prophecy of Isaiah. In other words, some of the things Christ did, He did
purposely for little other reason than to fulfill ancient Messianic prophecies
concerning His coming and His mission as Israel's Messiah.
Capernaum is an English translation of the Hebrew K'far Nahum, which means
"the village of Nahum". The village was located on the Sea of Galilee (and it is
still there), so a goodly part of its economy depended on fishing. That Matthew
tells us that the village was near the border between the tribal territories allotted
to the tribes of Zevulun and Naphtali further indicates that Matthew resided in the
Holy Land and that he was quite studied in the Hebrew Bible because in no way
were those tribal territories meaningful any longer even to most Jews. Once the
Assyrians conquered the north of Israel towards the end of the 8th century B.C.,
and then 130 years later when the Babylonians conquered the south, the tribal
territory names (other than for Judah) were mostly erased and whatever
boundaries they had been given by Moses and Joshua disappeared. This all
happened centuries before Christ's era. So mention of the tribal territories of
Zevulun and Naphtali solidifies that Matthew's intended audience was Jews
6/11

Lesson 10 - Matthew 4 cont
because the old tribal geography and those old tribal names would have had no
meaning outside of the Jewish population.
Next Matthew quotes the pertinent section of the prophecy that he says Jesus is
fulfilling by His moving to K'far Nahum, and it comes from Isaiah chapters 8 and
9. Most Believers have heard this passage in Matthew a number of times.
However remembering that this came from a Prophet that lived 7 centuries
earlier, and the circumstances of his day were entirely different than they were in
Christ's era, I want to take the time to put this prophecy in context because it
becomes all the more meaningful. So let's read all of Isaiah 8 and then the first 6
verses of Isaiah 9. Turn your Bibles there, now, and read along with me.
READ ISAIAH CHAPTER 8:1 - 9:6
The mention of Ashur at the beginning is speaking of the Assyrian Kingdom that
Isaiah says will conquer the 10 northern tribes of Israel and carry them off.
History shows that they were scattered all over Asia and Northern Africa. This
exile from their land is judgment upon all Israel by Yehoveh for their idolatry and
unfaithfulness. And at the same time, while the Lord has prepared and drawn in
gentile nations to be the earthly sword of God's judgment, He's going to shatter
them for being so hard on His people. So God sort of says to these gentile
nations: go ahead and laugh now, because you won't be laughing later.
The people of Israel, however, are oblivious to their own rebellion and idolatry
and the coming consequences, even though God has sent Prophets, including
Isaiah, to warn them. The 12 tribes are like a disabled ship bobbing around on a
churning sea having lost its rudder. Each man is doing what is right in his own
eyes. The 10 northern tribes, especially, have been blatantly bowing down to
other gods along with insincerely worshipping Yehoveh for some time; and the 2
tribes that form Judah are being slowly drawn into the same destructive behavior.
Finally the breaking point is reached; what Isaiah describes next is the Israelites
reaching out frantically in all directions for the solutions to their growing
frustrations, misfortunes and overwhelming problems. They try pressuring their
Prophets into contacting the dead for answers. They try sacrifice to other gods
hoping for their favor. They quit consulting God's Word for direction and look to
others or to themselves. There is only one word to describe the condition of Israel
at this time: confusion.
Starting in Isaiah 8:11 the Prophet says that God told him that even through
7/11
.....

Lesson 10 - Matthew 4 cont
these are Isaiah's own people, he is not to join them in this nonsense. Don't listen
to the conspiracy theories and don't buy in. Don't dread what the people dread,
don't fear what the leaders fear. In other words, don't listen to all the noise of a
disjointed society and become as anxiety driven as they are. What perfect
wisdom that is for us, God's Believers, in our day. What Israel was doing 2700
years ago sounds amazingly similar to what the entire world is doing today. And
it has led to a state of confusion and chaos that even the Church has not
escaped. Hear and do what God says to us, His worshippers. We have no choice
but to observe what is occurring all around us but we don't have to participate.
Even more, we are to seek the Lord God of Israel and not other gods for answers
and for wisdom. We are not to run after the gods of other religions, the gods of
science and technology, the gods of prosperity, the gods of government and
political ideology, nor the gods of self and self pleasure. The only remedy for the
ever shifting sands of confusion is to reverse course and return to the safety of
the Rock.
Then we arrive at Isaiah 8 verse 23. Time passes God's people wait for their
deliverance.... they wait....more time than the people of Israel thought would pass
drifts by at glacial speed. Naturally they hoped that what Isaiah told them was
going to happen might play out in months, maybe a few years. But no.... 700
years goes by to the point that the people now living in the lands of Zevulun and
Naphtali (in Yeshua's time known best as the upper Galilee) are barely aware
whose tribal lands they stand upon. In fact, it's not the tribal members of Zevulun
and Naphtali who live there anymore, because during Yeshua's day those tribes
had still not returned to their land but rather they remained in exile. Those other
people consist of not just a few gentiles, and they don't know the land's history.
As we have arrived at the biblical passage that forms verses 15 and 16 in
Matthew chapter 4 and we compare it to Isaiah 8 and 9, we note first of all that
Matthew paraphrases Isaiah's prophecy for his own purpose and applies it to
Capernaum and the surrounding areas, and to Yeshua as the Messiah (another
use of remez or perhaps drash in Bible interpretation). Those areas that the
Isaiah prophecy describes are in Christ's era the several Jewish lake front
villages ("lake" is a term that is used to this day in Israel when speaking about
what gentiles call the Sea of Galilee). The passage also describes areas on the
east side of the Jordan River (because in 700 B.C. Israel still held substantial
tribal territories there, but that was no longer the case in Yeshua's time). And
then finally we hear of the Galilee of the Gentiles because so many gentiles
occupied areas around the west side of the Sea of Galilee, and even more so on
8/11
.....
.....

Lesson 10 - Matthew 4 cont
the east side. The reality is that Rome was in charge of that entire region.
All of these areas around the Galilee that Isaiah describes are home to the
people he says have been walking "in great darkness"; but now these same
people have seen a "great light". In Hebrew the word "darkness" as used in
Isaiah's prophecy is choshek. This is not a word that speaks of the darkness of
nighttime or of a darkened room. Rather choshek is used to describe obscurity,
oppression, and deception. So the great darkness is a
great spiritual darkness.... evil ... shared by Israelites and gentiles alike. And the
great light that Isaiah prophesies about is in its original Hebrew owr. It is a type
of light that is not the kind that comes from the sun, or from a torch or a light bulb.
Rather owr means enlightenment truth.... revelation; the qualities of good that
are the foundation of God's (and Messiah's) nature. These are the same words
used to describe various aspects of Israel's experience in Egypt. Matthew takes
the term "great light" in Isaiah's prophecy to mean the Messiah (and I have no
doubt that is exactly what Isaiah was prophesying). When we hear about those
living in the region as living in the shadow of death, I think the ultimate meaning
is the shadow of eternal death a spiritual death is being contemplated much
more than a physical death that all humans will experience. Also because thus
far in Isaiah's prophecy the terms concerning the dark condition of the people
and then the arrival of the great light are spiritual terms.
In verse 17 we have Yeshua using the same words that John the Baptist used as
he called people to his baptism: turn from your sins to God, and the Kingdom of
Heaven is near. He used the same words as John because that is exactly what
His purpose was for His coming. Those same words are not on the lips of the
Prophets that prepare the way for Yeshua's return at the End of Days, nor are
they what Yeshua will speak when He comes back in power and glory. This is
because upon His first appearance He came as His Father's agent to redeem.
The next time He comes (His return), He comes as His Father's agent to carry
out God's wrath and vengeance. First coming: salvation. Second coming:
judgment. Therefore the message is that God's Kingdom on earth has just been
inaugurated, and the only means to gain membership is to sincerely repent.
Why? Because the Kingdom of Heaven (or of God) is not a place; it is not like an
enormous Shangra La. Rather it represents God's rule that itself is expressed in
the lives of human beings. If you are a Believer, the Kingdom of God is already
within you. And while that Kingdom is, for now, fully spiritual in nature, in time it
will transform and become the spiritual AND physical condition of the new
heavens and new earth.
9/11
.....


Lesson 10 - Matthew 4 cont
This is why the concept that we find playing out in Matthew that the Kingdom of
Heaven is present, it is coming, and it is also future can be so confusing and the
subject of several varying Church doctrines that usually focus on but one,
perhaps two, of those three aspects of it. Although I'll have more to say about it
as our lessons in Matthew continue, for now just know that it was John the
Baptist who inaugurated the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, it is Yeshua and later
with the help of His disciples (then and now) who are expanding the Kingdom by
means of spreading the Good News, and then finally the Kingdom reaches it's
completed form when the old heavens and old earth pass away to make room for
the new heavens and new earth. I'll say this another way: the Kingdom of
Heaven does not belong only to a moment in history, but rather it consists of its
establishment by means of a series of events over a period of time. That time
period is not precisely specified, however the so-called End Times prophets
(such as Daniel and Ezekiel) together with the Book of Revelation give to us the
major milestone events and some semblance of their order.
Before I move on to the next verse I also want to say how fortunate we are and
continue to be. We still live in an extended era that began around 30 A.D.
whereby repentance and sincere trust in God and His Son deliver us from the
coming wrath of God. We still live in an extended era when we, as God's
worshippers, can tell others.... some who we know and love, some who we don't
know at all about Yeshua and the Kingdom of Heaven, and they still have the
opportunity to repent and be delivered from the coming wrath of God. The time is
coming when this option and opportunity ends with no exceptions.
Versei8 speaks of when Yeshua began His ministry in earnest, and He did so by
choosing some disciples. We are told that he walked along Lake Kinneret; or as
the Greek manuscripts have it "the Sea of Tiberias". English versions call it "the
Sea of Galilee". Kinneret is based on the Hebrew word kinnar, which means
harp; the lake was harp shaped in Jesus's day. Calling it the Sea of Tiberias is
because Tiberias was the name of a large city located near the lake's
southwestern shore. And the Sea of Galilee was called that for the obvious
reason that the large lake was located in the Galilee. Yeshua spotted a couple of
brothers, fishermen who were fishing at the time, and offered to make them
fishers of men. One was called Andrew, the other in English is Simon Peter. In
Hebrew Simon Peter is Shimon Kefa. Kefa is actually an Aramaic word that
means rock. In Greek the word rock is petros. Petros became Peter in English.
Sometimes we'll see his name as Cephas.
10/11
.....
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lesson 10 - Matthew 4 cont
We're told that these 2 brothers didn't hesitate. They left their net and followed
Yeshua. As the 4 Gospels tend to do, they agree on substance but not always on
detail. The Gospel of John has Yeshua gaining His first 2 disciples slightly
differently than how Matthew frames it.
CJB John. 1:35-42 35 The next day, Yochanan was again standing with two of
his talmidim. 36 On seeing Yeshua walking by, he said, "Look! God's
lamb!" 37 His two talmidim heard him speaking, and they followed
Yeshua. 38 Yeshua turned and saw them following him, and he asked them,
"What are you looking for?" They said to him, "Rabbi!" (which means
"Teacher!") "Where are you staying?" 39 He said to them, "Come and see."
So they went and saw where he was staying, and remained with him the
rest of the day- it was about four o'clock in the afternoon. 40 One of the two
who had heard Yochanan and had followed Yeshua was Andrew the
brother of Shim'on Kefa. 41 The first thing he did was to find his brother
Shim'on and tell him, "We've found the Mashiach!" (The word means "one
who has been anointed.") 42 He took him to Yeshua. Looking at him, Yeshua
said, "You are Shim'on Bar-Yochanan; you will be known as Kefa." (The
name means "rock.")
So John's Gospel has it that Yeshua was walking near John the Baptist and 2 of
John's disciples. John says "Look, God's Lamb" and quickly John's 2 disciples go
after Jesus. They caught up to Him and ask Him where He was staying (it was
Capernaum at this time). One of the two was Andrew, who took Christ to his
brother Shimon Bar-Yochanan where Yeshua said he'd be called Kefa (the
rock) from here on. So what we find is that Andrew was first a disciple of John the
Baptist; but he left him to become one of Christ's original 12. We don't know what
happened to the other disciple of John who had tagged along. And according to
John, it was Yeshua who gave Simon his nickname of Kefa Peter.... the rock.
Next week we'll continue with Yeshua calling His first disciples and then move
into chapter 5.
11 / 11

Lesson 11 - Matthew 4 & 5
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 11, Chapters 4 and 5
Our previous lesson in Matthew chapter 4 left off at a time when Christ was
gathering His first disciples. Teachers and Holy Men gathering disciples was
nothing new; in fact John's Gospel says that Andrew was John the Baptist's
disciple before he became one of Yeshua's first two disciples.
An interesting feature about disciples and their Masters in the 1st century was
that it was always the disciples that chose their Masters. There were many
teachers and Holy Men to choose from if a Jewish man wanted to go that route
and choose the lifestyle or cause that one of these many Masters advocated.
That was the case with the disciples of John the Baptist as well. But as we see,
Yeshua (the Master) chose His disciples; they didn't choose Him.
Since it is seems apparent from the writings of the New Testament that the Jews
believed they were living in the End Times, then the belief of Elijah reappearing
and playing a significant role in those turbulent times was ever present. Thus we
see that many hundreds of years earlier, in other turbulent times, that it was
Elijah who spotted and then chose Elishah (the Master chose the disciple) and
not the other way around as it normally was. In 1st Kings we read:
CJB 1 Kings 19:19-21 19 So he (Elijah) left and found Elisha the son of
Shafat. He was plowing with twelve yoke of oxen; he himself was behind
the twelfth. Eliyahu went over to him and threw his cloak on him. 20 He left
the oxen, ran after Eliyahu and said, "Please let me kiss my father and
mother good-bye; then I will follow you." He answered, "Go; but return,
because of what I did to you."
21 Elisha stopped following him. Then he took
the yoke of oxen, slaughtered them, cooked their meat over the wooden
1 / 11

Lesson 11 - Matthew 4 & 5
yokes of the oxen and gave it to the people to eat. Then he got up, went
after Eliyahu and became his servant.
In his Gospel, the Apostle John reiterates the same principle about who does the
choosing when he writes of Yeshua saying to His disciples:
CJB John 15:16 16 You did not choose me, I chose you; and I have
commissioned you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last; so that whatever
you ask from the Father in my name he may give you.
Let's pause and re-read a section of Matthew 4.
RE-READ MATTHEW CHAPTER 4:18 - end
Before we talk about some other men that Jesus recruited, notice that the
candidates are not recorded as asking "why" they should follow Him. The
wording makes it as though there was immediate acceptance and they just stood
up and left with Him. In fact, what Jesus offered was not an invitation but rather it
was a command. The logical question is: why would these men obey and follow
Him?
The answer to this question centers around just who these soon to be 12
disciples, and the many other Jews who would seek after Him, thought He was or
what it was that He represented to them. In order to try and shed light on this
issue let's take what I think you'll find to be an interesting detour.
In Yeshua's day there was a kind of Jewish man called a Tzadik. While literally it
means "righteous one" or "righteous man", to the Jews of that time it more
indicated a "Holy Man". These Holy Men were miracle workers who, among
other things, healed sicknesses, disabilities and wounds in the name of the God
of Israel. Professor David Flusser has done some excellent research about the
important place of these Holy Men in ancient Jewish society and he points out
Rabbinic literature that says that a few years prior to 70 A.D., before the
destruction of the Temple by Rome, 4 of these Holy Men were well known and
respected in the Holy Land. Interestingly 2 of them were from the Galilee. One
was named Hilkia and the other was Hanina Ben Dosa. It was believed by the
Jewish community that these Tzadikkim were divinely gifted and much closer to
God than the average man.
2/11

Lesson 11 - Matthew 4 & 5
Recall that in Christ's day the belief of Jews was that the era of prophets (of the
Old Testament variety) was over. Prophets were the miracle workers of that
bygone era and now around the beginning of the 1st century the miracle workers
were these Tzadikkim (Holy Men). There doesn't seem to have been very many
of them. It is difficult to know, exactly, when this era of the Tzadik arose, but it
must have been at least as early as 65 B.C., because the legend of Honi the
Circle Drawer is from that time. The Babylonian Talmud tells the story of Honi
sleeping for 70 years and then dying soon after he awoke. The story refers to him
as a Tzadik ... literally a righteous man; but to the Jews that meant Honi held the
honored position as a Holy Man. While the story itself is highly unlikely, the point
is that Honi did actually exist at that time and was indeed considered a miracle
working Holy Man.
Scribes being the chiefs and main authorities of the Synagogue system (the elite
of the Pharisees), they were highly revered. As such they had egos and so
tended to see an itinerant Holy Man as competition because the common folks
flocked to a Tzadik in hopes of being healing of their various ailments (something
the Scribes certainly couldn't do); so there was a natural tension between the
two.
It is further known of these few Holy Men that they practiced poverty. This was a
refreshing difference between them and the aristocratic Sadducees or the well to
do Scribes; so of course the common Jew (who was generally anything but rich)
felt more of a connection to these Holy Men who had no possessions and held no
pretenses. It was also more or less the norm that these Tzadikkim would
perform their healing miracles in private, and often in secret, in order not to glorify
themselves. I ask you now to think; who might this sound like in the New
Testament? Of course: it sounds like Christ. We see Him characterized in the
Gospels as a Jewish Holy Man (acknowledging that He was far more than that in
reality). We read of Yeshua constantly healing the sick, exorcizing demons, and
generally hanging out with the ordinary, the poor, and the lame. In fact, it was
His deeds of miracle working that attracted people to Him by the hundreds and
that gained Him such a following among the common folk. But it also brought Him
the ire of the religious authorities who couldn't do what He could do and therefore
they saw Him as a threat.
These miracle workers are described by later Rabbis as being viewed as "sons of
God". Not "son of God" in the Christian sense that we think of Jesus Christ as a
literal God-on-earth Son of God, but more in the Jewish cultural sense of this rare
3/11

Lesson 11 - Matthew 4 & 5
person having a mysterious closeness to God that the average Jew could never
hope to attain. It is not unlike how some will refer to pastors or priests as "men of
God". We don't mean that they are part human and part God; we merely mean
that they have devoted their lives to God and He has responded by giving them a
special relationship, ability and position to do God's work on earth. So the term
"sons of God" was a sort of honorary title meant to explain the otherwise
inexplicable about how and why they were able to perform the miraculous
healings that they did.
Only in the later part of the 20th century did we discover that these
enigmatic Tzadikkim of Jesus's day and earlier had a personal awareness that
the extraordinary powers of healing they had been gifted with were because for
some unknown reason God had chosen them and made them "sons of God".
We read Jesus saying this in Matthew 11:
CJB Matthew 11:25-27 25 It was at that time that Yeshua said, "I thank you,
Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you concealed these things from the
sophisticated and educated and revealed them to ordinary folks. 26 Yes,
Father, I thank you that it pleased you to do this. 27 "My Father has handed
over everything to me. Indeed, no one fully knows the Son except the
Father, and no one fully knows the Father except the Son and those to
whom the Son wishes to reveal him.
This seems to us like an extraordinary proclamation by Yeshua who here
announces His self-awareness of just who He is and because of that He has
been given revelations concerning the mysteries of God, some of which He
passes along to ordinary folks. And yet, upon the discovery of the Dead Sea
Scrolls, we find that the underlying premise of an especially righteous man, a
Holy Man, being given a glimpse into the mysteries and power of The Father was
not new. So Christ's pronouncement had the effect upon most Jews of confirming
their view of Him that he was a Holy Man. Found among the several so-named
Thanksgiving Hymns of that incredible treasure trove of scrolls we find several
Essene hymns. The preface to this particular hymn says: "his message will be
prudence to the simple". That is, the message of this hymn speaks of
a Tzadik saying something profound, but it is meant for the ears of the ordinary
person and not the elite. Listen closely, because it very nearly sounds like the
passage I just quoted to you from Matthew 11 that came from the mouth of Our
Messiah. I'll repeat: what I'm about to recite to you comes not from Scripture, Old
4/11

Lesson 11 - Matthew 4 & 5
or New Testaments, but rather from an anonymous writer of the Dead Sea
Scrolls who can only be writing from the position of being a Holy Man.
Through me Thou has illuminated the face of many, and has shown Thy
infinite power. For Thou has given me knowledge of Thy marvelous
mysteries, and hast shown Thyself mighty with me through Thy
marvels. Thou has done wonders before many for the sake of Thy
glory, that they may make known Thy mighty deeds to all the living.
Here is the point: this Essene hymn speaks of the attribute of God working
wonders (miracles) through this especially righteous man, a Holy Man, a son of
God. And this Holy Man is giving thanks to God and glorifying Him for the divine
knowledge of heavenly mysteries, and for the gift of wielding the ability to do
mighty deeds that comes from God's power and not his own. To the Jewish mind
and culture Yeshua fit the identity of an authentic Tzadik like a glove; He was a
Holy Man who worked miracles. The phenomenon of a Holy Man was not new,
but rather something wonderful that seemed to come around only occasionally,
unexpectedly, at God's will. And when a Holy Man appeared, people of course
understood that the proof of his credentials was his miracle powers of healing.
The news of the advent of a Holy Man would spread quickly and Jews would
come clamoring to him for relief of every kind of malady. Holy Men were men of
the common people, not men of the elite. The Gospels paint Jesus in exactly this
role; but of course the Gospel writers also extol the joy that He was so much
more than this: He was also the long awaited Deliverer. He was God's promised
Messiah. So even Yeshua's claims to being the Son of God were not denied by
the people at large, nor did those claims seem strange, because it was believed
that every Holy Man who came and went was a son of God. It's only that they
didn't understand that for Christ, being the Son of God was unique and fully literal
as opposed to being an honorary title.
Now back to the question I posed before we started this detour: why would these
fishermen and later others (who don't seem to have had any prior contact with
Him) just jump up and follow Yeshua because He commanded them to? It was
because they recognized Him as a Tzadik, a miracle worker; a son of God. A
Holy Man whose persona and attributes were known, welcome and understood
within Jewish society. They had probably heard of Him because Luke's Gospel
says that after the 3 temptations Yeshua returned to the Galilee, began teaching
in synagogues and His reputation began to spread BEFORE He started
appointing disciples. Notice how in our Essene Hymn, this Holy Man would pass
5/11
.....

Lesson 11 - Matthew 4 & 5
on the mysteries of Heaven that He learned by teaching them to the ordinary folk.
I suspect that the people sensed He was something more than a typical Holy
Man but even if He wasn't, being a Holy Man was exciting enough. They weren't
about to question this Tzadik's motives for wanting them as His followers. So it
would be an indescribable honor to be in His inner circle and it would probably
bring them some kind of benefit or higher status. Understand: as of this time
these disciples had little idea who Yeshua really was and what their discipleship
would eventually mean or lead to.
After choosing Andrew and Peter, Yeshua also found another pair of fisherman
brothers, and chose them. So the first 4 disciples were fishermen. Let's pause for
a second: how far should we spiritualize or make application about the first 4
disciples being fishermen? I say not as far as it is often taken. Remember:
Yeshua was now living in Capernaum, a seaside town. Fishing was one of the
main, if not the main, industries for the residents of Capernaum. And we find
Yeshua walking along the seashore so He was bound to run into some
fishermen.
Fishermen, despite what you might have heard, were not uneducated and
illiterate. Fishing was not an occupation of last resort. Fishing was what today
we'd call a blue collar job. These were generally happy family men making a
simple but sufficient living. They could read and write, and probably speak and
understand at least two languages: Hebrew and Aramaic. Some also had a
working knowledge of Greek (even if they weren't fluent), because Capernaum
lay on the important Via Maris trade route and knowing some Greek was
necessary to do business. They and their families ate some of their catch but
sold most of it at the local markets. They attended synagogues, made the journey
to Jerusalem for some of the biblical festivals, and had a modest level of
Scriptural knowledge. But.... and this is important like all of the non-elite Jews
the main religious knowledge and understanding that they possessed came from
Tradition because their place of learning was the synagogue where Pharisee␂driven Tradition flourished. Yeshua was known to have been raised and lived in
the same environment, went to the same synagogues, and had not received any
formal religious training. So His ability to teach the Torah and the Prophets at an
astounding level merely added to His reputation and mystique as a Holy Man par
excellence.
That second pair of brothers that Yeshua commanded to become His disciples
were Ya'akov and Yochanan, sons of Zavdai. Our English Bibles will call these
6/11

Lesson 11 - Matthew 4 & 5
two men James and John. James is a terrible translation because Ya'akov
translates to Jacob, not James (although to eliminate confusion, I'll use his
traditional Christian name). It is widely held that this odd translation came about
in honor of King James who had ordered and sponsored the creation of the King
James Bible. John, decades later, became the writer of Revelation, the Gospel of
John, and the three epistles 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John (not bad for a former
fisherman!). Just as Andrew and Peter immediately left their nets and boats at
Messiah's command so did James and John. So does this mean that they literally
abandoned their valuable nets and fishing boats and walked off with Yeshua?
Even more, does this mean that they also left their wives and children (assuming
they weren't single men) to fend for themselves, meaning these women and
children would have become impoverished and mere survival would have
become challenging? While I can't answer those questions with any definitive
evidence, I think I can give you an educated guess. And my guess is that the
boats and nets were retained and taken over by family members. And for those
new disciples who had immediate families they would not have done such a thing
as to simply walk off and leave them helpless. Yeshua would not have expected
them to because it would have violated the most basic of commandments to love
your fellow man as you do yourself.
Since these disciples would operate almost completely within the Holy Land for
the next several years, they wouldn't have been listened to or respected if they
had done such a thing as to make homeless beggars of their wives and children
in order to gain the prestige of following a Holy Man. So the statement that they
left nets and boats at once must be taken as a very general and abbreviated
statement about their instant connection with Yeshua and their immediate
obedience to His command. It more indicates that without hesitation or
reservation they put their occupation and their life second to following Christ. No
doubt even this would have had serious consequences and put a great strain on
their families, if for no other reason than they would soon be traveling on a
regular basis. But this matter is never directly addressed in the Gospels so we
really don't know the details or anything about their families.
Nevertheless I want to take this opportunity to comment about this because I get
regular emails, usually from men who feel a call to serve in full time ministry; and
yet they have wives and children and good jobs and to make this change would
involve sacrifice and acceptance on the part of his entire family. There is no
perfect, one-size-fits-all answer to this dilemma. But my advice is this: remember
that this is not the 1st century. Our modern society is not ancient Jewish society
7/11

Lesson 11 - Matthew 4 & 5
and so the consequences and challenges are different now than then. Ideally a
man or woman will be open to God's call to service in full time ministry before
they are married and start a family. Or perhaps a man and women will marry with
the understanding that full time ministry is their shared destiny and so organize
their lives to fulfill it at some point. It could be that a man has already started a
family, and hears the calling later in life, but his wife is willing to whole-heartedly
support his calling, join him, and accept the necessary sacrifices to achieve it. No
one's story will be identical to another's.
However in cases where a man has a wife and family, with all its obligations, and
the wife is firmly not on board with such a profound change, then it should not be
done. If a person has a debt load that would not permit him or her to pay their
debts on the likely lesser amount of income ministry work would generate, then it
should not be done until the debts are paid. We can serve God in ministry in so
very many important and indispensable ways without completely abandoning our
jobs, turning our backs on our bills and debts, and uprooting an unwilling and
unhappy family.
The calling that Christ has for us to be His disciples is, just like with the first 12,
about committing our lives to Him just as we are. For many if not most of us that
is a radical change in and of itself and requires a time of learning and adapting.
Our new found faith in Him also means that we must follow Him even if our
spouses, parents, children, friends, and bosses don't accept it. Does this mean
that our spouses might leave us simply because we change, repent, and become
disciples of Christ and worshippers of the God of Israel? Might it be that we can
lose our jobs over it? Yes it does, and I personally know of cases that it has
happened. Especially if one is a Jew in our time, it very likely will mean that your
family will shun you and you'll be considered a traitor to them and to Judaism. But
as Yeshua said:
CJB Luke 14:26 26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father, his
mother, his wife, his children, his brothers and his sisters, yes, and his own
life besides, he cannot be my talmid.
So many people hear what they want to hear in this verse, and too often they
overlook the key phrase "and his own life besides". They think of this verse as a
severe Jesus actually suggesting that a new Believer ought to be ready to turn
against his family and despise them for Messiah's sake. That is in no way what
is being commanded. This is about understanding the cost of following Yeshua
8/11

Lesson 11 - Matthew 4 & 5
and that you may face tremendous opposition. It is about giving up one's own life
such that nothing is to rank higher than love for God and His Son, and obedience
to them. Loyalty to God comes first; all else necessarily is secondary. Paul has
much to say about marriage and family for the person who comes to faith and
now has some of these dilemmas to deal with. But in every case he suggests that
before forsaking all to enter full time ministry that one is to fulfill their obligations,
marital and otherwise, and to carefully count the cost. You can read some of his
comments on this in 1Corinthian 7 for starters.
One final note on this matter. Verse 22 says that the two brothers "left their
boat and their father" and went with Yeshua. This does not mean that they
broke their relationship with their father. It means that the father was fishing with
his 2 sons on their family owned boat when Yeshua approached them and
commanded his sons to become disciples. It is simply that their father was there
at the time; we're not told what the father's reaction was to this sudden turn of
events.
Verse 23 adds so much context to Yeshua's ministry if we'll just accept it. It says
that Yeshua went around speaking in synagogues because that's where common
Jews met for worship, learning, fellowship and information. We're told that He
proclaimed the Good News (or Gospel) of the Kingdom. And what is that Good
News? Typically a Christian's mind says that preaching the Good News must
mean that Jesus told them that He was the Messiah and that they should put
their trust in Him; but that is not the case at this point in His ministry. We must
think back to what John the Baptist proclaimed, and then the same message that
Jesus also proclaimed as the Good News just a few verses earlier. It is not that
He is the Messiah and can Himself provide for forgiveness of sins, but rather that
it was time for people to repent because the Kingdom of Heaven is near. To the
Jews of that era, the meaning of Jesus's message was that the culmination of the
End Times with all its horrors and deprivations was about to happen, and the
arrival of the joyful, promised restoration was imminent. God was about to kick
the Romans out of the Holy Land and to establish His rule on earth as it is in
Heaven.
Now notice the next part of verse 23: Christ went about healing people from
disease. That is, He continued to live and project the persona of a Tzadik.... a
Holy Man. For the moment that is how the Jewish people were permitted to
perceive Him. Because (hallelujah) a Holy Man had appeared, news of Him
began spreading all over Syria and people began streaming to Him even from
9/11

Lesson 11 - Matthew 4 & 5
there with every imaginable kind of ailment and lameness including those who
were held under the power of demons. Why the mention of Syria? Syria at this
time had a huge Jewish population. Syria was on the Galilee's northern border
and the point of mentioning it is to show how far and wide news of this miracle
worker spread even to the not-too-distant Jewish Diaspora. It also highlights what
I told you earlier; the appearance of a Holy Man was rare and when one did
appear, news of him spread like wildfire so the opportunity to be made well might
not be missed.
But what we must also notice is what is not said by Matthew. In verse 25 we're
told that all these people were coming from places like the Galilee, the Ten
Towns (the Decapolis), the capital city of Jerusalem, the province of Judea to the
south, and even areas to the east of the Jordan River. Galilee is mentioned in the
list as is Judea; but why not Samaria that lay in between them? Why no mention
of the prominent Tyre and Sidon? It is because Samaria was a mostly gentile and
mixed blood province, as were the major cities of Tyre and Sidon. The gentiles
living there wouldn't have understood the nature and importance of a Tzadik,
which was a purely Hebrew construct. Besides: Yeshua said that He only came
for the lost sheep of Israel and Matthew seems intent on making that point by
using the list of places these thousands of Jews came from. Gentiles were
beyond Yeshua's scope for the time being. Thus those multitudes who came to
be healed and to hear a message of hope consisted almost entirely of Jews.
What we have been reading in the last couple of verses about the huge crowds
coming to Yeshua for healing and hope are the preface for what comes next: The
Sermon on the Mount. Who did they think they were coming to see and for what
purpose did they come? They came to see the miracle working Tzadik. Some
came for physical healing, others came because of His message that tells them
of hope in the End Times, and (so very importantly) the only way to get right with
God in preparation for it.
Let's move on to Matthew chapter 5.
READ MATTHEW CHAPTER 5 all
This chapter is but the beginning of Matthew's 3 chapter long treatise on what
happened and what Christ said in His seminal speech atop a hill in the Galilee,
addressed to a wide spectrum of His people, the Jews. Why is this so important
to Matthew that he'd spend so much time with it? It is because for the Jewish
10/11
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lesson 11 - Matthew 4 & 5
Believer Matthew everything that Yeshua speaks has to do with the Torah and
the Law of Moses.
The first 10 verses are, in Christian tradition, called the Beatitudes. I find it
interesting that while they are but the first few verses of the extensive Sermon on
the Mount, Christianity has them separated away as though they are an
unrelated matter from what follows. It is not unlike what Christian Tradition has
also done with the 10 Commandments that, even though they are but the first of
hundreds of other commandments that God gave through Moses, Christianity
has also separated them away as though they have no connection to what
follows. Clearly such a separation and distinction was not God's, Moses's,
Christ's or Matthew's intent, nor should Believers take it that way. Rather, these
first verses of chapter 5 represent Yeshua's opening words... a sort of
preamble.... which like any good leader or speaker does, gives recognition to
exactly who His audience is. No doubt if He was speaking to the elite among the
Jews, to the Temple Sadducees and to the synagogue Scribes for instance, that
these would not have been the descriptive words He would have chosen.
We'll start peeling back the layers of this Sermon on the Mount next week.
11 / 11

Lesson 12 - Matthew 5
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 12, Chapter 5
The Sermon on the Mount will be our topic for the next few weeks as it takes up
Matthew chapters 5, 6, and 7. I think I can say without much objection that the
Sermon on the Mount represents the most consequential and panoramic
expression of what it means to be a Believer and a follower of Christ, since the
instructions are recorded as having come directly from Our Redeemer's mouth.
Clearly Matthew must have seen it in that light because he devoted so much time
to it in his Gospel. I stated in an earlier lesson that considering the momentous
nature of Yeshua's speech, it is curious that Matthew is the only Gospel of the 4
that contains the Sermon on the Mount. Admittedly Luke chapter 6 contains
something similar, and a predominant number of Bible scholars say that those
verses in Luke are but another version of that same sermon. I, however, stand
with another group of scholars and commentators who believe it is not. The
sermon that begins at Luke 6:17 and goes to the end of that chapter is regularly
called The Sermon on the Plain because it claims a different location than the
Sermon on the Mount. If you'll turn your Bibles to Luke chapter 6, we'll briefly
glance at it only so you can see the differences.
In the CJB, the introductory words to The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 are:
"Seeing the crowds, Yeshua walked up the hill." But in Luke 6 we read: "Then he
came down with them (meaning His 12 disciples) and stood on a level place".
The more familiar KJV is: "And he came down with them, and stood in the
plain". What follows in Luke is something that is close to the words of the
Beatitudes, but they are different and fewer. Afterwards are a few sayings and
then something Luke calls a parable. After that are a few other sayings, some of
which bear resemblance to the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew. The Bible
commentators who are convinced that the sermons in Luke 6 and Matthew 5 are
1 / 11

Lesson 12 - Matthew 5
actually one in the same base their conclusion on the foundational belief that
Luke's Gospel is the more accurate in his account of the event than Matthew,
because (for them) Matthew had an ulterior motive for not only including it in his
Gospel but also for expanding upon it well beyond Luke's, even adding to the
content if not modifying the meaning of some of Yeshua's sermon to suit his own
mindset. My conclusion is that on its face the purpose of the sermon in Luke 6,
the description of the make-up of the people who where there, the geography
where the speech was given, and the timing of it make it another and different
speech even though it had at its core the same underlying message as the
sermon Christ gave up on the hill; the one called The Sermon on the Mount.
However it is NOT the same event or the same speech.
I find it peculiar that many commentators seem to assume that nearly every
speech or teaching of Christ must have been unique and one-off; that is, that
each time He spoke and taught He dealt with different subject matter such that
He never repeated Himself nor said more or less the same things but to different
audiences in different locations. Nothing is more common among teachers,
speakers, and leaders of all eras than to go around communicating a similar
message, although structured a little differently each time, to a number of
different crowds. Even in our time of television, radio and the Internet, politicians
(for instance) will use the same core message in a number of different settings,
slightly modified each time to suit a particular audience. Clearly there will
probably never be a way to provide indisputable proof one way or the other on
this debate as to whether both Matthew and Luke are reporting on the same
speech, or that they are each reporting on different speeches given at different
places that are similar in message.
Does it really matter, then, whether Luke's and Matthew's reports are both on
Christ's seminal speech? It does. There is significance in the issue of the setting
and the geography where Christ gave the Sermon on the Mount; something that
would indeed have mattered more to Matthew, the learned Believing Jew, than to
Luke, the learned Believing gentile. It involves the reporting of Matthew (which
appears in the fabric of the backdrop for his entire Gospel account) that Yeshua
of Nazareth was a kind of second Moses. I won't review what I explained to you
about that in an earlier lesson. Only notice that in the case of the Sermon on the
Mount just as Moses went up to the top of a mountain (Sinai) to obtain God's
Torah and then came down to the side of the mountain to instruct Israel in it, so
in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus went up a mountain (a hill) to address Israel
and instruct them in the deeper understanding of The Law and The Torah in
2/11
.

Lesson 12 - Matthew 5
general. Why do so many Christian scholars, commentators, Bible teachers and
pastors not accept this connection between Moses and Christ? It is because they
also do not accept that Christ in His Sermon on the Mount was instructing the
people in the Torah but rather they see Him as erasing and abolishing the Torah
of Moses and replacing it with His own new and different commands; a Torah of
Jesus. A replacement Torah that consisted of His own teachings and commands
that overrode and replaced the ones His Heavenly Father gave to Moses 14
centuries earlier. The significance of this theological worldview (a mistaken and
wholly unbiblical worldview) towers over the Christianity that was established
beginning with Constantine in the 4th century A.D. and remains in practice
today.
Let's open our Bibles to the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5.
READ MATTHEW 5 all
It is important that we establish the basis that underlies all that I will be teaching
you; a faith pillar of Torah Class and Seed of Abraham Fellowship and all that we
stand for. It is that Yeshua did NOT abolish the Torah and the Prophets, and also
He warned against the consequences of disobedience to the laws and
commands contained within them, in the slightest. In a Christianity that nearly
universally says the opposite in all its institutions, it strikes me as odd that some
of the most revered and published Bible commentators would say things like the
following, as with Daniel J. Harrington in his commentary on Matthew: "The
basic theme of the sermon is that Jesus came NOT to abolish the Law and
the Prophets but to fulfill them". And from Professors W. D. Davies and Dale
C. Allison in their enormous 3 volume commentary on the Book of Matthew,
which is so highly regarded among academics that it is one of the chief reference
sources for their own commentaries on Matthew's Gospel, they say this:
"(Matthew) 5:17 - 20 is primarily prokatalepsis, that is, an anticipation of
objections. As the introduction or preamble to 5:21 - 48 ...... it is intended to
prevent the readers of the First Gospel from making two errors. First, it
plainly states that the subsequent paragraphs are not to be interpreted as
they have been so often by many as antitheses; antitheses that, in at least
two or three instances, set aside the Torah. Instead Jesus upholds the Law,
so that between Him and Moses there can be no real conflict. Then,
secondly, and despite the concord declared by 5:17 - 19, 5:20 tells us that
what Jesus requires of HIS followers surpasses what has traditionally been
3/11

Lesson 12 - Matthew 5
regarded (by the Scribes and Pharisees) as the requirements of the Torah.
So although there is continuity with the past, the Messiah also brings
something new, and it does not surprise when 5:21 - 48 goes beyond the
letter of the Law to demand even more." So in both quotes, these renowned mainstream Bible commentators are explicit
in saying that whatever one might take from the Sermon on the Mount, it can
never be that Christ was declaring that He came to abolish and/or replace the
Law of Moses. That said, Davies and Allison go further and say that in His
interpretation of the Torah, Yeshua takes the requirements of obeying it to
another and higher level. Let me put it this way (because I've said it to you
before): Christ's requirements take God's laws and make them even more
challenging, requiring even more discipline and more devotion, for us His
Believer to obey; not less. That is, the common refrain of the Church is that the
Law given to Moses was an outdated burden, a too heavy yoke, and much too
hard and unreasonable to follow. Therefore Christ came to abolish it all and with
His new commandments make life and a peaceful relationship with God much
easier for His followers. A plain and honest reading of the Sermon on the Mount
takes that false notion and destroys it.
Let's begin in verse 1 by again noting that Matthew says that Christ went UP a
hill in order to make a speech to throngs of Israelites, which consisted mostly of
Jews. No doubt some remnants of other tribes of Israel than the Jews who
represent Judah and Benjamin, and some who had engaged in intermarriage
with gentiles, also were present. This we can discern from the locations listed at
the end of chapter 4 that tell us where these crowds came from. To extract the
best context for this epic sermon and who was there to hear it, we need to simply
keep reading from the final couple of verses of chapter 4 into the first verse of
chapter 5. Remember: when these Scriptures were first created they were NOT
divided into chapters and verses; that wouldn't happen for another 1000 years.
CJB Matthew 4:23-5:2 23 Yeshua went all over the Galil teaching in their
synagogues, proclaiming the Good News of the Kingdom, and healing
people from every kind of disease and sickness. 24 Word of him spread
throughout all Syria, and people brought to him all who were ill, suffering
from various diseases and pains, and those held in the power of demons,
and epileptics and paralytics; and he healed them. 25 Huge crowds followed
him from the Galil, the Ten Towns, Yerushalayim, Y'hudah, and 'Ever␂HaYarden.
4/11

Lesson 12 - Matthew 5
CJB Matthew 5:1 Seeing the crowds, Yeshua walked up the hill. After he sat
down, his talmidim came to him, 2 and he began to speak. This is what he
taught them:
We learn that the primary reason this enormous group of people came from
many scores of miles away (and more) was for healing of all kinds of maladies.
They came because of Yeshua's growing reputation as a Tzadik, a Holy Man. A
miracle worker who, under the power of God, could heal. Some Holy Men were
also known for their wisdom, and they taught in addition to healing. So it wasn't
out of character for Yeshua the Tzadik to draw huge crowds for the purpose of
miracle healing, but also to speak profound truths to them. As of this point in time
the Jews didn't yet suspect that Jesus was the Messiah, and Jesus had not yet
publicly proclaimed that He was.
Verse 3 begins what has for centuries been called the Beatitudes. We got this
strange English word from the Latin version of the Bible, where the
word beatus is used to translate the Greek word makarios. Just as we learned
that Matthew had a specific mathematical structure in mind in the way he
presented Yeshua's genealogy to begin his Gospel, so now we find another
obvious mathematical structure in the Beatitudes. It is that each of the 8
Beatitudes contain 36 words (in the Greek). If this mathematical structure is
intended to symbolize something, it remains a mystery to me what it might be. It
is further complicated by the probability that the Greek version of Matthew was
taken from the Hebrew and so the word count in Hebrew could have been
different than in the Greek. Some of the Early Church Fathers such as Augustine
and Ambrose of Milan believed that it was the number of the Beatitudes (8) that
was of interest, and that it was symbolic of the ascent of the soul into Heaven.
That seems like a stretch to me, and few other early Church Fathers besides
those I named accepted such a solution. I don't wish to speculate about it except
to notice that this interesting structure of 8 Beatitudes of 36 Greek words each
does exist, and perhaps they were constructed in this way for the purpose of
easier memorization.
The first Beatitude is vs. 3. It is "Blessed are the poor in spirit". This Beatitude
has had a number of opinions written about its meaning because it is not at all
clear. What, exactly, characterizes a person who is "poor in spirit"? Since it says
that such as person is "blessed", then obviously it means that a person who is
"poor in spirit" is benefiting from it (at least in the spiritual sense) and Christ
approves of it. To try and decipher this let's first understand what "blessed"
5/11

Lesson 12 - Matthew 5
means. Assuming that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, then likely
what we have is a Greek translation of the Hebrew word berakhah. The Greek
word used to translate berakhah is makarios. It means to be favored, fortunate,
or happy. That is essentially the same meaning as the Hebrew berakhah so it is
a solid translation. Second is the issue of what it means to be "poor in spirit". I've
heard a number of sermons over my lifetime on this exact matter and I'm not sure
any two agree on the meaning. Because it is supposed to be a positive and
desirable trait, then what about being "poor in spirit" makes a person happy or
fortunate? Dr. David Flusser believes that especially the first 3 Beatitudes are
more of a description of just who constitutes the enormous audience that
followed Jesus up that hill in the Galilee.
Dr. Flusser (now deceased) is a legend among Hebrew scholars and he is to be
listened to as he doesn't make brash statements. Rather he puts forward well
researched conclusions and opinions. Here is his conclusion about the meaning
and intent of the term "poor in spirit" as explained in his widely-read book titled
"Jesus". Dr. Flusser says this:
"Now for the first time, because of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we can understand
the phrase 'the poor in spirit'. It was a title of honor among the Essenes.
These are the poor to whom the Holy Spirit is given".
In another but separate quote Flusser further explains that among the Essenes
this term referred to a person who was living in a spirit of "poverty, humility,
purity and simplicity". Just as today a good orator will acknowledge those who
make up his audience, so it was in Yeshua's day. Assuming that what Flusser
says concerning the clarification about this strange phrase that the Dead Sea
Scrolls provide for us is correct, we can gather rather confidently that it was the
Essenes (and perhaps those who lived on the fringes of the Essene purity
movement) that Yeshua was acknowledging. Since we're told that many of His
audience came from Judah, in the south, where the Essenes had their desert
enclave next to the Dead Sea, and from Syria in the north, where it is known that
a substantial Essene community lived in the city of Damascus, then it makes
sense that many members of the pious and scripturally knowledgeable Essene
community might attend Yeshua's sermon.
But now what is the intent of including the statement that for certain members of
the Essenes "the Kingdom of Heaven is theirs"? We have spoken in earlier
lessons that the Kingdom of Heaven is NOT a place, but rather it is a spiritual
6/11
.....

Lesson 12 - Matthew 5
condition. When one repents of sinning and trusts in Messiah Yeshua, then they
receive the Holy Spirit. As a result the Kingdom of Heaven now lives within them.
Notice the grammar; it is not some time in the future that the Kingdom of Heaven
will be theirs, but rather it is that when they receive the Holy Spirit the Kingdom
became theirs.
The next Beatitude is vs. 4 and says: "Blessed are those who mourn for they
shall be comforted". Because the premise is that those who mourn will
experience some kind of religious joy (be blessed), then one must ask what this
mourning has to do with? Does it mean those who mourn the dead, such as a
dear departed family member? And since Yeshua is referring in a rather general
way to certain of His large audience, could death really be the subject of the
mourners? I think not. I see this as a reference to the Prophet Isaiah chapter 61.
CJB Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of Adonai ELOHIM is upon me, because ADONAl
has anointed me to announce good news to the poor. He has sent me to
heal the brokenhearted; to proclaim freedom to the captives, to let out into
light those bound in the dark; 2 to proclaim the year of the favor of ADONAI
and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn, 3 yes,
provide for those in Tziyon who mourn, giving them garlands instead of
ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, a cloak of praise instead of
a heavy spirit, so that they will be called oaks of righteousness planted by
ADONAI, in which he takes pride. 4 They will rebuild the ancient ruins,
restore sites long destroyed; they will renew the ruined cities, destroyed
many generations ago.
This is a Messianic prophecy in Isaiah. Thus this general condition of mourning
that Yeshua is speaking about doesn't so much concern grieving over the dead.
Rather it is mourning over the destroyed cities of Israel that is the result of Israel's
unfaithfulness Israel's sinning. It is also mourning over the oppression the
children of Israel are suffering at the hands of foreign conquerors, which is God's
judgment against them for their unfaithfulness. But also in Isaiah 61 something
changes and now the Lord will call His formerly unfaithful, but now repentant,
people "oaks of righteousness" as opposed to captives and brokenhearted. The
mourners will become comforted because they will see that Israel is in the
process of being delivered and restored. Thus the mention of the mourners is
that they "will be" or "shall be" comforted. That is, it is to occur later, in the future,
when this comforting will come to its fullest fruition. This is in contrast to the 1st
Beatitude in which the blessing will be bestowed more or less immediately, in the
7/11
.....
.....

Lesson 12 - Matthew 5
present. So those among the crowd that Yeshua is addressing in this 2nd
Beatitude are called "mourners" because they are sorry that their sin, and the
sins of their ancestors, has led to their land being under the control of heathens
and their suffering under the hand of Roman subjugation.
The 3rd Beatitude is in vs. 5, and it is: "How blessed are the meek for they will
inherit the land". You might immediately notice that I have substituted the word
"land" for "earth", which we find in most Bible versions (the meek will inherit the
earth). Before we delve into that issue, let's define who or what "the meek" are.
The backdrop of this Beatitude is Psalm 37. Let's read a substantial portion of it.
READ PSALM 37:1-13
This is a Messianic Psalm of David that speaks of a future time when the "meek"
inherit the Land (the Land referring to Israel). Meek is another word in the Bible
whose definition is not necessarily always agreed and seems to be used
differently in different settings. Often it carries the obvious meaning of gentleness
and mildness. But here in Psalm 37:11 the word is probably better understood as
"the powerless" because the righteous are being oppressed by the wicked. Since
it seems very likely that Yeshua is making reference to Psalm 37 in this
Beatitude, then His use of the term "the meek" means the same: the powerless.
Further in Psalm 37 the Hebrew word for what it is that the meek shall inherit
is eretz. Eretz can mean land or earth. However we must not think of earth as
meaning the formal name of our planet: planet Earth. Rather, biblically, earth is
another way of saying the undefined expanse of dry land that lies under the sky.
David's audience for His Psalm was Israelites. Jesus's audience for His Sermon
was Israelites. Therefore "the meek" in both cases are Israelites or at least a
portion of the Israelites. Biblically the inheritance of the Israelites is the land of
Israel (formerly the Land of Canaan). Therefore the meaning of "the meek shall
inherit the land:" is that the powerless Israelites shall, at some point, permanently
inherit the land of Israel such that they will no longer be occupied and oppressed
by a foreign power, which represents wickedness.
I want to pause here to put something forth as a suggestion perhaps a
theory but I cannot in good conscience say it is a fact. When I look at these
Beatitudes thus far, and when I think about the Jewish Yeshua speaking to a
Jewish crowd, and the Jewish Matthew using the Jewish manner in which he has
structured his Gospel written to be read by Jewish Believers, I see the real
8/11

Lesson 12 - Matthew 5
possibility that each of these Beatitudes is meant to be interpreted in both
the P'shat and the Remez senses. That is, in the simple, plain sense (P'shat) as
well as in a somewhat literal sense that also incorporates an important hint
(Remez).
Thus in the 1st Beatitude, when Yeshua speaks of "the poor, in spirit", the
reference in the P'shat interpretation sense is to the people in the crowd who
hold this honorary title among the sect of the Essenes; people who were
standing and sitting directly before Him during His sermon. Yet, when we look a
bit deeper (from the Remez interpretation sense) we understand that the way
one became "poor, in spirit" among the Essenes was (by their definition)
receiving the Holy Spirit. Therefore in a larger sense all who truly receive the
Holy Spirit (through repentance and trust in Christ), Israelites and gentiles
(Believers), can be considered as included among "the poor, in spirit" and thus
be made happy and joyful (blessed) now and eternally.
In the 2nd Beatitude, those who mourn will be comforted. From the P'shat sense,
the mourners are mourning over the ruination of the Holy Land of Israel and the
subsequent oppressions of Assyria, Babylon, and Greece in the past; and
presently Rome. Thus the comforting is that even in this they can have personal
peace, because there is hope that God will remove the pagan occupiers. But
from the Remez sense, the mourners are those worshippers of God who are
mourning over the ruination of the entire earth because due to mankind's
unfaithfulness, wickedness rules universally. The mourners are the righteous (all
who have repented and put their trust in Messiah), Jews and gentiles, and all of
these (us) can look forward to being comforted when the Lord comes in power
and glory to destroy evil and rule in justice and mercy over all the earth, and to
restore it.
In the 3rd Beatitude, the meek will inherit the earth. In the P'shat sense, those
Israelites in the audience who are powerless before the occupation of Rome are
being told that nonetheless they will receive the inheritance God promised to
them (the Land of Canaan) before their ancestors left Egypt. In the Remez sense
the powerless followers of Messiah, Jew and gentile, will together receive the
even larger inheritance promised by God to be co-rulers along with Christ over all
the earth's inhabitants. This co-rulership is the fullest fulfillment of the promise of
the 1st Beatitude that the Kingdom of Heaven is theirs.
The 4th Beatitude is verse 6. It is: "How blessed are those who hunger and thirst
9/11
......

Lesson 12 - Matthew 5
for righteousness. For they will be filled." The idea of hunger and thirsting after
righteous is not about food and drink but rather it is a spiritual longing. But this
longing is not one of passivity; it speaks of an active search and work to find it.
The question to be answered about this Beatitude is: whose righteousness is
being sought? What kind of righteousness is being thirsted for? Is it a human
righteousness? That is, it is something that is accomplished by means of our
good works and deeds?
The answer is that it is God's righteous that Yeshua is referring to. He is
borrowing from a Psalm of David; Psalm 107. We won't go over it all, so here is
the pertinent part.
CJB Psalm 107:2-9 2 Let those redeemed by ADONAl say it, those he
redeemed from the power of the foe. 3 He gathered them from the lands,
from the east and from the west, from the north and from the sea. 4 They
wandered in the desert, on paths through the wastes, without finding any
inhabited city. 5 They were hungry and thirsty, their life was ebbing
away. 6
In their trouble they cried to ADONAI, and he rescued them from
their distress. 7 He led them by a direct path to a city where they could
live. 8 Let them give thanks to ADONAI for his grace, for his wonders
bestowed on humanity! 9 For he has satisfied the hungry, filled the starving
with good.
Notice that it is God's redeemed that is being addressed. From
the P'shat interpretation sense the redeemed represent all Israelites (because
1400 years earlier all the tribes of Israel were redeemed from Egypt). The
wandering in the desert recalls the wilderness journey of the Exodus. God
rescued them and when they were finally properly prepared, He took them to a
city where they could live meaning Jerusalem. God also satisfied the hungry
Israelites by giving them manna to eat... divinely provided sustenance.... the
entire time they were wandering, without a home of their own. He provided them
with water as needed, often in undeniably miraculous ways. In
the Remez interpretation sense the redeemed are all people, Jew and gentile,
who have been redeemed from their sins by placing their trust in the God of
Israel and His Son Yeshua. Before we did that, we were wandering aimlessly in a
desert of sin and purposelessness. We were hungry and thirsty for deliverance
from our emptiness and from eternal death. But since the molten core of God's
righteousness is His will to deliver and save, even though at the time we weren't
aware of it, by His grace He has bestowed His righteousness upon us and thus
10/11
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lesson 12 - Matthew 5
has satiated the thirst and satisfied the hunger of our souls, and given us life
eternal with Him.
The metaphor of hunger and thirst as representing a deep down seeking of God,
even when we didn't know that's what we sought, is found in several places in
God's Word. Among the most moving and instructive must be in Isaiah 32. There
the matter of God's righteousness (as opposed to human righteousness)
becomes a little more clear. Let's read it together to close out today's lesson.
READ ISAIAH 32 all
We'll begin with the 5th Beatitude next week.
11 / 11

Lesson 13 - Matthew 5 cont
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 13, Chapter 5 Continued
The richness and depth of instruction contained in the Sermon on the Mount is so
breathtaking and yet foundational to the life of a Believer in the Father and in
Messiah Yeshua, that after much time studying and researching it, I am still am at
a loss to explain why the other 3 Gospel accounts don't include it. This is not to
indict those Gospels or to declare them as inferior to the Book of Matthew;
however none of Christ's other addresses come close to the Sermon on the
Mount in providing the underpinnings and the expanded principles of our faith. To
my mind, the only wide-ranging message from God in all the Bible, Old
Testament or New, that can equal it is Moses standing on Mt. Sinai and teaching
the Israelites the laws and commands that God gave to him. It is no wonder that
Matthew draws us a picture of Jesus as the 2nd Moses; the future "prophet like
me" that Moses promised to the tribes of Israel.
I should review our lesson from last week for a few minutes, beginning with my
statement that no other Gospel contains the Sermon on the Mount. Many Bible
scholars disagree with me on that matter and point to Luke Chapter 6, which
even they label as "The Sermon the Plain" because Luke has this sermon taking
place on a large flat area, a plain, somewhere that is unspecified; but it does refer
to the "hill country". Even so, it says that Yeshua came down from a hill to a plain
and began talking to the people there. While there are many similarities there are
also at least as many differences between Luke's Sermon on the Plain and
Matthew's Sermon the Mount. I am convinced that these are two different
sermons, spoken by Yeshua at different times and locations, even though some
of the subject matter is the same.
My conjecture as to why Matthew chose to explore Yeshua's Sermon on the
1 / 13
.....
.....
.....

Lesson 13 - Matthew 5 cont
Mount so extensively, while the other Gospel accounts skip it, has to do with
Matthew's educated and pious Jewish background, along with who he anticipated
would be his readers; it would be mostly Jews Believers, or others that we
today might label as Seekers. What about being a religious Jew would make
Matthew more interested? It is because the entire Sermon on the Mount is
essentially an in-depth teaching on the Torah as given to Moses. The teaching
was so astounding, and Yeshua's authority was so evident that, as we will soon
encounter, Christ had to pause and make it clear to His listeners that in no way
was His intent to abolish, change, add to or subtract from the God-given Torah.
Nor was it to create a new one: a Torah of Jesus.
One of the important matters that I brought up last week was that Yeshua chose
His disciples; they didn't choose Him. The context here is all important because
this is one of the passages used to defend various views concerning what
Theologians call the Doctrine of Election. We'll not take a long detour here to
discuss this matter, but in the past 3 or 4 centuries, John Calvin's thoughts on
this matter have become quite influential in many large branches of the Church,
especially the more theologically conservative ones. In a nutshell, he brings
together the ideas of divine election and predestination to mean that God decides
before we're ever born which individuals will believe and be saved versus those
who won't. So our free will plays little to no role in the matter of salvation. I do not
subscribe to this notion. I think Calvin did, and others do, because they are taking
this matter of Christ choosing His disciples a bit too far and out of its historical
context.
In Yeshua's era various kinds of Jewish Holy Men and revered teachers had
followings. The followers of these various leaders were called in
Hebrew talmidim. The more followers one of these religious leaders could
cobble together, the more clout and veneration within the Jewish community he
had. So there was, quite literally, competition among these leaders to acquire
followers disciples. As David Stern points out, many of the standard English
words used in our Bibles to translate broad Hebrew concepts don't fully capture
the meaning. The Hebrew term talmid (singular to the plural word talmidim)
translated to the English term "disciple" is such a word. In our day a disciple of a
certain master whether it is from a religious aspect, or a secular aspect, even
as it pertains to sports.... most often means that these followers have adopted a
significant amount of the fundamental principles a particular master in a field of
endeavor teaches. Although usually they feel free to also adopt other ideas from
other masters, or even at some point switch to a different master altogether.
2/13

Lesson 13 - Matthew 5 cont
These ideas are usually compartmentalized such that the disciple only applies
what their master taught them to a certain area of their life. But for a talmid in
Yeshua's era the relationship between disciple and master was far deeper and
fully encompassing their entire life. There was a level of undying trust involved in
which the goal of the disciple was to become as close to a clone of his master as
is humanly possible; in manner, in ethics, and in lifestyle.
Thus these potential disciples would make a conscious, considered decision
about becoming a disciple of a certain master because it would be a life changing
moment for them, which would guide the remainder of their days on earth.
However we find that Yeshua didn't compete with other masters for His disciples;
He simply commanded them to follow Him. This was rare, if not unheard of. But
neither were the 12 men that Yeshua commanded to join Him characterized as
mindless robots who had no choice in the matter. That is, that in this instance
their free wills went dormant or were overridden as though they were put in a
trance. They heard Yeshua's command to them, but any and all could have said
no. Further, those who became the disciples of various masters in the 1st century
were searching for such an opportunity and tended to organize their lives
accordingly to take advantage. Paul is a good example of this. He was a
Diaspora Jew who came from a well to do family. He was educated, especially
sharp, and had adopted the religious doctrines of the Pharisees; but he wanted
more. So he chose to go to the Academy of Gamaliel in Jerusalem, probably so
that one day he might have the credentials to attract his own flock of followers.
Sometime later, on the road to Damascus, he was introduced to another and
greater master, Yeshua, who spoke to Paul from Heaven and told Him to be His
disciple. Paul was certainly not seeking to be a disciple of another, and especially
not of Yeshua. Nonetheless, he switched loyalties.
Thus when we add in the historical Jewish backdrop, we see the uniqueness of
Yeshua choosing His disciples from among those not seeking a master (or at
least not a new one), as opposed to disciples choosing from a variety of potential
masters who were seeking to add to their flocks. So in my opinion to form a
spiritual law (a Church doctrine) from this event on the Sea of Galilee, when
Yeshua commanded 4 fishermen to follow Him, is not warranted. Especially a
doctrine that says that only certain people from among all humanity have been
divinely pre-selected from eternity past to participate in God's Kingdom (and of
this the included and the excluded individuals have no choice in the matter). This
is misguided, in scriptural error, and even makes the activity of Believers going
out to spread the Good News for Our Messiah rather pointless.
3/13

Lesson 13 - Matthew 5 cont
The opening few sentences of Christ's Sermon on the Mount are sort of bundled
together and given a special title called The Beatitudes. Depending on who you
believe, and what the chosen criteria is to qualify as a Beatitude, there are from 8
to 10 of these sayings of Yeshua. We covered the first 4 in the previous lesson.
Rather than review each of them I only want to point out that I showed you how
each could (and probably should) be understood by means of incorporating the
ancient Jewish interpretation concepts of P'shat and Remez. P'shat means the
simple, plain sense of a Bible passage; Remez means that while we must take
the passage literally, there is also a hint towards something deeper and more far
reaching. I contend that this is exactly how our Jewish Matthew intended us to
approach especially these first 8 recorded sayings.
Part of what divides Christianity, especially with a modern view towards the
foretold End Times, is that most Bible academics and teachers want us to choose
between the simple, plain sense of the Beatitudes (and many other Bible
passages) and the deeper sense of it (where appropriate). That is, that the one
way is correct and the other is incorrect. That is not necessary when we see the
wisdom behind the interpretation concepts of P'shat and Remez that the learned
Jews used to plumb the depths of the Holy Scriptures. Both can be equally
correct, even if they apply to different times and circumstances in history.
The 5th Beatitude is located in Matthew 5:7. Turn your Bibles to that passage.
CJB Matthew 5:7 "How blessed are those who show mercy! for they will be
shown mercy.
The idea that mercy is a reciprocal matter between God and man was not new
nor exclusive to Yeshua's teaching. There are a number of biblical passages that
express this concept that when we show mercy or pity or compassion upon our
fellow man, it is God who will reward us. Proverbs comes to mind.
CJB Proverbs 14:21 He who despises his fellow, sins; but he who shows
compassion to the humble is happy.
In this passage that says the one who shows compassion to his fellow man is
"happy', the Hebrew word translated most often as "happy" is esher. Another
meaning for this word is "blessed". Like the concept of shalom, being blessed is
a gift from God. In the Babylonian Talmud tractate Sabbath 151b is found:
"Whoever has pity on people will obtain pity from Heaven." Same concept. The
4/13
.......


