"The land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed in it, except in the blood of him that shed it."
לָאָרֶץ לֹא־יְכֻפַּר לַדָּם אֲשֶׁר שֻׁפַּךְ־בָּהּ כִּי־אִם בְּדַם שֹׁפְכוֹ

Nu 35

Some may ask what the recent revival craze and false prophets may have in common. Matthew 24:5, “For many will come in My name, claiming, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many.” This is very similar to the Jeremiah 14:14 verse. there is an old saying from the sixteenth century, “If it sounds too good to be true, it’s too good to be true” implies that we need to carefully examine what we hear and I would add from whom we hear it. Accepting our Creator should be a life changing decision and not one made on impulse or to follow along with the crowd.

“There is a quote that says: you do not know true pain until you crave the conversation with someone, who is no longer with us in this life” –

With this in mind today/this moment; phone that family member, friend or neighbour and make peace, even if it was not your fault that started the conflict of interest. Afterall, Yeshua said: “Leave your offering at the altar and go make peace with your brother and then come to make the offering” (Matthew 5:24) Follow Yeshua’s example and be blessed!

Question 270: In The Parable Of The Labourers, What Is The Principle Taught?

Answer:

This parable in Matthew 20:1-16 stands in close connection with the preceding chapter and its evident purpose was to illustrate the sentiment of the closing verse: "Many that are first shall be last and the last shall be first" The parable has reference to rewards and illustrates the method of their bestowment upon the followers of Moshiach namely, in such a way that the last shall be equal to the first and the first last - a way that rewards faithfulness of service, rather than length of service or the amount accomplished in the service. The purpose of the parable, being understood, it cannot properly awaken any question as to discrimination in the matter of the pay of the labourers. As to the transaction of the householder, as represented in the parable, there was no injustice in it He agreed with the first labourers for "a penny a day," while with the others no specified amount was agreed upon and he could pay them what he pleased. Further, the Saviour does not necessarily approve the course of the householder and we are not required to show that it was either right or wise, as an act of man toward men, but only that rewards in the Kingdom of YHVH are thus bestowed without reference to the time of service, another and very different consideration actuating our Heavenly Father in this matter - namely, faithfulness. The parable was an answer to Peter's question (Matthew 19:27), "Behold, we have forsaken all and followed thee: what shall we have therefore?" In a word, it was a rebuke of the bargaining spirit. Those who follow Moshiach for the sake of the reward and not from love of him, will not be defrauded. They will have all that YHVH has promised them, but they are not those whom he most loves. A parent who promises a child a reward for a certain service or for good behaviour and notices that the child performs the task or behaves himself better than at other times, when no reward is promised, does not approve of the child's spirit He does not like to see the child doing for money the thing that he does not do for love, as he ought to do. Still, he keeps his promise and pays, as he agreed. But the child who does cheerfully and readily, as the parent requests, without any promise of reward, is the one whom the parent approves. That child would surely be rewarded, though no reward had been promised. The householder in the parable makes his bargain with the first party of labourers. The phrase, "when he had agreed with them," clearly implies negotiation. With the others he made no bargain, merely giving his promise to pay whatsoever was right they trusted him and went to work. He liked the confidence they showed and he gave them more than they expected. The early morning labourers had no just ground of complaint They received all they had stipulated for. All through Moshiach's ministry He showed the same Spirit. He craved personal love and confidence. He wanted people above all things, to trust in Him. Peter's question must have chilled Moshiach's Spirit. It might have been interpreted as showing that this man who Moshiach supposed was following Him for love, was there for what he could make out of it. Hence, the rebuke of the parable.

Question 269: What Is The Parable Of Labourers Intended To Teach? Matthew 20:1-6

Answer:

There has probably, been more difference in explaining this parable than any other. To us it appears that the incidents of it are not intended as laying down a business principle, but as a commentary of the events in the preceding chapter. Peter had asked, "What shall we have, therefore?" showing a bargaining spirit. Moshiach shows him by this parable that, not they who stipulate for reward, but they who trust in YHVH, leaving their reward for Him to fix are treated best. That was a prominent characteristic of Moshiach. He craved personal trust and personal faith in Himself. Where does the injustice of the householder come in? He kept his agreement with the early labourers, who had stipulated for a penny a day. They had the amount they had demanded and had no grievance. The householder chose to deal more liberally with the others, who had left their remuneration to him, but that was in no sense a wrong to the early labourers. If an employer knows something about one of his employees - perhaps that he has been sick or that he has a large family - and chooses to give him a double wage, is he bound to go all round his factory and double the wages of every man in his employ? It is the hireling spirit, the spirit of the man who bargains, who resents the kindness done to another as a wrong to himself, that Moshiach reproves here. He condemns it, as he condemned the elder brother in the parable of the Prodigal Son, who resented the feast to the prodigal and reminded the father of his own claims. Many of the first (not all) shall be last because of the spirit in which they have performed their work.

Question 268: What Is Meant By: “A Rich Man Shall Hardly Entre The Kingdom Of YHVH”?

