Thursday, January 31, 2013

Exodus 22:2



Exodus 22:2

If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.

a. This shows there were exceptions to the 6th Commandment.

1). Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

b. Another example of exception would be capital punishment or in the case of Israel enforcement of the Mosaic Law. Here is just one example of quite a few.

2). Leviticus 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.

c. I have recently discovered the “Castle Doctrine” or Castle law is in effect in most states, and that the foundation of that law is here in Exodus 22:2.

d. The following is from the South University website.  

1). The Castle Doctrine (also known as castle law or make my day law) gives citizens in their homes – and in some states – cars or workplaces the right to protect themselves, other people, and their property by force – in some instances even deadly force.
The laws differ from state to state, and what may be considered self defense in one state, might be grounds for a murder or manslaughter indictment in another. Today most states have some kind of castle law. The stronger laws do not require homeowners to attempt to retreat before using force to protect their domicile, and there are a select few states that have very strong stand-your-ground laws allowing citizens to use force in their car or at work without first trying to retreat. http://source.southuniversity.edu/castle-doctrine-from-state-to-state-46514.aspx

e. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on this verse.

1). If a thief broke a house in the night, and was killed in the doing of it, his blood was upon his own head, and should not be required at the hand of him that shed it, (v 2). As he that does an unlawful act bears the blame of the mischief that follows to others, so likewise of that which follows to himself. A man’s house is his castle, and God’s law, as well as man’s, sets a guard upon it; he that assaults it does so at his peril. Yet, if it was in the day-time that the thief was killed, he that killed him must be accountable for it (v. 3), unless it was in the necessary defense of his own life.

f. William Blackstone’s Commentary on the Laws of England Book 4, Chapter 16 Burglary, or nocturnal housebreaking which by our las was called hamsecken, as it is in Scotland to this day, has always been looked upon as a very heinous offence: not only because of the abundant terror that it naturally carries with it, but also as it is a forcible invasion and disturbance of that right of habitation, which every individual might acquire even in a state of nature, an invasion, which in such a state, would be sure to be punished with death, unless the assailant were stronger. But in a civil society, the laws also fome into the assistance of the weaker party: and besides that they leave him his natural right of killing the aggressor  if he can, they also protect and avenge him, in case the might of the assailant is too powerful. And the law of England has so particular and tender a regard to the immunity of a man's house, that it stiles it his castle, and will never suffer it to be violated with immunity:”

Acts 2:1



Acts 2:1

 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

1. “And when the day of Pentecost was fully come…”

a. Unger’s Bible Dictionary: This festival is called, * The Feast of Weeks, because it was celebrated seven complete weeks or fifty days after the Passover (Leviticus 23:15, 16).
* The Feast of Harvest, because it concluded the harvest of the later grains. (Exodus 23:16).
* The Day of Firstfruits, because the first loaves made from the new grain was then offered on the altar.

1). In light of this reference it is not a coincidence that Christ Jesus and the Holy Ghost are spoken of linked to the Firstfruits.

a). 1 Corinthians 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

b). Romans 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

b. Jewish New Testament Commentary, David Stearn: “Besides it primary agricultural significance Shavu’ot [Pentecost] later came to be understood as commemorating the giving of the Torah to Moshe. The earliest references to this reinterpretation date from the 2nd or 3rd centuries C.E….but Louis Jacobs, using material from Louis Finkelstein’s The Pharisees, theorizes that the “transformation into a historical feast took place before the common era (Encyclopedia Judaica 14:1420-1421). Exodus 19:1 says that the Israelites came to the foot of Mount Sinai “in the third month”; form this and other Biblical data the rabbis deduced that God actually gave the Torah on Shavu’ot [Pentecost]…It is this framework of Jewish thought and custom, in which Shavu’ot [Pentecost] is celebrated as a festival of harvest and Torah, that the events of Acts 2 must be understood. Because it was God’s intention to bring the Jewish New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:30-33 (31-34)) to the Jewish people in a Jewish way, he made maximal use of the Jewish festivals to convey new truths in ways emphasized their connection with old truths (see Matthew 13:52

2. “…they were all with one accord in one place.”

a. The Act Of The Apostles, Robert E. Tourville: “These words inform us that it was while the day of Pentecost was in the process…[The Greek wording] would lead one to conclude that while the busy part  (in preparation for the sacrifices of the morning) of this day was taking place, the out-pouring of the Spirit took place.”

b. ibid. “We are told the place in Jerusalem, but we are not told exactly where. The likely place for the advent of the Spirit is in the upper room. The place is called the house. While it could be argued that annexed buildings of the temple were called houses, it is unlikely that Jesus’ followers would be allowed to occupy one of them. It is more reasonable that the house was an upper room near the temple area.”

c. The Book Of Acts, Stanley M. Horton: We are not told where the place was; but most take it to be the Upper Room which was their headquarters (Acts 1:13). Others, in view of Peter’s statement that it was the third hour of the day (9 a.m.), believe they were in the Temple, probably in the court of the women. We have already seen  the believers were habitually in the Temple at the hour of prayer. One of the porticoes or roofed colonnades on the edge of the court would have provided a good place for them to gather and join in worship. This would help to explain the croed that gathered after the Spirit was outpoured.”

d. My personal opinion on where they were at leans to them being somewhere in the temple complex. These were observant Jews who loved God and this was one of the main Jewish festivals. I can’t help but believe they were in the temple complex somewhere.

Matthew 27:9, 10



Matthew 27:9, 10

Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;
And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.

1. “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet…”

a. Many believe that this is a contradiction in the Scripture because the passage that Matthew quotes is actually in Zechariah.

1). Zechariah 11:12, 13 And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.
And the Lord said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord.

b. Of all the opinions I have read, which isn’t that much, the one I am most comfortable with is from Josh McDowell and Don Stewart’s 1980 book, Answers To Tough Questions, “Perhaps the best solution would be to understand that Matthew is combining two prophecies, one from Jeremiah and one from Zechariah, with a mention of only one author in the composite reference, namely Jeremiah, the major prophet. Zechariah says nothing concerning the buying of a field, but Jeremiah states that the Lord appointed him to buy a field (Jeremiah 32:6-8) as a solemn guarantee by the Lord Himself that fields and vineyards would be bought and sold in the future day (Jeremiah 32:15,43). One of the fields which God had in mind was the potter’s field. Zechariah adds the details of the 30 pieces of silver and the money thrown down on the floor of the temple. Thus it can be seen that Matthew takes the detail of both prophets, but stresses Jeremiah as the one who foretold these occurrences. Dr. J.E.Rosscup of Talbot Seminary adheres to a view consistent with the above. He points out: “Matthew felt that two passages were fulfilled, one typical (Jeremiah 19:1-13) and one explicit (Zechariah 11:13), and mentions only one author in the composite reference, a practice that sometimes occurred…”

Acts 1:19



Acts 1:19

And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

1. “And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem…”

a. Everyone who lived in Jerusalem became aware of the circumstances surrounding the betrayal of Christ and the traitor’s final physical end. The fact that the people called the place “the field of blood” means they were aware of the reasoning of the chief priests.

1). Matthew 27:6-8 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

2. “…insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

a. This piece of property did not have a name beforehand, but because of the circumstances surrounding its purchase, they named it after the blood money that was used to buy it.

Acts 1:20



Acts 1:20

For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

1. “For it is written in the book of Psalms…”

a. In this verse Peter is quoting two verses from Psalms.

1). Psalms 69:25 Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents.

2). Psalm 109:8 Let his days be few; and let another take his office.

       b. Peter led by the Holy Spirit spoke of their fulfillment and application in Judas.