Lesson 13 - Matthew 5 cont
point is that having mercy upon our fellow man is directly related to the 2nd of
what was understood to have been the 2 greatest commandments of God: to
love God whole-heartedly, and to love our fellow man as we love ourselves.
Therefore to NOT show mercy (or pity or compassion different words for
essentially the same thing) is to break that greatest commandment.
Matthew brings up the issue of mercy many times in his Gospel and has Yeshua
directly dealing with it several times. It was one of the most fundamental
principles of life among the Jews and the earlier Hebrews. In 2 later chapters
Matthew quotes Hosea 6 on this matter of mercy.
CJB Hosea 6:6 For what I desire is mercy, not sacrifices, knowledge of God
more than burnt offerings.
Christ deals with mercy in Matthew 23 (among other places):
CJB Matthew 23:23 'Woe to you hypocritical Torah-teachers and P'rushim!
You pay your tithes of mint, dill and cumin; but you have neglected the
weightier matters of the Torah- justice, mercy, trust. These are the things
you should have attended to- without neglecting the others!
This is a virtually identical thought to Hosea 6:6. What we ought to notice is that
Yeshua calls mercy one of the weightier matters of the Law. That is, while all the
laws of the Torah are to be obeyed, there exists a hierarchy whereby some laws
carry more weight in God's eyes, thereby leading to larger consequences for our
actions in regard to our fastidious obedience (or disobedience) towards them. In
the P'shat interpretation sense, God wants our actions during our lives to reflect
obedience to His laws and commands. In fact He reminds folks that paying tithes
and making offerings at the Temple is a good and required thing; but when we
neglect the more loving and fundamental obligations to our fellow man, such as
mercy, it represents a more serious offense against God than not paying our
tithes (for instance). In the Remez interpretation sense, the consequences for
these weightier matters will occur at the Final Judgment. At that time the
measure of our mercy towards our neighbor is rewarded with the measure of
God's mercy towards us; and our lack of mercy is rewarded with His lack of
mercy towards us.
While Christianity sometimes makes small of this God-principle or even says it no
longer applies for Believers the truth is that, Old or New Testaments, God is the
5/13

Lesson 13 - Matthew 5 cont
king and Creator of quid pro quo. One of the more famous statements in the
Torah of how God operates His justice system is called Lex Talionis: an eye for
an eye. It is a statement of the principle of proportional justice. For God
worshippers it means that the level of our faithfulness towards His laws and
commands when we are alive on this earth will have a commensurate effect on
our lives when we are living in the eternal realm. Even more, there are some
commands and laws that carry greater weight (are more important to Him) than
others, and how He judges us and places us in the hierarchy of His Kingdom of
Heaven will also take into account WHICH of His laws and commands we put
more weight on (a note to the wise: it is best to agree with God and put the most
weight on the laws that He does). Yeshua says that these 3 matters carry the
most weight: justice, mercy, and trust. I could speak on this for quite some time,
but I'll fight that urge and instead just sum it up. In each of these 3 matters of
justice, mercy and trust, it is God's definition of them, applied in God's context
that we are to take them. Instead too often we try to apply our personal sense of
justice, mercy and trust to a situation; but that can miss the mark entirely and so
offend God.
God's justice is such an immense topic. The part that matters the most is that our
offenses against Him must be atoned for, and that can only be done with the
sacrificial death of an innocent creature. That principle is the bedrock of the
Levitical sacrificial system. Thus in order to atone for our sins in the highest
possible way that includes all types, God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to be that
innocent creature. Further His death was a once and for all sacrifice to atone for
us. But God's justice is far more extensive than that. It is part of a system of Law
and it explains what is a crime (a sin) to God and what is not, and how these
levels of offenses are to be dealt with. It ranges from petty theft to murder, which
brings upon the perpetrator a minor slap on the wrist, all the way up to
execution.
Mercy is complicated. For one thing, the English word mercy is an attempted
translation of the Hebrew word and concept of chesed. When this word appears
in the Old Testament we'll see a variation of translations for it; loving-kindness,
mercy, benevolence, and grace to name a few. In the Greek New Testament the
translator will already have chosen a word that (like English) communicates only
a part of what the concept is that God is communicating to us. So in reality, in
Matthew 23:23 where we'll find the word "mercy" (in most translations) as 1 of the
3 weightier matters, in fact the weightier matter is chesed: loving-kindness,
mercy, compassion, pity, benevolence and grace all rolled into one.
6/13

Lesson 13 - Matthew 5 cont
And as for the weightier matter of trust, it is a similar issue. Only this time the
issue is not displaying trust between ourselves and our fellow man. Rather it is
about living our lives in wholehearted trust of God and His Word. In Greek the
word that is translated as trust is pistis. And while trust is not a wrong translation,
I think a better word to more effectively convey its meaning to our modern way of
thinking is faithfulness. Our faithfulness towards God involves more than belief,
even more than trust; it also involves an uncompromising loyalty. So each of
these 3 weightier matters is larger in its scope than it might appear to us in our
English Bibles.
The 6th Beatitude is Matthew 5:8:
CJB Matthew 5:8 "How blessed are the pure in heart! for they will see God.
This or something similar does not occur in Luke's Sermon on the Plain. And
again, with this saying Jesus is not introducing a new or shocking concept to the
Jews. We find virtually the same thing in the Psalms. Turn your Bibles to Psalm
24 and we're going to read this short Psalm in its entirety to help us better
understand what Christ is the telling the crowd up on the hill in the Galilee.
READ PSALM 24 all
So a person with a pure heart is one who has good character. It is one whose
character has been molded and shaped by God. But what exactly, does pure
"heart" mean? In modern times the use of the word "heart" is meant
metaphorically as a place where love resides (or if one has a wicked heart, where
hate resides). It is a concept that is also steeped in emotion; it reflects how it is
that we feel about ourselves or someone else. None of this is bad or wrong, but
it also is not the biblical concept of the word "heart".
Biblically the heart is more or less what we now know the brain to be. That is,
biblically when the word "heart" is used, it refers to that place in the human body
where the mind and the intellect reside. In Yeshua's era and for some few more
hundreds of years, the seat of our various emotions was not thought to be our
heart but rather they were divided up into several of our organs depending on the
nature of the emotion. Never was the heart where the emotion of warm feelings
towards others, or God, lived. The heart was thought to be the place of rational
thought; the place where we perceived the world around us. Today, even though
we know that no emotions or thinking whatsoever occur in the heart organ, the
7/13

Lesson 13 - Matthew 5 cont
term "heart" has become a metaphor for a place of warm, loving feelings.
So if we were forced to choose only one English word to use instead of heart to
understand what God's Word was getting at when that word was used, the word
would be "mind". To use modern definitions, this 6th Beatitude would be phrased:
"How blessed are the pure of mind for they will see God". The validation of this
meaning that I propose comes to life starting with Matthew 5:21.
So what does the word "pure" mean in the biblical sense as it relates to the
condition of our mind? We must first recall the purity rules of the Torah. Ritual
purity is maintained by not contacting something that is impure. However should
the inevitable happen, a wash and a wait cures it. That is, if a person has
become ritually impure (and all will) one must be immersed in living water and
then depending on the nature and cause of the impurity, must wait for a specified
amount of time to pass. Obviously our minds cannot be immersed in water; for
one reason a mind is an intangible thing. What we think and what we believe is
invisible except for the behaviors that result from it. Therefore while the most
pious Jews (including Jesus) would immerse on a regular basis for all sorts of
ritual purity reasons, it was regularly done in a fastidious adherence to a Torah
law regarding ritual purity and too often performed merely as a mechanical
custom.
The true worshipper of God, however, understands that the outward display and
ritual washing are only effective if there is a real and sincere inward thought of
what God is wanting achieved. The goal is a quiet private encounter with God;
not to make an impression upon the religious authorities and witnesses in order
to satisfy their rules or customs.
Matthew 5:9 expresses that the reward for having a pure mind is to see God.
Seeing God, on the surface and in the P'shat interpretation sense, in that day
meant to know God intimately in the here and now. It meant to know His ways
and to have a profound loyalty to Him that has resulted in a personal relationship
with Him. To "see God' is, therefore, a Jewish expression since the principle from
Exodus chapter 33 is that no one may see God and live. Viewing with our eyes
the person and substance of Yehoveh is not the mental picture being drawn by
this Jewish expression. Yet in the Remez interpretation sense, this is not so
much referring to the present life but rather to the eternal life when, in fact, seeing
God is meant more literally. Having a relationship with Him will in the eternal
realm move us from seeing God in the ethereal and invisible sense, to seeing
8/13


Lesson 13 - Matthew 5 cont
Him in the tangible and visible sense. This happens because if a person is of
pure mind, then he will accept God's justice (His salvation in Messiah). And if one
is saved, then he has joined God's Kingdom. And if one has joined God's
Kingdom then he shall, in the eternal future, dwell with God in the same way
Adam and Eve originally did, on earth, in the Garden of Eden, where they saw
God face to face.
The 7th Beatitude is found in Matthew 5:9.
CJB Matthew 5:9 "How blessed are those who make peace! for they will be
called sons of God.
Because Seed of Abraham Torah Class presents the Bible from a Hebraic
heritage worldview, I imagine that many who are following this lesson rather
automatically assume by the mention of "peace" in this Beatitude that this saying
from Christ is meant to invoke among this huge crowd of Jews before Him, the
Hebrew concept of shalom. I don't think it is. For one glaring reason, God alone
is the maker and giver of shalom, while in this passage the reference is to
certain human beings who are the makers of peace. Shalom is a spiritual
concept about divinely given well being in all of its facets; health, inner peace,
joy, prosperity, nearness to God, restoration, welcome, and more. It is not
something that can be produced within a human; it must be implanted in us in a
divine act of God's will. Therefore this Beatitude can only be about peace in the
more conventional sense that is familiar to most people in the world. That is,
peace meaning an absence of conflict or strife; internal or external.
If we back away from this passage and look at God's Word overall, every mention
of peace in the Bible certainly doesn't mean the gift of divine well-being. A good
example is from the mouth of Christ Himself; it is found in Matthew 10:34. There
we read::
CJB Matthew 10:34 "Don't suppose that I have come to bring peace to the
Land. It is not peace I have come to bring, but a sword!
Another and more familiar translation of this same passage is the KJV:
KJV Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came
not to send peace, but a sword.
9/13

Lesson 13 - Matthew 5 cont
Although there are numerous other passages I could have chosen to help explain
the meaning of "peace" in this Beatitude, I like this one because I see a play on
words occurring that gives us both ends of the spectrum of the biblical meaning
of "peace".
Whether the proper interpretation of this verse is of Christ saying that he is NOT
bringing peace on the earth or He is NOT bringing peace to the Land (specifically
the Holy Land), doesn't matter concerning the issue at hand, because the type of
peace that the divine Yeshua always brings is Heavenly peace: shalom. God␂produced well-being for humans. And, says Jesus, He is not bringing that.
Rather it is that His actions and His words will not bring about well-being but will
actually be the catalyst for human conflict. He says that He is bringing a sword. A
sword is a military weapon for the purpose of fighting a conflict.
So let's take that understanding back to our passage in Matthew 5:9. The
peacemakers are not, and cannot be, the shalom-makers. Rather the
peacemakers are the ones who try to prevent, or bring an end, to human conflict;
whether that conflict is between individuals or between nations. As with the other
Beatitudes, Yeshua is not announcing a new idea or plan. Rather He is merely
saying what is already in the Torah, and was also part of religious Jewish culture
at that time. In Pirkei Avot 1:12 (Pirkei Avot is a compilation of sayings of the
great Sages and Rabbis concerning ethical principles) we read this: "Hillel said,
"Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace, and pursuing peace, loving
mankind, and bringing them near to the Torah". So the fundamental
importance of teaching peace (lack of conflict) was an established principle and
virtue among the Jewish religious leadership and therefore among Jewish
society.
So what, then, was Christ getting at when He said those words? Bible scholars
can't agree on it. I think we must look to the historical context for an answer.
During the early 1st century the Jews were an occupied nation. Some Jews were
content to live with this unpleasant reality, while others were vehemently
opposed. Because of the Roman occupation most Jews thought they were living
in the End Times, and the Prophets speak of those times as turbulent and full of
wars and conflicts. Many Jews wanted to resist the Romans but not so far as to
bring about retribution or war. Some, the Zealots, wanted an outright war of
rebellion. The Prophets who foretold of the Roman occupation said it was God
using a foreign power to punish Israel for their unfaithfulness to Him. Therefore
we'll find Yeshua urging the people not to rise up against Rome but rather finding
10/13

Lesson 13 - Matthew 5 cont
a way to live with it, peacefully, because the occupation was His Father's doing.
No doubt among the diverse thousands at His Sermon on the Mount there would
have been folks who adopted every view and hope concerning the Roman
occupation of the Holy Land. There would have been Zealots and active
occupation resisters listening, as well as those who had sympathy with them or
even were considering joining them; such was the times. Yeshua was probably
speaking to them.
As for the matter of these who remained non-violent (peacemakers) being called
"sons of God" for their efforts, the reality is that the kings of Israel were called
sons of God as were angels. So being a son of God was, biblically, applied in
more than one situation. Paul also addresses this term in the Book of Romans.
CJB Romans 8:14 14 All who are led by God's Spirit are God's sons.
I'll borrow from my own lesson in Romans on this subject. A Believer is imputed
to be God's son because anyone led by God's Spirit is a son to Him. This is a
Jewish expression that reflects a universally understood Jewish cultural concept
of the value of a son over a servant. Although several Bible characters will be
called servants of God (a high status), those called sons of God are even higher.
Thus while priests were called servants of God (a high status), Israel's kings
were called sons of God (a higher status). Prophets were called servants of God;
but Yeshua is called the Son of God. Thus the typical Levitical priests, although
indeed properly serving God, do not necessarily have God's spirit in them so
they can only be called servants. But every Believer in Christ is elevated in status
above Levitical priests because we have God's spirit (the Holy Spirit) living in us,
so we are sons of God. And ladies, don't let this bother you. The issue is not one
of gender (son versus daughter). The issue is our status before the Lord. From
the status standpoint women gain the same status of "sons of God" just as do
males if you trust Yeshua as your Lord, King, and Savior.
Bottom line to Beatitude number 7: being a non-violent peacemaker is an
expected part of the character of a disciple of Christ. So from
the P'shat interpretation sense, then this Beatitude is Messiah saying that
following Him means saying no to resisting Rome and especially to fomenting
trouble. Rather peace with the occupying Romans, as much as was within their
control, was the Godly choice. This would have greatly disappointed many of the
Zealots in the crowd and convinced most Jews that Yeshua could NOT have
been the Messiah because the traditional belief was that God's Messiah would
11 / 13

Lesson 13 - Matthew 5 cont
be a great warrior king (like David) who would appear and lead Israel to defeat
the Romans, and also to begin a new golden age of Israel's dominance in the
region, if not over the entire known world. The Jews doing what Christ is
commanding, then, will make them sons of God and great in God's eyes; but not
necessarily so in the eyes of other Jews.
But from the Remez interpretation sense, being sons of God in the present will
propel us to being sons of God in a greater (the ultimate) sense in the eternal
future. One such scriptural example to explain and support this is found in
Revelation 21.
CJB Revelation 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the old
heaven and the old earth had passed away, and the sea was no longer
there. 2 Also I saw the holy city, New Yerushalayim, coming down out of
heaven from God, prepared like a bride beautifully dressed for her
husband. 31heard a loud voice from the throne say, "See! God's Sh'khinah
is with mankind, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and he
himself, God-with-them, will be their God. 4 He will wipe away every tear
from their eyes. There will no longer be any death; and there will no longer
be any mourning, crying or pain; because the old order has passed
away." 5 Then the One sitting on the throne said, "Look! I am making
everything new!" Also he said, "Write, 'These words are true and
trustworthy!"' 6 And he said to me, "It is done! I am the 'A' and the 'Z,' the
Beginning and the End. To anyone who is thirsty I myself will give water
free of charge from the Fountain of Life. 7 He who wins the victory will
receive these things, and I will be his God, and he will be my son.
So the meaning of "sons of God" in the Remez interpretation sense means that
in the eternal future, Believers will finally attain the status and fullest reality of
what God ordained at the beginning of Creation.
CJB Genesis 1:26 26 Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image,
in the likeness of ourselves;
That is to say that we will, upon the new heavens and earth, achieve a likeness
(an image) to God, and a degree of connection and intimacy with Him, that we
have yet to experience and cannot in our current physical form and Universe.
We'll continue with the Sermon on the Mount next week.
12/13
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lesson 13 - Matthew 5 cont
13/13
.....

Lesson 14 - Matthew 5 cont 2
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 14, Chapter 5 Continued 2
We have now completed studying 7 of the Beatitudes. It is usually said that there
are 8 of them, but some Bible commentators say there are 9, and others say 10.
My position is that the separating away of the first several verses of Matthew
chapter 5 and giving it a title.... the Beatitudes is artificial in the first place. The
downside of doing this is that it can give us the impression that this decoupling of
them from the rest of His Sermon on the Mount was Christ's intent. It certainly
was not. Essentially Jesus was looking out at His enormous crowd and directly
addressing them by offering a blessing that described the group in general and in
some cases referring to certain segments of it.... the poor, in spirit (the Essenes)
for example. So we won't get into a debate on just how many of the so-called
Beatitudes there are, because it's unimportant for studying Yeshua's seminal
speech. Yet, for the sake of continuity and to make it easier for us to study and
not confuse matters, we'll follow the traditional Christian outline of the opening
verses.
Open your Bibles to Matthew chapter 5.
READ MATTHEW CHAPTER 5:10 - 16
The 8th Beatitude is contained in verse 10. Nothing like this is contained in
Luke's Sermon on the Plain, which further points to the two sermons being
different speeches spoken at different times and different places.
CJB Matthew 5:10 10 "How blessed are those who are persecuted because
they pursue righteousness! for the Kingdom of Heaven is theirs.
1 / 13

Lesson 14 - Matthew 5 cont 2
The word "persecuted" is rather standard in English Bibles and it is used
regularly in the New Testament; and it isn't wrongly translated. However in
modern times we view the term "persecution" as nearly synonymous with
strenuous oppression, often involving violence. That is, persecution is something
quite severe in which one's life is either greatly hindered or even put in danger.
The Greek word is dioko. If the various Greek lexicons are consulted we'll find a
rather long definition for the word because it carries quite a range of meaning. So
in our time a better word is probably "harassed". Perhaps even "made fun of" or
"ridiculed" also captures another aspect of it. It is not that this
term dioko (persecution) can't at some point rise to a meaning of true, virulent
oppression and harm, but that is the far end of the scale of the word's intention.
And that meaning is not something that most Believers in Christ's day faced, nor
do the majority of Believers face today (while fully acknowledging that there are
parts of the world, especially where there are Muslim majorities, in which life as
Believers is under daily threat).
So to help us better understand what Yeshua is telling us, I'll repeat the verse
using a word that history would show us is closer to what He meant to
communicate to the crowd. "How blessed are those who are harassed
because they pursue righteousness! For the Kingdom of Heaven is theirs." Regardless of precisely how to transmit the idea of persecution in modern terms,
the point of the verse is that there is cost to pursuing righteousness. But the next
question is: what form or display of righteousness is this referring to? Every Jew
in that era would tell you that they were pursuing righteousness; it was but part of
their unique culture. By observing the Torah, the Sabbaths and the Feasts,
praying and (in the last couple of centuries) the following of Traditions and going
to Synagogue along with generally being a good person, this would have
represented the popular Jewish understanding of pursuing righteousness. To put
a finer point to it; righteous was wrapped up in behavior. Complicating the matter
was that there were several distinct and competing sects of Jews who had
formed varying interpretations of the Torah and so each sect acted out Jewish
Tradition and God's commandments somewhat differently from one another. In
fact these differences in doctrine sometimes led to serious confrontations. So if
Yeshua's final few words of this Beatitude had not been spoken, no doubt it
would have been somewhat difficult for the listeners to take the concept of the
pursuit of righteousness any other way than precisely how one behaved in every
day life and in how fastidiously they observed Torah rituals and commands.
When Yeshua completed His statement with: "For the Kingdom of Heaven is
2/13
.....


Lesson 14 - Matthew 5 cont 2
theirs", it changed the focus and the source of that righteousness from earth to
Heaven that is, from humans to God... even if a goodly part of the crowd didn't
understand the implication.
Our human righteousness is indeed based on rules-following and behavior. But
that is not a kind of righteousness that can save us, even though righteous
behavior and rules-following is certainly an ongoing expectation that God has of
His worshippers. Human based righteousness is of a kind that our own devotion,
focus and determination can achieve; but it does not, because it cannot, join us
to the Kingdom of Heaven. On the other hand, God's perfect righteousness is
part of His substance. It has at its center His will, His plan, and His unique ability
to save and to restore. God's righteousness cannot be duplicated or replicated by
humans; it can only be given to each of us as a free gift of the Father's love for
us. The agent that brings this divine gift of loving salvation to mankind is God's
Son, the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth.
For those of us living today who were born in the mid to early part of the 20th
century and living in the West, it is hard to accept that now, in the early part of the
21st century, being a Believer is starting to bear a tangible cost, which we could
have never anticipated. Being a Believer is no longer an accepted cultural norm
nor is it as widely popular. When I was younger man, professing to be a Christian
(whether you really were or not) was the expected. In fact, the terms American
and Christian were very nearly organically linked. One of the first questions a
person might be asked when meeting someone in the local community was "what
Church do you go to?" The answer would only rarely be "I don't go to Church" or
"I don't believe in God". Today asking such a question is fraught with negative
social implications. Being a Believer in Christ is openly criticized in our education
system, ridiculed by the mainstream media, and outright rejected and slandered
by some of our top level political leadership. It is even called a threat to peace
and tolerance by global interests. The general expectation upon Judeo␂Christianity has become more of an insistence that our faith is to be
compartmentalized, unspoken, unrealized in public, and manifested only while
we're in Church or Synagogue, or within the privacy of our homes. As a result our
beliefs in the God of Israel and in Our Savior Yeshua are something we have
become prone to being silent about; we keep it to ourselves for fear of
confrontation or finding ourselves on the wrong side of the flow and political
correctness of our society.
I tell you this so that you see how this 8th Beatitude can be applied to us in our
3/13

Lesson 14 - Matthew 5 cont 2
time, but also the similarity to how it was for those who heard Christ speaking first
hand. From the P'shat interpretation sense, Yeshua was telling His 1st century
listeners that the harassment they would receive for pursuing God's saving
righteousness would be rewarded in their membership to the Kingdom of
Heaven. What those listeners didn't yet understand was that this pursuit that
would begin with repenting of sins, would then involve turning to God by means
of trusting Yeshua as Savior and Lord. Although after a couple more statements
Jesus would heavily imply that following Him was the key. Once the Jewish folks
did that, it was automatic that they would be ridiculed and harassed by both the
Temple and the Synagogue leadership, and the bulk of Jewish society. After
some years passed the harassment of Yeshua followers would indeed escalate
into oppression and violence against them. In fact, Yeshua prophesied that this
would happen and who would be the first to threaten and advocate harm to the
Messianic Believers.
CJB Matthew 23:29-34 29 'Woe to you hypocritical Torah-teachers and
P'rushim! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the
tzaddikim, 30 and you say, 'Had we lived when our fathers did, we would
never have taken part in killing the prophets.' 31 In this you testify against
yourselves that you are worthy descendants of those who murdered the
prophets. 32 Go ahead then, finish what your fathers started! 33 "You
snakes! Sons of snakes! How can you escape being condemned to Gei␂Hinnom? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and Torah␂teachers- some of them you will kill, indeed, you will have them executed
on stakes as criminals; some you will flog in your synagogues and pursue
from town to town.
Yeshua says that it will be the religious leadership of the Synagogue that will lead
the way in slandering and mistreating His Jewish followers.
In the Remez interpretation sense, however, Yeshua's words in the 8th Beatitude
are referring to the End Times when Believers will be hunted down and severely
oppressed, on a worldwide basis. That is, persecution for pursuing righteousness
in Christ moves from mere harassment and ridicule (as is now happening in the
West) to persecution more as we think of the term; being hated, harmed and
murdered. In fact, as we know from Daniel, Jeremiah, Isaiah and Revelation,
being a Believer will eventually (in the End Times) be officially considered as
making us an enemy of the State.... of global humanity. For now, in the West, the
cost of pursuing righteousness is primarily ridicule mostly being incited by the
4/13
.....


Lesson 14 - Matthew 5 cont 2
cultural elite. Later the cost may well be our jobs, our personal freedom, and then
our lives. I wonder: if so many of us are already reluctant to reveal our faith and
instead keeping silent merely to avoid being called out at work or excluded from
our desired social circles, what might we do when an admission of faith could
bring community exclusion, jail or worse?
For those who say there is a 9th or even 10th Beatitude, these are contained in
verses 11 and 12. The commentators who claim 9 Beatitudes wrap verses 11
and 12 together as one Beatitude. The relatively few commentators who claim 10
Beatitudes make verse 11 the 9th and verse 12 the 10th Beatitude. Verse 11
seems to be saying nearly the same thing as verse 10 (Blessed are those who
are persecuted).
CJB Matthew 5:11 11 "How blessed you are when people insult you and
persecute you and tell all kinds of vicious lies about you because you
follow me!
The Greek word translated to persecuted is the same in both verses. So as I
explained earlier, dioko has a range of meanings from something as mild as
being ridiculed, to being followed and harassed, all the way up to being violently
assaulted or killed. I think the sense we are to take its meaning in verse 10 is a
bit different than in verse 11. So while verse 10 is primarily speaking about a kind
of mid point along the persecution scale, verse 11 is a bit lower in its intensity
and is not about serious threats or physical actions taken against the Believer.
Rather this is pointing to slanderous things that are said to discredit them (the
leadership and the people hurl insults and tell lies about Believers Jewish
Believers at the time of the Sermon on the Mount). For the first time, in the final
words of verse 11, Yeshua now ties together these various forms and means of
persecution as being the consequence of following Him. He says: "Because you
follow Me". And since Beatitudes 4 and 8 both speak of some form of persecution
that is the result of pursuing the kind of saving righteousness that Jesus is
speaking about, then clearly He is saying that the pursuit of Him IS the pursuit of
a saving righteousness! That, my friends, is a bold and enormous claim that no
doubt brought a wide range of emotion and reaction in that huge crowd. From
elation to anger, and from fear to disappointment or even befuddlement, this
Yeshua fellow was either a liar, a madman, or someone very special that needed
to be heard and accepted even if the folks couldn't absorb the meaning of all He
was saying.
5/13

Lesson 14 - Matthew 5 cont 2
Doubling down on His incomparable promise, He goes so far as to say that all
who will surely suffer from following Him will be rewarded in Heaven. And why
should they find that odd or suspect? After all, says Christ, the prophets of old
that God sent to Israel at various times throughout their history suffered the same
and worse for hearing and believing the divine truth (a truth that few, especially
Israel's leaders, wanted to hear). Thus rejoicing is the proper response for those
who trust Yeshua and act upon that trust. Rejoicing is the proper mental attitude
to maintain when knowing and speaking the truth, which likely reduces our
popularity and causes us to be excluded from some of our friends, family, and
perhaps from our congregation fellowship. It may well be that our rejoicing will be
muted in the here and now due to suffering; but at the same time there is the
greatest hope and a promise for a future in God's Kingdom that is nothing but joy.
It's a bit challenging to ascertain what, exactly, the audience thought Yeshua was
meaning about they're being rewarded in Heaven if they followed Him. Our
modern Christian thoughts instantly run towards what happens to our souls after
we die, and this due to a combination of Church Tradition and some of the words
of the New Testament. Generally the Christian thought is that there is for sure an
afterlife that begins upon our death. If we are saved in Christ, then our souls will
either immediately or eventually go to Heaven and dwell with God. But that was
not the thought of Jews in Christ's era. What happened after death was a
frightening mystery to them and to their religious leaders. Death was not a
welcomed thing; it was not a case of going "home" or "going to a better place".
Earnestly mourning the dead was the normal mode; it was certainly not having a
"celebration of life" as we often have at Believers' funerals today. In the minds of
the ancient Jews, the best condition for a person was to be among the living
because there was nothing good about being dead.
So I surmise that the thoughts of the attendees at the Sermon on the Mount was
that Messiah was talking about Heaven (God in Heaven, really) blessing them in
some undefined way during their lives as a reward for following Yeshua.... even
if life likely would include being ridiculed and harassed by their fellow Jews.
Verse 13 moves us beyond the opening series of blessings that Yeshua
pronounced upon the various groups of people who came to hear Him speak.
There we read:
CJB Matthew 5:13 13 "You are salt for the Land. But if salt becomes tasteless,
6/13
.....

Lesson 14 - Matthew 5 cont 2
how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything except
being thrown out for people to trample on.
There is more here than meets the eye. Some Bible commentators and scholars
would classify this statement as a parable. I do not agree and in later lessons I
will speak extensively about the nature of parables, which will explain why I
cannot accept this verse as one. Rather, since this statement revolves around
the object of salt, then salt is a metaphor or it is symbolic of something larger, or
it's both.
First; recall that the opening 10 verses of the Sermon on the Mount were spoken
to address the presence of the thousands who came to hear Yeshua speak.
Each of those statements were made either to describe and give recognition to
the entire crowd in general or more often to call out and recognize specific
groups of people within it. Verse 13 is another instance of this and it is a general
statement to the crowd at large. Remembering who Jesus is speaking to is
critical throughout the Sermon; it is to Jews. Certainly there were small
smatterings of curious gentiles and those of mixed blood and religious loyalties
present; but overall we have a Jewish Jesus speaking to a thoroughly Jewish
audience. Therefore we must take His words in a Jewish religious and cultural
context. As a result we must also be prepared to understand the meaning of His
statements in both the P'shat and the Remez interpretation senses.
Let's begin by dealing with a key word in the first part of the verse. In the CJB
and in the YLT (and a few other versions) we'll find that the general reference to
those sitting before Yeshua is that they are salt for the Land (meaning, eretz
Israel the Land of Israel). The vast majority of Bible versions, however,
choose it to mean that his audience is salt for "the earth".... that is, the entire
planet. As Bible commentators tend to do, they demand that one interpretation is
correct and the other is wrong, and so debate incessantly about it. This is modern
Western Greek thinking at work and it has nothing to do with ancient Eastern
Jewish thinking. Thus we must consider the speaker, the audience, and the
setting when deciding what the words mean. Let's lay that aside for the moment.
The next matter is what the meaning of salt was to Christ and to His Jewish
audience. It can be surprising that "salt" in the Bible is an enormous subject; this
is partly because as so much does over time, the use of the term can evolve. So
while it is not that there is no connection to what "salt" meant in Abraham's time
to what it meant in Moses' time to what it meant in Yeshua's time, what it meant
7/13

Lesson 14 - Matthew 5 cont 2
to the contemporary people Jesus was speaking to carries the most weight for
what it needs to mean to us.
Salt was, as a practical matter, very valuable and central to life itself in
Abraham's and Moses' time. Unfortunately it was not readily available or easily
accessible to most people. It carried as much value as we apply today for
precious metals like gold; so it was used as a medium of currency in some
cultures. It was a necessary ingredient in body chemistry to sustain life. It was a
desired ingredient to flavor otherwise bland food. It was a preservative for meat in
their food supply. It was used for healing wounds and for skin conditions.
Therefore it took on symbolic meaning and so salt would even be given or
exchanged as part of a covenant ceremony.
Biblically one of the attributes of salt was its use for purification. Levitical law
requires that all sacrifices of meat have to be salted. Even grain and produce
sacrifices that are to be burnt up on the Altar have to be salted. Why? It is not
directly addressed in the Torah. Very probably it had to do with both the matter of
practicing the precise sacrificial ritual in obedience to the Covenant with Moses
(remembering that it was an ancient tradition to exchange salt as part of the
ceremony), but also because salt was seen as an element of purification and so
by salting the sacrifices they were further purified. Some Bible scholars say it was
because salt was so important in the meals of the Israelites that it naturally would
be included in the offering of food to God. I find that incredulous because while
pagans thought that their sacrifices were meant as food for their gods (who would
starve to death if they weren't provided with food) the Hebrews never thought
they were feeding God. In fact, it was the Priests who were able to keep the bulk
of the sacrificed meat and produce to provide for themselves and their families,
and this was ordained in the Torah.
In Christ's day, in the Holly Land region, salt was readily available, relatively
cheap, and used by the ton for Temple sacrificial rituals. The largest use of salt at
the Temple in terms of amount was for rubbing it on the meat that was to be
sacrificed. It was utilized as an absorbent in obedience to the law that required
removing the blood from a meat offering. A batch of salt used in this way could
only be used one time; and then the bloody salt was thrown out. But, there was a
wonderful use for the tons and tons of now ritually impure salt; it was spread on
the many roads and pathways as a vegetation killer to keep these roads well
maintained. So the final part of this verse where Yeshua says of salt that once it
loses its taste "it is no longer good for anything except being thrown out for
8/13
.

Lesson 14 - Matthew 5 cont 2
people to trample on" is literally the way that waste salt was used in that era.
Now let's back up a bit. The first words of verse 13 are: "You are the salt of the
Land (meaning the Holy Land)". The next words are: "But if salt becomes
tasteless...." Christ is not speaking to several thousand Torah scholars; He is
speaking to throngs of common folk. Thus He is using an illustration that every
day people would understand. And by Yeshua's day the primary use of salt for
those Jews NOT associated with the Temple operations, it was to season and
preserve food, and for medical purposes. Interestingly, a curious Greek word is
used to describe what happens to salt to make it no longer usable. The word
is moraino. Literally it means to become foolish. So if we to more literally
translate the first part of verse 13 it would be: "You are salt for the Land. But if
salt becomes foolish ...." So to translate moraino to mean "tasteless" is
dubious to me unless it was a known expression in that era, and I have found no
evidence of that among Jewish or gentile scholarship. Having Jesus say
"tasteless" has to be an educated guess from the translators. It seems to me that
a better way of understanding it (in our modern terms) is about what happens to
salt that has become adulterated or contaminated in some way. So whether salt
is used in every day life to season and thus flavor food, or used in food as a meat
preservative, or whether it is used for Temple sacrifices, the broad idea is to
explain what happens to salt that, for whatever the reason, loses its ability to do
what it was meant to do because it has become impure, adulterated, or
contaminated.
Bottom line: salt was a good, desired, and needed thing for a number of common
uses in Yeshua's time. And Yeshua says to the crowd of Jews who are coming
for the purpose of healing and for hearing this man's wisdom, that they are the
ones who provide the good flavor to influence the people in a positive way, the
good preservation of the land and the people in their God ordained purpose as
His set apart people and land, and if they become contaminated with the false
ways of some of their religious leaders or they are corrupted by the dazzling and
advanced culture and beliefs of their Roman occupiers, then they will lose their
purpose and they won't gain it back. If that happens, then they are suitable only
to be thrown upon the ground and trampled into the dust, for the purpose of
poisoning the soil so that nothing can grow. Everything I've just explained to you
is to interpret this passage in the P'shat sense.
But in the Remez, it transforms. It speaks of a larger purpose and scope. Since
the Hebrew word eretz (which is what the Greek word ge is translating) can
9/13
.....


Lesson 14 - Matthew 5 cont 2
mean earth or land, then while in the P'shat sense it means the Land of Israel, in
the Remez sense it expands to mean the earth... the entire planet. Thus the salt
of the Jewish people rises from being salt ONLY for the Jewish people in the
Holy Land, to salt for the gentile world as well. And in such a larger capacity, if
these Jews become adulterated in their ways and thinking, how can they bring
the purity and truth that God gave to them to the world? So in the Remez sense
this is sort of a warning from Christ that in time, the Jews will have the
opportunity to be salt for the world; but if they become contaminated in their ways
and thinking they will lose that opportunity and become useless in God's hand.
And when we are useless in God's hand, we pay an earthly price for it. For 18 or
19 centuries that has generally been the outcome for the Jewish people.
However (praise God), we are seeing a growing segment of Jewish society called
Messianic Jews (Believing Jews) realizing what has happened to their people
and actively working to regain their saltiness and to reclaim their God-given
purpose to lead all humanity back to the Lord.
Therefore back to the question I asked at the beginning of examining this
important verse. Is this speaking of the Jews being salt only to the Holy Land or
to the entire world? I said that Bible commentators say one answer is correct
and the other incorrect. I hope to have shown you that when we adopt the
Eastern way of interpreting the Bible which was produced from an Eastern
thinking people.... that in fact both answers are correct when placed in their
proper historical setting.
Verses 14 through 16 provide a complementary statement to the previous one. It
uses the illustration of light to represent God's intended purpose for Yeshua's
Jewish audience.
CJB Matthew 5:14-16 14 "You are light for the world. A town built on a hill
cannot be hidden. 15 Likewise, when people light a lamp, they don't cover it
with a bowl but put it on a lampstand, so that it shines for everyone in the
house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before people, so that they
may see the good things you do and praise your Father in heaven.
Here Yeshua's statement clearly swells the hoped-for Jewish influence to the
world, and not just the Holy Land. No doubt He is basing this thought upon the
prophet Isaiah because this is nearly precisely the same message that Isaiah
brought from the Lord 7 centuries earlier.
10/13
.....
.....


Lesson 14 - Matthew 5 cont 2
CJB Isaiah 49:1 Coastlands, listen to me; listen, you peoples far away:
ADONAI called me from the womb; before I was born, he had spoken my
name. 2 He has made my mouth like a sharp sword while hiding me in the
shadow of his hand; he has made me like a sharpened arrow while
concealing me in his quiver. 3 He said to me, "You are my servant, Isra'el,
through whom I will show my glory." 4 But I said, "I have toiled in vain,
spent my strength for nothing, futility." Yet my cause is with ADONAI, my
reward is with my God. 5 So now ADONAI says- he formed me in the womb
to be his servant, to bring Ya'akov back to him, to have Isra'el gathered to
him, so that I will be honored in the sight of ADONAI, my God having
become my strength- 6 he has said, "It is not enough that you are merely my
servant to raise up the tribes of Ya'akov and restore the offspring of Isra'el.
I will also make you a light to the nations, so my salvation can spread to the
ends of the earth." Therefore the future time that God will make it Israel's task to be a light to the
nations, an event that Isaiah prophesied, has arrived according to Christ. Folks,
in its plain sense (P'shat) or in its literal sense but with a hint at a deeper
meaning (Remez) this is a call to action. The goal is that other people
gentiles will come to faith in the God of Israel. But in God's plan it is Israel (the
Jews) that cannot be passive but rather the light that God gave to them must be
put before people. Look at the final words of verse 16. There it says: " so that
they may see the good things you do and praise your Father in
heaven". This is the truest evangelism. It is the most effective spreading of the
Good News. How does Jesus say it should be done? By letting people see our
good deeds; by letting others see how we praise the Father in Heaven. In other
words, it is not by speaking words but by actively living out our faith. Only doing it
inside the walls of our Church or Synagogue, or our home, is not sufficient. In this
age when our faith is not as popular or admired as it once was, and in fact we
can find ourselves under verbal attack for it, that is not to discourage us from
outwardly displaying it by doing good deeds and publicly praising God. This is not
to say, of course, that speaking the Gospel is not to be done; it must be and it is
a necessary ingredient to effective evangelism. But words can be cheapened
when there is no evidence of their truth in action to back it up. We have an
English word to describe people or institutions that do this: hypocrites. I can't
think of a word more used by those outside of Christianity to describe us than
hypocrites; sometimes unjustly, sometimes quite justifiably. Why? Because we
have not always displayed the truth in action; we've settled for advocating for it in
words.
11 / 13
......

Lesson 14 - Matthew 5 cont 2
Yeshua likens the way that His listeners should be a light to world by saying it
should be as if they were set in a city on a mountain. He stays with the thoughts
of Isaiah when he says this.
CJB Isaiah 2:1 This is the word that Yesha'yahu the son of Amotz saw
concerning Y'hudah and Yerushalayim: 2
in the acharit-hayamim (the end of
days) the mountain of ADONAI's house will be established as the most
important mountain. It will be regarded more highly than the other hills, and
all the Goyim will stream there. 3 Many peoples will go and say, "Come, let's
go up to the mountain of ADONAl, to the house of the God of Ya'akov! He
will teach us about his ways, and we will walk in his paths." For out of
Tziyon will go forth Torah, the word ofADONAI from Yerushalayim. 4 He will
judge between the nations and arbitrate for many peoples. Then they will
hammer their swords into plow-blades and their spears into pruning␂knives; nations will not raise swords at each other, and they will no longer
learn war. 5 Descendants of Ya'akov, come! Let's live in the light of
ADONAI!
The Torah envisions the gentiles (all the nations) making a pilgrimage to
Jerusalem in order to learn God's Word. Thus we must understand that in the
Jewish mind, light carries a dual meaning (as it often does in the Western gentile
mind). There is a type of light that represents truth, knowledge and revelation; in
English we call it enlightenment. Then there is a type of light that fills a darkened
space with visible light so that we can read, walk, work, eat, etc. The light on a
hill in the P'shat sense is speaking of something like a torch that is held up on a
high place so it can be seen in all directions and for a long distance; like a signal
fire. In the Remez sense this is speaking of God's enlightenment; His truth. The
hill is Mt. Zion in Jerusalem. And those who hold up the torch and who bring the
divine truth to the world are to be the descendants of Jacob the Israelites.
After telling the Jews to be a light Yeshua cautions: what good does putting that
light on a hill and then covering it over so that it can reach no one? What good
does it do to hold a firm faith in the Father and His Son, and then keep it quiet
and private because you encounter opposition? And what does it say to have
such a faith and have it bear no fruit in the form of good works and deeds?
The Early Church Father Chrysostom says this:
"You are the light of the world.... not of a single nation nor of twenty cities,
12/13
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lesson 14 - Matthew 5 cont 2
but of the entire inhabited earth. You are a like a light to the mind, far better
than any particular sunbeam. Similarly, you are spiritual salt. First you are
salt. Then you are light. The metaphors of salt and light drive home the
great benefit of these stinging words and the profit of this rigorous
discipline; how it binds and does not permit us to be dissolute in our
behavior." Having greeted His great audience, and having prepared them with blessing after
blessing, and having encouraged them in faith and divine purpose, Christ is
about to present them.... all of us.... with the fulcrum, the balance point, of His
entire message. If any misses this, or in some way disturbs it, or intentionally
dismisses it, or changes its plain meaning in order to create or support a false
doctrine, or bypasses it in order to slander Yeshua or His people or God's Torah,
then all the words of the Sermon on the Mount that came before it and will come
after it become tainted and out of context. That person who approaches this
passage becomes like the salt that absorbs contamination and so becomes fit for
nothing but to be thrown upon the ground and trampled under foot.
If you think those are harsh or severe words, then just wait until next week when
we open with the 17th verse of the Sermon on the Mount.
13/13

Lesson 15 - Matthew 5 cont 3
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 15, Chapter 5 Continued 3
I want to begin by acknowledging that we've spent the better part of 3 lessons
covering only the first 16 verses of Matthew chapter 5; I know this is a very slow
pace. I'm afraid that it is not likely to increase very much for a while. My goal,
however, is not to teach you scriptural minutia or theology. My goal is to add the
necessary context, some of it historical and cultural, and some of it language
oriented, so that the true meaning of what we're reading comes to the surface
unadulterated by unintended errors, manmade doctrines, and modern Christian
spin that tries to make it compatible with contemporary beliefs and agendas. In
the case of the Sermon on the Mount, the considerable amount of time that I am
taking with the many detours and extended explanations is only because what
those regular, everyday Jews who came to hear Yeshua held as common
knowledge, is unknown and foreign to us in the 21st century.
The past 3 lessons have essentially been a build up to what we'll encounter
today. And what comes today is nothing less than a plain, firm and unequivocal
refutation of one of the most broadly held doctrines of the Christian Church,
worldwide. Even more, what Yeshua says to the crowd of thousands and
thousands of Jews that have come from as far away as the southern desert of
Judea to the northern reaches of Syria, and even from several Roman provinces
on the eastern side of the Jordan River (most of the people coming in hopes of a
miraculous healing of their illnesses, injuries, deformities and demon possession)
sets a foundation for all of His followers, Jew or gentile, then and into an
indefinite future, of exactly how we are to understand His speech, and how we
are to interpret all of His actions and words as recorded in the Gospel accounts.
Before we open our Bibles together I want to relate a brief story to you. For the
1 / 13

Lesson 15 - Matthew 5 cont 3
past 25 years I have had the privilege of taking several hundreds of people to
Israel on tour. On some of the tours, especially when I had a Pastor or two on the
bus, I took them to the Mount of Beatitudes. There we would spend a couple of
hours on the lovely grounds not just for the beautiful view of the Sea of Galilee
but also for a Bible lesson. Naturally we would read at least part, often all, of the
Sermon on the Mount. Invariably I would ask a Pastor on the tour to read it for us;
they were always kind to accommodate me.
Starting at Matthew 5:1, I could see the easy familiarity these Pastors had with
the moving words of the Beatitudes (one or two of them even had it memorized),
as often they spoke with teary eyes. But then, as I asked them to continue, they
would encounter verse 17, then 18, then 19; some paused partway through
perhaps not sure they wanted to proceed. Others had a deer-in-the-headlights
look come over their faces. Some seemed puzzled as though after reading this
chapter numerous times in the past, Jesus's words of verses 17-19 were
suddenly new to them. Such can be the case when one visits the Holy Land of
Israel. I'm sure it's obvious to you, as it quickly became to them, why I chose
these Pastors in particular to read the Sermon on the Mount to the group: it was
my intent to make an impact. And now it is my prayer that these words we are
about to dissect make a similar impact on you.
So without further ado, open your Bibles to Matthew chapter 5 and let's talk about
what it is that makes these words so monumental, so important to our faith, and
so unsettling to much of Institutional Christianity that they are often ignored.
RE-READ MATTHEW CHAPTER 5:17 - 20
Let's go verse by verse and very nearly word by word. The opening text is,
depending on your English Bible version, "Do not think", or "Do not suppose", or
"Think not". I don't need to dwell on the meaning of this simple phrase because it
is self evident. Christ means something like: "I know what some of you might be
thinking about what I've already said, and how you might take what I'm about to
say, but you'd be wrong". In other words, Yeshua is interrupting the regular flow
of His speech to make a point because He knows that some will object to what
He has to say and others will read into it things He does not mean. In fact, I can
imagine Him making a rather dramatic pause; taking a few seconds, inhaling
deeply, and then scanning the crowd making sure He has the attention of
everyone listening. The purpose is to clarify the interpretation of His instructions
and teaching in order that the people listening rule out a certain way of thinking
2/13

Lesson 15 - Matthew 5 cont 3
that some, maybe most of them, might automatically assume. Why might they
automatically assume wrongly? Because they, like us, had mental filters.
Humans have always had mental filters. Without even being fully conscious of it
we all have, since we were very young children, developed a certain way of
looking at our world. That view of our world colors everything we see and hear
and come into contact with. Therefore our personal mental filters filter out some
information, and allows other information to pass through. Some of the way our
mental filters develop has to do with the temperaments we are born with and the
sensitivities we develop along the way that might be inexplicable. Some of it has
to do with our family history and family system. The culture we have been raised
in and/or have joined plays a significant role as does the teaching (formal or
informal) that we have received. Our personal experiences, and the prejudices
and preferences we develop and so much more all take their place to help form
our views and thus are the blueprints that construct our personal mental filters.
The Jews that Christ was speaking to that day naturally all had their own mental
filters. While not universal among every attendee, we can probably make some
general conclusions about the nature of those filters.
First: the attending Jews were aware since their earliest age of their rich Hebrew
heritage. They knew of their ancestral father Abraham, of their ancestors' time in
Egypt and of their exodus. They knew of the Wilderness Journey, about the
happenings on Mt. Sinai, and who Moses was and the lofty place He holds in
Jewish religious history.
Second: the multitude were entirely aware of the Torah and the Law of Moses,
even though most were not well versed in its details. Remember: at that time the
Hebrew Bible was still being painstakingly hand-copied onto scrolls, and no one
but the Priesthood possessed more than a book or two at best due to the
expense and time involved in creating each copy.
Third: there was no question as to the continuing and never ending validity and
truth of the Torah and the Prophets, and the entire Tanakh (Old Testament,
Hebrew Bible) for that matter. Of this there was no debate even among the
Jewish religious and academic elite.
Fourth: since the majority of the people of Israel had long ago dispersed to
regions all over Asia, Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, few of the Jewish
Diaspora were able to make the several annual Torah commanded pilgrimages
3/13

Lesson 15 - Matthew 5 cont 3
to the Temple in Jerusalem; whether that journey was to sacrifice to atone for
their sins, or to attend a biblical festival. So their contact with Jerusalem, the
Temple and the Priesthood was rare, if ever, unless they lived within the
immediate area of the Holy Land or were both wealthy and religiously zealous.
Fifth: although the Torah itself commands that it is the Levite priests who are
responsible to teach the Hebrew people the Torah, that had ceased to happen
centuries earlier. The exile of the Jews to Babylon had created a huge vacuum in
Jewish religious leadership and ritual as well as in the people's knowledge of
Scripture.
Sixth: out of this vacuum was born the synagogue, as more or a less a necessity.
Each synagogue was local and served a small community of Jews.... very much
like the Church. Each synagogue was independent of the others and so the
religious expression of each varied. In time, however, some Jewish leadership
developed then standardized, to a degree, the synagogue system. The
synagogue at first served the Babylonian exiles who had decided not to return to
their homeland but to make wherever it was they were, their permanent home.
Later the institution of the synagogue spread to the Holy Land, even though
those Jews resided in relatively close proximity to the Temple. Therefore
whatever religious training and instruction the average Israelite received came
from his or her local synagogue. And who operated these synagogues? Who did
the teaching? This was the province of the Pharisees for the most part. That is,
the synagogue leadership and the teachers were lay people (non-priests) that
had no connection to the Temple. And because the synagogues were dominated
by the Tradition-driven instruction of the Pharisees, then it was Tradition and
manmade Jewish Law (as opposed to the actual biblical Law of Moses) that the
typical Jew learned and practiced.
So the mental filters that Jews had in the 1st century were created primarily on
the basis of their distinct Jewish culture and on the Traditions and Jewish Law
that their religious leaders taught them. Thus, this large crowd of Jews will
(without realizing it) filter every word Yeshua says through their mental matrix of
knowledge and viewpoint. Therefore much of what Yeshua says sounds new to
them, even though it is old. Some of it sounds wrong, because they have been
taught wrongly. Sometimes their skepticism of Jesus's words is because they
don't know what the Torah actually says, and thus they don't have the proper
reference point to judge the difference between the actual, biblical, God given
Torah, and the manmade Traditions (the doctrines) they and their forefathers
4/13
.....
.....

Lesson 15 - Matthew 5 cont 3
have been taught in the synagogue all their lives.
This ought to sound familiar to us even if we might not be terribly happy to have it
pointed out because it is like that in the typical Christian Church, and has been so
since shortly after its inception. The people either don't have a Bible, or don't
read and study the Bible, and so whatever the Church authorities say that the
Bible says and means is what the people generally accept as unassailable truth.
The name for these many interpretations of the Bible and the resulting rules is
doctrines. Thus while the Church has nearly always been doctrine based, as
opposed to Bible based, the synagogue has nearly always been Tradition based,
as opposed to Torah based. Christ's concern, then, is that the people listening to
Him will think that under His own authority He is either changing the Law of
Moses, or effectively abolishing it and replacing it with new teachings of His own.
So He begins with the words: Do NOT think
So the people are told not to think what, exactly? He says that they are not to
think that He came to abolish the Law or the Prophets. What, exactly, did that
mean to His listeners? A quick reminder: whatever we in the West might think,
we have to always keep in mind that Matthew was a Believing Jew, whose
thought processes followed a Hebrew path. So first: whatever the people sitting
on that hillside think Yeshua is trying to tell them in His Sermon, He insists that
nothing of what He says involves Him abolishing anything. Abolishing, over
turning, or destroying is not what He came to do. The Greek word being
translated as abolish is kataluo. The Greek lexicons all agree that it means to
abolish or to over throw; so our English Bibles have it right. Second: the things
He specifically emphasizes that He is NOT over throwing is the Law and the
Prophets. So, precisely, what is Christ meaning by the Law and the Prophets? In
Greek the term Law is nomos, and the term Prophets is prophetes. In this use
in Matthew 5:17 the term "the Law" is referring to the Law of Moses, or more
accurately in Hebrew thinking, the Torah (the 5 books of Moses). The term "the
Prophets" is exactly what it sounds like it means: it means the books and works
of the Old Testament Prophets like Isaiah, Daniel and Ezekiel to name a few.
Let's take a tiny detour to discuss a serious language issue that, to my great
surprise, seems to go unrecognized by nearly every commentary written on the
Gospels. One of the most difficult matters to sort out in the New Testament (not
as much in the Gospels but far more so in Paul's writings) is the prodigious use of
the word "law" (nomos) that we find. And we all know that the term "law" is,
within most of Christianity, a negative. When translating from Hebrew to Greek,
5/13
.....


Lesson 15 - Matthew 5 cont 3
and then further to English, the word nomos gets used in a number of ways that
causes great confusion. Let me explain. When the Hebrew word is Torah, then
the Greek translation used for it is nomos. So the English translation from the
Greek is law. Thus Torah in Hebrew becomes " Law" in English, but that's NOT
what Torah means (Torah means teaching or instruction... not law.... or it is
referring to the entirety of the first 5 books of the Bible). So right off the bat we
have a distortion built-into our English Bibles. Further, when the Hebrew thought
is "the Law of Moses", then the Greek word chosen to translate it is
also nomos; and so the English translation of the Greek becomes law. Few
Christians know that the Law of Moses is but a section contained within the
Torah, and not the whole of it. Another example: when the Hebrew meaning is
Oral Torah (that is, Hebrew customs and traditions handed down for centuries
that are said to have been given to Moses by God but were not recorded in the
written Torah), again the Greek word chosen is nomos, and so the English
translation is, once again, law. When the Hebrew term is Halakah (meaning
Jewish Law, which consists of interpretations of the Law of Moses that the
Pharisees used and expected the Jewish people to obey), again the Greek word
used is nomos and so the English translation is law. One more instance. When
the Bible talks about secular civil law (including Roman civil law), the Greek word
used is... you guessed it nomos, which becomes law in English. Do you see
the problem? The only Greek word used, and therefore the only English word
used for all these quite different situations and varying elements of literature and
law codes and Holy Scripture within Jewish religious practice and culture are
translated using the same Greek word, and thus the same English word, and so
because of our Western and Christian mental filters naturally it seems that they
must be referring to the same thing; and whatever it is, that thing is negative and
thus to be avoided.
So what /s Christ actually referring to when we read in our English Bibles "The
Law and the Prophets"? The good news is that when in the New Testament
those two terms are coupled together (the Law and the Prophets) it is used as a
single expression that is speaking of the actual Hebrew Bible and not of
Traditions, Jewish law, civil law, or oral Torah. There is no doubt in my mind that
the original Hebrew thought that Matthew had and probably wrote was "the
Torah and the Prophets". That is because the Torah and the Prophets very early
on in Jewish history became technical terms for naming 2 of the 3 sections that
(in Jewish scholarship) together made up the Old Testament (the Tanakh). The
Hebrew academic leadership saw the Bible as consisting of 3 parts: the Torah,
the Prophets, and the Writings. But, rather than having to say all those words
6/13
.....

Lesson 15 - Matthew 5 cont 3
when referring to the entire Old Testament, then a standard expression used
among Jews was "The Law and the Prophets". We'll see Paul use that same
expression in several of his letters, indicating exactly the same thing: the entirety
of the Hebrew Bible.
Exiting now our brief language lesson and the dilemma that some strained
biblical language translation can cause, the incredibly important bottom line is
this: in Matthew 5:17 Christ emphatically said that He did not come to abolish
any part of the Hebrew Bible. And just so there's no confusion going forward: the
terms Tanakh, Hebrew Bible, and Old Testament all mean exactly the same
thing and so I'll rotate the use of them.
So, if what Yeshua has said and is about to say is decisively NOT to be taken to
mean that He is in some way changing or scrapping any part of the Old
Testament, then exactly what is it that He is doing in His speech? That last half of
verse 17 says in English: "I have come not to abolish but to fulfill". The KJV says
"I have come not to destroy but to fulfill". Other versions are nearly identical, but
whatever minor word difference occurs still amounts to the same thing. In other
words, our English Bible versions are in full accord as to how to translate these
words from Greek to English. Christ says He "came to fulfill".
This part of the verse is where the trouble begins. A large segment.... I estimate it
to be the majority of Christian institutions fiddle with those few words to
substantially change their meaning in order to accord with a long standing
Christian doctrine that the Law of Moses which among so many
denominations means the Old Testament in general is dead and gone and
thus irrelevant to Christians. Some go so far as to make the Law of Moses (and
most of the Old Testament) as a danger to Christians because delving into it or
thinking that it still has relevance to us, could draw us away from our faith in
Christ.
So let's look at this word by word. Notice that the term "abolish" is used again.
That is, Christ first says "I did not come to abolish...", and now repeats Himself
but also adds more information. In both instances the Greek word is kataluo,
which the several Greek lexicons all agree that it means to abolish or over throw.
Some language scholars claim it can also mean "destroy". Nonetheless, any of
those possible meanings arrives us to the same place within this verse. But now
what does it mean to fulfill? The Greek word used is pleroo. Here is the standard
agreement among Greek lexicons as to the meaning of this word (this is a quote,
7/13
........

Lesson 15 - Matthew 5 cont 3
I'm not paraphrasing): 1) to make full, to fill up; that is, to fill to the full. 2) to
render full, i.e. to complete.
Here's the rub: Christianity distorts the meaning of pleroo to include the concept
of terminating, concluding, stopping. That is worse than error; it is a fraudulent
changing of the meaning in order to uphold and defend a predetermined
doctrine. Pleroo (fulfill) is the Greek word used in the Bible when describing the
fulfillment of a prophecy, for example. Fulfilling a prophecy certainly doesn't
meant to stop the prophecy, or to terminate it, or to conclude it. Some of the
standard commentaries I've read on the matter claim that the meaning is to
complete; and to complete means to terminate. The reason that Greek lexicons
say it means to "complete" even say it means to "complete" within the context of
"rendering full". A common example in Western society is for one spouse to
lovingly say of the other that they "complete me". This is the proper sense of the
word pleroo. It means to bring to the full, not to bring to an end. Under no
circumstance nor usage does the Greek pleroo mean to end, terminate, stop or
conclude.
One of the illustrations that I've used to help picture the meaning is that it is like
in the old days when gas stations had service attendants to put gasoline into your
car for you. They'd walk up to your car window and ask what they could do for
you. A standard response was "fill it up". If we were speaking Greek we'd say
"pleroo". That is, we want our gas tank to be made as full of fuel as it can hold.
We want to bring it to its fullest capacity. We certainly don't mean to terminate our
gas tank.
But, because I'm in process of discrediting one of the most widely accepted and
passionately defended doctrines within Christianity, I'm going to say a little more
about it. When one takes Christ's meaning in this passage as "terminating", then
we have Him saying the unintelligible. That is, this false interpretation has Jesus
say: "I come not to abolish but to terminate". This is gibberish. If I abolish a law,
do I not terminate it? If I abolish destructive relationships in my life do I not stop
them? Rather Yeshua is saying that all that the Hebrew Bible points to is Him.
And yet in another sense (as we'll soon see), He means that He will bring all that
the Old Testament has established to its fullest heights and intents. Thus in but a
couple more verses He'll begin with: "You have heard that our fathers were
told but I tell you". Although it is not a perfect analogy, it is not unlike when
the atom was first discovered a little more than a century ago. At that time it was
thought to be the absolute smallest particle that all matter consists of. But a few
8/13
.....
.....

Lesson 15 - Matthew 5 cont 3
years later it was brought to light that atoms themselves consisted of even
smaller particles called neutrons, protons, and electrons. This new revelation
didn't in any way end or terminate the atom. The truth of the existence of the
atom as a building block of all matter remained true. The discovery of the deeper
mysteries of the atom added necessary understanding of it; it didn't abolish it. We
need to see what Christ meant about what He came to teach us, and what He
certainly in no way intended to do with Holy Scripture, in the same light.
Clearly Yeshua felt that His definitive, unambiguous statement of verse 17 could
still be misunderstood, or more likely intentionally corrupted, in order for various
Jewish religious factions to find fault with Him or to support a doctrine that He did
not establish or agree with. So He now expands upon verse 17 in verse 18.
CJB Matthew 5:18 Yes indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass
away, not so much as a yud or a stroke will pass from the Torah- not until
everything that must happen has happened.
Other English versions have it essentially the same with the same meaning and
intent but I'll quote a couple of the most accepted versions for you.
KJV Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one
jot or one * shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
NAB Matthew 5:18 Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not
the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law,
until all things have taken place.
So in verse 17 He says that nothing that He personally says or does is meant to
add, subtract, change or terminate any part of the Scriptures.... the Hebrew Bible.
In other words, by beginning with "Don't think I have come to...." He is saying
that He is in no way advocating for nor will He be the responsible party for
abolishing the Tanakh. But now in verse 18, His statement becomes more
general and broad in scope. That is, however it theoretically could happen, and
whoever might be the responsible party, is actually a moot issue because such
abolition or change isn't going to happen. Period. And He then adds a statement
that a casual reading of it sounds a great deal like a common expression that
employs hyperbole exaggeration. He says that the Hebrew Bible and its
relevance and content will remain as is, alive and in force until when? Until
Heaven and earth pass away. For so many Believers this statement is very
9/13

Lesson 15 - Matthew 5 cont 3
similar to the meaning of "until * freezes over". That is, * isn't ever going to
freeze over just as Heaven and earth are not going to pass. Not so fast. It turns
out that indeed Heaven and earth are going to pass away and the Bible tells us
when this is going to occur.
CJB Revelation 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the old
heaven and the old earth had passed away, and the sea was no longer
there.
John, who wrote the Book of Revelation, was quoting a much earlier prophet
when he wrote down that prophecy.
CJB Isaiah 65:17 "For, look! I create new heavens and a new earth; past
things will not be remembered, they will no more come to mind.
We won't spend too much time with this; you can go to my teaching on
Revelation for a more extensive treatment on the passing of the heavens and the
earth. But a few points do need to be made. First: all the major English
translations agree on the wording of this passage in Isaiah. But notice that in
Isaiah it is heavens (plural) that is being re-created. This is well understood to be
referring to the physical Universe, not to Heaven where God dwells. But in
Revelation 21, because commentators don't seem to acknowledge that John is
quoting Isaiah, the meaning is changed from there being a new Universe to there
being a new Heaven (where God dwells). That is simply incorrect. The intent is to
say that all physical things that together make up our entire Universe will be
broken down and then rebuilt sometime after the Millennial reign of Christ
(assuming John's sequence of these events is the correct one).
Second: Clearly according to Isaiah and to John (John outlived Jesus), this re␂creation of the heavens and earth upon the passing away of the old is a future
event. And, obviously enough it has not yet happened. Yet I was personally
confronted on this matter and told by serious people that the old heavens and
earth had already passed away and it happened at Christ's crucifixion. In other
words, this confrontation had mainly to do with whether or not God's Torah had
passed away along with Christ. These folks agreed that it was not possible to
accept Matthew 5:17 and 18 in any other way than that until the heavens and
earth did pass away, to be replaced with new, that the Torah and all the Old
Testament remained in force for Believers according to Yeshua. So the only
solution was to determine that this event had already occurred. I am still at a loss
10/13

Lesson 15 - Matthew 5 cont 3
for words to reply to what is so obviously untrue. But such is the lengths that
some Christians will go in order to defend the undefendable among long held
Church doctrines.
Third: Because in His Sermon on the Mount Yeshua was not using the passing of
the heavens and the earth as an expression and hyperbole but rather He was
telling of an actual and real event that includes a real marker in the timeline of
redemption history, it is self-evident that indeed the content and relevance of the
Tanakh WILL end at some defined point. And that defined point is upon the
passing of the old heavens and earth and the re-creation of a new heavens and
earth. But, as He said, not until all that must happen, happens. By the way:
because it was Isaiah who foretold the destruction of the old heavens and earth
and the re-creation of the new, many Jews would have been familiar with this and
not at all put off about such a statement coming from Yeshua.
And yet, Christ is so intent on getting this crucial understanding across to a crowd
that obviously had been taught something different in their synagogues and who
might scoff at what He is saying, or pervert what He is saying into something He
is not saying, He goes even further. He says that not even the tiniest part of the
Holy Scriptures will be abolished, changed, add to, or subtracted from leading up
to the passing of the current heavens and earth. Not even one single letter in one
single word will be altered by the only authorized entity that could legitimately do
that: God. But, as He insists, that's not going to happen. And since Yeshua is the
Word, that promise comes on pretty good authority.
Some of you hearing this may be wrestling with it. Some may be dismissing it
altogether regardless of the plain nature of what these few verses say because
this seems to fly in the face of all that you've heard at Church since becoming a
Believer. Suddenly you're hearing that not only is it NOT wrong to keep following
all the Old Testament, which includes the part that Yeshua is going to focus on,
the Law, but you are obligated to do so. I feel your pain; a long time ago I was
confronted with this as well. It took prayer, and some time, for me to realize that
how I feel about it is not relevant. How shook up I am about it is merely the result
of me not personally studying and then believing God's Word for what it says.
Instead I was looking to the very religious authorities of certain Christian
denominations whose jobs were to defend that denomination's existing doctrines;
it was their sworn duty to maintain the status quo.
Let's face it: how nice it is to hear (and believe) that all you have to do is pray the
11 / 13
.....
.....
.....

Lesson 15 - Matthew 5 cont 3
sinner's prayer, now you are saved, and so are relieved of any further obligations
to God. You have the fullest freedom and liberty; no boundaries, no rules, and no
duties. In fact, there's no reason that you can't go right back to your old sinful life
because Christ paid for those sins anyway; so for you, there's no consequence.
But should you be so foolish as to try to obey God's written commands you are
doing wrong; you are being a legalist. And Our Messiah would NEVER want us to
do that right?
CJB Matthew 5:19 So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot and
teaches others to do so will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven.
But whoever obeys them and so teaches will be called great in the
Kingdom of Heaven.
That's the CJB version. What does the KJV sound like?
KJV Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the
kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall
be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
All the other English versions say essentially the same. Christ has given the
instruction, and now He tells His listeners the consequences of obeying or
disobeying. This is, sadly, another verse that has been intentionally spun and
violated in order to pound a square peg into a round hole. I can't tell you how
many sermons I have heard, many years ago, that this wasn't talking about the
very thing Yeshua was talking about the Hebrew Bible... the Law and the
Prophets this was talking about entirely new commands that He would issue
that would abolish and replace the older ones. I have also heard a few sermons
that claim that it ought to be the goal of a Christian to be the LEAST in the
Kingdom of Heaven. For some that's an indication of humility and meekness, for
other Pastors it is the Believers' reward for dutifully breaking God's commands
(that Jesus has supposedly just abolished). So seeking to be greatest in God's
Kingdom is as wrong as obeying God's old biblical commandments.
So what would Christ's words have meant to the ears of the many Jews hearing
this directly from Him? It was the common traditional understanding in
synagogues that there were lesser and greater laws. These amounted to the
heavy and light commandments; the ones that brought the direst consequences
for disobedience, as opposed to the ones that brought but a slap on the wrist.
12/13
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lesson 15 - Matthew 5 cont 3
Christ says that despite what the Scribes and Rabbis may tell you, I tell you that
you are to obey all the laws and commandments of God with equal devotion. He
says:
CJB Matthew 5:20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness is far greater
than that of the Torah-teachers and P'rushim, you will certainly not enter
the Kingdom of Heaven!
That's enough to ponder for today. We'll continue with Matthew 5 next time.
13/13

Lesson 16 - Matthew 5 cont 4
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 16, Chapter 5 Continued 4
Today we continue our careful and deliberate study in Matthew chapter 5, the
Sermon on the Mount. Last week we spent our entire time together on the pivotal
verses 17-20 because these form the basis and the backstop for understanding
everything that Yeshua will state starting in verse 21 and proceeding until the end
of His sermon in chapter 7. Even more, those crucial verses necessarily apply to
everything Jesus will say or do during His entire ministry on earth, and when He
returns. This is because they are not merely words that add to our understanding;
they set down an important governing dynamic around which Christianity and
Messianic Judaism must develop its doctrines and faith principles. We'll spend
some time reviewing so turn your Bibles to Matthew 5.
RE-READ MATTHEW 5:17-20
The Early Church Father Chrysostom, who was not a fan of the Jewish element
of Scripture, nonetheless was a studious man and so he makes this comment in
his ancient Commentary on Matthew.
"Think not that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets." Matt.5 vs.
17 Why, who suspected this? Or who accused Him, that He should make a
defense against this charge? Since surely from what had gone before no
such suspicion was generated. For to command men to be meek, and
gentle, and merciful, and pure in heart, and to strive for righteousness,
indicated no such design, but rather altogether the contrary.
For a person who was wed to the idea that in some manner or way Christ could
on the one hand forcefully and legitimately declare that He did not come to
1 / 13

Lesson 16 - Matthew 5 cont 4
destroy the Law or the Prophets, but on the other hand proceeded in the
remainder of His sermon to issue new and greater laws, this question was not
rhetorical. Rather Chrysostom was not only perplexed by Yeshua's statement but
also then had to figure out how to defend the already deeply embedded Church
doctrine that in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus had indeed created a new Law of
Jesus to supersede the Law of Moses. So using Chrysostom's question as our
starting point let's discuss how best to answer it.
Typically Christian institutional leaders such as bishops, priests, academics, and
Pastors find that their "out" or way around Jesus's statement in Matthew 5:17 is
by quoting Paul. It is not my intent to offend; but the evidence is strong that for
many centuries the tag line used nearly universally within Christianity that the
Church is the Church of Jesus Christ is not really accurate. Rather it is, and has
been at least as early as the 4th century, the Church of Paul. It is Paul's words
that form the bulk of Church doctrine and are also used (of course) to defend
those doctrines. So very often Paul's words get twisted, or taken out of their
biblical or historical Jewish context, and applied in inappropriate ways. At other
times his words are used as a tool to cancel out or modify Yeshua's words as
recorded in the Gospels so that a desired Church doctrine can be maintained. Let
me put it another way: the Church has decided that in some cases the
conclusions and instructions of the disciple, Paul, are more definitive, correct and
of higher value than the conclusions and instructions of his master, Yeshua. My
response to this is that even should we find that Paul's words indeed contradict
Christ, then it is Christ's words that are to be taken as truth and Paul's words
should be dismissed as false. To be clear: in no way am I saying that Paul's
words contradict Christ's anywhere in the New Testament nor that his words are
sometimes false. I'm only saying that because the Church uses Paul as the
vehicle to establish some clearly unbiblical doctrine, then hypothetically if
contradiction with Christ was the case (which it is not) then the Church would still
be wrong for accepting Paul's words as the source of correct doctrine over and
above Yeshua's.
The neutralizer that the Church regularly uses to override Christ's pivotal
statement in Matthew 5:17 that utterly destroys perhaps the most central Church
doctrine; a doctrine that in practice is second only to Jesus being the divine
Messiah, is found in Romans 10:4.
KJV Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every
one that believeth.
2/13

Lesson 16 - Matthew 5 cont 4
So the Church says that this statement of Paul makes it clear that the doctrine
that Christ ended (terminated) the law is correct. Generally it is explained that
even though Christ didn't abolish the Law, He ended it. If ever there was an
excellent example of gibberish, such a position statement as that is the one. So is
this really what Paul said and meant? That is, despite what His Master said, he
claims that the Law has ended. If this is the case, then as Believers we are put in
the uncomfortable position of having to choose between believing and accepting
EITHER Matthew 5:17 as truth, or Romans 10:4 as truth. The Church has, for
centuries, chosen to believe and accept Romans 10:4 over Matthew 5:17.
In Greek the word in Romans 10:4 that is being translated as "end" is telos. It is
an interesting word that can indeed mean "end" but is also used to mean a toll or
a custom's duty to be paid. In other words a telos is paid for merchants bringing
their goods to their customers. Even the English word "end" itself can have
multiple meanings. In our modern English it can mean to finish, like the words
"the end" are meant to convey as a movie concludes and yet not in the sense
that the movie is now eliminated or destroyed, but rather its content and purpose
has been attained and there is no more. Or "end" can also mean to achieve a
goal. We regularly say things to each other like "our end purpose is such and
such..." or "the end of all our efforts is to achieve so and so." Those sayings of
course do not mean that we intend to terminate something. So how are we to
take telos as used in Paul's statement regarding the Law?
The Greek philosopher Aristotle who lived 4 centuries before Paul said this about
the word telos. "human telos is our goal to fulfill". The academic field of
Teleology is the study of telos. And Teleology is defined as a study of people
and objects with a view to their aims, purpose, and intentions. Some Greek
Lexicons try to best explain the word by saying that telos means end in the
sense of a attaining a goal or purpose. As you can readily see, the concept of
terminating or permanently stopping is simply not part of the meaning of telos. I
think the CJB has chosen a better word than "end" to translate telos because it
better fits in with our modern English language in the sense of what words mean
to us in our era.
CJB Romans 10:4 For the goal at which the Torah aims is the Messiah, who
offers righteousness to everyone who trusts.
This translation (which is known among Bible translators as a dynamic
translation) communicates to we moderns what the ancient Paul meant by what
3/13

Lesson 16 - Matthew 5 cont 4
he said, and how others who read or heard his words would have understood it in
his day. By merely discarding the word "end" as meaning termination (something
which the Greek word telos does not intend) and replacing it with the word goal,
or aim, or purpose, which is what the word telos does intend, suddenly Paul isn't
overturning Messiah's words spoken at the Sermon on the Mount. That is, we
don't truly have a conflict between Yeshua and Paul; it is that Paul has simply
been misinterpreted by the Church or more likely, misrepresented in an effort to
prove that the Torah and the Law is not for Gentile Believers.
Now let's try to answer Chrysostom's question from another angle. Is it possible
that Christ could legitimately overturn the Torah? Or, as some who accept that
He didn't abolish the Torah but still try to make a tortured case for a sort of middle
ground whereby the Torah Law exists but is not enforced because of Christ. Or
that He did override certain earlier commands with like kind ones, but they were
higher and greater representing the new and next state of the spiritual world due
to His coming. Could either of these be what He did? In a word: no.
CJB Deuteronomy 4:2 In order to obey the mitzvot of ADONAI your God
which I am giving you, do not add to what I am saying, and do not subtract
from it.
And a little later in Deuteronomy:
CJB Deuteronomy 13:1 "Everything I am commanding you, you are to take
care to do. Do not add to it or subtract from it.
In Matthew 5:18 Christ follows up what He had just said in verse 17 (that He did
not abolish the Law) so that there could be no misunderstanding.
CJB Matthew 5:18 Yes indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass
away, not so much as a yud or a stroke will pass from the Torah- not until
everything that must happen has happened.
Therefore it cannot be that changing the meaning of the Torah Laws, or adding a
few more Torah Laws, is what Christ was doing following His words of Matthew
5:17 and 18 otherwise He is breaking one of the most basic commandments of
the Torah as we find in Deuteronomy. If He had tried to do that the crowd He is
speaking to would have recognized it immediately and reacted. Assuming that
the Apostle John is correct and that Christ is the Word, then Christ would be
4/13

Lesson 16 - Matthew 5 cont 4
going against His own previous Word if He were to add to it or abolish or even
embellish parts of it. But even more, if we conclude that Christ, as God on earth,
indeed can and did change the supposedly unbreakable divine commands given
centuries earlier to Moses, then why couldn't He or someone else come along
some day and undo the divine commands that He gave us 2000 years ago with
yet newer ones? In a sense that is what the Latter Day Saints claim has
happened; something that mainstream Christianity denies is possible.
So in order to comply not with Christian doctrine but rather to comply with plainly
read Holy Scripture, then we must find another explanation for Chrysostom of
what it was, exactly, that Jesus was doing in His sermon starting at verse 21 and
based upon His unequivocal statement of Matthew 5:17 - 19 that He not only
didn't come to abolish or destroy the Law in total, but it was also not His purpose
that even one letter in one word of it would be changed. We must also answer
why Yeshua anticipated that there would be suspicion and accusation by some in
the crowd who might think that He was changing the Torah laws, and thus
dishonoring Moses. Davies and Allison in their commentary on this matter of
critical importance to our faith put it this way:
"Consequently, (Matthew) 5:17 - 20, by (Jesus) upholding the Law, has a
twofold effect. It defends Jesus and Matthew (1) from the accusation, no
doubt made by non-Christian Jews, that they had dismissed the Torah and
(2) from the claim, certainly made by some early Christians that Jesus had
set His followers free from the Law. For our evangelist (Matthew) the Old
Testament has not been drained of its ancient life. It is not just a precious
cemetery; it is still the living, active word of God." To help Chrysostom (and us !) understand exactly what it was that Yeshua did
and meant by what He said up on that hill overlooking the Galilee/, let's keep
reading in Matthew 5.
RE-READ MATTHEW 5:21 - end
Verse 21 begins by quoting the 6th Commandment (sometimes it is the 5th
Commandment depending on who is doing the numbering), "Thou shall not
murder". However Yeshua sets up His audience for controversy by prefacing the
commandment with the words:
CJB Matthew 5:21 "You have heard that our fathers were told, 'Do not
5/13
.....