Answer:

To rightly understand the full significance of the passage in Matthew 19:23 read Luke 18:24-27. It may be liberally interpreted: "How hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter! Unless this idolatrous trust and confidence in mere wealth is overcome, they cannot enter" except by a miracle of divine grace, which changes the heart. Yeshua found no fault with the young man because of his riches, since wealth and the power and influence it brings, may be made a means of great blessing if used in the right spirit as a trust committed to our stewardship. He found however, that the young man's wealth was to him of greater moment than his eternal welfare, since he could not grasp the great opportunity offered him by the Master. Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:10 also has a bearing upon the love of wealth and the hard and merciless means that are sometimes adopted to acquire it Where extortion begins may be defined by statute, but it must really be determined by the conscience, since what is a fair return in one case may be a cruel extortion in another. We must carry the Moshiach idea into our business relations and deal not only justly but generously and humanely, never making gain of another's necessity and if with all we pile up riches, we are apt to rely on them to put us into heaven. This was the case of the young man who came to Moshiach. The sincerity of the young man was obvious; yet he himself felt that although he had lived a clean, moral life, keeping the letter of the law in absolute strictness, there was yet something wanting. He was not satisfied with his own blameless life. It was to find out what this hidden need was that he came to the Master and asked, "What lack I yet?" Yeshua, reading his heart, knew that his wealth stood as a barrier between him and the spiritual life he craved; that the influence and social position it gave were so dear to him that he could not bear to part with them, even to attain his ideal of a perfect life. His riches were his idol and this, the Master knew. So, when Yeshua in his wisdom put the test, forcing the young man to choose between riches and heaven - that he must himself cast aside the stumbling-block in his spiritual path - he failed at the crisis, turned his back upon the Master and went away sorrowful. Yeshua demanded an absolute surrender of the heart and the whole life, the placing of all in the scale as a heart offering. Good works could not save, but sacrifice of our works and our wealth brings us into a new and divine relationship as true heirs to the Kingdom. See Matthew 19:29, in which the spiritual compensation for such sacrifice is promised. The rich young ruler came very near to the Kingdom, but without entering in. His own estimate of his obedience was not justified, for if he had indeed kept the first Commandment he would have placed YHVH first, above even his much-prized earthly treasures and he would never have gone away from Moshiach.

Question 267: What Was The “Needle’s Eye”?

Answer:

The "needle's eye" (Matthew 19:24) was the small gate or wicket at the side of the big gate at the entrance to the city wall. When the big gate closed for the day, all entrance had to be gained through the small gate and to a loaded camel or indeed to anybody of considerable size, passage was impossible.

Frequently asked questions and answers:

Question 266: Who Are The People To Whom Moshiach Referred As Being “Joined Together Of YHVH”?

Answer:

We may understand the remark better by reading the whole passage (Matthew 19:1-12). The Pharisees were trying to draw Moshiach into a controversy which at the time, was raging between the schools of different Jewish teachers. One school contended that a man was justified in divorcing his wife for any cause as for instance, if she burnt the food she was cooking for his dinner. Another school held that physical defects alone justified divorce. There were other schools holding other opinions. Moshiach refused to identify Himself with any and lifted the question into the higher plane by showing the origin of marriage in divine institution.

Question 265: What Is Meant In Yeshua’ Advice “Turn To Him The Other Also”?

Answer:

Moshiach's teaching in this and other passages was intended to inculcate principles, rather than blind, literal, servile obedience. He would have His followers patient, gentle, non-resistant, forbearing, submitting to be wronged rather than resisting. His own example in yielding Himself to death, when by the exercise of His miraculous powers He could have delivered Himself, is an illustration of His meaning. Yet He scourged the traders in the Temple and in denouncing the Scribes and Pharisees He showed that He was not deficient in vigour. There have however, been many instances of men literally obeying the Command to turn the other cheek and in some, the effect on the striker was to produce shame and humiliation greater than could have resulted from a fight. There have been many too, who after painful experience have wished they had submitted to a wrong instead of going to the courts. (See Matthew 18:15, 16, 17.)

Question 264: What Was The Power Conferred On Peter By Moshiach’s Commission Of The Keys?

Answer:

The keys and the power of binding and loosing referred to a common Jewish custom. When a man had passed his examinations for the high position of a doctor of the law, he received as his diploma, a key which was handed to him with the words, "Receive authority to bind and to loose," that is to permit or forbid. Having mastered the law, he could say whether some act was lawful or unlawful. Peter's declaration that Yeshua was the Son of YHVH was the evidence of his having reached a state of spiritual faith and perception which Moshiach recognized (Matthew 16:18, 19). The keys may also have had reference to Peter's opening the doors of Moshiach's Kingdom to the multitude on the day of Shavuot and to the Gentiles by preaching to Cornelius. It is clear that the Apostles did not recognize Peter as superior to themselves. It was James who passed sentence in the council (Acts 15:13, 19) although Peter was present; and Paul "withstood Peter to the face." (Galatians 2:11.)