Lesson 16 - Matthew 5 cont 4
murder,' and that anyone who commits murder will be subject to judgment.
In reality the term "our fathers" as used in the CJB is not there in the Greek
manuscripts. Rather the literal rendering is:
YLT Matthew 5:21 'Ye heard that it was said to the ancients: Thou shalt not
kill, and whoever may kill shall be in danger of the judgment;
I think it is mistake to substitute "our fathers" for "the ancients". For one reason,
especially gentile Christians think of "our fathers" as meaning people from the not
too distant past. But this is speaking about people from a long time ago. In this
case it is a general reference to the people who were with Moses at Mt. Sinai and
the generations shortly thereafter. The point being that Yeshua is NOT
addressing the Traditions of the Elders, which was at the center of what the
average Jew was taught at the Synagogue they attended. Rather Yeshua was
directing His comments concerning some of the commands of the biblical
Torah Holy Scripture. However, the people were weak in actual Torah
knowledge and like so many Christians that substitute their particular
denominational doctrines for biblical instruction they do so believing that the
traditions and doctrines they believe are indeed one and the same as what the
Bible teaches.
Let me give you a common example of this. Cleanliness is next to godliness.
That doesn't exist in the Bible. Spare the rod, spoil the child. That isn't in the
Bible, either, but most Christians think that both sayings are. Let me give you
another example. Christmas is the holiest day of the year. That also doesn't exist
in the Bible. Rather Christmas is another manmade Christian tradition that has
been holy-fied by men, not by God. We talked in an earlier lesson about mental
filters. The Jews had mental filters that incorporated the Jewish Tradition they
had been taught. Thus when Christ begins to speak about the Torah in His
sermon, the crowd had little to compare His words to except the hybrid mix of
Tradition and Scripture they had been taught at their synagogue; they had no
Bibles in their possession.
When I talk to you about Tradition, whether Jewish or Christian, do not think that
I'm against Tradition in general. Traditions have their place in our lives. They can
be beautiful and appropriate ways to express our faith, help us to remember
important tenets of our belief, and they can fill in some large blanks in order to
carry out commands to observe biblical festivals (for example) although nearly no
6/13
.....

Lesson 16 - Matthew 5 cont 4
details are provided in Scripture that tells us just how to observe them. Here's the
issue: there's nothing wrong with Traditions until they are turned into rigid
doctrines and rules, and then inevitably are deemed "God ordained" or "holy" in
order to enforce them. Or the Traditions replace command, observance or action
that indeed is God ordained. In some ways Yeshua is dealing with that now, in
the Sermon on the Mount. He'll do the same in a few other scenarios including
the Sabbath Day controversy He had with the Pharisees when His Disciples were
picking the heads off wheat while walking through a field on Shabbat (we'll get to
that in a few chapters).
So after bringing up the 6th commandment and introducing it as something the
ancients were told, Christ says: "But I tell you" and then He elaborates. Here's
the rub: the way this phrase is translated it sounds to us like these words mean:
"But INSTEAD I tell you". That is, what was said centuries earlier in the Torah
("do not murder") is either a mistake and Yeshua is correcting it, or it is
incomplete and needs explanation, or it is being changed. Part of the reason for
this misperception is with the Greek word de that is regularly translated as "but".
This same word can also mean "and yet" or "and" (in the sense of adding
something). So Jesus's statement can be taken to mean: "But in addition I tell
you". Thus in the first instance the interpretation is that the newer replaces the
older, and in the second instance the newer adds to the older. I cannot accept
either of these possibilities because both tamper with the original commandment
that God gave through Moses, one of which says that the Torah laws are not to
be added to or subtracted from. Rather I view Yeshua as doing exactly what He
said in verse 17: He came to fulfill the Torah. That is, He came to fill it to the
full to give us the deepest sense of its intent and meaning. I'll say this slightly
differently. When Jesus says "you have heard that it was said to your ancestors",
we need to pause and focus on the words "you have heard". The thousands of
Jews sitting before Him indeed had heard "do not murder". This was not new to
them; they had already heard it... no doubt countless times. So after
acknowledging that they had already heard this, Christ now gives them the fuller
intent and essence of this 6th commandment.
As we've yet to examine any of the instructions that follow "But I tell you", here's
what I want you to have firmly in your minds as we go through the 6 different
case examples that Yeshua uses to teach something very important: intent
matters as much as the action. That is, in verses 21 - 48 Yeshua is not extending
the meaning of the commandment or rule to something else. He is not
contradicting the Torah, or criticizing the standard way that the ordinary Jews
7/13
.....
.....

Lesson 16 - Matthew 5 cont 4
sitting before Him think of the command or rule. He's not using His divine
authority to add or modify rules. What He is doing is telling them (and us) that we
are not only to have purity of body (that's easily accomplished), but part and
parcel with it also purity of mind and intent (much harder). We are not only to
physically and strictly follow the law and command (that can be accomplished
with a bit of effort and diligence), but part and parcel with it we are also to let a
Godly attitude rule over our behavior (that's more difficult). We are to be obedient
to Yehoveh's will while also striving to avoid sin as much as is humanly possible.
We are to love God and love our fellow man (friend or enemy) yet it is to be
accomplished unselfishly and without regard for "what's in it for us". In other
words while the letter of the Law (the Torah) hasn't changed at all everything
that is written and commanded in the Torah is still expected even of Yeshua's
followers.... it is the spirit of the Law and the spirit of the God worshipper working
together that is the ultimate purpose and essence of The Law. The letter of the
Law doesn't, of itself, produce life or renewed life; in fact doing all the things that
the Torah requires at any given moment, without regard to circumstance, may not
always be beneficial.
So, with the first example being the commandment not to murder, then Yeshua is
saying that without too much difficulty we can all keep from murdering an
individual who has shamed us or perhaps done us harm. But can we refrain from
anger, resentment or even hating that same person? The new goal that Yeshua
puts before the people listening to Him is not conformity but rather it is perfection.
As He says at the end of chapter 5 in verse 48 as He concludes His 6 case
examples: Therefore, be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect. \Ne
can follow rules and do works very well if we put our minds and wills to it; but that
won't necessarily produce love or the spirit and attitude that Christ requires of us,
and it certainly does not impute the needed righteousness upon us that can only
come from God.
Therefore in verse 22 Yeshua says that simply not murdering is insufficient. Do
you think yourself Godly because you haven't murdered someone? Well, we
must also not have anger in our hearts. Anger is the wellspring of murder; we are
to subdue not just our urges but the place deep within us where these wrong
urges come from the evil inclination. That said, there is an interesting problem
in this instruction. If you look at the KJV and perhaps the majority of Bible
translations we'll find the phrase "without cause" included. That is, Jesus's
instruction is that we are not to be angry with our brother "without cause". The
CJB does NOT include this phrase, nor does the NAS, the NAB and other good
8/13

Lesson 16 - Matthew 5 cont 4
Bibles. So does this mean that some translators have added the phrase? Or that
others have refused to include the phrase for some reason? Does it meant that
some ancient Greek NT manuscripts have the phrase included and others don't?
Doesn't it make the anger instruction considerably easier to follow when instead
of ANY anger for ANY reason is deemed as wrong, a justifiable anger is allowed
as an exception?
This problem has been noticed and researched for a very long time. Without
getting into the gory details I can tell you that going back to the 4th century, we
find evidence in the form of New Testament fragments that support both
readings; that is some manuscripts included "without cause' and others didn't.
However, we also find that the Early Church Fathers Origen and Cyprian who
lived in the 3rd century had copies of The Gospel of Matthew that included the
phrase "without cause". This is the oldest evidence that currently exists to try and
come to the bottom of the matter, but that doesn't make it conclusive. In
Cyprian's Treatise #12, Book 3:8 he records this:
Also in the Gospel according to Matthew: You have heard that it was said
by the ancients, You shall not kill; and whoever shall kill shall be guilty of
the judgment. But I say unto you, That every one who is angry with his
brother without cause shall be guilty of the judgment." Origen writes a quote from Matthew in his Homilies on the Song of Songs:
7t was said to them of old, "Thou shalt not kill..." But I say to you,
whosoever is angry with his brother without reason shall be held guilty';
So assuming "without cause" was originally included in Matthew, then what
amounts to a justifiable cause for anger against our brother? But even before that
question, what does Jesus mean by "brother" (angry with his brother)? Does it
mean a follower of His? Does it mean any fellow Jew? Does it mean any human
being in general? In the Jewish community the term brother carried a few
meanings and it is from the Jewish perspective that we must view it. Although the
Greek is adelphos it is translating the Hebrew ach; the two words are virtually
synonymous. They both can mean a biological sibling, a family sibling (a step or
adopted brother), a close friend, anyone who is part of a defined community, or
similar to the way the Church uses the term brother today it can mean a fellow
member of the local spiritual community, or it can be a rather general term of
affection. It is my opinion that this is NOT referring to a fellow Believer, because
9/13
.....


Lesson 16 - Matthew 5 cont 4
Yeshua was not speaking to a crowd of Believers. In fact, He hadn't yet made
known the fullness of His identity as the God-sent Messiah/Savior; He was
currently viewed by the Jewish populace as a Tzadik, a miracle working Holy
Man. But because this is Matthew the Jew writing this account, and because the
crowd was almost exclusively Jews, it is very likely that the Jewish crowd took
this to mean "fellow Jews" while Yeshua probably meant "fellow human beings"
because certainly the law against murder didn't apply only to Jews and besides...
anger is universal to all of mankind.
Going forward, assuming that Christ meant fellow human being when He said
"brother" and not just a select few people, then the question is, what amounts to
a justifiable cause to have anger with another human being? The standard
answer is that a "righteous anger" is justifiable. I want to repeat; it is not certain
whether the words "without cause" were even part of what Christ said. Since this
is impossible to know for certain, rather than focus on the justifiable vs.
unjustifiable anger issue it is more profitable if we focus on the more important
matter of someone nursing anger against his fellow, which under certain
circumstances (or perhaps under all circumstances) means he faces judgment
just as if he had committed actual murder. I will tell you that many commentators
feel that this statement has to have been intended as hyperbole an intended
exaggeration done in order to highlight a point because it seems beyond
reasonable or rational that merely being angry without outwardly expressing it in
any way should exact the same deadly penalty as when the criminal act of
murder occurs.
In verse 22, 3 examples are given where anger must be avoided or remedied as
the top priority in Yeshua's eyes, with the penalty for not doing so being to face
God's wrath or even being thrown into a fiery * (Gei-Hinnom). This anger can
take the form of name calling (saying Raca, probably an Aramaic loan word that
best translates to good-for-nothing) or saying to someone "fool". Is this
hyperbole?
It seems to me that what Yeshua is doing is essentially creating the bulls-eye in
the center of the target of perfection. We're told to be perfect in verse 48, but
what is perfection? What does it look like? Is it doing the Law flawlessly? Is it
having a righteous attitude and mindset? Yeshua is telling His audience that
already well knows that from a physical and legal standpoint... the Jewish
religious viewpoint.... perfection is defined as following the Law of Moses without
blemish. But Christ seems to be telling His audience that while this is good, it isn't
10/13

Lesson 16 - Matthew 5 cont 4
good enough for the kind of righteousness we each must attain in order to avoid
God's eternal judgment. Even thinking in a way that is angry, or simply calling
someone a fool or good-for-nothing makes one subject to God's wrath. Is that at
all fair? Did not God Himself create us as not only sentient but also emotional
beings? Can mere human beings possibly achieve such absolute perfection?
Theoretically, even spiritually, yes. Practically, humanly, no. Without saying so,
Yeshua is building a case for the irreplaceable need for salvation by grace;
salvation through Him. No one, not even the original 12 Disciples, could ever
meet the standard He is setting out in the Sermon on the Mount even though
they and we are encouraged to strive for it. In fact, I imagine many in that crowd
on the hill above the Sea of Galilee scoffed at His words or left discouraged; they
thought that if He is serious about what He is saying then there is no hope for
them because no one could ever meet such a standard. Even the venerated
Moses got angry and threw the tablets of the 10 Commandments to the ground,
breaking them into pieces.
In verses 23 and 24 Yeshua gives another example of what to do when anger is
at work. But this time it is not about anger in you, but rather it is anger in your
brother. The idea is that there has been some kind of issue between two people,
and while the one seems to have moved on, the other (the one called "brother")
has not. The subject, then, is reconciliation. Some go so far as to call this a short
parable because it cannot be a real life situation. A worshipper cannot leave a
sacrifice at the Temple altar, go away, spend the time to make peace with a
fellow Jew, and then come back later to complete the ritual. The point that is
being made is that there are higher virtues than making sacrifices; and among
those are reconciliation among your fellows and obedience to God.
CJB 1 Samuel 15:22 Sh'mu'el said, "Does ADONAl take as much pleasure
in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying what ADONAl says? Surely
obeying is better than sacrifice, and heeding orders than the fat of rams.
To be clear: nothing Samuel said, or Christ is saying, in any way diminishes the
value of Torah ordained Temple worship or sacrifice. Rather it is that it is always
better not to sin in the first place, than it is to sin and then need to sacrifice to
seek forgiveness.
Who is your brother in this instance? There's no consensus on this but I feel
certain that from the simple literal standpoint (P'shat) Yeshua can only mean
Jews because at this time only Jews could be involved in Temple sacrifices from
11 / 13
......

Lesson 16 - Matthew 5 cont 4
His example. From a bit deeper reading, however, there is a hint (Remez) that in
another sense one's brother is any fellow human being. That is, when one
sacrifices, it is for the purpose of atonement seeking forgiveness from God.
Therefore the principle is that one must reconcile and be at peace with one's
fellow man before seeking forgiveness from God. Obviously this has logical
limitations (we can only be at peace with those who also agree to be at peace
with us). This principle would have rung true to the ears of Yeshua's audience
since this concept was already part of the Jewish religious/social fabric.
In the Mishna, Yoma 8:9, we read this;
"Yom Kippur atones for a person's transgressions against God, but it does
not atone for his transgressions against his fellow man until he appeases
him".
Where Yeshua seems to have raised the degree of difficulty for His followers is
that in Judaism then and now, it was the offender who was obligated to make
peace with the offended. And it seems here that the offended, too, has an
obligation to actively seek reconciliation.
Christ completes His treatise on anger and reconciliation with verses 25 and 26
and He does so in a judicial setting. Or better, in a setting that might normally
lead to a judicial trial but ought not to. Once again notice the words: it is NOT if
YOU sue someone; rather it is if someone sues YOU. Thus it is that someone
has something against you. And, there is no language that explains whether one
party or the other is as fault, or whether one party is right and the other wrong.
Since the last words are "until you have paid the last penny", then clearly the
example assumes the matter of an unpaid debt. Under the Torah Law, even
under Jewish Law (Halakah) one is not to be jailed for defaulting on a debt.
However Roman justice was often appealed to by Jews in that era, especially on
matters of money and debt. We see a somewhat different example of this appeal
to Roman justice when a crowd of Jews appealed to Pontius Pilate to have a
murderer released but Jesus crucified. So again some commentators see these
verses as a kind of parable and not something that is likely in real life. But the
point is once again that reconciliation is better achieved between people than
having an outside party impose their view of justice upon them.
The summation of what we need to take away from verses 21 - 26 is this: anger
leads to the lack of peace, and therefore the need for reconciliation. Anger (at
12/13
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lesson 16 - Matthew 5 cont 4
least in the way the we humans normally think of it) is wicked in Christ's eyes. But
should anger occur, and peace is broken, then reconciliation must be sought
even before seeking God for forgiveness for our anger. Further, reconciliation
needs to be a transaction between two (or more) willing individuals whereby the
reconciliation is reached not so much as an accommodation to avoid the courts
as it is the right and Godly attitude that as God worshippers we ought to strive
for. Such a Godly attitude gives us all the tools we need to restore peace; or
better yet, avoid anger and strife in the first place.
We'll continue with verse 27 and the matter of adultery next time.
13/13

Lesson 17 - Matthew 5 cont 5
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 17, Chapter 5 Continued 5
We've been in Matthew chapter 5 long enough that a reminder of the setting and
background for the Sermon on the Mount is in order.
The setting is the Galilee. It is the serene rural agricultural and shepherding
center of the Holy Land. Above the Sea of Galilee, which was somewhat larger
then than it is today, are gentle rolling hills covered with mustard plants, poppies,
and a variety of grasses and small bushes. The trees are few and not large.
Somewhere in those hills a crowd of thousands of Jews gathered, mostly the
common folk, from places as far away as Syria. Why did they come? What drew
them there? It was to encounter Yeshua. Was it a religious encounter they
sought? Not in the sense we moderns think of it. In that era what we would call
"religion" was not separated and compartmentalized away from all other aspects
of their lives. A god or a spirit always was involved in whatever activity was
occurring. These thousands of Jews, however, did not come because they
thought they were going to meet their Messiah.
CJB Matthew 4:23-5:2 23 Yeshua went all over the Galli teaching in their
synagogues, proclaiming the Good News of the Kingdom, and healing
people from every kind of disease and sickness. 24 Word of him spread
throughout all Syria, and people brought to him all who were ill, suffering
from various diseases and pains, and those held in the power of demons,
and epileptics and paralytics; and he healed them. 25 Huge crowds followed
him from the Galil, the Ten Towns, Yerushalayim, Y'hudah, and 'Ever␂HaYarden.
CJB Matthew 5:1 Seeing the crowds, Yeshua walked up the hill. After he sat
1 / 12
.....

Lesson 17 - Matthew 5 cont 5
down, his talmidim came to him, 2 and he began to speak. This is what he
taught them:
So the people came in the hope of healing of their physical ailments. The
teaching they would receive was a bonus.
Likely the place was near to Capernaum because that was where Yeshua was
currently residing. At this time the Jewish people looked upon Jesus as a Tzadik,
a Holy Man that was a miracle working healer. A Tzadik would come along every
now and then without warning. These men could indeed actually heal in the
name and power of the Lord God of Israel. So when a Holy Man appeared the
sick and the lame would flock to him.
Christ had not yet publicly revealed His divine nature nor His mission as the
Messiah that had been foretold in the Jewish Bible, the Tanakh. I use the term
"Bible" in a loose way. Jews did not own or carry around a neatly bound holy
book as we do in our time. For one reason, the various books of the Old
Testament were written down on rather bulky scrolls. Since each precious word
had to be copied and re-copied by hand, there were few Jews that had such
ability or authority to do so, and it was rare that even a well-to-do person might
possess much more than a single book of the Bible. Therefore actual Scripture
teaching occurred only at the local Synagogue (where many could hear it at one
time), and even then Scripture teaching took a backseat to the teachings of the
Traditions of the Elders that the Pharisees who dominated the Synagogues
advocated and insisted upon.
As His speech to the crowd began, Yeshua first acknowledged who was present
in a series of blessings. Next He paused and made a crucial statement.... a sort
of preamble.... prior to the remainder of His teaching. There He cautioned in a
kind of pre-emptive strike that in no way should anyone think that what He would
say abolished, changed, added to or subtracted from the Law and the Prophets
(that term was shorthand for the entire Tanakh what we call the Old
Testament). In wanting to be certain that He was not going to be misunderstood
or misrepresented, He elaborated by saying that not even one letter in one word
of the Scriptures would be abolished or changed until the present heavens and
earth passed away. And further that anyone who disobeyed any part of the Holy
Scriptures (the Law, specifically), and taught others to do so, would be eternally
relegated to the lowest possible rung of society and status in the Kingdom of
Heaven. Afterwards He began to teach, often by stating one or another of the 10
2/12

Lesson 17 - Matthew 5 cont 5
Commandments and explaining that while doing them was still required, the
intent and mental attitude that a worshipper approached in observing the
commandment was every bit as important as the action itself.
Reconciliation rather than revenge or even a lawsuit was Christ's instruction in
various situations from having anger towards someone to the matter of collecting
an unpaid debt. We left off at verse 26, so open your Bibles to verse 27.
READ MATTHEW 5:27 - end
I want to remind you of something I said from an earlier lesson. Yes, we are
crawling through these verses at a pace that would make a snail seem like
Secretariat. The reason is that the Jewish cultural understanding that goes
without saying of those in attendance, an understanding that is embedded within
Yeshua's words, is not usually known to us in the West in the 21st century. That
cultural understanding provides the needed context for extracting correct
meaning from Christ's statements. Therefore for us to grasp the meaning and
intent, and to apply it properly to our lives, we must be open minded and willing to
invest our time to be instructed in the ways and customs of that ancient and
foreign civilization.
Yeshua quotes Exodus 20:14, the 7
th Commandment: thou shall not commit
adultery. This commandment is the proverbial "can of worms" since its giving at
Mt. Sinai. It is a direct commandment concerning sexual behavior, and the
operation of morality within it. And since the command is brief, later Moses will
give further instruction on it. Today, in a time when even the fundamental concept
of morality is questioned (even angrily rejected by some), sexual behavior has
become little more than a playground of pleasure seeking with nearly no
boundaries whatsoever. It is not unusual for those who seek such pleasures to
argue about what the Bible says regarding it, and they enjoy reminding Christians
that the Church long ago threw away the laws of God and replaced it with Jesus
and love. So the conclusion is that this 7
th Commandment, and all the offshoots
that stem from it, no longer matters because Jesus did away with those ancient
sexual limitations. If you want to know why sexual immorality is now the norm in
the West, simply look to the pulpit. It is Christian leaders and commentators who
are responsible for creating this avalanche of sex sin due to their tolerance of
anything and everything, false doctrines and denials of plain biblical truth.
Understanding what this 7
th commandment means and entails requires some
3/12

Lesson 17 - Matthew 5 cont 5
explanation before we get into how Yeshua dealt with it. So before we get to the
second part of Christ's instruction about it, I want to draw heavily from the
teaching I did on Exodus 20:14 some years ago.
The 7
th Commandment is that a married person should not commit adultery. The
first thing to understand is that the entire concept of adultery, by definition, ONLY
occurs within the institution of a marriage; outside of a marriage, adultery has no
meaning. Marriage is not only an important element of God's plan for mankind,
but it plays a role in God's relationship with mankind.
The fundamental concept of a marriage is that a "union" occurs; as concerns
human-to-human relationships, scripturally speaking, this marriage union is
between a man and a woman. Let me say that again: there is no provision for
same sex marriage in the Bible. In fact, such a notion is an oxymoron. While we
too often think of marriage as a physical or sexual matter, or in our American
society as a financial or legal matter, in fact the union God is dealing with in the
7th Commandment is first and foremost a spiritual union. Certainly in the present
world the physical aspects of marriage exist, and not the least of reasons for it is
the propagation of our species. From Yehoveh's perspective, the sin of adultery
is less about a husband or a wife having a physical sexual union outside of their
marriage than it is about our spirits entering into an unauthorized union with
another. God has authorized that a man and a woman, before Him, may be
joined in every level of union between themselves; but ONLY between
themselves. The only other union allowed within that marriage is with God.
You've probably noticed that our union with Christ is often spoken of in the Bible
using marriage terminology; and its use is both metaphorical and real. That fact
should help us to be more aware of how we are to consider the essence of
marriage from Yehoveh's point of view, and how we are to consider the nature of
our relationship with Christ. Just as earthly marriage is meant to be a man and a
woman coming into union with one another, Salvation is humanity's union with
Christ.
We who are Christ's are, figuratively speaking, currently in a state of betrothal to
Him. We are in the marriage PROCESS. Right now, Christ is with us in Spirit,
and so we are in union with Him in spirit. But there will be a time in the future
when we will be in union with him in a much more tangible and complete way. So
even during our current earthly time of betrothal to Christ for us to come into
union with something or someone that is forbidden is to place us into a state of
4/12

Lesson 17 - Matthew 5 cont 5
unfaithfulness to Christ. This, therefore, puts us in a state of adultery in our
relationship with Christ.
The NT Greek word "moichos" (moy-kos), which is typically correctly translated
"adultery", must be understood in its OT Hebrew sense in order for us to fully
understand what God is telling us about adultery. When the Hebrews spoke of
adultery they meant unfaithfulness to your union partner. It did NOT have to be
an overt act of having sex with another person to be considered adultery,
although most often that is what occurred. What constituted adultery, and the
proper proofs and punishments for it, changed considerably over time. During the
time of the Patriarchs, adultery required the wife to have had sex with another
man. No proof other than the husband's suspicions were needed, and he himself
could put her to death. The Laws of Moses brought the requirement for conviction
to a minimum of two witnesses. By the time of Christ much more proof was
needed, a court of law would rule on the matter, and death was still one of a
range of possible punishments. Not long AFTER Christ, the death penalty was
removed for the sin of adultery because it had become so rampant within Jewish
society that it was almost impossible to police; and the number of women that
would have been executed was so large as to make carrying out the death
sentence unthinkable. During all biblical times, adultery was considered primarily
a female crime and sin....men were usually not subject to it.
There are certain unions available to mankind that we are prohibited from
entering into, especially if we wish to also be in union with Christ. In other words
there are some unions that are mutually exclusive. An extreme example would be
that if we come into spiritual union with Satan, we can not also be in spiritual
union with Christ....those two unions being mutually exclusive. There are other
forbidden unions, all of them destructive. So we need to understand the serious
nature of this particular sin in a much broader context than we typically think of it.
In Matthew 5:27 and 28, Yeshua essentially explains how adultery comes about.
It is that it always begins in the mind as the product of our evil inclination. If one
first doesn't fantasize about it and embrace the idea, it doesn't happen. Therefore
when married men eye other women in a lustful way, then Yeshua says that from
God's perspective the act of adultery has already occurred (the thought being
that embracing the idea inevitably leads to the doing of it). The God-principle is
that just as anger is the initiating cause of murder, so is lust the initiating cause of
adultery. Especially in the 21st century pornography is perhaps the number one
expression of lust in the lives of males; married or otherwise. There can be no
5/12

Lesson 17 - Matthew 5 cont 5
intellectually honest defense of the use of pornography as anything other than
immoral lusting and therefore it is sin. And there is no doubt that the widespread
use of pornography has ignited the epidemic of adultery in our society. Yet I want
to be clear: the notion being spoken by Christ that the intention is to be
considered as the deed was nothing new or novel among Jews. The Academy of
Shammai, which represents the source of doctrine for one of the two greatest
factions of the Pharisees at the time of Jesus, also taught this same principle.
Although Yeshua quoted from, and is discussing, the 7
th Commandment His
instruction about adultery actually approaches the matter through the worldview
of the 10th Commandment: do not covet. That is, coveting is a sinful state of
mind. Coveting is a sinful intention. It is the desire to obtain something forbidden.
Coveting is not the action itself. Thus it is the disobedience to the
10th Commandment (when the intent occurs) that ushers in the disobedience to
the 7
th Commandment (when the actual physical deed of adultery occurs).
Yeshua continues to expand on this matter of intention leading to the doing of the
sin in verses 29 and 30. So verse 28 speaks of "looking upon a woman"
(coveting), and verse 29 says that even if it is your right eye that you are using to
"look", then you should gouge it out and get rid of it. In Jewish thought the right
side of anything is the best side, or the strongest side, so it is the most valuable
side. Therefore it is not only that you lose your eye, you lose your best eye.
Naturally this is an expression because unless you have damaged eyes, for most
people our two eyes see equally well. And why should someone who is prone to
lusting after women gouge out their best eye? Because it is better to lose that
eye than it is to have our entire body thrown into Gei-Hinnom and destroyed.
Even if one doesn't know what Gei-Hinnom is, it sounds like a really bad thing
that nobody wants to have happen to them. Many translations will use the word
"*". That isn't exactly wrong, but it certainly isn't right. Gei-Hinnom is a valley
that runs through the south of Jerusalem; today it is simply called the Hinnom
Valley. In Yeshua's era it was Jerusalem's municipal garbage dump. Jerusalem
was a city with several thousand people living there. As you might imagine, they
generated tons of trash: animal carcasses, human waste, items that became
unclean through contact with blood or other body fluids that saturated them, and
so on. Every filthy and disgusting thing you can think of was thrown into this
valley. The refuse was then lit on fire and the fires burned continually, night and
day, while sulfur was thrown onto it to try and disguise the nauseating odors.
6/12


Lesson 17 - Matthew 5 cont 5
It is well documented that in prior times this same valley was used for the same
purposes, but it was also used by the Canaanites for human sacrifice; often
children. The dead bodies of the murdered were simply thrown into the burning
waste. So it is easily seen that the threat of sinning a sin that could cause you to
be thrown into Gei-Hinnom was about the worst punishment imaginable. It is
true that the idea of *, a place of fire and torment for the dead, was associated
with Gei-Hinnom. But * was viewed as an underworld place where the wicked
dead lived; Judeo-Christianity would say it is a spiritual place of
evil. Gei-Hinnom in the 1st century was as real and tangible as it gets. In Christ's
day it wasn't evil; but it was unclean and frighteningly disgusting.
I suppose Christ's instruction that plucking your eye out and discarding it as a
good solution to lust can only be labeled in modern Western terms as
exaggeration and hyperbole because He certainly wasn't suggesting self
mutilation. The point was to illustrate just how serious of a sin adultery is, and
that since the fuel of adultery is lust (coveting), and the source of that fuel was
what was taken in through the portal of the eye, then one should make every
effort to avoid it even if it means destroying that portal.
Notice that Yeshua is talking to the men. Remember: in His day adultery was
seen in Jewish society as primarily a crime committed by women; men were
largely exempt. So this teaching was a battering ram to challenge and to smash
this false doctrine that so favored males. Ironically it is men who are really
tempted the most by lust because men are visually oriented creatures. This is
why pornography is such a great and destructive temptation for men. It will never
stop being a temptation as long as it exists. And men, don't ever think you'll be
the one who can use pornography for whatever your reason, but that it won't
inevitably lead you to wrong sexual behavior because you are uniquely able to
resist it. It is no different than the person who believes they can use cocaine or
crack and they'll be the one who will avoid becoming addicted. Is using
pornography a sin? Of course it is because it is lusting (coveting) after women
who are not your wife. And yes, single men, it is similar for you. It is lust and the
fantasizing it produces that leads to wrong sexual behavior. Once again: lust is
coveting. And it is exactly what Jesus is warning about.
In verse 30 Christ adds to the dramatic hyperbole by saying that if your right hand
makes you sin, cut it off (just as it is with a lustful eye). Once again the meaning
of "right" is "best" hand. While the eye is the portal to the invisible mind, the hand
is representative of the visible physical part of us that carries out what the mind
7/12

Lesson 17 - Matthew 5 cont 5
instructs the body to do. In another setting, while with His disciples, Yeshua
repeats this same principle using similar illustrations in Matthew chapter 18.
CJB Matt. 18:9 9 And if your eye is a snare for you, gouge it out and fling it
away! Better that you should be one-eyed and obtain eternal life than keep
both eyes and be thrown into the fire of Gei-Hinnom.
Christ moves on to the next subject in verse 31 but it is not altogether detached
from the subject of verses 27-30. The subject is divorce, but it includes the
possibility that under certain circumstances divorce can cause the woman to
become an adulteress; and anyone who marries her then becomes a participant
in her adultery, which makes them an adulterer as well. I want to pause here to
comment that in the Bible, especially so in the Old Testament but it is also the
case in the New Testament, it is men who divorce their wives (not the other way
around), and it is the women who generally bear the blame and any punishment
involved. We must take this in the context of that era. It was a society that was
male dominated to a degree that Western women in the 21st century have not
experienced. Jewish women at that time were not chattel; but they also had little
power. By custom the lives of women were in the hands of men. Therefore when
Yeshua speaks of divorce it is of course a man divorcing his wife. And, says
Jesus, the only reason a man could legitimately, and without consequence,
divorce his wife is if she has been unfaithful to him (notice there is no thought of
the man being unfaithful to his wife, which in reality had a much higher probability
of happening).
Yeshua's entire treatment of divorce finds its original source in the Torah in
Deuteronomy 24.
CJB Deuteronomy 24:1 "Suppose a man marries a woman and
consummates the marriage but later finds her displeasing, because he has
found her offensive in some respect. He writes her a divorce document,
gives it to her and sends her away from his house. 2 She leaves his house,
goes and becomes another man's wife; 3 but the second husband dislikes
her and writes her a get, gives it to her and sends her away from his house;
or the second husband whom she married dies. 4
In such a case her first
husband, who sent her away, may not take her again as his wife, because
she is now defiled. It would be detestable to ADONAI, and you are not to
bring about sin in the land ADONAI your God is giving you as your
inheritance.
8/12
......

Lesson 17 - Matthew 5 cont 5
Deuteronomy deals with some nuances within a divorce situation, making divorce
an undesirable, but not illegal, occurrence. Yeshua doesn't overturn it or change
it. He merely makes the case that divorce shouldn't happen in the first place. But
if it does, the only legitimate reason for a man to divorce his wife is her
unfaithfulness to him. Matthew's description of Christ's words are (frankly) not
easy to interpret. I believe that there are two main reasons for this difficulty. First,
I suspect there is some kind of textual corruption of the Greek manuscripts that
are oldest ones we have. Second there are some unspoken cultural customs that
the people of that era went by, but we aren't familiar with. If we take what is said
perfectly literally, then basically we have Christ saying that a woman who is
divorced by her husband is automatically guilty of adultery. That she becomes
an adulteress is said to be caused by her husband. This hardly seems
reasonable if for no other reason it does not adhere to the basic God-principle
that we are each responsible only for our own sins and not those of others. In the
case of a divorce involving a woman who had remained faithful to her husband,
the wife had little to no say in the matter and certainly wasn't the party to cause
the divorce or to initiate it. This situation doesn't jibe with Deuteronomy. There a
divorced woman is not in any way labeled an adulteress simply because her
husband decides to divorce her.
Further Christ's words are that if the divorced woman gets remarried, then her
new husband also becomes guilty of adultery. Deuteronomy in no way puts such
a conviction of adultery upon a divorced woman's new husband. It is well known,
historically, that divorce ran rampant in the 1st century Jewish community. Men
would frivolously divorce their wives, go and have a quick affair with another
woman, and then come back and remarry the same woman sometimes in a
matter of a few days. This was because the way that the Law of Moses was
interpreted by many of the Rabbis was that the man could technically avoid the
sin of adultery (a sin within a marriage) by first divorcing his wife before he had
that brief tryst with another woman. And because a man divorcing his wife was
not labeled as sin for the husband in the Law, then he was home free. Could it be
that this was the background for Yeshua's words? I think it is a definite possibility.
Most everything we read in the Bible, including the New Testament and Christ's
words, were in the setting and circumstances of the times. The only other
possibility in my mind is that Yeshua was saying that divorce and remarriage
destroy the concept of lifelong monogamy. So no amount of rules about divorce,
no matter how fair, change the fact that the underlying meaning of marriage in
the first place is a permanent bond between a man and a woman. However I
think even that is a bit of a stretch and not something His audience would have
9/12
.....

Lesson 17 - Matthew 5 cont 5
taken from that instruction.
In verse 33 it seems as though Yeshua leaves the subject of the 10
Commandments and gets into some other standard rules of Jewish society.
However buried in it is a reference to another of the 10 Commandments. Nearly
every Bible version has its own unique translation of Christ's words because the
interpretation is a bit difficult. The CJB version, and few others, use both the
words vow and oath and so some commentators try to approach this verse on
the basis of distinguishing between the meaning of a vow versus an oath.
However in most settings in the Bible, the distinction between vow and oath is
paper thin. For all practical purposes the words are interchangeable. I think the
YLT is the best of the bunch.
YLT Matthew 5:33 'Again, ye heard that it was said to the ancients: Thou
shalt not swear falsely, but thou shalt pay to the Lord thine oaths;
Whenever a person "swore" something meant that the person was certifying the
truthfulness and veracity of a statement or a transaction, but the swearing by
nature involved invoking the name of that person's god. Therefore among Jews
to swear something meant to invoke Yehoveh's name as the guarantor of
whatever the statement or transaction was. This was absolutely in line with a
command of God given in the Torah.
CJB Leviticus 19:12 Do not swear by my name falsely, which would be
profaning the name of your God; I am ADONAl.
This gets fleshed out a bit further a little later in the Torah.
CJB Numbers 30:2-3 2 Then Moshe spoke to the heads of the tribes of the
people of Isra'el. He said, "Here is what ADONAl has ordered: 3 when a man
makes a vow to ADONAl or formally obligates himself by swearing an oath,
he is not to break his word but is to do everything he said he would do.
But Yeshua says not to swear at all, not even if you are NOT using God's name.
That is, don't swear by anything not by Heaven, not by the earth, and not by
Jerusalem. Heaven is God's created place where His throne is located. Not by
the earth because it is God's created place and is said in Isaiah 66 that it is His
property.... His footstool to be specific. And not by Jerusalem because it is the
city of the great King (a reference to God's created earthly dwelling place). All this
10/12
.....

Lesson 17 - Matthew 5 cont 5
seems logical within the religious sphere, doesn't it? All these things (Heaven,
earth, Jerusalem) are part of God's realm and so they have a firm relationship to
God. But then Yeshua says not to swear also by your head. Clearly your head
isn't part of God's realm. In the Mishna, generally speaking the rule was that
oaths sworn by Heaven, earth, even the Temple are not valid.
Yeshua goes on to say rather than swearing an oath, just make your yes, yes...
and your no, no. In fact, He says that to do anything more has its origin in evil.
Those last few words, especially, are what have caused all sorts of various
opinions about exactly what Yeshua was instructing. Frankly, the main problem
for the many denominations in deciding what to do with this statement has to do
with the first and foremost doctrine of the Christian Church: the Old Testament,
along with its rules, laws, instructions, prohibitions, etc., are dead and gone so
there is no point in looking to it for answers. That false doctrine causes needless
confusion in understanding this matter.
First of all, there is no prohibition against making vows and oaths in the Torah or
anywhere in the Old Testament. And, at least the early Church that was
organized and operated out of synagogues, and administered mostly by Jewish
Believers, never understood Jesus as no longer allowing vows. Even the Apostle
Paul felt obligated to fulfill a vow such that he ventured to Jerusalem and the
Temple to do so. Since Yeshua made it abundantly clear in Matthew 5:17 - 19
that nothing He would say was in any way meant to be taken that He was
abolishing, changing, adding to or subtracting from not only the Torah but the
entire Tanakh (Old Testament) then that must always be our point of reference
when trying to interpret His statements.
Just as marriage and divorce had become frivolous within Jewish society during
Christ's era, so was making frivolous vows that the vow maker had no intent of
actually following through with. It had just become a manner of speech. We do
that in our time by saying things like "with God as my witness" or "the Lord
knows". This is using the Lord's name as the guarantor of what it is you are
claiming in other words you are making an oath or vow even if you didn't
realize it (that is the nature of frivolous). And that violates the 3rd Commandment:
thou shall not take the name of the Lord in vain. Again; is it wrong to make an
oath or vow in God's name? No. But God absolutely expects us to do what we
vowed or that we know our claim was true. Otherwise we have used His name in
a vain way.
11 / 12
......

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lesson 17 - Matthew 5 cont 5
At the same time God doesn't command us to make an oath or vow to prove our
truthfulness or our intent. However as we learn when reading in Judges about the
tragedy of Jephthah's innocent daughter, making a frivolous or careless vow that
we can't or don't carry out can have disastrous unintended consequences or it
can remain as an Albatross around our neck. Christ's viewpoint is: don't make
vows and oaths at all. One more time: by nature, in the biblical era, vows and
oaths automatically included invoking a god's name. So we must understand
vows and oaths in that context. In a legitimate religious setting, such as a
marriage ceremony, of course it is proper to make a vow. But in a typical daily
social setting, or a business transaction.... stay clear. Don't back up your "yes" by
invoking God's name. Don't back up your "no" by invoking God's name. Being
truthful is enough especially for a follower of Christ.
This issue about Jesus saying that going any further than "yes" or "no" has its
origin in evil is clearly addressing a cultural and societal issue of that time (which
we've already discussed) because making a legitimate vow or oath in God's
name is in no way evil. But... it can be fraught with danger for the one making the
vow.
We'll stop here for today and finally conclude Matthew 5 next time.
12/12


Lesson 18 - Matthew 5 concl
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 18, Chapter 5 Conclusion
Despite the happy fiction that in Yeshua's day the Jewish people practiced a
religion that was rather pure and Torah driven, in reality what they practiced was
a religion based mostly on Tradition. Naturally the Jews were not a monolithic
culture; they weren't several million bodies that shared one religious mindset.
Two major divisions of the Jewish religion and culture existed that for the sake of
simplicity we could call Judaism: one, which was observed by the small minority
of Jews who lived in the Holy Land, and the other, which was observed by the
overwhelming majority of Jews that lived in the Diaspora (that is, the 95% of all
living Jews at that time who chose to reside in foreign nations). There were
numerous debates and arguments over which Traditions taught by the various
Jewish religious authorities ought to be obeyed, and so where one lived and who
one listened to had much to do with the specific Traditions that were taught and
accepted.
Christ dealt primarily with the Holy Land Jews. On the other hand Paul, the most
prolific and influential writer in the New Testament, dealt primarily with Diaspora
Jews. So what they each said, and how they each approached the matter of who,
exactly, Yeshua was, what He represented, and how that might affect one's life
and decisions, was tailored to their audience. In no way am I implying that what
they each taught was in conflict. Rather when reading the Gospels and then the
Epistles it can, at times, seem so because the way things are worded and what
issues are dealt with had everything to do with where they were and who they
were talking to. In the Sermon on the Mount Yeshua was speaking to a mixed
audience of Jews, but most were Holy Land residents (and I am defining the Holy
Land as mainly Judea and the Galilee although in a sense Samaria perhaps
should be included). Thus what we see Christ doing in His speech is trying to
1 / 12

Lesson 18 - Matthew 5 concl
straighten out centuries of teaching and beliefs that were based on doctrines
(traditions) that had arisen, which had essentially pushed aside actual biblical
Torah teaching. This had resulted in a number of wrong understandings and thus
wrong behaviors and attitudes. This same reality is so very applicable to the
Church in our time.
Recently I listened to a podcast in which the author of a new book "A Church of
Cowards: A Wake-up Call to Complacent Christians" spoke to the moderator
about the serious decline of Christianity in the West; a decline that began in
Europe and has now infected America coast-to-coast. I was struck far less with
what Matt Walsh said (most of which I applauded) than with what he didn't say.
He spoke of an endemic pessimism in the Church that only offered what he
called a cheap hope. Rather than focus on the joyful future God has ordained for
Believers (in the eternal realm), the sermons of today focus on modern cultural
and social justice issues, most of which are politically motivated. According to the
author this cheap hope is also embodied in the infamous Prosperity Doctrine
championed but such famous TV evangelists as Joel Osteen. He went on to say
that the main problem lies with those who man the pulpit; and yet that, itself, is a
reflection of the many who form the congregations. And, in his most pointed
comment, he said the issue of marriage in general, and * marriage in specific,
has greatly damaged the Church perhaps beyond the ability to repair it. But he
never once mentioned or even alluded to the place and authority of the Bible in
modern Western Christianity. Never did he use the Holy Scriptures as his source
for his own beliefs nor did he discuss how the words of the Bible are taught or
interpreted among various Church branches and denominations, especially as
concerns * marriage and * ministers. And there-in is the elephant in the
room that is either ignored or denied by the Church at large such that the Bible
isn't even on the radar of a writer whose honest concern is the demise of the
Church in America. The sad reality is that the Bible is either not taught, or
passages are often lifted and quoted completely out of context, or its words are
given a spin that negates their actual plain meaning in order to uphold a
particular denomination's faith doctrines or social worldview.
My point is this: Traditions are merely another way of saying doctrines. Traditions
and doctrines are two ways of saying the same thing. But what they are not is
Holy Scripture. Christians enjoy criticizing Jews for basing their faith around
Traditions, while at the same time passionately defending their Christian faith that
is based around doctrines. And in both cases doing so has led the Church and
the Synagogue far off the mark because the Holy Scriptures are not only little
2/12


Lesson 18 - Matthew 5 concl
known by the congregations or the leadership, it has also weakened both
institutions and now the basis for decision making has more to do with the
Church maintaining its existence and being accepted by the secular world than in
dispensing and standing up for God's truth. The result is devastating and indeed
has led us into the abyss.
The most powerful of ocean going vessels become vulnerable and perhaps
useless when they lose their rudders. The rudder for the Christian Church has
always been, and must always be, the Bible....the whole Bible, and not just
favored sections of it. But today that rudder has been traded in for a steering
mechanism of manmade doctrines, and the preaching of politically based
principles that come and go with the seasons. Yeshua, in His Sermon on the
Mount, was dealing with the same problem, and it is the reason that He spoke to
His fellow Jews in the manner that He did, and on the subjects He chose.
Open your Bibles to Matthew chapter 5.
RE-READ MATTHEW 5:38 - end
Beginning in verse 38, in rapid sequence Christ speaks to 4 issues that are all
interrelated. First, a person is insulted. Second, a person is taken to court. Third,
someone insists that a person is to be involuntarily pressed into service to them.
Fourth, a person is asked to give something to another who asks for it. Before we
discuss the first issue, notice something critical: none of these issues involves
criminality and in most cases, sin is not the issue. In fact every one of these
cases is about a relatively small personal matter.
The initial thing we must address is the reading of verse 38 itself. Notice the CJB
version.
CJB Matthew 5:38 "You have heard that our fathers were told, 'Eye for eye
and tooth for tooth.
Now here is how we find the same statement in nearly all other English Bible
translations:
KJV Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye,
and a tooth for a tooth:
3/12


Lesson 18 - Matthew 5 concl
The words "our fathers" that we find the CJB are not there in the Greek. Rather it
is a rather ambiguous source that Christ refers to who has said "an eye for an
eye and a tooth for a tooth". "Our fathers" is an assumption that David Stern
assigns from some earlier passages and I don't think such an assumption should
be made. Rather Jesus seems to be speaking of the issue of an eye for an eye in
the form of it being a well known and common saying as opposed to a formal
Torah law. It is not unlike the typical Christian saying that cleanliness is close to
Godliness. It sounds like something from the Bible, but it isn't. In general it is
accepted among Christians as authentic and true without much thought and so
Believers tend to follow the concept in whatever way seems good to them.
So the saying and the common understanding among the people about an eye
for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is general belief about the biblical principle of
proportional justice. However the issue is: in what life situations is this principle to
be applied? The next words of the passage say that the life situation is when
someone does you wrong. Most other Bible versions will refer to a person who is,
or is doing, evil. The Greek word being translated as evil is poneros; it means
bad, or troublesome, full of annoyances or hardships. So we shouldn't equate the
use of the word as meaning the same as wicked in the spiritual sense (such as
being in league with the Devil). Rather this is more like the troublesome neighbor
next door who always seems to be causing some kind of upset or another. Then
Christ gives an example of what He means (that is of itself also a principle) when
He says one of the most memorable and regularly quoted lines in the Bible. He
says if someone hits you on the right cheek, then let him also hit you on the left.
And for the most part sermons on this passage are about Jesus being a pacifist
and therefore what Christ wants is for us to not resist a criminal act upon us. This
is an incorrect interpretation.
First; the context is not about criminality but about not taking personal
vengeance. In that day taking personal vengeance for many perceived wrongs
done against you was rather usual. A person couldn't call 911 and make a
complaint if they were being harassed or threatened. Today in the West one
cannot handle the simplest of wrongs done against us in any other lawful way but
by calling the police or perhaps hiring a lawyer. Let me remind you once more:
this is not about criminal acts. This is not about getting stabbed, or having an
animal stolen. The example given of being slapped on the cheek in our day
would amount to assault and battery. It is considered an aggressive attack. But in
Jesus's day it was not seen as an act of criminal violence so it was not something
unlawful. Rather a man having his face slapped was done to inflict shame upon
4/12

Lesson 18 - Matthew 5 concl
him.
Middle Eastern society then and now is based on the fundamental concepts of
shame and honor. It is about a culture being built upon societal status. In a
shame and honor society maintaining one's social status of honor is paramount.
How one can be muddied and reduced to a status of shame is complex because
to our Western minds many of these reasons for being shamed make little sense
to us. What we have to keep in mind is that a person who has been shamed will
stop at nothing to regain a status of honor. Personal revenge is built into the
shame and honor system. It is expected that a person who has been shamed will
do harm, and they will murder if need be to remedy the problem.
We have all heard of the term "honor killing"; this is precisely about an act of
murder perpetrated within the cultural system of shame and honor. Often a
person who is living in a status of shame will kill the one perceived as having
caused them to lose their honor knowing they may pay the ultimate price for it.
But it doesn't matter because if that act relieves their shame and restores their
honor in the eyes of their family, peers, and community then it was worth it to
them. They are even admired for it. That is the high level of importance placed
upon it in a shame and honor society of Christ's day and continuing until today in
most Muslim societies.
Interestingly the Law of Moses was designed to create a society based on guilt
and innocence, and not on shame and honor. Therefore the Torah does not allow
personal retribution because of the loss of social status.... of being shamed. Still
Israel was heavily influenced by their past and especially by their neighbors who
had no such restrictions on personal vengeance for the sake of restoring honor.
God ordained what was sin and criminal, and He ordained the proper punishment
(if any) for it. In Leviticus 19:18 we find the law to love your neighbor as yourself;
this formed the basis for disallowing revenge for being shamed. Proverbs says:
CJB Proverbs 24:29 Don't say, "I'll do to him what he did to me, I'll pay him
back what his deeds deserve." And in another place in the Torah we read:
CJB Deuteronomy 32:35 Vengeance and payback are mine for the time
when their foot slips; for the day of their calamity is coming soon, their
doom is rushing upon them'
5/12

Lesson 18 - Matthew 5 concl
What these Old Testament versus tell us is that the concept of turning the other
cheek (not seeking revenge for being shamed) was not at all new. Rather it was
a basic Torah concept. So why did Yeshua see the need to address such an
ancient concept? Because Jewish society had become a Tradition based society
that ran on the manmade precepts created by the religious authorities. Precepts
that they said were interpretations of the Torah. And because the Romans had
inflicted their cultural ideas of justice upon Jewish society for more than a century
by the time Yeshua was born, much of it simply became the norm for the Jews
without them really thinking about the source. The Jews didn't have a reservoir of
Torah knowledge to draw upon. They didn't have Bibles in their homes. They
mostly knew what their society said was traditionally right and wrong, and what
the doctrines taught by the Rabbis said.
The next example of the behavior that Yeshua expects from His followers is in
verse 40. It is the case of someone being sued in court. The person wants your
shirt in payment; Christ says to give it to him and your coat as well. The principle
is to achieve reconciliation rather than to exact revenge even if it means giving up
more than one should reasonably have to give in order to reconcile. Why use the
illustration of being sued for one's garments (a rather unlikely occurrence)? In
Yeshua's time a Jewish commoner wore two basic garments; an inner and an
outer. The inner was a tunic-like article of clothing that was standard. The outer
was called a simlah in Hebrew; it was the more valuable and important of the 2
garments. While its use evolved over the centuries, in Christ's day it served as
both an overcoat and a blanket. Generally speaking a man's outer garment could
not be confiscated for non-payment of a debt, or for punishment. However there
were situations when the simlah might be used as collateral for a short term
loan. In that case then it could be held by the lender during the day but it had to
be returned to the borrower in the evening. The point being that this outer
garment was an especially important one to its wearer because among the
common and poorer Jews it was what kept them from exposure to the elements.
So the answer to the question of why Yeshua chose this particular case example
is that it was not a new law, but rather an ancient one. We find it in the Torah, in
the Book of Exodus.
CJB Exodus 22:25-26 25 If you take your neighbor's coat as collateral, you
are to restore it to him by sundown, 26 because it is his only garment- he
needs it to wrap his body; what else does he have in which to sleep?
Moreover, if he cries out to me, I will listen; because I am compassionate.
6/12

Lesson 18 - Matthew 5 concl
The bottom line of what Yeshua is teaching is that His followers are to obey the
Law of Moses by acting as the Father acts: with compassion towards humanity.
In verse 41 is the third example of what a follower of Yeshua is supposed to look
like and behave like. It is that if a follower is pressed to go a mile, they should go
two. What the exact context of this is, is not stated. David Stern inserts the word
"soldier" to describe the person who is demanding something. That word soldier
is not in the Greek manuscript. Rather it is in Greek hostis, which means
whoever or whatever; so it characterizes no one in particular. Even so the idea is
of being compelled to do something that would normally be against your will.
Something that is perhaps unreasonable or unfair.
Even though the word "soldier" is not there, the circumstance of the times when a
Roman soldier could force a Jew to do pretty much whatever he wanted done, is
either what Yeshua had in view or at least it provided a good illustration of the
principle. Later in Matthew we get an excellent example of this in chapter 27.
CJB Matthew 27:30-32 30 They spit on him and used the stick to beat him
about the head. 31 When they had finished ridiculing him, they took off the
robe, put his own clothes back on him and led him away to be nailed to the
execution-stake. 32 As they were leaving, they met a man from Cyrene
named Shim'on; and they forced him to carry Yeshua's execution-stake.
If this is indeed about a Roman solider ordering a Jew to carry something for him,
certainly it meant even more. This principle is also about an authority over you (of
any kind) compelling you to do something that from a government or legal
standpoint they may have the right or the clout to do no matter how unfair it might
be. Rather than rebelling against it as most might (and who would blame them?),
we as Christ's followers must not only graciously comply but do more than the
minimum that is being required. Why is this? Because just as the innocent
Yeshua hung on the cross and had compassion for those guilty parties who hung
next to him, and just as He also did not utter a sound or accuse or condemn
those Roman soldiers who wrongly beat and whipped Him, what an impression
Yeshua's behavior and response must have made on all who witnessed it and
likely on the very perpetrators of the cruelties as well. How many sinners have
come to faith and an eternal salvation because of the witness of courage and
grace shown by an innocent follower of Jesus in the face of pain and evil; the
number may never be known.
7/12
.....

Lesson 18 - Matthew 5 concl
The fourth and final case example is verse 42. What might seem like 2 examples
(if someone asks you for something and if someone wants to borrow something)
is really just one synonymous expression. As I have demonstrated to you, none
of these cases represents any kind of a departure from the Torah. But they must
have represented a departure of a current mindset from the Tradition-based
Judaism that most Jews practiced and believed to be right.
The Law of Moses states:
CJB Deuteronomy 15:7-8 7 "If someone among you is needy, one of your
brothers, in any of your towns in your land which ADONAI your God is
giving you, you are not to harden your heart or shut your hand from giving
to your needy brother. 8 No, you must open your hand to him and lend him
enough to meet his need and enable him to obtain what he wants.
So in this example we move from the realm of a person forcing you to do
something involuntarily, to the realm of voluntarily giving to the needy as
essentially a knee * reaction. Generosity was supposed to be a mainstay of
Hebrew society. Having an evil eye, or shutting your hand meant to be stingy. As
in all ancient societies most people were poor, and so the needy were
everywhere; some because of illness or lameness, some because they were
born into poverty, and others because of financial misfortune. Regardless of the
reason, the needy were to be given charity and cared for. Yeshua was
encouraging the practice of giving.
Verse 43 takes up the subject of love and of course uses one of the two
fundamental commandments of the Torah the two that Yeshua calls the
greatest commandments.... as the basis for His discourse on the subject. As with
verse 38, when we find in the CJB the statement: "You have heard that our
fathers were told", in fact in the Greek manuscripts the words "our fathers" are
not there. Rather the literal translation is: "You have heard that it was said".
Saying "our fathers" serves up the concept that these were the people who heard
Moses speak. That is not what is meant here. The idea is that what follows is a
general expression that has been woven into the fabric of Jewish society; an
expression that Jews believe is taken from the Torah, but in fact it is not. The
expression Yeshua quotes is: "You shall love your neighbor and hate your
enemy". No where in the Law of Moses, the Torah, or the entire Tanakh (the Old
Testament) are God's people taught to hate their enemies. So essentially what
Christ quoted was a common belief and saying, but it was not true and it needed
8/12
.....

Lesson 18 - Matthew 5 concl
correction.
Let's be clear about the issue of hating enemies. While the Jews, and we as
Believers, are not to hate our personal enemies, we are to hate God's enemies. If
we were to love the enemies of God, we would be giving up our loyalty to Him.
How can we love what God hates; or as Yeshua is teaching, how can we hate
what God loves? The context and theme of the last several verses is personal
vengeance. Since through 4 case examples Christ has illustrated how His
followers are to behave with our fellow man, He is showing how this behavior is
to be based upon love as opposed to accepted social customs. A person's
personal enemy is so far in chapter 5 defined as someone who has offended or
shamed him. And Yeshua says that we are not to hate the offender or the one
who has shamed us. Why is Christ addressing this? Even though clearly
Leviticus 19:18 teaches us that we are to love our fellow man and not hate him.
Because Jewish Traditions and social customs had perverted and overtaken
biblical Torah commandments and the people had been wrongly taught; so He
needed to straighten it out.
CJB Matthew 15:9 Their worship of me is useless, because they teach man␂made rules as if they were doctrines.'" Even in this statement of Jesus that came in another setting, He was not creating
a new command of God but rather re-establishing an old one that had been
overthrown by manmade doctrines.
CJB Isaiah 29:13-14 13 Then Adonai said: "Because these people approach
me with empty words, and the honor they bestow on me is mere lip-service;
while in fact they have distanced their hearts from me, and their 'fear of me'
is just a mitzvah of human origin- 14 therefore, I will have to keep shocking
these people with astounding and amazing things, until the 'wisdom' of
their 'wise ones' vanishes, and the 'discernment' of their 'discerning ones'
is hidden away." When will my beloved Church ever learn and accept the truth of Jesus and the
inspired words of Isaiah? We are a horribly fractured institution because of a
failure to discern and obey. It seems to be our human instinct to love the words of
human doctrines while we ignore or shun the Word of God the Holy
Scriptures, Old and New Testaments. And what is our reward for doing this?
Churches shutting down by the hundreds. Denominations splitting and then
9/12

Lesson 18 - Matthew 5 concl
splitting again usually not over biblical truth but over manmade doctrines. But
worse, the effectiveness of personal witness has become largely ineffective
because we prefer to speak hollow words and hand out Christian tracts rather
than to live and behave as Messiah has commanded us. People are turning away
from Christ instead of running to Him. And that is on us.... all of us.
So when Yeshua says in verse 4, "but I tell you, love your enemies", He is trying
not to establish His own new doctrine but rather He is trying to bring back the
God-given biblical ordinance. And the first thing that such love does is to pray for
those who persecute you! Remembering our discussion on the multi-dimensional
word "persecution", for those in Christ's audience this more means to pray for
those who offend, harass, shame, and ridicule and not so much those who do
harm or violence. Although ideally it includes all of these levels of persecution.
I wish to quote to you something from Davies' and Allison's commentary on
Matthew that is most poignant concerning what Yeshua is teaching.
"What does love mean? For Jesus it is no longer primarily a quality of
relationships within the fold....within the walls, which hold the dark and
threatening powers at a distance. It is something which must prove itself in
the engagement with that which is inimical (hostile) and threatening. This is
why Jesus can seek out the tax collectors and the sinners".
And yet even this was not new. It was always God's will that all would see such
love and be drawn towards Him. There are numerous passages in the Tanakh
that set the basis for what Christ is teaching. Isaiah 30:18, Ezekiel 18:23, Exodus
34:6, and so many more. Perhaps my favorite is Ezekiel 18:32.
CJB Ezekiel 18:32 I take no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies," says
Adonai ELOHIM, "so turn yourselves around, and live!
And what will be the result of obeying this God-principle of loving even your
enemies? Yeshua says in verse 45 that it will that you will become as sons of
God. The CJB says it this way:
CJB Matthew 5:45 Then you will become children of your Father in heaven.
For he makes his sun shine on good and bad people alike, and he sends
rain to the righteous and the unrighteous alike.
10/12

Lesson 18 - Matthew 5 concl
Where the CJB and a few other translations say "children of your Father", others
correctly say "sons of your Father" because the Greek is huios and it means son
and not children. This is an important distinction because Yeshua is once again
reciting a Torah principle taken from Deuteronomy 14:1 and it is not something
new and novel.
I once heard it put this way: To return evil for good is the devil's way; to return
good for good is man's way; to return good for evil is God's way. Therefore just
as God provides the light and power of the sun upon all mankind, and not just a
certain few, and because He provides life giving rain upon those who are
righteous in Him as well as those who are not, then we must follow that example
and give love to those who don't love us. After all, says Jesus, what great reward
will we receive for only giving love back to those who love us? Even the hated tax
collectors (considered by the Jews as among the greatest sinners and most
despised enemies) are capable of returning love for love. And what good is it to
be friendly only to our friends? That is, it doesn't take much virtue to love and be
friendly to those inside your established family and social circle, but it does take
more determination and humility to love and be friendly with outsiders.
Chapter 5 ends with a command that essentially is the summation.... the bottom
line.... to what Christ has been teaching: "Be perfect, just as your Father in
Heaven is perfect". A new commandment of Jesus? No.
CJB Leviticus 20:26 26 Rather, you people are to be holy for me; because I,
ADONAI, am holy; and I have set you apart from the other peoples, so that
you can belong to me.
Without doubt the meaning of Christ's words "to be perfect" attends to moral
perfection. Yet no doubt nearly all the Jews listening to Yeshua would have
thought they were attempting to practice moral perfection by following Jewish
Law. Most members of the Church, today and throughout Church history, think
they are attempting to practice moral perfection by following their particular
Church's faith doctrines. But that moral perfection has been a moving target
because the definition of what amounts to moral perfection has shifted and
changed with the winds of time. This is because the leadership of Christianity and
Judaism have paid the most attention to the customs, doctrines and traditions of
men, while minimizing the Word of God. Therefore the source and definition of
moral perfection for followers of Christ can only be devotion to doing the biblical
Law as led by the Holy Spirit He has empowered us with, and by basing our
11 / 12
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lesson 18 - Matthew 5 concl
every thought and action on loving God with all our essence and might, and
loving our fellow human beings as we love ourselves.
We'll begin Matthew chapter 6 next time.
12/12


Lesson 19 - Matthew 6
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 19, Chapter 6
Our duty, and our hope, as followers of the Messiah Yeshua is to place our feet
into His footprints. The Sermon on the Mount is showing us the way. Matthew
recognizes how crucial Yeshua's speech is and so takes 3 full chapters to record
it, and we've completed only the first, which is chapter 5. So today we begin
Matthew chapter 6. Open your Bibles to Matthew chapter 6.
READ MATTHEW CHAPTER 6 all
Verse 1 sets up the basic theme for the next several verses: motive. That is, why
we choose to do the things we do. The last half of the previous chapter (chapter
5), starting at verse 21, dealt with intent. A contrast is set up there, and here to
begin chapter 6, between the deeds and acts we do outwardly versus what we
harbor in our minds. And what we find is that what we think inwardly has
everything to do with how God sees and rewards us, including for the things we
do outwardly based on our motive for doing them. Paul picks up on this principle
of the inward versus the outward in Romans chapter 2 that injects this principle
even into the matter of our spiritual identity before the Lord. That is, despite what
we might display or want to project superficially, it's what on the inside that
counts most.
CJB Romans 2:28-29 28 For the real Jew is not merely Jewish outwardly: true
circumcision is not only external and physical. 29 On the contrary, the real
Jew is one inwardly; and true circumcision is of the heart, spiritual not
literal; so that his praise comes not from other people but from God.
So even before we begin to delve deeper into what follows in Matthew 6, we
1 / 12

Lesson 19 - Matthew 6
understand the enormous value that God places on motive and intent.
Sometimes Christianity will use the term "heart" to mean our motive and intent.
Motive and intent are perhaps greater than the deed itself to the point that doing
a positive deed with an evil intent is a greater sin than doing a negative deed but
having a righteous intent (even if misguided in carrying it out). Let me say this
another way because I get questions nearly daily about how to live a Torah
directed lifestyle from people wanting to know specific do's and don'ts in various
situations they find themselves. Having a righteous intent (and I define that as
having a sincere intent to obey God as based upon His biblical commandments
and not on our own feelings, emotions, and sense of justice) but then our deed
winds up causing harm or offense is either not a sin or the sin is treated by God
with great mercy. However no matter how great a good that a deed might be,
without the intent to obey and the motive to please God, but rather it is done with
the intent to draw praise and recognition to ourselves, that is always a sin.
Verse 1, according to the CJB, speaks of doing acts of tzedakah. Although that
Hebrew word is not there, David Stern is correct in assuming that this must
necessarily be the Hebrew word that is in Matthew's mind as He is writing His
Gospel. What we find in the Greek Bible manuscripts is an attempted translation
of it: dikaiosune. It means righteousness in the sense of justice. And that's fairly
close to the mark. Literally tzedakah means righteousness. However it's usage in
Hebrew culture and language actually meant "doing righteousness". It is a verb; it
is an action that expresses doing a deed that more often than not was directly
connected to giving, whether it was a tithe or an act of charity. Therefore the
subject is righteous giving. Christ next follows-up with some examples and
instructions about exactly how to do that.
The first instruction is to not perform these acts of righteous giving in order to get
personal recognition or credit from people. Planned or spontaneous giving has
always been part of Hebrew society and the sincerely pious generally made it the
highest priority. But, we find in all eras that people will have ulterior motives for
giving, among which is praise from others and the outward appearance of piety
for purely personal benefit. Thus they expect to be publicly recognized and
admired, maybe even given honorary status, when their giving occurs. Jesus's
response to this is that while they may well receive what they'll hoping for from
their fellow man, they will receive nothing further from their Father in Heaven for
giving with such a wrong attitude. Motive. Intent. The deed itself was good, the
intent was wrong, and so a potentially good thing in the eyes of God was turned
into sin. Yeshua is cautioning His listeners that there is a stark difference that
2/12
.....

Lesson 19 - Matthew 6
centers on the giver of the rewards; it is between the rewards we receive from
our fellow man versus rewards from Heaven.
I want you to pay attention to the fact that Christ is going to emphasize The
Father in the next several verses. That is, despite the implication within some
branches of the Church that the Father has taken a long vacation and turned
everything over to His Son, Yeshua dispels it all. It is not He, Jesus, who
determines and rewards; it is The Father.
Verse 2 begins with, "so when you do tzedakah " This time the Greek word
chosen to translate it is eleemosune and it refers directly to the giving of mercy
in the sense of alms... charity to the needy. In Christ's day, other than what was
given to the Temple for offerings and tithes, when giving to the Synagogue the
money was used mostly for caring for the needy. No doubt some was kept for
upkeep and other legitimate expenses. At other times money was given directly
by people to some of the thousands of licensed beggars who often congregated
in certain places where there was lots of foot traffic. And Yeshua says when
someone makes a contribution trumpets shouldn't be blown (for the purpose of
drawing the crowd's attention to the giver).
A question often debated among Theologians and especially among Bible
historians is if this trumpet blowing was literal or if Yeshua used it metaphorically.
To date no Jewish document has been found to confirm that the blowing of
trumpets upon giving actually occurred in Jewish society. However since Christ
did say it, and there is no record of a standard Jewish expression of " blowing a
trumpet" (that would mean to try to gain recognition) then likely it did happen
occasionally. Yeshua had observed it and it upset Him, and so He used it as a
rather blatant example of what NOT to do when giving alms. I actually saw this in
action in a Synagogue that I visited some years ago. They had an offering time
and up on an elevated stage a bucket was placed for givers to get up out of their
sets, walk up to the front of the congregation and put their money into it. Each
time someone dropped their donation into the bucket, a trumpet was loudly blown
and the congregation applauded. What bothered me all the more was that this
was a Messianic Synagogue; a Synagogue of Believers. I can only suppose the
Rabbi never read this passage in Matthew 6. I've also seen techniques used by
the Church to give recognition so that congregation members would be most
conspicuous if they did NOT give. It goes without saying that anything along the
lines of what I just told you goes against the spirit of the instruction that Christ
uttered in this verse.
3/12
.....

Lesson 19 - Matthew 6
Yeshua calls those that give in order to seek personal recognition from their
fellow Jews, hypocrites. While the Greek term is hypokrites, and it literally refers
to an actor who wears a mask as he plays a role in the theater, the overall idea is
of someone who is pretending to be something he isn't. Notice that Christ says it
is at the synagogues and in the streets where this practice occurs of making sure
one gets public recognition for giving charity to the poor. Thus the person doing it
is disguising his evil heart by doing something that looks wonderful and pious on
the surface. Jesus isn't advocating anything different than the norm. We have
much written evidence in the ancient Jewish writings of the same thought. For
instance in the Talmudic tractate Bava Batra, Rabbi Eleazar is quoted as
saying: "A man who gives charity in secret is greater than Moses our
teacher". In another passage from that same document we find: "Charity
(tzedakah) saves from death if the giver does not know to whom he is
giving and the receiver does not know from whom he receives." Thus Yeshua says that the only reward that the hypocrite will receive is the one
he already has the admiration of those he preferred.... those who looked on as
he gave.
In verse 3 the crowd is told not to let their left hand know what their right hand is
doing. If this was a saying of the time, here in New Testament is the only Jewish
document ever found that contains it. So it may be a unique saying of Jesus. In
trying to understand the actual meaning as this would have expressed to a crowd
of 1st century Jews, we need to look to Jewish culture (and most Middle Eastern
culture of that era) whereby the right hand was perceived as the strong hand...
the best hand; it was the dominant and authoritative hand both symbolically and
actually (left hand dominant people were a rarity). Therefore the idea seems to
be that there is no need for other parts of one's body to know what the hand of
authority (the right hand) is doing (giving to charity). The left hand has no right to
question the actions of the right hand or to even know about it. This way the
giving will be done in secret; secret more meaning privately and without notice or
fanfare and perhaps without having second thoughts about it. This is righteous
giving; it is giving in the proper spirit. The good news is, says Christ, that the
Father knows all secrets anyway so He sees all that we do, and knows all our
hidden thoughts and motives, and knows if indeed our secret giving is about
compassion, loving our neighbor, and obedience.... or not. Therefore The Father
will be the source of whatever reward might be due to us. This of course sets up
the dynamic that we all must continually and without fail ask ourselves; "whom do
we choose to please?" If we have the inward motive of seeking humanity's
4/12


Lesson 19 - Matthew 6
admiration and praise by our giving, we automatically do not receive God's praise
or reward.
Perhaps this is a good time to say something that I, as head of Seed of Abraham
Ministries, have never said outside of our staff meetings but adhere to even
though it may be out of the norm. So many of you present here and out in the
internet world and on Television are the most gracious and generous supporters
of this ministry; I get a little emotional just thinking about it. Some have donated
substantial amounts. You received a heartfelt thank you letter; however what you
didn't receive was a gift depending on the level of your giving. You weren't
enticed to get a bigger gift if you give a bigger donation. You also weren't brought
up to this stage and thanked before the congregation for your large donation.
Why? For your sake. Because I don't want any part of tempting anyone to give in
the motivation of personal recognition, whereby that recognition causes you to
lose your reward in Heaven. I don't want you to exchange an eternal reward for a
fleeting one. And you know what? I've not had one person in the nearly 20 years
of this ministry's existence ask for a gift (or stop giving because they didn't
receive one), or ask for special recognition of some kind upon giving to us.
Honestly, I would have returned the gift if that was the condition. This tells me
that your giving is, and has been, in exactly the right spirit and intent and so your
praise comes not from me but from your Heavenly Father.
Next, having addressed the issue of money and giving, Christ turns to how we
ought to pray. Notice Yeshua says WHEN you pray, not IF you pray. Prayer was
a serious every day matter for Jews of that era. It was rather usual for pious Jews
to pray 3 times a day; something that seems to have begun during their exile in
Babylon perhaps as an example or even an instruction from Daniel. Praying in
public was normal because the spiritual was a natural part of everyday life. Sadly
that seems almost strange to us in the West, where our society generally expects
us to compartmentalize our faith and keep it quiet, subdued and out of sight. A
few years ago I was in a restaurant with my family, and as we held hands and
prayed I overheard a lady in a nearby table whisper to her dining companion: "is
that legal?" She was quite concerned and serious. However, just as there is a
proper attitude for the giving of charity and an improper one, there is always a
proper way to pray and an improper way. Yeshua cites the improper way first:
"Don't be like the hypocrites". Remember, the way the word hypocrite was taken
to mean at that time was someone who was masquerading as being someone
else; they were hiding who they really are. And how do they do this? Very
similarly to the hypocrites who give money to the poor; it is by praying very
5/12
.....

Lesson 19 - Matthew 6
publicly, so that the public will acknowledge and admire them for their seeming
generosity and piety.
So Christ's crowd is told not to stand on street corners or even in the synagogues
where people will see them praying in some kind of way that I suppose you can't
not notice. I have to tell you; I think what Christ has said up to this point could be
taken as pretty severe; maybe even harsh. In fact, more than a few Bible
commentators say that what we are reading is Matthew's worldview and not
Jesus's because they can't see a passive, restrained, loving Jesus saying such
things. However this is neither the first nor the last time Yeshua will be blunt and
frank about the actions and insincerity that He has observed among His
countrymen in a number of settings for the purpose of a race to the top to see
who can be publicly seen as the most devout worshipper of God. Let me be clear
on this matter: is it wrong to pray in the synagogue? Is it bad to pray on a street
corner? Of course not. The issue is not prayer; it's the misuse of prayer in order
to get self attention. Motive. Intent. People who pray in this improper manner will,
like the givers to the poor who do it with the motive of self-recognition, get no
praise or any well-done from The Father.
So after telling the crowd what they should NOT do, He tells them what they
should do. They should go into their room, close the door, and pray to the Father
in secret. Although we're very early on in Matthew's Gospel, I can tell you that in
all the Gospel accounts we will never find Yeshua telling people to pray to Him. It
is always to the Father that Jesus says prayer and honor are to be directed. Even
more our praying should be in private, He says. Once more: is it wrong to pray
when we're outdoors in the public? No. Is it wrong to pray indoors (like in a
sanctuary) with others observing? No. What is wrong is to pray in the wrong
attitude, with the wrong motive, and perhaps to the wrong god in whatever
setting. So just like giving is to be done secretly.... more meaning giving without
drawing attention to oneself, or expecting something in return so is prayer to
be done secretly.... without the intent of drawing attention to oneself and instead
it should be with the intent of having a personal conversation and relationship
with the God of the Universe.
Many years ago, as I read this passage, it profoundly instructed and convicted
me. I am one who always had a hard time praying silently, which was my usual
way of prayer. It didn't take very long before my mind began to wander and soon
I was thinking about a matter at work or having to mow the lawn or something
else; I couldn't remember what I was praying. Interestingly, I don't think that we
6/12

Lesson 19 - Matthew 6
find the concept of truly silent prayer in the Bible; or at least silent prayer being
the norm. By silent prayer I mean that the mouth plays no role, and that the only
organ that is involved is our brain. Although now that I've said it I'm sure
someone will find an instance of silent prayer in the Bible and point it out to me.
Nonetheless, using one's mouth, whether in a nearly inaudible whisper or a
shout, was the customary manner of prayer (other than perhaps merely reading a
prayer, silently). The idea of sitting in my room, by myself, door shut and praying
out loud sounded odd to me. However, I tried it and suddenly I could pray without
my mind wandering. Hearing the words that were coming from my own mouth
caused me to pray in full, intelligible thoughts. Speaking to the Lord out loud
makes it feel much more intimate and real for me. This is not to say that this is or
should be every Believer's prayer experience.
So what is The Father's reward to us for proper prayer? The word in Greek for
reward is apodidomi. And it is usually translated to English as reward. The
Greek lexicons explain it means to restore, repay, or to recompense in proportion
to what was done good or bad. Clearly that last meaning is the appropriate one
for this situation. Therefore considering the context it can only be that God's
reward for proper prayer is that He responds to it in kind. That doesn't mean that
we always get what we want; rather it means that He will graciously pay attention
and consider our prayers as opposed to ignoring them. God sets conditions for
listening to prayer and answering them. Yeshua addresses that in a few verses.
But first I want to say something about prayer in general. Number one, there's no
trick to it. If you can talk, you can pray. Eloquence not required. And even if you
can't talk due to some physical problem, you can still communicate to God with
your mind and soul. Shortly we'll read an example that Messiah gives us about
the nature of a proper prayer. But as I zoomed around the web looking at what
various Christian and Bible websites had to say about it, they nearly all spoke
about it along these lines: God created us and knows infinitely more than we
know. He knows what is best for us, and what would not be good for us. If
you have children, when they were very small, sometimes they asked for
things that would not be good for them, or would harm them. For good
reasons sometimes parents do not always give their children what they ask
for, when they ask for it. Parents give them what is best for them.
Sounds pretty good, doesn't it? However that is decidedly not what proper prayer
is about. Notice the prodigious use of thought of "what is good for us" (what is
always best for us). Because of this modern tendency of Christians to think of
7/12

Lesson 19 - Matthew 6
God as a kind genie who grants our personal wishes, and Our Savior who is here
mainly for our hopes and dreams to be realized, then the theme of "God does
what is best for us" is practically universal. However comforting that might sound
to us, it is not biblical reality. God does what His purposes are. God does what
His will is. And that goes for answering prayers. Making us happy is not usually at
the top of the list. In fact, often God will answer a prayer in a way that isn't best
for us, personally, from almost any worldview we can think of it; but rather He has
another and greater purpose in mind that we may never know about (although
sometimes later on we might see the fruits of it).
The goal of prayer ought to be to discover how we can best fit into The Father's
plans, not how He should fit into ours. That is not to say that when we have
needs or even desires that we shouldn't go to Him in prayer. When we're ill or
injured we should pray for healing. If we're afraid, in dire straights financially, in
great danger, and scores more reasons our first response ought to be prayer.
Proper prayer. But any thought that His response is all about our earthly personal
best is incorrect, even though many times the thing we want so badly indeed
comes about. What we need to be more concerned about in our prayers is our
eternal best and that, says Christ, is to be the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven
as opposed to being greatest on earth. And this greatness comes not from our
will being done, but from seeking His will and following His laws and commands.
Prayer first and foremost must be an act of our humility and submission. An act of
seeking, and not of instructing. Being a Believer gives us an audience before the
King; it doesn't guarantee the outcome we want.
One final thought: throughout the Gospels we find Yeshua seeking solitude when
He prays. So His instructions that we should pray "secretly" are no more nor less
than what He personally did when He was on earth.
In verse 7 Christ gives another negative instruction; what we should NOT do. We
should not babble on and on when we pray because, He says, that's what the
pagans do. Please notice: pagans pray, too. So in our time when we mostly think
of pagans as the godless (atheists) in fact pagan simply means those who do not
worship Yehoveh as their only god. There is no ancient record of any society
anywhere on earth that were atheist. Atheism was an invention of the academic
elite early in the 18th century in Europe. It ought to be instructional to everyone
everywhere that for however long one believes that humankind have existed,
whether that is 6000 or 6,000,000 years, only in the past 300 years has the
8/12
.....

Lesson 19 - Matthew 6
notion of there being no god or gods been fabricated. In Jesus's day every one,
of every culture, had some means and intent of praying to their gods. And indeed
so did the occupying Romans.
In Christ's day the Holy Land was overrun with curious gentiles, and this was
especially so in Jerusalem where Herod's Temple was thought of as one of the
wonders of the world; so it was a must to visit. And then there were the 95% of all
living Jews who lived outside of the Holy Land and therefore among these same
gentiles. Knowing how the pagans prayed was common knowledge for the Jews.
And apparently a lot of pagan religionists believed that the longer and the louder
and the more public one prayed, their gods would hear them better and therefore
the worshipper would have a better shot at getting what he wants. Because the
Jews were surrounded by these gentiles it is human nature that some would take
on some of the customs and traits they witnessed happening because it seemed
good to them. And remember: few of the Jews in the crowd sitting before Yeshua
had much actual Torah knowledge. What they had was Tradition knowledge, and
so they followed whomever it was that was leading them in the synagogue.
Instead, says Jesus in verse 8, "don't be like them" and then tells us why we
shouldn't. Even this however was not a new instruction that Yeshua came up
with. It was long established biblically.
CJB Ecclesiastes 5:1 (or 2) Don't speak impulsively- don't be in a hurry to
give voice to your words before God. For God is in heaven, and you are on
earth; so let your words be few.
It is because The Father already knows all our wants, desires and circumstances
that we don't need to go on and on in our prayers. He already knows what our
prayer is about before we pray it. It would be dishonest if I didn't confess that
every now and then I wonder if I should pray about something because The
Father already knows about it. And since His pre-knowledge of it is the case for
every instance, then it is not unreasonable to ask: so then why should we pray?
We pray for two reasons: first, because it is God's instruction and will that we
do Old Testament and New. Second, because prayer is therefore beneficial to
us and to the Kingdom. Prayer is part of the shalom.... the divinely given well␂being... that God affords His worshippers. By praying we are obeying the Lord.
By praying we are communing with God (a great privilege). And while
communing with God is something He wants, we and not He are the beneficiaries
of it. Thus biblically, regular prayer is a given. Yeshua is only reminding people
9/12

Lesson 19 - Matthew 6
what proper prayer looks like.
When we are especially nervous or anxious, we can tend to get long-winded in
our prayers. Nervousness and anxiety are the opposite of having stillness of
mind. And having stillness of mind is a very hard thing to come by especially if we
are in some kind of bad situation. However simplistic it may sound, the only
means to achieve stillness of mind is complete and sincere trust in God. And
therefore what comes next in Matthew is intended to be a means to achieve
stillness of mind, and to maintain it. It is a quite short prayer that for centuries has
been called The Lord's Prayer. It begins in verse 9.
We've already read it in the CJB, but I'd like you to hear it in a couple of other
versions. Not so much because they interpret what is said differently, but
because the words chosen for the interpretation can mean something a bit
different to us when we hear them.
KJV Matthew 6:9-13 9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which
art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be
done in earth, as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread. 12 And
forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. 13 And lead us not into
temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the
power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
NAS Matthew 6:9-13 9 "Pray, then, in this way: 'Our Father who art in heaven,
Hallowed be Thy name. 10 'Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, On earth as
it is in heaven. 11 'Give us this day our daily bread. 12 'And forgive us our
debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 'And do not lead us into
temptation, but deliver us from evil. For Thine is the kingdom, and the
power, and the glory, forever. Amen .' Because prayer is so crucial in the life of Believer and in our relationship with
God, we'll go through the example Christ gives us of what the elements of proper
prayer ought to look like.
The very first words are "Our Father". It cannot be said enough times, or strongly
enough, that due to the doctrines of modern Christianity never does Christ
instruct that we pray to Him. Always He instructs that we are to pray to The
Father. The implications behind this are many, and cause much debate within the
Church such that entire denominations are founded on the conclusions about
10/12

Lesson 19 - Matthew 6
these implications. And at the top of the list is about the nature of the Trinity.
I'm confronted often about this issue of the Trinity. People will ask me if I accept
the Trinity Doctrine and my response is always the same: which one? Folks of
every denomination have their own version of a Trinity Doctrine, which range
from rejecting the notion outright all the way up to deciding which of the persons
or attributes of God ought to be included. Among evangelical Christians, the most
common version is that God consists totally and only of 3 persons: The Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And thus every manifestation of God that we learn of
in the Bible must be one of these 3 persons even when they are given different
names and characteristics. Further, this popular version of the Trinity Doctrine
declares that the 3 persons are co-equal. There is no hierarchy. And even though
there are 3 persons, they are yet but 1 God. Therefore they all have the same
power, the same purpose, the same wisdom and share the same knowledge.
Without addressing every one of these issue (and a few more), I'll only say this:
the Trinity Doctrine is manmade. Never is it stated in the Bible. The closest thing
to a direct statement comes in Matthew 28.
CJB Matthew 28:19 19 Therefore, go and make people from all nations into
talmidim, immersing them into the reality of the Father, the Son and the
Ruach HaKodesh,
So all the rest of the definition of a Trinity Doctrine (or better, of the several
different Trinity Doctrines) is an interpretation and an amalgamation of several
Bible passages that arrives at a certain belief about the nature and substance of
God.
I can't get into defending or disagreeing with them all, and I probably am not even
aware of every one of the wide range of them. But I can tell you this with absolute
confidence: in the Gospels Christ never suggests anything but praying to the
Father. He Himself is found in several occasions praying to the Father, and it is
an absurdity to suggest that since (some believe) there is no divine hierarchy of
the 3 persons then He must be praying to Himself. According to Jesus's own
words the way, the manner and the person to whom prayer is to be directed
according to the example He gives us, The Lord's Prayer, is to the Father alone.
We'll stop for now to give the Lord's Prayer our fullest attention and study next
time.
11 / 12
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lesson 19 - Matthew 6
12/12



Lesson 20 - Matthew 6 cont
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 20, Chapter 6 Continued
We'll continue in Matthew chapter 6 directing our focus upon the Lord's Prayer of
verses 9-13. Leading up to this prayer example that Christ presented to those
listening to His Sermon on the Mount, He gave His listeners a couple of do's and
don'ts concerning prayer in general. First: don't pray in a manner that is designed
and intended to draw attention to yourself. Self aggrandizement and making
oneself out to be especially pious is the issue. This mindset is a perversion of
what prayer is to be and it is what the pagans do. Second: instead pray privately.
That is, prayer is to be something personal and intimate between you and the
Lord. Prayer is a means and a privilege to honor God and to communicate with
Him. And third: don't babble on and on using fabricated mantras and ritualistic
phrases that you say and repeat almost unconsciously. One also doesn't have to
explain to God what you are asking of Him in extreme detail that results in
lengthy prayers in hopes that the longer the prayer goes the more God will hear
you. Prayer (and God) simply don't work like that. Yeshua concludes with why
eloquence and wordiness are not needed. Verse 8 says it's:"....because your
Father knows what you need before you ask Him".
Here is a statement of God's immutable and universal omniscience. As humans
we can observe things as they happen and draw conclusions. But only the Lord
knows our every thought, and also knows our every need usually before we do.
That is both a comfort and a warning.
Therefore, to start verse 9 Jesus says: instead "...pray like this". Please notice
that He didn't say to "Pray THIS". When He says to pray LIKE this, He means
similarly. He is not giving us a formula to be mechanically repeated but rather a
pattern or a template to follow. Some people when they pray, pray only the Lord's
1 / 13

Lesson 20 - Matthew 6 cont
Prayer as though this is a divinely mandated Christian mantra. There is certainly
nothing wrong with praying it, and especially when one is with a group of
Believers nearly everyone knows this prayer by heart so it is wonderful for
everyone to pray it together out loud. So let's read the Lord's Prayer and then
we'll discuss its pattern and what we're being shown by it.
READ MATTHEW 6:9 -13
I would like to briefly review and then supplement what I said last week about the
opening words of the Lord's Prayer. Those words are "Our Father". Not "Our
God". Not "Our Lord". "Our Father" has a specific meaning biblically and to the
Jewish people. First, the use of the term "Our Father" is to put forth the concept
of sonship. That is, only a true son has the right to call the one in authority over
him "Father". When a person is a son versus a servant or a follower, the
relationship changes. That person's status is elevated and his or her position
becomes greatly enhanced. For one thing inheritance that comes from what the
Father owns and rules over becomes a possibility. In the divine heavenly sphere
the term "Our Father" is used to denote the spiritual Father of all things that exist,
seen and unseen (the Creator, Yehoveh). In the physical earthly sphere "Our
Father" is used to denote the human ancestral/biological father of the Hebrew
people: Abraham. It is actually a term used rather rarely in the Old Testament;
ironically it is used much more in the New Testament. The Gospels record 65
instances in which Jesus uses the term "Father" to refer to God. John uses it
over 100 times. Clearly in the context of prayer, no Jew prayed to Abraham so
the "Our Father" is of course directed to God in Heaven. Just as logically and
rationally we can know that when Jesus refers to The Father, He cannot be
referring to Himself in any way, shape or form. Jesus is never referred to as the
Father of anything. Rather, Yeshua's spiritual and physical identity is The Son in
relation to the Father. Who is the Father? He is El Shaddai, Yud-Heh-Vav-Hey,
Yehoveh, more often called Yahweh, or in English Jehovah. Yehoveh is NOT
Yeshua.
The question is: are we also praying to Jesus when we pray to "Our Father"? And
clearly Christ instructs that it is The Father is to whom we should pray. Never
does He, nor any of His disciples, nor any writer of the New Testament suggest
that we should switch from praying to the Father to praying to Christ. Even so,
this matter is actually the basis of quite the ongoing theological debate. The side
of the debate that says "yes" we are also praying to Jesus when we pray to God
in Heaven, or that because Christians should pray directly to Jesus, admits that
2/13

Lesson 20 - Matthew 6 cont
there is no direct scriptural quote to back-up such a notion. Rather it is a Church
doctrine that has been derived from yet another Church doctrine called the Trinity
Doctrine, which among many mainstream denominations says that Jesus, the
Father, and the Holy Spirit are co-equal and unified in such a way as to be
indistinguishable. I don't wish to explain the mysterious nature of the unity of God
much further other than to say this: despite what you might think you hear me
say, I firmly believe and advocate that while Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit
are all divine attributes of who God is in His totality, it is undeniable that they are
spoken of in the Bible as identifiable, separately named entities, possessing
different attributes and purposes; they not depicted as, or said to be, co-equal in
authority or knowledge. There is a definite hierarchy of authority of the Godhead
in the Bible, from Genesis through Revelation, and the Father is always at the top
of that hierarchy. He directs the Son and the Holy Spirit.
One of the things that is so hard for all us to deal with is the choice of words and
human concepts to use when trying to assign them to the essence and
substance of God. God gave us language and the ability to speak in order to
better understand Him and to form relationships with one another that go way
beyond mere animalistic instinct. Thus we must always take human terms like
Father and Son only so far when using them to describe God's features and
attributes. However by using those terms, which by their very nature are
dependent upon the culture that they spring from, we can get a better idea of how
to discern who God is, how He operates, and His instructions to us. So as the
centuries pass and as new cultures rise, evolve, and then disappear we must
always remember to keep these terms and relationships we read of in the Bible
embedded in the cultural thought, and in the historical era, from which they came.
It's when we remove the cultural and historical elements from God's Word that
the mistakes and misunderstandings occur such that false doctrines are the
result.
The Scriptures were written by Hebrews and from a Hebrew cultural perspective.
Thus when they employ the use of the term "The Son" it is because it is
understood in Hebrew culture that a son (especially a firstborn or the only
begotten son) holds a special elite place in relation to that son's father. That son
has the right of inheritance not only of the father's possessions but also of his
authority. While that father is still living, he can and often does name his son as
his agent that speaks for him, and can be given a measure of authority as
defined and presented to him by his father. It was and remains a Middle Eastern
saying that when such "agent" status is given to a son, then when speaking to
3/13

Lesson 20 - Matthew 6 cont
the son you are speaking to the father. It is in a similar way that we must think of
Yeshua in relation to His Father. It is lens through which we must interpret the
New Testament passage that says "Whoever has seen Me (Jesus) has seen the
Father". If we isolate and lift that well worn phrase from its Hebrew cultural
context of the 1st century and try to place it directly into the Western gentile
culture of the 21st century, then it sounds much like Yeshua is saying that He
and the Father are identical twins. Or that they are one in the same, such that
perhaps Yeshua is but a physical apparition of the invisible Father. Or that
Yeshua is the newer and younger God replacing the older God, Yehoveh. But
now let's hear it in its biblical context.
CJB John 14:6-10 6 Yeshua said, "I AM the Way- and the Truth and the Life;
no one comes to the Father except through me. 7 Because you have known
me, you will also know my Father; from now on, you do know him- in fact,
you have seen him." 8 Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it
will be enough for us." 9 Yeshua replied to him, "Have I been with you so
long without your knowing me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the
Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10 Don't you believe that
I am united with the Father, and the Father united with me? What I am
telling you, I am not saying on my own initiative; the Father living in me is
doing his own works
Embedded in this passage is the Jewish and Middle Eastern cultural concept of
the relationship between a father and son. This is reflected in Yeshua replying to
Phillip: "The Father living in me is doing His own works". Yeshua fits the mold to
a T as His Father's agent who carries out His Father's works. He is the Father's
right hand. He is the Father's only begotten son. The Son has completely
adopted His Father's will. The Father, even though He is still living, has
designated His Son, Yeshua, as His agent on earth and in doing so has given
Him a defined measure of authority (thus it can be said that the Father is living
and doing His works through His Son, Jesus Christ). But the Father is not the
Son, and while the Son is said to carry all the authority of His Father to rule the
Kingdom, this in no way is intended to say that the Son has replaced His Father,
or that the Son has usurped His Father, or that the Father is out of the picture, or
that the Father has given up ultimate authority over His Son. What I'm telling you
is not doctrine; this is Bible.
Importantly, the thoughts and concepts of the Lord's Prayer were not new to
Yeshua's listeners; they were already an ordinary part of Jewish religious society
4/13

Lesson 20 - Matthew 6 cont
in Christ's day. Many Jewish prayers began: Avinu Sh'baShammayim (Our
Father in Heaven). This opening phrase further "outs" Matthew as
a Jewish Believer. But the lack of this phrase in Luke's version of it also "outs"
Luke as a Gentile Believer. Luke's much abbreviated version of something like
the Lord's Prayer in Luke 11:2 opens merely with "Father". So it should not
surprise us that the Jewish Jesus would use a rather standard opening for a
Jewish prayer, and that the Jewish Matthew would of course record it that way;
while that same standard opening would not have been so familiar or noticed by
the gentile Luke.
David Stern points out that the next two lines of the Lord's Prayer are very similar
to the opening words of the synagogue prayer called the Kaddish, which says:
"Magnified and sanctified be His great name throughout the world, which He has
created according to His will, and may He establish His Kingdom in your lifetime".
Compare this to the Lord's Prayer: "May your name be kept holy (sanctified), and
may your Kingdom come and your will be done on earth.... " So the Lord's Prayer
and the Kaddish express nearly identical thoughts.
Yet as we go further into the prayer, we find another Christian theological debate
develop from it. It concerns whether the nature of the prayer is expressing a
future hope pointing to the End Times and beyond (scholars call this the
eschatological view); or whether it is expressing a present hope with a view to the
here and now. As nearly always, these theological differences demand an
absolute and are discerned from the Western gentile mindset. That is, the Lord's
Prayer is either a 100% future view or a 100% present view. This is not at all
needed and not all what Yeshua had in mind. Rather we have here two
simultaneous meanings that are not different in substance, but only different in
timeframe. That is, both meanings are true at certain times in redemption history.
Hebrew thought allows for such an approach.
When Christ says "May Your Kingdom come", this refers to both the present and
the future because that is the nature of the Kingdom of Heaven. And yet also
notice whose Kingdom it is; it is "yours" meaning The Father's. Yeshua Our
Savior may well rule over it; but it belongs to The Father, and whatever authority
Yeshua has over it has been given to Him by The Father. The issue of the
Kingdom coming we've discussed before. The Kingdom is both present and it is
future. The Kingdom of Heaven (synonymous with the Kingdom of God) had a
definite beginning point.
5/13

Lesson 20 - Matthew 6 cont
CJB Matthew 11:11-13 11 Yes! I tell you that among those born of women
there has not arisen anyone greater than Yochanan the Immerser! Yet the
one who is least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he! 12 From the
time of Yochanan the Immerser until now, the Kingdom of Heaven has been
suffering violence; yes, violent ones are trying to snatch it away. 13 For all
the prophets and the Torah prophesied until Yochanan.
So when John the Baptist began His mission to declare the coming of the Lord,
that was the inauguration of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. In the Gospel of
Luke we see the Kingdom of Heaven addressed slightly differently.
CJB Luke 17:20-21 20 The P'rushim asked Yeshua when the Kingdom of God
would come. "The Kingdom of God," he answered, "does not come with
visible signs; 21 nor will people be able to say, 'Look! Here it is!1 or, 'Over
there!' Because, you see, the Kingdom of God is among you." While I'm not in total agreement with that translation, I am as far it regards the
tenses. That is, the Kingdom of God IS among you. It is present right now. So in
the Lord's Prayer, the coming of the Kingdom doesn't mean it hasn't come yet.
Rather, it is like the Lord's parable of the mustard seed.
CJB Matthew 13:31-32 31 Yeshua put before them another parable. "The
Kingdom of Heaven is like a mustard seed which a man takes and sows in
his field. 32 It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it grows up it is larger
than any garden plant and becomes a tree, so that the birds flying about
come and nest in its branches."
In time I'll talk more concerning this parable and explain in depth the use and
meaning of Parables. However a fundamental principle of parables is that they
use every day cultural thoughts, objects and activities in a simplistic and general
way to teach the Torah. And when we look at the Mustard Seed parable it draws
a similarity between how the Kingdom of Heaven appears on earth versus how a
mustard seed grows. The idea is that a mustard seed is among the tiniest of
seeds and so its life as a plant starts as a miniscule, nearly imperceptible form.
One would think that such a tiny seed would only grow up into a tiny plant. But in
fact a mustard seed grows into a big plant over time, until it is so large that birds
can make nests in its branches.
Thus the Kingdom of Heaven has already come, although it is so very small that
6/13

......
.....

Lesson 20 - Matthew 6 cont
it is hardly noticeable in Christ's time. However the ultimate fullness of it into all
that God intends for it is indeed in the future. Thus in the P'shat interpretation
sense the Kingdom of Heaven on earth is a present reality. The fruits of it are
present for us to see, if we have the eyes to see it. And as the Kaddish prayer
expresses, hopefully everyone alive (every Jew alive was the meaning at the
time) will be part of it in the here and now. Yet in the Remez interpretation
sense, the Kingdom of Heaven speaks of a later time when all of God's
creatures, worldwide and without exception, will bow before Him and hallow His
Name. It is about a time when the Kingdom enters its perfection and
completeness and we with it. And that time was future to Matthew's Gospel and
is still future, but nearer, to us.
Let me take just a moment to remind you of something I taught long ago when I
taught on the Torah. The English word holy is in it's original biblical
Hebrew kaddosh. Kaddosh, holy and sanctified are equivalents. So to be
sanctified means to be holy-fied that is, to be made holy. The essence of this
word kaddosh is that something is set apart from all else. So since God is
inherently holy His very substance is holy.... He is also the standard for holy....
then when the Lord's Prayer says "May your name be kept holy" (as in the CJB)
or in the more familiar KJV "hallowed be Your Name", the idea is not that God's
Name isn't currently holy, it is that among the minds and souls of all humanity
God would finally be held holy to each and every one. The coming of the
Kingdom of Heaven with John the Baptist begins that process, which is
culminated with the 2nd coming of Christ, the destruction of evil and of wicked
humans, and then His 1000 year reign.
So up to now these verses mouthed by Yeshua address the adoration and
glorification of God, which should be the overriding thought behind all prayers. It
also expresses a hope for God's will to be done in our lives. This issue of God's
will being done is a tough one, especially as concerns prayer. Usually when we
go to God in prayer it is because we want something. Perhaps it expresses the
needs of others; perhaps it is for ourselves. But how can we know for certain that
what we are asking is in His will? I wish I could give you a pat explanation for
that, but I can't. However much like Yeshua using a parable to help illustrate His
meaning when defining something in the spiritual world and in the future can be
so very difficult to get a handle on, I think that the instance of Christ praying
before the day of His execution can help us to best understand what it means for
us to pray in God's will.
7/13
..... .....

Lesson 20 - Matthew 6 cont
CJB Luke 22:39-44 39 On leaving, Yeshua went as usual to the Mount of
Olives; and the talmidim followed him. 40 When he arrived, he said to them,
"Pray that you won't be put to the test." 41 He went about a stone's throw
away from them, kneeled down and prayed, 42 "Father, if you are willing,
take this cup away from me; still, let not my will but yours be
done." 43 There appeared to him an angel from heaven giving him
strength, 44 and in great anguish he prayed more intensely, so that his
sweat became like drops of blood falling to the ground.
Notice that He starts His prayer with "Father" and then takes His petition to Him.
Yeshua's petition is: please take this cup from Me. "This cup" was simply an
expression that meant what was destined for Him that was about to happen. And
what was about to happen was His arrest, brutal torture, and then grim
crucifixion. Is suffering and dying something Jesus wanted to endure? Clearly
not. The Holy Spirit in Him knew that this was precisely what He was born to do,
and that all of God's plans for redemption depended upon it. And yet He was a
human being who knew pain, saw death up close and personal and wasn't
seeking it, and so He had great trepidation over what was coming. He prayed so
intensely about this His spirit in heated conflict with His flesh that we are
told that the blood capillaries (I suppose on His scalp and forehead) burst and He
began sweating blood. So His own will was twofold: Father I pray I don't have to
do this. But also He prayed not His own will but rather the will of His Father be
done. That is, if there is no other way for Jesus than the cross, then God's will
would overcome Jesus's own human instinct and will to save Himself.
What Believer, having been given a very serious diagnosis from a doctor,
perhaps a life threatening one, wouldn't go to the Father and plead for healing?
And yet; are we willing to accept NOT being healed as the Father's will? Here's a
tougher one yet: your 2 year old child is found to have a terminal and painful
illness and you go to the Father asking for his or her life to be spared. Are you
willing to accept it as the Father's will if that child suffers and dies? Over the
years I've seen several people in similar predicaments who aren't healed, or who
aren't relieved of some awful predicament, and who walk away from God
because of it. But Yeshua's prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane is what it
means to pray in God's will. You ask for the thing you want....your will... even
intensely.... but at the same time you place a higher priority on God's will being
done as a matter of faith and trust. And when God's will doesn't match yours, you
accept His and glorify Him no matter the outcome. Why? Because indeed God's
will WAS done on earth as it is in Heaven. And by the way: this doesn't mean that
8/13


Lesson 20 - Matthew 6 cont
an outcome that leaves you in a bad way is somehow "best for you" but you just
don't realize it yet. Rather in the Lord's Prayer 2 things are emphasized: that
God's Kingdom would grow and thrive and that His will would be done. And
sometimes the very thing we dread most is an unknowable part of bringing about
His will and His Kingdom in ways we may never know.... at least we won't know
on this side of Heaven.
So when we pray the Lord's Prayer it shows us not just similar words and
thoughts to pray, but also the attitude to pray in. Recall that just before Christ
gave His instruction on what and how to pray, He spent some time discussing
motive and intent for our behavior. This is just an extension of that principle into
our prayer life.
As we move to verse 11, Yeshua says that we should ask God for our daily
bread. The Greek word used for bread is artos. It is used similarly to the way the
Jews use the Hebrew word lechem. It has the dual meaning of bread, as in the
baked product consisting of grain, water and yeast, but it also is an expression
simply meaning food in general. Bread was the main dish at almost every meal
for the common people, and so it doubled as meaning the entire meal. I think
some Preachers and Bible commentators work a bit too hard trying to insert very
deep meaning when at least in the P'shat sense the meaning was plain. It is just
as the CJB has it; it is a plea to God to provide food because having sufficient
food each day was by no means a given for the average Jew. If this extends to
anything deeper or broader I see the prayer for food as perhaps representative of
asking God to provide for the basics that all humans need to exist at least above
the level that the beasts of the field live. The need for food, adequate shelter, and
clothing that is suitable for the purpose and the season is a very good reason to
pray.
One of the reasons that I think Yeshua included this plea for food in His prayer
model is that He had deep concerns for the daily needs of people. He was a man
of the people. He truly did "feel their pain". He fed thousands using miraculous
means simply because they were hungry and needed food. He healed thousands
of their illnesses and lameness (also miraculously) because there was almost no
other means for their suffering to be alleviated. So much that He accomplished
on earth was for human physical needs in the here and now, even though much
of it was also for the future. He told His disciples to continue doing the same;
care for the people's physical and spiritual needs. Therefore this lesson from
what Yeshua showed to us should be apprehended simply: it is not wrong to pray
9/13

Lesson 20 - Matthew 6 cont
for our material needs. God knows our needs. In our time it is not wrong to pray
that God might give you a means to have a reliable car; or a sufficient house; or
to get a good job in order to make enough money to have those things. I don't
want to start of list of material things that are proper and improper to pray to the
Lord for because the circumstances are too many and vary far too much; and me
being the judge of it all is far above my pay grade. What I want us all to take from
this is that God does care about our every day human needs on earth, in our
present lives, because these lives, even in these flawed and imperfect fleshly
tents, have value to Him. He made us, He loves us, and He has a purpose for us
today.... in the present; not only at the End of Days and on into eternity.
Starting in verse 12 is Yeshua's instruction to pray for our own forgiveness. This
principle was already well embedded in Jewish religious life. They even prayed
rather standardized synagogue prayers that asked God for forgiveness of their
wrongs. In one of the several so-called Apocryphal books, we find the Book of
Ecclesiasticus (this is NOT the same as the Book of Ecclesiastes) dealing with
forgiveness. This book was written between one and two centuries prior to the
time of Christ. In chapter 28 we read this: "Forgive your neighbor the wrong
he has done, and then your sins will be pardoned when you pray. Does a
man harbor anger against another, and yet seek healing from the Lord?
Does he have no mercy toward a man like himself, and yet pray for his own
sins? If he himself, being flesh, maintains wrath, who will make expiation
for his sins?" Therefore when we read what Yeshua is saying our prayers ought
to look like (and remember, He was speaking to Jews) He is not telling His
audience that they've been doing it wrong, nor is He bringing a novel new way to
think about prayer. He is teaching them old Torah based do's and don'ts. He is
reminding them mostly of things they've already been taught, but perhaps have
been relegated to unimportant or forgotten altogether. At times He is teaching
them about things the Pharisee led synagogues have taught them, but perhaps
their teachings have been a few degrees off the mark and consist far too much of
man-centered behaviors rather than God-centered inner intent and motive.
The CJB version of this verse tries to explain the meaning as the author sees it.
But more literally it reads:
KJV Matthew 6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
Luke has it slightly differently.
10/13

Lesson 20 - Matthew 6 cont
KJV Luke 11:4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is
indebted to us.
Therefore in various denominations some will pray "forgive us our sins" while
others will pray "forgive us our debts". The reality is that in the Hebrew culture of
that era and earlier there was a common connection between sins and debts. It
was that sins brought on a debt owed to God, so sins expressed as debts was
usual and customary. In fact the Lord used the concept of debt in His inspired
words to help us understand His justice system.
CJB Deuteronomy 15:2 Here is how the sh'mittah is to be done: every
creditor is to give up what he has loaned to his fellow member of the
community- he is not to force his neighbor or relative to repay it, because
ADONAl's time of remission has been proclaimed.
This passage is speaking about the every 50 year cycle of Jubilee. It was always
thought by the earliest Hebrew sages that this passage had a dual meaning:
a P'shat and a Remez sense to it. The P'shat is that indeed there is a God␂ordained appointed time for release of debts owed among the Hebrew people.
And God's people are to practice it just as ordained in the Torah. However in
the Remez it is speaking of the debt due to God because of our sins, and there is
a future time when God remits that debt and declares it paid in full. In verse 12
Christ then also presents us with a dual meaning. He is speaking in
the P'shat about the dealings between human beings in the here and now having
a direct effect upon how God deals with us in the here and now. He sets up a
direct quid-pro-quo. It is that since, in the Lord's Prayer, we are asking God to
forgive us for our offenses against Him in proportion to how we forgive our fellow
man for their offenses against us, then the bottom line is that we'll get as we give.
If we forgive our fellow man for offending us, then God will forgive us. If we don't,
He won't. But in the Remez, this is also speaking about the ultimate and once␂for-all forgiveness that comes through Christ's death on the cross. So as
Believers, then is praying for forgiveness a thing of the past? That is, since our
atonement is complete is it almost wrong to pray for forgiveness because it is
denying what Jesus did for us? No it is not.
Despite the claim of any theological doctrine, the biblical reality is that this is the
prayer form that Christ Himself gave to us and He says to pray for forgiveness. It
did not contain a sunset provision. There is no place in Holy Scripture that ever
says to cease praying for forgiveness. It is my opinion that for the Believer to
11 / 13

Lesson 20 - Matthew 6 cont
continue to pray for forgiveness even though we have been forgiven is to keep
reminding ourselves, and confessing to God, that we do continue to offend Him
even after we have our salvation. And in the prayer form that Messiah showed
us, it also reminds us that we are to forgive those who have offended us. The
example that we'll encounter later in Matthew is a wonderful illustration of this
principle.
CJB Matthew 18:21-35 21 Then Kefa came up and said to him, "Rabbi, how
often can my brother sin against me and I have to forgive him? As many as
seven times?" 22 "No, not seven times," answered Yeshua, "but seventy
times seven! 23 Because of this, the Kingdom of Heaven may be compared
with a king who decided to settle accounts with his deputies. 24 Right away
they brought forward a man who owed him many millions; 25 and since he
couldn't pay, his master ordered that he, his wife, his children and all his
possessions be sold to pay the debt. 26 But the servant fell down before
him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' 27 So
out of pity for him, the master let him go and forgave the debt. 28 "But as
that servant was leaving, he came upon one of his fellow servants who
owed him some tiny sum. He grabbed him and began to choke him, crying,
'Pay back what you owe me!' 29 His fellow servant fell before him and
begged, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.' 30 But he refused;
instead, he had him thrown in jail until he should repay the debt. 31 When
the other servants saw what had happened, they were extremely
distressed; and they went and told their master everything that had taken
place. 32 Then the master summoned his servant and said, 'You wicked
servant! I forgave you all that debt just because you begged me to do
it. 33 Shouldn't you have had pity on your fellow servant, just as I had pity
on you?' 34 And in anger his master turned him over to the jailers for
punishment until he paid back everything he owed. 35 This is how my
heavenly Father will treat you, unless you each forgive your brother from
your hearts."
Folks, this parable applies to all of Christ's followers. I do not know exactly how
eternal society will be structured but Yeshua makes it clear in Chapter 5 that
there will be a structure and a hierarchy, because there will be the greater and
the lesser and each will experience eternity somewhat differently even though
they are all saved. There will be various criteria of intent and actual behavior that
will determine where we each fit in that structure, with how little or how much we
show mercy to our fellow man being chief among those criteria.
12/13
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lesson 20 - Matthew 6 cont
We'll finish up the Lord's Prayer and move further into Matthew Chapter 6 next
time.
13/13
.....
.......

Lesson 21 - Matthew 6 cont 2
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 21, chapter 6 Continued 2
As we continue today in the Lord's Prayer, we'll begin at verse 13. Verses 11, 12,
and 13 are sometimes called the "we petitions". This is because of the use of the
plural "us" to begin each of these verses. Give US food forgive US our
wrongs do not lead US into temptation. Clearly the idea is that the Lord's
Prayer is a prayer form meant to show us, as individuals, the important elements
of every petition we make to the Lord. At the same time these 3 verses
demonstrate that we are part of a community. In Christ's day, in the Sermon on
the Mount, this community was the Jewish community; or better, the community
of all Israel.
While Christianity has adopted this prayer as a cornerstone of our faith, the
prayer is entirely Jewish in its structure and its thoughts. Every element of the
prayer consists of old themes and biblical principles; not new ones. Thus it is
ironic (at least to me) that a Church that harbors so much anti-Jewishness buried
in its doctrines and customs uses the Lord's Prayer as the centerpiece of
Christian liturgy; because in fact this prayer couldn't be more Jewish.
Open your Bibles to chapter 6, verse 13
RE-READ MATTHEW CHAPTER 6:13 - end
Nearly all English Bible translations will read closer to the KJV.
KJV Matthew 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil:
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
1 / 13

Lesson 21 - Matthew 6 cont 2
However the CJB has it worded better when it says: "And do not lead us into hard
testing". Perhaps in the Old English the term "temptation" meant something a bit
different than it means to us today. For us "temptation" means to wave something
in front of us that we really desire, but we know we ought to resist. So temptation
could be that divinely luscious Chocolate Mousse Fudge Cake that the waiter
offers at the end of our meal but we know we shouldn't take it. Maybe the
temptation is trying to figure out how to stuff the cost of that sexy new BMW into
our already stretched thin budget... but we probably shouldn't even be thinking
about it! The Greek word is peirasmos and it means a trial, a testing. It is the
equivalent of the Hebrew word nassah. Here is a good example from the Torah
of how we need to understand this word.
CJB Deuteronomy 8:2 You are to remember everything of the way in which
ADONAI led you these forty years in the desert, humbling and testing you
in order to know what was in your heart- whether you would obey his
mitzvot or not.
So in the Lord's Prayer the idea is that the Lord would not lead us into hard
testing in the manner that He did with the Israelites during their exodus from
Egypt. Why? Because hard testing as often as not brings about failure. And that
failure is inevitably sin. In the Talmud tractate Berachah 60b, we read: "Bring me
not into the power of sin, and not into the power of guilt, and not into the power of
temptation (testing), and not in to the power of anything shameful". So this
passage in the Lord's Prayer is expressing a well established Jewish thought
pattern. It is interesting that the Gnostic Christian Clement of Alexandria was
known to pray: "O Lord, put me to the test". Christ says we should hope for the
opposite.
James 1:13 says this about temptation:
CJB James 1:13 No one being tempted should say, "I am being tempted by
God." For God cannot be tempted by evil, and God himself tempts no one.
Here the Greek word that is also being translated to English as tempted or
temptation is peirazo. The Greek Lexicons say that this word means to try
whether a thing can or ought to be done. So indeed it does mean "temptation" as
we moderns think of the word. Thus while God will does lead us into times of
testing, He never leads us into temptations.
2/13

Lesson 21 - Matthew 6 cont 2
Because as I speak to you it is the month of April in the year 2020, the world is
currently in the midst of a pandemic of the Covid-19 virus; no one knows what the
outcome will be. Whether by God or by serendipity, mankind is in the midst of a
trial. While I cannot say that God has necessarily led us here, at the least it is
certainly His will that He has allowed this to happen because it cannot be
otherwise. So, Believers, what is your response to this trial that is about a serious
disease and the financial meltdown that is nearly inescapable? Is your job in
jeopardy? Might you lose your home or apartment as a result? Will you be one of
the hundreds of thousands (that will soon turn into the millions) that will get sick?
We've all witnessed the fear and panic in its various forms that this pandemic has
caused. From empty super market shelves, to people being stranded due to
airlines being shut down. Here is how a Believer is expected to view this
situation: it is to be seen as our time of testing before the Lord.
In this time of testing that is so full of isolation and uncertainty, The Bible tells us
that we are to set our fear aside and trust God because fear and trust are
incompatible.
NKJ 2 Timothy 1:7 For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power
and of love and of a sound mind.
\Ne are not to ignore the current dire situation, nor to pretend that no danger
exists. But fear is not something that comes from God; in fact fear is the gateway
to panic, and panic reveals a lack of trust and faithfulness in the Lord. It is
understandable that pagans who lead most of the world's governments, and
represent most of the world's population are gripped in fear and panic and so
behave the way they do. But a Believer ought not to feel the same or behave the
same. If you do, you need to understand what this testing has revealed about
you; and you must go to the Lord to seek remedy.
The great King David faced daunting tests and wrote many Psalms expressing
what he was feeling at the time.
CJB Psalm 56:4 when I am afraid, I put my trust in you.
NAS Psalm 23:4 Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of
death, I fear no evil; for Thou art with me; Thy rod and Thy staff, they
comfort me.
3/13
..............
.......

Lesson 21 - Matthew 6 cont 2
CJB Psalm 46:1 2 God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present
help in trouble.
As verse 13 in the Lord's Prayer asks, the last thing we ought to do is to seek a
hard testing from the Lord. King David often failed his testing. Israel often failed
their testing. We often fail our testing; sometimes because we don't recognize
that testing for what it actually is. But we don't have to fail. It is not inevitable that
we stumble. As Believers the Holy Spirit is in us. As Yeshua's followers we have
an ever present Helper to guide and assist us through hard trials. But how are we
supposed to know what to do? Simply being saved doesn't inform us as to how
we are to approach a hard trial; only God's Word does that. God makes it
abundantly clear that it all begins with our obedience, faith and submission to
Him because that is what a hard trial in our life is actually testing. Will we be
obedient to Yehoveh's laws and commands or will we follow our old nature and
the debased ways of the world and allow our evil inclinations to rule over us? We
can't be obedient if we don't first know those laws and commands. And without
doubt the most important commands that we must obey in such a time as this is
to love God with all our might, and to love our fellow man as we love ourselves.
It's marvelous how God made us such that in times of testing, if we focus on Him
it provides us with relief and comfort. It's ironic how in times of community or
even national trial that when we concern ourselves over others rather than over
ourselves that our personal level of fear subsides. Believers, now is our time to
shine. These are the times that our behavior and our deeds, not our words,
matter most. The world desperately needs to see this from us. These are the
times that those who don't yet know the Lord can look at us and see God's love
and stability when all else seems chaotic and dark and want Him. Let us
concern ourselves with that rather than stocking our pantries to the fullest before
someone else does. And if we do then we will pass the test and not fail it.
Thomas Paine made a memorable quote that while not in the Bible, certainly
expresses a sentiment based on biblical principles and it is worth repeating and
remembering.
"THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the
sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country;
but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and
woman. Tyranny, like *, is not easily conquered; yet we have this
consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the
4/13

Lesson 21 - Matthew 6 cont 2
triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightiy: it is dearness
only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper
price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an
article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated"
Shall we be summer soldiers and sunshine patriots for God and His Kingdom?
That is, are we only available, loyal and dedicated when times are joyful and
good outcomes are certain? There is no greater tyranny than that of fear and
panic. But when we look to Heaven and to the proper price that God puts upon
the things of this world, then we have a far better platform from which we can
resist the instinct to join the non-Believers in their inward terrors that result in
unwise and ungodly outward reactions.
I realize that some of you may not hear or read these words until long after this
particular trial has passed and the world has returned to normalcy. But I promise
you that this will not be our last trial; there will be more in the future and perhaps
greater than this one. What their exact nature or cause will be, or when they will
occur only the Father knows. But as with any trial or calamity, it is best to be
prepared ahead of time. Prepare of course by being vigilant. But also by drawing
nearer to God, and by sincerely learning His Word so that you can stand upon it
and its truth so that you can know what to do when that time does arrive.
Although I've mentioned it before, many Bible scholars claim that Jesus's words
in His sermon are meant for a future time; the time of the end. When I taught the
book of Daniel I explained that biblically there are not one but two Latter Days.
The first has come and gone as it revolved around Christ's first coming. The
second is future and will revolve around His return. I can't get into the details of it
today but you can go to my teachings in TorahClass.com and research them.
The point is that the Jewish people in Christ's day were certain that they were
already in the End Times. Therefore Christ's words were meant both for His own
time and for the future; it is not a matter of the one or the other. Such is a
common attribute of prophecy.
When verse 13 asks God to "deliver us from evil", we find that the CJB and some
other Bible versions will say "evil one"; that is, it refers to Satan. The Greek word
is poneros. The Lexicons say it means hardships or annoyances. So the sense
of it is not so much of wickedness nor that it is directly attached to Satan. So I
can't agree with the idea that to "deliver us from evil" intends to mean "deliver us
from the Evil One". In fact, in Hebrew and Aramaic literature from that time, the
5/13

Lesson 21 - Matthew 6 cont 2
term "Evil One" is never attached to the person of Satan. It simply was not a
Jewish thought. Rather it is a Church term from later times. Instead I think we
have to consider the context of it's meaning as clearly having to do with the first
part of this verse: "Don't lead us into testing". So the petition to God is that rather
than leading us into a some kind of hard thing to overcome, please deliver us
from it. And what we don't want to be led into is testing and trial. Rather we want
to be delivered from hardships and calamities that are by their very nature what
tests and trials consist of (just as we are currently experiencing). And by the way,
being delivered from something doesn't mean avoiding it altogether. It means to
be rescued from the bad situation you are experiencing, or perhaps being shown
the way through it.
Scholars call the final words of verse 13, which are "For Kingship, power, and
glory are yours forever, amen", a doxology. That is, it is a standard ending to a
worship service or to a prayer or song. And the wording of this is very much
typical of the Synagogue liturgy of Christ's day. So: the Lord's Prayer is indeed
Jewish from the "Our Father" to the "amen".
Let's move on now from the Lord's Prayer to verse 14. What we have here is yet
another quid pro quo. That is, God will respond according to how we behave.
Specifically: if we forgive the offenses of others against us, then in equal
measure He will forgive us for our offenses against Him. For emphasis, and to be
sure the point Yeshua is making is not misconstrued, Yeshua now states the
same again only in the negative. That is, He says, if you do NOT forgive others
for their offenses against you, God will NOT forgive you for your offenses against
Him. Notice how this is connected directly to verse 12 of the Lord's Prayer
("Forgive us for what we have done wrong, as we too have forgiven those who
have wronged us").
Let's talk about forgiveness for a minute because it is a difficult subject to put into
practice. Forgiveness does NOT mean that the earthly, natural, or legal
consequences of our wrong actions get erased. Perhaps one of the best
examples of this I could draw upon comes from a film entitled "O Brother, Where
Art Thou". The setting is the Great Depression of the 1930's. Three
knuckleheads escape from a deep south prison chain gang. At one point in their
attempt to journey back home and to evade the police, one of them hears the
worship songs of a baptism that is taking place just off the road at a rather muddy
river. Although there is a long line of white robbed people waiting their turn, he
races to the front (as if drawn by a magnet) and gets dunked. When he comes up
6/13

Lesson 21 - Matthew 6 cont 2
out of the water he is ecstatic and tells his criminal friends that God has forgiven
him of all his sins, including the Piggly Wiggly market he robbed. The ring leader
of the group expresses doubt and tells him that while God may have forgiven him
it's not likely that the governor of Mississippi sees it quite the same way.
The point is that the kind of forgiveness that humans give to other humans is as
spiritual in nature as the kind that God gives to us. Whether human to human or
God to human forgiveness does not mean that we escape rightful punishments
on earth for our wrong actions (although especially in a family or among friends
that does happen). What it ultimately does mean is that such complete
forgiveness regards our eternal future and status before God. The key principle
that is being invoked is reconciliation. This is because reconciliation between
humans begins with forgiveness, and it mimics the reconciliation between God
and humans that we call salvation.
The next subject Christ speaks about is fasting. His instruction on the matter boils
down to this: what matters to God is our inward humility and not some outward
display intended to gather attention. Once again, Yeshua is not pronouncing a
new way to look at fasting, but rather He is trying to restore what God intended
from times of old. Seven hundred years earlier, God said this through the prophet
Isaiah.
CJB Isaiah 58:1 Shout out loud! Don't hold back! Raise your voice like a
shofar! Proclaim to my people what rebels they are, to the house of Ya'akov
their sins. 2 "Oh yes, they seek me day after day and [claim to] delight in
knowing my ways. As if they were an upright nation that had not
abandoned the rulings of their God, they ask me for just rulings and [claim]
to take pleasure in closeness to God, 3
[asking,] Why should we fast, if you
don't see? Why mortify ourselves, if you don't notice?' "Here is my answer:
when you fast, you go about doing whatever you like, while keeping your
laborers hard at work. 4 Your fasts lead to quarreling and fighting, to
lashing out with violent blows. On a day like today, fasting like yours will
not make your voice heard on high. 5 "Is this the sort of fast I want, a day
when a person mortifies himself? Is the object to hang your head like a
reed and spread sackcloth and ashes under yourself? Is this what you call
a fast, a day that pleases ADONAI? 6 "Here is the sort of fast I want␂releasing those unjustly bound, untying the thongs of the yoke, letting the
oppressed go free, breaking every yoke, 7 sharing your food with the
hungry, taking the homeless poor into your house, clothing the naked
7/13
.....

Lesson 21 - Matthew 6 cont 2
when you see them, fulfilling your duty to your kinsmen!" 8 Then your light
will burst forth like the morning, your new skin will quickly grow over your
wound; your righteousness will precede you, and ADONAI's glory will
follow you. 9 Then you will call, and ADONAI will answer; you will cry, and
he will say, "Here I am." Yeshua says that rather than fasting and going around looking miserable so that
people will think how pious you must be to go through such agony of self␂imposed hunger, fast in private. Don't make a show of it. Fasting in Christ's era
was regularly accompanied with the wearing of sackcloth and throwing ashes
over one's head, obviously meant to have people notice. It was even a rather
scheduled thing. As recorded in Talmudic tract Taanit 27b, private fasting was
ordained to take place on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th days of the week. The other
days it was prohibited. The point of fasting isn't for a public demonstration but
rather it is for an inward expression of repentance that only God can see. Let me
continue with a theme: nowhere do we find Paul dealing with fasting in any of his
Epistles. Fasting was a very Jewish religious element that showed up mainly in
the Holy Land, and far less so among the Diaspora. Christians have merely
borrowed the practice of fasting. Nothing wrong with that... in fact it is what
should be done but unfortunately its practice is usually based on various
denominational doctrines and traditions because to do otherwise would require
delving into the Old Testament and into Judaism. So allow me to once again
make the point: fasting is all about sincere personal repentance. The idea is that
un-confessed and un-repentant sin hinders the communication channel between
us and God. It is NOT that the more we fast and the more we suffer from it the
more we get what we want. That is a self-centered attitude. The former is a God␂centered attitude.
It is classic Jesus that He mentions The Father twice in rapid succession. It is the
Father who ordains, judges, and takes action. It is The Father who sees all and
knows all according to Christ. It is the Father who is to be worshipped and
praised. And certainly while Christ in Heaven, Our Messiah, is to also be glorified
it is only because He is the Father's agent. The demotion of The Father and the
promotion of Yeshua within Christianity has as its basis nothing scriptural at all;
but rather such role swapping is only anti-Semitism and it needs to be
confronted. This in no way is meant to diminish Jesus. But the Father reigns
supreme over Him, and just as the Lord's Prayer says we are to do, Christ says
we are to direct our prayers to The Father. And yet, does that mean that we don't
ever address Our Savior in Heaven? Or more directly: do we pray to Yeshua or
8/13

Lesson 21 - Matthew 6 cont 2
don't we?
We'll take a few minutes with this rather important question because it is far more
than about mere theology. There is simply no getting around that Christ tells His
disciples and everyone at the Sermon on the Mount that when they pray they are
to pray to the Father. And yet, in John 14 we read this:
CJB John 14:10-16 10 Don't you believe that I am united with the Father, and
the Father united with me? What I am telling you, I am not saying on my
own initiative; the Father living in me is doing his own works. 11 Trust me,
that I am united with the Father, and the Father united with me. But if you
can't, then trust because of the works themselves. 12 Yes, indeed! I tell you
that whoever trusts in me will also do the works I do! Indeed, he will do
greater ones, because I am going to the Father. 13 In fact, whatever you ask
for in my name, I will do; so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If
you ask me for something in my name, I will do it. 15 "If you love me, you
will keep my commands; 16 and I will ask the Father, and he will give you
another comforting Counselor like me, the Spirit of Truth, to be with you
forever.
From this passage it might seem that even after the example of the Lord's Prayer
we have choices A and B to pray to: either The Father or Yeshua. And yet the
waters are instantly muddied when Christ says that if you love Him then He
will ask the Father to send the Spirit. Clearly Jesus is saying that of all the things
He does have Heavenly authority over, the sending and directing of the work of
the Holy Spirit is not one of them.
Later in John 16 we read:
CJB John 16:19-28 19 Yeshua knew that they wanted to ask him, so he said
to them, "Are you asking each other what I meant by saying, 'In a little
while, you won't see me; and then, a little while later, you will see
me'? 20 Yes, it's true. I tell you that you will sob and mourn, and the world
will rejoice; you will grieve, but your grief will turn to joy. 21 When a woman
is giving birth, she is in pain; because her time has come. But when the
baby is born, she forgets her suffering out of joy that a child has come into
the world. 22 So you do indeed feel grief now, but I am going to see you
again. Then your hearts will be full of joy, and no one will take your joy
away from you. 23 "When that day comes, you won't ask anything of me!
9/13
......

Lesson 21 - Matthew 6 cont 2
Yes, indeed! I tell you that whatever you ask from the Father, he will give
you in my name. 24 Till now you haven't asked for anything in my name.
Keep asking, and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete. 25 "I
have said these things to you with the help of illustrations; however, a time
is coming when I will no longer speak indirectly but will talk about the
Father in plain language. 26 When that day comes, you will ask in my name.
I am not telling you that I will pray to the Father on your behalf, 27 for the
Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed
that I came from God. 28 "I came from the Father and have come into the
world; again, I am leaving the world and returning to the Father." Here it seems as though Christ is turning things a bit from what He said only 2
chapters earlier. Yeshua spoke earlier of we, His followers, asking Him, but now
He speaks of asking the Father but in Jesus's name. Yeshua knew what He was
saying had to be befuddling. He didn't intend it to be a puzzle; it's only that what
we're dealing with is the very substance of God. Humans have tried all manner of
way to illustrate God's substance. Water is used (it can be solid, fluid or gas). The
egg is used (hard shell, soft white surrounding a yellow yoke). The various Trinity
Doctrines try to explain the inner workings of The Father, The Son, and The Holy
Spirit. It is my opinion that while not wholly adequate, we need to think of God as
a set of identifiable attributes, each with a distinct purpose. Of those attributes
Yeshua, The Son, is God's agent who brings about the Father's will. In another
sense, the Father and The Son are so perfectly unified in will (even so, it is the
Father's will that The Son puts on as His own will) that it seems that under many
circumstances The Son can receive a request from one of His followers and act
because His job (His attribute) is to act on the Father's behalf, but still only within
the Father's will.
I notice that Jesus NEVER says to pray to Him; instead He says to pray to The
Father. What we see is that in place of using the word "pray" Jesus says He
Himself is to be "asked". Is there is a difference between praying to The Father
versus asking Jesus? I think there must be in Jesus's mind, but I'm not sure
exactly what that difference might be. I've said on numerous occasions that all
we humans have at our disposal to communicate with God (and with one
another) and to discern matters of the spiritual world are human words. The only
illustrations of the spiritual world we have that we can use necessarily come from
the physical world. But because the spiritual world is so different from and
superior to the physical world, there is no vocabulary or illustration available
and I don't believe our minds are built to understand it anyway.... to help us grasp
10/13
......
.....


Lesson 21 - Matthew 6 cont 2
how the exact relationship between the Christ and the Father the substance
of God works. So we only have the vaguest idea of it and need to be satisfied
with that for the time being although we yearn for more conclusive answers. But I
caution: such yearning out of curiosity is fine. But if that yearning is more of a
demand for proof otherwise belief is held back or suspended, then what we're
doing is putting God on trial.
Therefore is it wrong to pray to Jesus? No. But as with all that He has been
telling us so far in the Sermon on the Mount, our intent and motive behind our
prayer is the key. If we are praying to Jesus to avoid praying to The Father (who
so many in the institutional Church regard as the God of the Jews and NOT of
gentile Christians, or they see The Father as the obsolete God of the Old
Testament and Jesus the New God of the New Testament) then we have a
problem of motive. However if we pray to Jesus in the sense that He and the
Father are unified in some immutable way that He has plainly said is the case,
something that is beyond our limited human ability to grasp, and that whatever
we pray to Him will either be taken to The Father or that Jesus will act in the
Father's behalf as the Father's agent, then it must be fine to pray to Jesus.
Thus in the same vein, verse 18 ends by Yeshua saying that since you are
praying to The Father, and The Father sees what is done in secret (and secret,
private, is where most personal prayer ought to take place), then it is the Father
that will issue any rewards.
Verse 19 moves on to one of the more challenging subjects especially for
Westerners. The subject is money and the want of it. I will say upfront that the
Prosperity Doctrine is near bizarre and undefendable after reading verses 19-24.
But in a doctrine oriented Christianity, whatever new doctrine that comes around
that pleases and seems to personally benefit the congregation is usually
adopted. It also needs to be said before we begin that even though verses 19-24
speak directly about God and money, verses 24 -35 are connected to the same
subject.
The question at hand is this: What should I do about personal wealth, and how
does that affect my relationships with fellow humans and (more importantly) my
relationship with God?
Thus starting at verse 19 and moving well into chapter 7, we will begin to deal
with what we must call "social issues", with money being the first. The instruction
11 / 13

Lesson 21 - Matthew 6 cont 2
is to not store up personal wealth on earth but rather to store up wealth in
Heaven. Although our CJB says "wealth" most other versions say "treasure" and
I think that is closer to the mark. The Greek word is thesauros and the Greek
Lexicons say it means precious things that are collected and put in a treasury.
One can have wealth and not necessarily consider it treasure or precious. But the
words treasure and precious indicate something's worth and importance. So the
idea is for us to not concentrate the purpose of our lives on laying up material
things that are so very precious to us, but rather to use that time and mental
energy to store up different things that are also precious to us but for different
reasons. So if we are not to focus on acquiring the material things (money being
the prime thing) on earth, then what is the nature of the non-material treasure we
lay up in a spiritual Heaven? If you answer that it can only be spiritual things,
then my question is: what spiritual things? If it is spiritual things then how do we
acquire them? I think the answer comes in the next several verses and basically
it is that the Heavenly treasure amounts to our good deeds and generosity. So it
is not an issue of the tangible (material wealth) versus the intangible (spiritual
wealth). The precious treasure we are to lay up in Heaven begins as something
that is quite tangible. Yeshua also says that laying up precious material things on
earth are destined to have a short life span anyway. Moths are certain to eat fine
and valuable garments, and rust is certain to destroy things made of metal (metal
of all kind was expensive and valuable in Christ's era). But the things we lay up in
Heaven are eternal and nothing can sully them, devalue them, or destroy them.
But again we come back to the question: what are those things? The answer can
be found in Matthew 23:23.
CJB Matthew 23:23 'Woe to you hypocritical Torah-teachers and P'rushim!
You pay your tithes of mint, dill and cumin; but you have neglected the
weightier matters of the Torah- justice, mercy, trust. These are the things
you should have attended to- without neglecting the others!
Mint, dill and cumin were expensive spices. Only the more well to do could give
those things, or perhaps the more pious would sacrifice much in their lives to buy
such things to offer. And yet, as valuable as they are in earthly wealth terms,
Christ says that justice, mercy, and trust are more true treasure to God. The
reality is that justice, mercy and trust are only valuable when put into action.
These God-principles must be encapsulated within our properly motivated good
deeds and not for our own benefit. Nor can justice, mercy and trust exist in our
lives via mere words, philosophies or theories that we intellectually agree with.
Thus one can certainly store up such treasures as those precious and expensive
12/13
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lesson 21 - Matthew 6 cont 2
spices and there is nothing inherently wrong with that; but they have no positive
eternal effect, either. Better that one focus on storing up the rewards that God
gives to us from our behaving and acting with justice, mercy, and trust. So while
on earth justice, mercy and trust indeed must manifest themselves in visible
tangible ways, they also have their ethereal and eternal side as well.
We'll end here and spend considerably more time with the important matter of
God and money when we meet again next week.
13/13

Lesson 22 - Matthew 6 cont 3
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 22, chapter 6 Continued 3
We ended last week by discussing Matthew 6 verse 19. Beginning with this verse
and on into the first part of chapter 7 Yeshua deals with an array of matters that
in modern vocabulary we would probably label as "social issues". And the first
one has to do with money, or better, material wealth and how that may affect our
relationship with God.
Before we go any further let's re-read a few verses. Open your Bibles to Matthew
chapter 6.
RE-READ MATTHEW CHAPTER 6:19 - 24
Because Yeshua is dealing with social matters we need to keep our
understanding of them in the context of what this meant to 1st century Jewish
society. The good news is that the general principles He is teaching are easily
transferred across time and culture and can be applied anywhere and anytime.
The first instruction speaks of how a follower of Christ ought to approach the
matter of wealth accumulation and how to use it.
It is important to note that nowhere does Yeshua condemn wealth. Instead the
issues are 1) how much of our life should we focus on building up material
wealth, and 2) what we are to do with what we acquire. Therefore the command
is not that we should renounce material possessions. Rather it is more the
"treasure" that we should approach with a healthy suspicion. Treasure means the
accumulation of that which is most valuable to us; not the mere the mere
possession of things, many of which are necessarily and reasonable for living a
civilized life. Picture the mythical Midas laying upon, and luxuriating in, his pile of
1 / 13
.....

Lesson 22 - Matthew 6 cont 3
gold. His life was entirely focused on the accumulation of money simply for the
sake of having it and glorying in it.
Many years ago when I was operating in the corporate world I knew a few folks
who had made, and were making, considerable money through owning Hi Tech
companies and/or through running them. One of them was a close friend and one
day we were talking about wealth and the purpose for working so hard to get it.
He said that as for himself, the wealth he was accumulating was his score card. It
was his score card that measured his success not only in achieving his personal
goals but also it measured his success relative to others. Indeed, for him wealth
accumulation required a score card. I think this is a pretty good example of what
Jesus is talking about as precisely NOT the way His followers are to approach
the issue of material wealth. Our wealth should never be the score card of our
life. Rather, we are to focus our efforts, and to measure the success of our
earthly life, on how much wealth we accumulate in Heaven.
We discussed storing up wealth (or better, treasure) in Heaven last time however
I want to briefly remind you what was said because I think it is important for all
Believers to gain such a mindset in a real, tangible way so that we can actually
know when we're doing it or not doing it. The question then is: how, exactly,
does one store up our treasure in Heaven? The ancient Jews often equated
Heaven with a Treasury, and called the treasures stored there "the treasures of
life". Obviously since Heaven is a spiritual and eternal place, the ancient Jews
couldn't, and we can't, store material treasure there. Gold, silver, precious jewels,
barns full of produce, herds of animals, fine clothing, and more cannot be present
in Heaven because it is a spiritual place and not a physical one. So what are
Heavenly treasures and how do we accumulate them while we're alive and on
earth? Matthew 23:23 provides the answer. It is our righteous deeds during our
lifetime that produce Heavenly treasure. By God's definition and viewpoint that
righteous treasure consists of our acts of mercy, justice, and trust (trust meaning
sincere faith in God). Mercy, justice and trust are to be more than fine ideas that
form a moral philosophy of life. These are not only to be our motivating force and
intent in all that we do (our inward qualities); but rather we are also to physically
and tangibly act out these ideas, motives and intents through our works and
deeds (our outward behavior). The poorest humans having the least material
wealth can think in terms of, and do deeds of, mercy, justice and trust. So even in
our acquisition of material wealth, it can and must be done within the bounds of
mercy, justice and trust. Fair play in our business dealings whether with our
neighbors, clients or our customers must be a constant. Showing compassion to
2/13

Lesson 22 - Matthew 6 cont 3
those whom we may be in a position to take advantage of due to our situation or
status must always be considered. Paying a fair wage even though we might be
able to hire someone who is desperate for income for much less than we
otherwise might, displays the proper motivation for acquisition of Heavenly
wealth. These are just a few everyday examples of our operating in mercy,
justice, and trust. Thus ironically, Heavenly treasure consists of our physical
actions on earth, which are of a type that produce spiritual treasure in Heaven as
a byproduct.
And the really great news is, says Christ, that while the material treasure that one
accumulates on earth is not bad or wrong, it is inevitably subject to rot, loss or
destruction; but the Heavenly treasure we store up is safe and secure and it
stores without deterioration or loss of value for an eternity. Next Jesus gives us
the bottom line of what the purpose is behind this wealth principle. Verse 20
says: "For where your wealth is, there your heart will be also". Recall that in
that era the heart organ was believed to be where the mind operated. The heart
was thought to be the place of rational thinking, and also where our human will
resided. Thus a better way to state this verse in modern English terms is, "For
where your wealth is, there your mind will be also". So Yeshua's statement is not
an issue of where our emotional focus is; it is an issue of where our thinking, the
passion of our will, and our intellectual focus lies. Yeshua makes it somewhat of
a zero sum game. All of us have only so much mental energy and time to give
and use. So which ever path we choose automatically means that for every
measure of time and energy the one endeavor receives, the other gets an equal
amount LESS of our time and energy. It's like a teeter-totter. If one end is up, the
other must be down.
Verse 22 sounds as though Christ is opening up another issue, but in fact what
He says has everything to do with what we just discussed: money and wealth. It
begins with the famous words: "The eye is the lamp of the body". Some call this
and what follows a parable. Maybe from the modern definition of a parable it is,
but it was not from the 1st century Jewish standpoint. And as we get to Yeshua's
first parable as listed in Matthew, we'll get deeply into what a parable is, its
intended use, and how we need to understand biblical parables in our time.
This statement that "the eye is the lamp of the body" deserves a great deal of our
attention because the way it is nearly universally taught in Christendom has
nothing to do with what it meant to the people Yeshua was talking to. The way it
is taught from most pulpits is that the meaning is that the eye acts as a portal, a
3/13

Lesson 22 - Matthew 6 cont 3
gateway, a channel that guides what we see.... that is the light comes from an
external source and then into the body... and into the brain. Why do we think
that? Because in fact, from a medical standpoint, it is true. The eye is an amazing
organ that takes light that enters into it in the form of shapes and hues and
textures and various intensities and converts that light into millions of miniscule
electrical impulses, which are then sent along the optical nerve into the Thalamus
and from there it is distributed into the special parts and lobes of our brain that
were designed to process those signals and turn them into meaning. So it is kind
of like a cable goes between the eye that operates like a camera and then
connects it to the brain that operates like a TV. Yet the eye (our camera) can only
process what is taken in from the outside world; it can't create its own images.
However the ancient world knew nothing of this biological process. They didn't
know what the brain did. They didn't know how eyes functioned. Generally
speaking such scientific knowledge, even in its most primitive understanding,
wasn't known until around 1500 A.D.
So then what did that statement about the eye being the lamp of the body mean
to those Jews sitting before Yeshua in the hills above the Sea of Galilee who
didn't think of it the way we do? Because whatever it meant to them is exactly
how Christ intended it to mean to everyone is all eras, including to us, today. I'll
say up front that because ancient Jewish expressions and their meanings are so
distant and unknown within modern Western culture that what I'm about to
explain to you will sound a bit complicated. First know that the statement of "the
eye is the lamp of the body" isn't found in the Old Testament (which was the
Bible of the Jews in Yeshua's time) and so it was apparently only a well known
expression at least within Jewish society. Rather it is that in that day the eye was
regularly compared with a lamp, in a sense that a lamp produces its own light.
Thus part of that ancient idea is that (unlike how we might think of it) the eye
doesn't take in light, it produces light. We find this same concept in the Old
Testament and in other ancient Jewish manuscripts.
CJB Daniel 10:6 His body was like beryl, his face looked like lightning and
his eyes like fiery torches;
The Apostle John used the same description about the eye in His Apocalypse.
CJB Revelation 1:14 His head and hair were as white as snow-white wool,
his eyes like a fiery flame,
4/13

Lesson 22 - Matthew 6 cont 3
Here's how we should think about this. Does a lamp give off light, or does it take
in light? Of course; it gives off light. But it doesn't always. A lamp is a device then
when it has fuel in it and when the wick that becomes soaked with that fuel is lit,
then it emits light. However that light can be extinguished and so the lamp goes
dark.... even though the lamp itself continues to exist. So in Jesus's sermon what
is it that He says determines the status of that lamp ("the eye is the lamp of the
body")? That is, does the lamp create light in the eye, or does the lamp NOT
produce light and thus the lamp remains dark? That is the subject of the last half
of verse 22 and all of verse 23.
The last half of verse 22 says: "So if you have a good eye your whole body will
be full of light". In Jewish expression a "good eye" meant to be generous with
your money or material things. On the other hand, as it says in verse 24, "but if
you have an evil eye, your whole body will be full of darkness". An evil eye meant
to be stingy with your money or material things. Thus from the ancient Jewish
perspective it is that the eye operates as a lamp in the sense of it being an
indicator of the inner moral condition of the person. When the lamp of the eye is
lit and emitting light, it indicates a generous person. A generous person in God's
economy displays mercy, justice and trust. But when the lamp of the eye is dark
(not lit) and so it is NOT emitting light, then it indicates a stingy person and this
stinginess indicates an immoral lack of mercy, justice, and trust. Thus verses 22
and 23 together form a word play that integrates two well known Jewish
expressions into one profound thought. Let me be clear: the eye and the lamp
are used as metaphors. That is, there is no suggestion that one can peer into
another person's eye and see an actual light from a lamp or on the other hand
see that there is no light coming from a darkened lamp. Nor can one person look
into another person's literal eye and judge from its appearance whether that
person is generous or stingy.
Professors Davies and Allison liken Christ's statement to a riddle that can be
understood on two levels. I entirely agree with that claim ; however I would label
those two levels as the P'shat (the simplest sense) and the Remez, a hint at
something deeper. The P'shat sense of it is this: "the eye is the lamp of the
body" was a kind of common Jewish proverb. If one's eye is good (to a Jew that
meant they were generous), then it indicates that this person is operating in the
proper spirit of life on earth by loving their fellow man as they love themselves
and demonstrating that by sharing their wealth and treasures with others. But if
one's eye is evil (to a Jew that meant they were stingy), then it indicates that this
person is NOT operating in the proper spirit of life on earth and they do NOT love
5/13

Lesson 22 - Matthew 6 cont 3
their fellow man as they love themselves, as demonstrated by NOT sharing their
wealth and treasures with others. Obviously Christ is saying to be generous with
whatever material wealth you have.
But in the Remez sense of it, it is speaking of a higher spiritual truth. It is that a
person with a good eye not only is operating within the moral standard of loving
one's fellow man as much they love themselves, but is also operating in a
righteous manner that pleases God and so it matters greatly in the spiritual
eternity that comes after we die. It will have a definite role in determining our
place within the societal structure of God's eternal Kingdom. Conversely; a
person with an evil eye not only is operating immorally and is not carrying out
God's Torah commandment of loving one's fellow man as much as they love
themselves by refusing to share their wealth and treasure with others, but they
are also jeopardizing and lowering their place within the societal structure of
God's eternal Kingdom. So our generosity or stinginess with whatever little or
much wealth we accumulate on earth will be a prime determining factor (among
other things) in our status in our spiritual eternity.
In verse 24 Christ sort of sums up what His teaching on money, treasure, and
material wealth means. In another of His most famous sayings He says:
CJB Matthew 6:24 No one can be slave to two masters; for he will either hate
the first and love the second, or scorn the second and be loyal to the first.
You can't be a slave to both God and money.
Or as we more commonly hear it (as in the King James Version):
KJV Matthew 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the
one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the
other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Before we can discuss this passage, we need to make a decision concerning the
final word of verse 24, which is "money" in the CJB and "mammon" in the KJV.
The reason we need to contemplate this is that most Christians consider the
word "money" to be generally a neutral term (it is neither good nor evil), but the
word "mammon" to be a decidedly negative term (it is evil). The Greek word that
is being translated is mammonas. This word was borrowed from an Aramaic
word mamon that meant wealth, but more in the sense of meaning profit. Early
Latin borrowed the word from the Greek and pronounced it as mammona, which
6/13

Lesson 22 - Matthew 6 cont 3
simply meant wealth. It was used this way in the Latin Vulgate Bible, which was
based on the works by the Early Church Father Jerome late in the 4th century. It
is at this point that within the early gentile Church the term seems to have taken
on a negative, even evil, sense. Up to that time the word was a rather neutral and
generic term that meant money, or wealth, or the profit made from business
dealings with no stigma as to its rightness or wrongness.
So right at the start of the 5th century we find that within the Christian Church the
Latin mammona (later borrowed by the English language and made into the term
mammon) morphed into something that is bad and is to be avoided. But in
Christ's era and for a few centuries afterward, it indicated nothing bad at all. It
was just a word that meant money or wealth in all its forms and amounts. What
does that mean for us? First it means we have to adjust our thinking. Therefore
the CJB version that uses the term "money" is better than those versions that
translate the word as "mammon". Although in the end, the idea from Christ's day
is closer to meaning material wealth in whatever form, provided we understand
that even the term wealth doesn't always mean rich. It means the value of an
object or a labor. The main point being that Yeshua was not at all indicating that
material things or even abundant material wealth was bad.
In Luke 16, the same statement was recorded with exactly the same words. So
we can take Yeshua's statement about God and wealth as authentic and not
reworded at some point in history. Let us remember that the context for this
instruction of Jesus began at verse 19, and so it is all part of His lesson about
how a follower of His ought to view money, especially if it is "treasure". So far He
has fashioned His lesson on the matter about how we are treat it in view of our
relationship with other humans. Now in verse 24 He switches to how we are treat
money in view of our relationship with God. Thus He frames money and God as
the two possible masters of our life, and says we must choose between them. So
considering what He has said in the previous couple of verses it comes down to
this: those who are generous on earth are also storing up treasures in Heaven
and thus is evidence that they have chosen God as their master. Those who are
stingy on earth are only storing up treasures on earth, and none in Heaven, and
thus have chosen money and wealth as their master.
Just as in the previous chapter (chapter 5) in verses 17-19 when Yeshua is
making a statement in which He is anticipating objections or accusations (at least
from some in the crowd) about what He is soon going to say, here in Matthew
6:24 He seems to also anticipate some push back. Since He is saying it is
7/13
.....

Lesson 22 - Matthew 6 cont 3
impossible to serve two masters, He knows that some will say: "Sure you can!" I
can work hard with all my time and focus to gather wealth at the same time I'm
working hard to follow God. In modern colloquial terms: hey, I can walk and chew
gum at the same time! But Yeshua says that because of human nature, we only
have the human capacity to love the one master and hate the other. Let me
remind you that in the Bible love and hate really aren't quite like we think of those
terms in the 21st century. Love and hate to us express the extremes of our
emotions. But in Yeshua's day to love and hate were what we can justifiably call
"political terms". That is, to love your master (your king or your governor or even
the person to whom you were in servitude, for example) means to give them your
sincere loyalty. To hate your master means to be disloyal to them. So it is my
opinion that in modern times in modern English, the better way to say what Christ
was getting at is: "You cannot be a slave to two masters: for you will be loyal to
the one and disloyal to the other " Thus for the person who believes that they
can focus day and night upon wealth building, basing nearly every decision they
make around that goal; but at the same time claim they are all in for serving God,
it cannot be so even if they want it to be so. Christianity sometimes calls this
straddling the fence; one foot in the world of acquiring material wealth, the other
foot in the world of serving God.
Again: this is not Yeshua speaking against material gain. It is that it must always
be secondary to our focus and relationship with God. Yeshua not only means that
we cannot serve two masters well; it is that it is impossible to serve two masters
the way a master must be served. Frankly such a notion of serving two masters
is almost an oxymoron. If one is your master, then by definition you cannot have
a second one or NEITHER is your master. Instead YOU are trying to be master
of all. Today, in the prosperous West, it is not easy to figure out how to balance
money and wealth acquisition with serving God. We tend to go to extremes.
Some people decide that having more than their basic needs met is wrong and
not Godly and so look at those who have wealth as automatically godless and
wicked. Others think that if you profess Christianity that God automatically wants
you to be abundantly wealthy. The wrong-minded Prosperity Doctrine came from
this mindset. It really revolves around the idea of the existence of a divine score
card. That is, as a Christian the more material wealth you accumulate indicates a
greater faith in God, and so this wealth can be seen as your visible reward from
God for your faithfulness. The reality is that this is just a way to spin this passage
so that we can violate its underlying principle: you can't have it both ways. From
God's perspective you can't give all your loyalty to both the accumulation of
wealth and service to Him. Choose.
8/13

Lesson 22 - Matthew 6 cont 3
This is a good time to make brief mention about what a modern Believer ought to
do with the wealth we have accumulated, however little or large. The top of the
list always is: give. Give. Be merciful. Be obedient. But ultimately, be generous
both in mind and in behavior. Giving grudgingly or even mechanically is worth
less than not giving at all, because motive and intent is what the Lord is looking
for above all else. Having the motive and intent but never quite getting around to
doing what you know you should do is just as wrong. There are people all around
us that need help, and ministries that you are no doubt associated with that need
to be funded in order to carry out the commission they've been given. Holding
back when you could give, and should give, is (according to Christ) to your
personal eternal detriment. Enough said.
So I want to move on to verse 25 but I want to leave you with this thought about
wealth and our relationship with the Lord. First, we do NOT find Christ developing
new rules about wealth. Yeshua Himself regularly relied on the hospitality of
others in His own ministry. In fact, for doing so He was one time called a glutton
and another a drunkard!
CJB Luke 7:34 The Son of Man has come eating and drinking; and you say,
'Aha! A glutton and a drunkard! A friend of tax-collectors and sinners!'
Second, Christ doesn't even cry out against the current economic system of His
day that had created so few rich and so many poor. That's because the issue is
not wealth itself; for Him the issue is its proper use. Because wealth and money
is such a huge part of life for all of us, but especially for Westerners, I want to
quote something Martin Hengel said that well captures the essence of Yeshua's
position on the matter.
"Jesus was not interested in any new theories about the rightness and
wrongness of possessions in themselves, (or) about the origin of property
or its better distribution. Rather He adopted the same scandalously free
and untrammeled attitude to property as to the powers of the state; the
alien Roman rule and its Jewish confederates. The imminence of the
Kingdom of God robs all these things of their power....."
In other words, as with everything that Jesus has so far instructed in His Sermon
on the Mount, there is nothing new here. Rather He is stating all the old tried and
true laws, regulations, and common virtues known for centuries in Hebrew
society, but now they are to be thought of, and acted upon, within the new reality
9/13
.....
.....

Lesson 22 - Matthew 6 cont 3
of the sudden arrival of the Kingdom of God. We, too, must look at all things in
the Bible and all things in our lives, in light of the ever expanding reality of the
Kingdom of God that is here....now including the certainty of the end of all
things and the soon return to earth of the Kingdom's ruler: Yeshua. The Son of
God. What does our wealth mean, and what ought to be its purpose, when we
have that knowledge and we think of it that way? Let's read a little more in
Matthew 6.
RE-READ MATTHEW CHAPTER 6:25 - end
Verse 25 begins with what we could rightly call a Proverb of Yeshua. It is:
"Therefore, I tell you, don't worry about your life " Words like this impress and
imprint on the lives of some, but fly over the heads of others. For whatever
reason, the Apostle Peter took them to heart.
CJB 1 Peter 5:7 Throw all your anxieties upon him, because he cares about
you.
The idea of trusting God for all the provisions of life was well embedded in
ancient Hebrew society. I spoke earlier that more than once in His sermon
Yeshua expected there to be murmurings and objections to the some of the
things He said. Thus beginning in verse 25 Christ answers the question that so
many in the large crowd would have inwardly thought or expressed out loud. In
fact, if you've been paying attention, maybe some of you are asking this question
right now. So if I'm to spend all my time and energy serving God, then how am I
supposed to provide for me and for my family? Can I really ever be completely
indifferent to the need and want of money and material things, even including
such basics as food and clothing?
I mentioned at the beginning of Matthew's Gospel that he sees Yeshua as a sort
of 2nd Moses, and in many ways Christ is re-living the life of Moses. Thus as we
read those final verses of chapter 6 we don't find Yeshua solving the rhetorical
riddle I just asked. Rather, like Moses as the people gathered in Egypt for the
Wilderness Journey, and he doesn't tell the people how they'll be provided for all
during that time of their journey, neither does Yeshua provide all the answers as
to how we can serve God with all of our focus and loyalty, and at the same time
acquire the provisions we are bound to need to sustain life. Rather both Moses
and Jesus simply say: follow me. Then the people either believe and trust, or
they don't.
10/13

Lesson 22 - Matthew 6 cont 3
When Yeshua compares the value of life to eat and drink, and the body to
clothing, and the need of food to the toil of planting and harvesting, He in no way
is suggesting that we all ought to become lazy or in some kind of warped sense
of being provided for just lay around and wait for God to supernaturally feed,
house and clothe us. Rather Christ is acknowledging that nothing is more human
than to worry about money. I've known a few rich people who just might worry
more about money than people who have little. So this is proof in itself that
harboring anxiety about these things doesn't move us one inch closer to solving
the problem of worry in our lives. Only faith in the Lord can be the balm that
soothes and calms. So what I'm saying is that this question falls in line with the
choice we were given about choosing our master whether it be money or God.
The choice is: shall we let worry and anxiety be our master, or shall we let our
faith in God be the ruler of our thoughts? As with money and God, there is no
halfway, one foot in and one foot out approach that is workable. Choose:
personal anxieties about our needs, or faith in God.
Let's understand: having food, clothing, and something to drink are generally a
given to most of Western society in our time (of course acknowledging that there
are those who fall outside that generality). But in Christ's day it was these things
that were the greatest every day sources of worry and anxiety for Jews. Today
we worry a lot about what disease we might catch. About the value of stocks and
our 401K. Whether we'll get a good raise at work or if the cost of Health
insurance will become unaffordable for us. These are all things that to us seem
reasonable to be concerned about. So the underlying subject of these final
verses of chapter 6 are not really so much about food, drink and clothing; rather
they are about faith in God as the antidote for worry. Every era, and every
person, has various legitimate things that we could be anxious about. But in
every era trusting God is our best hope for inner peace no matter what
circumstance might arise.
Notice how Christ uses examples from nature to make His point. The idea of
comprehending great spiritual truths from observing physical, natural creatures is
found all throughout the Bible. C.H. Dodd puts it this way:
"(Jesus) held the conviction that there is no mere analogy, but (rather) an
inward affinity, between the natural order and the spiritual order. Or as we
might put it in the language of the Parables themselves, the Kingdom of
God is intrinsically like the process of nature. Since nature and super␂nature are one order, you can take part of that order and find illumination
11 / 13

Lesson 22 - Matthew 6 cont 3
for the other parts".
That is, the natural kingdom and the spiritual kingdom aren't so much similar as
they are actually cut from the same cloth because they are equally produced and
watched carefully over by the same loving Creator. So Yeshua's use of birds and
plants (flowers) to compare to human life and our needs aren't far fetched or
mere rhetoric. One explains the other.
But there is one thing that isn't the same: the value of birds and plants versus the
value of human life. Here Yeshua uses standard Jewish (even Rabbinic) logic
and argument. He uses the principle of Kai V'chomer. The principle of light
versus heavy. This principle is used in philosophy to compare items A and B
under certain circumstances. So if A is true, then B must be so much more. In
this case, since God has so much concern for humanity that He has sent His Son
to die for us, won't He then give to us what we need in such greater proportion
than He does to care for birds and plants? The answer to a Kai
V'chomer question lies within the structure of the question itself. And the answer
to Christ's question is: of course God will give more care to humans made in His
image than to birds and plants who are already wonderfully cared for.
At the end of verse 27 Yeshua follows up that question with yet another. "Can
any of you, by worrying, add a single hour to his life?" Let me say this in another
way: Worrying is foolish and accomplishes nothing. Not only does it not add to
your longevity, it takes away from it. So why do it? Worrying is the epitome of
doing something inherently unproductive or even destructive. So the obvious
answer to His question is: "no". Does any human being, Jew or gentile, believe
that worrying helps matters? Or that anxiety is the key to a long life span? So if
we inherently know the answer to that, why do we keep doing it; seemingly
helpless to stop it? The answer is at the end of verse 30: "What little trust you
have". Ouch! Two verses later Jesus says that having little trust, which brings on
great anxiety, is what pagans experience because they set their hearts on "all
these things". What things? Literally food, clothing, and drink. But these items are
merely representative of the all the material needs humans have or desire. And
pagans experience worry, says Yeshua, because this is what they set their
hearts on. In other words, money and material possessions is inherently the
master of pagans, and the result is the never fully satisfied want of them. But, if
God is our master, then as verse 33 says: "Seek first His Kingdom and His
righteousness, and all these things (our material needs) will be given to you."
12/13
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lesson 22 - Matthew 6 cont 3
Believers seem to readily notice the part where it says to seek His Kingdom. But
often the "and His righteousness" part seems to sail by unnoticed. Remember
what we have learned in the past: God's righteousness is His will to save. So
seeking His righteousness means to seek Salvation. His Kingdom and His
Salvation are organically connected. His Kingdom is the realm of the saved, and
only of the saved. And the only channel to salvation lies in God's Son, Yeshua.
So once again, we see Christ NOT saying: seek only God and have no interest in
acquiring provisions for you and your family. Rather this is yet another statement
about priorities. We need God's salvation and we also need sustenance and
provision. But FIRST and with the most energy, and above all else, we need to
seek God's Kingdom and the salvation He offers.
Thus, since worry is always about our physical, material and earthly wants and
needs (which are always to be secondary to our spiritual relationship with God),
then stop worrying about these things and especially about the future. You can't
control, amend, or stop the future. This doesn't mean not to plan or to be
indifferent to your obvious needs. This is talking about fruitless anxiety;
obsessing and fretting about things as opposed to planning a way to improve
your circumstances in concert with fullest trust in God as your master. Because
whatever God wills, ordains, or allows is inevitable.
We'll begin chapter 7 next time.
13/13


Lesson 23 - Matthew 7
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 23, chapter 7
We have now completed 2 of the 3 chapters that Matthew devoted to Yeshua's
Sermon on the Mount. Every now and then it is probably profitable to remind you
that Matthew did not write in chapters; ending one and beginning another. Rather
this was a literary invention that would come more than a millennia later in the
world of Church academics. The intent of adding chapters (and verses) was to
make study of the Bible easier and sections of the Bible more convenient to
universally identify and thus to communicate about them among ourselves more
efficient. Nonetheless, such artificial boundaries that chapters establish must be
taken lightly in Scripture study because they can interrupt a long flowing thought
process, at times dividing it in half, even making the same long thought appear to
be two separate ones occurring as separate instances when they aren't.
The concept of chapters didn't enter into writing until the 4th century; long after
the biblical canon, Old and New Testaments, were established. And even then, it
was only sparingly used of novels and some narratives. Thus we have to be
careful when applying the same Western literary concept of a chapter that tries to
find logical beginnings and endings to episodes in a story, to the Bible. Modern
literature is always written around the structure of chapters. The Bible, however,
was not constructed that way because the concept of chapters didn't even exist
within Jewish literature at that time. So going by chapters can, when studying
God's Word, at times mislead more than help. Such is the case as we study the
Sermon on the Mount in Matthew; the words of chapters 5, 6, and 7 were one
long continuous flow of divine thought without interruption. Thus as a mental
exercise, as we read the opening words of chapter 7 we should read them as
merely a continuation of the final words of chapter 6.
1 / 12

Lesson 23 - Matthew 7
Before we read chapter 7, let's do a Reader's Digest summation of what we've
found so far in the Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon was aimed at the Jewish
people that formed the bulk of all who were present in the hills above the Sea of
Galilee. And since the population of the Jewish nation was no more monolithic
than any other people, but rather consisted of groups that held to common beliefs
but were also naturally segregated by occupation, education and wealth, Yeshua
recognizes and acknowledges individual swaths of various Jewish groups when
He offers what Christendom calls the Beatitudes (blessings) to open His speech.
Nearly immediately afterward He pauses to frame exactly what His speech is
going to entail. It is going to be an instruction on the Torah. And because nearly
all the people sitting before him were more educated in Synagogue Traditions
than they were in actual biblical Torah, then He knew that there would be some
who might push back on what He was going to say and perhaps accuse Him of
teaching wrongly. Teaching wrongly meant that what He would say might not
always match with what they had heard the Scribes and Pharisees teach in their
local synagogue. Therefore He made it abundantly clear that despite what they
might at times think He was saying, in fact nothing He would say would add to,
subtract from, or change even the tiniest element or principle of the Torah or
anything recorded in the entire Hebrew Bible (although it certainly would
challenge some of the Traditions). He went so far as to say that anyone
(obviously including Himself) who taught against the Law and the Prophets, or
disobeyed those laws and commandments, would be considered least in the
Kingdom of Heaven. Alternatively, anyone who properly taught and obeyed the
Law and the Prophets would be considered greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Let's stop and think about that for a minute. Why did Christ invoke the idea of the
Kingdom of Heaven, and even more where one would fit within the Kingdom
societal structure based on obedience to the Torah? It is because upon John the
Baptist beginning His ministry of making a road in the wilderness for the Lord, the
Kingdom of Heaven made its first appearance on earth.
In the Hebrew Bible (the Tanach, the Old Testament) the words "the Kingdom of
Heaven" are not found. There is one mention in 2nd Chronicles 13 about the
kingdom of the Lord (literally the kingdom of Yehoveh), but it is a general term
and cannot be compared to Christ's mention of the Kingdom of Heaven (or its
synonym the Kingdom of God) as a real and actual entity unto itself. Yeshua
speaking about the Kingdom of Heaven was a new revelation. This is why so
many of His parables were about trying to explain to people (especially to His
Disciples) what the Kingdom of Heaven was and how it operated and how it
2/12
.....


Lesson 23 - Matthew 7
pertained to them.
Believers, please pay close attention. The Kingdom of Heaven descended from
Heaven and began its existence on earth during Yeshua's lifetime, having never
existed on earth before. And as a result everything about the Law and the
Prophets had to now be understood within this new reality of the Kingdom of
Heaven having arrived. This meant that the simple literal sense of obedience to
every Torah commandment, law and principle now incorporated an even higher
spiritual sense and manifestation to it that included not only the here and now but
the future time when the end of all things would arrive. Thus it is not that the
higher spiritual sense that Yeshua regularly spoke about replaced the simpler
literal sense of the Torah; it is that both were now in play. Thus Christ's strong
instruction that just because He was about to introduce the Jewish people to that
higher spiritual sense that went hand in glove with the recent arrival of the
Kingdom of Heaven on earth, in no way meant that the people now had license to
ignore or disobey the Law of Moses or that the Law itself had changed. What
we read in later chapters of Matthew, and even later in the Epistles, tells us that
some Jews (a relative few) got the message; and others didn't. We shouldn't be
surprised; the Church is still struggling to properly understand Jesus's message
in light of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth.
After that He went on to deal with a number of Torah commandments which,
because of the arrival of the Kingdom on earth, followers of His ought to obey
even more strictly, and in another higher and better way than their fathers before
them did. That is, the essence of what Christ instructed is very nearly the
opposite of the common doctrine taught within institutional Christianity that says
that Christ came to make the Law much easier upon His followers (some going
so far as to claim He abolished the Law and the principles and commands of the
entire Hebrew Bible). So Yeshua gives some examples of what He's talking
about. For instance: murdering your brother is a capital offense under the Law
and so must not be done; everyone knows that and most people will never
murder anyway. But now, upon the arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven, even being
angry with one's brother is considered as a very severe offense akin to murder.
This is because murder happens when anger occurs first. So I ask you: which is
easier? To avoid murder, or to avoid anger? That's a rhetorical question because
we all know that not being angry is much more difficult. Next Christ speaks about
adultery and says that the Law commands that a married man or woman is not to
have sexual intimacy outside the bonds of their marriage. Yet He says that now,
upon the arrival of the Kingdom, a man even looking in lust upon a woman is just
3/12
.....

.....

Lesson 23 - Matthew 7
as serious as the actual act of adultery. Men: which is easier? To avoid adultery,
or to not even look at another woman lustfully? Other examples are given, but
you get the idea.
He sums up this portion of His teaching by saying that the point of it all is:
CJB Matthew 5:48 Therefore, be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is
perfect.
Perfection, says Yeshua, while of course involving our behavior (following the
do's and don'ts of the Law), is more reflected by our deepest inner thoughts.
Thus perfection here meaning our moral perfection.... is the goal for Believers.
If we don't get angry with our brother (a moral failure says Christ) we surely
wouldn't murder him. If married men don't look lustfully at other women (another
moral failure) then we won't be tempted to commit adultery.
As Yeshua continues into what Bibles label as chapter 6, He expands the
concept of moral perfection by addressing two regular activities of Jews: giving
alms to the poor and prayer. Clearly neither of these things, on the surface,
involve disobedience to the Law. That is, Jesus doesn't admonish the people that
don't sufficiently give alms or don't pray enough; rather giving charitably and
praying was a given among Jewish society. Instead the issue is about proper
intent. That is, the inner moral condition and motive of the worshipper was the
point. And if giving and prayer are accomplished with the proper moral intent,
then drawing attention to one's self in the doing is the last thing we would ever
think to do. So if people make a public show of giving or praying, then it is
evidence that they are not giving and not praying with proper inner moral
conviction.
Once again in light of the arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, Christ says
here is how we ought to pray and He proceeds with what the Church calls The
Lord's Prayer. In it Christ shows us the elements that prayer should contain but
also the humility and moral attitude with which prayer ought to be made. Every
prayer should be addressed to The Father, should glorify The Father, and we
should acknowledge that because He is the Creator and because His will is
always done in Heaven, then His will also needs to be carried out on earth
(especially because the Kingdom of Heaven has now extended its range to
include earth.... or better, earthlings people). Yeshua goes on to show us that
we should ask The Father to provide for our physical and spiritual needs, and to
4/12
.....

Lesson 23 - Matthew 7
be merciful and forgiving to us. At the same time our prayers should demonstrate
that we acknowledge our obligation to be merciful and forgiving to our fellow
humans, and that we have no right to expect such compassion from The Father if
we insist on holding back our compassion toward others.
After showing us how to pray Yeshua gives us some other do's and don'ts about
common activities within Jewish society such as fasting because fasting was
often associated with prayer. His next subject has been central to humankind
since the Garden of Eden: accumulating wealth. Or in modern thought: making
money. The subject is large and many faceted, so Yeshua addresses it from a
number of angles. The first angle is how we are to view the notion of wealth,
itself. We are to see it for what it is: temporary and subject to destruction.
Building further on the matter of money and wealth Yeshua offers instruction
about being generous with our wealth, and uses the common colloquial terms of
that day to categorize the level of, or lack of, such generosity: the good eye and
the evil eye. Then He goes on to explain about the eye being the lamp of the
body, which essentially means that a good eye is outwardly indicative of a
generous spirit, and an evil eye is outwardly indicative of a stingy spirit.
After that Yeshua makes a principle out of what He has said thus far. It is that no
man can have two masters; and the choice is between money and God. And
despite what many humans think, you can't have it both ways. Sometimes we
overlook the simple fact that having 2 masters is an oxymoron and that is how
the Jews would have understood it. It would be like claiming that you had two 1st
dates. One or the other was the first and only one can claim that title, no matter
how we might try to spin it. Thus in our 4 dimensional Universe it is only possible
for a man to have 1 master; all other influences well be subservient to that master
even if we don't realize it.
Since the obvious answer is built into the question of the 2 masters (God must be
that master), then the next issue is: so what do I do about the material things that
we all need like food, shelter, and clothing? I want to comment here that in no
way was Yeshua suggesting that material possessions and money are wrong or
evil. Rather it is that one must not focus our life on, and be controlled by, money
and wealth accumulation. Yeshua uses nature to point out that birds and plants
are beautiful and well fed without planting and sowing, and well clothed without
making their own garments. Rather God provides it all for them. Therefore while
He values all of His Creation, He values humans more than all other life forms.
So Christ's argument is that if The Father provides so well for birds and plants He
5/12

Lesson 23 - Matthew 7
will certainly provide even more for human beings.
In the next to the last verse of chapter 6 Yeshua draws us back to the
monumental importance of the arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, and
what this is to mean to us. He says that first and above all else, we are to seek
this Kingdom and we also to seek God's righteousness. God's righteousness is
His will to save. And to be saved is the requirement for membership to the
Kingdom. So seeking God's Kingdom and His righteousness are two sides of the
same coin. Then, says Jesus, after seeking these two things seek for all the
physical and material needs you have. So it is not a matter of having the one or
the other; it is a matter of priority and emphasis by the worshipper.
So the bottom line to Yeshua's instruction to put God first in everything is that if
we do so, then there is no need to worry about anything, and especially not to
worry about the future. By definition, worry is the opposite of faith. Therefore faith
solves the universal human problem of worry.
Let's read Matthew chapter 7.
READ MATTHEW CHAPTER 7 all
Verse 1 takes us back to how we are to treat our fellow human beings (which is
more often than not the meaning of "neighbor"). By saying "do not judge" some
believe that Christ has announced a 100% injunction against reasonable
conclusions drawn from personal observations and experiences. As Davies and
Allison point out, if that were the case we wouldn't even be able to choose
between true and false religions. The judging being spoken of is not referring to a
judicial setting; rather it is about how we measure a person and their actions in
rather typical day to day activities. Let me pause here to make a point that I
believe is much needed in Christianity. Just as judging another person is not
being rigidly prohibited, but rather it must be done within the bounds of mercy
and compassion, the issue is that nearly every matter of human interest is not as
black and white as we'd like to make it.
It is ironic that especially gentile Believers at once rebel against the idea of
following a rules-based religion (which is what they accuse Jews of doing), but at
the same time want their Pastors and priests to give them a simple rule to follow
regarding many circumstances they might encounter so that they can quickly
solve a conundrum. Thus many Christians view the permissions and prohibitions
6/12

Lesson 23 - Matthew 7
of the Law of Moses as too difficult and inflexible, and yet at the same time want
black and white, yes and no answers to complex matters. Let me illustrate by
giving you an example of two extremes. I've heard the Catholic Church defend
their priests from punishment for child molestation on the basis of Jesus having
told us we're not to judge. I also know of women who were judged as sinful by
the church elders because they heard that she had fled her husband in fear; and
this without any personal knowledge of the facts. It's only that for them divorce is
prohibited for any reason and so a woman who separates from her husband
under any circumstances is automatically judged to be wrong and committing a
sin.
When we live our lives according to favorite verses or even parts of verses lifted
out of context, or without considering all that the Bible has to say on a subject,
then our viewpoints become skewed and polarized. The issue about judging that
begins chapter 7 is not that we are to check our brains at the door of our homes,
workplaces, or church, but rather we are not to invoke what Martin Luther called
"self-centered wisdom". We are not to try to make ourselves look better, or more
wise, or especially more pious by disparaging another. Thus we are to be very
careful and considered in our conclusions about a person, and always operating
within the moral insights that God's Word provides for us. The key is to
thoroughly know God's Word such that we don't fall back on what amounts to
sayings and partial truths.
Let me be clear on what this instruction not to judge means. It means not to
condemn or deplore our fellow man, and this because we are not his judicial
judge. Rather God is our judicial judge in Heaven. And thus, says the second part
of the verse, the reason we don't want to judge others (denounce others) is so
that God won't judge us IN THE JUDICIAL SENSE. In other words, Christians
today regularly talk about the final judgment, meaning a verdict is going to be
rendered upon us: either guilty or innocent. That is the meaning of the second
part of verse, but that is not the meaning of the first half of the verse. This
interpretation is borne out by the words of verse 2.
CJB Matthew 7:2 For the way you judge others is how you will be judged␂the measure with which you measure out will be used to measure to you.
Let me give you an illustration that might help with this. An official judicial trial
judge (the kind we're all familiar with), sitting on the bench in a courtroom is not
going to have God judge him at the Great Judgment in the same way he applied
7/12

Lesson 23 - Matthew 7
our civil and criminal laws to violators. So if a judge, following the law in good
faith in a court setting, determines that the accused is legitimately guilty of
robbery and sentences that person to spend a year in jail, that judge is not going
to later be subjected to that same treatment by God. Rather it is that in a non␂judicial setting, by the criticisms and belief or an ordinary person, that our
personal wisdom can best decide what was in another person's heart, what their
inner motives for their actions were, and so we make a determination of how God
views them, then such an attitude means that we have made ourselves subject to
God judging us in the ultimate divine judicial setting; and then we will bear the
eternal consequences of God's verdict. So judging others from the sense of
damning them and deploring them is a sin of high order, and it is bad for our
eternal health, says Christ. And the only reason I can think of that He would bring
up the subject is because it is something that He witnessed happening all too
often among the Jewish community.
I don't want to waste an opportunity to point something else out that seems to be
pushed to the background within Christendom. Verse 2, as with things Christ has
said earlier in His sermon, again invokes a quid pro quo. What you do to others
will have a direct result in what God does with you. Yes, God of course is loving,
merciful and compassionate. Yet, that doesn't mean that The Father is like a
kindly grandfather that looks the other way when his children and grandchildren
sin. Rather, there are things we can think and do that will be proportionately
responded to by The Lord. Measure for measure is often the biblical term used to
express that. This is an old idea in the Bible; but Christ again demonstrates that
no Torah principle or law has been abrogated by Him.
CJB Obadiah 1:15 For the Day ofADONAI is near for all nations; as you did,
it will be done to you; your dealings will come back on your own head.
Matthew 7:3 continues with the concept of judging others (condemning and
deploring others) when Christ speaks of censuring someone who has a splinter in
their eye, but you have a log in your own. On the surface anyone can understand
this. We have an old folk saying that well captures the meaning: it's the pot
calling the kettle black. The idea is that the pot has been far more blackened by
the soot of a fire (rendering it blemished) than the smaller kettle (originally
meaning a tea pot) could ever be. And yet the pot points out the same flaw it has,
even in larger proportion, than the lesser flaw on the kettle.
Thus Yeshua takes a subject that might be difficult to envision because it can
8/12

Lesson 23 - Matthew 7
exist too much within the realm of theory, and He makes it easy to visualize by
using extremes: an entire log versus a tiny splinter. What He is talking about is an
example of extreme hypocrisy. And the irony is that the self-righteous one with
the enormous flaw is condemning the other person for their rather tiny flaw. It is
not that the one is flawed and the other isn't. Both are flawed, because both are
human. And in another sense, if you are condemning the same, but much less
prevalent, flaw of another are you not in essence condemning yourself?
Let me take this to another level. What underlies this statement is the issue not
only of hypocrisy in the P'shat sense, but of inner moral defect in
the Remez sense. Hypocrisy is rather easily seen and detected because it
manifests in our words and our actions. But inner moral defect can be hidden
away, such that only God can see it. Further, just as anger presages murder, so
does inner moral defect presage hypocrisy. The result of someone who has a log
in their own eye trying to lead someone who merely has a speck in their eye, is a
classic example of the blind leading the blind. That is what is so wonderful about
hearing and drinking in the words of Yeshua. We are hearing from a God-man
who has no log or even splinter in His eye. He is without sin, bears no wrong
motives, no inner moral defects, and no hypocrisy. It is the opposite of the blind
leading the blind. It is the one who sees leading those of us with so little sight.
I will make a confession for myself as a Pastor and Bible teacher that I suspect
many of my calling may well share. We barely have more sight than those that
we attempt to lead. We are not Jesus. We are closer to the blind leading the
blind. It is just that God, in His mercy, has opened our eyes the slightest bit more
with the purpose of our helping and being a shepherd to those whom He loves. I
am really not much more than Balaam in the Old Testament, who was full of
flaws yet God, for His own divine purposes, opened Balaam's eyes enough to
show Him something important and wonderful.
CJB Numbers 24:1-5 1 When Bil'am saw that it pleased ADONAI to bless
Isra'el, he didn't go, as at the other times, to make use of divination, but
looked out toward the desert. 2 Bil'am raised his eyes and saw Isra'el
encamped tribe by tribe. Then the Spirit of God came upon him, 3 and he
made his pronouncement: "This is the speech of Bil'am, son of B'or; the
speech of the man whose eyes have been opened; 4
the speech of him who
hears God's words; who sees what Shaddai sees, who has fallen, yet has
open eyes: 5 "How lovely are your tents, Ya'akov; your encampments,
Isra'el!
9/12

Lesson 23 - Matthew 7
"The speech of him who hears God's words". That is the key to this passage.
It is God's words, not the thoughts and oratory of Bible teachers or Pastors or
even prophets, which are wonderful. It is God's words that have the power to
remove the log and open our eyes and relieve us of our blindness. This is why
we must take Christ's words to heart and never doubt them. My only goal.... the
goal and purpose for Seed of Abraham Torah Class.... is to present you with
God's words in such a way that they will also open your eyes, at least as much as
they opened mine. Yet the words of Numbers 24:5 tells us something critical for
the Church. The Gentile Balaam says: "How lovely are your tents, Jacob; your
encampments, Israeli". Unless and until Gentile Believers acknowledge the
loveliness of Israel before God, and their important place in redemption history
from the past, in the present, and into the future, God's words will fall flat upon
us. Those wonderful words will not be properly understood or applied, they are
taken out of their ultimate context, and our sight will remain greatly blurred as
was Balaam's until He sincerely sought and believed God's words.
Verse 6 can sound rather harsh to us, and there is an inference at the beginning
of the verse that can be misunderstood. "Don't throw what is holy to dogs" is what
I'm speaking about. In our time dogs are beloved pets, even considered by many
to be family members. That was in no way the case in the 1st century, especially
among Jews. Dogs were wild animals; they were unclean scavengers that
roamed the streets of cities, usually in packs. They were detested and avoided
because they were considered unclean, even dangerous. Thus that is how we
must understand the word dogs as used here. While it is true that in a few
passages in the Bible the term "dog" is used as an expression applied to
homosexuals, usually as male prostitutes (the term homosexual didn't exist then,
and in fact was only coined in the 19th century), that is not the case in verse 6.
Christ is once again using nature, so to speak, to make His point. First it is dogs,
and then it is pigs.
Let's try to put on our 1st century Jewish mindset to understand how the crowd
would have understood Christ's words. What did people throw to dogs? Their
garbage. Leftover or spoiled food. Dogs were the cities' sanitation workers of the
time. So what is food that is holy? Only the food that has been taken to the
Temple, much of it sacrificed, and then given to the Priests as their portion to eat.
Therefore it would be terribly inappropriate to give the Priestly food to things
(dogs) that are unclean.
Then next part of the verse, "don't throw your pearls to pigs" is but another angle
10/12


Lesson 23 - Matthew 7
on the same subject. Pigs were unclean animals when used as food. Contrary to
what some think, within the Hebrew religion of Yeshua's day touching a live pig
did not mean that you contracted uncleanness from it. Rather it was that a pig
was not permissible for food. The word "unclean" came to be used as a very
broad and general term whether for the inherently unclean, whereby coming into
contact with it indeed transmitted ritual impurity to the one who did the touching
(such as touching a dead body), as well as for animals that you couldn't consume
as food but touching them as live creatures had no effect at all (pigs, shellfish,
and shrimp for example). So dogs were deemed unclean by Tradition, while pigs
were pronounced as not permitted as food. Thus in Christ's story both dogs and
pigs are unclean to the Jewish people, but each for a different reason.
Pearls were the most valuable of precious objects. They were more valuable than
gold. Thus the idea is that that of highest value ought not be presented to that
which is not worthy. I can do no better than to quote from the ICC Commentary
on this matter:
"In Matthew 7:6 this rule, by virtue of its new context, becomes a
comprehensive statement about the necessity to keep distinct the realms
of the clean and the unclean".
The new context is that the Kingdom of Heaven has arrived on earth. But it is a
new context that surrounds an old rule. We find the essence of this rule in the
Book of Exodus.
CJB Exodus 29:32-34 32 Aharon and his sons will eat the ram's meat and the
bread in the basket at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 33 They are to eat
the things with which atonement was made for them, to inaugurate and
consecrate them; no one else may eat this food, because it is holy. 34 If any
of the meat for the consecration or any of the bread remains until morning,
burn up what remains; it is not to be eaten, because it is holy.
This passage in the Torah provides the basis for Christ's statement about not
throwing holy food to dogs (unclean creatures). That is, not even spoiled or
unused holy food was to be eaten by dogs or anyone or anything for that matter.
Why? Look at Exodus 29 verse 34. After the Priests have eaten their portion, the
remainder is NOT to be merely thrown out; it is to be burned up thus destroying it
so that no other creature.... not even scavengers who were created by God for
the purpose of ridding the earth of what is unclean... can have it.
11 / 12
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lesson 23 - Matthew 7
Further: within the new context (the Kingdom of Heaven), the pearl (the most
precious object) was used metaphorically as the Kingdom itself. Thus the
Kingdom is not for the unclean. I think to put this in the form of a rule or principle
it is this: while we are commissioned to take the Good News of the Kingdom of
Heaven to the world, we are not to waste our time with the hard hearted and
those who outright reject the message.
I'll leave you for today with the words of Messiah Yeshua that Matthew records in
chapter 10 regarding this exact issue.
CJB Matthew 10:5-15 5 These twelve Yeshua sent out with the following
instructions: "Don't go into the territory of the Goyim, and don't enter any
town in Shomron, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of
Isra'el. 7 As you go, proclaim, 'The Kingdom of Heaven is near,' 8 heal the
sick, raise the dead, cleanse those afflicted with tzara'at, expel demons.
You have received without paying, so give without asking payment. 9 Don't
take money in your belts, no gold, no silver, no copper; 10 and for the trip
don't take a pack, an extra shirt, shoes or a walking stick- a worker should
be given what he needs. 11 "When you come to a town or village, look for
someone trustworthy and stay with him until you leave. 12 When you enter
someone's household, say, 'Shalom aleikhem!' 13 If the home deserves it,
let your shalom rest on it; if not, let your shalom return to you. 14 But if the
people of a house or town will not welcome you or listen to you, leave it
and shake its dust from your feet! 15 Yes, I tell you, it will be more tolerable
on the Day of Judgment for the people of S'dom and 'Amora than for that
town!
12/12


Lesson 24 - Matthew 7 cont
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 24, Chapter 7 Continued
As we continue in Matthew chapter 7, we will review what we covered in the prior
lesson. Let's begin by opening our Bibles and reading the opening verses.
RE-READ MATTHEW 7:1-6
Around a century ago, Thomas Walter Manson, a biblical scholar who lived and
wrote in England said this about the 1st verse of Matthew chapter 7:
"The whole business of judging persons is in God's hands, for He alone
knows the secrets of men's hearts. This does not mean that we are not to
use all the moral insight we possess in order to discover what is right and
wrong; but that we are to confine ourselves to that field, and refrain from
passing judgment on persons. For our judgment is itself a factor in shaping
their lives, and a harsh judgment may help a fellow creature on the road to
perdition".
I like what Manson has to say because he looks upon the other side of the coin of
what is written in verse 2. That is, in the 2nd verse Christ goes on to explain the
reasons why it is beneficial for a worshipper of God to refrain from judging
another person. It is that by whatever measure we judge others, God will judge
us; so it is better for us that we don't judge others at all. So what Manson
addresses is the harmful effect that our judging of another may have on them.
Perhaps no greater judgment can come upon a person than to be shamed; and
for the most part judgment is shaming. In our day, in the Western world, shaming
is mostly an emotional matter that leads to embarrassment and humiliation.
Lately it has taken on a political element to it. But that emotional matter can very
1 / 13

Lesson 24 - Matthew 7 cont
well, as Manson says, shape our lives. For instance, when a young person is
over and over again reprimanded by being shamed and told they are stupid or
worthless, such will eventually become the loom from which the fabric of their life
will be woven. But in Christ's day, and still to this day in many parts of the world,
such a shaming judgment could immediately alter a person's precious social
status; thus a public judgment was very serious and immediate in effect, and it
usually demanded a remedy of revenge. Thus for a modern Western Christian
the idea of not judging others is rather abstract and can be difficult to
conceptualize; although less abstract in the East. Therefore we can get all kinds
of strange ideas about what judging and not judging means or looks like in actual
practice.
Verse 2 makes a consequence of our wrongful judging of another into an issue of
proportional justice. Yet, let's not make the mistake of thinking that how we judge
and how God judges are the same things or accomplished on the same plane.
Our judgment means that we look with disdain at how someone might appear to
us, perhaps in their dress; or we might determine that a person's worthiness
according to their race, or nationality, or tribal loyalty is inferior to our own; or
maybe we do so from nothing more than what someone says or from a custom
they follow that we find primitive or ignorant. And thus we ridicule them, even
condemn or deplore them, in an effort to diminish them and inflict shame. The
implication Jesus makes is that we don't know that person's intent, motive, and
true character, and often not their circumstances. But even more important, we
have no idea how God's sees them. Clearly, this judging Yeshua speaks against
has nothing to do with criminal activity. Christ is not saying that we shouldn't
make a determination as to a person's guilt or innocence based on factual
evidence of wrongdoing that includes being eyewitness to a crime.
Ironically, for us to judge and shame another in the typical non-criminal sense
results in God judging us in a criminal setting. That is, our judging by deploring
our fellow man becomes our sin, our crime, in God's eyes and so God will put us
on trial accordingly. When does this trial occur? Most Bible scholars say that the
wording in Matthew means it will happen in the future, at the End of Days, when
God's judges everyone. No doubt this is true. And yet, His judgment upon us may
also have temporal consequences during our lives.
The matter of judging another person is so important to Yeshua that He
continues and expands on that basic principle in verses 3 through 5. Here
appears the famous metaphorical expression about a log in one's eye compared
2/13

Lesson 24 - Matthew 7 cont
to the splinter in the eye of the person that is being judged. The bottom line to
this is that the outward behavior exposes that person's inner condition; it reveals
their hypocrisy. That is, the person who judges and shames another is nearly
universally a hypocrite according to Jesus. They are super sensitive to what they
see as wrong in another, because that same wrong exists probably in even
greater measure within the accuser's own heart and mind. Thus, the problem
and the solution lies not with the accused, but rather with the accuser. The
accuser, the one who is judging, is told to remove the log from their own eye (that
is, remove the great moral defect) and then they will see clearly enough to more
legitimately notice a splinter in another's eye (that is, a minor moral defect). But of
course it goes without saying that once we truly realize the enormity of the log in
our own eye, and repent of it to God, and hopefully remove it, then being on the
look-out for splinters in the eyes of others comes to a halt. Listen to what Paul
had to say about this.
CJB Romans 2:1-6 1 Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are,
passing judgment; for when you judge someone else, you are passing
judgment against yourself; since you who are judging do the same things
he does. 2 We know that God's judgment lands impartially on those who do
such things; 3 do you think that you, a mere man passing judgment on
others who do such things, yet doing them yourself, will escape the
judgment of God? 4 Or perhaps you despise the riches of his kindness,
forbearance and patience; because you don't realize that God's kindness is
intended to lead you to turn from your sins. 5 But by your stubbornness, by
your unrepentant heart, you are storing up anger for yourself on the Day of
Anger, when God's righteous judgment will be revealed; 6
for he will pay
back each one according to his deeds.
What I'd like for you to take from this is the idea that the act of judging as spoken
about in Matthew needs to be understood primarily within the context of shaming.
And, that God will pay back both in our present lives, but especially in our eternal
future, for doing such a thing that He regards as having no place in the life of His
worshippers.
In verse 6 is yet another famous saying of Jesus about not giving to dogs what is
holy, and not throwing pearls to pigs. Obviously this is another metaphorical
statement but what is it illustrating? It is about the necessity of keeping the ritually
clean apart from the ritually unclean. The holy separated away from the profane.
To understand it we must see that it is within the context of the arrival of the
3/13

Lesson 24 - Matthew 7 cont
Kingdom of Heaven. Listen to this statement in the Book of Revelation that I
think helps to clarify what Yeshua is attempting to impart to His listeners.
Regarding the new city of Jerusalem, the capital of the Kingdom of Heaven, we
read:
CJB Revelation 21:27 27 Nothing impure may enter it, nor anyone who does
shameful things or lies; the only ones who may enter are those whose
names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life.
We are instructed to stay separated from the unclean and the profane, because
things and people who are characterized by uncleanness and the lack of holiness
have no place in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Let's move on to verse 7.
RE-READ MATTHEW CHAPTER 7:7-11
I see these verses as Christ encouraging His listeners after giving them several
hard lessons and the severe consequences of disobedience. This ought to be a
revelation that leads to a reformation of modern Evangelical Christianity, which
tends to paint Jesus as offering His followers a much easier route to
righteousness over and against a harsh and rigid rules based Law of Moses.
Some denominational doctrines go so far as to make obedience an enemy of
grace. And yet we find Yeshua not making new or replacement rules, but rather
reminding His audience of the old rules, insisting that the people follow them, and
then taking those rules a step further to include not just proper outward behavior
but a more pure inward intent and motivation. It is my estimation that not judging
and shaming others is a most difficult rule for a human being to accomplish. The
ICC commentary on Matthew says this:
"Because human beings unhappily possess an inbred proclivity to mix
ignorance of themselves with arrogance towards others, the call to
recognize one's own faults is a commonplace of moral and religious
traditions, including the Bible".
The reality is that Christ, in His Sermon the Mount, has thus far set forth a high
ideal of the Law of Moses (and the entire Hebrew Bible) that seems as though He
has, under His own authority, moved the goal posts of righteousness. No doubt
many in the crowd thought that what He was demanding was laughingly
4/13

Lesson 24 - Matthew 7 cont
impossible to achieve. So now in verses 7 through 11, Christ is going to tell them
how to apprehend the seemingly impossible. The key, He says, involves action
and not passivity.
Ask, seek, and knock are the themes of verses 8 and 9. These are verbs; action
words. We must expend actual physical and mental energy to move forward
towards the goal of righteousness. It is the opposite of a well worn story that is
one of my favorites because it so well illustrates an ill conceived tendency of too
many Christians.
A man was in his house when he heard that a flood was coming. He prayed and
prayed and believed that because he was a Christian that God would
miraculously save him. Almost as soon as he said "amen" an emergency vehicle
appeared on the flooded road in front of his house and bid him to come to the
truck and to safety. He said "no, God is going to rescue me". The flood waters
rose and he had to go upstairs to the second story of his house to stay dry. He
prayed again for God to rescue him. Suddenly a boat appeared and bid him to
climb aboard to safety. He declined and said, "no, God is going to rescue me".
The flood waters continued to rise until he was forced to seek refuge on the roof
of his house. He prayed again, even more fervently, and soon a helicopter
hovered over him, let down a rope and harness, and bid him to put it on so he
could be pulled to safety. He said, "no, God is going to rescue me". A few
minutes later the rising flood waters swept him away to his death. Upon arriving
in Heaven he confronted God and said "I have faith. Why didn't you rescue me?"
God said; "I tried: I sent you a truck, a boat, and a helicopter and you refused
them all".
Ask. Seek. Knock. Christ has given us the means of rescue. Will we take
advantage of it? We are not told to pray to God for our needs and then sit
passively and wait for Him to supernaturally deliver them in a nice neat package
that we have envisioned. On the other hand, it is not that if we work at it hard
enough, we will cause what we want from God to come about. Yeshua says that
if we ask, it will be given; if we seek, we will find; and if we knock, the door will be
opened. He is not giving a terribly deep riddle or a difficult principle to the people.
The meaning is: you have to do something to be a member of God's Kingdom.
So one way to help grasp the point is to see it in the negative instead of the
positive sense. If you want something and don't ask for it, then of course the
person who has what you want has no idea about it, and so you won't receive it.
If you don't begin to search for something you want (you won't actively seek it)
5/13
......

Lesson 24 - Matthew 7 cont
then of course you'll never find it. It is like the old sports expression that you'll
never hit a home run unless you get the bat off your shoulder and swing at the
ball. And if you want to go in to a place that has a door between you and your
destination, then naturally you must knock on the door to let the owner know you
are there, otherwise you'll remain standing on the outside looking in. That is:
these principles aren't so much theologically driven as they are common sense.
So coming to God and becoming a member of His Kingdom is a dual venture;
both God and the worshipper must do their parts. And because God will never fail
at His part, all the onus lies upon us. We MUST be active by asking, seeking, and
knocking.
So we have another case in the Jewish Matthew's presentation of the Jewish
Jesus's words that reveal a truth on two levels. On the P'shat level it is simply
common sense that to gain access to the Kingdom we must ask, seek, and knock
as we would for most anything else we wanted. But on the Remez level it is
deeper spiritual truth that says we are not to be discouraged by the target of
moral perfection that Yeshua says we must pursue. Rather, even as is common
among all things in life, if we ask, God will give. If we seek, God will show us the
way. If we knock, the door to the Kingdom of Heaven will be opened to us. What
an optimistic expression not only of a great eternal joy that indeed can be ours,
but also of the loving character of God! And to support this truth Yeshua gives us
another illustration.
In verse 9 He asks the great crowd a rhetorical question; if a son asked his father
for bread, would the father give him a stone instead? Next in verse 10 another
rhetorical question is asked; if that same son asked for a fish, would his father
give him a snake? I say rhetorical because there is only one answer to both of
these questions an emphatic 'of course not'! A father would never respond to
his son in such a way. Please notice the son/father relationship. While Yeshua is
speaking in terms of the natural world and His illustration thus invokes a human
father and his human son, at the same time it includes the Kingdom relationship
between God the Father and His Son, Yeshua. Yeshua, as the Father's agent,
would not come to Him with a request and then His father would give him
something wholly inappropriate or even dangerous.
So, says Yeshua in verse 11, since there is virtually no possibility that an earthly
father who, in relation to God and because of his fallen state is full of evil, would
ever do something so contemptuous as to give his own son a stone in place of
bread or a snake in place of a fish, how much more a totally loving and just God
6/13



Lesson 24 - Matthew 7 cont
is willing to keep on responding to His worshippers requests with good things. Is
Messiah revealing a new side to God heretofore unknown to the Jewish people?
The Prophet Isaiah used a similar illustration.
CJB Isaiah 49:15 15 Can a woman forget her child at the breast, not show
pity on the child from her womb? Even if these were to forget, I (God)
would not forget you.
What reassurance is being offered! Love God, worship Him, seek the Kingdom
with all your heart and you will not be denied entry. Believers are afforded
privileges and benefits that no others on the face of the planet are. Next we move
to verse 12 and what has come to be known as The Golden Rule.
RE-READ MATTHEW 7:12-20
This verse essentially forms the molten core of the Sermon on the Mount. It is a
generalization to sum up not just this sermon but the Torah as well. I want to
emphasize this point: the Golden Rule is a generalization and not a simple
bumper sticker statement that so succinctly encompasses the entire Torah that to
study it becomes a rather redundant effort.
Notice how Yeshua says that the Golden Rule is a summation of the Law (or
Torah) and the Prophets. This takes us back to chapter 5 verses 17-19 where
He uses the same expression "the Law and the Prophets". Recall at that time we
learned this term meant the Tanakh, the entire Hebrew Bible, and not only The
Law of Moses or even just the Torah. So I'll say this differently. If you were a Jew
hearing Yeshua's words, you would properly take His statement to mean: "this is
a summation of the Bible".
Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is a way of bringing the
rather abstract "love your neighbor as yourself" law of Leviticus 19:18 into a
focused and doable reality. I might not be sure how to love my neighbor as I love
my self; but when dealing with my fellow man I can more easily think of whether
what I'm about to do in my dealings with that person is something I'd want for
myself if the roles were reversed. Who doesn't want to be dealt with in
compassion, mercy, kindness, generosity, justice, fairness and love? So the
exact situation and even case examples are not needed; our actions that ought to
spring from the Golden Rule are self-evident. In fact, to me this is an exhortation
by Yeshua to a people who already practiced such a principle in theory if not
7/13

Lesson 24 - Matthew 7 cont
quite as well in practice. It is certainly not a new or novel notion invented by
Christ. In fact it could well lend itself to common wisdom in almost all ages and
cultural settings. Paul says essentially the same but in his own unique way.
CJB Romans. 13:8-10 8 Don't owe anyone anything- except to love one
another; for whoever loves his fellow human being has fulfilled Torah. 9 For
the commandments, "Don't commit adultery," "Don't murder," "Don't
steal," "Don't covet," and any others are summed up in this one rule: "Love
your neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does not do harm to a neighbor;
therefore love is the fullness of Torah.
No doubt Jesus would have fully agreed with Paul's version of "Love your
neighbor as yourself" and what it looks like in action. As an interesting aside:
notice how Yeshua spoke of the Golden Rule principle as a summation of the
Law and the Prophets. Paul summed it up by quoting from among the 10
Commandments that concern human to human relationships as contained in the
Law the Moses. Yeshua was speaking in the Holy Land to a majority crowd of
Holy Land Jews. Paul was speaking in a foreign land to a mixed group of
Diaspora Jews and gentiles who weren't so familiar with the Torah, the Law and
the Prophets. So the differences in words, illustrations used, and nuances
between what we find Christ saying in the Gospels versus what Paul says in his
Epistles is not a difference in theology, but rather reflects a difference in
audience. Let's move on to verse 13.
We now enter a part of Jesus's speech that we might broadly describe as a
selection of wisdom sayings. Verses 13 and 14 that speak of the narrow and the
broad gates are, again, nothing new within the Hebrew religion but it is a bit
different way of saying a principle that we can trace at least as far back as the
exodus from Egypt. Deuteronomy 11:26 - 28 says this:
CJB Deuteronomy 11:26-28 26 "See, I am setting before you today a blessing
and a curse- 27 the blessing, if you listen to the mitzvot of ADONAl your God
that I am giving you today; 28 and the curse, if you don't listen to the mitzvot
of ADONAl your God, but turn aside from the way I am ordering you today
and follow other gods that you have not known.
This states the God-principle of the Two Ways that I think it would not be an
exaggeration to say that it is a governing dynamic of the Universe. I want to give
you a couple of other Scripture examples to make the point.
8/13

Lesson 24 - Matthew 7 cont
CJB Deuteronomy 30:15 15 "Look! I am presenting you today with, on the
one hand, life and good; and on the other, death and evil␂CJB Jeremiah 21:8 8 "And here is what you are to tell this people: 'ADONAI
says: "Look! I am presenting you with the way of life and the way of death.
The Apocryphal book of 2nd Enoch in chapter 30 (written around 300 years
before Christ) speaks of the two ways, lightness and darkness, good and bad. I
could give you more examples from well before the birth of Jesus but the point is
this: the idea of the Two Ways is ancient and thoroughly Hebrew although there
are probably examples of other historic cultures that held a similar religious
philosophy. But always the good way, the way of light, the way of life, and the
way of righteousness are the more difficult ways. Therefore a journey that is hard
and inconvenient is the underlying understanding in Yeshua's "narrow gate". He
will use the same mental picture of a small gate or a little portal and the difficulty
of passing through it later on in Matthew chapter 19.
CJB Matthew 19:24 24 Furthermore, I tell you that it is easier for a camel to
pass through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of
God."
In another sense, the matter of God's worshippers necessarily having to pass
through the narrow gate is a warning about God's coming judgment on the world.
The bottom line is that only a few will escape it because only a few will find, and
use, that narrow gate. In opposition to the narrow gate, the constricted gate, is
the wide gate and the wide road that leads to it. The Greek word used for wide
is euruchoros; the meaning and mental picture is of something roomy and
spacious. One could almost say it means "inviting". As with the abstract idea of
"loving you neighbor as yourself", so it is with entering through the narrow gate.
What does that look like in real life? Proverbs gives us a real-world example.
CJB Proverbs 28:6 Better to be poor and live an honest life than be crooked
in one's ways, though rich.
So the issue of the narrow versus the broad gate and road involves moral choice.
We are not predestined to enter, or to be blocked from, the narrow gate any more
than we're predestined to enter, or be blocked from, the wide gate. One may be
poor and dishonest or poor and honest. One may be rich and dishonest or rich
and honest. Poor or rich are not Godly virtues; but honesty is. The narrow gate is
9/13

Lesson 24 - Matthew 7 cont
the gate of honesty in the case of Proverbs 28 and honesty is a moral choice.
Tertullian, a gentile Christian from the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries said this
about this passage in Matthew.
"The way of evil is broad and well supplied with travelers; would not all
men take its easy course if there were nothing to fear?"
Truer words were never spoken. If it were not for the fear of God's judgment, why
wouldn't a human take the easier, more inviting way that the majority follows
instead of struggling to stay on a straight but very narrow pathway, along with so
few who set foot upon it, only to end up at an even narrower gateway?
It is an interesting, though horrific, fact that the Bible tells us frankly that prior to
Noah and the Great Flood, all the way up to Abraham, and then to Jacob taking
his clan to Egypt and Moses leading them out; and then from the Judges who
ruled over God's rebellious people, each seeking to do what was right in their
own eyes, through the era of the Kings and Prophets and all of God's warnings
spoken through them; and then the warnings ignored Israel being sent into exile;
it is always the majority of humanity that chooses to take the evil way. So while
the love of God is usually the reason we choose to remain on the narrow path,
the fear of God is usually the reason we choose that path in the first place.
Without that fear, no one would choose the more difficult of The Two Ways. This
is the reason that I and some other Pastors and Bible teachers rail at the modern
brand of a cheapened Christianity that chooses to diminish any healthy fear of
God and instead speak only of His love. Could it be that this is the dynamic at
play that has seen a steady, and accelerating, decline in Christianity in the West
for the past 75 years? That is, because the fear of God has been shoved to the
background or removed altogether, fewer Seekers see reason to step foot onto
that narrow road, and those who do often soon step off of it at the first sign of
difficulty?
Verses 15 through 23 have as their subject false prophets. Oh my; I could speak
for weeks on this matter but shall resist the urge in order to stay on track. So after
Yeshua offered a number of words of encouragement, He now immerses Himself
into addressing what was no doubt was an enormous problem in His day, not
unlike the enormous problem it is in our day. Let's understand something:
Yeshua is not talking about false prophets of the pagan world. He is talking about
false prophets of the Jewish religious world. But even more, since His entire goal
10/13

Lesson 24 - Matthew 7 cont
is to prepare the people to accept Him as their Messiah (something He has yet to
publicly declare), then in a more pointed sense He is speaking to Believers. He is
speaking to you and me. He is speaking to Christians, Messianics, the Church
and the Believing Synagogues. Because it is out of these that come the false
prophets.
First let's understand what the term "prophet" means to Yeshua. It was a broadly
used term in His day. It was generally agreed in 1st century Judaism that the era
of the Old Testament Prophets was over, and that holy men making God-given
predictions of the future and bringing oracles from God was (for the most part) no
longer operational. Thus we don't find any New Testament Prophets, except of
course for Yeshua Himself. Not even John in his Apocalypse was seen among
the Jewish Believers and earliest Christians so much as Prophet as He was one
who taught on the Prophets of old and what their writings portended now that the
Kingdom of Heaven had arrived, Christ had come and gone, and for later times.
A prophet in Christ's day was one who taught and provided exegesis and
commentary on the written Word of God. Paul would have been seen as a
prophet. They were also Jewish religious people who advocated for their
particular brand of worship, tradition and belief over and against others. That is
not to say that there weren't those who claimed to have information about the
future that God revealed to them. But most of this variety weren't taken very
seriously, and when they were it was usually by some small group of Jews.
Clearly among the Essenes, for example (the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls),
there were those who were considered as true Prophets. So while it is difficult to
have a simple definition of what a prophet was to Yeshua, the best mental picture
we can get in the 21st century of what He was speaking about would be a Pastor,
Priest, Rabbi, or Bible teacher. Thus a false prophet was one who taught falsely
about God's Word, or taught against God's biblical principles and laws, or made
up new ones.
A False Prophet is not one who makes an innocent error in their teaching. All
teachers of God's Word are human, and so we are prone to mistakes, or we
make speculations and give opinions as though they are fact. Rather, a False
Prophet is one who knows the truth.... or perhaps ignores the truth.... or picks
and chooses which biblical facts that uphold their beliefs and dismisses all
others.... and so consciously chooses to spin the Holy Scriptures and pervert it to
his or her own purposes. This is evil that comes disguised as good. Yeshua uses
the metaphor of a wolf that comes camouflaged in sheep's clothing. A wolf knows
11 / 13

Lesson 24 - Matthew 7 cont
it's a wolf; it doesn't in any way think it's a sheep. So, it dons the outward
appearance of a sheep in hopes that others won't know the truth about their
identity. Might a wolf be deluded into actually believing that it is a sheep? I
suppose it is not impossible.
Is Christ issuing a new warning because it's a new problem? Obviously not.
Listen to some Old Testament wisdom concerning False Prophets.
CJB Jeremiah 23:16 ADONAI-Tzva'ot says: "Don't listen to the words of the
prophets who are prophesying to you. They are making you act foolishly,
telling you visions from their own minds and not from the mouth of
ADONAI.
CJB Ezekiel 13:2 "Human being, prophesy against the prophets of Isra'el
who prophesy. Tell those prophesying out of their own thoughts, 'Listen to
what ADONAI says!
CJB Isaiah 9:14 The old and the honored are the head, while prophets
teaching lies are the tail.
So the image that is conjured up is of the meek being deceived and devoured by
predators. Paul once taught:
CJB Acts 20:28-29 28 "Watch out for yourselves, and for all the flock in which
the Ruach HaKodesh has placed you as leaders, to shepherd God's
Messianic community, which he won for himself at the cost of his own
Son's blood. 29 1know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among
you; and they won't spare the flock.
I want to end this week's lesson by telling you that it is a slanderous accusation
by the Church that these ravenous wolves in sheep's clothing were Jews who
came to dissuade Believers from their faith. This makes Jews an enemy of
Christians. Rather it is certainly at first Jews who professed belief.... whether they
actually believed or not is another matter.... that are the wolves in sheep's
clothing because all of the first many thousands of Believers in Christ were Jews!
But as gentiles began to adopt the faith and joined the flock, many also joined the
wolf pack until within a few decades the False Prophets consisted almost
exclusively of gentiles. A theological debate that has never been settled is
whether in the New Testament a person who professes the faith and teaches
12/13
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lesson 24 - Matthew 7 cont
falsely is actually a Believer or faked it in order to attack actual Believers. We
won't be settling that matter today. However what we can know is that they
existed, and continue to exist, within and among congregations of Believers and
make themselves to appear as Believers. Since these False Prophets are not
clearly labeled, Christ next gives us a truth detection method if we will but use it.
We'll discuss that in our next lesson on the Book of Matthew.
13/13
......

Lesson 25 - Matthew 7 cont 2
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 25, Chapter 7 Continued 2
Matthew chapter 7 concludes the Sermon on the Mount that began in chapter 5.
I'm hoping that by this point a better understanding is being gained about the
context and intent of Yeshua's long speech; a context that has been improperly
stated for centuries. The context advocated by institutional Christianity as early
as the 4th century is that the Sermon on the Mount was the event whereby Christ
abolished the Law of Moses and replaced it with the Law of Jesus. However an
intellectually honest and straightforward reading of those 3 chapters tells a
different story. The true context is of an extended teaching on the biblical Torah
that Yeshua made before a large crowd of mostly Holy Land Jews. His clear
intent is not only to separate God's Word from manmade Traditions and incorrect
(or perhaps incomplete) interpretations, but also to instruct His people on the
reality that the Kingdom of Heaven has arrived and therefore God's biblical
instructions must be taken in that light. For most of the Jews who heard it and
took the teaching to heart (including the 12 Disciples), this meant to them that the
End of Days was nearly upon them. The urgency of the 12 Disciples is apparent
within the writings of Peter and John and later on Paul. Later, in another setting,
Yeshua will teach a series of parables that attempts to flesh out what the
Kingdom of Heaven is like and therefore how this impacts people from both a
spiritual and an earthly, physical standpoint.
Christ anticipates that not only will several in the crowd doubt the veracity of
some of what He is teaching, but also that there will be people who will come
along afterwards to try and undo or slander the truths He has taught sort of
the 1st century version of Fake News. Therefore in verse 15 Jesus speaks a
warning about the false prophets.... the producers of the Fake News.... and
describes them as wolves in sheep's clothing. That is, these wolves are not
1 / 13
.....
.....

Lesson 25 - Matthew 7 cont 2
Jewish religious leaders who are attempting to rightly teach the Hebrew Bible but
have misunderstood some of it. Rather these are religious leaders and zealots
at first Jews and then later within a few years, Gentiles.... who masquerade as
one thing, but are actually another. Their tradecraft is deception. But what is
more, these wolves will not be terribly easy to identify because the sheep's
clothing they wear is that of pious Jews who attend synagogues, do the rituals,
and at least outwardly obey the Law of Moses.
Open your Bibles to Matthew 7 and we'll start reading at verse 15.
RE-READ MATTHEW 7:15 - end
Last time we discussed exactly what a prophet was, and was not, in Yeshua's
day. Rather than go over it again I'll briefly sum it up. First, we must not think in
terms of the Old Testament prophets, nearly all whom operated in concert with
one king of Israel or another. Second, in general we also must not think in terms
of a prophet who brings a new and different oracle from God (that is, they come
saying "thus says the Lord"). And Third, whereas God at times showed an Old
Testament prophet a glimpse of the future, that was no longer the case by
Yeshua's time except perhaps for John who penned Revelation. Jews believed
that the canon of the Bible was closed. There were no new writings that should
be seen on the level of inspiration as the Hebrew Bible that had had no additions
in about 4 centuries. So a so-called New Testament prophet was essentially a
Bible teacher. They taught on what already existed. They were Jewish religious
teachers who advocated for and interpreted God's Word still in the realm of
what we today would call a Pastor or a Rabbi. I think Paul would, after his
encounter with the risen Christ, epitomize what people in his day would call a
prophet. Some of the prophets more pushed the agendas and Traditions of their
particular group or beliefs. So false prophets were those who misled people and
did not teach the truth. The highly negative expression of a wolf in sheep's
clothing was thoroughly understood in Jewish culture and likely throughout
Roman culture as well since it was first created and written down in the 6th
century B.C. as one of Aesop's Fables. So it is not that Yeshua created a new
expression, but rather He made use of a common one. It is only that He applies it
to false prophets who come to dash the faith and steal the souls of God's
people.
This brings up one other thing: clearly to Yeshua (and to Matthew) false prophets
were a problem in that day. This was not a theoretical or hypothetical issue.
2/13
.....

Lesson 25 - Matthew 7 cont 2
Mark, Peter, and John spoke about the problem, and we find it discussed in the
Didache. Because these false prophets disguise themselves as sheep (that is, as
one of God's people who is honest, gentle, and of the faith), it can be quite
difficult to know which prophets are worth listening to and which should be
avoided they didn't wear name tags. Therefore in verse 16 Christ tells His
followers how to distinguish who are true prophets (like Paul, Peter, and John),
and who are false prophets from outward appearances. I want to stress that this
is about outward appearances. We have no practical way to know what is in a
person's mind; that is, we need some kind of a means to learn what lies under
the sheep's skin. Christ's method is rather simple: "You will know them by their
fruit".
Knowing them by their fruit means to identity them according to what they do. It
does NOT mean to identify them by their success or lack of success (according
to earthly standards). Let me put this in modern stark terms: it does not mean
that if a pastor presides over a growing 10,000 person church then it is proof
positive that he must be a true prophet. Therefore a pastor over a small 50
person church must be a false prophet. It also doesn't mean that if a Bible
teacher is wealthy and sells tons of books that it is proof that he is a true prophet,
but a Bible teacher who is poor and just scraping by is a false prophet. Nor in
both of these examples is the opposite true. The term "fruit" means first and
foremost spiritual fruit that manifests itself in deeds and works; whether these are
of evil or good character.
Good spiritual fruit doesn't mean only the things that we can't see and are
manifest only in Heaven. It means the kind of fruit that is in line with God's will
and is based on His truth and His instructions to us. It means the righteous things
that we do on earth that result from a Holy Spirit-driven motive and intent. So
next Christ gives us some simple examples from nature about how this works.
Notice how Christ constantly uses nature to help explain the complex and the
ethereal. This is because the same Creator of the ethereal also created the
physical. So while in one sense the ethereal and the physical are two different
realms, in another sense they are both cut from the same cloth so the God␂principles that govern both realms operate on the same basis. Thus the natural,
physical realm that surrounds us (a realm we humans are built to perceive)
serves as a good illustration and explanation of the ethereal realm, which we
cannot see, touch, or hear with our human senses.
There is another good reason to use the natural world to explain the super␂3/13

Lesson 25 - Matthew 7 cont 2
natural: it remains true no matter how much time passes and no matter the
culture. That is, time, place and language doesn't change the realities and the
truth of it. Therefore neither do the realities and truth of how to spot a religious
snake-in-the-grass posing as a harmless little bunny rabbit. And what Yeshua
proposes is that we make our judgment about these prophets based mostly on
what we see them do. However even this makes a big assumption that we first
know God's Word well enough to know what is right and wrong, good and evil,
false and true. This is why Christ first spent some hours instructing the crowd in
the correct interpretation of God's Torah prior to telling them how to recognize a
false prophet.
The first example of how a member of the congregation of God is to judge the
fruit of a prophet is to state the obvious from nature; a thorn bush (a useless thing
that can harm you) cannot produce edible and delicious grapes. And stickery
thistles (another useless and bothersome thing) cannot produce edible and
delicious figs. The grapes and figs are symbolic of righteous things. But perhaps
the deeper principle is what we can call "like for like". Light produces illumination.
Dark produces darkness. Evil produces wickedness, and good produces
righteousness. It cannot be otherwise. In some ways I find it interesting that
Christ continues with this line of thought because it is awfully simple and self␂evident; His was hardly a complex or new thought. Yet he continues on. Why?
Because as human beings we have a tendency to over-complicate matters, and
to find ways around things that are clearly questionable or even obviously wrong
but we'd rather not face it because we find some kind of benefit in it. Let me put it
in terms that at some point most adult Christians have personally faced or at
least heard about. A Pastor who is dearly loved by his congregation does wrong
things, and teaches wrong things, but he is given a pass because he is someone
who is so loved and revered that the congregation feels that he cannot be so bad
as to not be believed and followed. We've all heard of a Pastor who has stolen
from his church; or committed adultery or molested a child. And yet sometimes
immediately the congregation will rush to his defense, declare him forgiven, and
then blindly move on ready to continue to believe his every utterance about
God's Word. There is no better example of ignoring Christ's like-for-like principle;
that is, the inherent inability of a thistle to produce figs.
And lest Jesus's listeners get too caught up in the specifics and think Christ is
saying that this principle only applies to certain situations, He expands it to the
nearly universal by saying: "Likewise, a healthy tree produces good fruit and a
poor tree produces bad fruit". In other words, His first examples used cases from
4/13

Lesson 25 - Matthew 7 cont 2
nature where wild bushes aren't fruit bearing under any circumstance; they are
not like for like. Who would go searching through a thorn bush hoping to find
grapes? Not even a child would think to do that. No one would because it is not
like-for-like. Thus the lesson is this: don't overlook the obvious. We today say it a
different way. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck..... it's
probably a duck. And yet there are those who will look at the duck and see a
swan. Let me give you an extreme, but real, example: Adolph Hitler. Hitler was
early on in his political career an obvious tyrant and monster; and yet he
professed Christianity. And because the Lutheran Church was so prominent in
Germany, and because it was overtly anti-Semitic in its theology, Hitler claimed it
his Godly duty to (among other things) rid the world of the Christ-Killers: the
Jews. Therefore the Lutheran Church supported him as did, at first, the Catholic
Church for similar reasons.
But now in verses 17 and 18, we're dealing with the less obvious. We're dealing
with something that at first glance is a like-for-like situation. We have fruit trees
doing what God designed them to do: bear fruit. And yet, everyone knows that
not all fruit trees produce good fruit. Some of them fail at what they were
designed to do. The fruit appears as expected, but never fully develops or it
develops what appears to be normally, so it doesn't taste good. The problem is
that the average person won't know whether the fruit is good or bad until they
taste it. Therefore this is an even more dangerous situation than the first example
of the thorn bushes and thistles. Thus the illustration that a poor tree (a poorly
developed tree) can't produce tasty fruit, and a well developed tree can't produce
inedible fruit (and vice versa). So the like-for-like principle applies, but it is more
nuanced.
This is not a new thought as we first find it in the Book of Job.
CJB Job 14:4 Who can bring what is pure from something impure? No one!
And later in the Bible in John.
CJB 1 John 3:9 No one who has God as his Father keeps on sinning,
because the seed planted by God remains in him. That is, he cannot
continue sinning, because he has God as his Father.
Now let me challenge you a little bit while I preach a little bit. Should we take
Christ's, and Job's, and John's statements to mean that a kind of rigid
5/13

Lesson 25 - Matthew 7 cont 2
predetermination has taken place in that the human realm is divided into 2 parts,
and those that inhabit each part can never change their minds and cross over
into the other? Did Yeshua mean that a poor tree can never become a good
tree? Or that a good tree can never cease to be a good tree? This is no small
matter, because essentially that is the basis of Calvinism, for instance. The early
Church Father Chrysostom thought deeply about this troubling matter and
concluded the following in his commentary on the Book of Matthew:
"Christ saith not this: that for the wicked there is no way to change, or that
the good cannot fall away, but so long as he is living in wickedness, he will
not be able to bear good fruit. For he may indeed change to virtue, being
evil; but while continuing in wickedness he will not bear good fruit".
I fully agree with Chrysostom's statement. We must not take Yeshua's
statements where He is using natural examples for spiritual principles as
absolutes or as sole determining factors, but rather they are meant as
generalizations. Wicked people can change, as can good people change. Maybe
we should think of these statements in a similar way as we would a proverb. That
is, we know it is a good rule of thumb to live our lives by; but there can be
exceptions and so it is not necessarily true 100% of the time. And the same goes
for the summation Christ offers in verse 20: "So you will know them by their
fruits".
But before He offers that summation He says something that ought to always be
at the forefront of our thoughts and actions. It is that fruit trees than don't produce
good fruit get cut down and burned up. Being in Florida in citrus country, that fact
is abundantly evident because some of the citrus trees planted in the large
orchards just never give off the tasty fruit expected and so they are literally cut
down and burned up. Yeshua is speaking of judgment.... or better the Final
Judgment. To be clear: this is an End Times judging that is being spoken about; it
doesn't mean that a false prophet, or someone who doesn't produce good fruit,
will necessarily experience a divinely orchestrated calamity during their life as a
consequence. But it does allude to the idea that all who follow Christ are
expected to produce good fruit. And therefore those who don't are counterfeits.
Remember: good fruit is evidence of righteousness and bad fruit or no fruit is the
evidence of a counterfeit follower. Naturally everyone won't produce the same
fruit or in the same quantity; rather it will be according to what our individual gifts
and talents are, and also according to God's explicit will and purpose for our
lives. So, Believers: are you producing fruit? Is it good fruit? Or are you perhaps
6/13
.....

Lesson 25 - Matthew 7 cont 2
producing no fruit at all? A fruit tree that produces no fruit is just as subject to
judgment as one that produces bad fruit.
We must also face that some false prophets are going to be so good at deceiving
that they may never be found out; or, they won't be found out until it's too late. I
think it could be that they eventually convince themselves that they are true
prophets, thus falling into the trap built by their own deception. David Koresh, the
leader of that strange religious cult in Waco, Texas whose teachings and actions
eventually cost so many lives, might be a good example of this variety of false
prophet. Going back a bit further to the late 1970's, another false prophet named
Jim Jones led over 900 people, including himself, into a mass murder/suicide.
While I don't want to take this too far, I think what we're all concerned with is fruit
in the religious context. So in the religious context of our lives (and I use the term
religious loosely), can we really always know from their deeds when a Pastor or a
Rabbi is telling us God's truth and with a pure motivation as a true prophet? Let
me give you an example of what I mean that is in the mainstream Christian
sphere.
Over the centuries the Christian faith has been severely permeated with false
teachings and erroneous doctrines. I would say that as profoundly scholarly as
was Martin Luther, his deeply imbedded prejudice against Jews could not be
contained as merely personal; it spilled over into especially his later writings
about his faith. And so the large church denomination that evolved from his
breaking away from the Catholic Church naturally adopted the teachings and
beliefs of their namesake. At the core of those teachings is a not so subtle anti␂Jewish sentiment that colors many long-standing Lutheran doctrines in ways their
congregations often fail to recognize. Those doctrines remove Israel and Jews as
God's precious treasure and transfers it to Gentile Christians. It divorces the
Jews from their homeland, Israel. It makes Christ as not really Jewish but rather
as some kind of a generic everyman. It makes Jehovah the Old Testament God
of the Jews, and Christ the New Testament God of the Gentile Church.... and so
much more. So was Luther a poor tree bearing poor fruit? Was he a good tree
that bore good fruit but also some bad? How can we know?
In Luther's time and for a long time afterward, Bibles were hard to come by for
the common man (most of whom in the gentile world of his day couldn't read
anyway). So perhaps the common man who had little to go on for what the Bible
actually said other than what their Pastors taught them, could get a pass. But
how about today? How about for the past 100 or more years in the West when
7/13

Lesson 25 - Matthew 7 cont 2
Bibles have been readily available and at a price ranging from affordable to free?
Does not the modern common man have the means at our fingertips to read the
Bible and learn for ourselves what constitutes God's instructions versus what
men, past or present, claim? The fact that so many blatantly false doctrines are
still taught as biblical truth from pulpits, and accepted without hesitation as truth
from congregations, ought to tell us that relatively few people are interested
enough to seek out the truth in the Bible to test what they're being told. And so
often even when they might discover the written truth in the Bible that contradicts
what they are being told, they continue supporting and being part of the
congregation and denomination that continues to spew falsehoods because it's
embedded in their long held traditions. Are these among the False Prophets that
Jesus speaks about?
You see, the onus is on us to go further than merely invoking generalizations like
"you will know them by their fruit". How do I know what good fruit is, and what
bad fruit is, if I'm not instructed in the matter? It's not as though I know it as an
instinct that I'm born with; rather such knowledge must be acquired. And if I don't
actively acquire the knowledge of God's Word, then I can't spot a false prophet
by their outward appearance (in the form of their deeds), which in the end
revolves around what they teach (which is what prophets do). And just as much, I
can easily encounter a true prophet and reject him as false if all I know are
manmade doctrines. I can hear the truth, but insist on measuring that against the
falsehoods I've been taught, and if it doesn't match what I've always thought was
truth I might reject it and label him as a false prophet. Yeshua, as the truest of
prophets, would go on to suffer slander and accusations of being a false prophet;
and that had much to do with why He was executed.
Now we come to one of the hardest few verses in the entire Book of Matthew. I
want to read them again before we discuss them.
CJB Matthew 7:21-23 21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord!' will
enter the Kingdom of Heaven, only those who do what my Father in heaven
wants. 22 On that Day, many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord! Didn't we prophesy
in your name? Didn't we expel demons in your name? Didn't we perform
many miracles in your name?' 23 Then I will tell them to their faces, 'I never
knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!'
This is another of those biblical passages that is controversial and is spun in any
number of ways, often so that it conforms to some predetermined doctrines.
8/13

Lesson 25 - Matthew 7 cont 2
From the 30,000 foot view, we see that Jesus says that there is a segment of
Jewish society that He will reject and bar from entering the Kingdom of Heaven.
Clearly, Jesus is the gatekeeper to the Kingdom and makes the determination
about who enters, and who is shut out. I think it is appropriate to expand that
rejected segment to the gentile community as well, because the followers of
Yeshua expanded their range and evolved from nearly all Jewish to nearly all
gentile. The question about this segment of society is: what is their spiritual
status? Are they non-Believers in Christ? Are they those who profess Christ but
in reality are pretenders and counterfeits? Or are they actual Believers but they
have failed to carry out their obligations as part of Yeshua's flock? How a
denomination answers this question will have much to do with how others of their
faith doctrines are constructed.
Perhaps the most pertinent part of the first few words of verse 21 is to
understand what Yeshua means when He says that not everyone who calls Him
"Lord, Lord" will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. There are a few possibilities
but the way Luke has it phrased I think puts a finer point on it.
CJB Luke 6:46 "Why do you call me, 'Lord! Lord!' but not do what I say?
In other words, if you don't follow what Christ teaches, how can you turn around
and call yourself a follower? A follower, by definition, follows what their master
teaches and the example of how he lives. Essentially we have a Hebrew
oxymoron developed here. It fits in with the statement in chapter 6 verse 24 that
no one can be a slave to two masters (itself an oxymoron). He is not saying "you
are not a follower", He is asking a rhetorical question to the crowd; something to
make them think. Some Bible commentators see Him as speaking about the false
prophets; I don't. Certainly they might be included within this group that will be
rejected from the Kingdom, but they don't form the whole group or even the bulk
of it.
Using a bit of common sense, why would anyone call Yeshua "Lord" if they didn't
claim membership to His group of followers? To use Christian terms: only those
who are part of the Church would refer to Jesus as Lord. And while technically
the term "Lord" (kurios in Greek, adon or adonai in Hebrew) is a rather generic
term for showing respect (like saying "sir"), Yeshua was a common blue collar
worker in His day and such a title would not have been used of Him except in
how it was meant; in the religious context. That said, we should not think at this
moment beyond what has happened thus far. Yeshua has not publicly claimed to
9/13

.....

Lesson 25 - Matthew 7 cont 2
be the Messiah nor the Son of God. So those who determined to follow Yeshua
would have seen Him as their chosen religious leader. John the Baptist also had
his following, as did several venerated Rabbis such as Shammai and Hillel.
"Lord" (in the sense of "master") would have been a common way of addressing
them all. Still, even before His public announcement, He dropped hints of His
uniqueness and of a relationship with The Father that went beyond being but one
of many who worshipped Him and thus in Jewish colloquial expression called
God "Our Father".
So, says Christ, don't call me your master if you don't follow the ways I have laid
out for you. Logical. Rational. Rather a point of common sense. But there is
another element to this response that in hindsight we can understand. The
element is Yeshua's role as Savior. I'll say again: at the time of the Sermon on
the Mount, being Savior was not yet put forward publicly. We of course can look
back and see through some of the things that Jesus said and on into a deeper
meaning because we have the advantage not only of retrospect, but also we
have the recorded history of the revelations of His identity that Christ eventually
made (some of which even after He made them many Jews still didn't
understand). So knowing what we know from later pronouncements of Christ and
from the writings of Peter and Paul and John who followed Yeshua, we could
rightfully make verse 21 read:; "Not everyone who says to me "Savior, Savior"
will enter the Kingdom of Heaven...." The point being that knowing His true
identity and mission, and merely calling upon His name doesn't save nor does it
indicate someone who is saved. Perhaps not in Jewish society so much, but
throughout Roman society, calling on the names of various gods for various
purposes was common and customary. So if someone wanted something from
the God of the Jews they could decide that perhaps this Jesus fellow might be
the right name to use to get God's attention and fulfill their petition.
At the same time, again in retrospect, clearly by now (if He hadn't earlier) Jesus
knew what and who He was. He was to be judge at the End of Days to determine
who would be ushered into the eternal Kingdom of Heaven, and who would not
be allowed in. But let me also say that this is a two-stage process. The Kingdom
of Heaven had arrived with the appearance of John the Baptist. So those who
would trust Christ as Savior would be immediately made part of the fledgling
Kingdom on earth such as it was. You, who today trust Messiah Yeshua, are
right now part of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. And yet it is a Kingdom that is
still developing towards its complete fulfillment that will not happen until Yeshua
returns to us. So the Kingdom is for the earthbound now, and for the eternal
10/13
.....

Lesson 25 - Matthew 7 cont 2
bound later.
So if calling on Yeshua's name is not how one enters the Kingdom, then what is?
The first requirement, says Christ, is: "only those who do what my Father in
Heaven wants". Notice the term "my Father". Right there Yeshua dropped a big
hint that no doubt some in the crowd noticed, and especially so His 12 Disciples.
The correct term that a Hebrew could sometimes use to refer to God
was avinu "Our Father" but never "my" Father. The term avinu was also used
sometimes to speak of Abraham. The point being that Christ went from
acknowledging a national relationship with Yehoveh, to a direct familial
relationship. God literally was Jesus's father.
So no matter how we translate those words, Jesus sets down a requirement that
goes well beyond a public declaration of allegiance to Him. In fact, the real
allegiance must be to Jesus's Father. And even more than allegiance, a follower
must be a doer. Yes, Believers, this means that the nice warm fuzzy feeling we
get about trusting Christ is not sufficient. We must be active. We must seek the
will of The Father and carry it out. And that will goes far beyond the event of our
salvation. Clearly the biological brother of Yeshua, Ya'akov (known better in our
Bibles as James), got this message loud and clear and understood its great
significance.
CJB James 2:14 14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone claims to have
faith but has no actions to prove it? Is such "faith" able to save him?
Yeshua's response to the rhetorical question James asks is: "no". It is not that
good works brings on salvation. It is that the evidence of salvation brings on good
works. And by good works I mean righteous deeds that have been motivated by
the will of The Father. Only a faith accompanied with righteous deeds is an
authentic faith.
Verse 22 continues the thought with:
CJB Matthew 7:22 On that Day, many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord! Didn't we
prophesy in your name? Didn't we expel demons in your name? Didn't we
perform many miracles in your name?'
The term "that Day" is a Hebrew expression meaning the Day of Judgment, also
called the Day of the Lord. It is that day that every human will have to present an
11 / 13

Lesson 25 - Matthew 7 cont 2
account of their life to God.... and bear the consequences or the rewards for it.
And here we see Yeshua essentially claiming a status as God's agent to be that
judge. No doubt the people sitting before Christ caught that and some would
have accepted it and the majority would have scoffed and grumbled at such a
thought. So the context and setting for the straw man that is pleading his case
with Yeshua is that he is standing before the Great Judge at the End of Days.
And his claim for acceptance into the Kingdom is that he prophesied, expelled
demons, and performed miracles in Yeshua's name. Once again, acts and deeds
are not the determining proof of our salvation.
There's always been considerable disagreement over what it means to do things
in Christ's name. It could mean a number of things.
1) It might mean in Yeshua's authority and power.
2) It might mean that if one can do similar things to what Christ did, then perhaps
that person is Christ returned.
3) Perhaps it is that false prophets and counterfeits use Christ's name merely to
gain access to the Believing congregations.
4) Maybe, as do the pagans, Jesus's name gets used like a magic word or an
incantation.
It is my view that it means all these things. It means using His name for whatever
false or perverse purpose one might have. And clearly in verse 22, those who are
teaching in Christ's name, expelling demons in His name, and performing
miracles in His name do so for one of these perverse reasons. Because in truth,
real followers of Christ are encouraged to teach, expel demons and do miracles
in His name. So it is not that there is something wrong in these 3 deeds; it is the
motive and intent of the doer that is wicked.
Christ's response to this is terrifying:
CJB Matthew 7:23 Then I will tell them to their faces, 7 never knew you! Get
away from me, you workers of lawlessness!'
At the Great Judgment the Great Judge will reject those who plead their case in
such a way. Yeshua knows their hearts and minds. He refuses to grant them
12/13
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lesson 25 - Matthew 7 cont 2
entry into the fulfilled Kingdom of Heaven.
But when He speaks of "workers of lawlessness", much of the institutional
Church nearly has a heart attack, or they just read by this and pay little attention.
But this verse connects back to chapter 5 verse 17-19. Remember: the subject
is entry into the Kingdom of Heaven and its prerequisites. The Greek word used
here for lawlessness is anomia. The KJV prefers to use the term iniquity and the
NAB says evil doers. Why choose those words that seem to deviate from literal
translations? The Greek word for law is nomia (and nomos), and so the word for
having no law it is a-nomia. But acknowledging this opens up a can worms
because what law can Jesus be taking about except the Torah Law.... the Law of
Moses? He obviously isn't talking about any kind of secular law whereby
somebody breaks one of those laws. He doesn't mean Roman law. The only law
that matters because it affects a Believer's eternal status is God's law as He
made so very clear earlier in His sermon, back in chapter 5, and specifically as it
connects to a person's place in the Kingdom of Heaven. And what did He say?
CJB Matthew 5:17-19 17 "Don't think that I have come to abolish the Torah or
the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete. 18 Yes indeed! I
tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or a
stroke will pass from the Torah- not until everything that must happen has
happened. 19 So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot and teaches
others to do so will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But
whoever obeys them and so teaches will be called great in the Kingdom of
Heaven.
Chapter 7 verse 22 closes the circle and settles the matter. Lawlessness for
Jesus is Torah-lessness. It is trying to operate outside of God's written
commandments. Entrance to the Kingdom of Heaven requires more than calling
on Christ's name. It requires obedience to God's Torah. We'll explore that matter
further next time.
13/13

Lesson 26 - Matthew 7 cont 3
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 26, Chapter 7 Continued 3
In our previous lesson in Matthew chapter 7, Christ continues His Sermon on the
Mount by making this unnerving statement in verses 22 and 23.
CJB Matthew 7:22-23 22 On that Day, many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord! Didn't
we prophesy in your name? Didn't we expel demons in your name? Didn't
we perform many miracles in your name?' 23 Then I will tell them to their
faces, 'I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!'
We're going to focus the bulk of our time together today on this passage that
ought to be a shot across our collective and individual bow, because too easily
Believers.... especially casual Christians.... dismiss it and think that this could not
possibly be speaking about them or their congregation. What is a casual
Christian? There is little better description of that than what we find in
ICorithians. Paul put it this way as He spoke to the congregation of Christ
Believers, Jews and gentiles, in the City of Corinth:
CJB 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 11t is actually being reported that there is sexual sin
among you, and it is sexual sin of a kind that is condemned even by
pagans- a man is living with his stepmother! 2 And you stay proud?
Shouldn't you rather have felt some sadness that would have led you to
remove from your company the man who has done this thing? 3 For I
myself, even though I am absent physically, am with you spiritually; and I
have already judged the man who has done this as if I were present. 4
In the
name of the Lord Yeshua, when you are assembled, with me present
spiritually and the power of our Lord Yeshua among us, 5 hand over such a
person to the Adversary for his old nature to be destroyed, so that his spirit
1 / 13

Lesson 26 - Matthew 7 cont 3
may be saved in the Day of the Lord.
A casual Believer, or a casual Christian, is one who practices disobedience to
God, and is even proud of it. Notice that while the immediate consequence on
earth for a casual Christian may be little more than expulsion from the
congregation, the eternal consequences begin upon the arrival of the Day of the
Lord.
In our previous lesson we discussed that among Jews in the 1st century the term
"on that Day" was a shortened form of "The Day of the Lord" and it meant
Judgment Day. It pointed to the day that the history of mankind and the world as
it currently operated (and operates) ends, and a new era dawns. On that day all
humanity will be judged by God in a judicial sense. That is, all will stand before
God as a defendant in a court of law and be judicially judged with the effects of
the verdict lasting for eternity. The judgment will be rendered according to our
works and deeds while we were still living. Admittedly, the common view of how
the world would end, what would happen next, even what death itself brought
next (if anything) was not a decided matter among Jewish religious authorities in
the New Testament era and so it presented nothing like a firm or commonly held
conviction within Jewish society. However what was generally understood was
that God would judge each human at that point (or more likely in the Jewish
mindset of that era, each Jewish human).
Therefore to help explain what people could expect on Judgment Day, Christ
makes it clear within the theme and context of what He is saying that it is He who
will act on behalf of The Father to make those judgments. The fundamental
criteria He will judge by is 2 things: first whether He "knows" us, and second if we
are or are not "workers of lawlessness". We should notice that the first criteria
depends on the second. That is, if one is lawless, then Christ does not know us.
But the question now becomes: what does it mean to know us, and what is
lawlessness? His saying "I never knew you" cannot possibly mean that the
individual standing before Him on the Day of Judgment was a stranger to Him in
the literal sense that He had no prior knowledge of that person's existence. And it
cannot mean that He never knew that person's character and inner being prior to
the moment of Judgment. Rather to "not know" means: I renounce you. I do not
accept you as a member of the Kingdom of Heaven. You are not one of My own.
This interpretation of what Jesus meant is illustrated by Paul who uses the term
"to know" in a pertinent passage in 1Corinthians.
2/13


Lesson 26 - Matthew 7 cont 3
CJB 1 Corinthians 8:1-3 1 Now about food sacrificed to idols: we know that,
as you say, 'We all have knowledge." Yes, that is so, but "knowledge" puffs
a person up with pride; whereas love builds up. 2 The person who thinks he
"knows" something doesn't yet know in the way he ought to
know. 3 However, if someone loves God, God knows him.
Paul makes a kind of riddle by employing a play on words using the terms "to
know" and "to have knowledge" several times and in several ways, all with
slightly different meanings. That is, within this short passage "to know" can mean
to have knowledge. To "have knowledge" can mean to possess information.
Later Paul uses "to know" in the sense of having a belief or a firm conviction
about something. And then finally Paul says that if someone loves God, then God
knows him. But God knowing someone cannot mean merely possessing
information about them, or having a conviction about them, or simply being aware
of their existence. Notice how Paul first talks about knowing and knowledge from
the human perspective. Only at the last does he talk about it from the divine
perspective. And from the divine perspective "to know" someone means that God
accepts that person as one of His own provided that person loves Him. Therefore
it has the same meaning in Matthew 7:23. For Christ to "not know" someone
means to not accept them; it means to reject them.
But on what grounds does Christ reject that person or persons? He says it is
because they are workers of lawlessness. Most Bible versions say "lawlessness"
(which is a good, literal translation of the Greek anomia), but some others like
the KJV say "iniquity" or in a few translations like the NAB it is translated as "evil
doers". Why the difference? While I cannot get into the minds of the translators
with any kind of certainty, from the outside I can see only one reason: it is to blur
what is actually said and meant in order to lead us to a different conclusion than
what Christ intended. What is the motive for doing that? Because if we accept the
obvious meaning, then it throws a monkey wrench into the works of some rather
widely held church doctrines.
To best understand what Christ meant by "lawlessness" I'd like to substitute the
term Torah-lessness, or perhaps The Law of Moses-lessness. I have no doubt of
this interpretation because if we take the phrase the way it is most often taught,
then it means that if we are criminals or violators of any system of civil laws on
earth, then He rejects us. Can our adherence to manmade legal systems.... some
of them horribly corrupt and ungodly, be what Christ will use to determine our
eternal worthiness to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven? As Paul might say:
3/13

Lesson 26 - Matthew 7 cont 3
"Heaven forbid!" Thus lawlessness can only mean the lack of obedience to the
Law of Moses.
This subject, and the general subject of the Law of Moses as it pertains to
Believers, is a mammoth undertaking. So at this time I am going to take us on a
significant detour to examine it. To start our detour we must backtrack to the
beginning of Jesus's Sermon on the Mount.
In Matthew chapter 5 after He has made a series of statements about 'how
blessed are the poor in spirit, the meek, those who show mercy, and those who
seek peace' Yeshua suddenly pauses when He seems to realize that the huge
Jewish crowd listening to Him (and perhaps those who would read His words in
the coming centuries) might misunderstand what He was saying or have some
objections to His words. He perceived that they might have thought He was
pronouncing a new set of laws and commands; that is, a new Law of Jesus. I can
imagine Him standing up, scanning the huge crowd and making eye contact with
those nearest to Him, and then earnestly cautioning His rapt listeners using these
words of Matthew 5:17-19:
CJBMatthew 5:17-19 17 "Don't think that I have come to abolish the Torah or
the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete. 18 Yes indeed! I
tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or a
stroke will pass from the Torah- not until everything that must happen has
happened. 19 So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot and teaches
others to do so will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But
whoever obeys them and so teaches will be called great in the Kingdom of
Heaven.
Christ said that He did NOT do the very thing that a majority portion of His
Believers today, and for the last 16 to 17 centuries, say that He did: abolish the
Law of Moses and replace it with His own commands. I challenge the nearly
universal Church doctrine that the Law of Moses is dead and gone. I believe that
this subject, which is only recently starting to be re-examined by a small segment
of the Body of Christ, is most appropriate at this time because we appear to have
entered the final stage of mankind's salvation history that leads to universal
judgment.
Little has divided the gentile Church from our earliest faith roots (as but an
offshoot of 1st century Judaism) more than the determination of what the effect of
4/13

Lesson 26 - Matthew 7 cont 3
the Old Testament Biblical Law ought to be upon Christians. My intent is
therefore to establish a context for us (as Believers) to comprehend the Law
within the boundaries of the teaching of the overall Bible and our faith in Yeshua
as Savior, perhaps in a different way than you have ever considered it. I will do
this by FIRST establishing the point of view of the Apostle Paul who is at once
the most difficult, most controversial New Testament contributor but who is also
the most prolific and influential writer upon whom so many of the doctrines and
beliefs of the Christian Church have been established.
Let's start by defining the term "The Law" because there is more to it than
meets the eye. Before we can rightly discern what Jesus meant by the lack of
law, anomia, (lawlessness as taken from Matthew 7:23), we first have to know
what the biblical term "law" is referring to because it can mean different things in
different usages. The Bible, Genesis to Revelation, is a thoroughly Jewish (or
more technically, Hebrew) construction. Therefore we must consult Jewish
scholars to understand the context and backdrop of its meaning. When a
Christian sits down to discuss The Law with a Jew, the two parties have entirely
different concepts of what the discussion is about. Christians think of The Law as
being a series of strict rules and commands, do's and don'ts, and blessings
and "curses" in the OT Law of Moses. Jews on the other hand see The Law as
consisting of far more than what is written in the Old Testament. Judaism says
that Moses did NOT write down a// that God gave him on Mt. Sinai. Most of what
God told Moses, it is said, was handed down and passed on by word of mouth,
from generation to generation over the centuries. And, by shear volume, this
additional Law called the Oral Law far outstrips the written Law (that which was
given on Mt. Sinai). But there is also Halachah, the foundation of
the Talmud. The Talmud is a compilation of Jewish Rabbinical instructions and
rulings that is designed to give the Hebrew people laws and ordinances that can
be observed outside of the direct and written Laws of Moses, but (according to
the Rabbis) those rulings are within the intent of the Law of Moses. It is due to
the present absence of a Temple and Priesthood, which are necessary to enforce
much of the Law of Moses, that is why these law of the Rabbis are considered
not just valid but necessary out of practicality. This version or kind of law
eventually became more popularly known among Jews by another broad
name: Tradition. However it is also often included under the general heading of
"Torah" or even just "Law".
With this rather broad Jewish understanding of the term "The Law" in mind, I'd
like to tell you the Jewish position about the Law; and even more important to
5/13
.....

Lesson 26 - Matthew 7 cont 3
our lesson today, their perspective on how Christians deal with the Law because
it is this perspective that in turn gives rise to the nearly universal
Jewish opposition to Christianity. First Judaism sees Christians as having
declared all the rulings and commands of the Law as null and void.
Second, Judaism says that Christians believe that the Law was an essentially a
negative, wretched, rigid and faulty institution.
Third, Jews believe that Christians see grace as strictly a New Testament
innovation that played no role among Israel's religion (that is represented by the
Old Testament) prior to Jesus. And that Believers in Jesus say that there is now
a strong distinction between God's Law and God's Grace, that the two are
mutually exclusive, and one must choose one over the other; law or grace.
Therefore there is a great divide between the faith of Jews and the faith of
Christians. Their conclusion is that Christians MUST believe that the God of the
OT is a fundamentally different god than the God of the New Testament
otherwise Christ followers could not believe such things.
Interestingly, the Jews are not too far off the mark in their perception of what the
institutional Church believes and teaches, are they? There is a thread of thought
woven tightly throughout mainstream Christianity that the god of the Jews is the
subject of the OT, and the god of the Christians is the subject of the NT.
Therefore the OT Law is for the Jews, and the NT grace by faith... the Law of
Jesus... is for Christians.
Jews will (correctly) argue that grace is part and parcel of God's Law. That is,
grace is the entire point of the Sacrificial System whereby an innocent animal
pays the price of atonement for a human person's sins. The animal, then, is a
substitute for what is rightly due to humans for sinning: death. They see the Law
a divine gift to mankind of the greatest benefit and providing marvelous joy.
Further, they believe that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The
very first Christians, who were overwhelmingly Jews, did NOT hold to the
viewpoint that the gentile dominated church has developed over the centuries as
a core theological principle the anti-Law view. Rather, from a historical
perspective, it was only around 70 years after Christ's death when gentiles
began to take over the leadership of this Messianic movement (as the first
followers of Christ were called) that this anti-Law view first raised its ugly head.
So Jews see that most Christians believe that now, because of Jesus, the Law is
6/13
...... .....
.....

Lesson 26 - Matthew 7 cont 3
dead and gone, having been replaced by grace by faith (and they point to Paul
as having said that). But did the Jewish Paul actually hold that view? Did Paul
believe and/or teach that the Law was to be abandoned and replaced because it
was bad and inferior? Let's examine Paul a little bit, because Paul's words are
the primary source for modern Christian doctrine.
One must bear in mind that Paul was not just any ordinary Jew; he was highly
educated in Jerusalem at the esteemed school of Gamaliel, and was well on his
way up the religious social ladder as a Pharisee of Pharisees. Few knew the Law
(Tradition and biblical) as Paul knew the Law. Now, the question for us is, as a
result of Paul's encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus, did
Paul give up the religion of his Hebrew forefathers for something new? Did he
stop observing the Law of Moses and instead go on a crusade to convince other
Jews to give it up, and for gentiles who wanted to follow Christ to ignore it? Was
it his intent that followers of Yeshua were to never again celebrate any of the
Biblical Festivals? That they should quit going to the Temple and should shun the
10 commandments of Mt. Sinai that were set down by God and given to Moses?
Let's begin to get our bearing on Paul, the man, by reading a small excerpt from
Acts.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 21:15 - 26
Clearly James the Just, the biological brother of Yeshua and the supreme leader
of the Believing Jews in Jerusalem didn't think Paul had quit observing the Law.
Yet there were rabble-rousers among the religious Jews who accused Paul of
TEACHING against the Law in all its forms. James had a solution to this
slanderous accusation: put Paul to a very public test. Paul was told to go with
certain men, described as brethren meaning Messianic Jews Christian
Jews who had taken the vow of a Nazarite, and to go the Temple and observe
the standard Jewish purification rituals that accompany these vows. James fully
expected Paul to comply and here in Acts 21 we see that Paul did as was
suggested without balking in any way! So was Paul being a phony just to please
James? Many, if not most, denominational leaders will answer in the affirmative.
If we're going to understand Paul and to define him in his proper Jewish context,
we must begin by asking ourselves a very basic question: did He agree with
Yeshua on every point, or not? And as we peel the layers back a bit deeper we
must also ask: did Paul teach what Jesus taught about the Law of Moses, or did
7/13

Lesson 26 - Matthew 7 cont 3
he teach someone different?
Let's revisit the Sermon on the Mount.
READ MATT 5:17-19
CJB Matthew 5:17 "Don't think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the
Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete. 18 Yes indeed! I tell
you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or a
stroke will pass from the Torah- not until everything that must happen has
happened.
Yeshua has just said in His sermon that He has NOT abolished the Law, nor
should anyone ever SAY it has been abolished, nor should it ever be taught that
even SOME of the laws have been modified let alone replaced by anything that
He would say. So did Christ tell several thousand people at the Sea of Galilee
that His coming and His teachings did NOT abolish or replace the Law, but then
a few years later speaking from Heaven He said the opposite to Paul, and then
sent Paul off to tell people NOT to obey the commands of the Torah? To pay no
attention to what Yeshua taught when He was alive and on earth?
Without question the Law is something that never should have been removed
from its divine place as central to trust in God and to His Messiah. Therefore it
never should have been removed from Christian doctrine and it must be restored.
The lawlessness, the anti-Law view, must end. It is more important to our faith
than ever, today, IF we have the eyes to see and the ears to hear. According to
Matthew 7:23 our eternity will be greatly affected by our decision on this matter.
I want to give you some points to ponder about the true biblical nature and
character of The Law of Moses as explained in the Scriptures.
• The Law was never created to be a source of justification or
salvation.The Law of Moses was not given by God for redemption, and
never used as such at any point in history. The Law was created and given
to a people (the Hebrews) who were a/readyGod didn't redeem Israel
from Egypt by means of the Law; God FIRST redeemed them as a free gift
of deliverance from bondage, and then a few months after their redemption
He brought them to His holy mountain.... Mt. Sinai... to give them His Law.
I propose that this is same pattern that is unchanged and intended for all
8/13

Lesson 26 - Matthew 7 cont 3
Believers. FIRST we receive Christ, THEN we receive God's
commandments. Because without first receiving the Lord, and more
importantly the Lord acceptingus, we have no ability to properly carry out
His commands in the spirit they were intended. Let me say this another
way: Yeshua says in His Sermon on the Mount that The Law, the Torah,
is our manual for living the redeemed life, as a member of the Kingdom of
Heaven. It is not (and never was) a means to redemption.
• The Law tells us what sin is, and it reveals to us our sinful natures.
The Law, the Torah, gives us the knowledge and consciousness of sin. I
suspect that most of you accept that rather easily because that generally is the
standard doctrine in most denominations. Yet in the same breath it is equally as
often said that the Law was and remains ONLY for the Jews. Here is the
question: if God intended that the Law was ONLY to be studied and obeyed by
the Jews, how is it that a gentile Christian can say that a Jewish-only Law is OUR
source for the knowledge and consciousness of sin if it does not apply to us?
• Trusting Christ confirms the Torah and The Law.Let's read Romans
3:28 through 4:3.
CJB Romans 3:28-31 28 Therefore, we hold the view that a person comes to
be considered righteous by God on the ground of trusting, which has
nothing to do with legalistic observance of Torah commands. 29 Or is God
the God of the Jews only? Isn't he also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, he is
indeed the God of the Gentiles; 30 because, as you will admit, God is one.
Therefore, he will consider righteous the circumcised on the ground of
trusting and the uncircumcised through that same trusting. 31 Does it follow
that we abolish Torah by this trusting? Heaven forbid! On the contrary, we
confirm Torah.
CJB Romans 4:1-3 1 Then what should we say Avraham, our forefather,
obtained by his own efforts? 2 For if Avraham came to be considered
righteous by God because of legalistic observances, then he has
something to boast about. But this is not how it is before God! 3 For what
does the Tanakh say? "Avraham put his trust in God, and it was credited to
his account as righteousness."
The context for this vital section of the Book of Romans is summed up in Romans
3:31 when we see that Paul makes the point that trusting in Messiah does not
9/13
.....

Lesson 26 - Matthew 7 cont 3
abolish the Law and in fact actually validates it! But the punch line of this entire
statement is framed in verse 2 of Romans 4 where it speaks of justification. Paul
says that if someone tries to use their obedience to the Law as their
righteousness before God; that is, as a means to justification, they will incur
God's wrath. Why? Because obeying the Law is wrong? Is it obedience to
something that is faulty or no longer exists? No; it's because justification is NOT
what God created the Law created to do. Trust in God and to the Messiah He
sent to us, and the righteousness that trust imputed upon us, is the one and
ONLY means to justification. And, with the advent of God on Earth, Jesus Christ,
faith in Christ is the one and only means to justification and to try to use
something else for this purpose such as obedience to the Law of Moses.... is
not only wrong and ineffective, it is also offensive to God. Yet that hardly means
that obedience to God's laws and commands is now irrelevant. Being a Believer
equips us to be more devoted to The Law, because we can now do what is
commands in the proper spirit. Do you see this? Yeshua said that His purpose
was to fulfill the Law, not to abolish it. For without the Law, how will we know
what pleases and displeases God? How will we know what sin and holiness is?
How will we calibrate our moral compasses? Only accepting the truth of the
Gospel is needed for Salvation; but the Law remains fully valid and it is there to
guide us through our lives on earth and into the Kingdom of Heaven. It is to teach
us right from wrong, and sin from righteousness. You see, after we become
saved THAT is the moment when we should begin to seek this knowledge of the
Law, and to learn it so that we know how to DO it! To properly incorporate God's
laws and commands into our lifestyles and behaviors that make us reflective of
God's ideal. Do it in reverse, and you indeed can get an unholy legalism.
4) The Law acts as our protector. By our being obedient to the principles of
the Law, we are living within a Kingdom of Light and Truth designed by the
Creator. The Lord constantly tells His people not to wander outside of the
boundaries of this Kingdom, because outside of it is nothing but deceit and
darkness and death.
A good question right about now ought to be: how do we 21st century Believers
who do not live in an ancient Hebrew culture, obey the Law in the way and spirit
that Paul prescribes? Step one is by acknowledging that the Law and the Grace
of Christ are not mutually exclusive; rather they are complementary. Christ
redeems, the Holy Spirit reveals and guides, and The Law instructs and protects
us.
10/13

Lesson26 - Matthew 7 cont 3
The intent of The Law is to instruct Believers in God's principles and that is what
we should focus on. The New Testament rests entirely upon the foundation of the
Torah and The Law, and so the NT generally expects its readers to already know
the principles of The Torah and The Law.
Let's return for a moment to how Judaism views the "righteousness before God"
aspect of the Law. One of the prime assumptions within the Church is that Jews
endeavor to work their way to Heaven by being obedient to the Law and so
Judaism is a religion totally reliant on human deeds and behavior as a self␂justification, while Christianity is a religion 100% based on grace and thus for us
works and deeds and especially obedience to God's commandments are either
secondary or might even present a danger to our Salvation. It might surprise you
to know that Jews do NOT believe that being obedient to the Torah (the Law) is
what takes them to Heaven. For one reason Jews don't believe that after death
one GOES to Heaven to live with God.
I think this quote from a well-known Jewish website called Judaism 101says it
best:
QUOTE: Some people look at these teachings and deduce that Jews try to
"earn our way into Heaven" by performing the mitzvot. This is a gross
mischaracterization of our religion. It is important to remember that unlike
some religions, Judaism is not focused on the question of how to get into
heaven. Judaism is focused on life and how to live it. Non-Jews frequently
ask me, "do you really think you're going to go to * if you don't do such␂and-such?" It always catches me a bit off balance, because the question of
where I am going after death simply doesn't enter into the equation when I
think about the mitzvot, l/l/e perform the mitzvot because it is our privilege
and our sacred obligation to do so. l/l/eperform them out of a sense of love
and duty, not out of a desire to get something in return.
Jews believe that their greatest duty to God, and the greatest joy they can attain
during their life on earth, is to know that their obedience to the Law is pleasing
the God of Israel, and there is practically no thought of what happens when life is
over.
Christianity has moved toward a different extreme. While Jews generally have
little thought about life after death, for Believers our lives on earth is often viewed
as having but modest meaning and instead most of our thoughts and efforts point
11 / 13
.....

Lesson 26 - Matthew 7 cont 3
towards life after death and all its Heavenly rewards. We see our works and
behavior as having a very limited role in our lives; instead it's our belief in Christ
and our good thoughts that are everything.
Because the point of this detour is to bring us to a concrete understanding of
Matthew 7:22 and 23, and what Yeshua means by "workers of Lawlessness" I
want to once again quote Paul.
RSV 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 1 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ and our assembling to meet him, we beg you, brethren, 2 not to be
quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter
purporting to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has
come. 3 Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come,
unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed,
the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so␂called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of
God, proclaiming himself to be God.
Who is this man of lawlessness? We all understand that he is the Anti-Christ,
don't we? So what does this man's lawlessness refer to? Is he disobedient to
Roman law? To Syrian law? To American law? To International law? Is the anti␂Christ simply a modern super-scofflaw like Jessie James or Bonnie and Clyde
who has no regards for the different laws created by the many different societies
and nations? When the Bible refers to law it only ever means one thing: The Law.
The Torah. The Laws of Moses. God's laws. Our possible entry into the Kingdom
of Heaven is certainly not measured by manmade laws. So this man of
lawlessness is the epitome of a worker of Torah-lessness. He is a man who will
thumb his nose at God's laws and commandments, and God's moral definitions
of good and evil.
Therefore The Law is important and valid and relevant for us not only for the
several reasons we've discussed, but because if we don't know The Law we will
hardly be able to recognize the Anti-Christ who will be primarily known by him
being anti-Law being against God's Torah. Being against the Law of Moses.
Being a worker of lawlessness.
Bottom line: This warning about lawlessness is not to pagans. This warning is to
those who claim to rely on Yeshua's name, and who claim to be part of the
Believers' congregation the world over. Some of these people will be intentionally
12/13
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lesson 26 - Matthew 7 cont 3
counterfeit in order to inflict harm; others will deceive themselves and think they
can claim Christ, but at the same time deny God's commandments and do what
is right in their own eyes. Yeshua calls these the "workers of lawlessness" and
they will be denied entry into the Kingdom of Heaven.
This ends our detour and we'll take up verse 24 and move towards completion of
the Sermon on the Mount the next time we meet.
13/13

Lesson 27 - Matthew 7 & 8
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 27, Chapter 7 and 8
We'll conclude Yeshua's Sermon on the Mount today, which we have spent 17
lessons studying because of its incomparable value, and we'll also open the door
into Matthew chapter 8. But first let's take a look back on the all-important (and
not just a little bit scary) topic from last week about what Yeshua meant by what
He said in Chapter 7 verses 22 and 23.
CJB Matthew 7:22-23 22 On that Day, many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord! Didn't
we prophesy in your name? Didn't we expel demons in your name? Didn't
we perform many miracles in your name?' 23 Then I will tell them to their
faces, 'I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!'
The phrase of our focus is "workers of lawlessness". The bottom line is that after
a thorough study of this term last week, the conclusion is that the term
"lawlessness" can only indicate one thing: "Torah-lessness" or "The Law of
Moses-lessness". It is the Greek word anomia being translated that most literally
means "without law". We even find Paul using this same term (many years after
Yeshua's time on earth) to describe the anti-Christ. Working backwards from
Paul, we have to ask ourselves a basic question: is the anti-Christ called the
"Man of Lawlessness" because he thumbs his nose at societal civil and criminal
laws? If so, according to which set of human laws is he rebelling? International
law? American law? European Union law? Sharia law? My question is somewhat
rhetorical in that the answer is obvious: it can be none of these manmade law
codes. The anti-Christ is called such because He is by nature against (he is anti)
God. The only laws that God validates are the ones that He has laid down for
mankind: the biblical Law of Moses; the anti-Christ wants none of that. So it is
that in Jesus's statement in verse 23 that "workers of lawlessness" is a term
1 / 12

Lesson 27 - Matthew 7 & 8
describing all those who deny and/or disobey God's commandments; the Torah,
The Law. Remember: there was no such thing as a New Testament in Yeshua's
day and such a thing wouldn't exist for nearly 2 more centuries after His death
and resurrection. So neither Christ nor Paul could in any way be referring to the
supposed New Testament laws that replace the Old Testament laws. The
reference to "lawlessness" can only be to the Old Testament laws since that was
the only Holy Scripture in existence in that era, and especially since Yeshua's
entire sermon is based on His teaching and authoritative interpretation of the
Torah in light of the recent arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth.
Therefore when taken in proper context "workers of lawlessness" include non␂Believers, fake Believers, and self-deceived Believers. It is my opinion that a
goodly portion of the Church is, and has been for centuries, self-deceived
because of the adoption of doctrines that specifically deny the relevance of The
Law of Moses for Christ followers and in fact legislates against following it. Yet
there is a gray area in between a "worker of lawlessness" and a person who is, in
chapter 5 verse 19, relegated to being "least in the Kingdom of Heaven" for not
obeying The Law and for teaching against it.
CJB Matthew 5:19 19 So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot and
teaches others to do so will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven.
But whoever obeys them and so teaches will be called great in the
Kingdom of Heaven.
That is to say that in 7:23, the "workers of lawlessness" are those who are denied
entry into the Kingdom of Heaven. But in 5:19, whoever disobeys The Law and
teaches others to do so will be those who are given entry into the Kingdom
(based upon their trust in Messiah Yeshua), but they will be placed (forever) on
the absolute lowest rung of whatever societal structure exists within the Kingdom
of Heaven. Where that fine but hazy line exists between those two designations I
do not know. However in both cases the issue is a chosen and determined
disobedience to God's Torah. So the wise thing for a Believer to do in order to
avoid either of these eternal consequences is to quit listening to a blinded Church
that says that the Law is dead and gone and that Christ has replaced the Law of
Moses with a Law of Jesus (something that doesn't biblically exist); and therefore
once we get our salvation we can sort of retire because subservience to God or
unquestioned obedience to any divinely given rule is legalism and thus to be
avoided as a bad thing. This doctrine is an agenda driven lie and it will lead us to
a very harsh outcome that Christ Himself has warned us against. I plead with
2/12

Lesson 27 - Matthew 7 & 8
you; if you value your eternity, then out of self-preservation I suggest you
consider fleeing such a congregation even if it means being ostracized from your
social circle. The one thing I can assure you is that you will lose some of the
relationships you've had with friends and acquaintances in that congregation; so
the count the cost. Yet, which means more to you as a Believer: obeying God
and His Word and reaping those eternal rewards? Or disobeying God and His
Word and suffering the consequences?
Let's read Matthew 7 starting at verse 24.
RE-READ MATTHEW CHAPTER 7:24 - end
Yeshua says that every man that hears His words and DOES them is a like a
wise person who builds the foundation of his house on the rock. In a different
setting Luke has Yeshua saying the same thing, only slightly differently.
CJB Luke 11:28 But he said, "Far more blessed are those who hear the
word of God and obey it!"
What is being expressed is the Hebrew concept of shema. Shema means to
hear and obey, or to hear and do. The concept is rather simple. In all ages it is
fallen man's tendency to want to be emotionally uplifted by hearing fine words of
truth, but then when it comes time to put those words into action, passivity or
ambivalence sets in. Jesus is telling His audience that while it is to their merit that
they came to hear Him, and many listened intently and being there and hearing
and agreeing with Him was good, but insufficient. Do not we see the same thing
happening in both Synagogue and Church in modern times? Perhaps even we
ourselves are guilty of it. We feel very good about ourselves that we set aside
that hour or so each week to go to a worship service and to sit quietly and listen
to the sermon. But once we leave our seats and get back to the real world, do we
remember what was said? Or more importantly, does it convert to actions and
deeds?
Not too long before he passed away, in a TV interview Billy Graham confessed
that after decades of follow up his organization had done on the millions that had
left their seats and come forward at his Crusades, only a little over 1% continued
on in any recognizable way with the commitment to Christ that they had so
enthusiastically made there. The 99% heard and were moved by it; but they did
not do. And because they didn't do, their rush of conviction to make a positive
3/12

Lesson 27 - Matthew 7 & 8
change in their lives quickly faded away. Yeshua will, at a later time, actually
address this issue in a famous parable about sowing seeds in various kinds of
soil. God gave the basis for this ordinance and principle of shema, and the
outcome for ignoring it, in Deuteronomy 28.
CJB Deuteronomy 28:15 "But if you refuse to pay attention to what ADONAl
your God says, and do not observe and obey all his mitzvot and regulations
which I am giving you today, then all the following curses will be yours in
abundance:
For the next few verses Jesus gives an illustration of how valuable it is to pay
attention to what He has just taught and to live it out. So He draws a simple
analogy that is self-evident to everyone present: the man who builds his house
on rock versus the man who builds his house on sand. Clearly not one in His
audience would build his house on sand anymore than we would. So the point He
is making is easily understood.
For us, the thing to understand is that He is speaking mostly about the foundation
of the house.... an analogy for our spiritual foundation. That is, every house
necessarily starts with a foundation. Any experienced builder will tell you that the
foundation and the soil under it is the key to it all. Begin with a faulty foundation
or unstable soil and everything above it will be shaky and short lived. Begin with
a firm soil and a solid, correctly constructed foundation, and everything above it
will be safe, secure, and long lived. The foundation He is speaking about is The
Torah.... The Law of Moses. Or in more modern thinking, The Bible (all of it, not
just the New Testament). If the foundation is built on rock then it means our
spiritual foundation is built on proper doctrine. If the foundation is built on sand,
then it is built on poor and incorrect doctrine.
Notice that what happens next has to do with when calamity strikes. That is,
Christ's point is about the inevitable tough times that come into every person's
life, Believer or non-Believer, if we live long enough. Sand or rock, when the
weather is good (indicating good times), then everything seems safe and secure.
The foundation stays in place and so the house seems to be properly built. But,
when the weather turns foul (indicating bad times), the foundation is put to the
test. If it is a good foundation, the house will survive the storm. But if it has a bad
foundation, the house will not.
To do the will of the Father in Heaven is the prudent thing for us to do and is
4/12
.....

Lesson 27 - Matthew 7 & 8
evidence of the good fruit that Yeshua spoke about earlier in His sermon.
Friends, modern Christianity has put a permanent happy face on our faith walk;
or more appropriately faith "stroll", although in reality too often ours is a lazy faith.
We believe that we should trust in Christ and our reward will be nothing but fair
weather and smooth sailing ahead. But then the inevitable and unexpected
happens, and because of the poor and shaky doctrine we have been taught, we
blame God for our troubles feeling that He has failed in His promise to protect us
from bad things happening in our lives. Many walk away from God disillusioned
and feeling jilted. These are those who built their houses on sand most did so
unknowingly, or perhaps a better word is to say they did it ignorantly. So to ignore
Jesus's words, and to believe that God's laws and commands, which Christ has
been urging us to uphold, are no longer relevant to a Christian, is to build one's
house on sand. I can say it no more plainly than that, for that is precisely what
Christ is teaching.
Yeshua's Sermon on the Mount has now come to a close. He has spoken for a
long time, addressed many subjects, and summed it all up in the last few verses.
Now the Gospel writer Matthew makes a comment. He says the crowd Jesus had
talked to was amazed by what they had heard. It was not only the Godly
principles He taught (some long forgotten), but rather it was the authority by
which He spoke. There was no equivocating. There was no quoting or borrowing
from one of the renowned and known teachers or speakers of His day to validate
what He taught. Matthew says He spoke far above the Torah teachers. It is
important to understand who Christ was being compared to. Where our CJB says
"Torah teachers", the Greek is grammateus. It more literally translates to
"scribes". In Yeshua's day "scribes" were the primary teachers in the
Synagogues. Thus most scribes (perhaps all) were Pharisees and while they no
doubt taught God's Word, it was taught within the context of Jewish Tradition.
Yeshua taught within the context of the biblical Torah; not Tradition. While not all
Tradition is to be held suspect, Tradition cannot be compared to God's immutable
Word. When we hear God's Word told in truth, it is transformative.
Let's move on to Matthew chapter 8.
READ MATTHEW CHAPTER 8 all
As usual, we need to ignore the chapter marking and understand that the first
verse of what we call chapter 8 connects with the final verse of chapter 7. So,
immediately following the conclusion of His speech, Yeshua and His Disciples go
5/12

Lesson 27 - Matthew 7 & 8
down from the hills above the Galilee and journey a few miles to where He was
living at that time: Capernaum. Along the way, as one might expect, large
numbers of people who heard Him speak followed Him. What we read about Him
doing 2000 years ago, they witnessed in person. He miraculously healed 3
people. It could well have been more who were healed (and probably was), but
Matthew liked to record things in threes.
I want to remind you that no doubt the people who followed Him down the
mountain came expecting miracle healings. After all, to this point Jesus was still
seen by the Jews as a Tzadik, a Holy Man, because healing is what a Holy Man
did. Yeshua had not yet revealed that He was the Messiah nor had He plainly
disclosed that He was divine.
During His walk back to his residence He encountered a person with a skin
disease. Nearly all Bible translations will say "leper"; but the CJB has it right
when it says Tzara'at. I don't have to describe to you what a leper is; it is a
dreadful, disfiguring disease that does terrible things to the person who receives
no medical treatment. Tzara'at is a special kind of skin disease that includes a
number of skin maladies. The unique feature about it is its source: it is God␂imposed upon a person as a means of discipline and punishment.
We need to notice how Matthew structured his narrative. We have Yeshua go up
a mountain, and then come back down a mountain, and then we have Him
dealing with a person stricken with a skin disease. We find this same pattern with
Moses, whom Matthew is quite intent on comparing to Christ. Numbers 12 tells
the story Moses' sister Miriam who spoke against her brother, complaining that if
Moses could prophesy then so should she. God struck her with Tzara'at for her
rebellion and apostasy. Moses prayed to God to deliver her from her skin disease
and God said He would, but only after she was separated from her people for 7
days. So now we find Christ, God incarnate, heal a person with skin disease. But
there is more to this story.
Hours earlier Christ had told people that in order to enter into the Kingdom of
Heaven one needs to ask, seek, and knock. So Christ didn't notice this sick
person and go to him; rather the sick person sought out Christ, knelt before Him
(meaning he sort of blocked His path and made himself noticeable) and asked to
be healed. Yeshua said He would heal him. We are meant to notice the
terminology. The word "healed" is not actually used. Instead the afflicted man
asked Yeshua to make him clean. This is because ritual cleanness is the central
6/12

Lesson 27 - Matthew 7 & 8
issue for a person that has been divinely struck with Tzara'at. That is, generally
speaking, the various skin ailments that one could receive as punishment were
not fatal. Instead they made the person ritually unclean, which meant they had to
be isolated away from all others so that they would not pass their uncleanness to
someone else by touching them. Such a thing was not only devastating from a
social status standpoint, but it could be economically devastating as well
especially if a family man was stricken because it could almost immediately throw
the entire family into poverty.
I find it ironic that even in the 21st century, in the most advanced societies, that
getting a disease that requires isolation (or isolation to keep from the disease)
reveals the tremendous economic impact isolation and separation can have on
people. The Covid-19 pandemic of 2020 has caused millions and millions of
people to be thrown out of work or to lose their businesses mostly because of the
government imposed isolation. So when we read in the Bible about the plight of
people isolated due to ritual impurity, perhaps we have a better idea now of just
what that meant for them in both social and economic terms.
Please pay special attention to what Christ does: He precisely follows the Law of
Moses in dealing with this diseased man. Why would we expect anything else?
Yeshua has just come from teaching for several hours about the need for
following the Torah law, and specifically and unmistakably saying that in no way
did He abolish it or even modify it. Believe me; those many Jews looking on, as
well the man who was stricken, knew exactly what the procedure was during the
period of impurity and then the procedure for emerging from it. So had Yeshua
deviated from it at all, it would have been immediately detected. Thus the terms
clean and cleansed are correctly used several times. The same story is told in
Mark 1 beginning at verse 40, and it is nearly word for word as in Matthew's
narrative.
Some of the skin diseases these Jews contracted were long term; some were life
long. Because they required isolation for as long as the infirmity lasted, there was
little more feared and dreaded than Tzara'at. I say this because one of the
objections to the reliability of this story is that first we are told that great crowds
followed Yeshua down the mountain; and then the diseased man, who is
unclean, approaches Him. After healing the man Yeshua says not to tell anyone
about it. It seems incredulous that a huge crowd witnessed this, but the man is
supposed to keep what is already public, secret. In reality, this man would have
been isolated along with others that had his disease, and would not have been
7/12

Lesson 27 - Matthew 7 & 8
out wandering the streets. Jesus had to have passed along an area where the
isolated unclean lived. While admittedly I'm speculating, it is not imaginable that
when the man with Tzara'at suddenly appeared and approached Yeshua that the
crowd didn't quickly back away in fear. How far back I'm not certain, but you can
bet their "social distancing" was a lot more than 6 feet! Thus when we read that
Christ cleansed him, and then told him not to say anything, the crowd probably
would not only have not overheard the conversation, but perhaps didn't even
know the man was healed. Typically the stricken wore sackcloth as a sign of
mourning and as an outward warning so that the other townspeople should steer
clear.
Some Bible scholars also question this story as not authentic because they say a
proper Jew would never touch a person with Tzara'at as it was against the Law
of Moses; that is not true. There is no Torah law against touching an unclean
person; however there was danger in doing so. It would have brought with it the
contracting of that person's ritual impurity; so people didn't do that. I don't know if
other Holy Men might have done such a thing as touching an unclean person; but
Jesus did. And what is so interesting is that Christ did what only God could do:
He cleansed. What should have happened is that the unclean man passed his
uncleanness to Christ; because a clean person cannot pass along their
cleanness to an unclean person. It is a one way street. And yet, that is exactly
what Yeshua did. His touch passed His own ritual purity along to the impure man
making him clean. I want to repeat; this was not a healing per se. From the
Jewish and biblical viewpoint, this was a cleansing; healing and cleansing are
two different things.
Next Yeshua tells the man to go to the priest AND to offer the sacrifice that
Moses commanded. This is precisely what the Law of Moses says a person who
is potentially cleansed of their Tzara'at is to do. He is to go to a priest to be
inspected. If the priest pronounces the person as cleansed he is released from
his isolation and then usually an altar sacrifice is to follow. If ever there was
continuing proof that Yeshua had not abolished The Law of Moses it is here
because He specifically instructs the man to follow the Law as found in Leviticus
13 and 14. But why is the man not supposed to say anything to anyone about the
cleansing? There's been a few theories put forth about this, but none of them
hold any water. The one with the most consensus is that Jesus didn't want to
divulge who He was just yet. However a Holy Man healing a person afflicted
with Tzara'at, and then the cleansed person telling others about it, would have in
no way unmasked Jesus as the Messiah. Nonetheless, in the hindsight of
8/12
.....

Lesson 27 - Matthew 7 & 8
Christian history, the many miraculous things Yeshua did definitively add up to
the conclusion that He was the Messiah that Israel had hoped for; but not the one
they expected.
In verse 5 Yeshua finally arrives home in Capernaum. There He is confronted
with a worried Roman soldier; a Centurion. On its face this is kind of a peculiar
story because we have a Roman army officer (no doubt a gentile) approaching a
Jew, hat in hand, and asking for his help. It is interesting that we find a few
stories in the New Testament involving Centurions and it can be generally said
that they are upright men of honor and have respect among the Jewish
community. It seems that this Roman soldier has noticed the authentically
miraculous healings of Yeshua and so trusts Him. He doesn't seem to confess
any belief in the God of Israel, nor does he mention anything resembling a
religious faith in Christ. However clearly the Centurion is both desperate and sold
on Jesus's power to heal regardless of how He manages to do it. So the
Roman explains that his orderly is paralyzed and in suffering. More likely this is
not an orderly but rather a house slave. Yeshua offers to go to the Roman's
home and to heal the servant (we don't know whether the house slave is a Jew
or gentile).
Most Bible versions say that the Centurion begins to address Yeshua by calling
Him "Lord". The CJB says "sir". The Greek word being translated is kudos and it
is the equivalent of the Hebrew adon or adonai. It is a word of respect. It can be
translated as sir, Mr., master, and yes, lord. But little "L" lord. However over the
centuries because the word can be translated to "lord", then it is assumed that
the Roman meant it in a religious way because it is so common for Christians to
refer to Jesus as "The Lord". This is not what the Roman army officer was
implying. Saying "lord" was neither an indication that he had converted to the
Hebrew religion nor that He was declaring a religious allegiance to Yeshua. He
was simply being respectful and courteous, especially because he understood
that Yeshua was a miracle healer and He was the best hope for saving the life of
the servant.
The soldier declines Yeshua's offer to go to the officer's home in order to heal the
young man. The officer was of course aware that it was Jewish Tradition that
gentiles were automatically considered unclean, and therefore so were their
homes. The belief was that a Jew entering the house of a gentile would be
rendered ritually impure and thus have to go through the hassle of a period of
time of isolation and purification, then an immersion. Out of an abundance of
9/12

Lesson 27 - Matthew 7 & 8
politeness, rather than ask Yeshua to go against His culture and religious
Traditions, the soldier says that it is not necessary for Him to actually be present
with the house slave to heal him; all that has to be done is for Yeshua to order it
and it will occur. And he thinks this is so because as a soldier, he is a man under
the authority of one over him, and so whatever he is ordered to do it is dutifully
carried out. And further, since he has 100 men under him, he is confident that if
he issues an order, it will be carried out whether he is present or not. For all the
wrong reasons, the Centurion was actually on the right track.
Yeshua is astonished and says that He has not known anyone in Israel with as
much trust as this gentile; a soldier who actually represents oppression to most
Jews. Bible translations will more often than not say faith instead of trust.
Regardless, let's not get carried away. This is NOT a religious trust or faith that
the Centurion holds in Jesus. However Yeshua's response about the lesser trust
present among the Israelites is meant in a religious context. The Centurion holds
a kind of deep, confident, unequivocal conviction that this Jewish Holy Man can
heal his very ill house slave, and Yeshua sees it as an excellent model for the
kind of deep, confident, unequivocal trust that His followers ought to have in the
God of Israel and His Son. What we have found so far is that even as concerns
His 12 Disciples, whatever trust they have in their Master amounts to "seeing is
believing". So the kind of trust that is based on an invisible promise and the
uttering of a word (instead of visible proof or a sign) is what Yeshua wants to see
from His followers. The sad reality is that Israel, those who were elected by God
to be the natural inheritors of His Kingdom, have not lived up to their calling.
Ironically, this gentile Roman soldier (an enemy) better expresses what a healthy
faith looks like than does Israel.
Verse 11 says something that on the surface feels out of place. Some Bible
scholars use it as proof that all that Yeshua has been teaching has being
concerning the End Times, and not the present. Actually, while this statement is
indeed speaking of a future time, likely it is also Christ expanding on the matter of
Israel and their place in the Kingdom of Heaven. He says that many will come
from the east and the west (presumably traveling to the Land of Israel) in order to
take their place at a banquet in the Kingdom of Heaven. And strangely that
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will also be present. First: while it is not across the
board, generally speaking in the Bible when the compound term east and west is
used, it applies to the exiles and dispersed of Israel. Second: when north and
south are used together, in general it applies to gentiles (again, this is not
universal in the Bible but it does seem to be a pattern). Considering the context
10/12

Lesson 27 - Matthew 7 & 8
of Yeshua's statement, then I think He is speaking about the return of the 10
Israelite tribes (the so-called 10 Lost Tribes) that were dispersed to the east and
west by Assyria in the 8th century B.C. This is a prophesied event, most
famously recorded by Ezekiel chapters 36, 37, and 38. Assuming that Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob are there in the flesh so to speak, then this must be occurring
after the general resurrection that is to come. But it also moderates Yeshua's
negative comment about this Roman soldier having more faith than any one in
Israel to indicate that despite a general unfaithfulness in Israel, the descendants
of the Israelite exiles will be welcomed into the Kingdom of Heaven.
And yet He says in verse 12 that those born for the Kingdom will not be allowed
in but rather they will be rejected to the live in the darkness that is the condition
that all who are excluded will experience. So who are these that are born for the
Kingdom, but excluded? Let me first say that in no way should we read-in the
word "all".... that is "all" who are born for the Kingdom. Rather it is that among
those born for the Kingdom some (perhaps the majority) will be excluded. The
Greek word being translated as "born for the Kingdom" is huios, and it more
literally means "sons of the Kingdom". Again, the subject's context seems to be
Israel, so these sons are apparently those of Israel who are indeed born as God's
people, yet most will not be allowed into the Kingdom. Why? Judging from
Christ's statement in 7:23, it is because these are natural born Israelites that
refuse to sincerely trust Yeshua as God's Son, Lord, and Savior. The idea is that
not all Israelites will automatically be granted citizenship in God's Kingdom. This
would have been a startling pronouncement because the Jews of that day
believed that being born as Jews guaranteed them a place in the eternal
Kingdom; it was, and remains, not so. Clearly Christ taught the Apostle Peter this
reality about Israel as well. Open your Bibles to 2Peter chapter 2.
READ 2PETER CHAPTER 2:1 - 17
All whom Peter said would be cast into darkness is specifically about certain
members of Israel, thus I have little doubt that Matthew 8:10 - 12 is also speaking
about certain members of Israel.
This episode concerning the Centurion concludes with Yeshua confirming that
because of the officer's trust that Yeshua can do what He says He can do,
Yeshua has already done it. The house servant was already healed before the
Centurion went home. Indeed, the soldier was correct; merely Yeshua's word
could heal.
11 / 12
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lesson 27 - Matthew 7 & 8
We'll continue with Matthew chapter 8 next time.
12/12


Lesson 28 - Matthew 8 cont
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 28, Chapter 8 Continued
As we delve deeper and deeper into Matthew's Gospel, to this point we have
found three elements to be always present and repetitive; therefore it is crucial
for us to notice them and to understand that Matthew has constructed his Gospel
around them. First, Matthew presents Yeshua of Nazareth as the second Moses
and thus paints Him in that role as the "prophet like me" that Moses prophesied
would come. Second, the Kingdom of Heaven has arrived. It arrived when John
the Baptist appeared as a type of Elijah (or, perhaps better, having the spirit of
Elijah) announcing that a path is being made in the wilderness for the coming of
the Lord. Thus, everything that happens and every utterance of Christ is to be
taken in that knowledge and context because it marks the beginning of new era
that ushers us into the final era. And third, Matthew highlights the ongoing
relevance and efficacy of The Law of Moses for Jesus's followers; only now it is
to be accomplished in light of Believers having the Holy Spirit dwelling in us and
of Messiah's demand (given in the Sermon on the Mount) that these laws and
commandments from His Father are to be taken to an even higher level in our
lives, with not only outward but also inward moral perfection as the goal. Not only
our behavior is to be conformed to the will of God, but also our intents and
motives.
Many Bible scholars and commentators, as well as numerous of those esteemed
men who established the original faith doctrines of the thousands of Christian
denominations, would generally agree with my observation as concerns the first
two of these three elements we thus far find constantly present within the Book of
Matthew. Few would agree with the third element even though a plain, logical
(even historical) reading of Matthew's narrative reveals it with a great degree of
clarity. I have long found it fascinating and not just a little puzzling why it is this
1 / 13

Lesson 28 - Matthew 8 cont
way; and what or who the source of this anti-Law of Moses viewpoint was. I also
know from the many emails sent to me that not just a few of you might like to
know how this happened and what the earliest Church thought about this matter;
and if this anti-Law stance of the modern Church has always been with us. So
before we continue in Matthew chapter 8, we're going to take a substantial detour
to look into this rather important matter that has, to my way of thinking, sent the
Church hurtling towards the very darkness that Christ was warning against. The
way to do this is to study the writings of the Early Church Fathers.
This is going to be a bit lengthy because I'm going to present to you some of the
writings of the Early Church Fathers. Because context matters, I'm not going to
quote only a phrase or a sentence, but rather a paragraph or more. So be
patient, but please also be focused. This is information that every Believer
needs.
There is a long list of what are commonly called Early Church Fathers. These are
Bishops, teachers, and scholars that include the very earliest 1st century Church
leaders (apart from the original Apostles) all the way up to 8th century Church
leaders. The main dividing points are whether each served in the east or the
west, and whether each lived and wrote before or after the Council of Nicea. It
was at the Council of Nicea early in the 4th century, convened at the behest of
the Roman Emperor Constantine, when the Christian Church began to morph
into something more recognizable to us today as the institution that it has
become. At Nicea and later at Laodicea the many independent Churches
underwent a consolidation of authority to be based in Rome, with a centralized
Church government, and under a set of common faith doctrines and principles
(although some of the attending Bishops rejected those doctrines and so many of
those churches grew on their own outside the authority of Rome). The vast
majority of these faith doctrines have shaped and tooled especially the Western
Church from that day forward, for the better or worse.
The earliest of the Early Church Fathers is Clement of Rome. Clement was born
about 30 A.D., around the time of Christ's crucifixion. So he was alive during the
lifetimes of the original 12 Disciples. Not a great deal is known about his early
history, or exactly when He became a Believer. What is known is that in the later
part of his life he became a member of the Church government of the Church in
Rome; thus he had power and authority. What makes him so important for what
I'd like to show you is that he represents the absolute earliest of the Church
Fathers that operated at a time when Jews still represented the bulk of Church
2/13

Lesson 28 - Matthew 8 cont
leadership. It is believed that Clement was a gentile and probably a Roman. He
was personally discipled by both Peter and Paul. We find him mentioned most
prominently in the Book of Philippians, when he was working alongside Paul at
the City of Philippi about 57 A.D.
CJB Philippians 4:3 / also request you, loyal Syzygus, to help these women;
for they have worked hard proclaiming the Good News with me, along with
Clement and the rest of my fellow-workers whose names are in the Book of
Life.
Near to or shortly after Paul's death Clement wrote Epistles to various of the
Churches that Paul had established because Clement was a natural successor to
the martyred Paul having been at his side and learning his doctrine from him.
This is a good time to mention that many epistles written by various early church
leaders were floating around the many Believing synagogues (which is what the
earliest churches were), as were several Gospel accounts of Christ's life. It would
not be until early in the 3rd century that a Church council convened and chose
from among quite a number of these authoritative documents the few that would
be declared holy with the purpose of establishing the first Christian Bible: what
we call the New Testament. So Clement's letters carried much weight, as did
Paul's, Peter's, and John's.
Unfortunately, few of Clement's works have survived; we only know of the
existence of the others because they are given mention by later Church fathers
such as Polycarp, Papias, and Eusibius. However we do have what has become
labeled as the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians penned by Clement that reveals
some important information about his faith principles and his foundational beliefs.
Since there is no known rebuttal of his viewpoint from his era, nor does he
disagree with any of the New Testament writings that would come later, it is
reasonable to conclude that his can be taken as the earliest doctrinal viewpoint
not only of gentile members of the Church of Jesus Christ, but also of its
leadership....Jew and gentile. His Epistle is wonderful reading but for the sake of
time and for our purposes I will give you only of a couple of excerpts that are
especially eye opening and characteristic of his entire Epistle, while at the same
time pointing out that the reason for his letter to the Corinthian Church that Paul
had established was that the Church there was in turmoil and fighting amongst
themselves. The wolves in sheep's clothing that Yeshua warned His followers
would come, the false prophets that were to arise within the Church, were the
problem. But the problem behind the problem was disobedience to the Laws of
3/13

Lesson 28 - Matthew 8 cont
Moses, although perhaps not in ways we might instinctively suspect. Here is
Clement of Rome:
These things therefore being manifest to us, and since we look into the
depths of the divine knowledge, it behooves us to do all things in [their
proper] order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform at stated
times. 1 He has enjoined offerings [to be presented] and service to be
performed [to Him], and that not thoughtlessly or irregularly, but at the
appointed times and hours. Where and by whom He desires these things to
be done, He Himself has fixed by His own supreme will, in order that all
things being piously done according to His good pleasure, may be
acceptable unto Him. 2 Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the
appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the
laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services are assigned to
the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and
their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is
bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.
Put on your Jewish mindset for the moment to understand what the gentile
Believer and Church leader Clement is saying. He says that the Believers of
Corinth are duty bound to do all things in their proper order. By order he means
from a Christ follower's perspective the things (ritual things) that are to be done,
when they are to be done, and who is to do them. The things that the Believers at
Corinth are to do (and therefore this pertains to any and every group of
Christians) are the rituals that the Lord has commanded to be observed at their
stated times (or, better, at their appointed times). Therefore Clement goes on to
say that the required offerings (sacrifices) and the way they are to be presented
are fixed by God, and therefore are to be done in a pious manner so that such
observances cannot change and will be pleasing to God. This means that when
one presents their offerings they should occur at the appointed times (biblical
feasts for example) so that they will be accepted and blessed by God. And further
that doing the things that are the laws of the Lord means they are thereby
avoiding sin. That is, to NOT do these laws and commandments as they are
prescribed is sin... and clearly this can only be referring to the Law of Moses.
While so many in the Church will twist his term "the laws of the Lord" into
meaning "the laws of Jesus" (which is simply not so), we find Clement making it
clear that it can only be the Law of Moses (the biblical Torah) he is speaking
about because he then devolves into saying that the Priests must do what the
4/13

Lesson 28 - Matthew 8 cont
Lord commanded, as well as the Levites, and then laymen as well (there is no
record of Yeshua issuing instructions to Priests and Levites). Priests and Levites
each have their own roles that cannot be assigned to the common class of God
worshippers....laymen. Yet layman also have their own set of responsibilities (in
Clement's language, their own order). Let's read a little further in the 1st Epistle
to the Corinthians by Clement.
Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order, living
in all good conscience, with becoming gravity, and not going beyond the
rule of the ministry prescribed to him. Not in every place, brethren, are the
daily sacrifices offered, or the peace-offerings, or the sin-offerings and the
trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem only. And even there they are not
offered in any place, but only at the altar before the temple, that which is
offered being first carefully examined by the high priest and the ministers
already mentioned. Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is
agreeable to His will, are punished with death. Ye see, 3 brethren, that the
greater the knowledge that has been vouchsafed to us, the greater also is
the danger to which we are exposed.
The first thing we can conclude from his words are that since he speaks plainly
about the Temple and the altar and the sacrifices thereupon, he wrote this Epistle
prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. But also notice that clearly
Clement was addressing a controversy. It seems that some in the church of
Corinth were offering the daily tamid (the every day sacrifices prescribed in the
Law of Moses), as well as offering some of the other classes of sacrifices like
peace offerings, sin offerings and trespass offerings locally, in Corinth. This could
only be happening at an altar the Corinthian Believers built, probably associated
with their synagogue (the church) at Corinth. But, that was not their right or
position to do so. These sacrificial rituals were to be done only by Priests and
Levites and only at the Temple in Jerusalem. So what we find is that Clement,
the earliest gentile Church Father, Paul's and Peter's understudy, understands
that the Law of Moses including the ongoing Temple sacrifices pertain to
Believers. But.... Believers cannot change the Law in the name of Christ such
that laymen can now perform sacrifices, or that these sacrifices can now be
performed in Corinth or any other place they might choose. Rather, these must
only be done by Priests at the Temple altar in Jerusalem as prescribed by the
Law. There can be no stronger or straightforward endorsement than Clement's of
the continuing relevance and authority of the Law of Moses, as it stood for
centuries, for ALL Believers.
5/13

Lesson 28 - Matthew 8 cont
Those of us, the minority in the Church, who believe in Yeshua as Savior, and
that only His blood and divine grace can save us, and at the same time also
know from Yeshua's own words that we are duty bound to continue following the
Law of Moses (not as a means of gaining our salvation but rather as proper
evidence of it). This is something that is exactly in line with what Clement was
taught by Paul and Peter and so he himself continued the doctrine. We don't
have to speculate about this since it is recorded for us.
Another very early Church Father, Papias, was born when Clement was about 40
years old, and he seems to have personally known Clement. Although there are
but fragments of his works available to us, we learn this important fact from
Papias:
Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and
each one interpreted them as best he could.
So what we are reading in our New Testament from the Jewish Matthew was first
written down in Matthew's and Christ's birth language, Hebrew, and this fact
lends further weight to Clement's position concerning what he was taught from
the Jews Peter and Paul. When we maintain the Jewish context (both cultural
and religious) that the New Testament was written in, and Matthew's is the most
Jewish of the Gospels, clearly the earliest Christians knew that they were to
continue obeying the Law of Moses. However some Believers outside of the Holy
Land went so far (too far) by trying to perform the Priestly duties of the Law
themselves, and doing them where ever they happened to live (in this case in
Corinth). So from around 50 A.D. to around 90 or 100 A.D., the generally held
belief within the Church was that the Law of Moses was still relevant, valid, and
to be obeyed by both Jewish and gentile Believers. However the "how" of it was
being hotly debated within the Church whose congregations were dispersed in
foreign nations outside of the Holy Land.
As we read the works of succeeding Church Fathers we see a decided turn
from how to do the Law as Believers, to these leaders being against the Law and
then even against Jews. We find this reality boldly expressed in the writings of
the Early Church Father Justin Martyr. He was born in 110 A.D. and died at only
55 years old. But, he wrote profusely and his works are greatly revered and
taught within Christian Seminaries, at least partly because so many of his
documents are complete and well preserved. They are also well pleasing to a
gentiles-only Church. I'll read to you some excerpts that he wrote, which come
6/13

Lesson 28 - Matthew 8 cont
from one of the most famous documents in all of Christendom: A Dialogue with
Trypho.
By all accounts this is a true encounter that the gentile Christian Justin Martyr
had with the Jew Trypho (and during part of the conversation some of Trypho's
Jewish friends were present). And so in "A Dialogue With Trypho" we read about
this back and forth conversation between Justin and Trypho. I want to read a few
excerpts from it so that you can see what Christianity had already become by
around 150 A.D.; only perhaps 60 or 70 years after the Church Father Clement
lived, governed, and wrote.
(Justin Martyr says) "Is there any other matter, my friends, in which we are
blamed, than this, that we live not after the law, and are not circumcised in
the flesh as your forefathers were, and do not observe Sabbaths as you
do? Are our lives and customs also slandered among you? And I ask this:
have you also believed concerning us, that we eat men; and that after the
feast, having extinguished the lights, we engage in promiscuous
concubinage? Or do you condemn us in this alone, that we adhere to such
tenets, and believe in an opinion, untrue, as you think?"
"This is what we are amazed at," said Trypho, "but those things about
which the multitude speak are not worthy of belief; for they are most
repugnant to human nature. Moreover, I am aware that your precepts in the
so-called Gospel are so wonderful and so great, that I suspect no one can
keep them; for I have carefully read them. But this is what we are most at a
loss about: that you, professing to be pious, and supposing yourselves
better than others, are not in any particular separated from them, and do
not alter your mode of living from the nations, in that you observe no
festivals or sabbaths, and do not have the rite of circumcision; and further,
resting your hopes on a man that was crucified, you yet expect to obtain
some good thing from God, while you do not obey His commandments.
Have you not read, that that soul shall be cut off from his people who shall
not have been circumcised on the eighth day? And this has been ordained
for strangers and for slaves equally. But you, despising this covenant
rashly, reject the consequent duties, and attempt to persuade yourselves
that you know God, when, however, you perform none of those things
which they do who fear God. If, therefore, you can defend yourself on these
points, and make it manifest in what way you hope for anything
whatsoever, even though you do not observe the law, this we would very
7/13

Lesson 28 - Matthew 8 cont
gladly hear from you, and we shall make other similar investigations." So Justin Martyr says that there are all kinds of slanderous accusations by Jews
about what Christians do, even including cannibalism and having wild festive
orgies. Let me pause to point out that by this time gentiles fully controlled the
Church; Jewish Believers had been marginalized and mostly pushed out. So
what Jews said about Christians was essentially a retort and response to what a
gentile, exclusionary Christianity now falsely claimed against Jews. A tit for tat if
you would.
Trypho responds to Justin that he is intelligent and observant enough to know
that some of the more outrageous things said about Christians aren't true.
However, he does believe that some other things said are true and they
completely puzzle him. He says that he has carefully read the Gospel (which of
the several in circulation at that time we don't know, but my bet is that it was
Matthew's because his was written at first in Hebrew and was written to Jews in a
Jewish context). And these things that puzzle him are: how can you read the
Gospel and say you believe what was written, and then turn around and refuse to
obey the Law of Moses as a basic doctrine? How can you defend dropping the
feasts, the Sabbath, and refuse circumcision when the subject of the Gospel,
Jesus, Himself obeyed these laws and has said His followers should, too?
Trypho, it seems to me, received some of the truths of the Gospel better than did
Justin Martyr. It's only that Trypho rejected it on the principle of Yeshua of
Nazareth being the Messiah and the Son of God.
Here is Justin's response to Trypho's accusation:
"There will be no other God, O Trypho, nor was there from eternity any
other existing" (I thus addressed him), "but He who made and disposed all
this universe. Nor do we think that there is one God for us, another for you,
but that He alone is God who led your fathers out from Egypt with a strong
hand and a high arm. Nor have we trusted in any other (for there is no
other), but in Him in whom you also have trusted, the God of Abraham, and
of Isaac, and of Jacob. But we do not trust through Moses or through the
law; for then we would do the same as yourselves.
Justin then goes on to attack a few of God's laws and commandments of the
Torah.
8/13
.

Lesson 28 - Matthew 8 cont
"And God himself proclaimed by Moses, speaking thus: 'And circumcise
the hardness of your hearts, and no longer stiffen the neck. For the Lord
your God is both Lord of lords, and a great, mighty, and terrible God, who
regardeth not persons, and taketh not rewards.' 4 And in
Leviticus: 'Because they have transgressed against Me, and despised Me,
and because they have walked contrary to Me, I also walked contrary to
them, and I shall cut them off in the land of their enemies. Then shall their
uncircumcised heart be turned. 5 For the circumcision according to the
flesh, which is from Abraham, was given for a sign; that you may be
separated from other nations, and from us; and that you alone may suffer
that which you now justly suffer; and that your land may be desolate, and
your cities burned with fire; and that strangers may eat your fruit in your
presence, and not one of you may go up to Jerusalem.' 6 For you are not
recognized among the rest of men by any other mark than your fleshly
circumcision. For none of you, I suppose, will venture to say that God
neither did nor does foresee the events, which are future, nor foreordained
his deserts for each one. Accordingly, these things have happened to you
in fairness and justice, for you have slain the Just One, and His prophets
before Him; and now you reject those who hope in Him, and in Him who
sent Hirn-God the Almighty and Maker of all things -cursing in your
synagogues those that believe on Christ. For you have not the power to lay
hands upon us, on account of those who now have the mastery.
So Justin (who is now sarcastic and talking down to Trypho) says that
circumcision of the flesh is only for Jews; and Jews are circumcised only because
they are rebellious and evil before God. That is, circumcision has always been
more punishment and curse than blessing. And further, Jews have no place in
leading Christians (laying hands upon us), because gentile Christians are now in
control (those who now have the mastery). A little more of Justin:
"Moreover, that God enjoined you to keep the Sabbath, and impose on you
other precepts for a sign, as I have already said, on account of your
unrighteousness, and that of your fathers,-
"Moreover, you were commanded to abstain from certain kinds of food, in
order that you might keep God before your eyes while you ate and drank,
seeing that you were prone and very ready to depart from His knowledge .... So we see that by about 150 A.D. it had become doctrine that Christians not only
9/13

Lesson 28 - Matthew 8 cont
should not obey the Law, they saw God's commandments as inherently bad and
essentially God created them to be a curse set upon a people (the Hebrews) and
given to them due to their unrighteousness.
It gets worse from there forward as the Early Church Fathers that follow Justin
Martyr become more and more entrenched in anti-Jewish, anti-Law rhetoric and
doctrine until we come to the time of the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., which
began a series of ecumenical council meetings that wrote and forever embedded
within Christianity those same anti-Jewish, anti-Law views of Justin Martyr that
would have startled and dismayed the earliest Church Father, Clement of Rome.
Sadly, Justin Martyr is held up by the institutional Church as exemplary and his
views are to be taken dearly and more or less followed as doctrine. Therefore it is
not hard to trace what happened within Christianity that it became anti-Law of
Moses and anti-Jewish, as it corresponds directly to the deaths of Peter, Paul,
and John, the end of the authority in the Church of Jewish Apostles and gentiles
like Clement, and then the takeover of gentiles who very quickly abandoned and
then outlawed anything within Christianity that even resembled something that
the Jews did. By definition this included no further obedience to the Law of
Moses and the end of observing God-appointed times like Sabbath, the biblical
feasts, the ordinance of male circumcision, and more.
I believe I've said enough to get my point across. It was not my intention to teach
a course on the Early Church Fathers today, but rather to show you the path that
was taken so early in the development of Christianity to disavow the Law of
Moses. So we'll stop here and get back into Matthew chapter 8.
We ended last time at verse 13, the story of the Roman Centurion in Capernaum
asking Yeshua to heal his ill house slave. While it is erroneously taught that this
is about a gentile coming to faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, that is not
evident in this story. There is nothing said about a conversion. It is only that the
Centurion knew of, or was eyewitness to, Yeshua's miraculous healing powers
and so asked Him if he would do the same for his house slave (obviously this
servant was dear to the Centurion's heart). Yeshua was not astonished because
this gentile soldier had a religious faith in Yeshua or was perhaps a secret
convert (such was not the case); rather He saw the unyielding trust in Yeshua's
ability to heal as a good illustration for the Jews to pattern themselves after as
the unyielding type and depth of faith they ought to have in God. But because so
many Jews in general (He calls them "those born for the Kingdom") have nothing
like this kind of faith, then Christ says the consequence is that they will not be
10/13

Lesson 28 - Matthew 8 cont
admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven but rather will be thrown into the darkness
outside of it. Bottom line: a deep unequivocal trust in God is needed to be part of
the Kingdom; a trust that is reflected in their lives and actions. Simply being born
of a Hebrew heritage does not give any Jew a free ticket into the Kingdom of
Heaven. Only those Jews who heed the warning shall enter the Kingdom.
Let's read a little more. Open your Bibles to Matthew chapter 8.
READ MATTHEW CHAPTER 8:14 - 17
The Gospel of Mark also reports on the story of Yeshua going to Peter's house to
tend to Peter's ill mother-in-law. Before we discuss it, let's read Mark's version.
CJB Mark 1:29-31 29 They left the synagogue and went with Ya'akov and
Yochanan to the home of Shim'on and Andrew. 30 Shim'on's mother-in-law
was lying sick with a fever, and they told Yeshua about her. 31 He came,
took her by the hand and lifted her onto her feet. The fever left her, and she
began helping them.
So from Mark we learn that Yeshua had been in a synagogue in Capernaum,
along with his brother James and His disciple John (the eventual writer of
Revelation). This has to have occurred after Yeshua had returned to Capernaum
from speaking His Sermon on the Mount. Although it is hard to tell when because
Mark never even mentions the Sermon on the Mount. The 3 men went to Peter's
{Shimon's) house (apparently the disciple Andrew was also living there at the
time) where Christ would perform yet another miracle healing. One take away
from these couple of verses is that Peter indeed was a married man (although his
wife, and the existence of children, is never explicitly mentioned).
Yeshua touched Peter's mother-in-law by taking her hand, and she was healed
(specifically healed of her fever). Then, because the healing was immediate, she
got up out of her sickbed and began to serve Yeshua. In the Jewish culture of
that day, as it pertains to women, to "serve him" didn't hold a religious meaning.
Rather it merely meant to prepare and serve Jesus a meal. The lack of detailed
information and Jesus's knowledge of the woman's illness implies a closer
relationship with her than with the others He healed. That is, she seems to have
been known and familiar to Him.
I think another, but much shorter, detour is in order. The truth of this story is
11 / 13

.....

Lesson 28 - Matthew 8 cont
further validated by the discovery of Peter's house in Capernaum; a rather well
preserved archeological sight. Peter's house is only a hundred feet or so from the
ruins of a large synagogue. However those ruins are of a later synagogue built in
the 300's A.D., which likely lies upon the ruins of the earlier one (such was the
way things were done during biblical times). I've had the pleasure of taking many
of you there on tours to Israel. At present a Catholic Church is built over the sight.
That is to say, it is a building built on pillars above the ruins of Peter's house to
both commemorate it and to preserve it.
Peter's house was typical of the era; small, simple, and unadorned. However
archeologists discovered that perhaps late in the 1st century or very early in the
2nd there were additions to it, including an octagonal structure built around the
original, with the original walls plastered and incorporated into the newer
structure. There is little doubt that Peter's house was well known among early
Believers and held to be very special (probably because it was with Peter that
Yeshua lived), and so it was used as a small church that was later expanded to a
larger one.
During Yeshua's day Capernaum was a medium-sized town of about 1500 or so
people; obviously it was a fishing village as it was built on the shore of the Sea of
Galilee. But it also lay along an important trade route so the town was a mix of
Jews and non-Jews mostly Romans. Doubling back to the story of the Roman
Centurion we read about, he actually lived in Capernaum, which explains his
presence there. The Romans always carefully guarded the all-important trade
routes so a garrison of soldiers stationed there would be logical. It would have
been a very short walk from Jesus's encounter with the Centurion to the
Centurion's house for Christ to heal his house slave. So even though the rules of
Jewish Tradition made the homes of gentiles unclean, they lived side by side with
Jews. The Romans and the Jews encountered and worked with one another daily
and thus the Centurion would have been well schooled about Jewish attitudes
and customs towards gentiles.
As a history buff and a former archeology major at university, it is always
important to me to notice what kinds of materials were used for construction.
Peter's house and the subsequent additions to it over the next couple of
centuries were made of the local stone: basalt. Basalt is volcanic in origin. In fact,
the volcano that spewed out the basalt and lava that came to be used for the
construction of Capernaum is to be found at what is known today as the Golan
Heights. So the buildings and houses at that time were very rough looking,
12/13
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lesson 28 - Matthew 8 cont
although the hardness of the basalt stone made the homes very sturdy and has
allowed these structures to survive for centuries (and they will survive for many
more; their real enemy is earthquakes). Thus the first and most obvious clue that
the present synagogue in Capernaum is not the original one from Christ's time is
that it was built using limestone, which had to come from some distance away; an
expensive operation that a village of Jewish fishermen could never have
contemplated.
So although Christ was born in Bethlehem, and He lived for many years with His
parents in Nazareth, during His days of ministry on earth He lived most of the
time in Capernaum. Luke's version of this story puts several pieces of it together,
so we'll conclude today with it.
CJB Luke 7:1-10 1 When Yeshua had finished speaking to the people, he
went back to K'far-Nachum. 2 A Roman army officer there had a servant he
regarded highly, who was sick to the point of death. 3 Hearing about
Yeshua, the officer sent some Jewish elders to him with the request that he
come and heal his servant. 4 They came to Yeshua and pleaded earnestly
with him, "He really deserves to have you do this, 5
for he loves our people␂in fact, he built the synagogue for us!" 6So Yeshua went with them. He had
not gone far from the house, when the officer sent friends who said to him,
"Sir, don't trouble yourself. I'm not worthy to have you come under my
roof- 7
this is why I didn't presume to approach you myself. Instead, just
give a command and let my servant recover. 8 For I too am a man set under
authority. I have soldiers under me; and I say to this one, 'Go!' and he goes;
and to another, 'Come!' and he comes; and to my slave, 'Do this!' and he
does it." 9Yeshua was astonished at him when he heard this; and he turned
and said to the crowd following him, "I tell you, not even in Isra'el have I
found such trust!" 10 When the messengers got back to the officer's house,
they found the servant in good health.
We'll continue in Matthew next week.
13/13
.....

Lesson 29 - Matthew 8 cont 2
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 29, Chapter 8 Continued 2
We took another extensive detour last week in our continuing study of Matthew
Chapter 8 to explore some of the Early Church Fathers in order to trace their
viewpoint on the all-important matter of Believers in Christ having an obligation to
follow, or not to follow, the Law of Moses. What we found was that the very
earliest Church Father of record (Clement of Rome) was discipled at the knee of
both Peter and Paul, and actually served with Paul for a time. He was so involved
with the Church at Corinth that following Paul's death Clement wrote letters
(theologians call them epistles) to the congregation there. Clearly Clement was
seen as Paul's successor and had authority. As history shows, Clement also
became part of the Church government in Rome.
Clement's recorded position was that gentles as well as Jews who follow Messiah
are to obey the Torah (the Law of Moses). He knows nothing of the anti-Jewish,
anti-Law fiction eventually developed by the gentile Church leadership that is
sometimes called the Law of Jesus or the Law of God. This pro-Law of Moses
position was not only recorded by Clement in his one surviving epistle but also
repeated by later Church Fathers Papias and Polycarp. What we find is that after
the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D., and after gentiles took over control of the
Church starting about 100 A.D., the Church Fathers naturally, as a result of their
esteemed positions, were the ones who advocated these various forms of anti␂Law and anti-Semitism.... at first rather mildly and then more militantly until we
arrive at the time of Justin Martyr in the mid 2nd century. Justin Martyr was
openly and forcefully anti-Law, anti-Jew and in his famous treatise called A
Dialogue with Trypho he laid out his argument that Christians should not follow
the Law or do anything that Jews do (feasts, Sabbath, day of worship, etc.)
because the Jews were the Christ killers and God had given them over to evil. In
1 / 13

Lesson 29 - Matthew 8 cont 2
fact, Justin Martyr said that the Law of Moses itself was a negative institution
imposed upon the Israelites as they left Egypt as a punishment due to their
wickedness.
From this point forward, the Church was nearly entirely gentile in government and
congregation and so in the early 300's at the Council of Nicea, headed up by
Emperor Constantine, the Church laid down a set of authoritative faith doctrines
(they were at that time call canons) that embedded the anti-Jewish, anti-Law of
Moses as a principle foundation of Christianity that has been embraced and led
astray ever since. Without apology or hesitation I stand opposed to this view and
mindset because it is also quite anti-Jesus, even if it is done so out of the same
ignorance I had as a young man. After all; Jesus could not have made it more
clear in His Sermon on the Mount, as recorded in Matthew chapter 5, as He
issued a command (along with a stern warning as to the consequences) that all
of His followers were to obey the Law. Further that no one should ever construe
anything He said that day, or ever, as meaning He has abolished the Law of
Moses, changed it in the slightest way, nor has He created a new Law of Jesus.
But Christianity in general has followed the lead of Justin Martyr and nearly all
the gentile Church Fathers that succeeded him and as a result have disobeyed
Yeshua's explicit instruction thus, sadly, steering the institutional Church
dangerously off course. Here at Seed of Abraham Ministries Torah Class we
shall continue to endeavor to teach and to follow the Law of Moses as Yeshua
has instructed us to do, as much as is possible in the 21st century, and in forms
that represent modern circumstances and realities. We plead with our brothers
and sisters of the faith to reconsider, repent, and reconnect with the entire Bible
and to once again embrace full obedience to God's laws and commands. We
acknowledge that we do not, ourselves, do it perfectly. Whenever it is clearly
impractical or impossible to follow a commandment to the letter due to the
circumstances of our modern times, including the lack of a Temple and
Priesthood in Jerusalem, we shall follow the Law of Moses in the spirit it is
intended, guided by the Holy Spirit that Christ Himself sent to us. And at the
same time pray for God's forgiveness when we fail. These issues of the
relevance of the Law and of the totally Jewish character and culture of Yeshua
are assumed throughout Matthew's Gospel.
Next we discussed the matter of the Roman Centurion who came to Jesus to ask
that He heal the soldier's house slave. After that we addressed Yeshua walking a
few steps from the synagogue in Capernaum to Peter's house where his mother␂in-law lay ill with a fever. Messiah merely took her hand and instantly healed her.
2/13
.....

Lesson 29 - Matthew 8 cont 2
We also spent a bit of time discussing that Peter's house has been found in
Capernaum and has been excavated and preserved such that visitors to the Sea
of Galilee can see it. Having been there many times I can say that for me,
personally, it is a most moving and affirming experience.
Let's continue with Matthew chapter 8 beginning at verse 16.
RE-READ MATTHEW CHAPTER 8:16 - end
Here we find Yeshua continuing to do what Jewish Holy Men (tzadikim) do; heal.
In the first 15 verses we found Him healing an interesting array of people; a
person with Tzara'at(a spiritually caused skin condition), then a Roman soldier's
house slave, and then a woman (although He of course knew her well). What is
the common theme among all these folks? They not only don't represent Jewish
religious hierarchy they are also the powerless. We need to be paying attention
starting now as to the position that Yeshua is putting Himself in. He stands in
obvious opposition to the Jewish leadership, while standing with the common
man. I think it would be fair to say that He quite naturally identifies with regular
Jewish folk because that is not only His own background, but also He sees the
injustice built-in to 1st century Jewish society. Considering the things He's doing
and the following He's gaining, without permission or authority granted from
either the Priestly leadership or the Synagogue leadership, He is setting sail on a
collision course with both.
It bears repeating because otherwise we lose all context for what is happening: in
no way do those following Jesus around, begging Him to heal them or a family
member, think of Him as divine or as their prophesied Messiah. He indeed has
dropped some abstract hints of His true mission and identity that hardly anyone
present could have caught. In fact, as we move through Matthew we'll find that at
this point those closest to Him His family and His 12 Disciples.... didn't think of
Him as any more than a righteous Holy Man. John the Baptist thought of Him as
something special, someone who was indeed prophesied about, but even he
wasn't entirely certain that Yeshua was the Messiah because up to now Yeshua
had not plainly said so. Thus the hoards who came to Christ, and He spoke to in
the hills above the Sea of Galilee, came primarily seeking healing from all
manner of afflictions. And those who followed Him down the mountain, and those
who joined the crowd in Capernaum, also came for healing. So far we have seen
Christ heal physical ailments. Now in verse 16 we see Him heal an evil spiritual
ailment: demon possession.
3/13

Lesson 29 - Matthew 8 cont 2
We must also understand that while the Jewish people were so very glad and
excited for this new Holy Man, Jesus, to have arrived, what He was doing was
not so different than what they had seen before from other famous Holy Men who
were miracle healers like Honi the Circle Drawer and then a few years
later Hanina Ben Dosa, both of whom ministered prior to Christ's birth. These
Holy Men were considered as ultra-pious and so their words and prayers were
much coveted by the people. In other words, Yeshua's miracle healings had a
precedent; so these miracles were expected of Him since He had proved Himself
to be a Holy Man, and in none of the Gospel accounts did He ever deny it. Had
He not done the miracles, He would not have been so sought after.
So Yeshua the miracle worker drew people to him (even some gentiles) like
moths to a flame. Jesus turned no one away and effortlessly healed all who came
to Him. It has been pointed out to me that we must not overlook that Yeshua's
healing and His word (His instruction) are organically tied together. Because
Moses is the model after which Matthew patterns Christ, it is informative to read a
pertinent comment made by Philo. In his Vitas Mosis chapter 1, Philo says this:
Moses exemplified his philosophical creed by his daily actions. His words
expressed his feelings, and his actions accorded with his words, so that
speech and life were in harmony, and thus through their mutual agreement
were found to make melody together as on a musical instrument.
Although this was a statement about Moses, it would be difficult to find anything
more lofty and true in the character and deeds of Christ. So we must not read
past Matthew recording that Christ healed the demon possessed and all who
came to Him with but a "word". In ancient times speech was seen as something
great and mysterious; words were thought to possess actual, tangible power. In
our day we don't think of words that way. So when Yeshua merely spoke and the
evil spirit left the possessed man, it held a different connotation for those Jews
that witnessed it than how we think of it now.
Matthew then goes on to say (from his Believing Jewish mindset) that what
Yeshua was doing was in fulfillment of Isaiah 53:4. Matthew says: "He himself
took our weaknesses, and bore our diseases". This is a loosely fashioned quote
from Isaiah; not an exact one. Nonetheless Bible scholars don't doubt that this is
meant to be understood as a quote from Isaiah 53. So Matthew, able to see from
the perspective of hindsight, tells us that Yeshua is the subject of Isaiah chapters
52 and 53. I've mentioned on a few occasions that it was Jewish practice when
4/13

Lesson 29 - Matthew 8 cont 2
referring to Scripture not to quote long sections but only short passages. The
short passages were not meant to be taken alone but rather they were to direct
the reader to the entire section of the Holy Scripture that was pertinent. Since in
those times there were no such things as chapters and verses or page numbers,
then there was no other way for them to communicate the reference to a
Scripture passage. The intent was for the reader to recognize the passage and
then consult what was written surrounding it.
While I won't do an extensive study of Isaiah 52 and 53, these are short chapters
and we need to understand what Matthew was telling us by his directing us there.
So we will read them completely as would have studious Jews from Yeshua's
time. Turn your Bibles to Isaiah chapter 52.
READ ISAIAH CHAPTERS 52 AND 53 all
These 2 chapters represent one of the most remarkable messianic prophecies in
the Bible. It has been taught thusly in Christendom since the first Jewish
Believers emerged. Matthew essentially identifies Yeshua as "the suffering
servant", which is one and the same as His being "God's servant". So Matthew is
connecting Christ's works of miracles with Him being God's servant. Clearly the
crowds following Yeshua didn't make that same connection and Judaism in
general to this day doesn't either. Judaism either denies the messianic nature of
Isaiah's words or they say this doesn't pertain to Yeshua of Nazareth. Especially
the Orthodox will claim that Judaism does not and never has seen Isaiah 52 and
53 as referring to anything but Israel itself. That is, Israel (the people) are the
suffering servant; not a Messiah. But in fact, a number of Rabbis from the past
have recognized the messianic message of these words and written about it.
There are many, but here is a small sample.
In Midrash Tehillim, Psalm 16.5 we read this portion: Rabbi Levi taught in the
name of Rabbi Idi: Suffering is divided into 3 portions: One, the Patriarchs
and the generations of men took; the generation that lived in the time of
Hadrian's persecution took; and one, the lord Messiah will take."
Ben Ish Chai commented on the Talmudic passage Sanhedrin 93b in this way:
"...through afflictions, the Messiah rises to great spiritual heights. In
addition, his afflictions atone for Israel so that they can continue to live and
perform mitzvot. Since without the Messiah, these mitzvot would not have
been done, he is a partner in Israel's mitzvot. Thus because He loaded him
5/13
.......

Lesson 29 - Matthew 8 cont 2
up with afflictions like millstones, He loaded Him up with mitzvot as
well. the Messiah is Israel's guarantor; he has undertaken suffering to
atone for Israel's sins in order to shorten the exile".
Even the Zohar, which is the book of foundational faith statements of mystical
Jewish Kabbalah, Shemoth, Section 2, speaks about the same attributes of
Messiah and it largely mirrors Christianity's doctrine on the matter. This rather
unexpected comment about Isaiah 53 is recorded: "When the Messiah hears of
the great suffering of Israel in their dispersion, and of the wicked among
them who seek not to know their Master, he weeps aloud on account of
those wicked ones amongst them, as it is written: But he was wounded
because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities.
The souls then return to their place. The Messiah, on his part, enters a
certain Hall in the Garden of Eden, called the Hall of the Afflicted. There he
calls for all the diseases and pains and sufferings of Israel, bidding them
settle on himself, which they do. And were it not that he thus eases the
burden from Israel, taking it on himself, no one could endure the suffering
meted out to Israel in expiation on account of their neglect of the Torah. So
Scripture says: Surely our diseases he did bear, etc. A similar function was
performed by Rabbi Eleazar here on earth. For, indeed, beyond number are
the chastisements awaiting every man daily for the neglect of the Torah, all
of which descended into the world at the time when the Torah was given.
As long as Israel were in the Holy Land, by means of the Temple service
and sacrifices, they averted all evil diseases and afflictions from the world.
Now it is the Messiah who is the means of averting them from mankind
until the time when a man quits this world and receives his punishment." So the claims many within Judaism make that Judaism does not, and never has
recognized Isaiah 52 and 53 as speaking of the Messiah are not accurate. Yet
we must understand that the reason behind this false claim is because of their
hatred of Christianity and the strange type of un-biblical, un-historical Jesus that
Christians have come to worship. It is no different than the false claim by
Christianity that in the Sermon on the Mount Yeshua abolished the Torah and the
Prophets, and later that Paul denounced the Torah and told Jews and gentiles
alike that it was an ugly, faulty covenant that they were to disavow and disobey.
These false claims are made because of the writings of the Early Church Fathers
who fomented hatred of the Jews and thus an insistence that all things Jewish
(and especially The Law) must be denied and shunned: in time, even the entire
Old Testament.
6/13
.....

Lesson 29 - Matthew 8 cont 2
Verse 18 explains that when Yeshua saw the crowds He gave orders to His
Disciples to take Him to the other side of the Lake. Yeshua was still at
Capernaum and some of His Disciples would have had their fishing boats there
so a boat was easily obtained. Why did Yeshua instruct His Disciples to leave
Capernaum? Did the crowds grow so large as to become unruly? Were the
numbers so great that there would have been no end to the healings requested?
Was He exhausted (yes, Jesus was human and got just as tired and worn out as
we can)? Was it simply time to take His miracle healing ministry elsewhere? We
don't know. But we do know that it was Yeshua's idea to leave; He commanded
His Disciples to get a boat and take Him to the other side of the Lake. Where was
the other side of the Lake? A few verses later we're told that He arrived in the
territory of the Gadarenes. Capernaum was at the Northwest part of the Sea of
Galilee and the territory of the Gadarenes was at the Southeast part of the Sea;
about a 45 degree angle across the Lake, so the journey was around 12 miles.
But before He boarded the boat a Scribe approached Him. While the CJB
correctly calls this person a Torah-teacher, the official position was called Scribe.
And indeed they were Torah-teachers even better, they
were Tanakh-teachers....who operated within the synagogue system. That is,
they had no attachment to the Temple or to the Priesthood. The Scribe calls
Jesus didaskalos in Greek, which translates to teacher in English. Because this
Scribe was almost certainly a Pharisee, it would have been in this context that he
was speaking to Christ. Thus the KJV rightly translates the Greek as Master
because a run-of-the-mill teacher was not the Scribe's intent when He addressed
Yeshua. Rather he sees Him as having authority, and thus we find the term
Rabbi used in the CJB. Rabbi means "great one" and fits well with the scene
taking place, here. The Scribe asks if he can accompany Yeshua; he says he will
follow Yeshua wherever he goes. "To follow" meant to come under the authority
of someone. This was the standard way that the religious Jews chose a Rabbi (a
Master) to sit under and be discipled during that era (as opposed to the way that
Yeshua, the Master, chose His first disciples).
Yeshua responded to the Scribe in a rather unexpected way. He quotes an
ancient folk expression about foxes having holes to live in, and birds having
nests, but then adds that the Son of Man has no home of his own. Now clearly
the meaning is that Yeshua cannot promise this Scribe a place to live or food to
eat because Yeshua lives day to day at the hospitality of others. Having said He
has no home, He doesn't mean it literally. His mother Miriam was still living (and
as far as we know she was still living in her own home, the same one in Nazareth
7/13

Lesson 29 - Matthew 8 cont 2
that her husband Joseph brought her into when they were first married), so
Yeshua of course could go there. But at this point in His ministry Yeshua was an
itinerant preacher and healer. What is most important about this statement is
Christ calling Himself "The Son of Man".
"Son of Man" was a favorite title that Yeshua regularly called Himself. Clearly
Jesus had much respect for the prophet Daniel as in Matthew chapter 24 He
speaks of him and a prophecy Daniel made concerning a son of man.
CJB Daniel 7:13-14 13 " / kept watching the night visions, when I saw, coming
with the clouds of heaven, someone like a son of man. He approached the
Ancient One and was led into his presence. 14 To him was given rulership,
glory and a kingdom, so that all peoples, nations and languages should
serve him. His rulership is an eternal rulership that will not pass away; and
his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
Because Yeshua now identifies Himself as Daniel's son of man, we understand
something that Daniel and his readers couldn't have. You see, the term "son of
man", which was written down in the Book of Daniel in Aramaic, is bar-enosh.
It's Hebrew equivalent is ben-adam. While it literally is translated to English as
"son of man", what it meant to the ancients was "human being". However now in
hindsight we understand that we can view Daniel's words in both
the P'shat sense and in the Remez sense. That is, the P'shat is that this
"someone like a son of man" means "someone like a human being". However in
the Remez it hints at something more. "Son of Man" now becomes a title for the
Messiah; a human being that is indeed a man, but more than a man. "Son of
Man" is a name Yeshua called Himself more than 80 times in the New
Testament, but He also used the term "Son of God". The standard interpretation
of these two titles is that Son of Man speaks of Christ's humanity, and Son of
God speaks of His divinity. However in reality, it is the reverse. Son of God was a
term used in the Bible for Israelite kings long before it was used of Christ; and
there was no thought that these kings were deity. The subject is fascinating but
extensive. I spoke in depth on it in my Torah Class study on Daniel lessons 19
and 20; so you can go there for further study.
Nonetheless clearly (at least clearly to Matthew) Christ did not mean to say that
this "human being" had no home of His own. Rather the mysterious person that
Daniel spoke about was Yeshua of Nazareth as the Messiah, and here He was
standing there, in person, on the Sea of Galilee and publicly claiming Daniel's
8/13

Lesson 29 - Matthew 8 cont 2
"son of man" title for Himself.
Now in verse 21 yet another man comes forward and wants to go with Christ.
This man is already a disciple (a follower, but not one of the original 12 Disciples)
so it is not someone making a new or sudden decision. His request to do
something first before He follows Christ reminds us of Elijah and Elisha.
CJB 1 Kings 19:20 He (Elishah) left the oxen, ran after Eliyahu and said,
"Please let me kiss my father and mother good-bye; then I will follow you." Yet we mustn't take this too far, because Elijah gave permission for Elisha to
indeed do as he asked, while Yeshua did the opposite. So what are we to make
of Christ's response to the disciple's request to go home and bury his father?
That is, saying to him "let the dead bury the dead". Some see this as very harsh.
Others see it as breaking more than one Torah command; first to honor your
parents but also the mandatory requirement to bury the deceased immediately
and to go into 7 days of mourning. All kinds of solutions to this have been
proposed including that it is a Hebrew or Aramaic expression that has been
mangled or obscured by translating it to Greek. In the end it DOES mean
something, and I think clearly it means that following Yeshua in faith trumps all.
But it certainly can't mean to break the Law of Moses in order to do it! My
suggestion is that it indeed sounded harsh to the disciple and probably to the
crowd surrounding Christ. But then again, think about what He would say a bit
later than lands in a similar manner upon a listener.
CJB Matthew 10:37 Whoever loves his father or mother more than he loves
me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than
he loves me is not worthy of me.
As severe as that sounds, Luke's version is even stronger, as he puts the same
thought in the negative.
CJB Luke 14:26 " If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father, his
mother, his wife, his children, his brothers and his sisters, yes, and his own
life besides, he cannot be my talmid.
I believe what we have in Matthew 8 is this: we must not think that here stands a
Jewish son in Capernaum talking with Yeshua after leaving his father at home, a
corpse, and still not buried! That would have been the height of breaking both
9/13
.....

Lesson 29 - Matthew 8 cont 2
biblical law and Jewish Tradition. While there were several nuances in Tradition
about burying the dead, it is unthinkable that a son would leave his dead father to
go hear a person speak (even a Holy Man) and then return later to handle the
burial. Death and burial were very serious matters that pre-empted nearly
everything. The matter of familial involvement could not be subcontracted out
except in the rarest of circumstances. On the flip side, however, is that if a parent
were very elderly or sickly, his son might not wish to venture far because his duty
to be present for the burial and all its arrangements was a deeply embedded
virtue in Jewish culture. It wasn't like today when, because of embalmment, a
burial can be postponed for a while to make it more convenient for all family
members to arrive and attend. So while in no way can I be certain, these realities
to me add up to the disciple's father not actually being dead....yet... but rather the
son wanting to go back home and enjoy just a little more of the good life until his
father did eventually pass, and the disciple was finally ready to follow the
Messiah as his true Master, but on his own timetable and terms. To me, this is
where the lesson lies. Otherwise we have a cranky Jesus telling this young man
that he must forego standard Jewish burial practices for his father, or that the
spiritually dead ought to bury the physically dead, thus putting this disciple in an
impossible bind through no fault of his own.
So how do we measure Yeshua's responses to these two followers? And how
does this fit with the prophetic fulfillment of Isaiah that He came to suffer terribly
and unselfishly for the sake of sinful humanity? We find a super-compassionate
Holy Man on the one hand, and a rather abrupt no-nonsense Master on the
other. Here's what we must recognize about Our Savior: He is a complex being.
Our Lord is greatly merciful and loving (just as His Father is); ready to comfort us.
Yet He is not one whose "goodwill towards men" can be trifled with, or taken for
granted or under the assumption that it will be given under any circumstance. He
indeed is Savior, but He is also Lord and King and therefore while He gives love,
He expects to receive love. And, like His Father, the love He seeks amounts to
obedience.
How many thousands perhaps millions.... of people have heard the Gospel
message and said that they "weren't ready" to accept it, yet. As much as not, it
was not because they didn't suspect it was true; it's that they understood enough
to know that they couldn't continue the lifestyle they were leading if they turned
away from their sins, and turned their life over to Yeshua. When people ask me
why human beings sin and even continue to, knowing better, I tell them it's
because we enjoy it. We like the sinful things we do otherwise we'd be quick to
10/13

Lesson 29 - Matthew 8 cont 2
give them up. How many thousands of millions of people will live in eternal
darkness because they assumed they had a lot more time to live, and then
maybe in old age they would finally turn to Christ, only to die suddenly before
they made that decision. And how many more had their hearts moved by hearing
the truth, but didn't make thinking about it or acting upon it a priority. Instead their
thoughts turned back to everyday life, its temptations and its challenges, never
again to think seriously about salvation. The issue Jesus was addressing with the
disciple who wanted to go back home until his father died, was allegiance and
priorities that potential followers of His must necessarily face. For in the biblical
realm, love is closely linked to allegiance and loyalty. Allegiance and loyalty
establish the order of our priorities. Remember what Christ said earlier in the hills
above the Lake:
CJB Matthew 6:24 No one can be slave to two masters; for he will either hate
the first and love the second, or scorn the second and be loyal to the first.
You can't be a slave to both God and money.
Thus after saying it as a principle, Yeshua has now demonstrated it in practice in
dealing with the Scribe and the potential follower as He was about to board a
fishing boat to cross the Sea of Galilee.
In verse 23 Yeshua is now on the boat and heading for Gadara with several
disciples on board. Suddenly a storm blows up, the Sea begins to churn, and
dangerous waves start lashing at the small boat He is in. The disciples are
certain their death is imminent and begin to panic. These boats are meant for the
calm waters of the Lake; they are not designed to fight against this kind of severe
weather. As the disciples (who are fishermen used to being on the Lake) become
alarmed we find Yeshua is fast asleep.
For those who have toured Israel with me, you will have visited the Jesus Boat
museum at the Nof Ginosar Hotel in Israel. They have an actual fishing boat
made in that same period, which was buried in the mud of the seashore, and
discovered by a man who lived on the associated Kibbutz. Viewing it helps us
understand how small and puny a boat like this would be against a raging sea.
But it also makes us ask: how in the world could Jesus sleep on such a crowded
and uncomfortable craft, let alone in the midst of it becoming tossed about in a
storm?!
And yes, these sorts of storms do blow in suddenly and can be quite perilous. I
11 / 13

Lesson 29 - Matthew 8 cont 2
was out on the Lake on one of the rather large tourist boats that can hold 100
people or so when some foul weather suddenly blew in. We were in no danger
but the swells and then waves formed in a matter of minutes. It was
uncomfortable enough that the trip had to be cut a little short or risk having some
seasick passengers to contend with. I could immediately imagine what it must
have been like for that little fishing boat that had just set sail from Capernaum as
it bobbed around on the churning waters.
No doubt this story was recorded in all 3 synoptic Gospels because of its close
association with another prophet that Yeshua identified Himself with: Jonah.
Christ said:
CJB Matthew 12:40 For just as Yonah was three days and three nights in
the belly of the sea-monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three
nights in the depths of the earth.
Notice how He manages to connect not one but two prophets and prophecies to
Himself: that of Jonah and of Daniel. The subject of Matthew 12:40 was of course
Jesus speaking about the burial cave He would repose in after His crucifixion.
However note the similarity between Jonah's Mediterranean sea adventure and
Christ's on the Sea of Galilee in our story of Matthew chapter 8.
CJB Jonah 1:1 The word of ADONAl came to Yonah the son of Amitai: 2 "Set
out for the great city of Ninveh, and proclaim to it that their wickedness has
come to my attention." 3 But Yonah, in order to get away from ADONAl,
prepared to escape to Tarshish. He went down to Yafo, found a ship
headed for Tarshish, paid the fare and went aboard, intending to travel with
them to Tarshish and get away from ADONAI. 4 However, ADONAI let loose
over the sea a violent wind, which created such stormy conditions that the
ship threatened to break to pieces. 5 The sailors were frightened, and each
cried out to his god. They threw the cargo overboard to make the ship
easier for them to control. Meanwhile, Yonah had gone down below into the
hold, where he lay, fast asleep. 6 The ship's captain found him and said to
him, "What do you mean by sleeping? Get up! Call on your god! Maybe the
god will remember us, and we won't die." There's more to be gleaned from the story of the tempest on the Sea of Galilee.
And we will explore that the next time we meet.
12/13
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lesson 29 - Matthew 8 cont 2
13/13

Lesson 30 - Matthew 8 & 9
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 30, Chapter 8 and 9
We are in the midst of several miracle stories of Jesus. The first involved
cleansing a man who had Tzara'at. The second was healing a house slave of his
infirmities (at the request of a Roman army officer), without Christ even being
present with the sick person. The third was healing Peter's mother in law. The
fourth we'll continue to discuss today, which is Christ compelling the storm and
the sea to quiet. The fifth will be about demon possession.
Before we get there I must say something. These miracles did not, and do not, in
general change the minds of staunch non-Believers. Among the Jews of the early
1st century healings occurred (and were expected) when a Tzadik, a Holy Man,
came along (as rare as that was). So Yeshua's miracles didn't change many, if
any, minds and cause His Jewish countrymen to accept Him as their divine
Messiah. When we have our ears and eyes closed, and carry around hearts of
stone, no amount of miracles and wonders will turn us to God. This is why when
we read about the End of Days in Revelation, with all the amazing and terrifying
signs, chaos and cataclysms (happenings foretold in the Bible that can be
nothing else but divinely caused) there is no accompanying world-wide revival.
We aren't rewarded as we read of the global destruction by being told that
millions and millions of non-Believers will turn to God as result. Rather, the
majority will shake their fists towards Heaven and curse Him. As it turns out, the
purpose of these divine signs and miracles was, and will be, as Matthew says in
chapter 8 verse 17 concerning Yeshua's wondrous deeds:
CJB Matthew 8:17 This was done to fulfill what had been spoken through the
prophet Yesha'yahu....
1 / 13

Lesson 30 - Matthew 8 & 9
Yeshua's miracles of healing and cleansing were done because the Father keeps
His promises. The proof of it is the relative few over the centuries who have
accepted Yeshua as God's Son as compared to the countless billions of
earthlings that have come and gone into the darkness over the centuries, despite
His display of awesome miracles, His undeniable resurrection, and the detailed
fulfillment of many ancient prophecies. Was it Christ's miracles that convinced
you to trust Him? It certainly wasn't for me. It was that God did a work in me....
while I was completely unaware.... preparing me, and then telling me the truth.
Those signs and miracles we read about in the Bible certainly are faith affirming;
but they are not what we have faith in, nor are they what leads us to faith. These
were done because God is faithful to His Word even when His people aren't.
Nothing has changed. And as we read a little more about the sudden storm on
the Sea of Galilee, we'll find that Jesus' actions and words that immediately
subdued that storm are not what convinced His Disciples that He was far more
than a miracle worker. Rather, it simply jarred them and caused them to be
astonished, affirming in them that they had hitched their wagons to an
incomparable Master.
Let's re-read a few verses in Matthew chapter 8.
RE-READ MATTHEW CHAPTER 8:23 - end
We left off last week with the knowledge that as the storm that suddenly erupted
on the Sea of Galilee began tossing the small fishing vessel that He and His
disciples were in, Christ was asleep as the others in the boat with him were afraid
and in panic mode. While we could probably read-in some highly spiritual
elements and make good allegorical use of the fact that Yeshua was asleep in
the tempest, I'm not sure that is Matthew's intent. When we go back to verses 16
- 22 we find that Yeshua had spent the entire day healing and dealing with large
crowds of people pressing in all about Him. He was a human being, and subject
to getting tired just as with the rest of us. I can't escape the obvious that one of
the reasons He got into the boat was as a practical means to escape the
demands of the endless crowds, and secondly because He was mentally,
emotionally, and physically exhausted. The Book of Mark contains the same
story, but it adds a bit different perspective.
CJB Mark 4:35-41 35 That day, when evening had come, Yeshua said to them,
"Let's cross to the other side of the lake." 36 So, leaving the crowd behind,
they took him just as he was, in the boat; and there were other boats with
2/13

Lesson 30 - Matthew 8 & 9
him. 37 A furious windstorm arose, and the waves broke over the boat, so
that it was close to being swamped. 38 But he was in the stern on a cushion,
asleep. They woke him and said to him, "Rabbi, doesn't it matter to you that
we're about to be killed?" 39 He awoke, rebuked the wind and said to the
waves, "Quiet! Be still!" The wind subsided, and there was a dead
calm. 40 He said to them, "Why are you afraid? Have you no trust even
now?" 41 But they were terrified and asked each other, "Who can this be,
that even the wind and the waves obey him?"
So, Yeshua laid down in that cramped little boat on top of a cushion and
immediately fell off to sleep. As the waves grew and the boat began to be tossed
around, it was not sufficient in itself to awaken Him. But, the panicking Disciples
(probably a bit reluctantly) roused Him.
Did they waken Him thinking He would calm the storm? Nothing we have read
would indicate that they thought He had such powers. Rather, He was their
Master and leader, and it was only natural that as their situation appeared to be
growing more and more dire, He certainly had to be made aware it. And yet, it is
too obvious a matter to bypass that Christ's Disciples were devoted to Him such
that they followed Him and obeyed Him in whatever capacity and situation. And
so when things got out of control, they quickly turned to Him not knowing what
else to do. Yet devotion and trust are two different things. It was typical for
disciples to be devoted and loyal to their Master. But trusting in them to the point
of releasing their cares to him and even discounting the outcomes of their own
lives was another matter. Therefore when Yeshua awakens and sees the
situation, He chastises His Disciples and tells them that they have no trust (in
Him). Mark adds two words to Christ's chastisement that don't appear in either
Matthew's or Luke's version: "even now". Even now. "Even now" implies that the
things that He taught His Disciples and the miracles He had performed in their
presence ought to have elicited more of their trust; but it hadn't. Christ was none
too happy about that.
We should always notice the frankness of the Gospel accounts concerning the 12
Disciples; nothing is papered over. These men are ordinary. They have their
weaknesses and frailties, and their rather small level of faith at this moment (at
least it is small in Christ's eyes) is among their human flaws. This takes us back
to the beginning of our lesson. As much as one might reason and expect that it
should, it would not be His astounding miracles, even ordering the storm to
abate, that reveals Yeshua as the Messiah or that He is God incarnate and thus
3/13

Lesson 30 - Matthew 8 & 9
bring about complete trust in Him. It would be two things that makes those hand␂picked Jewish disciples true Believers: the Spirit of God preparing them (which is
what we are witnessing in progress) and then Yeshua telling them the truth about
who He is (this hasn't happened yet in Matthew) and them accepting it.
I doubt that any of the Jewish Tzadik miracle workers that suddenly appeared in
the years before Yeshua calmed waves and stopped storms (there is no record
of such a thing). So this was an aspect of Christ that the disciples had never seen
before or even imagined. No doubt the image of Jonah had to have been
conjured up in their minds as later they thought about what they had
experienced; although the circumstances were not identical. We're left to
understand in every Gospel version of this event that clearly the Disciples had no
explanation for Christ's power and command over nature. Quickly the narrative
turns to what happened immediately after the incident of the storm.
The boat arrives on the other side of the Lake, in the territory of the Gadarenes.
There is a bit of a scholarly disagreement over who these people might have
been, some suggesting they were the Gerasenes and not the Gadarenes. There
is a problem with either choice. The former were residents of a city located about
30 miles from the Lake. The latter was associated with a city located nearer to
the Lake, but still over 6 miles away. Therefore some scholars think that it was
neither. Instead it was the people of Gergesa because indeed it was a lakeside
village. The other disagreement is whether or not these people were Jews (or
better, Israelites). There is nothing historically recorded that seems to be able to
clear up this matter. Names of people and places change over the centuries with
alarming regularity, and so we can only speculate. I choose not to speculate
about the name of the people because their exact name is not the point of the
story. I do agree that whether or not they were Israelites matters significantly, but
again, we can't be certain. Samaria, for instance (a region on the west bank of
the Jordan) was a mixed population of gentiles, Jews, Jews married to gentiles,
and even some number of other non-Jewish Israelites that had long ago married
gentiles and remained in the area. So it is not impossible that the territory Jesus
landed in was similarly populated especially because it was on the east side of
the Jordan River, outside of the Holy Land.
Even so, the involvement of pigs in the story of demon possession tells me that
gentiles were present because the idea of Jews or leftover Israelites raising
herds of pigs is just too farfetched. Thus we begin with two unnamed men of
unnamed origin that come out of some burial caves where they were living in
4/13

.....

Lesson 30 - Matthew 8 & 9
order to confront Yeshua. Theses men were controlled by (possessed by)
demons and they were so fearsome and unhinged that a road traveling by their
area was avoided.
Let's talk about the mere concept of demon possession because within the
Church the subject is controversial and shunned by many who believe that such
a thing doesn't exist. Like so many other subjects in the Bible (the opening of the
Rea Sea, even Jesus rising from the dead), demon possession is immediately
latched onto, declared as suspect, and dismissed by scientists, anthropologists
and psychiatrists. Rather they say that these supposed demon possessed people
were actually mental patients, because long before the medical field advanced to
its present stage the only explanation that the ancients had for the bizarre
behavior of some people was demon possession. Therefore the same people
depicted in our story could have been treated with psychiatry and medications
had it been available.
And yet I know reliable people who have personally dealt with demon
possession, and although I have witnessed but one case of it, there is not a
doubt in my mind that it is quite real and still relevant for our era. So while I
believe that no doubt mental illness existed among some in Christ's day, that
doesn't preclude the existence of demon possession in others. So our story in
Matthew (that also appears in Mark 5 and Luke 8) is not about the mentally ill but
rather it's about the demon possessed. There are slight differences in this story
among the 3 Synoptic Gospels, such as there being 1 possessed person in two
of the accounts and two persons in Matthew's. The number of possessed plays
no real role in the event; the issue is that they ARE possessed by demons
(unclean spirits) and it has caused them to be violent and uncontrollable. How
they got that way in the first place is beyond the scope of the story.
The mention of the possessed men living in a burial cave is important in
Matthew's story because it speaks to them wallowing in a ritually unclean state in
every way imaginable. A burial cave is an inherently unclean place because a
dead body is there. There is little more ritually impure thing in the Jewish religion
than a corpse and death. Yet these men were, with little doubt, gentiles and not
Jews. Living in a cave that was not also used for burial wasn't unusual; and for
pagans, living in burial caves was in some cases not seen as necessarily gross
or wrong especially for cultures where their religion involved ancestor worship.
Caves to this day form good housing in some cultures, as it did in Yeshua's day.
Even in Grenada, Spain there are still people who have turned caves into
5/13
.....

Lesson 30 - Matthew 8 & 9
housing. So once the men became demon possessed, and made unclean, then it
could do them no more harm to live in a burial cave. Besides; who is to say that
they saw themselves as unclean in God's eyes? You see, that is one of the big
dangers in gentile Christianity disavowing The Torah of Moses and thus knowing
nothing about it. Just because a Christian doesn't KNOW he or she is unclean or
breaking God's commands doesn't mean in God's eyes they aren't. Ignorance of
God's laws and of one's own spiritual status doesn't excuse it.
What is fascinating is that these demon possessed men came out of their caves
and screamed at Christ; not disrespectfully but rather in fear. They wanted to
know why He was here, at this time, and not at the appointed time (which they
thought would be at a later date). They called Him Son of God and wondered if
He was here to torture them sooner than scheduled. So here we see that these
demons know the real identity of Yeshua, even though the 12 Disciples don't.
The demons understand that He is divine and that there is an appointed time for
them to be dealt with and tormented, and that the timing of it coincides with Jesus
being present on earth. These demons know a lot about Christ and their destiny;
but evidently they don't know everything.
I'll pause here to address something important; clearly the New Testament
identifies that there are 2 latter days or End Times. If you want a more extensive
understanding of this go to my study of the Book of Daniel. But the short version
is this: the 1st latter days was that era leading up to and including the 1st coming
of Christ. The 2nd latter days will be the era leading up to and including the 2nd
coming of Christ (we may well even be living in that era). The people of Christ's
time knew only of the 1st latter days and had no expectation of a 2nd. Thus when
Yeshua spoke of the Kingdom of God, and of certain things that will happen at
the End, the Jews that heard Him thought He was speaking about this happening
nearly immediately. For Jews the appearance of the Messiah was concretely
associated with the arrival of the End Times. And for them the judgment of
demons was also directly tied to the End Times. This is why we see Peter, Paul,
and several other New Testament Believers so passionate about getting the
message of salvation out; they felt a pressing urgency because they totally
believed that the End was imminent and would happen in their lifetimes because
the Messiah had come. For them promise and theory became fact and reality.
Thus when I read the story of these demoniacs who are in terror and surprised at
Jesus's appearance, it tells me that they, too, know nothing of 2 latter days and 2
appearances of Christ on earth; they only knew of 1 a later one. So they were
6/13

Lesson 30 - Matthew 8 & 9
confused. What they did seem to know is that at a divinely preset time,
coincidental with the appearance of the Son of God, the condition of their
existence as evil, unclean beings would be forever changed. Torment and
darkness is their eternal future. However, that time was not yet and just like
human beings do, they wanted every last second of existence they could have.
Rather than Yeshua judging them and sentencing them to torment (which is what
they fear is about to happen, but relieved when it doesn't) the demons plead with
Him that they be relocated to another and different unclean place as a kind of
interim or partial judgment: inside pigs. And yet, from a Torah perspective pigs
are not inherently unclean animals. Rather they are only prohibited as being used
for food. Even so, in Christ's day pigs were (by Jewish Tradition) considered
inherently unclean, even to touch. Remember who is writing this Gospel and who
he is writing it to. Matthew is a learned Believing Jew and his Gospel is being
written to Jews. So there is a huge hint in Christ's response to the demons that
the Day of Judgment, the End of Days, is not here yet but it will come some
unknown time later and judgment that includes the sphere of spiritual evil will be
part of that judgment.
Upon receiving permission to leave the men's bodies and move to the pigs, the
now demon possessed herd rushes towards the Lake and drowns. By no means
does this intend that the demons have drowned. One must ask what this rush
towards the water and mass suicide means? Is it just the demons' desire to harm
and kill pigs? Can demons actually inhabit the body of animals and control them?
The suggestion of it is certainly present in the narrative. I don't really have all the
answers to this dilemma but this much is certain: in God's economy, water is a
ritually purifying element for land creatures. Even inanimate pots having ritually
impure contents in them can be cleansed by being immersed in water. So since
the matter of ritual impurity is such a focus in this story of demon possession then
surely the pigs running headlong into water must signal a real danger to these
unclean demons.
In any case the pigs die, and so in another sense the demons are right back into
an unclean space.... where they belong. In other words, this story is built upon an
irony, perhaps a paradox. Christ allows the unclean spirits to go into the unclean
pigs that then run into a source of cleanness, water, only to drown and then have
the unclean spirits right back in the unclean corpses of the pigs. Due to their
aversion to both gentiles and pigs I suspect that Jews reading this would have
found this story to be pretty comical.
7/13

Lesson 30 - Matthew 8 & 9
Interestingly Matthew doesn't tell us what happened to the men that had been
possessed by these demons but were now freed. No doubt it is because for him
they are not the issue. The issue is Christ's command over the spirit world....
including the demonic spirit world.... as well as the demons fully understanding
Yeshua's identity and their ultimate destiny of judgment as tied to His presence.
Likely it was also because these men were gentiles, making them of little interest
to Jews, except that it put gentiles in the unfavorable light that Jews generally
viewed them. Even so Mark does tell us that as Christ gets ready to board the
boat and depart, the now exorcised men ask Him if they can come with Him; He
says no. They need to go back to their own people (gentiles) and tell them how
merciful "The Lord" has been to them. Yeshua is not referring to Himself but
rather to His Father. I suspect that in the original Hebrew that Matthew penned
His Gospel the word was not the Greek kurios (lord) but rather Yehoveh, God's
name because that fits the context so much better.
The men who had tended the now dead pigs (around 2000 of them according to
Mark, a sizeable and valuable bunch of animals) go running into their town to tell
everyone what happened. The townspeople come out, upset, and insist that
Christ leaves, no doubt because pigs represented a big part of the local economy
and they didn't want to risk losing their own herds to this mysterious Jewish
man's abilities.
Before we leave chapter 8 I want to address something that is perhaps of interest
only to me: why did Jesus go to these particular people on the west side of the
Lake? Did He intentionally choose this place, knowing beforehand that He was to
go there to have this confrontation with the demons? We have no clue, except to
perhaps think about it logically. In Capernaum Jesus boarded a small fishing boat
to get out into the Lake to escape the crowds. He was exhausted from a very
long day, fell asleep in the boat, and in the meantime a storm blew up. He was
awakened, spoke to the storm, and it quieted down. But by now the boat had
been pushed along, not controlled by its rudder but rather by the direction of the
fierce wind and waves to the southeast corner of the Sea of Galilee. It was by
God's providence that they landed where they did, not by intention.
Folks we can use this adventure as an analogy and a story of encouragement. I
know for a fact that many of us have been blown, at times rudderless, on the
winds and waves of life to the place where we are today. Some of that journey
may have been, maybe it still is, uncomfortable if not terrifying. If we belong to
the Lord, however, then unbeknown to us and according to His providence, it was
8/13
.....

Lesson 30 - Matthew 8 & 9
He who controlled those winds and waves of our lives to land us right where we
belong; right where He wanted us. And now that we're here we are to embrace
the mission and purpose that we never set sail for, and thank Him.
Let's move on to chapter 9.
READ MATTHEW CHAPTER 9 all
We have in chapter 9 another series of miracles performed by Christ, the addition
of a new disciple, and some God-principles renewed. We're told that Yeshua and
His Disciples returned to the other side of the Lake to what Matthew calls "His
town" (no doubt it was Capernaum from where they originally set out). There a
paralyzed man was brought to Yeshua in hopes of him being healed. The Gospel
of Mark adds some important information to the story.
CJB Mark 2:1-5 1 After a while, Yeshua returned to K'far-Nachum. The word
spread that he was back, 2 and so many people gathered around the house
that there was no longer any room, not even in front of the door. While he
was preaching the message to them, 3
four men came to him carrying a
paralyzed man. 4 They could not get near Yeshua because of the crowd, so
they stripped the roof over the place where he was, made an opening, and
lowered the stretcher with the paralytic lying on it. 5 Seeing their trust,
Yeshua said to the paralyzed man, "Son, your sins are forgiven." Perhaps the main addition has to do with how the paralyzed man was brought to
Jesus. Four men who must have cared deeply for him went so far as to cut an
area through the roof of the house where Yeshua was and then lowered the man
down. We're told that they did this because the house was so crowded. We don't
know whose house He was in; perhaps it was Peter's. One can only imagine the
crowds that anxiously waited for this miracle healer to return with the hope that
somehow they might get near enough to get Yeshua's attention and have their
afflictions cured.
Many years ago I heard a Pastor speak about this in a message he entitled "The
Stretcher Bearers". It made such an impact upon me that I want to share just a bit
of it with you. In this story we have a very ill man that could not help himself
because he was unable to move. However 4 men who cared enough.... no doubt
close friends or family each took a corner of a stretcher and did what had to
be done. The human reality is that it is kind of rewarding if not exciting to be a
9/13

Lesson 30 - Matthew 8 & 9
stretcher bearer. To be a stretcher bearer one has to have the health and
strength to do it. It means that as a stretcher bearer your health, and probably
your life, is in some kind of good order. Not everyone wants to bother to be a
stretcher bearer; but Christ has taught us that we all should be. That is how we
love our neighbor.
An old adage is that it is easier to give than to receive. So true. But it is also
easier to carry the corner of a stretcher than to be laying on it. As a stretcher
bearer we still have some control; as for the passenger, life has become
somewhat out of control. Nobody wants to be the person on the stretcher
because it means some tragedy, accident or illness has unfolded upon us.
Especially men are wired to be stretcher bearers; but we're not wired to be on
that stretcher. It hurts our pride, our ego, and makes us feel impotent. So the real
story is not about the bearers of the stretcher, it's about the man that is on it. And
Matthew being Matthew he focuses not on the carriers....he doesn't even mention
them... but the victim.
The harsh reality is that while most Believers don't mind being a stretcher bearer
it is nearly devastating to have to give up our independence and become the one
who needs to be carried. The even harsher reality is that at some point probably
all of us will be on that stretcher. Will we have those around us who want to pick
up a corner and lift us up? How will we react? Might we be grateful to be carried?
Or will we be in denial and bitter? Will we shake our fist at God, angry because
we've been such a faithful stretcher bearer for others, so we think that we don't
deserve to be the one that now needs help? Or will we bend to God's will and
allow ourselves to grow in faith as a result?
The thing I've learned that has been most valuable to me having been both the
carried and the carrier is this: as the one on the stretcher we should never take
away the blessing of the bearers by being bitter, ungrateful, angry, or ashamed.
We should never try to shoo them away and declare that we don't need their help
when in fact everyone can see that we do. If we're the Lord's, and we're in need
of being carried, then God has placed us there for a reason. Maybe it is because
one or all of those carrying our stretcher needs a blessing. Often it is for us to
learn humility. There is little more humbling.... especially to a male.... of having to
be carried.
So whoever this paralyzed man was that was being carried to Jesus, even let
down through a ceiling, he was not in the happiest of positions. As a paralytic in
10/13

Lesson 30 - Matthew 8 & 9
the 1st century, he was in control of nothing. His future was bleak. In his humbled
state this afflicted man received from Yeshua exactly what he needed to, and
could, hear: forgiveness from the sin that he was full of. And yet, was atonement
what the man or his 4 friends were looking to Christ for? No; it was healing. So
now after our speaking to the principle of the stretcher bearer, we find this
challenging matter of sin being coupled with infirmity.
Biblically, what is the connection between sin and illness? Yeshua didn't say
"arise and walk" to the paralyzed man. He didn't say "be healed". He said "have
courage, son, your sins are forgiven". It is interesting that in only one other place
in the New Testament do we find Yeshua directly forgiving the sins of a particular
person. In Luke 7 we read this:
CJB Luke 7:44-48 44 Then, turning to the woman, he said to Shim'on, "Do you
see this woman? I came into your house- you didn't give me water for my
feet, but this woman has washed my feet with her tears and dried them with
her hair! 45 You didn't give me a kiss; but from the time I arrived, this
woman has not stopped kissing my feet! 46 You didn't put oil on my head,
but this woman poured perfume on my feet! 47 Because of this, I tell you
that her sins- which are many!- have been forgiven, because she loved
much. But someone who has been forgiven only a little loves only a
little." 48 Then he said to her, "Your sins have been forgiven."
In the case of the paralyzed man are we to conclude that it was sin that caused
this man's condition? And if that is the case, then what Jesus did was to address
the underlying cause of this man's disability (sin) as opposed to the disability
itself. No doubt in that era sin and physical affliction were connected. There was
another important incident whereby Yeshu connected sin and sickness.
CJB John 5:5-14 5 One man was there who had been ill for thirty-eight
years. 6 Yeshua, seeing this man and knowing that he had been there a long
time, said to him, "Do you want to be healed?" 7 The sick man answered, "I
have no one to put me in the pool when the water is disturbed; and while
I'm trying to get there, someone goes in ahead of me." 8 Yeshua said to him,
"Get up, pick up your mat and walk!" 9
Immediately the man was healed,
and he picked up his mat and walked. Now that day was Shabbat, 10 so the
Judeans said to the man who had been healed, "It's Shabbat! It's against
Torah for you to carry your mat!" 11 But he answered them, "The man who
healed me- he's the one who told me, 'Pick up your mat and walk.'" 12 They
11 / 13
..........

Lesson 30 - Matthew 8 & 9
asked him, "Who is the man who told you to pick it up and walk?" 13 But the
man who had been healed didn't know who it was, because Yeshua had
slipped away into the crowd. 14 Afterwards Yeshua found him in the Temple
court and said to him, "See, you are well! Now stop sinning, or something
worse may happen to you!"
To this point it certainly sounds like Yeshua is instructing that sin causes
infirmities and sickness. And we have many people and denominations that take
hold of this and make it a doctrine that if one is sick or disabled then it was
because of some sin or another that this person committed, so until they confess
that sin and are forgiven they have no hope of being healed. Unfortunately, this
also labels that person as an especially egregious sinner and Believers tend to
accuse that person of causing their own illness.
Despite what Christ has said thus far about sin and sickness, we also read this in
John.
CJB John 9:1-3 1 As Yeshua passed along, he saw a man blind from
birth. 2 His talmidim asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned- this man or his
parents- to cause him to be born blind?" 3 Yeshua answered, "His
blindness is due neither to his sin nor to that of his parents; it happened so
that God's power might be seen at work in him.
The Early Church Fathers had different takes on sin and sickness with Hilary of
Poitiers in the 4th century probably coming closest to a middle ground. In his
commentary on Matthew 9 and the man on the stretcher he says:
The paralytic is a descendant of the original man, Adam. In on person,
Christ, all of the sins of Adam are forgiven we do not believe the
paralytic committed any sin that resulted in his illness, especially since the
Lord said elsewhere that blindness from birth had no been contracted from
someone's sin or that of his parents.
So, this is our dilemma. Is sin and sickness directly connected or is there no
connection or is there a connection sometimes? Or are we to look at it more like
Hilary in that what causes illness is the sin nature that we all inherit from Adam,
as opposed to sins of breaking the Law of Moses? If so, why do staunch, faithful
Believers get sick?
12/13
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lesson 30 - Matthew 8 & 9
In the end I cannot provide a simple answer. Assuming that Christ was not
merely mouthing words in order to play into the traditions and customs of His
Jewish culture, then it is undeniable that He indeed drew a direct link between sin
and sickness. Even so, it seems to be on an almost case by case basis such that
only God knows when a person is ill due to sin, and when he or she isn't.
Perhaps the only thing that we can do.... and maybe that is the lesson.... is to not
suppose that we are in a position to make that judgment about an ill person.
Rather, not knowing the source of their infirmity, we pray for them asking both for
forgiveness of sins and for their healing. This seems to be what James is saying
at the end of his letter.
CJB James 5:13-16 13 Is someone among you in trouble? He should pray. Is
someone feeling good? He should sing songs of praise. 14 Is someone
among you ill? He should call for the elders of the congregation. They will
pray for him and rub olive oil on him in the name of the Lord. 15 The prayer
offered with trust will heal the one who is ill- the Lord will restore his
health; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore,
openly acknowledge your sins to one another, and pray for each other, so
that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and
effective.
We'll continue in Matthew chapter 9 next week.
13/13

Lesson 31 - Matthew 9
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 31, Chapter 9
We're going to spend a little more time today with the story that opens Matthew
9; that of the paralytic man who was brought to Christ so that he might be healed.
Let's begin by re-reading verses 1 - 7.
RE-READ MATTHEW CHAPTER 9:1 - 7
This one paragraph reveals a few important topics for us. The first is the
connection Jesus makes between sin and sickness. And yet another is an
offshoot of the first: exactly what is sin according to Christ and what did the Jews
think sin was? A third topic is that He has just stated that He has the power to
forgive sins on earth. A fourth is that Matthew explains that Yeshua has the ability
to know people's minds.
We explored the link between sin and sickness last week. It is a challenging and
divisive topic; as one can imagine various scholars and denominations have
taken different viewpoints on it. I've discussed with you in Torah Class lessons on
the Old Testament that Roman based Christianity (meaning Protestant and
Catholic) established their doctrines using a Greek mindset and approach. This
perspective leads to the requirement for concrete answers to questions that arise
in the Bible; therefore the solutions are usually of the either/or, this or that, type.
That is, the result is doctrines that produce rigid rules whereby the shades of gray
in the Bible are magically transformed into black or white. Thus regarding sin and
sickness some denominations insist that all disease and infirmities are the result
of the commission of sins. Others accept no connection whatsoever. Some say
there used to be a connection but because of Jesus it doesn't exist any longer.
And still others offer spiritual remedies or have an extensive explanation of which
1 / 13

Lesson 31 - Matthew 9
illnesses and infirmities are connected with which sins.
Last week I gave you a few New Testament verses that demonstrate the range of
thoughts about the connection between sin and sickness. It is my view that in the
end we, as humans, can not and do not know when our illness or that of another
is sin based or not. That is, there indeed are instances when God causes us to
have an infirmity that is a direct consequence of our wrong behavior. But there
are also instances that God causes us to have an infirmity that has nothing to do
with our behavior, but rather He is using it to His Glory and for an end purpose
that we likely will never know. And, there are instances when we get ill that are
not because of God's involvement but rather they are caused by all the physical
tangible things that modern Western Medicine seeks to cure through science.
No doubt it is true that because we're all descended from one man that, without
exception, we have inherited the propensity for mental, physical and spiritual
defects. This is often expressed in the biblical concept of something called our
sin nature, which is equally often expressed by the writers of the Epistles as our
"old nature". Through Adam's disobedience and rebellion against God, sin came
into the world accompanied by death. With it came the defects, even though
mankind was never intended to have any kind of defects at all. Adam was without
defect until he disobeyed God and instead believed God's Adversary. So from
the 30,000 foot view, sin and every manner of infirmity is caused by sin in the
sense of the sin nature every human being is born with. So, as pertains to
Christ's pronouncement upon the paralytic that "your sins are forgiven", was it
this man's sin nature that He was referring to? Might it have been, quite literally,
behavioral sins (as meaning breaking one or more of the Laws of Moses)? I don't
know; but clearly for this paralyzed man it was one of the two, perhaps both,
because Jesus saw forgiving him his sins as the actual remedy for his paralysis.
Now I want to talk about the nature of sin. In its most simplistic sense sin (as
Christians usually think of it) is offending God. It is disobedience to Him (often in
some undefined way) and thus it is revolt against the divine authority. It may be a
direct offense against Him (by not worshipping Him properly, for instance) or it
may be an indirect offense in that we do wrong to a fellow human being, which
breaks the Torah command to love your neighbor; and therefore it offends God.
However for the Jews of the 1st century, and especially for the Israelites of earlier
times, sin was not merely a word for a behavioral offense against God, it was a
word that meant pollution. And pollution was seen like an infection; thus the
infection could be spread. Therefore sin and ritual uncleanness were closely tied
2/13

Lesson 31 - Matthew 9
together. That is, sin may represent the particular offense itself, but uncleanness
was one of the consequences. This is why when sacrifices were made at the
Temple, especially for so-called sin offerings, water immersion of the worshipper
was part of the process.
When I taught you the Torah, especially as regards Leviticus, I showed you that
there were 5 different categories of altar sacrifices, and not all of them dealt with
sin. Those that did had specific aspects of sin and its effects that they targeted.
One of them that most textbooks will call the "sin offering", more accurately ought
to be called the purification offering. That category of sacrifice is, in Hebrew,
called Hatta'at. That is, while one of the 5 categories of sacrifices dealt with
atoning for the specific sin that was committed, and another and different
sacrifice was for re-establishing the relationship with God that was broken due to
the sin, the Hatta'at sacrifice deals with the condition of the worshipper who
committed the sin. And that condition is that as a result of sinning the worshipper
has become polluted.... infected.... impure. So for Jews of Jesus's day and for
centuries before, sin was as much pollution as wrong behavior.
The Jews present at Yeshua's healing of the paralyzed man knew all this. So
traditionally they made a close association between sin and sickness (at times,
too close). So forgiveness of sins as a cure for the condition of the worshipper
(the sickness of the worshipper) was taken for granted. Yet in verse 3 we hear of
the Torah Teachers being upset with Yeshua's pronouncement of forgiveness of
sins as the means by which the man's condition was cured. They had no
problem with the healing itself because Yeshua was seen as a Tzadik, a miracle
healer, and He wasn't the first Holy Man to have appeared. So what was the
problem? First: the Greek word that the CJB translates as Torah Teacher
is grammateus, which directly translates to the English word "scribe". Scribes,
in Jesus's day, were the synagogue teachers of both Scripture and Tradition;
they had no ties to the Temple. They were in no way connected with the Levites
or the Priesthood. So very likely the Scribes in this story taught in the local
synagogue there in Capernaum where all this was taking place. If they didn't balk
at the idea of the link between sin and sickness, nor at the idea of a miracle
worker like Yeshua healing a paralytic, what was the nature of their complaint? It
was that only God can forgive sins and here was Yeshua of Nazareth claiming
that He could, also. That is why they leveled the charge of blasphemy against
Him.
Matthew goes on to editorialize that Yeshua knew what the men were thinking
3/13

Lesson 31 - Matthew 9
(another thing that within Jewish society was thought that only God could do).
What were they thinking? It was that Yeshua had no authority to forgive. He
called this an evil thought in their hearts. I know I've said it scores of times, but it
bears continual reminding: notice that Christ associated that act of thinking with
the heart organ. Yes, the Greek of this verse is translated correctly and I checked
a number of translations and they all agree. In that era (and for a few hundred
years before and after) people believed that the heart was where the invisible
processes occur that we now know take place in the brain. So whereas today we
associate the heart as but a figurative expression of the seat of human emotion
or even of spiritual connection with the spiritual world, the people, gentile and
Jew, knew of no such thing in Christ's era. Rather the heart was for them
figuratively and physically where the mind and the human will were located. So
when Christ asks which is easier: to forgive sins or to outright heal, the answer is
that they are equal because for Jews sin was the cause of infirmities and
therefore to forgive sins cures infirmities.
Thus Christ answers the Scribes' spoken and unspoken thoughts by saying that
despite what they believe, the Son of Man indeed does have the authority to
forgive sins. Why didn't Jesus just say "I have the authority", rather than using
one of His favorite expressions for Himself, The Son of Man, because his answer
merely muddies the waters? This opens yet another important topic, one that
scholars call eschatology. Big word. But all it means is the study of End Times
happenings. Most modern Bible scholars will say that everything that Jesus did
and said were meant in an eschatological.... End Times.... context. While I agree
with that, most of these scholars wouldn't agree with me about what that actually
indicates. That is, most New Testament Bible scholars say that since the Latter
Days, the End Times, haven't happened yet (in our time) then most things Christ
says as recorded in the Gospels are about the far future to Him, and not in His
present time. I claim that the things He said were in the context of not one
but two Latter Days: the one leading up to His first coming and what happened
soon thereafter, and the second one that is yet to happen but will be marked by
Yeshua's return and what comes immediately before and after. The reality is that
if it didn't work that way it would be counter to the way that nearly all biblical
prophecy operates. That is, a prophecy is pronounced, and then fulfilled, and
then at a later date it is fulfilled again. So it is important that we take what Christ
says as pertaining directly to the people He is dealing with in His time, but it is
also for people in the far distant future to when He was living and ministering on
earth.
4/13


Lesson 31 - Matthew 9
So why did Yeshua say that the Son of Man had authority to forgive sins? In
Hebrew the term son of man is ben Adam, in every day use in the 1st century it
basically meant human being. That is, it doesn't indicate anyone special.
However, Yeshua was fan of the Prophet Daniel and Daniel used that term (Son
of Man) in a specific and prominent way in one of his prophecies.
CJB Daniel 7:13-14 13 "I kept watching the night visions, when I saw, coming
with the clouds of heaven, someone like a son of man. He approached the
Ancient One and was led into his presence. 14 To him was given rulership,
glory and a kingdom, so that all peoples, nations and languages should
serve him. His rulership is an eternal rulership that will not pass away; and
his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
So while Daniel indeed means "someone like a human being" approaches the
Ancient One (God in Heaven), and to him is given a kingdom and eternal
rulership, obviously this can only be a very specific and unique person that is the
one like a human being. Therefore for Jesus, Son of Man became a specific title
for the person that would be the one given a kingdom and rulership forever:
Himself. Did the Jews listening to Him in Capernaum understand it that way, but
then reject it? Did they gather from what He said that He was the fulfillment of
Daniel's prophecy? I'm sure to most of them it sounded more like Christ was
saying that He was a regular human being but He had been given divine
authority to forgive sins. That is, it is not that He was the divine End Times ruler
of God's Kingdom, even though that is precisely what He was communicating,
because He was saying it through hints and implications that went over the
heads of those He was speaking to.
It has always bothered me as to why Christ seemed to speak about His true
identity in riddles.
CJB Luke 22:63-68 63 Meanwhile, the men who were holding Yeshua made
fun of him. They beat him, 64 blindfolded him, and kept asking him, "Now,
'prophesy1
! Who hit you that time?" 65 And they said many other insulting
things to him. 66 At daybreak, the people's council of elders, including both
head cohanim and Torah-teachers, met and led him off to their
Sanhedrin, 67 where they said, "If you are the Mashiach, tell us." He
answered, "If I tell you, you won't believe me; 68 and if I ask you, you won't
answer.
5/13


Lesson 31 - Matthew 9
So mere hours before His execution, He was still being guarded about His
identity and anything but candid about being the Messiah. I can't necessarily
answer the question of "why", but clearly except for a precious few (not even the
full number of His original Disciples, not even John the Baptist) no one at this
time believed that He was the Messiah nor that He was divine. He could have
straightened that out so easily; but His claim in this Luke passage is that it would
do no good to say it because the religious authorities wouldn't believe Him
anyway. No doubt He was right. But the vast majority of the time He wasn't
speaking to the religious authorities, He was speaking to the common people.
The point I am making is this: as we continue reading through Matthew we need
to give both His followers and those who hear Him, but don't respond in the
expected way, a bit of a break. Too often Christians read the Gospels and see
the Jews as a bunch of stiff-necked knuckleheads who were either dense or
intentionally rebuffed their own Jewish Messiah; I find that unfair and not
reflective of what actually happened. Look how relatively few people of the
world's population throughout post-Christ history have accepted Him for who He
actually is: Savior; even though we have had the plain evidence of it before us for
2000 years. We have the benefit of hindsight and the teachings of the Apostles
who were eye witnesses. I have no doubt that if we were present when Christ
was still living and teaching, hearing Him with our own ears, we wouldn't be any
different. So those Scribes that questioned His authority to forgive sins were
doing it (at least partly) in the context of the true, biblical principle that human
beings have no power to forgive sin (at least not on their own authority). And
therefore to say that He can forgive sins, Christ is comparing Himself to God.
They didn't get it that Christ actually was God on earth, and that He was the one
both Moses and Daniel spoke about, because He never plainly said so in an
unequivocal way.
In verse 6, Yeshua tells the man to pick up his mattress and go home. This
wasn't a command to heal; it was that by having his sins forgiven he was already
healed and so there was nothing more to do than for the man to go home!
Matthew, the Jewish Gospel writer who is writing to the Jewish people, regularly
focuses on a familiar topic to his readers: sin. Early in his Gospel he even sums
up Christ's purpose and actions primarily in the context of saving God's people
from their sins.
CJB Matthew 1:21 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to name him
Yeshua, [which means 'ADONAI saves,'] because he will save his people
6/13

Lesson 31 - Matthew 9
from their sins." Therefore the implication is that all else that comes from saving from sins is but a
byproduct.
Verse 8 confirms something we ought to have taken for granted; there were
many onlookers. This was all occurring in this house that now had a pretty large
hole in its roof; large enough to lower a man strapped to a stretcher. The crowds
were amazed no doubt not only because the paralyzed man could now walk, but
also because how Jesus could respond to the Scribes. We're told that they said a
blessing to God upon understanding more than the Scribes seem to have:
Yeshua was indeed given authority by God forgive sins in order to heal. The CJB
uses the phrase "said a b'rakhah", whereas most other translations say
"glorified" God. The way common Jews glorified God was by saying a blessing to
Him, so the CJB says it most correctly. Let's read a little more in Matthew.
RE-READ MATTHEW 9:9-13
In verse 9 Christ adds another disciple: Matthew (also called Levi according to
Mark). This is the briefest of stories. Yeshua is walking (still in Capernaum), he
sees a Tax Collector sitting at a table, Yeshua says "follow Me" and Matthew
follows. End of story. Unless the Gospel writer Matthew likes to talk about himself
in the 3rd person, and is trying to hide that he is the same as this new disciple,
this story simply adds to the evidence that the Gospel writer Matthew is not also
the disciple Matthew. That the story of Matthew is as a tax collector might be
better expressed that he is a toll collector. Once we understand that Capernaum
lay along the vital and heavily used Via Maris trade route, then knowing that
Capernaum was a substantial commercial fishing village, with Jews and gentiles
living there side-by-side, a garrison of Roman troops commanded by a Centurion
stationed there, and the presence of not one but a few toll collectors makes
perfect sense. The commercial fishermen of the Sea of Galilee had a ready
market for their catch, the Roman troops guarded the trade route and the money
that changed hands daily, and the toll collector took in the customs duties from
the merchants for using the maintained and protected trade route. Capernaum
was no remote, sleepy little fishing village.
Tax Collectors were hated by the Jews. Like the Roman soldiers, Tax Collectors
represented oppression to them because the money they forcibly took in went
only to Rome's coffers. Since we know that Matthew's Hebrew name was Levi,
7/13

Lesson 31 - Matthew 9
then we also know that he was a Levite. So for most Jewish folks he was very
nearly a traitor. We're given no reason why Yeshua would call him (a
controversial addition to His flock to say the least). However it does follow the
same pattern that has already been established. Yeshua chooses the disciple;
the disciple doesn't choose his Master.
Apparently nearly immediately Jesus went into a house and began eating with
Matthew. Whose house is this? Probably it was Peter's house where Christ was
most likely staying. The second most likely probability is that it was Matthew the
tax collector's house because we're told that other tax collectors and sinners
joined Him and His disciples at the table. We know what the tax collectors were,
but how about the term sinners? Would not all who came, no matter their social
position, be counted as sinners in the eyes of God? In Christ's day a class of
people called am ha'ertz (people of the land), common Jews, were often called
sinners. They were the lowest on the socio-economic ladder and considered too
uneducated and too incapable to be able to follow God's commandments, so
they must be sinners. It might be somewhat equivalent to how Americans view
the homeless. However it is not likely that this is what Matthew is speaking about
because Jesus was the champion of the poorest and most unlovable in Jewish
society. Probably these "sinners" were the resa'im, the wicked among Jewish
society because they did not keep the Law of Moses, perhaps even intentionally
altogether abandoning the covenant God had with Israel. Resa'im was a most
derogatory term among the Jews, and it was very nearly like calling a Jew a
gentile (and those were fighting words). It was usually reserved for the most
wretched of Jewish society like prostitutes, petty thieves and other no-accounts.
From the 1st century Jewish perspective you could barely fit a piece of paper
between what they called a sinner and a tax collector. To say it was startling for
Christ to be sitting and eating with this despised group of people would be an
understatement.
The Pharisees (some of which were the Scribes of the synagogue) immediately
notice and were shocked by what they saw. What was this Tzadik, this most
revered Holy Man, doing with unsavory people like this? The Pharisees
confronted not Yeshua but rather His disciples wanting to know why their Master
would risk sullying His reputation, if not contracting ritual uncleanness, from being
around such a vulgar group. But just as much the Pharisees want to know why
the disciples would choose such a poor Master that would do such a thing.
Yeshua overhead the conversation and answered their question. His response is
wonderful and so very true. A person who is well doesn't need a physician; only
8/13

Lesson 31 - Matthew 9
someone who is ill. The meaning of this is plain. He has come into this world to
make the unrighteous, righteous. In other words, why would those who are
certain they are already righteous need Him? Those who were eating with Christ
perfectly well understood their low status and how people considered them the
dregs of society. But how, within the world of the synagogue, would the
Pharisees have understood what Christ said? It was that the sinners and the tax
collectors were the sick, the Pharisees were the healthy, but Yeshua was the
healing physician. The implications of such a stance were enormous. He was
encroaching on the position that Pharisees and Scribes assigned themselves as
the physicians to heal the Jewish people of their unrighteousness, and they
weren't going to take an interloper horning in, lying down.
This is something we'd all do well to remember. Most Believers prefer to hang out
and to congregate with people like ourselves. People who are "good" people,
"nice" people, and of course, professed Believers. We're generally uncomfortable
with those who society considers outsiders or derelicts. But of all the people in
this world, it is they who are in most in need of what Jesus offers not because the
rest of us are so righteous and thus have no need; but because they know they
aren't and are likely feel there is no hope for them. I've heard from more than one
person of the lower side of society say something like: "how could God possibly
love me if He knows me?" Yeshua considered His number one priority as
showing these so-called sinners and tax collectors that regardless of what others
might think of them, God does love them and care about them and they aren't
outsiders to Him. All of His created beings are valuable to Him.
Yeshua knew full well that the good folks of Jewish society would think less of
Him for eating and associating with such people; the deplorables. His reputation
would, and did, take a hit. He knew this before He did it, but it didn't matter to
Him because He had a mission to save everyone who would accept Him as their
Savior, not merely the Jewish religious elite, so it was worth the risk. Luke
records this about the reputation He gained from the religious authorities and
others:
CJB Luke 7:34 The Son of Man has come eating and drinking; and you say,
'Aha! A glutton and a drunkard! A friend of tax-collectors and sinners!'
Christ lectures those Pharisees and Scribes by saying that they are thinking as
they are because they don't understand a rather basic principle of their own
Hebrew faith; one that is written in Hosea 6:6. Matthew doesn't actually quote
9/13

Lesson 31 - Matthew 9
Hosea 6:6, instead he abbreviates and paraphrases. Unfortunately, much of
Christianity has misunderstood what Christ meant largely due to the unintended
consequence of Matthew's Reader's Digest version of Hosea 6:6, and also
because Bible Teachers and students don't turn to Hosea 6:6 to see it in its full
form. I'll repeat something I've highlighted before: it was the Jewish way to quote
or to use just a few words of Scripture to point a reader to a larger section of
Scripture. That was about the only way to accomplish such a thing because the
introduction of chapters and verses into the Bible wouldn't be invented for
another 1000 years. So upon reading this verse in Matthew it seems to the
Western Christian mind that, aha!, Christ is saying it's time to do away with
animal sacrifices in exchange for grace and mercy. And since sacrifice is at the
heart of the Torah and the Law of Moses, then it can be reasonably extrapolated
that the Torah and the Law of Moses have just been demoted by Christ. But let's
see what Hosea 6:6 actually says. We'll read it in the larger context that Yeshua
intended.
CJB Hosea 6:1-7 1 Come, let us return to ADONAI; for he has torn, and he
will heal us; he has struck, and he will bind our wounds. 2 After two days,
he will revive us; on the third day, he will raise us up; and we will live in his
presence. 3 Let us know, let us strive to know ADONAI. That he will come is
as certain as morning; he will come to us like the rain, like the spring rains
that water the earth. 4 "Efrayim, what should I do to you? Y'hudah, what
should I do to you? For your 'faithful love' is like a morning cloud, like dew
that disappears quickly. 5 This is why I have cut them to pieces by the
prophets, slaughtered them with the words from my mouth- the judgment
on you shines out like light. 6 For what I desire is mercy, not sacrifices,
knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. 7 "But they, just like men,
have broken the covenant, they have been faithless in dealing with me
So when this is taken in the fuller context, Yeshua's meaning is anything but
about abolishing the Law. The point that Christ is making by invoking Hosea is
that if God's people would have mercy and would also seek knowledge of God,
then it wouldn't be necessary to kill God's innocent creatures from the animal
world and burn up their carcasses on an altar to save the life of the guilty sinner.
Hosea is not repeating himself in a kind of poetic way in verse 6 when he speaks
of mercy and also of knowing God. Humans, God's people, are commanded to
show mercy to our fellow humans.... not to God. He doesn't need our mercy. And
God's people must also have knowledge of God, by means of learning the Torah,
which is all the Holy Scripture they had in Hosea's time, so that they could know
10/13

Lesson 31 - Matthew 9
what God's laws and commands are. Mercy is the natural result of obeying the
commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself"; and gaining knowledge of
God is the natural result of obeying the commandment to "love God with all your
mind, soul, and strength". This quoting of Hosea spoke directly to the religious
Pharisees Jesus was scolding because the Temple was still standing, the
Priesthood was still functioning, and sacrifices were still happening.
Please take notice: what we see developing is that the Pharisees are carefully
watching Yeshua's increasing popularity among the people, His miracles are
occurring at a blistering pace, and His teaching on the biblical Torah is not only
surpassing theirs, but it is also at times contradicting their teaching because they
taught in the synagogue from the standpoint of the Traditions of the Elders and
Jewish customs as opposed to the plain and written truth of God's Word. It
seems that from Matthew's perspective the Pharisees never learn. In fact they
are closed to learning and their ignorance of God's ways has been harmful to the
people who rely on them for spiritual guidance. Therefore the Pharisees, some of
whom are Scribes, respond by peppering Christ with objections to what He is
saying, trying to run down His character. Yeshua is without doubt openly and
publicly challenging the teaching of the Scribes (who weren't supposed to be
challenged because of their lofty positions), and they have little actual defense.
So when you have no defense, go on offense; and that's exactly what they were
doing.
Open your Bibles again to Matthew chapter 9.
RE-READ MATTHEW 9:14-17
Here we read something that catches many Believers by surprise. It is that some
of John the Baptist's disciples were present in Capernaum as Yeshua healed,
taught, and ate with tax collectors and sinners. From the perspective of 2000
years later, we might wonder how it could be that John who said that he came to
make a path in the wilderness for the One that God was sending, still had his
own flock of followers that were separate and apart from the flock of followers of
the One that God sent? And so we witness in verse 14 an "us versus them"
question. Why do we (John the Baptist's disciples) fast rather frequently (along
with the Pharisees), but Jesus's disciples don't? Naturally Yeshua answers the
question in His typical indirect and enigmatic way that leaves some scratching
their heads, others awe stricken in their spirits with the profoundness of His
words, and a few none too happy about it.
11 / 13

Lesson 31 - Matthew 9
Christ says: "Can wedding guests mourn while the bridegroom is still with
them? But the time will come when the bridegroom is taken away from
them; then they will fast." One must be very careful when considering this
saying not to read more into than is there, and yet not to overlook what is only
implied. Many Bible commentators refer to this as another of Yeshua's several
parables; I take issue with that. This is not at all a parable from any Jewish
perspective of His time; rather it is merely an illustration.... a metaphor. Soon, as
we encounter an authentic Parable, we'll discuss what a Parable is, its form and
its purpose.
It is imperative that we not try to make all the particulars about fasting,
bridegrooms, feasts, and weddings pertain to what Christ has said. Illustrations
and metaphors used in the Bible, Old and New Testaments, were never meant to
exhaustively capture every detail of similarity. The illustration is not a cloaked
clone of the object that is being better explained by the use of metaphor. Rather it
is meant to draw a simplistic mental picture; it is a picture of an approximate
comparison and not of an exact match.
The bottom line is that fasting in Christ's day was meant to display two things:
repentance and mourning. For Jews repentance and mourning were usually
connected, although not in every circumstance. For instance during the Holy Day
of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement where repentance of personal wrongdoing
is the order of the day, fasting is the Torah command. The repentant person
mourned over their prior condition. But a mourner could also have been mourning
at the death of a family member or friend and so repentance was not the issue.
Christians in many ways see repentance as involving joy when we think of it in
the sense of deciding to leave our old life and begin a new one with Christ. While
true, that in no way reflects what is being taught here in this story. The other side
of the coin is that a wedding is an entirely joyful occasion that is always
highlighted with a feast. Joy and feasting go together, just as do fasting and
mourning. So the presence of a Bridegroom signals a wedding and a feast and
therefore joy.
Yeshua is not calling Himself a Bridegroom; rather He is merely using the
common knowledge among Jews of the happy tone and procedures of a wedding
to make His point. And the point is that now, while He is still on earth, it is not the
time for mourning; that will come soon enough. Of course that cryptic message
wasn't entirely understood among His listeners. Only in hindsight after the Cross
would that message become clear.
12/13
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lesson 31 - Matthew 9
We'll continue next week with 2 other illustrations that He uses in response to the
inquiry about fasting as brought by the disciples of John the Baptist.
13/13

Lesson 32 - Matthew 9 cont
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 32, Chapter 9 Continued
The subject that we'll focus on to begin today's lesson is a dispute between John
the Baptist's disciples and Yeshua's disciples, ostensibly over the subject of
fasting; this is what Matthew 9:14 - 17 revolves around. We'll go forward today in
bite-sized chunks as there is so much to take from these passages. Open your
Bibles to Matthew 9.
RE-READ 9:14 -17
The context is this; Yeshua is still in the fishing village in the Galilee where He is
currently residing: Capernaum. He was dining with some tax collectors and with a
class of people known among the Jews as "sinners". Do not take the term
"sinners" to mean as Christianity thinks of it today. That is, in Christendom a
sinner is either a person who does NOT profess the Savior Jesus, or is a fallen
Christian who is not living out his or her faith in a biblically moral way. However in
Christ's day a sinner was a Jew who had either openly renounced the Law of
Moses (something pretty rare), or much more often showed no outward intent of
following it. Typically these were poor Jews, uneducated, probably not attending
a synagogue with any regularity, and therefore they were considered (especially
by the Pharisees) as those who were so ignorant and uninformed that it was
impossible for them to properly observe the Traditions of the Elders, let alone the
biblical Laws of Moses.
While Yeshua was at the table, some of John the Baptist's disciples spoke to
some of Yeshua's disciples and asked them why they did not fast frequently as
the Baptist's did, and instead didn't fast at all? Notice two things: 1) John the
Baptist was Master over his own flock of followers who felt no allegiance to
1 / 13

Lesson 32 - Matthew 9 cont
Jesus. And 2), the only reason these disciples would have fasted regularly is
because they were doing what their Master, John, had taught them as a doctrine.
It is ironic that despite John being the chosen one to announce the arrival of
Christ and the Kingdom of Heaven, nonetheless there is little evidence in the
New Testament that he ever fully understood the nature and mission of Jesus.
Further that his own disciples never felt a real attachment to the ways of Christ,
but rather chose to follow the ways and teachings of John. And clearly those two
sets of doctrines didn't always agree.
Yeshua overhead John's disciples confronting His own disciples and so He
jumped into the fray to correct them. What He said was not a hard put down (as it
seems it was to the young man who wanted to follow Christ only after his father
passed away and was buried). Rather Yeshua's response was merely
instructional, and He used a few metaphors and illustrations to make His point.
The first illustration He used was to compare the circumstances of a wedding
process versus the wedding being interrupted and thereby causing sadness. He
used terms, and a metaphor, that were known not only to every common Jewish
person, but even to the outcasts of society. The subject of the metaphor was a
bridegroom. I said last week that Christ was not saying He was a bridegroom; I
want to take that a bit further. In His brief analogy He certainly meant that within
His story that He was presenting Himself in the role or the character of
bridegroom. But that is not to say that in real life that He was thinking of Himself
as an actual bridegroom of sorts. One might argue that I'm making a distinction
without a difference; however I respond that there is a definite difference between
characterizing oneself as a bridegroom versus comparing oneself to a
Bridegroom as an analogy to make a point. We must be terribly careful when we
find metaphors, illustrations and analogies used in the Bible that we don't take
them beyond their intent. The point of the case that Christ is making is that there
is a time for joy and there is a time for mourning, but those two things are
generally not compatible and so don't happen at the same time. Since marriage
is one of the happiest occasions in the Bible and within Jewish society, then it
contrasts well with mourning, the saddest of occasions. Thus to express such
happiness a bridegroom, by custom, was always responsible to throw a big party
with a lavish feast complete with plenty of wine as its focal point. Mourning, on
the other hand, was to be accompanied with fasting. Please notice; this
illustration of joy and mourning, and what happens with a bridegroom, is only
approximate and not precise. We can find several examples in the Prophets
where joy and mourning DO happen simultaneously. Here is one of the best
2/13
......

Lesson 32 - Matthew 9 cont
known:
CJB Revelation 18:10 -11 10 Standing at a distance, for fear of her torment,
they will say, "Oh no! The great city! Bavel, the mighty city! In a single hour
your judgment has come!" 11 The world's businessmen weep and mourn
over her, because no one is buying their merchandise any more␂Moving down to verse 17
17 Such great wealth- in a single hour, ruined!" All the ship masters,
passengers, sailors and everyone making his living from the sea stood at a
distance 18 and cried out when they saw the smoke as she burned, "What
city was like the great city?" 19 And they threw dust on their heads as they
wept and mourned, saying, "Oh no! The great city! The abundance of her
wealth made all the ship owners rich! In a single hour she is
ruined!" 20 Rejoice over her, heaven! Rejoice, people of God, emissaries
and prophets! For in judging her, God has vindicated you.
The point being that while joy and mourning, feasting and fasting, don't usually
occur at the same time, they can in some circumstances. In the same way we
must not take the bridegroom metaphor... or any metaphor in the Bible.... as
more than a simple, but not rigid or exact, mental picture that humans can better
grasp. So the P'shat sense of Yeshua's illustration with the bridegroom is what
we've already discussed; Yeshua has taught His disciples not to fast for the time
being (this would be about voluntary fasts, not biblically commanded ones) even
though John's disciples have been taught to fast regularly. However
the Remez sense, the hint.... the deeper underlying meaning... is that as a result
of the advent of Yeshua, some things have become incompatible. It is a teaching
with a warning attached.
Here Jesus also drops a hint that while He is here with His disciples for now, in
time He will be gone. And when He is taken from them that will be the proper
time for mourning. I can't imagine that any of the attendees understood the depth
of what He was telling them; so much of what He has said, and would say, are
comprehensible only in hindsight. Nevertheless Christ was implying that while He
was living and ministering, it was to be taken as a time of great joy (after all, the
prophesied Messiah has come; the One who can heal and forgive sins!), so He
wasn't about to have His disciples fast as representative of a time for mourning.
Naturally He did not mean it in the sense of disobeying any of the laws of Moses
3/13

Lesson 32 - Matthew 9 cont
where fasting was required (such as on Yom Kippur).
As we move on to verse 16 Yeshua uses another illustration to make His point
about mourning and fasting. Or better, about the deeper, underlying meaning of
it: the incompatibilities that are a result of His, and the Kingdom of Heaven's,
arrival. The illustration concerns the patching of an old garment with a piece of
not-yet shrunk cloth. This was another analogy chosen because the mechanics
of patching garments was common knowledge among the common people of all
nations, and not just the Jews. Everyone knew that if you patched a hole in a
cloth garment using a new piece of cloth that has not been previously washed
(and thus shrunk as was the natural thing that happens to linen or cotton cloth as
it gets immersed the first few times) then the first time the newly patched garment
is washed clean the previously unshrunk piece of cloth patch will contract
(shrink), while the old garment will not because it has already shrunk as far as it
ever will. The result is that the new cloth patch pulls away from the stitching and
a hole reopens. But what, exactly, can Christ mean by this?
The standard meaning within the institutional Church is that the old garment
represents the Old Testament (or perhaps only the Law of Moses), and the new
cloth patch represents the New Testament (or perhaps only the coming of the
Messiah). Therefore one was not to try to patch the Old with the New; rather the
old can only be discarded in favor of the new. That is certainly an appealing
interpretation for an anti-Law of Moses, anti-Jewish, gentiles-only Church; but it
doesn't fit the context of the passage very well. And it also doesn't fit well with
Christ's central theme in the Sermon on the Mount that happened but days
earlier when He said that He did NOT come to abolish the Law (the old thing) but
rather to complete it. Further He forthright stated that all of His followers were to
continue to obey the Law down to the last detail. But, they were do so in a new
spirit; a spirit of obeying the command not just outwardly and behaviorally, but
also inwardly in motive and intent.
CJB Matthew 5:17-19 17 "Don't think that I have come to abolish the Torah or
the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete. 18 Yes indeed! I
tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or a
stroke will pass from the Torah- not until everything that must happen has
happened. 19 So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot and teaches
others to do so will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But
whoever obeys them and so teaches will be called great in the Kingdom of
Heaven.
4/13

Lesson 32 - Matthew 9 cont
Applying the reality that all analogies and illustrations in the Bible are
approximate and general, not exact and universal, then we need to understand
this from a 1st century Jewish mindset AND in the context we find it in this
passage. The underlying issue is not replacing one thing with another, but rather
it concerns incompatibilities in light of the arrival of Christ and the Kingdom of
Heaven. So for people of that era, what is the problem issue about sewing a
patch onto an older garment of cloth? It is that while the existing garment has
been cleansed by immersion, the newer patch has not. So before applying a
patch, it must first be immersed in water sufficiently until it can match the same
level of shrinkage with the older garment; otherwise the two are incompatible.
There is no hint (and it would never have occurred to a Jewish reader) that the
old garment was to be discarded in favor of a new one. I'll repeat: the issue is
addressing incompatibility. Thus while the old garment needs a patch, it in no
way has lost its usefulness. Conversely, the only thing wrong with the patch
being used in Christ's story is that it has not yet been immersed and washed
clean (and therefore it shrinks), so it won't work well with the garment that is
being patched. This is the P'shat, the plain, literal, simple sense of it. But
the Remez sense goes a bit deeper.
In the Remez the unshrunk patch, the cloth that is yet to be immersed and
cleansed, is NOT to be applied until it has been properly washed so that it can
serve the purpose for which it is intended. By definition a cloth patch is far
smaller than the garment it is being sewn onto. The patch doesn't replace the
garment, or used instead of it, nor is the patch the main feature of the garment; it
only completes the garment so it can be used as originally intended. However a
patch not used properly either doesn't make the garment whole again or it can
make it even worse than it was. What did Christ say in His analogy? "Because
the patch tears away from the coat (the garment) and leaves a WORSE
hole."
Here's what we are to take from this. Christ's teachings (a sort of reformation)
about the Torah were indeed to be applied to what the people thought they knew
about the Torah. But compared to the Torah, His teachings were but a proper
patch placed upon it; not a whole new garment. And why did the old garment (the
Torah) have need of a patch? Because, in context of the passage, God's people
had misused it just as John's disciples misused fasting. Going back to the
bridegroom analogy: Christ was in no way abolishing fasting as biblically
prescribed. He was also in no way abolishing mourning. But He was saying that
the extra rules about when to fast and when to mourn that Judaism (or better
5/13

Lesson 32 - Matthew 9 cont
Pharisee-ism), Tradition, had added to the Jewish religion while not necessarily a
bad thing, were incompatible with the current circumstances of His divine
presence and of the establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth.
The garment needed the addition of a patch because the wearer tore a hole in it.
The Torah needed a "patch" (Christ's instructions about restoring its true
meaning) not because the Torah was defective but because the wearer of it had
torn a hole in it. The wearers (God's Hebrew worshippers) had, in Yeshua's era
and long before, turned to Tradition and other manmade doctrines about the
Torah and thus had (metaphorically) torn a hole in it. And while Christ's teaching
needed to be applied as the new patch, it had to be done carefully, thoughtfully,
prayerfully and only when the one attempting to apply the patch (a worshipper of
Christ) had properly understood it (had been washed and immersed in His
teachings) so that when applied to the garment (to the Torah) it didn't rip it back
open, making it even worse. This interpretation fits the context of how to make
the new cloth compatible with the old garment (not the other way around), and it
fits with the common knowledge and understanding among the people of that day
about applying a patch to an otherwise perfectly good garment.
Keeping that context in mind, let's move on to another well known saying of
Jesus about not putting new wine into old wineskins. In verse 17 Christ uses
another commonly known procedure as another illustration of incompatibilities;
that of wine-making. Just as with not putting a new (unshrunk) patch onto a used
garment, one wouldn't put new wine into a well used wine skin because the
wineskin (the container) might burst. The term "new wine" indicated a couple of
things in that era. First, it could mean filtered grape juice ready to begin the
fermenting process that would turn it into wine. Second, it could also mean a
lightly fermented grape juice that had a very low alcohol content because the
fermenting process had either just barely begun, or it was intentionally
interrupted. A natural byproduct of fermentation is the production of gases:
ethanol and carbon dioxide. Since the fermentation process necessarily must
occur inside a sealed container (in our case, wine skins), then the pressure of
those gases builds up and the wine skins must be able to contain that pressure
or they will burst and the wine will be lost. Therefore, older wine skins are best
not used in the fermentation process, because after a few uses they will have lost
their elasticity and could burst instead of merely stretching in the same way a
balloon works. Even so, the older wineskins remain valuable and useful as
storage containers for wine that has already completed the fermentation process
and it is now ready for distribution and consumption.
6/13
.

Lesson 32 - Matthew 9 cont
The standard Christian doctrine on the interpretation of this is that since we
should not put new wine into old wineskins, then the old wineskins have become
obsolete and are to be discarded; thrown into the trash heap. And as with the
garment and the patch, the old wineskins are said by the Church to represent the
Old Testament, and the new wine that goes into new wineskins represents Jesus
and the New Testament. Therefore the conclusion is that the Old Testament is no
longer useful, and in fact some of it had become defective, and so is to be
replaced with the New Testament. Again, this interpretation not only takes the
passage out of context and separates it away from it's theme of incompatibilities,
it completely ignores the 2nd half of this verse, which is: "No, they pour new
wine into freshly prepared wine skins, and in this way BOTH (old and new
wineskins) are preserved". Some in the Church say this means both the new
wine and the new wineskins are preserved. But the story is about not ruining the
old wineskins and so by putting new wine into new wineskins and not disturbing
the contents of the old wineskins, then both the old and new wineskins are
preserved (just as being careful that a new patch on a garment doesn't ruin the
old garment). We find in some corners of Christianity that this is taken to mean
that it is OK for Jews to keep the Torah (the old wineskins) and worship the God
of the Old Testament for themselves (as a possible means of salvation), while
gentile followers of Christ adopt Him and the New Testament (as the new
wineskins) and this is their means of salvation.
It is important to notice that Yeshua says that both new and old are meant to be
preserved. That is, in the first half of this verse one of the concerns is that the old
wineskins could become ruined if improperly used: " ....the wine spills and the
wineskins are ruined". Who cares if the old wineskins are ruined if they're only
good for throwing away since Christ's advent? The story reflects a deep concern
on not ruining either the old or new wineskins, and therefore not losing the old or
new wine. Rather they are each to be used in such as way as to make them
compatible. The difference between the old and new wineskins is not their value
or relevance, but rather their purpose. One was for the fermentation process; the
other for long term storage. Yeshua's purpose was to save and to inaugurate the
Kingdom of God on earth; that is what was new. However that doesn't mean that
what the older vessel was meant to do had become obsolete. The older vessel
(the Torah) was never meant to contain the fermentation of salvation. Yet both
vessels are relevant and needed and their usefulness is compatible when
properly used together. It's an issue of compatibility; not of superiority or
replacement. To be clear: like all biblical analogies, no matter who is making
them, we are to take them as a generality and not try to draw precise one to one
7/13

Lesson 32 - Matthew 9 cont
comparisons to the various objects used in the analogy.
Let's read a little more.
RE-READ MATTHEW 9:18-31
These verses return us to Yeshua doing miracle healings. He was still at the
table dining with men of several walks and beliefs, when a person suddenly
entered the scene and interrupted it by kneeling down in front of Him. This
person's position in society is important to the story. He is listed in Matthew as
simply an official. However this account is also told in Mark and in Luke and there
we get some additional and pertinent information about what kind of official he
was; even who he was.
CJB Luke 8:41 Then there came a man named Ya'ir who was president of the
synagogue. Falling at Yeshua's feet, he pleaded with him to come to his
house;
CJB Mark 5:22 There came to him a synagogue official, Ya'ir by name, who
fell at his feet
Although two different Greek words are used to explain the exact title or position
of this man, both essentially tell us that he is a ruler of the synagogue; usually
called the President of the Synagogue. This is the man who is assigned with the
synagogue's daily administration. He is not the same as the Scribe who is the
teacher/preacher at the synagogue. No doubt this must be the man who presides
over the synagogue located there in Capernaum that Jesus Himself attended; so
the man was known to Christ. This explains why the man felt he could interrupt
and why Yeshua didn't admonish him for it.
What did the official want? He wanted the miracle healer, the Tzadik, to come to
his home and resurrect his daughter who had died. We must not take this belief
that Jesus might be able to reanimate his daughter from death as trust in Him as
Messiah or God on earth. So far we haven't witnessed anything that we can call
a "conversion". The man told Christ that if He would come to his home, he just
knew that by Yeshua laying His hands on her, the little girl would be raised from
the dead. All the Gospels agree that immediately Yeshua along with some of His
disciples went with the synagogue official. But on the way there (probably no
more than a few hundred feet) His walk was interrupted by a woman who had a
8/13

Lesson 32 - Matthew 9 cont
serious problem that had been with her for a long time.
This woman had a hemorrhage that had plagued her for 12 years. By
hemorrhage this means she had a continuing issue of blood as with a never
ending menstrual cycle. The immediate problem with this was less a matter of
her physical health (obviously it was not so severe as to incapacitate or kill her,
since she had lived with it for 12 years) but rather it was the ritual condition that
resulted from it. This flow of blood rendered her ritually unclean according to the
Torah, and this made her an outcast.
CJB Leviticus 15:25 "'If a woman has a discharge of blood for many days
not during her period, or if her discharge lasts beyond the normal end of
her period, then throughout the time she is having an unclean discharge
she will be as when she is in niddah- she is unclean.
This is a huge problem for her. She cannot associate with anyone; she cannot
even enter someone's home. If she was married (and this is not stated) she
couldn't have shared a bed or even a chair with her husband because this would
have transferred her uncleanness to him. It is interesting that biblically, ritual
impurity could infect another simply through touch. Yet sin did nothing of the kind.
Sin was to be eradicated because bad behavior was too often mimicked. And
also because sin could be harmful to another person (a violent person could
injure or murder, for example). So while there is a definite relationship between
sin and uncleanness, they are not the same things and they each have their own
effects, consequences and cures. Her problem was ritual uncleanness and not
sin.
We are told that the woman literally sneaked up behind Christ and touched His
robe. Or better the hem of his garment. Or best, His Tzitzit. Peasant Jews did not
usually have the bottom of their garments hemmed; this was something that the
more wealthy did. A fine hem was part of the mark of an expensive garment. And
these Jews certainly didn't have some type of fringe as an ornamentation that
circled the skirt of their outer garment. But, Jewish men did wear
tassels.... Tzitzit in Hebrew. These Tzitzit were religious in nature and actually
commanded by the Law of Moses.
CJB Numbers 15:37-41 37 ADONAI said to Moshe, 38 "Speak to the people of
Isra'el, instructing them to make, through all their generations, tzitziyot on
the corners of their garments, and to put with the Tzitzit on each corner a
9/13
.....

Lesson 32 - Matthew 9 cont
blue thread. 39 It is to be a Tzitzit for you to look at and thereby remember
all of ADONAl's mitzvot and obey them, so that you won't go around
wherever your own heart and eyes lead you to prostitute yourselves; 40 but
it will help you remember and obey all my mitzvot and be holy for your
God. 41 1 am ADONAl your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt in
order to be your God. I am ADONAl your God." Naturally Yeshua would have worn them or been in violation of the Law of
Moses. What else stands out is that the woman with the hemorrhage didn't
merely touch His garment, she touched the most holy part of His garment;
the Tzitzit. No doubt she snuck up from behind because no Jew would have
allowed her anywhere near him for fear of contracting ritual impurity. But a
strange thing happened when she touched Him. Not only did He instantly sense
her presence, but her uncleanness did not render Him unclean (which it should
have). The matter of transmitting uncleanness was a one way street. An unclean
person touching a clean person could only infect the ritually pure person; the
cleanness could not flow to the unclean. But in this case, it did! Instantly the
woman was healed. Why? Because that's what Tzadikkim do. Yet I have not
read of a Tzadik that was said to have healed through removing the ritual
uncleanness from a person. This seems to be something that no one had ever
been able to do prior to Christ. In fact, it really wasn't even thought to be a
possibility. Yet, this woman (like the Centurion) held a kind of faith and trust that
accepted, without doubt, that what Yeshua did was real, that He was able to do it,
and that He did more than any faith healer had ever done, even though neither
one of them thought of Yeshua as any more than a Holy Man par excellence who
had the greatest compassion on all who came to Him. Perhaps it was the
outward, although imperfect, display of unequivocal trust that Yeshua wanted the
disciples and the crowds to notice and learn from, even though it certainly was
not a saving kind of trust that would affect their eternity.
Beginning in verse 23, the interrupted story of the synagogue official whose
daughter had died, resumes. Yeshua arrives at his house (just a couple of
minutes away) and immediately notices the flute players (flutes are also called
clarinets) accompanied with the agitation of a number of people who are there.
This well reflects Jewish mourning practices in those days, especially for those
who were reasonably well off financially. Josephus, the Jewish-Roman historian,
who was born not long after Christ was crucified, makes a comment on this
matter; something he was quite familiar with.
10/13
.....

Lesson 32 - Matthew 9 cont
In his book called Jewish Wars he wrote concerning death and mourning: "
for 30 days the lamentations never ceased in the city, and many of the
mourners hired clarinet (flute) players to accompany their funeral
dirges". Some years later in the Mishnah, Rabbi Judah was recording as
saying: "Even the poorest in Israel should hire no less than two clarinets
(flutes) and one wailing woman". So it's not unlike funerals elsewhere in the
world that certain local burial and grieving customs, regardless of cost, had to be
observed otherwise it was considered rude and uncaring. Surprisingly, Yeshua's
response was to immediately order everyone to leave the house. His reason? He
says she's not dead, she's only sleeping. What He really wanted was privacy and
an end to the mourning.
This statement has caused no end to the debates over this passage. That is,
some say Yeshua was about to resurrect the little girl from the dead; others say
she may have only been ill, perhaps in some kind of catatonic state, but certainly
alive. The first thing I would say about this is that if she wasn't really dead that
would be surprising because it's not like people in every age didn't know what a
dead person looked like and felt like, and even smelled like. The girl was dead;
she was a corpse when Christ arrived.
The use of the word "sleep" and other terms associated with "sleeping" are
regularly used in the Bible when speaking of death. This seems to be a kinder,
gentler way of saying it, but also it indicates that the condition of death is, in
some strange way, not necessarily permanent. And further, especially for those
considered to have lived righteously before the Lord, there is a hope of a
pleasant afterlife. Even in Christ's day death and the possibility of an afterlife was
in no way agreed upon within Judaism. Death and what happens afterwards was
mostly a terrifying prospect such that the one thing people then could agree on
was that it was always better to be alive than dead!
Daniel spoke of death and an afterlife but framed it in the "sleeping" sense.
CJB Daniel 12:2 2 Many of those sleeping in the dust of the earth will awaken,
some to everlasting life and some to everlasting shame and abhorrence
So here Daniel likens death to "sleeping", and says there will be an "awakening"
and the results won't be the same for everyone. But clearly, whatever everlasting
life after death looks like, others will experience the condition of shame. In
Psalms we read:
11 / 13
.....
.....

Lesson 32 - Matthew 9 cont
CJB Psalms 49:15-16 15 Like sheep, they are destined for Sh'ol; death will be
their shepherd. The upright will rule them in the morning; and their forms
will waste away in Sh'ol, until they need no dwelling. 16 But God will redeem
me from Sh'ol's control, because he will receive me. (Selah)
Then in the Book of John Christ says:
CJB John 11:11-15 11 Yeshua said these things, and afterwards he said to the
talmidim, "Our friend El'azar has gone to sleep; but I am going in order to
wake him up." 12 The talmidim said to him, "Lord, if he has gone to sleep, he
will get better."
13 Now Yeshua had used the phrase to speak about El'azar's
death, but they thought he had been talking literally about sleep. 14 So
Yeshua told them in plain language, "El'azar has died. 15 And for your
sakes, I am glad that I wasn't there, so that you may come to trust. But let's
go to him." The point being that death and sleep were associated words so the matter wasn't
that some ignorant people at this synagogue President's house wrongly assumed
that his daughter was dead, and then some time even passed enough time for
the word to get out and for the girl's father to hire professional mourners and flute
players before Jesus was asked to come and reverse the death of the little
girl. It also was not that Yeshua looked at her and more or less said: quit
mourning; you're all wrong about this; the little girl never died at all! In fact, the
professional mourners and others were pretty offended by Yeshua's statement
that she wasn't dead, but rather only asleep, implying that they were sort of
stupid. Nonetheless He took her hand and she came awake (He made her alive
from her death). So later when Christ, Himself, was also risen from the dead, He
wasn't the first instance of this.
But let's also not bypass an important element to this story. The absolute highest
degree of ritual impurity that a Jew could acquire was to touch a dead body. So
understand the ramifications of this act that Matthew's Jewish readers would
instantly have picked up on. First Yeshua allows an unclean woman to touch the
holiest part of his garment, His Tzitzit, and now He enters the home of a dead
person and He intentionally touches her corpse! In both cases however, He is not
affected; rather He affects those who were unclean and afflicted.... even unto
death! Unheard of. It's no wonder people flocked to Him, did anything to get
before Him, and equally why the Pharisees and then the High Priest were afraid
of Him and wanted to discredit Him. They couldn't fathom anyone doing what He
12/13
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Lesson 32 - Matthew 9 cont
did; and they had no way of competing. His miracles were too many, too public,
and too spectacular to deny. Thus we hear these words of verse 26: "News of
this spread through all the region". So the public frenzy about Him was only
going to increase.
Verse 27 has Yeshua healing two blind men. This story doesn't appear in Luke or
Mark. Why Matthew's inclusion of the story about healing the blind? Likely
because the Jewish Tradition at that time was that of all afflictions, blindness was
most closely associated to having been caused by sin. So blind people received
less sympathy and mercy than those with other severe disabilities and, if the
blindness was caused by a sin that an animal sacrifice couldn't cure, then there
was no hope for them. This is highlighted in this passage from John's Gospel:
CJB John 9:1-3 As Yeshua passed along, he saw a man blind from
birth. 2 His talmidim asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned- this man or his
parents- to cause him to be born blind?" 3 Yeshua answered, "His
blindness is due neither to his sin nor to that of his parents; it happened so
that God's power might be seen at work in him.
Notice how Yeshua's disciples took it as a given that either the sin of the victim or
the sin of his parents was the cause of his blindness. So here in Matthew,
Yeshua going to these two blind men to heal them wouldn't have been all that
popular or applauded by the onlookers. And if sin was the cause, then
forgiveness was the only remedy. But no man could forgive sins. Very
interestingly, these blind men shouted out and addressed Him as "Son of David".
Strange. Where did they get that from, and what did it mean? Perhaps they were
aware of Yeshua's family lineage as being a true descendant of David. But then
again so were hundreds of other Jews living at that time descendants of David. It
is puzzling and has puzzled scholars for centuries. Some say it is written here
because Matthew wanted to find a way to connect Jesus to David (to validate the
genealogy he opened his Gospel with) and did it by inserting this exclamation
from the 2 blind men. In other words, these scholars are saying those words "Son
of David" were never actually uttered; Matthew just added them from his own
mind to make a connection. I think Davies and Allison have come up with a
possible reason for their exclamation that at least has some good foundation and
is plausible. And that is what we'll begin our lesson with next week.
13/13

Lesson 33 - Matthew 9 cont 2
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 33, Chapter 9 Continued 2
As we continue in Matthew chapter 9, we left off last time with verse 27 that says:
CJB Matthew 9:27 27 As Yeshua went on from there, two blind men began
following him, shouting, "Son of David! Take pity on us!"
RE-READ MATTHEW 9:27 - end
While it can fly right by us, it hasn't been missed by most Bible scholars who
flinch a bit when they read the words "Son of David". For them, this term "Son of
David" seems out of place, and so it is especially bothersome as to why these 2
blind men would call Yeshua by that title. Son of David is a title, a name, that is
quite technical and in none of the Synoptic Gospels has it been used of Christ up
to this point in His ministry except by Matthew. So what did the term "Son of
David" mean to the Jewish people and to Matthew? Without doubt for Matthew it
was directly tied to the Messiah.
Matthew opens his genealogy of Yeshua in his Gospel with:
CJBMatthew 1:1 This is the genealogy of Yeshua the Messiah, son of David,
son of Avraham:
The opening words of Matthew's Gospel are meant to place Yeshua directly at
the center of messianic hope. It was intended to identify Him as a direct
descendant of Abraham, the father of all Hebrews, and also of King David, who
was believed to be the royal father of the eternal messianic line. Because
Matthew, the believing Jew, is writing decades in hindsight, some years after the
1 / 12
.......
'"

Lesson 33 - Matthew 9 cont 2
events he was writing about took place, then of course He had already come to
the personal conclusion that Jesus is the Messiah and so that is written into his
Gospel. It had become a common understanding among the Jewish people that
the prophesied Deliverer would be a descendant (a son) of David because David
had been promised that a member of his household would rule upon the throne
of Israel forever. 2nd Samuel records a prophecy of Nathan, the prophet God
provided for King David, as he speaks this to David during the time that he was
the king of Israel:
CJB 2 Samuel 7:11-16 11 "'Moreover, ADONAI tells you that ADONAl will
make you a house. 12 When your days come to an end and you sleep with
your ancestors, I will establish one of your descendants to succeed you,
one of your own flesh and blood; and I will set up his rulership. 13 He will
build a house for my name, and I will establish his royal throne forever. 14 I
will be a father for him, and he will be a son for me. If he does something
wrong, I will punish him with a rod and blows, just as everyone gets
punished; 15 nevertheless, my grace will not leave him, as I took it away
from Sha'ul, whom I removed from before you. 16 Thus your house and your
kingdom will be made secure forever before you; your throne will be set up
forever.
So the idea that the Messiah would be a son of David (a descendant of David)
was first established here. Many centuries later that David-Messiah connection
was well understood within Jewish theology. But there's more to this in this brief
story of the 2 blind men. Hang in there with me because this is going to help you
see this episode in color and not just black and white.
In Hebrew, the original language not only of the Old Testament but also of the
original Gospel of Matthew, Son of David is ben-David. Interestingly, however, in
the Old Testament when the term ben-David is used it always refers to King
Solomon, David's biological son and immediate successor. Knowing this, and
knowing that the only Scripture in existence during Yeshua's era was
the Tanakh, the Old Testament, then what exactly is it that these 2 blind men
had in their minds about who or what the Son of David is, and how does this
apply to Yeshua such that they shouted it out to Him in hopes He would heal
them? Is it that they are saying that unlike any one else so far, they believe Jesus
is the prophesied Jewish Messiah? Or.... could it be that they think of this miracle
working Tzadik that is accomplishing these astounding feats so far beyond any
of the previously known Tzadikkim (Holy Men), not as the Messiah but rather as
2/12

Lesson 33 - Matthew 9 cont 2
a sort of second Solomon (I'll explain that in a moment)? After all, there is simply
no sense thus far in Matthew or in any of the Gospels that this early in His
ministry had Yeshua of Nazareth become known as the Messiah among the
Jewish people; not even among His own disciples. And I remind you that many
potential Messiahs had already come and gone, and even more would come
after Christ's death on the cross including men such as Shi'mon Bar
Kokhbah who led the Jewish people in a rebellion against Rome in the 130's
A.D. But this idea of the story of the 2 blind men and a possible connection with
Solomon really intrigued me. After all, while Yeshua drew people to Him through
His stupendous miracles, He also had gained a reputation as a fount of Wisdom
that stood above even the Jewish religious authorities; Temple or Synagogue.
And who in Israelite history was known most for his wisdom? Solomon.
Let this idea sink in a moment. I suggested in earlier lessons that while Yeshua's
miracles were amazing to behold, those miracles were NOT what led the people,
Jews or gentiles, to believe He was the Messiah. And I also suggested that
especially among those who came in later generations (including ours) that while
those mind-bending miracles make for great reading and for faith building it was
not that but His Wisdom that drew us towards Him in the first place. It is the depth
and truth of what He taught and the compassion and soul-healing that He stood
for that has brought countless millions of humanity to Him for Salvation. The
Apostle Paul was particularly sensitive to the characteristic of Wisdom being
associated with Christ. Here is but one of numerous statements Paul made
speaking of Yeshua in terms of Wisdom.
CJB 1 Corinthians 1:21-24 21 For God's wisdom ordained that the world,
using its own wisdom, would not come to know him. Therefore God
decided to use the "nonsense" of what we proclaim as his means of saving
those who come to trust in it. 22 Precisely because Jews ask for signs and
Greeks try to find wisdom, 23 we go on proclaiming a Messiah executed on
a stake as a criminal! To Jews this is an obstacle, and to Greeks it is
nonsense; 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, this same
Messiah is God's power and God's wisdom!
Here Paul explains Yeshua's very substance as that of "God's Wisdom". No
matter which Bible version one might choose to study, the connection between
Christ and Wisdom, even Wisdom being organically embodied in Christ (as it was
said to be in Solomon) is front and center, and is unmistakable. It helps when we
learn that in ancient times, in nearly every society, Wisdom was seen as a living
3/12

Lesson 33 - Matthew 9 cont 2
thing (in some religions it was an entirely separate god or goddess). Wisdom was
a tangible entity that was perceived as having actual power of itself.
So I researched the possibility that perhaps Jews of Christ's day thought of the
term "Son of David" not how we have typically pictured it, but rather it was a term
used in two different and separate ways: the first was meant as an association
with the Messiah, but the second was meant as an association with David's son
he had with Bathsheba: Solomon. My search led to a Bible scholar, Loren
Fisher, who in 1968 pointed out that some ancient incantation bowls with
inscriptions written in Aramaic on them, had been discovered in the Holy Land.
These writings spoke of King Solomon as a great exorcist (that is, he could order
demons out of people). In 1974 Evald Lovestam pointed out that in the ancient
extra-biblical work called The Testament of Solomon, written perhaps as early as
the 1st century, King Solomon was characterized as having been a miracle
healer, even a magician of sorts. I'm not saying that in actuality King Solomon
was any of these things; but they are solid evidence that in ancient times, and by
all accounts in Jesus's time as well, that the acts of miracle healing and exorcism
had, among the Jewish people, become something associated more with the
qualities of Solomon than with a Messiah. When we add the miracle healings
attributed to Solomon to the commonly understood chief characteristic of
Solomon as the master of Wisdom on earth, Jesus certainly would have reflected
those same attributes to the minds of the Jews who witnessed it. Therefore this
might be the reason why these blind men shouted "Son of David" at Him. It was
not that they were thinking in terms of a Messiah who was a descendant of David
as much as they were thinking of this amazing man having the characteristics of
King Solomon, the actual Old Testament Son of David. This scenario fits the
story in Matthew far better than assigning to these blind men an inexplicable
belief that somehow they were thinking that Jesus was the Messiah even before
He had revealed Himself.
For those who might misunderstand what I'm saying, in no way do I mean that
Yeshua is not Messiah, and instead is the personification of Wisdom. I'm saying
that just as He is both the Lamb and the Lion, He is also both Savior and
Wisdom. He bears the characteristics of both David and Solomon (after all, He
was descended through David's son Solomon). But to this point in His earthly
ministry (the timeline portrayed in the Gospel accounts) it had not yet occurred to
the Jews that He might be the Messiah who bore David's characteristics. Rather
He was at this point in time more naturally seen as Wisdom and the healer and
the exorcist; someone who bore Solomon's characteristics (even though most of
4/12

Lesson 33 - Matthew 9 cont 2
these characteristics were steeped in folklore and Tradition).
Why did I spend so much time exploring this with you? Because this provides
much needed additional background for what we're reading. It explains how
various Jewish people thought of Jesus of Nazareth quite differently as they
struggled to comprehend where, exactly, He fit into their understanding about
those mysterious few men in Jewish history who had the power to perform
miracles and healings and exorcisms. If we can wrap our minds around this
concept then we will gain a more true understanding of the historical and actual
Yeshua, the people He interacted with, and what these Gospel accounts reveal
about the real people living at that time. If we can apprehend what the words,
terms, and actions that we find in the New Testament indicated to members of
1st century Jewish society, and not what they seem to mean as seen through the
lens of modern Western and Eastern societies of Christians, 2000 years later,
then we will gain a more solid foundation for our own personal faith. Let's move
on.
So, the 2 blind men who think of Jesus as possessing the characteristics of the
Son of David.... in their minds probably meaning Solomon-like abilities.... they
beseech Him to take notice of them. The next verse says that when He entered
"the house" these 2 blind men came to Him and pled with Him. Who's house is
"the house"? It indicates Yeshua's own personal home in Capernaum, or Peter's,
or it is that (as many suspect) Yeshua was residing with Peter and for a time it
could be said it was their mutual home. Notice Yeshua's response to their plea.
Paraphrased, He asked them if they thought that He had the power to do what
they were asking. What did Christ mean by saying this? Clearly these 2 men
wouldn't have run after Christ and begged Him to heal them if they didn't already
think He could do it. The issue is not just faith but in depth of faith. Do they have
enough faith to sincerely believe that Yeshua has the power to heal? Even
though in the Jewish culture blindness was thought to have been the result of sin,
Yeshua doesn't do with these 2 men what He did with the paralytic; that is, He
doesn't forgive their sins, that then results in physical healing. Rather He
establishes their faith that He unequivocally does have the extraordinary power to
heal their blindness, and then says that as a result of this faith (or trust) they are
healed. And behold! Instantly they could see.
And yet if their faith was NOT in Yeshua as the Messiah, then in what was their
faith? All Christ asked was if they have the faith to truly, sincerely believe that He
had the power to heal them; not if they thought He was the Savior. Obviously
5/12

Lesson 33 - Matthew 9 cont 2
they did possess that level of faith. Notice that once again, as with the dead girl
whom Yeshua revivified, this miracle was done in private, inside the house. The
Church Father Chrysostom in his homily on the Gospel of Matthew says this
about this passage:
For what purpose did it happen that, while they are crying out, He delays
and questions them further? Here again Jesus is teaching us utterly to
resist the glory that comes from the crowds. There was a house nearby. He
led them into the house to heal them in private. Then He charged them to
tell no one.
I don't mean to be disrespectful, but doesn't it make you a little uneasy or even
skeptical at some of these large Christian healing gatherings (especially the
televised ones) when in front of a rapt crowd a Pastor will line people up as
though they are anxiously waiting in line to board an amusement ride, and
dramatically lay a hand on them and miraculously heal them to the shouts and
adoration of those present? And an expectation of money for the healer is
involved in some way? Isn't this the opposite of Christ's example? Is it not
something that He mostly tried to avoid? Apparently such a temptation to do such
a thing as to exploit the victims and the crowds came about long before Yeshua's
day, existed all during it, and lives on into modern times. When Christ speaks
about praying or healing to gain personal adulation and reward, it isn't in positive
terms.
Therefore, as typical, in verse 30 Yeshua was said to have admonished the
healed blind men "severely" not to tell anyone. Other versions say "sternly
warned". These are all good interpretations of the Greek. The point is, Yeshua
didn't tell them as an aside, or nicely, to be quiet about this miracle. He was
emphatic; He ordered it and the intention was unmistakable. So how did these 2
men who could now see again react? They promptly went out from the house,
journeyed across the region (no doubt meaning the Galilee) and talked about
what happened to them to everyone they encountered. As Believers we could
probably chalk this up to unbridled joy and enthusiasm. Or as so many in the
Church teach, these two were out evangelizing. Hardly. They were being
disobedient. Even if they meant no harm from i